Why is evolution so controversial?

Perhaps evolution is "controversial" because of a lack of knowledge. This applies to the general public, but more so to creationists.In the first college class I taught that covered evolution I started with a simple hands-on experiment. I provided three bones--innominates--and asked everyone to separate them into two groups. A simple task, as two resembled each other closely, although one was smaller than the other, while the third was markedly different in shape.The class agreed that the two with the similar shape should be grouped, as size was less important, while the one with the different shape should be separate.It turns out the two innominates that the class chose to group together were from a modern human and an Australopithecus fossil a couple of million years old. The odd-ball was modern chimpanzee.After that, if there were any creationists in the class, I never heard a word out of them.A little knowledge is a dangerous thing--for creationists.

Top men?Hmmmm.;-)

When -ologists of various kinds get together to gather facts and work out theories explaining the past they do not consider whether their work agrees or disagrees with the "flood model" as that "model" is 1) a religious belief unsupported by facts, and 2) it was examined and disproved about 200 years ago.But creationists are better than the Required Reading List or even artificial respiration at keeping such dead ideas alive.

Is there anything, in your mind, that could possibly falsify one or more of the statements found in the bible?

Well, you shouldn't expect to find highly technical scientific information in your local newspaper, on creationist websites, or in the Jack Chick tracts.Perhaps, if you are looking for highly technical scientific information, you should be looking in the technical journals, which take up whole floors in major university libraries.Can you tell us which of the major journals you have examined in search of this information?

So, there is nothing in the bible that could possibly be falsified?

What you are disagreeing with is reality. You are clinging to your fantasies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.That's not the sanest of things one can do.

Sorry, no. Floods are chaotic and don't tend to group like "kinds." With real science (which you erroneously characterize as "Old Earth theory") one would expect to see fossils grouped by time period and geography. That is what we actually see. Of all ages? No. What real science shows is normal population growth and death and accumulation. But since you don't accept scientific dating, you have no business making claims about dating whatsoever. You wouldn't believe anything that contradicted your belief system, so you have no credibility in this realm. In modern times, populations tend to die at various ages, not all the exact same age. Nautiloids should be found of various ages and sizes.And "transported?" From where? How about they were all just formed there (wherever "there" was at the time)?Another problem for the disproved flood theory--the more you "transport" things in a chaotic manner, the more mixing you will have. You are trying to convince us you will have sorting! What a joke!I guess I have to admire (sort of) your persistence in trying to support the flood "theory" in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it. But there comes a point where persistence becomes pure pig-headed stubborness. I'm afraid you have long since passed that point.Which leads me to wonder what kind of a deity would require one to believe six impossible things before breakfast (per Alice) and a whole lot more afterwards. Don't you ever wonder just who it is that's really trying to fool you?

You and other creationists have had ample opportunity to dispute various forms of radiometric dating in our threads here.You (as a group) have failed. The evidence you have presented has been shown to be inaccurate and unsupported time and again. This is true for both your specific claims and others found on creationist websites and in creationist literature.Until you (and creationists as a group) can support your claims that radiometric dating is inaccurate, you have no business making those claims.As Heinlein noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning."

Summary: Evolution is "controversial" only to those who won't accept it for religious reasons, and who do their best to generate "controversy" because of that.Among those actually doing science the only controversy is over the details, as they try to learn more about how it all works.The few real scientists who dispute evolution do so for religious reasons, not scientific ones.And finally, those who dispute evolution for religious reasons try their best to make it appear that they accept scientific methods and findings, while twisting both in an effort to convince themselves that their religious beliefs are supported by science.That should get the thread back on topic--for a moment or two.

I'm sorry, but your body of posts here has shown that your opinions in matters scientific are not worth anything.You continually read (or skim) scientific articles and come to conclusions which are opposite of what those articles actually say. I don't have any confidence that your skills were any different in the past. Your abilities to misunderstand, misinterpret, and misread are truly astounding. Perhaps the early frustration came from your own inabilities? And perhaps the agreement with creationists is a mix of those inabilities and their unwillingness to accept the evidence based on religious grounds?In any case, as I have noted several times, your opinions and pronouncements on science really are not trustworthy. You just seem to have no talent for it, and perhaps should take this into consideration when you tell working scientists, and in fact whole scientific professions, that they don't know anything.

Those statements can be backed up, which is a far cry better than what you usually post.But, here's your chance to provide some real support for your arguments: show where established scientists dealing with the broad fields which comprise the study of evolution have contested that theory in peer reviewed journals.And no quote mining, eh?

So, what age do you ascribe to modern humans?And what is your evidence?

Nonsense If that information was presented to me by a creationist, no.Quit dodging. What age do you ascribe to fully modern humans?

You still have not answered the question:What date do you put for the origin of modern humans?And upon what do you base your answer?