132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 01:49 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
But, Q, somebody staging a photo is only evidence that somebody staged a photo.

If it contributed to the promulgation of evolutionary thinking becoming widespread I should think it helped to bring in the "Permissive Society" and all the depravities and debaucheries which accompanied it and which have evolved themselves under the influence of certain inexorable forces which the Catholic Church was invented to control in order that the culture we have inherited would become possible.

It must also have been a factor in the amassing of many large fortunes. So the real question is then-- did the amassers of the large fortunes exert any influence in getting faked photographs into a school-room science class and are there any other fakes in these books through which the soft tissue of the adolescent mind is forged into the hard-bitten, objective critical-thinking machine such as can be observed on this thread?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 01:51 pm
@spendius,
Yer a laugh a minute, spendi. No wonder fm doesn't ignore your posts, like I mostly do.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 02:14 pm
Are you fond of ****, or just commenting?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 02:28 pm
So its a shitty world and everybody in it is **** and so is god. You are a very sage person.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 03:36 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Yer a laugh a minute, spendi. No wonder fm doesn't ignore your posts, like I mostly do.


See what gems you miss because of your blinkered bigotry.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 04:16 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Are you sure youre not Gungas son? You both seem to have a preference for reports that are at least 50 years old. (A lots happened since then.like BIG DATA".
Kettelwell's work is basically correct. The accusation that biology stated that "evolution was in play" was a Creationist pile of bullshit. In Ehrlich and Holm's seminal work of evolutionary biology, they CLEARLY STATE THAT 'industrial melanism" is only an example of a selection process, NOT evolution itself. The simple fact was that the two forms of Biston betularia ALREADY showed the two color forms of the moth species (IT WAS A SINGLE SPECIES) one form didn't ARISE from the other. The Dark form, in Manchester,already occupied about 1 to 2% of the entire population UNTIL smog and increase in atmospheric pollution caused the Black form to actually INCREASE IN ITS PERCENTAGE OCCURENCE. No matter what ate the moths, their camouflage was an example of a natural selection process, not evolution in action. Evolution would have occurred with real isolation and speciation(Which NEVER occurred). Nowadays, the peppered moths qhite phse is the dominant occurring form.
The "IIcons f Evolution" crap is merely qeak attempt at an argument to discount mechanisms of selection nd evidence of population shifts due to (in this case) all predation.

Birds have only limited color sensitivity, bats(like Plecotus townsendi or myotis sodalis or leucifigus) can sense colorAND ultraviolet. So bring on your Counter evidence, Its just some Creationist projections trying to sound scientific.

What Wells and Hopper fail to discuss (cause its kinda embarrassing). The appearances of both forms of melanic forms of the moths statistically correlates with the appearance of industrial air pollution and , later, the restoration of the White form as the dominant form in Manchester. Miller reports that , as the environment improved nd the soot covers began to depurate, the reemergence of the white moths occurred in a gradually rising concentration. (Sorta like the bald eagle in the USA as we quit using DDT).
giujohn
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 04:19 pm
The reason that people of faith(read that blind faith)do not except science is that in order to be, say a good christian, the bible commands you to accept its teaching in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary...that is the hallmark of a good and faithful christain and hence the reason I use the term blind.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Sat 24 May, 2014 04:34 pm
Quote:
Glujohn said: the bible commands you to accept its teaching in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary..

That's putting it a bit strong mate, Jesus said he wants PALS, that's all!
"You're my friends if you follow me. I don't call you servants, but I call you friends"- (John 15:15)
So think of him more as a 'gang leader'!
I kinda like him for the way he bust the snooty priests asses..Smile

"The prostitutes are entering God's kingdom ahead of you, you think you look good in your fancy robes but inside you're full of filth and corruption" (Matt 21:31/Matt 23:27)
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/Jesus-v-snoots.gif~original
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 05:00 pm
@farmerman,
I assume that during the two changeovers the black and white moths could mate in the usual manner.

Who no grey moths when the trees were only partially depurated?
spendius
 
  2  
Sat 24 May, 2014 05:05 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Birds have only limited color sensitivity,


They can tell the difference between a £50 note from the Bank of England and one from the monopoly box. I've tried it.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 07:23 pm
@farmerman,
actually Bistun betulria has about 4 different color and pattern variants , not only peppered white and black. Theres a grey and an actual yellowish white . Only Kettlwell mentioned that in his work. the AIG and earlier frauds make claims of things that science never said or implied. Just like the Paluxey River "human" footprints found among the Cretaceous dinosaur footprints. The AIG people still act like that is fact when in 1989 two rubs from Texas confessed to carving sanding and overpainting the" human" footprints out of several of the dinosaur tracks.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 08:20 pm
@spendius,
Hebrews 11.1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 Corinthians 4:18
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

