Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.

I am responding to Randy about biogeography and its effect on the post flood migration of creatures. This is an interest of mine.
I have never found any difficultly with explaining the present distribution of animals and the flood event.
Randy brings up and rightly the marsupial situation and others like the dodo and sloth.
Quickly it is to be repeated that creationists do not disagree with speciation processes as long as they do not turn one kind into another. The Dodo is simply a bird who having found a home on a obscure island no longer needed to fly and its wings atrophied. It's common. Also the sloth in Americas is simply the remaining one of a very active creature in the past. Its slowness is a late adaptation.The Marsupials were in the past, post flood, as or more common in South America then Australia. Of coarse it is impossible that Marsupials from the flood went to those areas only and other creatures went elsewhere exclusively. Therefore as Sherlooke Holmes would say whatever possibility remains however unlikely must be the truth.
As a possibility I suggest these were the first creatures to migrate from the flood and reach the furthest areas first. Not as a exclusive group but simply as evidence of the original body types of the animals on the earth. For there were marsupial dogs and cats completely resembling regular dogs and cats (evolutionists call it convergent evolution) and so I suggest marsupialism was just an original state and not evidence of different creatures but the same creatures with a different reproductive system. Perhaps to quickly fill the earth after the flood.
Randy made good points and there are good creationist answers.

Thanks all for the responce to my defense of biogeography as a friend of creationism.
Randy criticisms was about small or slow creatures migrating from the Ark. The moles,echina and koala all migrate over thier own territory now quite fine. And the few hundred years after the flood would suffice.
Randy brought up an important point about what did not migrate to Australia. Gazelles etc No problem. In the short time after the flood and before the waterlevel rose separating Australia from other land only certain animals made it over. Perhaps it was jungle and brush land and so not suited to the other creatures. As Australia today is not hospitable to deer. Australia was only a short oppurtunity for some.
I would also add it is relatively recent that plate teutonics was accepted in Geology circles. And yet till then the evolution community would of offered explanation after explanation to explain the marsupial world down there. Not science just speculation. Just asv now thier theory for australia is without verifiable evidence.

Thanks all and especially Randy for replying to me.
Randy said why all the kinds of marsupials went to australia only and other animal kinds did not go to australia.First it must be understood that the present marsupial world was not the past. South America was equal to Australia in the diversity of Marsupials. They went extinct in SA just a few thousand years ago.After the flood there were just a few hundred years for the animals to spread out from the Ark. So the Then ecology of Australia etc was only suitable for certain types of animals. Not the four footed runners of the fields. And so objections can be answered.
As for the reason for marsupials to only get in well I offered a suggestion. The marsupial wolf is just the same kind of wolf elsewhere. The evolutionists must reach to concepts like convergent evolution. Yet Creationists need only say the creatures in Australia are the same as elsewhere and only the type of reproduction has changed or was the original type and our animals changed.
I read a book once by someone learned in reproduction processes of marsupials ,not a creationist, and he stressed the difference between live birth and marsupials was very little.Biogeography is easily and best explained by creationists science models. And in the future will prevail I believe. Thats why the most intelligent people in the world Americans (and Canadians) are the strongest advocates of it.
All the best
Robert Byers

I though my answer to the usual evolutionist attempts to use the marsupial situation against creationists was excellent.
There is a misunderstanding amongst you all about animal capabilities.
Koalas for example are just tree restricted and acually can move quite quick. But thats not the point. They like Tree sloths and Sloth bears (In India)are simply ground creatures that took to tres for survival. Also include tree kangaroos.jar asked about defining kind. I don't know what a kind is.
The created kinds were corrupted by the fall. There was no death in the animal kingdom before the fall. So no carnivores etc. Indeed the snake kind did not originally crawl. It lost its legs but remained in kind. My interest about kinds and biogeography is post flood.
Again I say the marsupials were the war all animals were after the flood or they only marsupialized after australia and South America were separated by rising water. In SA a bridge later formed bringing the placental animals. This didn't happen in Australia.
Marsupials are a gain for creationists and it is evolutionists who have had to scramble to explain them. Thats why only recently has the idea of SA,Antarctica,and Australia being joined once been accepted.
Regards

