Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Ah DR. Dino. Approach number 1. Try to answer a tiny part of the question but don't really answer any thing.
FAQ How did the kangaroos get across 1800 miles of ocean to get to the ark and then back to Australia? This question was sent to me by a scoffer who thinks we all came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago. As is the case with most questions scoffers raise, there are several flaws in their logic.
The flaw in this logic is that we are not just talking about kangaroos. We are talking about 13 families and 180 species of Marsupials and three monotremes. There are animals that only live in grass lands, animals that only live in sand, animals that only live in streams and animals that only live in trees. The question is not only how they got there but how no placental mammals came along for company.
1.They assume Noah’s ark landed in the same place it was built. During a one year flood the ark could have floated around the world several times. I think it was built in Pensacola, Florida and landed in Turkey! Ha!
This is too silly for comment.
2.They assume the shapes of the continents and distribution of animals in the pre-flood world was the same as it is today. There is no possible way to tell what the pre-flood world looked like. If most of the water that is now in the oceans was under the crust of the earth (Ps. 24:1; 136:6) or in a canopy overhead (Gen 1:6-7; II Pt. 3:3-6) before the flood, then there would be much more land mass and much smaller oceans.
For most of the water that is now in the oceans to be in the air the atmosphere would have been composed of high pressure steam. This would have been a little hard of Noah but it doesn't solve the problem.
BTW. There are not “1800 miles of ocean” between Turkey and Australia today. Check any modern map.
So? It is still several thousand miles, whether over land or ocean, even if you shove Australia up against Indonesia and Indonesia up against Thailand. check any modern map. Find a route that marsupial moles, platypus, koalas, sugar gliders, kanagroos, bandicoots, tasmanian devils and echidna could have followed together while leaving placental mammals behind. I would like to see it.
3.They assume the ocean depth and subsequent coastlines and continent size after the flood was the same as it is now. Obviously the ice caps were huge at sometime in the past. Trapping this much ice at the poles greatly lowers the ocean levels exposing the continental shelves which creates land bridges just about everywhere. Check any map of the sea floor between Australia and the mainland and you will see that it is not very deep. Lowering the oceans just 100 feet or less than 1% of the current ocean average depth, would easily create huge land bridges all over the world. Much more on this on video #6. Plus, kangaroos can swim very well.
IIRC the water depth around Australia is about 1300 meters. I don't think you could impound enough ice at the poles to lower the water that much but it doesn't matter. Why could only maruspials and monotremes cross these land bridges even if they existed? How did marsupial moles and koalas outrun lions, tigers, impala, wildebeest, buffalo, monkeys, cheetah, zebra and on and on and on.
4.They assume that the distribution of kangaroos after the flood only includes Australia. Many types of animal bones are found in places where they no longer live. I believe kangaroos lived all over the world before the flood and after the flood they spread out over the world but competition got too bad or the climate was not suitable so they died out or moved on seeking better land and ended up 4400 years later only surviving in Australia.
It just happens that maruspials have a significant fossil record in Australia and there is no evidence that any modern marsupials ever lived anywhere in Europe or Asia. We are talking about 180 species from 13 families who just happened to get to Australia with almost no "placental" company. And of course these are not the only problems that biogeography raises. I pointed out several others in my first post.
Hovind's pathetic attempt to explain biogeography is a miserable failure but that is not surprising. The only rational explanation for the world's biogeograpy is that the worldwide flood is a myth at least regarding the worldwide part.
During a one year flood the ark could have floated around the world several times.
or in a canopy overhead
It wasnt. For the amount it would take for a global flood (assuming there were large mountains). I believe this "canopy" would be at least twice the distance from the earth as the moon.
We arn't assuming there were large mountains.
If most of the water that is now in the oceans was under the crust of the earth
It wasnt. Nor would the oceans have effected the amount of flood water in a global flood, as the holes of the oceans would need filling.
The flaw in this logic is that we are not just talking about kangaroos. We are talking about 13 families and 180 species of Marsupials and three monotremes. There are animals that only live in grass lands, animals that only live in sand, animals that only live in streams and animals that only live in trees. The question is not only how they got there but how no placental mammals came along for company.
The answer:
During a one year flood the ark could have floated around the world several times.
They assume Noah’s ark landed in the same place it was built. During a one year flood the ark could have floated around the world several times. I think it was built in Pensacola, Florida and landed in Turkey! Ha!
The answer:
During a one year flood the ark could have floated around the world several times.
So? Did it stop in Australia and drop off the Marsupials? I guess that stop got left out of Genesis. Actually there were three arks. The one with the Marsupials and monotremes went to Australia and the one with all the Dinosaurs sank.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
__________________ A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Lack of mountains bring up more problems than if there were mountains. So tell me, how did the animals survive the earthquakes and molten rock that all happend when the mountains were formed very quickly?
the plates move overtop of the holes.
Im not sure you understand the idea of Tectonic plates. I would suggest reading up on them.
The ocean sits On Top of the tectonic plates. These plates couldnt have slide over the holes that the lack of water would have left.
Lack of mountains bring up more problems than if there were mountains. So tell me, how did the animals survive the earthquakes and molten rock that all happend when the mountains were formed very quickly?
Have you been paying any attention? The question is about what happened after the animals came off the ark two by two in the Middle East. It doesn't matter if they started out from Fantasy Island or Disney Land. The problem is after they land. Dr. Dino's hopeless attempt to answer the biogeograhy problem fails miserably.
The Frumious Bandesnatch
__________________ A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Land was flat.
Flood comes.
Rather small flood, (that is incapable of killing all the animals as god said it would)
At some point the mountains grew.
-If the Mountains grew before the flood, Noah and the Ark would have been destroyed by the earth quakes and ground turning into molten rock (hot liquid rock)
-If the mountains grew during the flood then the ark would have been floating in boiling water, then it would have been beached and then if it wasnt already destroyed, it would have burned up in the Molten rock.
-If the mountains grew after the flood, Noah and the ark would have been destroyed by the earth quakes and the ground turning into molten rock.
So, No, the Animals werent on the ark. They were Dead.
Does this help show why this wouldnt work?
Or are you going to ignore another explination of why you shouldnt listen to Hovinds work?
Yesterday at 10:27 PM Arikay said this in Post #19
So, No, the Animals werent on the ark. They were Dead.
I'm willing to concede to creationists that God could have protected the Ark during the Flood (since a lot them argue that God would've had to help out with caretaking responsiblities for those animals while on the Ark).
There's plenty of other problems with flood geology, as well as the post-flood world.
Linear Mode
