it may be time consuming and exhausting to correct all of the deceptions, half-truths and out of context quotes contained in the watchtower's new brochures, so i'll make it simple.
here's 3 easy points that disprove all of their nonsense.. 1) australia proves evolution happened - what's the one country in the world with the weirdest animals on earth?
australia!
There is a history of people bringing animals to Australia - deliberately and accidentally. It also fits within the totality of the creationist paradigm. The "examples" that you offer do not fit in any paradigm.
Are you actually asking for a wall of text? Instead I will give you a link:
it may be time consuming and exhausting to correct all of the deceptions, half-truths and out of context quotes contained in the watchtower's new brochures, so i'll make it simple.
here's 3 easy points that disprove all of their nonsense.. 1) australia proves evolution happened - what's the one country in the world with the weirdest animals on earth?
australia!
Bohm said:
its the creationists way to argue - each argument is treated independently, each time with a fairly unlikely "it could be"/"it is possible to imagine" kind of argument; and one never adress that in total, all fairly far-fetched explanation for the many independent lines of evidence become very hard to believe.
When arguing whith JW’s, isn’t the tactic to stick to one question until it is answered? The proposition of the OP is that the only way that critters could have gotten to Australia was by evolution. There is no need to go into other areas until this one is fully explored.
.
Let’s get real here if we took all the "it could be"/"it is possible to imagine" statements out of an evolution book, there would be precious little left. The reason you have trouble with total picture of creationism is that you have no idea what it is. I have seen precious little evidence that you understand creationist thought. And yet, evos constantly whine about creationists not understanding what evolution is.
…thats at least how i interpret his statements, but he is not very helpfull when it comes to elaborations.
I can either keep my posts succinct, or cut and paste huge walls of text. I try to stick to the former. If you have a question, ask.
in george orwell's novel 'nineteen eighty-four' the capitulation of the principal protagonist is portrayed in his willingness to assent to the proposition that two and two make five.
once he had denied objective reality, his mental conquest was complete and he was no longer truly the master of his own mind.
nineteen eighty-four is in many ways, a very depressing read.. a charge commonly leveled at jehovah's witnesses is that the type of mind control envisioned by orwell has been and continues to be used on them.
Alice, your task is simple: provide a quote, pre-1914, that states that Jesus would come invisibily in 1914.
BTW, you do realize that your quote from 1881 says that Jesus came back in 1874? There is nothing about 1914.
lake toba indonisia is a huge volcano which four independant groups {volcano, genetic, ocean, climate, scientists} have confimed caused a "bottlekneck in human evolution.
" the ash cloud reached thousands of miles away, and caused a massive ice age, killing 60% of the 60 million people on earth.
it took thousands of years for plant and animal life to return to normal.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
You don't see it because to admit it would upset your world view. Frankly, I don't have a dog in this fight. If there was convincing evidence for evolution, I would simply adopt it as theistic evolution a la Hugh Ross.
I hear a lot of whining from evo's that creationists don't understand what evolution is, yet they are entirely ignorant of creationist thought. Until you research it for your self, you will never figure out why you fail to convince creationists.
it may be time consuming and exhausting to correct all of the deceptions, half-truths and out of context quotes contained in the watchtower's new brochures, so i'll make it simple.
here's 3 easy points that disprove all of their nonsense.. 1) australia proves evolution happened - what's the one country in the world with the weirdest animals on earth?
australia!
I was referring to living, breathing cats and camels in the here-and-now. Prior to 200 years ago; there were no cats, camels, cane toads, pigs or a number of other animals in Australia. They were brought there by man - intentionally or accidentally. The OP is saying that the ONLY way that unique animals could be in Australia is that they evolved there. I am pointing out that there is a recorded history of another method that they could have gotten there.
it may be time consuming and exhausting to correct all of the deceptions, half-truths and out of context quotes contained in the watchtower's new brochures, so i'll make it simple.
here's 3 easy points that disprove all of their nonsense.. 1) australia proves evolution happened - what's the one country in the world with the weirdest animals on earth?
australia!
