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.
Not only does Aman777 believe that Adam lived on a different world than hours, but Adam's world was submerged in Turkey's Lake Van. Noah came here on the Ark when the firmament separating the waters of Lake Van from the sky of Adam's First Heaven collapsed. Apparently the Ark had some submarine-like qualities as well.Aman has an idea that no other Christian here seems to support. He believes that Adam was on a different world than our present day one and that he was magically transported here through the Flood. That way he gets around the lack of a worldwide population bottleneck. Of course he still cannot give a valid excuse for the huge population bottleneck that would show up in people.
Not only does Aman777 believe that Adam lived on a different world than hours, but Adam's world was submerged in Turkey's Lake Van. Noah came here on the Ark when the firmament separating the waters of Lake Van from the sky of Adam's First Heaven collapsed. Apparently the Ark had some submarine-like qualities as well.
This is a new one? The Ark landed in Australia?That point goes in my favor.
Kangaroo, for example, stepped through the door of the Ark into [what is now] Australia.
I don't know. I've been having a long discussion with about his interpretation of the Bible on the Human Evolution thread. I'm sure no one else is reading it but it is interesting to me. I've got him pinned down now on one claim that is a contradiction in Scripture and one claim that has no Scriptural support whatsoever. So far he has twisted, ducked, and dodged mightily to avoid addressing these two problems. We will see.Do people actually still read Aman's posts?
Why do YECs keep asking this type of question? Evolutionary theory does not posit that humans will suddenly develop gills any more than it posits horses will suddenly grow wings.If evolution is true, why don't pearl divers have gills? These people have been doing the same thing for generations. According to you they must have had gills at one time, so it's a simple matter of turning on the genetic code to allow for their formation. So where are their gills?
Cute.This is a new one? The Ark landed in Australia?
No it isn't. Non-believers (and other Christians BTW) have been asking the same question for quite a long time now.This is a good argument.
Not even punctuated equilibrium?Evolutionary theory does not posit that humans will suddenly develop gills any more than it posits horses will suddenly grow wings.
I beg your pardon?According to amvet, the Ark landed in Australia so the kangaroos could get off.
No, that is not what I said; and you know it.What's cute about it? It's what you said.
Response from bhsmte:Just out of curiosity, could you state in a formal logical syllogism showing how evolution is illogical?
Just to say something is illogical is not very productive as I see the terms logical and illogical being thrown about by people who don't seem to understand the basics or application of logic.
I know, I know. I suspect he is using the term illogical without having a clue to what it means.ED is not big on backing his statements with objective evidence. I have yet to see him produce any.
Wouldn't that be a massive violation of the command to "multiply after their kind"?After that the only explanation I can think of is they cross bred animals with other kinds. Maybe rabbits with possums to get a kangaroo.
It's exactly what you said and YOU know it.No, that is not what I said; and you know it.
Kangaroo, for example, stepped through the door of the Ark into [what is now] Australia.
Yep, and they migrated to Australia when the two continents were still in contact. Millions of years later the two continents pulled apart, and Australia remained isolated from the other continents. After this split, placental mammals evolved on the other continents. Since Australia stayed isolated from those continents, placental mammals didn't make it to Australia outside of a few exceptions (humans, their dogs, and bats).
Australia is known for not having placental mammals. So how is it that after this supposed flood, none of the placental mammals made it? How did the slow little koala outrun the cheetah or wolf? Was there some sort of force field that kept placental mammals out?
Humans arrived in Australia about 15,000 years ago according to the skeletal remains at Lake Mungo.
This would be after the flood.
The ancestors of the Aboriginal people arrived in Australia by boat from South America; it was probably an accidental discovery. They brought animals with them for food, suggesting they were not planning a long trip.
They didn't bring cattle with them; that would have meant a settlement. Instead they brought rabbitlike marsupials. Food.
There were very few placental mammals in Australia before the flood so naturally you would not expect to find many after the flood, except for the kinds that were introduced by humans.
After the flood there were no predators, no dinosaurs, etc. so marsupials dominated.
Try 50,000:
"An international team of researchers, including a UK collaboration led by BBSRC- and MRC-funded researchers at Imperial College London, with colleagues at University College London, and University of Cambridge has for the first time sequenced the genome of a man who was an Aboriginal Australian. They have shown that modern day Aboriginal Australians are the direct descendents of the first people who arrived on the continent some 50,000 years ago and that those ancestors left Africa earlier than their European and Asian counterparts."
Aboriginal Australians descend from the first humans to leave Africa, DNA sequence reveals
It seems that you will make up any number you want.
Of course you won't.
The age of the origins of humans in Australia is hotly debated by the experts, but skeletal remains like those at Lake Mungo in New South Wales, by Jim Bowler in February 1974, have been dated between 15,000 and 50,000 years old.
Australia's fossil past | australia.gov.au
The marsupials were already in Australia for tens of millions of years before the Aboriginees got there. That is what the fossil record shows.
Any animals that were there before the flood were destroyed by the flood. That would include any marsupials that were there.
Also, there is no reason that they would not bring placental mammals with them, like placental rabbits. Also, what they would take with them is not determined by the millions of years of fossils already buried in Australia.
Why not?
Then why don't we see that on other continents?
In a series of new genetic investigations, experts demonstrate that kangaroos and other marsupials did not evolve in Antarctica, as previously thought. It would appear that the animals actually appeared in South America, and that they still exist there today. Marsupials stand out from other species through the fact that they feed and carry their youngsters around in special pouches on their bellies. With the new finding, experts are bound to gather even more data on the history of this family of creatures.
In order to make the research possible, scientists looked at the marsupial species that still live in South America today. The two recently sequenced marsupial genomes of the South American opossum (Monodelphis domestica) and a kangaroo, the Australian tammar wallaby (Macropus eugenii), provide a unique opportunity to apply a completely new approach to resolve marsupial relationships, explains researcher Maria A. Nilsson. She is based at the University of Munster, in Germany, LiveScience reports.
Nilsson is also the leader of an international group of experts that conducted the new investigation. The group published its findings in the July 27 issue of the esteemed open-access journal PLoS Biology, which is edited by the Public Library of Science. The group reveals that studies highlight a very interesting point all marsupials living today, in both South American and Australia share a common ancestor. The conclusion was derived from analysis of special genetic markers called retroposons, which are identical in marsupials on both continents.
However, determining the history of this animal group for a fact is very difficult, given that no hard evidence exist. Researchers would be ecstatic to find a fossil of an intermediary creature, but thus far such a finding has eluded them. The genetic data seems to indicate that the species currently in existence as well as some that have since gone extinct separate from a common ancestor around 80 million years ago. At that time, the landmass that contained Antarctica, Australia and South America broke apart, and the three new continents began drifting on Earth's mantle.
Kangaroos Come from South America
It's exactly what you said and YOU know it.
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?