Heated debate on evolution with brother

[Amarok]

[/hide]
Not to mention soft fossils are even rarer and indeed we should be grateful we have any fossils at all . And as for snow tracks slander of Darwin  he explains in his own freaking (clearly he's  never read it ) why fossil would be few via geology .

-------------------------------------
Poor Darwin he's been slander by his own words. Well, read and wept for yourself.
To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.
On the Origin… Charles Darwin, Page 286,
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/fram...wtype=side

Sigh reading one quote Darwin while ignoring later work just sad (not to mention modern science as if were stuck with Darwin's original thoughts)

But let's say for arguments sake your right I have already answered this we do have pre Cambrian fossils and an explanation for why they are rare so even if what you said is true it's irrelevant

So your nit picking fails you .and Darwin is vindicated against creationist slanders thus I have nothing to weep for fool.

[Alex K]

[/hide]
Not to mention soft fossils are even rarer and indeed we should be grateful we have any fossils at all . And as for snow tracks slander of Darwin  he explains in his own freaking (clearly he's  never read it ) why fossil would be few via geology .

-------------------------------------
Poor Darwin he's been slander by his own words. Well, read and wept for yourself.
To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.
On the Origin… Charles Darwin, Page 286,
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/fram...wtype=side

Quote mining dead people? That's only how religious "arguments" work, not real ones.

[downbeatplumb]

[/hide]
Not to mention soft fossils are even rarer and indeed we should be grateful we have any fossils at all . And as for snow tracks slander of Darwin  he explains in his own freaking (clearly he's  never read it ) why fossil would be few via geology .

-------------------------------------
Poor Darwin he's been slander by his own words. Well, read and wept for yourself.
To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.
On the Origin… Charles Darwin, Page 286,
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/fram...wtype=side

You realise that was over two hundred years ago and science has moved on.
We have TV now and everything.

[mikesmilestoday]

It appears that somebody, either him or you has been sold some bad information. You, of course, instantly assume that it is him who is wrong even though he is near genius in so many areas.
Look closely at what you are assuming is true, find a few good examples, and then ask him what his thoughts are about those. Like, find a couple of fossil examples of one species evolving into a different species. He has already admitted that micro evolution is real, so don't bother with changes within the same species, find some inter species changes to discuss with him.
At all costs, stay away from the name calling or you will have instantly lost any argument.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Pat Mustard]

[/hide]
Not to mention soft fossils are even rarer and indeed we should be grateful we have any fossils at all . And as for snow tracks slander of Darwin  he explains in his own freaking (clearly he's  never read it ) why fossil would be few via geology .

-------------------------------------
Poor Darwin he's been slander by his own words. Well, read and wept for yourself.
To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.
On the Origin… Charles Darwin, Page 286,
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/fram...wtype=side

And here's the context of the quoted passage from Darwin http://www.bartleby.com/11/1006.html, which is clear that Darwin is talking about a debate regarding the origins of the Earth for which he felt he wasn't knowledgeable enough to give an answer for. Amazing isn't it that Darwin, a gifted and preeminent geologist and biologist, knows less about his two chosen fields than snowtracks, a knowledgless idiot.

---

It appears that somebody, either him or you has been sold some bad information.  You, of course, instantly assume that it is him who is wrong even though he is near genius in so many areas.
Look closely at what you are assuming is true, find a few good examples, and then ask him what his thoughts are about those.  Like, find a couple of fossil examples of one species evolving into a different species.  He has already admitted that micro evolution is real, so don't bother with changes within the same species, find some inter species changes to discuss with him.
At all costs, stay away from the name calling or you will have instantly lost any argument.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Science has overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of speciation (including both observed speciation in the wild [London Underground Mosquito] and induced evolution in the lab [peppered moth]), of which the fossil record is actually the least important. The knowledgeless idiot, on the other hand, has only the shrill ululation of the creatard, "goddidit!"

Oh, and hie yourself off to the introductions section of the fora and tell us about yourself. If you're going to piss and moan about our manners, better that you show a modicum of good manners yourself.

[mikesmilestoday]

You lose.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Jesster]

So convincing

[Whateverist]

-------------------------------------
Poor Darwin he's been slander by his own words. Well, read and wept for yourself.
To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.
On the Origin… Charles Darwin, Page 286,
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/fram...wtype=side

Quote mining dead people? That's only how religious "arguments" work, not real ones.

But why do they quote mine dead people when they can't even clarify whatever it is they think they've found in what was written by asking them a follow up question?







Oh.

[Cyberman]

You lose.

At least you found a way to feel superior to others, that's the main thing; so not a total waste of your day. Good for you!

[Whateverist]

It appears that somebody, either him or you has been sold some bad information.  You, of course, instantly assume that it is him who is wrong even though he is near genius in so many areas.
Look closely at what you are assuming is true, find a few good examples, and then ask him what his thoughts are about those.  Like, find a couple of fossil examples of one species evolving into a different species.  He has already admitted that micro evolution is real, so don't bother with changes within the same species, find some inter species changes to discuss with him.
At all costs, stay away from the name calling or you will have instantly lost any argument.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Seriously?  Are you familiar with the theory of evolution apart from what you may have heard from a pulpit?  You should realize that theory doesn't actually claim that occasionally a chicken hatches from an egg of a dinosaur.  It is always between 50 and 50,000 shades of microevolution leading up to what we call speciation.  There is no macro evolution apart from what happens over time by way of micro evolution.

---

You lose.  


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Generous of you to let him know.