Creationists, please provide evidence

[newhope101]

Hi Evolved yet. I looked at your links. The one that appears closest to what the evidence is suggesting to me would be progressive creation and intelligent design.

I believe that God created initial kinds with huge genetic diversity as is seen in the most simplest organisms. Therefore the initial creation was either 1. The creation of cells that were to be plants and micro organisms required to make an ecosystem on earth and sea. These may have evolved more or less according to TOE. Then the creation of animal life in the water, possibly by creating the many other living cells on land an sea that were to go on and produce fish and birds. Then again to produce the more complicated creatures. or 2. God created kinds fully formed using science and physics we do not yet understand.

I debate that ToE is not as yet a fact. Having said that I actually have no problem with TOE other than I do not find it proven. The evidence is in disaray and I am not convinced. Perhaps God did create many kinds fully formed, perhaps he created many cells that would evolve. These questions to me remain unanswered.

However, mankind was created differently. Man was made out of dust indicating we are made of much the same stuff as other animals (DNA) but man did not evolve from them. The minimum line up I accept with TOE may be a significant macro event in a non human primate, to produce Adam, same for Eve. However it is just as likely that God created man in another dimension in another realm, formed him, brought him back to this dimension and breathed the breath of life and got the heart pumping away. ie Adam must have been dead when formed and then activated (not unlike sci fi cloning).

There is no magic to being human except it was humans that were created in the image of God. We are just water and a few elements. Memory and knowledge is a physically explainable feature. Theoretically to make a clone of any person is possible, including the copying of engrams and knowledge and memory imprinting. Adam was not made a blank slate but rather had the skills and knowledge imprinted onto his brain, so he was born with an ability to speak and understand, as was Eve.

So, I do not have preconceived ideas really about ToE generally. I am still considering the evidence on other non human life. Man, however, was created (progressive or intelligent design), differently to animals.

I do not believe in 'poofing'. Rather, 'poofing' refers to a yet to be explained science.

The bible says "let the land produce" for all of creation except mankind. so if ToE is right that's no problem for me as it isn't for many believers in God. But I'll debate to the end that mankind was created differently and we did not evolve slowly from chimps or orangutangs or anything else. You already know what I have to say about the fossil record and genomic testing so far.

If there is a creationist descriptor for someone that doesn't care about how all other organisms came about, but holds than man did not evolve, then that's me.

 

[newhope101]

Fair enough. I'll try to elucidate.

The first question is simply asking for a definition of "information" as it pertains to biology. Biologists don't really use this term because while a genome may contain more or less chromosomes, and those chromosomes may be longer or shorter, this does not indicate an organism is more or less complex. Humans have 46 chromosomes, for example, where a certain species of rice has over a thousand. And of the humans' 46 chromosomes, most of the coded pairs are not expressed phenotypically. They're basically junk. So, given those facts, what do you mean when you say "information"?

Perhaps there will be more clarity when researchers find out what junk DNA does. It's not 'junk' anymore. So in as much as genomic testing has advanced it is still in infancy with more questions arising from new data than are answered. It is a manipulative ploy to expect more answers from creationists than you yourself can produce.

In the case of the second, you claimed earlier that there are distinct "kinds" each with their own single common ancestor, but who share no common ancestors with each other. Because all extant biological evidence indicates that there are no hard lines between populations creationists like yourself have struggled to identify where one "kind" ends and another begins.

Similarly evolutionists have no start or end to species and many have been reclassified at both the species and genus taxa. Evolutionists cannot grasp the term kind because your own definition of species is so unclear and we have to use your language. Wiki "species' 'species problem' attests to this. Then there are the 15 or so various definitions one has to wade through. Creationists are clear what a 'kind' is. It is using the flawed concept of species, genus, wrapped in current bilogical language that causes much confusion, not least of all evolutionists themselves.

By your definition micro-evolution cannot produce different "kinds" because of reproductive isolation. When asked to clarify you acknowledged that an organism can be reproductively isolated from its ancestors through "loss of information." From this i gather that you believe reproductively isolated organisms are separate "kinds" unless their reproductive isolation was a product of information loss.

The bible states kinds were created. Any more than this are the words and reasonings of man. Whether organisms adapted to the point of sexual incompatability is irrelevant.

