What about it?
**[Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists ](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html)**
** Charles Darwin's tree of life, which shows how species are related, is " wrong" and "misleading", claim scientists. **For the 10,000,000,00th time: I AM NOT A DARWINIST! However, the fossil record does show an evolutionary trend. The fact that it has been revised multiple times is a testimony to the self-correcting nature of science. There is no reason, in my mind, to think that the earth was created in six 24 hour days. There is ample evidence that Genesis 1 is largely symbolic, and demonstrates the liturgical orientation of creation.
It is now a bush with links between. The fossil evidence supports an explosion of life and then stasis.
Which does not contradict evolutionary theory. It does seem to contradict gradualism, but not punctuated equilibrium. The young earth silliness has no way to explain radiometric dating.
PE is construct.
Why do you try to make the claim that I am not in line with the CHurch’s teachings? I am 100% loyal to the Magisterium. Catholics may hold to evolution (or YE creationism for that matter) and still be loyal to the Church. Or do you think that people are allowed to believe what they want, so long as it lines up with your beliefs.
Explore:
Scales.
Have I ever mentioned “human evolution”? No.
Hello buffalo,
Phil wins the thread. Never mind Genesis. If you want to be entirely sure that the age of the earth really is 4.5 billion years, and that we really do know this beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt, read Dalrymple. He’s collected the entire gamut of evidences from separate fields of inquiry into one book, examining a host of independent methods used to derive our earth’s age in detail, along with the data used in the calculations. It’s written specifically to answer the doubts of those who’ve been see-sawed by proponents of young earth creationism.
