Jump to content


Photo

Post-Flood Migration

post Flood migration australia madagascar lemur marsupial speciation tasmania Babel Calum

  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#1 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 01 May 2012 - 12:58 PM

hi guys,
I wanted to better understand the Young-Earth-Creationist view on post-Flood migration, such as how all the marsupials got to Australia and how all the lemurs got to Madagascar from Babel.
Any suggestions as to how this could have worked in the young-earth worldview?


#2 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 01 May 2012 - 11:38 PM

Humans could've brought them over on boats, they could've swam (I believe this has been reported for small creatures), they could've floated over on giant log mats left over after the flood, and the ice age happened soon after the flood, so the sea level would have been lower and land bridges connecting the continents would have been exposed, allowing the people and animals to get to those places. Personally, I believe that the marsupial characteristics evolved in certain animals after the flood, because of the environment or other factors, but I'm willing to have my mind changed on that.
  • Calum likes this

#3 Tubal

Tubal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Massachusetts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 01:49 PM

After the flood ice caps in the north and south began to form. No one argues that the global climate changed drastically after the flood. There has been remains of sea organisms and vegetation found in the northern icecaps. Such is the capacity of ice to store water that I suggest it may have lowered the water level enough to allow people and animal to walk all over the world on foot. Creatures that are only found in one area in the world is simply because they went to where they felt the most comfortable and could not survive anywhere else, that is why they are not found anywhere else. Because solar activity effects the ice caps an increase in solar output could again melt some ice making the levels rise again, putting creatures on islands. It is not all impossible that man also carried animals and put them there. We must not underestimate the physical might and intelligence of post-flood man. Also I believe it is a mistake on your part to say all animals dispersed from Babel. No where does anyone claim this nor should they if there is not a single piece of evidence saying this. Obviously the animals began to spread out of Noah's ark which would be somewhere in present day Turkey as the Bible tells us. We cannot compromise all the evidence pointing to a global flood because of isolated animals. I'm sure if we look at the evidence this too will be explained.


To conclude, there is evidence of a universal flood, there is a universal chalk layer and other marine organism deposits on high mountains. If it was a local flood God needed simply to tell Noah to move to another location. Old earth creationists say they believe in God and that the Bible is his word but they constantly make him a liar to fit into theories of godless men. Why did ancient Israel keep the Sabbath? For in six days God created the heavens and the earth and the waters and all that in them is and rested on the seventh day. If you believe in God and God says he created in six days, six literal days how can you compromise this? I'm sorry but I cannot believe in the god you believe in because my God is all powerful and all knowing and if he said he created in six days who am I to call him a liar? If he says there was a universal flood who am I to call him a liar? This is not open to interpretation and anyone who denies this is willingly blind.

#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 May 2012 - 12:45 PM

The OE's are having a harder time with that than we are. They have to assume that lemurs swam to Madagascar, but in the catastrophic model the island broke apart from Africa in a short timeframe and took the lemurs along for the ride instead of them arriving afterwards.


Enjoy.

#5 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 04 May 2012 - 04:20 PM

The animals would have to get from Turkey to Australia. They would have to cross through Iran, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. It just doesn't explain why they were eradicated from everyone's memory (the people that would have lived on these migratory routes left no depictions of any marsupials or lemurs, just the local animals we see today).
Why are there then no marsupials anywhere on this proposed migratory route, or lemurs all over Africa? There are marsupials in south america. Did people bring them first, or did they migrate across through Russia?
The lemurs would need to cross a variety of habitats. From Turkey they would have to somehow find their way all the way to Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, and finally Madagascar. Why wouldn't they randomly spread out across the Old World?

Why make it look like all this happened in this way rather than showing the obvious signs of global migration? There ought to be Kangaroos in India and Lemurs in Syria, or Opossums in Germany and Wombats in Russia. Shouldn't they all be scattered and mixed up, then?