Scientifically speaking, that's a prediction. You have a hypothesis, and the hypothesis predicts that there are two causes of reproductive isolation (the lack of a common ancestor, and the loss of information). My question was how we could test that prediction. In other words, how could we determine that a housecat is reproductively isolated from a cheetah because the housecat lost information rather than because it's a different "kind" than a cheetah.

If many cells 'evolved' into life in different areas and produced various kinds of organisms initially, how could you tell the difference? I believe scientists could not . They do not know what any other line would look like nor if they would also have similar genetic make up etc. It is assumed that the genetic similarity amongst organisms is a sign of common decent. However, to say that just one line continued and others became extinct has been used way too many times for it to be a credible explanation of what is seen in DNA. So God creating a creature that adapted to become a wild cat or other cats some of which were domesticated is not a problem for the term 'kind'. The problem is that taxonomic ranking calls each adaptation of a kind a 'species', pegs it to a genus, then family (clade) then pegs it to the ridiculous that is based on morphological similarity, as if any morph evolved only once, which has been proven to be incorrect.


Note this line in the info below "However, because of modern phylogenetics, domestic cats are now usually regarded as another subspecies of the Wildcat Felis silvestris.". Why do you not undersand "kind"? Why is it sooo hard to get an educated head around an organism being initially created that diversified into many cat 'kind' creatures where capacity to interbreed is irrelevant?


Wiki: All the cats in this genus share a common ancestor that probably lived around 6-7 million years ago in Asia.[19] Although the exact relationships within the Felidae are still uncertain,[20][21] both the Chinese Mountain Cat and the African Wildcat are close relations of the domestic cat and are both classed as subspecies of the Wildcat Felis silvestris.[4][20] As domestic cats are little altered from wildcats, they can readily interbreed. This hybridization may pose a danger to the genetic distinctiveness of wildcat populations, particularly in Scotland and Hungary.[22]
The domestic cat was first classified as Felis catus by Carolus Linnaeus in the tenth edition of his Systema Naturae of 1758.[2][23] However, because of modern phylogenetics, domestic cats are now usually regarded as another subspecies of the Wildcat Felis silvestris.[4][23][24] This has resulted in mixed usage of the terms, as the domestic cat can be called by its subspecies name, Felis silvestris catus.[1][4] Wildcats have also been referred to as various subspecies of F. catus,[24] but in 2003 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature fixed the name for wildcats as F. silvestris.[25] The most common name in use for the domestic cat remains F. catus, following a convention for domesticated animals of using the earliest (the senior) synonym proposed.[25] Sometimes the domestic cat is called Felis domesticus[26] or Felis domestica,[23] the term coined by German naturalist Johann Christian Polycarp Erxleben in 1777. These are not valid taxonomic names, and Linnaeus' binomial takes precedence.[27]

 

[Falvlun]

Newhope: You claim you have a clear definition of "kind". What is it? In post 1141, you state that God could have either created cells that would evolve to be different things, or he just created fully formed organisms. Both those definitions involve a very different concept of "kind".

Also, the fact that the definition for species is flexible is a good thing as that reflects nature. Nature does not come in convenient cookie cutter shapes; it is dynamic and fluid. Species flow into other species, just as the TOE predicts.

 

[painted wolf]

Thanks PaintedWolf. Yes the bird to dino theory is interesting. It will be interesting to see where it goes and if it is accepted by the scientific community. Of course I believe birds were created as a kind and then diversified, rather that having evolved from dinos or gliders. Besides I understand that birds were present when dinos were about anyway.

You are welcome...
as for birds not being dinosaurs... you will have to have a very restrictive definition of bird.

This species discussion in relation to ‘kind’ appears to be never ending. As genomic data comes to light just how much one organism is related to another will be clearer, as will ‘kinds’. From the Wiki info below, I’d say horses, zebras and other equine animals are PROBABLY not related to Hyracotherium. It looks too unlike a horse. If this guy is depicted as the common ancestor I’d have to say God likely created Rhinos and horses and possibly Tapirs separately as ‘kinds‘.

I would say you haven't really looked at Hyracotherium. At first glance it doesn't look much like a horse, but you can't judge on a first glance.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

thats a very interesting article...if its true then it surely indicates that evolution happens much faster then the millions of years usually attributed to it

and if its true that evolution can happen that fast, then the 4,000 odd years since the ark and its 2 of each 'kind' is no problem for the diversity we see on earth today

Actually, it is still a problem for creationism.
You would need two rodent species to evolve every year for example, with a 4,000 odd year time period.
You would have to accept that rats can spontaneously give birth to mice.

wa:do

 

[Danmac]

Fair enough. I'll try to elucidate.

