Question for a Creationist

[Dieselman]

For whatever reason, real or imagined, you are certain. You know.
.... To cut to the chase: Knowing for certain means that your certainty is probably irrational. In other words, you're fooling yourself. Humans are experts at doing that. Whatever the subject, a modicum of doubt and skepticism is called for.

Herein lies the problem with atheists. They don't KNOW anything. To them knowing something is irrational, which explains why they frequently act irrational.

Let's say, for example, that I have a neighbor named Fred. I believe in Fred. I've been to his house, shared meals with him, and have known him for years. I know his son personally. In fact, his son once saved my life. Now someone who DOESN'T know Fred, who has never met him nor even looked for him tells me Fred doesn't exist and I'm supposed to give credence to their doubt?

I believe in God. I've been in His house, shared meals with Him, and have known Him for years. I know his Son personally. In fact, His son once saved my life. Now someone who DOESN'T know God, has never felt His presence and has never sought Him tells me God doesn't exist and I'm supposed to give credence to his doubt?

The number of stories of personal contacts with the supernatural; be it angels, demons or unknown, could fill this message board. Science cannot discount a single incident because sceince is the study of the physical world. Yet those who DO NOT UNDERSTAND science and its limitations consider the inability to document the supernatural as evidence that it doesn't exist. As your eyes cannot see without light, your mind cannot see without enlightenment.

It has been said that the greatest trick Satan ever played on mankind was to convince the world that he didn't exist. The greatest trick scientists ever played n mankind was to convince people that all the answers could be found through science. I posted links showing testimony of atheists who had life changing near death experiences. Are we to assume they made them all up just so they could come back and tell everyone who would listen that everything they believed and taught all their lives was wrong?

Suppose you are in a group setting with five of your friends and you hear something that cannot be explained. Everyone hears the same thing. Is that not scientific because there is no tape recorder? What if they DID have a recording of it? Was that not scientific because it wasn't observed during a research project? In this shared experience, six people experience something which has no rational explanation within the boundaries of physical law. They encounter something that can only be deemed supernatural. Are they all lying? Mass hysteria? Mass insanity?

To deny that any of this happens is to deny experiences common to millions of people. Jesus cast out demons, but you must pretend they don't exist. 85% of Americans believe in miracles and 25% say they have experienced one, but you MUST contend they can't happen. It must be sad to wallow in ignorance and denial; thinking that the rock we live on somehow made itself and that the people around us are nothing more than primates with less hair. You KNOW NOTHING and yet you call those of us who do have knowledge irrational?

You live in a sad, dismal hopeless world. Thank God I don't.

 

[Loudmouth]

Herein lies the problem with atheists. They don't KNOW anything.

That is untrue. We do know that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. We know this because of the genetic markers that we share. We also know that there has not been a recent global flood, and we also know that planet formation started 4.55 billion years ago in our solar system. We know these things because of the evidence. We can DEMONSTRATE this knowledge. That is what separates science from creationism.

With creationism there is nothing but faith. No evidence. No scientific research. Just faith. A book says that the Earth is young, therefore it is. That is not knowledge. That is belief. They are two different things.

Let's say, for example, that I have a neighbor named Fred. I believe in Fred. I've been to his house, shared meals with him, and have known him for years. I know his son personally. In fact, his son once saved my life. Now someone who DOESN'T know Fred, who has never met him nor even looked for him tells me Fred doesn't exist and I'm supposed to give credence to their doubt?

We already know that humans exist. Saying that a human exists is not on the same scale as saying a god exists. Also, if pressured I am sure you could produce photographs of Fred, or even have a person to come over and see Fred with their own eyes. Barring that, they can search city records to see if someone exists with that name and address. IOW, you can produce real, empirical evidence for Fred. Where is that same evidence for God?

I believe in God. I've been in His house, shared meals with Him, and have known Him for years. I know his Son personally. In fact, His son once saved my life. Now someone who DOESN'T know God, has never felt His presence and has never sought Him tells me God doesn't exist and I'm supposed to give credence to his doubt?

Then show us a picture of you guys together.

It has been said that the greatest trick Satan ever played on mankind was to convince the world that he didn't exist.

