Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[pitabread]

The primary objection to evolution from creationists seems to be centered on human evolution specifically. For some reason the fact of sharing hereditary ancestry with other species causes creationists no end of grief.

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals? Especially in regards to our closest relatives (other primates), we share the same body plan, organs, cell structure, majority of our genetic makeup and so on.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique? Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance. Independent creation... not so much.

And before you say, "God just reused common parts":

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The primary objection to evolution from creationists seems to be centered on human evolution specifically. For some reason the fact of sharing hereditary ancestry with other species causes creationists no end of grief.

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals? Especially in regards to our closest relatives (other primates), we share the same body plan, organs, cell structure, majority of our genetic makeup and so on.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique? Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance. Independent creation... not so much.

And before you say, "God just reused common parts":

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

I noticed this passage in the bible.

Da 7:4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it.

Da 4:16 Let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.

So the prophecy spoke of the king of babylon who was made to be like a beast for seven years and inflicted with the compulsion to eat grass. However, the depiction in Daniel 7 speaks of an animal losing all of its animal characteristics and standing up with the heart of a man.

So I see the story in the bible, it's a shame it's a big deal though.

As an afterthought - (see bolded) it may be more than genetics that makes the difference.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals?

That question was answered earlier. If the car did not evolve from the chainsaw, then why do they both have internal combustion engines? The reason is because the function works well for both, and both were created by humans. The mechanics of life work well, and all life was designed by the same God.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique?

As stated in Genesis, God made man in his own image. It was the image, not the mechanism, that makes humanity unique. It was the form, not the function. What is the difference between an android and some other kind of robot?

Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

How unique? If made absolutely unique, then even the chemistry would be incompatible with the food chain. We would have to be fully autotrophic, and if so, then we would have insufficient energy to be animated. Again, it's not the function that makes humanity different, but it's the form. We think, move and behave in a way resembling a god, as opposed to the form and nature of animals.

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance.

No, it doesn't. There is no possible unbroken lineage from ape to human. There is no way to smoothly change the genetic makeup a little at a time, as necessary to transition from one to the other. In between the two is a chasm of monsters and corpses.

 

[Speedwell]

No, it doesn't. There is no possible unbroken lineage from ape to human. There is no way to smoothly change the genetic makeup a little at a time, as necessary to transition from one to the other. In between the two is a chasm of monsters and corpses.

Actually there is, and the mechanism is well established. You don't have to believe it, but what if it was true? Would that change your argument?

 

[Hammster]

The primary objection to evolution from creationists seems to be centered on human evolution specifically. For some reason the fact of sharing hereditary ancestry with other species causes creationists no end of grief.

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals? Especially in regards to our closest relatives (other primates), we share the same body plan, organs, cell structure, majority of our genetic makeup and so on.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique? Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance. Independent creation... not so much.

And before you say, "God just reused common parts":

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

I’m not sure what creation supporters you engage with, but my primary objection is that evolutionism isn’t supported by scripture.

 

[pitabread]

As stated in Genesis, God made man in his own image. It was the image, not the mechanism, that makes humanity unique. It was the form, not the function.

Then would it matter if the human form was created from an evolutionary process versus being independently created?

We think, move and behave in a way resembling a god, as opposed to the form and nature of animals.

God moves and behaves like a bipedal ape?

No, it doesn't. There is no possible unbroken lineage from ape to human. There is no way to smoothly change the genetic makeup a little at a time, as necessary to transition from one to the other. In between the two is a chasm of monsters and corpses.

The evolutionary process including the lineage thereof is well documented (regardless of whether you believe it or not).

 

[pitabread]

I’m not sure what creation supporters you engage with, but my primary objection is that evolutionism isn’t supported by scripture.

A lot creationists I engaged with on this forum seem outright offended at the notion of being related to animals.

Insofar as scripture goes, that depends on one's POV. IMHO, Genesis 1 clearly describes an evolutionary process involved in diversifying the biosphere of the planet.

 

[Hammster]

A lot creationists I engaged with on this forum seem outright offended at the notion of being related to animals.

Insofar as scripture goes, that depends on one's POV. IMHO, Genesis 1 clearly describes an evolutionary process involved in diversifying the biosphere of the planet.

I’m no more offended than if you compared me to wood nymphs.

As to Gen supporting evolution, that’s a lie of Satan.