The first question is simply asking for a definition of "information" as it pertains to biology. Biologists don't really use this term because while a genome may contain more or less chromosomes, and those chromosomes may be longer or shorter, this does not indicate an organism is more or less complex. Humans have 46 chromosomes, for example, where a certain species of rice has over a thousand. And of the humans' 46 chromosomes, most of the coded pairs are not expressed phenotypically. They're basically junk. So, given those facts, what do you mean when you say "information"?

When God created parent kinds, each parent kind had all of the information necessary to produce all of the different species that we see today. Over time, much of that information has been lost thru natural selection, and microevolution. For example. The Panda bear has reached a genetic dead end. It must rely on a diet of bamboo for survival. The next stop is probably extinction. That is due to a loss of parent kind information.

In the case of the second, you claimed earlier that there are distinct "kinds" each with their own single common ancestor, but who share no common ancestors with each other. Because all extant biological evidence indicates that there are no hard lines between populations creationists like yourself have struggled to identify where one "kind" ends and another begins.

That can be difficult to determine. The best way is reproductive isolation and common traits that are easily identifiable. The cat family has distinct features, and it is fairly easy to determine those that belong to the cat family with a quick glance. The same is true with the dog kind. There are many dog species, but it is rather easy to recognize a dog species just from it's appearance.

By your definition micro-evolution cannot produce different "kinds" because of reproductive isolation. When asked to clarify you acknowledged that an organism can be reproductively isolated from its ancestors through "loss of information." From this i gather that you believe reproductively isolated organisms are separate "kinds" unless their reproductive isolation was a product of information loss.

I believe within a parent kind can be many species. These species are reproductively isolated from all other kinds. A cat cannot mate with a rabbit for example. They are different kinds. Now there are species within a kind that can lose the information necessary to mate with other species within its own kind, and become reproductively isolated from many of the species within its own kind.

Scientifically speaking, that's a prediction. You have a hypothesis, and the hypothesis predicts that there are two causes of reproductive isolation (the lack of a common ancestor, and the loss of information). My question was how we could test that prediction. In other words, how could we determine that a housecat is reproductively isolated from a cheetah because the housecat lost information rather than because it's a different "kind" than a cheetah.

I think we can only know it when it happens. I don;t think we can predict when a species may become isolated from other species within its kind.

I know much of what I have said could be considered circumstantial evidence and dismissed as not really being evidence, but science doesn't disagree with any of my claims either, IMO

 

[Falvlun]

When God created parent kinds, each parent kind had all of the information necessary to produce all of the different species that we see today. Over time, much of that information has been lost thru natural selection, and microevolution. For example. The Panda bear has reached a genetic dead end. It must rely on a diet of bamboo for survival. The next stop is probably extinction. That is due to a loss of parent kind information.

Are you saying that there were many parents for each kind or that there were only one set of parents for each kind?

If you only claim one set of parents, then your method is impossible. You can't simply stuff two genomes with all the variety you want: there can only be two different types for each gene (one on each chromosome). With only 2 parents, then you could only have 4 different gene types for every gene, ie AB and XY (you'd only ever be able to have the various combinations of ABX and Y). We have way more than just 4 different options for each gene.

 

[painted wolf]

What "kind" am I?

wa:do

 

[Pegg]

So then you want to ignore the first part of Genesis 1:16 which says, "And God made two great lights..." and the first part of Genesis 1:17 which says, "And God set them in the firmament..."? Genesis is very specific that these two lights were made on the fourth day, not on the first.

vs 16 is not the first part of genesis. I'm going to try and put it in perspective for you.

Gen 1:1 'God created heavens and earth' - this is a general statement that God created both heavens and earth...the earth being a part of the universe created by God at some distant time in the past and it existing with the universe for untold eons of time.

DAY 1.
Gen 1:2-5 'God turns his attention to the planet...the Earth was formless...there was darkness upon its surface beneath the waters...God caused the light to penetrate...God begins earths rotation on axis to make separation between night and day' End of day 1. this is the beginning the preparation of earth for habitation

DAY 2.
Gen 1:6-8 ' God separates the waters covering the surface of earth ...some water remains on the surface of earth which become the seas, and some is pushed up above to create an expanse between the two, the expanse is where the birds are said to fly...above the expanse are the rest of the waters. End of day 2.

