-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Caroline H
Member
- Jul 9, 2008
- 5,830
- 7
Sorry to bring up such an old topic, but I've been reading this thread and no one has mentioned this possibility...
Has anyone considered that at the time of the Great Flood there may have been only one large continent? In Genesis 10 there follows a genealogy of the decendants of Noah. In verse 25 it says:
"And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg (which means Division); for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
I would imagine that after such a massive global deluge which involved many geologic factors, there would still be heavy tectonic activity for a long time. It is my belief that the current rate of tectonic movement is nowhere near what it was at the time of the flood. So if the landmasses were not broken apart yet it would be possible for koalas, and any other animal, to make their way to the Ark.
Again, sorry I "dug up a dinosaur"
Has anyone considered that at the time of the Great Flood there may have been only one large continent? In Genesis 10 there follows a genealogy of the decendants of Noah. In verse 25 it says:
"And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg (which means Division); for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
I would imagine that after such a massive global deluge which involved many geologic factors, there would still be heavy tectonic activity for a long time. It is my belief that the current rate of tectonic movement is nowhere near what it was at the time of the flood. So if the landmasses were not broken apart yet it would be possible for koalas, and any other animal, to make their way to the Ark.
Again, sorry I "dug up a dinosaur"
caromurp said:Sorry to bring up such an old topic, but I've been reading this thread and no one has mentioned this possibility...
Has anyone considered that at the time of the Great Flood there may have been only one large continent? In Genesis 10 there follows a genealogy of the decendants of Noah. In verse 25 it says:
"And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg (which means Division); for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
I would imagine that after such a massive global deluge which involved many geologic factors, there would still be heavy tectonic activity for a long time. It is my belief that the current rate of tectonic movement is nowhere near what it was at the time of the flood. So if the landmasses were not broken apart yet it would be possible for koalas, and any other animal, to make their way to the Ark.
Again, sorry I "dug up a dinosaur"
Right on the money Caroline. check out this short video, you might like it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X16SE-N- ... re=related
V
VaultZero4Me
Guest
- Thread starter
- #44
Well if they separated after the flood, how did the Koalas get to them after getting off the boat?
V
VaultZero4Me
Guest
- Thread starter
- #46
JohnMuise said:VaultZero4Me said:
People could have brought them with them. People bring animals with the all the time, after all horses were not in North America till when
Did they bring all the koalas and Kangaroos, so as to not leave any trace of them behind? (including all of their fossils)
Certainly the area the Koala lived in before the flood was not perfectly separated to contain all traces of them in forming Australia. What is the likelihood of that? (as well as the other species we only find in Australia as well as their fossil records)
Caroline H
Member
- Jul 9, 2008
- 5,830
- 7
According to Genesis, Noah was 600 at the time of the flood, and he was 729 when Peleg was born. The time between the flood and the breakup of the continents must have been no less than 129 years, so that would have been plenty of time for Koalas to wander.
What fossil records are you referring to that show the evolution of the Koala?
V
VaultZero4Me
Guest
- Thread starter
- #48
caromurp said:
The time between the flood and the breakup of the continents could have been a few hundred years or more. The Bible indicates that people began to have shorter lifespans after the flood. Noah lived 950 years, and although his descendants didn't live as long they still had extremely long lives. There are 5 generations from Noah to Peleg, so that would have been plenty of time for Koalas to wander.
[quote:g694ijp6]Did they bring all the koalas and Kangaroos, so as to not leave any trace of them behind? (including all of their fossils)
Certainly the area the Koala lived in before the flood was not perfectly separated to contain all traces of them in forming Australia. What is the likelihood of that? (as well as the other species we only find in Australia as well as their fossil records)
What fossil records are you referring to that show the evolution of the Koala?[/quote:g694ijp6]
I am not speaking in terms of evolution yet. I am speaking of the species Koala. If that species lived on the super continent, why do we not find any evidence for that? Only for down under.
Now, that is actually a good test for your hypothesis. If separation of the conts. took place only a few thousand years ago, species that are living today should be found on a continent that evolution would not expect.
The Koala for example. That species should not be found in any significant numbers anywhere but Australia according to evolution. But your theory would call for even living Koalas to be found on another cont, or even just fossil records.
In fact, if the conts only separated only a few thousand years ago, you would not expect to find too many indigenous species in my laymans understanding. You would expect to find Zebras in North America as well as Africa. Lions and tigers should be in Mexico. Koalas should be in Africa. Grizzlies in europe.
The species on the Galápagos Islands should also be found around the world, rather than isolated to there (which evolution predicts).
Caroline H
Member
- Jul 9, 2008
- 5,830
- 7
I edited my previous post probably as you were replying, sorry about that. Please note that it was only around 129 years (at the very least) between the flood and the breakup. Also, I wouldn't use lack of fossil evidence as proof if I were that they couldn't have been there, as there lacks an enormous ammount of fossil records to prove that the earth is millions of years old.
V
VaultZero4Me
Guest
- Thread starter
- #50
caromurp said:
But, there would be a period pre-flood that all of the animals we see today resided on the super continent, therefore you would expect to find some sort of fossil record to back that up (in regards to my previous post).
Evolution predicts that you will not find evidence for such indigenous animals spread throughout the world, because these species were not here during the super continent. So far, I believe that has held true.
I am merely pointing out that there is a scientifically testable hypothesis here with what you suggest could have been the case.
Also, dating the universe does not rely on fossil records. There is so much evidence for a very old universe in so many fields of science. If you would be interested in looking at some, I would start a new thread for us in the science forum.
Not really, fossils take a VERY long time to form unless they were made in the flood.
the creation time line puts the flood at about 4500 years ago so that means there was only 1500 years pre flood, not enough time to have any sort of fossil record.
Except for all the smoking cigars. :yes
V
VaultZero4Me
Guest
- Thread starter
- #52
JohnMuise said:
Except for all the smoking cigars. :yes[/quote:8fifg3ga]
Just being honest, but this post made absolutely no scientific sense.
If Koalas lived on the super continent, you would find evidence of that. If you can find evidence of that you would rock the scientific community.
LOL @ Scientific sense. Yes boys and girls all the matter in the world was condensed into a spec no bigger then the period at the end of this sentence, then expanded for no reason. Then after billions of years life came magically from non life then after more millions of years A.K.A long ago and far away you came about. THAT MAKES NO SENSE my friend.
The Flood destroyed all evidence of the world, it erased it. Any fossils that were made before the flood would have been ripped apart and destroyed. THAT makes sense.
V
VaultZero4Me
Guest
- Thread starter
- #54
JohnMuise said:
It is sad that you do not like real science John. You miss out on so much!
V
VaultZero4Me
Guest
- Thread starter
- #56
JohnMuise said:
It has been shared with you many times. I doubt that covering anything again would do any good
.
V
VaultZero4Me
Guest
- Thread starter
- #58
JohnMuise said:VaultZero4Me said:JohnMuise said:
It has been shared with you many times. I doubt that covering anything again would do any good
i don't recall anything like that :gah Tell me what am i missing out on by subscribing to my particular worldview?
Disregarding science as a bunch of phooey causes you to miss out on the beauty of the universe around you.
V
VaultZero4Me
Guest
- Thread starter
- #60
JohnMuise said:
Over and over you confuse what science says. Science never says "why" we got here, just the process of how.