Misconceptions about Evolutionary Creationism (or Theistic Evolution)

[Job 33:6]

I'm sorry if I've offended. That was not my intent. I simply don't understand the emphasis on a solid dome.

I'm emphasizing it because I want you to see what the text is saying. The solid sky dome raqia is a significant component of ancient near east cosmology in Genesis.

Another significant part of ancient near east cosmology is Sheol, the underworld.

To Him who spread out the earth above the waters, For His faithfulness is everlasting;
Psalms 136:6 NASB

“For the waves of death encompassed me; The floods of destruction terrified me; The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.
2 Samuel 22:5‭-‬6 NASB

¶The ropes of death encompassed me, And the torrents of destruction terrified me. The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.
Psalms 18:4‭-‬5 NASB

“They spend their days in prosperity, And suddenly they go down to Sheol.
Job 21:13 NASB

“He raises the poor from the dust, He lifts the needy from the garbage heap To seat them with nobles, And He gives them a seat of honor as an inheritance; For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, And He set the world on them.
1 Samuel 2:8 NASB

¶“The departed spirits are made to tremble Under the waters and their inhabitants.
Job 26:5 NASB

“The pillars of heaven tremble And are amazed at His rebuke.
Job 26:11 NASB

He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.
Job 26:10

The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me. “Then the earth shook and quaked, The foundations of heaven were trembling And were shaken, because He was angry.
2 Samuel 22:6‭, ‬8 NASB

“Sheol below is excited about you, to meet you when you come; It stirs the spirits of the dead for you, all the leaders of the earth; It raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones.
Isaiah 14:9 NASB

Then all his sons and all his daughters got up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. And he said, “Surely I will go down to Sheol in mourning for my son.” So his father wept for him.
Genesis 37:35 NASB2020

Yet He commanded the clouds above And opened the doors of heaven;
Psalms 78:23 NASB

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the measuring line over it? “On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,
Job 38:4‭-‬6 NASB

¶He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not move forever and ever.
Psalms 104:5 NASB

The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up. He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world.
1 Samuel 2:6‭, ‬8 NRSV

 

[sfs]

Interesting comment since you started off this discussion stating "I don't think I've met an anti-evolutionary creationist on this forum who actually understands the position of evolutionary creation. " I understand completely.

Look again: that wasn't me.

"To make that claim you have to have a broad, detailed knowledge of the evidence we're basing our acceptance of evolution on. Do you?"

What evidence are you accepting evolution on? Genertic evidence is meaningless since DNA is similar in all creatures.

There's a lot more to genetic evidence that 'DNA is similar'. In fact, some of it comes from looking at the differences in DNA, not the similarities. See here for a description of one kind of evidence. If you aren't aware of this kind of data, how are you in a position to know whether scientists are acting on faith or on evidence?

And that is the problem. This isn't a "gross misreading" of Genesis nor having the impression that every text in scripture should be read like a newspaper story. Below are the references just in the New Testament alone to the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

Yeah, it is a gross misreading of Genesis. It's not news to me that New Testament writers refer to Genesis. Discussing that, however, would detract from the only issue I've raised: your mischaracterization and defamation of scientists, something that you have so far neither supported nor withdrawn.

 

[HarleyER]

Look again: that wasn't me.

There's a lot more to genetic evidence that 'DNA is similar'. In fact, some of it comes from looking at the differences in DNA, not the similarities. See here for a description of one kind of evidence. If you aren't aware of this kind of data, how are you in a position to know whether scientists are acting on faith or on evidence?

Yeah, it is a gross misreading of Genesis. It's not news to me that New Testament writers refer to Genesis. Discussing that, however, would detract from the only issue I've raised: your mischaracterization and defamation of scientists, something that you have so far neither supported nor withdrawn.

Look again: that wasn't me.

There's a lot more to genetic evidence that 'DNA is similar'. In fact, some of it comes from looking at the differences in DNA, not the similarities. See here for a description of one kind of evidence. If you aren't aware of this kind of data, how are you in a position to know whether scientists are acting on faith or on evidence?

Yeah, it is a gross misreading of Genesis. It's not news to me that New Testament writers refer to Genesis. Discussing that, however, would detract from the only issue I've raised: your mischaracterization and defamation of scientists, something that you have so far neither supported nor withdrawn.

