This is what I'm afraid of:

That a lie can be explained simply to the Masses in one sentence.

But explanations of truth can often take time and detail, and the Masses usually don't give you the time of day.

By you selecting a hot-button topic like "how did the kangaroos get to Australia" - you yourself can readily find articles on kangaroos-getting-to-Australia, from a Creationist viewpoint, by a Google search. (I found two articles within two searches). But you set it up so that anyone who proposes a Creation-argument is automatically crushed as an idiot, because that is your bias.

Here, Muz, I'll make it simple for you: do a Google search for - kangaroos get to Australia creation

The ones I just looked up said they hopped there and that's that.

No commentary on food, water, how they got across the deserts, how they swam the 170kms from PNG to Cape York. One hundred and seventy kilometres.

Plausible? (Remember, you said PLAUSIBLE. Another word for 'plausible' is 'credible') 

Hmmmm....not much there for a 'truth-seeker' to go on.

Do you think they hopped to Australia? Does this sound 'credible', 'plausible' to you? Be honest? 

At 30kms a day it would take the kangaroo 15 months to get there. (Can't imagine a platypus traversing more than a couple of kms a day. Let's say 3kms. That means it would have taken them 12.8 years of non-stop walking to reach Australia as well as a pretty big sea journey.) 

This also begs the questions that presumably kangaroos inhabited the middle east prior to the flood. Any written evidence of that, any hieroglyphics, any cuneiform script?  I wonder if there's fossil evidence of that? Probably not.

Do you realise how ridiculous this sounds and makes you sound. Outright bonkers. I'm not surprised you're reluctant to answer any of these questions.

Any 'truth seeker' would realise quick smart that looking at just one aspect of the story it is simply not possible for that to have happened.

But therein lies your problem. You have to believe it otherwise your faith system starts to get chipped away and then what? You start to wonder what other lies have I been told? What else do I believe to be true based on no evidence. You start to interrogate other problems that are casually washed away.

I understand people want to believe in God. My mum is devout. But she also never looks too closely at it because if she did she might be in for a big disappointment. I get it, it would be soul crushing to realise your whole belief system is based on lies.  

These would be two main organisation specialising in the topic of Creation vs Evolution, that I've come across:

https://creation.com/media-center/youtube/ct-kangaroos-from-ararat-to-australia

https://answersingenesis.org/animal-behavior/migration/how-did-animals-spread-from-where-ark-landed/

The video and article address the question you're asking. Hence, if these are plausible answers, what then?

You do know until the 1960's, science was wrong about the nature of the universe and the Bible was right; for 2000 years.

In the Bible the Universe had a beginning.  It even introduces the concept of time as a property of the Universe beginning with the beginning of the universe, but also that God was outside of time so it makes no sense to ask who made God or what came before-pretty much how Hawking explains away the question about what came before the Big Bang.

Prior to the CBR in the 1960's, Scientists dogmatically supported the theory the universe existed forever and was unchanging despite not only not fitting observation but being logically inconsistent. Hell the fact the night is dark is all you need to shoot down this theory yet Einstein believed so much he fudged his theories to fit it -"Trust the experts...".  Countless people would have died believing those lies "trusting the experts and the science".

" Science changes when the evidence changes"- Yet right until that point, everyone else dismissed as an idiot.

I don't know if there is a God, but I don't blindly believe the science either given the "evidence"  referred to is published research and most of the published research is false.

What proof would be sufficient for you? such that you would accept God's offer for you to be adopted into his family, with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities thereto?

Yes I watched that. Their answer was they hopped there.

Again I ask, does that sound plausible?

Regarding the ark, you're only asking how the animals dispersed from the ark.

Muz, this is your thinking. 1) There is no God, 2) therefore nothing supernatural is possible, therefore 3) any suggestion of supernatural is crock.

This is what, to overcome that bias, we need to start at step 1, and consider the evidence of the message of Jesus Christ.

Your responses are entirely predictable for a person who dismisses God.

The account of Noah is that God said, "two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive" (Genesis 6:20).

