Search This Blog

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Kangaroos and other Marsupials and Monotremes - Australian Animals only? What does this mean for Creation?

Kangaroos.  Are they found outside of Australia?


One point to ponder that was brought up by a commenter recently was in regard to kangaroos.  Our next post will deal directly with other issues brought up by the the anonymous Darwinist, dealing with topics that have already been covered in depth on this blog.  For some readers that post will be a rehash of previously well-discussed topics, but it will make for a useful review.   In that post I will  actually post his comments and deal with them consecutively.

But he did ask something I do not remember a commenter bring up before, the idea that kangaroos only can be found in Australian and therefore this supports Darwinism for some reason.   So this post will cover that topic.  Apparently the commenter wants to believe that kangaroos evolved only on Australia from primitive ancestors.  However, kangaroos are NOT only in Australia and their ancestors were a food source for man.  While Darwinists try to suppose that the similar kinds of organisms evolved to fit the same ecological niche, a Creationist would say that God made many kinds of organisms that would fulfill the same purpose.  So both placental and marsupial wolves existed in the past, for instance.  Any links to more primitive forms of life evolving into kangaroos are supposed rather than evidential as this link demonstrates.  Convergent evolution is a supposition that has absolutely no support other than in the minds of Darwinists.  Look to the end of the page to see that Darwinists are beginning to back away from the fossil record as it becomes more hostile to their hypothesis.

A full discussion of the kangaroo requires an overview of the formation of fossil rocks and how fossils fit into the Darwinist and Creation model.  Both sides have the same evidence.  I would assert that Creationists consider ALL the evidence, while Darwinists are beginning to abandon the fossil record and appeal to established mythology that has been propagandized to the point that the unwitting believe evolution is a fact rather than an unsupported, failed hypothesis.

As it happens, no fossils of this creature are certain to have been found very far from Australia.  There have been reports of kangaroo fossils being found in Africa, specifically Egypt, but this appears to be an unsubstantiated rumor.  It is not unusual for organisms to live in an area where no fossils of their kind have been found, so not finding kangaroo fossils in North America does not mean there were never any there.  It simply means that it is less likely.  Fossils were formed in relatively large amounts during the inundatory portion of the Noahic Flood as bottom-dwelling sea life was buried and preserved in great abundance as massive amounts of sediments were poured over them.   I have literally walked on long stretches of preserved shellfish and trilobites, almost all of them either closed (bivalves) or upright (trilobites) which indicates they were buried alive.  


About the fossil record

The fossil record makes a lot of sense once you understand that the Flood was intended to wipe out the human civilization then in existence and also take the lives of all land-dwelling vertebrates and birds.   God knew enough about the organisms He had made that it was certain other forms of life would survive a global flood.  While some specific varieties of organisms (trilobites, for instance) that were quite common before the inundation did not seem to survive the Flood, similar organisms did survive to fit that niche in the ecosystem.  All the lower layers of the fossil rocks have been shown to be formed by water with just a few extrusions of igneous rock through still-pliable layers.  Only the upper layers seem to have been primarily formed by mudslides, loess storms, dike breaks and other hazards associated with the dynamic mud-rock face of the new Earth and the ice age that was caused by the enormous amount of heated water and the new continental masses that emerged from the waters.   With rapid plate tectonic movement, the probable single continent that existed pre-Flood was buried and the new continents that appear to be puzzle pieces separated were indeed a result of crustal subduction and rifts expanding rapidly to convert one big land mass that was likely located with its center at the equator, thereby supporting land organisms comfortable in the tropical and sub-tropical climate associated with such a location.   

That every continent (including Antarctica) has fossils of such organisms and fossils of bottom-dwelling sea life is evidence for the Noahic Flood.   It is nonsensical to propose that the Antarctic was a tropical paradise at one time.   It is also nonsensical to listen to the absurd explanations Darwinists give for fossils of bottom-dwelling sea life found high up in the tallest mountain chains. The desperate Darwinists even claim a carving of a Stegosaurus on an ancient Cambodian temple is a hippo!!  

Tibet fossils force dramatic re-think

On Tibet’s desolate Himalayan-Tibetan Plateau, about 4,500 m (15,000 ft) above sea level, evolutionary geologists were surprised to find ‘thick layers of ancient lake sediment filled with plant, fish and animal fossils typical of far lower elevations and warmer, wetter climates’.
The find has forced a dramatic revision of the estimated age of the Plateau, down to a ‘very young’ 2–3 million years, ‘not millions of years earlier than that’, as evolutionary geologists have previously believed.
But they still haven’t got it right. Instead, when you start from the premise that the Bible is an accurate historical account, and therefore that the event of around 4,500 years ago described in Genesis 6–9 really occurred, the global spread of fossils (even in the world’s highest mountain ranges) makes a whole lot of sense.
  • PHYSORG.com, www.physorg.com/news132414246.html, 11 June 2008.

But on this blog I have written extensively on the fossil rocks, why they cannot be explained by long ages and why they must be a testament to the Noahic Flood.   The search engine will remind the readers of the details but the short version?  Fossils with flesh and blood remains, layering with no signs of weathering or age between them, paraconfomities, missing layers, no true geological column as taught in schools, megabreccias, polystrate fossils, fossil footprints of both dinosaur and man and other organisms preserved along with water ripples and raindrops, soft-bodied organisms like jellies being preserved, and also the layering features found in real life easily reproduced by flumes in real-time tests....and there is much, much more.  

