Assessment of uniquity of inter-special salvation

There is no fossil of a transitory sapien, nor is there proof at all of any animal in an evolutionary state. There is no fish tranfiguring itself into amphibian, nor lion to tiger, nor zebra to cat, nor pigeon to water buffalo, for such would be a perversion of the initial intention of the creation of God. It appears infeasible that God would set in motion such a process as accumulates to a genome specific to that of each animal concurrent with modernity, to come about at this specific phase of nature, and at no time before, to achieve resemblance of the Lord.

There have been fossils discovered of species unlike that of human or ape, but never one between the types and subtypes as evolution would suggest, for there was no evolution, but independent species created and made extinct by God. A question of the cause for which these creatures exist is a question, not of scientific nature, but of the will of God, which is indiscernible to mortals.

It must therefore be considered, not of God’s own will, but as to the nature of which beings shall be saved and which shall not, determinant on how high upon the evolutionary scale they are, if Darwin were correct. It could then be assumed that, if there were an evolution of the human species, then modern humans, who surely resemble God to the greatest practicable extent, have a greater opportunity of salvation than humans who lived 6,000 years ago, who, according to Darwin, would be less evolved, and thus less perfect.

But the truth of the creation is that Adam was not less perfect, indeed, he was more perfect, as original sin had not yet existed, but Adam cursed the entirety of humanity in betrayal of the Lord, thereby condemning us, lest a Saviour come by whom we may be restored, and so He did come. It can not be assumed that we are superior to the Israelites, or the Greeks, or the Romans, who achieved more than technologically modern civilisation, for by quantity of creation, creation of philosophy, philosophy of conception, and conception of thought, by this thought in the most fundamental place of all the cycle is the creation of man, by which it has all begun.

It can further be inquired as to whether neanderthals were worthy of salvation, for they too are considered early humans, but if such an inferior species were noted for salvation, then the company of the saved, containing that which does not resemble God, would not be of God, but rather of the Devil, who would take great delight in such an early specimen of ungodly disorder reaping all the glory of the kingdom of the Lord.

If it is exclusively the homo-sapiens who may find salvation and no other, then would the men in evolutionary states between the homo erectus and homo sapien, so close to humanity, find salvation? Would the neanderthal too, or the denisovan, or any other inferred creature be saved, or would they be neglected as inhuman, and therefore of unnecessarity? When did humans first become worthy of salvation if in a constant and perpetual state of evolution, and why are such humans now worthy of that which the others have been unworthy to inherit? If evolution is taken to its logical end, it would undermine every core tenet of Christianity, and thereby render obsolete the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Koalas, as humans, possess five digits, as would otherwise be claimed a trait of uniquity, as the neurology of dolphins and moral cognisance of chimpanzees as humans alone would have to be considered by Darwinians to be superior to all others. There is no singularly unique attribute that no other animal has, except that we are created in the image of God, while no other animal can claim this highest of all honours.

The one true God is the God of Michelangelo. His depiction is flawless, and so the God which he presents to man, being of such obviously divine inspiration, must be considered to be the true image of God, lest God would guide the artist’s hand in falsity.

And more so is it known that God’s own Son is a man, who surely would resemble the Father, lest an error would be had in all creation. It is impossible for an ape to give birth to a human, or for any animal to give birth to any other, and as the species remains consistent, so does the image, and as the offspring of a fish looks like a fish, the offspring of God looks like God.

It needn’t be exact resemblance, as is very rarely the case upon this Earth, so still may Jesus be Semitic whilst God is Italic, but the first of all men, Adam, who lived 2,000 years before God had decreed the Jews to be His chosen people, would likely bear a singular similarity to God, diminished in the descendants of Ham and Shem while sustained in Japeth. And if the greatest of all prophets had not come to prove this, then indeed it would be but speculation, but Michelangelo has demonstrated to the world the way in which the first man was created, and his image, which is Italic, as is that of God.

And so it must be inquired as to why the Son of God would look differently from the Father, and the men of earth, and assumedly of all the heavenly hosts, but such a question is answered again by Michelangelo, who presents the Jesus of the Judgement, who, in His last descent reveals Himself to also be of that same mould of Adam, and of God, and thus can it be assumed that even now in Heaven Jesus is as he would be in the descent.

When Jesus walked this earth, though still God, He was a man, but still in most heavenly of doings did He cast away his earthly guise, and take up His heavenly form, as Raphael depicts in The Transfiguration. God of Heaven and God of earth, of all the humans of this earth, are most unlike the inhuman, and most like the divine, which is to say the most detached from all the apes, and others who by Darwin are we here assumed to have ascended.

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last,”(Revelation 22:12) suggesting not a patient expectation of that which has not yet arisen, but man in God’s own image first, and man in God’s own image last, for we are the most essential of all beings and the purpose of the universe in all its vastness, so can it be assumed that we, who resemble God, the crowning jewel of all creation, creation which itself without would be incomplete, are the contents of this world from the last of the creation, to the creation of the last.

Darwin’s evolutionary theory diminishes the superiority of man, as he would have us made from natural processes, by which God’s image holds irrelevancy.