Marsupial Distribution Refutes YECism

[Job 33:6]

Well I can safely assume you're out of arguments. Here come the insults.

My same argument remains. When you are ready to justify your position, you let me know.

 

[Calminian]

My same argument remains. When you are ready to justify your position, you let me know.

I actually haven't heard any arguments from you. Just insults, made up Armada stuff, no real engagements. Seems you're more interested in stifling debate. It's a defense mechanism I suppose.

 

[NobleMouse]

Okay, great. So you asking me for evidence of something we already agree on. There is a history of humans housing animals on boats and it goes all the way back to Noah.

So there you go! I didn't make it up. I pulled it from a reliable source we both agree on. We also both agree there were once land bridges due to the ice age we just disagree about the timeframe.

Bam! You're up.

It seems very reasonable that boats could and would have been used to transport animals... imagine people traveling to new continents or islands and not bringing what would have contributed significantly to their daily diet (Genesis 9:1-3).

In addition to land bridges, and boats, I've also come across other research that suggests the possibility of something similar to what happened to Spirit lake north of Mt. St. Helens with the log mat, but on a larger scale, which could have allowed for certain types of animals to naturally migrate.

 

[Job 33:6]

Saying that people in history have housed animals on boats, is not the same as saying that noahs sons gathered every single animal (that is endemic to australia) and shipped them, not leaving a single one behind.

Australia's Animals - Tourism Australia

You also have not justified your words regarding the ice age and land bridges, nor this idea that mankind produced the marsupial succession.

You haven't justified any of it, you are just imaging it.

 

[Job 33:6]

I actually haven't heard any arguments from you. Just insults, made up Armada stuff, no real engagements. Seems you're more interested in stifling debate. It's a defense mechanism I suppose.

Ok, so there is no armada, then please explain how noahs sons gathered every single animal that is endemic to australia and transported them (over hundreds of thousands of years as you put it). This is hundreds of species, depending on the time frame, its thousands or even tens of thousands of animals.

Where is the evidence? Nothing in scripture, nothing in history, nothing in science. Even though its a huge event.

And you continue to ignore issues with this alleged ice age, as well as mankind producing the fossil succession.

this is not an insult to you as a person, its just a response to your claims.

 

[Job 33:6]

And remember, these animals all have to be gathered. For example,
Marsupial mole - Wikipedia

here is a mole from australia, it is a marsupial. They do not exist elsewhere in the world, they live underground.

Are you proposing that Noahs sons pulled out a bunch of shovels and scoured the land for moles, boxed them all up, not leaving one behind, as well as collected thousands of other species endemic to Austrialia (hidden in the woods, in trees, in rivers etc.) and took them to australia?

None can be left behind, because if any are left behind, they would still be elsewhere in the world today.

Imagine, Noahs sons with shovels, digging out every square foot of who knows what mass expanse of land, to dig up every single marsupial mole. And this is just one animal of thousands or even tens of thousands that would need to be transported to make this a plausible explanation.

 

[Job 33:6]

Fauna of Australia - Wikipedia

and still, these complicated illogical issues, are still independent of more complex issues relating to this alleged ice age, as well as this alleged extinction caused by mankind which created the succession.

None of these concepts make any sense.

And if this event, involving the collection of thousands of monotremes and marsupials, and shipping them across the globe, occurred over the span of hundreds of even thousands of years (as you suggested), why wouldn't there be a single shred of written history or scripture, or any single shred of evidence for it? It would be an insanely massive undertaking, which would take countless hours to perform. Its such a complex task, that it would take probably thousands of people and years upon years to perform. And yet, not a single bit of evidence for its occurrence, exists.

 

[Job 33:6]

It seems very reasonable that boats could and would have been used to transport animals... imagine people traveling to new continents or islands and not bringing what would have contributed significantly to their daily diet (Genesis 9:1-3).

In addition to land bridges, and boats, I've also come across other research that suggests the possibility of something similar to what happened to Spirit lake north of Mt. St. Helens with the log mat, but on a larger scale, which could have allowed for certain types of animals to naturally migrate.