2 Corinthians 5:7
For we live by faith, not by sight.Things we cannot see.

Scripture gives examples of situations where belief alone is required, even commanded. There's no time for evidence collection, to wait, to hear, for certainty. Just believe. Like Peter walking on the water--don't think, act! God even requires us to believe in him when, temporarily, the evidence looks bad: to trust.
giujohn
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 08:35 pm
@giujohn,
John 20:29 - Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Sun 25 May, 2014 12:07 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Are you sure youre not Gungas son? You both seem to have a preference for reports that are at least 50 years old. (A lots happened since then.like BIG DATA".
Kettelwell's work is basically correct. The accusation that biology stated that "evolution was in play" was a Creationist pile of bullshit. In Ehrlich and Holm's seminal work of evolutionary biology, they CLEARLY STATE THAT 'industrial melanism" is only an example of a selection process, NOT evolution itself. The simple fact was that the two forms of Biston betularia ALREADY showed the two color forms of the moth species (IT WAS A SINGLE SPECIES) one form didn't ARISE from the other. The Dark form, in Manchester,already occupied about 1 to 2% of the entire population UNTIL smog and increase in atmospheric pollution caused the Black form to actually INCREASE IN ITS PERCENTAGE OCCURENCE. No matter what ate the moths, their camouflage was an example of a natural selection process, not evolution in action. Evolution would have occurred with real isolation and speciation(Which NEVER occurred). Nowadays, the peppered moths qhite phse is the dominant occurring form.
The "IIcons f Evolution" crap is merely qeak attempt at an argument to discount mechanisms of selection nd evidence of population shifts due to (in this case) all predation.

Birds have only limited color sensitivity, bats(like Plecotus townsendi or myotis sodalis or leucifigus) can sense colorAND ultraviolet. So bring on your Counter evidence, Its just some Creationist projections trying to sound scientific.

What Wells and Hopper fail to discuss (cause its kinda embarrassing). The appearances of both forms of melanic forms of the moths statistically correlates with the appearance of industrial air pollution and , later, the restoration of the White form as the dominant form in Manchester. Miller reports that , as the environment improved nd the soot covers began to depurate, the reemergence of the white moths occurred in a gradually rising concentration. (Sorta like the bald eagle in the USA as we quit using DDT).


It is ok if you don't understand, it is ok.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Sun 25 May, 2014 03:08 am
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

John 20:29 - Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.


There is that "believe" word again.

Beautiful use of it, I must say.

Doesn't sound at all like the guy is saying..."Some simply blindly guess that way."
spendius
 
  2  
Sun 25 May, 2014 04:39 am
@Frank Apisa,
Apisa, on his one note penny whistle, is a sworn opponent of the use of hypothesis.

Quote:

hypothesis
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2.
a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3.
the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4.
a mere assumption or guess.


Jesus had a hypothesis. It was that if we lived according to his ideas we would, or might, get out of the permanent **** we are in.

A sort of thought experiment similar to the ones Einstein undertook.

In fact Einstein is impossible. even as a guess, had the hypothesis of Jesus not been tried out.

The idea that a hypothesis is a blind guess is a blind guess. American foreign policy is a hypothesis, a guess. but it is not a blind guess.

By continuously stressing "blind" Apisa is marking his own exam papers and traducing the basic scientific method's source of inspiration.

He must think he is addressing credulous dimwits presumably hoping to persuade them that there is no need to follow the Christian teaching on sexual morality in order to pass as a respectable person and that others who reject Christian teaching will be eager ears for his ridiculous blind guess originally inspired by his dick and his need to produce women who are cheap and easy.

The whole of Darwin's Origins is an attempt to provide evidence for an original hypothesis (a guess) which had been made over 2,000 years previous to his birth.

And the hypothesis of Jesus was not a blind guess and it rang the bell for anybody who prefers our way of life to that which existed in His time and which He offered as a possible means of escape.

It is a guess that genetically modified crops are the answer to food shortage. It is not a blind guess though.

In view of Apisa's admitted financial situation it is difficult to imagine him having access to the services of a woman in a promiscuous milieux.

The man is a complete fool made all the more laughable by his blind guess that he is even averagely intelligent for which no evidence exists beyond his own assertions. Which he has now started shouting.

And the mountain of evidence that his self-stroking guess that A2K's members are all idiots speaks volumes on the side of the guess that he is as thick as a moss-covered boulder at rest in a valley.
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 25 May, 2014 04:59 am
@spendius,
The hypothesis that evolutionary principles represent the way we should live has plenty of evidence that it is cultural suicide.

People might deny evolution for no other reason. Those who use evolution as a method of undermining Christian morality are the very ones who lead others to deny evolution.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 25 May, 2014 06:56 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
Quote:

It is ok if you don't understand, it is ok.
Obviously you are unable to discuss anything intelligently. It is ok, perhaps you only wish to continue your mental Onanism
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 25 May, 2014 09:35 am
@farmerman,
If you would address my last two posts, fm, we might consider you not to be practicing mental Onanism yourself.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Sun 25 May, 2014 02:05 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Obviously you are unable to discuss anything intelligently. It is ok, perhaps you only wish to continue your mental Onanism


farmerman is trying to be very funny again!
Offcourse I am unable to discuss anything intelligently with someone who twists and distorts anything that is different from his religious believes.
It is simple not possible.
You are to deep in your religious beliefs and dogma's so it is extremely difficult if not impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you.
So, you are right! It can't be done! Wink

But that is ok, just keep praying to your dawkins and your hawkins and sit quit on your knees adoring these idiots while in the same time denying your own power!

It is ridiculous to see!

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 01:33:23