How did animal get to isolated places after the flood?

It's not a mystery, because we know the answer. Life is a mystery, because we do not know where it comes from.
When I first heard of deers swimming, I was astounded, and did not think with their small hoofs, that they could swim. Each experience in life that we learn about, is new to us, and many times, we think it is not possible for things to happen, yet they do happen. Like I said, I have not sat and pondered the whole thing, or am I qualified too, but I am always willing to offer up an ignorant thought, to those who might be able to make use of it, and hopefully not get ridiculed.Anyone think that after a flood, that many things would be floating around. Why Here in my lake, we have floating islands, that shift, and sometimes break free, and float the distance of the lake. These islands have a life of there own, and if one was big enough, could probably support the life of a deer for a year, no doubt. Again, my point is anything is possible.

Indeed rafting is the explanation of out-of-place animal populations and migrations. For example, that is the explanation for the new world primates, i believe.However, larger fauna like the diprotodon weighing several tons presents a large problem.But the bigger and larger issue is the uniqueness of life in remote places. This effect is strongly represented in places like Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand (no mammals even) and Madagascar.If all life radiated from the middle east several thousands years ago there would strong evidence of this.

I don't know -- Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh...........

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Well I am mainly an EVC lurker, but I thought of something while reading this thread. Certainly I'm not the first to think about this, but 40 days of rain that covered the top of the highest mountains would be sufficient to kill all vegetation. How, then, do creationists (or other supporters of the flood) suppose that herbivorous animals survived? Furthermore, after the flood, the carnivorous animals would also have to eat. Did they wait for the other animals to begin reproducing to eat? If not, they would be taking away from the short supply of animals.But I guess if you believe that God created the Earth and everything in it in a matter of 6 days, you should have no problem believing that God supported the animals.

Easy one. The only herbivores were those on the Ark. They lived of the several years supply of foodstuffs on the Ark. The carnivores were on the Ark too remember. And they weren't "Real Carnivores", but rather just munched on grass and herbs and dreamed of steak and lamb chops.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The smell onboard the ark must have been terrible with all the foods and excrements rotting. I have lizard terrariums and fish tanks all over the house, and there are over a hundred animal living in those miniature environments. Long story short, they smell and taking care of them ain't easy!

How could there have possibly been __years worth of food on the ark for thousands and thousands of animals? How would the food avoid becoming spoiled during that period of time?An animal can't be a partial carnivore.Honestly, I suppose there doesn't need to be an explanation, given that strict Bible supporters believe that God dropped food from heaven for the Israelites for 40 years.Edited by SR71, : No reason given.

Exactly. God did it, so magic is allowed, so ultimately, there's no point in all this "creation science" stuff anyway. Which is why everyone on the thread except for one, I think (RiverRat) is treating it as a joke.Your point about the carnivores eating the herbivores is one that creationists can't be scientific about, so presumably carnivorism is an evil which came into the world after the flood and because of the fall.It's astonishing to find this level of superstition in the literate western world in the twenty first century.

What is the reason for people completely ignoring logic and reason? There is nothing that I deem worthy of complete and unquestioned belief.

It wouldn't have been the safest place to light a lamp, either. That's a lot of methane in an enclosed area.

Religion, or rather, before the liberal religious object, certain types of religion. The promise of heaven and the threat of hell are powerful for some people who've been indoctrinated with literalist interpretations of the Bible in childhood.By the way: Be careful with all the biologists around here! It's called an omnivore, and you're one!Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

The point, of course, is social. Fundamentalist parents have a lot of cognitive dissonance with the science their kids learn. The idea is to get Genesis--or at least Genesis-compatible ideas--admitted into school science classes.A contributing factor is Science Envy. Fundamentalists see the respect science enjoys and crave that legitimacy for their views. They know that in the age of cloning and space travel their approach looks ignorant and backward. They seek to paper this over by imitating the conventions of science without adopting any its methods or substance. Every time Carl Baugh awards himself a new PhD we see one of the more obvious manifestations of Science Envy.Welcome to EvC. ___Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brevity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

That's no problem. Where do you think all the water for the rain came from? The food was dehydrated and the excess moisture of course went into the atmosphere. Of course not. They were all herbivores. Carnivores only evolved after the flood, and you can tell how evolved a kind is based on that. The more evolved kinds are fully carnivore, lessor evolved kinds are omnivores and the least evolved kinds are still herbivores.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm going to put on my very serious hat on for a moment here.Riverrat has been very indirect as far as this thread is concern. He has not said it straight out, but a very big part of him still wants to believe the literal story of the flood even if he knows the illogic in it. If you look back at the posts he has made in this thread and similar threads, you will see that he is approaching the flood problem with the "god of the gaps" attitude. Basically, he is depending on the fact that we could never be absolutely certain of anything, especially something like the flood, to try to hint at its legitimacy. After all, if you boil down our argument against the flood, it is essentially just the total lack of evidence for it, and that is what riverrat is betting all his money on. In essence, he hopes that his god exists somewhere within the gaps of human knowledge on the matter.

That's easy. There weren't "thousands and thousands of animals" on the ark. There were only a few representative "kinds". You know, like "chordate kind", etc. The ark only had to be the size of a houseboat - and since it was substantially larger, there was plenty of food. Of course, explaining the hypermacroevolution over the few intervening centuries is a bit problematic. I once calculated that, based on Morris' ~8000 kinds, that we're looking at something over 1300 speciation events per year since the Flud to reach the minimum biodiversity we see today. 8000 may even be a bit high, but that just means hypermacroevolution took place more rapidly. And the YECs claim evilutionists don't have enough time for their theory...