According to science, how does a new species develop?

[deanrd]

I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer

Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.

but is that all the detail you can give??
so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?

Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle.

Who recorded it? Fox news?

 

[Syriusly]

He did- he is a 'chicken's came before eggs' kind of guy.

Or in this case 'a fairy popped chicken's into existence' kind of guy.

All right smart arse, explain how the chicken egg evolve when it's so complex? Science backed up the Bible when it demonstrated the chicken came first so that it's a fact now.!

The 'chicken egg' didn't evolve. Whole organisms evolve.

Never have understood that whole Christianist myth that something too complex for them to understand means that a fairy must have poofed it into existence.

Science doesn't back up either of your claims and the only fact here is that you believe in the Bible- not science.

 

[Syriusly]

Not word salad, but I noticed you avoided my question of where the water on earth came from. Thus, you nor atheists scientists have an explanation.

I actually specifically answered- how water came to be on earth is not relevant to the Theory of Evolution.

It is relevant to your 'Creationist Theory'- which is just the Old Testament dressed up in white smock.

More lies. You also didn't answer what's happening on Titan. .

Well feel free to prove anything I said was a lie- if you can't well that would be bearing false witness and would mean you are going to hell (lol).

I didn't answer about Titan because
a) It isn't relevant to evolution or the thread and
b) I don't know- while I am not completely ignorant about Titan i don't claim to know much about it and am not going to get into any irrelevant discussion just so you can change the subject.

 

[Syriusly]

Mt. Everest of today would need waters 6 miles high to cover. I don't think there was that much water to cover it. However, one hypothesis is Mt. Everest was lower and the plate tectonics moved the mountain higher. Evos also point out that there wasn't enough atmospheric pressure that high for Noah, his family and the animals to survive. However, creation scientists point out if sea level rose, then the atmospheric pressure would rise, too.

Again- remember your source is the Bible- which doesn't mention 'plate tectonics' or Mountains growing.

But lets go with the 'plate tectonics' thing for a moment then. Because plate tectonics are relevant to evolution.

Where does plate tectonics show the growth of Mt. Everest by a few miles in the course of say 5,000 years?

Or any significant plate tectonics movement?

There is nothing about plate tectonics theory that supports a 6,000 year old Earth.

Nothing.

But plate tectonics does fit with the theory of evolution and how kangaroos are in Australia- and not in Kansas.

You and atheists are wrong again. This is too easy.

The Bible mentions Pangea or one large mass of land and continental drift. "And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so." Genesis 1:9

Continental drift, plate tectonics came from a creation scientist. Not an atheist one.

LOL

The Bible doesn't mention Pangea.

Really how much nonsense will you try to spread using quotes from the Bible
“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place"
Where would this one place be? Let me ask you- is the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean- one place? Or is it a vast number of places?

But you want to believe that at the end of the flood- there was one super continent such as Pangea- and in the last 5,000 years or so- that continent has not only split up- but drifted 4900 of miles apart(Americas and Europe/Africa?)- so an average of 1 mile a year?

Just seems we would all be noticing the massive amount of earthquakes it would take to achieve that. Even the movement of a couple inches is pretty dramatic.

And how exactly does your post Flood Pangea explain why Kangaroos are in Australia- but not in South America?

And why Rheas are in South America- but not India?

Evolutionary theory explains why. How does your Christianist theory explain that?

 

[Syriusly]

enesis 5:29

As for longevity, today's humans became ancestors of Noah's family and one hypothesis is we inherited their genetic defects versus that of Adam and Eve. My hypothesis was gamma ray or some kind of radiation due to the water canopy shield in the atmosphere. It appears that hypothesis has been debunked by other creation scientists.

So that is just your guess- not supported by either the Bible or science.

Why did you mention it?

. The chicken came first is a fact. Why don't atheist scientists try to create a chicken ha ha?

Funny you should mention that.

Did you know that they are trying to resurrect species? Mamooths and Carrier Pigeons?

Mamooths are probably going to be easier- because birds lay eggs and that is a challenge.

