Noah's Ark and Australia

[Ron Lambert]

David, I am not a professional scientist, but I might bring to your attention the point many Creationist scientists make that following the Flood there was an ice age or ages, that lasted a few hundred years. During this time, the continental shelves were mostly uncovered, making it possible to walk virtually from one end of the earth to the other. Then when the glaciers melted and the sea level rose several hundred feet, this in effect "divided" the earth (see Genesis 10:25--it occured during the time of Peleg), so that major continents were isolated from one another.

Any species variation that arose after this division of the continents as the sea level rose, would be confined to the continent of their origin.

It is my belief that the genetic code for all species variations already existed in the original genome of the progenitor species (i.e., the collie was in the wolf), just waiting for the alternate characteristics to be switched on. There are vast sections of codes in all genomes that seemingly are not being used--these used to be called "junk DNA." But there are switches in the genetic code which can switch whole sections on and off. I believe this is how God provided for species to undergo variation and adapt to different and changing environmental niches.

Species better adapted to southern climates will naturally be found in those environmental niches. This, for example, is why you do not find chiggers or coral snakes in Michgan.

One of the best sources of responsible Creation science information is the Creation Research Society Quarterly. Here is the link: http://www.crsq.org/

Another place to consult if you want to know the response of Creationists to various issues is: http://www.answersingenesis.org/

[Ron Lambert]

Bevin said: "We can tell the difference between something eroded rapidly a few years ago, and something eroded slowly over huge periods of time."

Bevin, would you please back that up? This is one of the areas of contention between Creationists and catastrophists on one side, and gradualists on the other side. If we had not witnessed the sudden creation of a canyon system following the Mt. St. Helens eruption, how could we come to it later and establish that it happened recently and suddenly, within half an hour or so? It produced the same kind of layering effect we see in the walls of the Grand Canyon.

[bevin]

http://www.rockhounds.com/grand_hikes/geology/supergroup_formations.shtml

Notice the fact that the results of erosion are interspersed with major geological events such as volcanos, whether or not they happen at sea level, radiographic dating, magnetic field changes, fossils in the depositions, etc.

Simply washing all the stuff down the valley in a few days does not result in all these interactions.

/Bevin

[Pockey]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane said:

There is no reason to believe that the contenants have always moved at the same rate they are currently moving. It is possible that an act of God broke the contenants up after the Tower of Babel so as to force men to populate the Earth and not gather all in one area.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Could be. Or, maybe God teleported the species without moving the land.

So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. Genesis 11:8

[Dr. Shane]

How do we explain a log being lodged in multiple layers of rock. If the rock formed over millions of years wouldn't have the portion of the log in the upper layers have rotted away years before the rock around it formed? There are examples of this both at Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

God teleported the species without moving the land.

---

I like the ice age theory better. It makes more sense that God would have started the contenants a drift during the flood and not afterwards.

[bevin]

You really should do your homework before believing this stuff

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

That essay really sounds like a nervous used-car salesman trying to esplain why there is no reason to worry about a motor that knocks.

Quote:

---

As for Malone's "problem" with the "thousands of years" for the tree to remain upright for "slow accumulation" to occur, it is a non-problem - he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur. In short, he is assuming conventional geologists would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated - they do not.

---

Don't tell me... It was a little old lady that drove the car and she always got regular tune-ups.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Ron Lambert said:

David, I am not a professional scientist, but I might bring to your attention the point many Creationist scientists make that following the Flood there was an ice age or ages, that lasted a few hundred years. During this time, the continental shelves were mostly uncovered, making it possible to walk virtually from one end of the earth to the other. Then when the glaciers melted and the sea level rose several hundred feet, this in effect "divided" the earth (see Genesis 10:25--it occured during the time of Peleg), so that major continents were isolated from one another.

Any species variation that arose after this division of the continents as the sea level rose, would be confined to the continent of their origin . . . Species better adapted to southern climates will naturally be found in those environmental niches. This, for example, is why you do not find chiggers or coral snakes in Michgan.

---

I see some couple of problems with both your explanations. As for an ice age in which the continental shelves were uncovered, that in itself doesn't seem terribly credible. Secondly, the notion that because of that, people or other species could walk around the world, seems quite preposterous. The continental shelves do not extend that far out, and the sea level drops off to several miles after that. If THAT is what Creationists postulate, I can understand the skepticism of evolutionists. Thirdly, regardless of the issue of HOW the species spread, the specific questions remain as to the bioeographical dispersion data, raised by evolutionary scientists in the excerpts which I posted above. One would expect to find certain genera and species in similar climates around the world,whereas that is not the case. (For example, the hummingbird.)