#6 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 04 May 2012 - 04:59 PM

The animals would have to get from Turkey to Australia. They would have to cross through Iran, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. It just doesn't explain why they were eradicated from everyone's memory (the people that would have lived on these migratory routes left no depictions of any marsupials or lemurs, just the local animals we see today).
Why are there then no marsupials anywhere on this proposed migratory route, or lemurs all over Africa? There are marsupials in south america. Did people bring them first, or did they migrate across through Russia?
The lemurs would need to cross a variety of habitats. From Turkey they would have to somehow find their way all the way to Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, and finally Madagascar. Why wouldn't they randomly spread out across the Old World?

Why make it look like all this happened in this way rather than showing the obvious signs of global migration? There ought to be Kangaroos in India and Lemurs in Syria, or Opossums in Germany and Wombats in Russia. Shouldn't they all be scattered and mixed up, then?


People often depicted animals that they revered or relied upon for food. Why do you assume someone would have depicted lemurs or marsupials?

The explanation is quite simple as to why they don't exist along the proposed migration route, the climate, habitat and/or predators did not allow their long term survival. Also, we have just recently found the first orangutang fossil, so realistically, something can live in an area for quite some without leaving any fossils. Animals can't just survive anywhere they want to.

I am not sure if miracles apply here, although I suspect they might, since I believe that it took miracles to get the animals onto the ark. If they did, then it might be quite difficult to see any evidence of such migrations.

These sort of things are interesting to speculate about but it seems we don't quite have enough data to get the full picture of what exactly happened just yet.

Are you asking why God would make the record of migration look a certain way? I am sure you can ask Him when you meet Him, although realistically, God does not make anything "look" one way or another without there being a good practical reason. Otherwise, it would just be deception, and He cannot deceive.

There are marsupials outside of australia however:

Close to 70% of the 334 extant species occur in Australia, New Guinea, and nearby islands, with the remaining 100 found in the Americas, primarily in South America, but with thirteen in Central America, and one in North America, north of Mexico.
https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Marsupial



#7 Tubal

Tubal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Massachusetts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 12:04 AM

The animals would have to get from Turkey to Australia. They would have to cross through Iran, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. It just doesn't explain why they were eradicated from everyone's memory (the people that would have lived on these migratory routes left no depictions of any marsupials or lemurs, just the local animals we see today).
Why are there then no marsupials anywhere on this proposed migratory route, or lemurs all over Africa? There are marsupials in south america. Did people bring them first, or did they migrate across through Russia?
The lemurs would need to cross a variety of habitats. From Turkey they would have to somehow find their way all the way to Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, and finally Madagascar. Why wouldn't they randomly spread out across the Old World?

Why make it look like all this happened in this way rather than showing the obvious signs of global migration? There ought to be Kangaroos in India and Lemurs in Syria, or Opossums in Germany and Wombats in Russia. Shouldn't they all be scattered and mixed up, then?


As I said, the animals moved to places where conditions were more pleasant to them. We also can't assume what the planet was like right after the flood. Environments weren't the same as they are today and we know that deserts began to form shortly after the flood.

The fact that we have the same type of marsupials in multiple countries implies a common root. It is true that most Marsupials are found only in Australia but it doesn't mean much. Just as I could say that most Monkeys are found in Africa and it means nothing because we have some Monkeys in South America too. The question is how did they get there. I think assuming the earth has looked as it does now is a mistake because migration would be impossible under these conditions.
  • Calum likes this

#8 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 05 May 2012 - 01:32 AM

The animals would have to get from Turkey to Australia. They would have to cross through Iran, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. It just doesn't explain why they were eradicated from everyone's memory (the people that would have lived on these migratory routes left no depictions of any marsupials or lemurs, just the local animals we see today).


