Why do people deny evolution?

Very well put!

It is hilarious when one of the ID crowd and the arch-science denier here attempt to scold others for being "unscientific."

not 'others' , but people who believe blindly in the evil-lotion religion.
evil-lotion is not 'science' , mate!

Where does that leave your theology?

Your 'mate' usage indicates you may be a Brit. If so there may still be hope of you getting an education with your local U3A groups. Think about it !

It's an affectation, an attempt at colloquialism, and as effective as everything else he's posted

And, as always, a lack of good counter-arguments against the evil-lotion being a huge hoax! Then, mostly, because they become powerless, those religious people who cling to the evillotion theory like madmen, resort to the ad hominems. Once seen it is crystal clear.

Coffee Timmmme!!.

Ill hve a nice esspresso with caster sugar, lots. Hurry up and theres a scuppence in it for ya laddie. PS, you can stay here and play with yourself. Im going out to prune fruit trees.

Do all the girls you talk to have beards?

Figures.

of course not, you can't be that stupid! Can you?

See what I mean, all you guys really want to talk about is theology.
Start a thread, ask specifics, you don't have to tiptoe around it. I'll jump right in if you like.

yet many of your arguments closely parallel what Creationist/ID organizations have postulated. Youve done it almost without any further thought. Like yoour recent takes on gene transfer or epigenetics always have seemed to end with a pronouncement that "Science is showing facts that are aligning with ID" (Im not sure of your exact wording cause Ive put it aside.)
Whenever evolutionary change can be documented without genetic mutation that surely doesnt throw ANY doubt into the modern synthesis. In fact...

The only reason Ive leaned on your religious based hypotheses is because the arguments you cobble seem to draw from thinly veled cherry picking from (in your case) the Discovery Institute faculty members and how they "QUOTE MINE real scientists who think out loud".

Like your accolyte H&G many of your group postings are loaded with really tired ID stuff thats been dressed up to sound scientistic.


As far as taking " any offense" at your attempts at poking at our "Unscientific" analyses, Ill live without losing any sleep. You seem to have no undertanding about what concepts of thinking in "multiple hypotheses modes" entail in research.

We dont pick a hypotheses and try to prove it right. More often than not we identify many interesting hypotheses and try to eliminate those that are least likely. (Sorta like the way Sherlock Holmes would xplain how he reaches a decision)

I formulated my thoughts on ID before I had even heard of the Discovery Institute (that you erroneously label as Creationists). So why should I give it more thought because someone agrees with me?


That is truly hilarious coming from the prime example of someone who automatically rejects any hypothesis that violates his emotional response to anything that he thinks is religious.


Aristotle got it entirely wrong when he said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." You are the living proof that he is wrong in at least some cases. You are constitutionally unable to entertain the Theory of Intelligent Design without rejecting it automatically for emotional reasons.

If it were for scientific reasons, you could. No one is asking you to accept it, only entertain it.

I was the one who first quoted that Aristotle line from "Darwin' Ghosts" by Rebecca Stodtt.
I am still amazed at your power of completely ignoring your correspondents posts and then cherry picking them later with your "own" .

AS I sid just prior to your taking credit for the sunrise that, in cience, we work with a concept oof multiple hypotheses that do NOT, so much serch for THE correct answer as they eliminate the incorrect.

Ive been thinking about and rejecting ID as a possibility years before you even discovered it. I was involved on the Skadden Arps team regarding "SCientific Creationism" being taught in Louisiana in the 1980's. The "child" of Scientific Creationim is the modern version of Intelligent Design . It was the brain child of Phillip Johnson in his "Darwin in Trial"

You alternately claim knowledge of the two movements and then declaim that youve never " bothered to mess with such nonsense".

The fact that youve inveighed the whole legal system as not being involved with "tru science" sounds jut like the sour grapes speech spoken by Discovery Institutes Dr Behe who also claims that his opinions re ID were purely "Scientific"


PUH fuckin LEEZE!!

So what were a few of the most recent ideas we could build on?

The main one mostly being that the ***present is NOT the key to the past.***
Ie. As farmerman had pointed out, that radioactive decay has not been accelerated in the lab, yet, there is strong evidence by ‘mother nature’ or ‘in the field’Suggesting the present decay Rates had been accelerated drastically!
(Which means the earth is much younger then the idea of billions of years old)
http://evolutiondismantled.com/accelerated-decay

There is evidence in the field as well like Mount Saint Helens demonstrated that contamination by mother nature is a big problem for dating techniques. And because of such contamination, such a recent eruption was dated at 350,000 years or more!
https://www.icr.org/article/a-30-years-later-lessons-mount-st-helens/

I believe it was farmer man who mentioned something about sand dunes in the Grand Canyon .....
Again, in the past, cataclysmic events like this do not reflect the present ‘calm’ state around the earth which can account for geographical features. Ie the Grand Canyon. Which btw, a mini Grand Canyon was formed in a short period of time at Mt st Helen’s 😎
In other words, The idea that slow, gradual processes (and lotttts of time) Account for the geological features we observe is not correct. But rather Big, fast, rapid deposits of sediments, fossils, oil, etc. (And a short period of time) around the world Due to a cataclysmic event like a global flood.
(The present in not the key to the past)
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/massive-deserts-dunes-during-a-worldwide-flood/

Also, because we know present day observations are not the key to the past, although there is plenty of flesh eating in the world today, it does not mean it has always been this way.
Just as there is strong evidence ‘in the field’ for accelerated speeds of radioactive decay, there is strong evidence in the field that suggests all creatures could have been vegetarian in the distant past.
Ie. panda bears have sharp teeth for bamboo, fruit bats have sharp teeth for fruit, bears can and will eat berries and such, vegetarian vultures, vegetarian pirahna exist, and if you have not yet researched ‘field demonstrations’ of vegetarian lions I suggest doing so.
I personally cannot wait until mosquitoes return to being strictly vegetarian haha.

The problem is, he's hardly dispassionate or objective. Witness the vitriol directed at Darwin personally. These religious nutzoids like to portray Darwin as some sort of schemer hatching a diabolical plan while the truth is he was someone detailing his findings based on his own extensive observations.

In the Beginner's Guide to Darwin one of the things first asked is why nobody had said anything earlier because now it seems so obvious.

Anybody who attacks Darwin personally, and goes on to blame him for Nazism and a whole host of modern evils, isn't really equipped to discuss the theory itself. They're too tied up in their own prejudices and assumptions to discuss anything rationally.

Maybe it was not Darwin personally responsible?

Matthew 16:23
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."

Here, Peter, although he loved Jesus, was being used to spread misinformation....Darwin and Darwinists likewise?
Food for thought

I know what people will say to ppl being ‘used’ to spread misinformation....
So here:
John 3:12
I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

If you did, I didn't notice it. And if you did, it merely illuminates your hypocrisy in that you are unable to examine the ID hypothesis with an open mind. By contrast, I am always open to yours, read everything I run across on the subject and reevaluate my position in light of every new piece of evidence or reasoning. I even consider your darkest hypotheses about myself - that ID may be a figment of my imagination and I may be totally delusional about both ID and theology.


That is Exactly what the scientific argument of ID is all about. ID evaluates the argument that abiogenesis and Evolution accounts for life as we observe it and has eliminated chance, random mutation and natural selection as a plausible explanation. ID does not answer any question beyond that.



I don't see how that is likely. As I have previously written, I distinctly remember thinking of the ID hypothesis when I was seven years old. That would make you a toddler at the time I think, and decades before the 1980s.

Your personality here to a teeth!