According to science, how does a new species develop?

[Syriusly]

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.

 

[forkup]

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.

I wouldn't spend much time on this guy. He ignores what he can't answer and declares he won the argument when he finally gets people frustrated enough so they won't reply back. Believe me I spent months giving arguments covering nearly all sciences. You can't argue someone who isn't interested in having honest conversations.

 

[james bond]

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.

We have found that the Wallace line and plate tectonics answers your question, so there was no need to keep repeating yourself. You should have been able to figure it out. It was answered several pages back as I said. Again, I am right and you are wrong.

The separate question you want answered is the age of the earth. The difference between you and I is the age of the earth. Creation scientists know that God did not state the age of the earth. He said that some things he will keep secret such as the beginning and the end. However, God did give us a birth certificate in Genesis. It allows creationists to figure out the age of the earth using the Biblical characters and timeline. That's how they came up with 6,000 yr-old earth.

How Old Is the Earth?

One of the things you did not explain was the population. How can a 200,000 years old humankind have population of only 6.5 B people. A 6K-yr old earth and humankind does fit the 6.5 B population based on statistical analysis. Thus, population statistics back up a 6K-yr old earth.

The other question you have been avoiding is discussion of BS chronological layers of Lyell and Darwin. Where is the evidence that the layers remained mostly undisturbed for 4.7 B years?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

We have found that the Wallace line and plate tectonics answers your question, so there was no need to keep repeating yourself.

The Wallace Line is just an observation of where animals existed in nature.

Plate tectonics say that continental drift takes millions of years- even you Christian scientists told you that.

Yes- Plate tectonics and the theory of evolution explains why marsupials are in Australia and nowhere else.

Noah's Ark does not.

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

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The separate question you want answered is the age of the earth. The difference between you and I is the age of the earth. Creation scientists know that God did not state the age of the earth. He said that some things he will keep secret such as the beginning and the end. However, God did give us a birth certificate in Genesis. It allows creationists to figure out the age of the earth using the Biblical characters and timeline. That's how they came up with 6,000 yr-old earth.

I didn't answer the question regarding the age of the earth- other than to observe that your own citations put the age of the earth as millions of years old.

Do you believe it is millions of years old- or around 6,000 years old?

If you believe it to be 6,000 years old- again- how did all the marsupials end up in Australia- and nowhere else?

 

[Syriusly]

I will keep
One of the things you did not explain was the population. How can a 200,000 years old humankind have population of only 6.5 B people. A 6K-yr old earth and humankind does fit the 6.5 B population based on statistical analysis. Thus, population statistics back up a 6K-yr old earth.

What 'statistical analysis'? You have an opinion paper by a chemist.

According to the 6,000 year old earth theory, all animals are descended from Noah's Ark's population about 4,400 years ago.

Given that mice can procreate 5-10 times a year- with litters of 5-6 each time- each which can reproduce in 30 days- the earth can only be about 100 years old- according to the current world wide population of mice.

In other words- your math doesn't exist in a vacuum.

What 'statistical analysis'? You have an opinion paper by a chemist.

According to the 6,000 year old earth theory, all animals are descended from Noah's Ark's population about 4,400 years ago.

Given that mice can procreate 5-10 times a year- with litters of 5-6 each time- each which can reproduce in 30 days- the earth can only be about 100 years old- according to the current world wide population of mice.

In other words- your math doesn't exist in a vacuum

 

[Syriusly]

I will keep
The other question you have been avoiding is discussion of BS chronological layers of Lyell and Darwin. Where is the evidence that the layers remained mostly undisturbed for 4.7 B years?

Because I don't really care about your discussion of 'chronological layers of Lyell and Darwin'.

You keep circling around and want to avoid talking about the current theory of Evolution by talking about stuff from 200 years ago.

Give me a real answer about marsupials, 6,000 years, Australia- and maybe I will bother with your layers.

Because I don't really care about your discussion of 'chronological layers of Lyell and Darwin'.

You keep circling around and want to avoid talking about the current theory of Evolution by talking about stuff from 200 years ago.

Give me a real answer about marsupials, 6,000 years, Australia- and maybe I will bother with your layers

 

[james bond]

>>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.

