Why do people deny evolution?

Listen, you stupid smartass, I took biology at university in 1967, and have kept up since then. So-called Nebraska Man was an error, and the error was detected about a decade later. The putative age of the cosmos has indeed been revised several times. That's how science works; when something is falsified, when new data becomes available, then estimates or theories get revised. It's not like all that old bible bullshit, which claims to have all the answers, and claims to have had them for thousands of years. I certainly don't need this kind of grief from some snot-nosed god-botherer.

You sure got emotional. Scientists make mistakes. God doesn't.

what you are calling mistakes were better data and refinement of technique and theory. There never was a missing link, mistaken popular assumptions. there are however a number of intermediate forms. so tell me how you think a being we've never found a trace of created some 36 trillion stars and their associated stellar solar system in one day? Mechanism and evidence please.

God. He sustains all things and continues to create.

You're welcome to believe that polite fiction if you wish to. Just don't try to force it on others.

Wow!! these debates don’t half get emotional as you say.Hey, you haven’t seem my fur coat ave you? I read something else that scientist are scratching there heads over and that is they’ve found red blood cells and connecting tissue in dinosaur bones that are supposedly millions and millions of years old.Didn’t find out in the end on whether scientists have revised their facts on that one.Quite frankly I’m not interested as I gave up on the evolution theory years ago.

I dunno, after reading the posts of Trump supporters I’m not so sure.

I love how, at the same instant, this sounds like the most ludicrous Biblical bullshit, and yet in complete harmony with both quantum mechanics and New Age Woo Woo. They all require an observer.

I only "got emotional" if one considers contempt for the ignorance of others to be emotion. If you sneer at other people, the likelihood of the sneering at you in return is great.

OK Neal, here's the plan. You tie him to the chair and I’ll put in the eye spreaders. While I’m doing that, you get the DVD set up and load 'The Passion of Christ.' Set it to 'Play Continuous' and we'll come back in six months and check on him.

Why stop there? You could then watch Triumph of the Will and other anti Semitic outings.

I’ve watched so much of that stuff and I still can’t fathom it.
I’m not sure who is blind and to what anymore.

My point is that Mel Gibson’s oeuvre is no different from that of other Nazi propagandists.

Oh. That wasn’t mine at all.

Mel was born in the States. His old man, Hutton Gibson, was a World War II veteran, the 1968 Jeopardy! champion (a show like Brain of Britain). Hutton is also a rabid fundamentalist Catholic, and an adherent to s sect that believe that the papal see has been vacant since the death of Pius XII. Old Pius arranged a concordat with the Nazis while he was still a cardinal. As Pope, he remained silent about what was happening to the Jews of Europe, and called for reconciliation with the Axis powers, and their allies.

Mel went to Australia with him family when he was still an adolescent. I have read that he is a fundamentalist Catholic just like his old man. I can't say if that is true, but if so, it might account for a charge of antisemitism against him.

Interesting that this discussion about the Nebraskka Man misidentification is on the anniversary of the Scopes Trial. Lotsa good **** because they intertwine by Creationists assertions.
In 1917 a fossil tooth was found on a Nebraska farm, by the farm owner (and oil geologist named Harry Cook) . Cook , after a few years , sent the tooth to the president of the American Museum of Natural History, Henry Fairfield Osborn, for identification assistance. Osborn, was a paleontologist but not a great one. His biographer wrote of him that "Osborn was a first rate administrator, but a third rate scientist"

Osborn immediately identified the tooth as "PRIMATE". Then, on further consideration and as part of his own "Theory of Parallel Evolution" (It never rose to the strict standards of a "THEORY", maybe a hypothesis but nothing more
Anyway Osborn named the tooth as a body part of an Advance primate that he named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii.
Most field and academic paleontologists cast lots of doubt about whether the tooth was even a primate. Then the popular press (NO scientific journals) got ahold of the tooth and , with a bit of help from a volunteer Grafton Smith (an English scientist) and a dental magazine illustrator. the tooth was featured in thIllustrated London News a popular British Magazine.

The kerfuffle among the popular press and skeptical scientists drew the Creationists like flies. They argued the simplistic observation that , in effect said,'These scientists are so dumb they dont know whether this tooth is even a primate" dentition"

Then the Creationists started to spread lies that the defense in the Scopes Trial had used both Nebraska Man (as it was called) and Piltdown Man as proof of human volution.
This was one of a batch of untruths spread by the Creation Institute. As it turned out, the judge, John Raulston, had early omitted the use of scientific evidence on behalf of the defense, as this was a statuary issue only.

There were many errors committed in nebraska man's final determination. Most of the errors on sciences side lay with Osborn:s lack of skill.

Evolution within any given species is a Scientific FACT.
People who try to use this Scientific FACT as a means to explain how all life was created on this planet, are living in a fairly tale.

You're the one in the fairy tale. evolution is a proven fact, just ask your DNA.

And he said

Yes, dimbulb. The anti evolutionists say there is micro evolution within a species, but there is no macro evolution, one species changing over time into another species entirely. e.g some species of dinosaurs evolving into birds. That is a regularly repeated argument the Christian anti-evolutionists use, and that is clearly where he was going. It's a tediously repetitious argument.