Discussion:
Darwin's Doubt
(too old to reply)
Joe Bruno
2017-03-25 22:28:10 UTC
Permalink
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/book-preview/

Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his theory's inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Davej
2017-03-25 22:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his
theory's inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Why do you care? Why would one theory need to explain
everything?
Christopher A. Lee
2017-03-25 23:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davej
Post by Joe Bruno
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his
theory's inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Why do you care? Why would one theory need to explain
everything?
As usual, Mad Joe was lying to atheists about something that is
nothing to do with atheism.

He didn't "have doubts" - he just couldn't give a satisfactory answer
(sixth edition), In earlier editions he gave the same answer as to
other shortages in the fossil record (which have since been found in
the subsequent century and a half).

Why does Mad Joe pretend he doesn't understand just how much has been
discovered since Darwin's time?

Why do these morons imagine that evolution rests on Darwin's say-so?
Joe Bruno
2017-03-25 23:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Davej
Post by Joe Bruno
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his
theory's inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Why do you care? Why would one theory need to explain
everything?
As usual, Mad Joe was lying to atheists about something that is
nothing to do with atheism.
He didn't "have doubts" - he just couldn't give a satisfactory answer
(sixth edition), In earlier editions he gave the same answer as to
other shortages in the fossil record (which have since been found in
the subsequent century and a half).
Why does Mad Joe pretend he doesn't understand just how much has been
discovered since Darwin's time?
Why do these morons imagine that evolution rests on Darwin's say-so?
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
Joe Bruno
2017-03-26 04:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Davej
Post by Joe Bruno
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his
theory's inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Why do you care? Why would one theory need to explain
everything?
As usual, Mad Joe was lying to atheists about something that is
nothing to do with atheism.
He didn't "have doubts" - he just couldn't give a satisfactory answer
(sixth edition), In earlier editions he gave the same answer as to
other shortages in the fossil record (which have since been found in
the subsequent century and a half).
Why does Mad Joe pretend he doesn't understand just how much has been
discovered since Darwin's time?
Why do these morons imagine that evolution rests on Darwin's say-so?
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
Kadaitcha Man
2017-03-25 23:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Davej, I do not like thy look, I promise thee. Ye light-fingered
Post by Davej
Post by Joe Bruno
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his
theory's inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Why do you care? Why would one theory need to explain
everything?
There goes the scientific method.
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
Davej
2017-03-26 00:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Davej
Post by Joe Bruno
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his
theory's inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Why do you care? Why would one theory need to explain
everything?
There goes the scientific method.
Science can't work without data and we just don't have enough
information about pre-Cambrian life.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-03-26 01:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Davej, thou art wood-headed and inbred. Ye prick-eared malignant
Post by Davej
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Davej
Post by Joe Bruno
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his
theory's inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Why do you care? Why would one theory need to explain
everything?
There goes the scientific method.
Science can't work without data and we just don't have enough
information about pre-Cambrian life.
Science seeks the simplest explanations. The need for multiple theories
to explain a single event or phenomenon is the driver for seeking one
theory. You're an inveterate idiot.
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
Joe Bruno
2017-03-26 02:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Davej, thou art wood-headed and inbred. Ye prick-eared malignant
Post by Davej
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Davej
Post by Joe Bruno
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his
theory's inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Why do you care? Why would one theory need to explain
everything?
There goes the scientific method.
Science can't work without data and we just don't have enough
information about pre-Cambrian life.
Science seeks the simplest explanations. The need for multiple theories
to explain a single event or phenomenon is the driver for seeking one
theory. You're an inveterate idiot.
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
Last year, Dave flunked an IQ test.
h***@gmail.com
2017-03-28 08:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Davej, thou art wood-headed and inbred. Ye prick-eared malignant
Post by Davej
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Davej
Post by Joe Bruno
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his
theory's inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Why do you care? Why would one theory need to explain
everything?
There goes the scientific method.
Science can't work without data and we just don't have enough
information about pre-Cambrian life.
Science seeks the simplest explanations. The need for multiple theories
to explain a single event or phenomenon is the driver for seeking one
theory. You're an inveterate idiot.
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
Last year, Dave flunked an IQ test.
If you were to sit for IQ test side by side with Dave, you would probably get 10% of his....max.
Davej
2017-03-26 03:01:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Davej
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Davej
Post by Joe Bruno
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his
theory's inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Why do you care? Why would one theory need to explain
everything?
There goes the scientific method.
Science can't work without data and we just don't have enough
information about pre-Cambrian life.
Science seeks the simplest explanations. The need for multiple
theories to explain a single event or phenomenon is the driver
for seeking one theory. You're an inveterate idiot.
Science seeks the simplest explanation -- such as Newton's Laws of
Motion -- but sometimes those turn out to be only an approximation
of the truth.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-03-26 03:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Davej, a slippery and dronish coward false thief. Ye meddling
Post by Davej
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Davej
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Davej
Post by Joe Bruno
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his
theory's inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Why do you care? Why would one theory need to explain
everything?
There goes the scientific method.
Science can't work without data and we just don't have enough
information about pre-Cambrian life.
Science seeks the simplest explanations. The need for multiple
theories to explain a single event or phenomenon is the driver
for seeking one theory. You're an inveterate idiot.
Science seeks the simplest explanation -- such as Newton's Laws of
Motion -- but sometimes those turn out to be only an approximation
of the truth.
Science doesn't deal in absolutes like truth.
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
Siri Cruise
2017-03-26 06:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davej
Science seeks the simplest explanation -- such as Newton's Laws of
Motion -- but sometimes those turn out to be only an approximation
of the truth.
Newton's momentum postulate is F = dp/dt which remains part of the foundation of
physics. The gravity postulate includes equivalency principle (inertial mass
equals gravitational mass) which remains part of the foundation of physics. The
rest of mechanics is based on the relation of force to momentum and that
inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing.

