Questions for Creationists (pt.5) can you answer this?

Question

There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern that is also represented in the fossil record, rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

Naughty Pants: why no angiosperms or birds in Devonian layers?

Why not one horse in the Triassic?

Why are ALL of those early fossils nearly microscopic, without 1 mammal, one fish, or 1 modern animal?

Quietly2U:
"Would a logically thought out answer, backed by well researched facts , presented in a very intelligent and easily verifiable way
change your way of thinking or opinion in the slightest?"

I'm listening.

JJ: All you've basiclly said is that you don't want to use science to answer your questions. I happen to think that science is the best tool for answering scientific quesitons.

guraqt2me:
note what I wrote in response to her. The organisims of the Cambrian explosion are mostly microscopic, precursers of modern animals. There are no fish, no amphibians, no reptiles, no mammals, no plants, ect. These things came much later. The organisims from that time are just the first to fossilize because they were the first with good hard parts. Organisims were evolving long before that and we have evidence that goes back 3 billion years before the Cambarian. It is a fundemental misundertanding of the facts.

impossble: Naught Pants has shown that she is very good at cutting and pasteing from creationists web sites that use information out of context to misrepresent the facts.

Note very carefully though, in all of my questionis that she has responded to, she never actually answers the question.


Droppinsh: you have heard wrong.

jwildhair: I read every answer I get,

Answer 1

The same GOd created all things. So he changed the genetic structure and breakdown to give man something to ponder. GOD created the genetics man discovered. He humors himself with our findings. So he made the lion and tiger similar in their genetic markers to give some person in the 21st century a job.

Answer 2

I saw a wonderful scale model of Noah's Ark at a convention not long ago. It showed just how huge this ark was (the measurements are in the Bible and it took him nearly 100 years to build the ark). As another poster said, species can change and evolve. That is part of the beauty of God's creation.

I do not believe for a second that we all started from some big bang or crawled out of a bunch of muck. Just the genetic code for a human alone is so intricate and complicated that a freak of nature could never have allowed this. Much less all the species we have. Can you really look at the unique beauty of a rainbow or a sunset and believe there isn't a creator?

I once listened to a talk by Ken Ham about how old the earth is. He said, either fossils and other things were created over a lot of time with a little water or over a shorter period of time with a lot of water. Since there is scientific evidence of a flood (sea creature fossils we find in the midwest for example), that's all the proof I need. Although, some things you just have to believe with faith.

Ken Ham has some wonderful info on his website about this topic that really blows the evolution theory out of the water. I used to think that God just used evolution to create things until I heard him speak and it completely changed my way of thinking.

Answer 3

The creator is in the middle of eternity. He has no beginning or ending. The universe that we know is three dimensional. There are
other dimensions. The Creator Creates because that is His nature His glory is intelligence. From Him emanates pure light or energy that assembles it's self into patterns that forms substance according to His will. Creation didn't happen once at some point in time. It has always been happening and forever will be. Worlds and universes come and go.
Science is a discipline that seeks to discover how things work in what we call the natural world. Religion seeks to answer the question WHY. I am a Creationist who thinks that the theory of evolution is the way God works. I thought that science was coming close to understanding how the creator works when string theory was developed. Mans problem is that he can't think large enough. We can't comprehend God because we can't comprehend eternity. Evolution is continuing to happen around us but the process is so slow that we don't recognize it.

Answer 4

Binomial nomenclature has been around longer than DNA analysis. I would respectfully refer you to certain books having to do with why things are said to be related to others. I myself have not been to college, but I read from a book for a short time that discussed the biological relationships in the respect of physiological similarities between certain animals in the Animal Kingdom.

Plants for instance, are divided into 'Family' because their bloom structure is the same or a variant of other plants. So we can take two plants that appear to be very dissimilar on the level of Genus and say that they are related- because thier bloom structure shows relation. For example, many in the Senecio Genus appearing greatly different from the Aster Genus, while both belonging to the Asteracea Family. While at the same time we have the example of the 'artichoke' , which is merely another 'daisy' right along with the other Asteracea.

You asked:
"If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things?"

