|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How did the Aborigines get to Australia? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Hi Chuck.
Can you provide some evidence that supports the idea that there was but one land mass before the flood in the the 4500 year time frame?The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
So the question is, how did sloths manage to survive the long trek from Ararat to their current habitat, without being eaten by carnivores that were in the same area as they were to begin with, and were much faster than them. Remember, they ain't got no place to hide from these predators. There were limited predators after the flood. There were limited marsupials also. It's a good possibility they could have survived. Plus all the fish that were on land after the flood could have kept them (the carnivores) busy enough for the sloths to safley make the journey.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Can you provide some evidence that supports the idea that there was but one land mass before the flood in the the 4500 year time frame? With mainstream science evidence? No, I can't. It's a hypothesis among Creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
DWise1 writes: So what? They're slow and? Do you think it was a race to get there? And you still have not responded to my question about the migration of sloths from Central Asia to Central America. They are very slow-moving, you know, very much slower on land than in the trees.CMI writes:
According to CMI, there was indeed a race. And your "discussion-quality" "response" to Granny's serious question was "They walked ...". Answered nothing and avoided the question.
They could have dispersed before many of the other mammalian varieties. DWise1 writes: I'm going to take a wild stab at this one and say...the same way they outrun them now? How were they able to out-run the carnivores? Sloths don't outrun anything; they can't. Sloths are arboreal animals, not ground animals. They avoid predators by staying high in the trees, coming down to the base of the tree only for their once a week bowel movement. When they do leave the trees, they are so painfully slow on the ground that they couldn't possibly get away from a predator. Trees take time to grow and mature. In an immediately post-Flood world, what trees would sloths have had to hide in. But then to also go quite literally half-way around the world, the only way they could have done it with any degree of safety would have been if a continuous canopy of trees covered every mile of that trek along whatever land bridge they would have taken. Since the post-Flood climates and terrain were obviously very much like at present, we know that they would not have had that continuous canopy of trees, even if we could assume that enough time had passed for trees to have grown enough right after the Flood that destroyed everything. If CMI's (and, by adoption, your) migration claims are to hold any water, they need to be able to address all cases. Including sloths. And, no, you were not even starting to attempt to address the case of sloths. Which makes it difficult to believe that you are interested in discussion. Ah, good, tomorrow's rice pudding has finished baking. Good night.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2320 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
Chuck77 writes:
Yes, and what do you think they'd go for? Fast and agile prey, or prey so slow they could literally pace to them, study it for fifteen minutes, and then decide to end it's misery because after all they gotta eat something.
There were limited predators after the flood. There were limited marsupials also.
Uhm... Yes, yes there were.
It's a good possibility they could have survived.
A "good" possibility? Why? Why is it a "good" possibility?
Plus all the fish that were on land after the flood could have kept them (the carnivores) busy enough for the sloths to safley make the journey.
Not all carnivores eat fish. Those that didn't had a choice of fast prey like deer, or prey so slow it would take them a year to move even a mile (note: this is hyperbole).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
Chuck77 writes: If it's possible why is it not an acceptable alternative? In 1600 or 1700 maybe it would have been an acceptable possibility scientifically, but the evidence available today doesn't seem to allow your alternative. Evidence is the key issue regarding any alternatives, as it is for all issues in all the science threads. This is rule 4 from theForum Guidelines:
You've described your hypothesis, and now you're being asked what evidence convinced you it was viable.
Of course I have no evidence for land bridges 5000 yrs ago... A question you might ask yourself is why you have fixed upon and are arguing for a hypothesis that has no evidence. You're not being asked, "Can you describe a scenario for how the marsupials reached Australia that isn't physically impossible?" You're being asked, "Do you have a scenario for how the marsupials reached Australia that has some supporting evidence?"
...but it's not such a terrible stretch considering what damage the flood caused and the aftermath of it all. It's not such a "terrible stretch" for someone completely ignorant of the available evidence. Do you know what's on the sea floor between Asia and Australia? Millions of years of accumulation of ocean sediments. A land bridge destroyed 4350 years ago would have only 4350 years of accumulated ocean sediments. The land bridge's former location would stand out prominently for both the debris field and the lack of accumulated sediments. AbE: Here's a link to a Google Map showing the undersea terrain. See if you can find the remains of your landbridge:
Now that you've actually seen what the region looks like, maybe you'd like to modify your proposal? Perhaps they migrated across islands and rafted between? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add link to map.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I think it's a pretty good model. Of course you don't have to agree with it. I find many things evolution teaches silly too. However, despite what you might think silly, the Theory of Evolution does explain the diversity of life we see around us. How does either so called Intelligent Design or Creationism explain anything?
