Why do people deny evolution?

I don't care about the insults. I am just curious to know if you really have any idea what you're talking about or if your assertions about how clearly you see what I don't see are based on something valid.

Everything you say about me being clueless basically just comes across as bluffing by someone holding cards that they're not going to play.

When you say it's not your job to teach me evolutionary theory, that is just another way of bluffing that you're holding a bunch of aces when you just have a few different cards that don't add up to even a straight.

Not so fast farmer. I have specified your '****'.
You must reciprocate before we begin.

Reciprocte what? I said Ill keep your religious beliefs out, as long as you dont start with the "Im only yammering about religion" or by your passive style insults.
Lets stick only with evidence based science. Im open for that.K?

In all your up and coming debates which I am looking forward to hearing...if you find out who’s nicked me fur coat can you let me know....seriously p*ssed off about it!....

ya reaaly look better in shorts and a tee shirt.

Sorry to disappoint you, but farmer reminded me of my promise not to engage with his off topic dodges. I don’t mind the 'no bringing God or religion' into the scientific debate, that can be objectively seen by anyone. But when he accuses me of playing psychological games, being passive aggressive, etc., that is an arbitrary subjective thing which only he can decide.

Actually, Same goes for his definition of 'scientific', 'evidence' and 'qualified experts and books'. Only he gets to decide who is an expert and what books and published papers are legitimate. Any I bring up are somehow 'tainted', usually because the author is not an avowed atheist or is affiliated with anything that could be construed as religious. As if that somehow disqualifies them and negates their educational and scientific credentials.

If you are interested, you can find those past debates in this and other threads on evolution and intelligent design (this one has a lot of examples https://able2know.org/topic/50511-1 ). I didn’t land on A2K until mid 2015 if it helps find them. It’s a long thread.

Or as an alternative, you and I can have the discussion. It’s open book, you can even ask farmer for tips.

Well, I am not going to accept "Scriptural quotes " as evidence because they are one persons story telling.

so, am I reading that you wont give it a shot. BTW, since when is referring an quoting science papers nd books invalid ??

We use evidence. Evidence is built from previous evidence (or it can displace previous evidence -like Continental drift and sefloor spreading).

I really dont care what you lean on, but if I find it to be kind of insipid, I will bring it to your attention. This would be a ebate. You bring your best arguments and Ill bring mine.

See, you already lost. Just can’t stop yourself from bringing religion or religious criticism into it.

look. You never admit it but almost ALL of your self-proclaimed "evidentiary" arguments are derived second hand from groups who make -believe they are "merely interested in science" but all derive from some religious view or a specific religion. You think youve fooled anyone?
When you flat out copy stuff from CRI or DI and claim it as your own , please try not to convince others that I dont keep up with readings from "the other side"

SCience is usually too busy to bother with this kind of ****. Ive been involved with how science gets applied in the public education so I keep kind of up to date with their writings.

Its beginning to fade as most state governments have revised their science education standards since about 20 yers ago.

LOOK, you believe what you wish just dont try to scurry around looking for any loose hinges in natural selection.
I recall your sudden interest in Dr Wose and HGT . When I sent you to rad what Lynn Margulis had to say several years earlier, you got very silent. Im assuming you rad some of her stuff and Im happy that you did choose to read some of my suggested topics. Now Ill challenge you. REFUTE COMMON DESCENT. (Thats an area of interest that has been opnly{yet poorly} challenged by Creation Research Institute ever since D Theobaud first published his monograph

Your misunderstanding of my argument is too profoundly engrained to argue.

I have never challenged 'common decent'. It is obvious that all biological life is based on a common design based on an information technology we call DNA.

OK, then you should be prepared to argue your evidence that supports that its a"technology"

Simple. It looks and works and acts more like technology than a random accident until experimentally demonstrated otherwise. Miller-Urey is an absolute joke as experimental evidence. Strong claims of life by accident require strong evidence.

On its face and below the surface, DNA based Lifeforms are without question the most sophisticated technology we have ever observed, your explanation of 'Its just chemical reactions' not withstanding.

thats very descent of you.

No doubt in my mind whatsoever our bodies have been designed.The biological computer brain is utterly phenomenal.I am absolutely convinced now that our brains consist of at the very very minimum 2 off quantum computers that are designed to balance each other .....the out working of these machines now being proven by Nihilistic (double minded) thinking.They are meant to work that way.Mind blowing!

thats it eh? Youre argument is still a form of
"Its too complex to have been a natural occurrence"

How about letting me in on how you really have determined that DNAA is technology??
Was there life before DNA?

explain why?

We know that beings adapt to their environment. However, the "official" age of the universe has been changed several times over the last 50 years Scientists declared that the "missing link" was found. It turned. out to be a tooth from a pig.
The fact is that science depends on the Scientific method. We can not observe what happened years ago It is all speculation.

Is this some kind of creationist propaganda you're peddling? So you actually understand the scientific method? I don't believe you do. Where did you get your "information?"

So, you know nothing about "Nebraska Man"? Or, how many times the age of the universe has changed. No, because it is not in your Introduction to Biology textbooks