Look again: that wasn't me.

There's a lot more to genetic evidence that 'DNA is similar'. In fact, some of it comes from looking at the differences in DNA, not the similarities. See here for a description of one kind of evidence. If you aren't aware of this kind of data, how are you in a position to know whether scientists are acting on faith or on evidence?

Yeah, it is a gross misreading of Genesis. It's not news to me that New Testament writers refer to Genesis. Discussing that, however, would detract from the only issue I've raised: your mischaracterization and defamation of scientists, something that you have so far neither supported nor withdrawn.

There is no mischaracterization or defamation of scientists. I'm simply stating that secular scientists, whatever their motives good or bad, must naturally look for an alternative to the Biblical account. Doesn't this seem reasonable if they don't believe in the Bible?

To think there are mutations after mutations going on between thousands of species and plants is a little bit of a stretch in my opinion. One excuse is that mutations happened over a long period of time. Yet there is no direct fossil evidence showing various stages of man evolving from monkeys. Or monkeys evolve from cucumbers? I say this tongue in cheek since one would have to include the mutation of plants to animals or visa versa since we are led to believe that everything evolved from DNA, and persumably one source. If man and animals and fish and plant did not come from one source, then where did they come from and why did they mutate?

Yes, we can say that there are mutations that occur now and then. But they rarely live or propagate. Other animals, like a mule, is a cross between similar breeds (a horse and donkey). Not what I would consider a mutation. There is no breeding between an elephant and octopus. For thousands of species all mutating at the same time and not leave any historical trace takes great faith. And we haven’t even talked about how man is far different than monkeys or cucumbers.

From your article:

In scientific terms, I had a hypothesis about the distant past, I tested the hypothesis with data, and it passed the test.​

What is a simple definition of hypothesis?​

Answer: A hypothesis is a concept or idea that you test through research and experiments. In other words, it is a prediction that is can be tested by research. Most researchers come up with a hypothesis statement at the beginning of the study.​

Proper research isn't simply data but experimenting and achieving the provable results. Evolving monkeys into men is not testable. Data testing is not testing a hypothesis (especially when one is testing their own hypothesis). It is merely conjecture. Sometimes reasonable and sometimes not.

If God created the universe, and established DNA as the main building block, then of course there is going to be similarities between everything.

I have yet to see any evidence.

PS-I apologize for misattributing a quote to you. I must have read the wrong post.

 

[sfs]

There is no mischaracterization or defamation of scientists. I'm simply stating that secular scientists, whatever their motives good or bad, must naturally look for an alternative to the Biblical account.

You wrote that they accepted evolution on faith. That's saying that they're utterly incompetent as scientists. And what are secular scientists, anyway? Science is a secular activity. like auto mechanics or plumbing. If you mean non-Christian scientists, you've missed the point: both non-Christian and Christian biologists (including me in the latter) accept evolution, with rare exceptions.

To think there are mutations after mutations going on between thousands of species and plants is a little bit of a stretch in my opinion.

Well, yes, that's your opinion, but it's clear that you know just about nothing about genetics. This statement, for example, is quite wrong:

Yes, we can say that there are mutations that occur now and then. But they rarely live or propagate.

Every human birth has something like 50 to 100 new mutations which, yes, propagate. Now there's no particular reason you should know much about genetics. But for someone who doesn't know the first thing about genetics to be telling a geneticist like me, who spends my entire working day every day for years, what's true about genetics... well, there's a problem there.

If God created the universe, and established DNA as the main building block, then of course there is going to be similarities between everything.

I have yet to see any evidence.

Did you look at the link I provided? I chose that one specifically because it was not about similarities between species. If you don't look, of course you won't see any evidence.

 

[HarleyER]

You wrote that they accepted evolution on faith. That's saying that they're utterly incompetent as scientists. And what are secular scientists, anyway? Science is a secular activity. like auto mechanics or plumbing. If you mean non-Christian scientists, you've missed the point: both non-Christian and Christian biologists (including me in the latter) accept evolution, with rare exceptions.

Well, yes, that's your opinion, but it's clear that you know just about nothing about genetics. This statement, for example, is quite wrong:

Every human birth has something like 50 to 100 new mutations which, yes, propagate. Now there's no particular reason you should know much about genetics. But for someone who doesn't know the first thing about genetics to be telling a geneticist like me, who spends my entire working day every day for years, what's true about genetics... well, there's a problem there.

