Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 12:41 AM
21 online now:
edge (1 member, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,783 Year: 8,819/19,786 Month: 1,241/2,119 Week: 1/576 Day: 1/50 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Evolution vs Creation
wj
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 147 (17245)
09-12-2002 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Fred Williams
09-11-2002 7:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

This is “insoluble”? Are you serious? Single point mutations have been known to cause blindness in bats. In a relatively short period of time (given a small starting population, ie founder population), the entire mole population could easily become blind. When the rabbit was introduced to Australia, it took less than 50 years for the entire continent to become overrun! (now they’re a serious pest problem there).

quote:
The Kiwi, a flightless bird and the only monotremes (egg laying mammals) in world, the platypus and 2 species of echidna are found in the area and nowhere else.

Hmm, in the early 90s three fossil Platypus teeth were found in Argentina.

Surely, if rabbits can overrun the entire continent of Australia in 50 years, other animals can reach Australia in say, 400 years? How about 1000 to be safe? Yet you deem this as “insoluble”. It’s not only soluble, its quite plausible for marsupials, even "slow" ones, to make it there in 1000 years.

quote:
How could marsupial moles or other slow moving marsupials get from the Middle East and cross land bridges to Australia while faster moving placental mammals did not?

Placental mammals may have been there, but just did not take hold in the ecosystems. The continent did eventually become isolated. Thus, you had lots of founder populations, many of which probably died off. Why are there no fossils? The flood had already occurred! Doh! Very little fossilization goes on now. Bison are virtually extinct in the US, but you don’t find “fossils” of them lying around.


Fred, your ignorance of Australia and its biology appears to be encyclopaedic and your logic totally illogical.

How does creationism explain the presence of fossil monotremes only in the southern continents which were contiguous as Gondwanaland? Why no fossil monotremes in the northern continents, not even near Mt Ararat?

As Fred rightly points out placental mammals have been quite successful in colonising Australia as feral pests - rabbits, foxes, camels, horses, water buffalos, wild pigs etc. Why are all of these placentals successfully established now but could not be established previously, after a mythical world flood? And why no marsupial fossils in northern continents? Were the marsupials supernaturally guided directly to Australia without leaving evidence of their passage and no strays being attracted to suitable environments in other continents?

So why are there fossil marsupials in Australia but not significant numbers of placental mammals? Weren't the fossils formed from organisms killed in the flood? So you must be saying that Australia was populated almost exclusively by monotremes and marsupials before and after the flood. Is this starting to sound incredible?

Large flightless birds present more problems for your fantasy. Emu and cassowaries in Australasia, ostriches in Africa, rhea in South America, Moa in New Zealand. Why is each restricted to an single geographical area? If an emu can walk from Mt Ararat to Australia why not to South America or even New Zealand? Are all of the modern large flightless birds of the same biblical kind and derived from a single Noachian pair?

any more tall stories?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Fred Williams, posted 09-11-2002 7:30 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 38 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 47 of 147 (17267)
09-12-2002 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Fred Williams
09-11-2002 7:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
You were asked probably dozens of times MORE THAN A YEAR AGO to provide citations - even one! - that supported your creationism fairy tale regarding "non-random mutation".

This is not true and a clear misrepresentation. I was asked far more than dozens of times. I have now been asked this by you 536 times. Dozens would be around 24-36, 48 tops. You're an order of magnitude off.


Of course it is a misrepresentation. I greatly overestimated your ability to support your claims...

And we will notice that you still cannot support your creto-genetics pipe dreams...

But that will not stop you from repeatedly asserting it, will it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Fred Williams, posted 09-11-2002 7:35 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
Randy
Member (Idle past 4409 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 48 of 147 (17273)
09-12-2002 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Fred Williams
09-11-2002 7:52 PM


quote:
Mt St Helens was also the reason evolutionists now admit the so-called fossilized forest in Yellowstone was not the result of millions of years of forests buried on top of each other, but instead a single event from a flood that transported them there some time in the past. To the credit of the Yellowstone Park crew, the sign that misled people for years of how this forest got there is now long gone.