Here is the fork in the road:
------> If there is no God, this is nothing but the myths of ancient desert dwellers.
------> If there is a God, who is supernatural and powerful, then this is entirely within the realms of what that God could do.

Thus, we have to go back to first base and consider the claims of Jesus Christ.

Blah blah blah. Scientists have been wrong in the past so they can't be trusted now. Uh huh.

Right 

You have such a bug up your arse about science, despite professing to work in the field,  I have to wonder are you harbouring a grudge because your PhD research and thesis got knocked back or did some professor steal your girlfriend?

CMBR was predicted as were ripples in space time due to colliding black holes decades before they were confirmed. That's science. Name one bit of science the bible has predicted?

I'll wait.

And I love how you diss Einstein because obviously you're smarter than him given you could have easily explained that because the sky is dark then that's all you need to prove an expanding universe. Where were you in 1905? You would have set Einstein straight in a jiffy.

Newton's description of the universe and equations predicting motions of the planets within the solar system were perfectly adequate for 350 years pre Einstein. So it's not like they were talking out of their arse before that.

And BTW the bible wasn't right for 2000 years. The Chinese, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Aztecs and Macedonians and other civilisations would like a word.

Only a subset of Christian adherents believed the bible was the literal word of God. Most normal Christians accepted it as stories and allegorical even 1500 years ago.

Christ on a bike they knew the earth was a sphere 3000 years ago. The Greeks and the Assyrians and the Babylonians didn't need the bible to tell them that.

No mate. I'm asking you how a kangaroo hopped 14000km to Australia. You pointed me to 2 videos and asked if they were plausible explanations. They weren't.

Now it appears your telling me they flew there on a magical carpet or god plonked them there which is not what the scriptures say.

Agreed Noah didn't have to collect the animals, they came to him but when they parked the ark the animals disembarked. That's what the Bible says, that's what your sources say.

You're a self professed 'truth seeker'. Tell me if it's plausible they hopped there. Your CMI bloke tells me that's what they did. They offered no explanation as to how.

The answers in Genesis also say they traveled there offering the fact that kangaroos would have outpaced other mammals. No mention of echidnas or platypus I note.

Why don't you give how they got there a go because the answers provided aren't plausible.

Quick sidebar. You seem to dismiss a lot of research out of hand as 'most of the published research is false'.

Have you ever submitted a paper for peer review and publication in a reputable journal?

Yes I'm aware of the a lot of research being poor or not replicable but have you gone through the trouble to try and have a paper published?

Haha.  "I demand my opponents answer MY questions, bu their comments are blah blah blah".

I don't have anything about my arse about science.     I'm simply pointing out that it is more likely for scientific research to be false than truth, especially in the non-sciences that present research as fact, but true of medical science.

No-one rejected my work or stole my GF.  I got a job rather than a PhD because I prioritized money and family over an academic career.

CBR- Cosmic background radiation (or cosmic microwave background radiation) has nothing to with gravitational waves from colliding black holes.  

I already named one prediction made by the Bible-that the Universe and Time had a beginning.  Until 1960's, the scientific view was that the universe existed forever and was infinitely old. This is historical fact.

If other civilizations did the same thing doesn't negate that the Bible did it too.

The sky being dark at night rather than brightly lit was identified by philosophers many years before Einstein as evidence that the universe could not be infinite and unchanging- if it was infinite then the light from every star everywhere would have had time to reach us lighting up the sky everywhere you look.  That isn't the case.   The night sky is dark.  His equations told Einstein that he infinite and unchanging Universe theory is wrong, yet he went as far as to add-and publish- a fudge factor to fit the prevailing incorrect scientific view- a view that he also didn't challenge.  This is all fact.

And FYI, the point I make is that people should not blindly accept science as fact.  Research and peer review-the foundation of scientific truth is replete with falsehoods, mistakes, and exaggerations, personal and systemic biases and conflict of interest. 

Retain doubt.

[edit]  I dismiss it because it is true.

