L
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
JP2Admirer;1629551:
The fossil record for humans is pretty good, the fossil record for apes very bad. That’s because apes live in forests which are not very favourable for fossilisation, whilst humans moved out to the shores of the African lakes.Oddly enough, the precise missing link between humans and primates lies somewhere yet to be discovered. That’s not to say that it won’t be discovered nor does it imply that scientists won’t be able to determine exactly how it happened. At some point God infused souls into a couple of creatures and they were able to rationalize and deduce though.
We will probably never have an absolutely conclusive picture of human evolution, but that doesn’t mean that the major pattern cannot be known.
Now chimpanzees are not capable of sin, whilst humans are, so clearly there was a first sin sometime after the chimp/human split.
Science can’t currently tell you how to define “human” in a way that is useful for our purposes. However it would be reasonable to say that the first human was the first ape-man capable of sinning. The question is, would his mate also have committed sin? If we say that the first sin was a sexual sin, then this would actually follow. If you further say that it was the act of sinning that somehow made man different from the beasts - opened up the undeniable qualitative gulf that exists between man and chimpanzee - then you’ve got something very close to Genesis.
“And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they saw that they were naked.”
F
foolishmortal
Guest
The fact that a famous museum has an ape or gorilla giving a woman a branch in the style of the Michaelangelo painting and that the ichtus fish was redesigned to have legs and say Darwin show that the evolutionists, the ones who know what’s going on behind the scenes, have another religion to replace Christianity. I learned that Mao had children first read Darwin, not Mao’s book or a book by Lenin or Stalin or Marx to replace other religions from schoolchildrens’ minds . Why the religious imagery instead of just a scientific presentation of evolution? Why a white martyrdom for those who do not believe in it when scientific findings were never meant to be dogmatized but, dare I say, evolving? Evolution is a false religion masquerading as a science–that’s why. It has nothing to do with science. If it were any truth to it (well, microevolution can be proven, but that isn’t what’s emphasized), scientists have little faith in it by forcing us to believe it or get bad grades or no grants or scholarships. They once applauded Piltdown Man (which shows little regard for the scientific method) and, well, you give me that flying spaghetti monster (how that goes with creationism, I never could figure); I give you panevolution–alien seed coming here and evolving into us–the latest in the denial of God’s creation of us as humans that actually, in their opinion, merited a Hollywood movie in recent times. I got the new-time religion shoved down my throat taking a family therapy grad course at a school. What they were doing with macroevolution in teaching healing of families, I can’t guess. We’re not healing ape families. I think we’re different. Let’s study humans. No…because the liberals don’t really believe in separation of church and state they preach and theistic evolutionists are their “useful idiots” as Stalin would call their ignorant, yet proud-of-themselves willing lackeys.
F
foolishmortal
Guest
conflict of interest part 2: the historico-political origins of man’s inhumanity to man in the modern day.
Evolution is a religion for true Nazis who find that some people are less of humans and can and should be eliminated as useless feeders and this religion is adhered to by some government-level conservatives as well as liberals (esp. at the UN, their affiliates, and other fascist organizations that rival only the terrorists in evil and ground covered)–those who cruelly make these people think they are being saved from the evil conservatives who hate them. Darwin was a fan of Malthus, who felt it would be great if something killed off a lot of people. Marx was a big fan of Darwin’s. Darwin and a few friends tried mating with each other to create superminds, but got mentally disabled offspring. Hitler was into this stuff also. Margaret Sanger was a fan of his and had abortion clinics in black neighborhoods to kill them off because they were probably “useless feeders” and less evolved to them. The Rockefellers were into funding this stuff. Mao and East Germany were pushing not the works of communist leaders, but of macro-evolution.
You can’t blame macro evolution? What macro-evolution? You can make a story about anything you see around you, but the Bible is inerrant. If science can prove it’s right, and it cannot, then Genesis is only symbolic. I have not seen it happen (if I were a far-left liberal, I guess I would believe a fetus evolves into a human in one instant when it comes out of the womb). Hmmm What else is symbolic in the Bible? I know! What atheistic liberals don’t like! What is science? Whatever leftists do like, because winners write or rewrite history.
