Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.

And what remains is that the flood was not global. This is not unlikely but highly probable. The global flood has also been shown to be impossible by many other lines of reasoning. Just look at some of the other threads on this forum. There are no good creationist answers to biogeography. Do you really think that mole-like animals, and the clumsy slow moving echidna and the koala which only lives in trees and hardly moves about its limited range and wombats all those other maruspials I listed earlier migrated after the flood faster than wildebeest, gazelles, antelope or any of the other several thousand species of placental mammals? Why would they migrate faster after the flood? As you said it is impossible. You have not really answered anything and as loudmouth says you have stretched logic past the breaking point. Of course abandoning logic is the very first requirement of young earth creationism and the logic contortions you go through in your vain attempts to epxlain biogeography illustrate that well.Randy

Jar, And how did a sloth become a sloth from a "more active creature" without leaving billions of transitional fossils?Mark

I think that the Sloth is an example of the other KIND, the KIND that doesn't leave evidence. We've all experienced the Other KIND, you get home, the answering machine says there were 6 messages, you play the tape and there are six examples of beeeep -- silence.Or it could be that the More Active Sloth Fossils are just to quick. When they hear us coming they may run away.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks all for the responce to my defense of biogeography as a friend of creationism.
Randy criticisms was about small or slow creatures migrating from the Ark. The moles,echina and koala all migrate over thier own territory now quite fine. And the few hundred years after the flood would suffice.
Randy brought up an important point about what did not migrate to Australia. Gazelles etc No problem. In the short time after the flood and before the waterlevel rose separating Australia from other land only certain animals made it over. Perhaps it was jungle and brush land and so not suited to the other creatures. As Australia today is not hospitable to deer. Australia was only a short oppurtunity for some.
I would also add it is relatively recent that plate teutonics was accepted in Geology circles. And yet till then the evolution community would of offered explanation after explanation to explain the marsupial world down there. Not science just speculation. Just asv now thier theory for australia is without verifiable evidence.

Koalas sleep about 18 hrs a day and the "territory" of an indvidual consists of a few trees. Marsupial moles and echidna don't cover very large ranges either. However, my criticism was far more than this.
The question is how kangaroos, tree kangaroos, playtypus, bush tailed possums, echinda, marsupial moles, Antechinus(marsupial mice), planigales, bilbies, wallabies, koalas, wombats, numbats, sugar gliders, dunnarts, ninauis, tasmanian tigers, tasmanian devils, phascogales, bandicoots, quols, potoroos and bettongs and other 180 species of Australian marsupials and the Australian flightless birdsall ended up in Australia without the company ofaardvarks, elephant shrews, tenrecs, hyraxes, elephants, dugongs, manatee, sloths, armadillos, anteaters, tree shrews, lemurs, bushbarbies, baboons, monkeys, apes, rabbits, pikas, beavers, squirrels, molerats, hamsters, mice, porcupines, guinea pigs, pangolins, lemurs, apes, moles, hedgehogs, dogs, cats, leopards, lions, tigers, cheeta, mongooses, otters, badgers, weasels, skunks, raccons, bears, muscrats, wolverines, genets, horses, donkeys, camels, rhinos, pigs, hippos, giraffes, deer, antelope, elk, wildebeest, bison, caribou, cape buffalo, peccaries, tapirs or any the other 4000 species of placental mammals This is nonsense. The marsupials that found Australia hospitable occupy a wide range of habitats from sandy deserts to forests to open grasslands and there are more abundant and more mobile placental mammals that occupy any type of habitat utilized by marsupial mammals. Marsupial prey species would have been pursued by placental predators that would eat them and occupanied by placental prey animals that eat the same things they do. There is no logical way to accomplish this separation. You can add it but it doesn't help to salvage the flood myth from falsification by biogeography.
The natural history of marsupials is now pretty well worked out.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/marsupials.html
and it doesn't involve a mythical worldwide flood.Randy

