Mad Dawg: Can you give a reference to where and how the camels and cats were found?
"Life" Brochures: 3 Easy Disproofs
by metatron 97 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
peacedog
an unbroken line of eucalyptus trees extended from Mt. Ararat in Turkey thousands of miles across Southeast Asia, across the land bridge that existed 4000 years ago and all the slow moving (or barely moving) koalas meandered from one tree to the next.
That would explain why the Koalas crossed the land bridge to Australia and not any of the other land bridges that obviously existed connecting all the tens of thousands of islands around the globe (which the other animals must have used to populate all the other islands).
And I guess the Kangaroos were just keeping their Koala buddies company on the journey...
-
Mad Dawg
Superpunk said:
People brought camels and cats to Australia.
Well done. In a creationist paradigm people could have brought them to Australia.
Bohm, please re-phrase your question to make it more clear. Cats and camels were not “found” unless you mean in Egypt thousands of years ago.
It is interesting to note that while eucalyptus makes up the bulk of koalas diet, it does eat other things in addition to eucalyptus.
-
bohm
Mad Dawg wrote:
However, Gondwana can not possibly account for the camels and cats in Austraila. Unless you can tell me with a straight face that Gondwana broke up only 100 years ago.
Where are the rest of you? I find it interesting that evo’s will pick apart opposing views to the n th degree, yet you let a glaring error like that slide.
well here is an evo so do your worst :-)
When you write: "in australia" i assume you mean in the ground and not in a zoo or a backalley or something. Ie. an ancient fossil (or other remain) of a cat and camel has been found in australia, and the problem you outline for us evos is how it got there since it was not brought there by ship, correct?
So for this to be an evidence of anything, the remains would have to be old. that would mean something like:
- being found in an ancient strate.
- belonging to a now extinct, ancient, subspecies
- being dated to be very old
- something else, its not my argument ! :-)
so, yah, whats your argument, and where is a description of the evidence so we can have a look at it?
UPDATE: corrected minor error.
-
bohm
Mad Dawg: im really trying to get an overview of the physical evidence you base your argument on. Thats all.
-
Mad Dawg
I was referring to living, breathing cats and camels in the here-and-now. Prior to 200 years ago; there were no cats, camels, cane toads, pigs or a number of other animals in Australia. They were brought there by man - intentionally or accidentally. The OP is saying that the ONLY way that unique animals could be in Australia is that they evolved there. I am pointing out that there is a recorded history of another method that they could have gotten there.
-
bohm
Mad Dawg: So your considering the option that man brought kangaroos (all species), koalas, etc. etc. AND the australian megafauna (was that after or before the flood, btw?) to australia by ship?
-
superpunk
The oldest Australian marsupial fossils are over 30,000,000 years old, and don't occur elsewhere on earth. Any creationist rationalization would fall apart upon that consideration, no? Obviously men brought camels and cats over a few hundred years ago, you can't make the same claims for marsupials.
-
bohm
superpunk: actually a marsupial-like animal has been found in argentina. its about 130mio years old, back from when they was linked by land.
-
superpunk
Fair enough but that still doesn't fly with a Creationist viewpoint, unless there is some creationist somewhere who believes that humans not only existed but carried marsupials across a land bridge 30-100 million years ago.