Flood Migration

[DialecticMaterialist]

Isn't it odd that creationists think that after the Great Flood, every animal, just happened to migrate back to such ideal enviroments?

Penguins to antarctica...what are the chances of that?

Animals that can only be found on certain islands to such islands?

Ideal predators migrating along with ideal prey. Herbivores to where edible plants can be found.

Each animal to a place with proper temperature.

It seems strange that African Honeybees for example, so succesful in the America's, never migrated to the Americas but instead stayed in Africa. That animals fully capable of surviving and even thriving elsewhere, went to places where they would be kept in check. Rabits now infest Australia, but for some reason, after the Flood, they all went to places where they would be kept in check. As did their predators.

When introduced to Australia the Weasel seemed more inclined to prey on Australia's natives then on the rabbit's infesting, but after the flood it chose to ignore such animals and chase the rabbit.

Almost every marsupial also must have decided to migrate to Australia and no other plave, except the opossum in the americas.

It is also odd that no placentals followed.

It seems that to explain such odd migrations the creationists will have to conjure up another miracle or two. Hence the improbability of Flood biology.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

A valid point.










N-N-N-N-N-NECRO!

Sorry I couldn't help myself. I wanted to see what it was like to Necro a thread from almost a decade ago. Also this is a valid point and I think it's sad that no one addressed it. So, how about it, creationists?

 

[tansy]

I'm not sure that Creationists do believe that exactly. They (and I) do accept natural selection (so you tend to get, for example, dark-skinned people in hot countries, and pale-skinned people in countries with less hot sun)
As I don't know enough about all the ramifications and details of how all this would work out in practice, I can't say for sure how things happened. But I don't think people think that penguins marched straight off to cold climes, dark people marched straight off to Africa, pale people went off to Scandinavia etc etc. They do realise it's more complex than that

 

[Targ]

The difference between placental mammals and marsupial mammals is enormously more significant than the differences between dark skinned people and light skinned people.

 

[marktheblake]

Isn't it odd that creationists think that after the Great Flood, every animal, just happened to migrate back to such ideal enviroments?

The creationists do not think that the animals "just happened to migrate back" (emphasis on back) so it is not odd at all.

Where did you get this idea that Creationists think this? I can only presume you have just made this up. Given that there are plenty of Creation website that detail exactly what they think it would be very easy to quote a source.

You would be better off analysing what Creationists really think.

 

[AV1611VET]

Isn't it odd that creationists think that after the Great Flood, every animal, just happened to migrate back to such ideal enviroments?

What 'ideal environments'?

The earth is no longer a tropical paradise, but is now being subject to polar climatology, and will soon be in one doosey of an ice age.

Penguins to antarctica...what are the chances of that?

Zero

There were no penguins on the Ark and, as such, Antarctica did not exist yet until after Pangaea was split up into continents in Genesis 10.

Animals that can only be found on certain islands to such islands?

I doubt that islands existed, either.

Some may have, but it's not critical to your point.

Ideal predators migrating along with ideal prey. Herbivores to where edible plants can be found.

Yup

Each animal to a place with proper temperature.

Yup

It seems strange that African Honeybees for example, so succesful in the America's, never migrated to the Americas but instead stayed in Africa.

African honeybees were not on the Ark.

That animals fully capable of surviving and even thriving elsewhere, went to places where they would be kept in check.

They were called from their ecological niches to the Ark the previous year -- God simply sent them back afterwards -- (or they naturally gravitated back to their respective habitats).

Rabits now infest Australia, but for some reason, after the Flood, they all went to places where they would be kept in check. As did their predators.

What do you mean by, 'but for some reason'?

Do you think God just stop superintending everything after the Flood?

I'm sure God is right there making sure all these animals return to their respective places.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The incredible migratory habits and homing instincts of many species is still not fully understood.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

I like how Creationists claim that the laws of nature are so delicately balanced that they constitute proof that God designed the universe especially for us. Yet just a few thousand years ago, the speed of light was much greater so that stars billions of light years away are visible to us, plate tectonics some how worked incredibly fast to break up the continents as recently as a few thousand years ago during the flood (without cooking us alive), and animals went through some sort of superfast "micro" evolution after exiting the ark. Why are there no placental mammals in australia? Did non-placental mammals just happen to live in the same part of pangea that broke off and became australia? Did placentas "micro-super-evolve" in other mammals after pangea split 4 thousand or so years ago?

 

[Bushido216]

The incredible migratory habits and homing instincts of many species is still not fully understood.

But there are migratory habits of many animals that are fully understood.

Sloths, for instance.

Cougars.

Elephants.

