How did koalas get to Australia?

[The Happy Humanist]

I've always wondered how, under the Flood scenario, the Koala bear got to Australia. Did he swim? And what did he eat on the journey?

[bernee51]

I think peolpe look for reasons not to accept God. You really don't have to, just don't believe in him. If it is all a crock of bull, well great, we all end up like you. If it is true that God is the creator of the universe, well you simply go to hell, and me in heaven. Frankly, I can live with that. At the pearly gates I can see it now. Jesus tells me to go right. and he signals for you to go left. All the while you are screamoing, the koala bear, what about the koala bear? Sad but true.

I don't presume to speak for 'people' just this person. This person has looked for reasons to accept god and found none. If you have read anything I've written you would know that I have certain criteria when it comes to 'god hood'. Nothing I have experienced, heard or read has given me reason to believe in the god you profess.

As for the 'afterlife'...it's gonna be exactly the same as the 'beforebirth.'

I can live with that.

[Sender]

I think peolpe look for reasons not to accept God. You really don't have to, just don't believe in him. If it is all a crock of bull, well great, we all end up like you. If it is true that God is the creator of the universe, well you simply go to hell, and me in heaven. Frankly, I can live with that. At the pearly gates I can see it now. Jesus tells me to go right. and he signals for you to go left. All the while you are screamoing, the koala bear, what about the koala bear? Sad but true.

I don't presume to speak for 'people' just this person. This person has looked for reasons to accept god and found none. If you have read anything I've written you would know that I have certain criteria when it comes to 'god hood'. Nothing I have experienced, heard or read has given me reason to believe in the god you profess.

As for the 'afterlife'...it's gonna be exactly the same as the 'beforebirth.'

I can live with that.

Fair enough, so can I. I take it you won't be keeping your reservation?

[bernee51]

Fair enough, so can I. I take it you won't be keeping your reservation?

Reservation? No one told me you had to make a reservation? Do they take Amex? (Don't leave the body without it)

[Sender]

Fair enough, so can I. I take it you won't be keeping your reservation?

Reservation? No one told me you had to make a reservation? Do they take Amex? (Don't leave the body without it)

Yes bernee, John 3:16 says...God so loved the world that he gave his own begotten son so bernee can live forever. ..I realize I am paraphrasing but if you were the only one living he still would of done it, just for you. You do have a reservation in Heaven, but again when your name is called and you are not present, well...

[bernee51]

Yes bernee, John 3:16 says...God so loved the world that he gave his own begotten son so bernee can live forever. ..I realize I am paraphrasing but if you were the only one living he still would of done it, just for you. You do have a reservation in Heaven, but again when your name is called and you are not present, well...

Sender, the bible is a book of myths and metaphor, no different than the hundreds of others. I know more take it as 'gospel' than I do the Epic of Gilgamesh.

On what basis do you believe it is the word of god?

[micatala]

The only reason is for denying a global flood is to make room for old earth presuppositions, after all a global cataclysm as described in Genesis would accomplish all the geologic work usually ascribed to millions of years of slow gradual processes.

I would disagree. Scientists deny the flood because, looking at the entirety of the geological and other evidence we have, they see no evidence that a global flood occurred in the past. In fact, the evidence pretty much falsifies it.

Obviously there are several other flood threads where we can go to continue discussion on the flood. I don't think it is at all feasible that a global flood would accomplish all of what we see in the geologic record, but I won't say more about that at this point, unless it relates specifically to koalas.

I am aware of some of Hugh Ross's views (and disagree with them) but I'm not aware of any reason Ross gives for Noah's ark building excercise. Seems pointless to me, after all to escape a local flood simply move somewhere else, much easier solution.

This is not a bad point. Perhaps God felt asking Noah to move to a region that was really not part of his 'known world' was not appropriate. Perhaps He liked the symbolism that having Noah on the Ark would provide. Perhaps Ross is wrong and the story is entirely metaphorical in the first place. It is worth noting that you can find a lot of places in the Bible where things could have been done differently, certainly more easily. Why would God make the slaughter of children in Bethlehem part of the story of Jesus coming into the world, for example?

My own view on Biblical innerrancy is that the bible means what it says and says what it means, always bearing context and literary style in mind.
So Historical Narrative is Historical Narrative, Poetry is Poetry, Allegory is Allegory etc.

I would agree to some extent, but I do not think it is so easy to tell 'what is what'. See, for example, the Copernicus versus Darwin thread. Certainly Martin LUther, John Calvin, the Catholic heirarchy, et al all thought the Bible 'means what it says and says what it means' and it plainly says and meant that the earth is fixed and immovable, and the sun is the one that moves through the heavens. We now interpret many of the passages they interpreted literally/historically as allegorical/phenomenological, but we probably would not have done so without the discovery of extra-biblical evidence falsifying the literal interpretation.

