Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 39 of 226 (646093)
01-02-2012 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by RAZD
01-02-2012 10:20 PM


Re: science vs creationism
Fast decay kind of cooks the earth too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2012 10:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2012 8:48 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 62 of 226 (647057)
01-08-2012 12:13 AM


And now for something on topic
How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
They walked, sailed, waded and/or swam, arriving in Australia some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, or earlier, after leaving Africa some tens of thousands of years previously.
The evidence we have on this comes from archaeology, genetics and related fields.
This evidence has nothing to do with any mythical floods, nor with decay rates for that matter.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 89 of 226 (648126)
01-13-2012 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 6:50 AM


A little boo-boo?
It's pretty simple. After the flood the continents split and whatever animals where on certain continents ended up there. Easy.
Actually, not so easy.
First, "Pangaea... is hypothesized as a supercontinent that existed during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras, forming 300 million years ago and beginning to break up approximately 200 million years ago" [Wiki].
For your statement to be accurate humans and all modern critters had to be cavorting about some 200+ million years ago. That does not compute, as the earliest modern humans are some 200,000 years old.
So your dating is off by some 200+ million years. How do you explain this little boo-boo? Where did those 200+million years suddenly go?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 6:50 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 106 of 226 (648363)
01-15-2012 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 12:54 AM


Dates, evidence, and opinions
We have a different opinion on how these dates are calculated.
Unless your opinion has some evidence behind it, it is worthless.
This is part of the denial that creationists typically resort to when they find themselves faced with uncomfortable facts.
But tell us, just when did the marsupials arrive in Australia?
Shortly after 4,350 years ago?
Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 12:54 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 2:50 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 130 of 226 (648401)
01-15-2012 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 4:25 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 4:25 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 178 of 226 (671404)
08-24-2012 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Portillo
08-24-2012 8:38 PM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
The land dwelling vertebrates make up less than 1% of the record. Is it any surprise that the planet is filled with water, marine fossils, sedimentary deposits and fossil graveyards? The planet is covered with evidence of a watery catastrophe.
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?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Portillo, posted 08-24-2012 8:38 PM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Portillo, posted 09-09-2012 3:02 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 189 of 226 (672283)
09-05-2012 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Portillo
09-05-2012 10:45 PM


Land bridge
An area with gaps of 15 miles or so of water does not make a land bridge.
Check the Bering land bridge for comparison. Something like 1,000 miles north to south, all dry land.
That's a land bridge.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Portillo, posted 09-05-2012 10:45 PM Portillo has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 220 of 226 (692432)
03-03-2013 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by CoolBeans
03-03-2013 12:10 AM


That's one leaky boat
Is it possible that before, Australia was at a distance where the marsupials could swim to it or that Noah could have took the time to put all of those marsupials to Australia?
The flood story, and the feats performed by the arc, have so many holes in them I wouldn't put much faith in anything anyone claimed for either.
For example, the date for marsupials in Australia is placed about 50 million years ago, while the date biblical scholars agree upon for the flood is about 4,350 years ago.
That's an error factor of about 11,000 x. Conflating those two disparate events is such a stretch that it does not engender much confidence in anyone making such a claim.
In most science an error factor of 5-10% is considered totally unacceptable. It would be nice if religious apologetics was as rigorous a discipline, but given the "evidence" it has to work with I can understand why it is not.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by CoolBeans, posted 03-03-2013 12:10 AM CoolBeans 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