For all I know, certain beings are very or somewhat similar and living side-by-side today–apes and man. How could some become man and others, not–not even closer to man than some so-called millions of years ago? For all I know, there are those who want to stamp out Christianity and they start with the tradition with a small “t” is as good as changed at a whim Catholics and then most Protestants fall as well. For all I know, scientific discoveries happen that change everything ad thus, we really don’t know anything about our world for sure. We do know that Satan can make us think the way he wants if we are in his influence by unChristian behavior and thinking and those that think up things like macroevolution display more “knuckle-dragging” behavior, sexually (and exciting the passions and having sex with the next pretty face is below rational creatures) and in killing the weak (also below rational creatures), than the “throwback” “extremist” fundamentalist Muslims, Catholics and Protestants they accuse of the worst behavior of man. When the latter kill, though, it’s at least upon principle, though with twisted logic. Liberalism is a mental disorder and, according to a classic Catholic writer, a sin.
Well…go to youtube and look up the last 3rd or 4th of Alex Jones’s “Endgame” (there’s about 12 or 13 parts depending on the poster. He covers this conflict of interest of the theorists better than I can.
Evolution is a religion for true Nazis who find that some people are less of humans and can and should be eliminated as useless feeders and this religion is adhered to by some government-level conservatives as well as liberals (esp. at the UN, their affiliates, and other fascist organizations that rival only the terrorists in evil and ground covered)–those who cruelly make these people think they are being saved from the evil conservatives who hate them. Darwin was a fan of Malthus, who felt it would be great if something killed off a lot of people. Marx was a big fan of Darwin’s. Darwin and a few friends tried mating with each other to create superminds, but got mentally disabled offspring. Hitler was into this stuff also. Margaret Sanger was a fan of his and had abortion clinics in black neighborhoods to kill them off because they were probably “useless feeders” and less evolved to them. The Rockefellers were into funding this stuff. Mao and East Germany were pushing not the works of communist leaders, but of macro-evolution.
You can’t blame macro evolution? What macro-evolution? You can make a story about anything you see around you, but the Bible is inerrant. If science can prove it’s right, and it cannot, then Genesis is only symbolic. I have not seen it happen (if I were a far-left liberal, I guess I would believe a fetus evolves into a human in one instant when it comes out of the womb). Hmmm What else is symbolic in the Bible? I know! What atheistic liberals don’t like! What is science? Whatever leftists do like, because winners write or rewrite history.
For all I know, certain beings are very or somewhat similar and living side-by-side today–apes and man. How could some become man and others, not–not even closer to man than some so-called millions of years ago? For all I know, there are those who want to stamp out Christianity and they start with the tradition with a small “t” is as good as changed at a whim Catholics and then most Protestants fall as well. For all I know, scientific discoveries happen that change everything ad thus, we really don’t know anything about our world for sure. We do know that Satan can make us think the way he wants if we are in his influence by unChristian behavior and thinking and those that think up things like macroevolution display more “knuckle-dragging” behavior, sexually (and exciting the passions and having sex with the next pretty face is below rational creatures) and in killing the weak (also below rational creatures), than the “throwback” “extremist” fundamentalist Muslims, Catholics and Protestants they accuse of the worst behavior of man. When the latter kill, though, it’s at least upon principle, though with twisted logic. Liberalism is a mental disorder and, according to a classic Catholic writer, a sin.
Well…go to youtube and look up the last 3rd or 4th of Alex Jones’s “Endgame” (there’s about 12 or 13 parts depending on the poster. He covers this conflict of interest of the theorists better than I can.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
The notion that other people are subhumans existed long before Darwin, and indeed was often held by people who called themselves Christians.
In fact, the leader of the largest anti-evolution organization in the United States wrote a book in the 1990s, in which he argued for the intellectual and spiritual inferiority of blacks.
"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites. "
Henry Morris, The Beginning of the World 1991
Evolutionists are not racists for the simple reason that evolutionary theory has shown that there are no such things as biological races in humans. But creationists like Henry Morris continued to spew their notions of subhumans even at the end of the 20th century. This is one of the important differences between science and creationism.
