But the fact is that both sides are based on an invalid premise. Between uniformitarian not only such writers as Hugh Miller, but even such as sir Charles Lyell {Sir Charles Lyell does not currently belongs already more to the uniformitarian. After this was written article, it with rare and worthy of high respect with sincerity surrendered to the arguments of Darwin.}, talk as if we really had found the oldest or even the oldest strata approx. Their opponents, including here as supporters of the hypothesis of development, and simple progressionist, almost without exception, do exactly the same. Sir R. Murchison that belongs to progressionists calls from the lower layers containing fossils, "prototechnika" layers. Professor Ansted uses the same term. Explicitly or implicitly, all arguing based on that provision, as shared on their soil. Meanwhile, the position of it could not stand against the common criticism that could not be better known to many of those having recourse to it. Against him lead is not one fact clearly showing that it is not only doubtful, but but on the other hand, the evidence given in his favor, not stand up to scrutiny.
1 comment:
But the fact is that both sides are based on an invalid premise.
Between uniformitarian not only such writers as Hugh Miller, but even
such as sir Charles Lyell {Sir Charles Lyell does not currently
belongs already more to the uniformitarian. After this was written
article, it with rare and worthy of high respect with sincerity surrendered to
the arguments of Darwin.}, talk as if we really had found
the oldest or even the oldest strata approx. Their opponents, including
here as supporters of the hypothesis of development, and simple progressionist,
almost without exception, do exactly the same. Sir R. Murchison that
belongs to progressionists calls from the lower layers containing
fossils, "prototechnika" layers. Professor Ansted uses
the same term. Explicitly or implicitly, all arguing based on that provision,
as shared on their soil.
Meanwhile, the position of it could not stand against the common criticism that
could not be better known to many of those having recourse to it. Against him
lead is not one fact clearly showing that it is not only doubtful, but
but on the other hand, the evidence given in his favor, not
stand up to scrutiny.
Post a Comment