Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution vs Creation
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 11 of 147 (16132)
08-27-2002 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Fred Williams
08-27-2002 7:11 PM


So Fred again says that evolution is a fairy tale. Hmm. What are some things we might find in fairy tales?
Fairytales often have talking animals like perhaps a talking snake? Does evolution say that a snake could talk? Or is that a claim from Biblical literalists like Fred?
How about Sons of God mating with daughters of men to produce giants in the earth? Is that a claim of science or is it found in the Bible? Sounds like a fairytale to me.
How about a person changing into something like stone or maybe a pillar of salt? I don’t remember reading about this happening in a science textbook but you find similar themes in many fairytales.
How about people living to great ages? Does evolution say that people used to live 6 or even 9 hundred years or is that fairy tale found somewhere else?
How about someone surviving in the belly of a whale or was it a great fish? I remember seeing something like that in some Disney movie on a fairytale and reading about Jonah in the Bible but I don’t think you’ll find it in a biology text.
How about someone stopping the sun? I don't think any science text says that such a thing could happen but it could happen in a fairytale.
How about representatives of all the animals on earth going to one place two by two to get on a boat for a yearlong ride with a 600 year old man and his family and then repopulating the entire earth? That sure sounds like a fairy tale to me.
So just try to keep straight who is really pushing the fairytales around here.
Of course Fred knows full well that evolution could be falsified. He just can't deal with the facts that evolution has not been falsified and is continually strengthened by new research while young earth creationism has been falsified for about 200 years. What makes it worse for him and other YECs is that the original falsifiers of the young earth myth started out sharing it. However, they were honest scientists and realized that their data didn't fit their myth. YECs have taken a big step backwards in deciding to accept the myth and reject the data.
You can look at a thread on another part of the board to see some of Fred's nonsense about the fossil record being trounced. I am surprised he keeps bringing this up since the fossil record so clearly falsifies the flood myth.
http://EvC Forum: Information
and you can look at the section on dating and ask some questions if you want to see Fred's claims about dating refuted.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Fred Williams, posted 08-27-2002 7:11 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-08-2002 12:01 AM Randy has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 23 of 147 (17042)
09-10-2002 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by edge
09-09-2002 10:53 PM


