most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
Again - total gibberish.
I have not got a clue what you mean by "perfect selection" and neither have you.
I clearly explained what I meant by “perfect selection” I backed it up from an Evolutionary resource too.
If you disagree with my figures, then why don’t you calculate the selection coefficient value of your “Evolutionary Monkey Scenario” (in which all the wrong ones are immediately “scrapped”) from the opening post and share it with us?
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.
So your # 15 thread really involves either:
1.) Knocking down a straw man (ie. that creationists don’t believe in migration or that creationists believe that every single animal population called a species today was directly created by God), or
2.) Definitional equivocation by defining “evolution” in one narrow way (what is called speciation which is compatible with creationism), and then turning around and using it as support for Evolution defined in another much more broad way (ie. a total naturalistic version of history-which is not compatible with creationism).
Both of these tactics are fallacies.
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 did Hawaii end up with 60 endemic species of honeycreepers? It is impossible to explain without evolution/speciation.
The problem is that “evolution” is a word that has many definitions. Some are compatible with creationism and some aren’t. On your “Evolution is a Fact” series your are referring to evolution as contrasted with creationism. Even here specifically you claim that the situation of honeycreepers is a “impossible dilemma for creationism”
Since you claim to be well read on creationism you should know that creationists accept what is often called speciation in their models. So (since you demand others answer questions) what is the “impossible dilemma” for creationism?
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?