We have found that the Wallace line and plate tectonics answers your question, so there was no need to keep repeating yourself.

The Wallace Line is just an observation of where animals existed in nature.

Plate tectonics say that continental drift takes millions of years- even you Christian scientists told you that.

Yes- Plate tectonics and the theory of evolution explains why marsupials are in Australia and nowhere else.

Noah's Ark does not.

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

I already answered this using evolution, but I can see it's not registering in your tainted brain. What's in red is what's not registering. Also, I presented the timeline differences between creation and evolution. There is no way to resolve the differences because the timelines are too vastly apart. Creation's 6K years would be practically an invisible dot on the evolutionary timeline. Thus, creation scientists use the evolutionary timeline and evolution explained it as I linked. However, that's not the whole creation story. It's explained in the Bible how creatures migrated from Noah's ark. However, I can't resolve the impossible of explaining the differences of time, but can explain using the Bible.

I believe Ararat isn't just the Mt. Ararat, but also the vast plain area and other mountains.

Here's a creation science explanation:
"“Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4). The Bible is clear that the Ark landed in the region of Ararat, but much debate has ensued over whether this is the same region as the locality of the present-day mountain known as Ararat. This issue is of importance, as we shall see. The Bible uses the plural “mountains.” It is unlikely that the Ark rested on a point on the top of a mountain, in the manner often illustrated in children’s picture books. Rather, the landing would have been among the mountainous areas of eastern Turkey, where present-day Mount Ararat is located, and western Iran, where the range extends.

1. It was God’s will that the earth be recolonized. “Then God spoke to Noah, saying, ‘Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.’ So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. Every animal, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth, according to their families, went out of the ark” (Genesis 8:15–19). The abundance and multiplication of the animals was also God’s will.

The biblical principles that we can establish then are that, after the Flood, God desired the ecological reconstruction of the world, including its vulnerable animal kinds, and the animals must have spread out from a mountainous region known as Ararat.

The construction of any biblical model of recolonization must include these principles. The model suggested on the following pages is constructed in good faith, to explain the observed facts through the “eyeglasses” of the Bible. The Bible is inspired, but our scientific models are not. If we subsequently find the model to be untenable, this would not shake our commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture."

How Did Animals Spread All Over from Where the Ark Landed?

ETA: What does the differences in time mean? It means only one version can be true. If God let us know the exact age of the earth, then it would prove God. However, we need faith in God to learn from the Bible and find out God's Word.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can't argue

And who really needs to argue with that nutball, anyway? It is well known across the world that evolution is fact. We also don't need to spend much time arguing with flat Earthers. Like this fool, you can just embarrass them by letting them talk.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

We have found that the Wallace line and plate tectonics answers your question, so there was no need to keep repeating yourself.

The Wallace Line is just an observation of where animals existed in nature.

Plate tectonics say that continental drift takes millions of years- even you Christian scientists told you that.

Yes- Plate tectonics and the theory of evolution explains why marsupials are in Australia and nowhere else.

Noah's Ark does not.

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

I already answered this using evolution, but I can see it's not registering in your tainted brain. What's in red is what's not registering. Also, I presented the timeline differences between creation and evolution. There is no way to resolve the differences because the timelines are too vastly apart. Creation's 6K years would be practically an invisible dot on the evolutionary timeline. Thus, creation scientists use the evolutionary timeline and evolution explained it as I linked. .

This is where your attempt at a narrative loses me every time.

I don't even know what you are trying to 'resolve'- either the Earth is millions of years old- or it is not.

According to Christians it is about 6K years old.
According to science it is millions of years old.

If you use the evolutionary time line- then you are saying that the earth is not 6K years old- but are acknowledging that it is millions of years old- AND you are acknowledging that evolution explains the diversity of life around the world.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, +/- 1%.

This is an established fact. There is no debate.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

We have found that the Wallace line and plate tectonics answers your question, so there was no need to keep repeating yourself.

The Wallace Line is just an observation of where animals existed in nature.

Plate tectonics say that continental drift takes millions of years- even you Christian scientists told you that.

Yes- Plate tectonics and the theory of evolution explains why marsupials are in Australia and nowhere else.

Noah's Ark does not.