No. It is now understood that some of the trees may have been transported but many must have grown in place in successive layers.

http://geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/yellowstone.html

"This claim is not supported by the evidence. Several characteristics can distinguish between stumps that are transported and those that were buried in place (see Fritz, 1980 and the citations in Fritz, 1984, quoted below). The trees at Yellowstone have been examined, and only some tree specimens at some localities are transported. The Specimen Ridge examples, which are most commonly cited, consist of in-place stumps."

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm
"Field evidence given by Yuretich (1984) showed that most of the Yellowstone fossil trees were still in a standing position and many were rooted in soil developed in place. In a discussion and reply by Yuretich, Fritz (1984) notes "Yuretich's observation of in situ stumps is compatible with my model ... of transportation of up to 15% of the upright stumps. Additional studies on stumps picked totest the critical points of the slight differences between our models should show complete agreement." In other words, the multiple levels are for the most part a series of mature forests where were successively buried in place largely by stream related processes. The Creationists cannot represent these as the deposits of a single catastrophic year."

BTW Fred do you think all those trees are still standing upright in Spirit Lake? How will the next set of get deposited on top of them? Are there multiple layers of trees standing one atop the other in Spirit Lake? I don't think so.

quote:
Evolutionists are now starting to come around regarding the Grand Canyon. I’m curious Edge. Are you one of those stubborn geologists who still insist that the Colorado river did the carving over millions of years?

Parts of the canyon itself may have formed during the last 600 -700 thousand years ago from multiple breach of lava dams.

http://uanews.opi.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/1/wa/SRStoryDetails?ArticleID=5820&wosid=7RudwGAB7hQJYHvwohuzt0

However, most of the layers of the Colorado plateau could not have formed from a single flood five thousand years ago as creationists claim.

http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand.htm

http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/gc_intro.html

The creationist explanation for the some of the features of the Grand Canyon sedimentary rocks, particularly the animal tracks in the Coconino Sandstones does produce some really amusing YEC nonsense.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=41&p=9 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=41&p=9">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=41&p=9

Randy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Fred Williams, posted 09-11-2002 7:52 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2002 7:09 PM Randy has responded

    
sonofasailor
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 147 (17277)
09-12-2002 12:43 PM


I think my original post is being forgotten. SOS
Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2002 7:23 PM sonofasailor has not yet responded

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 50 of 147 (17289)
09-12-2002 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Randy
09-12-2002 4:54 AM


quote:

Fred: Evolutionists are now starting to come around regarding the Grand Canyon. I’m curious Edge. Are you one of those stubborn geologists who still insist that the Colorado river did the carving over millions of years?
Edge: Probably.

Do you believe it is unreasonable for others, including evolutionists, to attribute the Grand Canyon to some catastrophic event in the past involving water?

BTW, some time ago I heard the argument that the Grand Canyon elevation is higher at the exit point than the entry point of the Colorado river, and thus argues against the Colorado river as the canyon “creator”. I’m curious what the uniformitarian answer (story?) is to this.

quote:

Fred your attempted rebuttal of the biogeography problem is typical of many such creationist efforts. You make up fantasies, which fail to explain even the small part you do address while leaving the whole untouched.

Randy, only in your mind does the “biogeography problem” falsify YEC. There are explanations that are quite plausible, you just don’t want to listen to them. We know that

1) Continents can be overrun in a very short period of time by a founder population, 2) rapid re-population of devastated areas. The island of Krakatoa provides a classic observed example of how a wide variety of life returned to a devastated area in a very short period of time. How did those worms get there, Randy, did they “island hop”?