The greatest trick was on the part of the priesthood by inventing a Hell that people needed redemption from.

In this shared experience, six people experience something which has no rational explanation within the boundaries of physical law.

At one time all of nature was inexplicable. People could not explain anything without reference to dryads, fairies, fauns, and gods. Lightning came from Thor. Fermentation was done by Baccus. Dryads watched over streams. What have we found? We keep finding natural explanations for what people have claimed is the supernatural.

"For those who see no conflict between science and religion, the retreat of religion from the ground occupied by science is nearly complete."--Steven Weinberg

Given the abject failure of supernatural claims over the last 2,000 years, why should they be taken seriously?

To deny that any of this happens is to deny experiences common to millions of people. Jesus cast out demons, but you must pretend they don't exist. 85% of Americans believe in miracles and 25% say they have experienced one, but you MUST contend they can't happen. It must be sad to wallow in ignorance and denial; thinking that the rock we live on somehow made itself and that the people around us are nothing more than primates with less hair. You KNOW NOTHING and yet you call those of us who do have knowledge irrational?

You live in a sad, dismal hopeless world. Thank God I don't.

Then why can't you offer any evidence for God? Why is the only thing you can offer anecdotal evidence that is the same for people who believe in other gods that you don't believe in. What if someone stated that they experience Vishnu. Would you start believing in Vishnu?

 

[Dieselman]

We do know that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

Wrong. You have a theory that suggests humans and chimps have a common ancestor. No theory in science is absolute. Trying to pass off your theiory as a certainty is a bastardization of science. You could say the theory suggests and the evidence supports, but you do not KNOW!

We know this because of the genetic markers that we share.

Wrong. The shared genetic markers buoy the theory, but you do not KNOW what cannot be known. This is my point. Science is not about absolutes, but probabilities, as the post to which I responded so stated.

We also know that there has not been a recent global flood,

Again, you know nothing of the kind. There is evidence that can be interpreted either way, as I have posted.

and we also know that planet formation started 4.55 billion years ago in our solar system.

Considering no two sources seem to 'know" the same age, it's safe to say that you don't know that either. "The age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The best current estimate of the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years."

We know these things because of the evidence.

Evidence must be interpreted, and as such, the conclusions are often subjective.

We can DEMONSTRATE this knowledge.

If you could, there would be no disagreement. As it is, there is virtually no agreement.

That is what separates science from creationism.

Did anyone here say creation was a scientific theory?

With creationism there is nothing but faith. No evidence. No scientific research.

How does one research a supernatural happening? You take a look at the totality of the evidence and decide for yourself if you believe it or not. You also take into effect the evidences of God's love as experienced by those who believe and you make a decision based on your faith or your rejection of God's word. There is nothing in the Bible that lead anyone to believe that this universe is anything more than a temporary home for mankind while he validates his worth to his Creator.

A book says that the Earth is young, therefore it is.

The word of God says that God is lord of the universe, and because He is, we know that we can trust in Him. If God created the universe in a trillion years by whatever means He so chose, it would make no difference. The reason we know He did not is that He told us very specifically how and in what time frame He did it. He created the universe in its mature state. Does it show evidence of age? Absolutely, because it is, after all, in it's mature state. All the animals created were of reproductive age. Adam and Eve were adults. The trees were full grown and probably had rings. The rivers already had complete eco-cycles when He spoke them into being. This is not science, it's the majesty of the Father.

That is not knowledge. That is belief.

Knowledge is the acceptance of facts. One can have knowledge of God. Atheism is ignorance because it denies the truth.

We already know that humans exist. Saying that a human exists is not on the same scale as saying a god exists.

I never said whether Fred was God or not. The anaalogy states that the one who seeks and finds Him, who goes to His house, who accepts Him into his life knows that He is real. The one who refuses to believe that He is real and who never seeks Him will never know. If you say that Fred or God do not exist without ever trying to find out for yourself, you are making a statement out of blind ignorance.

IOW, you can produce real, empirical evidence for Fred. Where is that same evidence for God?

