Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-14-2017 4:56 AM
339 online now:
CosmicChimp, frako, NoNukes, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie, Tangle (7 members, 332 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,107 Year: 28,713/21,208 Month: 779/1,847 Week: 154/475 Day: 1/46 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
141516Next
Author Topic:   How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 181 of 226 (671935)
08-31-2012 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Portillo
08-24-2012 8:38 PM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
Hi Portillo, sorry for the delay.

RAZD writes:

Please cite chapter and verse where the bible states this happens.

In Psalm 104, it says "Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains." ...

But that is not what the question was about:

Message 166:
... and pushed up after the flood. After the flood, the mountains went up and the basins went down. So you have a complete reconfiguration of the topography and geography of the world. ...

Please cite chapter and verse where the bible states this happens.

Your answer does not state that the mountains pushed up after the flood, so this is actually you making up stuff, not anything quoted from the bible, yes?

... 95% of the fossil record is marine invertebrates. 95% of the remaining fossils are plants. The rest is mostly fish and insects. 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.

Curiously a significant portion of that fossil record of marine life is inconsistent with catastrophic endings. Rather they show a gradual transition from generation to generation of mature ecologies growing on the deposits of previous generations. For instance brachiopods growing with their stalks attached to the shells of previous brachiopods, critters that spend a year in a larval stage before settling onto the bottom and building their first stalk\shell, critters that have growth rings in their shells showing lifetimes measured in decades on top of shells that took decades to form ... and that is but one of many such examples.

Please try again.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : there/their typo fixed (saw in roxrcool's post)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Portillo, posted 09-01-2012 2:34 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 185 by roxrkool, posted 09-02-2012 2:08 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 1774 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 responded

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

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10119
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 183 of 226 (671984)
09-01-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Portillo
09-01-2012 2:34 AM


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

The question is whether the statement is made in connection with Noah's flood events. Everything else in Psalm 104:1-25 seems to be about creation. I understand that Hovind and Ham think otherwise, but most commentary I can find indicates that these two are out to lunch.

One example:

http://www.godandscience.org/...h/psalm104.html#.UEIgZcGPWDE

quote:
There are a number of figures of speech used in Psalm 104 that clearly refer to the original creation as opposed to the flood. The reference to the boundaries of the deep are a clear reference to the original creation (Proverbs 8:29, Psalm 33:6-7, Jeremiah 5:22, and Job 38:8-11). There are no references to "boundaries" in any of the flood references. A second figure of speech is the idea of the earth being covered by a garment, which is only found in the creation passages, and never in the flood passages (Proverbs 30:4, Job 38:9). In addition, there are no references to the mountains rising and the valleys sinking (Psalm 104:8) after the flood, although these events could be clearly linked to the setting of the boundaries of the sea as described in Genesis 1 and Job 38.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

“Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Portillo, posted 09-01-2012 2:34 AM Portillo has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 184 of 226 (671988)
09-01-2012 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Portillo
09-01-2012 2:34 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
Hi Portillo

"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?

Yes. With specific wording to that effect, and that it was after the flood (as you claimed), so it is not a matter or interpretation.

What you quoted did not do that.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Portillo, posted 09-01-2012 2:34 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 510 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(2)
Message 185 of 226 (672050)
09-02-2012 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by RAZD
08-31-2012 4:43 PM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
Curiously a significant portion of that fossil record of marine life is inconsistent with catastrophic endings. Rather they show a gradual transition from generation to generation of mature ecologies growing on the deposits of previous generations. For instance brachiopods growing with their stalks attached to the shells of previous brachiopods, critters that spend a year in a larval stage before settling onto the bottom and building their first stalk\shell, critters that have growth rings in there shells showing lifetimes measured in decades on top of shells that took decades to form ... and that is but one of many such examples.

The above is what Portillo needs to address. Creationists always ignore what they can't explain.

Marine fossils make up the majority of the fossil record because of the environment in which they form. The primary geological process operating in the ocean is one of deposition, while above surface it is erosion.

That alone should be reason enough why marine fossils would be more common than land-dwelling fossils, but also consider that during the history of the earth: the ocean has made up as little as 70% of it's surface area, comprised greater than 90% of the habitable space on the planet, that 94* (today) to 100% of life on the planet has been aquatic, and that an average of less than 5% of all life are vertebrates.

Of that, how many have been land-dwellers? Slightly more than what is represented in the fossil record? Likely, I'd say.

*With the possible exception of the Permian-Triassic and other extinction events.

Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.


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

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 186 of 226 (672054)
09-02-2012 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Portillo
08-24-2012 8:43 PM


Re: Topic alert!
Hi Portillo

... a great land bridge that connected Indochina to Australia.

Never happened.