In fact, the leader of the largest anti-evolution organization in the United States wrote a book in the 1990s, in which he argued for the intellectual and spiritual inferiority of blacks.
"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites. "
Henry Morris, The Beginning of the World 1991
Evolutionists are not racists for the simple reason that evolutionary theory has shown that there are no such things as biological races in humans. But creationists like Henry Morris continued to spew their notions of subhumans even at the end of the 20th century. This is one of the important differences between science and creationism.
R
reggieM
Guest
There are discoveries that lead to questions about the possiblity of evolution – as mentioned, the difference between human and ape intelligence. Ape intelligence has remained the same and has not evolved.
Or something like this:
"Modern Beetles Predate Dinosaurs
news.aol.com/story/_a/modern-beetles-predate-dinosaurs/20071226135209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
New research hints that modern-day versions of the insects are far older than any tyrannosaur that trod the Earth.
Today’s plethora of beetle species were thought to have blossomed 140 million years ago, during the rise of flowering plants. But the new study of beetle DNA and fossils, published in the Dec. 21 issue of the journal Science, pushes their appearance back to 300 million years ago.
That beats the arrival of dinosaurs by about 70 million years.
“Unlike the dinosaurs which dwindled to extinction, beetles survived because of their ecological diversity and adaptability,” said the study’s lead scientist Alfried Vogler, an entomologist at Imperial College London and the Natural History Museum in London.
Today, 350,000 species of beetles dot collections around the world, and millions more are estimated to exist but haven’t been discovered — which means they make up more than one-fourth of all known species of life forms.The reason for this tremendous diversity has been debated by scientists for many years but never resolved."
The explanation for the non-evolution of beetles over 300 million years is what is called “just so stories”. The reason why there are 350 thousand species of beetles is explained in a similar manner, with no agreement among scientists on how it happened.
The claim is that lightning hit mud puddles, created life and then beetles evolved rapidly from one celled creatures. Then evolution stopped for 350 million years (??).
Apparently, beetles didn’t need any more intelligence or body parts or behavior patterns than all other creatures who supposedly evolved from the same one-celled creatures (and the same mud puddles).
Or something like this:
"Modern Beetles Predate Dinosaurs
news.aol.com/story/_a/modern-beetles-predate-dinosaurs/20071226135209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
New research hints that modern-day versions of the insects are far older than any tyrannosaur that trod the Earth.
Today’s plethora of beetle species were thought to have blossomed 140 million years ago, during the rise of flowering plants. But the new study of beetle DNA and fossils, published in the Dec. 21 issue of the journal Science, pushes their appearance back to 300 million years ago.
That beats the arrival of dinosaurs by about 70 million years.
“Unlike the dinosaurs which dwindled to extinction, beetles survived because of their ecological diversity and adaptability,” said the study’s lead scientist Alfried Vogler, an entomologist at Imperial College London and the Natural History Museum in London.
Today, 350,000 species of beetles dot collections around the world, and millions more are estimated to exist but haven’t been discovered — which means they make up more than one-fourth of all known species of life forms.The reason for this tremendous diversity has been debated by scientists for many years but never resolved."
The explanation for the non-evolution of beetles over 300 million years is what is called “just so stories”. The reason why there are 350 thousand species of beetles is explained in a similar manner, with no agreement among scientists on how it happened.
The claim is that lightning hit mud puddles, created life and then beetles evolved rapidly from one celled creatures. Then evolution stopped for 350 million years (??).
Apparently, beetles didn’t need any more intelligence or body parts or behavior patterns than all other creatures who supposedly evolved from the same one-celled creatures (and the same mud puddles).
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Reggie, what species of beetle do you think has remained the same for several hundred million years? There has been an explosion of adaptive speciation of beetles in that time, with the evolution of entire new genera, and classes of beetles. Would you like to learn about some of the evolutionary changes in beetles over that time?
What species of ape do you think has remained the same for even ten million years?
Why are you surprised that insects predated dinosaurs?
Is there any point here? Or was this just to shift the discussion from the problems of racism among creationists?
What species of ape do you think has remained the same for even ten million years?
Why are you surprised that insects predated dinosaurs?
Is there any point here? Or was this just to shift the discussion from the problems of racism among creationists?
