Creation question...

[MarcAC]

As far as I can see using examples like those to support evolution is like using a change in skin colour when you spend too much time in the Sun. Not saying I am not able to accept evolution.

However, as a Christian, I do not see how my belief in either evolution or young earth creation will affect my salvation. I still believe Jesus died for the sins of all. I still accept God's Grace.

 

[Sarkus]

Evolution will never lead to the developement of a totally new species. This is not observed. Also because of the missing intermediate stages that are not found in the fossils, it is also not observed in the fossil record either.

Lack of observation does not equate to impossibility nor to proof of non-existence. I have never seen a planet that is not in our own galaxy - so by your argument they don't exist and are impossible??

You're looking for a hippo that gives birth to a duck - and expecting it to happen in an instant.

A gives birth to mutation B, B to mutation C, C to D etc - all the way to Y giving birth to Z.
Now B, C, D... all the way to Y can mate with A and produce offspring, hence could be seen as just "breeds" of A.
But Z can't.
B to Y disappear from records.
A and Z are left.
By definition we have speciation.
We have no record of B to Y.

Evolution has occured, yet there is no record of the intermediary steps.
And because there aren't any records - you deem it impossible.

 

[Raithere]

One thing I am yet to recognise in the wealth of information provided (thanks both to you and the African) is the baleful effect on New Earth Creationism.

It seems to me the assumption is yours. I was merely responding to your post, I have no investment in the larger topic. Luminal simply asked, "What is the straightforward creationist explanation for this state of affairs? What about ID supporters?" You were the one that assumed that there was supposed to be some "baleful effect upon New Earth Creationism".

One thing pharyngula doesn't clearly address is whether an assumption that there was a "mutation" which resulted in a "divergence into species" is a correct one. Which came first; fish with eyes or fish without? Could they both have come together?

It doesn't state that there was a divergence of species, both the cave dwelling and the suface dwelling fish apparently belong to the same species, Astyanax.

A mutation, yes; eye "remnants", yes; so? Since all in all it doesn't address evolution (as stated by you - taxonomy) and I'm not seeing how it addresses Creationism... I'm yet to see what superluminal was getting at... Creationism stands so far...

The taxonomy reference was regarding your link, not luminal's topic.

According to luminal:
"Not really getting at anything I suppose. I understand that the "Because God made it that way" response is the final creationist position on everything. I just like to see some of the justifications religious types use to defend themselves...

Clearly creationism, as put forth by its proponents, and evolution are definitely mutually exclusive. The main point of the Genesis accounts is not that the earth was created, but that EVERYTHING was created as it is, about 6000 years ago. So why would god make cave dwelling salamanders with degenerate eyes under the skin? Those are the responses I'm looking for."

~Raithere

 

[MarcAC]

According to luminal:

And I simply asked the questions in an attempt to clarify the situation. The question of whether these degenerate remnants serve any particular purpose, however slight remains open. If that question isn't answered conclusively creationists have nothing to answer to.