A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.

Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.

Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.

Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

[McCulloch]

The marsupials became isolated at the island of australia after the land bridge dissipated. Any marsupials not in australia. The ones that were slower got eaten.

Obviously

Right. Obviously. Over 200 species of marsupials and monotremes migrated together over a land bridge to Australia after getting off the ark, with no stragglers or any groups going in other directions, while their placental counterparts did not follow. Then, inexplicably, the land bridge collapsed and trapped them there. All within human history.

Are you serious?

Let's look at the example of the Koala. The koala lives almost entirely on eucalypt leaves. Here is where these plants grow:
.

There is no evidence that they have ever grown anywhere else. There is no evidence that Koalas ever lived anywhere else. There is no adequate explanation for what Koalas may have eaten during their migration.

[xcept]

Very good argument, with the exception of the following.

It wouldn't have been 200 species. It would've been a few. They speciate (within the marsupial family of course)

Oh and there are lots of eucalyptus trees in california where I originally grew up and other parts of the US as well. We used to play in a large grove of them as kids. They were even used to divide crops. Never saw any koalas in them though.

Its proved that animals specialize when it comes to easy food sources. Hell, people do it as well. I know people that don't eat pork or beef. Why? More costly or more involved in preparation or whatever. But nothing to do with dietary concerns cuz they will still eat bacon. Of course everyone likes bacon

From the very same wiki article you posted the map from:
Only 15 species occur outside Australia, and only 9 do no occur in Australia. Species of Eucalyptus are cultivated throughout the tropics and subtropics including the Americas, England, Africa, the Mediterranean Basin, the Middle East, China and the Indian Subcontinent.

[nygreenguy]

Very good argument, with the exception of the following.

It wouldn't have been 200 species. It would've been a few. They speciate (within the marsupial family of course)

How did they do this? Where did the genetic information come from? This would require the creation of many, many new alleles. This would require a TON of mutations.

If this sort of rapid, genetic increase is possible, then how is it a "fairytale" that we say it happened over billions of years?

Also, what is the selective pressure for such diversification?

Oh and there are lots of eucalyptus trees in california where I originally grew up and other parts of the US as well. We used to play in a large grove of them as kids. They were even used to divide crops. Never saw any koalas in them though.

Introduced by people in the mid 1800's

Also, where did the trees even come from? What did they eat on their way to australia? How did they get over the mountains? Is it even physically possible for the species to travel that far in whatever amount of time you are using? (BTW, what is that? How long ago was this flood?)

Its proved that animals specialize when it comes to easy food sources.

Not necessarily true

Hell, people do it as well. I know people that don't eat pork or beef. Why? More costly or more involved in preparation or whatever. But nothing to do with dietary concerns cuz they will still eat bacon. Of course everyone likes bacon

This isnt speciation. And heck yes, i LOVE bacon.

From the very same wiki article you posted the map from:
Only 15 species occur outside Australia, and only 9 do no occur in Australia. Species of Eucalyptus are cultivated throughout the tropics and subtropics including the Americas, England, Africa, the Mediterranean Basin, the Middle East, China and the Indian Subcontinent.

Exactly, PEOPLE cultivated it. It originated in Australia, and was spread by people.

Also, I did a big long response asking you for evidence on all the claims you made.

[nygreenguy]

Unproved assumption that marsupials travel better? Really? Look at the kangaroo. How far can it go in one jaunt? I man once chased one with his jeep for over 20 miles then watched it swim out to sea. Amazing animals. And they carry their young in pouches. They don't have to stop to give birth.

totally anecdotal evidence. Where is the data they show marsupials can migrate more rapidly than any other animal?

Any how did all the plants migrate?

[McCulloch]

Very good argument, with the exception of the following.

It wouldn't have been 200 species. It would've been a few. They speciate (within the marsupial family of course)

Has there been any evidence of such rapid speciation in marsupials?

Oh and there are lots of eucalyptus trees in california where I originally grew up and other parts of the US as well. We used to play in a large grove of them as kids. They were even used to divide crops. Never saw any koalas in them though.

In the 1850s, Eucalyptus trees were introduced to California by Australians during the California Gold Rush.

Its proved that animals specialize when it comes to easy food sources. Hell, people do it as well. I know people that don't eat pork or beef. Why? More costly or more involved in preparation or whatever. But nothing to do with dietary concerns cuz they will still eat bacon. Of course everyone likes bacon

I am quite sure that you probably had a point that you were trying to make. It is difficult to stay on track when discussing bacon however.