Quote:

---

One of the best sources of responsible Creation science information is the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

---

I don't have time to sort through all the info on these sites. Could you please give me a link to a scientific, Creationist explanation for the biogeographic data? These guys (the scientists with whom I discussed this issue) tell me that in their experience, this has proved to be one challenge on which Creationists have been silent--no scientific explanation. I am not asking for a peer-reviewed article. Simply a link or a cite which answers this specific issue, from a Creationist viewpoint.

Thanks!

David Koot

[bevin]

It is really sad to see creationist supporters who think that simple *known* observations such as "look, there is a tree growing up through that layer" are going to disprove evolution.

It is true that an observation COULD do it - but the ones that you reference are well known to the geology PhD's who would earn a Nobel Prize if they could produce such an example.

But you don't want to know that. You want to cling to your cherished beliefs of conspiracies and evil.

Me, I want to know the facts.

/Bevin

[Gregory Matthews]

Taxonomy:

When I was in college, all life was classified into two Kingdome--plant and animal. But, not today. In 1969, a scientist proposed that living things actually belonged to five (5) different Kingdoms--Plants, Animals, Fungi, and can anyone guess the two additional Kingdoms?

[Dr. Shane]

I dont remember what they were but in both high school and college biology we were taught there are five kingdoms. A google search would more than likely provide the answer.

I don't want to argue too strongly for any one theory since all is speculation. However a common belief among creationists and secularists alike is that Native Americans crossed over from Asia into Alaska on an ice bridge. The post-flood ice age theory only suggests that perhaps such ice bridges connected other contenants as well. The depth of the oceans doesn't matter since ice floats. Also the contenants themselves may not have been in the same position as they now are so the ice bridges may have been much shorter.

Quote:

---

Could you please give me a link to a scientific, Creationist explanation for the biogeographic data? These guys (the scientists with whom I discussed this issue) tell me that in their experience, this has proved to be one challenge on which Creationists have been silent--no scientific explanation.

---

Creationists do not limit themselves to science alone. Therefore Creation Science is not defined in the same sense as traditional science. Creation Science takes the supernatural into consideration and therefore falls between the categories of philosophy and science. So to those that want to discuss strictly science, it will be hard to introduce many of the concepts creationists ponder. If they are willing to have a broader discussion and discuss philosophy of science then creationists can take part in the exchange of ideas.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

The post-flood ice age theory only suggests that perhaps such ice bridges connected other contenants as well. The depth of the oceans doesn't matter since ice floats. Also the contenants themselves may not have been in the same position as they now are so the ice bridges may have been much shorter.

---

As you point out, all that is speculation, and not 'doing science.' As speculation, it really does seem improbable to this student, for a number of reasons. I would be surprised if professional scientists would actually endorse such ideas. Nor does it seem consistent with the Bible record, for that matter.

Quote:

---

Creationists do not limit themselves to science alone. Therefore Creation Science is not defined in the same sense as traditional science. Creation Science takes the supernatural into consideration and therefore falls between the categories of philosophy and science. So to those that want to discuss strictly science, it will be hard to introduce many of the concepts creationists ponder. If they are willing to have a broader discussion and discuss philosophy of science then creationists can take part in the exchange of ideas.

---

Oh, help! Don't tell me they were right??!! The scientists told me that no Creationist can truly be a scientist--that Creationists do not 'do science.' Shane, what you said above, seems to support that. I don't belive that, personally. There must be something more available.

[Bravus]

Just pointing out that a rate of continental drift that would have got us from Pangaea to the current positions of the continents in 6-10,000 years would have led to such severe volcanic activity that it may well have 'nuclear wintered' and killed all life on earth.

If we admit miracles, then all bets are off, and I think we do... the argument is in many ways about the when and where of the miracles.

And bevin made a point strongly that I've been wanting to make more gently for a while now: we need to some extent to let experts be experts. While we might not be able to distinguish visually between a canyon at Mt St Helens and one like the Grand Canyon, there are people who have studied this for many years, and drawn on the studies of others for many years before that, and just placing our visual observations against their knowledge and experience to say they're wrong... I don't mean we bow down before expertise at every turn, but making big claims based on little knowledge brings little credit to a position.

[Ron Lambert]

Dave, I suggest you look at a map that shows the continental shelves. They do indeed connect at some points. If the water level were two or three hundred feet lower, we could indeed walk from continent to continent, at least in the north. Please note that I am not talking about continental drift--though most of that would have also occurred during and after the Flood catastrophe. I am talking only about the lowering of the sea level as the ice age glaciers melted.

