Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

[dad]

Since there is absolutely no evidence that physics today works any differently than physics 100,000 years ago, there is no logical reason whatsoever to consider a "different state past".

You're a strange one to be talking about logic. You have never used any as far as I have ever seen.

No one is spitting on God's Word except you.

If you want to claim we should or do have evidence for the forces and laws in the past (ridiculous claim) here is a test for the lurkers you need to do for us.

Show us how you know the strong nuclear force was the same?

Good luck with that.

It was was rain

4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.
6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Jesus said the flood came and TOOK them all away. It wasn't just rain as usual. It fell as torrential rain at first, because nothing else could lift an ocean vessel sized ark off the ground. Nothing else could cover all the mountains and be even higher than the highest one!

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

How high would a window of heaven pouring out water have to be to have the water fall as heavy rain on the earth?

Why do you spit on God's Word and claim that it wasn't rain?

Of course it was rain, as I described it. In Noah's land anyhow! Who knows if it may have been heavier elsewhere?

To disbelieve the word is to spit on it, not to believe it.

 

[dad]

Stories in books are not evidence.

From God's book is the ONLY way we know a flood happened, because science is to evidence what a moron is to rocket science.

 

[dad]

Yet again ignoring your opponent's argument.




I have presented a possible scenario that explains the distribution of marsupials in a flood model. I never claimed it absolutely happened that way, it is simply a feasible hypothesis.

You are taking the position that there is no explanation and you have failed to defend it.

You may be right, but you seem to have a weak case to me. A better and simpler explanation would be that the marsupials evolved fast where they are.

 

[AV1611VET]

From God's book is the ONLY way we know a flood happened, because science is to evidence what a moron is to rocket science.

Science is myopic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science is myopic.

Says the person who can't believe anything outside of one book.

 

[Loudmouth]

You may be right, but you seem to have a weak case to me. A better and simpler explanation would be that the marsupials evolved fast where they are.

Based on what evidence?

Why didn't any placental mammals evolve there?

 

[dad]

Science is myopic.

How can anyone argue with that? I might add pesky, preachy, pushy, pretentious, and proud, as well as pompous, pious, and possessed.

 

[dad]

Based on what evidence?

Why didn't any placental mammals evolve there?

? Didn't I just say they probably did? Focus.

 

[AV1611VET]

Says the person who can't believe anything outside of one book.

Funny how I believe stuff like SN1987A is 167,885 light years away ... innit?

 

[AV1611VET]

I might add pesky, preachy, pushy, pretentious, and proud, as well as pompous, pious, and possessed.

And packaged for propaganda!

 

[crjmurray]

How can anyone argue with that? I might add pesky, preachy, pushy, pretentious, and proud, as well as pompous, pious, and possessed.

Best example of projection I've ever seen. Really impressive stuff.

 

[lifepsyop]

You have failed to produce any evidence, so there is nothing to ignore.

You have made something up. Not the same thing. Nowhere do you produce evidence showing that it is a viable model.

My argument rests on a basic principle of animal migration, that pressure from competition will influence increased migratory behavior. There is no need for me to provide evidence for something so well-known.

Here loudmouth, lets have a quick look at some of the literature:

"Large-herbivore migrations occur across gradients of food quality or food abundance that are generally determined by underlying geographic patterns in rainfall, elevation, or latitude, in turn causing variation in the degree of interspecific competition and the exposure to predators...."

Competition, predation, and migration: individual choice patterns of Serengeti migrants captured by hierarchical models
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Oops, I guess migration patterns are a little bit more complicated than loudmouth's LooneyToons antelope vs. mole foot-race model.


"The invasions of South America started about 40 Ma ago (middle Eocene), when caviomorph rodents arrived in South America. Their subsequent vigorous diversification displaced some of South America's small marsupials and gave rise to – among others – capybaras, chinchillas, viscachas, and New World porcupines."

Great American Interchange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Interesting, evolutionists believe large rodent populations will significantly drive away small marsupial populations. This fits nicely with my hypothesis. Do you think rodents will drive away antelope at the same time, loudmouth?

furthermore at the same link:

"South America, on the other hand, was connected to Antarctica and Australia, two much smaller continents, only in the earliest part of the Cenozoic, and this land connection does not seem to have carried much traffic (apparently no mammals other than marsupials and perhaps a few monotremes ever migrated by this route). "

Oh look, marsupials just happened to be mainly the only group that migrated to Australia, apparently due to competition with other mammals in South America. Gee, does that sound familiar?

"....At the end of the Miocene epoch about 10 to 25 million years ago, pouched mammals were extinct both in North America and Europe. Because they faced less competition from more advanced placental mammals in South America, a few survived successfully there. Some of them moved across Antarctica, which was then attached to South America, and ended up in Australia.... the factor most in their favor was the absence of competition from placental mammals..."

