tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post6966214874534781421..comments2023-10-25T10:45:54.660-05:00Comments on Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: JP Holding: Dumbass for ChristAIGBustedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-54510627206337918232009-05-12T09:46:00.000-05:002009-05-12T09:46:00.000-05:00So if Holding sees a wall, comes back a few days l...So if Holding sees a wall, comes back a few days later and sees a pile of bricks lying on the ground, he won't believe the wall fell down and became a pile of bricks, until he sees evidence for each brick falling in the sequence from wall to rubble?<br /><br />And if Holding sees a plane take off in New York, and sees the plane land in Miami, he won't believe it flew through the air, unless he sees video evidence for more than 0.002% of the miles this plane allegedly 'flew'?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-37584995943696507062009-05-11T23:32:00.000-05:002009-05-11T23:32:00.000-05:00Hey Robert,
Thanks for the comment! You're absolu...Hey Robert,<br /><br />Thanks for the comment! You're absolutely right, the evidence from biogeography is overwhelming. In "Why Evolution is True" Jerry COyne wrote a whole chapter on this argument, and it is very convincing indeed. I seldom argue it, because I am not as familiar with it as I am with other arguments, and because it takes much more time to explain.<br /><br />Peace,<br />RyanAIGBustedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-65877529833998437612009-05-11T18:01:00.000-05:002009-05-11T18:01:00.000-05:00Excellent post as usual (I particularly enjoy your...Excellent post as usual (I particularly enjoy your posts about evolution).<br /><br />Another question you could ask a creationist:<br /><br />God could have distributed animals any which way he/she/it wanted; so why is it they are not distributed randomly, but rather, species are found only in places they can reach?<br /><br />For example, evolution says that isolated oceanic islands will not have fresh water fish or indigenous land mammals (because they evolved on the continental land masses and they would be unable to swim across the ocean to get to these islands - indeed, these islands (like Hawaii) have no indigenous fresh water fish or indigenous land mammals! How does a creationist explain that? Coincidence?<br /><br />Evolution also says that for the same reason, coastal islands will have the same fauna and flora as the nearby continent even if the climate is slightly different. This has been verified too.<br /><br />Evolution predicted that since there are indigenous land mammals in Australia, then Australia must have been in contact with a continental land mass in the past. This is verified too - geologists discovered that during one of the many previous glaciations, oceans level were so low that there was a land passage between australia and the main land; but because that passage was covered by water so long ago, thus isolating Australia physically from any other land mass, mammals in Australia evolved in isolation thus making the Australian fauna unique.<br /><br />Just a few problems for the creationist (who would probably say it's "just a coincidence")...<br /><br />By the way, congratulations on your book, Nicholas! I'll probably buy the E version.Robert Moranehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00706576618914923528noreply@blogger.com