How did Monkeys get to South America?

I don't think you can make that conclusion at all. A childhood experience is no substitute for verifiable evidence. Pine trees and other trees float quite well. Limbs on or not. Yes that is all it is opinion. We are not discussing opinion here. We are discussing evidence. You discount all evidence presented to you and then you say in your opinion something can't be possible.Here you present another fallacy in reasoning, I'm entitled to my opinion (what is this your fifth or sixth fallacy in just this thread alone)You really should study up on logical fallacies.

The burden of proof is not on me. Your OP expressed that you did not believe that monkeys could have rafted across the ocean, even the people you quote in the OP agree that that was how it happened. The hypothesis has been presented to you many times. You are the one that disagrees with the hypothesis and presents logical fallacy after logical fallacy. If you do not agree with the hypothesis then show an alternative.Again what is your hypothesis if you do not agree with the one given? I and no one else needs to show you how it was exactly done. It is feasible and it is plausible.Ark? Aliens? From your OP Yup it seems they sure did. BTW they didn't come from Ararat. You have been presented with the evidence. You have presented nothing but logical fallacies to discount the evidence. You been shown that your arguments hold little merit. Yes trees can float.
Still you expect more evidence. Again you are back to a logical fallacy of negative proof. The lack of conclusive proof does not mean it is not a valid hypothesis. Yes the burden of proof is now on you. You have been shown evidence supporting the hypothesis and refuse to consider it as plausible. Therefore, it is up to you to present an alternative.

You spin the argument, change the argument and present fallacy after fallacy.Give us your hypothesis. I do not have to prove how it happened. I just have to show it could have happened. You have provided no arguments showing, supporting or even mentioning an alternative.What??? You got nothing???

They are in South America, so it happened.As has been stated in previous posts we will never know exactly how, but that they are there is evidence it happened. Your incredulity does not make it not a fact.

Ok maybe you don't understand this forum. This is under
Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution this is not cryptozoology.Do you know what Cryptozoology is? Cryptozoology the study of evidence tending to substantiate the existence of, or the search for, creatures whose reported existence is unproved, as the Abominable Snowman or the Loch Ness monster.So to call this an evolution forum seems to not only a stretch but total misrepresentation.These are probably potential scenarios. I have never claimed to be an expert, but also have no reason to believe these are experts either.
I can tell you that as of right now the scientific evidence points toward the rafting hypothesis. If someone else publishes something and goes through the peer reviewed process to change that, well that would be science in action.If you read further on that forum you would have seen where someone mentions this Cryptozoology really? Wow!!!Edited by Theodoric, : spelling

Interesting hypothesis. Amazing how science works, but I do not see anything definitive.It is a viable hypothesis. But what does this say about your belief that that the raft theory is implausible.

Finally we cut to the chase.We have been asking for your hypothesis all along. Your whole purpose in this thread is to try to debunk evolution. But as ID'ers tend to do, since they have no science to back them up, they try to develop arguments as to why evolution cannot be true. Why not instead come up with evidence that proves something other than evolution? Oh wait, that would take science.We have given you many solutions to the rafting monkey issue. If you refuse to accept them that is your issue. Every objection you have had has been given a solution.Dr. Bloch does not strengthen your argument. His is another hypothesis, but it is not at all an indictment against evolution.