Why do people deny evolution?

Of course they attempt to discredit ! For them it's a life or death of 'the self' matter. There is actually no point in engaging in such games because they dare not lose, and since they have an ultimate catch-all clause anyway that 'what appears to be knowledge is in the gift of the Creator' they cannot lose ! (Get ready for that one in the event of any success by human's with artificial abiogenesis).
The bible (etc) is already considered to be allegorical for the more intellectual believers, so rejecting evolution can be sign of limited intellect. On the other hand, more intellectual fundamentalists (like my dentist...a religious Jew) play a more subtle game of 'levels of meaning' involving 'gemetria' (Kabbalistic interpretation of the numerical values of Hebrew letters). Plenty of bearded rocking and arguments with fellow 'students' seems to be an essential part of that process !

Time and chance. The miracle worker. Pseudoscience. the catchall phrase. geez guys, really?

.
I think it was Farmer who really made this a life or death argument. He was the one that said he will fight to keep intelligent design out of mainstream science education.



"In the event"? Sounds like a lot of faith there ha ha. I don't think anybody has much faith in anybody replicating life coming into existence without intelligence establishing it.

Even mainstream science is talking about the universe being information and an information management system. Where did all that information come from?

Yep, we represent the "pseudoscience" that requires education and experience from accredited institutions.
It is quite opposed to your worldview which seems to be based on listening to tall tales and BS "science" told to Orthodox Gullible Schmucks .

Come on Brian...not this old 'divine information' garbage ! Can't you see that its just another version of the 'catch-clause' I mentioned above. And 'fighting' to keep ID out of mainstream science is certainly a duty of anybody who understands that science is about what is testable, not what is simplistic conjecture by humans, saddled with the distinct possibility of their own insignificance.
As for the possibilities or otherwise of abiogenesis, I have no expectancies either way for 'complete success', but I do expect useful medical knowlege is likely be forthcoming in the endeavour. (One is reminded that not too long ago, 'flight' was considered to be beyond human capability). There are no axiomatic limits as to human scientific understanding (...'progress' being another matter subject to long term evaluation). Anyway, what are you worried about ? If abiogenesis is achieved your catch-all clause can attribute it the will of 'the Creator' in promoting his 'proxy'...humans ! It's better than Catch 22 !

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4hhE6tzJR_c&t=3455s#fauxfullscreen

Found the video clip to go with the online book material for magnetic ‘reversal’ interpretation....just ‘Lower’ magnetic fluctuations, not reversals.
Same pattern North/south too.
Apx. 1hr 15min mark

I suggest if anyone is looking for a better interpretation of ‘the Great uncomfority’ (lack of uniformitarian explanation) in the Grand Canyon to watch the video til the 1hr35min mark too.

Again, not that evolutionary science is not science st all. Just bad science, with bad interpretations of the evidence nature provides.
Just as ppl like Jehovah Witnesses can badly misinterpret biblical scripture, and come to Drastically different conclusions!

If science is only about what's testable where did the first life form come from? where is the test to determine that.? Where does your intelligence originate? When does the human brain start thinking when do its Atoms get smart? Do you the Atoms ever get smart? Is Dualism True which means Atoms Never are smart, they just get Used by a spiritual entity that is smart? Do you have a test to test that?

Humans have always been capable of life. There's no difference between a human of 5000 years ago and a human of today. nothing has changed except that humans or today have a record of what the humans Of 5000 years ago experienced and their knowledge has been passed on and built upon.

We will never see a life was initiated because we need life to exist. That is your catch 22. We will never see a metal form out of nothing because we need matter to exist in order to understand matter in life because we reach understanding through experience and we cannot experience without matter or life there is your big catch 22 .

If intelligence did create the matter and turn it in the life we experience today, I think it might be important to understand who what and why that intelligence is. I don't think science should stick their head in the sand when those questions are honestly asked. What are they scared of they might find out they're not the smartest thing in the universe?

Anyone can come up with silly "interpretations" but since the reversals are also correlatable with other magnetic mineral content that have reached a Curie temp and have impressed normal or reversed polarities in the same time periods. These normal and reverse polarities have caused to be developed the GPTS (Geomagnetic Polarity Time SCale). part of the reversal is a time period wherein the field strength of one or another polarity and declintion lose strength and direction within a few thousand years. Then, when the reversal is attained, it stays that way to about a million years .

-----------------
Berggren,W A ,F J Langereis,C G Kent,D V Obradovich,J D RAffi,I Ramo,(1995).Late Neogene chronology:New Perspectives in High-Resolution stratigraphy:Geol Soc Americ, BULL v107 p1272-1287)


Lowrie,W and D V kent,(2004) Geomagnetic polarity Timscales and reversal frequency regimes (in) Channel, Kent and Lowrie and Meert (eds) Timescales of the Paleomagnetic Field:AGU GEOPHYSICALMONOGRAPH 145 ,American Geophysical Union, p.117-130.

