Why do people in general hate the truth?

You seriously just ask someone to show you proof of evolution and suggested that evolution is a cop out argument?

Thanks though, I wasn't sure at first but now I know there's no reason to continue this conversation with you. Truth.

 

And you came back with it anyway...lol...how typical.

When you don't know the answer, you make it up and explain it away? That's not truth.

 

I've proven my theories. you have trouble proving yours. truth.

 

So you didn't read my link?
Or do you not "believe" in empirical evidence?
Here is my fave:


The Great Eggfly, also called the Blue Moon Butterfly, is a species of nymphalid butterfly that is found in many areas of the world including Madacascar, Southeast Asia, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. It is a black bodied butterfly with an average wing span of 7–8½ cm. The butterfly can be found in wooded country, forests, thick and moist scrub, and the greener parts of the uninhabited terrain.

In the last ten years scientists have come to realize that a parasite was killing all of the male members of hypolimnas bolina on the Samoan islands of Upolu and Savaii. The pest would infect the females and then kill the males before they were hatched. The problem was so severe that in 2001 males inhabited only 1% of the population and the species was on the verge of extinction in this area of the world.

In the span of one year and 10 generations in the hypolimnas bolina family, the male butterfly’s evolved and obtained a suppressor gene that prevented the killer bacteria from spreading. In modern days the male population has increased to 40% in the colonies on these islands. Evolution is often much more evident in insects, as a family generation and lifespan is much shorter then with primates.

Here is another:
Bacterial Evolution
Natural selection is most evident in life forms that have extremely rapid life cycles, such as bacteria. Bacteria can reproduce and span an entire generation in only a few short weeks. Many types of bacteria are helpful to human and animal health, but others cause infectious diseases. The quick evolution of disease-causing bacteria has been well documented and involves some of the most important medical research in the world.

A person who becomes ill can be given antibiotic drugs, which destroys the deadly bacteria in the human body, but not all of the bacteria get removed. The remaining bacteria that have already been contaminated by the antibiotic will become resistant to the drug in a short amount of time. If these certain bacteria reproduce then the disease will evolve to resist the medicines that we have developed. This is why antibiotics are becoming stronger and stronger, which is why medical researchers are always trying to develop more effective future medicines. As long as harmful bacteria and disease exist, evolution will be a formidable opponent against cures and medicine.


Read more: here

Please explain how this is not evidence of evolution.
Or alternatively explain why your god keeps making it harder for humans to fend off bacteria.

Also, how about you prove creationism?
Saying "trees and ocean animals" isn't even a whole statement. what about "trees and ocean animals" proves your point?

 

The truth should never be trusted to be the truth without absolute verification, it is easy to come across articles on the net where information has been created out of thin air & presented as facts to support a reality.

 

_______________________

It's adaptation, not evolution.

You evolutionists like to start out with a butterfly and then tell us about how Yahweh's creatures were created to adapt
and then tell us - see - here is your evidence of evolution.

Evolutionists like to believe, given enough time, the impossible is possible.

Even Darwin admitted the eye could not evolve.

 

_______________________

It's adaptation, not evolution.

You evolutionists like to start out with a butterfly and then tell us about how Yahweh's creatures were created to adapt
and then tell us - see - here is your evidence of evolution.

Evolutionists like to believe, given enough time, the impossible is possible.

Even Darwin admitted the eye could not have evolved.

 

That remind me of an old but good song. Maybe you know it?
[video=youtube;S4qY22rR9tQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4qY22rR9tQ&feature=related[/video]
And FTR Darwin was not exactly current as far as our knowledge of genetics, etc. And may have changed his statement had he had the advantages of current science. Or not.

But the point is that if science is wrong, it will change/evolve. Unlike religion which requires itself to stick with a view that at this point is hundreds of years behind our rational, empiricistic understanding of the world around us.

 

________________

My dear friend, Scripture hundreds and even thousands of years old has scientific facts used by some of the most intelligent scientific minds
hundreds of years ago that led to the discovery of many of the inventions we take for granted today.

These men lived in an age where Scripture was given its rightful place among learned men - unlike today.

Would you like a list of these famous scientists and the Scriptures used?

 

FTR Darwin was an idiot.

 

Unlike Charles Darwin, you haven't had an original thought in your life.

