Marsupial Distribution Refutes YECism

[Job 33:6]

One of numerous biblical creationism theories regarding marsupials...
Why Do Kangaroos Live Only in Australia?

Well this is just silly.

"Whatever the answer is, it’s not fossils, which show just the opposite of this evolutionary story. The lowest and oldest marsupial fossils, found in Cretaceous system rocks, “are exclusively from Eurasia and North America.”1If Australian marsupials evolved in Australia, then why were their supposed ancestors buried in the opposite (Northern) hemisphere? "

Seems like a reasonable claim/question doesn't it?

Well the simple answer is, as everyone is well aware, the continents were joined back in the mesozoic.

Which is simple and easy to understand if continents move at the rate at which fingernails grow (which is observable with satellite imaging), its easy to understand how ancestors could have lived in China some 100 million years ago (as presented in older fossils), migrated to north america during the mesozoic (as presented by younger fossils), migrated to south america (as presented by further younger fossils and biological data) and have descendants that currently live in australia (as presented by animals that live today).

They essentially moved from north to south along pangea over 100 million years.

But from a young earth view, even the thought of pangea existing just 6000 years ago, or worse, the thought of rodinia and pangea both existing within the past 6000 years, doesnt really make any sense because you get into this questioning of how entire continents moved hundreds or even thousands of miles in such a short period of time without defying physics.

But this website just makes these statements, like its unheard of that continents were once joined. And that over 100 million years, animals could actually move across this landmass. No way, how could it be? Fossils in china but descendents in australia?

 

[NobleMouse]

Well this is just silly.

"Whatever the answer is, it’s not fossils, which show just the opposite of this evolutionary story. The lowest and oldest marsupial fossils, found in Cretaceous system rocks, “are exclusively from Eurasia and North America.”1If Australian marsupials evolved in Australia, then why were their supposed ancestors buried in the opposite (Northern) hemisphere? "

Seems like a reasonable question doesnt it?

Well the simple answer is, as everyone is well aware, the continents were joined back in the mesozoic.

Under the evolutionary paradigm that is a possible scenario...

Under the creationism paradigm another possible scenario is that God created marsupials (just as He created all other complex life from the beginning), that almost all marsupials went extinct during the flood (with fossils to date being found in North America and Eurasia), and migrated from the ark to what is now Australia before the sea levels were too high.

The article does make a good point: Whether operating under the evolutionary or creationism paradigm, neither were there to know for sure. This is another case that will fade like the other attempts to "refute" the possibility of God's word being true.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, only one of the two options involve ice ages and an 800 degree molten magmatic acid raining/flooding planet to simultaneously exist along with animals breeding and birthing and making nests and living. Oh and this to simultaneously be present along with continents drifting thousands of miles in perhaps just a single year in which the flood allegedly occurred.

This is your world^ Is it not a bizarre place to you?

Or do you just ignore...basic physics?

Only one side of the coin actually makes sense and abides by physics and reality and Gods creation as we know it. The other side, even in our imaginations, seems senseless, bizarre, mysterious, mystical, without clarity.

 

[NobleMouse]

Well, only one of the two options involve ice ages and an 800 degree molten magmatic acid raining/flooding planet to simultaneously exist along with animals breeding and birthing and making nests and living. Oh and this to simultaneously be present along with continents drifting thousands of miles in perhaps just a single year in which the flood allegedly occurred.

This is your world^ Is it not a bizarre place to you?

Or do you just ignore...basic physics?

Only one side of the coin actually makes sense and abides by physics and reality and Gods creation as we know it. The other side, even in our imaginations, seems senseless, bizarre, mysterious, mystical, without clarity.

No, my world is much more bizarre. It involves a grouchy Christian arguing against me that my beliefs in God's word as found in the Genesis account are unfounded and, by extension, that God could not have any supernatural ability because the only explanation to all historical events involving earth and our universe are natural processes. Bizarre indeed.

 

[Job 33:6]

Im not upset, im just baffled. Its just that your ideas, dont make any sense. '

How could it be that thousands of feet of rock formed, metamorphosed (which takes extremely high temperatures and pressures), and ice ages occurred, while massive erosion of thousands of feet of highly dense metamorphosed rock was eroded away, all the while, dinosaurs are laying eggs in nests (which involves mating, eating, feeding, living life)?