But if they do manage to recreate Carrier Pigeons- the egg will have to come first.

 

[harmonica]

I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer

Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.

but is that all the detail you can give??
so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?

Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!

dust into a fully formed, working human
and you people claim a single cell being created is impossible??!!

 

[Asclepias]

I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer

Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.

but is that all the detail you can give??
so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?

Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!

Never heard of Cana. Where is that at? Also it wasnt dust. It was humus (human?). A kind of natural fertilizer.

 

[james bond]

enesis 5:29

As for longevity, today's humans became ancestors of Noah's family and one hypothesis is we inherited their genetic defects versus that of Adam and Eve. My hypothesis was gamma ray or some kind of radiation due to the water canopy shield in the atmosphere. It appears that hypothesis has been debunked by other creation scientists.

So that is just your guess- not supported by either the Bible or science.

Why did you mention it?

. The chicken came first is a fact. Why don't atheist scientists try to create a chicken ha ha?

Funny you should mention that.

Did you know that they are trying to resurrect species? Mamooths and Carrier Pigeons?

Mamooths are probably going to be easier- because birds lay eggs and that is a challenge.

But if they do manage to recreate Carrier Pigeons- the egg will have to come first.

How is that going to work? Where is the evolution?

In my case, God created the chicken first showing evidence of God. Only life begats life.

In your case of bringing back mammoths and carrier pigeons, what does it have to do with evolution?

 

[Syriusly]

enesis 5:29

As for longevity, today's humans became ancestors of Noah's family and one hypothesis is we inherited their genetic defects versus that of Adam and Eve. My hypothesis was gamma ray or some kind of radiation due to the water canopy shield in the atmosphere. It appears that hypothesis has been debunked by other creation scientists.

So that is just your guess- not supported by either the Bible or science.

Why did you mention it?

. The chicken came first is a fact. Why don't atheist scientists try to create a chicken ha ha?

Funny you should mention that.

Did you know that they are trying to resurrect species? Mamooths and Carrier Pigeons?

Mamooths are probably going to be easier- because birds lay eggs and that is a challenge.

But if they do manage to recreate Carrier Pigeons- the egg will have to come first.

How is that going to work? Where is the evolution?

In my case, God created the chicken first showing evidence of God. Only life begats life.

In your case of bringing back mammoths and carrier pigeons, what does it have to do with evolution?

LOL- after all of the crap you have brought up that have nothing to do with evolution- that is pretty funny.

Whether the chicken or the egg came first has nothing to do with evolution

I was just pointing out your logical fallacy- that the chicken has to come first- by pointing out that if new carrier pigeons are created- the egg will come first.

 

[james bond]

Mt. Everest of today would need waters 6 miles high to cover. I don't think there was that much water to cover it. However, one hypothesis is Mt. Everest was lower and the plate tectonics moved the mountain higher. Evos also point out that there wasn't enough atmospheric pressure that high for Noah, his family and the animals to survive. However, creation scientists point out if sea level rose, then the atmospheric pressure would rise, too.

Again- remember your source is the Bible- which doesn't mention 'plate tectonics' or Mountains growing.

But lets go with the 'plate tectonics' thing for a moment then. Because plate tectonics are relevant to evolution.

Where does plate tectonics show the growth of Mt. Everest by a few miles in the course of say 5,000 years?

Or any significant plate tectonics movement?

There is nothing about plate tectonics theory that supports a 6,000 year old Earth.

Nothing.

But plate tectonics does fit with the theory of evolution and how kangaroos are in Australia- and not in Kansas.

You and atheists are wrong again. This is too easy.

The Bible mentions Pangea or one large mass of land and continental drift. "And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so." Genesis 1:9

Continental drift, plate tectonics came from a creation scientist. Not an atheist one.

LOL

The Bible doesn't mention Pangea.

Really how much nonsense will you try to spread using quotes from the Bible
“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place"
Where would this one place be? Let me ask you- is the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean- one place? Or is it a vast number of places?

