Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
Boof
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(3)
Message 136 of 226 (648478)
01-16-2012 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Granny Magda
01-15-2012 9:25 AM


CMI = Creatively Mining Ignorance
Granny Magda writes:
I am interested in why they might be supposed to have radiated out faster than placental mammals. What reason could there be for this? What exactly would give marsupials the edge? And most importantly of all, what is the evidence for this?
Of course, you won't find any evidence that any of this is true, mostly because it's not true. There is no reason to assume that marsupials would be any better at migrating than placentals. There is no evidence that such a thing ever happened. This is an especially glaring example of a flimsy post hoc excuse. CMI appear to have pulled this one directly out of their collective ass; note the weasel words "They could have dispersed". No evidence is presented for this claim.
So basically, I want to know how this could have happened and why we should think that it did happen.
Good post Granny however I suspect you won’t get a reply of any substance as the ‘models’ that CMI have proposed look like they were cobbled together during a Friday afternoon drinks session before knock-off time. In particular I wonder whether CMI have thought about the ‘dispersal’ rates of some of these marsupials:
Wombats: as noted in my link, wombats are slow moving animals of nocturnal habit, returning to their large and extensive burrows before dawn to rest during the day. So not only are they slow movers, they need to dig a burrow to live in.
Koalas: Koalas are uniquely adapted for life in trees. They have slow metabolisms and sleep for up to 20 hours per day. Their waking hours are spent almost exclusively eating and they only eat Eucalyptus leaves. Not the ideal lifestyle if you need to get from A to B in a hurry.
Numbats: while a bit more motile than my other examples, numbats are highly territorial and on top of that they have a very restricted diet — they only eat termites and an adult male requires up to 20,000 termites per day. Naturally they spend most of their waking hours looking for food.
Marsupial moles: a few relevant quotes from my link: they are arguably the world's most burrow-adapted mammal, they tunnel and backfill as they go...at the same time they squeeze their tubular body forward a few centimetres at a time, marsupial moles seem to flounder in loose sand ... and struggle to drag themselves along the surface. What more can I say?
Yet somehow these animals (not to mention the monotremes) managed to get to Australia before antelopes, horses, cats, monkeys, apes, etc, etc, the list is endless. Common sense, however is in short supply...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Granny Magda, posted 01-15-2012 9:25 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 137 of 226 (648486)
01-16-2012 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Portillo
12-29-2011 9:05 PM


