One of the biggest oppositions to evolution (that i've noticed) is that you would rather not share your heritage with the ancestoral line of apes. "I'm not a monkey" some might say... so what do you think of this?
Does it bother you to know that you are made of the same material that an earthworm is made of? It seems someone with an aversion to sharing common anscestory with a Chimpanzee might be bothered by this fact, what are your thoughts?
2007-01-02 05:36:54 · 25 answers · asked by ChooseRealityPLEASE 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
all i know is that the whole 'creation' and 'god' stuff is a big load of crap!
2007-01-02 05:45:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
People who know great art can tell a real Picasso or a real Michealangelo by examining it and noting such things as use of color, brush strokes, composition, etc.
People who know great music, ditto.
I think DNA is sort of like that...it shows that we are all the work of a Great Artist...He left His fingerprints all over the world!!
As a Christian, I can honestly say that I don't know how God created mankind...there is some evidence in the first chapter of Genesis that evolution may be a factor.
It doesn't bother me that I might or might not share a common ancestry with a chimpanzee...I'm certainly not about to start throwing poop around just to prove it!
I think about those books about dinosaurs I had when I was a little girl. When I was young, I took it for granted that the dinos really looked just like in the pictures...but now, I wonder. Aren't we assuming quite a bit from some old bones??
2007-01-02 15:04:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Let's be practical. Without being to scientific, but reasonable. You've got a basic core of chemicals which could make life work on this planet (see Lee Strobels "The Case for A Creator"). Being that we have a rational mind to work with, and if we are made in the spiritual image of G-d and He gave us a brain to think with we could conceive of the possibility that G-d would work things out (only much faster) in a similar manner as we would (with the exception that He would get it right the first time). So consequently we may have some of the same genetic "stuff" yet not necessarily share the same lineage. Just as we are all of "Adam's race" yet you and I are not related.
Again I suggest that you look at the aforementioned book for a thorough treatment of evolution.
2007-01-02 05:47:29 · answer #3 · answered by Peace W 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The curse of Adam in Genesis 3:17-19 says, "Because you listened to your wife and ate the fruit I told you not to eat, I have placed a curse on the ground. All your life you will struggle to scratch a living from it. It will grow thorns and thistles for you, though you will eat of its grains. All your life you will sweat to produce food, until your dying day. Then you will return to the ground from which you came. For you were made from dust, and to the dust you will return."
What one would rather be or not be is immaterial. Organic life is composed of the same building blocks made by the same creator. It is subject to decay no matter what or Who is housed inside.
The word of God reveals the truth of the origin of all life on this earth, and there is no evidence that would suggest otherwise.
2007-01-02 05:47:28 · answer #4 · answered by Jay Z 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The fact of the matter is all living creatures share a combination of the same DNA. This actually helps the argument for design. A artist uses similar brush work to paint a variety of pictures, but nevertheless, the same brush strokes make each picture very different. Should a creator waste such time or effort making each creature so uniquely different when all the colors lay in front of Him?
2007-01-02 05:42:06 · answer #5 · answered by brokentogether 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Actually about the only positive ecological contribution that scientific man makes to this planet is to provide food for worms. He is otherwise quite destructive and loves to put labels on everything including his own cage.
But for myself I say with the prophet Job. "I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.; Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me."
Likewise all creation, including the Chimpanzee, look forward to that near day; which is more than I can say for some who claim to be "highly evolved."
2007-01-02 06:15:22 · answer #6 · answered by Tommy 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well the last time I checked we still have monkeys and apes and also the earthworm. There is no evolution. God made us from the dust of the earth and breathed his breath of life into us. And He can take it away at any time.
2007-01-02 05:43:38 · answer #7 · answered by defenserocks41 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Eathworms have no souls. Neither does apes. I will take evolution more serious when science produces an ape that speaks like a human.
2007-01-02 05:44:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is one of the storybook tales that is handed down from pre-religion times. Even aboriginal cultures have stumbled over this question.
