But had you lived prior to that fact being uncovered, you would have asserted this literal reading of the bible. Is that right? So scientific discovery - should it be sufficiently compelling - is sufficient to cause one to abandon a literal reading.
Easy. We don’t have any scientific explanation for how all humans come from only 2 parents. But so it is. This has no bearing on the scientific evidence that leads us to conclude that life existed on earth for more than the 5778 years you insist is the upper limit.
What must irritate you immensely is that there is just so damn much of it
Not a difficult thing to do. Humani Generis was carefully worded, as we can read in your next post:
A true man such as Adam has a human body with a human soul infused by God. A living human body without the soul is not a “true man” as mentioned in Humani Generis. Evolution tells us that there was a large population of these “untrue men” alongside Adam and Eve.
It occurs to me you could do Christianity a service by studying this “junk science” and uncovering the flaws. Start with carbon dating as that is so fundamental to the “junk”. If you can find where they went wrong on that…well, that’s a Nobel prize for sure…
All of them 5778 years ago?
Huge dinosaur-----------------------------punctuated equilibrium----------------chicken size fossilTechno2000:
I think you’re approaching it from the wrong end. The idea is to first of all assume evolution is a fact, then you look for the “evidence”. Try this approach and the fossil record will reveal the truth (which you already know is evolution) to you and one little chicken size fossil becomes a missing link.
Just ‘tired’, I’m sure. We’ve all done it before…
You have started your education of evolution, it appears, from the premise that Darwinism was ‘invented’ to promote atheism. Therein lies your problem. Examine the evidence, all of it, then come to a tentative conclusion. You’re the one starting with a conclusion and cherry picking data to support it, and you’re projecting the tendency to do so onto all people working in the sciences!
Not quite:
medium-sized proto-dinosaur ---+--- huge dinosaur
|
+--- small dinosaur --- birdThe tragedy is that fallacious foolishness like this gets licked-up by the anti-evolution camp because it reinforces their emotional attachment to their emotional idea…
Techno2000:
Not quite:
Evolution allows for branches in trees of descent. Birds are not direct descendants of the large dinosaurs.Code:medium-sized proto-dinosaur ---+--- huge dinosaur | +--- small dinosaur --- bird
rossum
Yes. Over time dinosaurs evolved to different sizes. Some evolved to a larger size, like Apatosaurs. Some stayed at around the same size as the proto-dinosaurs, like many Dromeosaurs and others evolved to smaller sizes, like Archaeopteryx.
Well, it had to get its toe in the water some kind of way.
If these humongous creatures have been gradually morphing down to the size of a chicken for millions and millions of years then there should be tons of fossils showing every stage of their development.And this goes for all the animal we see today also.Techno2000:
Yes. Over time dinosaurs evolved to different sizes. Some evolved to a larger size, like Apatosaurs. Some stayed at around the same size as the proto-dinosaurs, like many Dromeosaurs and others evolved to smaller sizes, like Archaeopteryx.
Just like mammals. The original proto-mammals were rat sized to domestic cat sized. Some evolved to smaller sizes: voles. Some stayed at about the same size: rabbits, and some evolved to larger sizes: elephants.
rossum
Do you think dinosaurs would have found birds to be tasty ?Techno2000:
Not quite:
Evolution allows for branches in trees of descent. Birds are not direct descendants of the large dinosaurs.Code:medium-sized proto-dinosaur ---+--- huge dinosaur | +--- small dinosaur --- bird
rossum
Slander…not really ,Glark is my Hero.