But you want to believe that at the end of the flood- there was one super continent such as Pangea- and in the last 5,000 years or so- that continent has not only split up- but drifted 4900 of miles apart(Americas and Europe/Africa?)- so an average of 1 mile a year?

Just seems we would all be noticing the massive amount of earthquakes it would take to achieve that. Even the movement of a couple inches is pretty dramatic.

And how exactly does your post Flood Pangea explain why Kangaroos are in Australia- but not in South America?

And why Rheas are in South America- but not India?

Evolutionary theory explains why. How does your Christianist theory explain that?

Sure it does. I just quoted it. Most atheist scientists ignored Pangaea as one supercontinent until plate tectonics was discovered and it was shown to be true. It shows that the earth was formed by catastrophism and not atheist ideas of uniformitarianism.

"Evidence of existence


The distribution of fossils across the continents is one line of evidence pointing to the existence of Pangaea.
Fossil evidence for Pangaea includes the presence of similar and identical species on continents that are now great distances apart. For example, fossils of the therapsid Lystrosaurus have been found in South Africa, India and Antarctica, alongside members of the Glossopteris flora, whose distribution would have ranged from the polar circle to the equator if the continents had been in their present position; similarly, the freshwater reptile Mesosaurus has been found in only localized regions of the coasts of Brazil and West Africa.[19]

Additional evidence for Pangaea is found in the geology of adjacent continents, including matching geological trends between the eastern coast of South America and the western coast of Africa. The polar ice cap of the Carboniferous Period covered the southern end of Pangaea. Glacial deposits, specifically till, of the same age and structure are found on many separate continents that would have been together in the continent of Pangaea.[20]

Paleomagnetic study of apparent polar wandering paths also support the theory of a supercontinent. Geologists can determine the movement of continental plates by examining the orientation of magnetic minerals in rocks; when rocks are formed, they take on the magnetic properties of the Earth and indicate in which direction the poles lie relative to the rock. Since the magnetic poles drift about the rotational pole with a period of only a few thousand years, measurements from numerous lavas spanning several thousand years are averaged to give an apparent mean polar position. Samples of sedimentary rock and intrusive igneous rock have magnetic orientations that are typically an average of the "secular variation" in the orientation of magnetic north because their remanent magnetizations are not acquired instantaneously. Magnetic differences between sample groups whose age varies by millions of years is due to a combination of true polar wander and the drifting of continents. The true polar wander component is identical for all samples, and can be removed, leaving geologists with the portion of this motion that shows continental drift and can be used to help reconstruct earlier continental positions.[21]

The continuity of mountain chains provides further evidence for Pangaea. One example of this is the Appalachian Mountains chain, which extends from the southeastern United States to the Caledonides of Ireland, Britain, Greenland, and Scandinavia.[22]"

Pangaea - Wikipedia

As for the Kangaroos and Rheas, why don't you explain? How does it show evolution over creation science?

 

[Syriusly]

Mt. Everest of today would need waters 6 miles high to cover. I don't think there was that much water to cover it. However, one hypothesis is Mt. Everest was lower and the plate tectonics moved the mountain higher. Evos also point out that there wasn't enough atmospheric pressure that high for Noah, his family and the animals to survive. However, creation scientists point out if sea level rose, then the atmospheric pressure would rise, too.

Again- remember your source is the Bible- which doesn't mention 'plate tectonics' or Mountains growing.

But lets go with the 'plate tectonics' thing for a moment then. Because plate tectonics are relevant to evolution.

Where does plate tectonics show the growth of Mt. Everest by a few miles in the course of say 5,000 years?

Or any significant plate tectonics movement?

There is nothing about plate tectonics theory that supports a 6,000 year old Earth.

Nothing.

But plate tectonics does fit with the theory of evolution and how kangaroos are in Australia- and not in Kansas.

You and atheists are wrong again. This is too easy.

The Bible mentions Pangea or one large mass of land and continental drift. "And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so." Genesis 1:9

Continental drift, plate tectonics came from a creation scientist. Not an atheist one.

LOL

The Bible doesn't mention Pangea.