Mammal fossils are found in lower layers along with dinosaurs and even some found with dinosaurs in their stomachs!!!  So we know from the fossil record that mammals and dinosaurs were found together.   Also, in addition to post-Flood accounts and depictions of dinosaurs we find man tracks and dinosaur tracks together in the same layers and even in a very few cases both man and dinosaur in the very same place (the Delk track is well-documented and thoroughly tested).   However, mammals are rare finds in the lower layers while dinosaurs are more common.   This is probably because the cities of mankind were targeted and therefore the domesticated animals most useful to man were destroyed along with most of mankind.   We do find fossils of man occasionally in lower layers along with lots of tracks.   Just as with dinosaur and amphibian tracks, the trackways of man tend to be running in one direction and the idea would be that the biggest and most intelligent of organisms survived for quite some time after the first 40 days of rain, fleeing tidal action and continually rising floodwaters, seeking higher ground and eventually being overcome.   

But back to kangaroos. 

Kangaroos are not actually limited to Australia.   Varieties of kangaroo are found in Indonesia and New Guinea, for instance.   Kangaroos are marsupials and some kinds of marsupials have been found in North and South America, Europe and Asia as well as Australia.   Did you know that platypus teeth have been found in South America?  From the article:

… and platypuses are devolving, too!

"Australian palaeontologist Michael Archer has found another definite fossil platypus tooth in South America, making three in all. The teeth are almost identical to fossil platypus teeth found in Australia.

He says, ‘This should shatter our warm conviction that the platypus was uniquely Australian.’
Today’s platypuses, which have no teeth, are far inferior to earlier platypuses in other ways, too, Dr Archer notes. He is quoted as saying it has ‘changed from a highly robust animal with good sets of teeth’ into what is effectively ‘an extremely degenerate small mammal’.

The Weekend Australian, 23–24 January 1993 (p. 10).
The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 January 1993 (p. 5).


This is relevant to the problem raised by skeptics of the frail, timid platypus’ migrating to southern Australia from Ararat. It also helps answer the common belief that Australia’s unique fauna must have evolved here, because their fossils are found nowhere else. Marsupial fossils have now been found on every continent."


Kangaroos and other marsupials have been devolving and going extinct ever since the Flood.  One reason many large animals found in the upper fossil layers are now extinct is due in part to human predation.   This is certainly true of marsupials...from the article:


                     Australia’s extinct giants


"Australia once had many marsupials much larger than those remaining today. The ‘giant wombat’ Diprotodon is probably the best-known of these. The giant kangaroo Procoptodon could stand three metres (ten feet) tall. They (and also a non-marsupial, the bird Genyornis, a larger version of the emu) are collectively called Australia’s extinct ‘megafauna.’ What happened to all of these? Many have ‘devolved’ down to smaller representatives. For instance, today’s red kangaroos and Tasmanian devils are much smaller than their fossil counterparts. A recent find at Cuddie Springs in New South Wales, of human tools together with the bones of some of these megafauna, raises the suspicion that people helped drive them to extinction, which of course is no surprise for creationists. Tests have confirmed that some blood is still present on the tools, which suggests that it was probably nowhere near as long ago as evolutionists say."

Monotremes and marsupials are far less common than live-bearing mammals.   Why are they so numerous in Australia?   With no history of the migration of animals after the landing of Noah's Ark, we cannot say for certain.  We can see that there is evidence that dinosaurs of massive size are not found in the uppermost fossil layers BUT we have lots of historical evidence for dinosaurs interacting with mankind all over the world.   Dragons were the term our ancestors used for them.  There are carvings of them all found around the world and accounts of fighting them documented throughout Europe and Asia and stories and carvings and figurines in North and South America.  Yet as far as we know there are no dinosaurs alive today (although there are so many sightings of the Mokele-mbembe in the Congo river basin regions reported even in the 21st Century that a "Lazarus" specimen of a dinosaur may yet be captured).   

Marsupials of larger sizes are found in the post-flood rocks, also in the regions they now inhabit.  When the ice age formed after the Flood,  the sea levels were lower as so much water came down in massive blizzards on the land masses near the poles.   The glaciation formed was a result of continual snowstorms as the warm waters after the Flood evaporated into the atmosphere and in the far North and South formed the glaciers.   Land bridges joined all continents for a period of time.   The population of kangaroos and other marsupials found themselves spreading to the South from Mt. Ararat to the Indonesia-Australian land bridge and were isolated as the great glaciers melted and the resulting sea level rise covered the land bridges that did exist.   It appears that marsupials did not compete with mammals and other organisms particularly well in the world at large, but Australia was an exception.  It may be in part because animals spread out and away from mankind after the Flood while mankind stayed in one place for the most part, until God separated men by languages at Babel and caused them to spread out and populate the Earth.

It does not appear that Australia was widely populated by mankind in the past, so this probability is also in the equation.  Perhaps marsupials were more successful in that region because the people of Australia were most interested in hunting down and eating the largest of them rather than having any intent of causing their extinction.   We know from the upper levels of fossil rocks that the larger mammals of the past have not survived to this day for the most part and predation is a good explanation, as is the fact that larger animals need to eat more food to exist.   If you are a huge walking food source and also you need more food to exist, you have a harder time living through times of famine and will be more likely to be targeted by both animal and man predators.  As the fossil rocks began to harden and the surface of the Earth stabilized after the end of the ice age, creatures that were common in an area did not necessarily leave fossils because the primary causes of fossilization were no longer active.  No more flood, no more dike breaks, no more mudslides and far fewer loess storms.  

