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]

Ah life does get interesting.

ya wouldn't be dead for quids, would ya?

I have to admit bernee that you're right. There is no record of Aboriginal domestication of Koalas, but then the Aboriginal Australians do not have a great reputation for record keeping of any sort, other than oral tradition which has in all probability been distorted over time.

They have some wonderful oral myths re. creation, flood stories et al. One of my favourite books re. the oral tradition of pre-European Australia is Bruce Chatwin's Songlines

Whether Aboriginals ever in their history kept Koalas or not is something we'll probably never know for sure, but it's not impossible.

weirder things have happened.

Now for the biggie. Ice ages.....
Actually there is conclusive evidence for only one ice age, and that quite recently.

Really? Please present this evidence for the critique of the forum. I'm sure we would all love to see it (if we haven't already)

.
Since the Biblical flood occurreds approx 4,000 years ago the subsequent ice age was probably 3,500 to 4,000 years ago. The only reason to think the ice age was 10,000 or more years ago is old earth evolutionary presupposition.

I was under the impression, but will gladly accept my error, that ice Ages were detemined somewhat like tree rings. These seem to indicate a much older timeframe than you propose.

It seems Thor Heyerdahl demonstrated that it was indeed possible to migrate long distances by raft, I understand it was by this very means (rafting on vegetation) that tha Galapagos islands were populated by their many different species.

It was Polynesia and the species was Homo Sapiens.

Eventually I'll learn some ofthe fancier techniques of posting, in the meantime I'll stumble on in my long winded fashion.[/url]

whatever floats your boat (or should that be raft)

[micatala]

Welcome to the forum Kron.

Never been to the Land Down Under, but would love to go someday.

On the flood, my personal view is that a global flood did not occur, and that there is mountains of evidence refuting the flood. It seems to me to be the weakest part of the Young Earth Creation scenario. Some of the problems with the flood model, vis-a-vis ice sheets and ages, can be found here.

For an evangelical perspective on the Noahic flood, see Hugh Ross' Reasons to Believe site.

Ross does believe in his own version of Biblical Inerrancy, is not an evolutionist, and has a background in astronomy. He does not believe in a global flood, but rather a local flood confined to the Mesopotamian valley. He makes some good scriptural points in his article as well.

For example,

As for the reference, "under the entire heavens," such expressions must always be understood in their context. What would constitute under the entire heavens for the people of Noah's time? The extent of their view from the entire region in which they existed or operated. Perhaps a verse from the New Testament will clarify my point. In Romans 1:8 the Apostle Paul declares that the faith of the Christians in Rome was being "reported all over the world." Since "all over the world" to the Romans meant the entire Roman Empire (and not the entire globe), we would not interpret Paul's words as an indication that the Eskimos and Incas were familiar at that time with the activities of the church at Rome.

[perfessor]

Also after the flood and especially during the subsequent ice age there were many natural land bridges available so there would not neccessarily have been much swimming involved, and of course different animals have in the past been rafted from one location to another on mats of floating vegetation, of which there would have been an abundance after the flood. Just a few thoughts to chew on.

Yes, chewing on those thoughts brought up some others. Did all the koalas take the rafts? Or did all the "left behind" koalas become extinct?

Did all the kangaroos take the rafts? Or did all the "left behind" kangaroos become extinct?

Did all the platypi take the rafts? Or did all the "left behind" platypi become extinct?

Ditto with all the other uniques species one finds in geographically isolated areas, which by the way is predicted and explained by the evolutionary model.

[Lotan]

Did all the kangaroos take the rafts? Or did all the "left behind" kangaroos become extinct?

Wait, wait, I've got it..................!

The continents weren't separated yet! The original pair of kangaroos were hanging around with the other marsupials on a piece of land that eventually became Australia!

[micatala]

No, no!! The original pair's great, great, great . . . . (great^N) grandparents were on the land mass that became Australia and then had their many itty bitty kangaroos, and then ..

oops.

forgot.

evolution didn't happen. 8)

Pardon my silliness.

[The Happy Humanist]

Did all the kangaroos take the rafts? Or did all the "left behind" kangaroos become extinct?

Wait, wait, I've got it..................!

The continents weren't separated yet! The original pair of kangaroos were hanging around with the other marsupials on a piece of land that eventually became Australia!

Don't laugh. I think that's genuinely part of the argument they make.

[kron]

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.

[bernee51]

We have a mountain range in Australia known as the Blue Mountains, its highest peak is Mt. Kosciusco reaching 2,228 metres.

Not sure what part of Oz you are from old mate but the Blue Mountains are some hundreds of kilometres to the north east of Mt Kosciuszko.

That notwithstanding, as you note, at a little over 2000 metres it is barely a zit on the landform compared to the Himalaya. You also rightly note that the area is sedimentary with marine deposits. It also has been intruded with granites and folded and uplifted many times.

A more extensive account of the geology of the region can be found here

This article has a timeline for the region going back some 560 million years and is referenced to six or more documents.

Isn't it amazing how all these people have got it so wrong. The truth was right under their nose if they had just read the bible. It would have saved all those years of research to come up with their erroneous publications.

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 the bible is inerrant fact, in your opinion. Totally and without exception.

[Curious]

In welcoming an Aussie newcomer, and YEC, to the forum the question was asked "How did koalas get thre off the Ark?"

It was suggested that ...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."

Now koalas are pretty special animals. They are primarily aboreal and live primarily on a diet of eucalyptus leaves, and only a few of the uhundreds of varieties are suitable. They cannot live in deserts or rainforests. They are territorial and do not wander about much.

For koalas to have walked (swam?) from wherever the supposed Ark's resting place in (In Asia Minor) would be quite a feat for these animals. I would suggest impossible.

So how did koalas get to Australia?

(Not to mention the monotremes - they can be for a different thread)

It is quite obvious that the koalas travelled on the backs of the dinosaurs as they swam to Australia after the deluge. Since there was widespread devastation to the eucalyptus trees post flood, it was necessary for the koalas to eat the dinosaurs to survive. This would also account for the extinction of the dinosaurs.

[Sender]

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.