If I could, then you would never have faith. You would have knowledge, but knowledge won't save you from destruction. Since faith is the only salvation of man, God will not rob you of it until you have had your very last opportunity to seek it.

The greatest trick was on the part of the priesthood by inventing a Hell that people needed redemption from.

Jesus spoke of Hell. Was He a deceiver as well? Why should I trust yuor words and not His?

We keep finding natural explanations for what people have claimed is the supernatural.

Here's an easy one for you. Before he was killed, Lincoln had a dream that told of his assassination. The Secret Service had no credible threat at the time, which is why he was virtually unguarded in the theater. Why did he dream this?

I'll give you another one. On a dark night a person standing at the end of a lighted hall lined with white panelling sees two shadows traversing the hall. There is nobody to cast the shadows, no windows nearby and nothing to explain the shadowy figures. They form, walk the hallway for a moment and then fade out of existence. The person who sees them is wide awake and not under the influence of any drugs. In fact, the incident remains clear decades later, and the story remains unchanged.

I could go on all day...

 

[Loudmouth]

Wrong. You have a theory that suggests humans and chimps have a common ancestor.

Yes, just as fingerprints, DNA, fiber, tire print, and ballistic evidence suggests guilt in a court case. The amount of evidence is so overwhelming that only those blinded by religious dogma deny it. Even Stephen Jay Gould considers shared ancestry to be a fact:

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Again, you know nothing of the kind. There is evidence that can be interpreted either way, as I have

posted.

Yeah, just like fingerprints can be interpreted as being produced by God in order to frame the defendant? What you are pushing are ridiculous interpretations based on dogma, not evidence. You are claiming that supernatural mechanisms exactly mimic known natural mechanisms in an attempt to ignore the natural mechanisms. That is not interpretation. That is denial.

Considering no two sources seem to 'know" the same age, it's safe to say that you don't know that either. "The age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The best current estimate of the age of the universe is

13.75 ± 0.11 billion years."

Meteors consistently date to 4.5 billion years before present. This marks the beginning of planet formation in our solar system. That is how we know the age of the Earth.

Evidence must be interpreted, and as such, the conclusions are often subjective.

If you could, there would be no disagreement. As it is, there is virtually no agreement.

Baloney. There is agreement. You ignore it. This is discussed in Dalrymple's article:


http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work
You should check out table 1. In it he lists multiple methods used on multiple meteors, and they all return very, very similar dates. He also discusses K/T boundary, and once again consistent results between methods, types of rocks, types of methods, and different scientists. He lists 187 different measurements of the K/T boundary, and they are all consistent.

Radiometric dating works. Only those blinded by religious dogma claim otherwise.

Did anyone here say creation was a scientific theory?

Are you saying that creationism is not supported by empirical evidence?

How does one research a supernatural happening? You take a look at the totality of the evidence and decide for yourself if you believe it or not. You also take into effect the evidences of God's love as experienced by those who believe and you make a decision based on your faith or your rejection of God's word. There is nothing in the Bible that lead anyone to believe that this universe is anything more than a temporary home for mankind while he validates his worth to his Creator.

So what evidence would lead you to believe that species were created separately? What evidence would lead you to believe that there was a recent global flood? What evidence would lead you to believe that the Earth is 6-10,000 years old? What is this evidence?

The word of God says that God is lord of the universe, and because He is, we know that we can trust in Him.

You are talking about the words of men. Men wrote the Bible. The evidence contradicts a literal reading of Genesis which was written by men. So what do I go with? A story written by men, or the mountains of empirical evidence? I am going to go with the evidence. I guess you will put your faith in stories written by men.

The reason we know He did not is that He told us very specifically how and in what time frame He did it.

Men wrote the Bible.

He created the universe in its mature state.

We do not see a mature universe. We see a universe with a HISTORY. That is completely different. Would God create Adam with scars from injuries he never suffered? Would God create rocks with a history of radioactive decay in them? Would God create galaxies in the middle of a million year collision?

