1 2 3
The shape and size of the beak is minor? Tell that to the birds.
2/13/2009 5:04:40 PM
Well, even if that WAS true it doesn't do anything towards disproving evolution.
2/13/2009 5:05:14 PM
And what a fucking excellent job he did of it.
Does it not strike you as being a bit stupid to use the internet to argue about a 200 year old dead guy? As if anything you could possibly say relating to Darwin at all could disprove modern theories regarding evolution in any way?
2/13/2009 5:07:18 PM
ah, it's on Free Republic, then it must be true, because they never make shit up
2/13/2009 5:17:55 PM
And how does that disprove his theory? You know, a lot more evidence has been discovered over the last 150 years. Go argue with a modern biologist.
2/13/2009 5:19:36 PM
Atheist In A Foxhole
God Guns Guts and Stupidity.
2/13/2009 5:20:34 PM
Lying for Jesus .......again.
2/13/2009 5:21:14 PM
"He was a med-school dropout turned amateur naturalist"
And Einstein was a patent clerk turned amateur physicist, I suppose?
"attempted to reinterpret the entire history of biology on nothing more than a few minor variations between finches"
No, the Origin of Species is full of evidence for evolution, of which Darwin's finches are but one small part.
...would appear to be three things you are trying to think with.
2/13/2009 5:29:31 PM
I counted two different fallacies: Appeal to ridicule and Ad hom.
2/13/2009 5:31:15 PM
he spent 22 years looking at 4 birds? what a lazy cunt. that totally makes me reject the last 150 years of evidence.
oh it's a lie
2/13/2009 5:33:13 PM
Are you lying for Jeezus or are you just really that fucking stupid?
2/13/2009 5:34:38 PM
Because it's not as if scientists have discovered mountains more of evidence supporting evolution in the past 150 years since the theory was first proposed by Darwin.
Fucking retards. The entire combined IQ of the Free Republic forum doesn't equal that of Darwin, and he's been dead for a while.
2/13/2009 5:59:14 PM
Jezebel's Evil Sister
If true, it shows Darwin's discovery to be even more astounding than previously thought. It would also show that non-scientists and "amateurs" can grasp the concept that is beyond the limited understanding of freepers.
GodGunsGuts just shot himself in the foot — the same one lodged in his lying mouth.
2/13/2009 6:01:23 PM
God is not a real being, so it is pointless worshiping him. God is the fatuous invention of rabid mammon-worshiping zealots. One might as well pay hommage to magical sky fairies rather then worship a psychotic supernatural entity. God doesn't even exist. The bible contains errors and is inconsistent. Evolution is a proven fact.
2/13/2009 6:07:28 PM
Actually, it was mocking birds.
2/13/2009 6:15:42 PM
Darwin studied many subjects, although medicine (or at least surgery) did not appeal that greatly to him. He was a polymath who also published papers on geology, not a "dropout turned amateur naturalist". This breadth of interest was not uncommon in days when those of a certain background had sufficient money to support themselves independent of the need for a working career.
Just finches? You forgot about the variations amongst tortoises. And iguanas. And beetles.
2/13/2009 6:19:01 PM
So something that decides wether you live or die is minor?
2/13/2009 6:20:38 PM
not just attempt but succeed
2/13/2009 6:23:47 PM
"Darwin was not a scientist"
He was more of one than I susspect you are..
2/13/2009 6:23:50 PM
Says the kicked-out-of-highschool texan.
2/13/2009 6:29:50 PM
Someone hasn't read anything by Darwin.
2/13/2009 6:33:34 PM
Even if that was true, he was still right, despite your ad hominem.
2/13/2009 6:41:22 PM
Guess he was an amazeing genius to discover the theory of evolution based on that meagre evidence then?
2/13/2009 6:41:23 PM
Good grief, if you're going to oppose the book, would it kill you to at least try *reading* it once so you know *what* you're opposing?!?!
2/13/2009 6:43:12 PM
And Jesus was a carpenter.
2/13/2009 6:59:01 PM
1 2 3