The Australian plate is moving towards the Indochina plate and there is a subduction zone between them. No land bridge.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Portillo, posted 08-24-2012 8:43 PM Portillo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Portillo, posted 09-05-2012 10:45 PM RAZD has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3028
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 187 of 226 (672055)
09-02-2012 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Portillo
08-24-2012 8:43 PM


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

That has already been covered in this topic. As I explained in Message 97 in response to Granny Magda's question:
DWise1 writes:

I realize that your actual point was that Ice Age land bridges would not account for the presence of marsupials in Australia because fossil evidence shows that they were already there millions of years before. Kind of like trying to claim that the arrival yesterday in New York of an airliner from Western Europe accounts for the presence of Europeans in the Americas.

{More for the benefit of lurkers, though I'm sure that Chuck will stubbornly cling to his blessed ignorance:}

However, land bridges did exist during the last ice age and, I'm sure, during the previous ice ages as well. During the last ice age, so much water was tied up in the ice caps that sea level was about 200 feet lower. That means that sea floor that is less than 200 feet down had been dry land during that time, thus forming what we call land bridges.

Take a look at maps that also display sea depth; Google Earth provides that feature as well. The Persian Gulf is less than 200 feet deep, though beyond the Strait of Hormuz it starts to drop off; that means that during the Ice Age that was dry land. I suspect that the flooding of that region which must have been well populated may have formed the basis for Mesopotamian flood myths. Much of the Bering Strait and the Bering Sea is less than 200 feet deep, so that would have formed a well-known land bridge between Asia and North America. We can also see lots of land bridges extending from Southeast Asia through Indonesia and even extending up into the Philippines, though there doesn't seem to have been any land bridge providing a direct connection to Papua New Guinea, since most of the ocean floor there is thousands of feet deep.

However, there is no land bridge connecting Asia with Australia. Separating Australia from that Southeast Asian land bridging is a trench that is thousands of feet deep. Not land-bridge material, that. Also, it looks very much like so many other trenches where one tectonic plate collides with another and the one trench starts subtending beneath the other. There is a land bridge between Australia and Papua New Guinea, but there is no land bridge connection from there to Southeast Asia, so still no land-bridge route for marsupials to take from Asia to Australia.

Therefore, CMI's land bridge claim does not hold water.

BTW, supporting Percy's source that marsupials migrated from Antarctica when it and Australia were next to each other, when we look at the sea bottom between Australia and Antarctica we see the signs of spreading that occurs when plates move away from each other, such as we see in the mid-Atlantic expansion zone.


RAZD in turn replied to me in Message 99, describing Wallace's Line with coincides with my description ("Separating Australia from that Southeast Asian land bridging is a trench that is thousands of feet deep. Not land-bridge material, that."):
RAZD writes:

Hence causing what is known as the Wallace Line that divides species on one side from those on the other (except for those that could fly or swim the distance).

quote:
Alfred Russel Wallace, the so-called father of animal geography, formulated his ideas on evolution by natural selection while observing and collecting wildlife in the islands of Southeast Asia. He was particularly impressed by the sudden difference in bird families he encountered when he sailed some twenty miles east of the island of Bali and landed on Lombok. On Bali the birds were clearly related to those of the larger islands of Java and Sumatra and mainland Malaysia. On Lombok the birds were clearly related to those of New Guinea and Australia. He marked the channel between Bali and Lombok as the divide between two great zoogeographic regions, the Oriental and Australian. In his honor this dividing line, which extends northward between Borneo and Sulawesi, is still referred to today as Wallace's Line. (See the map below.)


You can also see this subduction zone trench formation continue along the east side of the Philippines, and another to the east that is the Mariana trench, the deepest part of ocean in the world.

If you want a land bridge here, you are going to need to wait for a while ...


Ignoring what has already been discussed will not help your case in the least.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Portillo, posted 08-24-2012 8:43 PM Portillo has not yet responded

    
Portillo
Member (Idle past 1774 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 responded

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

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


(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 yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 190 of 226 (672284)
09-05-2012 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Portillo
09-05-2012 10:45 PM


Re: Topic alert!
can you swim 15 miles?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by saab93f, posted 09-07-2012 3:35 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3028
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 191 of 226 (672287)
09-06-2012 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Portillo
09-05-2012 10:45 PM


Re: Topic alert!
Do you mean that red circle between Australia and Papua/New Guinea? But how is Papua/New Guinea connected to Asia? Where's that land bridge? Through those deep-sea trenches. And the deep water barrier that coincides with Wallace's Line (see again Message 187).

There's a reason why Wallace found such a great difference between animals on either side of that line: there was no land bridge across that line. And hence no land bridge connecting Asia and Australia.


