Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
As most people know, the koala is only found in Australia.
In case you do not know, koala's have a very specialized diet... they only eat eucalyptus leaves. Eucalyptus trees of the kind they need are only, and have only been found, in Australia.
Koala's do not swim. No Koala remains, including fossils, have ever been found outside of Australia.
So, how did the koala get from the Ark to Australia?
As most people know, the koala is only found in Australia.
In case you do not know, koala's have a very specialized diet... they only eat eucalyptus leaves. Eucalyptus trees of the kind they need are only, and have only been found, in Australia.
Koala's do not swim. No Koala remains, including fossils, have ever been found outside of Australia.
So, how did the koala get from the Ark to Australia?
Like everybody else, they flew by Qantas
I guess everybody has to find their own answer. Personally I believe the flood was local and just affected the Known world.
Ark debates have been done to death, but I can't resist recalling a discussion on the subject on a forum a long way away on the dispersal of animals. Rather than the Simple explanation that Noah, under orders from God, assembled all the appropriate fauna and flora in the various bits of Pangaea and then 'Hold very tight, please.'.*ding*, *ding*, the supercontinent split up and each bit hydroplaned to their present position with all the 'local' fauna and flora on board so it would look like they had evolved there, the opponent argued that Noah's descendents took all the Australian fauna (and flora, presumably) along with them when the sailed there.
I asked why, if they were doing that, they took, rather than useful cows, horses and sheep (which they'd need for sacrifice anyway, not anticipating that they'd forget God and develop a sort of aboriginal religion) Kangaroos, Koalas (1) and platypeece.
I don't recall that I ever got an answer and i have to conclude that the boatload of Wombats idea won't float, so it's back to Pangea splitting up, unless he came to hos senses and realized that the Ark story is unfeasible myth.
(1) plus of course a huge box containing the freeze -dried eucalyptus leaves that were (amazingly) still in edible condition after a year on the Ark and a couple more while the Eucalyptus seedlings were still growing)
I guess everybody has to find their own answer. Personally I believe the flood was local and just affected the Known world.
Everybody knows that before being stranded on Mount Arabat, Noah performed taxi service, dropping different animals on different continents per God's specific instruction.
I know this creates a lot of contradiction, but never mind. The literalists will have their justifications and will flood this thread with them.
Everybody knows that before being stranded on Mount Arabat, Noah performed taxi service, dropping different animals on different continents per God's specific instruction.
I know this creates a lot of contradiction, but never mind. The literalists will have their justifications and will flood this thread with them.
The various dozen or so 'kinds' had life -rafts or life -vests? Or did they just tread water until the rest of the continents were revealed by the receding waters?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-06-2014 at 07:58 AM..
The various dozen or so 'kinds' had life -rafts or life -vests? Or did they just tread water until the rest of the continents were revealed by the receding waters?
I prefer the taxi theory, but yours is interesting.
Glad this is not "settled" science so we can have a civil conversation
PS how long would it have taken for the waters to recede? The only way the oceans would shrink is because of an ice age sucking all the water into ice, which would take more time than the animals in question could survice without food and water while treading water.
As most people know, the koala is only found in Australia.
In case you do not know, koala's have a very specialized diet... they only eat eucalyptus leaves. Eucalyptus trees of the kind they need are only, and have only been found, in Australia.
Koala's do not swim. No Koala remains, including fossils, have ever been found outside of Australia.
So, how did the koala get from the Ark to Australia?
Missing fossil records have never stopped evolutionists before.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ark debates have been done to death, but I can't resist recalling a discussion on the subject on a forum a long way away on the dispersal of animals. Rather than the Simple 
explanation that Noah, under orders from God, assembled all the appropriate fauna and flora in the various bits of Pangaea and then 'Hold very tight, please.'.*ding*, *ding*, the supercontinent split up and each bit hydroplaned to their present position with all the 'local' fauna and flora on board so it would look like they had evolved there, the opponent argued that Noah's descendents took all the Australian fauna (and flora, presumably) along with them when the sailed there. 
