Question for the Creationists?

Question

Why can't you see that the Evolution is just a part of the Creation process, unfolding before your eyes?
In fact, the entire universe is evolving. Continuously.
It was not created to remain static.

I believe in God, but I think we shouldn't take old texts literally as they were ment to be understood by the average persons >2K years ago.
Because of our life span, evolution is difficult to notice. It took millions of years. Not so with viruses.
DNA gives us the evidence that most living creatures on this planet are related. All the vertebrates have four limbs and basically the same organs.
Look at a frog embrio with a microscope. You can't tell the difference with that of a cat or that of a human.
The small adaptations most of you accept eventually transform creatures into different species, not able to interbreed anymore. Horses and donkeys still can interbreed, but their offsprings are sterile.
My mind rejects the idea of God designing every species in the universe. He just defined its Laws and mechanisms, instead.
Galileo was almost condemned for not believing that the Earth was the center of the universe.
Nowadays it is Evolution!
But, thank you all for your answers!

Answer 1

Well since the dawn of man, he has had that little toe, and alas of now we still have the little toe, um Has not enough time evolved since the dawn of man

Answer 2

No, I cant because evolution is based on false premises . . .

The following data is taken from the paper:

FATHER STANLEY L. JAKI : EVOLUTIONIST
Paula Haigh


Rising directly from the first apprehension of being is the principle of contradiction. Some call it the principle of non-contradiction, for it simply means that the mind recognizes as a self-evident fact that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. Being, therefore, is absolutely opposed to non-being, to nothingness. A positive correlative to this principle but in the realm of essence rather than existence, is the principle of identity, which states the self-evident fact that a thing is what it is and not something else. As Gertrude Stein, in the face of some idealistic nonsense, put it: a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.

One would imagine that it would be very difficult indeed to get away with denying these self-evident first principles. Yet it is being done all the time by the evolutionary scientists. Here is an example given by Phillip E. Johnson in his book Darwin on Trial (Regnery Gateway, 1991, pp. 74-75)

"Paleontology ... has taken Darwinian descent as a deductive certainty and has sought to flesh it out in detail rather than to test it. Success for fossil experts who study evolution has meant success in identifying ancestors, which provides an incentive for establishing criteria that will permit ancestors to be identified. Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History has expressed in plain language what this has meant in practice:
' We’ve got to have some ancestor. We’ll pick those. Why? Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates. '
That’s by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating. Obviously, “ancestors” cannot confirm the theory if they were labeled as such only because the theory told the researchers that ancestors had to be there."

Besides being a blatant example of circular reasoning, this practice manifests a far more serious sin against reality itself. Circular reasoning is a sin against logic, but to assume that there was a being present in the past which had a certain nature “ancestral” to some being with an identified nature in the present, and then to claim that the past being is certainly a true being with such and such a nature simply by labeling it so, is an unconscionable manipulation of facts. It is a combination of purest nominalism with a denial of the principle of identity which states that a thing is what it is because we have known it to be such by science, i.e., by certain knowledge.

AND . . .

Darwin wrote in 1870: 'I cannot look at the universe as a result of blind chance. Yet I can see no evidence of beneficient design, or indeed any design of any kind, in the details.' Remarkable blindness! Fr. Jaki comments

'Darwin was much too shortsighted philosophically to realize that in order to see design one needed, in addition to physical eyes, mental eyes. They alone can make a philosophical inference equivalent to registering the
presence of design. ' (Purpose, pp. 49-50)

Note well that Darwin did not need any supernatural help in making this inference (intelligent design). Quite the contrary. He needed only to use his natural reason. He was either too weak-minded to do this or he deliberately refused to recognize and submit to the evidences of his reasoning powers. " [comment in paretheses is mine]

Answer 3

Micro-evolution, or adaptation really, is what we can observe--that is, plants and animals adapting to their environment and altering with certain genetic limits. That is NOT what macro-evolution teaches...it says that all life has evolved from lower orders of life to higher orders of life through chance and time without need for an intelligent, supernatural designer which is impossible and has never been observed or had any evidence for it. Logically, there should have been a beginning of life by natural means then, which is contrary to known laws of science----life cannot start by itself here or anywhere else.

Answer 4

You confuse change with evolution.
By definition, evolution regarding the presence of man on earth involves simple life forms mutating into more complex life forms until we get to man (aka macroevolution). While there is "evidence" to support this theory, there is no proof. We have never observed this happening. A changing universe in just that, changing. It is not proof of macroevolution. Nobody has seen evolution occur before his eyes. We see species adapt to their environment, but never change into another species.

Answer 5

well I can't see it because it isn't.
God doesn't need any help, he creates all on his own.
Evolving is not what I see happening to the universe, but decaying is the word I would use..
Even Hawkings says that if we don't find a way to live on another planet that we will self destruct. But if we do, then we will only be taking the problem with us as we are all sinners and without God it just won't work..
Evolution is not part of the process.

Answer 6

We can see your point, but if we accept your position we have to accept that the Bible full of lies, and we can't do that. Even if evolution could produce the universe as it is today it does not in the least mean that it did produce the universe. We still choose to accept what God says, He was here we wern't.

Answer 7

Because the concept of evolution is absolutely opposite of what the Bible tells us concerning creation.
Those "theistic evolutionists" cannot believe as they do without disregarding the scriptures, or twisting the meanings.

Answer 8

i think things were created with the ability to adapt .. but one creature changing into another has zero hard evidence to prove it ...

Answer 9

tricky aliens, lucky for me Ive got my tin foil hat on.

Answer 10

What I am scratching my head over is:

if man came from monkeys , how come there are still monkeys and they aren't changing into people?

I am serious about this.