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?

[axeplayer]

the human eye.

[McCulloch]

the human eye.

Forgive me, but I cannot make the link. Could you please fill in a bit more of the detail. "the human eye." -- a noun with a definate article and an adjective, not even a single complete sentence.
You could start by explaining how the human eye is sufficiently different from the other primates' , especially the chimpanzees', eyes to show that homo sapiens were created separately and distinct from them.

[israeltour]

Is there any biological evidence of special creation?

Yes, but I'll get to that later. Let's first break down the scripture you quoted:

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.

So far, so good.

God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

If this is a reference to the spiritual, then the physical (i.e., biological) doesn't matter. If it's a reference to the physical, then a similarity to monkeys doesn't contradict this verse. After all, the result is that we're closer to Jesus' physical likeness than monkeys are... even if it's just by one chromosome, this verse would be a reference to that chromosome.

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.”

And so we do... we even have dominion over chimps.

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.”

We even have dominion over chimps.

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.

And it is still so.

This seems to indicate, whether you are a literalist or not, that god created humans distinctly and separately from the other animals.

And it's true.

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.

True, but it's if no consequence. The verses clearly state what the significnance of our difference are. The similarities don't undo that.

The biological evidence points to our common evolution (or creation, if you will) with the chimpanzees, separate from the gorillas, gabons and monkeys.

Sure, the chimps are distinctly separate from the gorillas, gabons, and monkeys... and we have dominion over them all. Chimps are missing the one genetic code that would make them be in God's image.

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

Yes, the differences.

The similarities are just mind candy.

[QED]

God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

If this is a reference to the spiritual, then the physical (i.e., biological) doesn't matter. If it's a reference to the physical, then a similarity to monkeys doesn't contradict this verse. After all, the result is that we're closer to Jesus' physical likeness than monkeys are... even if it's just by one chromosome, this verse would be a reference to that chromosome.

Unless you want to imagine that god once dwelt in a tree in a place like Africa, on a planet like Earth, then I think you'll find that this can only be a reference to the the spiritual. The form of man has been designed largely by his habitat.

[axeplayer]

God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

If this is a reference to the spiritual, then the physical (i.e., biological) doesn't matter. If it's a reference to the physical, then a similarity to monkeys doesn't contradict this verse. After all, the result is that we're closer to Jesus' physical likeness than monkeys are... even if it's just by one chromosome, this verse would be a reference to that chromosome.

Unless you want to imagine that god once dwelt in a tree in a place like Africa, on a planet like Earth, then I think you'll find that this can only be a reference to the the spiritual. The form of man has been designed largely by his habitat.

ACTUALLY, Genesis does say that God walked the earth in fellowship with Adam and Eve.

[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:

If this is a reference to the spiritual, then the physical (i.e., biological) doesn't matter.

If it is a reference to the spiritual then is has no scientific meaning. What are spiritual qualities? Can they be empirically detected? How can they be detected and measured? Do they exist only in humans and not in other primates, mammals, vertebrates or animals? How do you know? This should be a topic of another thread.

If it's a reference to the physical, then a similarity to monkeys doesn't contradict this verse. After all, the result is that we're closer to Jesus' physical likeness than monkeys are... even if it's just by one chromosome, this verse would be a reference to that chromosome.

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.

True, but it's if no consequence. The verses clearly state what the significance of our difference are. The similarities don't undo that.

Not contradict per se. If Genesis 1 is an anywhere close to accurate description of the origin of our species, then one would expect (but not necessarily require) that humans would be more different from the animals than they are from each other. After all, we were created at a different time, in a different way and for a different purpose. But the plain biological fact is that Chimpanzees are genetically closer to humans than they are to any other primate. But you are right, it does not disprove the verse. A miracle performing god can be made to do his creating any way you want him to. If he chooses to make stars that appear to be so far away from us that the light from them would not have time to reach us from the beginning of creation up to now, then he certainly can.

The biological evidence points to our common evolution (or creation, if you will) with the chimpanzees, separate from the gorillas, gabons and monkeys.

Sure, the chimps are distinctly separate from the gorillas, gabons, and monkeys... and we have dominion over them all. Chimps are missing the one genetic code that would make them be in God's image.

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. So the differences do not provide any biological evidence of a special creation. That does not prove that there was not a special creation. It just says that there is no biological evidence of a special creation. That is , there is no biological evidence that the creation of our species was done in a different way, with a different process and for a different purpose, by the creator. You might find some spiritual evidence, if "spiritual evidence" is not an oxymoron.

