Creation

The character "God" Is a wellknown character from the story The Holy Bible.

God is only a character in a book and has no image and is not real. However in the story humans are proclaimed to be made in his image. So, yes. God is made in mans image.

Also, where does that leave women? Are they made in god's image? Then god looks even wierder.

When you start digging into the question, it just gets sillier and sillier, and you have to go through more and more logical hoops to try and get that statement to work.

A much simpler statement, which requires no illogical followups would be: "Actually, didn't humankind evolve the same way we know all the other animals evolved?" To which the answer would be: almost certainly, yes - the evidence is overwhelming.

God created the heavens and the earth (in Hebrew).See also:

Is there evidence for Creation?

Can you show that God exists?

Seeing God's wisdom

The idea of links, was derived from medieval theology's 'Great Chain of Being". The concept sported a parochial hierarchy of grater and lesser beings with mankind in dominion at the highest rank above animals, as the jewel of creation. Naturalistic ideas at this time were not spared from interjection with 'higher' metaphysical concepts, so mankind, was relegated to subservience below angels and archangels and so on, all the way up to God.

In some ways this 'chain of being' reflected upon (or from) the dominant social hierarchies, so prevalent in that time. The common classes, the aristocracy and royalty all had their place, and it was just so, because it was 'the done thing'. Anathema to this mindset, was the idea that one kind of being could ever become another, as if a servant, could move into the ruling classes. 'Good Lord... What ever will they think of next?'

By the 1860's the science of comparative anatomy, had begun to make inroads into the phenotypical relationships between modern primates (including humans - homo sapiens) the inferred kinship on the grounds of prima facie evidence was becoming hard to ignore. At that time there was no fossil evidence to support a tree of kinship in the modern hominid group.

By the early 1870's and with Darwin's "Decent of Man" the kinship of all living creatures had been preempted by more than a decade now by Darwin's "Origin of Species", so thinking people were pressed to consider the possibility that humans were a biological species (an animal) no different in principal than any other living creature. Darwin and Huxley found a receptive niche for the burgeoning idea of human/ape kinship. Darwin's idea of natural selection and kinship via common ancestors, had struck a chord. A chord that couldn't help resonating in the obvious biological structure of a particular hominid - homo sapiens. who after all, was made of flesh, bones, blood and similar organs and tissues as so many other commonly observable animals.

Nevertheless, the fertile idea seem to have spawned a few (equally fertile) misconceptions at about this time. One of those was the misconception that man sprung directly from apes. That is - modern humans evolved from modern apes. Even in educated circles, there were naturalists given to imagining something half way between modern humans and modern apes. The German evolutionist, Ernst Haeckel, went so far as naming the predicted 'half man half ape' using the conventional Linnaean system, 'pithecanthropus alalus' meaning, 'little bastard of the gap' (only kidding); it really means, 'ape man without speech'.

In latter years it was decided that it would be more prudent, to refrain from naming species before any artifacts were discovered, otherwise homo mermaidius might slip into the taxonomic charts. Good call on that one I say. Nevertheless, the hope of a mythical being can inspire and motivate people (look at god for instance), and by that token a Duch medical officer, Eugene Dubois took up the challenge to find our dearly beloved pithecanthropus. It was the dawning days of paleoanthropology and Dubois spent several years in the dedicated hunt. His reward finally came in the form of a hominid called 'Java Man' Pithecanthropus erectus. Although this hominid was actually an early species that resembles homo sapiens much more than the old world apes, the question of direct human ancestry was a moot point.

Since the time of Dubois, there has been a veritable avalanche of hominid fossils found, including nearly complete skeletons. In the case of australopthicus afarenses from the Afar region in Ethiopia we have a wealth of fossils including 'Lucy', and the 'first family' Many of these Australopithecien finds are thanks to the hard work of the Leaky family (lucky they weren't chosen to build the ark - it would have been the Leaky Ark - tee hee) and of course the ledgendary Donald Johanson and Tom Grey who discovered Lucy on the 24th of November, 1974.

The discovery of Lucy was the definitive cap on the 'missing link' controversy, as there were no doubts to Lucy's claim as a bi-pedal ancestor, and no question that she belonged to a different species either. Before this time several hominids had been considered as potential ancestors, many of which may have been close or distant cousins, but Lucy filed all the necessary criteria. If there was ever something that never went extinct but which instead learned to build campfires and work with tools, Lucy was the prime candidate. This has been reinforced time and again since the 1970's.

Meanwhile, the misconception of a missing link has been a die hard fallacy. In the fossil record, there are countless missing links. It should come as no surprise that there are huge gaps all over the fossil record. That is just the nature of the beast. Fossils do not appear everywhere and in the few places on earth that they do, they only appear under ideal conditions. Furthermore, many paleontologists agree that evoluton proceeds in fits and bursts. The opportunity in nature to catch a glimpse of any missing links, may be as unlikely a photographer happening to snap a lightning strike. Even worse because the photographer can prepare for the electrical storm and wait for the moment. A fossil hunter is a wandering nomad with few clues but a keen eye for fossils, When a new species does arise, we have to realize that it does so in an isolated population (not to the whole of the ancestral species). The opportunities to capture that frozen moment in time and location of a speciation event are so rare, that it is surprising that we have as many transitional specimens as we do.