Ok here's the next turn in the twisting test of torquing geology...ONE- USE CLASSICAL THINKING ONLY
TWO- THE INFORMATION developable in this thread IS NOT CURRENTLY INSCRIBED ANY WHERE (Gladyshev had pointed into the idea that Gibb's minimization of temporal hierarchies is NOT ANY KIND OF CURRENTLY UNDERWRIITEN NOTION OF INFORMATION (though he cited a worker not believed to be in contradindication to his own ideas)
THREE-As to the means of locomtion (ONLY QUESTION FOR THE BIOGEOGRAPHY IS if chance dispersal or vicariance is to go SO- if FLOOD BIOGEOGRAPHY gets us where evolutionary theory continues to only theorize then even if after the fact the YECISM be updated intosoemthing else it WILL HAVE SERVED A PURPOSE currently depricated by a materialism-naturalism combination that has not apriori support) USE ONLY (for first pass at the water behind the argument..) Jehn's "In addition, TEMPORAL INFORMATION is involvede since self-assembly...amounting to HIERARCHICAL SELF-ASSEMBLY
this must be made up with the SHIFTING in the Wright's notion post-Lotka Voltera of "supplementary space and time information" no a simple distinction of software and hardware.
FOUR-Resourcing this set up one would discount vicariance or chance dispersal by an algothrim that would associate the twists and turns of the water around Antartica into GIBBS MINIMZATION of any organic motion by finding a mathematical (not kinematic) relation of the supramolecular levels with the TRACING of CURRENT GEOGRAPHIC POSITIONS. The description prescibed the YEC view can gain say judgement about the which is turing around what as KANT suggested. (RNA arouded by protein and DNA or the whole set by some other evironmental surround or parts of this per reproduction...).Judging causality one then DEDUCES the possible kinematics that are WITHIN EARTH whole geometry (hence prima facie preference for golbal flood ordination to begin with) and FROM THE DEDUCTION organizes the propositions artifically to determine if the suggestion of the global flood or the continued debate IN VICARAIANCE BIOGEOGRAPHY results in a match of INFORMATION that would scale with levels of organization according the Gladyshev's Law. One adujsts the track witdth BY WHATEVER MEANS (including possible motivation via baraminology (from the decriptive past step mentioned)to meet the data base programming format requirements.Without the induction of this you will not guess even if the deduction is possible. I have not the time to try to rewrite this at this time. The new thought today for us is that the notion of "information" has not been correctly used by any of us here on EvC.
When I cam across this THOUGHT back in the 80s I had "named" it "inmatfortion". By Randy is well beyond the simple use of neologisms and requires the cook book. Slowly it comes. We need to learn how to agriculturally and under dominion move INTO this ecosystem and not go to war over it any more technically nor think that civilization is moving us OUT"" of it. We are not under water!!

quote:

---

Randy criticisms was about small or slow creatures migrating from the Ark. The moles,echina and koala all migrate over thier own territory now quite fine. And the few hundred years after the flood would suffice.

---

So we have a slowly rising water level that allows slow moving animals to slowly migrate to Australia. Ok, lets see if this idea is kept.Very next sentence . . .

quote:

---

Randy brought up an important point about what did not migrate to Australia. Gazelles etc No problem. In the short time after the flood and before the waterlevel rose separating Australia from other land only certain animals made it over.

---

So now we have quickly rising flood waters that keep fast moving, migratory animals out of Australia. Anybody else picking up on this totally inconsistant, ad hoc argument?

quote:

---

Perhaps it was jungle and brush land and so not suited to the other creatures. As Australia today is not hospitable to deer.

---

You mean brushland where gazelles live today? Or do you mean how terribly placental mammals like the rabbit and dingo are coping with conditions Australia. Sorry, placental mammals do just fine in Australia. In fact, in the case of the rabbit (who can easily outrun a lot of the marsupials in Australia) placental mammals do better than the marsupials.

quote:

---

I would also add it is relatively recent that plate teutonics was accepted in Geology circles. And yet till then the evolution community would of offered explanation after explanation to explain the marsupial world down there. Not science just speculation. Just asv now thier theory for australia is without verifiable evidence.

---

Plate tectonics was accepted because it was SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. It is not speculation, but rather a long and arduous task of cataloging geologic formations around the world. Again, it is not speculation but a conclusion drawn from the DATA. Can you show me the data that lead to the conclusion of a young earth and a flood?

quote:

---

Randy criticisms was about small or slow creatures migrating from the Ark. The moles,echina and koala all migrate over thier own territory now quite fine. And the few hundred years after the flood would suffice.