Perhaps you are disturbed because we can’t recreate the australian biogeography problem in a lab. Well, biogeography problems also exist for evolutionists and your stories are far less plausible. Are we to believe that many of the marsupials indigenous to Australia evolved down totally separate lines of decent from their placental counterparts in North & South America? Your excuse is called “convergence”, which by its very definition is an anti-evolutionary term since it describes a phenomenon that cannot be attributed to common decent. Yea, right, animals remarkably similar to each other all converged on the same pattern in totally different environments. To make matters worse, convergence is abundant in nature, contrary to what one would expect if evolution via common decent were true. What a fairytale!

quote:

But there are fossils of marsupials found in Australia and the fossils of living Australian marsupials are found nowhere else. Why did the marsupials just happen to go back where they came from and where no placental mammals lived before the flood?

Randy, this is an illusion that is easily dissolved. The vast majority of fossils in Australia of living Australian marsupials fall within the last 2 million years, a mere blink of an eye in the evolutionary time scale. These fossils could easily be of post flood animals that were caught in sink holes. For example, see http://abcnews.go.com/wire/SciTech/reuters20020731_61.html

Now couple this with the fact that marsupial fossils older than 2 million years (as dated by evolutionists) are very rare in Australia. What a surprise! Yet Randy above implies that the pre-flood evidence suggests that these Marsupials only lived in Australia. His illusion is to use modern marsupial fossils to support this, fossils that evidence shows quite likely were not fossilized in the traditional “rapid burial in mud from a flood” scenario, but instead in a non-flood scenario consistent with a post-flood YEC framework. Randy has made a very weak case that Marsupials now indigenous to Australia were only indigenous to Australia pre-flood assuming the YEC framework.

Finally, Randy then incorrectly states there were no pre-flood placentals. He is out-of-date:

http://www.acn.net.au/articles/1998/07/fossils.htm

Remember Randy, you claim to have falsified the YEC model. The above article supports placentals in Australia that are easily attributable to pre-flood within a YEC framework. What “test” of the YEC theory do you claim has incontrovertibly failed?

I suggest you (and your coattail evolutionist wj) read the above article and explain why this is not a plausible scenario for the YEC framework, provided you shrink the time assumptions to within YEC timeframe. In fact it fits quite nicely within a YEC framework without the time factor. I hope you are aware that you cannot protest to assuming a YEC timeframe, because your argument is based on YEC falsification via biogeography, not radiometric dating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Randy, posted 09-12-2002 4:54 AM Randy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by edge, posted 09-12-2002 10:40 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Randy, posted 09-13-2002 12:15 AM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 58 by wj, posted 09-13-2002 12:25 AM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Randy, posted 09-13-2002 1:16 AM Fred Williams has responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 51 of 147 (17290)
09-12-2002 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Randy
09-12-2002 12:17 PM


quote:
No. It is now understood that some of the trees may have been transported but many must have grown in place in successive layers.

Randy, your source is out of date. I went to the National Park Service website and found this:

“The region may be properly described as an eroded deposit of petrified drift logs, or the buried, petrified, and resurrected remains of a forest that grew somewhere else millions of years ago.”

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/glimpses2/glimpses22.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Randy, posted 09-12-2002 12:17 PM Randy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Randy, posted 09-12-2002 7:15 PM Fred Williams has responded

    
Randy
Member (Idle past 4409 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 52 of 147 (17291)
09-12-2002 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Fred Williams
09-12-2002 7:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
No. It is now understood that some of the trees may have been transported but many must have grown in place in successive layers.

Randy, your source is out of date. I went to the National Park Service website and found this:

“The region may be properly described as an eroded deposit of petrified drift logs, or the buried, petrified, and resurrected remains of a forest that grew somewhere else millions of years ago.”

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/glimpses2/glimpses22.htm


Fred your source is talking about a different petrified forest.

quote:
Many persons having heard of the forests expect to see a large group of standing petrified trees, more or less intact, or at least standing trunks or stumps as they occur in the petrified forest of Yellowstone National Park. No standing petrified trees can be seen in the Petrified Forest National Monument, however.

