Why is evolution so controversial?

That's a very charitable analysis. Note that no one here did promote Project Steve in that way. There was no promise that the base list was all biologists.An explicit promise was made to deliver people with biological degrees. Just how difficult was it to figure out that that meant cherry picking from the list of Steves? As has been noted, that list has more than enough biologists named Steve or Stephanie than are needed to dwarf the other list.I don't think there was anything valid about Bolder-Dash's post. In fact, someone has already vetted the creationist's list and made an attempt to validate the number of life scientists on the list who actually question common descent. The vetting produced far more scientists who were pissed about being on the list than it did creationists who actually rejected the theory of evolution.In fact, we all know which of the two lists is more full of computer programmers, engineers and other non life scientists of any name.

Their crocoduck argument is probably very effective with their intended audience, which isn't us. In essence they're saying, "The theory of evolution is so ridiculous it actually predicts we should see something like a crocoduck." Creationists hearing the argument think, "What a silly theory to predict such stupid things! How foolish these scientists are."The image of the crocoduck is probably stuck in creationist minds, working its magic long after the scientific mumbo-jumbo rebuttal has been forgotten - it's certainly stuck in mine, and *I* know how ridiculously wrong it is.--Percy

Crocoduck is a typical straw man argument.From Wiki: It won't work on you, but it works on millions of people who don't know what the ToE actually is.

It works on a tiny, insignificant number of people. None of it would confuse a ninth grader taking a biology course.Working means convincing someone and not simply allowing already convinced people to nod their heads in agreement. Other than the proponents who made those arguments up, I've never met a creationist who used the crocoduck argument, or the perfectly created banana argument or the no abiogensis in a jar of peanut butter argument. My own relatives and in-laws are chock full of creationists and none of them spends any time with Creation Science.ABE:
Anecdote.One of my inlaws told me that she had doubts that astronauts had actually gone to the moon. Her reasoning was that the moon was too bright and the astronauts would have become blinds.I asked her if she was aware that night on the moon lasted about two weeks. My wife, who is not on record as having any position on the matter said that she thought the astronauts helmets had tinted visors. Neither my question nor my wife's answer changed her sister's (oops) mind because Auntie's belief had nothing to do with any fact about the moon.By the way, who saw the lunar eclipse last night? I went outside at 2AM but it was too cloudy here. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hey, the law of averages says the boy has to be right about something eventually. If the Moose's not entirely implausible interpretation is what it takes to save that much-abused aphorism, I'm willing to go along with it, and I think you should be, too.

Cloudy here, too. I hear there will be three more over the next 17 months or so.--Percy

I have no objection to you going along with it. However the insults that came along with Bolder's message make it clear that he was not addressing any hypothetical poster who might have misused the "list of Steves".I simply don't see any reasonable chance that Bolder's post was anything but idiotic. So no, I am not willing to go along with it.ABE:Darn it. I missed some humor again didn't I?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Throw me a bone, CS. What are you showing me in the picture? Untinted helmets? Certainly we've seen plenty of pictures of moon walking suits with tinted helmets.I know I'm missing the joke, but I just don't get it.

As someone said here the cow in the Precambrian is a very bad example and you need better ideas of what would constitute a real falsification test.Yes, following someone else's characterization of my argument, even if Earth is only 6000 years old the cow in the Precambrian is not to be expected because that's too deep for the burial of land animals in the Flood. It's not impossible on Flood theory but it is highly unlikely. The idea that it is to be expected from the Flood comes from evolutionists because of course you all have a big problem thinking outside your interpretive box.If finding fossils isn't all that easy, as someone else said here, that also makes the falsification test all the more ridiculous. Sure, if you DID find a cow in the Precambrian that WOULD falsify the ToE but again that's a falsification test on the order of pigs flying.Yes, despite Percy's usual straw man version of my arguments, he's right that I argue the Flood must account for all the strata we actually see, because there is no other explanation for them that makes any sense.ABE: Just remembered that Coragyps complained that I never addressed something he said about trilobites and crabs being in different layers, which I don't remember but I also don't see any particular issue with it /ABE.Then somebody reiterated the basic argument with cats and gophers below the Devonian, but that's just as unlikely as the cow. What about a mammal in a layer above the Permian, where land animals ARE found though not mammals? Not a good enough test for you?And here again just for fun is the basic silliness of the ToE as expressed in the Wikipedia article on the Devonian:Here we go, into the wonderful fantasyworld of evolutionist interpretation presented as fact, a completely fictional time period described in terms of supposedly real happenings during it based only on some fossils found in some rocks here and there. This stuff makes me laugh, especially when I think of how seriously all the rest of you take it. Yup, what we have found in some rocks laid down deep in the geologic column is fossilized vascular plants, lots and lots and lots of them in that rock layer covering lots and lots of geography, which we interpret as "extensive forests which covered the continents" although of course this is just one of the rock layers originally deposited by the Flood as sediment containing these particular plants. Chortle. Simply descriptively speaking, factually speaking, referring to what is actually seen in the rocks, kind of in the middle of this rock what we actually find in reality is fossilized plants with leaves and roots, and at the top of the rock we find fossilized seed-bearing plants, but this simple factual spatial description isn't sufficient for the evolutionist mind, they always prefer the mystification of interpretive evospeak to simple fact so what we get instead is the mental cobweb interpretation that invents a whole time scenario for this rock and has the plants "appearing" in time when in reality they were simply carried and dumped by the Flood waters. Again we must translate this interpretive nonsense back into simple fact: we find lots of fossilized terrestrial arthropods buried in this particular rock layer. Again the Fact of the matter is that there are many kinds of fossilized fish found in this particular rock layer. Not an "age" of fish" but a large Flood deposition of fish. Translation: There are LOTs of these creatures found fossilized in this rock layer. I'm not sure where they get this "land" idea, probably from the fossils themselves being of land creatures, right? So we find lots of these in this rock layer too and we go on constructing our time period evofantasy by having them begin "adapting" to the land, when in reality all that has happened is that these creatures happened to get carried and buried by the Flood in this particular layer of sediment that later became rock. That is, there are more fossilized sharks found in this rock layer than in lower rock layers. That is, ammonite mollusks are found in this layer though not in lower layers, though trilobites, mollusk-like brachiopods and the coral reefs are found in as great profusion in this rock layer as in the lower rock layers. Which, translated, means only that these creatures are not found in this rock or a level of this rock, whereas they are found in lower rocks. How they arrived at this I don't know but it's obviously a huge interpretive leap from whatever the simple facts are.Ya know, a science that really is a science should give us factual descriptive terminology instead of interpretive mystifications, and people who think of themselves as scientists really ought to know the difference and regret this sort of abuse of the human mind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Blinds are on windows to prevent viewing things through them. The astronauts are preventing the viewing of things behind them.

