"Life" Brochures: 3 Easy Disproofs

by metatron 97 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bohm

  superpunk: I completely agree :-). Its just one of those things creationists love to rant about like it somehow invalidate the actual evidence.

  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.

  Like now where i think Mad Dawg want us to believe koalas and kangaroos and a lot of poison animals was brought to australia in kanoos, but humans left behind rabbits, sheep, cows, dogs (or do creationists agree dingos evolved from dogs?), pigs and mice.

  thats at least how i interpret his statements, but he is not very helpfull when it comes to elaborations.
• 

  metatron

  I know! Long ago, in the past 4000 years, a nutball with a boat thought to himself, "I'll gather up most all of the world's weird-a$$ animals and dump them in Australia! I'll have them wondering for centuries! Bwah -ha -ha! And I'll avoid transporting useful domesticated animals!"

  Clearly, you've hit on the correct explanation. It's utterly credible.

  metatron
• 

  Is this it?

  My take on it is if you accept a literal account of the flood then you also accept evolution. To say that a few thousand animals who survived the flood evolved into the millions of species in existence today (not counting the numbers of species which become extinct every day) is living proof that evolution is possible. In just 4000 years a relatively smaill number of different kinds of animals reproduced to create new species of that kind that are sufficiently different that they only reproduce with their own species. Extrapolate that over millions of years - those smaill adaptations become steps along the evolutionary tree.
• 

  Caedes

  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.

  I bet you wish to skip discussion of the platypus since that was clearly the question I was answering.

  Start sarcastic mode - "Yes, I am really suggesting the domestic cat walked to Australia just before Gondwana broke up one hundred years ago" - end sarcastic mode.

  Or if you a sensible person you could read my answer in the context of the thread.

  Mad Dawg, where exactly is the "glaring error" in the statement: Australia used to be connected to what is now South America. Look up Gondwana.
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  I find it interesting in my studies (at college, not at KH) how incredibly adaptive basic forms of life are. Viruses are in a constant state of evolution. Did Noah bring sufficient samples of colds, flu, ebola, tuberculosis, AIDS, syphilis, herpes, etc. aboard the ark?

  The talks and brochures grab at the expression "First Cause" claiming "that means that God did it!" In reality, claiming that God created the material world would shift material creation to "Second Cause". "First Cause" would be the beginning of the existance of God, a sticky detail that creationists avoid.
• 

  Mad Dawg

  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.
• 

  bohm

  Mad Dawg: Well you are completely right! They could have come there in a variety of ways, lets see:

  • magic
  • brought to australia by a travelling circus ca. 100 mio years ago
  • sailed to australia by ship 100 mio years ago
  • sailed to australia by ship 5000 years ago
  • put in australia by aliens
  • the flying spaghettimonster made them in australia 3500 years ago out of boots and a raincoat
  • a whale swallowed the animals, swam to australia and spat them onto the beach
  • they momentarely developed wings, flew to australia and lost the wings again.
  • Fed-Ex
  • etc

  As i understand your idea involve a couple of the themes from above, most importantly number 1 but lets not get lost there - you are OFCOURSE right, they COULD have come to australia a gazillion different ways, evolution is just one of them.

  Now this is out of the way lets move on, you wrote: "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. " ... " If you have a question, ask."

  That i will do :-). How would you, if not by evolution, explain the distribution of animals in australia today and in the past? Please give details, i love details! try to put years on it, provide evidence, etc. For example: Which animals existed in australia before and after the flood? Where was australia located relative to the other tectonic plates before the flood?

  After you are done, try to give a couple of nontrivial predictions of your hypothesis. I mean, all of the things i mentioned above COULD have happened, they just offer very little predictive power.

  you know, my picture of creationism is that creationists never ever try to give a coherent picture of anything, because if they did that 2 things would be clear: They dont make any quantitative predictions about the world and they dont offer a coherent worldview, just a lot of "iffs". Lets see if i am right on that one.
• 

  Mad Dawg

  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:

  http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf
• 

  bohm

  Mad Dawg: Do what is in that link reflect your worldview, or do you disagree with parts of it?
• 

  Mad Dawg

  There are some open questions regarding tectonic plate shifts.