From Fairy Tale Fred
quote:
Randy fondly points out Of course Fred knows full well that evolution could be falsified. This has always amused me, that evolutionists truly think their theory is falsifiable. Randy, what is the number one test that would falsify evolution for you?
Why do you only ask for one when you know there is more than one? How about mammalian fossils in undisturbed Cambrian strata? I know you have seen that one before. Creationism can’t explain why these don’t exist. Would you like some others that you have seen before.
quote:
The Creation model, on the other hand, would be falsified by a Darwinian gradualistic fossil record.
Of course, Darwinian gradualistic or not the fossil record falsifies the flood. I do agree that Young Earth Creationism is falsifiable (unless you accept the Omphalos idea). It is clearly falsifiable because it is falsified multiple times by:
1. The fossil record. All creationist attempts to explain fossil ordering degenerate into complete and utter nonsense. There are several posts on the Geology and the Flood forum and some others showing this clearly.
2. Biogeography: This is another one that leaves YEC without a logical answer. See the Geology and the Flood forum.
3. Biodiversity: I have posted on insect biodiversity on the Flood forum but other organisms have diversity that falsifies the idea that they are descended from two of each kind coming off a boat in the Middle East onto a flood devastated earth.
4. Geology: There are many features in so-called flood deposited strata that are totally inconsistent with flood deposition. Several creationist attempts to rationalize the world’s geology with the flood are shown to be false on the Flood Forum.
And there are probably other falsification of YEC that I left out.
Of course none of this bothers Fairy Tale Fred in the least. He is totally confident that his myth is reality. However, anyone still capable of rational thought should see through Fred’s handwaving easily enough.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by edge, posted 09-09-2002 10:53 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Fred Williams, posted 09-10-2002 5:00 PM Randy has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 29 of 147 (17113)
09-10-2002 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Fred Williams
09-10-2002 5:00 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge: Yes! That is exactly what Mark said: 'evolution accomodates everything.' So perceptive of you Fred, to pick that out of what Mark wrote. I'm concerned that your logic circuits are devolving,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny, after your post the fossil record was the first test Randy invoked for evolution, and the first test he claims falsifies creation. He is reflecting the common evolutionist argument. So, what I picked out of Mark’s post is the most common test given for evolution. Methinks it is you who should examine his logic circuits. I must say I enjoy watching you guys step all over each other.
Did Mark say that evolution could explain anything or that it does explain what is actually seen in the fossil record? That’s a pretty big difference.
[quote] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I got the Ohno paper here.
Just a moment...
I think PNAS is free to everyon.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy: How about mammalian fossils in undisturbed Cambrian strata? I know you have seen that one before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course I have, and it as bogus now as it was last time you are some other fairytale lover brought it up. It’s a toothless test, because such a discovery would be extremely unlikely. Take another look at the pie chart in my article. Mammalian fossils constitute a miniscule sliver of the fossil record. They are very rare, and most are represented by a bone or less. When one is found, the odds of it being buried with marine invertebrates is astronomically low. But feel free to go ahead and pound your fist that this is a test of evolution!
Hmm that’s funny our local museum has several complete or nearly complete skeletons of some very large fossil mammals including a spectacular Jefferson's ground sloth. How about a dinosaur fossil in the Precambrian then. But I have a question for you. Were mammals only a tiny sliver of life on earth at the time of the flood? If everything got buried at once why are mammals such a tiny fraction of the fossil record? If all life on earth was buried at once why is 95% of the fossil record from marine invertebrates? It seems to me that a flood that went up over land should have preferentially buried land creatures and not the sea creatures who could supposedly survive.
quote:
BTW, when plausible examples of out-of-sequence fossils are discovered, they are explained away. So even by some incredible stroke of luck a mammallian fossil was found buried with marine invertebrates, evolutionists would invoke a just-so story of how it got there. Admit it, if one where found you would go along with the party-line explanation (story) that explains it away. I already have many evolutionists admit that finding living dinosaurs would not falsify evolution for them. You guys have a countless number of escape hatches. A theory with more escape hatches than evidence is really no better than a low-grade hypothesis.
