According to the evolutionary theory, everything including man, started as an accident form bacteria and gasses.
How is it that one single cell, which formed the beginning of life, can manifest itself today as possibly billions of different life forms, which take on everything from the ant to the elephant, the cactus to the banana, the star fish to the great blue whale,….while man has changed very little from his initial form of creation? Also, why is it that man, from the very beginning, was able to gain sustenance from his surroundings instead of having them be toxic to him? In fact, why is it that all of creation acts as a food chain for everything below it? Does that not reveal itself as planning? Plants and animals which are not designed to sustain themselves from day one, will never live long enough to adapt or evolve into anything!
My question is: why did man not develop along the same lines as the plant or animal world, producing millions of different versions of itself, all of whom functioned perfectly in their given environment? Why is there a singularity of evolutionary development with regards to man, and a multiplicity of evolutionary development with regards to everything else?
Since man appears to see itself as the top of evolutionary development on the planet, you have two forks of evolution. One fork is man, with very few branches coming off that line. The other fork is everything else, with millions or billions of other forks of development, that create an equal number of species.? What’s up with that?
It’s simple, the food chain works like a pyramid, with things at the top consuming life forms below it, and the further down you go on the pyramid, the more blocks (life forms) there are.
The higher you go on the pyramid, the fewer blocks (life forms) there are. If man is at the top, then there has to be a whole lot fewer blocks. In fact, there is only one capstone. Now how could a few bacteria and gasses figure this all out?
I mean,…come on, talk about reaching for an answer.
Life can not evolve unless it can sustain itself, and it can’t sustain itself unless it is part of a fully functional eco-system. That takes planning first, then energy to sustain what has been created. Life then is allowed to develop on its own, and part of that development, is adaptation to planetary changes, which science calls evolution.
The answer is not this or that, it is “both,” creation and evolution.
A baby is created, then it evolves through the various stages having to do with development and growth. You don’t hear people say; “My wife and I are going to evolve a baby,” and because we want it to be smart, we are going to conceive it in the main library, while laying on top of a pile of books written by the worlds greatest scientists. That environment is the most conducive to evolving life in a particular line of development!
We make such slow progress because we waste our energies in conflict, instead of cooperative ventures. If iron workers and brick masons were as antagonistic toward each other as religion and science have been up till now, nothing would ever get built without endless debate, and much ridicule of the others worth. It’s obvious from everything that you see all around you that seems to be working well, that cooperation and the sharing of ideas and resources is what makes this world work.
Nothing evolves until it is first created,…not in the physical world, and not in the non-physical. So the question really is, who or what is the source of the very first creation?
This evolutionary theory may have some basis, because things do develop, but it has so many holes in the theory, you could use it as a sieve.
Realize that a world-wide food chain must be in place and work perfectly on day one, for it to be supportive to everything on the planet. Whether it evolves later into something else is immaterial, it must work perfectly at the outset, or it can’t support the life forms above it. Nothing evolves that can’t feed itself! Adaptation which you equate to evolution, has more to do with adapting to planetary changes than it does to the initial creative design.