Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood

actually I'm not entirely sure of the Time of Peleg now. I was looking at a topographical map of the Pacific and I noticed thatshould the water levels receed a good couple hundred yards, a whole lot of currently inaccessible islands (Madagascar, for instance, and Hawaii and many others) would become very easy to approach. what do other creationists say allowed roos to reach Australia?

however, one might also note that trees can grow relatively big in even 20 years;40 makes them quite mature (though a tree doesn't have to be all that big for a koala to eat it's leaves--probably 10 years would do it). in the mean while, there are other options for the koala: 1. it may have since speciated to be able to eat eukelyptus alone, and 2. God might have done it. (I'll stick with the former unless you disprove it) and since I don't know how good a eukelyptus is at competing with other trees or at surviving certain diseases, I won't bring up a specific theory as to why they "magically" disappeared. I think it's possible, however, that it had nothing whatever to do with magic.

*sigh* IMO animal sorting had nothing (repeat: nothing) to do with magic. nobody has understood my arguement (though everybody has pretended to, and mayhap everybody thinks they do). any outside input on this is welcome . . . until somebody repeats back to me what I'm saying, then tells me exactly what's wrong with it, then it can't be argued anymore, and I'll keep believing it.

southern beech? that wouldn't happen to be related to any toher types of beeches--beeches which can stand to have contact with water? and if a mat of vegetation is thick enough, and hte seed near enough to the middle of it, then it's rather possible that the seed might remain dry . . .what sort of leaves do these plants have?

it might, because the environment owuld be entirely diferent. it would have to be done on a lake or ocean, iwth an incomprehensibly large amount of vegetable matter

give me proofs then. where do we have an example of an adept animal, living in a perfectly suited environment, leaving for no outside cause (no drought, no flood, no fire, no new carnivores) except just wanderlust?

I assumed you'd say that. unfortunately the point is unarguable b/c absurdity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. so, I'll have to say, "oh well" and go without a logical discussion on the matter. I still haven't heard any proof AT ALL that what I'm saying wouldn't work, just speculation: "no, they wouldn't". how do I respond to that? "yes, they would"? that sounds like a fun debate.

it doesn't have to be called a forest, #1. #2 it needn't be a belt either for that matter. there may simply have been a large "forest" or area of scattered trees. and 3. I'm still not sure about hte koala's eating habits. now clear something up for me: doest he koala really HAVE to eat only eulelyptus? if so why? or does it just like eating eukelyptus so much t hat it won't eat anyting else? has it the ability to drink at all

he minimum water depths around Australia and New Guinea are around 1300 meters ie about 4000 feet IIRC so you need more than a couple hundred yards to make land bridges. This was recognized long ago by wallace and Autralia and New Guinea are often said to be separated from Indonesia by Wallace's Line

But land bridges don't help because there is nothing to prevent the far more numerous and mobile placental mammals from crossing those bridges.

I discussed what YEC propagandists say about biogeography in my opening posts. Hovind says kangaroos are good swimmers and Sarfati says people took them. Both of these explanations are absurd. I doubt if marsupial moles are particularly good swimmers that the idea that people took all the monotreme, marsupial and flightless bird species we have been discussing to Australia is ridiculous.

One might also note that you need more than 1 billion trees for this forest and then only if they are growing in a very narrow band on exactly the right line. Eucalyptus trees do grow fast but they are intolerant to cold so you need this forest to plant itself and spring up to form a continous route of many thousand of miles in length without passing through any temperate or cooler zones. Then the forest must disappear leaving no evidence behind. The further you go with this the more ridiculous your ad hoc assertions become.

As I explained in my quick reply, we do understand what you are saying and understand that it is absurd. There is more on this below as well.

It is a different genus and the seeds are very intolerant of sea water. To think its seeds survived a year of global flood that started with 40 days and nights of continous torential rain is absurd.

No, they don't do it because they know it would fail. And don't forget that an incomprensibly large amount of vegetable matter, in fact more than could have existed on earth at one time, needs to be buried to produce the coal and oil that were supposedly created by the flood so where are the huge mats of vegetation needed to reseed the earth going to come from? I have notices that it never seems to bother YECs when their explanation for one phenomonon contradicts their explanation for another.

