Why do people get so amazingly touchy about the theory of evolution?

Question

Specifically: many of the atheists who believe in evolution...why are they so defensive about what they believe?

All of the major "icons" of darwinism have proven complete bunk scientifically...yet people "look the other direction" regarding this...and bash people who point them out...why?

The Miller Experiment - abandoned by "Science" magazine because "the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation".

Darwin's "tree of life" - negated by the Cambrian Explosion and lack of fossile records.

Haekel's Embryos - shown to be fudged, distorted, and purposefully misleading!

The archaeoraptor - the link between dinosaurs and birds...a fake! A chinese paleontologist had actually glued a dinosaur tail to a primitive bird!

Java man? "Derived" from a skullcap, a femur, three teeth...and LOTS of imagination!!!

...and it goes on...

But why so defensive...?!?

-

Answer 1

"Denial" is *not* just a river in Egypt!

Mr. Darwin, himself, was ready to abandon his theory before he died, since no one had yet found the "missing link", although he postulated that missing links, i.e. fossils of transitional forms of life between species, should be plentiful! To this day, no one has yet found such fossils (simply because such transitional forms of life never existed)! We have surely all heard of Piltdown man; but have you ever heard of "Piltdown chicken" (AKA: Archaeopteryx), that "Nebraska man" was fabricated on the *single* tooth of a wild pig, that Neanderthal man may well be simply a few bones partial fossilized bones of individual Homo Sapiens who suffered from severe arthritis (osteo, nutritional, rheumatoid, etc.)? Does anyone remember Peking man, whose fossilized remains disappeared in 1945? Conveniently, these remains disappeared before the development of the modern day technology which established Piltdown to be a fraud!

I love to bring up "first cause" to the worshippers at the "altar of evolution," because first *something* had to be formed out of *nothing (this includes the entire universe and all of the multiple centillions of matter and energy therein) in order for that something to evolve into life and then into another form of life! However, many evolutionists on this forum, would rather say that my argument is not germane, rather than address the substance of my argument!

Many people have written books (see references below)claiming some serious difficulties for those who in believe in evolution. One of these authors, Michael Behe, has admitted a couple of *small* errors in his book. Evolutionists jump on *this* fact with both feet to try to discredit his *entire* book, thus avoiding the issues and facts he establishes which have *not* been discredited!

I'm still waiting for someone to show me and the rest of the world, how honeybees, woodpeckers, giraffes, the Bombideer Beetle, etc., could *possibly* have evolved!

PS: "Andrew P": The serpent did not become a snake until *after* he deceived Eve!

Answer 2

I even have taken diverse anthropology instructions, and understand the theory of evolution completely. inspite of the shown fact that, I additionally think of that nature is purely too suited and too desirable that all of it 'purely occurring' is purely too unbelievable. So, i think i'd fall decrease than 'smart layout', yet not interior the way that maximum folk think of of it now (ie, human beings attempting to get creationism taught in colleges) yet interior the literal sense, meaning that we've been by some ability created with the help of a a great way better ability, and evolution, if it grow to be the case (it does have its holes, yet so do all theories to describe how we've been given right here) would have been directed with the help of this greater ability truly than being thoroughly random genetic mutations. so a great way as Noah's Ark, i don't likely understand - on the least, i don't have faith a wood boat could've survived 4000 years uncovered on real of a mountain. very just about each way of existence in existence has some form of flood tale (alongside with a introduction tale and a narrative of a deity being resurrected), which seems to point that faster or later in very distant historic previous, there grow to be a flood that just about thoroughly coated the factors of the earth generally used to human beings on the time.

Answer 3

Posting a science question in the religion and spirituality section often means the asker does not really want an answer. His goal is to ask a question that he believes proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet answer, and make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god, and specifically, the same god he happens to believe in.

It's the "god of the gaps" - intellectually bankrupt, since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, and because of the contained logical fallacy.

However, on the off chance that you really want to know the answer:

--


The miller experiment:

1. Since his first experiment, Miller and others have experimented with other atmospheric compositions, too (Chang et al. 1983; Miller 1987; Schlesinger and Miller 1983; Stribling and Miller 1987). Complex organic molecules form under a wide range of prebiotic conditions.

2. It is possible that life arose well away from the atmosphere -- for example, around deep-sea hydrothermal vents. This could make the atmospheric content largely irrelevant.

3. The early atmosphere, even if it was oxidizing, was nowhere near as oxidizing as it is today. It was likely high in hydrogen, which facilitates the formation of organic molecules (Tian et al. 2005).

Links:
Gishlick, Alan D. n.d. Icons of evolution? Miller-Urey experiment. http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html

Tamzek, Nic. 2002. Icon of obfuscation. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Miller-Urey
References:

1. Chang, S., D. DesMarais, R. Mack, S. L. Miller, and G. E. Strathearn. 1983. Prebiotic organic syntheses and the origin of life. In: Schopf, J. W., ed., Earth's Earliest Biosphere: Its Origin and Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 53-92.
2. Miller, S. L. 1987. Which organic compounds could have occurred on the prebiotic earth? Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 52: 17-27.
3. Schlesinger, G. and S. L. Miller. 1983. Prebiotic synthesis in atmospheres containing CH4, CO, and CO2. I. Amino acids. Journal of Molecular Evolution 19: 376-382.
4. Stribling, R. and S. L. Miller. 1987. Energy yields for hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde syntheses: the HCN and amino acid concentrations in the primitive ocean. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 17: 261-273.
5. Tian, F., O. B. Toon, A. A. Pavlov and H. De Sterck. 2005. A hydrogen-rich early Earth atmosphere. Science 308: 1014-1017. See also: Chyba, C. F. 2005. Rethinking Earth's early atmosphere. Science 308: 962-963.