You have to admit @NobleMouse, this idea that he is proposing, isnt even something supported by other young earthers. Even here on this forum, no young earther has ever proposed this idea of Noahs sons building an armada of ships, or perhaps building the worlds greatest search party, and over hundreds or even thousands of years, searching for every single animal endemic to australia.

Even further, i dont think ive ever even heard anyone suggest that people caused the extinction of animals, in a fashion that would produce the fossil succession. Every young earth that I know, suggests that the flood just killed all of these animals. But he is saying something else. That people did something that caused these animals to die in a sequence, independently of the flood.

This is like, fringe young earth creationism, if there is such a thing.

 

[NobleMouse]

You have to admit @NobleMouse, this idea that he is proposing, isnt even something supported by other young earthers. Even here on this forum, no young earther has ever proposed this idea of Noahs sons building an armada of ships, or perhaps building the worlds greatest search party, and over hundreds or even thousands of years, searching for every single animal endemic to australia.

I don't know if the absence of it being widely proposed means it isn't supported as much as this may just be an idea not yet considered or fully vetted/published yet. I'm just approaching from the perspective as to whether it seems rational/logical.

Biblical creationists believe people have migrated since the time of the flood, so it's logical that animals may have been brought along.

Even further, i dont think ive ever even heard anyone suggest that people caused the extinction of animals, in a fashion that would produce the fossil succession. Every young earth that I know, suggests that the flood just killed all of these animals. But he is saying something else. That people did something that caused these animals to die in a sequence, independently of the flood.

This is like, fringe young earth creationism, if there is such a thing.

From a biblical perspective, I would believe the fossil succession is the result of the flood. I wasn't sure exactly what post @Calminian suggested the fossil record was the result of humans. If you're thinking of post #42, that was just in response to my prior post that the skin/fur from marsupials may have been highly beneficial after the flood and the climate cooled dramatically - it was just to suggest that people may have hunted marsupials (not necessarily all animals in the fossil record) to the point of extinction in the regions where they (marsupials) are not found today.

From your perspective, why do you think God had Noah bring 2 of each kind of animal on the ark?

 

[Calminian]

Ok, so there is no armada, then please explain how noahs sons gathered every single animal that is endemic to australia and transported them (over hundreds of thousands of years as you put it). This is hundreds of species, depending on the time frame, its thousands or even tens of thousands of animals.

Where is the evidence? Nothing in scripture, nothing in history, nothing in science. Even though its a huge event.

And you continue to ignore issues with this alleged ice age, as well as mankind producing the fossil succession.

this is not an insult to you as a person, its just a response to your claims.

When I say "Noah's sons," can you tell me what you think that means? Could you possibly be thinking I'm taking about first generation sons, Shem Ham and Japheth?

I'm speaking of Noah's descendants. Hundreds and hundreds of years of descendants. Generation after generation. And very smart descendants who lived very longs lives, 400-600 years early after the Flood.

And you admitted, you believe the Noah account is literally true. A great ship was built that housed perhaps 1500 kinds of original land animals.

But now you're struggling with the notion that Noah's descendants knew how to sail and how to transport animals when they settled new lands?

Why are you so dogmatic this couldn't happen if you believe that Noah did it? You've already conceded it happened once in ancient history.

And you never answered my question about Hawaii. How did the land animals get to the most remote Island chain in the world? Land bridges? Spontaneous generation?

 

[Calminian]

I don't know if the absence of it being widely proposed means it isn't supported as much as this may just be an idea not yet considered or fully vetted/published yet. I'm just approaching from the perspective as to whether it seems rational/logical.

Biblical creationists believe people have migrated since the time of the flood, so it's logical that animals may have been brought along.


From a biblical perspective, I would believe the fossil succession is the result of the flood. I wasn't sure exactly what post @Calminian suggested the fossil record was the result of humans. If you're thinking of post #42, that was just in response to my prior post that the skin/fur from marsupials may have been highly beneficial after the flood and the climate cooled dramatically - it was just to suggest that people may have hunted marsupials (not necessarily all animals in the fossil record) to the point of extinction in the regions where they (marsupials) are not found today.

From your perspective, why do you think God had Noah bring 2 of each kind of animal on the ark?

