the flood

[David Gould]

DG

One would be through early settlers.

People and animal migration, through the use of land bridges and so on.

Tectonic upheavals, accompanied by substantial rising and falling of sea floors 'Pleistocene'.

In 1883, Krakatoa erupted. The island remnant remained lifeless for some years, but was eventually re-colonised by a variety of creatures. Which is an example.

The main question is: why maruspial mammals but not placental mammals?

And why are there so few marsupial mammals outside of Australia?

And what about plants? Why do some plants only grow in Australia?

If human migration is the key, why didn't humans bring pigs or sheep or cows to Australia prior to white settlement? Why didn't they bring corn or wheat or maize?

Did they forget to bring it? Did they forget all about agriculture for some reason?

But ignore those for the moment: why did no placental mammals make it to Australia? For example, why didn't rabbits follow those land bridges? Or cats? Or foxes? We know the Australian environment suits those creatures, as since white settlement/invasion their populations have exploded.

 

[Alessandro]

Then MB you either accept and respect that it is, or you attempt to disprove it. Sinse you have the problem with it.

Arikay, humans are not perfect, and we do make mistakes, but that goes for all of us mind you. Can God guide one wrong.

 

[Alessandro]

Animals/plants that adapt to or seek the new environment survive the best.

 

[David Gould]

Animals/plants that adapt to or seek the new environment survive the best.

Yes. That is kind of what evolution says. I am glad you agree.

But the thing is cats thrive in Australia. They love it.

So: why weren't there cats here when white settlers/invaders got here?

Why didn't cats - or foxes or rabbits - go with the marsupial mammals?

 

[Arikay]

So, it is possible that you are wrong when interpreting the bible. And now, do you realize this is not about disproving gods word, but your falible interpretation?

Now, could you support your claim a bit more. Especially since your claim goes against almost 200 years of science, I think you need a bit more than a couple of lines to support your claim. Will you make a new thread to support your claim, or will you keep feeding us one liners about how the evidence supports the flood, but never really show it.
Maybe you can start with how the flood gave us the geological column, that has been a mystery for awhile now.

Then MB you either accept and respect that it is, or you attempt to disprove it. Sinse you have the problem with it.

Arikay, humans are not perfect, and we do make mistakes, but that goes for all of us mind you. Can God guide one wrong.

 

[David Gould]

Indeed, why didn't the Australian desert lizards hang around the Middle East - plenty of good, hot sandy desert for them there, surely?

Or the desert marsupials? Seems odd that they would not have stayed in such a wonderful environment for them ...

 

[Alessandro]

DG, you know I wasnt saying it from an evoloutionary perspective. Adaptation does exist, evoloution is where we disagree.

 

[David Gould]

You actually believe in a much faster version of evolution than I do if you think that all the varieties of humans descended from Noah and co in the course of less than a few hundred years ...


But anyway: why did every Australian desert lizard leave the Middle East where there was all this wonderful desert, travel thousands of miles through areas that was not suited to them at all and end up in Australia only - despite the fact that they had no way of knowing in advance that there was any desert waiting for them? And why did other lizards not follow them but instead remained in the Middle East?

 

[Alessandro]

My interpretation goes in hand with and is based on God and His Word. What God says I accept.

 

[Alessandro]

Because they had family disputes , and they liked to travel and explore j/k

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Then MB you either accept and respect that it is, or you attempt to disprove it. Sinse you have the problem with it.

The point is that your mantra of "I'm right because the Bible says so" is not a valid answer here. Unless you can demonstrate your own infallibility of interpreting the Bible and that that interpretation is true, your argument crumbles. It's up to you to demonstrate that. If you admit you could be wrong, then your excuse that "the Bible says so" carries no weight as well.

You claim that you use the exact same evidence from a different view. You have yet to show that this is the case. That geology thread I linked to provides numerous lines of evidence falsifying the flood and you have yet to address any of it--neither the first time around nor now. This is about the evidence, not your meaningless mantra. Your assertions carry zero weight until you actually make the effort to substantiate them rather than repeating over and over again that you are automatically right despite the fact that we have shown otherwise.

 

[Arikay]

again, what if you are misunderstanding what god said? Do you believe the ocean has physical doors? If so, why? If not, why?

Im curious, do you think you should look at all the current evidence before coming to a conclusion, or just some of the evidence?

 

[David Gould]

Because they had family disputes , and they liked to travel and explore j/k

Do you a sensible answer to any of my questions?

Why didn't placental mammals - eg, cats - make it to Australia?

 

[David Gould]

It is pretty clear that the flood model cannot answer any of the questions posed by me in this thread. And my questions should be simple ones. I am not even asking about anything complicated. Or about anything to do with geology.

It is simply: why aren't their cats in Australia? If there was a global flood, their should be cats in Australia unless some mechanism exists that allowed them to get everywhere else but Australia while allowing much slower creatures that were not domesticated - such as wombats - to get to Australia but not to get anywhere else.

What could this mechanism be? The answer is that there is no possible mechanism ... unless you simply say, 'God did it.' And that proves that the Flood has nothing to do with science and all claims to the contrary can be ignored.

 

[Alessandro]

The proof is on a level that you will not accept, as it is all God based.

 

[Arikay]

Are you saying that scientists like Lucaspa are not christian? I hope not.

The proof is on a level that you will not accept, as it is all God based.

 

[Alessandro]

For example, I look at the vast water around as proof or a global flood, you will look at it from a different way.

I see the fossills as a result of a global flood, you see it as something else.

And so on.

 

[Alessandro]

I see humans and animals as a creation of God, you might see it as something else.

 

[Arikay]

Show us.
Show us how the flood could have made and organized the fossils the way they are.
Show us how the water that sits around us, could have been used in a global flood around 4000 years ago.

So far you are good at making empty claims, please fill them by showing us, or stop making them.

For example, I look at the vast water around as proof or a global flood, you will look at it from a different way.

I see the fossills as a result of a global flood, you see it as something else.

And so on.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

And your view would be wrong because there are fossils encased in rock that could not have been deposited by water. Some deposits containing marine fossils also require long periods of time to form because they are precipitates not simply pieces of rock being wooshed around. It would also be wrong because there is not enough water on earth for the flood to occur in the first place and because you would need to provide a source for all these sediments.

Not all "views" are equal. Simply saying that you have a different "view" doesn't mean that your claim is valid. Simply saying 'flooddidit' does not demonstrate that a global flood did any such thing.