Weird question about evolution/creationism...?

Question

It just seems to me that if God created every life form exactly as it exists today an there was no evolution...well, it seems like God was pretty sneaky about it, since he made it LOOK like things evolved.

I mean, every mammal (all of which, according to evolution, would have a common ancestor) has basically the same skeletal structure. Skull, backbone, two pairs of limbs...you'd think that if he wanted to spice things up a bit, he might have given a few critters three pairs of limbs. You know, a bird with wings, arms and feet, or something. There wouldn't be any point of sticking with the same old boring framework all the time, would there?

Then you've got things like whales and dolphins and manatees and whatnot. Sure, they've got flippers instead of hand or paws, but the skeletal framework of the limbs is still basically the same. If he just created everything, why bother with all the finger bones and such? All that did was make evolution look like a good possibility.

Since there has been some confusion in the past, I should probably point out that I DO NOT BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM. That is the point of my question.

Perhaps I should point out that I am arguing against Creationism specifically--you know, the idea that God said "Let it be" and POOF! everything was created in six days. I'm agnostic, so I don't rule out the idea of a higher power entirely. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm just against the idea that the earth's only 6000 years old and all life was created precisely as it is in the blink of an eye.

PUB: Have you heard of something called the "anthropic principle"? It's a clever little thing; I should look it up if I were you.

Gypsy: They seem to follow a sort of evolution-inspired model of "adapt or perish" The Church simply couldn't argue against evolution anymore, in the face of overwhelming evidence, so you have to bend your beliefs to accept it or your whole religion goes kablooee.

Annie: I'm sorry, but to say that the "only" part of evolution you deny is that new species evolve from common ancestors is pretty much to deny evolution in its entirety. That's basically what evolution IS. I am curious about why you would deny it; email me if you want.

Doma: So, to paraphrase you if I may:

"It might not make sense, but it's God so we shouldn't ask questions, since to question God is sinful and wrong."

I would answer your assertion thus:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
-Galileo Galilei

jeffersonian: I guess I would assert that there's plenty of diversity in life forms on the planet, no more and no less than what one would expect from evolution.

With regard to "transitional" life forms, I couldn't disagree more. Why do we say there are no transitional life forms now? Simply because we can't see what creatures are on their way to. What about penguins? I don't think it's far-fetched to imagine that, in a few million years, there might be whale-like or dolphin-like creatures whose ancestors were birds, and that penguins are what we might call the "transitional" form.

What about flying squirrels? Flying squirrels don't really "fly", they glide, much as we imagine bird's and bat's ancestors might have done. Perhaps one day there will be a new species of pterasaur-like rodent that truly flies, whose "transitional form" would be flying squirrels.

With regard to spontaneous generation of life, yes, that's a bit mysterious still, but like I say, I'm agnostic.

Answer 1

Creationists believe in Natural Selection. Natural selection is a logical process that anyone can observe (and it was actually a creationist named Edward Blyth who first wrote about it in 1835–37, before Darwin). We can look at the great variation in an animal kind and see the results of natural selection. For instance, wolves, coyotes, and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the dog kind.

But natural selection can only operate on the information already contained in the genes; it doesn’t produce new information. There are limits. For instance, you can’t breed a dog to the size of an elephant, much less turn it into an elephant.

The different dogs we see today have resulted from a rearrangement or loss of information from the original dog kind. That is why you can breed wolves to get to chihuahuas, but you can’t breed chihuahuas to get to wolves.

And the thing is, what are they? Dogs. What were they? Dogs. What will they be? Dogs. The same could be said for Darwin’s finches, peppered moths, and so forth. There is a big difference between subspeciation (variation within a kind) and transspeciation (change from one kind to another).

OK, what about homology? Don’t we see similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different animals? Sure we do. Evolutionists like to argue that these similarities prove that all life evolved from a common ancestor (common descent).

First of all, there are plenty of problems—like homologous structures that are not produced by homologous genes or the same embryological development, or homologous structures in animals that are not suppose to have a close common ancestor (no evolutionary relationship), and so forth.

But the thing is, homology can just as easily point to a common designer; it fits quite comfortably with the creation model.

As Dr. Don Batten has said, “Think about the original Porsche and a Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ cars. They both had air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent rear suspension, two doors, trunk in the front, and many other similarities. Why did these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer!”

And as Dr. Jerry Bergman said, “...the requirements of life are similar for similar living things, and some designs are preferred in constructing animals because these designs are superior to competing designs. All automobile, bicycle and pushcart tires are round because this design is superior for the function of most tires. A tire homology does not prove common descent, but common design by engineers throughout history because of the superiority of the round structure for rolling.”

Dr. Carl Weiland said the same: “By its very nature, creation involves the intelligent application of design information, which it would seem logical to conserve. For example, if the pattern of the forelimb bones in a frog works well, following good bioengineering principles, then it would seem reasonable for the same principles to be used in the other creatures, modified to fit their particular needs.”

What about transitional fossils? While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even a century and a half later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples. And they really need to do better with explaining “living fossils” (animals and plants that supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago that forgot to evolve and look the same as they do today).

Answer 2

God created the universe and all the creatures, plants, trees, and humans roughly 6000 years ago in 6 literal days according to Genesis. He did not create them all as we see them today as we can observe in the fossils we find...their have been many creatures on earth that have gone extinct, probably because they couldn't cope with climate changes or food scarcity after the flood, but they are fully formed creatures..no partial frog/bird or banana/frog intermediary ones. We do observe a wide variety of plants and animals that are inter-fertile and have changed over the centuries since the flood because of the variability of the existing genetic code in them through their offspring or successive generations but there's no evidence that we all share a common ancestor through evolution (or descent with modification) nor is there any way to increase beneficial genetic code information through any process like mutation---it only scrambles or changes existing code in the DNA. ...never increases it. God used similar architecture or structure in many things He created for very good reasons. The mistake people make is to see common traits or structure in animals and assume they had a common ancestor with other totally different life forms when DNA coding makes that impossible. Birds are designed to fly and have no need of arms...it would be an unnecessary weight restriction to add arms and all the attending musculature and ligaments to operate them as well as the vascular system.
Look at how some animals have specific designs incorporated in them---crocodiles have a special valve in their heart which allows blood flow to bypass the lungs allowing them to submerge for up to two hours at a time and have special blood to help keep oxygen levels high when submerged and not breathing.