Really how much nonsense will you try to spread using quotes from the Bible
“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place"
Where would this one place be? Let me ask you- is the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean- one place? Or is it a vast number of places?

But you want to believe that at the end of the flood- there was one super continent such as Pangea- and in the last 5,000 years or so- that continent has not only split up- but drifted 4900 of miles apart(Americas and Europe/Africa?)- so an average of 1 mile a year?

Just seems we would all be noticing the massive amount of earthquakes it would take to achieve that. Even the movement of a couple inches is pretty dramatic.

And how exactly does your post Flood Pangea explain why Kangaroos are in Australia- but not in South America?

And why Rheas are in South America- but not India?

Evolutionary theory explains why. How does your Christianist theory explain that?

Sure it does. I just quoted it. Most atheist scientists ignored Pangaea as one supercontinent until plate tectonics was discovered and it was shown to be true. It shows that the earth was formed by catastrophism and not atheist ideas of uniformitarianism.

LOL funny that. Since Christian scientists 'ignored' Pangaea until plate tectonics were 'proven' to be true.

Of course what plate tectonics actually proved was that over the course of millions of years that the continents flowed.

Not over the course of a few thousand years.

And again- no- it doesn't show that the earth was formed by 'castatrophism'. That is of course just Christianist faux-science.

Today most geologists combine catastrophist and uniformitarianist standpoints, taking the view that Earth's history is a slow, gradual story punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events that have affected Earth and its inhabitants

Or as a critic pointed out

Of course, creationists have an answer for this, including "catastrophic plate tectonics", which apparently can have all the continents scurrying across the face of the Earth like cockroaches avoiding light. Go ahead and read that link; it’s pretty entertaining. According to them, the continents all got pushed around by Noah’s flood, then suddenly stopped, except not really stopped; now they move slowly, and at just the right speed to be in concordance with the hundreds of other pieces of evidence that show that the Earth is billions of years old.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/21/creationists-fail-again-taken-for-granite/

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mt. Everest of today would need waters 6 miles high to cover. I don't think there was that much water to cover it. However, one hypothesis is Mt. Everest was lower and the plate tectonics moved the mountain higher. Evos also point out that there wasn't enough atmospheric pressure that high for Noah, his family and the animals to survive. However, creation scientists point out if sea level rose, then the atmospheric pressure would rise, too.

Again- remember your source is the Bible- which doesn't mention 'plate tectonics' or Mountains growing.

But lets go with the 'plate tectonics' thing for a moment then. Because plate tectonics are relevant to evolution.

Where does plate tectonics show the growth of Mt. Everest by a few miles in the course of say 5,000 years?

Or any significant plate tectonics movement?

There is nothing about plate tectonics theory that supports a 6,000 year old Earth.

Nothing.

But plate tectonics does fit with the theory of evolution and how kangaroos are in Australia- and not in Kansas.

You and atheists are wrong again. This is too easy.

The Bible mentions Pangea or one large mass of land and continental drift. "And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so." Genesis 1:9

Continental drift, plate tectonics came from a creation scientist. Not an atheist one.

LOL

The Bible doesn't mention Pangea.

Really how much nonsense will you try to spread using quotes from the Bible
“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place"
Where would this one place be? Let me ask you- is the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean- one place? Or is it a vast number of places?

But you want to believe that at the end of the flood- there was one super continent such as Pangea- and in the last 5,000 years or so- that continent has not only split up- but drifted 4900 of miles apart(Americas and Europe/Africa?)- so an average of 1 mile a year?

Just seems we would all be noticing the massive amount of earthquakes it would take to achieve that. Even the movement of a couple inches is pretty dramatic.

And how exactly does your post Flood Pangea explain why Kangaroos are in Australia- but not in South America?

And why Rheas are in South America- but not India?

Evolutionary theory explains why. How does your Christianist theory explain that?

Sure it does. I just quoted it. Most atheist scientists ignored Pangaea as one supercontinent until plate tectonics was discovered and it was shown to be true. It shows that the earth was formed by catastrophism and not atheist ideas of uniformitarianism.

