Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
365 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 364 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Happy Birthday: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,616 Year: 20,652/19,786 Month: 1,049/2,023 Week: 0/557 Day: 0/101 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 422 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 106 of 226 (648363)
01-15-2012 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 12:54 AM


Dates, evidence, and opinions
We have a different opinion on how these dates are calculated.

Unless your opinion has some evidence behind it, it is worthless.

This is part of the denial that creationists typically resort to when they find themselves faced with uncomfortable facts.

But tell us, just when did the marsupials arrive in Australia?

Shortly after 4,350 years ago?

Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 12:54 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 2:50 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 226 (648364)
01-15-2012 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Coyote
01-15-2012 2:46 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
But tell us, just when did the marsupials arrive in Australia?

Shortly after 4,350 years ago?

Yes...tho they could have been there prior to the flood also about 6000 yrs ago.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Coyote, posted 01-15-2012 2:46 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:08 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 1977 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(2)
Message 108 of 226 (648365)
01-15-2012 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 2:30 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
Yes the land bridges were intact long enough for the trek.
So they stayed intact long enough for the marsupials to make a journey of thousands of miles, with no food and then suddenly disappeared with no evidence of their existence after they made it safely to Australia?
There is a good hypothesis that at one time there was one land mass connecting all land.
And nowhere in that hypothesis does it mention that this land was connected anywhere close to 5,000 years ago.
What evidence are you specifically asking for
Any scrap of evidence that you could produce that shows how the continents could have possibly moved from a single land mass to their current positions in the time you advocate would do. Or how a planet that had been previously decimated by a yearlong flood could support the resources needed for the migration of thousands of animals to their current locations? Or how continents moving at the speed you propose wouldn't generate enough heat to boil every living thing on the face of the Earth? In fact I would be happy to finally read just one piece of evidence in support of creationism instead of just assertions.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
It takes all kinds to make a mess- Benjamin Hoff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 2:30 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:19 AM rueh has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 109 of 226 (648366)
01-15-2012 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 2:50 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Yes...tho they could have been there prior to the flood also about 6000 yrs ago.

In which case they would have been wiped out by your Flood. You know, that massively catastrophic single-year event that killed off every land creature that hadn't ridden on the Ark. The event that completely changed the surface of the earth, laying down all the geological formations ... again, all within a single year.

When you're making stuff up, you (plural) should at least make some attempt to keep your story straight.

I'm still very curious how creationists imagine that the sloths were able to high-tail it from Central Asia to Central America, out-running all the carnivores in the process, when their top speed on the ground has been compared to that of a snail (and their speed in the trees is only a bit better).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 2:50 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:19 AM dwise1 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 110 of 226 (648367)
01-15-2012 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by rueh
01-15-2012 2:52 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
Any scrap of evidence that you could produce that shows how the continents could have possibly moved from a single land mass to their current positions in the time you advocate would do.

It should also be pointed out that we are very well aware of what happens when continents move. The collision of plates against each other and their grinding past each other is a major cause of earthquakes and volcanos. If Chuck's high-speed burlesque (accompanied, no doubt, with Benny Hill music) were true, then history would have been wracked with constant and massive earthquakes and massive vulcanism. Which was not the case.

Chuck needs to do what no other creationist has been willing to do: think his claims through. But another creationist in another forum long ago once revealed their secret: they don't care the least bit that their claims are nonsense nor that their own claims, including the ones made by the same creationist, contradict each other; they only care that their claims contradict what science says.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by rueh, posted 01-15-2012 2:52 AM rueh has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:34 AM dwise1 has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 226 (648368)
01-15-2012 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by dwise1
01-15-2012 3:08 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Why could they not have lived there before the flood? And then went back after? How is this changing my story?

It's not important. I just said they could have. They might never have been there prior to the flood but they could have.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:08 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:41 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 226 (648369)
01-15-2012 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by dwise1
01-15-2012 3:19 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
they don't care the least bit that their claims are nonsense nor that their own claims, including the ones made by the same creationist, contradict each other; they only care that their claims contradict what science says.

If you don't want a discussion don't respond to my posts. It's simple enough. You certainly are free not to engage with me and leave it be. I'm not calling everyone silly and claiming victory, i'm adding my Creationist view point to the discussion.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:19 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:46 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 113 of 226 (648370)
01-15-2012 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 3:19 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Why could they not have lived there before the flood? And then went back after? How is this changing my story?

Just what exactly did the Flood do? Kill everything except for the animals brought on board Noah's Ark. Haven't you read the Bible? It wouldn't matter the least where Australian marsupials had lived before the Flood, because they would have all been killed by the very Flood that you believe did happen.

