Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.

quote:

---

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.

---

Actually, they move over only a very small area. Oh, and can you enlighten us as to how plants managed to move? How do we have unique plants in Australia, others in Scotland, and yet more unique planta on the Galapogos Islands?

quote:

---

Randy brought up an important point about what did not migrate to Australia. Gazelles etc No problem.

---

Big problem, actually.

quote:

---

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.

---

Ah, but New Zealand, f.ex, is VERY hospitable to deer, to the extend where the deer introduced around 100 years ago now have to be shot from helicopters with machine guns because there are to many of them. The deer obviously did not make it to Australia or New Zealand, but would have thrived if they did. And that's also true for the rabbits introduced to Australia. It is also true for the Dingo.It is also true for the rats on all those pacific islands where they weren't present before ships brought them in the 1800's. Are you going to claim that RATS couldn't make it through this ficticious jungle that you have imagined, while other animals did, including kangoroos that are rather clumsy in tall and dense vegetation?

quote:

---

Australia was only a short oppurtunity for some.

---

So why did kangoroos make it, while deer, rabbits didn't? Why did the marsupial wolf make it when the dog didn't? We certainly know that all of those anim also WOULD have thrived in that region of the world if they made it, as they are now thriving after humans introduced them.Your desperate and elaborate explanations are getting more and more illogical, and have LONG AGO stopped being supported by ANYTHING ever found in the Bible, thus now solely being a product of your overheated imagination. Your wishful thinking is not evidence, especially when directly contradicted by FACTS.

quote:

---

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.

---

I wish you would stop LYING about science. Other than making you look dishonest, stupid and ignorant, it also makes it pointless to have a discussion. I have little interest in providing evidence or produce any detailed explanation about anything when you are just going to lie about it anyway.But hey, if you feel that bearing false witness is the thing that makes your case, then so be it.

quote:

---

I though my answer to the usual evolutionist attempts to use the marsupial situation against creationists was excellent.

---

No doubt you do. We find it silly.

quote:

---

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.

---

Funny, how there are then no koalas in the apple tree in my backyard. SHEESH!

quote:

---

jar asked about defining kind. I don't know what a kind is.

---

ROTFLMAO. No kidding. Neither does anybody else, which doesn't stop creationists from exhaulting the concept. Hmm.

quote:

---

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.

---

What a load of crap.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, we know this is what you SAY. We also know that all evidence speaks directly AGAINST that nonsense, and as such, your claims are exposed as self-serving nonsense based NOT on reality, but rather on your desperate need to fit reality into your myth. Rather pathetic to watch, actually.

quote:

---

Yes wolves foxes ,marupial wolves and other wolf kinds in the post flood record are all the dog kind.

---

So one of the 72 kinds is the Dog kind? What are the other kind?

quote:

---

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

---

Ah, so "kind" is whatever fits your arguemnt? ALl mammals and marsupials are one kind, but dogs are a separate kind, right?Are you COMPLETELY DAFT?

quote:

---

I am aware of the other anatomical connections of marsupials to each other and the differences between them and placentals.
What of it.

---

Well, you claimed that they were all one kind. Are Whales and fish both one kind, merely because they kind of look alike whan you first glance them?

quote:

---

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.

---

Before you said that a Tasmanian "wolf" and a placental wolf were one kind because they looked alike. Now you contradict yourself. Were you ZLYING then, or are you LYING now?

quote:

---

Evolutionists are the ones who draw from a mouse in Asia a wolf and from a different mouse entirely in Australia a Marsupial mouse.

---

How so? Please provide evidence for your claim (Nah, I am not holding my breath, as everything you claim is based on your "because I say so" kind of "evidence" with no documentation and no reply when proven either erroneous or outright false).

quote:

---

Creationists accept micro changes though not macro.

---

And "marsupialization" is a micro-change? The generation of many hunders of new species quite unique and diverese is "micro-evolution"?In that case, please define the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.And for that matter, please define how you use "kind," preferrably by listing as many different kind as you can.

quote:

---

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.

---

So something that swims is a fish, reagrdless of whether it breathes air or not? What "instinct" are you using here, and hopw do you know it is the right one? Because you say so?

Why are you outright LYING about science?

quote:

---

Again all is not proven on any side but is just accepted as plausible.

---

No, your nonsense is NOT as plausible. All you have to support it is your "because I say so" wild postulations and your "instinct." Wishful thinking is not evidence, even though you seem to believe so. Perhaps your "instinct" told you so? Or do you not worry about bearing false witness, given the dishonest methods of argument you use?

Yes, their arguments and reasonings generally are rather lame, aren't they. Trying to invent "evidence" that fit what they at that time see as their conclusion, until it also is disproven, then have to hedge by making up more "evidence." They are so lame.