Passerbye said:
Sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at. Could you elaborate?
Ok, but this is going to be long - so bear with me.
Let me used heavily simplified analogies..
Lets say we are studying animals in nature. We can find links between certain species like the dinosaur-bird one.. im sure Deut can provide more if needed.
If we look at a particular group.
We have species A.
Species A can be directly linked to species B, C and D.
Species B can be linked to species B1. Species B1 can be linked to species B2 and species B2 can be linked to species B3.
Species C can be linked to species C1. Species C1 can be linked to species C2 and species C2 can be linked to species C3.
Species D can be linked to species D1. Species D1 can be linked to species D2 and species D2 can be linked to species D3.
However, no links can be made across from species B3 to species C3 or species D3.
Such an arrangement would suggest evolution rather than creationism because if, like you say, God saw that something was good and used the same parts again, then we would see constant links across from B3 to C3 and whatnot.
Put it another way.. lets say im designing cars.
I design the prototype model (Car A). Then from the prototype there are 3 early models produced (B, C and D)
Then im asked to update car B and I create car B1. I update car C to create C1 and D to create D1.
Then I create car B2. Now its sensible to say I would use some of the parts from car B1.. but wouldnt it also be sensible to say that I would use some of the parts from C1 and D1?
Yet our current understanding of natural geneologies doesnt suggest this as far as im aware... think of a trees branches.. they shoot out and dont join together again.. (well not in any I have seen
) yet a tracing of geneologies according to a creationist view should look more like a set of branches that are constantly feeding in and out of one another..
Have I explained that ok?