Why do people deny evolution?

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

That's his 'christian' spirit, and I admire him for it! LOL

I bet you do. Romeo is right up the atheist's street. He presents no challenge. He's like the chap at the fairground who sets up the coconuts for the punters who he has nothing but contempt for.

0 Replies

@Builder,

Quote:

Would you care to decribe this "Christian sexual morality" that your sentence pertains to?

I have done many times Builder.

Quote:

And why would you conclude that this "morality" is inconvenient?

From the ignorant and obsessive efforts to contradict it disguised with a patina, a very thin one and then only on rare occasions, of science. Blurting being the usual method.

0 Replies

@Builder,

I can assure you Builder that our pet evolutionists are not ready to have Christian sexual morality, rules pertaining to dicks and cunts, contradicted scientifically.

Which I can do.

0 Replies

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Quote:
The answer is obvious and it is to do with Christian sexual morality being inconvenient for you.

Would you care to decribe this "Christian sexual morality" that your sentence pertains to? And why would you conclude that this "morality" is inconvenient?

Spendi and sex. It ALWAYS returns to sex.

2 Replies

@Wilso,

Quote:

Spendi and sex. It ALWAYS returns to sex.

It isn't about anything else but sex Wilso. Read Germaine Greer. She used to be a Sheila and now she a professor, no less, and often to be seen on TV being consulted about matters related.

I know what the problem is for your side. You see!!

It is that you are so straight-jacketed and all buttoned up by Christian etiquette and delicacy that you are unable to bring yourselves to arrive at the obvious objective to which your position inexorably trends. You leave that to be vaguely understood at best. Not at all by the under 12s. (Mental age I mean).

This leads you to repress from consciousness the objective and thus you can't write your ending. Hence the terribly tiresome repetitiveness. If you could arrive at the clear conclusion you could make a reasoned choice. As I did. But only after a long period which made your antics look like those of a particularly puritanical curate.

You can't overthrow a long tradition of Christian sexual morality without having something in its place given the nature of the sexual magnetism when it is of the peek-a-boo type. In evolution it is necessary to wait for the mating season which, with animals of our size, does not occur so often.

And the kids in the lower grades use your shock words in everything they say. Just in case you think there's something terrifically daring in it.

Your two words of choice being ALWAYS returning to sex. And of one sort. Misogynistic. Which is why you don't choose "prick".

What possible interest do you have in finches beaks? You're pulling your own leg old chap.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

You can't overthrow a long tradition of Christian sexual morality without having something in its place given the nature of the sexual magnetism when it is of the peek-a-boo type.

So God created the sexual impulse, only to ask us to negate it?

1 Reply

Quote:

Glitterbug said about me: I admit that thank God, this moron wasn't born and raised in the USA.

So you admit there's a God? Good for you sweetheart.. Smile

Quote:

Glitterbug also said about me: his admirable respect for women.

I want Sarah Palin to be President even if you catty American women don't.. Smile

As for women in general, this is how real women should be:-

"A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come." (Proverbs 31)

"Wives, your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes.
Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit" (1 Peter 3:3)

0 Replies

@Wilso,

I dare say that spendi has sex on his mind most of the time; over 50% perhaps.
Is that normal? LOL

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

So God created the sexual impulse, only to ask us to negate it?

Not to negate it. To give it utility.

It is the same with the eating instinct. And the fear instinct.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I dare say that spendi has sex on his mind most of the time; over 50% perhaps.
Is that normal?

It depends on whether you can watch Hayley Turner riding a furious finish only to come second, as she did today, with a smile or not.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Not to negate it. To give it utility.

Animals don't need morals to make sex useful... Why should we?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You,

Quote:

Animals don't need morals to make sex useful... Why should we?

All so true, except that we humans must contend with societal rules and regulations. In the animal kingdom, the most powerful rules.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Violence is controlled out of self-protection: nobody wants to be killed or raped or beaten up so we all agree to forbid those things. What problem is there if two persons have sex outside of marriage, or between two persons of the same sex?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You,

Quote:

Violence is controlled out of self-protection:

That's probably true in the majority, but we do have exceptions to every rule/laws. Some act out of 'mental illness' and/or drugs.