Randy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2002 7:09 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2002 7:28 PM Randy has not yet responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 53 of 147 (17292)
09-12-2002 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by sonofasailor
09-12-2002 12:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonofasailor:
I think my original post is being forgotten. SOS

Good point. Like I said before, there is a good reason. It is very, very difficult to defend the fairlytale of evolution. You must believe and accept it on blind faith, not evidence. You are required to make your mind up despite the evidence. Soon, if you take this route, you'll begin to convince yourself that there is evidence for the theory. Stories from Dawkins, et al, will "evolve" from fantasy to reality. But all the while the evidence didn't change, just your perception of it.

Someone want to post answers to each of Erik's 5 questions in this thread? Nothing like good story-telling before the weekend!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by sonofasailor, posted 09-12-2002 12:43 PM sonofasailor has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by edge, posted 09-15-2002 12:44 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 54 of 147 (17293)
09-12-2002 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Randy
09-12-2002 7:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
No. It is now understood that some of the trees may have been transported but many must have grown in place in successive layers.

Randy, your source is out of date. I went to the National Park Service website and found this:

“The region may be properly described as an eroded deposit of petrified drift logs, or the buried, petrified, and resurrected remains of a forest that grew somewhere else millions of years ago.”

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/glimpses2/glimpses22.htm


Fred your source is talking about a different petrified forest.

quote:
Many persons having heard of the forests expect to see a large group of standing petrified trees, more or less intact, or at least standing trunks or stumps as they occur in the petrified forest of Yellowstone National Park. No standing petrified trees can be seen in the Petrified Forest National Monument, however.

Randy


You're right. my bad.

I'll look in to this furhter.

BTW, I recall that Austin showed that trees were buried in different sediment layers in Spirit lake, which emulates what is observed at the Yellowstone forest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Randy, posted 09-12-2002 7:15 PM Randy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by edge, posted 09-12-2002 10:47 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4605
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 55 of 147 (17309)
09-12-2002 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Fred Williams
09-12-2002 7:04 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
Fred: Evolutionists are now starting to come around regarding the Grand Canyon. I’m curious Edge. Are you one of those stubborn geologists who still insist that the Colorado river did the carving over millions of years?

Edge: Probably.

Do you believe it is unreasonable for others, including evolutionists, to attribute the Grand Canyon to some catastrophic event in the past involving water?


To a single event? Yes.

quote:
BTW, some time ago I heard the argument that the Grand Canyon elevation is higher at the exit point than the entry point of the Colorado river, and thus argues against the Colorado river as the canyon “creator”. I’m curious what the uniformitarian answer (story?) is to this.

You have to assume first that the story is true. I think this is a misunderstanding of the stream capture hypothesis or some other fairly complex geological concept.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2002 7:04 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4605
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 56 of 147 (17312)
09-12-2002 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Fred Williams
09-12-2002 7:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Randy:Fred your source is talking about a different petrified forest.

Fred: You're right. my bad.

I'll look in to this furhter.

BTW, I recall that Austin showed that trees were buried in different sediment layers in Spirit lake, which emulates what is observed at the Yellowstone forest.


I do not recall such a thing. Could you document this? How did Austin/Nevins investigate multiple layers of sediment in Spirit Lake? Were the trees standing upright in the deeper sediments?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2002 7:28 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 4409 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 57 of 147 (17318)
09-13-2002 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Fred Williams
09-12-2002 7:04 PM


Before answering Fred’s post point by point which may take some time, let’s just look at his scenario in a little more detail.

We have marsupial and placental mammals and of course reptiles and dinosaurs and flying and flightless birds all coming off a boat in the Middle East two by two about 5000 years ago onto a landscape that has been underwater most of a year.

Only two of each "kind" with a very few exceptions for "clean" animals are alive. Now just how did the marsupial and montreme mammals get to Australia? Fred says by radiation followed by diversification.

Let’s consider the marsupial “mole”, a small burrowing animal that lives in sand. It should be pretty happy with all the sand of the Arabian deserts close at hand. Instead of going there from the ark and staying there it goes to Australia.