E
edwest2
Guest
It would be productive to stop pointing out how calculus, cookbooks, gravity, electricity or other aspects of science do not involve a deity. None of these things talk about human origins, only evolution does.
The Church accepts that some sort of evolution occurred but it must be linked to the actions of divine providence. Otherwise, this is the direction you are going in:
You are just another animal.
Your genes are the reason you have a big brain, and those are the only two things that define you, nothing else.
Only science. God is a meaningless concept.
Naturalism only, the supernatural doesn’t exist.
Religion has been repackaged as the new evil, only science will save you.
The common seal can walk on its flippers. Is it on its way to developing hands or legs? I don’t think so.
To my fellow Catholics - please understand that those who promote evolution promote naturalism, which excludes God, and denies to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.
God bless,
Ed
The Church accepts that some sort of evolution occurred but it must be linked to the actions of divine providence. Otherwise, this is the direction you are going in:
You are just another animal.
Your genes are the reason you have a big brain, and those are the only two things that define you, nothing else.
Only science. God is a meaningless concept.
Naturalism only, the supernatural doesn’t exist.
Religion has been repackaged as the new evil, only science will save you.
The common seal can walk on its flippers. Is it on its way to developing hands or legs? I don’t think so.
To my fellow Catholics - please understand that those who promote evolution promote naturalism, which excludes God, and denies to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.
God bless,
Ed
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
You already posted this elsewhere.The fact that a famous museum has an ape or gorilla giving a woman a branch in the style of the Michaelangelo painting and that the ichtus fish was redesigned to have legs and say Darwin show that the evolutionists, the ones who know what’s going on behind the scenes, have another religion to replace Christianity. I learned that Mao had children first read Darwin, not Mao’s book or a book by Lenin or Stalin or Marx to replace other religions from schoolchildrens’ minds . Why the religious imagery instead of just a scientific presentation of evolution? Why a white martyrdom for those who do not believe in it when scientific findings were never meant to be dogmatized but, dare I say, evolving? Evolution is a false religion masquerading as a science–that’s why. It has nothing to do with science. If it were any truth to it (well, microevolution can be proven, but that isn’t what’s emphasized), scientists have little faith in it by forcing us to believe it or get bad grades or no grants or scholarships. They once applauded Piltdown Man (which shows little regard for the scientific method) and, well, you give me that flying spaghetti monster (how that goes with creationism, I never could figure); I give you panevolution–alien seed coming here and evolving into us–the latest in the denial of God’s creation of us as humans that actually, in their opinion, merited a Hollywood movie in recent times. I got the new-time religion shoved down my throat taking a family therapy grad course at a school. What they were doing with macroevolution in teaching healing of families, I can’t guess. We’re not healing ape families. I think we’re different. Let’s study humans. No…because the liberals don’t really believe in separation of church and state they preach and theistic evolutionists are their “useful idiots” as Stalin would call their ignorant, yet proud-of-themselves willing lackeys.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
long sentences which are disjointed and without end, no paragraphs…I have no clue what you are talking about very much. It seems like more a stream of consciousness.conflict of interest part 2: the historico-political origins of man’s inhumanity to man in the modern day.
Evolution is a religion for true Nazis who find that some people are less of humans and can and should be eliminated as useless feeders and this religion is adhered to by some government-level conservatives as well as liberals (esp. at the UN, their affiliates, and other fascist organizations that rival only the terrorists in evil and ground covered)–those who cruelly make these people think they are being saved from the evil conservatives who hate them. Darwin was a fan of Malthus, who felt it would be great if something killed off a lot of people. Marx was a big fan of Darwin’s. Darwin and a few friends tried mating with each other to create superminds, but got mentally disabled offspring. Hitler was into this stuff also. Margaret Sanger was a fan of his and had abortion clinics in black neighborhoods to kill them off because they were probably “useless feeders” and less evolved to them. The Rockefellers were into funding this stuff. Mao and East Germany were pushing not the works of communist leaders, but of macro-evolution.