You seem to believe that all of this happened in...perhaps a single year (that is the timespan that young earthers typically say the flood occurred within).

 

[Job 33:6]

Nothing could ever make any sense in this world view. You would be indefinitely lost, with no real understanding of history, just blind. You would forever find opposition to this view due to its mysterious nature. With it, you would never be able to understand the world.

Maybe this is why you accept your world view, even when it doesn't make sense. Because you have accepted a world of nonsense, beyond rationality. Maybe this is why you can speak falsehood but not care. Maybe this is why you do not admit when you are incorrect, because nothing makes any sense anyway, so how could you ever be wrong? How could anyone ever be wrong when we all live in a world without any answers to anything?

Intellectually lost...

 

[NobleMouse]

Im not upset, im just baffled. Its just that your ideas, dont make any sense. '

How could it be that thousands of feet of rock formed, metamorphosed (which takes extremely high temperatures and pressures), and ice ages occurred, while massive erosion of thousands of feet of highly dense metamorphosed rock was eroded away, all the while, dinosaurs are laying eggs in nests (which involves mating, eating, feeding, living life)?

You seem to believe that all of this happened in...perhaps a single year (that is the timespan that young earthers typically say the flood occurred within).

Yes, within around a year is consistent with the creationist view, and recent localized floods as well as recent volcanic eruptions (fountains of the deep) have demonstrated the ability to lay down rock layers rapidly such as to add up to thousands of feet in a year.

The creationist view doesn't see the geologic column as progressively evolving life forms over millions of years, but equally complex life all living at the same time in different locations (from deeper in oceans moving inward and upward upon land). This, for example, is why we see life forms in the Cambrian layer that have eyes so complex that camera lenses made by our modern technology today still don't rival in complexity. The creationist view follows that the flood would have brought in life from the deeper parts of the ocean first, then layered on top life from shallow waters, then as the waters moved progressively inward on land we would naturally expect to see life more suited for land getting buried and fossilized in higher sedimentary layers. This model fits the fossil record, though it is worth noting that no model (evolutionary or creationist) that has "all the answers" to questions of the geologic column and the fossils contained therein.

Dr. Marcus Ross, a paleontologist interviewed on the Is Genesis History documentary explains in more scientific terms:

 

[Job 33:6]

This isn't a response to my words, you're just speaking.

 

[Calminian]

An article I read online, figured I would share for thoughts.