The equivalency principle and the lack of anything similar relating inertial
mass to electric or colour charge is why gravity uses nonEuclidean geometry
while electrodynamics and quantum mechanics use Euclidean geometry. Which is
also why a unified theory eludes humanity.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Mitchell Holman
2017-03-26 02:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/book-preview/
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his theory's
inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Like the kneeslapper "deathbed confession"
that you posted?



"Here's a little known fact: just before he died,
Charles Darwin told those at his bedside that he
wrote "On The Origin of Species" as a joke and
really didn't mean any of it."
Joe Bruno, Feb 27 2017
http://tinyurl.com/jmrrtxr
Christopher A. Lee
2017-03-26 03:36:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 21:25:16 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Bruno
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/book-preview/
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his theory's
inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Like the kneeslapper "deathbed confession"
that you posted?
Both of which make him a pig-ignorant, lying, in-your-face moron.
Post by Mitchell Holman
"Here's a little known fact: just before he died,
Charles Darwin told those at his bedside that he
wrote "On The Origin of Species" as a joke and
really didn't mean any of it."
Joe Bruno, Feb 27 2017
http://tinyurl.com/jmrrtxr
He seems to have a deep-seated need to make himself be seen as if
there is something seriously wrong with him, in the eyes of the world.

Which means there _is_ something seriously wrong with him.
Joe Bruno
2017-03-26 04:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 21:25:16 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Bruno
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/book-preview/
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his theory's
inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Like the kneeslapper "deathbed confession"
that you posted?
Both of which make him a pig-ignorant, lying, in-your-face moron.
Post by Mitchell Holman
"Here's a little known fact: just before he died,
Charles Darwin told those at his bedside that he
wrote "On The Origin of Species" as a joke and
really didn't mean any of it."
Joe Bruno, Feb 27 2017
http://tinyurl.com/jmrrtxr
He seems to have a deep-seated need to make himself be seen as if
there is something seriously wrong with him, in the eyes of the world.
Which means there _is_ something seriously wrong with him.
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
Joe Bruno
2017-03-26 04:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 21:25:16 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Bruno
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/book-preview/
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his theory's
inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Like the kneeslapper "deathbed confession"
that you posted?
Both of which make him a pig-ignorant, lying, in-your-face moron.
Post by Mitchell Holman
"Here's a little known fact: just before he died,
Charles Darwin told those at his bedside that he
wrote "On The Origin of Species" as a joke and
really didn't mean any of it."
Joe Bruno, Feb 27 2017
http://tinyurl.com/jmrrtxr
He seems to have a deep-seated need to make himself be seen as if
there is something seriously wrong with him, in the eyes of the world.
Which means there _is_ something seriously wrong with him.
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
Joe Bruno
2017-03-26 04:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 21:25:16 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Bruno
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/book-preview/
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his theory's
inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Like the kneeslapper "deathbed confession"
that you posted?
Both of which make him a pig-ignorant, lying, in-your-face moron.
Post by Mitchell Holman
"Here's a little known fact: just before he died,
Charles Darwin told those at his bedside that he
wrote "On The Origin of Species" as a joke and
really didn't mean any of it."
Joe Bruno, Feb 27 2017
http://tinyurl.com/jmrrtxr
He seems to have a deep-seated need to make himself be seen as if
there is something seriously wrong with him, in the eyes of the world.
Which means there _is_ something seriously wrong with him.
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
Malte Runz
2017-03-26 19:29:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 15:28:10 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/book-preview/
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his theory's inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
That didn't come out right, but I know what you meant, and I couldn't
really care less about what Darwin might have gotten wrong. Why do you
care? Don't tell me you're one of those wankers, who think that if
they can show that Darwin was wrong, then evolution is not a fact?
--
Malte Runz
Joe Bruno
2017-03-26 20:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 15:28:10 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/book-preview/
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his theory's inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
That didn't come out right, but I know what you meant, and I couldn't
really care less about what Darwin might have gotten wrong. Why do you
care? Don't tell me you're one of those wankers, who think that if
they can show that Darwin was wrong, then evolution is not a fact?
--
Malte Runz
Fact? It's a theory. Unless someone can get in a time machine and go back
millions of years to see it actually happen, that's all it will ever be.
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-03-26 22:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 15:28:10 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/book-preview/
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his theory's
inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
That didn't come out right, but I know what you meant, and I couldn't
really care less about what Darwin might have gotten wrong. Why do
you care? Don't tell me you're one of those wankers, who think that
if they can show that Darwin was wrong, then evolution is not a fact?
--
Malte Runz
Fact? It's a theory. Unless someone can get in a time machine and go
back millions of years to see it actually happen, that's all it will
ever be.
Nope, it's a fact. It explains all of the evidence, makes predictions
that have been found true, and has been repeated by independent
scientists, and has never been proven wrong in any way. It's not a
conjecture, which is what you're thinking. Educate yourself:

<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-to-
creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

And don't let the big words give you a headache.
Gronk
2017-03-30 04:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 15:28:10 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/book-preview/
Apparently, Charles Darwin had serious doubts about his theory's inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion.
That didn't come out right, but I know what you meant, and I couldn't
really care less about what Darwin might have gotten wrong. Why do you
care? Don't tell me you're one of those wankers, who think that if
they can show that Darwin was wrong, then evolution is not a fact?
--
Malte Runz
Fact? It's a theory. Unless someone can get in a time machine and go back
millions of years to see it actually happen, that's all it will ever be.
Where's the time machine for, say, a worldwide flood?

Loading...