As another side bar its interesting to analyse your obsession with personal identification and ad hom attacks on people whose opinions you don't agree with, because that's what this entire thread is really all about.  Everyone on your side of politics does it.  The interesting bit is why?

FYI ad hom attacks are an invalid debating tactic. 

 Yes I've published,I've also  presented and exhibited posters at congresses, many years ago now.  But that's irrelevant.  This isn't about the who but the what.  If the argument is wrong its wrong no matter who makes it.  If its right then its right even if a Swiss patent clerk says so.

You have enough facts to show that the Earth is neither flat, nor 6000 years old.  You could easily defeat that argument.  That's all you need to do. Why do you have go after the person, when your facts should be strong enough to stand on their own.

I didn't say they were. I was saying that's 2 things that were predicted decades before they could prove it.

Because js professes to be an expert on all things vaccine related because he is a 'truth seeker'. I find it fascinating that one person can use science to justify one position but not another.

I'm not arguing bible scripture or the existence of God you'll notice. I'm asking questions as to how it was done. JS is suggesting if you believe in a supernatural god then all of this is possible. However in the 2 links he provided, and the others I looked at, it clearly says they disembarked from the ark and walked to Australia.

As a 'truth seeker' he should interrogate those claims a little more than simply accept them. But he accepts them because of his faith. That would be enough for me IF he said I just believed it happened. Except he says it actually happened. 

I'm asking if that's plausible. I know it's not, you know it's not 98% of humanity know it's not. JS thinks it is. I want to know why.

Sure but this type of argument is writ large in any argument at the moment. Oh A,B,C scientists over here were once wrong therefore X,Y,Z scientists can't be trusted.

The scientific method is all we've got. It's built civilisation as we know it. You can't just dismiss it out of hand because it suits your prejudices and political leanings. (See climate change.)

'Oh (some scientists) said there was going to be an ice age in the 70s therefore that discounts all the mountains of evidence over here'. 

Have you asked that question?

Regarding science and the Bible.

I explained before that the correct tool must be selected for the correct job.

Science is the right tool for testing repeatable phenomena.

Legal and witness evidence is the right too for testing once-off events.

Hence, much of the New Testament gospel is tested by legal method, and witness evidence.

But if the Bible is based on fact, then it will not contradict science, in respect of repeatable phenomena. But in the case of miracles - which are once-off events, the test is the veracity of the witnesses.

For example, if you allege that your business-partner slandered you during a work-place gathering, you select "legal method" and "witness evidence" as the proper test. You do not select "scientific method" to test whether your business partner slandered you in front of colleagues.

Thus, you use "scientific method" to test repeatable phenomena that are based on repeatable principles of the universe.

You use "legal method" and "witness testimony" to test once-off events that are not inherently repeatable.

I think Muz is asking the specific question: how did one single kangaroo hop from Mount Ararat in Turkey to Australia. (One human would find it hard to walk that distance). Google Map distance calculator says that is 10,000 kilometres. So, Muz, you are befazzled how ONE SINGLE kangaroo can hop 10,000 kilometers. Is that right, Muz?

The big-picture I am saying is that, for every issue, there are plausible explanations, for and against. That is why, there can be no resolution of the God-question by using Creation-Evolution as the starting point for the debate.

e.g. on the issue of kangaroos getting to Australia, I listened to the video, https://creation.com/media-center/youtube/ct-kangaroos-from-ararat-to-australia  and it stated that a plausible way that the kangaroos got to Australia was through many generations of kangaroos, living and breeding, and the population making its way across 10,000 kilometres through several generations of kangaroos.

Regarding making it over the sea - the video argues that even evolutionists use the argument of land bridges during ice-ages when the liquid-sea was in the form of solid-ice elsewhere, such that the sea levels were lower, leaving land bridges for animals to cross between what are now continents separated by seas. The video said that this concept of land bridges is something that even Evolutionists propose, so it is not controversial.

In summary, I am saying that back-and-forth debating on small picture issues -- like how did the kangaroos get from A to B --- cannot bring resolution to the larger picture of God. To do that, we start with the message of Jesus.