Answer 3

To be honest, the general uniformity of life seems to be one of the strongest evidences for creation that I can think of. As you have pointed out, all life on earth appears to be based on a common pattern. If evolution were true, I would expect much more deviation, a much stranger animal kingdom, more along the lines of what you say you expect from creation; and if we lived in that sort of world, I'm sure evolutionists would be touting that kind of diversity as evidence of evolution.

If you're convinced that evolution is true, you're likely to see nature through that filter no matter what.

What exactly do we see in nature though? We find complete lifeforms...no weird transitional forms walking around...and an explosion of life in the fossil record (no transitional forms there, either). Both of these facts seem highly indicative of special creation, as opposed to evolution.

Also consider the fact that evolutionists have yet to tell us how spontaneous generation (life from non-living material) came about, and this is a basic requirement of evolutionary theory. All of human experience and all of the evidence in the fossil record tells us that life begets life 100% of the time. Spontaneous generation is such a fantastic idea that I don't believe that any reputable scientist would even consider it if it were not for the fact that evolution absolutely demands it.

The following is a good article on evolution and biology:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp

Answer 4

God, in His Word, has stated, 'Come, let us reason together'. This statement obviously does not preclude that we are not to use our reason. It also does not preclude that we rely totally on our reason ALONE, but that we reason byway of His revealed Word.

Perhaps, since you have not been bestowed with faith, which is the critical componate in order to reason with God, you will reject the path setout by God in order to reason. Reason is not for rebels. Rebels reject and fight against reason, they do not want truth that will set them free, but rather covet their own logic, which ironically can never truly give them rest in anything.

The bible states that all things were created by their kind. Therefore, a mouse cannot procreate byway of and elephant, etc. That of course is much more obvious an example than say, a donkey and a horse. I do not pretend to fully comprehend the mind of God, or to know every aspect of creation as it currently stands. Byway of reason, however, I can cromprehend that all was created perfect, and is now under the curse of our having sinned in Adam. Endrophy shall have it's effect on all creation, until the time of the return of Jesus Christ, who shall redeem creation from this curse.

Therefore, starting from perfection, and continuing through today, things HAVE evolved. There is no way to deny that they have, and God surely does reveal that they have. You can surely see that a world prior to the great flood, would HAVE to be different, and evolve differently post flood. Creation would have to have changed after such a devastating catastrophy. Just because things change (evolve) does not mean that God did not create them. That is a foolish conclusion, at best.

All men have been created with revelation that there is a God. This is why when remote peoples have been discovered by 'civilization' they are always discovered to have some form of worship instilled in their society. No one will be able to defend themselves with a feeble statement of how they were ignorant that God exists.

Do I know God's mind in why He reveals further the truth in Jesus Christ as the only way to heaven to some, and not to others? Hardly. But I know that it is HIS creation to do with as He pleases, and therefore I do not question His authority in the matter.

In conclusion, have things evolved? Yes. Does this answer give heed to saying God is not in control of this evolution? No.

Answer 5

Actually, we talked about that in class today, and i looked at it like this. Yes, I believed that God created us, but if animals migrate, they develop to their enviroment after time. The Galaptugus (I have no idea if I'm spelling that right!) is a good example. As the islands spread apart, the animals divided along the two, and they developed to their land over time.

btw, Darwin (the person ewho came up w/ the theory) did not say humans came from monkeys, someone else put those words in his mouth. His theory is what I just explaines

Answer 6

Although creationism seems rather far-fetched at times, and evolution makes sense, don't be so sure about things. We are only humans, and so insignificant compared to the universe or the big picture. We could be totally wrong about everything, including the theory of evolution, which might be ridiculed in the future.

Answer 7

I think the answer to you question is the gene pool. According to the bible God created all the animals according to their "kind". In other words "species". Everyone knows there are variations in species such as a wolf, fox, coyote and dog all belong to thier "kind". Its variations thats programmed in thier gene pool. And if something is programmed then there must be a programmer. Thats why you can't cross breed species. Wrong chromosome match. That's why breeders of livestock would love to have steers the size of a t-rex but it ain't happening.

Answer 8

the only part of evolution I detest and deny is the part about coming from a common ancestor, or root, and that we branched out different than apes....... HOG WASH I say !!!! I do however agree with what I call adaptive evolution..... People have changed, the world has changed, the environment has changed, therefore animals HAVE to change to meet their own needs of survival..... does that make sense to anyone but me ??? *sigh*...... go in peace..... God bless

Answer 9

Is there something you could do with the Christian fish symbol and the fish with legs thingy that they use to represent Darwinism? I have seen those on bumper stickers and stuff--I'm pretty sure it's common enough that you know what I'm talking about. Anyway, there might be a way to incorporate that into your collage some way.

Answer 10

the heart of the matter is this:
Do you believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God?Believing the Bible is a matter of informed faith.

One who does take the Bible as truth (which I do) can do the math with the generations starting with Adam. It adds up to around 6,000 years depending on the number of years in a generation.

It makes perfect sense to me. Another thing that helps with those wanting information about the validity of the Bible is that all Biblical prophecy that has been fulfilled to date has been 100% accurate. can't beat them odds...........