Superpunk said:
People brought camels and cats to Australia.
Well done. In a creationist paradigm people could have brought them to Australia.
Bohm, please re-phrase your question to make it more clear. Cats and camels were not “found” unless you mean in Egypt thousands of years ago.
It is interesting to note that while eucalyptus makes up the bulk of koalas diet, it does eat other things in addition to eucalyptus.
it may be time consuming and exhausting to correct all of the deceptions, half-truths and out of context quotes contained in the watchtower's new brochures, so i'll make it simple.
here's 3 easy points that disprove all of their nonsense.. 1) australia proves evolution happened - what's the one country in the world with the weirdest animals on earth?
australia!
Ceades said:
Easy, Australia used to be connected to what is now South America. Look up Gondwana.
To keep things on track, I will skip discussion of the platypus. However, Gondwana can not possibly account for the camels and cats in Austraila. Unless you can tell me with a straight face that Gondwana broke up only 100 years ago.
Where are the rest of you? I find it interesting that evo’s will pick apart opposing views to the n th degree, yet you let a glaring error like that slide.
it may be time consuming and exhausting to correct all of the deceptions, half-truths and out of context quotes contained in the watchtower's new brochures, so i'll make it simple.
here's 3 easy points that disprove all of their nonsense.. 1) australia proves evolution happened - what's the one country in the world with the weirdest animals on earth?
australia!
How did platypus evolve in both Brazil and Australia? Are you unaware of Brazilian platypus fossils? How did camels, cane toads, cats, and pigs get to Australia?
i don't want to hijack the other thread.. you mention the eye being better than any camera so lets discuss this.
i used to give a talk where i would use the complexity of the eye as evidence of creation, but i have since changed my mind and below is the reasoning that helped me do so.. i would welcome you comments and reasoning against this.. if you had a choice between being totally blind and being able to see things out of focus, which would you pick.. i'm sure you would, like me prefer to have out of focus vision, than no vision at all.. would you rather have vision that was out of focus and devoid of color, or be totally blind.
i'm sure you prefer the colour option.. how about if you could only see vague shapes around you or blindness?
Do I understand correctly that you accept that the retina migrated to the interior of the eye as a matter of blind faith? Are you willing to grant creationists leeway in the fact that there are things that creationists don't know?
I will answer your question when you anwer some of mine from above. Or, are you saying there are no asnwers for my questions?
i don't want to hijack the other thread.. you mention the eye being better than any camera so lets discuss this.
i used to give a talk where i would use the complexity of the eye as evidence of creation, but i have since changed my mind and below is the reasoning that helped me do so.. i would welcome you comments and reasoning against this.. if you had a choice between being totally blind and being able to see things out of focus, which would you pick.. i'm sure you would, like me prefer to have out of focus vision, than no vision at all.. would you rather have vision that was out of focus and devoid of color, or be totally blind.
i'm sure you prefer the colour option.. how about if you could only see vague shapes around you or blindness?
Which statement are you referring to?
I know why the retina is in the eye, the question was "how did it get there from the back"?
So a light sensitive spot simply appears on a bacteria. Has this ever been observed? Has it ever been induced? What good is this spot without the ability to process and respond to the stimuli? In the late 19th century, many bacteria were cataloged and described. Since then they have undergone between 50,000 and 1,000,000 gernations. This is the equivelent of 20,000,000 years of human evolution. Can you show a bacteria that has a light spot that didn't previously?
How does the degeneration of an organ prove that one is evolving (mole rat eyes)? Again, your ignorance of the creationist view of this apparent.
Dawkins is off bass with his assesment of the inverted wiring of the eye. The inversion is necessary for our eyes to function properly. Further, I find it strange that Dawkins would a theological argument, what a designer would or would not do, to argue for evolution.