Marsupial Distribution Refutes YECism

Marsupial Distribution Refutes YECism
[DRAFT] © Glen J. Kuban, 2014

Marsupials are a unique group of pouch-bearing mammals that include well known animals such as kangaroos, wallabies, koalas, opossums, wombats, Tasmanian devil, as well as many lesser known species such as bandicoots, bettongs, the bilby, quolls, numbat, and the quokka. About 70% of the 334 extant species of marsupials live in Australia, New Guinea, and nearby islands, with the rest occurring in South and Central America (except for one in N. America - the opossum). The only endemic placental mammals in Australia are a few species of bats and small rodents. All of the nearly 200 marsupial species in Australia and nearby areas are native only to Australia, and according to both genetic and fossil evidence, are evidently are a monophylitic group--that is, evolved from the same ancestral stock. Moreover, all five living species of monotremes (egg laying mammals such as the echidna and platypus) occur in the same geographic area. This unique situation can be attributed to the continent's geographic isolation for over 30 million years, and it's unique climate. These conclusions are supported by extensive geologic, paleontologic, and genetic evidence (Kelsey and Mitchel).
In contrast, the Young Earth Creationist (YEC)/Flood Geology position, which holds that only a pair (or at most 7 pairs) of each Genesis "kind" debarked the Ark in the region of Turkey after a violent global Flood just a few thousand years ago, has a serious problem explaining these animal distribution patterns.
YECs need to explain:
1. After the Ark landed, why were almost all the animals that ended up in Australia marsupials and monotremes?
2. If scores of marsupials could somehow make the journey, why did virtually no placental do the same?
3. How did animals such as koalas that are slow moving and depend on very specific foodstuffs and environments that would have been sorely lacking after the Flood even survive the required long journey, especially with a major ocean barrier?
4. How did animals like the flightless kiwi, the blind marsupial mole (which lives only in sand), or the sugar glider (a gliding marsupial superficially resembling flying squirrels, which lives in trees) make the incredible trip?
The few YEC attempts to address this problem have been weak and implausible. Some YECs such as Paul F. Taylor (2007) suggest that perhaps a large land bridge from Asia to Australia existed after the Flood --ignoring geologic evidence that no such recent bridge existed (with the most recent connection to other continents being over 40 million years earlier), and that even if it did, it would not explain why virtually no placental animals used it. Taylor also suggests that many animals may have drifted to Australia on floating logs, but doesn't adress how they survived the long log-ride without fresh water or sufficient food, and again fails to deal with the dominance of marsupials, never explaining why placental animals would have missed the floatillas. Yet other YECs propose incredibly rapid continental drift, which likewise neglects the issue of marsupial to placental disparity, contradicts extensive geologic evidence, and violates principles of physics. Interesting, Taylor makes the comment that "It is not a problem for us to rationalize why certain animals do not appear in certain parts of the world." Yes, YECs can "rationalize" the problem away, but have not resolved it in any way consistent with the vast bulk of scientific evidence.

Other YECs have suggested that many marsupials did migrate to many other areas of the earth as well, but did not survive in most of them. They suggest the lack of fossil evidence for this is due to the incomplete nature of the fossil record. However, this not only conflicts with the frequent YEC assertion that evolutionists should not use the incompleteness of the fossil record to explain any "gaps," and becomes untenable when one considers the great number of marsupial taxa that are endemic only to Australia, both as living and fossil forms.
Perhaps realizing the immensity of these problems for the YEC position, some have appealed to ad-hoc, extra Biblical miracles. For example, a YEC author going by "KC" proposed that perhaps the Australian marsupials didn't migrate to Australia, but were "placed" their by God (Stear, 2010). This reminds me of the similar conclusions that the ICR "RATE" project came to on the problem of radiometric dating evidence. The authors could not give any plausible scientific explanation for the massive amount of radioactive decay evidenced in the geologic record. Rather than face the logical conclusion that the earth is indeed many millions of years old, they evoked a miracle to vastly accelerate nuclear decay rates, and then realizing that this would create enough heat to melt the earth, evoked more unspecified miracles to protect the earth and all life on it from the immense heat. The authors never offered an explanation as to why God would cause such an acceleration in the first place (whose main effects would be to make the earth look old and generate lethal heat). With this approach, one can evade virtually any scientific problem, but it seems to severely undermine the "science" of "scientific creationism."
Another problem for YECs is that many Australian marsupials resemble and behave similarly to various placental animals with similar ecological niches, but are physiologically very distinct. Mainstream scientists attribute this to the priciple of convergent evolution during a long period of geographic isolation (Johnson, n.d). In a YEC framework, the existence of parallel placental and marsupial forms seems difficult to explain. This brings up one of the most imaginative but misguided proposals to deal with these problems for YECs, made by Robert Byers (2012) of the Northwest Creation Network. Byers suggests that perhaps each of the marsupial species and their placental counterparts belonged to the same "Genesis kinds", with existing genetic variation allowing the placentals to rapidly change (through so-called "microevolution") into marsupial forms after arriving in Australia. However, the similarities between certain placental and marsupial animals are only superficial. Anatomically and physiologically they are very different types of animals, and no microevolution explanation works to explain their distribution, or even comes close. Physiologically any such changes would clearly be examples of macroevolution, and ironically, require more dramatic and rapid evolution than even conventional science allows.
In fact, attempts to explain how and why mostly marsupials migrated to Australia after the Flood is largely mood in view of all the scientific evidence that there was no recent global Flood, and that the earth is over 4.6 billion years old. Ironically, some of the oldest dated rocks on earth (dated at about 4.4 billion years) are found in Australia (Landau, 2014), along with fossils of some of the earliest fossil life forms (Pennisi, 2011).
Conclusions
The unique assemblage of fauna in Australia and nearby areas is consistent with evolutionary and geologic evidence, but presents major problems for YEC/Flood Geology models.
References
Byers, 2012, "Post Flood Marsupial Migration Explained. Northwest Creation Newwork web article at: http://nwcreation.net/articles/marsupial_migration.html
A similaer article entitled "Marsupial Post Flood Micration," which is presented on the NW Creation Network anonymously, but indicated in the HTML source coude to be "an article by "Robert Byers" is found at: http://www.nwcreation.net/marsupials.html
Johnson, George, "Convergent and Divergent Evolution" Web article at: http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/evolution/evpage14.html
Kelsey, Sam, and Stephen Mitchell (undated), "Origin, Diversity and Ecology of Marsupials". University of Bristol web article at: http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/marsupials/Index.htm
Landau, Elizabeth, 2014. "4.4 billion-year-old crystal is oldest piece of Earth". CNN article at: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/24/world/oldest-earth-fragment/
Pennisi, Elizabeth, 2011. "World's Oldest Fossils Found in Ancient Australian Beach." AAAS article at: http://news.sciencemag.org/2011/08/worlds-oldest-fossils-found-ancient-australian-beach
Stear, John, 2010?, Inside the Mind of a Creationist: Thomas and KC's "Debate". Web exhange at: http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/thomas_and_kc.htm
Taylor, Paul F. 2007. Chapter 11, "How Did Animals Spread All Over from Where the Ark Landed?" in: The New Answers Book, Ken Ham, editor. 2007, Master Books. Web version of chapter at: https://answersingenesis.org/animal-behavior/migration/how-did-animals-spread-from-where-ark-landed/ Note: The web version gives the author as Paul S. Taylor, but the book indicates Paul F. Taylor.
Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling and E. F. Chaffin, eds. 2005. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Research Initiative. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society.

