news:9fmdncIASo9v-CyiRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>
> "Jason Gastrich, B.A., M.A." <news@jcsm.org> wrote ...
> > >>>> 4. How do we explain extremely slow creatures such as turtles and
> > >>>> land snails. The three toed sloth is a South American animal that
> > >>>> only travels, top speed, about 0.068 m.p.h. How did this pair of
> > >>>> animals get from Ararat to their home in such a short time and how
> > >>>> did they ever survive? The fossil record tells us that these
> > >>>> animals have always been indigenous to South America.
> > >>
> > >> In short, the Bering Strait used to be a land bridge. Even know, it
> > >> is a very skinny strait of water that connects the continents.
> > >>
> > >> See this article for more on this:
> > >> http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp
> > >
> > > The Bering Strait doesn't explain how the three toed sloth traveled
> > > all that way and got there in time to board the ark[it travels .068
> > > mph].
> >
> > This wasn't your question, but this is answered much easier than your
> > apparent question. (Your question was about their travel from Ararat to
> S.
> > America.) All life was created in the Garden of Eden. Therefore, the
> sloth
> > was near the Ark to begin with.
>
> This article better explains my 4th query.
>
> How and why did migrating humans take these particular animals? Do you
> really think people took marsupial moles, kangaroos, echidna, kiwis,
koalas,
> wombats, the platypus, Tasmania devils, bandicoots, Moas ( a giant
predatory
> bird, now extinct), Cassowarys (a bad tempered bird that is the second
> largest now living in the world) and the Thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger) to
> Australia and New Guinea along with all the other animals unique to the
> area? That would have been some interesting trips in dugout canoes.
>
> How and why did they gather all these marsupials and leave only a few
behind
> (such as the prolific opossum which somehow got to North America without
> leaving any descendants in Europe and Asia and some others that got to
> Central and South America without leaving any descendants anywhere else)
> while taking no placental mammals except dogs? Did people bring Gila
> monsters to the American Southwest and sloth, armadillos, jaguars and
> rattlesnakes to the Americas?
>
> The land bridge explanation also fails. First Australia, New Guinea and
New
> Zealand are separated from Indonesia by the very deep water, the so-called
> Wallace line, so land bridges are highly unlikely even in the most extreme
> ice age. Most importantly, even if land bridges did exist they do not
help.
> How could marsupial moles or other slow moving marsupials get from the
> Middle East and cross land bridges to Australia while faster moving
> placental mammals did not? Do you really think the tree sloth, which
cannot
> survive low temperatures, move about 1 mile a month and only travel in
trees
> and Gila monsters, which are desert reptiles crossed an ice age land
bridge
> over the Bering Sea to get to their current habitats?
>
> The other creationist answer is that these animals got where they were
going
> by migrating or radiating to the area they live now before a single
> continent somehow split up post flood to make the current continents of
the
> world. Aside from the geological impossibility of this rapid continent
> movement it does not solve the problem. How would marsupial moles and
kiwis
> and koalas get to the southern part of the original giant continent to be
a
> carried to Australia while virtually no placental mammals made it? Even
with
> a single continent it is a long way from the Middle East to Australia.
>
> Let's look at this migration followed by continent separation scenario in
a
> little more detail. We have marsupial and placental mammals and of course
> reptiles and dinosaurs coming off a boat in the Middle East two by two
about
> 5000 years ago. The only two of each kind in whole world are right there.
> Now, just how did the marsupial and montreme mammals get to Australia?
> Consider the marsupial "mole", a small, blind or nearly blind, burrowing
> animal that lives in sand. It should be pretty happy with all the sand of
> the Arabian deserts close at had. Instead it goes to Australia. How does
it
> radiate or migrate to Australia? Does it go across Iran and Pakistan to
> India? How and why would it cross India? Supposes it crossed India. I
don't
> think it would get across the Himalayan Mountains through Nepal. Maybe it
> crossed near Bangladesh. How did it get through the mountains of Burma and
> Northern Thailand? I have been in that part of the world. I didn't see
much
> sand for a sand-burrowing animal to live in. After that all it had to do
was
> cross down along Thailand to Malaysia then down to Sumatra then to
> Indonesia, and then on the through New Guinea to Australia, assuming they
> were still connected by the time in got there. I suppose the Kangaroos
> hopped along, the platypus crawled or swam along. The Koalas followed a
path
> of Eucalyptus trees that stretched along this route and the bandicoots,
> Tasmanian devils, wombats and thalcines(Tasmanian Tigers) walked along
with
> them as did all those flightless birds, some of which moved on to New
> Zealand with no mammals of any kind for company. Meanwhile, no placental
> mammals came along except bats and a couple species of rat and none of the
> marsupials that were "radiating" or migrating along this path thousands of
> miles long left any evidence of their passing anywhere at all. Maybe
someone
> has a better route. I don't see one looking at a map. This is the shortest
I
> could find. And this all is supposed have happened in a few thousand years
> or perhaps much less.
>
> In fact, for those who believe that the continent splitting occurred in
the
> time Peleg, all this radiation and migration has to occur in just over 100
> years!
>
> Animals in the Americas are also a problem for this scenario. Just how did
> slow moving sloth and armadillos get to the western part of the super
> continent to be carried to the Americas while no lions or wildebeest or
> zebras made it?
>
> Remember the question is not only how the unique species in various parts
of
> the world got where they are but how other species, often much better able
> to travel, did not.
>
>
Peleg refers in my humble reading of Genesis, looking at the context, and in
particular to the positioning of the Babel event narrative in between the
two mentions of his generation, to the diffusion of the population of earth
at the time of Babel, but I think it is fair to say that there could have
still been significantly accelerated continental drift for a while even
after the waters had subsided. Apart from anything else, large earth
movements were an integral part of that drainage, and that is what gives us
the massive 'oligocene' water deposits that we are still drinking today. for
example there is one 450 metres beneath where I am sitting right now. It is
a massive underwater lake of good drinking water. During that latest drift
the salts were also released into the seas that had not been salty up until
that time, and direct intervention was needed to enable certain kinds to
begin osmoregulation, which is a feature that could never have evolved,
because it is complex, you need to have it only if you are in a certain
environment, and if you are in that environment without it, you die.
God also decided what eco-systems were going to be used where, and led
certain of the animals in that direction just as he had led them to the ark
from various places in the first place. If the three toed sloth was not
going fast enough for God's liking, either he could have made some
generations extremely large, so that we have the giant sloths that were
around for a while and then unaccountably vanished, or else he could have
got an angel to carry them there. I don't discount such a possibility, and I
find it easier to believe that some of the big holes in evolutionary
thinking, such as hyraxes to elephants, and four footed animals to
cetaceans, etc etc. Also, if we are talking about evolving into niches, why
is it from an evolutionary perspective that all across Eurasia there is a
belt about 100 miles wide where there are no bears; it's too cold fro the
brown bear, but not cold enough for the white bear. Why did nothing evolve
to fill that gap?
In fact as we know nature abhors a vacuum, so that in an empty planet
migrations of both men and animals happened at a rate much quicker than that
we could expect today. Business likewise will develop fast if there is no
competition, but once the market in a new area settles it becomes far harder
to enter. We've seen that in East europe illustrated before our very eyes
over the last twelve years.
Best,
Uncle Davey
PS. It is also possible that the first divisions of earth were pre Babel,
but that even though they owned lands further afield the tribes of man
preferred congregating there anyway.
I'm thinking of writing a novel about a fictional family living at that time
and learning to cope with the language division, but that's as far as it
ever gets, thinking about it.
|
|