How did the Aborigines get to Australia?

Hi Portillo,It's a start, but you will need to pay a little more attention to the details.Let me warn you that you will be confronted with evidence that you will find difficult to understand or assimilate, not because the evidence is difficult, but because it does not match your worldview. This is due to cognitive dissonance, something that affects anyone confronting evidence that does not match their worldview (see link for more on this or to discuss it). .... and most of the fossil record just does not match this prediction. In science we say that such failed predictions mean the hypothesis is highly questionable and needs to be adjusted to better fit the evidence .... ... and you completely avoided the question, so let me try again: how do you explain fossils that were formed by being completely dried out. Except that there are fossils that are delicate and preserved completely in their natural state -- fan coral and brachiopods for example (and both grow fixed to the bottom) -- that would be broken by such a process. Please cite chapter and verse where the bible states this happens. It needs to be specific, not someone's interpretation. Otherwise you are just invoking magic imagination to explain fantasy instead of using the real evidence. Which is what science says occurs over millions of years. Curiously scientists have measured the current rates and compared them to the times needed to make the mountains we see, and there is more than enough time for this to occur through tested scientifically studied mechanisms, mechanisms that correlate between dates and mountain ranges all over the world ... mountain ranges that do NOT date to the same periods ALL fit this pattern.If you have an issue with dates\time then I suggest you start at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and we can work on clearing that issue up first. The earth IS old, and it is time to accept that fact.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ...

Thanks for replying.
Could you tell me: how long do fossils take to form?

Well, Leonardo da Vinci investigated fossils up in the Alps about half a millenium ago, and found thick beds of clams and such in growth position- upper ones attached to lower shells - just like they grew off Italy at the time. No smashing involved.About 140 years ago, Thomas Henry Huxley wrote an essay on the chalk that forms the White Cliffs of Dover as well as a lot of the subsurface of England. He lays it out much more clearly than I could: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE8/Chalk.html
It isn't too long - go give it a read and let's discuss.

Hi Portillo,I see you have declined to answer most of the questions that have been put to you. This is a shame. We're not asking you these questions as some sort of ridiculous "gotcha" moment; we are asking you because it does not seem that you have any explanation. As it happens though, palaeontology does have an explanation. For as long as you present nothing, mainstream science will win by default.Please, at least take a shot;Why do we only see trilobites from the Cambrian to the end of the Permian? Why no later? Why do we never see them fossilised together with crabs or lobsters, when they would have shared the same habitat?Why do we only see flowering plants appear from the Cretaceous onwards? Why do we never find them in older rocks, even when we do find plants such as ferns and club mosses?And if some mechanism somehow sorted these organisms into discrete layers, why did it not affect corals or brachiopods, or other groups that persist in the fossil record back to the early Cambrian or beyond?I understand that you may not have answers to these questions - not least because the answers don't exist on account of the fact that Flood Geology is nonsense - but if you want your creationist model to be taken seriously, you need to make the effort to address these issues.Oh, by the way; You ought to realise that the extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous is not the only such event recorded in the fossil record. The Permian-Triassic event is another, quite distinct from the KT event. There are others, take a look; The KT event is labelled "End K" (end of the Cretaceous). You can see how it is not the only such event, nor even the biggest, merely the most famous, since it wiped out those ever-popular dinosaurs. What we are seeing here is a succession of disappearances from the fossil record. Yet each is followed by a radiation of new species, that took advantage of the opportunity. Care to explain how a single flood could create so many completely separate extinctions?Mutate and Survive

There were malacostracans in the Cambrian.

Sure, but not crabs or lobsters, unambiguous examples of which only appear from the Jurassic onwards.Mutate and Survive

OK.

And, actually, you finally get most of it right. The fossils were buried where they had lived and then subsequently that stratum ended up elsewhere through geological processes. That is exactly what geologists also say, though you disagree with them as to how long that took. As well as your ignoring all the other geological strata. And, yes, localized flooding did and continues to happen. Geologists are fully capable of telling rapid from slow depositation, so they're not idiots. The history of geology is born out of geologists looking for evidence of Noah's Flood, which they never have found.But that's not what you were saying in Message 155, to which I was replying. In that message, you invoked two old, old standard "creation science" nonsense claims (read "bullshit"), which claim both that fossils were of animals living at those elevations and that those animals who could see the Flood coming and were "swifter of foot" fled to higher elevations. Here is what you wrote, in case you wish to forget: Nowhere in that scenario did you speak of strata in which fossils were buried being raised to other elevations. Instead, you spoke only of life living in or moving to other elevations. The scenario to which I was responding was one in which topography did not change -- lower and higher elevations then were the elevations at which everything was buried.Your "reply" is to completely change your story. You are not sticking to your story in any way. You know full well that you have been caught in a lie and so you are making up yet another lie.Typical creationism in action.Please answer me this question. Your actions indicate that you believe that your god must be served through lies and deception. According to Christian doctrine, which Christian deity is served by lies and deception? Let me give you some clues in case you're stuck: 5 letters, starts with "S", ends with "n", has a "t" in the middle, both vowels are "a". Need any more clues?

Yeah, and speaking of the Cumberland Bone Cave: Thoughts, Portillo?

There's a lot of discussion that doesn't appear to be about Australia going on. It seems to have become a thread about fossils in general. Quite interesting, probably deserves a thread of its own.Can posters make an effort to tie into the Australia question from here on out.

It fits the prediction of mass-catastrophe and mass-death. The fossil chart that appears in the textbooks doesnt actually exist anywhere on the planet. The fossil chart has a gradual process from marine invertebrates, to vertebrate fish, amphibians, reptiles, man etc. However, 95% of the fossil record is marine invertebrates. 95% of the remaining fossils are plants. The rest is mostly fish and insects. The land dwelling vertebrates make up less than 1% of the record. Is it any surprise that the planet is filled with water, marine fossils, sedimentary deposits and fossil graveyards? The planet is covered with evidence of a watery catastrophe. In Psalm 104, it says "Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains." Like a blanket of water covering the earth. Preflood mountains were different to todays mountains. They were lower in elevation, they had no fossils, and were not covered in ice and snow. "The mountains rose; and the valleys sank down, to the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a boundary that they may not pass over; that they may not return to cover the earth." After the flood, the mountains rose to new altitudes, the ocean basins sank down, and the waters retreated to the ocean shoreline, the boundary of the ocean. Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

Kangaroos/wallabies got to Australia from a great land bridge that connected Indochina to Australia.

The problem for proponents of a "great flood" is that the "marine fossils, sedimentary deposits and fossil graveyards" don't occur at a single specific time. They are spread out over >3 billion years.Doesn't that detract from the credibility of your argument?

Couldn't this be referring to the time when the earth was formless and void and the Spirit of God moved over the face of the waters?

There is absolute evidence that there has never been a worldwide flood as described in the Bible.Anyone who tries to assert that there was a Biblical flood is simply wrong and should be dismissed.It really is that simple.