"Evidence of existence


The distribution of fossils across the continents is one line of evidence pointing to the existence of Pangaea.
Fossil evidence for Pangaea includes the presence of similar and identical species on continents that are now great distances apart. For example, fossils of the therapsid Lystrosaurus have been found in South Africa, India and Antarctica, alongside members of the Glossopteris flora, whose distribution would have ranged from the polar circle to the equator if the continents had been in their present position; similarly, the freshwater reptile Mesosaurus has been found in only localized regions of the coasts of Brazil and West Africa.[19]

Additional evidence for Pangaea is found in the geology of adjacent continents, including matching geological trends between the eastern coast of South America and the western coast of Africa. The polar ice cap of the Carboniferous Period covered the southern end of Pangaea. Glacial deposits, specifically till, of the same age and structure are found on many separate continents that would have been together in the continent of Pangaea.[20]

Paleomagnetic study of apparent polar wandering paths also support the theory of a supercontinent. Geologists can determine the movement of continental plates by examining the orientation of magnetic minerals in rocks; when rocks are formed, they take on the magnetic properties of the Earth and indicate in which direction the poles lie relative to the rock. Since the magnetic poles drift about the rotational pole with a period of only a few thousand years, measurements from numerous lavas spanning several thousand years are averaged to give an apparent mean polar position. Samples of sedimentary rock and intrusive igneous rock have magnetic orientations that are typically an average of the "secular variation" in the orientation of magnetic north because their remanent magnetizations are not acquired instantaneously. Magnetic differences between sample groups whose age varies by millions of years is due to a combination of true polar wander and the drifting of continents. The true polar wander component is identical for all samples, and can be removed, leaving geologists with the portion of this motion that shows continental drift and can be used to help reconstruct earlier continental positions.[21]

The continuity of mountain chains provides further evidence for Pangaea. One example of this is the Appalachian Mountains chain, which extends from the southeastern United States to the Caledonides of Ireland, Britain, Greenland, and Scandinavia.[22]"

Pangaea - Wikipedia

As for the Kangaroos and Rheas, why don't you explain? How does it show evolution over creation science?

And the same scientists who taught you anything you will ever know about any of that also overwhelmingly agree that evolution is fact.

So you can stop citing scientists now, nutball.

 

[Syriusly]

As for the Kangaroos and Rheas, why don't you explain? How does it show evolution over creation science?

'

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

 

[james bond]

As for the Kangaroos and Rheas, why don't you explain? How does it show evolution over creation science?

'

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

Oh, this has to do with flood theories instead of you not being able to read the wikipedia article?

It seems what you are asking is how did the animals get from Noah's Ark which landed in the Mt. Ararat area to far reaching places like Australia and India? Doesn't the supercontinent or one land mass explain it in the article I posted? Did you read the wikipedia article and see the map I posted? What does evolution say about Pangaea and animal migration? The reason why I ask is this is stuff you should know because it falls under biogeography. The creation scientist geologist Alfred Wegener who came up with a supercontinet explained already. In fact, it was biogeography which led him to come up with his supercontinent hypothesis which was immediately ignored. Just like today with creation scientists who attribute the earth's geology to catastrophism. They even have Mt. St. Helens which shows the same stratification of earth layers when its volcano erupted. That's hard evidence of layers not being related to chronology, but rapid change. Yet, it's creation science so it's ignored until atheist scientists borrow, i.e. steal, their ideas to back up their dumbass hypothesis of how the dinosaurs went extinct.

Heh. Wegener found that the distributions of fossils of several organisms supported his theory that the continents were once joined together.

 

[Syriusly]

'

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

Oh, this has to do with flood theories instead of you not being able to read the wikipedia article?

It seems what you are asking is how did the animals get from Noah's Ark which landed in the Mt. Ararat area to far reaching places like Australia and India? Doesn't the supercontinent or one land mass explain it in the article I posted? Did you read the wikipedia article and see the map I posted? What does evolution say about Pangaea and animal migration? .

No.

See here is the thing.