What you are pushing is known as the Omphalos hypothesis which was first proposed by Phillip Henry Gosse in the mid 1800's. This is what a close friend of Gosse's had to say about his book:

"Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this — that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes Deus quidam deceptor [‘God who is sometimes a deceiver’]. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in the one single case of your newly created scars on the pandanus trunk, your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here... I cannot... believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind."--Rev. Charles Kingsley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_(book)

Mind you, this was in the mid 1800's before radioactive dating and other modern dating techniques. Even in 1850 the evidence for a lack of a global flood and evidence for an ancient Earth were so overwhelming that theologians had to have God fake the evidence in order to save a Young Earth. Sadly, modern creationists are still using this failed theology.

Does it show evidence of age? Absolutely, because it is, after all, in it's mature state. All the animals created were of reproductive age. Adam and Eve were adults. The trees were full grown and probably had rings. The rivers already had complete eco-cycles when He spoke them into being. This is not science, it's the majesty of the Father.

We observe evidence of a history of events. That is not maturity.

Knowledge is the acceptance of facts. One can have knowledge of God. Atheism is ignorance because it denies the truth.

One can only have a faith based belief in God since there is no evidence of God.

I never said whether Fred was God or not. The anaalogy states that the one who seeks and finds Him, who goes to His house, who accepts Him into his life knows that He is real. The one who refuses to believe that He is real and who never seeks Him will never know. If you say that Fred or God do not exist without ever trying to find out for yourself, you are making a statement out of blind ignorance.

The analogy equates humans to gods. This is not a valid analogy. We can demonstrate that humans exist. Gods? Not so much. How do you determine if someone is home? Ask around and see if anyone "enters your heart"? Or do you use your eyes to see if a physical person is there? I don't know about you, but I use the latter method.

If I could, then you would never have faith. You would have knowledge, but knowledge won't save you from destruction. Since faith is the only salvation of man, God will not rob you of it until you have had your very last opportunity to seek it.

The hook, of course, is inventing something men need to be saved from. It's a bit like a snake oil salesmen inventing a disease that only his snake oil can cure.

Jesus spoke of Hell. Was He a deceiver as well? Why should I trust yuor words and not His?

Why should you trust the words of the men who wrote the Gospels?

Here's an easy one for you. Before he was killed, Lincoln had a dream that told of his assassination. The Secret Service had no credible threat at the time, which is why he was virtually unguarded in the theater. Why did he dream this?

Because he was getting regular death threats, and was hated by half of the country they were currently at war with?

I'll give you another one. On a dark night a person standing at the end of a lighted hall lined with white panelling sees two shadows traversing the hall. There is nobody to cast the shadows, no windows nearby and nothing to explain the shadowy figures. They form, walk the hallway for a moment and then fade out of existence. The person who sees them is wide awake and not under the influence of any drugs. In fact, the incident remains clear decades later, and the story remains unchanged.

I guess you have never heard of humans having hallucinations?

 

[Gracchus]

For whatever reason, real or imagined, you are certain. You know.

I would recommend "ON BEING CERTAIN: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not" by Robert A. Burton. To cut to the chase: Knowing for certain means that your certainty is probably irrational. In other words, you're fooling yourself. Humans are experts at doing that. Whatever the subject, a modicum of doubt and skepticism is called for.

Herein lies the problem with atheists. They don't KNOW anything. To them knowing something is irrational, which explains why they frequently act irrational.

Well, I'm not an atheist, although it is true that I don't believe in your shoddy little paper-mache idol.

I believe in God. I've been in His house, shared meals with Him, and have known Him for years.

Were you the guy sitting at that table way off in the corner? If you want a better seat, I'll give you a hint: Most of his best friends are atheists. They aren't always begging and whining and groveling and trying to suck up.

I know his Son personally.

It's rumoured that he has lots of children. Looking in the mirror, even I have noticed a certain family resemblance.

In fact, His son once saved my life. Now someone who DOESN'T know God, has never felt His presence and has never sought Him tells me God doesn't exist and I'm supposed to give credence to his doubt?

I never had to seek out God. I keep running into him. Sometimes he helps me out, and sometimes he gives me a swift kick, and sometimes he buys me a shot of Wild Turkey, as I might require.

The number of stories of personal contacts with the supernatural; be it angels, demons or unknown, could fill this message board.