I'm kind of stumped as to why this is a difficult issue. Unique animal groups on islands is just not a tough issue. That is, unless you don't believe the flood account and the Noah accounts as your starting premise.

If Noah built a ship to house land animals, it would follow his sons would have that same technology post flood. They could build ships and could build them to house animals. I realize you likely deny the Flood to begin with, but if Genesis is true, there's no issue. Land animal distribution happened 2 ways. Land bridges (from low sea levels due to the ice age), and human transport. And it's entirely plausible the latter was the most prevalent. Many land animals in many places, today, trace their origins back to human transport, and in those cases humans decided which animals they wanted to populate islands. And it's been going on from the beginning.

I believe in the case of islands such as Australia and Hawaii, there are virtually no self migrating animals. All are the result of early post-delivuan maritime peoples transporting animals to the places they wanted to settle, and hand selecting the specific types of animals they wanted to be there.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm kind of stumped as to why this is a difficult issue. Unique animal groups on islands is just not a tough issue. That is, unless you don't believe the flood account and the Noah accounts as your starting premise.

If Noah built a ship to house land animals, it would follow his sons would have that same technology post flood. They could build ships and could build them to house animals. I realize you likely deny the Flood to begin with, but if Genesis is true, there's no issue. Land animal distribution happened 2 ways. Land bridges (from low sea levels due to the ice age), and human transport. And it's entirely plausible the latter was the most prevalent. Many land animals in many places, today, trace their origins back to human transport, and in those cases humans decided which animals they wanted to populate islands. And it's been going on from the beginning.

I believe in the case of islands such as Australia and Hawaii, there are virtually no self migrating animals. All are the result of early post-delivuan maritime peoples transporting animals to the places they wanted to settle, and hand selecting the specific types of animals they wanted to be there.

Anyone can use their imagination to just...propose ideas. Oh thats easy, aliens arrived and just picked koalas up and dropped them off in australia. That and, there was a land bridge, that i guess just isnt there anymore. Yes there was an ice age right after the flood, but also, rocks were metamorphosed at hundreds of degrees celcius during the flood.