IF all the animals were created at once- and all released at Mt. Ararat at once- then they would have all dispersed somewhat evenly.

Even if anyone were to believe the Christianist theories that the continents were speeding apart at over a mile a year- that doesn't explain why Kangaroos ended up in Australia and Elephants didn't.

According to the Christianist fairy tales- every animal species alive 5,000 years ago came off of the ark and then started wandering around.

How did Galapagos tortoises end up in the Galapagos? But nowhere else?

Evolution explains why.

How did Kangaroos end up in Australia but nowhere else?

Evolution explains why.

How did Rheas end up in South America but nowhere else?

Evolution explains why.

 

[Syriusly]

'

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

The creation scientist geologist Alfred Wegener who came up with a supercontinet explained already. .

You mean this real scientist? Alfred Wegener:

By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands), and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions.

So your 'Creation Scientist' tells you that earth is at least 300 million years old.

Do you believe your own 'Creation scientist'?

 

[james bond]

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

Oh, this has to do with flood theories instead of you not being able to read the wikipedia article?

It seems what you are asking is how did the animals get from Noah's Ark which landed in the Mt. Ararat area to far reaching places like Australia and India? Doesn't the supercontinent or one land mass explain it in the article I posted? Did you read the wikipedia article and see the map I posted? What does evolution say about Pangaea and animal migration? .

No.

See here is the thing.

IF all the animals were created at once- and all released at Mt. Ararat at once- then they would have all dispersed somewhat evenly.

Even if anyone were to believe the Christianist theories that the continents were speeding apart at over a mile a year- that doesn't explain why Kangaroos ended up in Australia and Elephants didn't.

According to the Christianist fairy tales- every animal species alive 5,000 years ago came off of the ark and then started wandering around.

How did Galapagos tortoises end up in the Galapagos? But nowhere else?

Evolution explains why.

How did Kangaroos end up in Australia but nowhere else?

Evolution explains why.

How did Rheas end up in South America but nowhere else?

Evolution explains why.

First and foremost, I want to point out that Wegener used fossils to explain where animals were found. Fossils just means where the animal died. He didn't attribute any time chronology of millions of years to it, so he wasn't looking for how old they were. This helped him come up with the hypothesis of a supercontinent circa 1915. Does it occur to you why his hypothesis was ignored? Because it didn't fit dumbass Darwin's evolution ideas. It wasn't until 1960 when plate tectonics and scientists mapped the ocean floor that they were able to demonstrate the mechanism that made continental drift possible. Remember the article of the Oregon girl's finding. What was the first thing the people attributed to it? Millions of years which is wrong. So take your Darwin's evo ideas and shove it up where the sun don't shine.

 

[james bond]

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

The creation scientist geologist Alfred Wegener who came up with a supercontinet explained already. .

You mean this real scientist? Alfred Wegener:

By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands), and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions.

So your 'Creation Scientist' tells you that earth is at least 300 million years old.

Do you believe your own 'Creation scientist'?

This is just small potatoes and why don't you post links to your sources? He had to use millions of years in order to fit it into Darwin's dumbass chronolgy of millions of years or else it would have been ignored.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

why don't you post links to your sources?

Because he is posting well established scientific knowledge that will be the same no matter what source used. Duh.

 

[Syriusly]

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

The creation scientist geologist Alfred Wegener who came up with a supercontinet explained already. .

You mean this real scientist? Alfred Wegener:

By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands), and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions.

So your 'Creation Scientist' tells you that earth is at least 300 million years old.

Do you believe your own 'Creation scientist'?

This is just small potatoes and why don't you post links to your sources? He had to use millions of years in order to fit it into Darwin's dumbass chronolgy of millions of years or else it would have been ignored.

Small potatoes?

You said he was a 'Creation scientist' yet he specifically says that the earth is over 200 million years old.

He specifically refutes what you have said about the formation of the earth.

Why do you cite him- and ignore his science?

Oh wait- you are an anti-evolution Christianist.

Here- I did your homework for you

Wegener, Alfred