Changes

::: "''If Pangaea existed at the time of Noah's Ark landing - as implied by the article...''":  It is not accurate to say that the article implies that.  It mentions two different flood-related possibilities.  First, that the break-up occurred during the time of Peleg, which would indeed mean that Pangea existed when the ark landed.  In this case, your description of the consequences is likely close to correct.  However, it then also says that ''most'' creationists believe that it occurred ''during'' the flood, which means that Pangea had ceased to exist at the time the ark came to rest, and therefore the consequences that you describe would not have occurred.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::: "''If Pangaea existed at the time of Noah's Ark landing - as implied by the article...''":  It is not accurate to say that the article implies that.  It mentions two different flood-related possibilities.  First, that the break-up occurred during the time of Peleg, which would indeed mean that Pangea existed when the ark landed.  In this case, your description of the consequences is likely close to correct.  However, it then also says that ''most'' creationists believe that it occurred ''during'' the flood, which means that Pangea had ceased to exist at the time the ark came to rest, and therefore the consequences that you describe would not have occurred.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::True, I had factored in something else which I should have mentioned, which is the idea of exotic animal migration - namely the kangaroo's - to places like Australia. I absolutely deny the theory which says they could have migrated there with lower sea levels as a scientific theory - it is a list of possibly-nearly-maybe's. In the article's themselves, they say that of places such as Krakatoa, that [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "it was eventually recolonized by a surprising variety of creatures, including not only insects and earthworms, but birds, lizards, snakes, and even a few mammals. One would not have expected some of this surprising array of creatures to have crossed the ocean, but they obviously did. Even though these were mostly smaller than some of the creatures we will discuss here, it illustrates the limits of our imaginings on such things."] However, the instruments whereby small animals migrate are well-known, and the limitation on specific animals which can journey by such methods is also well known. As I said this is an 'if and maybe' scenario, and provides no evidence to suggest this possible method of migration should or would transpose onto kangaroo's. The article also speaks about Kangaroo's spreading out over time, but there is no fossil evidence of any such slow-paced migration . He also states that "The ancestors of present-day kangaroos may have established daughter populations in several parts of the world, but most of these populations subsequently became extinct." However, again, there is no fossil evidence of kangaroos living anywhere but Australia. The author cites rabbits who have migrated across Australia as an example of long distance migrations, however they moved with human populations, and also didn't have to cross any major bodies of water, which the kangaroo's would have had to do at some point. The author in this article also states that specialized, localized populations may have come to be out of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "A need for unique or special conditions to survive may be a result of specialization, a downhill change in some populations. That is, it may result from a loss in genetic information, from thinning out of the gene pool or by degenerative mutation."], which surely removes itself from a true creationist perspective, as it basically states the creatures [http://www.answers.com/evolution evolved] to suit their surroundings. So if we take the existence of a post-flood Pangaea as the only possible explanation of kangaroo - and other exotic creaturs - migration, then the argument can stand. As I said, mine is only a theory, but I also don't accept the science behind the migratory explanation, so I cannot accept that as a defeating criticism.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:02 20th November 2008(EST)

::::True, I had factored in something else which I should have mentioned, which is the idea of exotic animal migration - namely the kangaroo's - to places like Australia. I absolutely deny the theory which says they could have migrated there with lower sea levels as a scientific theory - it is a list of possibly-nearly-maybe's. In the article's themselves, they say that of places such as Krakatoa, that [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "it was eventually recolonized by a surprising variety of creatures, including not only insects and earthworms, but birds, lizards, snakes, and even a few mammals. One would not have expected some of this surprising array of creatures to have crossed the ocean, but they obviously did. Even though these were mostly smaller than some of the creatures we will discuss here, it illustrates the limits of our imaginings on such things."] However, the instruments whereby small animals migrate are well-known, and the limitation on specific animals which can journey by such methods is also well known. As I said this is an 'if and maybe' scenario, and provides no evidence to suggest this possible method of migration should or would transpose onto kangaroo's. The article also speaks about Kangaroo's spreading out over time, but there is no fossil evidence of any such slow-paced migration . He also states that "The ancestors of present-day kangaroos may have established daughter populations in several parts of the world, but most of these populations subsequently became extinct." However, again, there is no fossil evidence of kangaroos living anywhere but Australia. The author cites rabbits who have migrated across Australia as an example of long distance migrations, however they moved with human populations, and also didn't have to cross any major bodies of water, which the kangaroo's would have had to do at some point. The author in this article also states that specialized, localized populations may have come to be out of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "A need for unique or special conditions to survive may be a result of specialization, a downhill change in some populations. That is, it may result from a loss in genetic information, from thinning out of the gene pool or by degenerative mutation."], which surely removes itself from a true creationist perspective, as it basically states the creatures [http://www.answers.com/evolution evolved] to suit their surroundings. So if we take the existence of a post-flood Pangaea as the only possible explanation of kangaroo - and other exotic creaturs - migration, then the argument can stand. As I said, mine is only a theory, but I also don't accept the science behind the migratory explanation, so I cannot accept that as a defeating criticism.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:02 20th November 2008(EST)