Hello/sorry if this has been mentioned before (and other no0b etc),
The point that I would like to raise is a rather convoluted one, so please bear with me.
Now, one of the prime flaws in YECism is the factor of antipodean flightless birds - the emu, kiwi, cassowary and (until recently) the moa. The getting of these animals to the ark is a great flaw for creationist theory, and this is usually countered by the assertation that all animals lived everywhere - i.e. these birds were found in the holy land. This elimantes the problem of large, flightless birds somehow traversing thousands of nautical and terrestrial miles to reach the ark. However, from this two problems arise. Not only do the birds then decide to traverse thousands of miles to go from Arafat to the Antipodes, but the problem of introduced pest species.
If all animals had possesed a global ditsribution (and thus all came into contact with one another) why is it that when foreign species are introduced they decimate local wildlife? The prime example here is of introduced rats annhilating the Kiwi population, but many more examples exist - cats, rats, bullfrogs, rabbits, foxes - the list goes on. Now, I understand the creationist concept of genetic degradation, but this doesn't account for species losing the ability to deal with what would be their primary competitors in the space of just 4,500 years or so.
I've posted this on other sites before, but failed to garner a coherent response. Would any YECists please tell me how their theory accounts for these anomalies.
™ Version 4.2