You cant just...make stuff up. Especially if you dont have any evidence backing it up. I wonder...how do you even know that an ice age occurred at the end of the flood? I dont think you could possibly know, because if you knew of the evidence for ice ages, you would know that there have been at least 5 major ice ages, with numerous interglacial periods.

And not only do you use your imagination to propose this mysterious ice age and mysterious land bridge, you also propose ideas that arent based in scripture. There is nothing in scripture that says Noahs sons gathered all of the koalas and flightless birds and brought them to australia.

You just made it all up with your imagination. Just because you can imagine something, this doesnt just make reality fit that idea. I can imagine a dragon, living in my garage. But it doesnt make the dragon real, just because i can imagine it being real.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, within around a year is consistent with the creationist view, and recent localized floods as well as recent volcanic eruptions (fountains of the deep) have demonstrated the ability to lay down rock layers rapidly such as to add up to thousands of feet in a year.

The creationist view doesn't see the geologic column as progressively evolving life forms over millions of years, but equally complex life all living at the same time in different locations (from deeper in oceans moving inward and upward upon land). This, for example, is why we see life forms in the Cambrian layer that have eyes so complex that camera lenses made by our modern technology today still don't rival in complexity. The creationist view follows that the flood would have brought in life from the deeper parts of the ocean first, then layered on top life from shallow waters, then as the waters moved progressively inward on land we would naturally expect to see life more suited for land getting buried and fossilized in higher sedimentary layers. This model fits the fossil record, though it is worth noting that no model (evolutionary or creationist) that has "all the answers" to questions of the geologic column and the fossils contained therein.

Dr. Marcus Ross, a paleontologist interviewed on the Is Genesis History documentary explains in more scientific terms:

You never addressed any of my points. And you said the fossil record indicates that life changes from sea based life to land based life as flood waters had risen, however, of course the whale succession demonstrates the exact opposite.

And you cant say...oh well, i accept the fossil succession here, but i actually deny it elsewhere. At least not when you cant read a geologic map and aren't familiar enough with geology to be able to distinguish heads from tails with the fossil succession.

To simplify this, you cant be the judge of the topic, if you aren't familiar with the material. I don't even know why you even bother making claims about geology, when you aren't familiar with it. I don't go around making claims about structural engineering or medical procedures, when im not an engineer or a doctor. But that's exactly what you are doing, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, within around a year is consistent with the creationist view, and recent localized floods as well as recent volcanic eruptions (fountains of the deep) have demonstrated the ability to lay down rock layers rapidly such as to add up to thousands of feet in a year.

The creationist view doesn't see the geologic column as progressively evolving life forms over millions of years, but equally complex life all living at the same time in different locations (from deeper in oceans moving inward and upward upon land). This, for example, is why we see life forms in the Cambrian layer that have eyes so complex that camera lenses made by our modern technology today still don't rival in complexity. The creationist view follows that the flood would have brought in life from the deeper parts of the ocean first, then layered on top life from shallow waters, then as the waters moved progressively inward on land we would naturally expect to see life more suited for land getting buried and fossilized in higher sedimentary layers. This model fits the fossil record, though it is worth noting that no model (evolutionary or creationist) that has "all the answers" to questions of the geologic column and the fossils contained therein.

Dr. Marcus Ross, a paleontologist interviewed on the Is Genesis History documentary explains in more scientific terms:

You never addressed any of my points. And you said the fossil record indicates that life changes from sea based life to land based life as flood waters had risen, however, of course the whale succession demonstrates the exact opposite.

And you cant say...oh well, i accept the fossil succession here, but i actually deny it elsewhere. At least not when you cant read a geologic map and aren't familiar enough with geology to be able to distinguish heads from tails with the fossil succession.

To simplify this, you cant be the judge of the topic, if you aren't familiar with the material. I don't even know why you even bother making claims about geology, when you aren't familiar with it. I don't go around making claims about structural engineering or medical procedures, when im not an engineer or a doctor. But that's exactly what you are doing, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

You should stick with scripture if that is where your strength is.

 

[Calminian]

Anyone can use their imagination to just...propose ideas. ....

