Help please, new Christian here (about the Creation)...?

Question

First, I'm a Christian and believe in the Bible and God's word.

My friend (who is an agnostic) took me to the plant nursery where he works. He showed me the plants that they breed there. He said that some of the willows interbreede within their own kind (species) almost 100% of the time. Of course, I said, as these are the kinds mentioned in the Bible.

Then he said that he had some that were sub-species and varities. That they would breed successfully less often with other varities (like 10% to 90% of the time) and he asked me what kinds these were in relation to one another.

He said that these breeding differences reflected their recent evolutionary developments (obviously a false doctrine) and that over time, these would become genetically isolated from one another, thereby forming a new species.

He said it was similar to mules and horses that were able to breed and make a donkey.

Can any fellow Creationists out there help me?

God bless

Hey, no Bible bashing evolution junk. I want to here from my brothers and sisters about this part of the creation that I just don't understand yet.

Answer 1

The key is after his kind:
The angels saw daughters of men, they had children by them Gen.6:2,4;
these children were giants and could not reproduce because the AFTER HIS KIND did not apply. So things can reproduce and it is limited when the AFTER HIS KIND is messed with.
Gen,1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen.1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Answer 2

ok, first lets go back to the ark.

Noah had two of each kind in the ark, meaning he didnt have two persion cats and two tabby cats and two siamese cats, etc. He had two cats. This is where environmental evolution comes into play.

As time goes on and we breed certain kinds of things together, we will another animal type, but still the same kind of animal, we cannot breed a dog with a cat per se. And if we breed a mule and horse, we get donkey, but they cannot reproduce, even though they are still the same kind of animal.

In the wild dogs and lions and monkeys do not interbreed, thus giving up any notion of true evolution.

Like animals will interbreed, a siamese cat will breed with a tabby cat all on its own. A persons prized so called full bred pooch will breed all on her own with the stray dog down the road. BUt she will not breed with the stray ally cat down the road.

For evolution to be absolutely true, we would all have to be willing to interbreed with each other to get the characteristics that we somehow deem to be better than what we have. Personally I guess I would like to have eagle eyes and the ability to fly. Personally I would never want to have a duck bill or a flat tail with witch to whack things with.

So while your friend is able to create hybrids within the plant world, he cannot hybrid a plant with a human or even an animal, thereby making his overall theory fall apart. For what is there to stop us if we all started as a single cell somewhere, from interbreeding if evolution were true, we would be able to do that, and even your friend knows that we cannot.

Answer 3

Hi,

I've struggled with the evolutionary vs. creationism debate as well.

I looked a lot into the theory of evolution. The mounting evidence is getting difficult to ignore. There is so much proof that evolution did happen- fossils, carbon findings, etc, etc.

After reading articles upon articles on proof of evolution, I figured that there must be a compromise between my religion (Christianity) and evolution.

I then found many papers discussing the gaps, the missing links in evolution.

Then I came to this conclusion: God created the world in a figurative seven days. He created the world through the process of evolution.

Think about it. It takes the best aspects of both sides of the argument into a theory that makes sense.

One of the biggest evolutionary gaps is the evolution of the eye. Scientists are so puzzled over how something so perfect, that it can manipulate light to SEE, was created.

I think that God, using his helping hand, GUIDED evolution to create something as spectacular as the eye. Many creationists argue that something so complex could not have ben created without "intelligent design". Then, the evolutionarists shoot back, arguing the indisputable signs of the evolutionary process, such as your friend.

Okay. Evolution happened. But only because God created the world through the process of evolution. That is why evolution worked out so well- under the all-powerful hand of God, everything He ever wanted-- humans in his image being the end result-- was created. This explanation bridges all the gaps in evolution.

Answer 4

Well there are two kinds of evolution, macro and micro. Macro evolution in the evolution of one species ie a dog evolving into a newer and better dog. Most accept this kind. Micro is the evolving of say a fish into a lizard. That is where things get heated. Anyways alot of evidence that supports Macro evolution is also used to support Micro but is being misused. To a certain extent your friend is correct for example their weren't always this many breeds of dog but all the breeds are still dog. There weren't always these kinds of trees but they're all trees. I hope this helps, I'm know not very good at explaining things.

Answer 5

Sure, first of all when you talk about plants breeding you have it kind of wrong. More accurately you might say they are bred (by insects or man).

Next, when you talk about genetic isolation creating new species, you'd better read your Darwin again. For example, breeds of dogs are kept genetically isolated to keep the breed true. It is the same for hundreds of breeds and man has been doing this for perhaps thousands of years. And in all that time and all that selective breeding, no new dog species. It just doesn't work.

As a new Christian you might keep that in mind when some atheist seeks to attack your beliefs by invoking the mythology of Darwin.

Answer 6

what makes you so sure evolution is "obviously a false doctrine"? There is an overwhelming load of evidence for evolution. Explain Neanderthals, Austral Opithicus and Austral Africanus. Evolution can be observed in bacteria strains who become resistent to medication. If something can be observed, what makes it less true than a two thousand year old book with stories that seem largely unbelievable. I know you didn't want to hear this but please don't ignore my answer and seriously consider what i've said.

Answer 7

Tough one!

I believe in God and Creation - but I also believe in evolution - since Creation. Plants and animals are constantly changing and evolving, that is a scientific fact. Where they came from - that is a different "fact" and belief.

For now - I think your friend is cool and it is OK to know (believe) that plants are evolving. I hope they do with global warming and such.

Where did it start? That is the question - God did it - in 7 days? well that might be up to debate - but for now - let's go with it.

Answer 8

The vast majority of Christians believe that the Creation story is not literal. Evolution is not inconsistent with a belief in God.

One of the things that I find funny is that most Christians who believe that the creation story should be taken literally do not believe in transubstantiation. Why do they take the words of Moses literally when he tells a creation story, but they think Jesus is speaking symbolically when he says "This is my body"?

If you are going to take the Bible literally -- then don't pick and choose which parts to take literally and which parts not to.

Answer 9

Plants have always been cultivated by man to bring a strong variety or more colorful variety of a plant or flower. I cannot see where that could be considered evolution. Dogs are bred to make smaller and smaller dogs. That can't be considered evolution. Dogs make another form of dog and plants make another kind of plant, that is creationism. When a plant becomes dogs that would be evolution.....

Answer 10

There is a lot of info out there to help you out. You will soon find out that there is at least as much evidence that supports creationism than there is for evolution. Statistically, macro evolution is just about impossible.
Here's a link for a site that may help you out.
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php

You may also want to read
"The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions"
http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions01.php

Answer 11

I thought mules and donkeys were the same. We live in a sinfull world and yes humans have been known to breed with brother or sister and we have the mongoloid child. This is why Christ came for mankind to turn away from these sinfull abominations.