Oh, for goodness sake - Creationists get creative

[Zep]

From here (http://www.maxpages.com/biblegems/More_Questions_about_the_Flood):
Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

The historical document of Genesis reords that all of the animals originated from one point--Noah's Ark on the mountains of Ararat It seems that their was a mini-ice age after the flood, probally due to blockage of sunlight by volcanic aerosols released during the Flood,. This probally caused the animals to not freely spread in all directions upon their release from the Ark,. Instead, they could have been carried or forced across narrow bands of ice bridges that were warm enough to support life. This ultimately caused very different animals to end up on different continents.

The post-flood peoples from the Tower of Babel probably introduced different animals to different continents (such as the Australian marsupials, South American mammals, and Madagascaran primates). They could have also planted different crops native to their tribes only.Well, I'm convinced. How about you?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Zep

Well, I'm convinced. How about you?

No! They all lie!

[Zep]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!


No! They all lie! Down. Presumably.

[Nasarius]

"Probally"?

Further proof that creationists aren't the educated sort :)

[Zep]

I would be interested to post the original quoted text on somewhere like RR, and see what sort of response it gets. Anyone care to predict?

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, I can do better than that:

Obviously, since only one pair (in some cases a few pairs) of each type of animal came on the Ark, surely they could not spread all over the planet. Some of them went to one area, others to other areas. We should really expect animal species to be even more restricted, area-wise, but apparantly some spreading has happened after the Flood......

.... Not only do they defend their daft ideas, but it seems they even need others to think out their argumentation for them.
:id:


Hans :big:

[El Greco]

They could have also planted different crops native to their tribes only.

Why couldn't potatoes and tomatoes have also been forced across narrow bands of ice bridges ? Or perhaps at that time potatoes and tomatoes had wings and could fly.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by El Greco


Why couldn't potatoes and tomatoes have also been forced across narrow bands of ice bridges ? Or perhaps at that time potatoes and tomatoes had wings and could fly. Well, obviously supplies were short just after the Flood, so the survivers probably split them between them before making for various parts of the world. It would be better to have a good supply of some crops, rather than having too little of them all.


Hans

[The Don]

Another thing that concerns me.....

The whole of humanity was represented by the Noah family some time around 2300 BCE. These guys were all semitic in colouring etc.

How the flip did people get to be all Chinese looking all of a sudden ?

And African and Finnish and AUstralian and Inuit and, and, and

[Bikewer]

The beauty of Ad Hoc reasoning is that you can always come up with yet another "what if..." to explain your idea.

It's kind of like those articles you see now and then trying to "explain" various miracles. "Well, the Red Sea could have parted if there was a low tide, and the moon was in the right position, and there was a slight earthquake...."

[pupdog]

I guess I missed that part of the Bible that tells about the "mini ice age" that followed the Flood. Must've been right next to the part that tells about how stray neutrinos gain mass and carve huge caverns in limestone.

[LFTKBS]

From his debate with a skeptic:

http://maxpages.com/biblegems/Debate_with_a_Skeptic

-----------------------
Edfdo writes:
8). Beg the question. When the issue at hand is
whether the Bible was divinely inspired--in every word
and letter--support your position by pointing to the divine inspiration of the Bible.

YE writes:
Jesus said that "every letter and stroke" is inspired. Are you disagreeing with God Himself?

Edfdo writes:
When the issue is whether to accept a literal view of the Bible, or accept skeptical inquiry, be sure to defame the
skeptics points by pointing out that they run counter to the statements in the divinely inspired Bible.

YE writes:
Skeptics are simply sinful men who are so busy judging
the Word of God that the Word of God cannot judge them.

Edfdo writes:
Remember, since you have already accepted that Jesus is the Messiah and that the Bible is completely true, you can use these as axiomatic, despite the fact that they are the very claims under debate.

YE writes:
True. Jesus and Satan has the same debate in the wilderness.
-----------------------

Way to prove his points for him, YE. Idiot.

[pupdog]

I just read an entertaining transcript of a debate between 2 Creationists, Duane Gish & Hugh Ross, Young-Earther & Old-Earther, respectively, moderated by James Dobson of Focus on the Family (available somewhere at Talk Origins). Gish practically called Ross an atheist, and compared his ideas regarding exotic/cold dark matter to inventing additional theories in order that Santa Claus might make his rounds in 24 hours: "It's like saying this: We know he must have done it. Well then we invent another theory: that his reindeer can move at the speed of light....it's soomething that is totally imaginary. No one has seen it, no one can detect it..."

