Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

A number of geology based falsifications of the worldwide flood have been presented by Mechanical Bliss and others. But not all flood falsifications are based on geology.  One of my favorites, which I first saw presented in detail by Frank Zindler,

http://atheists.org/bone.pit/kiwi.html
 

is biogeography.

According to the ark story marsupials and the other unique animals in Australia, New Zealand and New Guinea would have had to get there after coming off a boat, in pairs, in the Middle East into a flood devastated world along with representatives of all other land dwelling animals extinct and extant.  Overall there are 13 families and about 180 unique species of marsupials in the area including kangaroos and kolas and marsupial mole like animals (of the Order Notoryctemorphia) that only live in sand.  The only monotremes (egg laying mammals) in world, the platypus and 2 species of echidna are found in the Australia and New Guinea and nowhere else on earth. The Kiwi, a flightless bird, lives in New Zealand which has no native mammals of any kind.  How is it that the marsupials and monotremes made it to Australia where they just happen to exist in fossil record while thousands of species of placental mammals that just happen not to exist in the Australian fossil record did not?

There is no evidence that modern marsupials or monotremes ever lived in Europe, Asia or Africa and the only marsupial fossils ever found on those continents are of very primitive marsupials. The only placental mammals either fossils or extant prior to the arrival of man found in Australia are bats, a couple species of rats and the teeth of a very primitive placental mammal.

How did marsupial mole like animals make it at all, let alone getting there with no placental mammals? These are animals that only live in sand. Of course this is far from being the only problem. The three-toed sloth can only drag itself slowly on the ground it can’t walk. It can't tolerate low temperatures and moves only about 1 mile a month. How did they make it to the Americas, where sloths just happen to exist in the fossil record? Where they of a fast moving, migrating, cold tolerating kind a few thousand years ago? Does this really make any sense? If they could get around so well why did they only get the Americas??

The giant spiny anteater (one of the echidna species) is also a slow moving clumsy animal but is supposed to have made it to New Guinea ahead of all nearly all the placental mammals.

How is it that Gila monsters got to the American Southwest and why did they not go to the much more convenient deserts around the Middle East instead? Did these desert reptiles cross an ice age land bridge? How did armadillos make it to the Americas while wildebeest, zebras and giraffe did not? The question is not only how these animals got where they were going but also why other animals equally well adapted for the destination and in many cases far more able and likely to travel did not.

YEC attempts to answer this problem that I have seen either address only a small part ignoring the whole or rely on absurdities such as people took them or they migrated there. I will discuss YEC pseudo solutions in my next post.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

On the TrueOrigins ark defense page Jonathan Sarfati says

Migration patterns explain some of them, but another important factor is introduction by humans. That’s how the rabbit reached Australia, and the Australian marsupials could have arrived with post-Babel humans. 

This does not really explain anything. Many of these animals are simply not migratory and many animals that are migratory did not end up in Australia. Do Kolas, sloth or marsupial moles migrate? Post Babel Humans introduced them!? By them time of the supposed Tower of Babel incident many of the animals would have scattered and either established themselves where they are not present now or become extinct, since marsupials don't generally compete very well with modern placental mammals. You would certainly think that marsupials and placental mammals would have been well mixed by then.

How and why did migrating humans take these particular animals? Do you really think people took marsupial moles, kangaroos, echidna, kiwis, koalas, wombats, the platypus, Tasmania devils, bandicoots, Moas ( a giant predatory bird, now extinct), Cassowarys (a bad tempered bird that is the second largest now living in the world) and the Thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger) to Australia and New Guinea along with all the other animals unique to the area? That would have been some interesting trips in dugout canoes.

How and why did they gather all these marsupials and leave only a few behind (such as the prolific opossum which somehow got to North America without leaving any descendants in Europe and Asia and some others that got to Central and South America without leaving any descendants anywhere else) while taking no placental mammals except dogs? Did people bring Gila monsters to the American Southwest and sloth, armadillos, jaguars and rattlesnakes to the Americas?

The land bridge explanation also fails. First Australia, New Guinea and New Zealand are separated from Indonesia by the very deep water, the so-called Wallace line, so land bridges are highly unlikely even in the most extreme ice age. Most importantly, even if land bridges did exist they do not help. How could marsupial moles or other slow moving marsupials get from the Middle East and cross land bridges to Australia while faster moving placental mammals did not? Do you really think the tree sloth, which cannot survive low temperatures, move about 1 mile a month and only travel in trees and Gila monsters, which are desert reptiles crossed an ice age land bridge over the Bering Sea to get to their current habitats?

The other creationist answer is that these animals got where they were going by migrating or radiating to the area they live now before a single continent somehow split up post flood to make the current continents of the world. Aside from the geological impossibility of this rapid continent movement it does not solve the problem. How would marsupial moles and kiwis and koalas get to the southern part of the original giant continent to be a carried to Australia while virtually no placental mammals made it? Even with a single continent it is a long way from the Middle East to Australia.