From the very same wiki article you posted the map from:
Only 15 species occur outside Australia, and only 9 do not occur in Australia. Species of Eucalyptus are cultivated throughout the tropics and subtropics including the Americas, England, Africa, the Mediterranean Basin, the Middle East, China and the Indian Subcontinent.

Do you know what the term cultivate means? Further mining from the same Wiki article: There are more than 700 species of Eucalyptus, mostly native to Australia, and a very small number are found in adjacent parts of New Guinea and Indonesia and one as far north as the Philippines islands. So, before humans started to cultivate them, the food that Koalas depend on grew only in New Guinea, Indonesia, Australia and the Philippines.

Try to make up your mind which avenue you wish to argue:

1. Are you arguing that Eucalyptus were more wide-spread a mere few thousand years ago than they are now?
2. Or are you arguing that Koala's have evolved to acquire their current restricted diet since the flood?

How is it that the flood model explains the migration of the Koalas from the ark to Australia without any trace, descendants or evidence of their journey? How is it that the flood model explains the lack of stragglers? Does the flood model explain the subsequent destruction of the land bridge, late enough to allow for the alleged migration but early enough to have trapped the uniquely Australian life forms on that continent?

[xcept]

statements of leading evolutionary scientists that no true vertical evolution from one kind o organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history. Similar admissions from evolutionists have acknowledged that no examples of such evolutionary transitions have yet been documented in any of the billions of fossilized remains from the supposed geological ages of the past Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time strong positive evidences for special creation.

[nygreenguy]

statements of leading evolutionary scientists that no true vertical evolution from one kind o organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history. Similar admissions from evolutionists have acknowledged that no examples of such evolutionary transitions have yet been documented in any of the billions of fossilized remains from the supposed geological ages of the past Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time strong positive evidences for special creation.

Still waiting on evidence to support the many, many claims you have made thus far.

[McCulloch]

statements of leading evolutionary scientists that no true vertical evolution from one kind o organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history.

As predicted by evolution. Human history is too short to have observed this kind of change.

Similar admissions from evolutionists have acknowledged that no examples of such evolutionary transitions have yet been documented in any of the billions of fossilized remains from the supposed geological ages of the past Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time strong positive evidences for special creation.

Do try to stay on topic. We are discussing the biodiversity aspects of the flood model, specifically in how it applies to the marsupial and monotreme population of Australia. The flood model requires an improbable and impossible migration, super-acceleration of evolution and the closure of a land bridge with perfect timing to trap the migrated species without stragglers.

[Goat]

statements of leading evolutionary scientists that no true vertical evolution from one kind o organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history.

As predicted by evolution. Human history is too short to have observed this kind of change.

Similar admissions from evolutionists have acknowledged that no examples of such evolutionary transitions have yet been documented in any of the billions of fossilized remains from the supposed geological ages of the past Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time strong positive evidences for special creation.

Do try to stay on topic. We are discussing the biodiversity aspects of the flood model, specifically in how it applies to the marsupial and monotreme population of Australia. The flood model requires an improbable and impossible migration, super-acceleration of evolution and the closure of a land bridge with perfect timing to trap the migrated species without stragglers.

What is common with those claims, is those are excuses on why the flood model does not show any evidence, and to explain away the evidence that is against the flood model.

So far, in this thread, I do not see any positive evidence FOR a flood model. I see excuses trying to explain away the evidence against the flood model. Many of the excuses are nonsense, and the others are showing a strong lack of understanding of how the physical world works.


The one thing that is missing in this thread is positive evidence FOR the flood.

[xcept]

statements of leading evolutionary scientists that no true vertical evolution from one kind o organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history.

As predicted by evolution. Human history is too short to have observed this kind of change.

Similar admissions from evolutionists have acknowledged that no examples of such evolutionary transitions have yet been documented in any of the billions of fossilized remains from the supposed geological ages of the past Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time strong positive evidences for special creation.

Do try to stay on topic. We are discussing the biodiversity aspects of the flood model, specifically in how it applies to the marsupial and monotreme population of Australia. The flood model requires an improbable and impossible migration, super-acceleration of evolution and the closure of a land bridge with perfect timing to trap the migrated species without stragglers.

Human history is too short. So you are admitting a large degree of faith where the entire theory is concerned. Science is about observation. Without, it becomes faith.

You have a great deal of faith in this that its true without solid evidence.

And I will attempt to stay on topic better. Thanks