DAY 3.
Gen 1:9-13 'God causes the land beneath the water to rise and brings the land mass together into one place (supercontinent)...God causes vegetation to begin to grow on the land surfaces via seeds. As the light from the sun had been reaching the earth since day 1, the diffused light would have been sufficient by that stage for the process of photosynthesis to occur.

Day 4.
Gen 1:14-19 'Two luminaries are made to 'appear' in the expanse....this happens because the clouds have cleared sufficiently for the direct sunlight to now hit the earth whereas before this it was indirect sunlight because the clouds were blocking it. This is why the hebrew words change from 'ohr' in day 1 to 'ma'ohr' on day 4. Now the 'source' of light can be seen whereas in day 1 only the indirect light could be seen.

Day 5
Gen 1:20-23 'God begins to create sea life, a variety of creatures according to their 'kinds' who dwell in the seas and they go forth multiplying.... God then begins to create 'flying creatures in variety according to their 'kinds' and they too are given time to go forth multiplying. End day 5

Day 6
Gen 1:24-27 'God begins to create land animals in great variety, they are made according to their kinds and go forth and multiply. Then God creates the man and woman according to their 'kind'
End day 6.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

vs 16 is not the first part of genesis. I'm going to try and put it in perspective for you.

Gen 1:1 'God created heavens and earth' - this is a general statement that God created both heavens and earth...the earth being a part of the universe created by God at some distant time in the past and it existing with the universe for untold eons of time.

DAY 1.
Gen 1:2-5 'God turns his attention to the planet...the Earth was formless...there was darkness upon its surface beneath the waters...God caused the light to penetrate...God begins earths rotation on axis to make separation between night and day' End of day 1. this is the beginning the preparation of earth for habitation

DAY 2.
Gen 1:6-8 ' God separates the waters covering the surface of earth ...some water remains on the surface of earth which become the seas, and some is pushed up above to create an expanse between the two, the expanse is where the birds are said to fly...above the expanse are the rest of the waters. End of day 2.

DAY 3.
Gen 1:9-13 'God causes the land beneath the water to rise and brings the land mass together into one place (supercontinent)...God causes vegetation to begin to grow on the land surfaces via seeds. As the light from the sun had been reaching the earth since day 1, the diffused light would have been sufficient by that stage for the process of photosynthesis to occur.

Day 4.
Gen 1:14-19 'Two luminaries are made to 'appear' in the expanse....this happens because the clouds have cleared sufficiently for the direct sunlight to now hit the earth whereas before this it was indirect sunlight because the clouds were blocking it. This is why the hebrew words change from 'ohr' in day 1 to 'ma'ohr' on day 4. Now the 'source' of light can be seen whereas in day 1 only the indirect light could be seen.

Day 5
Gen 1:20-23 'God begins to create sea life, a variety of creatures according to their 'kinds' who dwell in the seas and they go forth multiplying.... God then begins to create 'flying creatures in variety according to their 'kinds' and they too are given time to go forth multiplying. End day 5

Day 6
Gen 1:24-27 'God begins to create land animals in great variety, they are made according to their kinds and go forth and multiply. Then God creates the man and woman according to their 'kind'
End day 6.

You're still ignoring the usage of the word 'asah' in verse 16. The usage there literally means 'to make', not 'make to appear'. You're reading into the verses that you posted meanings that are not in the original Hebrew.

Every time that the word "make" or "made" is used in Genesis 1 it's the word 'asah':

"And God made the firmament...." - Genesis 1:7a

"And God made two great lights...." - Genesis 1:16a

"...[H]e made the stars also." - Genesis 1:16d

"And God made the beasts of the earth....' - Genesis 1:25a

"And God said, 'let us make man in our image..." - Genesis 1:26a

"And God saw every thing that he had made..." - Genesis 1:31a

Every time 'asah' is used it's describing a creative event, save for 1:31 where it's used to describe the creation itself.

Genesis is not vague in this area. The sun, moon, and stars were made on the fourth day, not the first.