Theres several hundred more of the real science papers on correlation via geomag. Im sure any one of the workers could straiten out you Creationist popular science writers

The limitation of geomagnetics is that the latest interval of continental "drift" has somewhat overprinted earlier magnetic reversals determined by cooling magnetic minerals and iron ,nickle, Titanium , and cobalt containing rocks.
So our most accurate reversal age data comes from the early Cretaceous forward.
As for the paper you linked, I scanned the references as well and I really dont know where those folks have their heads stuck up. Their logic and data is all completely wrongand the speculation (at best) is poorpy thought out. Im sure the stuff was self published and noone witha college geophysics degree edited it.

First "life" is generally tested as a bunch of preferred " chemicalIndicators", like the existence of specific organic chemicals and retained links of polymers incorporating specific isotopes of Carbon and Nitrogen that have relict structures of isoprenes, purine and pyrimidine "fossil crystals with C1 carbon)

Its what weve got It may be circumstantial but it follows structural patterns of chemistry that todays "life" still follows.

ALSO"Fossil" microstructures that appear to be archea. (as early as 3.9 BYa) TEM techniques and equipment has gotten amazingly more sensitive in just the last 10 years.

Sounds like you have faith that this will happen. Let me know if it does.

Although the term 'artificial' muddles the argument. Even religious fundamentalists think creation was 'artificial', as is 'ID'.

Nothing artificial has been specified for the abiogenesis theory responsible for life on earth. (except with the panspermia fans)

Maybe, maybe not. SO WHAT? Weve now gotten at least 4 good models of how life culd have bloomed from chemical soups, stews, and waldorf salads.

Science has always been a work with multiple hypotheses.
Never say never. Youll usually be wrong. I can understand how theCreationists use to clammer about Young Earth Beliefs. Now, xcept for a few holdouts like our own Hlo n Gby, ven most of the Creationists have morphed into "day date" revisionists and "OEC's", and have all become (mostly) theistic evolutionists.

However, you guys arent havin any fun with science you seem to be only obsessed with proving science wrong. I think the sciences are reasonably mature that the concept of evolution and mutagenicity in general is no longer an issue of much debate

Is there any point in pointing out your ignorance of the inapplicability of the lay concept of 'causality' in physics ?. I doubt it. Your futile demand for 'origins' is the epitome of a misguided view that science is a search for 'absolutes'. It is not. Only religionists waste their time chasing that pot of gold at the end (or start) of a rainbow. As FM has pointed out, science investigates competing testable hypothesis, and decides between them according to elegance and useful data generation. There is no foreseeable end to such enquiry, a point captured by Piaget's phrase 'genetic epistemology', in which 'world views' and 'the worlds they generate' are in a continuous transitional sequence, potentially ad infinitum. But, of course, the very evolutionary 'logic' of such an idea is anathema to ID ers !
So content yourself with roaming the limited parochial foothills of the intellect by all means . But don't expect those 'thinkers' who have climbed a few peaks to be willing to descend to your blinkered and restricted level .

It's because the state has taken over education and they consistently teach us pseudoscience. Like rockets working in the vacuum of space.
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

I see you are yet another member of the 'look at me club' who frequent forums like this seeking attention by spouting crackpot ideas. You guys with attention seeking problems should reserve the twaddle for each other on a dedicated site, (maybe called 'The Bed Wetters versus The Thumb Suckers' ...ref:Woody Alan)

how is it a crackpot idea? The problem is that you go take high school physics and you think you know it all. Tell me this, can you throw gas with your hands from one room to another like you can with ball? Does the rocket really push the exhaust out or is it just pressure gradient force? You dismiss without honest consideration.

Of course it is being a crackpot to dismiss a well established paradigm which has yielded spectacular technological advance, even if it does not conform to your own concept of 'logic' ! In case you are unaware of it, there are many 'logics' applicable to physics, and some successful branches, like QM, resist classical logic completely.
Your use of the word 'really' in your last question is stupendously naive. What matters is what contextually works, not what abstractly and nebulously might be thought to be or can be pictured That point is what you 'honestly need to consider' if you are not here merely to draw attention to yourself, but note that you might need to read some of the extensive literature on 'naive realism' prior to such consideration

Really. In that case I'd like your take on this. What did Einstein mean by his famous quote, "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details"?

By this I assume you are questioning Newton's second law of motion?
It's OK to do that but in your explanation above, are you saying the rocket motor would work only if the motor pushed out a solid object like a ball or something? Why would it make any difference if the mass thrown were a solid, liquid or gas? This is a new argument I haven't heard before. Not like the old 'Rockets work by pushing against the air' routine.

How about if they made the Saturn 5 rocket like a giant kids' water rocket toy, would that work in space OK according to your theory?