We have a different opinion on how these dates are calculated. Opinions are of course, worthless. What is the model you use to calculate dates?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Hi Chuck,
Chuck77 writes: They could have dispersed before many of the other mammalian varieties. Granny Magda writes: Why? How? Chuck77 writes: Why? Why did they disperse you mean? I am interested in why they might be supposed to have radiated out faster than placental mammals. What reason could there be for this? What exactly would give marsupials the edge? And most importantly of all, what is the evidence for this? Of course, you won't find any evidence that any of this is true, mostly because it's not true. There is no reason to assume that marsupials would be any better at migrating than placentals. There is no evidence that such a thing ever happened. This is an especially glaring example of a flimsy post hoc excuse. CMI appear to have pulled this one directly out of their collective ass; note the weasel words "They could have dispersed". No evidence is presented for this claim. So basically, I want to know how this could have happened and why we should think that it did happen.
How? They walked...and humans could have played a part also. Right, The land bridges. Chuck, there is no way that there could have existed a land bridge between Asia and Australia. The land that would form the bridge simply isn't there. What is there instead is a deep ocean trench, an absolute barrier to the kind of bridge you refer to. Still, if you want to use land bridges in your position, you need to provide us with at least some evidence that a land bridge existed. No such evidence exists.
I believe humans are no more than 6000 yrs old. Well, leaving aside that fact that you're dead wrong about that, we can still say that marsupials pre-dated humans in Australia. Using only relative dating techniques (i.e. looking at the layers of rock as they appear in situ) we can still see that marsupials pre-date humans by a wide margin. If your model were correct, we ought to see human and marsupial (and all other life) appear in Australia at the same time. We don't. Instead, what we do see supports the evolutionary paradigm. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
chuck writes:
With mainstream science evidence? No, I can't. It's a hypothesis among Creationists. The only honest way out of your dilemma is to either accept that this is all a myth or invoke a miracle (or many). Why can't you just say that God did it then sorted it all out again and move on? Why is it necessary to believe that it was all totally real - which means denying almost the entirity of modern natural science - it must now obvious to you that you're simply wrong. Surely?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
With mainstream science evidence? No, I can't. It's a hypothesis among Creationists.
And how do creationists evaluate the accuracy of their hypotheses? Do they compare against real world evidence, like science does? And what if that real world evidence contradicts their hypotheses (as it almost always does)? In the current case you have been shown numerous reasons why your hypothesis concerning Australia and marsupials is incorrect. Can you revise your hypothesis? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
If there is no evidence for a great flood what on Earth makes you think that the bible is correct?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 4186 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
That's great but its not what the evidence shows Its as far back as recorded history goes. And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Its as far back as recorded history goes.
and? The evidence points to humans being much older than 6000 years.God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177 It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in mindssoon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
The only honest way out of your dilemma is to either accept that this is all a myth or invoke a miracle (or many).
Indeed, that is the key question about "creation science": if Goddidit and used miracles to overcome all possible difficulties, then why insist on trying to come up with scientific explanations for everything that Goddidit? What possible purpose could that serve? Why can't you just say that God did it then sorted it all out again and move on? Why is it necessary to believe that it was all totally real - which means denying almost the entirity of modern natural science - it must now obvious to you that you're simply wrong. Surely? Well, knowing the history, we do know the answer to that second question. "Creation science" was created as a legal subterfuge, a deliberate deception, to circumvent the court decisions that struck down the 1920's "monkey laws" in the wake of Epperson vs Arkansas (1968). Since they could no longer have laws that barred the teaching of evolution for religious reasons, they created the deception that they were opposing evolution for purely scientific reasons. So they twisted and distorted and fabricated and lied. And the courts saw through their deception. Ironically, the only ones they've been able to fool with their "creation science" lies were themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Portillo,
(Chuck77): I believe humans are no more than 6000 yrs old.
(DrJones"): That's great but its not what the evidence shows Actually there is a very well recorded history by people living in Spain and Southern France 32,000 years ago regarding life at that time.
quote: These paintings depicted the historic varieties of the animals of that time, some in great anatomic detail which are identifiable from the fossil record (which also extensively records the history of life on earth). Then there is the rock art in Australia (to get vaguely back to the topic):
quote: A recorded bit of history from 40,000 years ago in Australia. Enjoy ps -- these caves and rock paintings were never flooded . . . Edited by Zen Deist, : nested quotes for full context Edited by Zen Deist, : added australia rock paintingsby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024