I don't doubt that. I used to work in a mental hospital. It was good practice for living in America, although nothing can really quite prepare you.

Science cannot discount a single incident because sc(ei)nce (sic) is the study of the physical world.

That is to say, science is the study of the real world, and God is nothing if not real. (Get it? )

Yet those who DO NOT UNDERSTAND science and its limitations consider the inability to document the supernatural as evidence that it doesn't exist.

There is no evidence of a supernatural world. There is no reason to postulate one. With a little study of science and mathematics, you can make sense of the world without it. And God is every bit as natural as a newborn babe, or a drunk in a gutter, or a condemned man strapped to a gurney.

As your eyes cannot see without light, your mind cannot see without enlightenment.

If you don't open your eyes and use them, you can't see, and if you don't open your mind and learn you can't be enlightened. And you can't learn if you are convinced that you already know.

It has been said that the greatest trick Satan ever played on mankind was to convince the world that he didn't exist.

Satan is just something people invented to excuse their own wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. "The devil made me do it!" That's the truth behind the Adam and Eve myth. God confronts the man, the man blames his wife, and the wife, having limited options, blames the talking snake.

The greatest trick scientists ever played n mankind was to convince people that all the answers could be found through science.

Not all the answers can be found by science, but science does find a lot of right answers.

I posted links showing testimony of atheists who had life changing near death experiences. Are we to assume they made them all up just so they could come back and tell everyone who would listen that everything they believed and taught all their lives was wrong?

Near death can be a stressful experience, as I have every reason to know. And stress, whether caused by fear, famine, drugs, or trauma, can cause delusions, hallucinations and amnesia.

Suppose you are in a group setting with five of your friends and you hear something that cannot be explained. Everyone hears the same thing. Is that not scientific because there is no tape recorder? What if they DID have a recording of it? Was that not scientific because it wasn't observed during a research project? In this shared experience, six people experience something which has no rational explanation within the boundaries of physical law. They encounter something that can only be deemed supernatural. Are they all lying? Mass hysteria? Mass insanity?

You would have to be more specific. What did they hear? What were the circumstances? Did they all give separate testimony before they discussed the experience? If there is a tape, what does analysis reveal? Science can investigate anything in the real world, although perhaps not successfully.

To deny that any of this happens is to deny experiences common to millions of people.

People "choose to believe" in order to maintain their familial, community, and business relationships with other people, who are, in turn, acting according to the same motives. It's "The Emperor's New Clothes" phenomenon. The surest way to evidence your faith is to publicly subscribe to the most outrageous nonsense that is commonly proclaimed.

Jesus cast out demons, but you must pretend they don't exist.

Haldol and lithium have exorcised more demons than Jesus ever did.

85% of Americans believe in miracles and 25% say they have experienced one, but you MUST contend they can't happen.

I don't have to contend that. I am, however, free to determine if natural explanations are possible. When they are possible, they are invariably more likely.

It must be sad to wallow in ignorance and denial; ...

I am sure you would know better about that than I.

...thinking that the rock we live on somehow made itself and that the people around us are nothing more than primates with less hair.

Your oversimplification is understandable, given the apparent effiency and capacity of your mind.

You KNOW NOTHING and yet you call those of us who do have knowledge irrational?

Subscribing to the popular belief, however ridiculous that belief may be, is not irrational if it keeps you from getting lynched, burned, or crucified.

You live in a sad, dismal hopeless world. Thank God I don't.

I live in the real world. I do not find it sad, dismal or hopeless. I understand that you find it so, which is, no doubt, why you have created your fantasy world.

 

[Dieselman]

Well, I'm not an atheist, although it is true that I don't believe in your shoddy little paper-mache idol.

Welcome to the ignore list.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm very interested in the creationist's view of science. I'm just curious to know what your take on biology as a science is. I mean, biology can be used to show evidence of how evolution works. To what extent is biology accepted?

Biology is never criticized by Creationists, as a matter of fact, neither is Mendelian Genetics. The issue is natural history and Creationists are opposed to Darwinism, not Biology.