Did you look at the link I provided? I chose that one specifically because it was not about similarities between species. If you don't look, of course you won't see any evidence.

You wrote that they accepted evolution on faith. That's saying that they're utterly incompetent as scientists…you've missed the point: both non-Christian and Christian biologists (including me in the latter) accept evolution, with rare exceptions.

No, I am not saying evolutionists are utterly incompetent as scientists. And I understand many Christians (not only biologists) accept evolution as fact. Yet there is no direct solid evidence of evolution. That doesn’t make it wrong. It simply makes it just as unprovable as a six day creation.

Evolution is accepted as a fact. Contrary biblical views, such as Intelligent Design, are demonized. Consider this on Wikipedia about Intelligent Design:

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".​

Intelligent design - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

Does anyone stop and thing that perhaps what we are taught by secular society is not correct? Would the government lie to us?

Now there's no particular reason you should know much about genetics. But for someone who doesn't know the first thing about genetics to be telling a geneticist like me, who spends my entire working day every day for years, what's true about genetics... well, there's a problem there.

You’re right. I know very little about genetics. However, I do know quite a bit about what the scriptures state and is at odds with evolution. I also know a bit about history and how doctrines and errors creep into the church based on secular society views as well as false teachers of religious systems. I’m not trying to tell you what is true about genetics. What I am saying is when genetics beliefs contradict what is clearly expressed in the scripture, then one has a choice; 1) do they believe what is recorded in scripture, or 2) do they believe what society tells them?

Scientists today would like us to believe there are many different human genders, woman, man, non-binary, gender queer, gender fluid, transgender. The Bible states there are two, male and female. Rhetorical question: who would you believe; 1) the scientists, or 2) the Bible? As the church moves towards a more secular view, it moves farther away from the Bible.

Did you look at the link I provided?

Yes, I even quoted from it. What is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

 

[Buzzard3]

So one can believe in an unexplainable evolution model given to us by secular scientists or one can accept what the scriptures teaches as the inspired Word of God.

Or one can believe neither and just say, "I don't know what happened." One's salvation doesn't depend on knowing the truth about the history of life on earth - a history that is unknowable; a mystery that will never be solved.

 

[HarleyER]

Or one can believe neither and just say, "I don't know what happened." One's salvation doesn't depend on knowing the truth about the history of life on earth - a history that is unknowable; a mystery that will never be solved.

Or one can believe neither and just say, "I don't know what happened."

Very true. There are a lot of things in scripture for which we have incomplete information about. Salvation doesn't depend on knowing the truth about the history of life on earth as you state. This is what is often called a Tier 3 issue. But what happens when one ignore parts of the scriptures, only interested in keeping what they understand and agree with? The rest one dismisses with what seems at odds with their worldview. At the end of the day, one has an incomplete picture and, perhaps, even a wrong understanding of God and salvation. What is worst, these error are often propagated to others.

 

[sfs]

No, I am not saying evolutionists are utterly incompetent as scientists. And I understand many Christians (not only biologists) accept evolution as fact. Yet there is no direct solid evidence of evolution. That doesn’t make it wrong. It simply makes it just as unprovable as a six day creation.

You're contradicting yourself within the same paragraph, perhaps because you aren't familiar with science and scientists. Saying that a scientist accepts the central theory of his own field based on faith, not evidence, is an accusation of utter incompetence. The job of a scientist is to weigh evidence and accept conclusions based on that evidence. If we're not doing that, we're not doing our jobs.

Does anyone stop and thing that perhaps what we are taught by secular society is not correct?

I do that all the time. My conclusions about intelligent design arguments are based on reading those arguments and knowing something about the subjects they address.

Would the government lie to us?

What does the government have to do with it? Wikipedia isn't part of the government and very few scientists speak for the government.

You’re right. I know very little about genetics. However, I do know quite a bit about what the scriptures state

Which entitles you to argue against evolution based on the Bible. How does it entitle you to talk about evidence you don't pretend to understand?

What is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

The latter has evidence to support it(*). That is, a hypothesis is a proposed statement about the physical world tells us what to expect when we look at empirical data. If common descent is true, we should see certain things when we compare the genomes of different species. We have looked, and we saw those things. No other hypothesis has yet been advanced that would explain why we see those things. Therefore, the observation of those things is evidence for common descent. Your only response to this evidence is to say, "That's not evidence."

