Why do people deny evolution?

Not true I am not religious at all, your fantasizing



But no example offcourse mentioned, figures.



Don't you think it is strange a court is needed for ehhhh 'science'
A strange thing indeed.

But one question now you couldn't answer so far.

where in godsname is the evidence for (macro)evolution?

where? where? where?

I don't recall saying anything which justifies you engaging in that rant para,

There seems to be some sort of immaterial "ha-ha" between you lot and evolution.

A " ha-ha" is a landscaping feature which provides uninterrupted views of the park and prevents the deer or the sheep coming close to the picture windows. Or cows shitting on the lawn. A trench in which the unsightly barrier is located.

Such a feature allows innocent visitors, usually ladies, to imagine they are in the park when they are not.

They are called "ha-ha's" because discovering them after being deluded is often thought amusing.

A senior General's uniform during hearings on TV is the same sort of thing. Or ladies' fashions. Graduation certificates even.

Trying to blather scientifically is not one because it can be clearly seen from long distances in all directions.

Your post seems to me to be an excellent reason for denying evolution. The 9th on this thread following the 8 I have provided, none of which have been responded to if insults and ad homs don't count as responses. Which they don't. A duck's back is more responsive to a drop of water than I am to insults and innuendos. My NCOs in military training saw to that.

You could throw me into a pond of insults, innuendos and other floating ****, of a viscosity approaching Bisto gravy when properly made, and I would come up with a 1 oz. Gold Britannia gleaming in my teeth. And grinning sheepishly. A facial expression which I understand Americans have a name for but which I wouldn't name here in case any well brought up English ladies are watching.

I have provided 8 different reasons why "people deny evolution", and now para has added another, although it really is a long version of one of my 8.

And not a peep from you or anybody else about them.

What do you mean by "back to the subject"?

I'll now read the rest of it but such an inauspicious introduction doesn't exactly have me trembling with excited expectancy.

sounds like spndi just finished Bill Brysons book about the evolution of the "home'.Many of his observations come right out of Bryson's fertile mind.

Never heard of him but after that I will lokk the guy up.

Having read the rest of the post now there is no other conclusion that it is off topic. Trolling even. Coming on a thread about why people deny evolution with stuff which belongs on a thread about persuading people who do deny evolution not to be so idiotic.

With you defining "idiotic" the post is circular and thus drivel. As well as being off topic and trolling.

And it goes nowhere because the person who is being persuaded will never agree to being an idiot.

It would be easier to persuade an evolutionist that he's an idiot.

now , don't blaspheme!!

If you've red as much as you say you hve, what have you missed?
Genetics?
Paleo
Biogeography
evo/devo
transitional fossils
fossil genes
seeing actual speciation (and above ) occurring in the Holocene

Ive made a very good living in my practice which includes many aspects of evolution in economic geology*. When a discipline works, that may not be 100% fact but its close enough.

* we use many forms of variograms, krigging, and trend surface analyses to set up exploration of certain sedimentary industrial minerals .







.

And your inability to answer whether you believe anyone has ever won the lottery is a look into your mind. You clearly recognize the math you say proves evolution can't exist is wrong otherwise you would answer my simple question.

So, your rants are justified? Hmmm...............


I am curious why you feel some amorality is wrong but other amorality is OK.

I have never said that. Nor even intimated it. My rants are my rants. The readers of them, such as they are, decide whether they are justified.

If anybody feels that they are better off for being abled 2 know what a "ha-ha" is as a result of my post, in which the description of one was a literary form of the device, then they must feel it was justified.

I think all amorality is wrong. It might only be irony but the real thing is imo wrong. And science is the real thing. If I put a scientific cap on my head to talk about the abductions in Nigeria I am only doing the same as Swift did when recommended that the Irish eat their fattened up babies. He was misunderstood of course. At the time.

It remains a scientific fact that the human species is improved by exogamy and deteriorates with endogamy. The First Lady ought to consider such things before she grabs a photo-op to show that she has as tender a little heart as the rest of us. To collect votes.

From which you might see that gravitation and spaghetti monsters and Big Bangs and alleles and cladistics and fossils and what not have nothing to do with why people deny evolution. They might well fear becoming lost with scientific amorality. Adrift.

But somehow even though you need no justification for multiple rants you require I do have justification for what you think is a rant?

Clearly you don't feel that way as you indulge yourself in the amoral pint.

think about that

Not at all. I'll judge the rant and not you.

I don't see pints as amoral.

I have done. What have you in mind? If I have missed something I will consider it.

So you see them as immoral?

Alcohol can be both moral and immoral. On balance I think it moral.

What point are you trying to make?

Things are amoral until humans use them. The use can be moral or immoral.

Evolution is amoral. Some people might think the use to which it is put, or might be put, immoral and thus will tend to deny it. Electricity can be used immorally.

Why do people accept evolution? It is not yet clear that acceptance of evolution is a force for good in terms of our use of "good".

But is that a force for good or a force for evil? It being good for you is neither here nor there. Fracking is good for frackers.

There seems to be a difference between "krigging" and "kriging". I assume kriging was meant because the geostatistical technique is named after Danie Krige (1919-2013) and relies to some extent, maybe to a large extent, om a priori assumptions.

Suppose the Catholic Church is the referee in the confrontation of Science and the people.

Then the question arises whether or not the confrontation should have a referee. Even to the extent that Science is protected by having a referee.