The similarities are just mind candy.

I am not sure what this means.

[QED]

Unless you want to imagine that god once dwelt in a tree in a place like Africa, on a planet like Earth, then I think you'll find that this can only be a reference to the the spiritual. The form of man has been designed largely by his habitat.

ACTUALLY, Genesis does say that God walked the earth in fellowship with Adam and Eve.

Do you think god looked like Adam before he created the Earth then?

[JED]

Do you think god looked like Adam before he created the Earth

Nicodemas had a hard time understanding the metaphors of Jesus too. He once asked for clarification when Jesus talked about being 'born again'. Nic asked: "Can a man enter again into his mother's womb?"

Jesus never did give Nic the benefit of an answer within an earthly frame of reference. Jesus' framed his response for 'those who have ears to hear', as he did all his parables.

Let me show you how Adam was in God's image;

God's throne is described twice in the scriptures. Once in Ezekiel and once in Revelation. There are four living creatures before the throne of God. These living creatures bear likeness of a man, an ox, an eagle and a lion. God is in the midst. The picture is that the power of God flows forth from this central place to all his dominion. The full implication of the imagery is quite beyond our discussion here, but very briefly; God created the earth in four parts, a river emerged from the 'Garden of God', parted into four heads and flowed forth into the four regions named in Genesis 2. Adam was placed in this garden and given dominion over four categories of living creatures (the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, the beasts of the field and the creeping things of the earth).

Just as God is in the midst of the four living creatures before the throne of his dominion, Adam was placed in the midst of the four parted earth.

Just as God reigns from his place, having dominion over all things, Adam was given a dominion and placed in that place from which the river of life flowed.

Adam was in the 'image of God'. You'll notice that when Adam sinned he was expelled from that central place created for him by God because he no longer fit the model of being 'in the image of God'.

God maintains the purity of the models he shapes to reveal himself to us. Moses at the waters of strife is a good example. Moses was denied access to the promised land after 40 years of faithfulness. Why? Because because he smote the rock THE SECOND TIME, and thus he no longer fit the role of those who would enter into the kingdom age. All who seek to smite the rock the second time are outside the heritage of the faithful.

God knows the end from the beginning, he knew exactly what Moses would do. God's purpose was to show us that only Joshua can lead the chosen people into the promised rest of God.

Joshua is the Hebrew name for Jesus.

[JED]

As far as there being any biological evidence of special creation . . .

There is nothing BUT biological evidence of special creation.

Genetic material is combined in such a way that the amino acid chains not only need to align at each end, but at every adjoining molecule. In the double helix, that means up, down, left, right, sideways, back and forth.

Amino acids formed randomly (or intentionally such as in Miller's experiments) are consistently "Left" AND "right" handed. That is, the ionic bonds that draw molecules together show no preference for which side of the attracting molecule they bond to. All life is made up of ONLY left handed amino acids. How were the right handed ones excluded?

The first law of thermodynamics requires that all things seek their own entropy holes and remain in stasis. Pure equilibrium. Having achieved equilibrium, no stochastic mechanisms exist to produce increased order. There is only the second law of thermodynamics that there can only exist a decrease in order; further degradation.

Additional genetic information is never gained in a DNA chain. When mutations occur, it's always a scrambling of information already present; a leg out of place, an additional head or some other abberation of existing DNA code.

Never does a wing form on a snake or a fin on a cat. The information is not present and cannot arise stochastically. It is not only improbable, it is impossible. The result, of course, is that 'all things reproduce according to their kind'. Dogs beget dogs, birds beget birds and so forth.

The theory of evolution at some juncture always requires spontaneous generation to occur. The pioneering work of Louis Pasteur paved the way for our canning and bottling industry today. Billions of experiments are performed each day as tuna fish, tomato soup and grape jelly are put into a controlled environment absent living DNA. The result is consistently the same, new life does not form spontaneously from non-living material. Not even from organic, previously alive material. Once the living DNA has been precipitated or disassembled by whatever means, heat, radiation, decay, new life does not form from the remains. There is a specific order to life ordained by the creator of life. All things reproduce according to their kind.

Many kinds of animals have become extinct, we find their remains all the time. While we discover new varieties of life from time to time, no new kinds of life arise from other kinds, or from non-living material.

The simple fact is, if someone tells you frogs become princes. It's either a fanciful fairy tale, or a delusion.