I'm not so sure that there were people living on migratory routes at the time that the animals were migrating. Once the ark landed, the animals went free, but the people stayed in the region for a while and later built the tower of Babel. By the time the humans were dispersed from Babel, the animals would've long left the region (except the ones that stayed). The people stuck together, because they were still a family and were probably afraid to venture out into the world alone. It's not until the population has grown high enough, and God confuses their languages, that people start to explore the entire world.

Why make it look like all this happened in this way rather than showing the obvious signs of global migration? There ought to be Kangaroos in India and Lemurs in Syria, or Opossums in Germany and Wombats in Russia. Shouldn't they all be scattered and mixed up, then?


Why should they be all mixed up? The animals would've probably tried to stick together wherever they went, but I do think there is some mixing, as JayShel pointed out.
  • Calum likes this

#9 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 May 2012 - 02:12 AM

The lemurs would need to cross a variety of habitats. From Turkey they would have to somehow find their way all the way to Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, and finally Madagascar. Why wouldn't they randomly spread out across the Old World?


The Sahara desert wasn't always a desert. In fact, it was likely the spreading of this desert that forced their habitat further across Africa and into Madagascar. God sent the animals to Noah, so it is also likely that the Lord also sent them to where he wanted them afterwards as well.


Enjoy.

#10 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 05 May 2012 - 12:03 PM

I'll sum up all your quotes into basic claims, if you guys don't mind:

The sahara desert's expansion would have pressured lemurs to migrate to Madagascar.
The sahara desert would have to expand very rapidly, faster than what is observed today. The conditions would have been a savanna across the Sahara prior to desertification, so the lemurs could have easily crossed through and lived comfortably. However, it's doubtful after the Flood any savanna remained. It most likely would have just been wet mud desert, preventing lemurs from spreading across it, and thus would not reach Madagascar but migrate to places like Europe. However, let's just assume that somehow a savanna managed to grow back almost immediately after the Flood in the Sahara. The desertification (estimated beginning at 7,000 BC) would have only pressured them to move south, into Ethiopia, Cameroon, Nigeria, Congo, Tanzania, and all those central African countries. So now we have to get all these species of lemurs across central Africa to somehow make it over the Mozambique Straight to Madagascar virtually all at the same time.

Old Earthers maintain lemurs made it to Madagascar across the sea.
Actually we believe lemurs have always been on Madagascar. It's possible some lemurs might have made it across to Africa via the sea, but to say all the lemurs decided to swim towards Madagascar at the same time from Africa without leaving a trace of previous habitation is very implausible.

Marsupial characteristics evolved after the Flood
http://nwcreation.ne..._migration.html
So you're not the only YEC who thinks this is a possibility.
The article ignores massive anatomical differences between the animals. They basically say that since there are lots of animals with roughly the same body shapes, they must be the same 'kind'. For example, the Tasmanian Tiger could be a member of the wolf 'kind'. This isn't the best kind of reasoning, noting their extreme anatomical differences in dentition, skeletal structure, mating organs, etc..
so it's safe to say God actually created the kangaroos and koalas.

People would not have migrated with the animals
The people would have had to cross into Australia and America roughly the same time as the animals, as the sea levels lowered and exposed a bridge from Asia to Australia at one point in time. That is, unless you can have multiple ice ages exposing the land bridges after the Flood in around 100 years (days of Peleg). As the Bering Land Bridge is basically the only way animals could migrate into the Americas, we would expect to find depictions of Sloths, Anteaters, and all kinds of animals unique to S America in ancient Inuit or Chinese art. Likewise, kangaroos, wombats, and koalas in Persian, Indian, Thai, or Indonesian art.

The animals would probably stay together
After the Flood perhaps members of their own species would stay together, but to say entire ecosystems migrated is rather absurd. It still doesn't explain why not one of these kinds of animals thought to be indigenous to South America, Australia, and Madagascar are found scattered and mixed up all over Asia.