(*) This isn't strictly true, in that there really is no accepted scientific definition of 'theory'. But since we're talking about evolution as a theory here, I'm using 'theory' to mean an explanation well-supported by evidence.

 

[sfs]

Or one can believe neither and just say, "I don't know what happened." One's salvation doesn't depend on knowing the truth about the history of life on earth - a history that is unknowable; a mystery that will never be solved.

This is a position I have no quarrel at all with.

 

[Buzzard3]

Or one can believe neither and just say, "I don't know what happened."

Very true. There are a lot of things in scripture for which we have incomplete information about. Salvation doesn't depend on knowing the truth about the history of life on earth as you state. This is what is often called a Tier 3 issue. But what happens when one ignore parts of the scriptures, only interested in keeping what they understand and agree with? The rest one dismisses with what seems at odds with their worldview. At the end of the day, one has an incomplete picture and, perhaps, even a wrong understanding of God and salvation. What is worst, these error are often propagated to others.

Theologically, there's nothing wrong with accepting creation occured over six days.

 

[HarleyER]

Theologically, there's nothing wrong with accepting creation occured over six days.

I accept that some might find it difficult to reconcile Genesis 1-11 with all the evolution stuff we constantly hear. But Genesis 1-11 is not only theologically correct of how sin came into the world, but it's also historically correct unless one simply doesn't want to believe the scriptures. All the writers of the Bible (with the exception of Esther) and Christ, Himself refers to the first 11 chapters of Genesis. So what does one do when Paul compares Christ to Adam, or Christ refers back to God creating man and woman or even the days of Noah?

 

[HarleyER]

You're contradicting yourself within the same paragraph, perhaps because you aren't familiar with science and scientists. Saying that a scientist accepts the central theory of his own field based on faith, not evidence, is an accusation of utter incompetence. The job of a scientist is to weigh evidence and accept conclusions based on that evidence. If we're not doing that, we're not doing our jobs.

I do that all the time. My conclusions about intelligent design arguments are based on reading those arguments and knowing something about the subjects they address.

What does the government have to do with it? Wikipedia isn't part of the government and very few scientists speak for the government.

Which entitles you to argue against evolution based on the Bible. How does it entitle you to talk about evidence you don't pretend to understand?

The latter has evidence to support it(*). That is, a hypothesis is a proposed statement about the physical world tells us what to expect when we look at empirical data. If common descent is true, we should see certain things when we compare the genomes of different species. We have looked, and we saw those things. No other hypothesis has yet been advanced that would explain why we see those things. Therefore, the observation of those things is evidence for common descent. Your only response to this evidence is to say, "That's not evidence."

(*) This isn't strictly true, in that there really is no accepted scientific definition of 'theory'. But since we're talking about evolution as a theory here, I'm using 'theory' to mean an explanation well-supported by evidence.

“You're contradicting yourself within the same paragraph, perhaps because you aren't familiar with science and scientists. Saying that a scientist accepts the central theory of his own field based on faith, not evidence, is an accusation of utter incompetence.”

It is only of “incompetence” if the statement isn’t true.

“What [sic] entitles you to argue against evolution based on the Bible.”

For someone who identifies themselves as a “Christian” this has to be one of the most baffling statements I’ve ever read. Christians base everything on the Word of God; sin, righteousness, judgement.

“Your only response to this evidence is to say, "That's not evidence."

I stand by my statement, hypothesizing isn’t “evidence”. The literal meaning of evidence: something that furnishes proof: testimony. specifically: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter. Based on your statement, it seems scientists can’t even figure out the definition between a hypothesis and a theory. We studied the difference in high school. I guess this is educational progress.

From the National Institute of Health:​

​

Has genetic testing ever been wrong?​

​

Study Finds Inaccuracies in 40 Percent of DTC Genetic Testing Results. An analysis of 49 patient samples finds high proportions of false positives and misinterpretation.​

And you tell me that I’m contradicting myself.

 

[sfs]

It is only of “incompetence” if the statement isn’t true.

What statement? You say that scientists accept the central theory of biology based on faith, not evidence -- which makes them incompetent as scientists. You also say that you're not accusing them of incompetence. Please explain how this is not a contradiction.

