Is there any biological evidence of special creation?

[McCulloch]

Is there any biological evidence of special creation?

God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, livestock, creeping things, and animals of the earth after their kind;” and it was so. God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and the livestock after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind. God saw that it was good.
God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” God said, “Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;” and it was so.

This seems to indicate, whether you are a literalist or not, that god created humans distinctly and separately from the other animals. However, the fact remains that genetically we are little more than bald chimps - chimpanzees are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas. If taxonomists could get around the political resistance,

there are not one but three species of genus Homo on Earth today: the common chimpanzee, Homo troglodytes; the pygmy chimpanzee, Homo paniscus; and the third chimpanzee or human chimpanzee, Homo sapiens." (p.21)

The biological evidence points to our common evolution (or creation, if you will) with the chimpanzees, separate from the gorillas, gabons and monkeys. Is there any biological evidence of special creation for homo sapiens?

[israeltour]

Is there any biological evidence of special creation for homo sapiens?

Yes, the differences.

No. There are differences between Chimpanzees and humans. Otherwise we would be the same species.

Uh, that was my point.

But are there any differences that could be used as evidence that our species was special to the creator?

I would say it's the difference between our DNA and chimp's but that would talking in circles. Let me see...

How about the fact that we can contemplate our own existance? I think God gave us that ability because we're special to him.

You might find some spiritual evidence, if "spiritual evidence" is not an oxymoron.

It's not, but from where you sit, it would seem so.

I have yet to see anyone with any kind of empirical evidence of anything spiritual.

Same here.

Can you measure a spirit?

Not to my knowledge.

Can you tell which living things have a spirit?

Yes. All living people. No animals or plants.

How?

How can I say that? I have no arguments you would find persuasive, and I doubt I will. I can tell you however, that I can perceive spiritual elements at times. Personally, I think we all do. Some realize it for what it is and some do not. I will confess that if I'd never perceived it, I wouldn't believe it, and would require the kind of empirical evidence you do.

[steen]

Is there any biological evidence of special creation for homo sapiens?

Yes, the differences.
The similarities are just mind candy.

How are the differences evidence of "special creation" Are you sayinbg that there is evidence that no such differences could happen without special creation? Your claim really doesn't make much more sense than the post made by axe.

The original post asked for evidence of special creation. You might disagree with my definition of evidence, but to me, anything that would be true if special creation is true is evidence of it.

Well, that sure is a novel interpretation. Evidence is something that can be observed and meassured. "Difference" doesn't in any way mean creation. All we have from you sofar is a "because I say so" postulation. But wishful thinking is not fact. Wishing something to show creation doesn't make it so. A "difference" in no way shows creation rather than evolution.

In that context, Genesis says we were created different from chimps, and we're different.

And I can find a website saying that Kennedy was shot by aliens. Well, he was shot, so that must be evidence, right?Again, you need something substantial, not just wishful thinking.

And, those differences reflect our being made in God's image.

Or evolved. Or being a figment of an alien's imagination for that matter. So there is nothing uniquely "special creation" about your "evidence." It merely is a "I believe this could be the case" argument.

Therefore, our differences from chimps however small, are evidence of special creation.

Or it is evidence that strawberries are better than raspberries. "evidence" with no differentiation nor connection to what is being explored is pointless.

Now, while I am saying that our differences are evidence, I am NOT saying it's proof. Nor is special creation the only theory consistent with that evidence. Evolution is consistent with it, too. Therefore, neither theory in my opinion is foolish.

AH, so THAT'S your game plan, the showing creation to be "no worse" than the SToE?

Sorry, but you are now up against actual data, not wishful thinking. But in other words, the only thing you have as evidence FOR "special creation" is that "it is no worse than SToE? That frankly is ridiculous.

Based on the arguments I'm seeing here, maybe the thread should have been called , "Is there any biologicial proof of special creation?" The answer to that would be "no".

OK.

[steen]

Well, this is getting beyond the scope the thread, but the answer is Satan.