The climate, habitat, or predators did not allow for their long-term survival.
Marsupials would have had to be very adaptable if they were to survive in the cataclysmic post-Flood world at all. Besides, many of them are/were predators. Some filled in the roles of lions, wolverines, and wolves, so death through predation isn't really a valid option. If not the climate or predators, then what? Habitat?
But what habitat can placentals live in that marsupials cannot? The marsupials fill in all the ecological niches placentals do, so this isn't valid either. There are marsupial lions, wolves, hippos, tapirs, wolverines, apes, rats, lemurs, deer(kangaroos)... there were even terror-bird equivalents native to Australia.

God could have done it.
Job 12:7
"But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you;"
Of course it's possible that God could have put the animals individually on the continents for reasons we can't know. However, simply by looking at the global distribution of animals the most obvious thing to conclude would be that he didn't. There's also a lack of Biblical evidence for this too.

#11 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 05 May 2012 - 05:35 PM

This isn't the best kind of reasoning, noting their extreme anatomical differences in dentition, skeletal structure, mating organs, etc.. so it's safe to say God actually created the kangaroos and koalas.


How can we be so confident that these structures could not have developed after the flood? The thylacine seems very similar to a canine and the marsupial moles seem nearly identical to the placental moles. Same type of thing for the mice.

The people would have had to cross into Australia and America roughly the same time as the animals, as the sea levels lowered and exposed a bridge from Asia to Australia at one point in time.


I believe that they did cross into Australia and America at roughly the same time, but not the same exact time.

That is, unless you can have multiple ice ages exposing the land bridges after the Flood in around 100 years (days of Peleg).


I believe there was only one ice age after the flood and I believe that 'the earth being divided' during the days of Peleg only refers to the Babel dispersion. So that means the animals had plenty of time to get far away from the humans before they began spreading out.

As the Bering Land Bridge is basically the only way animals could migrate into the Americas, we would expect to find depictions of Sloths, Anteaters, and all kinds of animals unique to S America in ancient Inuit or Chinese art. Likewise, kangaroos, wombats, and koalas in Persian, Indian, Thai, or Indonesian art.


Unless the animals passed through those places before there were any people there.

After the Flood perhaps members of their own species would stay together, but to say entire ecosystems migrated is rather absurd.


I meant the kind or species and not an entire ecosystem.

It still doesn't explain why not one of these kinds of animals thought to be indigenous to South America, Australia, and Madagascar are found scattered and mixed up all over Asia.


My only explanation for now is just that none of them decided to stay in that region. Maybe some did and they died out before people got the chance to depict them. Maybe there's some evidence that neither of us know about yet. I'll have to look into it.

I'd have to look more into this, but I've read that there are reports of marsupial fossils being found in Europe and Asia. Here are two examples that I found:

http://www.scienceda...91106103510.htm
http://www.jstor.org...=21100773148241

Marsupials would have had to be very adaptable if they were to survive in the cataclysmic post-Flood world at all. Besides, many of them are/were predators. Some filled in the roles of lions, wolverines, and wolves, so death through predation isn't really a valid option. If not the climate or predators, then what? Habitat?
But what habitat can placentals live in that marsupials cannot? The marsupials fill in all the ecological niches placentals do, so this isn't valid either. There are marsupial lions, wolves, hippos, tapirs, wolverines, apes, rats, lemurs, deer(kangaroos)... there were even terror-bird equivalents native to Australia.


Maybe post-flood residual disasters? Human hunting?
  • Calum likes this

#12 Tubal

Tubal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Massachusetts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 07:02 PM

There would only need to be one ice age and it wouldn't even have to be universal. The formation of the ice caps after the flood could have impacted water levels greatly, they have been melting in recent years and the ecologists believing in the evolution paradigm are going crazy. Shall we have another forum called the Global Warming Fairytale? I think it is necessary.

#13 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 05 May 2012 - 07:51 PM

Chris,

How can we be so confident that these structures could not have developed after the flood? The thylacine seems very similar to a canine and the marsupial moles seem nearly identical to the placental moles. Same type of thing for the mice.


