Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,810 Year: 4,067/9,624 Month: 938/974 Week: 265/286 Day: 26/46 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4188 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 177 of 226 (671401)
08-24-2012 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by AdminModulous
08-05-2012 5:39 PM


Re: Topic alert!
Kangaroos/wallabies got to Australia from a great land bridge that connected Indochina to Australia.

As truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord. - Numbers 14:21

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by AdminModulous, posted 08-05-2012 5:39 PM AdminModulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2012 4:24 PM Portillo has replied
 Message 187 by dwise1, posted 09-02-2012 4:52 PM Portillo has not replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4188 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 182 of 226 (671972)
09-01-2012 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by RAZD
08-31-2012 4:43 PM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
"The mountains rose; and the valleys sank down".
Isnt that what you were asking? If the Bible says that the mountains rose and the basins sank down?

As truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord. - Numbers 14:21

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2012 4:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by NoNukes, posted 09-01-2012 10:52 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 184 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2012 1:46 PM Portillo has not replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4188 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 188 of 226 (672281)
09-05-2012 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by RAZD
09-02-2012 4:24 PM


Re: Topic alert!
Apparently there was a land bridge.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

As truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord. - Numbers 14:21

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2012 4:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Coyote, posted 09-05-2012 11:31 PM Portillo has not replied
 Message 190 by Theodoric, posted 09-05-2012 11:44 PM Portillo has not replied
 Message 191 by dwise1, posted 09-06-2012 1:07 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2012 11:48 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4188 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 198 of 226 (672519)
09-09-2012 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Coyote
08-24-2012 8:53 PM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
Coyote writes:
The problem for proponents of a "great flood" is that the "marine fossils, sedimentary deposits and fossil graveyards" don't occur at a single specific time. They are spread out over >3 billion years.
Doesn't that detract from the credibility of your argument?
Many fossils are dated according to the rocks they are found in, the rocks are dated by the fossils that are found in them, and the fossils are sorted out according to their hypothetical evolutionary order. Thats circular reasoning. Why then does the fossil record have a pattern of simple-to-complex, with the small marine invertebrates at the bottom and the land veterbrates higher? The fossil record is 95% marine invertebrates. If the fossil record is the history of life, then it should contain much more than just marine invertebrates.
In a flood, it is the ocean bottom dwelling animals that would be buried first, by underwater mudslides. Like a cement truck dumping cement over the creatures. Thats how you get the mass fossilization of billions of marine invertebrates, you find smashed and squashed together in a frenzy all over the world. This explains why land veterbrates make up less than 1% of the record. Because they were able to escape to higher ground, and eventually drowned and were not fossilized. Many animals have premonitions about coming catastrophes and flee for the hills.
Dr David Raup said about the supposed order of the fossil record, "So the geological time scale and the basic facts of biological change over time are totally independent of evolutionary theory... One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accomodate this 'fact' in their flood geology."
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

As truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord. - Numbers 14:21

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2012 8:53 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Granny Magda, posted 09-09-2012 6:18 AM Portillo has replied
 Message 200 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-09-2012 7:10 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2012 7:28 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 09-09-2012 8:00 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 203 by Panda, posted 09-09-2012 9:16 PM Portillo has not replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4188 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 209 of 226 (673191)
09-16-2012 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Granny Magda
09-09-2012 6:18 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
Granny Magda writes:
Fossils are indeed often dated by the stratum they're found in, but the idea that rocks are only dated from fossils is simply nonsense. Strata can be dated by index fossils, but also by observing the simple fact that older strata tend to be below younger strata. That provides us with a relative system of dating. If that were the only kind of dating we have, then you might have a point, but it's not. There is also radiometric dating. This is usually carried out on igneous rocks, but can also provide limited information on sedimentary rocks.
Which is based on the theory that layers require millions of years to form or that each layer represents a long period of time. But layers can form very quickly, particularly in catastrophic conditions. In 1980, Mount St. Helens exploded with the force of 20,000 tonnes of TNT. This was one of the greatest catastrophes of the 20th century and provided a glimpse into what a catastrophic event can do. Masses of superheated mud moved at 200 miles an hour. Water rushed into Spirit Lake and created a wave that was 800 feet high. To put that into perspective, the Indian Ocean Tsunami which destroyed the lives of 250,000 people in 17 countries, was 50 feet high. And when the water and mud rushed down, it created layers upon layers, like pages in a book. If you didnt know what had happened you would assume that it took millions of years. The depth of a deposit of sedimentary strata, is not a factor of time, but of the magnitude of the hydrodynamic forces, so that you can have hundreds of feet of sediments, within hours. If you have enough water, moving fast, and filled with mud.
Mount St. Helens and the Indian Ocean Tsunami was an infinitesimal event in magnitude, compared to a global flood. Hundreds of simultaneous underwater fountains, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, tidal waves, mud flows, breaking lose and exploding, going in every direction, destroying everything in its path, all over the world for a year. Imagine the geological processes and features that such a catastrophe would create. This explains violent fossil graveyards that are squashed, smashed, and preserved, all over the world, over vast areas. And thats why you find marine fossils all over land continents, proving that they were once covered in masses of water, mud and sediment. This isnt natural death from natural causes, this is a global catastrophe.
So alot of the strata, fossils, and geological features could have formed very quickly rather than gradually over millions of years.
Panda writes:
Could you tell me: how long do fossils take to form?
I dont know how long fossils take to form. Millions of years, thousands of years, months, days, hours. To get a fossil you have bury the animal, so scavengers cant get to it and it cant fall apart. The soft parts might rot away, but the bones are hard enough that the minerals in the mud will replace the bones and become rock. That is how you get a fossil, you have to bury it quickly. Is there evidence of rapid burial in fossils? Many fossils have been found eating, giving birth, fighting, and drowning. This can only be explained by rapid burial. Darwin believed that soft-bodied animals could not be preserved, but you find fossilized jellyfish. Unless the jellyfish was buried quickly, it wouldnt have lasted at the beach or ocean because it would have rotted, and because of scavengers and the elements.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

As truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord. - Numbers 14:21

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Granny Magda, posted 09-09-2012 6:18 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 09-16-2012 7:11 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 211 by Granny Magda, posted 09-16-2012 9:05 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024