How does it “radiate” to Australia? Does it go across Iran and Pakistan to India? How and why would it cross India? Supposes it crossed India. I don’t think it would get across the Himalayan mountains through Nepal. Maybe it crossed out of India near Bangladesh. That seems to be the shortest route but Bangladesh doesn't really seem suitable country for an animal that lives in sand. Then it just had to get "over the hump" to cross Burma(Myanmar) or maybe it hugged the coastline while "radiating".

After that all it had to do was cross down along Thailand to Malaysia then down to Sumatra then to Indonesia. Next all it has to do is cross the water to New Guinea and then on across to Australia.

All the other marsupial "kinds" need to come along as well. I suppose the Kangaroos hopped along, the platypus crawled or swam along. How does a mammal that mostly swims follow the path of one that mostly burrows through sand? Maybe the platypus followed a very different path and just happened to end up in the same place. Does that make sense? Maybe to a YEC. I suppose the Koalas and sugar gliders followed a similar path maybe with Eucalyptus trees for the Koalas and some trees for the sugar gliders that stretched along this route and the bandicoots, tasmanian devils and Thalcines and echidnas walked along with them as did all those flightless birds.

Meanwhile none of the marsupials that were “radiating” along this or whatever other long path to Australia left any evidence of their passing. No fossils of modern maruspials and no descendants that survived anywhere in Europe, the Middle East, Africa or Asia.

No placental mammals came along all the way to Australia except bats and a few species of rat or if they did they all went extinct soon enough to leave no evidence that modern placentals had ever lived in the area.

(and yes I remember reading about the alleged conodont teeth now that Fed mentioned it, but I also have a later paper contesting their identification somewhere. I'll lood for it. In any case if they are from a placental mammal they are from a very primative one. There is NO evidence that MODERN placental mammals were ever native to Australia expect bats and rats so I should have qualified my statement by saying modern placentals. I guess Fred thinks those teeth are flood deposits so there is still no evidence that placental went to Australia after the flood. )

The kiwi and some other flightless birds then go on over the Tasman sea to New Zealand but no other mammals come along. And this all happened in a few thousand years in the YEC timeframe. Maybe someone has a better route. I don’t see one looking at a map. This is the shortest I could find with the least barriers.

I guess all the kangroos got away from the area of human habitation before anyone started drawing pictures. You's think someone would have noticed them hopping around and done a picture or two of such remarkable animals.

Now consider the poor Gila monsters. You’d think they would also have been happy in the nearby deserts but no they had to go on up to Siberia and cross to Alaska on an ice age land bridge and then come down through Canada to the desert Southwest and Mexico. I guess most of the rest of the animals native to the Americas were following along including placental moles, rattlesnakes and tree sloths and hundreds of others along with humans of course. There is no doubt that humans and some animals followed this path but it is completely ridiculous to think that desert reptiles did.

Anyone who can’t see how completely absurd this all is has no hope of rational thinking on this subject.

Randy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2002 7:04 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
wj
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 147 (17319)
09-13-2002 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Fred Williams
09-12-2002 7:04 PM


Fred, I'm afraid you will have to expand on the details of your flood and Australian fauna fairytale before I can comment on what you seem to consider to be supporting evidence.

What was in Australia before the flood? What was in Australia after the flood? When did Australia become geographically isolated from other continents? Was it ever connected to other continents in your creationist past and, if so, which continents and when? What conventional strata are repersented by the noachian flood deposits? Are pre- and post-flood fauna completely different from eachother?

quote:

Are we to believe that many of the marsupials indigenous to Australia evolved down totally separate lines of decent from their placental counterparts in North & South America? Your excuse is called “convergence”, which by its very definition is an anti-evolutionary term since it describes a phenomenon that cannot be attributed to common decent. Yea, right, animals remarkably similar to each other all converged on the same pattern in totally different environments.