I guess they don't realize how silly they sound.

[phildonnia]

The whole Mt Ararat thing is pretty thoroughly debunked here (http://www.skeptic.com/02.3.lippard-ark-hoax.html)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by pupdog
I just read an entertaining transcript of a debate between 2 Creationists, Duane Gish & Hugh Ross, Young-Earther & Old-Earther, respectively, moderated by James Dobson of Focus on the Family (available somewhere at Talk Origins). Gish practically called Ross an atheist, and compared his ideas regarding exotic/cold dark matter to inventing additional theories in order that Santa Claus might make his rounds in 24 hours: "It's like saying this: We know he must have done it. Well then we invent another theory: that his reindeer can move at the speed of light....it's soomething that is totally imaginary. No one has seen it, no one can detect it..."

I guess they don't realize how silly they sound.
Gotta love the Creationists though...

They create theories, then search for evidence to support the theories (they dont bother to revise their theories regardless of what the evidence suggests)... if you take that idea and reverse it (gather information and facts, then develope theories around it), you have science.

Creationists have a bizarre appeal to backwards logic, its so adorable! :)

[Zep]

The book Telling Lies For God by Ian Plimer does a very thorough job of demolishing ALL the extant Creationist fairy-tales, PLUS it gives an excellent insight into the workings of the Creationist movement. It's a hoot too!

[Bikewer]

I think the late Dr. Asimov said it most succinctly:

"The arguments of the Creationists are without intellectual merit, and may be dismissed."

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by El Greco

Why couldn't potatoes and tomatoes have also been forced across narrow bands of ice bridges ? Or perhaps at that time potatoes and tomatoes had wings and could fly.

[Monty Python]
Are you suggesting that potatoes migrate?
[/Monty Python]

[voidx]

A quick read of Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond would dispel many of their questions. If the ark existed all plant and animal and human life would have a traceable line back to a single location. This just isn't bore out by evidence we have. Not to even bother mentioning that if you only have a pair of each animal, from all habitats of the earth, and drop them into one particular habitat, the chances of them all surviving long enough to reproduce, never mind migrate to their current locations, are absurd. How long did that pair of Polar Bears last on Mt. Ararat? Beyond ridiculous.

[Psi Baba]

Why does Australia have all the cool animals, huh? Obviously God likes Australia best. Not fair!

[Johnny Pneumatic]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

The historical document of Genesis reords that all of the animals originated from one point--Noah's Ark on the mountains of Ararat It seems that their was a mini-ice age after the flood, probally due to blockage of sunlight by volcanic aerosols released during the Flood,. This probally caused the animals to not freely spread in all directions upon their release from the Ark,. Instead, they could have been carried or forced across narrow ice bridges that were warm enough to support life. This ultimately caused very different animals to end up on different continents.

The post-flood peoples from the Tower of Babel probably introduced different animals to different continents (such as the Australian marsupials, South American mammals, and Madagascaran primates). They could have also planted different crops native to their tribes only.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


:roll: My eyes are burning after reading that sh*t.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Psi Baba
Why does Australia have all the cool animals, huh? Obviously God likes Australia best. Not fair!

But obviously not Australians, as most of the "cool" animals also seem to have some combination of large teeth / claws / poison etc. as so beautifully captured in the Scared Weird Little Guys "Deadly Animals":

"Redback, Funnel-Web, Blue-ringed octopus
Taipan, Tigersnake and a Box jellyfish
Stonefish and the poison thing that lives in a shell
That spikes you when you pick it up"

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by The Don
Another thing that concerns me.....

The whole of humanity was represented by the Noah family some time around 2300 BCE. These guys were all semitic in colouring etc.

How the flip did people get to be all Chinese looking all of a sudden ?

And African and Finnish and AUstralian and Inuit and, and, and

Most Creationist stuff I've read theorizes a sort of "Hyper-Evolution" just after the flood where the 'Kinds' rapidly evolve into the different variations we see today.

Of course, they have no evidence for it. Just like all of their spew.