0 Replies

Ye Gods!!!

1 Reply

@spendius,

That should be "Ye gods!!!." No such thing exists; only in people's minds.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Have you ever thought, ci., that God had to make the earth so that it's gravitational pull was just so exactly adjusted so that if His man dropped a brick he had time to get his foot out of the way but it being not enough time to try his patience.

His man had to have limited patience before he was capable of handling the helpmeet He was designing.

Whether evolution could have made this adjustment I will have to think about. If it did then Evolution's to blame for everything. The Church is only doing what it can to referee the situation having made a great effort to read from the facts of life what God must have had in mind when He was satisfied with Eve. That she was tickety-boo for the riddle He was setting.

Or refereeing evolution if that's your preference. If it is then you either need, yes, need, to decide whether you think evolution needs no referee or, if you don't fancy that on reflection, what sort of referee you would support?

And because what is being refereed is the facts of life some wool-over-the-eyes methods will be required whatever sort of referee you choose.

Thus, as you are opposed to wool-over-the-eyes methods and, I hope, also opposed to dispensing with a referee, you are facing both ways.

There is no way that another sort of referee won't be faced with the same logistical problems that the Church has faced even if it is for biological reasons rather that it being Big Daddy wot did it.

0 Replies

Anyway, it is extremely clear now that math/statistcs can show that evolution is an impossibility!

evolution is used to accept communism/fascism!
(children in Hitler's youth were drilled into evolution!)

So, actually we have to remove the whole evolution iedea out of schools asap.

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

WHAT NAZIS REALLY "BELIEVED"

Quote:

Social Darwinism was derived from a misapplication of scientific thinking, has no real basis in the biological theory of evolution, and was not an idea advanced by Charles Darwin, whom Hitler never mentioned in any of his surviving speeches or writings.

Even if Hitler believed that evolutionary theory justified his destructive and oppressive vision, this does not undermine the theory's basis; what people do with an idea has no bearing on the scientific validity of that idea. Using Hitler's supposed belief in evolution as an argument against evolutionary science is an example of the logical fallacy of an argument from adverse consequences, suggesting that we should not accept the theory of evolution because it could lead to the kind of racist views perpetuated by Hitler. It is also an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, implying that because Darwin's theory came into being before Hitler's racism, that the former necessarily caused the latter. Even if there were connections between the theory of evolution, social Darwinism and the Holocaust, this does not imply that evolution is a dangerous theory, only that Hitler perverted the theory to justify his beliefs and actions.

By way of contrast, Hitler admired Robert Koch, an important figure in the discovery of the germ theory of disease, and compared his campaigns against the Jews and other "undesirables" to a type of social or national disinfection. But this is completely irrelevant to the universal medical/scientific acceptance of germ theory.

However, it seems that there is at least some evidence to suggest that, far from embracing Darwin's work and social Darwinism, the Nazis tried to ban them. The 1935 edition of the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, Die Bücherei, contains a list of banned books. One of the entries in this edition of Die Bücherei is "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)".[1]

Remember, Quahog is completely ignorant of anything accurate and historical.

AND , WHAT WAS STALIN ALL ABOUT?

Quote:

Stalin actually opposed the theory of evolution. By the 1930's, most biologists believed that genetics were the driving force behind evolution. Stalin, thus, felt that the theory of evolution was too closely linked to Hitlers ideas on eugenics and fascism. He made teaching evolution flat out illegal in the Soviet Union. Stalin was actually quoted as saying that darwinism was "the whore of capitalism." Stalin made Trofim Lysenko the Director of Soviet Biology. Lysenko argued that life spontaneously came into existence and he spread this belief in Soviet propaganda. When you really look at Stalin's ideas about biology, evolution, and genetics, they match creationists ideas almost 100%. How does it feel to be walking in the shadow of Joseph Stalin you Christian Crusaders

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

Anyway, it is extremely clear now that math/statistcs can show that evolution is an impossibility!

Only idiots like you assert such bullshit. Any asshole can "make up" fallacious statistics to support their dumass beliefs.
Why not post some of your "math" and lets analyze it dipshit.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know