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

Here's a creation science explanation:
"“Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4). The Bible is clear that the Ark landed in the region of Ararat, but much debate has ensued over whether this is the same region as the locality of the present-day mountain known as Ararat. This issue is of importance, as we shall see. The Bible uses the plural “mountains.” It is unlikely that the Ark rested on a point on the top of a mountain, in the manner often illustrated in children’s picture books. Rather, the landing would have been among the mountainous areas of eastern Turkey, where present-day Mount Ararat is located, and western Iran, where the range extends.

1. It was God’s will that the earth be recolonized. “Then God spoke to Noah, saying, ‘Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.’ So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. Every animal, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth, according to their families, went out of the ark” (Genesis 8:15–19). The abundance and multiplication of the animals was also God’s will.

The biblical principles that we can establish then are that, after the Flood, God desired the ecological reconstruction of the world, including its vulnerable animal kinds, and the animals must have spread out from a mountainous region known as Ararat.

The construction of any biblical model of recolonization must include these principles. The model suggested on the following pages is constructed in good faith, to explain the observed facts through the “eyeglasses” of the Bible. The Bible is inspired, but our scientific models are not. If we subsequently find the model to be untenable, this would not shake our commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture."

How Did Animals Spread All Over from Where the Ark Landed?

.

Nothing in your explanation- or in the article you cited offers any rational explanation as to why virtually all marsupials ended up going from Ararat- to Australia- and none stayed on in Turkey- or went to Africa.

The Bible doesn't mention any animal shepherds assigning all animals with pouches to Australia- but nowhere else.

I have tried.

I will leave it at where it is always left with the Christian anti-evolutionist- you have your faith- and you accept that- and not science.

 

[forkup]

You can't argue

And who really needs to argue with that nutball, anyway? It is well known across the world that evolution is fact. We also don't need to spend much time arguing with flat Earthers. Like this fool, you can just embarrass them by letting them talk.

True, I'm just interested in why people are capable of holding on to beliefs that are so demonstrably wrong. Faith is one thing. Faith against direct evidence to the contrary is amazing.

 

[LittleNipper]

The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, +/- 1%.

This is an established fact. There is no debate.

It really isn't, it is only implied by data that if interpreted through the eyes of naturalism, fabricated the need for eons of time. GOD through the universe illustrated to Adam the enormity of GOD's existence and abilities. You tell me how old the universe appears and I will tell you how long GOD has been an around plus 1

 

[james bond]

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.

We have found that the Wallace line and plate tectonics answers your question, so there was no need to keep repeating yourself.

The Wallace Line is just an observation of where animals existed in nature.

Plate tectonics say that continental drift takes millions of years- even you Christian scientists told you that.

Yes- Plate tectonics and the theory of evolution explains why marsupials are in Australia and nowhere else.

Noah's Ark does not.

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

Here's a creation science explanation:
"“Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4). The Bible is clear that the Ark landed in the region of Ararat, but much debate has ensued over whether this is the same region as the locality of the present-day mountain known as Ararat. This issue is of importance, as we shall see. The Bible uses the plural “mountains.” It is unlikely that the Ark rested on a point on the top of a mountain, in the manner often illustrated in children’s picture books. Rather, the landing would have been among the mountainous areas of eastern Turkey, where present-day Mount Ararat is located, and western Iran, where the range extends.

1. It was God’s will that the earth be recolonized. “Then God spoke to Noah, saying, ‘Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.’ So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. Every animal, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth, according to their families, went out of the ark” (Genesis 8:15–19). The abundance and multiplication of the animals was also God’s will.

The biblical principles that we can establish then are that, after the Flood, God desired the ecological reconstruction of the world, including its vulnerable animal kinds, and the animals must have spread out from a mountainous region known as Ararat.

The construction of any biblical model of recolonization must include these principles. The model suggested on the following pages is constructed in good faith, to explain the observed facts through the “eyeglasses” of the Bible. The Bible is inspired, but our scientific models are not. If we subsequently find the model to be untenable, this would not shake our commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture."

How Did Animals Spread All Over from Where the Ark Landed?

.

