Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 79 of 226 (648080)
01-13-2012 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Dr Adequate
01-13-2012 5:46 AM


Re: Public vs Scientific Controversy
Opps. Nice rebuttle. Insults as usual. Doesn't cut it Doc. You really are sloppy here. Stick to the political threads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-13-2012 5:46 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-13-2012 6:20 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 226 (648091)
01-13-2012 6:50 AM


It's pretty simple. After the flood the continents split and whatever animals where on certain continents ended up there. Easy.
Evolutionist can't buy that but can buy everything poofed into existance by accident accompanied by chance and evolved into the miraculous life we see today, but can't buy this.
It's a mystery the things they can buy.

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-13-2012 7:19 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 84 by Larni, posted 01-13-2012 7:37 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 87 by Granny Magda, posted 01-13-2012 8:03 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 01-13-2012 8:40 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 89 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2012 11:03 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 226 (648355)
01-15-2012 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by dwise1
01-14-2012 6:36 PM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
dwise quotes Granny Magda writes:
What land bridges? Care to provide any evidence for these land bridges? During the Ice Age!? Really, this is spectacularly silly stuff.
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.
There is fossil evidence of Australian marsupials millions of years before the Ice Age.
We have a different opinion on how these dates are calculated.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by dwise1, posted 01-14-2012 6:36 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Coyote, posted 01-15-2012 2:46 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 127 by jar, posted 01-15-2012 9:13 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 226 (648356)
01-15-2012 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Percy
01-14-2012 8:45 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
Percy writes:
The key question is what evidence Chuck has that causes him to propose that marsupials migrated to Australia around 5000 years ago. We already know the answer to this question, but I'm not sure Chuck has considered it yet
If it's possible why is it not an acceptable alternative? Of course I have no evidence for land bridges 5000 yrs ago but it's not such a terrible stretch considering what damage the flood caused and the aftermath of it all.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Percy, posted 01-14-2012 8:45 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by rueh, posted 01-15-2012 2:23 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 01-15-2012 7:51 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 226 (648357)
01-15-2012 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Granny Magda
01-14-2012 7:22 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
CMI writes:
They could have dispersed before many of the other mammalian varieties.
Why? Why did they disperse you mean?
How? They walked...and humans could have played a part also.
Care to explain how human travellers managed to introduce marsupials to Australia when the marsupials pre-date human presence?
I believe humans are no more than 6000 yrs old.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2012 7:22 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by DrJones*, posted 01-15-2012 1:16 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 128 by Granny Magda, posted 01-15-2012 9:25 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 226 (648362)
01-15-2012 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by rueh
01-15-2012 2:23 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
Yeah, the land bridges could have been in tact long enough for the trek and some time after.
And if they were there to use than why do we not see any evidence of their existence in a post flood world?
What do you mean? There is a good hypothesis that at one time there was one land mass connecting all land. After the flood the land mass split and now we have different continents. It didn't happen all at once. It took time. What evidence are you specifically asking for...pictures?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by rueh, posted 01-15-2012 2:23 AM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by rueh, posted 01-15-2012 2:52 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 226 (648364)
01-15-2012 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Coyote
01-15-2012 2:46 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
But tell us, just when did the marsupials arrive in Australia?
Shortly after 4,350 years ago?
Yes...tho they could have been there prior to the flood also about 6000 yrs ago.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Coyote, posted 01-15-2012 2:46 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:08 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 226 (648368)
01-15-2012 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by dwise1
01-15-2012 3:08 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Why could they not have lived there before the flood? And then went back after? How is this changing my story?
It's not important. I just said they could have. They might never have been there prior to the flood but they could have.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:08 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:41 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 226 (648369)
01-15-2012 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by dwise1
01-15-2012 3:19 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
they don't care the least bit that their claims are nonsense nor that their own claims, including the ones made by the same creationist, contradict each other; they only care that their claims contradict what science says.
If you don't want a discussion don't respond to my posts. It's simple enough. You certainly are free not to engage with me and leave it be. I'm not calling everyone silly and claiming victory, i'm adding my Creationist view point to the discussion.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:19 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:46 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 226 (648371)
01-15-2012 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by dwise1
01-15-2012 3:41 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
If instead you want to now claim that vast populations survived the Flood where they used to live, then why all this nonsense you've been promoting about how they had migrated from where the Ark had landed? Either those original populations had been annihilated or they had survived. Which is it?
Talk to yourself instead. I'll talk to the one's who don't twist my views.
There is absolutly no difference if they lived there before the flood or not, all I said is that it was possible.
And yes dude, I am well aware the flood killed all living things that weren't on the Ark.
The marsupials that were on the Ark could have went back or went there for the first time. It was not a continent then and could have been very different. They could of had a sense to go back if they were around that area before everything split. It doesn't change anything or is not even important. It was a little side note. Why you are so foucsed on is a mystery.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:41 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:57 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 121 by Larni, posted 01-15-2012 4:21 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 226 (648373)
01-15-2012 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by dwise1
01-15-2012 3:46 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
When you finally present some kind of evidence that you have thought your claims through so that you are able to engage in discussion of those claims, then we can finally have a discussion.
Okay, see ya. See what this kind of nonsense causes? Posts like these ones with no content. Try to discuss the content instead of drifting into personal bias and attack. It makes for better conversation for the everyone.
I know, you can't help it. You find it silly to lower yourself to debate Cteationists and cant do it without grandstanding for the audiance. No problem. Don't debate then anymore.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:46 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 4:05 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 226 (648376)
01-15-2012 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by dwise1
01-15-2012 3:57 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
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.
So what? They're slow and? Do you think it was a race to get there?
How were they able to out-run the carnivores?
I'm going to take a wild stab at this one and say...the same way they outrun them now? The same way Salmon outrun the Grizzlies?
Need more examples of prey outrunning their attackers? How in the world are they even still alive? I mean you would think now that their all in one area it would be easier to wipe them off the face of the earth. Instead you are asking me how they survived in a wide open land mass slowly deteriorating?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:57 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Huntard, posted 01-15-2012 4:20 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 124 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 4:44 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 226 (648380)
01-15-2012 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Huntard
01-15-2012 4:20 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Huntard, posted 01-15-2012 4:20 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Huntard, posted 01-15-2012 4:52 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 226 (648381)
01-15-2012 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Larni
01-15-2012 4:21 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Larni, posted 01-15-2012 4:21 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Tangle, posted 01-15-2012 11:00 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 130 by Coyote, posted 01-15-2012 11:31 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 131 by Larni, posted 01-15-2012 3:06 PM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 147 of 226 (652777)
02-16-2012 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Granny Magda
02-16-2012 2:32 AM


Re: Sedimentology, Something Else You Don't Know About
You might also find yourself being wrong a little less often.
Wrong concerning who? We have sources that say different. Maybe it is you who are wrong? Hmmmmm...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Granny Magda, posted 02-16-2012 2:32 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-16-2012 2:52 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 149 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2012 4:15 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 150 by Granny Magda, posted 02-16-2012 7:02 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 02-16-2012 9:02 AM Chuck77 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