Fred, don't be misled by such common names as marsupial tiger, marsupial wolf, marsupial mouse etc. They may have some superficial similarities to placental counterparts but they are vastly different in their details. "Convergence" explains certain superficial similarities resulting from similar adaptations to similar environmental pressures. However it doesn't imply close relatedness. Any marsupial is more closely related to any other marsupial than to any "convergent" placental counterpart. You're not actually suggesting that a placental mouse evolved into a marsupial mouse or visa versa, are you?

Notice that the marsupial "lion" mentioned in one of your links had "a spectacular pair of piercing lower incisors" and "the limbs are adapted for climbing and grasping rather than for running."

I note that you also haven't provided your faithtale explanation for the various large flightless birds.

quote:

The vast majority of fossils in Australia of living Australian marsupials fall within the last 2 million years, a mere blink of an eye in the evolutionary time scale. These fossils could easily be of post flood animals that were caught in sink holes....Now couple this with the fact that marsupial fossils older than 2 million years (as dated by evolutionists) are very rare in Australia. What a surprise!

Logically, if marsupial fossils older than 2 million years are rare then the majority of marsupial fossils will fall within the last 2 million years. Is this supposed to be some sort of revelation?

I suppose you have some statistics on age of fossils cf. number of fossils to support your assertion of rareness? Does the same relationship apply for placental fossils?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2002 7:04 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by wj, posted 11-03-2002 10:49 PM wj has responded

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 4409 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 59 of 147 (17323)
09-13-2002 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Fred Williams
09-12-2002 7:04 PM


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred your attempted rebuttal of the biogeography problem is typical of many such creationist efforts. You make up fantasies, which fail to explain even the small part you do address while leaving the whole untouched.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randy, only in your mind does the “biogeography problem” falsify YEC. There are explanations that are quite plausible, you just don’t want to listen to them. We know that

1) Continents can be overrun in a very short period of time by a founder population, 2) rapid re-population of devastated areas. The island of Krakatoa provides a classic observed example of how a wide variety of life returned to a devastated area in a very short period of time. How did those worms get there, Randy, did they “island hop”?


How fast would a mole like animal that only lives in sand overrun a continent? They haven't overrun Australia yet. They only live in specific habitat.

How many large animal species are found on the island of Krakatua? Was the rest of the world depopulated by the explosion? Were all the animal species on earth reduced to two of each kind located in the Middle East prior to Kakatua? I wonder if there are any kangaroos or moles on Krakatua? What worms? Maybe they survived the volcano and there is debate about what may have survived. Maybe they were brought by birds. Or do you think God recreated them there.

quote:
Perhaps you are disturbed because we can’t recreate the australian biogeography problem in a lab. Well, biogeography problems also exist for evolutionists and your stories are far less plausible. Are we to believe that many of the marsupials indigenous to Australia evolved down totally separate lines of decent from their placental counterparts in North & South America? Your excuse is called “convergence”, which by its very definition is an anti-evolutionary term since it describes a phenomenon that cannot be attributed to common decent. Yea, right, animals remarkably similar to each other all converged on the same pattern in totally different environments. To make matters worse, convergence is abundant in nature, contrary to what one would expect if evolution via common decent were true. What a fairytale!

Changing the subject is one of the most common responses from creationists to the biogeography problem. What totally different environments are you talking about? Are the trees that sugar gliders live in totally different environments than the ones flying squirrels live in? Thalcines look something like wolves and something like tigers maybe because they are adapted to hunt similar sized prey. Notice how much tree kangaroos look like monkeys and kangaroos look like the large grazing animals of the African and American plains. Or do they? If you want to talk about convergent evolution maybe we should start another thread.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But there are fossils of marsupials found in Australia and the fossils of living Australian marsupials are found nowhere else. Why did the marsupials just happen to go back where they came from and where no placental mammals lived before the flood?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
Randy, this is an illusion that is easily dissolved. The vast majority of fossils in Australia of living Australian marsupials fall within the last 2 million years, a mere blink of an eye in the evolutionary time scale. These fossils could easily be of post flood animals that were caught in sink holes. For example, see http://abcnews.go.com/wire/SciTech/reuters20020731_61.html

Weren’t you the one who just said there were no placental fossils because there was no flood? I wonder why no post-flood placentals got caught in those sinkholes? Maybe because there never was a flood and the marsupials and monotremes had lived there in isolation for millions of years?

quote:
Now couple this with the fact that marsupial fossils older than 2 million years (as dated by evolutionists) are very rare in Australia. What a surprise!

