Author Topic: the pangea defence of kangaroos. and other unique species  (Read 266 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2320
  • Darwins +98/-39
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
the pangea defence of kangaroos. and other unique species
« on: April 05, 2014, 07:07:06 PM »
Some creationists claim that unique species formed cos when they were let off the ark pangea split and seperated taking isolated populations that got trapped on the drifting islands hence more proof of god.


how can i approach a counter argument the rate of drift is countered by the fact it was much greater in the past. the evidence of other cultures is irrelevent to them and the catastrophic event that caused the split and rapid drift leaving no evidence of such catastrophe. and the slow formation of structures evidenced on different continents that show they were together much longer than flood dates say they would have been apart for doesn't seem to work.

any suggestions or links.
Signature goes here...

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6762
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: the pangea defence of kangaroos. and other unique species
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2014, 09:26:10 PM »
Some creationists claim that unique species formed cos when they were let off the ark pangea split and seperated taking isolated populations that got trapped on the drifting islands hence more proof of god.


how can i approach a counter argument the rate of drift is countered by the fact it was much greater in the past. the evidence of other cultures is irrelevent to them and the catastrophic event that caused the split and rapid drift leaving no evidence of such catastrophe. and the slow formation of structures evidenced on different continents that show they were together much longer than flood dates say they would have been apart for doesn't seem to work.

any suggestions or links.

That's a lot to ask of a group that was supposed to cease existing at noon today. As per you. Luckily, some of us here are bigger than gods.

What is their definition of species? Are they saying that the platypi (and two isn't really enough to need a species-specific plural rule) on the ark jumped off, ran east, got on a drifting piece of land that ended up being Australia, and that is all there is to it? That all except one species of marsupial did the same thing, while the other one, with a different travel agent, went to South America?

I guess one question would be how did Noah, et al, figure out which were unique species? Of course it is pretty easy to tell the difference between an African elephant and and Indian one, But did they really take the time to save a pair of each of the 30 species of mice? The 35 or so species of mole? The 92 species of deer? The 400,000 species of beetle?

And speaking of mice, the hantavirus that certain mice in the desert southwest of the US: where the heck did they get that virus to carry around and kill us? Why don't all mice have it, if they were in such close quarters on the ark? Or did the hantavirus travel separately?

And how did the planets make such specific decisions as to where to grow? The ark didn't have a bunch of plants to be saved on board, but each continent has mostly unique plant species. Whatever process allowed plants to survive the flood would certainly not be as location-specific as animals. That is, yea, sure, the Emu's rushed as fast as they could towards the southwest once they were off the ark, hoping to get stranded on what is now South America. But if plants survived via seeds or something, why did Douglas Fir seeds only land in the Pacific NW, Maples endemic to England only end up in England, mahogany of various species end up in specific tropical areas around the world?

And ants. I almost forgot about ants. First of all, they don't run around in pairs, so keeping just two of each species would run afoul of nature, and since there are 20,000 species of those, how were they saved? And distributed. What process would cause a pair of fire ants to get off the ark, rush sans nest/workers/food, follow the emu's, and make it to what is now South America, while others wandered only a few feet and set up shop in the area of Mr. Arat. If someone thinks that fire ants, some of the meanest SOB's on the planet, are going to run and hide on a drifting continent when they could have just settled in Israel or Jordan or Turkey or something, they are avoiding reality big time.

So the time factor, the realities and an unvivid enough imagination on the part of the theists sort of dooms the general idea. What they are saying is that the critters rushed off the boat, conveniently traveled various distances, some quite great, with minimal food available, unless they could live off of mud, and managed to get to the different various continents prior to each shoving off from the mainland.

If that is what happened, then there were probably many more species on the ark than we now have. Because bunches of little ants and mice and shrews and bunny rabbits would have had a hell of a time rushing across roaring rivers and high mountains as they crossed the various continents to hitch a ride. All you would need was one dead out of the two to make any given species effectively extinct. The two lions only had to go to Africa, but once they got there they were presumably pretty hungry, and what with all the species trying to make their way to the future South America, I'm thinking food fight.

The number of species involved is far beyond the theist imagination, the timing sucks so bad that priests should taken up molesting bad science, and the realities of current animal distribution point to something other than herds of various species carefully rushing off to soon to be separated land masses.

I just don't see it. However, my inability to ignore large quantities of factual material and evidence limits how stupid I can be.

Got any links for these crazies?





Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!