You can’t blame macro evolution? What macro-evolution? You can make a story about anything you see around you, but the Bible is inerrant. If science can prove it’s right, and it cannot, then Genesis is only symbolic. I have not seen it happen (if I were a far-left liberal, I guess I would believe a fetus evolves into a human in one instant when it comes out of the womb). Hmmm What else is symbolic in the Bible? I know! What atheistic liberals don’t like! What is science? Whatever leftists do like, because winners write or rewrite history.
For all I know, certain beings are very or somewhat similar and living side-by-side today–apes and man. How could some become man and others, not–not even closer to man than some so-called millions of years ago? For all I know, there are those who want to stamp out Christianity and they start with the tradition with a small “t” is as good as changed at a whim Catholics and then most Protestants fall as well. For all I know, scientific discoveries happen that change everything ad thus, we really don’t know anything about our world for sure. We do know that Satan can make us think the way he wants if we are in his influence by unChristian behavior and thinking and those that think up things like macroevolution display more “knuckle-dragging” behavior, sexually (and exciting the passions and having sex with the next pretty face is below rational creatures) and in killing the weak (also below rational creatures), than the “throwback” “extremist” fundamentalist Muslims, Catholics and Protestants they accuse of the worst behavior of man. When the latter kill, though, it’s at least upon principle, though with twisted logic. Liberalism is a mental disorder and, according to a classic Catholic writer, a sin.
Well…go to youtube and look up the last 3rd or 4th of Alex Jones’s “Endgame” (there’s about 12 or 13 parts depending on the poster. He covers this conflict of interest of the theorists better than I can.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
It would be productive to stop pointing out how calculus, cookbooks, gravity, electricity or other aspects of science do not involve a deity. None of these things talk about human origins, only evolution does.
**No, evolution does not talk about human origins, it talks about how life evolved, not how it originated. **
The Church accepts that some sort of evolution occurred but it must be linked to the actions of divine providence.
**We’'ve been telling you that for 2 months now. It’s the 16th time you’ve admitted it yet you continue on. **
Otherwise, this is the direction you are going in:
You are just another animal.
Your genes are the reason you have a big brain, and those are the only two things that define you, nothing else.
Only science. God is a meaningless concept.
Naturalism only, the supernatural doesn’t exist.
Religion has been repackaged as the new evil, only science will save you.
**We aren’t headed in that direction. Why do you keep bringing it up?Your fight is with atheism. Why don’t you find atheists and argue with them? **
The common seal can walk on its flippers. Is it on its way to developing hands or legs? I don’t think so.
**what you think is happily not the point. **
To my fellow Catholics - please understand that those who promote evolution promote naturalism, which excludes God, and denies to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.
**Then based on what you said above, the Church is promoting naturalism. You said the Church supported evolution. Evolution promotes nothing Ed. People promote things. Evolution explains how live evolved over time. People may or may not promote naturalism. Evolution does not do this. I really don’t understand why you continue to be so confused on this concept. It’s been stated again and again, and now you have the Church promoting naturalism. Do you see how dangerous it is to speak for the Church when you don’t know the facts? **
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Wrong. Most of them do as an incidental. Gravity, for instance, involves an explaination for the way our bodies are, and why beings like us are possible. Evolution incidentally involves why we have the animal characteristics we do. The only difference, is that you don’t object to the way God did gravity, but for some reason the way He did evolution gripes you.It would be productive to stop pointing out how calculus, cookbooks, gravity, electricity or other aspects of science do not involve a deity. None of these things talk about human origins, only evolution does.
All of nature can be linked to the actions of divine providence. For some reason, you can accept that for everything God made, but evolution.The Church accepts that some sort of evolution occurred but it must be linked to the actions of divine providence.
Not part of evolutionary theory. It does not rule out the fact of an immortal soul.You are just another animal.
That’s like saying that high winds are the reason you have hurricanes. True, but trivially so. The underlying reasons are not the superficial ones.Your genes are the reason you have a big brain,
Not part of science. You can believe it, if you want, but science won’t support you in that.and those are the only two things that define you, nothing else.
Not part of science. You can believe it, if you want, but science won’t support you in that.Only science. God is a meaningless concept.
Not part of science. You can believe it, if you want, but science won’t support you in that.Naturalism only, the supernatural doesn’t exist.
