More scientists express doubts on Darwin

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 22, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

[demkicker]

This is for you, newbie:

[OmahaFields]

For someone that has stated he doesn't want to waste his time and is 'done with me', you sure are wasting a lot of time putting up your irrational posts. Why, in half the time you could have put up a couple of AC's "FACTS" and we could have had a civil discussion on the merits of the facts but instead you are acting like an immature juvenile.

[OmahaFields]

Find a brick wall and go argue with it. I'm done with you....

I have found a brick wall, and it is you.

[demkicker]

AGAIN, READ THIS V-E-R-Y S-LO-W-L-Y: I'll not spend the time it would take going into the great detail AC goes into to convince you of anything.

[demkicker]

Really. Then how would I know about the ridiculous statements about the Cambrian explosion in Chapter 8. She claims 5-10 million years, when the correct figure is really much larger.

Just so I am clear before commenting, are you claiming AC said the Cambrain explosion happened 5-10 million years ago, or that it only lasted 5-10 million years?

[Boxen]

For somone who is "done" with the conversation, you certainly don't know how to keep yourself from posting. Geez.

[Coyoteman]

Just so I am clear before commenting, are you claiming AC said the Cambrain explosion happened 5-10 million years ago, or that it only lasted 5-10 million years?

Only lasted 5-10 million years. The actual figure should be 10-30 or 10-40 million years.

[demkicker]

Not that it's any of your business, but I have a problem with obnoxious people who continue to post to me (even double posting) saying the same old cr@p. Sometimes pictures speak louder than words.

[OmahaFields]

Not that it's any of your business, but I have a problem with obnoxious people who continue to post to me (even double posting) saying the same old cr@p.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or do you not believe in that?

[demkicker]

I agree she stated that on page 220, but her book is well researched so I don't know how anyone could say she is definitely incorrect.

[Boxen]

I can see that. You've clearly graduated from the debate, as now you post only immature insults.

[OmahaFields]

Did you learn that in church this morning? Never mind. I don't think you made church today.

[OmahaFields]

I agree she stated that on page 220,

Then she was in error?

[OmahaFields]

Here is where she probably erred. Each subdivision is 5-6 million years long. Adding all the subdivisions you get 30 to 40 million years. Probably just carelessness on her part or one of here writers fed her the error. No big deal. OTOH, if she knew what she was talking about she would have caught the error.

The chart at left shows the major subdivisions of the Cambrian Period for North America (Laurentia during the Cambrian). International ages (subdivisions) have not been established. The size of the bars does not correlate with the length of time for each age. The oldest unnamed age is 543 to 520 million years ago, while the remaining six ages are from 520 to 490 million years ago, each approximately 5-6 million years long.

[demkicker]

And I guess it makes you feel superior responding to immature insults. Whatever....

[demkicker]

This is an interesting read about details of the Cambrian explosion.

[demkicker]

Meant to ping you in my post #457. Check it out.

[OmahaFields]

He fails to explain why there are no human, dog, horse, elephant, zebra, whale fossils in the "Cambrian Explosion" region ....

[balrog666]

Some phyla died out over time? That's supposed to be a surprise to evolution?? Are you kidding me???

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!