I agree that science is the best we've got.  And I know whats going on and why. 

 At the extremes you have attacks on science which are not legitimate by crackpots and politicians. 

In the middle you have criticisms which are legitimate, even from other scientist themselves

Science presently responds to both in the same way- usually by attacking the person and their credentials, often by getting other similarly credentialled scientists to sign some statement denouncing the other scientists or threatening professional de-registration.  This is done to "protect science".  At all costs.  This approach actually feeds the conspiracy theorists further, even more so if it emerges the experts who did the denouncing themselves have done some dubious things or have questionable associations, biases or political leanings or worse facts emerge the criticisms were actually valid in the first place.  This has actually happened.

They don't need to bring personalities in to it.  They should state the facts, state the degree of uncertainty, state the most plausible conclusion.  That's it.  Yes science is the best we've got but its not perfect, in fact it has significant problems that are being worked on as we speak.  Not everyone who point the shortcomings has an agenda to bring science down and send us back to the dark ages.

I would clarify that statement.

Scientists are trained to use "scientific method" as their tool of trade. Lawyers are trained in "legal method" and evidence.

It is foolish to use a wrong tool for the wrong job.

Science is only the best when it is used to test what "scientific method" can test.

Science is not the best if it is foolishly used to test what it cannot test.

For example, in a court case, if you claim to have met a person named Andrew Peterson, and want to testify what Mr Peterson said --- you do not use "scientific method" for that. You use "legal method". It is a daft foolish scientist, who wishes to test what Mr Peterson said to you, by setting up an experiment, repeating the experiment many times, using mathematics and physics to prove what Mr Peterson said to you.

There is such a thing as using science for something that scientific method was never designed to do.

So it is not a given that "science is the best we've got".

Rather, we need to select the best method for the specific investigation.

Enzo, the reason you are fixed with science, being the one and only possible tool to test -- is that we have lived a few generations where science was exalted as the highest point of our civilisation, so you are reflecting being a product of the last few decades. Your thinking is shaped by the culture you've lived in.

I'm aware of what the links say. I'm asking if you think it's plausible?

Could a platypus make the journey?

Multiple times.

I can't really argue with that.

Once science and scientists became political, once science gave credibility to non-scientific disciplines eg social studies, economics psychology, once $billions of dollars and careers became conditional on research outcomes, I started to doubt more.

The premise is not one platypus walking and swimming 10,000 km from Ararat in Turkiye to eastern Australia. Rather, it is that the species made it's way across that distance over several generations. And in animals, a generation is shorter than in humans.

For example, the breed of dog I have, the puppies can mature to have their own babies when the dog reaches 6-9 months. And the dog-breed I have was started around 200 years ago from one specific dog -- and now, 200 years later, you can find them all over the planet.

Here are articles about the platypus, and in the speech box it addresses the issue of how the platypus species location could have shifted:

https://creation.com/the-platypus
https://answersingenesis.org/mammals/platypus-mystery-mammal/
https://answersingenesis.org/mammals/the-platypus/
https://answersingenesis.org/mammals/platypus-one-kind/
https://answersingenesis.org/mammals/platypus-evolutionary-puzzle/

Some big-picture comments:

- If there is no God, then it is implausible that the animals of the planet could come together to enter Noah's ark.

- If there is no God, then it is implausible that the animals would have spread out to repopulate the far reaches of the planet

- If a person believes there is no God, then their manner of argument will total forbid any suggestion of God-like supernatural events.

- If a person believes there is no God, nevertheless, the catastrophic events of a global Flood will have left tell-tale signs in the geological features of the earth. So it is possible to argue scientifically about geological features seen around the earth.

Eventually, however, in geology, because there are plausible arguments both for and against, to reach a resolution about God, it is needed to go big-picture to examine the evidence that Jesus Christ and his apostles gave for God and his call to mankind to turn from evil, and return to God.

Because, if there is a God as described in the Bible, then - by definition of what a powerful God is - that type of God could readily do what happened before and after Noah's Ark.

