There are similiarities between humans and other creatures which seem strange in the configuration of human beings if we want to argue a genetic distinctiveness to mankind that need not be associated with evolutionary processes. BUt I am not sure there needs to be a problem in recognising patterns associated with other life forms in the genetic coding of human beings also.
To list my various "disingenuous excuses" for this thus far :
1) Creationists do not deny that God used the same material when he created man and animals. Indeed animals have the special dsitinction (like men) of having the breath of God breathed into them. The fundamental distinction between a human being and animals is that man is made in the image of God. This is a spiritual and a physical distinction and implies that the true source of our intelligence and advantage over the animals transcends the materials of our physical forms.
2) There are significant genetic differences between men and animals and these differences make all the difference at the end of the day.
3) The attempt to generalise from maps of current genetic relationships and to then to trace a developmental tree back from that is speculative and cannot be proven from the evidence that is used to suggest it.
4) A reliable alternative explanation exists in scripture.
5) That the ways in which evidence is used in a court of law would rule out most of the evidences used to support Macro-Evolution.
6) That the evidence trail for much of the evidence used by evolutionists cannot be demonstrated and proven.
7) That the fall itself has distorted the evidence and made many of our conclusions about it unreliable.
Actually this is good :> Probably should have started with this, gives me a chance to voice my concerns more easily.
1. Is hard to prove either way, chances are it was more likly meant in a spiritualor thinking mode, since god is formless, he would have no form, unless you want to get into all of the theological problems here from god being in the shape of humans. If if was done through evolution, then it can be just as easily said god just intended for a spiritual intelligent being at the end.
2. Back this up with quantifiable evidence, there isn't that much differences, and in fact as I've pointed out, we contain alot of the same Genes and DNA, ours is just broken or turned off in many cases. This is just ego speaking unless you can give specific examples. emotions, morality, intelligence, many things I've heard creationists claim to be human only already have precursors in the animal kingdom, they are lesser then what would would value them, but they are still there. Our genes are 98% simular to Chimpanzee's and other species, show wher ein this 2% the differences are so vast.
3. Actually considering many of these tests are done blind, and all they have IS the genes and the DNA to link a order of relationships with it isn't speculative. Would you say it was just speculative if I took DNA from your family, close relatives, and 30 people around your town, and created a rough family tree based upon simularities to each other and it lined up with records, would this be speculative? WHat if I didn't know whose DNA it was, and we entirely based it upon simularities? Why is it that the tree created from Simularities in multiple genes, chromosones, DNA, morphology and such work to create a tree?
Like with the videos I posted on dogs/cats in the C&R forum, other then a few convergent surprises, why is it that the DNA tree for all the species, also happens to fit the fossils we find, many found before the DNA testing?
4. Except it's not reliable. It relies on your interpetation being correct, and denying what is shown. It's not like scientists just randomly make stuff up, these things like in 3 are all tested, verified and checked by multiple groups indepedantly, many of them done blind with no knowledge of the source of the DNA, just comparing the DNA< or using computers to forma phylogenic tree. For me everything I see leads to two conclusions, either Theistic evolution is true and we must look for answers to scripture and evolution working, or we ignore scripture all together and become atheists.
5. Except it has in courts of laws, as you have been shown multiple times, it did during the Dover trial and every other trial where the evidence for evolution was put alongside the evidence for ID or XEC. You just don't like it so don't want it to work in courts. Trouble is it has time and time again. But I will tell you what wouldn't work in court, and this is my answer to 7, excuses like , "Well the fall just made it LOOK this way." or, "Same designer same design." wouldn't fly. Your making assertions that can't be tested, and don't fit the evidence. One can't make a excuse, "Look judge I didnt' do this crime, I know I was seen there, I know my DNA was at the crime scene, I know the security camera's caught me, but it wasn't me, it was Satan, making it appear so." without evidence that Satan, or anyone else created all the evidence it wouldn't fly. Heck even if it was true, without evidence all that would happen is the "evidence" be thrown out.
And this is the primary problem here, XEC's and ID's demand that scientists accept excuses that have no evidence for, they are plausible excuses in many cases but because you can think of a explanation doesn't make it so. If true then there needs to be found evidence for this, if there isn't any thenit will never ever ever be permissable. Because while Science often uses what ifs, it can't make declarative statements based on them. Multiverse is a what if, and one being tested, but it's not declared true in the same way that a creationist might want, "Well god just made everything look this way, or maybe star light was faster back then." or other things. We can't just assume that what our eyes tell us is wrong, there must be evidence, and the bible doesn't count, because it's just as likly that your interpetations are wrong. Wich is where this all comes back too. You could be wrong, and the way to find if your right or not is look for evidence, not just declare science isn't doing things right because it won't accept your interpetations.
For creationism to be fully accepted it needs A) evidence for creationism B) Evidence why evolution appears to be true, and not just scouring every rare big of thing that sounds fishy with evolution. Attacking Lucy and ignoring the other specimens or straw maning her knee won't have her removed as evidence for evolution. C) to be peer reviewed by scientists.
If you guys are right do these things and you will replace evolution.
6. Maybe make a list of evidence you think fits this here or in another topic, it's hard to generalize without really knowing specific examples, and as I found with this list it's easier.
Sorry if I sounded harsh, may have a bit here, just pationate and get tired of old arguments. This is a good start I think, and hope I made my answers clear if not ask for explanations on anything, or for me to clarify.
