nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: + + + + + + + +
→Any Suggestions: Answering Entheogenicorder and Markr.
::::::The rabbits spreading of their own accord is a moot point, given that they still did not need to traverse any great body of water. I wasn't trying to redefine evolution either. I provided a dictionary definition because I felt that what he had described - in essence the specialization of creatures to their environment - was akin to what I take to be evolution. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:51, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::::::The rabbits spreading of their own accord is a moot point, given that they still did not need to traverse any great body of water. I wasn't trying to redefine evolution either. I provided a dictionary definition because I felt that what he had described - in essence the specialization of creatures to their environment - was akin to what I take to be evolution. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:51, 20 November 2008 (EST)
This may seem odd (not sure of right word so odd will do) but some arguments about the flood suggests the involvement(interferance/intervention) of God to ensure the survival of the ark and subsequent survival of Noah etc. If you accept that premise then the diapora(?) of the animals or surviving the breakup of Pangea becomes moot. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:04, 20 November 2008 (EST)
This may seem odd (not sure of right word so odd will do) but some arguments about the flood suggests the involvement(interferance/intervention) of God to ensure the survival of the ark and subsequent survival of Noah etc. If you accept that premise then the diapora(?) of the animals or surviving the breakup of Pangea becomes moot. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:04, 20 November 2008 (EST)
: (To Entheogenicorder) Perhaps the "hand-waving" comment was a bit unnecessary, but my point was that you were simply waving away an argument with little to go on. I understand what you are saying about observations, but I guess my point was that observations in this case are very inconclusive.
: Another point that I didn't mention is that it may be that the kangaroos that arrived here did so as young roos, not fully-grown adults. Would that fit in with the size range that you are talking about that we have observed covering water stretches? Another possibility that may be unlikely but I don't think can be ruled out is that they were brought across by humans.
: As for the rabbits, I agree that they didn't have to cross large bodies of water. But you appeared to be making two distinct points there, that they move (a) with humans, and (b) not across water. I grant you the second, but I was replying to the first.
: The reference I made to fossils missing for 60 million years was actually to things that are still alive, but are missing for the ''last'' 60 million years; hence they are missing from the ''recent'' fossil record as well as the ancient one.
: My reference to "you" redefining evolution was plural: "you" meaning "evolutionists", not ''you'' specifically.
: (To Markr) Biblical evidence is that God kept the use of miracles to a minimum. Genesis specifically records that God brought the animals to Noah, but not that he assisted their distribution after.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 21 November 2008 (EST)