I'm not sure how widely proposed this is. But I do think it's one of a few possibilities. If there was an Ice Age after the flood, there would have been several land bridges for migration. That would explain a lot. The only real challenge is remote Islands. Natural floating mats are possible but human transportation jumps out at me considering the ancestor we all go back to. I could see the original explorers taking in upon themselves to populate Islands with the creatures of their choice.

 

[Job 33:6]

When I say "Noah's sons," can you tell me what you think that means? Could you possibly be thinking I'm taking about first generation sons, Shem Ham and Japheth?

I'm speaking of Noah's descendants. Hundreds and hundreds of years of descendants. Generation after generation. And very smart descendants who lived very longs lives, 400-600 years early after the Flood.

And you admitted, you believe the Noah account is literally true. A great ship was built that housed perhaps 1500 kinds of original land animals.

But now you're struggling with the notion that Noah's descendants knew how to sail and how to transport animals when they settled new lands?

Why are you so dogmatic this couldn't happen if you believe that Noah did it? You've already conceded it happened once in ancient history.

And you never answered my question about Hawaii. How did the land animals get to the most remote Island chain in the world? Land bridges? Spontaneous generation?

I'm going to let you go. You aren't responding to me and you aren't justifying your words. I just can't take you seriously.

 

[NobleMouse]

I'm not sure how widely proposed this is. But I do think it's one of a few possibilities. If there was an Ice Age after the flood, there would have been several land bridges for migration. That would explain a lot. The only real challenge is remote Islands. Natural floating mats are possible but human transportation jumps out at me considering the ancestor we all go back to. I could see the original explorers taking in upon themselves to populate Islands with the creatures of their choice.

Agreed. I recently read an article by ICR about Noah's family and mtDNA studies seem to confirm the lineage we have back through Noah's sons:
New DNA Study Confirms Noah

 

[Job 33:6]

@NobleMouse

Here is just an observation.

Theistic evolutionists, are generally on the same page with respect to...how life formed over deep time, and just the existence of deep time itself. For example, few theistic evolutionists, if any, would debate over a question of if dinosaurs existed 400 million years ago or not. Or if birds descended from dinosaurs. We are all generally on the same page with regards to concepts that are generally understood through science.

Young earthers, have a broad spectrum of ideas. Even here in this single discussion, we have perspectives that are vastly different from one another.

The reason for this, is that often young earthers operate with...perceived truth. "I think this, therefore, it is or likely could be, based on my thoughts of scripture". Scripture gives us information that we can extrapolate from. But many young earth extrapolated ideas, exist without logical or mathematical support. So young earthers typically do not rely on things like science or even philosophy, because the two concepts logically just don't coincide.

Without mathematical clarity, only perceived or thought of, ideas, can exist. I cant make the math work, so i just have to rely on...what I can imagine. But the problem is, we can imagine many things. I could imagine a dragon (imagine dragons, like the band), regardless of it the dragon mathematically makes sense, i can imagine it to make sense.

Without a concrete mathematical derivation of concepts, young earthers regularly conflict in their ideas. Certainly moreso than say, geologists (at least with respect to majority of well accepted concepts, such as things like plate tectonics).

 

[Job 33:6]

So,




@NobleMouse Regarding the question,

"why do you think God had Noah bring 2 of each kind of animal on the ark?"

I enter the question, not from a stance of...whatever i may think, could very well be. Rather, I enter from the stance of, what is mathematically going to make sense. Not to be rude with this, but generally speaking, most people would consider the idea of animals of the world fitting onto a single boat for a year during a global flood as...mathematically illogical. Not that it didnt happen, but just from a numerical and logical stance, most people cannot make heads or tails of it.

So rather than entering into the discussion without mathematically or logically understanding anything, and without contradicting the views of other young earthers, I simply pass on the literal idea that 2 of every animal of the world was on 1 single boat for a year.

I'm sure you have heard this many times, but I am more of a proponent of philsophical truths derived from scripture, as opposed to literal truths. The book of Job is one of my favorites, granted it is written in a different context and by a different author than Genesis. But with Job it is the same deal, what is the fire breathing beast? Is it a literal beast that has smoke bellowing from its lungs, or is the story more of an indication of Gods mighty sovereignty? The latter being truth, regardless of if the beast is literally real or not.

