Because He created us in His image for His pleasure .. not a toy/plaything pleasure, but the pleasure of fellowship.
I don’t see your point. Why couldn’t He create us using evolution, in his image and for the pleasure of fellowship?
God is unchanging and eternal. It would be inconsistent with His nature to create something that changed.
Were it valid, that line of reasoning would tend to prove that God created nearly nothing. Everything in the world is in flux - people are born small, they get big, then old, then they die. The sun rises and sets. Sometimes it rains, sometimes it’s dry... hence the old chestnut: “‘change’ is the only constant in the universe.” In fact – human beings, made in the image of an unchanging God, change physically, mentally, and spiritually as they go through life. It seems to me that “unchanging and eternal” is one attribute of God most definitely not reflected in his creation, nor in his creatures.
The changes evolutionists claim require the loss of internal information by mutation, which logically, eliminates an ‘upward’ evolution.
It appears that you’re no longer arguing against the proposition that God used evolution to create man, and have gone straight for the jugular of evolution itself. One problem is, you haven’t made any convincing argument against the proposition that God used evolution to create man, and hence, any objection you make to evolution can be answered by saying “God can induce any changes he wishes to by evolving his creatures.” Another problem is that mutation does not always mean the loss of information, so your premise here is false and your conclusion, while following logically from a false premise, is also false.
Changes may occur within kind, but the fish to college professor transition just never occured.
So say you, but if you could see one or two of my old professors, you’d have second thoughts.
To claim intelligence and morality came from an accident, is to allow us to deny any validity to the claims of evolutionists. The minds they use to deduce their claims are ... an accident ... a mutation ... a mistake.
This statement reflects a typical creationist misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although individual mutations are ‘accidents’, natural selection winnows out maladaptive changes in a very efficient and non-random way. That is, mutations which tend to reduce the survivability or fecundity of an organism will tend to reduce the number of descendants to whom the mutation is passed, while mutations which tend to enhance survivability or fecundity will tend to increase the number of descendants to whom the mutation is passed, who will in turn have an advantage reproducing… Bigger brains helped our ancestors survive and reproduce, and hence were passed on.
Yea, hath God said?
It's the original invitation to argument.
Attempting to explain God's thoughts and ways is to accept Satan's open door invitation into his anti-God university, tuition free.
The answer is, Yes ... God did say.
That's all.
The rest is a religion, just like the evolutionists claim that creationists are religious and thereby whacko, but evolutionists are scientists and therefore sane.
The truth is, they are both based on faith.
I believe there is more physical evidence for creation than there is for evolution.
The evolutionist believes there is more physical evidence for evolution than for creation.
Both congregations meet regularly to have their faith fortified.
Yea, hath God said?
Yep ... He did, and, I believe ... still does.
To take this further is to attempt to determine where both of our minds came from ... the mud or God.
I prefer to believe I am a created being, not the offspring of an accident, and a mutant accident at that.