[_ Old Earth _] Koalas and the Great Flood

[Deep Thought]

Let's keep things on topic by assuming for sake of argument that the Great Flood did exist.

There's two broad options:

1. The koalas were on the ark.

a. This brings up the questions as to how they navigated from Australia to the middle east and back again when the flood was finished.

b. While there is some evidence of koalas occasionally eating non-eucalypt leaves, there is no evidence they could survive for extended periods on a single source like Monterey Pine.

c. How many Monterey Pines were growing in the middle east?

d. How did Noah keep pine trees alive on the ark to feed animals.

e. What did koalas eat when the flood was over, given that there were no trees left.

2. The koalas weren't on the ark.

a. In which case, which animal on the ark did koalas evolve (or adapt from if you prefer) from?

 

[Ignatz]

I vote for option 2.

I would think that they evolved from an earlier marsupial. I've see skeletons of the now extinct giant koala, which lived some 50,000 years ago or so but those would probably share an even earlier common ancestor with kangaroos, for example, like a wombat. (these are the only marsupials I can think of off the top of my head)

 

[Ignatz]

Sorry, I just realized that you asked what animal ON THE ARK they would have evolved from, in which case I would say, "None of them". :D

 

[Bryce]

Ouch. You not going to let me be lazy on this are you? <__<
I can't give you a 100% awnser your looking for, I've never debated this topic before and have little knowlege on the subject to discuss more in depth awnsers. I apologize for my own short comings and I have no excuse, but let me tell you what I know..

Although Genesis is silent on it, there are many theories on the redistribution of the animals. From temporary land bridges, slow redistribution over a period of time, and the fact that if God brought the animals to the ark by supernatural intervention He could redistribute them by it too. The fact is Genesis is silent, and these are "somehow's" and "maybe's" which don't cut it as explanations (except when applied to evolution -lol) thus these are questions in which the answers we may not know for sure.

I'll read up on the subject and see if I can't give you a better response next time.

EDIT:
As for the food thing, [don't quote me on this] I remember recall somthing about the animals going into dormant state. Thus relinquishing the need for a huge amount of food all day every day.

 

[Deep Thought]

Bryce, you hit the nail on the head there. Any attempt I've seen to rationally explain the flood and the the myriad of paradoxes and problems it poses, are met with the most extraordinary claims that don't have a single shed of evidence or even common sense to back them up.

Really looking forward to the best argument a creationist can put up without having to resort to the magic bag of improbabilities and impossibilities.

 

[John]

@Johnmuise, you mind if I steal that pic?

i just googled it, its not mine, I think it belongs to AIG.

 

[freeway]

In all actuality to be honest, I can not tell you how they got to the ark, or what they eat while on the cruise or if they got to sun bathe on the deck. One thing for sure they arrived in time, they ate well, survived and they reproduced. Anything beyond that,,, I know you guys like this... God did it..

also there is talk of the land mass being together, no large mountain ranges, climate was the same all over the world, and one more thing, it took Noah 120 years to build the ark, hell I could crawled on my stomach with that much time...

links you'll most likely ask for.. forth coming... but really, will you believe them anyway?

 

[John]

Yes there proably were great local floods, however the bible says even the mountains were covered.
The Local flood of noah ? Hmm i don't think so.

Yes, the flood may have covered some hills in the area, but no mountains. If the water got that high, the evidence for a flood would occupy a much larger area than it does. Besides, If the water level was high enough to cover mount everest, for example, (and there is no evidence that it did) where would all that water have come from/gone?

Noah supposedly lived in the southern tigris-euphrates river valley, which would have experienced incredible flooding, but there is no evidence to suggest that it covered the entire planet, though it would have appeared so.

Also, there aren't any mountains in the southern tigris–euphrates valley where Noah supposedly lived, only hills on a flat alluvial plain. The nearest mountains would have been below the horizon. Noah may have seen hills being flooded in the euphrates valley but not mountains.

From "the Noah's ark book" chapter 3
The Hebrew word har (plural harîm, plural possessive harê) translated as "mountains" in Genesis 7:20 and 8:4 can also mean "hills" and is so translated in many other places in the Old Testament including Genesis 7:19b (King James Version): "and all the high hills ..."

everest is covered in sedimentary rock, containing fossils of water animals, remember the geology now is much different then the pre flood models.

 

[Deep Thought]

In all actuality to be honest, I can not tell you how they got to the ark, or what they eat while on the cruise or if they got to sun bathe on the deck. One thing for sure they arrived in time, they ate well, survived and they reproduced. Anything beyond that,,, I know you guys like this... God did it..

also there is talk of the land mass being together, no large mountain ranges, climate was the same all over the world, and one more thing, it took Noah 120 years to build the ark, hell I could crawled on my stomach with that much time...

links you'll most likely ask for.. forth coming... but really, will you believe them anyway?

