|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How did animal get to isolated places after the flood? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
I've always wondered how Australia's very interesting wildlife got there after the Flud, not to mention the Tazmanian Devil itself. I think it's actually the monotremes that are unique to Australia/New Guinea. I think that young earthers stick in land bridges pretty much everywhere to help things along.
That's why I wonder about the sloths, in particular. Even if we're generous with land bridges, at the rate these animals move I figure that, starting from the Middle-east 5000 years ago, they'd just about be reaching South America now. Can any YEC help me to understand the story of the sloths?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
SR71 writes: Honestly, I suppose there doesn't need to be an explanation, given that strict Bible supporters believe that God dropped food from heaven for the Israelites for 40 years. Exactly. God did it, so magic is allowed, so ultimately, there's no point in all this "creation science" stuff anyway. Which is why everyone on the thread except for one, I think (RiverRat) is treating it as a joke. Your point about the carnivores eating the herbivores is one that creationists can't be scientific about, so presumably carnivorism is an evil which came into the world after the flood and because of the fall. It's astonishing to find this level of superstition in the literate western world in the twenty first century.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
SR17 writes: What is the reason for people completely ignoring logic and reason? There is nothing that I deem worthy of complete and unquestioned belief. Religion, or rather, before the liberal religious object, certain types of religion. The promise of heaven and the threat of hell are powerful for some people who've been indoctrinated with literalist interpretations of the Bible in childhood. By the way:
SR17 writes: An animal can't be a partial carnivore. Be careful with all the biologists around here! It's called an omnivore, and you're one! Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Archer Opterix writes: The point, of course, is social. Fundamentalist parents have a lot of cognitive dissonance with the science their kids learn. The idea is to get Genesis--or at least Genesis-compatible ideas--admitted into school science classes. A contributing factor is Science Envy. Fundamentalists see the respect science enjoys and crave that legitimacy for their views. They know that in the age of cloning and space travel their approach looks ignorant and backward. They seek to paper this over by imitating the conventions of science without adopting any its methods or substance. Every time Carl Baugh awards himself a new PhD we see one of the more obvious manifestations of Science Envy. Welcome to EvC. Thanks for the welcome, Archer. I think you've got it about right there, so far as it goes, although the whole story is maybe a bit more complicated. What I find astonishing, though, is that there are actually people with genuine science qualifications who are fervent young-earthers. There are young earth geologists and (my favourite oxymoron) young earth paleontologists. I think that these people must be so good at deluding themselves that we're almost talking about mental illness here. It's getting a bit like the flat earth society, which still exists, as you probably know. It's one thing having no education and no real understanding of the evidence. But being a working geologist, say for an oil company, and still managing to believe that this planet is less than 10,000 years old just means living in a constant state of self-deception. It really shows the grip that religion can have on people in a way which is, to me, quite spectacular. It's weird!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
jar writes: But the food was hyper-macro dehydrated. A whole barn full of hay bales was reduced to the size of a sugar cube. Are you sure that's kosher?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
jar writes: That does not address though the overwhelming evidence of the missing Gopherwood Forests Y'all down there in Texas know how to respect the word of a genuine preacher, so listen to old Adam Clark.
Wikipedia writes: Several guesses as to the nature of gopher wood have been made, the most common of which is the cypress. Adam Clarke, a Methodist theologian famous for his commentary on the Bible, cited the Greek word for cypress, kuparisson, and the resemblance of this word's base, kupar, to the Hebrew word gophar Plenty of cypress trees around today. (Of topic: P.S. Thanks for the welcome that you put in my experimental thread the other day, jar. I didn't thank you there because it would bump up a useless thread in the "all topics" list!)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
jar writes: Simply a case of denial. Nothing wrong with denial from a YEC point of view. Everything you need to know about Gopher Wood can be found in the link below. It finishes with the priceless conclusion:
The bottom-line is that this ancient word (gopher) remains a mystery. It is just one of many things I look forward to asking Noah about, when I get to Heaven. GOPHER WOODWhat is it? - ChristianAnswers.Net
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
The proof of this is again found in the Ark. Noah, his family and neighbors built the Ark using only stone tools. Was it some kind of punishment from God that forced Noah to use stone tools in the Bronze Age? I thought he was God's favourite. I reckon God probably gave him a chainsaw. Seeing as you know so much about it, why didn't God just build the damned thing for him anyway. And why bother with all this flood business anyway, when he could of killed of all the baddies with lightning bolts? That's what Zeus would've done. But you'd expect a Greek God to be more practical and scientific. Personally, I think Jehova had severe emotional problems. The whole thing smacks of attention seeking to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
An understatement, I think, Nator.
Getting back to the O.P., I suppose we could now say that the creationist side of the argument has come up with evidence that freshwater rats, after the flud, could have crossed the oceans on rafts of pure bullshit! Actually, throughout the whole thread of over 150 posts, no creationist has come up with any reasonable attempt to answer the question "How did animals get to isolated places after the flood?" so we may as well give up on it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024