Why do people deny evolution?

I've posted several reputable articles about it, as well as the complaints of scientists whose data was suppressed.



It's borne out of the fact that they've been caught red handed suppressing data that conflicts with the leftist narrative.



So says the biased and useless data.



I am completely correct to point out that global warming hysteria is based on biased and unreliable data.



I've got the fact that global warming hysteria is based on biased and unreliable data.



I have ample knowledge of the fact that global warming hysteria is based on biased and unreliable data.

We hace known for a century that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We've known for decades CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. There is no question that makes thiongs hotter. Those are known facts. The CO2 will keep increasing. The temperature will keep ging up. The glaciers and ice caps will keep melting. Sea levels will keep rising, imperiling or coasts. Stoems will keep growing in intensity. And ull-heade intransigent deniers will keep denying the plain reality because they're commited to an ideology that denies the science and it's just gonna get ore and more costly to rectify things until it may be too late. The CO2 we pump into the atmosphere stays there for a century and we've been doing it for a century and a half. Stop pettifogging and pay attention to reality for a change rather than factless ideology.

I'm not interested in your biased and skewed data. Go try to fool someone more gullible.

Your paradigmatic case trying to prove the data were biased blew up in your face. Their conclusion was wrong as asubsequent research proved. What makes you think any of your other "cases" will prove to be anything other than baseless speculation ? The actual physical world continues to contradict your ideology-based "evidence". Fortunately, in this as in so many other of your conjectures, the world is shoving you off in a corner and continuing o ignore you. Your rock, world.

When reality conflicts with leftist ideology, it's not reality that is wrong.

Reality is in conflict with what seems strikingly like just another right wing conspirscy theory. The authors of the rejected research were wrong. You could forget the cant and actually look at the many independent lines of research that show the reality of glbal warming. I don't have much hope you're capable of that.

That is incorrect. When reality conflicts with leftist ideology, it's not reality that is wrong.

I'm not interested in looking at your biased and useless data.

I reallly suspect that hes a few mg. short of a carat

Your name-calling and personal attacks do little to shore up your shoddy and unreliable data.

I know, and Ive made a bloody good living at it. Pssst, dont tell anyone .

quite a few.

Because culturally they have evolved to deny it. It gets them more fitness in their tribe echo chamber...

Trouble is, you might even believe that's true. Just thought I'd bring the thread back to the actual subject.

Made any progress on the evolution of whale genitalia I asked you about?
Ought to be really easy after cows to butterflies.

That's easy. Evolution wasn't involved. God just wanted a predictable supply of quality leather golf bags.

If that's what you want to do with your life then go for it. Personally I think you'd make a wonderful prick.

Hey blatham, long time no see.

You see, that's just the point, whales lack the equipment to make golf bags from. I was asking farmer about the process that did that remodeling.

He ignores the entire sequence of whale evolution because hes only interested in following his own "Biblical BS".
I can repeat the facts discovered nd the bases for how the evolution sequence was arrived at but Im afraid , by him not believing it he will dismiss it out of hand.
True science deals with dueling opinions with a host of evidence on either side. So far, the only evidence has been clearly fossil based where the first to speies changed little except for three items. After evolution step no 2 (where the daughter species were much more adapted to full-time aquatic life), we can see the subsequent evolved species (all through time mind you)

He stated that he was interested only in the DNA data and I asked him what DNA data does he have from 50 million or even 3 million year old species)--He did not answer that to any degree of understanding.

I compred him to IONUS who , back then, claimed that e could tell that T rex didnt evolve because of its DNA. (A real scientific miracle)

Sometimes we get caught up on a new technology that e fail to recognize its very limitations.

I didnt see your post. YOU ARE THE ONE who has failed to present any evience or valid inforomation as to here this Pakecetus DNA has come from??

It's like another party and 9/11. Similarly obsessed.

Just ignore it, It gets periodically sent for either electro shock therapy or solitary