But Fred, here are some quotes from one of the sites you posted on this thread.

“The first evidence we have of marsupials in Australia comes from the 55 million year old fossil site at Murgon in southern Queensland. This Murgon site has yielded a range of marsupial fossils, many with strong South American connections. “

“the fossils from Riversleigh represent an almost complete story of the evolution of Australia's terrestrial ecosystems over the past 25 million years. Riversleigh has been recognised as one of the most important fossil sites in the world.”

“Several skulls from a wide range of ancient marsupials were recovered, but undoubtedly the major discovery was that of a complete skeleton of a 20 million year old diprotodontid, a large cow-sized herbivore.”

HMM, very rare indeed. I wonder if the diprotodontid kind were on the ark.

quote:
Yet Randy above implies that the pre-flood evidence suggests that these Marsupials only lived in Australia. His illusion is to use modern marsupial fossils to support this, fossils that evidence shows quite likely were not fossilized in the traditional “rapid burial in mud from a flood” scenario, but instead in a non-flood scenario consistent with a post-flood YEC framework. Randy has made a very weak case that Marsupials now indigenous to Australia were only indigenous to Australia pre-flood assuming the YEC framework.

What?????

quote:
Finally, Randy then incorrectly states there were no pre-flood placentals. He is out-of-date:

http://www.acn.net.au/articles/1998/07/fossils.htm


Now that you bring it up I do remember that two teeth claimed to belong to primitive condylarth had been found in Australia but I also have read at least one later paper disputing this. I will see if I can find it. I did not know that another had been found. This was a very primitive placental mammal if it was placental. The finding of a third tooth probably solidifies the identification. As far as I know the only Australian fossils of placental mammals that are now extant are those of bats and maybe some species of rat.

quote:
Remember Randy, you claim to have falsified the YEC model. The above article supports placentals in Australia that are easily attributable to pre-flood within a YEC framework. What “test” of the YEC theory do you claim has incontrovertibly failed?

The test is biogeography and you have failed it miserably and incontrovertibly. Your scenario simply doesn't make the least bit of sense.

quote:
I suggest you (and your coattail evolutionist wj) read the above article and explain why this is not a plausible scenario for the YEC framework, provided you shrink the time assumptions to within YEC timeframe. In fact it fits quite nicely within a YEC framework without the time factor. I hope you are aware that you cannot protest to assuming a YEC timeframe, because your argument is based on YEC falsification via biogeography, not radiometric dating.

I have explained and so has wj. There is nothing the least bit plausible about your YEC scenario. The YEC timeframe makes things impossible for you. You have invoked both hyper-migration of non migrating animals and/or hyperadiation of animals that live in distinct habitats and hyperevolution post ark and neither has solved even the small part of the problem you have tried to address.

Maybe you can do better with insect diversity but I doubt it.

Randy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2002 7:04 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Fred Williams, posted 09-13-2002 8:00 PM Randy has responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 60 of 147 (17392)
09-13-2002 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Randy
09-13-2002 1:16 AM


Randy, I've run out of time and will try to respond to this thread next week, provided I can find time (I no longer post on the weekends). If you can, try to find the paper that supposedly disputes the condylarth find. I'd be curious to see it. Thanks. Have a good weekend.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Randy, posted 09-13-2002 1:16 AM Randy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Randy, posted 09-13-2002 8:25 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 63 by wj, posted 09-17-2002 8:59 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
56
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019