How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
"How did the Aborigines get to Australia?"
The possible ways have been described throughout this thread.
However, there's absolutely no geological evidence that water simultaneously covered all of continental Australia within the last 10 000 years. This negates the claims of a global flood within the last 10 000.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Portillo, posted 12-29-2011 9:05 PM Portillo has not replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 138 of 226 (652616)
02-15-2012 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Larni
01-15-2012 3:06 PM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
If there is no evidence for a great flood on Earth.
Fossils are found in sedimentary rock which is formed by flowing water. 95% of the fossil record are marine inverbrates. Fossils are buried in mass sediments that sometimes cover several American states! What kind of streams are we talking about? Sounds like a catastrophic extinction with lots of water.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Larni, posted 01-15-2012 3:06 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Larni, posted 02-15-2012 4:51 AM Portillo has replied
 Message 140 by Granny Magda, posted 02-15-2012 7:40 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 02-15-2012 9:42 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 142 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2012 6:06 PM Portillo has not replied
 Message 143 by Boof, posted 02-15-2012 8:06 PM Portillo has not replied
 Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-16-2012 12:09 AM Portillo has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 139 of 226 (652620)
02-15-2012 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Portillo
02-15-2012 3:55 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Sounds like evidence for flooding to me.
When you make the leap from flood to Fludd(tm) what evidence are you using to inform that decision?
All the best.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Portillo, posted 02-15-2012 3:55 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Portillo, posted 07-30-2012 4:03 AM Larni has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(4)
Message 140 of 226 (652632)
02-15-2012 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Portillo
02-15-2012 3:55 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Hi Portillo,
Fossils are found in sedimentary rock which is formed by flowing water.
Not entirely true. Sedimentary rock can also be formed by gradual layering in still bodies of water such as lakes or swamps. Further, there are sedimentary rocks that are formed in dry environments like deserts. These don't involve much in the way of water and certainly could not have formed as a result of any flood.
Geologists are rather better than you seem to think at recognising how different sediments formed. I suggest that you take a look at Dr A's Introduction To Geology thread for details on this.
95% of the fossil record are marine inverbrates.
That's because fossils form best in aquatic sediments, not because of any spurious flood. In fact, it gives the lie to your flood geology; if fossils exist as a result of the great flood, we would see far more terrestrial animals in the sediments than we do. We ought to see many land-based animals mixed in with the marine. The fact that we generally see marine creatures in marine sediments and freshwater fossils in freshwater sediments ought to tell you that those sediments record a living ecosystem, that layed down its fossils over a period of years, not in a single catastrophic event.
Fossils are buried in mass sediments that sometimes cover several American states! What kind of streams are we talking about?
And fossils are buried in discrete layers that place the most ancient species at the bottom and the most recent at the top. Can you tell me how a flood would do that? Can you tell me how a flood could put all the trilobites toward the borttom of the pile, but leave all the whales close to the top?
The fossil record shows us a clear story of living things changing and diverging. It does not opresent the jumble that we might reasonably expect from a flood. That's just a fantasy.
Sounds like a catastrophic extinction with lots of water.
Sounds like you need to familiarise yourself with the evidence a bit better.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Portillo, posted 02-15-2012 3:55 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 141 of 226 (652646)
02-15-2012 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Portillo
02-15-2012 3:55 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Portillo writes:
Fossils are found in sedimentary rock which is formed by flowing water.
Fossils *are* found in sedimentary rock, but sedimentary rock is not formed by flowing water. Flowing water can be a source of sedimentary particles (through erosion) and a form of transport for those sedimentary particles, but the tiny particulate matter from which sedimentary rock forms only falls out of suspension in quiet water.
95% of the fossil record are marine inverbrates.
This is because land, being higher, tends to erode at the hands of the elements. The products of erosion from the land are carried by wind, rain, streams and rivers to the lowest points where they are deposited, which is usually, but not always, in quiet streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, seas and oceans.
Sediments can accumulate on relatively flat land areas that drain to still lower areas (if they didn't drain then they'd become lakes) or that are very dry (deserts), but this is much less common and explains why marine fossils are much more common.
Still, we do find a fair number of fossils of ancient land creatures in what were low lying and coastal regions, but we find almost no sedimentary rock and therefore no fossils from upland and highland regions because they are always areas of net erosion.
Fossils are buried in mass sediments that sometimes cover several American states!
You're not specific, but if you're referring to the states in the Colorado area, much of this region lay beneath a quiet sea for millions of years. It also spent some millions of years above sea level. The Grand Canyon contains a record of much of the geologic history of this region, showing when it was beneath a sea, and even when parts of it were coastal regions and how those coastal regions moved back and forth across the landscape as the region rose and fell. It also shows when an area was under a quiet sea, or was only some miles off a coast. And it shows when the region was above sea level, though these layers are more rare and typically not complete since land is often an area of net erosion.
What kind of streams are we talking about? Sounds like a catastrophic extinction with lots of water.
Sediments would remain suspended in active flood waters. A flood would jumble everything up instead of producing a progression of gradual change.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Portillo, posted 02-15-2012 3:55 AM Portillo has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 142 of 226 (652739)
02-15-2012 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Portillo
02-15-2012 3:55 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Hi Portillo,
To add to what the others have said:
Fossils are buried in mass sediments that sometimes cover several American states! What kind of streams are we talking about?
Not a stream but a seabed:
Ancient Sea Levels
quote:
North America during the late Cretaceous
Western Interior Seaway - Wikipedia
quote:
The Western Interior Seaway, also called the Cretaceous Seaway, the Niobraran Sea, and the North American Inland Sea, was a huge inland sea that split the continent of North America into two halves, Laramidia and Appalachia, during most of the mid- and late-Cretaceous Period. It was 2,500 feet (760 m) deep, 600 miles (970 km) wide and over 2,000 miles (3,200 km) long.
The Seaway was created as the Farallon tectonic plate subducted under the North American Plate during Cretaceous time. As plate convergence proceeded, younger and more buoyant lithosphere of the Farallon Plate started to become subducted. This caused it to subduct at a much more shallow angle, in what is known as a "flat slab". This shallowly-subducting slab exerted a traction on the base of the lithosphere, pulling it down and producing "dynamic topography" at the surface that caused the opening of the Western Interior Seaway.[1] This depression and the high eustatic sea levels existing during the Cretaceous allowed waters from the Arctic Ocean in the north and the Gulf of Mexico in the south to meet and flood the central lowlands, forming a sea that transgressed (grew) and regressed (receded) over the course of the Cretaceous.
Oceans of Kansas Paleontology
quote:
OCEANS OF KANSAS PALEONTOLOGY
Fossils from the Late Cretaceous Western Interior Sea