In the hominid branch of evolution, we are especially fortunate and it has been hard to choose which phylogenetic tree is most parsimonious. The problem is not because we are lacking in specimens to fill the so called 'missing links', but rather that we are spoiled with choice. The phylogenetic tree, is abundant with hominid species so that disputes about where to place them revolve more around similarities than differences.

It is so very very important to remember, that Darwinian evolution is a branching phenomenon. A new species does not simply evolve from it's ancestor, one whole species transforming in totality to another, rather, it branches off into a new lineage. A small sub-population begins to exploit a newly discovered and ecologically fertile niche, and that gives rise to a new species. The transition may be short lived and the population that makes the split may be small and isolated from the ancestral group.

The chances that any transitional forms may be caught in the lens of the fossil record are small, yet still we find them. Hominids must have been a diverse group positively bristling with variation. So many must be counted as extinct cousins, (close or distant) that it is hard to know how they all fit. But the idea of a missing link is most definitely an archaic relic of our parochial homo-centric past. There are numerous evidences of the "missing link." However, this discovery leads to more problem. Imagine two cups placed at a distance. It will create one gap. Now place a cup (missing link) at the center of this two cups. Now there are now two gaps created between the now three cups. Once that two gaps again is bridged by more cups, the gaps now are 4, 8, 16 etc. etc. But that gap is now getting smaller and smaller. Sooner or later there will be a continuous train of cups with no gaps.

1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.2.the fact of being created.

3.something that is or has been created.

4.the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.(See also: Is there evidence for Creation?)

5.the world; the universe.

6.an original product of the mind, especially an artistic work.

In short, the fish and birds.

(Genesis 1:20-23)

20 Then God said, "Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind." 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird-each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply. Let the fish fill the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth."

23 And evening passed and morning came, marking the fifth day.

Answer 2

The fifth day Creation, of this earth age (eon) is defined in the book of Genesis 1:20-22. There you discover all aquatic (sea, ocean, water) life forms were created, along with all the fowl (birds) life forms that fly. Remember that in 2nd Peter chapter 3 you are told that a day with the Lord is 1000 years, therefore the fifth day was 1000 years long, not 24 hours as some incorrectly assume. You need to go read Genesis chapter 1 for yourself to understand all that is written there.
The birds and fish, I think.

You have to decide whether you are willing to believe science, which says that the earth was formed from material from a star, or whether you wish to believe the Genesis account, because Genesis says that the earth already existed before the stars were created. You also have to decide whether you are willing to believe that the stars are enormous, distant bodies or just lights in the firmament that separates the waters above from the waters below. Then you are in a position to say whether God really created the earth just as we have it now.

In the case of the Genesis account... no.

The "thousand years as one day" is a prophetic analogy that Peter used regarding God's plan for the coming re-creation of the New Earth.

The Genesis account, on the other hand, speaks specifically of "24-hour days."

"...And the evening and the morning were the first day." (Gen.1:5)

Unlike man's reckoning of time, God's day begins with the going down of the sun... with the "nighttime" portion of the 24-hour day.

"...And the evening and the morning were the second day." (verse 8)

And so on.

The six-day creation of the earth recorded in Genesis follows on the heels of the earth's destruction by some unknown cause not disclosed in the account.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And THE EARTH WAS WITHOUT FORM AND VOID..." (Gen.1:1-2).

The understood form of the verb "to be" that the translators decided to use in this very first passage in the creation account leaves the reader with the impression that our Perfect Creator God made the earth very sloppily in the beginning... then had to come back later to polish up what He started, after a hiatus of who knows how much time.

There are different forms of "existence"... and each form of the verb "to be" can change the meaning of what one is reading, considerably, in this case.

If the translators would have used the form of the verb "to be" -- BECAME -- in this passage, then, Genesis 1:1-2 would read:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth BECAME without form, and void...". And a whole different understanding of what is being said comes to life.

God didn't make the earth in the beginning a shapeless sloppy mess. He made it perfectly... as He can do nothing less than perfectly. And something caused the earth's destruction sometime afterwards [what it was and the amount of time between is undisclosed].

Genesis doesn't say how long it took God to create the universe in the very beginning. It tells us how long it took God to RE-CREATE the later destroyed earth in preparation to sustain man, created on the sixth "24-hour day"... whom He created in His image... not after the image of an ape.

The earth was already there when Jesus said, "Let there be light." [see John 1:3]

He didn't have to make the earth from "scratch." He only had to "fix it up" to make it habitable for life to exist and be maintained. And He did it in the time it took "six 24-hour rotations of the earth."

The same 24-hour rotations we witness every day of our lives.

"...And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." (verse 31)

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2.The Universe began to exist.

3.Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Another Answer:

Not just Christians as it is known as the universal, immutable Law of Cause and Effect. Taken to its logical 'beginning' there must be a first cause. Even science to day is looking for the 'God particle' and some think they may have evidence of it:

The law of cause and effect states that:

Every effect has a specific and predictable cause.

Every cause or action has a specific and predictable effect.