Finding a living dinosaur would just mean the a dinosaur population had somehow survived until now. It seems very unlikely. But if all the dinosaur kinds were saved on the ark how is it that they all died out so fast right after the flood as to leave no record?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The fossil record. All creationist attempts to explain fossil ordering degenerate into complete and utter nonsense. There are several posts on the Geology and the Flood forum and some others showing this clearly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL! The very fact we even have fossils, trillions of them all over the world, the vast majority of which require deposition and rapid burial in mud, is a powerful testimony to some sort of global catastrophe involving water, wouldn’t you say? But ole Randy and his evolutionists dare not admit there was a disaster involving water some time in the past! Oh wait, there are now some evolutionists admitting that most of the fossils were buried by water catastrophes. But it couldn’t have been on a global nature (because that would be favorable to that Book they oppose) so they claim they’re a bunch of separate, localized events. Uh huh.
Dream all you want, Randy. The fossil record is solid evidence for creation and powerful evidence against evolution. I again refer the common sense reader to my article which exposes the evolutionary minsinformation:
404 Not Found
And I guess all those trillions of critters were all living at the same time but got buried in ordered layers all at once.
Here are some threads showing the absurdity of creationist explanations of the fossil record.
EvC Forum: Fossil Ordering Re-Visited
http://EvC Forum: Flood sorting -->EvC Forum: Flood sorting
And one that you abandoned after getting your butt kicked.
http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: Information
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Biogeography: This is another one that leaves YEC without a logical answer. See the Geology and the Flood forum.
3. Biodiversity: I have posted on insect biodiversity on the Flood forum but other organisms have diversity that falsifies the idea that they are descended from two of each kind coming off a boat in the Middle East onto a flood devastated earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yada Yada. Point me to your post, or make what you think is the most powerful evidence against rapid divergence here.
OK
EvC Forum: Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.
Maybe you think all those families of marsupials in Australia diverged from a couple of individuals in a few thousand years. Maybe you think Koalas were omnivores and Marsupial moles could fly and Gila Monsters had fur coats when they left the ark a few thousand years ago. I wouldn’t put it past you. The "kinds barrier" seems to mean nothing to the post-ark hyperspeciation fantasy.
http://EvC Forum: Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood. -->EvC Forum: Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.
You had no answer for Insect diversity when I posted it on OCW. Maybe you can do better now. KC said the flood could have collected a forest along with its dirt to preserve ground dwelling insects for a year. That sounds like a fairy tale you would like.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Geology: There are many features in so-called flood deposited strata that are totally inconsistent with flood deposition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Mt St Helens? Good thing we witnessed it, else evolutionists would have told us those 100-ft canyons carved out 20 years ago were the result of millions of years of erosion.
I have been to Mt St. Helens twice since the eruption. The sediments that were carved by Touttle River are still so unconsolidated you can dig them up with your bare hands. BTW I think you will find that the rapidly carved "canyons" collapsed into the river and the sediments had to be removed by a massive dredging project.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course none of this bothers Fairy Tale Fred in the least. He is totally confident that his myth is reality. However, anyone still capable of rational thought should see through Fred’s handwaving easily enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This coming from someone who thinks all life evolved from a pile of dirt! Yes, I am totally confident by distant ancestor is not a piece of clod off my shoe. Life is so vastly complex it cannot possibly be the result of blind naturalistic mechanisms. But according to Randy this view is irrational. Yee Haw!
No it’s the view that all land dwelling life and all the people on earth are descended from a 600 year old man and his small family and a bunch of animals they cared for on a giant wooden boat during a year of worldwide flood a few thousand years ago that is irrational. The idea that the world’s geology and paleontology can be explained by a worldwide flood is also irrational. I don’t think life evolved from a pile of dirt but then again I don’t think all humans are descended from a single man who was created directly from a pile of dirt and a woman made from his rib either. That's your fairytale.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Fred Williams, posted 09-10-2002 5:00 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Fred Williams, posted 09-11-2002 7:30 PM Randy has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 45 of 147 (17230)
09-12-2002 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Fred Williams
09-11-2002 7:30 PM