There are also fossils from the same time period of land animals, and of nests with dinosaur eggs:
Error 404 | Emory University | Atlanta GA
quote:
One of the more spectacular dinosaur fossil finds of recent years was of a Late Cretaceous specimen of Oviraptor that was found in a sitting position directly over its nest. This find, a wonderful combination of trace fossils and a body fossil, represents one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for brooding behavior in dinosaurs. This fossil find is currently on display at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and was illustrated in a National Geographic article.
Nests that would have washed away in a flood.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Portillo, posted 02-15-2012 3:55 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


Message 143 of 226 (652752)
02-15-2012 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Portillo
02-15-2012 3:55 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Portillo, I am trying to understand why you think that
95% of the fossil record are marine inverbrates
supports the great flood. Surely under the flood scenario, in which (nearly) every living thing is killed we would expect to see a much greater proportion of other animals in the fossil record?
Just a minor quibble really given that none of the other scientific evidence supports the flood, but your use of that particular factoid piqued my interest as to your thought processes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Portillo, posted 02-15-2012 3:55 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 144 of 226 (652765)
02-16-2012 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Portillo
02-15-2012 3:55 AM


Sedimentology, Something Else You Don't Know About
Fossils are found in sedimentary rock which is formed by flowing water ...
... with just a few exceptions, such as glacial till, aeolian sediment, volcanic ash, nearshore sediments, coal, siliceous ooze, calcareous ooze, pelagic clay, evaporites ...
Tell me something. It is clear that you have never studied geology. And you must know that you have never studied geology. In which case why do you not draw the obvious corrolaries that (a) you don't know anything about it and (b) you should therefore not presume to go around lecturing other people on it?
95% of the fossil record are marine inverbrates.
You figure that these sea-creatures drowned in a flood?
Is that the usual effect floods have?
Fossils are buried in mass sediments that sometimes cover several American states! What kind of streams are we talking about?
Obviously when a kind of sediment covers several American states, we're not talking about streams. We're talking either about deserts, seas, or major volcanic eruptions, depending on the type of the sediment. The Navajo sandstone, for example, extends over 400,000 square kilometers of northern Arizona, northwest Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. Analysis of its sedimentary structure shows that it's a former desert.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Portillo, posted 02-15-2012 3:55 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Portillo, posted 02-16-2012 1:07 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 145 of 226 (652773)
02-16-2012 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dr Adequate
02-16-2012 12:09 AM


Re:
Tell me something. It is clear that you have never studied geology. And you must know that you have never studied geology. In which case why do you not draw the obvious corrolaries that (a) you don't know anything about it and (b) you should therefore not presume to go around lecturing other people on it?
I think its (c) Im a crazy creationist.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-16-2012 12:09 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Granny Magda, posted 02-16-2012 2:32 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 146 of 226 (652776)
02-16-2012 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Portillo
02-16-2012 1:07 AM