Animal Distribution by D. R. Khanna

Again, evolutionists proposing a similar model for marsupial distribution as a result of migration away from placental populations.

Loudmouth, your position is a complete failure as it is perfectly reasonable to assume marsupials would have been increasingly displaced by other mammals and thus increased distance in migratory patterns. Thus it is a reasonable hypothesis to explain their distribution in Australia via a temporary route from southeast Asia.

Can it be proven? Of course not, but it is a reasonable hypothesis whether you like it or not, and we can consign it to the dustbin of a thousand other anti-Creation "debunking" claims.

I'm about done with this one. Unless you offer a substantial rebuttal, I'm not going to waste my time with your playing dumb.

...que loudmouth's despearate hand-waving....

 

[lifepsyop]

You may be right, but you seem to have a weak case to me. A better and simpler explanation would be that the marsupials evolved fast where they are.

If we're going to invoke supernatural events like evolution of marsupial body-plans, then we may as well say God dropped the marsupials on Australia so that they'd have a safe place to live. I see no reason to be forced into such a position.

 

[dad]

If we're going to invoke supernatural events like evolution of marsupial body-plans, then we may as well say God dropped the marsupials on Australia so that they'd have a safe place to live. I see no reason to be forced into such a position.

You misunderstand. The nature of the day in the past was likely such that evolving was truly fast.

 

[Astrophile]

As I said, we can observe that Antelope populations have coped fine in the same habitats as placental predators. This is evidence that they did not have significant ecological pressures driving them away.



I already answered this. Why did you suspiciously quote everything except my answer?

Here it is again with the part you cut out that directly addresses your question.

Nothing is stopping placentals from migrating, but marsupials have increased pressure to migrate away from established placental populations. Thus marsupials migrate towards southeast Asia and over a temporary land bridge before placentals.

Now address your opponents actual arguments or stop responding. These dishonest little games of yours is how you get on ignore lists.

One more time and I'm done with you.

The problem is that, as A.R. Wallace discovered in 1858, there is a very sharp dividing line between the two populations. In south-east Asia and western Indonesia, as far east as Bali and Borneo, the animals are typically Asian, with no Australian representatives; in eastern Indonesia, from Lombok and Sulawesi eastwards, and New Guinea, they are typically Australian (marsupial mammals, cockatoos, birds of paradise, etc.), with hardly any Asian influence. How could Asian mammals and birds migrate all the way to Borneo and Bali and then be prevented from reaching Sulawesi and New Guinea?

 

[lifepsyop]

The problem is that, as A.R. Wallace discovered in 1858, there is a very sharp dividing line between the two populations. In south-east Asia and western Indonesia, as far east as Bali and Borneo, the animals are typically Asian, with no Australian representatives; in eastern Indonesia, from Lombok and Sulawesi eastwards, and New Guinea, they are typically Australian (marsupial mammals, cockatoos, birds of paradise, etc.), with hardly any Asian influence. How could Asian mammals and birds migrate all the way to Borneo and Bali and then be prevented from reaching Sulawesi and New Guinea?

I don't understand where the problem is. In this hypothesis, the Asia-Australia land bridge would have substantially subsided before major placental mammal migrations expanded in that region. It's certainly possible that some placental mammals could have crossed over, (and of course some marsupials remaining in Asia) but the more limited the population, the higher chance of dying out later on due to any number of adverse ecological conditions, thus reinforcing this 'sharp dividing line' of biogeography.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't understand where the problem is. In this hypothesis, the Asia-Australia land bridge would have substantially subsided before major placental mammal migrations expanded in that region. It's certainly possible that some placental mammals could have crossed over, (and of course some marsupials remaining in Asia) but the more limited the population, the higher chance of dying out later on due to any number of adverse ecological conditions, thus reinforcing this 'sharp dividing line' of biogeography.

Except rabbits and other placental mammals that were brought to Australia do just fine, in fact, they threaten the native species of marsupials.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No. It can't. Not at all. The ice cream totally melts before the 4400 year mark. They are wrong on the dates, they are pure religion.

That is what you choose arbitrarily to think, because you assume the bible is true and never question it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So God one day got in a bunch of huge cranes and diggers and planted big oak trees and etc? You know about roots?

-_- you must be joking, you really think the supposedly omnipotent being couldn't will holes into existence to plant the trees in?

 

[lifepsyop]

Except rabbits and other placental mammals that were brought to Australia do just fine, in fact, they threaten the native species of marsupials.

Then, assuming the hypothesis is correct, this would simply be evidence that those types of placental mammals did not migrate with marsupials, (similar to distinctly marsupial migration via Antarctica in evolution models) or that ecological conditions of the crossing did not favor placentals as they do in present day Australasian ecological systems.

All I see is desperation in scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something that debunks the flood model. Evolutionists are always grasping at straws.