Originally posted by Proper KnobMaking it back assumes they were there before.
How did the mammals of the South American rainforests make it back? If they went east they had to traverse the Pacific Ocean, if they went west the Atlantic Ocean.
Theistic evolution -Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientifi ...[text shortened]... t God employed to develop human life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
The land masses did not have to be what we see today, so getting from one
end to the other may have just a hop, skip, and jump away.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou are assuming things that we do not know. Does it makes sense to you
Let's just say you are correct for a minute and let's think this through.
The distance from Africa to South America is around 2580km. Answersingenesis.com dates to the flood to 2304BC, that's 4315 years ago. By my college level maths that's a rate of shift moving at 600m a year!!!!.
We have to factor into that timeframe the length of time the ani and onto the continent of South America?
There are some gaping holes in your theory Ron.
that there was a Sahara dessert immediately after the whole earth was covered
with water? It doesn't to me. The mammals and birds had at least 100 years
to get where they were going and there was no distance between continents
at that time, so I see no reason it could not of happened the way that it is
written about in the Bible. They would only have to get to the other side of the
breaking points in the land. How would these people know such a thing had
happened? The exact date of the flood has never been proven and even if it
was as you say, the AVERAGE RATE of shift proves nothing because we do
not know when the shift stopped. Man could have taken some of the animals
with them when God scattered them after Babel. We can only speculate for
God does not feel it is important enough to tell us.
P.S. It stands to reason that there was no snow before it rained and the
Holy Bible says there was no rain on the earth before the great flood. I
don't know what other problems you might have with the biblical account,
but I have none.
Originally posted by KellyJayMaking it back assumes they were there before.
Making it back assumes they were there before.
The land masses did not have to be what we see today, so getting from one
end to the other may have just a hop, skip, and jump away.
Kelly
Back is the wrong word. When the flood ended they were in the Middle East somewhere, they then had to traverse the continent of Africa to get to modern day South America before the land mass split.
so getting from one end to the other may have just a hop, skip, and jump away
The distance from Jerusalem to Liberia, Liberia being the far western part of Africa where an animal would need to get to cross into what is now South America is around 5500km. That's a rather large hop, skip and jump do you not think?
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are assuming things that we do not know.
You are assuming things that we do not know. Does it makes sense to you
that there was a Sahara dessert immediately after the whole earth was covered
with water? It doesn't to me. The mammals and birds had at least 100 years
to get where they were going and there was no distance between continents
at that time, so I see no reason it could not of happe ...[text shortened]... I
don't know what other problems you might have with the biblical account,
but I have none.
I'm assuming nothing, i got the date from www.answersingenesis.com, i suggest you take it up with them if you have any grievances.
They would only have to get to the other side of the breaking points in the land.
That 'only' is a distance of around 5700km to get to the far western edge of South America.
How would these people know such a thing had happened?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n1/date-of-noahs-flood
The exact date of the flood has never been proven and even if it
was as you say,
That should read - The flood has never been proven and even if it
was as you say........
Ron, the distance between Africa and South America is 2580km, how long do you think it took to create that gap?
Originally posted by Proper KnobThey were not in Jerusalem immediately after the flood. The ark landed
[b]Making it back assumes they were there before.
Back is the wrong word. When the flood ended they were in the Middle East somewhere, they then had to traverse the continent of Africa to get to modern day South America before the land mass split.
so getting from one end to the other may have just a hop, skip, and jump away
The dista ...[text shortened]... now South America is around 5500km. That's a rather large hop, skip and jump do you not think?[/b]
in the mountains of Arat located in modern day Turkey in Asia. There was
no need to go all the way across Africa for they could have went east
instead of west to reach the western part of South America.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32473
Originally posted by galveston75If we were all created by God then how do you explain pedophiles? Is God a pervert?
Just wonder how evolutionist explain the little piece of iron that's in the brain of many animals but specificly the amazing Pacific Salmon that are able to navagate the 2000 or so miles from out in the Pacific by using the earths magnet field to the exact river outlet that they need to follow upstream to spawn? And even more amazing is if they come to a ...[text shortened]... ver and then go upstream.
Soooooooo exactly how did this just happen for these amazing fish?
Originally posted by Proper KnobI already pointed out that there was no need to go to the western part of
[b]You are assuming things that we do not know.
I'm assuming nothing, i got the date from www.answersingenesis.com, i suggest you take it up with them if you have any grievances.
They would only have to get to the other side of the breaking points in the land.
That 'only' is a distance of around 5700km to get to the far western ed ...[text shortened]... between Africa and South America is 2580km, how long do you think it took to create that gap?[/b]
Africa to get to South America. The world is round and they could have
went east to the eastern part of China or southeast to the eastern part
of Australia. I have no idea how long it took to complete the division.
The important thing is that it happened, not how long it took to happen.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you what the world looks like? The distance from Turkey to Israel is negligible.
They were not in Jerusalem immediately after the flood. The ark landed
in the mountains of Arat located in modern day Turkey in Asia. There was
no need to go all the way across Africa for they could have went east
instead of west to reach the western part of South America.
The distance from Turkey to the edge of Asia traveling east is even further, it's nearly 7000km!!!! Besides how is that even possible the land mass of the planet is only 30%, the rest is water, if South America was part of Africa it couldn't stretch all the way round the globe and join onto Asia, it's nonsensical.
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you know about ice cores RJH? These are dated rather like tree rings - you get a discernible difference between winter and summer snow fall that is preserved as the snow is compressed into ice. You can easily calibrate, proving that the layers are laid down yearly, by the presence of impurities in the cores such as volcanic ash or radioactive particles from nuclear tests and so on. The oldest core retrieved so far is from an area known as 'dome C' on the East Antarctic plateau, and it's got 740,000 layers. That is incontrovertible proof that it's been snowing every year in the Antarctic for the last three-quarters of a million years.
You are assuming things that we do not know. Does it makes sense to you
that there was a Sahara dessert immediately after the whole earth was covered
with water? It doesn't to me. The mammals and birds had at least 100 years
to get where they were going and there was no distance between continents
at that time, so I see no reason it could not of happe ...[text shortened]... I
don't know what other problems you might have with the biblical account,
but I have none.
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=40
Originally posted by Proper KnobOn that link you gave me, I noticed a book that maybe you should read.
[b]You are assuming things that we do not know.
I'm assuming nothing, i got the date from www.answersingenesis.com, i suggest you take it up with them if you have any grievances.
They would only have to get to the other side of the breaking points in the land.
That 'only' is a distance of around 5700km to get to the far western ed ...[text shortened]... between Africa and South America is 2580km, how long do you think it took to create that gap?[/b]
It is only 79 cents.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Creation-vs-Evolution-Irrefutable-Proof-witnessing-booklet,6636,228.aspx
Originally posted by Proper KnobI never been there. I just wanted to give you other options since to ASSUME
Do you what the world looks like? The distance from Turkey to Israel is negligible.
The distance from Turkey to the edge of Asia traveling east is even further, it's nearly 7000km!!!! Besides how is that even possible the land mass of the planet is only 30%, the rest is water, if South America was part of Africa it couldn't stretch all the way round the globe and join onto Asia, it's nonsensical.
makes an ASS out of U and ME.