For someone who identifies themselves as a “Christian” this has to be one of the most baffling statements I’ve ever read. Christians base everything on the Word of God; sin, righteousness, judgement.

You seem to be having difficulty following the plot here. I haven't objected to you arguing against evolution based on the Bible. I have objected to you arguing against evolution based on false statements about the scientific evidence. Even if the Biblical argument against evolution were ironclad (which it isn't, incidentally), that would not justify making false accusations against scientists.

I stand by my statement, hypothesizing isn’t “evidence”. The literal meaning of evidence: something that furnishes proof: testimony. specifically: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter. Based on your statement, it seems scientists can’t even figure out the definition between a hypothesis and a theory. We studied the difference in high school. I guess this is educational progress.

First, you're using a legal definition of evidence, which seems odd since we're talking about scientific evidence. A more appropriate definition (this one from the OED): "Grounds for belief; facts or observations adduced in support of a conclusion or statement; the available body of information indicating whether an opinion or proposition is true or valid."

More importantly, your response simply ignores what I wrote. I told you what a hypothesis is, I told you what evidence is, and I told you why some genetics constitutes evidence for common descent. Apparently, you can't tell me why the genetic data in question isn't evidence for evolution, so you'll just go on ignoring it. This behavior is, I must say, quite consistent with the response of most creationists to this evidence in particular. One or two have actually made an attempt to explain it apart from common descent. From most, including you, the response amounts to 'nuh uh.'

From the National Institute of Health:Has genetic testing ever been wrong?Study Finds Inaccuracies in 40 Percent of DTC Genetic Testing Results. An analysis of 49 patient samples finds high proportions of false positives and misinterpretation.
And you tell me that I’m contradicting myself.

I wouldn't say you were contradicting yourself here -- I'd say you were cutting and pasting random statements that had no bearing on the subject.

 

[HarleyER]

What statement? You say that scientists accept the central theory of biology based on faith, not evidence -- which makes them incompetent as scientists. You also say that you're not accusing them of incompetence. Please explain how this is not a contradiction.

You seem to be having difficulty following the plot here. I haven't objected to you arguing against evolution based on the Bible. I have objected to you arguing against evolution based on false statements about the scientific evidence. Even if the Biblical argument against evolution were ironclad (which it isn't, incidentally), that would not justify making false accusations against scientists.

First, you're using a legal definition of evidence, which seems odd since we're talking about scientific evidence. A more appropriate definition (this one from the OED): "Grounds for belief; facts or observations adduced in support of a conclusion or statement; the available body of information indicating whether an opinion or proposition is true or valid."

More importantly, your response simply ignores what I wrote. I told you what a hypothesis is, I told you what evidence is, and I told you why some genetics constitutes evidence for common descent. Apparently, you can't tell me why the genetic data in question isn't evidence for evolution, so you'll just go on ignoring it. This behavior is, I must say, quite consistent with the response of most creationists to this evidence in particular. One or two have actually made an attempt to explain it apart from common descent. From most, including you, the response amounts to 'nuh uh.'

I wouldn't say you were contradicting yourself here -- I'd say you were cutting and pasting random statements that had no bearing on the subject.

Well, I think we're talking in circles without going anywhere. You just keep reiterating the same misconceptions without any effort of trying to understand what is being said. Nor do you seem to wish to clarify my “errors” on evidence, hypothesis, and theory.

Putting all this discussion aside, do you believe in miracles and, if so, how do you determine what miracles to believe in? Miracles, after all, are outside of human reason.

 

[Buzzard3]

I accept that some might find it difficult to reconcile Genesis 1-11 with all the evolution stuff we constantly hear. But Genesis 1-11 is not only theologically correct of how sin came into the world, but it's also historically correct unless one simply doesn't want to believe the scriptures. All the writers of the Bible (with the exception of Esther) and Christ, Himself refers to the first 11 chapters of Genesis. So what does one do when Paul compares Christ to Adam, or Christ refers back to God creating man and woman or even the days of Noah?

I believe the post-Adam accounts of history described in the OT are literally accurate. As for pre-Adam history, the Bible doesn't tell us. God obviously doesn't think we need to know.

 

[HarleyER]

I believe the post-Adam accounts of history described in the OT are literally accurate. As for pre-Adam history, the Bible doesn't tell us. God obviously doesn't think we need to know.