Not part of science. You can believe it, if you want, but science won’t support you in that. You have some very odd misconceptions about science.Religion has been repackaged as the new evil, only science will save you.
It has hands and legs. The same bones you have, in the same places, are in a seal. They’ve just been modified by natural selection a bit. Primitive seals had less efficient flippers, more like legs than modern ones.The common seal can walk on its flippers. Is it on its way to developing hands or legs? I don’t think so.
The Pope is promoting naturalism and denying God? Are you very sure of that?To my fellow Catholics - please understand that those who promote evolution promote naturalism, which excludes God,
I’m pretty sure Pope Benedict, when he observed that common descent of living things on Earth was virtually certain, did not thereby deny God, or deny divine providence. Have you considered the possibility that he is right, and you are wrong?and denies to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.
E
edwest2
Guest
Pope Benedict is quite clear: there is a two part answer: some evolution and it was guided by divine providence. That is what the Church teaches and what I accept.
The textbooks alone are not, repeat, not the complete answer. The Church recognizes that.
God bless,
Ed
The textbooks alone are not, repeat, not the complete answer. The Church recognizes that.
God bless,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Hmm… apprently not…A thing or two about theistic evolution from my humble perspective…Evolution involves chance, factoring God into this is worse than Darwinian Uniformitarianism.
“Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality…But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a purely contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan."
From Communion and Stewardship International Theological Commission, chaired by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI
Not according to the Church.Evolution then doesn’t have original sin, no sin no need of a savior, no savior then there is no need for Jesus…
There’s a different, contradictory one in Matthew, if you insist on taking them literally.Lukes geneology goes back to Adam, if its all a farce or some nice story to communicate some truth then the geneology would be myth.
True. The question is whether or not it is what you think it is.If God is who He says He is then there is no reason to dispute the Genesis account of creation as factual…
The church does not support modern doctrines that it is entirely literal.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
All of it is guided by divine providence. Evolution and contingency are merely tools of God in this process.Pope Benedict is quite clear: there is a two part answer: some evolution and it was guided by divine providence.
Good to hear you say it. Science can only tell us about our physical bodies and how they came to be. It cannot and will never be, able to fully define what it is to be human.The textbooks alone are not, repeat, not the complete answer.
We have a spirit and an immortal soul which are not subject to scientific inquiry.
R
reggieM
Guest
This refutes Darwin’s theory. Evolution “guided by divine providence” is not what Darwin proposed.some evolution and it was guided by divine providence
How would evolution have been different if it wasn’t guided by divine providence?
Darwinism proposes that no divine guidance was needed in the evolutionary process.
R
reggieM
Guest
Today’s plethora of beetle species were thought to have blossomed 140 million years ago, during the rise of flowering plants. But the new study of beetle DNA and fossils, published in the Dec. 21 issue of the journal Science, pushes their appearance back to 300 million years ago.Reggie, what species of beetle do you think has remained the same for several hundred million years?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
So, which species do you think are 140 million years old, then? Why would it be surprising that there are beetles that far back?
Most of our fossil insects are obtained from amber, which makes it hard to find beetles in the fossil record. But I know of no species of them, which has existed that long. All the species I know about today, have evolved significantly from the earliest known ones.
I’m wondering, did you just cut and paste this, without really understanding what it said?
Most of our fossil insects are obtained from amber, which makes it hard to find beetles in the fossil record. But I know of no species of them, which has existed that long. All the species I know about today, have evolved significantly from the earliest known ones.
I’m wondering, did you just cut and paste this, without really understanding what it said?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
and on the 17th try we have a winner. that is what we have been telling you all along Ed. You got it perfectly right this time…!Pope Benedict is quite clear: there is a two part answer: some evolution and it was guided by divine providence. That is what the Church teaches and what I accept.
The textbooks alone are not, repeat, not the complete answer. The Church recognizes that.
R
reggieM
Guest
Perhaps you should write to Mr. Vogler and explain to him that no beetle species existing today are as old as he (and the article I posted) claims.**The large number of beetle species existing today **could very well be a direct result of this early evolution … said the study’s lead scientist Alfried Vogler, an entomologist at Imperial College London and the Natural History Museum in London.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.