Why do people deny evolution?

@parados,

Quote:

The chapter I linked to makes the claim that if there was 1 random change per year on a 3 billion pair DNA then after 660,100,000 million years 22% of the billion pairs would have changed from the original. Another mathematical error from one of your sources. Can you spot the error?

660,100,00 million years?? lol ok ok
the earth isn't that old! lol

true.

But one day you have to face it. try soms stats and there is no evolution left!

please explain why you still believe in a hoax that is wrong from the begining?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Evolution is amoral; neither good nor bad. Alcohol is amoral; neither good nor bad.

Only the human uses of both can be said to be moral or immoral.

And yet:

spendius wrote:

I think all amorality is wrong.

So which is it?

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

I said that all amorality is wrong. fm said I should think about that. I asked him what he had in mind. He has not replied.

Would you like me to present an amoral appraisal of the human female animal? I could cut and paste Ted Hughes's effort in a note on page 11 of his famous book Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being. Or Schopenauer's Essay on Women. Or Veblen's The Barbarian Status Of Women and The Economic Theory of Women's Dress. All are amoral to perfection. As are many others I could name.

And you must have missed fm's little homily on assertions of being engulfed in laughter.

And we don't want to know about your negotiations regarding your sexual favours with some guy who is not here to question your opinion of him. Had he had $10 million in the bank I dare speculate that you would have overlooked any insecurities he might have had.

Many women who are seeing someone else react as you claim to have done. It's a bluff in those cases.

0 Replies

I seriously doubt this guy Queho can understand much, let alone evolution. Some things are just too complicated for some people.

1 Reply

@parados,

It has been explained to you para that 175 million to 1 every week for nearly 14 billion years boils down to a certainty. Or at least a good thing.

The comparison is jejeune and I don't blame Q for not responding.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I seriously doubt this guy Queho can understand much, let alone evolution. Some things are just too complicated for some people.

That is one way of defending your stupid religion.

But you seem to blind to the fact that there is no evidence,

I am really curious why you can't see that,

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

"Evolution uses whats there and does something different with it"

Evolution neither uses what is there nor does anything with it. You're imagining evolution as an animate being you silly old sweetie. Only God could use what is there or do something with it.

gb told me off for using naughty words. Obviously she makes special allowances for you. But I am not soft-headed enough to suggest you two get a room as you have often done in such cases.

0 Replies

@Builder,

I wasn't meaning "general incompetence" in quite the way you have taken it.

Skill is a relative term. And applies to things of various orders.

A friend of my fathers built a working steam locomotive with carriages and track out of the metal waste bins in the engineering factory in which he worked. The last time I saw him was at an annual festival and he was giving kids a ride, ten at a time, with smoke billowing out from the stack.

I thought that skillful. It took him ten years. He never married. A complete evolutionary failure.

Have you ever seen Ronnie O'Sullivan make a 147 break in 5 minutes and 20 seconds? Cueing both left and right handed.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Both.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

May I ask why you care in the first place?

If you DO REALLY care for truth rather than being afraid of it, I suggest you start with analysing your own motivations.

0 Replies

@spendius,

So in other words, your argument about evolution being bad is complete hogswallow.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Oh my god, the level here, unbelievable

Yes, it does seem to be far above you. You come here proclaiming you know more than anyone else and then you can't even discuss basic concepts or answer simple questions. You simply throw bombs and then run away when challenged.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

I see you avoided the math error. It seems you are unable to do simple odds. If you bothered to quote my last post, you would see I already responded to your idiotic claim about doing stats. The 22% claim is done by someone that can't do stats since they make some rather egregious errors having to do with random events.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

It has been explained to you para that 175 million to 1 every week for nearly 14 billion years boils down to a certainty. Or at least a good thing.

The comparison is jejeune and I don't blame Q for not responding.

Yes, it does boil down to a certainty. But Q is arguing the certainty is impossible because his sources use the equivalent of the 1 in 175 million to argue that it can't happen while ignoring the billions of years and the billions of billions of billions of organisms that have existed.

That is why he won't answer my question because he recognizes that to do so would show his argument to be false.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

I see you avoided the math error. It seems you are unable to do simple odds. If you bothered to quote my last post, you would see I already responded to your idiotic claim about doing stats. The 22% claim is done by someone that can't do stats since they make some rather egregious errors having to do with random events.

From my point of view it looks like you are the one that doesn't really understand random events.

That's ok.

And there is lot more out there that can convince you that if you do the math (macro)evolution is really impossible.
I know, I know, you won't do any research , I know.

That is the reason there is no evidence.

It is all wishfull thinking on your site.

Now repeat after me, there was never, there is never, and there will be never any evidence for (macro) evolution. Because it really is impossible.

1 Reply

I wish Ican were still here. Mike had it determined that the odds AGAINST us being where we are without intelligent help were 314,159,265,358,979,364,287,457,096,384,593 to one against. (Or something close to that.)

I remember mentioning to him that if existence is eternal and infinite…that would be about a dead certainty FOR.

But at least he had numbers…and calculations to back ‘em up.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I remember ican. We finally got him to agree that the "Intelligence" in intelligent design was what a chemical does when in the presence of another chemical of different properties.

You've got admit that, no matter where one comes from on the worldview scale, someone like Quahog just shows his vast unending
supply of obtuseness.

Quote:

But at least he had numbers…and calculations to back ‘em up.

but, like Quahog, he had not the beginning of an idea about how evolution/development even worked

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I remember ican. We finally got him to agree that the "Intelligence" in intelligent design was what a chemical does when in the presence of another chemical of different properties.

You've got admit that, no matter where one comes from on the worldview scale, someone like Quahog just shows his vast unending
supply of obtuseness.

Quote:
But at least he had numbers…and calculations to back ‘em up.
but, like Quahog, he had not the beginning of an idea about how evolution/development even worked

Amen, fm!

I argued with Ican for almost three years, before he posted something in another thread that convinced me, for all the calculations and supposed logic, he was really just a fundamentalist Christian insisting on some things for no other reason than that.

Q apparently is not a fundamentalist Christian...but he just seems to be in love with contrary ideas. Some of his notions (most of them, actually) are pretty far out there.

Good luck getting through.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

From your point of view, you may see a lot of things. That doesn't make your math correct.

What are the chances of there being no duplicates if you randomly pick a number between 1 and 3 billion 660 million times? Yet your author assumes there would be no duplicates when he claims 22%.

The problem here Q is that when I try to ask you questions which would be research, you don't answer me. The math you claim proves evolution can't happen is rife with errors that you can't defend.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

The problem with that calculation is it only shows odds of being where we are.

It is the lottery example I have brought up. The odds of one person winning the lottery is 1 in 175 million. But with millions of players the odds of there being a winner are much smaller. We can't predict the winner but we can predict it is likely there will be one. Going back after there is a winner and stating the odds of them winning doesn't prove they didn't win.

Likewise with evolution, we can't predict what species will evolve but we can pretty clearly predict that a species will evolve. Because we exist only means we are the winners out of all the other possible outcomes.

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know