Why do people deny evolution?

....anything to do with 'toothless serpents'?

Nor does it answer ANY QUESTIONS up to that point. You seem to be confused as to the invalidity of posting the same damned answer for every question( and not providing any evidence to support it).
So far noone in the "ID camp" has come up with any MECHANISMS to satisfy your one pre-selected answer " to all of those multiple hypotheses I posited.



I was told that I was quite precoscious but when I was 8 years years old I didnt even doubt the concept of theistic evolution as a valid answer that satisfiied both science and religion(I was a devourer of works by Roy Chapman Andrews and Herbert Wendt who both made a reasonable "religio-scientific plan" of the descent of man and animals . My first inklings of it all being unxplainable by some kind of intercession was when I picked up Morrisons'"Flood Geology" and began doubting the existence of a worldwide Flood because of real strong counter evidence.

My journey , technically began when I was 10 and I won a jr SCience Fair with an "Evolutionary Display of Mucrospiriferids". One judge, who was a natural history curator at a state museum, invited me to participate in a summer geology field trip for college kids and that was my beginning into questioning everything.

ID an scientific Creationism have been was easily dismissed mostly because theres really no methodology, other tha denial about your "belief". You claim its not religious yet you offer no methodology to test or even discover facts. Science is boringly loaded with stuff to check on and compare and things for which we must yet acquire.

ACtually, your worldview is "In the middle of the road " and is just languishing like roadkill. Either get involved with asking the DI to actually do some research or quit trying to blow smoke up folks ass saying youre doing "volutionary research"


I was categorically separating the original concept ofID as the "watch on the heath" and more focusing on the Molecular Bio and Paleontological research proposed by Paul Chien (Creationist Paleontologist who aided in drafting Discovery''s "WEDGE RESEARCH DOCUMENTS". That was all in 2003 and were still waiting for anything other than denial of standard science(as well as claiming as you, that "WE ARE DOING SCIENCE YOU BASTARDS")

The closest the DI has come to anything publishable was Dr Behe's "Analysis of Irreducible Complexity" It was ultimately hokum but it was done in a scientific manner where the problem was identified and joined by detailed study about blood clotting.


Id say that , as a seven year old, you were "thinking" more about theistic evolution than moern day ID, otherwise youd be suing Phil Johnson for copyright infringements re his "Darwin on Trial"

That was all very interesting. But it shows that from the very start, you couched the question as Science vs Religion. And I'm not making that argument so it is no wonder that you haven't heard what evidence I've given.

The advantage I had was being uncontaminated by either camp. I didn't even know there were camps competing. You could look at it and say that my observations had no validity because I was truly ignorant. I would call that condition unbiased, at least as a starting point. I started correcting my ignorance as soon as I was aware that there was a way to do that. As unlikely as it sounds, I didn't know about the existence of libraries until about age 10 while living with my grandmother. Until then I though all books were boring tripe about two kids and their dog Jip. It was an amazing way to discover the world of knowledge. The first book I picked up was about how to grind a telescope mirror. I stole it. My grandma discovered the theft but she got me a library card. That was like magic.

I had to read that "EDUCATE TRUTH " clip. Once again I have to ask question about "How can a University that is unaccredited in the material it opines about even know what the hell its talking about??"

Then I see that Australia Allowes Colleges to Accredit themselves under some guideline of self accreditation (Go figure). So, I had to read that entire segment about the "Evidence" for sand dune deposits located within the "Flood" deposits supposedly represented in the Grand Canyon Strat Column. You realize that the HUUUUGE assumption these guys made was that all that "geologic evidence" theyve posted, was supposed;y happening ALL AT ONCE. and that the column was deposited as the "flood waters receded". The formations they highlight were, in reality, separated by tens to 100 million years apart (Palleozoic through Cenozoic).
I had to give em credit though, their BS was slickly presented. I dont think a lot of scientsists are seeking to get advanced degrees from the Uni that wrote up the whole "Educate Truth" site.
Turns out it sponsored and funded entirely by the Seventh Day Adventists International.


As far as vegetarin "carnivores, Youve just been introduced to the concept of evolution. There are evidences of dinos in the sauropoea and ornithischians were vegetarians(Weve known that for about, oohh , maybe 130 years). But the theropoda were all carnies. They didnt even have any molars , just a mouthful of saber like teeth. Also, anaylses of theropod dino poop of all ages has shown that th food contained crunched up bones . So saying ALL dinos were vegetarian before your "Flood" was equally silly. Evidence is evidence and yes, its circumstantial , but it is piled one fact upon another.