2007-01-02 05:59:23 · answer #9 · answered by mykl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Forensic conclusions are made, not by scientific-method "operation science", but by the reasoning of "origin science" which is based on theoretical deduction, indirect proofs, irreproducible singularities (i.e., one-time-only happenings), evidence from the unobserved past, and historical or hypothetical events beyond a reasonable doubt. In this respect, the study of origins (creation vs. evolution) and the determination of DNA lineages are amazingly similar in that the interpretation of the evidence is not open to empirical disproof.
Please also keep in mind that, according to a biblical worldview, it is not God that classifies man as a primate along with apes and monkeys. It is the evolutionary mindset that considers man to be a member of the mammalian order that also includes prosimians, tarsioids, and anthropoids. Nevertheless, it is commonly asserted now that man and the chimpanzee must be very closely related because they are said to share 96%-98.7% of their functional DNA which, in reality, is only the 1.3%-4% of the genome consisting of the genes that are actually known to be responsible for the coding of proteins. Be aware that the human haploid genome consists of some 3 billion nucleotide pairs of DNA! The fact that approximately 98% of the 1.3-to-4% of human DNA that is known corresponds to chimpanzee DNA really proves very little. Even a cloud, a watermelon, and a jellyfish are 98% similar since they are all 98% water!! It really is the 2% variation that truly makes all the difference!
The infinitely more significant fact that each specific kind of organism has its own individually-unique DNA molecular structure, not 100% identical to any other kind of organism, is academically dismissed when considering comparative anatomy, structural homologies, or molecular similarities. Indeed, the very design of DNA is orchestrated to prevent one genetic blueprint from becoming a clone of a different kind of hereditary program. It is hard to imagine a more solid evidence for special creation--and against a common ancestor--than the mere existence and function of DNA!
To the objective mind, similarities should indicate a common designer at least as much as they indicate a common ancestor. It would be logical that an Intelligent Designer would use the same efficient plan to code for proteins in all living organisms genetically engineered by Him. In fact, based on their comparable structure, one would predict blueprint similarity between humans and apes indicative of "common design in advance", not "common dice and chance".
The original 1987 study used mitochondrial tracer DNA (mtDNA), the chromosomes of which are passed unchanged from mother only to offspring, unlike nuclear DNA, which comes from both parents. The study involved 136 human women with widely-varying geographical and ethnic diversity. The analysis was said to point back to a single ancestral mtDNA molecule from a human female living in sub-Saharan Africa about 200,000 years ago. However, it has now been determined that both the entering order of data input and the interpreting of data output were prejudiced toward an African origin for "mitochondrial Eve" based on evolutionary presuppositions.
In conclusion, allow me to quote a paragraph from Marvin L. Lubenow's excellent book [a CEM resource] entitled, 'Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils' (1992, pp.71-72):
"The mtDNA study of African Eve, as well as other aspects of molecular genetics, is based on mutations in the DNA nucleotides. Perhaps we could be forgiven for asking the question, When an evolutionist looks at human DNA nucleotides, how does he know which ones are the result of mutations and which ones have remained unchanged? Obviously, to answer that question he must know what the original or ancient sequences were. Since only God is omniscient, how does the evolutionist get the information about those sequences that he believes existed millions of years ago? He uses as his guide the DNA of the chimpanzee [Marcia Barinaga, "Choosing a Human Family Tree," 'Science' 255 (7 February 1992): 687]. In other words, the studies that seek to prove that human DNA evolved from chimp DNA start with the assumption that chimp DNA represents the original condition (or close to it) from which human DNA diverged. That is circularity with a vengeance."
Something definitely to think about!
2007-01-02 05:43:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I am not perplexed by the fact that ALL life on earth shares a commonality of basic molecular components. This doesn't mean creationism is incorrect.
2007-01-02 05:44:15 · answer #11 · answered by Suzanne: YPA 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