Yes, but I reasoned from the historical account of Genesis. I didn't just come up with a theory, I specifically went to the biblical account and made an obvious inference from it. The account specifically says Noah built an ark to house animals. And the text says Noah's sons of Japheth were maritime peoples. Is it easier to believe Noah's sons had no idea how to build ships and transport animals?

Also, we know for certain many animals in many lands were brought by humans. The Mongoose to Hawaii for instance.

So I'll ask you. If the mongoose and other animals on remote islands didn't get there by human transport, how did they get there? In fact, how did the original Hawaiian natives get there?

 

[Calminian]

Under the evolutionary paradigm that is a possible scenario...

Under the creationism paradigm another possible scenario is that God created marsupials (just as He created all other complex life from the beginning), that almost all marsupials went extinct during the flood (with fossils to date being found in North America and Eurasia), and migrated from the ark to what is now Australia before the sea levels were too high.

The article does make a good point: Whether operating under the evolutionary or creationism paradigm, neither were there to know for sure. This is another case that will fade like the other attempts to "refute" the possibility of God's word being true.

Wondering also if marsupials were a bit too vulnerable after the flood. Their young have a tougher path than other mammals. Could it be humans hunted them early after the flood and their vulnerabilities caused them to go extinct on most of the mainlands? Perhaps Australia was an exception because their early settlers took better care of their ecosystem?

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, but I reasoned from the historical account of Genesis. I didn't just come up with a theory, I specifically went to the biblical account and made an obvious inference from it. The account specifically says Noah built an ark to house animals. And the text says Noah's sons of Japheth were maritime peoples. Is it easier to believe Noah's sons had no idea how to build ships and transport animals?

Also, we know for certain many animals in many lands were brought by humans. The Mongoose to Hawaii for instance.

So I'll ask you. If the mongoose and other animals on remote islands didn't get there by human transport, how did they get there? In fact, how did the original Hawaiian natives get there?

But scripture doesnt say anything about Noahs sons gathering thousands of marsupials and flightless birds, and building another super boat to house them all, then taking them all to a foreign continent. And this still further doesnt explain the succession of marsupials and flightless birds in the fossil record, in localities indicating that marsupials and flightless birds evolved over time. And theres nothing indicating that an ice age happened 4000 years ago, nothing in scripture says anything about half the world freezing over or anything like that at all.

Theres just nothing there, its just in your mind.

And yes, I understand that there are invasive species that we have observed past and present. But what you are doing is you're just making stuff up. There is nothing in scripture about Noahs sons building more giant boats and carrying thousands of wingless birds and marsupials to australia. I'm just repeating myself, there is nothing about an ice age happening in the last 3000 years, there is no evidence for this at all. You've just imagined it.

Now, you brought up hawaiian natives. There are artifacts showing us when natives arrived at hawaii, so we know they took boats and just landed there, and we can see what they brought with them. So what we know what happened there. But what you are proposing are ideas that are purely in your mind.

 

[Calminian]

But scripture doesnt say anything about Noahs sons gathering thousands of marsupials and flightless birds, and building another super boat to house them all.....

Nor did I ever imply that. Why would they build a super boat for traveling? The Ark, if you think about it, wasn't for travel at all, just survival. Why would you assuming I was implying they built another Ark after the flood?

You're reasoning is off, and I think it's because you're so biased, you want to win the argument at all costs. You're thinking before you type. Read my post, if you're interested, and try to make a reasoned response. Think! then type.

 

[Calminian]

Under the evolutionary paradigm that is a possible scenario...

Under the creationism paradigm another possible scenario is that God created marsupials (just as He created all other complex life from the beginning), that almost all marsupials went extinct during the flood (with fossils to date being found in North America and Eurasia), and migrated from the ark to what is now Australia before the sea levels were too high.

The article does make a good point: Whether operating under the evolutionary or creationism paradigm, neither were there to know for sure. This is another case that will fade like the other attempts to "refute" the possibility of God's word being true.

Wondering also if marsupials were a bit too vulnerable after the flood. Their young have a tougher path than other mammals. Could it be humans hunted them early after the flood and their vulnerabilities caused them to go extinct on most of the mainlands? Perhaps Australia was an exception because their early settlers took better care of their ecosystem?

