by metatron 97 Replies latest jw friends
There is still the problem of BEFORE the flood! Or did Noah travel to Oz to collect the animals and return them there after the flood? If Kangas and so on lived in Turkey or surrounding area BEFORE the flood there would be evidence of this today.
The evidence is that NO remains of Kangas are found outside of Oz
George
In order for 'land bridges' to be usable to people or animals, the flood waters would have to have been lower than the current sea level would they not?
As the waters subsided and land masses began to emerge, the islands would have been smaller and no land bridges would be available until the water went way down... so has the sea level risen since the flood waters subsided until whenever in time the planet got like it is?
I guess people must have ferried the animals to islands then...
But one thing i think cannot be answered is yes, that of our platypus and Koala... where are the fossils of turkish marsupials?
oz
Here is a question about australia thats very difficult to answer:
Was australia inhabited before the flod?
if it were, how was the australians warned? Did noa go to australia and preach to them? men, women and children? its hard to imagine.
if australia was not inhabited, that would have some interesting consequences regarding the various archeological findings that has been done in australia, since they would all have to be laid down post-flod. It would also mean the australian megafauna would have to have been on the ark, ie. first walked to the ark, then back to australia, then gone extinct. The flood, ofcourse, mysteriously left no evidence on the wast stretches of desert in australia.
Better be careful, Alice. It was exactly these kinds of discussions that I engaged in when I was a bit 'on the fence' that opened my mind one night.
"How can these guys find such important, obvious questions, that the bible can't answer? Why am I having to avoid answering so many, why can't I answer all of them? Why am I grasping at straws for explanations, or making up my own? Why isn't their evidence everywhere for the bible's flood story, and instead we find so much counter-evidence? Why does Human Chromosome 2 show evidence of fusion - just as evolution predicts it should? Why don't we ever find fossils of cats with teeth for chewing grass? For that matter, why would a cat that chews grass be 'designed' with a body clearly built for speed and hunting?..."
I had an epiphany that night.
- Lime
Alice, you've explained nothing.
Everybody - even the beknighted Awake agrees - that the land masses were connected at one time. That doesn't explain why all these strange animals ended up in Australia, especially so many with pouches.
"Any island"? It looks to me like the bigger the island, the more opportunities for evolution to make weird stuff. You can start with the different finches, etc in the Galapagos - then move on to lemurs, etc in the bigger Madacasgar - and then hit the 'almost a continent by itself' Australia, where the really weird stuff congregates.
I once officially asked a Creationist society about Australia and they had no answer either.
Let me add a fourth easy disproof of the new brochures while I'm at it:
4) Evolution has been directly observed by science - I rejected evolution for decades because science couldn't come up with a new fertile species that can't reproduce with the parent species it was breed from. That's been overcome more than once. And that, to me, is the critical definition of what evolution is. I followed the evidence where it led.
metatron
You can say this about any island. There certainly could have been a connecting point for the migration of animal life before the flood waters subsided in Noah's day, associated geographic climate changes and the current state of geography that exists thousands of years later.
It's not a lot of thousands. Have you seen a whole atlas lately? I see you 'cherry picked' Oz. Look where New Zealand is. If you think a cuddly wuddly Koala bear has no problem getting to Oz, its still a bloody long way to get to New Zealand where we have/had moas and kiwis and other flightless, non-swimming birds, plus a tiny dinosaur and guess what? Not a single mammal or marsupial. Insects spiders and lizards got here, but no snakes and not even a mouse. Plate techtonics doesn't provide Watchtowerites with a solution either. NZ hasn't been connected to anything for a helluva long time.
How the hell does a Kiwi get here, but not a kangaroo?
Human habitation of Australia is said to have begun with the migration of people by land bridges and short sea-crossings from what is now Southeast Asia.
It's only about three days paddle away from the nearest populated islands and its effects on weather patterns gives away its presence to navigators.
There is also evidence that it was their fire stick farming that killed off their megabeasts about 33,000 years ago. Well before Watchtower killer god absent mindedly forgot to make someone for Adam to shag.
If you live in Oz, pop down to Dymocks and get the National Geographic's DVD 'Death of the Megabeasts' to show your Dubbies.
Cheers
Chris
Marked For Future
The discovered changes in geographic landmass allows for the distribution of species in Australia and other locations. If scientists believe the “ice age” resulted in oceanic and landmass changes you can certainly say the same the thing about the global deluge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erosion
Erosion is the process of weathering and transport of solids (sediment, soil, rock and other particles) in the natural environment or their source and deposits them elsewhere. It usually occurs due to transport by wind, water, or ice; by down-slope creep of soil and other material under the force of gravity; or by living organisms, such as burrowing animals, in the case of bioerosion.
Shoreline erosion, which occurs on both exposed and sheltered coasts, primarily occurs through the action of currents and waves but sea level (tidal) change can also play a role.
http://geology.about.com/cs/evolution/a/aa072703a.htm
The Rise and Fall of Land Bridges
Similar land bridges are postulated between Britain and Europe, between New Guinea and Australia, between the Philippines and Indonesia, between Sri Lanka and India, and between the Southeast Asian mainland and the Indonesian islands.
The earliest humans in Australia, the Philippines, Japan and the Americas probably arrived on land bridges.
These shallow, short-lived land bridges are a far cry from the ones geologists used to talk about. But at least they actually existed. The ones envisioned early in the last century were a different creature.
It stands to reason that animals could have likewise arrived on Australia via land bridges.
how did the animals get to Australia? Well Noah after landing and paying his taxes (with the offering) set sail to distant lands delivering all the animals of the islands.
I mean common you really want all those minute details to be in the bible? Dont you realize if God had included those in the bible the bible would be 10 times as thick as it is now? Hellooo! if the way it is right now few people read the bible even JWs. Imagine how hard it would be to make humans read a book even more long?
Australia wasn't necessarily isolated and animals migrated to climates they are best suited for.
Animals were adapted for extremes of climate before extremes of climate existed?
