That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs."

Not from our "interested" GUEST, but from the Institute of Creation Research website.

They believe that nothing existed and then *BANG!* the world and all it's glorious programming showed up.

Obviously so interested that he/ she hasn't read anything about biology that wasn't on the ICR site or Answers in Genesis.

Not even a troll. A religious propagandist, and an incompetent one at that.

Don't strain our tolerance.

Don Firth

To be honest with you, Don, I have never been to the ICR website until today, when you mentioned it. It's true, I've heard a number of lectures by them (that's where I heard "Cogs" and "dats"), but for cryin' out loud, I certainly don't base my beliefs upon what they say. The Bible supports creationism, ICR and AIG simply show the evidence as it is--created by God.
So, if the world didn't show up all of a sudden (with or without a bang), how did it happen?

And if I'm a religious propagandist, you are one too. You are just as 'religious' in your belief of evolution as I am in a Creator God. And I think our definitions of 'tolerance' differ. I define tolerance as "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it". You define tolerance as "You can believe what you want, just don't say anything about it to anybody". Why shouldn't I speak up and defend my worldview? You are!

"Adaption!
Adaption!
Adaption!"

Er, one of the mechanisms of evolution is descent with modification, examples of which I gave you. Screaming "adaption" is not really much of an argument.

"We don't see polar bears turn into cats."

An ridiculous example, and we might see genetically isolated populations of polar bears become a new species over time, as a population of their ancestors (Brown Bears) did to become Polar Bears.

"We see plenty of microevolution, but I have yet to see any macroevolution--one species turning into another."

If you can see microevolution then you are actually watching evolution. You'd have to stay around a mighty long time to watch one species turn into another, although we can see that happening of course (see examples given earlier).

ShugarfootJack

"An ridiculous example, and we might see genetically isolated populations of polar bears become a new species over time, as a population of their ancestors (Brown Bears) did to become Polar Bears."
But they're still bears, right? They're not turning into seals, or puffins, or lemmings (or cats). There is no evidence, in the fossil record or otherwise, of a half-and-half creature. You say that "You'd have to stay around a mighty long time to watch one species turn into another, although we can see that happening of course".
But the fossil record has an awful lot of animals, supposedly laid down over millions of years. Where are the mutating animals? All I'm seeing are fully formed creatures and varieties. Some have gone extinct, but that's still going on today (the Tasmanian wolves, etc)
_________________________________________________________

"We have yet to discover a beneficial mutation; and yet for Evolution to be true, there has to have been thousands of them in the past to create all of the amazing creatures we see in our world."

No, not 'thousands' but 'billions' over many millions of years. Brute probability says that a certain percentage of these mutations will be beneficial, given the right circumstances. Evolution, like everything else in nature, is a statistical phenomenon.

Shimrod
For an evolutionist, time is the solver of all problems. "Given millions of years and millions of mutations, anything can happen". I have yet to see evidence for millions of years, or any fossil evidence for mutations-turning-one-species into another.
You believe that everything came from nothing! That's one reason I'm not an athiest--I just don't have that much faith.
____________________________________________________

Iona,
You say "No one has found a 'missing link', but there must be thousands of them if creatures truly do evolve like Evolution says. Why is it that we find all these creatures in the fossil record, but no one can find the 'links' between them?"

Are you identical to your parents?

If you have children are they identical to you?

You are the missing link between them.

Tia


Every person is different, and every snowflake is different, and every fingerprint is different. This is not evidence for evolution, but rather evidence for an all-knowing Creator. Hw could random chance accidents create all the complexity we see in our world? There is no missing link in the fossil record. To call DNA changes "Evolution" is incorrect—the changes we see do not lead to greater complexity or add new and advanced information (as is required by Evolution). Neither mutations or DNA shuffling has produced the ability to generate any new and useful genetic information. Mutations in the gene pool and DNA has not ever produced new and beneficial organs, let alone whole organisms. But we have seen is that mutations serve to corrupt or rearrange already existent information.


What do I call Genesis?

A Creation story. One of many. Myth. Metaphor.

Joseph Campbell made the very much to the point statement that where religions tend to go off the rails is when their followers mistake myth and metaphor for literal historical fact.

Iona, define God.

Don Firth

I define God as the Bible defines Him—the all-knowing Creator of the universe, consisting in three Persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I reject any definitions of God that the Bible does not supply, and am ready and willing to join forces in refuting all other beliefs.