Ah, so Satan's "creative powers" are as great as God's? That's how you justify this?

[steen]

But are there any differences that could be used as evidence that our species was special to the creator?

I would say it's the difference between our DNA and chimp's but that would talking in circles.[/quote]Yes, we are special to God because the Bible tells you so. Next step, how do we know the Bible is true? Because the Bible says so. And that's where evidence, logic a reason shuts down and dogma takes over. So, no evidence there.

Let me see...

How about the fact that we can contemplate our own existance? I think God gave us that ability because we're special to him.

That you "think" this is merely evidence of what your wishful thinking is. Wishful thinking is not the same as fact.

Can you tell which living things have a spirit?

Yes. All living people. No animals or plants.

Because you say so?

[McCulloch]

Can you measure a spirit?

Not to my knowledge.

So, I must conclude that you agree with me that there is no evidence that our spirit even exists.

Can you tell which living things have a spirit?

Yes. All living people. No animals or plants.

How?

How can I say that? I have no arguments you would find persuasive, and I doubt I will. I can tell you however, that I can perceive spiritual elements at times. Personally, I think we all do. Some realize it for what it is and some do not. I will confess that if I'd never perceived it, I wouldn't believe it, and would require the kind of empirical evidence you do.

So you are admitting that spiritual matters are not a subject for debate since there is no evidence that you can use.

[juliod]

this is getting beyond the scope the thread, but the answer is Satan.

It's not beyond the scope. Do you have evidence that ebola (also Marburg, HIV, etc) were created by Satan? Even by christian thinking, can Satan create living things ex nihilo?

Did Satan create other bad things? Cockroaches? Rats? The French?

DanZ

[israeltour]

The original post asked for evidence of special creation. You might disagree with my definition of evidence, but to me, anything that would be true if special creation is true is evidence of it.

Well, that sure is a novel interpretation. Evidence is something that can be observed and meassured.

Well, the differences between man and chimp are measurable. So, it is evidence... ah, but of what? The answer is, "the truth", whatever that is. My point is that the evidence, the very evidence being used as the premise for the this thread, is open to interpretation. It's not proof of anything.

"Difference" doesn't in any way mean creation.

Well, actually, every creative act was an act of separation, which is the creation of difference. But, that's another study. "Difference" doesn't in any way "mean" evolution either. Funny thing, evolution is also a process resulting in difference.

All we have from you sofar is a "because I say so" postulation.

Well it certainly is not because I said so... I mean, God didn't exactly ask me before creating humans. And anyway, I'm not telling you to take my word for it. I'm just giving you the answer to your question (maybe not as intended, but as formulated). You happen to disagree with my answer, and that's okay.

But wishful thinking is not fact. Wishing something to show creation doesn't make it so. A "difference" in no way shows creation rather than evolution.

Or vice versa. But, if evolution is true, then the similarities between men and chimps are evidence of it. So, if special creation is true, the differences (the same set of facts from the other end) are evidence of it. Only proof can "show" something to be true, and I think we already there is not "proof" either way. So, the best we can do is to demonstrate how the evidence fits the theory.

In that context, Genesis says we were created different from chimps, and we're different.

And I can find a website saying that Kennedy was shot by aliens. Well, he was shot, so that must be evidence, right?Again, you need something substantial, not just wishful thinking.

Ah... the big difference here is that neither of us believes Kennedy was shot by aliens. If one us did however, and it turned out to be true, then we should discuss it. But, like I said, we already agree that's not true, so it can be dropped.

And, those differences reflect our being made in God's image.

Or evolved.

Or evolved.

Or being a figment of an alien's imagination for that matter.

I think, therefore I am. We could debate that too if you like .

So there is nothing uniquely "special creation" about your "evidence." It merely is a "I believe this could be the case" argument.

And, it's not uniquely "evolutionist" either. So, should it not be used to support evolution?

Therefore, our differences from chimps however small, are evidence of special creation.