I'm not really after links. I'd just like you or any other YEC on this forum to explain in their own words about the Koalas & Flood.

As you've pointed out, there's no Biblical details covering all the logical problems arising from a global flood.

It's all too easy to invent scenarios such as the climate being the same all over the world, no large mountain ranges etc, but there's not a shred of evidence to support these claims.

 

[Ignatz]

Yes there proably were great local floods, however the bible says even the mountains were covered.
The Local flood of noah ? Hmm i don't think so.

Yes, the flood may have covered some hills in the area, but no mountains. If the water got that high, the evidence for a flood would occupy a much larger area than it does. Besides, If the water level was high enough to cover mount everest, for example, (and there is no evidence that it did) where would all that water have come from/gone?

Noah supposedly lived in the southern tigris-euphrates river valley, which would have experienced incredible flooding, but there is no evidence to suggest that it covered the entire planet, though it would have appeared so.

Also, there aren't any mountains in the southern tigris–euphrates valley where Noah supposedly lived, only hills on a flat alluvial plain. The nearest mountains would have been below the horizon. Noah may have seen hills being flooded in the euphrates valley but not mountains.

From "the Noah's ark book" chapter 3
The Hebrew word har (plural harîm, plural possessive harê) translated as "mountains" in Genesis 7:20 and 8:4 can also mean "hills" and is so translated in many other places in the Old Testament including Genesis 7:19b (King James Version): "and all the high hills ..."

everest is covered in sedimentary rock, containing fossils of water animals, remember the geology now is much different then the pre flood models.

That's what I've heard, too. the surface of Everest was under water at one time, millions of years ago, before tectonic force pushed the mountains up and the rock that makes-up Everest was under the Tethys sea. The fossils are from when the sea disappeared, and ammonite were caught in the shale layers of clay and transformed into fossils.

 

[John]

Or the global flood happened, and everest got thrust up ward sometime after.

 

[Ignatz]

Or the global flood happened, and everest got thrust up ward sometime after.

Then the fossils could not be older that 2500 years or so, (or however long Noah was) and these ammonite have not existed for millions of years. Also, mountains don't grow that fast.

 

[freeway]

That's what I've heard, too. the surface of Everest was under water at one time, millions of years ago, before tectonic force pushed the mountains up and the rock that makes-up Everest was under the Tethys sea. The fossils are from when the sea disappeared, and ammonite were caught in the shale layers of clay and transformed into fossils

yea thats also a nice theory..

As you've pointed out, there's no Biblical details covering all the logical problems arising from a global flood.

excuse me, but all I said was I don't know how the little furry friends managed to get there. As you yourself do not know for sure!

Then the fossils could not be older that 2500 years or so, (or however long Noah was) and these ammonite have not existed for millions of years. Also, mountains don't grow that fast.

Again assuming that carbon dating radiometric dating and dating by strata is right.. far as mountain growing that fast, we don't really know for sure do we now?

Or the global flood happened, and everest got thrust up ward sometime after

as johnny says, I too will go with this answer...

 

[Deep Thought]

Or the global flood happened, and everest got thrust up ward sometime after.

The rate at which the Himalayas is rising can be accurately measured and it is in the order of centimetres a year. At the rate you're suggesting Everest grew, India would have had to crashed into the sub-continent at such a huge speed that the resulting collision would have been catastrophic.

 

[Ignatz]

That's what I've heard, too. the surface of Everest was under water at one time, millions of years ago, before tectonic force pushed the mountains up and the rock that makes-up Everest was under the Tethys sea. The fossils are from when the sea disappeared, and ammonite were caught in the shale layers of clay and transformed into fossils

yea thats also a nice theory..
[quote:75c1b]As you've pointed out, there's no Biblical details covering all the logical problems arising from a global flood.

excuse me, but all I said was I don't know how the little furry friends managed to get there. As you yourself do not know for sure!

Then the fossils could not be older that 2500 years or so, (or however long Noah was) and these ammonite have not existed for millions of years. Also, mountains don't grow that fast.

Again assuming that carbon dating radiometric dating and dating by strata is right.. far as mountain growing that fast, we don't really know for sure do we now?[/quote:75c1b]

Yes, we know that. At no time in human history is there an account of the himalayan mountain range suddenly springing up, even over many generations, which you would most certainly have if the mountains "grew" in that short time. The earthquakes would have been unbelievable. People would have noticed. also there are no modern (within the last few thousand years) fossils in the rock. Just seashells and ammonites. There are several different methods used to determine the age of strata, all operating on different, unrelated principles, and they all point to much older age than 2500 years.