Or the book of judges, ive never perceived it as a story of fable or a story of metaphors. However, the popular story of Samson involves a man whos physical strength is dependent upon the length of his hair. Is that real? I dont think so. But what is real, is the concept throughout the old testament of God, sending people to represent His kingdom, who brought justice to a lost people. The values in scripture are larger than the questions of if a fire breathing beast actually lived, or if a mans physical strength was ever really dependent upon his hair, or in this case, if a single boat really did carry 2 of every kind of animal from around the world for a year in a massive flood.

-------------------------------
But, I will add that, this idea of people over hundreds of years gathering marsupials, seems far off, to the extent that even if i were a young earther, i would probably be hesitant to accept it, given the bizarre or mysterious nature of the story. Maybe if scripture at least talked about the redistribution of animals, or something...rather than it just being an idea in my mind.

 

[Job 33:6]

Agreed. I recently read an article by ICR about Noah's family and mtDNA studies seem to confirm the lineage we have back through Noah's sons:
New DNA Study Confirms Noah

Nobody would ever know that ice ages existed, if not for evidence of them, such as...drop stones or glacial moraines.

The problem with proposing an ice age in the last 4000 years, is that, there is evidence for multiple independent ice ages, occurring at independent times, throughout the rock record. So if we propose the idea that an ice age resulted in the formation of a land bridge 3000 years ago, we are forced into a situation where we are believing in an ice age, for which there is no evidence. And further, we are forced into a position where we are acknowledging evidence for ice ages, in which case we are drawing ourselves into questions of when the other ice ages of the rock record, had occurred. And if evidence for other ice ages is present in multiple sections of rock, then we end up with ice ages happening in the middle of a global flood that simultaneously was metamorphosing rock at hundreds of degrees.

A recent ice age in the past 4000 years is another concept that doesn't logically make sense.

 

[Calminian]

....The reason for this, is that often young earthers operate with...perceived truth. "I think this, therefore, it is or likely could be, based on my thoughts of scripture". Scripture gives us information that we can extrapolate from. But many young earth extrapolated ideas, exist without logical or mathematical support. So young earthers typically do not rely on things like science or even philosophy, because the two concepts logically just don't coincide......

Close. Not perceived, but rather revealed truths. We look at the world based on what God has told us about the world. The Bible is our thinking paradigm. We also believe in the perspicuity of Scripture, the idea that God wrote in a way even the common man can understand.

Perhaps we're akin to an investigator examining evidence at a crime scene. First thing he does is look for testimony, especially corroborating testimony. He then will look at the evidence in light of that testimony, if he has deemed it reliable testimony. If testimony was absent, he might interpret the evidence very differently, but with the testimony, the story comes together more easily.

The TE insists on looking at the physical evidence absent from any testimony at all (the Bible). That's mainly because they don't believe the Bible or don't believe it was written in a way they can understand it. They then later listen to witness testimony and reinterpret everything in order to make it compatible with their original theories.

 

[Job 33:6]

If it was really a revealed truth as opposed to perceived truth, then young earthers wouldnt have 10 different interpretations of how it happened. Clearly this information about Noahs sons armada and the transport of marsupials during an ice age and the fossil succession being produced by people skinning mole rats for their fur, hasnt been revealed, otherwise young earthers would all be on the same page.

And the testimony (Scripture) doesnt say any of this. If this were a real crime scene investigation, there is no way anyone could derive your proposed ideas, from a testimony of scripture. It would never stand up in court, and by default it would fall to physical evidence to clarify on the dispute between perceived ideas of what the testimony means.

Young earthers cant get the story straight because their ideas are not included in the testimony. Not by a long shot, and so its the people with hard evidence that have to come through and have to clean up behind young earthers for the messy interpretations theyve made.

 

[Job 33:6]

But I will say what has been revealed. And we can go and test it. Gods law, which is what science is in observation of.

 

[Calminian]

If it was really a revealed truth as opposed to perceived truth, then young earthers wouldnt have 10 different interpretations of how it happened. ...

This speak volumes.....