You are still mindlessly regurgitating the thoughts of bronze-age goat herders.

That's the Truth.

 

well said, can see even by this tread some do not like that truth

 

Darwin didn't knew of DNA and he couldn't know that the first animal was a sponge , i doubt he knew that sponges are animals.
So the truth is Spaghetti Flying Monster and evolution is a lie .

 

was that meant to be a factual statement? - lol

 

evolution is a fact, why do some hate the truth?

 

I think should of been one of the poll choices

 

Say you are religious person , wouldn't be kind of hard to agree that your benevolent and omnipotent god is so lazy that created humans using 60% of the css he wrote for bananas ?
People want to feel that they are special and there is a purpose , a meaning in life . What evolution says is that nature made us randomly because weather changed and patches of forests were lost , isn't it kind of sad ? i think it is not but many do and this is where our difference lies .

 

maybe as we evolved spiritually, the shells we call bodies were able to become more advanced, as we were able to control a greater number of cells as well as more advanced cells, who knows why evolution exists, we just know it does

would not mean a god was lazy, but it would disprove some of the religious myths about creation
.
.
.

 

I think i wasn't clear , creationists present an emotional response to unpleasant (for them) hard facts .
If you give it a though religion is all about emotional manipulation

 

Funny how God gives us free will to choose life and wisdom but when we mess it up, we blame all of our shortcomings on him?

that's kooky right there.

 

I think it's much easier for some people to believe much of what they're told and then just move on with life. Many people seem to feel like political issues don't affect them, or they do affect them but they aren't urgent.

 

Lol, hating truth indeed. Irony at its finest (worst?).

 

Well, to ask what we think, and then tell us we can't think of evolution since we would need to prove it, is somewhat contradictory. First, you're asking us what we think, not what the truth is - we don't need to prove what we think is true to tell you what we think. Secondly, you can never 'prove' any theory - and according to empiricism, all knowledge is just that - theory - based on sensory experience. What we can do is argue for a particular theory and explain why we feel it is more successful in its predictive capacity, why it is simpler than other competing theories that give similar predictions, why it doesn't conflict with other theories, et cetera.

I'll give you this: The Neo-Darwinian view on evolution as a blind process driven solely by mutations and natural selection is rather difficult for me to rationally defend. I suggest that we follow in the footsteps of Lamarckian evolution - the inheritance of acquired characteristics - which also can explain the speed of adaptations, help us to understand instincts as inherited habits (something Neo-Darwinism fails to describe), and so on. Darwin may have actually supported this type of notion, as suggested by Ted Dace (http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Evolution/index.html).

I will add that investigation into this subject in no way should necessarily imply anything about man's place in the Universe - you can view man as having dominion over all other Earthly creatures on rational grounds, and I could defend this with you. Darwin was able to notice similarities between creatures and postulate a theory in an attempt to explain those similarities in naturalistic terms. Biological evolution was not a new idea back then, either, so I would refrain from blaming him entirely for the existence of more offensive modern evolutionists, who sometimes defend their theory more out of fashion than out of intellectual pursuits.

Basically, my opinion is that the creatures of the sea came about from the reproduction of their ancestors, the trees came about in much the same way, and life is so diverse because it can adapt, though such adaptations are not the results of a blind process nor the results of divine interference, and thus I respectfully disagree with your position and with most atheists' position. Perhaps I am horribly wrong, but I receive a certain comfort out of self-honesty.

 

In my extensive involvement with social activism (and this goes way back to the 1960s) I have always found that it is the radical far right that hates the Truth. Liberals do not. But the latter have a problem in that they are afraid of saying the Truth. This was not true of past liberals. Libs from a generation ago were the type to scream the Truth into the faces of the pathetic antichrist America hating far right. Back then CONservatives were afraid of speaking out for fear of being shouted down. This because the far right agenda is always against America and against Truth. Today it is the current generation of libs who are afraid. The biggest difference being that CONs are always afraid of the Truth while libs today are afraid of speaking or writing it in public even though their agenda remains pro-USA unlike the CONs.

 

Darwin wasn't perfect, he got some things wrong. He was important because he got so much correct. The theory of evolution has "evolved" (see what I did there) quite a bit since then. The eye did indeed evolve - we even know how. Perhaps you should do some research.