When the European pioneers ventured West into North America, they found vast herds of bison, sometimes so huge they extended into the horizon.   We know that untold millions of bison inhabited the Western plains of the USA and yet bison fossils are remarkably rare.  However, they are found in places they were not seen when the Europeans came to North America in the 1600's and 1700's.   Bison did not roam in Florida when settlers came, but some rare bison fossils have been found there.   A few bison fossils are found from Florida to California and up into Canada.  But compared to the massive amounts of bison that thrived in the West the fossil finds are negligible.   Therefore it is fair to say that post-Flood fossils are more accidental and therefore random that the fossils produced by the Flood itself.  

The flood rocks have certain characteristic types of fossils - organisms buried in situ, organisms sorted by flow, and mixed burials of land and sea creatures that would not have lived together normally.   The general overview of the fossil rocks is based more on the layers the organisms were likely found, especially in the lowest rocks.   


credit

Furthermore, much confusion comes from the naming of fossils found in the fossil rocks.   Often the same organism is given a different name because it is found in a different layer.  The presuppositions of paleontologists, most of whom are Darwinists, leads to not only mislabeled fossils, but also deliberate obfuscation and hiding of evidence.   It is now commonplace for fossils from every layer having actual flesh and blood detected within them, but it was not until Mary Schweitzer's T. Rex drew national attention for such remains that other fossil finds were also publicized as containing actual flesh and/or blood remains.   Then the stories of living organisms discovered in supposedly multiple-millions of year old rock or coal began to be told again, some of them incredibly well supported.  This topic has been covered in detail on this blog.



With all of this in mind, finding fossil kangaroos is not likely even in places they were plentiful.  A working hypothesis is that they were generally spreading to the South and after the Indonesian land bridge was overcome with water were cut off from the rest of the world and apparently to their benefit.   There are only 13 varieties of the kangaroo kind found in New Guinea and so far just one found in Indonesia while the rest are found in Oz.  Australia became a home to monotremes and marsupials, perhaps because the land bridge that led to Australia was overcome by water sooner than some, but more likely because few people traveled in that direction.   

What does man have to do with it?

The sons of Japheth went primarily towards Europe and Asia, the sons of Ham went primarily South and the sons of Shem largely stayed in the Middle East.   Descendants of both Ham and Shem made it to North and South America and even some from Japheth.  DNA will eventually help identify this more carefully, but the Aborigines of Australia would seem to be a mixture of both Ham and Japheth by preliminary DNA and language and historical studies.   We have genealogies of both Northern Europeans and people of the Far East who trace their ancestry to Japheth and of course Egypt is Cushite by way of Ham.   Semites such as Jews and Phoenicians apparently also have ancestors in the New World.   Even after the land bridges were submerged, sea travel in ancient times was far more common than once thought.  We have found evidence of ancient maps that are fairly close to accurate depictions of the continents, maps copied from older maps that certainly far predated Christ.  

If mankind did not populate Australia as extensively as they did the most of Asia and Europe and Africa, they were less likely to kill off the marsupials and monotremes that had migrated there.  There may be some parts to the equation we cannot know for sure.  We know that myriad organisms migrate from one area of the world to another.  Some of the migrations are yearly.  It is possible that the algorithms built into organisms did, to an extent, call them towards the area of the world closest to their habitat before the Flood.   Perhaps marsupials and monotremes were most successful in the Southeast portion of the proposed original continent and were therefore drawn back towards the position on the globe closest to their previous location.   However, as the Ark was located close enough to their habitat that a pair of each kind of marsupial and monotreme could be prodded by God to report to the Ark and enter in that is less likely.  More likely is that these organisms migrated to the area before the land bridges were overcome by rising waters and that being separated from the majority of mankind and other mammals allowed them to thrive there while they were unsuccessful elsewhere.

By the way, about that fossil record?


Richard Dawkins dumps Fossil Record



adawkins
In my research of the fossil record, it brings up more questions than it answers. As to the reason I believe Dawkins has decided to give it up as evidence for evolution.
  1. Living fossils: There are over 30 known living fossils of plants and animals, yet each one has the same problem. They are found in one layer of the supposed record, and alive. For some fossils that is a gap as big as 10 layers. These gaps exist for “every living fossil”. So 30 times there are 30 gaps of the record not recording the fossils surviving until present time.
  2. The layering of the Geologic Column: There is no observable or explainable mechanism to show how the layers the fossil are found in got laid over millions of years. Yet water will sort the layered sediments like this and is observable and repeatable (empirical evidence).
  3. Polystrate Fossils: Trees that run through several layers that are supposed to take millions of years to form. How does a tree not rot away while waiting to be buried in the millions of years it took to do this? It could be explained away if only a few were found but these Polystrate Fossils  are found all over the world.
  4. Cross contamination of dating markers: Fossils can be cross contaminated by the layers they are buried in. Example: If you bury a bone that dates 1000 years bury it in a layer that dates 300 million years. Over a period of time the markers from the layer will cross contaminate the fossil and make it date the same as the layer even though it never was the same age. This raises several questions and answers why all fossils will “always” date the same age as the layer. There is no other option after so many years.
  5. The Geologic Column or the fossil record does not exist in one piece anywhere in the world. It is estimated that if it did it would be just under 15 miles deep. So the record is only connected together by the age each layer dates and the fossils found in that layer. So an assumption has to be made here.

Richard Dawkins Dumps the Fossil Record May 18th, 2013 

(formatting changed by blogger)

The fossil record was no friend of Charles Darwin in 1859. Now, more than 150 years later, the fossil record is no longer a friend of Richard Dawkins, either. 

“Why does not,” Darwin pointed out, “every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life?” 