---

Actually, they move over only a very small area. Oh, and can you enlighten us as to how plants managed to move? How do we have unique plants in Australia, others in Scotland, and yet more unique planta on the Galapogos Islands?

quote:

---

Randy brought up an important point about what did not migrate to Australia. Gazelles etc No problem.

---

Big problem, actually.

quote:

---

In the short time after the flood and before the waterlevel rose separating Australia from other land only certain animals made it over. Perhaps it was jungle and brush land and so not suited to the other creatures. As Australia today is not hospitable to deer.

---

Ah, but New Zealand, f.ex, is VERY hospitable to deer, to the extend where the deer introduced around 100 years ago now have to be shot from helicopters with machine guns because there are to many of them. The deer obviously did not make it to Australia or New Zealand, but would have thrived if they did. And that's also true for the rabbits introduced to Australia. It is also true for the Dingo.It is also true for the rats on all those pacific islands where they weren't present before ships brought them in the 1800's. Are you going to claim that RATS couldn't make it through this ficticious jungle that you have imagined, while other animals did, including kangoroos that are rather clumsy in tall and dense vegetation?

quote:

---

Australia was only a short oppurtunity for some.

---

So why did kangoroos make it, while deer, rabbits didn't? Why did the marsupial wolf make it when the dog didn't? We certainly know that all of those anim also WOULD have thrived in that region of the world if they made it, as they are now thriving after humans introduced them.Your desperate and elaborate explanations are getting more and more illogical, and have LONG AGO stopped being supported by ANYTHING ever found in the Bible, thus now solely being a product of your overheated imagination. Your wishful thinking is not evidence, especially when directly contradicted by FACTS.

quote:

---

I would also add it is relatively recent that plate teutonics was accepted in Geology circles. And yet till then the evolution community would of offered explanation after explanation to explain the marsupial world down there. Not science just speculation. Just asv now thier theory for australia is without verifiable evidence.

---

I wish you would stop LYING about science. Other than making you look dishonest, stupid and ignorant, it also makes it pointless to have a discussion. I have little interest in providing evidence or produce any detailed explanation about anything when you are just going to lie about it anyway.But hey, if you feel that bearing false witness is the thing that makes your case, then so be it.

Thanks all and especially Randy for replying to me.
Randy said why all the kinds of marsupials went to australia only and other animal kinds did not go to australia.First it must be understood that the present marsupial world was not the past. South America was equal to Australia in the diversity of Marsupials. They went extinct in SA just a few thousand years ago.After the flood there were just a few hundred years for the animals to spread out from the Ark. So the Then ecology of Australia etc was only suitable for certain types of animals. Not the four footed runners of the fields. And so objections can be answered.
As for the reason for marsupials to only get in well I offered a suggestion. The marsupial wolf is just the same kind of wolf elsewhere. The evolutionists must reach to concepts like convergent evolution. Yet Creationists need only say the creatures in Australia are the same as elsewhere and only the type of reproduction has changed or was the original type and our animals changed.
I read a book once by someone learned in reproduction processes of marsupials ,not a creationist, and he stressed the difference between live birth and marsupials was very little.Biogeography is easily and best explained by creationists science models. And in the future will prevail I believe. Thats why the most intelligent people in the world Americans (and Canadians) are the strongest advocates of it.
All the best
Robert Byers

I will be excited to see any explaination you can come up with. That may be the most absurd statement I've seen posted on this board yet. If that is true, please expalin Koalas, that have a very limited and specific diet, and how they traveled from the Middle East to Australia. You need to support that assertion. If, as I expect, you cannot, how about giving us a definition of Kind?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

kent hovind had a nice answer to a similar question about kangaroos.he said something like "apparently, kangaroos are good swimmers"i couldn't stop laughing for a long time.

Actually, I asked how it happened if the alleged global flood were a real event. You can't answer because it wasn't. It was more like 5 million years ago when the land bridge formed between North and South America at the Isthmus of Panama. Placental mammals moved down from the north and generally wiped out the marsupial mammals there except for possums and two or three other S.A. species. The possum of course moved north and there are more than 60 species of possum distributed across the Americas. These possums are quite different than the Australian "possums" and in a separate order. This doesn't make any sense. There are no ecological niches filled by marsupial mammals that aren't also occupied by several placental species. We are also talking about highly varied terrain in Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania where marsupials dwell including jungles, deserts, grassslands and rainforest. '

quote:

---

The marsupial wolf is just the same kind of wolf elsewhere. The evolutionists must reach to concepts like convergent evolution.