Re: Sedimentology, Something Else You Don't Know About
I think its (c) Im a crazy creationist.
You're clearly not crazy. You've just been lied to, that's all. The people you trusted most, your religious instructors, whoever they may be, fed you false information. They probably didn't lie to you deliberately; they probably believed it themselves, but nonetheless, they did not tell you the truth. You can see this from how this thread has progressed. You have been wrong at every turn. Worse, you haven't only been wrong, but you were completely unprepared for the true answers that you got. You had no idea about the answers you have received before this thread started. The reason you had no idea is because you have never been encouraged to understand the evolutionist/scientist position.
There is a reason for this. Creationist churches and lobby groups are not interested in the truth. They don't seek after the answers, the barely even ask the necessary questions. Instead, they have already decided what the answers are and they stick to them doggedly, even in the face of the evidence. They will never give you an accurate impression of the science side of the argument, they will only mislead you.
I can't tell you what to believe, nor would I want to, but I can tell you that your current beliefs about the world contain much that is demonstrably false. I urge you to look further into the facts about what science has taught us about the Earth and its history, because it's clear to me that much of what you think you know is wrong. You seem like an honest person to me. I can't imagine that you would be satisfied with being kept in the dark or being duped into repeating silly lies. Fortunately, you don't have to be stuck with this. Take the time to learn a bit more about geology, palaeontology and biology. Learn what they really show us. learn what scientists really say. If, after all that, you still disagree, then fine. that's your right. You would even be better placed to argue against evolution if you were equipped with a better understanding of the subject. I don't think that's what usually happens though. I think that an honest examination of the evidence will show that the world is indeed old, that fossils do indeed represent hundreds of millions of years of life and that evolution is very much real.
Like I say, it's up to you what you do and what you believe, but I think that it would be a shame to remain ignorant of these topics. They really are quite fascinating.
You might also find yourself being wrong a little less often.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Portillo, posted 02-16-2012 1:07 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Chuck77, posted 02-16-2012 2:37 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 147 of 226 (652777)
02-16-2012 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Granny Magda
02-16-2012 2:32 AM


Re: Sedimentology, Something Else You Don't Know About
You might also find yourself being wrong a little less often.
Wrong concerning who? We have sources that say different. Maybe it is you who are wrong? Hmmmmm...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Granny Magda, posted 02-16-2012 2:32 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-16-2012 2:52 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 149 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2012 4:15 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 150 by Granny Magda, posted 02-16-2012 7:02 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 02-16-2012 9:02 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 148 of 226 (652778)
02-16-2012 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Chuck77
02-16-2012 2:37 AM


Re: Sedimentology, Something Else You Don't Know About
Wrong concerning who? We have sources that say different. Maybe it is you who are wrong?
Well, not in this case, at least. We can see sediment being deposited. It is not exclusively deposited in "streams" of "flowing water". Any "source" that says that it is is lying or bonkers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Chuck77, posted 02-16-2012 2:37 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 149 of 226 (652783)
02-16-2012 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Chuck77
02-16-2012 2:37 AM


Re: Sedimentology, Something Else You Don't Know About
We have sources that say different.
Can you show us one then Chuck?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Chuck77, posted 02-16-2012 2:37 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(5)
Message 150 of 226 (652798)
02-16-2012 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Chuck77
02-16-2012 2:37 AM


Re: Sedimentology, Something Else You Don't Know About
Wrong concerning who?
Wrong concerning reality.
We have sources that say different.
Yes, certainly you have a tiny insignificant handful of dolts, liars and lunatics. If you ever decide to engage in actual discussion or debate then you should feel free to share their hypotheses with us. For as long as you restrict yourself to sniping and childish attempts at humour, then you're nothing more than a time-waster.
Maybe it is you who are wrong? Hmmmmm...
This comment is a perfect example of the kind of childish nonsense that I'm referring to. Of course I might be wrong. It just so happens that I'm not, but for as long as you limit yourself to pathetic one-liners, you won't be taken seriously. If you think I'm wrong, then provide me with evidence that I am wrong. If you can't then kindly shut your yap.
You can't expect the entire science of geology to be knocked for six by a humourless one-liner and a little snark. You have to do better than that. As I have said to you many times, if you have a probelm with the science, then let us know exactly what it is. Pick a topic. Bring it here or to another appropriate thread. Debate it. Stand up for yourself. Go and read Dr A's Introduction To Geology thread if you're short of ideas. Find a sub-topic in there. Bring it here. Tell us where you think the scientists have got it wrong. Debate it. If you're not willing to do that then your participation here amounts to little more than trolling. Your current attitude is obnoxious and unhelpful. Please shit or get off the pot.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Chuck77, posted 02-16-2012 2:37 AM Chuck77 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