 The question was unavoidable, the elephant in the room, yet troubling since Darwin recognized that the fossil record could eventually either make or break his theory: 

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ exists which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” “The distinctiveness of specific forms [fossil record],” Darwin acknowledged, “and their not being blended together in innumerable transitional links is a very obvious difficulty.” 

Evolutionary palaeontologist Stephen Gould in the book entitled The Panda’s Thumb reflecting on Darwin’s angst notes: “fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy.” In the face poor evidence, even contradictory evidence, Darwin excused the problem reasoning that “only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored.” His reasoning kept hopes alive that further explorations would uncover the ever elusive “in innumerable transitional links.” 

 Things have not changed much in 150 years. “We need more fossils” Dawkins pleaded in his 2009 book entitled The Greatest Show on Earth. In turning from the fossil record Dawkins advances the concept of “comparative evidence” “Comparative evidence has always, as I suggested at the beginning of this chapter, told even more compelling than fossil evidence” Regardless of what the “comparative evidence” actually is, Dawkins did not say what it is−dumping the fossil record as essential evidence for Darwin’s theory - “We don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact.” 

As far as Dawkins is concerned the fossil record should just be moved out of the picture, even one of the most notorious icons in the history of evolution−the Archaeopteryx. “To put up a single famous fossil like Archaeopteryx panders to a fallacy,” Dawkins declared The Greatest Show on Earth. 

When Darwin was disparate for evidence to “innumerable transitional links,” he had quickly turned to the newly discovered Archaeopteryx discovered in Germany. For Darwin, the Archaeopteryx emerged as a kingpin transitional link between birds and reptiles - “Even the wide interval between birds and reptiles has been shown by [Huxley] to be partially bridged over in the most unexpected manner, by the ostrich and extinct Archaeopteryx.” 

The dumping of the Archaeopteryx as a missing link between birds and reptiles by palaeontologists during the late twentieth century, however, was gaining solid support. According to Larry Martin, an American vertebrate paleontologist and curator of the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center at the University of Kansas, the 

“Archaeopteryx is not ancestral of any group of modern birds.” 

Missing link status of the Archaeopteryx is only an illusion; a “once upon a time” story according to Henry Gee a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist and senior editor of the prestigious journal Nature. 

Abandoning the Archaeopteryx as a transitional link was actually only a tip-of-the-iceberg of the larger fossil record problem for evolution. Geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig of the Max-Planck Institute in Germany in the book entitled The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe, like Dawkins, candidly points to the fact that a “gradual series of intermediates in Darwin’s sense has never existed and hence will never exist.” 

Evolution was once a theory in crisis, now evolution is in crisis without a theory. Without fossil record evidence of missing links, in Darwin’s own words, “my theory would absolutely break down.” The dumping of the fossil record by one of Darwin’s last remaining hard core advocates, signals the end of the Darwinism era. 

Biological evolution only exists as a fact in philosophy, not in science.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Which makes it simply a religion bereft of evidence.  The evidence is on the side of Creation by God.

Evidence for kangaroos evolving in Australia is not there.   Kangaroos appear suddenly in the fossil records (as do all organisms). They evidently were stranded by the rising waters of the post-ice age in Australia, New Guinea and Indonesia (large portions of New Guinea and Indonesia remain unexplored) and were able to survive while many other marsupials and monotremes could not compete with mammals in other parts of the post-Flood world.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

As usual, there is simply so much to respond to that it is not possible to cover it all without making the writing of blog comments some kind of full-time activity. However, the small part of this blog post that actually addresses the problem at hand that I brought up in a recent comment is easily dealt with.

"Apparently the commenter wants to believe that kangaroos evolved only on Australia from primitive ancestors."

Since they only appear in the wild there and only appear in the fossil record there, that would be what an open-minded person would consider a reasonable conclusion. You've been unable to present any kind of counter-argument to this conclusion, nor come up with any YEC-compatible explanation of the specific circumstances I mentioned.

"However, kangaroos are NOT only in Australia"

In the wild? Where else are kangaroos observed in the wild? Some other macropods appear in New Guinea, yes, but not kangaroos. You serve up an "unsubstantiated rumor", though I'm not sure why you would even bother doing that.

"Convergent evolution is a supposition that has absolutely no support other than in the minds of Darwinists."

First, let's be clear that "convergent creation", i.e. the notion that God created different organisms that serve the same purpose, has absolutely no scientific support other than in the minds of creationists.

Second, we're aware of the evolution of, say, different animals with the ability to fly, achieving the same functionality by different evolutionary paths (bats, birds). What is so remarkable about observing that this represents something we call convergent evolution?

"It is not unusual for organisms to live in an area where no fossils of their kind have been found, so not finding kangaroo fossils in North America does not mean there were never any there."

An astonishing admission from a YEC, especially when you look at the YEC argument for Lazarus taxa (they disappear from the fossil record for X million years, which somehow science can't explain - congratulations, you've just stumbled on the explanation yourself). Thank you for conceding that argument. Yes, it is possible for animals to have lived in particular times and places without having left fossil evidence behind.

In this case, however, mainstream science can predict with a high level of certainty that no fossils of kangaroos will be found outside of Australia, and if a fossil of a kangaroo were found in, say, Europe, that would be a falsification of the current understanding of the theory of evolution.

But not one such fossil has been found. Just as with all the other predictions that mainstream science can make about the fossil record. They confirm evolution and an old Earth and consistently falsify YEC.

Anonymous said...

"Varieties of kangaroo are found in Indonesia and New Guinea, for instance."