Nothing in your explanation- or in the article you cited offers any rational explanation as to why virtually all marsupials ended up going from Ararat- to Australia- and none stayed on in Turkey- or went to Africa.

The Bible doesn't mention any animal shepherds assigning all animals with pouches to Australia- but nowhere else.

I have tried.

I will leave it at where it is always left with the Christian anti-evolutionist- you have your faith- and you accept that- and not science.

I answered your question, so again you dodge mine. How do you explain the today's global population of 7.6 B (updated) in 200K years. Also, how can the earth layers be chronological when it has all been disturbed? How can it not be disturbed for billions of years? As we agreed that plate tectonics split the supercontinent until it is like today with seven continents.

Here is the empirical and experimental evidence for disturbance:
Sedimentology: Experiments & Videos

The atheist science goes back to 1600s lol:
"The dating principles determined in the 17th century by an anatomy professor of Copenhagen University, Stenon (Molyavko et al., 1985), upon which the geological time-scale is founded should be re-examined and supplemented."

Sedimentology: Conclusions

 

[james bond]

Here's what happened due to plate tectonics. So, how can the earth not be disturbed? It happened fast because of young earth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It really isn't, it is only implied by data that if interpreted through the eyes of naturalism, fabricated the need for eons of time

That's hilarious nonsense. You couldn't name any of the evidence or methods for determining the age of the Earth, if your life depended on it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Here's what happened due to plate tectonics. So, how can the earth not be disturbed? It happened fast because of young earth.

Actually, that has happened many times throughout Earth's history. This is a known fact. Of course you didn't know that, because you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

We have found that the Wallace line and plate tectonics answers your question, so there was no need to keep repeating yourself.

The Wallace Line is just an observation of where animals existed in nature.

Plate tectonics say that continental drift takes millions of years- even you Christian scientists told you that.

Yes- Plate tectonics and the theory of evolution explains why marsupials are in Australia and nowhere else.

Noah's Ark does not.

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

Here's a creation science explanation:
"“Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4). The Bible is clear that the Ark landed in the region of Ararat, but much debate has ensued over whether this is the same region as the locality of the present-day mountain known as Ararat. This issue is of importance, as we shall see. The Bible uses the plural “mountains.” It is unlikely that the Ark rested on a point on the top of a mountain, in the manner often illustrated in children’s picture books. Rather, the landing would have been among the mountainous areas of eastern Turkey, where present-day Mount Ararat is located, and western Iran, where the range extends.

1. It was God’s will that the earth be recolonized. “Then God spoke to Noah, saying, ‘Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.’ So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. Every animal, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth, according to their families, went out of the ark” (Genesis 8:15–19). The abundance and multiplication of the animals was also God’s will.

The biblical principles that we can establish then are that, after the Flood, God desired the ecological reconstruction of the world, including its vulnerable animal kinds, and the animals must have spread out from a mountainous region known as Ararat.

The construction of any biblical model of recolonization must include these principles. The model suggested on the following pages is constructed in good faith, to explain the observed facts through the “eyeglasses” of the Bible. The Bible is inspired, but our scientific models are not. If we subsequently find the model to be untenable, this would not shake our commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture."

How Did Animals Spread All Over from Where the Ark Landed?

.

Nothing in your explanation- or in the article you cited offers any rational explanation as to why virtually all marsupials ended up going from Ararat- to Australia- and none stayed on in Turkey- or went to Africa.

The Bible doesn't mention any animal shepherds assigning all animals with pouches to Australia- but nowhere else.

I have tried.

I will leave it at where it is always left with the Christian anti-evolutionist- you have your faith- and you accept that- and not science.

I answered your question, so again you dodge mine. How do you explain the today's global population of 7.6 B (updated) in 200K years.

Because that was the rate that humans populated- balancing deaths versus births.

How come there are few Kalahari Bushman now than there were 100 years ago?

There are roughly 90,000 of the San people alive today- Yet at one time they may have been the largest population humans on earth.

Khoisan - Wikipedia.

If the world is 6,000 years old- how come there are only 90,000 San people?

 

[Syriusly]

Here's what happened due to plate tectonics. So, how can the earth not be disturbed? It happened fast because of young earth.

You mean what happened over the course of millions of years as your own 'Creation Scientists' told you?