Noah way?

[Loudmouth]

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.

That is a completely preposterous claim. How did the marsupial moles outrun the gazelles all the way to Australia? Even more, we don't find fossils of placental mammals in Australia. Just a coincidence?

It's fun to make up stories based on Science-y facts.
It is called Science-Fiction.

That is exactly what you are doing.

 

[poikilotherm]

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.

So on one hand we have the argument from incredulity of an atheist..

No, mine is an argument from the observable evidence of distribution patterns.

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.

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.

Can you explain these patterns of animal distribution within a Noachian paradigm?

 

[Loudmouth]

As it turns out, there WAS a witness. Let's see what He said about it.

Nowhere have you shown that those words came from an eye witness, and the evidence demonstrates otherwise.

 

[Loudmouth]

That point goes in my favor.

Kangaroo, for example, stepped through the door of the Ark into [what is now] Australia.

Evidence?

Let me get this straight.

You would expect to see common ancestry fossils along the way from Mesopotamia to Australia?

I wouldn't expect species to die out after the flood just because members of their species were buried deeper in flood deposits than other species.

I wouldn't expect species to redistribute themselves according to the fossils found in the ground.

 

[poikilotherm]

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.

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.

 

[lasthero]

While we're on the subject of distribution, I'm curious about the explanation for the numerous flightless birds we find on islands.

 

[Loudmouth]

While we're on the subject of distribution, I'm curious about the explanation for the numerous flightless birds we find on islands.

Explaining the Wallace Line would also be interesting.

Wallace Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FredHoyle]

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.

Please read post #2 again.

Creationists are a law unto themselves, if it fits then use it, if it doesn't fit then claim that it does fit.

 

[Oafman]

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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.

 

[Oafman]

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...

As a child, it did make me wonder why animals were so dumb. 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.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

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.

One would almost think that the authors of the bible didn't know Australia existed, which would be curious indeed if the author was an omniscient god.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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...

The Bible is fairly clear that no one got off until he grounded on Ararat. Even then he waited for the waters to recede sending out a crow once and a dove twice before he dropped the doors and let the animals go.

Now your vicar may have been a bit of a maverick. His story is clearly better than that of the Arkists who cannot keep their stories straight.

 

[KWCrazy]

No, mine is an argument from the observable evidence of distribution patterns.

Observed by whom? Not you, certainly.

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.

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.

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.

 

[KWCrazy]

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.

Nope. Global population of polar bears has increased by 2,650-5,700 since 2001. They are no longer on the endangered species list.

 

[Loudmouth]

Observed by whom? Not you, certainly.

Are you actually challenging the observed distribution of modern marsupials? Do you actually think that someone is just making up the fact that wombats and kangaroos are not natively found in Europe? Really?

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.

Maybe you are just making stuff up.

By the way. Your theory doesn't prove it either.

Evolution explains biogeography. It was one of the first avenues of evidence that led both Wallace and Darwin to their conclusions. Ever heard of the Wallace line?

Wallace Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the end, it comes down to where you place your faith.

We have the evidence. No need for faith.[/COLOR]

 

[poikilotherm]

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.

Evolution is consistent with the observable evidence of distribution patterns - The Noachian tale is not. My view is evidence based, yours is faith based. Not just a belief without evidence, but worse, a belief in spite of contrary evidence.
Can you explain the patterns of animal distribution within a Noachian paradigm?

 

[KWCrazy]

Can you explain the patterns of animal distribution within a Noachian paradigm?

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.

 

[KWCrazy]

Are you actually challenging the observed distribution of modern marsupials?

No, just playing opossum. OOOPS! I guess you forgot they were marsupials as well.

Do you actually think that someone is just making up the fact that wombats and kangaroos are not natively found in Europe?

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?

Maybe you are just making stuff up.

What makes your invented hypothesis any better than mine? If it's unprovable it's opinion.

Evolution explains biogeography.

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.

We have the evidence.

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.

 

[poikilotherm]

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.

Yes, I have an interest in the evolution/creation debate, which is why I am on the evolution/creation forum.

Can you explain the patterns of animal distribution within a Noachian paradigm?