Did you actually read the links you posted here? The first refers to something called a "tree kangaroo", which I suppose one could call a "variety of kangaroo", though if you google it you will not find something you would call a kangaroo. The second link actually says quite clearly that kangaroos are found only in Australia, but that macropods (a larger group of which the kangaroos are a part) are also found elsewhere. Here's a quote from the link (emphasis mine):

"The whole family is best known as the Macropodidae—literally the ‘big-footed’ family. This includes not just the six largest living species commonly called ‘kangaroos,’ but also a further 48 species found in Australia alone, and another 13 found in New Guinea—67 modern species in all."

The "other 13 found in New Guinea" are macropods, while the six species commonly called kangaroos are in Australia only.

So the fact remains, kangaroos as we know them only live in the wild in Australia.

The same goes for fossils: no kangaroo fossils are found outside of Australia.

"Kangaroos are marsupials and some kinds of marsupials have been found in North and South America, Europe and Asia as well as Australia."

Yes, but so what? Just because kangaroos are part of some larger group that also exists elsewhere (as with the macropods) doesn't change the fact that kangaroos are endemic to Australia.

This geographic distribution of the species is perfectly in line with evolution and an old Earth, by the way, But it doesn't match YEC at all.

"Evidence for kangaroos evolving in Australia is not there."

Other than kangaroos only appearing in that part of the world, both in the wild and in the fossil record? I would say that that is actually a very strong basis for a logical conclusion that kangaroos evolved in Australia.

"They evidently were stranded by the rising waters of the post-ice age in Australia, New Guinea and Indonesia (large portions of New Guinea and Indonesia remain unexplored) and were able to survive while many other marsupials and monotremes could not compete with mammals in other parts of the post-Flood world."

Could you explain what you mean by this? What do you mean by "the rising waters of the post-ice age"?

Did the kangaroos NOT all (except for 2 on the Ark) die in the flood? And did those 2 kangaroos on the Ark then somehow find their way back to Australia (from wherever the Ark landed), even though this was by then separated by the sea?

Anonymous said...

And for any reader who stumbled on this post and isn't aware what Radar was responding to, it was this argument:

Here's what YEC contends (please correct me if I got any parts of this wrong):

1. Before the global flood, all the continents were united as one big continent. We don't know how the wildlife population was distributed at that time. Also, at this time, none of the current fossil layers were yet in place.

2. The global flood came, annihilating almost all living beings on Earth, and in this one year of the flood, all or almost all of the current fossil layers were laid down. (We'll leave aside the problem of the sequential nature of the fossil record for now, though that remains a serious problem for any honest YEC.)

3. Noah's Ark, with representatives of all species on board, set down in one specific location (we don't know where exactly, though Mt. Ararat is often mentioned as a possibility).

4. All the living creatures emanated from this one location and re-populated the planet. So we're talking about a radial migration from one central point.

Here's what mainstream science contends:

1. At one time, all the continents were united as one big continent, with life in all parts of the continent.

2. The continents started drifting apart, and different organisms continued to evolve in the different continents, now isolated from each other, with the minor exception of certain land bridges that still permitted some migration. Similarly, certain human races evolved in different parts of the world.

3. Much later, man learned to cross oceans and carried some animals from one place to another, e.g. horses were introduced to the Americas, rabbits were introduced to Australia etc.

Now, take Australia for example, since it has a number of unusual animals. Here and only here do we find kangaroos, both in the fossil record and in wildlife.

This is perfectly in line with current mainstream science. They evolved in place.

In order to make it match YEC, however, we would have to believe that:

(A) When there was only one big continent, the kangaroos confined themselves to one particular part of that continent, the part that would later become Australia, even though there was no physical barrier keeping them there.

(B) When the global flood occurred, all the kangaroo fossils were confined to this part of the continent as it broke off.

(C) After Noah's Ark landed (wherever it landed), the kangaroos (and other Australian marsupials etc.) returned to Australia and ONLY to Australia, even though this was split off from the other continents by an ocean at this point. They did not migrate anywhere at all on Earth, even though other habitable land was certainly available.

radar said...

I do not care what mainstream science contends because they are hilariously and remarkably wrong. In fact the point of this blog is to keep pointing out their consistent errors. So your last comment is simply not worth discussion as it is filled with errors.

About missing fossils? No, THANK YOU for admitting that the idea of a sequential fossil record is simply a myth. I will be expanding on that point. Lazarus taxa are part of the vast problems with the sequential fossil record myth.

But I was pointing out (and you missed the point) that fossils captured post-Flood were more random and rare than the fossils caused by the Flood.

Kangaroos are a fairly large group of animals found in Australia, Indonesia and New Guinea. The biggest of them are found in Australia. As I said, the larger varieties of not just kangaroos, but also other marsupials were hunted down to extinction by predators and that certainly includes man. In fact, like the bison, the larger versions of kangaroos and other marsupials may have been found throughout the region if man had not found them a great food source.

Unlike post-Flood fossils, the fossils formed by the Flood are far more numerous and almost entirely consisting of sea life and that is another point for the coming post.

Convergent evolution is a ridiculous idea. Design is the obvious reason that all organisms share the same coding system and have similar design features. Evolution cannot account for even one organism coming into existence and so the idea that a complex system would evolve through mutations is a musty old 19th Century notion, another take on Pantheism, and has been shown by observation to NEVER happen at all.

All animals released from the Ark had the ability to spread across a reformed world with no other land-dwelling vertebrates extant. They would have found plenty of food, as seeds and floating plants would have quickly taken root in the rich muddy soil of the new world. There were some animals that were taken that were meant to be man's domesticated stock, seven pairs rather than one pair of "clean animals" that also served as the sacrificial animals Noah presented to God after the voyage.