Marsupial characteristics couldn't have evolved after the Flood, as we find marsupials in the fossil record (in the global flood view these were killed in the Flood) with the same characteristics. They would have had to evolve beforehand extremely quickly.
A thylacine is not in the same created 'kind' as a wolf just because of its body shape. Likewise, neither is the marsupial mole the same 'kind' as the mole because of their outward appearance. Geneticists and Baraminologists alike would be able to recognize them as being related to each other if they were. The marsupials differ greatly from the placentals in many ways. They have pouches, they have different teeth, they have different reproductive organs and no placenta, they have different brains, and no ossified patellae, along with several other factors that escape me. So because an animal looks similar to the others in outward appearance doesn't mean it is one of the others. Just look at their anatomy and genes. Just because an orangutan or gorilla is anatomically similar to a human does not mean it's a member of the same created kind. It's safe to say Noah's descendants were not chimpanzees. Also remember that these animals differ from each other in intelligence levels.


I believe that they did cross into Australia and America at roughly the same time, but not the same exact time.


It was an incredibly small time window to get all those animals into Australia and North America (this includes those found in South America only). The animals would probably have stayed mid-way on the stretches of land between continents until the water levels rose again, just like the people would have done.


I believe there was only one ice age after the flood and I believe that 'the earth being divided' during the days of Peleg only refers to the Babel dispersion. So that means the animals had plenty of time to get far away from the humans before they began spreading out.


Still, the people must have migrated over the continents very rapidly if they wanted to make it in time for this land bridge.


I meant the kind or species and not an entire ecosystem.


So did I. What I meant was that all marsupials wouldn't migrate together. If all of them didn't migrate at the same time together, it doesn't quite explain the distribution of fauna if it was merely at the species level.


My only explanation for now is just that none of them decided to stay in that region. Maybe some did and they died out before people got the chance to depict them. Maybe there's some evidence that neither of us know about yet. I'll have to look into it.


After the Flood, the world would have been a desert or today's ecosystems would have sprung up fairly quickly. If it was a huge desert after the Flood, it would have prevented the animals' migration significantly. If the forests and jungles and various habitats sprung up quickly, there's no reason to think the marsupials would keep on moving. There are so many habitats across Asia. Even if the marsupials were not comfortable with those habitats, they would either adapt rapidly (like all other animals would be at the time) or just move back to their previous habitat.

I'd have to look more into this, but I've read that there are reports of marsupial fossils being found in Europe and Asia. Here are two examples that I found:


The first link took me to a page describing Arcantiodelphys, which turned out to be a Metatherian (marsupials' closest relatives, but that are now extinct). So it's not really too important. I think (I'm not sure) that metatherians have been found in North America. This is only relevant if you believe in macroevolutionary models of migration.
The second took me to a page describing Siamoperadectes, discovered in Thailand. I do realize Thailand is in Asia, but southeast asia, the closest point in Asia to Australia. It's rather obvious, given the scarcity of marsupial fossils above Australasia, that this small animal migrated from the southern continent, just like the tree kangaroos found in New Guinea. I was expecting something more like a marsupial in Russia, Mongolia, India, or Iran.

However, it is to my understanding fossils formed during the Global Flood, so this marsupial fossil wouldn't lend support to the migration model either.
I notice that in the article it states a marsupial has been found in Kazakhstan.
I did an internet search, yet ended up with nothing.
My conclusion is that it was most likely another sparassodontid metatherian, which sometimes people confuse for all being marsupials, as they had the marsupials' closest relatives and practically were marsupials themselves.

Maybe post-flood residual disasters? Human hunting?