So the question is: Muz, in the manner of your debate, are you at all factoring in the existence of the God of the Bible being a living existence. Or is your starting point the assumption there is no God, therefore any inference of God-intervention is automatically cancelled as foolishness?

Umm.... unless I missed it no they don't talk about how they journeyed to Australia. 

They talk about a lot of other stuff including inland seas in Australia but not the overland journey or overseas journey. Not bad one must say for a freshwater mammal.

Maybe you should read your links before posting them.

Generations of animals propagating and then moving into new areas is understood if they are able to survive where they are for numerous breeding cycles. I would question how a platypus could reproduce in a desert or a jungle before incrementally moving into new areas. (I suppose you could say they used to be able to live in the desert and they evolved into creatures that could live in the jungle and then the ones we see today but you don't believe in evolution.)

Unless you (or someone else) can show me how this was achieved I'm going to say, on the balance of evidence, it didn't happen

It also begs the questions as to how penguins made their way to Antarctica and polar bears to the Arctic via deserts and jungles. Because whilst CMI might say the it was wet following the flood providing perfect travelling terrain for the platypus that doesn't explain desert dwelling animals like the bearded dragon or the goanna. Who knows how a polar bear managed it waddling along.  

It's also odd that in a time of the written word none of these animals native to other areas of the world are mentioned in contemporary documents of the time. Particularly by prolific note takers such as the Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, Egyptians and the Chinese who were quite fond of describing the natural world. These animal either took generations to get there in which case plenty of people experienced them or they got there instantly. (Which you said didn't happen.)

You talk about big picture but that's your roadblock not mine.

You come into the argument going I believe in Jesus so if this is what he said happened I believe it

My starting point is this. A claim is made by you to be true. (In this case I asked you how but nonetheless.) The burden of proof is on you if you are telling me that that's how it happened.

I come at that statement from the angle of 'assuming that's true then explain how'? You've offered nothing plausible to suggest this could have happened as described.

Your supposedly a smart guy surely you can see that what you are telling me is so ridiculous it defies logic. It's also why the vast majority of Christians accept evolution.

I read a lot of science, I listen religiously (no pun intended) to Robyn Williams' podcast (ABC science show), the naked scientist, space boffins and others and I subscribe to New Scientist.

I love science. If you listen to the scientists (actual boots on the ground scientists) on any of those podcasts they are always very humble and dedicated specialists that are very cautious as to what their conclusions are. 99% of the time they couch their conclusions with disclaimers.  'That's what the data is suggesting', 'we can't be 100% certain but we think this' etc etc.

In general your bolded statement is what they do. The problem of course is they crucified for saying that there's uncertainty.

'Are you saying, Mr Scientist, that this definitely will happen?'

'Well it's 99% likely'

'But your saying there's some doubt'.

''Well yes of course, as scientists we have to assume the possibility that we may be wrong'.

Screaming headlines the next day 'Scientists admit they may be wrong about 'insert science thing here' '.

I'll give you an example. Robyn Williams once interviewed Andrew Bolt in 2007 on the Science Show regards global warming or whatever you want to call it these days. There was the usually back and forth (from memory it was probably a 10 minute interview) and then Bolt said something like;

'Do you think that sea levels could rise by 100m?'. (paraphrasing here.)

Robyn Williams said (paraphrasing again) 'It is possible'. (Because of course it is possible. It may be unlikely but it is possible. I mean hell, earth could end up like Venus if things go fully tits up.)

Well that's enough for Bolt who, 7 years later (and to this day), was still making hay with it.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/sea-level-rises-down-30-per-cent-still-waiting-for-robyn-williams-100-metres/news-story/a0b89179131de037c14983e219fac089

Poor Robyn. No wonder he never interviewed with Bolt again.

I will answer your question going in two directions:

(1) if there is no God, versus

(2) If Jesus Christ is Lord and God.

If there is no God, then:

- if there is no God, there is nothing in natural behaviour that would cause one pair of each kind of animal - out of multiple thousands of animals -- for each pair to make its way, tens of thousands of kilometres, to a specific location where Noah's Ark was built in readiness to receive the animals and birds.