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, but I reasoned from the historical account of Genesis. I didn't just come up with a theory, I specifically went to the biblical account and made an obvious inference from it. The account specifically says Noah built an ark to house animals. And the text says Noah's sons of Japheth were maritime peoples. Is it easier to believe Noah's sons had no idea how to build ships and transport animals?

Also, we know for certain many animals in many lands were brought by humans. The Mongoose to Hawaii for instance.

So I'll ask you. If the mongoose and other animals on remote islands didn't get there by human transport, how did they get there? In fact, how did the original Hawaiian natives get there?

But scripture doesnt say anything about Noahs sons gathering thousands of marsupials and flightless birds, and building another super boat to house them all, then taking them all to a foreign continent. And this still further doesnt explain the succession of marsupials and flightless birds in the fossil record, in localities indicating that marsupials and flightless birds evolved over time. And theres nothing indicating that an ice age happened 4000 years ago, nothing in scripture says anything about half the world freezing over or anything like that at all.

Theres just nothing there, its just in your mind.

And yes, I understand that there are invasive species that we have observed past and present. But what you are doing is you're just making stuff up. There is nothing in scripture about Noahs sons building more giant boats and carrying thousands of wingless birds and marsupials to australia. I'm just repeating myself, there is nothing about an ice age happening in the last 3000 years, there is no evidence for this at all. You've just imagined it.

Now, you brought up hawaiian natives. There are artifacts showing us when natives arrived at hawaii, so we know they took boats and just landed there, and we can see what they brought with them. So what we know what happened there. But what you are proposing are ideas that are purely in your mind.

 

[Job 33:6]

Nor did I ever imply that. Why would they build a super boat for traveling? The Ark, if you think about it, wasn't for travel at all, just survival. Why would you assuming I was implying they built another Ark after the flood?

You're reasoning is off, and I think it's because you're so biased, you want to win the argument at all costs. You're thinking before you type. Read my post, if you're interested, and try to make a reasoned response. Think! then type.

They would need another ark because there are thousands of marsupials and flightless birds that they would have to transport to australia, as per your suggestion. No regular everyday boat could do this, only a super boat, perhaps one with divine support.

 

[Job 33:6]

Wondering also if marsupials were a bit too vulnerable after the flood. Their young have a tougher path than other mammals. Could it be humans hunted them early after the flood and their vulnerabilities caused them to go extinct on most of the mainlands? Perhaps Australia was an exception because their early settlers took better care of their ecosystem?

These are good question. They are questions that should be asked, prior to...suggesting that the answer is simple and already explained via Noahs sons picking them up and carrying them.

Sorry if i came off as rash in my earlier posts. Im just trying to point out that, ya know, we cant just make stuff up off the top of our heads. Otherwise, we wouldn't get anywhere because there are no limits to the imagination and theres nothing tangible to work with.

 

[NobleMouse]

You never addressed any of my points. And you said the fossil record indicates that life changes from sea based life to land based life as flood waters had risen, however, of course the whale succession demonstrates the exact opposite.

And you cant say...oh well, i accept the fossil succession here, but i actually deny it elsewhere. At least not when you cant read a geologic map and aren't familiar enough with geology to be able to distinguish heads from tails with the fossil succession.

To simplify this, you cant be the judge of the topic, if you aren't familiar with the material. I don't even know why you even bother making claims about geology, when you aren't familiar with it. I don't go around making claims about structural engineering or medical procedures, when im not an engineer or a doctor. But that's exactly what you are doing, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

I think you meant all of this 2+ weeks ago when I posted, and I think you meant it towards Dr. Marcus Ross as everything I stated was based on what he has researched. Throw your rocks (pun intended) elsewhere brother. I believe what I believe because it is positively affirmed in scripture (that is, this is written in scripture, this is what the text says). That aside, there is evidence that supports this view as well... as Dr. Marcus Ross demonstrates, and more evidence continues to build in favor of this view. It's fine that we don't agree on this topic and I respect your position on the matter. God bless brother K-BIF and good evening.