Talk:Post-Diluvian Diasporas

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Could we have a bit more on the size (or even the durability) of the animals that could have been transported by volcanoes? I feel that this issue has not been sufficiently clarified.--British_cons (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I imagine that God could ensure the safety of the less robust animals during a plausibly turbulent ride. Fairandbalanced 13:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

To avoid this article being simply humorous, you should include some physical evidence that makes this theory worthy of consideration. Please explain how this theory is falsifiable. Thanks. Palmd001 13:23, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The link here [1] should address some of your concerns. Fairandbalanced 13:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
A, shall we say, illuminating read. But I'm still not clear on how animals used volcanoes to travel. it's not mentioned in the article, and I really would like some more detail on this point as I feel an explanation would explain many things.--British_cons (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, I checked it out and Im none the wiser. There was no specific physical evidence that was not easily explained elsewhere. Also, the theory is non falsifiable, although, in this I could easily be proven wrong if you can give me an example of a potential falsification of creationism.Palmd001 14:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I mention the film Twister in the article, which depicts the use of tornadoes as (safe) transportation for animals as large as cows. Surely the divine providence could provide similar transit strategies for migratory marsupials. DunsScotus 14:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Quote:The exact circumstances of how each kind of animal got to where it is today will never be known because the diaspora cannot be repeated.

If you can't question it, and it cannot ever be known, it is not science, and therefore falls under the heading of beliefs.Palmd001 14:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, for it to be science it must - at lest in theory - be possible to disprove it. What would you accept as disproof of this idea? --British_cons (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I'll accept any statement a creationist can give me that, if it were found to be true, would disprove creationism. It doesn't have to be true, just potentially true. Disprovable doesnt equal disproved.

Also, the whole comment about Krakatoa doesnt make any sense. It should probably be rewritten, but im not the guy to do it.Palmd001 14:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The Lord works, as all believers know, in mysterious ways. Furthermore, the Krakatoa evidence directly disproves evolution, because only the animals that existed before the eruption repopulated the island, and did so without any changes or modifications. Furthermore, this happened in only a few decades, indicating how little time would be necessary for the earth to recover from the privations of the (Noachim) Flood. DunsScotus 14:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
That is the flat-out most ridiculous thing I have ever read in my life.--Dave3172 14:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
There is no need to insult Duns. It is not the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. I would not argue that recovery after a Noachian flood would be impossible. Catastrophic, nearly life-ending events have happened many times in Earth's history, and life is amazingly resilient. Of course God works in mysterious ways, but he gave us the tools to examine the natural world, so if we can't ask difficult questions, then we were not created in his image. Palmd001 14:45, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Palmd001!! I agree that even the secularists posit species survival after the (several) mass extinction events, but that in general, the thought that the Almighty would actively seek death for a majority of species on the Earth not once, but several times, is altogether unbearable, and irreconcilable with scriptural evidence of His Grace and Providence. DunsScotus 14:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
God never promised not to wipe out all life on Earth again. Well, acutally he sort of did after the Flood, but still, He's changed his mind before.Palmd001 14:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
'Genesis 8, 21:' And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth: neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. Palmd001, it is very clear that the Lord only attempted to destroy his creation once, and promises to never do it again. I'm not sure how your statement can be reconciled with Holy Writ. DunsScotus 14:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Still confused by the Volcanoes thing.

I'm still a bit confused about how small animals were moved around the world by volcanoes. Is the idea that they were blown up into the atmosphere and then landed many thousands of miles away? Can you suggest which animals might have been re-located in this way--British_cons (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

As it stands the Krakatoa statement makes no sense. There is nothing to discuss until it is rewritten.Palmd001 14:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
BTW, sounds suspiciously Xenu-ist.Palmd001 14:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I think you may be missing my point. The volcano reference to which I refer is: "It is possible that volcanoes in the Mount Ararat region[1] were able to transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking."--British_cons (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
The Twenty-One Balloons dealt with the pillow-like effects of gentle volcanic perturbations. It is eminently possible that the Lord, not wanting mice, voles, chipmunks or koalas to have to over-exert themselves in arduous migration, might have Provided for them to be transported in fluffy clouds of volcanic ejecta (eg. tuff) to His desired locations, around the globe. DunsScotus 15:01, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, that's a reference at least. Can I take it that "The Twenty-One Balloons" is an accepted creationist text?--British_cons (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Reference 2

As it is now, reference [2] does not provide evidence for animals being transported by tornadoes or hurricanes. I believe it should be removed if it is not updated. DrSandstone 15:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I disagree with your interpretation of this article, but even if you hold fast in your secularist beliefs, it is also eminently possible that hurricanes and other natural disasters could motivate or alter the migration patterns (eg. blowing species of birds off course (onto a truer Divine Course)) of many animal and plant species. [2] Instead of natural selection, we'd have a more humane and Biblical directed migration, directed, of course, by the Lord. DunsScotus 15:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


The volcanoes section makes absolutely no sense. The 'example' of animals re-colonising Krakatoa after the eruption does not actually have any relevance to the point it is trying to prove. I can't quite understand what this point is, but it looks as though it is meant to mean that animals would be picked up by a volcanic eruption and then deposited (unharmed) somewhere further on their journey. While this does produce a funny mental image, it is completely and utterly ridiculous, and should probably be removed. This article though doesn't deal with the main difficulty that I have always had with this scenario which is that, on the whole, there is a tendency for species to be found in geographically concentrated areas, for instance kangaroos in Australia, but not elsewhere. Also, per the kangaroos example, often groups of similar 'related' species will be found in the same general area and not elsewhere. I would have no idea where i could find sources or anything to improve this article, so I'll just leave this comment here and someone else could try to make changes.Cmurphynz 03:13, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

Personal tools