Would they support the devil himself if he had a (R)next to his name~satan(R)

Wolverine said:
Ask me a hard one will you?
Evolutionists acknowledge that men and animals could once freely cross the Bering Strait, which separates Asia and the Americas. Before the idea of continental drift became popular, evolutionists depended entirely upon a lowering of the sea level during an ice age (which locked up water in the ice) to create land bridges, enabling dry-land passage from Europe most of the way to Australasia, for example.

The existence of some deep-water stretches along the route to Australia is still consistent with this explanation. Evolutionist geologists themselves believe there have been major tectonic upheavals, accompanied by substantial rising and falling of sea floors, in the time period which they associate with an ice age. For instance, parts of California are believed to have been raised many thousands of feet from what was the sea floor during this ice age period, which they call “Pleistocene” (one of the most recent of the supposed geological periods). creationist geologists generally regard Pleistocene sediments as post-flood, the period in which these major migrations took place.

In the same way, other dry-land areas, including parts of these land bridges, subsided to become submerged at around the same time.

Now you, where did life begin and how?

If you must use foul language, here is a quote from Will Smith's grandma
Dear Willard, intelligent people do not use these words to express themselves."
Click to expand...

Just Priceless!

Where is there any evidence of an ice age or a land bridge to Australia in the last 4000 or so years?

It’s over 9000 miles, by air, from Turkey to Australia. How could those single pairs of animals travel that distance, especially something like a koala bear or sloth, no mating and no mortality? Mountains, rivers and no land bridge?

I won’t research your almost certainly bogus statement about California in the Pleistocene, but that era lasted a couple million years or more, not a couple thousand.

And I won’t even get to a 900 year old Noah or other absurd children’s notions.

Creationist geologists? Just fucking priceless!

Now, as far as your last comment, shitweasel:

“Studies have shown, however, that swearing may in fact display a more, rather than less, intelligent use of language.”

https://www.sciencealert.com/swearing-is-a-sign-of-more-intelligence-not-less-say-scientists
 
domer76 said:
Just Priceless!

Where is there any evidence of an ice age or a land bridge to Australia in the last 4000 or so years?

It’s over 9000 miles, by air, from Turkey to Australia. How could those single pairs of animals travel that distance, especially something like a koala bear or sloth, no mating and no mortality? Mountains, rivers and no land bridge?

I won’t research your almost certainly bogus statement about California in the Pleistocene, but that era lasted a couple million years or more, not a couple thousand.

And I won’t even get to a 900 year old Noah or other absurd children’s notions.

Creationist geologists? Just fucking priceless!

Now, as far as your last comment, shitweasel:

“Studies have shown, however, that swearing may in fact display a more, rather than less, intelligent use of language.”

https://www.sciencealert.com/swearing-is-a-sign-of-more-intelligence-not-less-say-scientists
Click to expand...

Study most likely researched by people who like to swear, to make them believe the notion that they are elite thinkers.

As for the rest, you have no evidence to refute my claim, and start dispensing your blah blah blah children, blah blah blah fairy tale nonsense!

How did animals make the long journey from the Ararat region? Even though there have been isolated reports of individual animals making startling journeys of hundreds of miles, such abilities are not even necessary. Early settlers released a very small number of rabbits in Australia. Wild rabbits are now found at the very opposite corner (in fact, every corner) of this vast continent. Does that mean that an individual rabbit had to be capable of crossing the whole of Australia? Of course not. Creation speakers are sometimes asked mockingly, "Did the kangaroo hop all the way to Australia?" We see by the rabbit example that this is a somewhat foolish question.
Kangaroo

Populations of animals may have had centuries to migrate, relatively slowly, over many generations. Incidentally, the opposite question (also common), as to whether the two kangaroos hopped all the way from Australia to the ark, is also easily answered. The continents we now have, with their load of flood-deposited sedimentary rock, are not the same as whatever continent or continents there may have been in the pre-flood world.
 
Bill said:
Would they support the devil himself if he had a (R)next to his name~satan(R)

republican-devil.jpg
Click to expand...

Al Franken ?
 
Wolverine said:
Study most likely researched by people who like to swear, to make them believe the notion that they are elite thinkers.

As for the rest, you have no evidence to refute my claim, and start dispensing your blah blah blah children, blah blah blah fairy tale nonsense!

How did animals make the long journey from the Ararat region? Even though there have been isolated reports of individual animals making startling journeys of hundreds of miles, such abilities are not even necessary. Early settlers released a very small number of rabbits in Australia. Wild rabbits are now found at the very opposite corner (in fact, every corner) of this vast continent. Does that mean that an individual rabbit had to be capable of crossing the whole of Australia? Of course not. Creation speakers are sometimes asked mockingly, "Did the kangaroo hop all the way to Australia?" We see by the rabbit example that this is a somewhat foolish question.
Kangaroo

Populations of animals may have had centuries to migrate, relatively slowly, over many generations. Incidentally, the opposite question (also common), as to whether the two kangaroos hopped all the way from Australia to the ark, is also easily answered. The continents we now have, with their load of flood-deposited sedimentary rock, are not the same as whatever continent or continents there may have been in the pre-flood world.
Click to expand...

Australia was attached to the mainland in the last few thousand years?

Great on the rabbit multiplication thing. That’s not an answer to how a sloth pair made its way from Turkey to Australia with no mating until they reached their destination. UNHARMED. There is no “multiple generation”, as the animals in question do not exist in the supposed migratory trail.

There is also no worldwide flood deposited sedimentary rock.

Why do you Thumpers reject science?
 