Im going to subscribe to the Eucate Truth tracts. Its a really slick looking publication that tries to make its Creation story entertaining as ell as informative (Course the information is bent and often just BS, but the way it uses "indices" is very very slick, It almost looks legitimate.

Thank for the source, I was wondering why all these Creationist guys seem to be emigrating from Australia to US. Its because O is a lot more relaxed about teaching religion as science.

First of all, thanks for sharing your testimony how you came to faith in evolutionism Earlier.

Remember piltdown man? Yes, for over 40 years, ppl with PhD‘s didn’t know what the heck they were talking about (as you put it) regarding that fossil. Not much has changed really. Hopefully sooner than later, those who embrace the idea/worldview of evolution/atheism will admit their folly with the rest of the evidence they are interpreting.


So what you’re saying is that only institutions( and the people that work for them) that promote what Charles Darwin taught know what they’re talking about? The same ones that fabricate hoaxes Like piltdown man, and collect paycheques from teaching evolutionism)
Of course you are.
Just as people who embrace Mormonism claim that only those who Promote what Joseph Smith taught know what they’re talking about.
In other words, you are playing the ‘cult card’......again.

And how do you know dinosaurs lived millions of years ago? With Faulty dating techniques, with faulty assumptions, that’s ‘how’ 🤦🏼‍♂️

Oh farmerman..... too bad the evidence cannot speak for itself huh?
Interpretations interpretations.

Indeed, it was a hoax perped ON science, not by it. 30 years after everyone was accusing Kenneth Woodward and Tielhard de Chardin as members of the perpetrator group. Kenneth Oakley, using isotopes of Flourine determined that the mandible and the cranium of the Single specimen of Piltdown didnt even match.(They already knew that the mandible had been dipped in K permanganate to color it (Its like aging a print by soaking it in tea).

Cience is made up of human,we are subject to the errors and dumbmoves of humans. BUT, science also likes to correct mistakes and find out what happened the foirst time.
Creationits dont seem to be like that, for Ive never ever seen Creation "Science" ever modify its views one tittle. You guys hve this book of desert fables and thats good enough for you.


Chrles Darwin nver taught. What I m saying is that we accredit colleges to provide a skills set for which students can learn, gradute, and go on to earn their higher degrees in that skill and then pass their licensing requirements.
Since Cretionist based colleges hve yet to show us a skills set in any given bio or geo science that presents us with a useful TOOL, they dont ge accredited and a degree in science from those types of colleges is kinda worthless. Youll note that most of the unaccredited colleges are usually FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN COLLEGES . They rally dont have to trin researchrs in biology bcause you guys already "know it all" ITS IN A BOOK that says the sun was "created" after the plnets


I celebrate my ignorance, since no-one on the Creation ID side has ever come up with any tqngible evidence about your worldviews, I hve no way to ven assess your bullshit (other thn to cll it that)


Your lqt pot (about the geology in the"flood" was kinda laughble because

1 NO ONE hs ever proven that there was such a flood

2 Floodists believe tht ll creation hppened at once and the fossil record represents flood sorting. Yet you hqve no explanations as to why the vast majority of animals and plants occupy fixed zones of stratigrphy (dinosaurs came and went in the middle sequences of layers) Mammals didnt appear till after birds.
There are no teeny mammals at the very bottom of the flood sorting sediments. That makes a better argument for fossils depositing based on evolution and deposition through time rather than by mere "Bouyancy".

If you knew how inane most all of your reasoning sounds youd be embarrased (But I dont think you guys think about your "alternate facts" too hard). Thats the problems with you having all the answers already. Nothing to doubt r relearn

My science has gone through 3 major upheavels and trashing of the old and rethinking for the new in the last 100 years. See, we dont say we "KNOW EVERYTHING" like you guys put on . We **** up a lot, but so far, no one has been able to insert anything of Creationist "truths" into the pot of steaming science.

By the way, Darwin hd at least 3 big errors in his " little theory" and Ive talked em up and apparently you guys dont listen to anything that isnt Bible centered, otherwise youd see how science tries to correct herself all the time.
A THEORY in science is underpinned by facts and examples and equations of formulae , and discoveries, and even falsification. What've you got that's even close ?