Let’s look at this migration followed by continent separation scenario in a little more detail. We have marsupial and placental mammals and of course reptiles and dinosaurs coming off a boat in the Middle East two by two about 5000 years ago. The only two of each kind in whole world are right there. Now, just how did the marsupial and montreme mammals get to Australia? Consider the marsupial “mole”, a small, blind or nearly blind, burrowing animal that lives in sand. It should be pretty happy with all the sand of the Arabian deserts close at had. Instead it goes to Australia. How does it radiate or migrate to Australia? Does it go across Iran and Pakistan to India? How and why would it cross India? Supposes it crossed India. I don’t think it would get across the Himalayan Mountains through Nepal. Maybe it crossed near Bangladesh. How did it get through the mountains of Burma and Northern Thailand? I have been in that part of the world. I didn’t see much sand for a sand-burrowing animal to live in. After that all it had to do was cross down along Thailand to Malaysia then down to Sumatra then to Indonesia, and then on the through New Guinea to Australia, assuming they were still connected by the time in got there. I suppose the Kangaroos hopped along, the platypus crawled or swam along. The Koalas followed a path of Eucalyptus trees that stretched along this route and the bandicoots, Tasmanian devils, wombats and thalcines(Tasmanian Tigers) walked along with them as did all those flightless birds, some of which moved on to New Zealand with no mammals of any kind for company. Meanwhile, no placental mammals came along except bats and a couple species of rat and none of the marsupials that were “radiating” or migrating along this path thousands of miles long left any evidence of their passing anywhere at all. Maybe someone has a better route. I don’t see one looking at a map. This is the shortest I could find. And this all is supposed have happened in a few thousand years or perhaps much less.

In fact, for those who believe that the continent splitting occurred in the time Peleg, all this radiation and migration has to occur in just over 100 years!

Animals in the Americas are also a problem for this scenario. Just how did slow moving sloth and armadillos get to the western part of the super continent to be carried to the Americas while no lions or wildebeest or zebras made it?

Remember the question is not only how the unique species in various parts of the world got where they are but how other species, often much better able to travel, did not.

According to mainstream science marsupials reached Australia when Australia was still connected to South America and Antarctica in the late Jurassic. By 45-50 million years ago the continents were separated and marsupials evolved in isolation until the appearance of man. Talk Origins has a page on this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/marsupials.html

Fossil:
The close affinities between Australian and South American/Antarctic forms compared with European/Asian forms.
· The occurrence of Northophagus vegetation in Australia, Antarctica and South America at this time. (Important note: Northophagus seeds cannot tolerate prolonged immersion in sea water - they degrade rapidly, i.e. no transport by sea). 

Note the discussion of Northophagus seeds, one of many plants that can’t survive long immersion in water.

Added in edit: Please don't bother with creationist claim that "evolutionists" were astonished to find a fossil platypus tooth in South America. As you can see from the Talk Origins page this is well understood. I have also seen the Christian Answers non explanation and have addressed some of it here. Maybe some of the YEC flood believers here can do better but I doubt it.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[lucaspa]

Biogeography was one of the lines of evidence that falsified the Flood by 1831.  In addition to the examples you mentioned, you also have tenrecs in Madagascar.

Even more importantly, you have the gradation of one species through a hybrid zone to another very similar species throughout the planet. Darwin discusses several of these in Origin and it was this type of biogeography that led Wallace to independently discover natural selection.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Come on YECs. If the worldwide flood wasn't a myth you should have some answers for this problem. What's wrong? Does the cat kind have your tongues?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 06:40 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #4

Come on YECs. If the worldwide flood wasn't a myth you should have some answers for this problem. What's wrong? Does the cat kind have your tongues?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Wait... You expect YEC's to respond to detailed refutations of the Young-Earth Creation model? You haven't been here very long, have you?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Today at 11:42 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #5



Wait... You expect YEC's to respond to detailed refutations of the Young-Earth Creation model? You haven't been here very long, have you?

Actually, I expect this thread to scroll off the board with no reply from the YECs like it did already and usually does on other boards but it doesn't hurt to ask. Sometimes a YEC makes a desperate attempt to answer, though there really is no scientific answer to this insoluble problem with the flood myth.

I have noticed that YECs are far better at bringing up long refuted young earth claims than they are at addressing the multitude of falsifications of the worldwide flood.  I'll post another one they can't answer soon.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Jon]

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=42

 

[Cantuar]

From the DrDino page referred to:

"To let such a minor question about Kangaroos cause one to turn from the scripture and accept the idea that we all came from a rock via evolution over billions of years does not seem smart to me._ Thanks for the question though."

Talk about people unclear on the concept! How does he think theories get falsified? One minor question about kangaroos can do that for a theory. And I'm sure that if the theory of evolution stood or fell on the basis of a question about kangaroos, he wouldn't be calling it minor.

 

[Gracchus]

No Jon, No Jon, No!

 

[Arikay]

Lets take a look at that article. First of all I find this funny
"This question was sent to me by a scoffer who thinks we all came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago"

I find it funny because the bible agrees we came from rocks. As god made adam from the mud.

Anyway...

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.

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.

Plus, kangaroos can swim very well.

Really?

The rest of the article is a bunch of assumptions being written as fact. It ends by saying that Kangaroos are in Australia because of survival of the fittest. Hehehe.

Today at 05:47 PM Jon said this in Post #7

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=42

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Jon]

Plus, kangaroos can swim very well.

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 plates move overtop of the holes.

 

[Jon]

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.

 

[Jon]

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!

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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

 

[Arikay]

We arn't assuming there were large mountains.

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.

Today at 06:41 PM Jon said this in Post #12


During a one year flood the ark could have floated around the world several times.


We arn't assuming there were large mountains.


the plates move overtop of the holes.

 

[Jon]

We arn't assuming there were large mountains.

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 animals were in the ark

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The animals were in the ark

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

 

[Arikay]

Ok, lets play this out.

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?

Today at 07:10 PM Jon said this in Post #17


The animals were in the ark

 

[Pete Harcoff]

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.