 

[pitabread]

As to Gen supporting evolution, that’s a lie of Satan.

As to Genesis supporting creationism, *that's* a lie of Satan.

(See how it easy it is to throw the Satan card around?)

 

[Hammster]

As to Genesis supporting creationism, *that's* a lie of Satan.

(See how it easy it is to throw the Satan card around?)

Not really.

 

[pitabread]

Not really.

Anything can be claimed as a "satanic lie". It's just a cheap form of gaslighting at the end of the day.

 

[d taylor]

Animals and humans both were created by God from the earth (except eve she came out of adam). Both when they die go back to the earth.

 

[Sketcher]

The primary objection to evolution from creationists seems to be centered on human evolution specifically. For some reason the fact of sharing hereditary ancestry with other species causes creationists no end of grief.

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals? Especially in regards to our closest relatives (other primates), we share the same body plan, organs, cell structure, majority of our genetic makeup and so on.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique? Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance. Independent creation... not so much.

And before you say, "God just reused common parts":

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

If you study art at all, you will recognize themes that artists retain from work to work. An easy example is Raphael's use of triangular compositions and of primary colors in many of his works. When looking at God as an artist and the creation as his art, one can see these similarities you mention as design themes. Why use design themes at all? Because that's the way artists like to work.

 

[R.J. Aldridge]

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

First of all, let us realize that consistency works both ways in this instance. Reusing common parts is perfectly consistent with a common designer. Even when it comes to genetic inheritance and biological evolution, there are some who would say that the biological distinctions, as well as the limitations of how far outside the group a creature can still reproduce, are consistent with special creation. There are plenty of commonalities between different organisms, but there are also plenty of distinctions. Consistency can be drawn between data points depending on ones perspective assumptions, and when it comes to the creationist assumptions, evolution does not appear to be consistent with the biblical narrative. Is the biblical narrative consistent with the natural world? The answer will vary depending on the observers perspective.

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

It is true that we are all made of the same stuff in the physical sense. But, it would also appear that human beings live on a separate plain than the rest of the animals. Our mental capacities are not the same as any other animal. So in that sense, that which makes us unique is directly related to how we perceive and categorize the world. Therefore, as much as we can say we are a part of the animal kingdom physically, there is also an inherent recognition that we stand apart from it. Biblically speaking, humans were created to have one foot in both worlds so to speak. We are to represent the divine from within our earthly place. So in that sense, there is nothing wrong with considering ourselves related to animals, but I don't believe we should define ourselves as animals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it doesn't. There is no possible unbroken lineage from ape to human. There is no way to smoothly change the genetic makeup a little at a time, as necessary to transition from one to the other. In between the two is a chasm of monsters and corpses.

What is your evidence for this claim? If you have no evidence it can be dismissed with a wave of one's hand

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really.

Why not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I normally am not a fan of videos because they do not really count as evidence. But I do like this video since it shows stages of human evolution and compares skulls directly to each other from a bit over 6 million years ago to today. Each change is small enough so that creationists would be apt to say that they were the "same kind" but that leads us to being the same kind as Lucy and beyond.

Start at the 7:20 mark and watch to the 10:50 mark. Or if you like you can watch the whole thing. But the point that I am making occurs over that period:

 

[Hans Blaster]

So the prophecy spoke of the king of babylon who was made to be like a beast for seven years and inflicted with the compulsion to eat grass.

So did it come true about the king of Babylon? (I don't know Babylonian history.)

Other than the answer to this question, let's keep it to creation/evolution. This bit was irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That question was answered earlier. If the car did not evolve from the chainsaw, then why do they both have internal combustion engines? The reason is because the function works well for both, and both were created by humans. The mechanics of life work well, and all life was designed by the same God.

Except my heart and the heart of a pig are more similar than the ICE in my car and in my chainsaw.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The primary objection to evolution from creationists seems to be centered on human evolution specifically. For some reason the fact of sharing hereditary ancestry with other species causes creationists no end of grief.

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals? Especially in regards to our closest relatives (other primates), we share the same body plan, organs, cell structure, majority of our genetic makeup and so on.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique? Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance. Independent creation... not so much.

And before you say, "God just reused common parts":

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

God made a basic design for the 'innards' and uses it in a variety of creatures, just as car makers do. How different can creatures be living in the same ecosphere?