Why is evolution so controversial?

Again, have you been drinking?So now you're objecting that you weren't talking about the oceans.Except that you were.Faith, what is wrong with you? Unless you're going to go back and edit your message to conform with your revisionist claim, your words are there for all to see. You say you weren't talking about the oceans, yet here are your actual words from Message 334 making it perfectly clear that you *were* indeed talking about the oceans when you said they weren't the same scale: Could we please have no more of your "I didn't say that, you're misrepresenting me" crap?--Percy

You haven't come up with any "PHYSICAL FACTS" so far, just plenty of false assertions. Well, now you're just being self-serving by making stuff up again about what was said. No one mentioned sedimentary deposits accumulating on land, including you. Unlike the things you make up, the words in this thread actually exist and have been recorded, and anyone can review them and see that you are making things up.Marine layers outnumber terrestrial layers by a wide margin because most land is not usually the lowest point. There are exceptions, but usually the lowest point is not on land but in rivers, lakes and oceans. That's why most sedimentary layers are marine.What is your evidence that the material in the strata of the geologic column was washed off the antediluvian landscape? How is it that this material that washed off the land is the same kind of material that is created over long periods in the ocean near continents, just as we observe today? The sandstone, shale and limestone that we see being deposited today off continental coasts and in shallow warm seas is the same as in the layers of the geologic column.What we see today is that sandstone is deposited onto the geologic column immediately off the coast. If the material for the sandstone layers actually washed off the antediluvian landscape, then how did all this sand come to be on land? And how did it become full of marine fossils?You know, it's amazing how you do this, but every new thread where you discuss the flood brings to light yet another basic geological principle about which you have no clue. We had no idea that you didn't understand that the sedimentary processes we see taking place along continental margins today are the same ones that created the marine layers we observe in the geologic column. You said you read Dr Adequate's Introduction To Geology thread, and he discusses marine transgressions in Message 176. Even if you don't think transgressions can ever happen (I wonder if this disbelief will continue if you live long enough to witness the seas transgress over Bangladesh and Venice), you still have to incorporate it into your thinking as one of the principles of geology that is supported by a great deal of observational evidence. You can't just ignore it, at least not if you want to maintain any claim at all to intellectual integrity. You're making stuff up again. What we believe geologically is as firm as the evidence supporting it. If the evidence changes then our views will change.The problem is that with no evidence you declare that "I know what He has said is true,", and then you cleave to that view in the face of mountains of contrary evidence. This is an expression of deeply felt religious faith. There's no science in it.--Percy

I'm going by what Faith says, for example here in her Message 359: I'm describing what Faith believes, not what I believe. Faith believes that the material for the layers of the geologic column was washed off the antediluvian landscape. Since most sedimentary layers are marine, it follows that Faith's views require that most of the material covering the antediluvian landscape must have been marine.It feels to me like I'm expressing this clearly, but if not then let me know how I can improve it. I certainly don't want to further Faith's confusion.--Percy

Hmmm. This must not be as obvious a point as I thought. Let me try again.Take sandstone. The sand that makes up sandstone is created in a shoreline environment. But in Faith's scenario there is no shoreline manufacturing the sand. In Faith's scenario the sand was washed off the land and deposited by the flood. So what is the source of this much sand on the antediluvian landscape, and of the marine fossils deposited with it by the flood?The situation's even worse with limestone. Limestone sediments accumulate in warm, shallow seas. There's no source of limestone on land. It's impossible that the limestone in the layers Faith claims were deposited by the flood was washed off the antediluvian landscape. Agreed. I've mentioned deltas, too.--Percy

It's the only view that makes any sense at all.When it comes to deeply buried strata beneath the ocean we can only compare fossils brought up in drill cores, in other words, only small fossils. There's no such thing as a paleontological dig underneath the sea.--Percy

Been busy all week, just getting around to this. Science assumes nothing other than that the physical laws we know and love are at work everywhere throughout the universe. Science assumes, for example, that limestone layers formed in a way that obeys these physical laws. That means slow and steady deposition over the eons in a warm shallow sea.You, on the other hand, assume that what happened is whatever you make up in order to satisfy your religious myths. You claim your scenarios all happened naturally but don't seem to realize how severely they contradict natural laws.To have a rational discussion with you we need you to understand the explanations of how you're violating natural physical laws. This almost never happens.--Percy

It's only a bald assertion in the same way that "The sun rises every day" is a bald assertion. The reality is that it was a comment made in passing of a well known fact that is supported by mountains of research data. Any interpretation of that data that obeys the laws of physics can reach no other conclusions but that the Mississippi Delta is very old.To specifically rebut your implied accusation that an ancient Mississippi delta is devoid of supporting evidence here's a brief excerpt from the abstract of K-Ar Age Studies of Mississippi and Other River Sediments: If you could refrain from making obviously bogus accusations that require defense but contribute nothing to the discussion it would go a long way toward making discussion more productive.--Percy

It was, as I said and that you ignored, only a bald assertion in the same way that "The sun rises every day" is a bald assertion. The reality is that it was a comment made in passing of a well known fact that is supported by mountains of research data. Any interpretation of that data that obeys the laws of physics can reach no other conclusions but that the Mississippi Delta is very old.And evidence exists, one item of which I presented and which you also ignored. You can pretend the evidence doesn't exist, but the mere fact there's something you're ignoring says it exists. Huh? But where's your evidence? This is just a bald assertion. There, we're even.If you'd like to discuss the "quote that came up somewhere back there" then you're going to have to look it up and provide a link or cut-n-paste it into your message.Can we get back to a normal evidence-based discussion now, the kind involving normal people who understand that one doesn't normally support every sentence with evidence, that evidence is normally only provided as needed or requested.Again, if you could refrain from making obviously bogus accusations that require defense but contribute nothing to the discussion it would go a long way toward making discussion more productive.--Percy

I realized later that you weren't saying "my statement" but that "my" meant "million years".So your response to an analysis of the data reported in the technical paper K-Ar Age Studies of Mississippi and Other River Sediments is to call it "bizarre", supported only by a vague reference to something somewhere about a questionable date. I was able to track your reference down. It's from your Message 375. I replied in Message 403 and explained why the layer was redated, but you didn't respond and apparently feel free to ignore the explanation and just go on making your original claim. You're a piece of work.--Percy

I hope no one is missing what's most amazing, because it isn't the rapidity of the touches. It's that the chimp looks at the numbers for only a second before hitting the circle that replaces them with white boxes. The chimp not only knows the ordering of the digits 1-9, he can remember them positionally after just a glance.People are occasionally born with amazing talents, and since we're just animals it shouldn't be surprising that the same is true of animals. This chimp's talents seem similar in nature to a human savant's.--Percy