Quote:’They rally dont have to trin researchrs in biology bcause you guys already "know it all" ITS IN A BOOK that says the sun was "created" after the plnets’

Training ppl that life was created in a ‘chemical soup’ engineered by an ocean vent does take lots of ‘training.’ It is in all the ‘science’ textbooks too, right? Along with everything else Darwin, (like Joseph smith) conjured up/kicked off.

"chemical soup" is one of many ways to explain HYPOTHESES in plain English. (Without strong evidence you shouldnt hang on to possible ideas ,Thats my biggest problem with Creationism, its an empty quiver.)

I love how th US Fundamentalist movement began with guys agreeing with each other and then splitting up as they argue about equally preposterous and silly explanations.Like Charl es Taze Russell or "Judge" Rutherford and then Ellen White.




I assume you are a folloer of Charles Taze Russell

PS, Charle Darwin only mentioned the "warm little pond" in a final few paragraphs of Chapter 15 of his original edition of "The Origin..." In those paragraphs he explains what he DIDNT investigate an what WOULD be the areas of future investigations by others. His final lines of his last chapter of his fist wition was,

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one:and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and wonderful have been and are being evolved

This is the only place in the book where the word evolved occurs, but its interesting how Creationists abandon this entire paragraph because some other book makes foundation claims ,none of which can be evidenced (and in fact-ALL ARE REFUTED BY EVIDENCE)

He He, you guys are so gullible as followers of mostly ignorant cult leaders (like Mr Russell) who, besides being a felonious lying sack of **** didnt have a smart idea in his entire life.

I knew you were a Jehovah' Witness, all your Attempts" at argument sound like youve been sellin the Watchtower.

I never actually understand Jehova's Witness's ambitions.

They're taught that only a very measured number of souls will "qualify" for the journey to nirvana, but they keep going out into the world recruiting more bodies.

Surely this makes the odds of them "qualifying" go downhill rapidly?

duh? I am not, but I really wonder how you started thinking so crookedly?
Oh I know! lol

ha ha ha ha ha

well developed sense of humour????? Hmmm ok why does it then never show?

lol, doesn't it hurt? All the time lying to yourself? ha ha ha ha ha

Witnesses have "Needs" also. All them white shirts and black ties seem to have been cobble up by the Mormons. so they have to buy more expensive silk shirts., and now with Global Warming (which they deny) silk is a must to keep cool while WatchTowering.


I used to share an office with a Witness when I worked for a fed agency. He was a physicist that was assigned to the air quality design program and would argue that the "math" for radioisotope age dating was "different" because he could conclusively prove that the decay of the "second" occured because of some quote from his Bible. I wish I could recall the Bible passage, it was moronic but he "bought it all". well after earning a PhD in particle physics from Princeton.

I had the same thought about them but when I actually talked to them and read the WT literature, it turns out that virtually none of the common members expect to make it to 'Nirvana' . After the magic number of tickets was up, all the rest get a home version of the game. They get to continually raise idyllic families in perfect neighborhoods with white picket fences, no crime, no diseases, etc. but otherwise, just like right now.

I was gobsmacked myself.

the elect (144K) get to rule with Christ in a "heaven". The others will have a good life by living FOREVER.
Thats a bitch when ya think of all the hangovers, backaches, etc

The number 144,000 is how someone like John the author of revelations would have said, "the perfect number" or "exactly the number it is supposed to be I don't know exactly what it is but it is a lot". It is a figure of speech. The 144,000 are the one's that were taken to heaven at the first resurrection when Jesus rose from the dead on the third day over 2,000 years ago and anyone who has died in a state of grace since then. Catholics consider them the saints in heaven that are ruling with God right now and that line in the bible is one reason why they consider it logical that the saints can here our prayers.

My late wife one dated someone whose parents were JWs. In their group was some woman who claimed to be one of the 144, or whatever it is. The rest of the congregation believed it and treated her like Lady Muck.

I have to say most JWs are really effing stupid, that's obvious within the first five minutes of them knocking on your door.

They are like libertarians. Much of the time they mak sense when it comes to "how to treat ach other". Then they totally leave the planet (much like our ol Grumpy , who no doubt is a card carrying one of the elect.

To me, the Jehovah's Witnesses are most remarkable as a example of how a sect, and one based on a bizarre and obscure exegesis, can take root and expand in a very short period of time.