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.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that among the marsupials are blind marsupial mole like animals (of the Order Notoryctemorphia) that only live in sand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
Even if it had sight it was still a mole like animal. How did a mole migrate from the Middle East to Australia? Did a single point mutation cause it to loose those long legs it used to have? Did another cause it to develop those digging claws from fins that helped it swim the ocean or maybe they were wings?
There are 180 unique species of marsupial in Australia, New Guinea and New Zealand not to mention the ratite birds and monotreme mammals. Are you going to make up a similar fantasy for each one? How did the kangaroos get there? Oh I know! They island hopped?
I bet you think koalas used to be great runners who ate everything in site and only developed their specialization for Eucalyptus trees post flood. Gila monsters used to have long furry coats that helped them cross the ice age land bridge to the Americas and lost them by a point mutations after they got to the desert Southwest. Tree sloths that can only survive in the tropics and can only drag themselves along the ground hyper-evolved from fast moving ground dwellers in a few thousand years post flood. Meanwhile lions and tigers and wildebeest and cheetahs and gazelles were slow moving animals that could only get as far as Africa or Asia and then hyper-evolved their speed and mobility after the continents separated. Maybe you think marsupial moles, spiny anteaters and Koalas migrated to Australia while wildebeest, gazelles, deer, elk, wovles and buffalo didn’t because the marsupials used to move fast and the placentals used to move slow. Tree kangaroos made it somehow but monkeys could not. Oh I forgot, the kangaroos island hopped.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, how did any flightless birds come off the ark and get anywhere among all those hungry predators? Oh I know they had wings. But wait! There is a fossil record of ratite birds in Australia and New Zealand. I know. Some of them hyper-evolved wings in a few years, flew over to meet Noah and ride the ark, flew back and lost their wings to look just like their fossil relatives. That sounds like good creation science.
quote:
Hmm, in the early 90s three fossil Platypus teeth were found in Argentina.
No three teeth of an ancestor of the platypus were found in Argentina. Not at all surprising since Australia, South America and Antarctica were connected before the breakup of Gondwanaland. You are aware that the modern platypus has only vestigal teeth and the adult has no teeth aren't you? Or did AiG forget to tell you that?
quote:
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.
Surely? Surely a mole like animal that only lives in sand could cross all of Asia and get to Australia in 1000 years?? As usual your explanation is pretty silly. Why didn’t rabbits make it in the first place? They did pretty well once they got there. And in case you didn’t notice rabbits move a lot faster than mole like animals that travel by burrowing through the ground.
There is deep water around Australia and even AiG doesn’t buy that continent break up in the time of Peleg nonsense. I wonder why the marsupial moles headed for Australia and the placental moles went all around the world except to Australia and New Zealand. Those placental moles moved out pretty good to get all over the world in a few thousand years. Not bad for blind animals that travel by digging through the ground. Oh I forgot. They were also sighted, lived above ground and were fast moving right after the flood. They just hyper-evolved to become the mole kind in a few thousand years since then.
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.
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? BTW do you think all fossils are from the flood? Does that mean that any deposits containing fossils are not post flood deposits?
When placental mammals and marsupial come into contact the marsupials usually come out second best. The closing of the land bridge between North and South America led to mass extinction of marsupials, which were the dominant species in South America before the bridge closed. The only exception was the possum who moved north and does quite well. I wonder why the prolific possum never left any descendants in Europe, Africa or Asia if they came of the Ark in Turkey and somehow migrated to America. But now you say it just happened that conditions were better for marsupials in Australia and New Zealand where they just happen to have a fossil record. I guess the flood that rearranged all the world’s geology didn’t change that and somehow the marsupials knew to head back there immediately post flood. BTW what ecological conditions do you think would favor all those diverse marsupials and momotremes over placental mammals? This is just another Fairytale Fred Fantasy.
Of course there could not have been a recent land bridge to Australia. I was just pointing out that the fantasy about post flood continent separation doesn’t help. Or maybe marsupials just happen to be the only ones to swim over from Indonesia? Or maybe they waded. The water is only about 1300 meters deep. Oh I forgot. The kangaroos island hopped.
As to Bison fossils bone collectors collected bison bones for their phosphate and pretty much scoured the plains clean of them. Of course there are bison fossils in any museum that focuses on ice age mammals. I guess there weren’t millions of bison roaming the plain before the flood though since no bison fossils are found deposited with the dinosaurs bones that were supposedly deposited by the flood in Montana.
I suppose AiG will eventually fool enough people into donating money for their absurd musem and no doubt they have enough nonsense to fill it up. See you then .
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Fred Williams, posted 09-11-2002 7:30 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2002 7:04 PM Randy has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 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/...ews.woa/1/wa/SRStoryDetails
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.
http://EvC Forum: Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood -->EvC Forum: Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood
Randy

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

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

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 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/...line_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 replied

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

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 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 replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 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 replied

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

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 61 of 147 (17393)
09-13-2002 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Fred Williams
09-13-2002 8:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
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.
Thanks,
I have found a couple of papers that say the teeth are tentitively identifed as belonging to the most primitve placental mammals known but not the one I recall reading that challenged the identification completely. I know I have it bookmarked or as a pdf or in a file somewhere. I once read that there are three kinds of people in the world. The haves and the have nots and I the third type. A can't find.
I am leaving the country for two weeks for some meetings in Scotland (it's a tough job but someone has to do it) and I have a very hectic schedule when I get back so I will not be around much for a while either.
Chat with you later.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Fred Williams, posted 09-13-2002 8:00 PM Fred Williams 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