Creation via Evolution

[micatala]

In the Transitional Fossils thread, the following two posts were contributed by dunsapy.

You do know that we are apes right?

Absolutely , not. We are a special creation, different than all other creation.
I even include scientists in that.

According to you every creature is a special creation.
Even a mouse is different then all the other creatures.
I guess with all your special creations you can't seem to come up with any explanation for all the data and similarities that make perfect sense in their environments. How do you explain all the extinctions?

Yes that is true. But man is totally different than all other 'animals'.
There is a huge gap between any apes than man. There are no in between's we see today , there should be millions of them.
The fossil record is consistent , that there are no in between fossils found for any of animals, including man. No wonder science says they will never prove evolution. You can't proof something that is unprovable.

His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.�—ROMANS 1:20.

I think this scripture is correct, it is inexcusable, not to realize there is a creator.
Why would this scripture even be in the bible , except that God knew , that there would be people that would so blinded as not to see it.
I use the word blinded because, scientists are not stupid people, so the only answer is that they are blinded. Science doesn't follow their own findings.

Given that these relate more to theological than scientifice arguments, I thought it would be good to start a thread on these issues.



Questions for debate are:


Is considering evolution as part of God's creative process inconsistent with the Bible?


Does accepting that evolution of life has occurred necessarily deny God's existence?



When Genesis describes man as being created in God's image, how should we or might we understand or interpret this?



Keep in mind that on the Theology Forum, the Bible can be considered authoritative. However, posters are free to argue for their own particular biblical interpretations.

[Solon]

Also, the definition of animal according to webster is "any animal other than man."

Any animal other than man, so any animal except man. Man is therefore counted as an animal by this definition; it recognizes that the word is being used in reference to all non homo sapiens sapiens.

Taxonomy is there to place every living thing in a category. Not because nature demands it, but because mankind does. We make the categories based upon our observation. Would you classify mankind as plants instead? Perhaps we are a species of fungus. What you believe to be the case and why you believe it has no bearing on the fact that you and I and every other person we both know are animals. The only problem with this comes if you equate some undesirable status to animal. If that is the case it is a personal problem, not a scientific one.

[byofrcs]

There are many fossils of apes, monkeys, and humans as well as historical fraud when it comes to fossils but there are no "transitional" fossils that indicate evolution between primate and human.

Whoever told you this was either lying to you or did not understand biology.

Humans are primates. Humans are one of the species of Great Apes. The Great Apes include Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzees and Humans. The great apes are large, tailless primates, between 30 to 180 kilograms in weight. In all great apes, the males are, on average, larger and stronger than the females, although the degree of sexual dimorphism varies greatly among species. They are all able to use their hands for gathering food or nesting materials, and, in some cases, for tool use.

Most species are omnivorous, but fruit is the preferred food among all but humans. Gestation in great apes lasts 8–9 months, and results in the birth of a single offspring, or, rarely, twins. The young are born helpless, and the mother must care for them for long periods of time. Compared with most other mammals, great apes have a remarkably long adolescence, not being weaned for several years, and not becoming fully mature for 8–13 years in most species (longer in humans). As a result, females typically give birth only once every few years. There is no distinct breeding season.

For your reference, this is how the biological taxonomy works:

1. Kingdom: Animalia - We are eukaryotes but not plants or fungi.
2. Phylum: Chordata - We have a backbone.
3. Class: Mammalia - We have fur or hair, warm blood and suckle our young
4. Order: Primates - We have shoulder joints which allow high degrees of movement in all directions; five digits on the fore and hind limbs with opposable thumbs and big toes;a complex visual system with stereoscopic vision, high visual acuity and color vision; a brain having a well developed cerebellum with posterior lobe and a Calcarine fissure; three kinds of teeth;
5. Suborder: Haplorrhini - our noses are dry.
6. Parvorder: Catarrhini - We have downward pointing nostrils; are diurnal; do not have prehensile tails and have flat fingernails.
7. Superfamily: Hominoidea - Apes
8. Family: Hominidae - Great Apes
9. Subfamily Homininae
10. Genus: Homo – humans

Humans are not equal to animals according to the bible. I am a bible-believing christian therefore I look at it as a scientific fallacy. Also, the definition of animal according to webster is "any animal other than man."

So how does someone who does not have a bible differentiate ?. (I won't argue that the original text was written in archaic Hebrew thus what you read today can never be a perfect translation of what is a subjective view).

What are the key differences ?

The chromosomes are obviously different. We have 23 sets whereas other primates which are claimed by science (which can be wrong) to be related have 24. That is an obvious chromosome difference. That our Human Chromosome 2 (which is BIG) seems to be a fuse of two primate chromosomes is probably how God created humans (from primates). Probably not the kind of difference you want to promote but it is a difference.

That should start you off. Can you please add in other obvious differences. Don't include any technology - that wasn't created but invented by man - we're after differences in how humans have been created compared to animals.

[McCulloch]

Humans are not equal to animals according to the bible. I am a bible-believing christian therefore I look at it as a scientific fallacy. Also, the definition of animal according to webster is "any animal other than man."

anâ‹…iâ‹…mal
–noun
1. any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animal-like nutritional modes.

animal. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/animal (accessed: April 12, 2009).

The exclusion of humanity from the animal kingdom has no basis in biology.

If humans are not animals according to the Bible, then the Bible is wrong.

[micatala]

It's taken me a while to get back to my own thread here. My apologies.

Another problem I have with evolution is the fossil records that play a large role in the theory of evolution. The fact that there are no "transitional species" found on fossil record is puzzling. There are many fossils of apes, monkeys, and humans as well as historical fraud when it comes to fossils but there are no "transitional" fossils that indicate evolution between primate and human.

There is a very good reason that is so. Humans ARE a type of primate.. so there would not be evolution between human and primate, since we are still primates.

There are many many transitional fossils, of course the fossil record is incomplete. The reason there is a gap in the fossil record for the splitting off of chimps and hominids is that they were forest dwelling creatures, and the conditions that allow for fossilization are even rarer. However, we do have the genetic evidence, and we do have some fossil evidence.

Now just so we don't get too confused, do you want to discuss transitional fossils in general , or do you want to specifically discuss primate evolution and the transitional fossils that we do have? Narrow down what you are specifically interested in, because it is a very broad subject, and I don't want to overload you with information. I don't know about you, but too much information to me gives me a head ache. Let's keep the subject narrow, and we can switch to the other subject after dealing with the information we do have.

Then, you can show me the extra biblical evidence you have for creationism.. and we can discuss that. We then can compare and contrast the quality of the evidence and how the deductions were made.

I strongly disagree that human's are primates. Primates are animals and humans are incredibly distinct from animals. They have the ability to think and have a brain equal to 20,000 computers. You try to tell me that we are only animals put here on the earth by a gradual formation of cells and organs.

Genesis 1:28-30 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

We've had a bit of discussion over the last couple of pages on whether man is a primate or not, or whether man is an animal or not.

My personal view is that man is an animal, per most of the usual definitions.

Now, I don't see that this passage from Genesis says that man is not an animal, only that man seems to have been given a special place within creation.



Let's remind ourselves of the questions for debate.

Questions for debate are:


Is considering evolution as part of God's creative process inconsistent with the Bible?


Does accepting that evolution of life has occurred necessarily deny God's existence?



When Genesis describes man as being created in God's image, how should we or might we understand or interpret this?

I don't see that man's classification as an animal is inconsistent with the idea of God as creator, or that it denies GOd's existence, or that it directly relates to the "created in his image" idea.

However, it might be useful if user123 would provide his interpretation of the "in his image" concept.