Well, that is a possibility. Not so much the post-flood disasters, though, as the animals would have to be incredibly adaptable, and thus would survive. As for human hunting, there is evidence this has happened, but only in Australia. The aborigines' arrival probably caused most of the megafauna there to go extinct. Besides, this would mean that people would be living with the marsupials, and would make many depictions of them. Doubtlessly most would have survived, whether in art or physically. Besides, Eurasia is so varied and so huge it's implausible all the xenarthrans and marsupials would go extinct there.


Tubal:

There would only need to be one ice age and it wouldn't even have to be universal. The formation of the ice caps after the flood could have impacted water levels greatly, they have been melting in recent years and the ecologists believing in the evolution paradigm are going crazy. Shall we have another forum called the Global Warming Fairytale? I think it is necessary.


I believe the geologic column is littered with many ice ages. However, we're not here to debate that, so I'll move on.
As you state(and rightly so), the formation of the ice caps would have impacted water levels greatly. I agree. This is how the Australian Aborigines and Siberian Inuit managed to get across into their present locations around 40,000 years ago, due to lowering sea levels caused by a period of glaciation. They are melting only because the Earth is known to go through warm and cold stages in its history. In fact, there is evidence the Earth was at one point in time covered in snow and ice (formations caused by glaciers near the equator all over the planet). I don't see how the scientists are going crazy. In fact, it was they who proposed the idea of the ice age. It's rather obvious the Earth is warming, though I don't think humans are the cause. This is hardly relevant, anyway.

#14 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 05 May 2012 - 08:32 PM

I was expecting something more like a marsupial in Russia, Mongolia, India, or Iran.


This brings up an interesting question...where have we been actively digging for fossils, and where have we not? I am sure there must be a small percentage of the earth that we have dug for fossils...

#15 Tubal

Tubal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Massachusetts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 09:22 PM

This brings up an interesting question...where have we been actively digging for fossils, and where have we not? I am sure there must be a small percentage of the earth that we have dug for fossils...


Good point, marsupial fossils have been found in China and I suspect that if we look at the presumed migratory path we should find signs of them thought remains should be scarce because fossils were mostly preserved because of the flood mud.

#16 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 05 May 2012 - 11:28 PM

JayShel:

This brings up an interesting question...where have we been actively digging for fossils, and where have we not? I am sure there must be a small percentage of the earth that we have dug for fossils...


Tubal:

Good point, marsupial fossils have been found in China and I suspect that if we look at the presumed migratory path we should find signs of them thought remains should be scarce because fossils were mostly preserved because of the flood mud.


Fossils are not the only thing to count as evidence for mass migrations. We would see footprints, artistic depictions, non-fossil bones, and remaining animals, either widespread or in isolation. Nothing like this exists. Something interesting to note would be that the fossil record shows virtually the same diversity of marsupials in Australia as today. Australia must have been uniquely marsupial prior to the Flood as well. The presence of the same fauna in South America, Australia, and Madagascar both before and after the Flood shows these places must have experienced fairly uniform conditions. Why would these animals migrate to the same pre-Flood habitats? Besides, the Flood would have completely and radically changed the previous locations. Of course we could say 'God did it' but that just isn't the best answer. It's a good answer, as we don't have all the reasons for God doing some things, but here we already have an explanation. We can either say 'this is how God did it over millions of years', or we can say 'we can't know how he did it'. We old-earthers already have the suggestion to the problem. In fact this provides very good evidence for our case. However, this is but a tiny shadow against the whole global/regional flood debate, so I wouldn't say it disproves the Global Flood model. It merely provides evidence against it.

There are fossil sites all over Asia, but none suggest mass migratory routes to indicate a recent global flood. However, this is to be expected as fossils would have been mostly formed during the Global Flood. As of yet I haven't heard of marsupial fossils on these proposed migratory routes all over Asia (yes, there would be marsupial remains in Russia and central Asia because somehow they would need to get to South America). But its true that we most likely would not find many/none at all in post-Flood fossils. That doesn't explain why there's no trace of them anywhere else though.

