Why do people deny evolution?

And the US is the richest and most powerful state in the whole history of the world. Are you tupid?

I know that the US had a lot of advantages over all the others but to compare it with Iceland in order to try to prove that your dick-work is not as disreputable as some claim is ******* ridiculous.

Your use of "tupid" and "lame" to mean what you think they mean is as tupid and lame as it gets.

I have provided this thread with six or seven reasons why people might deny evolution, none of which have been challenged let alone rebutted, and those fellow Americans to whom you are referring might have any one of them in mind.

Some of whom will polish your fossil display cabinets, actually shed sweat in the drilling, keep the Big Shot's shithouse spick and span, and pipe in the utility services.

You're the very worst sort of elitist socialist fm. The sort that gives the game away by showing their arse end due to a lack of Fabian patience to allow it to appear discreetly under the economic exigencies of greed and selfishness now loose in the world so that when the tupid and the lame are required to give it a good rimming it won't come as too big a surprise to them.

I bet you wish you could concoct a sentence like that eh?

Here's another reason to deny evolution. It prevents getting tongue-tied and being so boring that the drying paint will be complaining about being watched. In fact, evolution is quite like well dried paint. In layers. Needs to be exhumed for forensic examination. A delicate form of necrophilia.

Can you believe, fm, that this new dinosaur find, nearly 100ft high and weighing 70 tons, could get the leg over? 140 tons of juddering flesh must have been quite a sight. How could it get the glans going fast enough to get it off and still have energy left to dismount.

your really funny

You are one obtuse wally fm. Double-dyed. It make no difference that the tenets of evolution are facts to why people deny the process. The more certain that they are facts the more reason there is to deny them.

Aren't facts as much at the disposal of society as anything else we choose to take advantage of. You're guilty of idolatry. The worship of inanimate objects. Facts. Not all the facts of course. Just those that undermine the teaching that your dick-work is disreputable. Court decisions notwithstanding. They are like the currents of the oceans with the froth a good guide to their direction.

THE OZIANS HAVE A NEAT ANTI CREATIONISM SITE

No it isn't. It's all about morphing disreputable dick-work into reputable dick-work for commercial reasons. It's all the same. One doesn't think that the horses in a race are different because they carry different colours.

And like all other Ponzi schemes it prospers until it doesn't and when it no longer prospers it's like a popped balloon. All of a sudden.

Bourgeois dick-work does not represent the range of possible dick-work. Not by a long shot. I saw a chap last night, in a film about Rio, having a shave and he had super tits. He was a stripper. And some of the religious practices were quite astonishing. The movers and shakers looked to be on a full-time Saturnalia.

Funny

Here is your antidote

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com

Have fun!

Something not quite right there old boy.

perhaps if you took a physic youd feel much better.

.



This above statement shows us that a fully engaged brain is not a necessity to leading a fulfilling life


















he also has no understanding of stratigraphy and paleo

Hey fm--I have thought up another reason for it being reasonable to deny evolution. That's No.8 I think.

I don't have time for it now.

Would you unplug something and plug it in somewhere else that might spring a surprise.

be happy to oblige. Bend over.

No wonder you're a bit accident prone.

I have read that Scientific American is owned by a British Company with headquarters in Crinian Street London. And has been accused of running misleading ads.

You're bent over. With eagerness.

Here's Dr Richard Dawkins highly detailed scientific analysis of the evolution of flight (highlights mine)..-

"My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees.. Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds.. Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees. Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees. (Climbing Mt. Improbable pp. 113–4)

Reading comments from the anti-science cabal, I think that the reasons they are denying facts are: they are extremely stupid, but also extremely frightened that God will punish them for denying the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. Even the Catholic Church recognizes and teaches evolution in their parochial schools. The Church doesn't see the issue as a conflict in faith. And as upsetting as this will be to those who revere the King James Bible, the New Testament and the Old Testament were originally translated from all the original languages by catholic scholars, a great deal of them monks.

The King James Version is close, but it came about (not immediately) because King Henry chaffed at the idea that he as a royal would need permission from the Pope (at the time treated as a royal) to divorce his first wife, Catherine. So, he made himself head of the Church of England. None of the other Kings in Europe made themselves head of a church, but that happened centuries ago, nobody should care anymore. I certainly don't care, and I was raised Catholic.
I'm married to a Baptist, and surprisingly both our families value the same beliefs, albeit expressed differently.

We were taught the basics of world religions, not to enforce our 'devotion' to the Catholic Church, but to become more aware of different belief systems and our responsibility to respect other faiths.

All that being said, I don't care what others believe i.e. differing faiths. I just don't want anyone trying to save my soul, debating which religion is the best, or listening to people condemning atheists, agnostics or claiming science is a religion.

So my best guess on why some deny evolution is twofold, fear and ignorance. If you are as fearful as Jerry Falwell was, you will fear to even question your own beliefs. Having questions is not sinful, if you believe in God, you should believe that God gave you the ability to learn, and you learn by asking questions.

Funny again!
And you don't read my postings!
I am not religious at all!!!

again, again, and again

I reject (macro)evolution, because there is NO evidence AND because it is a hoax from the start, read what I wrote about the Lunar Society!


Yo'r projecting, you'r the one that is afraid, because the evolutionshit is going down, just like the rest of that religion called science.

so be it.

Amen

How is everybody having their own individual set of beliefs to be prevented?

And why does gb read here and regale us with her simple thoughts if she doesn't care and doesn't want to listen to people condemning atheists, agnostics or claiming science is a religion.

It is now philosophically agreed that science is a religion. As an atheist I would condemn the promotion of my own conclusions.

Presenting the "ability to learn" as a feral activity would take us back far beyond the Stone Age.

And trying to smear people with the Falwell jibe is ignorant. Falwell has nothing to do with this discussion.

Says the duck who envisions itself an eagle. Ignorance is nothing to be proud of especially so much defiant ignorance.

"King Henry" is very vague there were 8 of them, even though 9 Henry's were crowned. You refer to Henry VIII, who did not make himself head of the Church Of England, but head of the church in England. He was still very much a Catholic, the C of E came later, with Edward VI.

He did not chafe at the idea of needing permission from the Pope to get a divorce. He was put out because the Poe would not grant him a divorce, not with the Emperor breathing down the Poe's neck, who was the nephew of Catherine of Aragon.

The King James Bible was the official English version as opposed to other versions, John Wycliffe's being the most notable example.

if it sounds like a duck..