I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution
Until you can find the answers to your own questions using evolution, then there isn't much point discussing ToE vs creation science. I rather discuss with others who already understand evolution. They are evolved.
I will keep challenging you- and you will keep dancing away- I can only assume by now you won't answer direct questions because you recognize the futility of the Biblical response.
You mentioned the Wallace line- lets start there- again
The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.
How did those kangaroos and wallabies and wombats and koalas and Tasmanian devils- end up there- but not in North Dakota?
If you can't answer such a simple question- then you pretty much admit that the Biblical story of creation is just a fairy tale.
>>S: The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.
Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.<<
Way too much fodder in your posts to respond. Ho hum. Let look over Wallace line and Wegener again by using evolution.berkeley.edu. Another source you could use is atheist wikipedia. Look over the link, does it answer your question? Do you remember my stating biogeography by Wegener and posting the link more than once?
Wallace line
"Wallace pushed the study of biogeography to grander scales than Darwin. As he traveled through Indonesia, for example, he was struck by the sharp distinction between the northwestern part of the archipelago and the southeastern, despite their similar climate and terrain. Sumatra and Java were ecologically more like the Asian mainland, while New Guinea was more like Australia. He traced a remarkably clear boundary that snaked among the islands, which later became known as "Wallace's Line." He later recognized six great biogeographical regions on Earth, and Wallace's Line divided the Oriental and the Australian regions."
Plate tectonics
"The biogeographic regions of the world that Wallace recognized roughly coincide with the continents themselves. But in the twentieth century, scientists have recognized that biogeography has been far more dynamic over the course of life's history. In 1915 the German geologist Alfred Wegener (left) was struck by the fact that identical fossil plants and animals had been discovered on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Since the ocean was too far for them to have traversed on their own, Wegener proposed that the continents had once been connected. Only in the 1960s, as scientists carefully mapped the ocean floor, were they able to demonstrate the mechanism that made continental drift possible — plate tectonics."
...
"Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."
Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
Wow- all of that- and not one answer to my question.
You mention the Wallace line- which I have no issue with- since it is at the heart of my question- essentially the Wallace line is also the marsupial line.
Then you mention 'plate tectonics'- again no problem since all scientists are in agreement as to the general principles of plate tectonics and how it takes millions of years for the plates to move from the super continent to our current situation.
You keep insisting you are answering my question- and keep providing citations which show that the earth is millions of years old.
Let us agree that the Wallace line is generally correct.
Let us agree that Plate tectonics theory is generally correct.
Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.
Ha ha ha ha. You should have gotten this when I explained it multiple pages back.
I also have already discussed the layers of the earth and chronology associated to it by Charles Lyell. It was based on undisturbed layers. Disturbed layers could not be trusted. All of the layers on earth are disturbed layers. Moreover, the layers of the earth are named after location and not time. Thus, the fossils that are found just means the location of where the animal died. If the earth was millions of years old, then the chances of it being disturbed layers go higher due to catastrophism. Now, please explain how Lyell describes his layering occurs.
Still dodging the question- I can keep asking
Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.
Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.
How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.
Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.