[_ Old Earth _] Koalas and the Great Flood

[Deep Thought]

As per the subject, how did Koalas come to be assuming you believe in YEC and the great flood?

 

[Ignatz]

For that matter, where did pygmies come from? :

I look forward to the posts, but most creationists have no theories of their own, they simply point out gaps in our understanding of ToE. (Even though evolutionary biologists already do that.)

 

[Dunzo]

For that matter, where did pygmies come from? :

I look forward to the posts, but most creationists have no theories of their own, they simply point out gaps in our understanding of ToE. (Even though evolutionary biologists already do that.)

What gaps?

As for the OP, there are pleeeeenty more species native to Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, etc., too many to name in fact, that would have absolutely no way of travelling all the way to the ark. The emu for example, can't swim or fly, how could it possibly exist post-noachian flood?

 

[Ignatz]

For that matter, where did pygmies come from? :

I look forward to the posts, but most creationists have no theories of their own, they simply point out gaps in our understanding of ToE. (Even though evolutionary biologists already do that.)

What gaps?

As for the OP, there are pleeeeenty more species native to Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, etc., too many to name in fact, that would have absolutely no way of travelling all the way to the ark. The emu for example, can't swim or fly, how could it possibly exist post-noachian flood?

By "Gaps I just meant those things that aren't fully understood, like bacterial flagellum, I think it was, which I seem to remember having some issues with irreducible complexity, though I don't know if that's still the case.

I agree with you.

 

[Deep Thought]

By "Gaps I just meant those things that aren't fully understood, like bacterial flagellum, I think it was, which I seem to remember having some issues with irreducible complexity, though I don't know if that's still the case.

The Dover Trials blew apart the central case of ID's irreducible complexity and example of the bacterial flagellum.

Anyway, that's getting a bit off topic for this thread. I'm waiting with anticipation as to what creative explanation John et al have to offer for the Koalas.

 

[John]

You already know what is is i am gonna say don't you ?

Your waiting for it, so you can tell me that i am so wrong, by your world view., i lol'd

 

[freeway]

wait,, wait,, I'm looking!!

 

[Heidi]

For that matter, where did pygmies come from? :

I look forward to the posts, but most creationists have no theories of their own, they simply point out gaps in our understanding of ToE. (Even though evolutionary biologists already do that.)

We creationists don't claim to be omniscient like evolutionary scientists claim to be. The bible doesn't tell us that koalas weren't on the ark. ;-)

 

[jwu]

We creationists don't claim to be omniscient like evolutionary scientists claim to be. The bible doesn't tell us that koalas weren't on the ark. ;-)

I challenge you cite at least two (you used a plural) conventional scientists claiming to be omniscient.

 

[Deep Thought]

Am I to understand that no creationist here has an explaination? Naturally that's the logical conclusion when you start scrutinising the evidence for the "great flood".

 

[John]

there are many explanations and theories i just refuse to post because i know its just a rhetorical question, you already knwo0 what i am gonna say, and are just waiting to throw pointless, empty counter theories at it, and frankly i find it to be a waste of my time.

 

[Deep Thought]

there are many explanations and theories i just refuse to post because i know its just a rhetorical question, you already knwo0 what i am gonna say, and are just waiting to throw pointless, empty counter theories at it, and frankly i find it to be a waste of my time.

It's not a rhetorical question. I have no idea what you are going to say. I can only conclude you have no valid explanation and therefore should concede that the story of the Great Flood is just a myth.

 

[Ignatz]

We creationists don't claim to be omniscient like evolutionary scientists claim to be. The bible doesn't tell us that koalas weren't on the ark. ;-)

Scientists don't think they are omniscient, but please, give an example. They come up with a hypothesis, then they go out and test it to see if it holds water.

 

[Bryce]

I'll give a shot,

Great Flood is just a myth

I'm too lazy to quote on this so I'll post a link, here's a non-biased opinion supporting evidence that there was a Great Flood
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/ ... .finds.ap/
--
Ancient philosophers and a mans use of modern science suggesting the Great Flood to be a fact.
http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/Flood.htm
--
"Compelling evidence that there was a Great Flood, as told in the Old Testament story of Noah's Ark, has been found far below the waters of the Black Sea by an American expedition. "
http://www.dangoor.com/73page29.html
--
And a bit more-Biased opinion
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/ednks004.html

These were the four first things I found when I did a search on google.

I then searched for evidence that the Great Flood did not happen, I found nothing.

I don't see an argument that it didn't happen so I can't see a reason to debate.
Please instead tell me why you think it didn't happen and when you do so; please provide proof.
---------------------------
Koala's Kangaroo's Predators etc. Scientist say a flood had too happen [Read the ^ ] BUT they have to reason as to how the animals survived; the bible on the other hand is at least feasable in it's awsner. And supporting the awnser to the surivival of Koala's, Kangaroo's and Predators (etc.)
I give you this;
"Some, like koalas, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?� Actually, the koala does not require eucalyptus leaves, but can feed on other things as well, including the Monterey pine, not a native of Australia. Woodmorappe�s book has a whole chapter on this and other specialised diets! For example, the carnivores on the ark could have been fed reconstituted dried meat and fodder tortoises. Isaak also asks, �How did predators survive [after they left the Ark]?� Woodmorappe wrote a chapter on this as well, but Isaak doesn�t let on, as usual. Woodmorappe pointed out that they could have survived on fish, carrion and edible fungi. They can even survive on vegetables if they must."
My source giving even more probable awnsers;
http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

Glad to help ..?