#17 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 06 May 2012 - 05:43 AM

Marsupial characteristics couldn't have evolved after the Flood, as we find marsupials in the fossil record (in the global flood view these were killed in the Flood) with the same characteristics.


I don't believe that all fossils came from the global flood. Fossils are forming today, so how can we be sure that these marsupial fossils are not in a post-flood deposit?

The marsupials differ greatly from the placentals in many ways. They have pouches, they have different teeth, they have different reproductive organs and no placenta, they have different brains, and no ossified patellae, along with several other factors that escape me. So because an animal looks similar to the others in outward appearance doesn't mean it is one of the others. Just look at their anatomy and genes. Just because an orangutan or gorilla is anatomically similar to a human does not mean it's a member of the same created kind. It's safe to say Noah's descendants were not chimpanzees. Also remember that these animals differ from each other in intelligence levels.


So, you're 100% positive that marsupial characteristics couldn't have evolved after the flood? It's certainly possible that they existed before the flood, but I don't think you should just ignore the possibility that they didn't.

It was an incredibly small time window to get all those animals into Australia and North America (this includes those found in South America only). The animals would probably have stayed mid-way on the stretches of land between continents until the water levels rose again, just like the people would have done.


Why would they have stayed mid-way on the stretches? Maybe some animals did, and those are the ones we find evidence for, and some decided to keep walking into South America.

Still, the people must have migrated over the continents very rapidly if they wanted to make it in time for this land bridge.


The ice age would have started soon after the flood and lasted 500-700 years. If the people are dispersing from Babel about 100 years after the flood, then wouldn't they have about 400 years or so to cross?

So did I. What I meant was that all marsupials wouldn't migrate together. If all of them didn't migrate at the same time together, it doesn't quite explain the distribution of fauna if it was merely at the species level.


That's why I believe the marsupial characteristics evolved in these animals sometime after the food, after they already got to their new environment, but if they didn't evolve the marsupial characteristics after the flood, then human transport would be only other thing I got, unless all marsupials are just magically attracted to Australia and the few other places they live.

The first link took me to a page describing Arcantiodelphys, which turned out to be a Metatherian (marsupials' closest relatives, but that are now extinct).


It can't be considered a marsupial though?

I notice that in the article it states a marsupial has been found in Kazakhstan.
I did an internet search, yet ended up with nothing.


I found some in Uzbekistan:

http://www.app.pan.p...4/app44-071.pdf

Well, that is a possibility. Not so much the post-flood disasters, though, as the animals would have to be incredibly adaptable, and thus would survive.


Why would they have to be incredibly adaptive? I was thinking of things like storms and floods. Earlier you said, "Besides, many of them are/were predators. Some filled in the roles of lions, wolverines, and wolves, so death through predation isn't really a valid option."

Dinosaurs would've still been able to prey on the marsupial predators.

As for human hunting, there is evidence this has happened, but only in Australia. The aborigines' arrival probably caused most of the megafauna there to go extinct. Besides, this would mean that people would be living with the marsupials, and would make many depictions of them. Doubtlessly most would have survived, whether in art or physically.


I'm just throwing out some suggestions. You're right that most depictions should have survived, but maybe they didn't and/or maybe we're not aware of any yet.

This is how the Australian Aborigines and Siberian Inuit managed to get across into their present locations around 40,000 years ago, due to lowering sea levels caused by a period of glaciation.


Do you believe that "all scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16)? If so, how do you explain the Bible indicating that the earth is only about 6,000 years old?

