Remarkably well-preserved 18,000-year-old puppy found frozen in Siberia

[Larniavc]

I'm not clear on what you are asking, can you please rephrase it?

I’m suggesting that when someone says something that conflicts with what you hold as true you believe they are being dishonest.

Am I correct? If not why not?

 

[Speedwell]

Seriously?

To my comment on this still being controversial, you replied:



You said it was controversial, and I simply replied:

you all know perfectly well it still is to many.

You really don't see the connection?

Generally speaking, I think I need to get my denial shot before I too catch the virus clearly going around here.

I think that we all took it to mean that evolution was still controversial in the scientific community. I know I thought that's what you meant.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You said it was controversial, and I simply replied:

you all know perfectly well it still is to many.

Sorry, I had trouble figuring out what 'it' was.

The real trouble is what you think of as a 'controversy'. This can't be determined by a poll of the general audience. If you polled 100 Americans about the significance of Cinco de Mayo, probably half would say it was Mexico's Independence Day. It isn't. And there is no controversy about this point. People who are experts in Mexican history or culture are unanimous on this point. There is no controversy.

Similarly, there is no controversy among anatomists as to whether men have fewer ribs than women, although probably if you polled 100 Americans, there'd be 10% who said men do have fewer ribs than women. This does not mean that there is still some controversy, and there is a legitimate minority view that men have fewer ribs. There is no controversy on this point.

Likewise, there is no controversy about evolution. It has not been a controversial subject for more than a century.

 

[pitabread]

Likewise, there is no controversy about evolution. It has not been a controversial subject for more than a century.

With the added exception of those who object to evolution for religious reasons, which seems to be what Kenny keeps going on about.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sorry, I had trouble figuring out what 'it' was.

The real trouble is what you think of as a 'controversy'. This can't be determined by a poll of the general audience. If you polled 100 Americans about the significance of Cinco de Mayo, probably half would say it was Mexico's Independence Day. It isn't. And there is no controversy about this point. People who are experts in Mexican history or culture are unanimous on this point. There is no controversy.

Similarly, there is no controversy among anatomists as to whether men have fewer ribs than women, although probably if you polled 100 Americans, there'd be 10% who said men do have fewer ribs than women. This does not mean that there is still some controversy, and there is a legitimate minority view that men have fewer ribs. There is no controversy on this point.

Likewise, there is no controversy about evolution. It has not been a controversial subject for more than a century.

No, that's not the real trouble.

Seems to me it'd be much easier to admit there still is a controversy than to go to all this trouble trying to dance around your being wrong.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I think that we all took it to mean that evolution was still controversial in the scientific community

Of course you did.

 

[Speedwell]

No, that's not the real trouble.

Seems to me it'd be much easier to admit there still is a controversy than to go to all this trouble trying to dance around your being wrong.

OK, we're wrong. If you want to call the disagreement between science and creationism, "controversy" go ahead. Just remember that there is no "controversy" within the scientific community about it (which is what we thought you meant)..

 

[Kenny'sID]

I’m suggesting that when someone says something that conflicts with what you hold as true you believe they are being dishonest.

Am I correct? If not why not?

No, you are far from correct.

You are really asking me why I'm not something you claimed I was right out of the blue? I think the better, more proper question is why do you think I do that, then I will defend myself if I feel you are doing anything more than throwing completely baseless accusations as I do now.

That's really is funny.

 

[Kenny'sID]

OK, we're wrong.

Glad you finally came a round.

 

[Speedwell]

Glad you finally came a round.

Try to be more clear next time. It reduces controversy.

 

[pitabread]

OK, we're wrong. If you want to call the disagreement between science and creationism, "controversy" go ahead. Just remember that there is no "controversy" within the scientific community about it (which is what we thought you meant)..

I find it strange is that Kenny is making a big deal about everyone being "wrong" in this thread, even though I pointed out that people do find evolution controversial due to perceived religious conflict back in post #18 of this thread.

I guess he's deciding to ignore my posts because it doesn't give him anything to argue about.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Seems to me it'd be much easier to admit there still is a controversy

No, nobody should say there is controversy, just because ignorant people hold false beliefs about Cinco de Mayo or evolution.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Try to be more clear next time.

You were unclear on what exactly?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, nobody should say there is controversy, just because ignorant people hold false beliefs about Cinco de Mayo or evolution.

lol, I think you are fast running out of gas.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

lol, I think you are fast running out of gas.

Talking of gas, do you know how it is formed? Or is this another of your god's little deceptions?

 

[Speedwell]

You were unclear on what exactly?

I thought you meant that there was controversy within the scientific community.

 

[essentialsaltes]

lol, I think you are fast running out of gas.

We're coming up on the 100 year anniversary of the Scopes Trial. Opponents of evolution have been running on fumes since then. That was your high point, such as it was.

 

[Larniavc]

No, you are far from correct.

You are really asking me why I'm not something you claimed I was right out of the blue? I think the better, more proper question is why do you think I do that, then I will defend myself if I feel you are doing anything more than throwing completely baseless accusations as I do now.

That's really is funny.

So then what is your criteria to question another poster’s honesty (as you have done in this thread)?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I thought you meant that there was controversy within the scientific community.

Why?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So then what is your criteria to question another poster’s honesty (as you have done in this thread)?

If you had no reason for the accusation, just admit it and move on, not that big a deal.