Would tell me in your own words what falsification means and why it is important in science?

You said that the astronauts would become blinds, like these kind:

And, of course, on the fossils not found in it. Prove us wrong by finding a cat, a giraffe, a horse, a hippopotamus ... wait, I'll make a list. Here are some of the animals you could find in Devonian rocks that would blow the whole thing apart, this is just the mammals, but you can't expect me to do all the work for you:Echidnas, Platypus, Opossums, Monito del montes, Rat Opossums, Marsupial Mice, Dunnarts, Tasmanian Devils, Tasmanian Wolves, Numbats, Marsupial moles, Bandicoots, Rabbit-eared Bandicoots, Possums, Cuscuses, Gledero, Ringtails, Pygmy possums, Ringtail possums, Kangaroos, Wallabies, Koalas, Wombats, Noolbengers, Elephant Shrews, Hedgehogs, Gymnures, Moles, Desmans, Tenrecs, Golden Moles, Solenodons, Shrews, Flying Lemurs, Colugos, Old World Fruit Bats, Flying Foxes, Mouse-tailed Bats, Sac-winged Bats, Sheath-tailed Bats, Bull-dog Bats, Fish-eating Bats, Hollow-faced Bats, False Vampire Bats, Yellow-winged Bats, Horsehose Bats, Noseleaf Bats, Leaf-nosed Bats, New World Leaf-nosed Bats, Moustached Bats, Naked-backed Bats, Leaf-chinned Bats, Funnel-eared Bats, Smokey Bats, Disc-winged Bats, Sucker-footed Bats, Common Bats, Short-tailed Bats, Free-tailed Bats, Dwarf Lemurs, Mouse Lemurs, Sifakas, Indri, Woolly Lemurs, Aye-ayes, Weasel Lemurs, Koala Lemurs, Lorises, Pottoes, Tarsiers, New World Monkeys, Marmosets, Tamarins, Old World Monkeys, Gibbons, Humans, Great Apes, Tree Shrews, Anteaters, Sloths, Armadillos, West Indian Sloths, Two-toed Tree Sloths, Three-toed Tree Sloths, Pangolins, Scaly Anteaters, Aardvarks, Pikas, Hares, Rabbits, Mountain Beavers, Beavers, Squirrels, Chipmunks, Marmots, Prarie Dogs, Scaly-tailed Squirrels, Spring Hares, Rats, Mice, Voles, Gerbils, Hamsters, Dormice, Bamboo Rats, African Mole Rats, Birch Mice, Jumping Mice, Jerboas, Pocket Mice, Kangaroo Rats, Pocket Gophers, Blind Mole Rats, Old World Porcupines, Guinea Pigs, Capybaras, Coypu, Pacaranas, Pacas, Agoutis, Chinchilla Rats, Spiny Rats, Chinchillas, Viscachas, Octodonts, Degu, Tuco Tucos, Cane Rats, Grasscutters, Dassie Rats, Old World Porcupines, Agoutis, Gundis, Blesmols, African Mole Rats, Dogs, Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Bears, Racoons, Weasels, Otters, Skunks, Badgers, Mongooses, Civets, Genets, Hyenas, Aardwolves, Cats, Eared Seals, Sea Lions, Walruses, Seals, Ganges and Indus Dolphins, Amazon River Dolphins, White-fin Dolphins, La Plata Dolphins, Ocean Dolphins, Porpoises, Narwhal, Beluga, Sperm Whales, Beaked Whales, Grey Whales, Rorquals, Right Whales, Pygmy Right Whales, Manatees, Dugongs, Elephants, Hyraxes, Horses, Zebras, Asses, Tapirs, Rhinoceroses, Camels, Pigs, Peccaries, Javelinas, Hippopotamuses, Chevrotains, Mouse Deer, Deer, Giraffes, Cattle, Sheep, Goats, Antelopes.Why don't you have a look? Why doesn't any creationist have a look.Because, it seems, you are absolutely certain that the fossil record will support real geology and the evolutionary time line in every single respect. Sitting on your lazy asses whining about reality may be -- in fact, let's be clear about this, it is --- a complete waste of time, but looking at the fossil record would also be a complete waste of effort. Deep down, you people know that it's never going to help you. The only thing to do about that is to resolve the cognitive dissonance this knowledge produces by talking nonsense. Fortunately, you're good at that.

I think a valid objection to the cow test is that it is not something that MUST occur if the ToE is false.Finding it would be problematic, but the ToE could be false and you could still not find the cow.Nested hierarchies are a prediction of the ToE, so finding fossil or genetic evidence that cannot fit into nested hierarchies would counter the prediction and need to be explained by some other mechanism.