Me

[kron]

Hi, I'm a newbie, first time visitor to the site.
To give you some background, Iam an Aussie so if I type with a funny accent you'll understand why. I'm also a Bible believing, young earth creationist so no doubt I am biased. I hope I'll be able to contribute something useful to some of the discussions/debates, at least once I figure out how the system works. I've never participated in a forum before so I don't even know how to go about initiating a debate or responding to one that interests me. Still it's always good to learn something new.
I've had a quick browse through some of the posts on the site and look forward to getting in among the discussions.

[bernee51]

Hi, I'm a newbie, first time visitor to the site.
To give you some background, Iam an Aussie so if I type with a funny accent you'll understand why. I'm also a Bible believing, young earth creationist so no doubt I am biased. I hope I'll be able to contribute something useful to some of the discussions/debates, at least once I figure out how the system works. I've never participated in a forum before so I don't even know how to go about initiating a debate or responding to one that interests me. Still it's always good to learn something new.
I've had a quick browse through some of the posts on the site and look forward to getting in among the discussions.

Well at least you admit your bias which is more than most YEC's but very Australian.

You live in a country that has a culture that is demonstrably older than could be possible under a YEC scenario and yet you persist is this belief.

Have ever flown across Oz, it is old and looks old - like 100's of millions of years.

How did koalas get there of the Ark?

[kron]

Hi Bernee51, thank you for being so quick to welcome a newcomer.
As to bias, we all have it, some crationists are upfront and acknowledge their bias, some don't. Some evolutionists are upfront about their bias, some are not.
You state that I live in a country that has a culture demonstrably older than is possible under a young earth scenario, demonstrably how? I am aware that most ascribe an age of 40 -60 thousand years ago to Aboriginal occupation of australia, however these are no more than assumptions based on a belief in Darwinian evolution or one of the variations thereof. The "dating methods" used by scientists to calculate an age for the earth and its geologic features are largely a waste of time and money as they are all based on untestable and therefore unverifiable assumptions.
I have flown accross Oz and it looks spectacular, beatiful and soft in some parts, rugged and forbidding in others. Looking old and being old are not neccessarily the same thing. For example are you familiar with the island of Surtsey. Born as a result of undersea volcanic activity in 1963, within months it gave all the appearance of being thousands if not millions of years old. Icelandic geologist Sigurdur Thorarinsson wrote about it in National Geographic.
Sigurdur Thorarinsson, ‘Surtsey, island born of fire’, National Geographic, Vol.127 No.5, 1965, p. 726.
Another such is Tuluman, in Papua New Guinea's Admiralty Islands group, north of Australia, born in the mid 50's by the mid 60's it "looked" millions of years old.
As to your question regarding Koalas getting to Australia from the Ark, they probably walked. There is no requirement for the Koalas which eventually arrived in Australia to be the same ones that left the Ark however there is no reason why the descendants of the Ark borne koalas could not have eventually migrated to Australia.
Hope I've been able to give some sort of intelligent response to your questions, if you'd like me to elaborate on any of the points made let me know and I'll give it my best shot, limited though that might be.
PS how are all those boxes at the top of the page used, Bold Italic and underline I'm familiar with but the rest????????

[The Happy Humanist]

Hi Bernee51, thank you for being so quick to welcome a newcomer.
As to bias, we all have it, some crationists are upfront and acknowledge their bias, some don't. Some evolutionists are upfront about their bias, some are not.
You state that I live in a country that has a culture demonstrably older than is possible under a young earth scenario, demonstrably how? I am aware that most ascribe an age of 40 -60 thousand years ago to Aboriginal occupation of australia, however these are no more than assumptions based on a belief in Darwinian evolution or one of the variations thereof. The "dating methods" used by scientists to calculate an age for the earth and its geologic features are largely a waste of time and money as they are all based on untestable and therefore unverifiable assumptions.
I have flown accross Oz and it looks spectacular, beatiful and soft in some parts, rugged and forbidding in others. Looking old and being old are not neccessarily the same thing. For example are you familiar with the island of Surtsey. Born as a result of undersea volcanic activity in 1963, within months it gave all the appearance of being thousands if not millions of years old. Icelandic geologist Sigurdur Thorarinsson wrote about it in National Geographic.
Sigurdur Thorarinsson, ‘Surtsey, island born of fire’, National Geographic, Vol.127 No.5, 1965, p. 726.
Another such is Tuluman, in Papua New Guinea's Admiralty Islands group, north of Australia, born in the mid 50's by the mid 60's it "looked" millions of years old.
As to your question regarding Koalas getting to Australia from the Ark, they probably walked. There is no requirement for the Koalas which eventually arrived in Australia to be the same ones that left the Ark however there is no reason why the descendants of the Ark borne koalas could not have eventually migrated to Australia.
Hope I've been able to give some sort of intelligent response to your questions, if you'd like me to elaborate on any of the points made let me know and I'll give it my best shot, limited though that might be.
PS how are all those boxes at the top of the page used, Bold Italic and underline I'm familiar with but the rest????????

Welcome, Kron. Do you guys mind if we start a new topic in the Science and Religion Forum, "How Did the Koalas Get To Australia""? I've wondered about this myself, and it might make for interesting debate.

[bernee51]

I am aware that most ascribe an age of 40 -60 thousand years ago to Aboriginal occupation of australia, however these are no more than assumptions based on a belief in Darwinian evolution or one of the variations thereof. The "dating methods" used by scientists to calculate an age for the earth and its geologic features are largely a waste of time and money as they are all based on untestable and therefore unverifiable assumptions.

This has been extensively discussed in the Science and Religion Forum so no point in going over it all again here. I suggest you have a look there.

I have flown accross Oz and it looks spectacular, beatiful and soft in some parts, rugged and forbidding in others.

Of all the countries I have visited I must say crossing the Australian continent is breath-taking. But I'm biased.

PS how are all those boxes at the top of the page used, Bold Italic and underline I'm familiar with but the rest????????

These is a 'Test Area' in at the bottom of the home pade. Click a few buttons, post, and see what eventuates. There are alos test posts for you to look at and see how it was done. Open one, click on the 'quote' button and al will be revealed.

[Arya]

And from one newbie to another, welcome Kron!

[kron]

Thanks Arya, look forward to getting to know you.