- if there is no God, there is no need to explain how an all-powerful God could direct animals to move back to where he wanted them, since - if there is a God - there would have been a supernatural element in the dispersion of the animals as well. Supernatural coming to the Ark. Supernatural going out from the Ark back to their destinations.

- if there is no God, then there is no objective standard of what is good or evil, which was said to be the motive of God for using a global Flood to destroy the world at that time because of mankind's evil.

- if there is no God, there is no basis for expecting the physical-world could have been created in 6 days of Creation, 

- if there is no God, then the apostle Paul said that if Jesus' proof of his resurrection was not true, then "we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Cor 15:19) - because people like me would have based our lifetimes on a lie. And a lie can never produce a good end-result. If merely being a good person is the goal, then there would be lots of other philosophies that teach us how to be good, without bothering with a lie about God.

- if there is no God, then those evil people who pass away without ever being brought to justice, they get away with it. And there is so much evil in this world.

- if there is no God, then Muz, all you have written is sound, and your skepticism is warranted, because everything I've written hinges on there being a Father God and Jesus Christ his Son. Therefore if there is no God, I have no basis for what I am writing. If there is no God, I have written total rubbish.

- if there is no God, then you are correct that I am the biggest fool.


But if Jesus Christ is Lord and God, different from numerous spirits posing as 'god-impostors', then:

- a supernatural God is entirely capable of working miracles (defined as something over and above the natural world). And if that supernatural God did subject the world to a global Flood, then there will be tell-tale remnants in the geological formations across the entire planet.


You mentioned "burden of proof". Because God loves you, and wants to you repent of your sin and evil, and return to him, the "burden of proof" is on God to demonstrate who he is, such that you have no excuse for rejecting God's offer of Salvation.

There is no such thing as "blind faith". That "burden of proof" is in the way that God has chosen to demonstrate himself to you: first through the Old Testament, then leading into the New Testament about the life, the suffering, death and literal-resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In summary:

- If there is no God, I am a fool, and it is pitiful that I have wasted decades of my life to a lie. And if there is no God, then you would be correct that what I have written on Creationism is utter garbage.

- If Jesus Christ is Lord and God, then "the fool says in his heart, “There is no God." (Psalm 14:1)

Ok, I know that Muz has read what I wrote - because I was online when I saw Muz's avatar-icon also online. I'm guessing that the reason he did not reply is: what can you say - one guy says it's supernatural - the other guy says it's not. It's a "he said, she said" type scenario where there's no way of argument.

That is why I said, the Evolution-Creation debate cannot be resolved by peripheral issues like "how did the kangaroos get to Australia".

We must focus on big-issue topics where we can engage in scientific debate, particularly the geological formations spanning the entire globe that can be explained from the physics of soil mechanics under the effects of catastrophic water deluge.

Also, the effect of fossils.

And once we see that there are viable scientific rationale, both for and against, for the geological formations and fossils .. it boils down to the existence of God, and the message of Jesus Christ in opposition to all others who claim theirs to be gods.

It's why I hit the eject button here, you cannot argue with someone who doesn't believe in reality. It's why America is so batshit crazy.

I actually love listening to the religion and ethics report on ABC radio, getting fresh and alternate perspectives etc but these ultra-conservative fundamental evangelical types are a bit scary tbh

tsf (lower case)

What are the top 3 things you find crazy about evangelicals?

And what are the top 3 pieces of proof/evidence that you would require, in order for you to turn and become one of those evangelicals whom you ridicule right now? I know lots of Christian friends who held the same ridiculing attitude as you, until they to the evidence that cannot be denied.

If you, tsf, cannot rationally make such statements: "If a Christian could prove to me _____, then I would turn and come back to God".

If you cannot say that, then you're closed minded, and find your safety in being part of a mindless crowd that does not think in terms of evidence and proof, but just go with the crowd.

There is no such thing as "blind faith" in the message of Jesus Christ.