As a propagandized Darwinist, you likely do not even understand the sacrifice of blood and the significance thereof, but it was the price of sin as God told Adam and Eve. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, would eventually shed His blood willingly and take all the penalty of all sins upon Himself on a cross of wood.

A fruit growing on a tree (made of wood, obviously) was the forbidden fruit that Adam and Eve ate, defying God and becoming aware of sin and thereby also captive to sin. God killed the first sacrifice to clothe them with the skins of the sacrificed animals.

Noah and his family and the land-dwelling vertebrates and birds were saved within the Ark, made of wood.

Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, Isaac, on a stack of wood before God stopped him and provided a ram to take Isaac's place.

Jesus was then crucified on a cross of wood, thereby saving all of mankind willing to accept the free gift of salvation.

radar said...

The logical mind looks at all of creation and can see design and the handiwork of the Creator. As Stephen C. Meyer asserts, DNA and other aspects of the cell are a signature of the Creator God. There is an amazing amount of information within each of your cells. There is no source of information in nature, no source of life, no way to build all the complex nano-machines found in organisms or input the algorithms that mankind is studying to learn from created organisms. In fact we are unable to use the DNA coding system properly as it is so complex and efficient that it puts any computer coding to shame.

Operational science and observational science has shown that the entire span of organisms, from bacteria to plankton to fish to trees to crocodiles to hummingbirds to mankind are marvelously and brilliantly designed. One by one, the inane Darwinist contentions fall - vestigial organs, junk DNA, the tree of life, abiogenesis aka chemical evolution...also the dating methods used by Darwinists to "prove" that fossils are millions of years old are wildly inaccurate and easily disproved.

Did you know that C-14 is found in every layer of the fossil record, and even found in diamonds? Did you know that many dating methods set a high end for the age of the planet at about 25 thousand years? While Darwinists try to date things with long-half-life elements (not having any way to know the state of the element at the beginning of the Earth), polonium radiohalo research, the properly calibrated C-14 dating and the amount of helium still trapped in granitic zircons make an Earth timeline of 6 to 8 thousand years most likely...in keeping with the eyewitness account of the Bible.

Atheism and Naturalism require the Bible to be a myth. But it is Darwinism that is the mythology. It is parroted by secular science organizations, the popular media, and it is force-fed to our students as various government and secular organizations enforce a system of censorship and blackmail/blacklisting to keep people from hearing the truth.

Very soon I will be reviewing and recommending DVD and book resources for the readers in addition the the numerous websites I have linked and posted from over the years. By promoting real science over recycled and foolish Pantheism, I hope to free more people from the hopeless bondage of Darwinism.

Oh, and if you really believe you evolved, then your mind has evolved to think what you think and you have no free will at all. So why argue with me since you have no certainty you can actually reason at all and, if I have evolved to believe, there is no way you can change my mind? Do you even know why you bother to care? I would say you do not know your own worldview very well.

radar said...

You are actually NOT evolved, which is why you can indeed reason and think abstractly. You are not evolved, which means you also have a chance to change your mind. If you do not change your mind, you will find out God is real after death rather than before. Neither one of us (God and I) want you to face judgment rather than enjoy relationship with the Magnificent Creator.

Meatloaf sang..."but don't feel sad, 'cause two out of three ain't bad..." He was wrong. You can be wrong in every way while living on this Earth. The Creator God has made it abundantly apparent that He created all things and has left us a Bible to help us understand why He did so. The one thing that man can do that will ruin everything for him is to deny the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and dare to believe that he is not going to be responsible to his Creator. Don't be that guy who does not review his own worldview and look at ALL of the evidence rather than blindly swallowing the propaganda.

Other than questioning kangaroos, you have said nothing that I have not heard on this blog or in classrooms or on the so-called Science Channel. Same old same old stuff. Unthinkingly swallowing the blarney of Darwinism is both boring and unthinking. I truly find it puzzling that a thinking man or woman would continue to adhere to a disproven hypothesis that has been torn to shreds by evidence.

Darwinism of today has abandoned the precepts of its creator, Charles Darwin. Darwin pointed out several weaknesses in his theory that could kill it off and his primary concern was the fossil record. He feared that transitional forms (which he did not observe in real life) would not be found in a continuum in the fossil record but hoped new discoveries would reveal those transitionals. The Cambrian explosion was his biggest concern.

Darwin was right to be concerned. Transitionals are apparently just not there. All organisms appear fully functional in the fossil record and in life today. In fact, one can make a strong argument that organisms are devolving, going downhill from the original created kinds just as the 2LOT would predict. Real science is in complete opposition to Darwinism at every turn.

Anonymous said...

Once again, you deliver quantity over quality, and only a small part of your 3 comments is actually related to the argument at hand (and plenty of your claims here have already been refuted elsewhere). I don't know if you intentionally do this to distract from the argument or if perhaps you don't even notice that you're doing this. FWIW, I'll skip all the parts irrelevant to this topic to avoid losing focus.

"I do not care what mainstream science contends because they are hilariously and remarkably wrong. In fact the point of this blog is to keep pointing out their consistent errors. So your last comment is simply not worth discussion as it is filled with errors."

Unfortunately, when placing the two explanations side by side, only one of them lines up with reality, and it isn't the YEC one. So your attempt to trash-talk doesn't really do much good here.

But even if you disagree with mainstream science, it is worth looking at the claims for both sides and seeing how they match our observations. If you think I made an error in summarizing the position of either side, please point it out. Barring that, the argument stands: mainstream science lines up with the observation, YEC simply does not. Your inability to address it speaks volumes.

"About missing fossils? No, THANK YOU for admitting that the idea of a sequential fossil record is simply a myth."