 

[Pegg]

You're still ignoring the usage of the word 'asah' in verse 16. The usage there literally means 'to make', not 'make to appear'.

can you provide a reference to the meaning of the hebrew word 'asah' in verse 16 pls

 

[The_Evelyonian]

can you provide a reference to the meaning of the hebrew word 'asah' in verse 16 pls

Genesis 1 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

 

[Pegg]

Genesis 1 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

thankyou.

and from your link, the meaning of the hebrew word is as follows:
1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make
a) (Qal)
1) to do, work, make, produce
a) to do
b) to work
c) to deal (with)
d) to act, act with effect, effect
2) to make
a) to make
b) to produce
c) to prepare
d) to make (an offering)
e) to attend to, put in order
f) to observe, celebrate
g) to acquire (property)
h) to appoint, ordain, institute
i) to bring about
j) to use
k) to spend, pass
b) (Niphal)
1) to be done
2) to be made
3) to be produced
4) to be offered
5) to be observed
6) to be used
c) (Pual) to be made
2) (Piel) to press, squeeze


'Make' can mean to bring something into existence from scratch in english, but not once is 'create' mentioned as part of the meaning of 'asah' in this list. The hebrew word for create is 'bara'(?)
The 'make' in Gen 1:16 is not that God created the luminaries from scratch, but that God put these existing objects to a new purpose.
Genesis tells us that purpose in verse 14 - here it is direct from the hebrew interlinear:

and·he-is-saying Elohim he-shall-become luminaries in·atmosphere-of the·heavens, ·to-separate-of between the·day and·between the·night and·they-become for·signs and·for·appointments and·for·days and·years

and vs 16 shows in what sense God 'made' these illuminaries:

'and·he-is-making do Elohim two-of the·luminaries the·great-ones...'
what is he making them do?
'the·luminary the·great to·ruling-of the·day
and· the·luminary the·small to·ruling-of the·night and the·stars'
he is 'making' one to rule the night and one to rule the day, for what purpose?
and·he-is-giving them Elohim in·atmosphere-of the·heavens to·give-light-of on the·earth'
to give a source of light and as vs 14 says, to give as a means of counting time

Now if you go back to your link and look further down the page to the 'Gesenius Lexicon' entry, you'll see that the word 'asah' is explained as 'working on something' as opposed to 'creating' it.
(1) Prop. to labor, to work about anything; to work upon anything;

What genesis is actually saying about the luminaries in vs 16 is that they were being made to provide a means of calculating days and times and years...which is exactly what we do with them.

 

[Autodidact]

It makes new species if you like, but not new kinds.

This is one of the things that makes it frustrating trying to talk to creationists, and it is a form of dishonesty. You are espousing two contradictory positions. When someone points out a problem with one, you espouse the other, and vice versa. This is the opposite of what you say later, which is that you accept ToE except as applied to humans. Please pick a position and stick with it.

How old do you believe our planet is?

 

[Autodidact]

christians have accepted the God of the bible as their God and hindus have accepted Vishnu as their god and others accept other gods...the point is that in terms of creation, a creator was involved no matter which creator you believe him to be...he could even be an alien from an advanced civilization for that matter. Either no creator was involved and we are merely products of a natural world, or a creator was involved.

This is not a scientific question and does not belong in this thread. This is a religious question. Religion asks who, science asks how. This thread is about how. *If I have to type this one more time, my fingers may fall off*

of course they believe that...its what the ToE says should have happened. However, the evidence doesnt back up that belief as this article shows
"Similarly, as far as the arthropods are concerned, the different subphyla of trilobites, horseshoe crabs and crustaceans arise in the Cambrian. Furthermore, the crustaceans are exceedingly diverse. All four major classes of the crustaceans and many lower taxa are found in the Cambrian; but, again, despite this multitude of fossils, no trace can be found of any transitional forms which would link the different groups to a common ancestor. "

Yes, you're right. The Cambrian explosion actually happened exactly as you describe. You have now utterly disproved your position. Do you see why, or do I need to explain it?

You can't have it both ways. Either God magically poofed the kinds, or they evolved from these Cambrian creatures. Which? Please pick one; they are mutually exclusive.

 

[Autodidact]

"tiny slugs and shelled creatures" is a bit of an understatement. There is a great variety of fully developed, complex sea creatures who appeared during the cambrian period. Basically we see all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates appearing at once. And they are not all the same, they are very diverse...snails, sponges, starfish, the lobsterlike trilobites...the diversity is enormous and the fact that they have no known ancestors is also 'enormous'.

Here's what there wasn't: the land animals you claim were magically poofed into existence fully formed, the ur-cats and ur-horses and ur-kangaroos. If they evolved from these Cambrian life-forms, your hypothesis is disproved. If they didn't, why are you talking about them?