Show me mammals that don't exploit their entire range of suitable habitats. Remember that you need for NONE of the thousands of species of placental mammals get to Australia while ALL of the 180 species of Marsupial mammals do. The placental mammals will not just "stay put" as you claim after they have outcompeted the marsupial mammals. What you are forgetting is that the placental mammals are forced to compete with other placental mammals including other members of their own species and all of the many other placental mammals that exploit their ecological niche. This competition pressure will cause them to disperse at least as widely as the marsupials and monotremes. In fact they should disperse more widely than many of marusipals and monotremes because they are often much more mobile and more efficent. The idea that monotremes and marsupials could somehow travel to Australia without placental predators following along to eat them is also ridiculous.

I did my calculation for a relatively narrow belt of dispersed trees and got 2 billion trees. Here are some facts about Koalas

A koala leads a slow-paced life. About 14.5 hours of its day are spent sleeping, with another 4.8 hours resting. Foraging requires another 4.7 hours, leaving only four minutes per day for travel!

Koalas do not move very far, and certainly not very fast! Movement increases risk of predation by Australian wild dogs. Perhaps even more important, scattered habitat may keep them from finding mates.

Koalas require the nutrients in Eucalyptus leaves and attempts to feed them anything else will lead to their deaths. They can't even really digest anything else. They are becoming isolated into small groups in Australia because they can leave their forests behind to find other forests.

[repeat of the end of just about every post banderstatch has made on this thread]

All of your arguments have been falsified numerous times. You are clearly refuse to account for

the fact that competition among placental mammals will cause them to spread out at least as widely as maruspials and monotremes,

the fact that there is no habitat exploited by marsupial mammals that is not also exploited by a variety of placental mammals.

the fact that there are far far more species of placental mammals than maruspials,

the fact the many placental mammals are far more mobile than most marusupial mammals,

the fact that some placental mammals breed at spread at rates that exceed any marsupial or monotreme mammals,

the fact that some marsupial mammals (moles for example) are very unlikely to make this trip of thousands of miles in the time allowed

The idea that a forest of billions of trees could spring up along a route thousands of mile long and cover the entire route just after a year long worldwide flood, and that only marsupial mammals and monotremes would follow this forest to Australia is so ridiculous that even you should be able to see its absurdity. Of course you must refuse to think to preserve your mythology.

I have accounted for that at least three times (at least, as far as I'm concerned). no one has told me why the marsupials wouldn't try to stay ahead of their placental competition.

I REALIZE THAT THE PLACENTAL'S POPULATION CIRCLES WOULD GROW FASTER THAN THE MARSUPIAL'S POPULATION CIRCLES. but why couldn't the marsupial's population circles move?

precisely why the marsupials wouldh ave had to get away from the placentals.

the fact that there are far far more species of placental mammals than maruspials

so what? but actually, this may help my arguement. that means that a relatively large ratio of marsupials didn't make it at all, and were starved out of existence.

one might also add that there are a lot of marsupials which are more mobile than a lot of placentals.

the only one I really have trouble with is the inamous Mole. the placentals spread in their circles originating from near the ark. their population circle didn't have to shift south: they were fine whrere they were. the edges of their circles are what we're worried about here. if the marsupials population centers were right beside those of the placentals, then the placentals would certainly have starved them to death and made Australia.
fortunately, the population center of a type of animal isn't fixed; the marsupials were able to move their "circles" farther toward the south. thus, although the plactental circle was indeed far larger, and its circumference did spread faster than that of the marsupials (as you have asserted numerous times), the marsupial's smaller circle was moving away. thus its edge, though more sharply curved because of the circle's smaller size, was staying head of that of hte placentals.

again, tell me where I went wrong.

what besides moles? (I haven't hte faintest idea of how moles might have done it

others followed hte route too, I'm certian. it's just that hte marsupials went first, fleeing before a rising and accelerating tide of placentals.

We should try to make this thread sticky, since it makes a mockery of the worldwide flood, and then well never have to listen to worldwide flood trollers again.

We should try to make this thread sticky, since it makes a mockery of the worldwide flood, and then well never have to listen to worldwide flood trollers again.