They are genetically related. I think that you will find in your studies, if you go a little deeper, you will find that all things have genetic similarities. It's the different genes that are making them different. We share the same genes with amoeba, we just differ along the chain somewhere down the line. The building blocks that make us living creatures are shared with the code that makes the amoeba alive. You just need to dig deeper to find these things out.

You also asked:
"That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern that is also represented in the fossil record, rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?"

Why couldn't 'special creation' as you call it, produce similarities rather than the jumble that Evolution would have us believe. God is said to like order. I think that the similarity between lifeforms pronunces God's will better than it denounces his will. God did not begin after the dinosaurs, he was a creator of it all along.

Answer 5

Well, the correlation alone is a fair challenge; however the fact that the genetic mechanisms show linkage and are readily explained by genetic alterations we see can occur in species today is the real thrust of the genetic homology argument.

Why would we such a close and genetically realistic connection between species and their ancestral populations? Different ancestral populations to each other? This would be all but impossible in Creation worldviews...

EDIT: The use of words lacking solidarity (IE. Maybe, possibly, supposable,etc) is a cornerstone of any scientific paper. Science is a self-revising process and all propositions within it are open to revision and falsification. This adaptability to the evidence is the strong point of Science as a method of knowledge. In fact, any paper that doesn't make use of "maybes" and "possiblys" is a terrible paper that violates one of the cornerstones of Science. Using solid terminology in writing high-level university Science papers is most likely to yield a failing grade.

Answer 6

Skeptic: What about "Naughty Pant's" point stated, concerning the Cambrian period - where life came all at once, to say in what Paleontologists call the Big Bang Explosion re: fossil layer ? Many scientists reject the theory of evolution from this point of view. Darwin stated that evolutionary development was a gradual process NOT immediate as depicted in the Cambrian layer. What about THIS FACT???

Answer 7

Would a logically thought out answer, backed by well researched facts , presented in a very intelligent and easily verifiable way
change your way of thinking or opinion in the slightest?
I don't believe it would....nothing would, because to change your
opinion would mean to accept that there is a Creator and to admit that would mean you ,being his creation, are subject to him
as in a Father to a child. A relationship I presume you are not ready for?
You sound intelligent so instead of smugly trying to debate minor evolutionary side-trails go for the big picture....
Evolution at its root claims information came about from nothing
as in "the empty canvas paints itself" but with enough countless eons anything is possible right?
Quit kidding yourself evolution takes more faith than Christianity
with zero amount of the substance but that probably
still more comforting than the idea of an all powerful God that we will stand
in judgment in front of one day isn't it?.
May the Lord have mercy on you and soften your heart and open your eyes to the truth.

Answer 8

‘But the natural (non-christian) man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).
This scripture is answer enough for you and other non-Christians...however, consider the following:

Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That’s why the argument often turns into something like:
‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
t is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs..
Finally...why would special creation NOT produce this complex pattern that is also represented in the fossil record, rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

Answer 9

Exactly, that is proof of a creator.

God created kinds. The original kinds DNA was enough to create a wide range of varieties in each kind. That is why we see such a greate variety in Dog kinds or Cat kinds, including tigers and lions which come from the same family or kind.

That is why when Noah took animals to the ark according to their "kind", he didn't really have to take as many animals as some people think. The original kinds when Jehovah God created them where the source of the great varieties we see today.

How does Evolution explain different kinds? It's difficult enought to believe that chance created a single cell, but all the animal life on the planet, all the variety in Kinds? That is very difficult to believe.

You belief we came from nothing, I believe something created us. Both take faith. You choose one, I choose another. Each person chooses the faith which he thinks has more logic.

Answer 10

Why can't they be created and related at the same time? The relationships are systematic aren't they? I mean, felines are felines and bovines are bovines. Why shouldn't there be variagatedness and a degree of relation as well? All species are made up of the same material ingredients, so it makes sense that we would be genetically related to all living things in some way or another.

Answer 11

Because God made different kinds of animals. God didn't make a liontigerleopard. He made a lion and a tiger and a leopard, male and female of each. If this is reflected in fossil record, then, if diversity were shown to have increased over time then you would have a point, but as it is your argument is supporting the truth which is that God created what we see.