In responce to Randy about Marsupials. Marsupialism is just a condition of reproduction and not the dividing line between kins. It existed befor and after the flood. As neither evolutions or us have witnessed the origin and changes we all agree have taken place in creatures it for both open to interpretation. I conclude marsupialism is not a big change any more then colour change in people after the flood. We all have witnessed nothin' And we all can not verify by testing nothin'. The subject of origins is not science but instead a study in history. Otherwise it would not be contended.Also again Randy brings up as a fact the human definitions to separate the natural world. Like mammal etc. These are not the real differences or they are but it is still interpretation of humans. So creationists are not bound by it.Now you'all I as a Canadian creationist have taken the challenge of Randy that creationists couldn't answer the CLEAR evidence against the flood story by the marsupial situation. I have answered. I have answered very well. In fact my answer is more plausiible then your answers. And you have been forced to respond to my assertions while offering nothing substansive that I need to answer you.
Enough yelping and gasping. Randy and the rest did too pony up to the bar and admitt the australia business isn't a slam dunk for you folk after all. Indeed it fits fine with the creationist model of origins.
I claim, well not victory, but much land conquored. Biogeography should not fit well the flood story and yet it fits fine.
Regards Rob

OK I will do this reply thing but I receive a lot of responces with points duplicated but I'm new to this so here goes.
Yes wolves foxes ,marupial wolves and other wolf kinds in the post flood record are all the dog kind. Perhaps one could go further and say dogs and bears are one kind. All that matters is that one kind came off the ark and then we can figure out its present day subkinds.

I am aware of the other anatomical connections of marsupials to each other and the differences between them and placentals.
What of it. These creatures being similiar in any way is a result of location and evirorment. In the arctic many creatures are white and heavy furred but it is not evidence (anyone says) of ancestry.
Evolutionists are the ones who draw from a mouse in Asia a wolf and from a different mouse entirely in Australia a Marsupial mouse. Creationists accept micro changes though not macro.
And a wolf is a wolf whether its pouched or not. The first instinct is often the right one. This also to the others on this point.

You say criminal forensics is science. Well just my point(one of them) It isn't science. It is just compiling evidence after the fact. Science is about testing etc. Otherwise every mother who finds cookie crumbs on her kids hands would be engage in science. She isn't.Again always you guys answer by bringing up more untested,unproven premises.
DNA is new and primitive. There is no evidence that DNA connections are evidence of ancestry. They are just evidence of similiar anatomical makeup. THere is just one model for life and similar body types equal similar DNA. DNA similirity between marsupials is just because of similar makeup on some points. YOu prove nothing by claiming DNA. Evolution was argued long before this came along.

I don't know about anyone else saying what I say but these are veryb small circles. To get to a new truth someone must be first and so you heard it here first what may become standard textbook creationist interpretation or maybe not.
Evidence! from evolutionists?! All this area is about studied speculation bothsides.

AGAIN lets remember what started all this. Randy said creationists could not explain Australia/marsupials situation. A common objection. Well I gave a explanation that "can" explain (and probably does)the matter. Its not my job to allow falsifing and predictions. Evolutions , despite the great conclusions drawn never employ sush matters relatove to what would be done in a study of science. Which is why creationists can easily attack and dismember it.

AGAIN lets remember what started all this. Randy said creationists could not explain Australia/marsupials situation. A common objection. Well I gave a explanation that "can" explain (and probably does)the matter. Its not my job to allow falsifing and predictions. Evolutions , despite the great conclusions drawn never employ sush matters relatove to what would be done in a study of science. Which is why creationists can easily attack and dismember it.

DNA is in a primitive state of our understanding right now is my point. And conclusions about it in the future will constantly change ideas about its reliability and it works.
Therefore one can explain away any situation where DNA is similiar between dissimilar creatures.
So a marsupial kangaroo and marsupial wolf DNA could be similiar because the reproduction business dominates in the DNA. Even though the Marsupial wolf and our wolf are the same one originally. Lots of ways to deal with the new world of atoms. Again all is not proven on any side but is just accepted as plausible.

YEs the marsupial wolf looks like a wolf and the first hypothesis to its origin should be BECAUSE ITS A WOLF. I don't nmean to be unreasonable here. Many creatures in the Marsupial world likewise. It fact evolutionists must reach with theories to accomadate this mater. Its called convergent evolution and any book will discuss it. In short when evolutionists try to decide for us ancestry they say OF COARSE a ape is related to humans look at its similarity then if there is a problem they say convergent evolution. First disprove the obvious then get creative.

Been away. Again you and others grasp for DNA to save your ideas. Yet DNA is in a early and primitive state. There is noe evidence to persuade that it tells the tale of ancient origins as opposed to telling the story of a common blueprint.
Perhaps my history is wrong but it was not successful in convicting O.J Simpson. Because it is still not understood.

Mr Loudmouth you are not arguing a matter with point/counter point rather you are just claiming a higher authority. You don't prove or show why an opponent should be persuaded.
You say yourself 20 years for real DNA emergence. Yes early and still primitive in understanding what it is. It is not proven it shows ancient ancestry just that all creatures have a common make up. Yes we creationists would say at last it is realized that thier is a common blueprint and a single active creater. The ability to show human/parental relationship is just a special case within DNA. That is all and only that has been proven. I notice you folk on your last legs.