Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You answered your own question.
Some, or many marsupials
found their way to Australia.
The others did not or did not survive
the trip or the climate at the time.
It's fun to make up stories based on Science-y facts.
It is called Science-Fiction.
An atheist asserting that the flood of Noah never happened? Who would have thought? I'm astounded! Let's examine this deeper, though. As it turns out, there WAS a witness. Let's see what He said about it.
Luke 17:
26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
28 It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all."
So on one hand we have the argument from incredulity of an atheist who doesn't believe any of it anyway, and on the other hand we have the witness of the son of God. Who shall we believer? Eenie, meenie, minie.. wait. Since I'm a Christian I'll go with Christ on this one. The flood happened. Final answer.
Evolution and post flood speciation aren't all that removed from each other. It's only when we evolutionists pursue the notion of universal common descent that things become very different. Both beliefs have to account for the presence of animals throughout the world; either from one cell or from one boat. Creation needs a lot less time because it goes back to seas teeming with fish and two of every kind of land dwelling animal.
Part of the problem is the absence of pre-Noah cartography. We don't have detailed relief maps of the world so we don't know if pangea existed and the continents drifted apart beginning immediately after the flood or not. We further don't have anything in the Scriptures that state whether God ever created again or if everything that exists now came from what existed then. We don't know the global conditions pre and post flood.
We know that we can't attribute this to a Noachian paradigm because the Noachian is a geologic system and early time period on the planet Mars. Clearly, this doesn't explain anything for us.
As it turns out, there WAS a witness. Let's see what He said about it.
That point goes in my favor.
Kangaroo, for example, stepped through the door of the Ark into [what is now] Australia.
Let me get this straight.
You would expect to see common ancestry fossils along the way from Mesopotamia to Australia?
You answered your own question.
Some, or many marsupials
found their way to Australia.
The others did not or did not survive
the trip or the climate at the time.
It's fun to make up stories based on Science-y facts.
It is called Science-Fiction.
While we're on the subject of distribution, I'm curious about the explanation for the numerous flightless birds we find on islands.
Please read post #2 again.As I made clear in my OP, I am not asking how they got there, I am asking how to explain the patterns of distribution - Most all the mammals that got there were marsupials (marsupial "mice", "moles", "squirrels", "bears", "tigers", grazers etc,etc) and no placentals (mice, moles, squirrels, bears, cats, grazers etc,etc). Are you suggesting that it was by chance? We could try to calculate the odds if you wish.
Didn't the ark do a world tour as the waters receded, dropping off animals wherever they wanted to live?
If I had been a land predator, I would totally have disembarked wherever the flightless birds disembarked. Pity for them that they never thought to do so.
I genuinely thought that story was used. I'm sure that's what I was told at Sunday school. Or maybe we just had a maverick vicar...That would be a better story than is in the Bible. They could have used that explanation as to why we find practically all marsupials in Australia and other localizations of species.
That would be a better story than is in the Bible. They could have used that explanation as to why we find practically all marsupials in Australia and other localizations of species.
I genuinely thought that story was used. I'm sure that's what I was told at Sunday school. Or maybe we just had a maverick vicar...
Observed by whom? Not you, certainly.No, mine is an argument from the observable evidence of distribution patterns.
It certainly could. You might have noticed that when you go to different places on the globe you encounter different species which inhabit those places. Why? Maybe they liked the food source. Maybe the climate suited them better. Maybe God created them after the fact because he wanted theme to exist. Any answer would work since none of them are provable.This is irrelevant. Whether the continents drifted or not - before or after the flood - it cannot account for why most all the many varied mammals in Australia are marsupials found nowhere else and no placental mammals found everywhere else made it.
Nope. Global population of polar bears has increased by 2,650-5,700 since 2001. They are no longer on the endangered species list.For example, Polar Bears totally blew it. They're dying out now, thanks to their choice of the north pole, while there are vast colonies of penguins in Antarctica laughing at their stupidity.
Observed by whom? Not you, certainly.
It certainly could. You might have noticed that when you go to different places on the globe you encounter different species which inhabit those places. Why? Maybe they liked the food source. Maybe the climate suited them better. Maybe God created them after the fact because he wanted theme to exist. Any answer would work since none of them are provable.
By the way. Your theory doesn't prove it either.
In the end, it comes down to where you place your faith.
Observed by whom? Not you, certainly.
Species can be observed in their present locations
Whether you start with one cell or an ark load of critters, filling all the land masses with them is an equal question for evolution and creation.
As I have said, the observation that needs to be accounted for is the patterns of distribution - having an island continent with most all the mammals being marsupials found nowhere else and lacking placentals found everywhere else, can be explain within an evolutionary model but not a Noachian model.
It certainly could. You might have noticed that when you go to different places on the globe you encounter different species which inhabit those places. Why? Maybe they liked the food source.
Marsupials, like placentals have widely varying diets
Maybe the climate suited them better.
Introduced placental mammals thrive in Australia.
Maybe God created them after the fact because he wanted theme to exist. Any answer would work since none of them are provable.
The Noachian story is irreconcilable with the observable evidence and therefore disprovable.
By the way. Your theory doesn't prove it either. In the end, it comes down to where you place your faith.
Can you explain why 23 of your 23 posts are in either of two evolution threads? I can. How's the weather under that bridge where you live? I KNEW my troll alert was on high from your first post.Can you explain the patterns of animal distribution within a Noachian paradigm?
No, just playing opossum. OOOPS! I guess you forgot they were marsupials as well.Are you actually challenging the observed distribution of modern marsupials?
Amazingly, polar bears live at the north pole, penguins live at the south pole, bald eagles live in North America and camels live in regions around North Africa and the Middle East. Does this stunning revelation change your world view?Do you actually think that someone is just making up the fact that wombats and kangaroos are not natively found in Europe?
What makes your invented hypothesis any better than mine? If it's unprovable it's opinion.Maybe you are just making stuff up.
But of course. It's the Theory of Everything. Science cannot exist without evolution. Two plus two can only equal four if you believe in evolution. In fact, man hadn't even discovered fire before Darwin enlightened his mind.Evolution explains biogeography.
We all have the same evidence. We interpret it differently. You believe in molecules to man. We believe in God. In the end, I'd rather blaspheme a molecule, but that's just me.We have the evidence.
Can you explain why 23 of your 23 posts are in either of two evolution threads? I can. How's the weather under that bridge where you live? I KNEW my troll alert was on high from your first post.
Goodbye.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?