The cambrian explosion:

1. The Cambrian explosion does not show all groups appearing together fully formed. some animal groups (and no plant, fungus, or microbe groups) appearing over many millions of years in forms very different, for the most part, from the forms that are seen today.

2. During the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts, such as shells and teeth, in animals. The lack of readily fossilizable parts before then ensures that the fossil record would be very incomplete in the Precambrian. The old age of the Precambrian era contributes to a scarcity of fossils.

3. The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods.

4. Genetic evidence also shows a branching pattern in the Precambrian, indicating, for example, that plants diverged from a common ancestor before fungi diverged from animals.

Haeckel's embryos:
1. Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Within a group, early embryos do show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks, arthropods, and annelids. These similarities have been long known. Professor Agassiz in 1849, for example, said, "We find, too, that the young bat, or bird, or the young serpent, in certain periods of their growth, resemble one another so much that he would defy any one to tell one from the other--or distinguish between a bat and a snake." (Scientific American 1849)

2. The embryos also show some differences, which Haeckel glossed over. However, differences should also be expected, since the animals are not all equally related. It is the pattern of both similarities and differences that displays patterns of descent. Organisms that are less closely related are expected to look less similar.

3. When Haeckel's inaccuracies were exposed, authors started using corrected versions. Science tends to be self-correcting.

Archaeopteryx - cite your sources

Answer 4

I think you just demonstrated why people get annoyed.

You have obnoxiously given nothing but a string of dishonest propaganda, out-right lies, and mud throwing. Worse, it's the same old urban-myths that go around and around and around your camp (the age of them can be demonstrated by the emphasis on Java man). It takes 10 words to lie (as you have demonstrated) and 1000's to conclusively dispel a lie. And yet if I make that effort, past experience has shown that there is a 99.9% chance that you will simply ignore it. You are not interested in the scientific truth of any specific matter at all. Your almost certainly not interested in honest answers to your primary question either.

You know, the fact that you have so swallowed those urban-myths / relative trivialities in the first place demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea about nearly any of the science behind evolution what so ever. So if you think that people who believe in evolution are the ones in denial, you need to read this:

Answer 5

i think this goes both ways. some christians become insecure and stubborn; and some atheists become defensive and stubborn.

im a christian, and im not afraid of science; NOR, do I take scientific theories as my foundation of faith, which some Atheists have unwittingly done.

evolution is called a theory because a theory is the best explanation science has rendered through inquiry. it may later prove totally false. eg-we accept gravity as fact; yet we cant prove it without a doubt (its a theory - a very good/solid one)

Science is not about belief, its about empirical evidence - big difference.

the same kinds of nonsensical debates are going on with global warming.

Answer 6

Good thing other scientists revealed these "fossils" to be fake. So I don't see a problem. It's not like the theory of evolution is a house of cards and by stating 5 examples of fraud makes the theory collapse on itself. You obviously don't know much about science. But evolution is a touchy subject because it contradicts creationism so people will do crazy things to try to prove it and to try to disprove it (Intelligent Design), but science prevails and weeds out the fraud and the fakes. That's what science is all about, finding the best answer with regards to nature.

Answer 7

Why do people like you, who have little real understanding of scientific method, say that science has "disproven" things which are still being studied? You find someone who disagrees with "Science" and think scientific method is invalid, so go off on some religious rant.

The scientific method has not disproved Darwin's theory(s) and just because a few hoaxes have been disproven does not invalidate the method.

"Science" is not a single thing like your "Christianity" (whith has nothing about the lessons of Jesus in it).

Why are you being so passive-aggressive about it yourself?

>>When people spout lies from a position of ignorance it causes thoughtful people to become irate. Simple.

Learn about the theory of evolution. Learn about many things before you start denying what you do not understand.

Answer 8

I think people get defensive if they read something which is trying to be inflamatory. If I read something which is geneuinely asking a question without trying to belittle people with other opinions, then I'm not defensive. I do, however, get defensive when people assert that their OPINIONS are right, or the truth, or whatever. Opinions and beliefs are literally that, and we are all entitled to hold our own beliefs (however ridiculous they may appear sometimes LOL).

Answer 9

Of course they are defensive - you may knock them out of their paradigm.
How dare anyone challenge their well fed reality. It is fat. unfit for the mind.

Evolution is one of many devices the deceiver uses to cause doubt.

2 Thessalonian2:
9.
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10.
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12.
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Answer 10

I myself am agnostic, and those who believe in the theory of evolution are not any more touchy than those who believe in god. Many arguments can be made against the theory that god is our creator as well. Everybody has their own beliefs, and if you want people to respect yours, then you must respect theirs.