Why do people deny evolution?

The enormous stupidity the question reveals is yours. You are the one that claimed to have studied the math. Then when asked specifically about the math you can't answer any questions. You have revealed yourself for what you are. I will keep pointing it out.

Do what you have to do. I really don't give a damn.

I told you, and the readers here, that you are really showing signs of insanity.

That you don't understand that is part of your insanity.


Just go on. make a fool of yourself.

You don't highlight it for me para because I don't know what exactly the math dispute is all about. If you will explain I might be able to come to the conclusion you have in mind.

One of fm's methods is to assert that the evidence for Darwinian evolution is provided by paleo. He has done it many times. And it impresses ed.

Now, Oswald Spengler cites paleontology as the very source of the disproof of Darwinian evolution. And makes an argument of some length providing what look like facts to back up what he says. All fm does is assert that paleo. proves DE.

And fm. and ed. are the two who bleat most about evidence.

And Spengler is possibly the most influential philosopher of all time and is only neglected because of the difficult nature of his philosophy and its inaccessibility for the common run of mankind of the type that is born about once a minute.

People want simple philosophies and DE is right up their street.

Reason No 17 for why people deny evolution.

It allows for the chance of the denier not being as common as muck. Which is actually what paleontology specialises in. It scrabbles through the muck hoping to become famous, or at least exhaust the budget rather than top it up, by offering to solve a problem that cannot be solved.

And any progress only renders the problem more difficult in a functional relation to the intelligence of the muck explorer.

As far as I can tell paleontology has quite exhausted all of its possibilities and is now under the guidance, hopefully, of chaps on expenses having long camping holidays in warm out of the way places accompanied by their research assistant/s who they have hand picked themselves on strict scientific grounds such as being able to fit snugly on a regulation camp bed.

Isn't that about right fm?

spendius said

I dont think he looks stupid...I think he looks like god.

You mean Franck doesn't exist?

Only for those who believe in him I guess...and I said "looks like".

But you don't exchange any ideas. Youre just a silly coward with nothing intelligent to add.

polymer chemistry is the story of cells, DNA, and life.
Life is nothing more than electrons "hooking up". why do we need a super intelligence to oxidize something .
When the seas were oresent overlying the first traces of oceanic ridges (boout 3.8 Bya), we see evidence of C12 deposits in strata next to "Black Smokers". Then we see evidence of real cellular life about 0.5 billion years later. Think chemistry and enrgy released by oxidation of H2S and Iron Sulphide.
Could the Darwinian primordial" soup" also be black smokers or alkali serpentine bodies that hydrolyze and release energy for proto polymer cells to use as metabolic "foodstuff"?

Look! Look!

It is projecting again!

Oh so funny!

Look who's talking.

the coward attempts speech. Perhaps itll be walking upright soon

That's serious reductionism fm.

Ladies as an epidermal membrane containing polymers sloshing about?

We need, or most people do, a super intelligence to explain the mystery and polymer chemistry and hooked up electrons have no style.

What's unreal cellular life?

If black smokers are needed why was BP fined?

youre in your manic stage again.

See! the 'coward' ( he calls himself that because he projects) has really nothing to say.


Figures.

I take it, fm, that you find my posts both valid and unanswerable.

May I have the privilege of inviting you, and your profoundly unscientific claque, to Google "consanguinity" and read the entry in Wikipedia.

Why you want to promote ideas which have consequences in terms of genetic disorders is a mystery to me unless it is to further the economic interests of those professions which treat such things as best they can.

Might I suggest that the scientific alternative to the thrice reading of the banns for a proposed marriage in a public arena would be that the prospective partners submit to a DNA test and are legally required to abandon their project, which is, despite Hollywood, an economic one, should the test show a common ancestor at the fourth remove.

Or to be even more sure of reducing genetic disorders, the ninth remove, which the Church once demanded but gave up for pragmatic reasons.

Your only alternative, from a scientific point of view, is that you accept the genetic disorders as a price to be paid for the conveniences you demand.

It might be argued that compulsory attendance at churches where banns are read is justified on the grounds that the whole community is more likely to identify a risk to genetic health in this respect than only a small proportion of it.

In the ninth century the church raised the number of prohibited degrees to seven

Wilso is one of the few A2Kers whose marriage would have legitimacy in those days.

When is an evolutionist going to get up the nerve to rebut the idea that the abduction of the Nigerian schoolgirls is a good thing from a scientific point of view.

It is reasonable to assume that in a place such as Chibok nearly 300 young females were fated, on average, to become engaged in sexual relationships of a low degree of consanguinity.

No 18. A reason for denying evolution is that a person might engage in mawkish sentimentalities concerning those young ladies which are not only unscientific but dangerous and remain innocently oblivious to the facts.

Cecil Rhodes, whose legacy lives on in American academic life, said "****' em white".

How do you assume that? is it a desire of yours that I validate your babblings and your run-on disconnected thoughts?



Id rather not. My expertise is in applied science , not clinical psych

In which case you should be able to justify your simple assertion that paleo. proves evolution as against Spengler's argument, offering much more than assertion, that paleo. disproves it.



Q is probably unaware that I have had to put up with that sort of thing for ten years.

You do validate my babblings but refusing to respond to them in the accepted scientific manner. You have not a single scientific cell in your body old boy. Absolutely. I don't think you have ever met a scientist.

Go drill for some more oil and **** us all up even more than we are.

offcourse not.

òne: your absolutely no expert, too much insults.

two: applied? Do you even know what that is?

three: science is just a religion, don't be too proud that you have been indoctrinated for years.

Let's face it, it are all 'hollow words'.


Besides that, why in the hell should I believe you? I see no evidence anywhere where you can proof your above 'statements' Till that time, just hollow words, nothing, nothing more.


Now, something of substance farmergirl?




Spendius: Now I am aware.

( 10 years???? pfff )

That pretty much explains you and your reason for being here. Have a nice day.