How did the Aborigines get to Australia?

What theory's that? The one that you made up?Geologists know perfectly well that some layers form rapidly. They are extremely adept at telling these layers from those that formed over much longer periods. Not all strata form at the same rate - obviously.I also notice that not only is your response not relevant to the thread's topic, it actually has nothing to do with what you were replying to. So far, this thread has consisted of you being wrong about something, being told that you're wrong, only for you to respond by being wrong about some other, unrelated, topic.Just for a change of pace, do you think you could try being wrong about marsupials and Australia? Y'know, the topic that you wanted to talk about... Only if you were an ignoramus with no knowledge of geology and a desperate want for common sense. Indeed. So one would imagine that the flood would leave a very clear deposit that no-one could miss. But when we look at the rocks, it's not there. I wonder why. Okay, I'll add that to the list. The long, long list of things you don't know.For the record, almost every word of that last paragraph is wrong. You might try and learn the most basic rudiments of geology before commenting on it.Or - hey! - here's an idea; do you know how marsupials got to Australia? That would be a fun topic! I'm still dying to hear how a land bridge could form across the deepest ocean trench in the world.Mutate and Survive

Well, I arranged this. Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo. By my request, it is set up to be wide-ranging and broadly-focused, and to be about all concepts in "flood geology". Also, for my fellow science fans, I would like you to abide by my request and let Portillo set out his ideas first.From here forwards, anything about anything except Australian fauna really is off-topic, because we now have a general thread where we can discuss Portillo's ideas about "flood geology".OK?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Is it possible that before, Australia was at a distance where the marsupials could swim to it or that Noah could have took the time to put all of those marsupials to Australia? You cant say it would be unbiblical because that would be arguing a little detail to refute the flood. He could have also put all those marsupials there because thats where he found them or where they cam from. He could have navigated because he was able to get to mount aratEdited by CoolBeans, : No reason given.

Can you refute my possibility?

Ahh so you have been concern trolling all along and actually are a creo.Just as I thought.

Well you can, 'cos it is. Genesis 8 makes the sequence of events perfectly clear. First the Ark grounds on Mount Ararat, then the waters recede, then Noah lets the animals out. If he went to Australia first, the waters wouldn't have receded, and the only way he could have got them to Australia as such would be by tying weights to their feet and dropping them on it. Besides which Genesis 8 says that when he disembarked from the Ark "everything that moves on land came out of the ark".

He could have build another boat

Nah. Im just asking questions.

I know this are ad hoc explanation, but when has this stopped them.Edited by CoolBeans, : No reason given.

The flood story, and the feats performed by the arc, have so many holes in them I wouldn't put much faith in anything anyone claimed for either.For example, the date for marsupials in Australia is placed about 50 million years ago, while the date biblical scholars agree upon for the flood is about 4,350 years ago.That's an error factor of about 11,000 x. Conflating those two disparate events is such a stretch that it does not engender much confidence in anyone making such a claim.In most science an error factor of 5-10% is considered totally unacceptable. It would be nice if religious apologetics was as rigorous a discipline, but given the "evidence" it has to work with I can understand why it is not.

How odd that he would write that in response to Granny Magda's Message 211 which was in response to Portillo. Coolbeans appears to be claiming what Granny was responding to as being Coolbeans' "possibility".Does this mean that Coolbeans is a new name for Portillo to hide behind?

Hahaha All of his points have already been adressed.Edited by CoolBeans, : No reason given.

You sir are a troll.

Prove it

Any imaginary person could have built an imaginary boat after the imaginary flood and faked up biogeography to make it look like evolutionists are right. But why would they want to?