Evolution Theory?

Question

If indeed humans were origionally created in their current day form (in the image of God) - how can anyone explain the bone fossils we have uncovered all over the globe indicating evolution from a form more similiar to current day ape than current day man?

Answer 1

Must be Satan's work. lol

Answer 2

If you read Genesis in the Bible carefully, you will notice that science and bible don't disprove one another. In Genesis, God created everything in 6 days and rested in the 7th day. According to the Bible, God's time is different from our time, what is considered 1 hour in God's time means 1000 years in our time. In Genesis, while God was creating everything, there was no time yet until He created the greater light and the lesser light, although Genesis says, "the next day God created this and that", there was really no "time". For this reason, Evolution is a possibility, because God created Humans in one whole day in His "time" which could mean a very very long period of time which makes evolution a possiblity in the Bible. There are evidences of evolution, but this theory is not a proof that there is no God, neither the Bible prove that evolution is not possible or cannot be true. Genesis is the summary of how everything came to be, but if we examine Genesis carefully we will notice that it agrees with science. In science they say the first living organisms lived in the water that eventually crawled on earth. In Genesis it says the same, God filled the waters with living creatures before He created all other living creatures. In science they have the panggea, in the Genesis it says the same, the land separated from water and there was only one big land. In science they explain why there are clouds and they explain "water evaporation" and all that, In Genesis it says the same, when God said let some of the waters separate and go up to the sky. There are many other examples you can find in the Bible. In fact just a few months ago there was a news in yahoo telling about the theory of the shape of the universe, they even gave a 1 million us dollars award for that mathetician who proved that the shape of the universe is like a coffe cup, they are just discovering it now... when it was already written in Genesis long time ago.

Answer 3

The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." 3

The knee joint of "Lucy" (Australopithecus afarensis) was discovered in the Fall of 1973 near Hadar in the Afar Triangle of Ethiopia over a mile away and 200 feet deeper than the other bones (uncovered in Oct. 1974) --which Johanson incredibly claims to have belonged to the same individual!! Actually, the ulna:humerus ratio of these bones is 92.5%, well within the range of true ape [chimpanzee (95%) vs. human (80%)]. In addition, the valgus angle (i.e., a measure of the extent that the leg above the knee bends outward or laterally) of Johanson's 1974 bones is about 15 degrees, which is indicative of a strong tree climber like an orangutan or spider monkey. Professional concensus as to "Lucy's" identity now favors that of arboreal ape, not an ape-to-man hominid intermediate.

Answer 4

Because they were apes, period. Not human, not earlier crude forms of present day humans. There is no fossil record that shows any evolution in man other than micro-evolution. Taller, slimmer but no major changes. Even the so called Neanderthal Man is now by most paleontologists considered to be so similar to modern man that if put into today's society one would not even notice them. Possibly shorter and stockier than average, but not radically different at all.

Answer 5

Many people believe that if God created the world then He could easily have created those fossils too. He didn't necessarily create the human race as they are. Perhaps he created our earliest form and we evolved from there. Personally I think this makes the most sense. I think God was responsible for the Big Bang but I can't really see past the science to believe he created man as they are.

Answer 6

Existing fossil record supports Creation better than evolution.

Some evolutionists have attempted to deal with fossil evidence by introducing the idea of punctuated equilibrium. These scientists say that the jumps in the fossil record reflect evolutionary jumps which brought on a major changes in shorter times.

Hence, evolution is not gradual, but punctuated by sudden leaps from one stage to the next. The theory has been criticized because they cannot produce any evidence for a mechanism of secondary causes which makes these sudden jumps, advances possible.

Their theory then appears to be based solely on the absence of transitional fossils. Darwin, after all, understood suddenness to be evidence of Creation. If this is true, then it supports what Creationists said all along - the sudden appearance of fully formed animals is evidence of Creation. : )

Answer 7

I wonder why everyone thinks that a God's time frame is the same dinky 24/7 as ours. The days of creation for a God may be billions of our years long. Evolution may be a simple as a God planting a metaphorical seed that will grow into that which the God already perceives it should become in a tiny moment of God time.

Answer 8

People who make that claim do not comprehend what a transitional form is. They think that large scale changes in the fossil record would be obvious, which is not the claim at all. From there, denial is easy, but based on ignorance.

Answer 9

You have somewhat answered your own question. The fossil record of creatures more similar to apes is just that; a record of the ape species, not man. Evolution remains an unproven theory because there are no varifiable missing links.

Answer 10

How can you explain the LACK or transitional bones from one form to the next?

It's all a big game

You believe what you believe
We believe what we believe

My point though is that we Creationist are not afraid of the theory of evolution being taught in school as the theory that it is.....
You Evolutionists, however, are scared to death of us allowing Creation to be taught as an alternate to evloution. You all fight tooth and nail to keep out ANY theory that is different than your own.

Why do you fear us so much???

Answer 11

What does the fossil record actually show?

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.