Why is evolution so controversial?

That's one hypothesis for why people think you're crazy. Another is that you're a dumbfuck fruitloop screwball nutjob crackpot dingbat know-nothing batshit cretinous assclown.

The Flood didn't just collect things, it arranged and classified them. If only Noah had thought to make a few glass cases and some labels, the strata would look like a natural history museum. "Oh look," the water would have said to itself, "another one for the Hall of Trilobites. Memo to self: make sure never ever, not one single time, to mix those up with one single crustacean species that's going to survive me, although for some reason I'm gonna mix 'em together with some though not all crustacean species which I'm going to make extinct. Damn, this flooding business is hard work ... so much to think about, and me only a liquid."

Well, pretty much everyone who believes in Noah's flood does ascribe it to God. You yourself used to do so, as you stated, for example, here. Before you call Theoderic a liar, then, you should contemplate the possibility that he didn't know you'd changed your mind. But your water does in fact have magical properties. By analogy, if you were to tell me that you'd seen someone wave a wand and turn a pumpkin into a coach, then even if you didn't use the word magic, even if you denied fervently that what you had seen was magic, then what you are describing is, in fact, magic. Hey, Faith. Remember how you don't know anything about geology?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There was a direct quotation from you, with a link to the original post. Many people would think that was a true representation of something you've said, but then you evidently have your own unique take on this as on so much else.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hey, Faith, you remember how you don't know anything about biology? Oh, you do remember. Then why make shit up?

No it isn't, you asinine buffoon.

* sighs deeply *Next time you pretend to have read and understood my book, I shall remind you of this. Read. Bollocks.

That's nothing to what I'd say to someone who insisted that 2 + 2 = 5 or that the sky is green with purple spots. My "religious fanaticism" on such subjects knows no bounds. And yet there is not the least amount of controversy on these issues. Perhaps you should try again, maybe think of an answer which is not completely stupid. Can you do that?

Thank you for your detailed in-depth analysis of where edge has gone wrong. The scales have fallen from my eyes. When you said without a shred of evidence that statements you didn't even specify were "purely fictitious", I rushed out and burned my geology textbooks. Praise Jesus!

You did. Oh how we laughed. And the inability of creationists, yourself included to think of any argument that isn't idiotic does tend to explain the absence of scientific controversy.

So you suffered from abysmal research skills even when you were an atheist? It's not something that Christianity has done to you?

But Faith, this is what the thread is about.The OP didn't attack evolution by saying that some feature of the fossil record, or the anatomy of aardvarks, or the genome of zebras, or the biogeography of giraffes, or whatever, was a challenge to evolution. Instead he asked "Why is evolution so controversial", and claimed that "a growing number of scientists are frowning upon the modern synthesis".To point out that evolution is the "status quo" is therefore the only on-topic thing that there is to be said. If he'd made false statements about (for example) the fossil record, then we'd be deluging him with facts about the fossil record. As his false statement was about the scientific consensus, the only on-topic thing to talk about is that.We don't get to choose what falsehoods creationists come out with, we just answer them.

No.

Ah, one of my favorite varieties of creationist nonsense ... the non-quantitative quantitative argument. Hooray, you can prove that you're right with numbers. But without any actual math, 'cos that's hard.