 

[jwu]

I'll give a shot,

Great Flood is just a myth

I'm too lazy to quote on this so I'll post a link, here's a non-biased opinion supporting evidence that there was a Great Flood

Did you actually read the links? They deal with the flooding of what now is the Black Sea, they don't postulate a global deluge.

I then searched for evidence that the Great Flood did not happen, I found nothing.

Just wondering...what exactly did you search for? I don't have any difficulties finding plenty of articles on this on google.

I don't see an argument that it didn't happen so I can't see a reason to debate.
Please instead tell me why you think it didn't happen and when you do so; please provide proof.

You'll find threads about this on page one of this forum:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31528
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31527

 

[Ignatz]

My understanding is that at the end of the last ice-age, as the ice-sheets were melting and receding, that this caused wide spread floods. There are non-biblical accounts of massive flooding, as far away as the Americas around this time. Some of these floods were huge, and would have appeared to be world-wide to observers at the time.

 

[John]

Yes there proably were great local floods, however the bible says even the mountains were covered.

The Local flood of noah ? Hmm i don't think so.

 

[Bryce]

Did you actually read the links? They deal with the flooding of what now is the Black Sea, they don't postulate a global deluge.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/ ... .finds.ap/ [First link I posted]
"perhaps inundated by the biblical flood"
""So we know that there was a sudden and dramatic change from a freshwater lake to a saltwater sea 7,000 years ago," he said Tuesday.
"And we know that as a result of that flood a vast amount of land went under water."
As for the 3 other links I posted there are directly dealing with your subject and[or] topic.

Just wondering...what exactly did you search for? I don't have any difficulties finding plenty of articles on this on google.

I searched for "Great Flood did not happen" I'm tired, I should of looked it up using better words, but then again I found many results on my first search supporting the great flood when I typed in "Great Flood did happen"
Which is where I found and used the 4 links I used in my previous post. :-?

]You'll find threads about this on page one of this forum:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31528
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31527

Sure, I'll read up on it.
But before I do, please tell me why you think my [quoted-link posted] theories were wrong.
I don't want to have to read it for nothing, I'm tired <__<



@Johnmuise, you mind if I steal that pic? :-?

 

[jwu]

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/ ... .finds.ap/ [First link I posted]
quote="perhaps inundated by the biblical flood"
""So we know that there was a sudden and dramatic change from a freshwater lake to a saltwater sea 7,000 years ago," he said Tuesday.
"And we know that as a result of that flood a vast amount of land went under water."
As for the 3 other links I posted there are directly dealing with your subject and[or] topic.

It's about the flooding of the Black Sea, which is thought to be the origin of the deluge myth. This is made perfectly clear over the course of the article.

It's the same with the two following links as well, they also refer to the Black Sea event. Again, neither of these argues for the whole world being covered with water all at once. What they are referring to is that at the end of the last ice age the sea level rose dramatically, as lots of water that previously was bound as ice was molten. This flooded the then-coastal areas and likely inspired the flood myth.
We however are still at the height of this flood. The sea level has not decreased significantly since then.

The fourth link just says that a global deluge provides one of the factors which contribute to fossilization, and then jumps to a conclusion. it completely disregards aspects such as the exact stratigraphy which is observed...it is utterly incompatible with a single flood event. After all, it were Christian scientists in the 18th century who actually were searching for evidence for the noachian deluge who were the first to come to the conclusion that it is not supported by the geological record.

 

[Ignatz]

Yes there proably were great local floods, however the bible says even the mountains were covered.
The Local flood of noah ? Hmm i don't think so.

Yes, the flood may have covered some hills in the area, but no mountains. If the water got that high, the evidence for a flood would occupy a much larger area than it does. Besides, If the water level was high enough to cover mount everest, for example, (and there is no evidence that it did) where would all that water have come from/gone?

Noah supposedly lived in the southern tigris-euphrates river valley, which would have experienced incredible flooding, but there is no evidence to suggest that it covered the entire planet, though it would have appeared so.

Also, there aren't any mountains in the southern tigris–euphrates valley where Noah supposedly lived, only hills on a flat alluvial plain. The nearest mountains would have been below the horizon. Noah may have seen hills being flooded in the euphrates valley but not mountains.

From "the Noah's ark book" chapter 3
The Hebrew word har (plural harîm, plural possessive harê) translated as "mountains" in Genesis 7:20 and 8:4 can also mean "hills" and is so translated in many other places in the Old Testament including Genesis 7:19b (King James Version): "and all the high hills ..."