Dinosaur Files

Question for the creationists: How would you interpret these facts?

I read on the answers in genesis website that that the difference between "evolutionists" and "creationists" is that they have different preconceived notions which cause them to interpret facts differently. I disagree with that opinion, however, assuming it is true. How would a creationist interpret these facts? 1) Humans and chimpanzees share aover 95% of our DNA and overall, animals which are member of the same genus and class share more DNA than animals that are not. 2) The more isolated an environment is, the more unique the animal species found in that environment are. 3) There have been many fossils found of extinct animals, not only dinosaurs, but other animals like ancient fish or bugs. According to the fossil record, there have been countless species which arose and became extinct that there is no record of ever having interacted with man. sientje8: I think i asked a fair question and I am simply giving creation scientists a chance to explain an opinion that I found on a creation science website. sisterzeal: I would say unique as having features which are not shared by any or many other animals. for example, the Kangaroo is one of the few animals that locomotes solely through jumping also, according to the answers in genesis website. Adam named every single animal. This means he did in fact interact with them

Public Comments

1. i like this ^-^
2. if you want to think you are descendent of a monkey go ahead, trouble is monkeys dont evolve into human beings now do they? If this was the case, why arent people evolving now, or onions turn into carrots?
3. what, no answers yet? maybe their STILL reading the question lol
4. Brevity.
5. 1) God made a single prototype, of you will, and saw that it was good. He then designed other beings around this common prototype. Why change a good system? 2) Either a. chance or b. to confuse us 3) There weren't zoos back then. They didn't interact with all species like we do now. They didn't have biologists looking for new species. They also may have lived in a different part of the world. Humans didn't inhabit it all, only a part.
6. Well Creationists could argue that God created isolated species to be more unique because that's what they needed to be to survive. As for the DNA...where is the cutoff for similar DNA? You could say that people and Bananas are similar because their DNA is over 50% the same. Perhaps some things just happen to be close, but will never be the same.
7. 1. well chimpanzees may share some % but no 95% - which means our DNA is not the Same! give me a link. 2. ? 3. Well you went other ways! are we talking about humans - or fish or bugs?
8. It's an issue i really don't know about, so i can't profess to be right in whatever i say, i have to say sorry for that in advance. but, you asked, so i'll say. Just because we have 95% similar DNA to chimpanzees, does not mean categorically that we evolved from them. We might have, but what about the other 5%? How do you explain our capacity to love? seriously, how can such a complex emotion exist in us and not in animals? it's the one fundamental question that stops me believing in evolution. Finally, maybe the fossils lived in a different part of the world to man. Im not being facaetious (cant spell, sorry), but you know? maybe it took a while to spread? i don't know, it's just some alternative theories. more than possible wrong.
9. There are many things at the bottom of the ocean that have never interacted with man. It's that 5% that makes us different.
10. Point 1) Humans are also only about 2% different in their DNA from a tree, so shall I conclude that man evolved from a maple? Science looks at DNA as if it IS God, and it's just not. Its some really important muck, and that's about it. Point 2) I don't deny that evolution occurs and I don't deny that survival of the fittest doesn't happen, I just don't believe that these two things are responsible for all life on earth. Point 3) When the entire planet, inside and out, has been completely explored, only then will I even acknowledge fossils as anything ancient. "Something laying here got covered up and made an impression on it, and it looks like a fish." And you call religion doubtful?! You have no idea what it was, how it came to be where it was, when it happened, how it happened, but you want us to all just accept that it's millions of years old and typical of all lifeforms of it's time? Give me the Bible any and every day!
11. Please. First of all, 'facts' cannot be 'interpreted.' They are what they are. What differs is the conclusion that we draw from those facts. So, here's my conclusions regarding those facts. 1) No duh. DNA is our blueprint. Naturally animals that were designed to physically similar to each other are going to have similar blueprints, though not identical ones. 2) Well, either natural selection is at work (pure natural selection involves the lessening of diversity, not the increase of it), or perhaps some micro-evolution took place. I believe that species can change a bit, get longer beaks, etc, just not grow totally new body parts and systems. 3) Yeah, lots of species have become extinct. More are becoming so right now. I don't see how that is supposed to support evolution. As for a record of them having interacted with man, what do you want? There's no real way to get that from the fossil record conclusively (though they have found fossilized human and dino footprints side-by-side, you can't *prove* they're from the same time, I guess). Other evidence exists though, like pervasive myths of 'dragons.'
12. 1) As God made us from dust, dirt, we would more than likely have a similar DNA. Animals and humans are flesh and blood. 2) I'd need an example for that one. 3) I would think that there are still species that man doesn't know about. How do they know that there is only 1 or 2 left of any animal? They have only counted those that have been seen or taged.
13. I am a Creationist. The following article address the points that you posted. I hope that you find this article to be eye-opening to you. I would appreciate it if you would read the whole article with an open mind.
14. All your questions can be answered as follows: Creationist: It was all part of God's great plan. Evolutionist: The water fits the pothole. Allow me to introduce a third element, Realist: I don't know. Unless we can acknowledge that we don't really know, there will be no honest attempt to find the facts.
15. well, i have heard that statement and i disagree with it also. i believe its does apply to some things like homogenous structures though. email me if you want more info. 1. are you aware that most species share alot in common as far as DNA goes. most dna is just junk dna and is found in every creature. this "junk dna" is the part of dna that controls the basic functions of cells. 2. this is talking about natural selection in a way. I am a creationist and believe in natural selection. it happens. It is observable in nature. what is not observable in nature is the process of natural selection bringing about new species. it isn't possible. 3. the fossil record is very incomplete. darwin even said that the theory of evolution would "fall apart" if the fossil record did not support it. He couldn't find any fossils that supported his theory, but believed that they would be discovered in the future. so far, there hasn't been much progress. thousands of fossils have been found since darwin, none of which are the "missing links" between species. the reason there are fossils that had no interaction with man, is because man was not around the animal. the garden of eden was in the middle east. it took a while for man to spread that far across the globe. of course there will be fossils far away from the middle east where there aren't fossils of humans. also, after thousands of years, do you think it would be easier to find a dinosaur fossil or a human fossil? the human skeleton deteriorates faster than dinosaur bones. The real fossils are the proffessors that sit at their desks in liberal universities and write papers on this stuff.lol Other Comments: When God was making the world, there were no prototypes. he knew what he was doing. Animals were spoken into existence. Man was formed by God's own hand and life was breathed into him from God. This is what makes us so unique. Just for you fellow creationists, evolutionists do not believe we evolved from monkeys, they believe we evolved from prosimians. "Monkeys" include chimpanzees, gorillas, King Kong, orangatangs(misspelled, i think), baboons, and everyone on the Planet of the Apes movies. They believe that monkeys evolved from primates also. Prosimians are animals like lemurs. But, our dna is farther from a lemur's than a chimpanzee's. The evolutionists say we are closer in dna to something that we never came from than from something we "supposedly" came from. another flaw in the evolution "THEORY." check out this website. it is a great resource for creationists.
16. 1. That actually suggests a Creator to me. It seems to me that it wasn't random. 2. Again, doesn't seem random to me. 3. I don't know, to be honest. However, there have been remarkably few whole fossils of humans found, anyway. So it's not really surprising that there would be isolated fossils found of fish and bugs, without any humans nearby.