 

[solarwave]

There were no penguins on the Ark and, as such, Antarctica did not exist yet until after Pangaea was split up into continents in Genesis 10.


African honeybees were not on the Ark.

Why, where were penguins and honeybees?

So you believe God ripped Pangaea apart super fast just a few thousand years ago? I don't think one part of a verse in Genesis 10 is good evidence for this.

Also how did 2 or 7 animals repopulate their species? If animals nowadays had so few members we would consider their species unsaveable. I suppose we can say God did it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But there are migratory habits of many animals that are fully understood.

Sloths, for instance.

Cougars.

Elephants.

Prior to this knowledge the earth was a pretty small place to many species. I just saw a bit about great white sharks who journeyed thousands of miles across the Pacific to avoid killer whales. Even the scientists that studied them were amazed.

 

[tansy]

The difference between placental mammals and marsupial mammals is enormously more significant than the differences between dark skinned people and light skinned people.

True.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why, where were penguins and honeybees?

They would come along later.

No Antarctica = no penguins.

Just like God created the environment first, then populated it:

• Day 1 = light ....................... Day 4 = stars
• Day 2 = sky & water ............. Day 5 = birds & fish
• Day 3 = land & vegetation ..... Day 6 = land animals & man

... Antarctica came first, then its population.

So you believe God ripped Pangaea apart super fast just a few thousand years ago?

Yes, but I don't word it that way, as it might confuse someone trying to understand.

I think people choose their words according to their level of understanding; and by simply analyzing their word choices says a lot for how much they truly understand.

I don't think one part of a verse in Genesis 10 is good evidence for this.

Trying to disarm me before I even post a verse?

Fine, I won't then.

Also how did 2 or 7 animals repopulate their species?

God wouldn't command us to do something that is beyond our capacity to do w/o assisting us, Himself.

Telling Noah and the animals to repopulate the earth might be impossible if they were on their own, but the fact is, they weren't on their own.

If animals nowadays had so few members we would consider their species unsaveable.

And they would have been just as unsaveable back then as well; but God is in the salvation business.

I suppose we can say God did it.

We've already beaten you to it --

 

[matthewgar]

well migration only works so far, like cheetahs whose ancestors lived in North America but traveled to Africa over time, plus I'm really curious if anyones actually tried to figure out the MINIMAL ammount of time it take animals to get from Sinai region all the way to south america, not to mention plants and such. Forget Egypt/China and such having no gaps in their records during the flood, how about no real gaps in south american tribes, or the animals there, is there really enough time even if we give till the conqusitor's arived that everything just got there days before to travel by migration, and populations moving over time. In the real world when new animals spread to new areas it's not like you plot down a rabbit in AUstralia and next week the entire continent is over run, it takes times for the offspring and such to find new homes and move. Not to mention the sloth probably not have enough time in 6000 years to crawl there even if it lived that long heh.

 

[AV1611VET]

well migration only works so far, like cheetahs whose ancestors lived in North America but traveled to Africa over time, plus I'm really curious if anyones actually tried to figure out the MINIMAL ammount of time it take animals to get from Sinai region all the way to south america, not to mention plants and such.

I think what's confusing you and keeping you from understanding, is the use of the word 'migration'.

You're trying to understand something that so went against the laws of the universe, by keeping the story within the confines of said laws, and it's not working.

In short, you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

 

[Targ]

In other words matthewgar, you're not relying upon miracles that the Bible makes no mention of. Until you start adding to the Bible things that aren't there, you're never going to understand.

 

[matthewgar]

In other words matthewgar, you're not relying upon miracles that the Bible makes no mention of. Until you start adding to the Bible things that aren't there, you're never going to understand.

But wait I thought that was bad when adding things changed the meaning? Man it's all confusing, heh I just find it easier to stick with the bible, but use reality as the measuring stick.

 

[Targ]

But wait I thought that was bad when adding things changed the meaning?

Seems my sarcasm wasn't obvious enough.

 

[AV1611VET]

Until you start adding to the Bible things that aren't there, you're never going to understand.

Like evolution?

 

[Bushido216]

Prior to this knowledge the earth was a pretty small place to many species. I just saw a bit about great white sharks who journeyed thousands of miles across the Pacific to avoid killer whales. Even the scientists that studied them were amazed.

I'm going to make this easy.

You're wrong. Let's just accept this as a starting place.

No matter how many species you come up with that have strange migratory patterns there are a thousand that don't.

Squirrels don't migrate.

Nor do rabbits.

Or deer.

Or raccoons.

Or bears.

You can't explain away every single species on the planet by explaininging away a few arbitrary instances.