Or it is evidence that strawberries are better than raspberries. "evidence" with no differentiation nor connection to what is being explored is pointless.

Let's suppose God was up to making people, and He said to Himself, "Let me see. It's time to make man. What kind of being would be a fitting form for my Son to visit them as in 4BC? Oh, I know just the thing. Those chimps I made have a lot of the qualities I'm looking for. You know, if I just use slightly different DNA, I think I'd have it. Okay, now where's that dust?"

I'm being humorous about it, but my point is very real. If God knowingly created us similar to chimps, but different enough for His purposes, then the intentional difference cannot simply be discounted because other theories, such as evolution, fit the same evidence. Creationists make the same mistake all the time. You are doing the same thing.

AH, so THAT'S your game plan, the showing creation to be "no worse" than the SToE?

Sorry, but you are now up against actual data, not wishful thinking. But in other words, the only thing you have as evidence FOR "special creation" is that "it is no worse than SToE? That frankly is ridiculous.

Please, don't insult me. I actually don't know whether God used evolution to create man, or if He created man separately. He could have done either. All I do know is that whatever He did, He created us to be separate, and that His methods would explained by the evidence, if we knew His methods with certainty. Obviously we don't.

Based on the arguments I'm seeing here, maybe the thread should have been called , "Is there any biologicial proof of special creation?" The answer to that would be "no".

OK.

Glad we can agree on something!

[israeltour]

Well, this is getting beyond the scope the thread, but the answer is Satan.

Ah, so Satan's "creative powers" are as great as God's? That's how you justify this?

Oh please. I'm not justifying disease. You asked about disease, and I gave you the abbreviated answer. I realize this opens up the pandora's box for all the arguments about "Would a good God allow evil", "Is the notion of Satan a copout", etc., all worthy discussions, but I believe those are beyond the scope of this thread.

[israeltour]

But are there any differences that could be used as evidence that our species was special to the creator?

I would say it's the difference between our DNA and chimp's but that would talking in circles.

Yes, we are special to God because the Bible tells you so. Next step, how do we know the Bible is true? Because the Bible says so. And that's where evidence, logic a reason shuts down and dogma takes over. So, no evidence there.

Actually, I know the Bible is true because it was consistent with my observations of God. Okay, now you can say my response isn't evidence.

Let me see...

How about the fact that we can contemplate our own existance? I think God gave us that ability because we're special to him.

That you "think" this is merely evidence of what your wishful thinking is. Wishful thinking is not the same as fact.

I agree. Good thing I'm not engaged in wishful thinking.

I'm curious. Would prefer that God exist? Or are you glad He doesn't (in your view)?

Can you tell which living things have a spirit?

Yes. All living people. No animals or plants.

Because you say so?

Of course not silly. The BIBLE tells me so.

[israeltour]

Can you measure a spirit?

Not to my knowledge.

So, I must conclude that you agree with me that there is no evidence that our spirit even exists.

Does personal experience count?

Can you tell which living things have a spirit?

Yes. All living people. No animals or plants.

How?

How can I say that? I have no arguments you would find persuasive, and I doubt I will. I can tell you however, that I can perceive spiritual elements at times. Personally, I think we all do. Some realize it for what it is and some do not. I will confess that if I'd never perceived it, I wouldn't believe it, and would require the kind of empirical evidence you do.

So you are admitting that spiritual matters are not a subject for debate since there is no evidence that you can use.

Of course spiritual matters can be debated. Isn't that what we're doing? Or maybe not...

One formulation of this debate is whether or not spiritual truth can be proven through physical evidence. It's like asking me to prove a murder without a perpetrator or a weapon. A lawyer can build a circumstantial case, but rule the perpetrator's existance inadmissable, and people might start believing it was an accident... they might even put together a plausible story of cause-and-effect that doesn't require the perpetrator. The result? Reasonable doubt.

Of course, depending on your definition, I may have mistaken this for the "Discussing Christianity & Religion" forum. If so, my mistake.