This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
There is now NO REASON for you to make this ignorant statement EVER AGAIN..!
But will you..??
2007-06-14 23:35:21 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Your terms seem to differ from that of the traditional creationist. The Catholic Church is neither against nor is willing to endorse the theory of evolution. If a Catholic so wishes to believe in Darwin's evolution, there is no heresy or sin commited. It however, does not allow the belief in atheistic evolution.
---
God Bless,
2007-06-14 23:42:51 · answer #1 · answered by 0 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You got a good point there even though not all will believe you. But could you confirm with me whether you have read the book written by the founder of the theory of evolution, that is Darwin himself.
What I found out is that some self proclaimed believers of the Theory of Darwinian's Evolution never even read the book written by the founder.
2007-06-14 23:46:25 · answer #2 · answered by Ray Mystery 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What would Lucy say if it knew that scientists were using its remains to prove their invalid theory? No wait, it wouldn't say anything because it was an animal and not a human being. Nor was it an intermediate between an animal and a human being, nor an intermediate between an animal and anything that would ever evolve into a human being.
2007-06-15 00:14:38 · answer #3 · answered by hisgloryisgreat 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey capitalclu, that is completely untrue about the scientific impossibility of spontaneous generation of life. And the goal of evolutionary theory was not to explain the origin of life anyway but to explain how it grew once it did begin.
2007-06-14 23:56:14 · answer #4 · answered by Barry 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'll be starting my list of ignorant statements made by evos, but it might take all summer. Do you think I should post them one at a time?
2007-06-14 23:47:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Of course they will, it's the first argumnet and the one that is easiest to refute.
2007-06-14 23:50:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They will
because they suffer from serious cognitive dissidence brought on by a lack of understanding what empirical evidence is.
2007-06-14 23:39:45 · answer #7 · answered by Gamla Joe 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Amazing how quickly they forget. That's what you get for allowing the lie of creationism into our schools.
2007-06-14 23:40:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why would they stop asking it? It's such a silly question, it belongs in their lineup.
2007-06-14 23:54:58 · answer #9 · answered by mattfromasia 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't. Evolutionists still say that the common ancestor was an ape (or ape-like primate).
That still doesn't solve the origin of life. The scientific impossibility of spontaneous generation of life is well documented.
2007-06-14 23:40:13 · answer #10 · answered by capitalctu 5 · 1⤊ 7⤋