I submit we have way more evidence that the earth is old, that there was no global flood, and that we evolved from a common ancestor with the chimpanzees than Galileo and Kepler had for a moving earth.

[micatala]

The only reason is for denying a global flood is to make room for old earth presuppositions, after all a global cataclysm as described in Genesis would accomplish all the geologic work usually ascribed to millions of years of slow gradual processes.

I would disagree. Scientists deny the flood because, looking at the entirety of the geological and other evidence we have, they see no evidence that a global flood occurred in the past. In fact, the evidence pretty much falsifies it.

Obviously there are several other flood threads where we can go to continue discussion on the flood. I don't think it is at all feasible that a global flood would accomplish all of what we see in the geologic record, but I won't say more about that at this point, unless it relates specifically to koalas.

I am aware of some of Hugh Ross's views (and disagree with them) but I'm not aware of any reason Ross gives for Noah's ark building excercise. Seems pointless to me, after all to escape a local flood simply move somewhere else, much easier solution.

This is not a bad point. Perhaps God felt asking Noah to move to a region that was really not part of his 'known world' was not appropriate. Perhaps He liked the symbolism that having Noah on the Ark would provide. Perhaps Ross is wrong and the story is entirely metaphorical in the first place. It is worth noting that you can find a lot of places in the Bible where things could have been done differently, certainly more easily. Why would God make the slaughter of children in Bethlehem part of the story of Jesus coming into the world, for example?

My own view on Biblical innerrancy is that the bible means what it says and says what it means, always bearing context and literary style in mind.
So Historical Narrative is Historical Narrative, Poetry is Poetry, Allegory is Allegory etc.

I would agree to some extent, but I do not think it is so easy to tell 'what is what'. See, for example, the Copernicus versus Darwin thread. Certainly Martin LUther, John Calvin, the Catholic heirarchy, et al all thought the Bible 'means what it says and says what it means' and it plainly says and meant that the earth is fixed and immovable, and the sun is the one that moves through the heavens. We now interpret many of the passages they interpreted literally/historically as allegorical/phenomenological, but we probably would not have done so without the discovery of extra-biblical evidence falsifying the literal interpretation.

I submit we have way more evidence that the earth is old, that there was no global flood, and that we evolved from a common ancestor with the chimpanzees than Galileo and Kepler had for a moving earth.

[Sender]

Hi Mitacala thanks for the welcome and yes you'd probably enjoy a visit down under, just watch that all the blood doesn't rush to your head while your here (joke).

We have a mountain range in Australia known as the Blue Mountains, its highest peak is Mt. Kosciusco reaching 2,228 metres. Not the tallest mountain in the world but respectable nonetheless. The Blue Mountains, including Kosciusco are sedimentary rock formations, meaning they were laid down by water. If the mountains were under water then so was the rest of Australia and most, if not all, of the rest of the world. The only reason is for denying a global flood is to make room for old earth presuppositions, after all a global cataclysm as described in Genesis would accomplish all the geologic work usually ascribed to millions of years of slow gradual processes.
I am aware of some of Hugh Ross's views (and disagree with them) but I'm not aware of any reason Ross gives for Noah's ark building excercise. Seems pointless to me, after all to escape a local flood simply move somewhere else, much easier solution.
My own view on Biblical innerrancy is that the bible means what it says and says what it means, always bearing context and literary style in mind.
So Historical Narrative is Historical Narrative, Poetry is Poetry, Allegory is Allegory etc.

Welcome kron, nice to have you. You are from Australia? Cool. I will say hi to Andrew Bogut when I see him again.

[The Happy Humanist]

I've always wondered how, under the Flood scenario, the Koala bear got to Australia. Did he swim? And what did he eat on the journey?

I think peolpe look for reasons not to accept God. You really don't have to, just don't believe in him. If it is all a crock of bull, well great, we all end up like you. If it is true that God is the creator of the universe, well you simply go to hell, and me in heaven. Frankly, I can live with that. At the pearly gates I can see it now. Jesus tells me to go right. and he signals for you to go left. All the while you are screamoing, the koala bear, what about the koala bear? Sad but true.

And this is your argument for me to believe? Fear of Hell? "Believe...or else"? That's it? You can't answer the Koala question, you can't prove the existence of Heaven OR Hell OR God...but I should believe just in case?

Please take this up in Bernee's thread on the same subject. He got the jump on me, so we should close this one.

[Bugmaster]

I've always wondered how, under the Flood scenario, the Koala bear got to Australia. Did he swim? And what did he eat on the journey?

I thought that the accepted interpretation among Christians was that God put the animals in suspended animation ? Not sure if that's right...