The fact that fossilization is a rare occurrence doesn't take away from the fact that the fossils that ARE found are in a very predictable sequence, something mainstream science can explain but YEC still can't. You yourself have made multiple attempts at ad hoc explanations, none based on any scientific evidence or that could live up to even casual scrutiny.

"I will be expanding on that point. Lazarus taxa are part of the vast problems with the sequential fossil record myth."

Not according to your latest admission/realization.

"But I was pointing out (and you missed the point) that fossils captured post-Flood were more random and rare than the fossils caused by the Flood."

Perhaps you could explain why you consider this relevant. According to the YEC narrative, most fossil layers were laid down during the global flood. How is this related to kangaroo fossils consistently being found in Australia? Is it just wishful thinking and pleading that kangaroos are found in lots of other places, we just don't know it yet?

Do you realize how illogical this makes you sound? Try to imagine for a second being on the other side of this argument. Try to imagine that kangaroo fossils and kangaroos in the wild were something that supported YOUR side of the argument, and somebody started obfuscating about how kangaroos might have been in all kinds of other places, but they were all killed and it was unsubstantiated rumors etc. Would you think that was a reasonable way to address the argument?

Anonymous said...

"Kangaroos are a fairly large group of animals found in Australia, Indonesia and New Guinea."

False. The animals we think of as kangaroos are all found in the wild in Australia, not in Indonesia or New Guinea. There is a related animal called a tree kangaroo in Indonesia, but you must admit is not the kind of animal we think of when we think of a kangaroo.

But if you insist on including the tree kangaroo in Indonesia among the kangaroos, it doesn't take away from my central point. It just means that a tree kangaroo, once released from the Ark (since according to YEC it couldn't have evolved as a member of the macropod family but already had to be "designed") traveled straight from the Ark to Indonesia, not settling anywhere else. It's the same argument, just applied to a somewhat different animal.

So there's really no need to dwell on this minor distraction. On the whole, the distribution of species is in line with patterns of evolution in place, isolation of continents and migration patterns. It is NOT in line with all species emanating from one central location amid the destruction and chaos following a global flood.

"As I said, the larger varieties of not just kangaroos, but also other marsupials were hunted down to extinction by predators and that certainly includes man. In fact, like the bison, the larger versions of kangaroos and other marsupials may have been found throughout the region if man had not found them a great food source."

You recently said you "liked evidence". What exactly is the evidence for this claim you're making? Please be specific.

"All animals released from the Ark had the ability to spread across a reformed world with no other land-dwelling vertebrates extant."

...yet with newly formed obstacles known as oceans.

"They would have found plenty of food, as seeds and floating plants would have quickly taken root in the rich muddy soil of the new world."

I'm not sure how well seeds and floating plants would survive in salt water and in soil drenched in salt water for a year. That aside, have you ever tried walking across, say, the edge of a river bed? The muddy nature of the soil would certainly slow you down.

Given a scenario of an Ark with all animals in one place, one would not expect to see a rapid dispersal, but rather a gradual expansion from one central point.

Such evidence is nowhere to be found.

radar said...

Willful ignorance is not easily dispelled. I did not say that kangaroos spanned the globe. I did say they may have gone extinct in other places but seem to have migrated to the South towards and across the Indonesian-Australian land bridge and, along with other marsupials and monotremes, were isolated with fewer ordinary mammals competing for a place in the ecosystem. I also said that the larger fossil remains of kangaroos and other large and now extinct marsupials were from the post-Flood period and not the Flood rocks. You are not paying attention or twisting the logic until it yells out.

There MAY have been some kangaroos in North America. There are marsupials. I do not know and neither do you.

The continents were all connected by land bridges during the ice age and therefore all continents were available for population by animals and for that matter people. People could also take animals with them on sea voyages and we have learned lately that supposedly primitive peoples after the Flood were far more sophisticated and advanced than we once thought.

The ancients had a good idea of the circumference of the Earth and good maps including Antarctica. They doubtless voyaged across oceans and did not simply migrate across land bridges. The widespread appearance of pyramids and mounds and ziggurats around the world indicate one common civilization that spread out from the original site of commonality, which would be Babel. Genetics and language studies support the Genesis story of Babel by the way, in addition to the genealogies of cultures all around the world that reference one of the sons or grandsons of Noah if not Noah himself.

Studies that I have published concerning all aspects of the Noahic Flood, including seaworthiness and capacity, are here for you to find. Furthermore there is no problem for saltwater and freshwater in the oceans or on land now or seeds floating on the Flood. Streams of freshwater and brackish water extend far out into the ocean even today. Entire streams of freshwater could have existed during the Flood and furthermore the oceans before the Flood were probably only brackish and became more saline after the onslaught of sediments from land and from underground changed the composition of the oceans during the Flood.

Research. You have done very little of it, apparently. I will return to publishing more new evidence and occasionally revisiting fundamental issues but if you do not have anything new or interesting then your comments are just going to bounce off of me. You really sound like a standard-issue Darwinist who is unaware of scientific discoveries of the last two decades to me.

Piltdown Superman said...

Can this clown do anything more than make assertions and say, "No it isn't!"? All he's doing is making Radar look good and showing evolutionism the false religion that it really is.

radar said...

Piltdown's blog content is a great read...he introduces articles and then links you to go read the rest at the original page.

He is inevitably on top of what is happening in the origins world@

Anonymous said...

Piltdown, if you have a cogent contribution to make to this discussion, please make it.

Radar, I appreciate your attempt at an ad hoc explanation for the situation I presented. Just like the fossil record explanation, however, it is a speculative explanation at a rather early stage, with no actual evidence to back it up.