---

I assume you mean the Thylacine or Tasmanian Tiger.
http://www.naturalworlds.org/...ducing/what_is_thylacine.htm
It had a similar outward body appearance to a wolf or coyote but was actually quite a different animal having a pouch to care for its young like all other marsupials. Right cows are just like kangaroos but with a different type of reproduction. Do you think the type of reproduction changed after the flood? That would be hypermacroevolution. Marsupials do have live birth. It is only the monotreme mammals which are only found in Australia and New Guinea that lay eggs. I wonder why they tagged along with the marsupials on the trip to Australia. If you call total failure to explain something the best explanation I suppose. That's funny. I have known a lot of evolutionist including a few Nobel Laureates and a handful of creationists. My impression is that creationists were not the most intellent of the lot.Randy

I though my answer to the usual evolutionist attempts to use the marsupial situation against creationists was excellent.
There is a misunderstanding amongst you all about animal capabilities.
Koalas for example are just tree restricted and acually can move quite quick. But thats not the point. They like Tree sloths and Sloth bears (In India)are simply ground creatures that took to tres for survival. Also include tree kangaroos.jar asked about defining kind. I don't know what a kind is.
The created kinds were corrupted by the fall. There was no death in the animal kingdom before the fall. So no carnivores etc. Indeed the snake kind did not originally crawl. It lost its legs but remained in kind. My interest about kinds and biogeography is post flood.
Again I say the marsupials were the war all animals were after the flood or they only marsupialized after australia and South America were separated by rising water. In SA a bridge later formed bringing the placental animals. This didn't happen in Australia.
Marsupials are a gain for creationists and it is evolutionists who have had to scramble to explain them. Thats why only recently has the idea of SA,Antarctica,and Australia being joined once been accepted.
Regards

quote:

---

I though my answer to the usual evolutionist attempts to use the marsupial situation against creationists was excellent.

---

No doubt you do. We find it silly.

quote:

---

There is a misunderstanding amongst you all about animal capabilities.
Koalas for example are just tree restricted and acually can move quite quick. But thats not the point. They like Tree sloths and Sloth bears (In India)are simply ground creatures that took to tres for survival. Also include tree kangaroos.

---

Funny, how there are then no koalas in the apple tree in my backyard. SHEESH!

quote:

---

jar asked about defining kind. I don't know what a kind is.

---

ROTFLMAO. No kidding. Neither does anybody else, which doesn't stop creationists from exhaulting the concept. Hmm.

quote:

---

The created kinds were corrupted by the fall. There was no death in the animal kingdom before the fall. So no carnivores etc. Indeed the snake kind did not originally crawl. It lost its legs but remained in kind.

---

What a load of crap.

quote:

---

My interest about kinds and biogeography is post flood.
Again I say the marsupials were the war all animals were after the flood or they only marsupialized after australia and South America were separated by rising water.

---

Yes, we know this is what you SAY. We also know that all evidence speaks directly AGAINST that nonsense, and as such, your claims are exposed as self-serving nonsense based NOT on reality, but rather on your desperate need to fit reality into your myth. Rather pathetic to watch, actually.

Robert from an earlier post and on this post

quote:

---

Again I say the marsupials were the war all animals were after the flood or they only marsupialized after australia and South America were separated by rising water.

---

What is marsupialization? Are you saying it happened during the flood? That sounds pretty quick to me.Mammals are a class. There are three extant infraclasses, montremes(egg layers), marsupials(pouched) and placental.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/MammalCreationists can't really define "kind" but a kind at most encompases a family in any analysis I have seen and usually it more like a genus. To change orders would be well beyond any definition of kind and to change rapidly into a new infraclass is beyond ridiculous.Congratulations, you have passed whatever for goofiest claim on the the thread. I wouldn't have thought it possible.I have tried to be patient but I suggest you actually study some real biology before regaling us with further absurd fantasies.Randy