by metatron 97 Replies latest jw friends
Mad Dawg: You have any more exact ideas? You agree with the rest of the information?
Now, what evidence does the hypothesis put forth in the bookrest on? (outside the bible)
What testable, nontrivial, predictions does your flood hypothesis make which has later been verified?
I agree with it in principle, if not to the exact details. I don't need to have 100% of the details worked out any more than evos do. The evidence is that there is a known history of animals coming to Australia. In fact, much of the article agrees with evos on how animals migrated to other parts of the world. The difference being the time frame.
Too many times I have been drawn into arguements over what is or isn't a prediction. You and I will not agree on anything here. As for evolution's vaunted "predictive power", I have yet to see an evolutionary prediction that preceded what was predicted. It is more like the WTS claiming to have predicted that Jesus came in 1914.
The headscratcher for me would lie in the fact that Australia was a stable ecosystem with the various carnivore, herbivore, detrivore niches filled with animals unique to that continent.
If someone were to claim that these animals gradually evolved into those roles over a very, very long period of time, I can see that point of view. On the flip side of the coin if someone were to claim that God deliberately crafted / created those animals to fill those roles, I can see that point of view too.
But would a stable ecosytem be the result of the random introduction of a hodge podge of animals by man? I don't know. It seems like in recorded history, the introduction of animals and plants to the Australian continent from other areas has been a disaster. Australia is plagued with a number of very invasive species.
The European wild rabbit, the American Opuntia cactus ect. not only had no natural predators in Australia, they were not as susceptable to the same diseases as the native flora and fauna.
Many of the introduced animals have had a detrimental affect on the current state of the flora and fauna. Camels would be an exception. Given a few decades, maybe a century, it will stabilize to a new norm. Different, but stable.
Creationists do acknowledge that there was a wide variety within an animal kind. We deny that the variation is limitless. Perhaps, in the absence of predators, the critters had a loss of some degree of their defenses. Blind cave fish loose their camoflage and sight.
Mad Dawg: Lets leave the evos aside for a moment and focus on creationism. you wrote: Too many times I have been drawn into arguements over what is or isn't a prediction. You and I will not agree on anything here. As for evolution's vaunted "predictive power", I have yet to see an evolutionary prediction that preceded what was predicted.
So how much predictive power does creationism offer with respect to the species distribution in australia? I can ask in another way: You seem to feel my definition of prediction is wrong or skewed, but according to your definition, what nontrivial, quantitative predictions has been made with respect to australia and the species distribution? Which articles, experiments and field work has been carried out with respect to australia to test these predictions and what have been found?
As I've said, I am not going to argue over supposed "predictions" any more than I am going to argue over 607 bc. Evolution does not make predictions, it makes postdictions. If it is science, it has to - by definition - be observable, repeatable, and measurable. Evos are hard pressed to find examples in their world view that meet all three. Same holds true for creationists.
Mad Dawg: So creationism is not science?
Evolution and Creation is more about history than science.
I rejected evolution for 30+ years because I felt that it must be demonstratable to be true, unlike a 6000 year old event like creation.
I changed my mind when I heard that the emergence of new species could be bred that could not reproduce with the parent species. That, to me, is the critical, make or break point about evolution. If that is shown, it's 'game over'.
The Watchtower Society is deceptive in using the term 'macroevolution' without clearly defining it and offering boundaries. Many creation groups accept 'microevolution' like musk oxen or cats big and small.
How can they avoid the slippery slope? They ramble on about how the Genesis 'kinds' are not modern species. So, what does that allow? Half bird/half reptile fossils in China? I don't see how creation groups can honestly hold on to their micro ideas.
metatron
While the WTS may get some things correct regarding creationist thought, what I have seen of Dubs trying to explain it leaves me to strongly believe the WTS does more harm than good. They are too lazy to do the research.
What is this animal that can breed but not with the parent species?