Here is a link to one such map:

http://www.worldmapsonline.com/hs436oceanfloorrrmap.htm

Here is another (larger):

http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/JRD/SCHOOL/wt/wt001_1.html

Once again, we see that Bevin's whole argument really consists of his personal, subjective preference based on a pathetic adoration of mainstream scientists. It is like he has transferred his faith from God to men. This may seem like blasphemy to you Bevin, but the mainstream majority of scientists can be wrong, can be self-deluded, can be prejudiced and intolerant, and in fact almost always are. You are putting your faith in a very fallible source of authority.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

While we might not be able to distinguish visually between a canyon at Mt St Helens and one like the Grand Canyon, there are people who have studied this for many years, and drawn on the studies of others for many years before that, and just placing our visual observations against their knowledge and experience to say they're wrong...

---

There are scienctists that use scientific reasoning the conclude the Grand Canyon was carved out in a short time. As one stated, if it was carved out over the course of thousands of years, where is the river delta it should have left behind?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

The scientists told me that no Creationist can truly be a scientist--that Creationists do not 'do science.' Shane, what you said above, seems to support that. I don't belive that, personally. There must be something more available.

---

Secular evolutionists do have many questions they cannot answer with their current theories. However the scientific problems with secular evolution will not lead one to believe in creation. A creationist must step out of the realms of science in order to believe in creation. I don't have a problem with that. If there is a God that created the world as the Bible describes, we cannot stay within the confines of science and arrive at the truth because science is a study of the natural world and makes no provision for the supernatural.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Secular evolutionists do have many questions they cannot answer with their current theories. However the scientific problems with secular evolution will not lead one to believe in creation. A creationist must step out of the realms of science in order to believe in creation. I don't have a problem with that. If there is a God that created the world as the Bible describes, we cannot stay within the confines of science and arrive at the truth because science is a study of the

natural

world and makes no provision for the supernatural.

---

I recently participated in a very interesting debate on a public forum, on the very issues you have raised in your post. Here was my position statement: "Evolution is a belief system based on insupportable assumptions." I also said that it has many of the trappings of a religion. What was the response of the evolutionists (a number of scientists and others) to that position statement? Think back to Gen'l Sherman's statement, when he proposed to Gen'l Grant about marching through Georgia: "I will make all of Georgia howl." Well, these boys howled. It was a lively debate. It takes up around 50 or 60 pages of transcript. In the end, I think it is fair to say that long-age, Darwinian evolution was shown to be a belief system based on insupportable assumptions. As far as trappings of a religion? Well, maybe.

In regard to ID/Creationism vs. Darwinian evolution (not speaking specifically of biological evolution, but of the study of origins) I submit that the whole pack of 'em are belief systems. One simply must choose which theory he is going to believe in.

I don't agree with your characterization of creationists, Shane. I believe that science has its limitations, and that true science would be limited to the observation and interpretation of observable data. Anything beyond that relies on assumptions and belief systems. So, Darwinian long-age evolution and Creationism are in the same boat (but pullin' different directions on the oars )

David Koot

[Dr. Shane]

When I speak of creationists I refer to those that believe in Biblical creation. Intelligent Design has much more science behind it than creation does. I try to distinguish between the two and not confuse them.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

There are scienctists that use scientific reasoning the conclude the Grand Canyon was carved out in a short time. As one stated, if it was carved out over the course of thousands of years, where is the river delta it should have left behind?

---

Here is a site I found that will tell you a lot about where the eroded material is now...

http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm

Notice the impact of lots of long distance and long time effects that clearly could not have happened in a few weeks

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Once again, we see that Bevin's whole argument really consists of his personal, subjective preference based on a pathetic adoration of mainstream scientists

---

Let's see.

I point to solid geological research,

I point to a whole community that is doing publically available studies,

and you think I am trusting in people! Well, you are entitled to believe and state whatever nonsense you like.

I am trusting in huge amounts of publically available and testable research, and telling others that, if they want to challenge the results, they need to at least understand what has already been done rather than relying on some crackpot somewhere's creationism "museum" / sucker-trap.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

The river had to cut through these layers after they were deposited. The search for another exit for the Colorado River from the Grand Canyon has been a hotly debated issue. Some geologists believe that it flowed out of Marble Canyon where the Little Colorado now enters, others believe that it exited near present day Diamond Creek and still others believe that it exited through massive caves in the Redwall Limestone. The most likely exit at this point seems to be up through Kanab Creek which would have had the ancestral river flowing back up into Utah and then across Nevada and California to the Pacific.

---

Kind of sounds like Homer Simpson explaining things. Where did it exit again?

[bevin]

I'm sorry.

If you can't understand clear english explanations of complex topics, then you are simply out of your depth and have nothing worth while to contribute to the topic

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Some believe this... Others believe that... Still others believe that... the most likely is this...

[Planey]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

...living things actually belonged to five (5) different Kingdoms--Plants, Animals, Fungi, and can anyone guess the two additional Kingdoms?

---

Protista: organisms that have single, complex cells. (eg protozoa, euglenophyta)

Monera: organisms that have single, simple cells. (eg bacteria, cyanobacteria)

Graeme