The mainstream science explanation that I summarized fits all available evidence, and that is not something you can negate by calling it boilerplate propaganda or "simply not worth discussion". It is also internally logical. If the different species migrated over time, were eventually geographically isolated, then continued to evolve, then both the population distribution and the fossil record that we find make perfect sense. If you have an actual logical objection to make to that, I would love to hear it.

Among the species population distribution patterns and the fossil records, there is NO evidence of a radial migration from a central location 4,300 years ago.

Even with your attempted ad hoc explanation, the central problem remains:

You're proposing that kangaroos were only fossilized in one part of the original supercontinent (the part that would coincidentally later be split off and become Australia) during the flood, and that in the (hypothetical) post-flood ice age, kangaroos migrated presumably from far away (wherever the Ark landed) only returned to this part of the world. Also, based on exactly zero evidence, you speculate that kangaroos were also in some or many other places, but were hunted to extinction there.

Is there any scientific evidence for a global ice age following the alleged global flood 4300 years ago?

Because there certainly is evidence against it. It would of course be reflected in tree ring and ice core records. Yes, I know you have previously blogged on the subject, but expending verbiage on something and actually presenting a coherent rebuttal are two different things. You abandoned both of those discussions without being able to back up your points with evidence and logic.

radar said...

You have revealed yourself to be just an old commenter who has been around, just repeating old nonsense. I should not have wasted so much time on your insincere questions. You do like to twist what I say.

I made sure people knew that ice cores and tree rings were NOT reliable methods of dating and I backed that up with plenty of evidence.

To ask if there is any evidence of a global flood now is beyond ridiculous. You are certain of things that are completely false and your questions are insincere.

Matthew 15:14 (Jesus said) "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

Darwinists are not only leading others to hell, they are of course taking themselves. As you have proven to be insincere and deceptive I will avoid discussing this with you further.

Romans 1:18-23 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


I'll worship God, you worship creeping things...and man. Atheistic Humanism is a religion and it requires Darwinism to be true. It isn't, but you will likely cling to it anyway. So there is no point to debating with you. You cannot see beyond your own worldview.

Anonymous said...

As any reader of this blog can see, you're unable to address the central problem that I pointed out. Since Piltdown has obviously also read this thread and has no explanation to present, I guess he can't think of an explanation either.

So noted.

Radar, what is the scientific evidence for a global ice age approx. 4,200 years ago?

And no, you were unable to address the tree ring and ice core records, in case you forgot. If you'd like, I can google the posts for you and tell you where specifically you failed.

My questions are quite sincere, by the way. If YEC represents actual reality, then it must hang together and all the different lines of evidence must be compatible with each other and contribute to the same overall picture. Simply attacking "Darwinism" and "atheistic humanism" isn't going to do it.

radar said...

If you lack comprehension that is on you, and not on me. Ice cores and tree rings have been covered. The evidence for one ice age and dike breaks forming the final stages of various canyons and valleys is also extant.

Readers, this commenter is someone from the past who is pretending to want answers but is actually obstinate and unwilling to accept logic. I have led you to water and now drink or do not drink. Your claims of sincerity are not believed. It is now getting boring...

Anonymous said...

I've posed a problem for YEC (the kangaroo problem), and you could not present anything other than misrepresentations, ad hoc speculation, and now squirming and ad hominems.

You're too proud to actually concede the argument, but you certainly have lost it.

"The evidence for one ice age and dike breaks forming the final stages of various canyons and valleys is also extant."

I'll have a look for it. Should be interesting.

radar said...

My explanation was quite easily understood and fits the facts. I understand you badly want to find something to support Darwinism and have come down to grasping at straws...There is NO evidence for kangaroos anywhere in lower layers, so you cannot tell me where they were and how they came from. I am using reasoning, but then again I know the Flood happened and include that in the calculations. You are missing information and thereby are mistaken.

Anonymous said...

"My explanation was quite easily understood and fits the facts."

As I said, you're too proud to concede the argument. Your ad hoc explanation (kangaroos did spread to other places but left no trace behind) was entirely speculative and you failed to present ANY evidence for it.

That is all you had to show to explain the rather improbable circumstance of kangaroo fossils only being found in Australia and kangaroos only being found in the wild in Australia.

And to look at the bigger picture, there is ZERO evidence for a radial migration pattern from a central point 4,300 years ago.

"There is NO evidence for kangaroos anywhere in lower layers, so you cannot tell me where they were"

Why would there be evidence for kangaroos in the "lower layers"? You should know that according to the theory of evolution we wouldn't expect to see evidence for kangaroos in the lower layers.

You're definitely getting confused. It's according to YOUR scenario that we would expect to see kangaroos in the lower layers. If we did find a kangaroo in the lower layers, that would be a falsification of the theory of evolution.

Logic really seems to be escaping you more and more, Radar...

Searlas said...

These anonymous clowns (everybody does NOT love a clown!) hate being shown their stupidity. While I don't agree w/all Radar says, he backs up his points. Meanwhile, anonymous clowns make statements that they would never dare say to someone's face unless they wanted to lose their own.

radar said...

There is wisdom in the Bible and we are told that there is a limit to the time we spend on an unbeliever who will not listen to reason. My Christian friends will understand. I am referring to a passage in chapter 26 of Proverbs.

My answers are sufficient. Oh, and there is no "Theory of Evolution" as a theory needs to be tested and shown to be viable and evolution has failed all tests.

canadiankewldude said...

Thank you radar for your time and effort on these topics. Praise Jesus of Nazareth.