How did animals come to be?

Answer

Creationists and Intelligent Design Scientists believe animals were created.

Evolutionary Scientists believe they evolved from simpler life forms.

Arguments for Creation Theory

Creation Theory is that all life comes from created kinds. There is no argument against speciation. All changes in life forms are micro-evolution, and do not add complexity or genetic material.

The fossil record shows fully formed abrupt appearance and stasis (no change) in each layer. Even evolutionists admit this fact.

James Crow, a modern leader for evolution theory admits, "...the details (of how evolution could have taken place) are difficult and obscure." (The Twilight of Evolution, p.48)

Almost all the touted proofs for evolution show only micro-evolution (eg. Darwin's finches, the peppered moth, antibiotic resistent bacteria), which is not disputed by Creationists or Intelligent Design proponents. These changes have no increase in complexity, but merely emphasize certain pre-existing traits over others.

Evolution Theory totally and directly contradicts the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics--the universal law of increasing entropy. Things tend toward disorder over time, unless there is outside influence.

Arguments for Evolution Theory

All the proof one needs to see the changes evolution has effected are at hand. The earth has changed dramatically over the millennia since it was formed. When life began (by what mechanism one is free to speculate on), it began a long, long time ago. As the planet changed, the life changed, evolved, to adapt to the new conditions. Or it died. It's that simple.

The ideation of the tree of life (by Darwin) was a brilliant stroke. Modern evolutionary synthesis (MES), the state of the art construct that deals with evolution, is fact. (We just disagree amongst ourselves about agenesis - the mechanism of life's inception.) Most Christians are on board with MES and modern science's take on the age of the earth.

Literal interpretation of the Bible leads to severe ideological conflicts. But some believe in a young earth. This seems to be adherence to obviously flawed ideology. Particularly in the face of the mountain of facts that any individual could understand. To evolutionists, young earth Christians seem to practice a form of denial on an epic scale.

Lastly, Intelligent Design Science is pseudo-science. It is an ideology that appears to have been designed for a single purpose: to get creation taught in public schools.

NOTE:

The way i understand it, is that in the biological scineces, there is no defenition of micro and macro evolution. the rise of these terms are completely generated by creationist ideaology. The scientific community is forced to argue using these terms because of the staunch stubborness and unwillingness to mediate that is inherrent in the theology-laden philosophies of intelligent design and creationist models.

Biological scientists do not draw a line between micro and macro evolution. they are made up terms that do not apply to speciation, natural selection and mutation, which are the largest contributing factors for the evolution of any given spcies, genus, family, kindom etc.

this is not to discredit the ideaology of creationism and inteligent design. this is simply to point out a common misconception.

Another common misconception is that 'change equals evolution.' Animals change or adapt to their environment because they already have the inbuilt genetic ability to do so. No new genetic information is added or written into the genetic code. It has also never been demonstrated that chance random processes can generate anything remotely like life. Biochemistry clearly demonstrates that even the simplest cell is incredibly complex and is easily destroyed. Water is particularly destructive. If even the simplest cell cannot arise spontaneously, neither can anything else, including the animals.

That is very astute. Yes, the basic laws of existance state that nothing comes from nothing. I was under the impression, and feel free to correct me if i am wrong, that life can come from nonliving things, though.

Protenogenic amino acids are not alive, and neither are the protiens they create. However, a simple combination of protiens with the necessary levels of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen to form stron bonds could very well result in single celled organisms, who through symbyosis, could bond with other s and create multi-celled organisms. so these things can happen by happenstance. I do not know if they did occur that way, but i think it would be foolish to deny that it is possible. Also, at this point, although we have not had an eon to observe single protien cells under a microscope, it is far beyond correlation and well into causation.

Finally, something i have always wondered about the differnce between the arguments at hand, and i am no theologian or scientist, but rather a print researcher who is very careful with their sources...is why do they disagree to the point of no compromise?

Honestly...if something needed to put the 'objects in question' into motion in order for them to even have a chance to bond into life, why can that not be the case to evolutionists? there is still room for evolution after the cause of motion.

also...why can the world and all life within it not have been intelligently designed...but designed to evolve? is there really a conjecture that keeps that from being a possibility? why can't we all just get along????

• What are the requirements to be a book in the bible?
• Whats the disiples names?
• What are the verses in the King James version of the Bible mention or relate to peace?