there are two sorts of islands.
one sort provides powerful evidence of evolution at a species level.. firstly there are continental islands.
these were once part of larger land masses but they were cut off by rising water levels or the movement of tectonic plates.
Cofty claims that “Evolution is a fact” and then proceeds to give threads like this as supposed proofs. He further claims that the situation that he describes on this thread is an “impossible dilemma for creationism” -yet won’t spell out the dilemma when challenged.
Burden of proof is on him to explain his “impossible dilemma for creationism” that he claims.
there are two sorts of islands.
one sort provides powerful evidence of evolution at a species level.. firstly there are continental islands.
these were once part of larger land masses but they were cut off by rising water levels or the movement of tectonic plates.
How is Hawaii having “60 endemic species of honeycreepers” an “impossible dilemma for creationism”?
What is the “impossible dilemma” that you claim?
there are two sorts of islands.
one sort provides powerful evidence of evolution at a species level.. firstly there are continental islands.
these were once part of larger land masses but they were cut off by rising water levels or the movement of tectonic plates.
Cofty you claim that it is an “impossible dilemma” for creationists?
What is the impossible dilemma?
I have asked this several times now.
Just telling people that they don’t “understand” and that they need to re-read the topic isn’t much of a support for your claim of “impossible dilemma.”
there are two sorts of islands.
one sort provides powerful evidence of evolution at a species level.. firstly there are continental islands.
these were once part of larger land masses but they were cut off by rising water levels or the movement of tectonic plates.
Migration (from nearby mainland) is part of your scenarios.
What is the “impossible dilemma” for creationists?
there are two sorts of islands.
one sort provides powerful evidence of evolution at a species level.. firstly there are continental islands.
these were once part of larger land masses but they were cut off by rising water levels or the movement of tectonic plates.
Cofty on another (summary) thread you wrote:
The biogeography of oceanic islands presents an impossible dilemma for creationism.
So what is the “impossible dilemma”?
Does the “dilemma” assume that creationists don’t believe in or can’t use migration as a possible explanation?
there are two sorts of islands.
one sort provides powerful evidence of evolution at a species level.. firstly there are continental islands.
these were once part of larger land masses but they were cut off by rising water levels or the movement of tectonic plates.
These facts about biogeography is exactly what evolution would predict. It is down to chance which species make it to an oceanic island. Having arrived these Robinson Crusoe species thrive and evolve to fill many different ecological niches, and finally we will find their closest relatives on the nearest mainland.
The challenge for creationists is to explain how all the species of birds, insects and plants came to be in the same place. Did god choose to create 60 similar species of honeycreepers and put them all on the same island?
So are you saying that evolutionists can claim migration (from a nearby mainland) as an explanation for certain things, but creationists can’t use the same explanation?
jehovah's witnesses refuse to believe that jesus is the almighty god.
they would state that jesus is 'mighty', but not almighty.. below is a 30 minute video proving from the word of god that the lord jesus christ is both mighty and almighty, separate from the father but equal too.. the verses used from scripture show without a doubt that christ is mighty (isaiah 9:6) and almighty (rev 1:7-8)..
Slimboyfat,
Do you disagree with the Watchtower on any point on their teachings on Jesus?
jehovah's witnesses refuse to believe that jesus is the almighty god.
they would state that jesus is 'mighty', but not almighty.. below is a 30 minute video proving from the word of god that the lord jesus christ is both mighty and almighty, separate from the father but equal too.. the verses used from scripture show without a doubt that christ is mighty (isaiah 9:6) and almighty (rev 1:7-8)..
slimboyfat,
Do you believe that Jesus is a man now?
acts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.
nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.
nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..
Since Christ is God (John 20:28) and man, this verse (as translated in the KJV) makes perfect sense.
i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?
stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?
sounds dumb i know.
True, but these versions have been done by different individuals or entities throughout the last few centuries, not by ONE single religious entity during a timeframe of 7 decades, as is the case with the NWT.
The WT Society wants people to use (as much as possible) ONLY their publications when it comes to religion (WT, Awake, NWT, etc.). So they have a need to produce their own “Bible translation” in the hundreds of languages that they may have followers.