#18 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 06 May 2012 - 09:33 AM

JayShel:


Tubal:


Fossils are not the only thing to count as evidence for mass migrations. We would see footprints, artistic depictions, non-fossil bones, and remaining animals, either widespread or in isolation. Nothing like this exists. Something interesting to note would be that the fossil record shows virtually the same diversity of marsupials in Australia as today. Australia must have been uniquely marsupial prior to the Flood as well. The presence of the same fauna in South America, Australia, and Madagascar both before and after the Flood shows these places must have experienced fairly uniform conditions. Why would these animals migrate to the same pre-Flood habitats? Besides, the Flood would have completely and radically changed the previous locations. Of course we could say 'God did it' but that just isn't the best answer. It's a good answer, as we don't have all the reasons for God doing some things, but here we already have an explanation. We can either say 'this is how God did it over millions of years', or we can say 'we can't know how he did it'. We old-earthers already have the suggestion to the problem. In fact this provides very good evidence for our case. However, this is but a tiny shadow against the whole global/regional flood debate, so I wouldn't say it disproves the Global Flood model. It merely provides evidence against it.

There are fossil sites all over Asia, but none suggest mass migratory routes to indicate a recent global flood. However, this is to be expected as fossils would have been mostly formed during the Global Flood. As of yet I haven't heard of marsupial fossils on these proposed migratory routes all over Asia (yes, there would be marsupial remains in Russia and central Asia because somehow they would need to get to South America). But its true that we most likely would not find many/none at all in post-Flood fossils. That doesn't explain why there's no trace of them anywhere else though.


But finding bones, footprints, fossils, and even animal depictions takes actively seeking them out. You cannot claim that they do not exist, only that we have not found them yet. Claiming that they do not exist would mean that we have searched every square inch of dirt and rock at all depths and found nothing. My question is, where have we actively searched for records of such animals, and where have we not? Surely we have not searched every square inch at all depths. Just because there is not an abundance of marsupial fossils found in Iran does not prove that they never existed there. Also, how do we know where the ark landed, and the exact migration patterns that must have been taken. Furthermore, human drawings and depictions are kind of difficult to find. Not all cultures actively depict every animal that they see. Just because aboriginees in Australia depict kangaroos, does not mean they never existed elsewhere. Also, evidence only exists when it has not been destroyed by weather over time. I think you are making too many unsupported claims here.

God could have done it.
Job 12:7
"But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you;"
Of course it's possible that God could have put the animals individually on the continents for reasons we can't know. However, simply by looking at the global distribution of animals the most obvious thing to conclude would be that he didn't. There's also a lack of Biblical evidence for this too.


This is truly a dishonest claim because as you read, I reasoned logically that God must have helped the animals board the ark, since they would not naturally migrate onto an ark and Noah could not possibly have wrangled them all himself. It logically follows that He helped them go back to habitats to allow them to survive. He may also logically have re-established those habitats through miraculously causing rapid growth of necessary plants. There is no lack in Biblical evidence for this. Now tell me, when was the last time you talked to a bird about the flood? You have ripped that verse from Job 12:7 completely out of context to twist it for your own agenda, and to your own destruction, and potentially other people's now that you post it online. That verse has nothing to do about flood evidence, or discerning the earth's history, and it has nothing to do with fossil evidence. I encourage you to go reread that passage in it's context. I personally don't take deception using Biblical verses lightly. Shame on you. You should be more careful with God's word, that you don't distort His word and lead people to hell. If I do such things please rebuke me too.

#19 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 06 May 2012 - 09:53 AM

So, you're 100% positive that marsupial characteristics couldn't have evolved after the flood? It's certainly possible that they existed before the flood, but I don't think you should just ignore the possibility that they didn't.


On what grounds do you assert that this is possible? We have no record of non-marsupial kangaroo-like creatures. This would mean that not only did massive amounts of macro-evolution happen, but it happened very very rapidly, within a few thousand years. Unless God steered it, which would be creationary-evolution (different than TE who support long ages for evolution), it is ludicrous, even by evolutionist standards.

#20 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:10 AM

Migration happened across a rapidly settling landscape. The path of escape, which might now be desert, polar, mountain or ocean was not that way at the time.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: post Flood, migration, australia, madagascar, lemur, marsupial, speciation, tasmania, Babel, Calum

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users