 

[Loudmouth]

Biology is never criticized by Creationists, as a matter of fact, neither is Mendelian Genetics. The issue is natural history and Creationists are opposed to Darwinism, not Biology.

Biology is the product of evolution and the evolutionary history of modern species.

 

[super animator]

Holy necroman batman.

 

[Hovind]

You can't! The only way that a woman can become pregnant is that sperm must be introduced into the egg in her uterus and then it travels into the womb and is implanted on the lining there. That's it! There is no option 2. And, in those days, the only way that sperm was introduced into the uterus of a woman was through sexual relations. But we know that didn't happen.

The answer is, that God did it. God made that woman pregnant and she carried to term a baby, but science cannot nor will not accept such an explanation about that woman's pregnancy or about the miracles that God can do.

Or she was lying. What's more likely?

 

[Hovind]

Dieselman has just proven that you can't win a debate with an atheist when all you have is blind faith. Good job Loudmouth.

 

[DaneaFL]

Loudmouth are you genuinely interested in trying to have a rational discussion with these people or are you just in it for the sado-masochistic pleasure?

 

[DaneaFL]

Human biology suggests one common ancestor.

Oh hey I remember you! So you did a little more research into biology and finally figured it out? I remember you used to bash evolution pretty bad before!

You might want to change your profile though. It still says you are a young-earther!

 

[Frenchfrye]

I'm very interested in the creationist's view of science. I'm just curious to know what your take on biology as a science is. I mean, biology can be used to show evidence of how evolution works. To what extent is biology accepted?

Honestly the idea of naturalization is acceptable.
God created the dog and it "evolved" into different species.

 

[DaneaFL]

Honestly the idea of naturalization is acceptable.
God created the dog and it "evolved" into different species.

But do the dog, wolf, and coyote share a common ancestor? They can interbreed after all.

What about cats, lions, and tigers?

 

[twinc]

But do the dog, wolf, and coyote share a common ancestor? They can interbreed after all.

What about cats, lions, and tigers?

yes for both cats and dogs - but cats and dogs do not interbreed - twinc

 

[twinc]

[/color]

Would you use that same argument in a court of law? Would you explain how the DNA match between the sample at the crime scene and the DNA of the defendant could just as easily be produced by a common Creator? Would you, as a juror, be convinced by this line of reasoning?

If you would not be convinced, then why do you expect me to be convinced?



What we see in fossils is a mixture of characteristics that can be used to test the theory of evolution. If humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with other apes then we should find fossils with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE FIND. That is the prediction being tested, the mixture of characteristics in fossils.



Where?



Now you are just spouting falsehoods.



What conditions have changed so that flood deposits no longer look like flood deposits? Please explain.



That opinion is based on religious dogma, not on the evidence.



No, you can't. Every creationist has failed in this task. The evidence runs contrary to a global flood. For example, catastrophic runoff does not create gooseneck meanders like those seen at the Grand Canyon:

Goosenecks State Park, near Mexican Hat, Utah

Catastrophic floods do not create ice layers with alternating oxygen isotopes consistent with annual deposits, lake varves with alternating layers of diatoms and clay with organic debris sorted by 14C content, fine siltstones, chalk, 2,000 feet worth of sea lilies, etc. There is simply no way that a flood could produce the geology we see today. None. You have been sold a false bill of goods.



When you are ready to discuss EVIDENCE let me know.



There are lake varves and ice layers that do predate the supposed flood, and by a lot. Both of these records are uninterrupted by a flood. The flood did not occur.



Yes, I interpret it correctly.



Which of the Gospel writers was the Song of God?

here in your very last line you have it exactly right - the Bible is the song of God sung to not just one but all the gospel writers - twinc

 

[Loudmouth]

here in your very last line you have it exactly right - the Bible is the song of God sung to not just one but all the gospel writers - twinc

So writes a man.

 

[Loudmouth]

yes for both cats and dogs - but cats and dogs do not interbreed - twinc

So why can't they share a common ancestor?

 

[Frenchfrye]

But do the dog, wolf, and coyote share a common ancestor? They can interbreed after all.

What about cats, lions, and tigers?

I believe that but i believe God created that ancestor