Why is evolution so controversial?

Well, it would occur to a sane person to wonder why the Triassic, which contains land animals aplenty, contains no 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, elephants, hyraxes, horses, zebras, asses, tapirs, rhinoceroses, camels, pigs, peccaries, javelinas, hippopotamuses, chevrotains, mouse deer, deer, giraffes, cattle, sheep, goats, or antelopes.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

As opposed to nonpeculiar sciences such as electromagnetism, where physicists come to your door with pamphlets and ask if they can come in and explain Maxwell's equations to you.Ah well, I guess evolution is just so darn peculiar that scientists won't come round to your house and spoonfeed you information. You may have to look for it yourself. A google search on the term cenozoic fossil gets 615,000 hits, perhaps that would be a good place to start. And again, I would point out that this, if true, would not explain why it's uncontroversial among scientists. It would make the thing completely inexplicable.Watch. This is what you're doing:* Why don't the police arrest me for singing in the shower? Because it's a class A felony.
* Why do nutritionists recommend eating vegetables? Because they are bad for you.
* Why does John always vote Democrat? Because he is a staunch Republican.
* Why do gourmets love chocolate cake? Because it tastes disgusting.
* Why do scientists agree with evolution? Because it is utterly unscientific.These are not explanations, because they do not explain the thing to be explained. If true, they would make it deeply mysterious. They would add to the mystery. When we are told that John is a staunch Republican, then if we believe it we are further away from understanding why he always votes Democrat then we were to begin with. Hey, Faith, remember how you don't know anything about geology? But this is asinine. Imagine someone who ascribes the motion of planets to magic pixies. "The theory of gravity is unfalsifiable" he says. "Not at all," I tell him, "it would be falsified by (for example) seeing hexagonal orbits. "But this is no test at all," he replies, "because obviously the magic pixies, which is the only viable alternative theory, don't happen to push planets in such a way that they have hexagonal orbits."But his fantasies about magic pixies are not germane to whether we can test the theory of gravity.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I can still be surprised at how ignorant you are. I shouldn't be, but I am. Sure, it's CRAZINESS to say that the sea rose. Unless you say it rose so high as to cover even the highest mountains, and that it did so in just forty days. That makes perfect sense.

The demand for evidence has never been a problem for people who were actually right. Why should an exception be made for creationists? You can tell that that's not what he means by the way that that's not what he says. You can tell that that's not what he's saying by the way that that's not what he's saying.

And if you have an argument against that, feel free to say what it is.The argument for it is the physical evidence --- y'know, that stuff you know nothing about? That stuff. There's this thing called the Internet. Huh? We can in fact still see sediment being deposited on the continents. That's how we know what sediment formed on land looks like, remember? This is why we can identify the sediment in sedimentary rocks as having been formed by the same processes, remember? It's one of the points that destroys stupid fantasies ascribing all the sediments to a magic flood, remember?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

They have not stopped. This is why we can observe them going on.How did this get turned into another "Faith Knows Fuck-All About Geology" thread anyway? Apart from anything else, the point has been made. By now there are probably tribesmen in Outer Mongolia who know that Faith knows fuck-all about geology. In the Amazon rainforest, when the Birono people wish to convey that another person is ignorant, they say "La mopu bexa Faith wahu geology" ("You know about as much as Faith does about geology"). There are alien civilizations where the only thing they know about Earth except for the words "Mostly Harmless" is that there's this person here called Faith who knows fuck-all about geology. What I'm trying to say here is that THE FACT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. You can stop now.

There's layers of sediment, which, as you drill further down, compact into sedimentary rock. This bears a striking resemblance to sediment and sedimentary rock, because of being sediment and sedimentary rock. Ah, that "someone" must be a creationist. They frequently drool out retarded nonsense about geology, due to being hopelessly ignorant of the subject. A top tip for using the Internet for research is to avoid creationist websites, as creationists are complete fucking morons. Maybe I should have mentioned that before, I guess I just assumed you knew.

I would have characterized this idea of yours, like the rest of your ideas about geology, as "insane" rather than "weird". That's why it didn't. If sediment stopped being deposited after the Flood, then why can we still observe sediment being deposited?

Perhaps you could elaborate on what you're drooling about?Layers of sediment and sedimentary rock, to me, bear a striking resemblance to layers of sediment and sedimentary rock, because of being layers of sediment and sedimentary rock, which are like layers of sediment and sedimentary rock.---(I am overlooking your pig-ignorant misuse of the phrase "geological column", because one has to make allowances for your deep ignorance of everything you ever talk about.)

Hey, Faith, remember how you don't know anything about geology?

Hey, Faith, remember how you don't know anything about geology?This is gibberish. It is madness. It is insanity. It does not even rise to the dignity of error; it is a random jumble of words without meaning.

See post #306.

I do. I know this to be a fact because of reading your posts. They are gibberish.Let me explain what I mean. Take this piece of garbage: What shall I compare this to? Suppose someone were to say "And if there are kangaroos in Australia, what happens to the Law of Gravity in this scenario? Having kangaroos in Australia blows that one out of the water as it were."It would be easy to see that that person was a halfwit. It would be easy to see that the halfwit was making a halfwitted mistake. One might even guess that this mistake involved being swinishly ignorant about what the Law of Gravity is.But that's as far as one can go. A mentally normal person cannot reconstruct the mistake being made in the mind of the moron; and the moron has not expressed it. All there is to say about it is that it is garbage, it is insanity, it is nonsense.

You've really gone full-on, balls-out, batshit crazy, haven't you?

Faith said something true!