Why do people deny evolution?

I don't make up rubbish about you gb.

I follow a few people on Trivia threads. It is the nature of word games that one follows the last poster. At a guess I would say I follow gb much less than I do other word game players because she doesn't post there as often.

It is of no consequence to me who I follow on word games. They post to be followed or to stop the particular game.

When I use a certain word I might use it as emphasis as fm and Wilso do, or, on a thread like this, to remind critical thinkers that evolution does not proceed by organisms sleeping with each other.

In the old days ladies would withdraw from the dining room when the brandy and cigars were going round precisely in order that such frustrations were avoided.

Actually it doesn't if you just start calculating. You have to make some assumptions first before you can do any calculations and if you make bad assumptions then the math doesn't work.

That is what I stated earlier but you have refused to discuss the actual math Spetner is using. So. let me ask you again, what happens to a calculation if you are off by a factor of 500? Is it still a valid calculation or not?

What is the calculation that is off by a factor of 500?

I'm sure Q would tell you to read the book.

Any time.

Plenty to do at a stock farm. I just cut a 20 acre field of orchard grass. and sprayed it with a butyric drying agent.(Its like a butter alcohol drying agent that's perfectly natural nd is used where we need to have hay dry when its gonna be cool weather.

Is seems you are not able to answer my question too.

interesting.

But I try it one more time, why do you believe so much in the evolutionhoax?

Why do you believe so much in the god/creationism myth?

Actually, I don't even need to ask the question. There's generally 4 groups of believers. Those who derive power from belief, such as church hierarchies. Those who indoctrination was too deep, and their minds are too weak to escape. Those who need an afterlife to assuage the fear of death. Then there's the type of mouth foaming freaks that tend to turn up on these threads. Their belief in an afterlife is derived from their own massive narcissism. Arrogant fuckwits who just can't imagine a world without themselves in it.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with thick cunts. It's pointless, they're too stupid to understand when they lose the argument. You lost it a long time ago.

There's no one more difficult to deal with than a confident and uneducated moron.

lol, THAT is a definition of a 'scientist'

Like it, thank you!

So I take it, if you're ever diagnosed with cancer, you'll try to pray it away. Or will you go to a doctor like a pathetic, snivelling hypocrite?

Quahog claims not to be religious. It is immaterial to me whether or not s/he is, because it is glaringly obvious that Quahog is profoundly ignorant of science, especially physics. From Q's anti-education rants, and anti-science rants, i get the picture of an immature individual who failed at university (maybe even failed in high school science) and is therefore ranting against formal education and the subjects in which s/he failed--i.e., the sciences.

I asked you para.

He is of the "new" breed of IDers who insist that they be viewed s a real "science discipline" Yet they are unble to go beyond a default belief that someone kick started life and has been directing its development.

His arguments have been pretty much of the "Nyah Nyah" style. I do find it fascinating how someone can deny a whole mess of science evidence without evincing his own pwrsonal explanation of the way things are.
I was initially convinced that he was a biologist or geologist who was just having fun by denying everything. However, most of those guys are pretty capable at focusing an argument. Quahog is , so far, been pretty adolescent in his own arguments

Setanta and Wilso seem intent on letting us all know how fiendishly intelligent they are with repeat versions of well rehearsed and highly original presentations.

I have offered at least half a dozen reasons why people deny evolution but neither of these gentlemen have thought fit to respond to any of them.

One thing is sure though. It is that the personal characteristics of carefully chosen individuals is not an intelligent argument against the denial of evolution. Even if they are invented by persons in the throes of creative stress.

The huge discrepancy between the amount of reproductive material provided by men and women and the efficiency of mechanical methods of work and war cannot logically lead anywhere other than to stud farm reproductive procedures for humans.

In horseracing every runner has a mother but a large number have the same father. It bodes ill for men now that sex selection is possible.

How many rams does fm use to produce his lambs? What is his method of inducing conception in his sheep?

I assume that Setanta and Wilso, and others, consider that under the scientific exigencies I mentioned above their own reproductive material will be in huge demand.