But heres an even more 'enormous' fact...Monoplacophorans were believed long extinct until a living species was discovered deep in the Pacific Ocean in the 1950s.

Fascinating. What's your point?

 

[Autodidact]

contrary to what you think, that comment by Gee is actually in reference to the 'Discovery Institutes' use of comments he made in his book on pages 11, 40, 47, 88, and 111. Here is the beginning of his comment about their quote mining:

The Discovery Institute’s Viewers Guide to the PBS “Evolution” series claims in several places (for example, on page 11) that the series “…leave(s) viewers with the misleading impression that the evidence for human evolution is much stronger than it really is.” The Guide attempts to discredit the scientific implications of the human fossil record by quoting (on pages 11, 40, 47, 88, and 111) passages from the 1999 book In Search of Deep Time by Dr. Henry Gee, who is also Senior Editor, Biological Sciences, for the journal Nature. Dr. Gee has sent us the following comments:

The quote i have used: "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage Is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific "
Is from the same book but frompage 116-117. It has not been taken out of context and he was not replying to that particular quote in the above article.


You should be able to determine exactly what he is saying by his reply that you posted. "That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find."

The quote from him on page 116 says "'To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage Is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific "

which is exactly what he acknowledges in his rebuttal to the discovery institute... .that it is impossible to attribute ancestry and that fact is self evident.

So now you've gone and quote mined, or havent really read the information you posted well enough to be able to see whats going on.

Well the statement that you can't determine actual ancestry from fossils is true and obvious, so why bring it up? What does it have to do with your hypothesis?

 

[Autodidact]

Natural selection eliminates traits that will hinder survival. Or it chooses traits that will better aid survival. Thru this process information is discarded.

How? What is this "information" and how does it get "discarded?" Do you understand what a mutation is? What is the relationship between mutations and "information?"

 

[Autodidact]

A separate process yes.

O.K., in that case what's all this drivel about "kinds," and "information?" You accept ToE, except for people, who were magically poofed--that's your hypothesis, right?

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Evolved yet. I looked at your links. The one that appears closest to what the evidence is suggesting to me would be progressive creation and intelligent design.

I believe that God created initial kinds with huge genetic diversity as is seen in the most simplest organisms. Therefore the initial creation was either 1. The creation of cells that were to be plants and micro organisms required to make an ecosystem on earth and sea. These may have evolved more or less according to TOE. Then the creation of animal life in the water, possibly by creating the many other living cells on land an sea that were to go on and produce fish and birds. Then again to produce the more complicated creatures. or 2. God created kinds fully formed using science and physics we do not yet understand.

I debate that ToE is not as yet a fact. Having said that I actually have no problem with TOE other than I do not find it proven. The evidence is in disaray and I am not convinced. Perhaps God did create many kinds fully formed, perhaps he created many cells that would evolve. These questions to me remain unanswered.

However, mankind was created differently. Man was made out of dust indicating we are made of much the same stuff as other animals (DNA) but man did not evolve from them. The minimum line up I accept with TOE may be a significant macro event in a non human primate, to produce Adam, same for Eve. However it is just as likely that God created man in another dimension in another realm, formed him, brought him back to this dimension and breathed the breath of life and got the heart pumping away. ie Adam must have been dead when formed and then activated (not unlike sci fi cloning).

There is no magic to being human except it was humans that were created in the image of God. We are just water and a few elements. Memory and knowledge is a physically explainable feature. Theoretically to make a clone of any person is possible, including the copying of engrams and knowledge and memory imprinting. Adam was not made a blank slate but rather had the skills and knowledge imprinted onto his brain, so he was born with an ability to speak and understand, as was Eve.

So, I do not have preconceived ideas really about ToE generally. I am still considering the evidence on other non human life. Man, however, was created (progressive or intelligent design), differently to animals.

I do not believe in 'poofing'. Rather, 'poofing' refers to a yet to be explained science.

The bible says "let the land produce" for all of creation except mankind. so if ToE is right that's no problem for me as it isn't for many believers in God. But I'll debate to the end that mankind was created differently and we did not evolve slowly from chimps or orangutangs or anything else. You already know what I have to say about the fossil record and genomic testing so far.

If there is a creationist descriptor for someone that doesn't care about how all other organisms came about, but holds than man did not evolve, then that's me.

It could have been X, may have been Y, and Z is also possible? So you have no idea and not hypothesis to evaluate? What the heck are you doing in this thread?