Why people reject evolution

you guys are such lame airheads.

haha

This forum needs a way to give likes!

why do people reject theories ?

why do people mistake a theory for fact ?

Are you about to proclaim your allegiance to the hordes that don't know what the word "theory" means?

For many reasons. In the case of evolution, I explained it in the first post of this thread.

....until the Theory of Evolution becomes the Law of Evolution, it's perfectly reasonable to question it.

....and you didn't explain anything in post #1....you beauzeau. Now, why don't you go bake the smarta$$ outta your pie !

I love the way these threads always turn very Lord of the Flies

Two tribes - the "Science deniers" and the "Damned for all Eternity".

beauzeau :)  I like that

Law and theory is just a title, it doesn't mean much what word is used really.

I think it's mostly creationist people that like to put a THEORY in front, instead of just calling it evolution, because they think it makes it look more like a vague idea or something. You don't really change much just by shuffling words around though.

Oh the irony. You realize that the Standard Model is regarded by many physcists as the most unsatisfying theory in all physics. It has 19 parameters that cannot be explained from more fundamental underlying principles, which is why the governing equation is so complicated. Nobody believes that the Standard Model represents the most fundamental truth of the universe.

On the other hand, evolution is regarded as the fundamental principle that unifies all of biology, from the level of "molecule, cellular organelle, cell, tissue, organ, individual, Mendelian population, species, community, and ecosystem." Evolution says that we diverged from common ancestors. Nothing else explains at once the unity and diversity of life, from the fundamental DNA that encodes all life, to the proteins that form life's machinery, to the structures of cells and organs, to all the species that we see today and in the past, and to the way ecosystems interact.

       "Evolution says that everything initially came from a big explosion." No, it does not. Physics does.

Not only that but the Second Law only applies to closed systems, our planet is not a closed system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9gf0_vRaEE

The Flying Spaghetti Monster says:

Attack evolution!

Reject evolutionist dogma!

God is real!

Have Faith!

Nope. Theories are facts, it's just not completelly justifiable or justified. For example, gravity is a theory. We can describe that objects fall as a law, we can give it's speed and acceleration, but no one really knows why gravity happens. As much as we can feel it, gravity is just a theory.

So is evolution. It's a proven fact by experience, but no one really knows "how" some aspects happen, like some mutations that end up developing evolutionary traits. 

How about if people eject revolution instead ?....wouldn't that be more interesting ?

I regularily eject revolution.

This thread is finally getting somewhere.

IFPATRIOTGAMES

To reject both as ridiculous is to assume that we have no beginning and that the cosmos is an infinite system with no beginning which is, by definition ridiculous. We now know that this is impossible. 1) The universe is expanding from a central point, suggesting a starting position, 2) 1965, Penzious and Wilson found Radiation Afterglow left over from an intial explosion, 3) 1992 the Cobe Space Satelite found Great Galaxy Seeds (look into that significance), and as has already been mentioned, 4) the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that cyclical systems always stay the same or increase when we have found that they universe is actually winding down. All of this proves that our universe is not a closed system and it is not a infinite/revolving process. It must have, instead, had a beginning since Einstiens theory of general relativity says that time, space, and matter must exist at the same time. There was never one without the other. Therefore, whatever caused the beginngin point (call it big bang or whatever) must have been timless, spaceless, and imaterial. We call this God.

Cool. None of this has anything to do with evolution. Unless you assume there were living things around in the big bang? 

Post one explains your stance perfectly. Evolution is a theory of biology; one might suggest it is a simple logical step to understand that where there are no living things, evolution theory does not apply. In the same way that you cant really use neurology for much if you try to describe the surface of the moon, due to the disturbing lack of brains on the surface on the moon.