There are tons of verses that tells us. These are only a very FEW...

Mark 13:19 For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will.​

Deuteronomy 4:32 “Indeed, ask now concerning the former days which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and inquire from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything been done like this great thing, or has anything been heard like it?​

Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.​

Psalm 148:5 Let them praise the name of the Lord, For He commanded and they were created.​

Isaiah 45:12 “It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands And I ordained all their host."​

Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), “I am the Lord, and there is none else.​

Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it And spirit to those who walk in it,​

1 Timothy 4:4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;​

Ephesians 3:9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;​

And Adam didn't just evolve from some primorial soup. He was created. We just don't want to believe them because it doesn't fit with what we are told. It isn't reasonable and we don't wish to sound foolish to what the world is telling us. So we're willing to compromise the scriptures to simply get along.

1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.​

 

[sfs]

Well, I think we're talking in circles without going anywhere. You just keep reiterating the same misconceptions without any effort of trying to understand what is being said. Nor do you seem to wish to clarify my “errors” on evidence, hypothesis, and theory.

Here is some genetic data, explained in the link I provided earlier. The hypothesis of common descent predicts that the human-human comparison should show the same pattern here as the various inter-species comparisons. Based on these data, the prediction was correct. No other hypothesis yet offered makes the same prediction. I claim that this is evidence for common descent.

You say it isn't evidence for common descent. Why?

Putting all this discussion aside, do you believe in miracles and, if so, how do you determine what miracles to believe in? Miracles, after all, are outside of human reason.

I hope that miracles occur, especially the Resurrection, and put my trust in a God who is able to work miracles. I do not know whether miracles occur.

 

[HarleyER]

View attachment 341560

Here is some genetic data, explained in the link I provided earlier. The hypothesis of common descent predicts that the human-human comparison should show the same pattern here as the various inter-species comparisons. Based on these data, the prediction was correct. No other hypothesis yet offered makes the same prediction. I claim that this is evidence for common descent.

You say it isn't evidence for common descent. Why?

I hope that miracles occur, especially the Resurrection, and put my trust in a God who is able to work miracles. I do not know whether miracles occur.

I've reviewed this information. It is still a hypothesis based upon similar occurances. It is not proof that we came from monkeys. Despite the simularities in genetic markers, there are no fossils showing this gradual transformation. In fact, one can go back thousands of years and man still looks the same. In fact, I'm not surprise that our genetic markers are similar. But that doesn't mean we mutated one from another.

Let's say, for example, you're sitting at a table during a wedding feast. The servants at the wedding carries a bunch of water jars into the pantry. Christ walks into the pantry and back out. The next thing you know, they are serving you very good wine. You would taste the wine and say that it must have come from a very good vineyard and been aged properly. If we tested the wine, it would have all the appearances and scientific properties of being good wine. There would be no indication that five minutes beforehand it was water. In fact, if I told you Christ just transformed the water into wine, you would think that I'm loony. I would undoubtedly be told that it's impossible.

God speaks, and things come into being. Things that we can't explain. But, if a miracle was performed before everyone's eyes today, tomorrow we would be questioning whether that actually happened. People wouldn't still believe.

Trust the scriptures. They are true.

 

[Buzzard3]

God speaks, and things come into being. Things that we can't explain. But, if a miracle was performed before everyone's eyes today, tomorrow we would be questioning whether that actually happened. People wouldn't still believe.

A Christian should have no problem believing that God created Adam from inanimate matter in an instant (Gen 2:7). After all that is precisely what happened when Jesus raised Lazarus, for example, from the dead ... Jesus raised a living man from inanimate matter.
In the face of God's miracles, science is useless.

 

[Buzzard3]

There are tons of verses that tells us. These are only a very FEW...

Mark 13:19 For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will.
Deuteronomy 4:32 “Indeed, ask now concerning the former days which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and inquire from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything been done like this great thing, or has anything been heard like it?
Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Psalm 148:5 Let them praise the name of the Lord, For He commanded and they were created.
Isaiah 45:12 “It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands And I ordained all their host."
Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), “I am the Lord, and there is none else.
Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it And spirit to those who walk in it,
1 Timothy 4:4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;
Ephesians 3:9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;

I can't see that any of those verses informs us of pre-Adamic history.