Posted on 03/19/2006 2:28:32 PM PST by Greg o the Navy
Only someone who doesn't know what the position of the church was/is about science would say something misleading like that.
The Church had no onjection to science at all.
Perhaps if you would have studied some of the philosophy of the church fathers you'd know better.
Augustine of Hippo [Saint] [Doctor]
Learn some history.
Yeah, whatever! And what does a "Common Ancestor" mean anyways, where did he come from Fantasy Island?
You'd be very wrong. Try reading a little. I don't want to have to cut and paste. It seems that it bothers you when somewone else does it.
Yeah, I'm sure I can tell evo whacko's to just sit down and STFU until they have positive proof man evolved, and stop pointing to conjecturous B.S. like it's any proof of evo.
Thanks, I got tons more, just haven't put them up.
I see the results of evolution every time I visit a coral reef, its impossible not to.
It amazes me that they must know why they can't answer your question.
Please do. Underwater photography used to be one of my few passions.
I see the results of evolution every time I visit a coral reef, its impossible not to.
And I see it in my back yard and garden too.
I find it almost incomprehensible that the religious fanatics can block out the real world and still go blithely on with their ordinary lives, lying to their children and even themselves and thinking they have succeeded in lying to their god.
Well, your own frantic refusal to answer the question is proving to me that I'm on the right track. =:-)
Having to continually deal with and retreat from ultimate reality have always driven folks to behave unseemly, thus the consistent adolescent ridicule.
It has good scale with the three divers, and you can get the 3d effect of diving with it.
All that is necessary to show is that there is a succession of gradually more Homo like hominids through time. The number of fossils is irrelevant, the time sequence and morphological change is relevant. Whether some or all of those fossils are in our direct lineage is irrelevant. We have a number of fossils which clearly show a change from a small semi-bipedal ape-like creature through a number of increasingly more human like creatures to modern humans.
Either humans are the result of evolutionary change from earlier hominids or we were created as is. Even if an Intelligent designer is involved, his/her choice would be to modify older models to get to current humans, which would leave a fossil record identical to what we have, or create humans from scratch.
One alternative explanation for a series of fossils with step-wise changes such as we see in the hominid record is: a human-like ape evolved over 6 million years but went extinct at roughly the same time that humans were abiogenetically created by some superior being. Humans and Chimps share the majority of their genome because that particular genome is the only way to create organisms that resemble humans. (Of course this alternative means that evolution does work)
Another alternative explanation is that each and every non-human ape that we have fossils for were individually created abiogenetically in a sequence that suggests a number of trial runs leading up to the abiogenetical creation of humans. Humans and Chimps share the majority of their genome because that particular genome is the only way to create organisms that resemble humans. (And here I thought abiogenesis was/is impossible)
Take your pick.
They both have the same mandate: To educate the up-and-coming generation so that they can carry forth the blessings of civilization.
At least, that's the ostensible mandate that public schools have.
I don't care what you are. there is no proof of it.
What do you think is the reality of the fossil skulls in post 20?
Makes you wonder about Preparation A thru G.
Superb - looks like it would be good as a desktop background.
Man did evolve from monkeys or a common ancestor. It has never been shown ANYWHERE where usefull DNA is GAINED and results in an improvement. And there never will be.
since this is the same old tired argument, I see that you guys still having come up with any new stuff, no proof, just the same old tired hypothesis. That isn't science, it isn't proof.
Read some newer material.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.