If you believe that the Creation Account in Genesis is fiction, then you have no basis to believe in the Crucifixion. You have no basis to believe the Bible is of any value other than a few little fairy tales. If there was no Creation, then the world has been around forever, and death is not a result of sin, as the Bible says it is. If death is normal and instituted by God, then we have no need for a Savior.

By the way, there IS no "missing link." The process of evolution was (is) sufficiently gradual that it would be impossible to point out one individual or group of individuals and say, "There it is!" That's why one will never find "the missing link" and why the "missing link" is actually a red herring in the evolution vs Creation argument.


Then at least we ought to find creatures in the fossil record, preserved in corresponding layers, that show a progression from simple to complex. But we don't! We haven't found any simple life forms turning into complex creatures like bats, porcupines, frogs, etc. Instead all we find in the fossil record are fully formed animals with unique and detailed attributes.

And when did proponents if evolution ever sat that "a cat can turn into a dog" under ANY circunstances? The only people I've ever heard make statements like that are those who are rabidly ANTI-evolution on the grounds of their own limited religious concepts.

Under evolutionary theory, a cat ought to be able to turn into a dog, given enough beneficial mutations and enough time. No, it doesn't happen. Neither can a frog turn into a bird, or a monkey turn into a human. Evolutionists say that similar attributes point to a similar ancestor. Then how do you explain the platypus? It has a bill like a duck, fur like a beaver, spines on it's legs like a spiny anteater, and the list goes on. How in the world do you fit that into a category? I propose that common traits simply point to a common Creator—not a common ancestor.

P. S.   By the way, Iona, don't make the mistaken assumption that I am an atheist or anti-religious on the basis of my position on this matter. I am a member of Central Lutheran Church of the Holy Trinity in Seattle, and I know a great deal about the Bible. Not just about its contents, but about how it came to be.

The Holy Trinity? How can you believe in the Trinity? How do you know it's not just a metaphor? A myth? One story out of many different theories of God? If you undermine the Creation Account in Genesis as a metaphor, then you must also doubt the death and Resurrection of Christ as accounted in the Gospels. You must doubt the miracles of Jesus and the apostles. You must doubt that Jesus ever existed, because, after all, perhaps he's just another one of those pesky metaphors we find in the Bible!


"I don't know why people are trying to explain science to someone who pretends to be eagerly investigating, ..."

Of course, 'Iona' isn't investigating anything. She/he (?) knows the Answer already - 'it was God wot dun it' and all you need to know is in the Bible. What she/he and her/his fellow creationists are trying to do is to discredit that branch of biology which deals with evolution. It's a sort of anti-science. There's no such thing as 'creation science' - only 'creation anti-science'. No true scientist would ever start from the Answer and then look for information to support the Answer and seek to discredit any information that failed to support the Answer!

Shimrod

"No true scientist would ever start with the answer".
That's not true. We all have presuppositions. My presupposition is that God created the world. Your presupposition is that Evolution created it all. You believe that matter created itself out of nothing, or else you believe that matter is eternal and knows no beginning. I say that it makes much more sense to believe in a God who created it all just as He says He did in Genesis.
And there are real scientists that believe as I do. They aren't out to discredit science, they're out to glorify our Creator by disclosing the magnificence of His creation.

" and seek to discredit any information that failed to support the Answer! "

I don't discredit any information, I just see it with a Biblical worldview. There is no true fact that doesn't fit with the historical account of Genesis.
Of course I believe that God did it. God and His word is the ultimate authority. But that doesn't mean I discredit science. I believe that all science is in harmony with the Bible, and there's plenty of evidence for it. For instance, Evolutionists say that the Grand Canyon was laid down in millions of years. But there is a similar canyon near Mount St.Hellens, which has layers very similar to Grand Canyon. However, these layers in Washington state were laid down in the course of one afternoon. Why couldn't the same thing have happened in the Grand Canyon?

Even atheists borrow from Christianity for their worldview. For instance, you all abide by traffic signs (at least some of you do). You stop at red lights, etc. Why? Why would you let those people who put up that light impose their worldview on you? After all, the stoplight imposes that human life is of value (Thou shalt not kill), and that we ought not to damage other people's property (thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself). If you reject the Bible, you must reject all the worldview that you hold because of Biblical ethics. If we are all just aquatic sludge, humans are no different than earthworms.