 

[John]

Or the global flood happened, and everest got thrust up ward sometime after.

Then the fossils could not be older that 2500 years or so, (or however long Noah was) and these ammonite have not existed for millions of years. Also, mountains don't grow that fast.

all based on assumtions, no body was there to see the effects of the flood on geology, i susepct mountains rise after a great event like the flood is easy. walt brown has a good theory on that matter, the greatest proble evolutionists have is the whole the present is the key to the past bull crap, you have 0% of knowlage on the earth in the past aside from eye witness historical accounts.

 

[jwu]

all based on assumtions, no body was there to see the effects of the flood on geology, i susepct mountains rise after a great event like the flood is easy.

They would look very different though

walt brown has a good theory on that matter

Then please either adress its flaws in the other threads - or stop making that assertion.

the greatest proble evolutionists have is the whole the present is the key to the past bull crap, you have 0% of knowlage on the earth in the past aside from eye witness historical accounts.

What exactly is unreasonable about it?

By the way, any judge considers material evidence such as DNA samples to be more reliable than witnesses.

 

[John]

all based on assumtions, no body was there to see the effects of the flood on geology, i susepct mountains rise after a great event like the flood is easy.

They would look very different though

[quote:99b17]walt brown has a good theory on that matter

Then please either adress its flaws in the other threads - or stop making that assertion.

the greatest proble evolutionists have is the whole the present is the key to the past bull crap, you have 0% of knowlage on the earth in the past aside from eye witness historical accounts.

What exactly is unreasonable about it?

By the way, any judge considers material evidence such as DNA samples to be more reliable than witnesses.[/quote:99b17]


what makes you think they would look different, besides your religious views give me a reason why we can't make the mountains we have today because of the flood.

evolution is full of flaws, yet people still go with it, just because walt's theory is not 100% to your specification does not mean that some of it like the mountain ranges are wrong. besides i already shown you that its possible to have water under the earth at least around 10 Km. (by the way, there is a 7 mile deep mine about 700km from my house ;P )

But you don't have evidence that holds up, you have a theory and thats all it will ever be.

 

[Dunzo]

But you don't have evidence that holds up, you have a theory and thats all it will ever be.

Urrgghh, I'm getting so sick of correcting people on this. A THEORY IS NOT A GUESS! Contradicting your valiant efforts to claim that there's no hard evidence that supports evolution, there most certainly is, and there's a lot of it. Evolutionary theory is not a guess at the cause of diversification of life, it's the result of observation! Scientists observe life, and then come up with a theory (an explanation) for this diversification of life that accounts for all the evidence. What is so goddamn hard to understand about this?

 

[Ignatz]

all based on assumtions, no body was there to see the effects of the flood on geology, i susepct mountains rise after a great event like the flood is easy.

They would look very different though

[quote:bfba0]walt brown has a good theory on that matter

Then please either adress its flaws in the other threads - or stop making that assertion.

[quote:bfba0]the greatest proble evolutionists have is the whole the present is the key to the past bull crap, you have 0% of knowlage on the earth in the past aside from eye witness historical accounts.

What exactly is unreasonable about it?

By the way, any judge considers material evidence such as DNA samples to be more reliable than witnesses.[/quote:bfba0]


what makes you think they would look different, besides your religious views give me a reason why we can't make the mountains we have today because of the flood.

evolution is full of flaws, yet people still go with it, just because walt's theory is not 100% to your specification does not mean that some of it like the mountain ranges are wrong. besides i already shown you that its possible to have water under the earth at least around 10 Km. (by the way, there is a 7 mile deep mine about 700km from my house ;P )

But you don't have evidence that holds up, you have a theory and thats all it will ever be.[/quote:bfba0]

"Evolution is full of flaws"
It begs the question once again: Can you describe, in your OWN words, what the role of mutation and natural selection is in the current ToE?

You still haven't shown that you even understand what the theory says, so you couldn't possibly expect your protests to be taken seriously.

You also clearly do not understand what a scientific theory IS. Theory does not mean "guess" as it does in everyday conversation. Look it up. If you learn nothing else, learn what the definition of a "scientific theory" is. Scientific theories explain the facts.

Here, again, is an example of how a scientific theory is developed:

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:
• Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
• Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
• Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
• Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
• Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
• Theory: All swans are white.
Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.
Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. (And yes, there are really black swans. This example was just to illustrate the point.)

I notice that one of your other posts loosely used this format to argue your "creation predictions", although you start that post by immediately jumping to "predictions" without addressing the first 5 steps.