Difference between revisions of "Talk:Post-Diluvian Diasporas"

Revision as of 18:42, March 22, 2007

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)