And sfs's post points out how ridiculous it is to claim that they went through such great pains in the first place. It points out the flaws in the core of your argument by explaining how animal ranges and migrations work, and that you're straight-up wrong about the Appalachians.
Do you know what the conditions were like at the time? Do you know about the climate, about the environment, about the ecology, what predators or prey were present, or anything of the sort? If not, how can you possibly make the claim that this migration path was unlikely? And if so, why aren't you making your case with that?
You must be thinking of some other post, because your post in this thread certainly didn't do that. The migration path you talk about one that you invented yourself -- no scientist proposed it. And you didn't show anything about it: you insinuated that the path was unlikely, but showed no evidence for that claim at all. When it was pointed out to you that contemporary species range over longer distances and more difficult obstacles than your supposedly very, very unlikely path, you responded by ignoring the issue. Do you really think it's very unlikely that white-tailed deer in Peru are related to deer in Maine? Or that wolves in Siberia are related to wolves in North America?
Here you go...evolution:
Just a post ago, you said your point was that was that the migration between these places was unlikely. Does this mean that you agree that that point was wrong, since you aren't bothering to support it?
So all of that stuff about long journeys and mountain barriers was, what, exactly?
The animals in your post were spaced out over 100 million years. That's not even remotely contemporaneous. Why do you think that features characteristic of modern mammals appear gradually in the fossil record, and only fairly late in that record?
Yes, they do. Why do you think that they suddenly appear? We can trace their evolution back quite a ways.
Why do you keep saying such foolish things? Of course we can trace it back. You are the one that believes a fable. There is no scientific evidence that supports your beliefs. You can't say the same for evolution. There are literally mountains of scientific evidence for evolution and none for creationism. Perhaps you should learn what scientific evidence is.