Last edited:
Right said:
Obviously I don't have one of those, just like you have no B. in anything, lol
Click to expand...

Laughable, pally boy.

What exactly, other than just “science”, is that certificate in? It’s obvious you have no concept or even the slightest inclination toward any scientific discipline.

I see you liked Wolverine’s creationist view of science and his “scientific” explanations. Doesn’t he know it’s just a parable, as you claim? Or were you lying to cover your massive lack of critical thinking skills?
 
Last edited:
domer76 said:
Laughable, pally boy.

What exactly, other than just “science”, is that certificate in? It’s obvious you have no concept or even the slightest inclination toward any scientific discipline.

I see you liked Wolverine’s creationist view of science and his “scientific” explanations. Doesn’t he know it’s just a parable, as you claim? Or were you lying to cover your massive lack of critical thinking skills?
Click to expand...

You keep stalking me for information on my college degree, yet offer nothing of your own. I must conclude that you have a mere B. A., if that.
 
Right said:
You keep stalking me for information on my college degree, yet offer nothing of your own. I must conclude that you have a mere B. A., if that.
Click to expand...

Let’s review, moron.

YOU’RE the one making the claim about his degree in “science”. I’m merely asking what discipline, because there really isn’t a degree in “science” except for perhaps an AA certificate or on-line. Your claim doesn’t pass the smell test.
L
 
domer76 said:
Let’s review, moron.

YOU’RE the one making the claim about his degree in “science”. I’m merely asking what discipline, because there really isn’t a degree in “science” except for perhaps an AA certificate or on-line. Your claim doesn’t pass the smell test.
L
Click to expand...
Since we're relying on "smell" now, I'll have to assume that you lack a college degree at all. lol
 
domer76 said:
Australia was attached to the mainland in the last few thousand years?

Great on the rabbit multiplication thing. That’s not an answer to how a sloth pair made its way from Turkey to Australia with no mating until they reached their destination. UNHARMED. There is no “multiple generation”, as the animals in question do not exist in the supposed migratory trail.

There is also no worldwide flood deposited sedimentary rock.

Why do you Thumpers reject science?
Click to expand...

I continue to supply you with scientific possibilities, and you reject them, who rejects science again?

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm
 
Wolverine said:
I continue to supply you with scientific possibilities, and you reject them, who rejects science again?

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm
Click to expand...

lol

earthage.org? You've got to be joking, right?

Back to the circular creationist bullshit I see. You even have to qualify your reference to geologists as "creationist geologists".

Back to the question of the migration to Australia. You never answered it. As well as the land bridge to Australia.

BTW, Rupke was a Christian and proponent of Flood geology, but later came to reject this position.
 
Last edited:
domer76 said:
lol

earthage.org? You've got to be joking, right?

Back to the circular creationist bullshit I see. You even have to qualify your reference to geologists as "creationist geologists".

Back to the question of the migration to Australia. You never answered it. As well as the land bridge to Australia.

BTW, Rupke was a Christian and proponent of Flood geology, but later came to reject this position.
Click to expand...

Actually I have covered your question here let me do it again
Prior to the flood, the earth may have been one large landmass. Australia did not exist in its present location. Our present continents are shaped as a result of re-disposition of flood sediments, and receding flood waters.

After the flood there were land bridges (because of a lower sea level) that connected many of the continents.

Years later, the glaciers started to melt and the water level rose. This caused many land bridges to disappear.

The animals that were on these continents would be stuck there. Keep in mind too, that many animals were brought to the United States by explorers. They did not travel there themselves. The same may be true for animals in Australia.

For the animals that did migrate on foot, keep in mind one kangaroo would not have to hop all the way to Australia. A group could travel, dying and reproducing for many years along the way. There was probably a lot of trial and error looking for a climate that suited them, in combination with a amble source of food. It's not as if they had Australia as a goal.
 
Wolverine said:
Actually I have covered your question here let me do it again
Prior to the flood, the earth may have been one large landmass. Australia did not exist in its present location. Our present continents are shaped as a result of re-disposition of flood sediments, and receding flood waters.

After the flood there were land bridges (because of a lower sea level) that connected many of the continents.

Years later, the glaciers started to melt and the water level rose. This caused many land bridges to disappear.

The animals that were on these continents would be stuck there. Keep in mind too, that many animals were brought to the United States by explorers. They did not travel there themselves. The same may be true for animals in Australia.

For the animals that did migrate on foot, keep in mind one kangaroo would not have to hop all the way to Australia. A group could travel, dying and reproducing for many years along the way. There was probably a lot of trial and error looking for a climate that suited them, in combination with a amble source of food. It's not as if they had Australia as a goal.
Click to expand...

Of course it was one land mass. Multiple tens of millions of years ago. Not 4,000. And the continents are where they are due to tectonics, not a flood 4,000 years ago.
There were land bridges. Just not to Australia 4,000 years ago.

Explorers took animals to Australia from Turkey? Which explorers? Everyone drowned, remember? How did those explorers get to Australia with those specific animals without the animals mating? There is no migratory trail, Cletus.

Major failure. Nice effort though.
 
domer76 said:
Of course it was one land mass. Multiple tens of millions of years ago. Not 4,000. And the continents are where they are due to tectonics, not a flood 4,000 years ago.
There were land bridges. Just not to Australia 4,000 years ago.

Explorers took animals to Australia from Turkey? Which explorers? Everyone drowned, remember? How did those explorers get to Australia with those specific animals without the animals mating? There is no migratory trail, Cletus.

Major failure. Nice effort though.
Click to expand...

If you believe the fallacy of old Earth, which is of course fiction!

http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/

You are not very good at this for a scientist!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top