If instead you want to now claim that vast populations survived the Flood where they used to live, then why all this nonsense you've been promoting about how they had migrated from where the Ark had landed? Either those original populations had been annihilated or they had survived. Which is it?

Also, "Flood geology" says that the surface of the earth was changed entirely, which is also what you have promoting here with your talk of high-speed plate tectonics. Wherever those marsupials had originally lived, that place would no longer exist, most certainly not in the same place as before. Either the Flood changed the surface of the earth or it didn't. Which is it?

If you're not inclined to try to keep your made-up stories straight, then please at least try to think them through for once.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:19 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:44 AM dwise1 has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 226 (648371)
01-15-2012 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by dwise1
01-15-2012 3:41 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
If instead you want to now claim that vast populations survived the Flood where they used to live, then why all this nonsense you've been promoting about how they had migrated from where the Ark had landed? Either those original populations had been annihilated or they had survived. Which is it?

Talk to yourself instead. I'll talk to the one's who don't twist my views.

There is absolutly no difference if they lived there before the flood or not, all I said is that it was possible.

And yes dude, I am well aware the flood killed all living things that weren't on the Ark.

The marsupials that were on the Ark could have went back or went there for the first time. It was not a continent then and could have been very different. They could of had a sense to go back if they were around that area before everything split. It doesn't change anything or is not even important. It was a little side note. Why you are so foucsed on is a mystery.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:41 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:57 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 121 by Larni, posted 01-15-2012 4:21 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 115 of 226 (648372)
01-15-2012 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 3:34 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
When you finally present some kind of evidence that you have thought your claims through so that you are able to engage in discussion of those claims, then we can finally have a discussion. Because until you have taken the time to think them through, you will not know what you are talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:34 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:49 AM dwise1 has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 226 (648373)
01-15-2012 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by dwise1
01-15-2012 3:46 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
When you finally present some kind of evidence that you have thought your claims through so that you are able to engage in discussion of those claims, then we can finally have a discussion.

Okay, see ya. See what this kind of nonsense causes? Posts like these ones with no content. Try to discuss the content instead of drifting into personal bias and attack. It makes for better conversation for the everyone.

I know, you can't help it. You find it silly to lower yourself to debate Cteationists and cant do it without grandstanding for the audiance. No problem. Don't debate then anymore.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:46 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 4:05 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 117 of 226 (648375)
01-15-2012 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 3:44 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
You know full well that I did not twist your views. You should not make such false accusations in order to avoid attempts at discussion. That is not honest.

And you still have not responded to my question about the migration of sloths from Central Asia to Central America. They are very slow-moving, you know, very much slower on land than in the trees. How were they able to out-run the carnivores?

If you avoid considering that long migration of the sloths, then you have not thought through the entire migration claim.

Edited by dwise1, : added last paragraph


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:44 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 4:03 AM dwise1 has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 226 (648376)
01-15-2012 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by dwise1
01-15-2012 3:57 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
And you still have not responded to my question about the migration of sloths from Central Asia to Central America. They are very slow-moving, you know, very much slower on land than in the trees.

So what? They're slow and? Do you think it was a race to get there?

How were they able to out-run the carnivores?

I'm going to take a wild stab at this one and say...the same way they outrun them now? The same way Salmon outrun the Grizzlies?

Need more examples of prey outrunning their attackers? How in the world are they even still alive? I mean you would think now that their all in one area it would be easier to wipe them off the face of the earth. Instead you are asking me how they survived in a wide open land mass slowly deteriorating?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 3:57 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Huntard, posted 01-15-2012 4:20 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 124 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2012 4:44 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 119 of 226 (648377)
01-15-2012 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 3:49 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
You are repeating creationist claims and are not thinking any of it through. Discussion requires that you think your position through. You are not doing that. Nor are you the only creationist to avoid at all costs thinking through their claims. Because the simplest way of exposing the falsehood of creationist claims is to think them through.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:49 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(2)
Message 120 of 226 (648378)
01-15-2012 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 4:03 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Hello again Chuck,

Chuck77 writes:

I'm going to take a wild stab at this one and say...the same way they outrun them now? The same way Salmon outrun the Grizzlies?


Well, the problem is more that there were only two sloths after the flood, if only one of them was capture by any carnivore, that was in the immediate area, there wouldn't be any sloths around today. The reason they "outrun" their predators today is because they are up in trees, which weren't around after the flood, and because their numbers are sufficient that even if some of them are captured, there are still enough left to maintain a viable population.

So the question is, how did sloths manage to survive the long trek from Ararat to their current habitat, without being eaten by carnivores that were in the same area as they were to begin with, and were much faster than them. Remember, they ain't got no place to hide from these predators.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 4:03 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 4:23 AM Huntard has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019