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

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 192 of 226 (672310)
09-06-2012 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Portillo
09-05-2012 10:45 PM


Re: Topic alert!
Hi Portillo

If you mean the red circle, as dwise1 points out, you are looking in the wrong place -- the gap in question is further north.

As noted in Message 99

quote:
Hence causing what is known as the Wallace Line that divides species on one side from those on the other (except for those that could fly or swim the distance).

quote:
Alfred Russel Wallace, the so-called father of animal geography, formulated his ideas on evolution by natural selection while observing and collecting wildlife in the islands of Southeast Asia. He was particularly impressed by the sudden difference in bird families he encountered when he sailed some twenty miles east of the island of Bali and landed on Lombok. On Bali the birds were clearly related to those of the larger islands of Java and Sumatra and mainland Malaysia. On Lombok the birds were clearly related to those of New Guinea and Australia. He marked the channel between Bali and Lombok as the divide between two great zoogeographic regions, the Oriental and Australian. In his honor this dividing line, which extends northward between Borneo and Sulawesi, is still referred to today as Wallace's Line. (See the map below.)


You can also see this subduction zone trench formation continue along the east side of the Philippines, and another to the east that is the Mariana trench, the deepest part of ocean in the world.

If you want a land bridge here, you are going to need to wait for a while ...


That red line is the subduction zone between the colliding plates, and this formation means that there was no land bridge in this area. All the other islands do appear to be connected to either the Indonesian plate or the Australian plate by land bridges.

Enjoy

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by dwise1, posted 09-07-2012 3:25 AM RAZD has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3028
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 193 of 226 (672342)
09-07-2012 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by RAZD
09-06-2012 11:48 AM


But what then of the Weber Line and Lydekker's Line?

In reality, there's an entire region, Wallacea with Wallace's Line as its western boundary and Weber's Line as the boundary for Australian mammals and Lydekker's Line as its eastern boundary.

This is all described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallacea and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line.

The bottom line is still as I described back in Message 97, repeated in Message 187:

quote:
Take a look at maps that also display sea depth; Google Earth provides that feature as well. The Persian Gulf is less than 200 feet deep, though beyond the Strait of Hormuz it starts to drop off; that means that during the Ice Age that was dry land. I suspect that the flooding of that region which must have been well populated may have formed the basis for Mesopotamian flood myths. Much of the Bering Strait and the Bering Sea is less than 200 feet deep, so that would have formed a well-known land bridge between Asia and North America. We can also see lots of land bridges extending from Southeast Asia through Indonesia and even extending up into the Philippines, though there doesn't seem to have been any land bridge providing a direct connection to Papua New Guinea, since most of the ocean floor there is thousands of feet deep.

However, there is no land bridge connecting Asia with Australia. Separating Australia from that Southeast Asian land bridging is a trench that is thousands of feet deep. Not land-bridge material, that. Also, it looks very much like so many other trenches where one tectonic plate collides with another and the one trench starts subtending beneath the other. There is a land bridge between Australia and Papua New Guinea, but there is no land bridge connection from there to Southeast Asia, so still no land-bridge route for marsupials to take from Asia to Australia.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2012 11:48 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2012 11:07 AM dwise1 has responded

    
saab93f
Member (Idle past 325 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 194 of 226 (672343)
09-07-2012 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Theodoric
09-05-2012 11:44 PM


Re: Topic alert!
quote:
can you swin 15 miles?

It does not matter in the parallel cretin universe - in the map legend it said that the water is only 100 feet deep so you donΒ΄t drown that badly.

Even though I am well aware that it isn΄t constructive as far as the debating goes but I am in awe about the intellectual somersaults the cretins have to be able to make. Kudos to them OTOH - a "lesser" man would lose his mind with that


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Theodoric, posted 09-05-2012 11:44 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 195 of 226 (672349)
09-07-2012 7:57 AM


Why Kangaroos and Wallabies didn't need a land bridge
I'm sure a brief summary has already been presented to Portillo, but I'll just say it again.

Kangaroos and wallabies did not arrive in Australia at anything remotely near the same time as the aborigines. At around 50,000 years ago, the aborigines are relatively recent arrivals to Australia. We know this because of the archaeological record. They obviously arrived at a time when Australia was geographically isolated from other continents, and it is assumed they used boats for at least part of their migration route.

Kangaroos and wallabies are indigenous to Australia. We know this because of the paleontological record. Their evolutionary ancestors were already in Australia when it separated from Asia around 5 million years ago. They didn't have to cross a land bridge to get to Australia because they were already there.

Prior to 5 million years ago Australia was joined to Asia. The remote ancestors of kangaroos and wallabies could roam freely throughout Asia and Australia because they were a single continent. Modern maps of the region between Asia and Australia bear no resemblance to what it looked like while they were joined.

--Percy


    
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
141516Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017