kangaroos survived the flood how?

arthurchappell · 27th January 2007, 05:42 AM

My question to the Creationists - How did Kangaroos survive the flood? As Australia wasn't discovered until the 18th century - then Noah did well to either get them on the ark, or for the marsupials to get from Mount Ararat to Oz after the ark landed and everything went off to multiply. It's along way to hop, ie over the oceans.

DangerousBeliefs · 27th January 2007, 06:45 AM

Kangaroos? They were carried by both an African and European swallow.

Try fish instead... that's much more difficult.

DangerousBeliefs · 27th January 2007, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by DangerousBeliefs

Try fish instead... that's much more difficult.

In fact, I take that back... try Beetles instead....

About 350,000 known species today with estimates of millions of species as yet to be discovered.

HerNibs · 27th January 2007, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by arthurchappell

My question to the Creationists - How did Kangaroos survive the flood? As Australia wasn't discovered until the 18th century - then Noah did well to either get them on the ark, or for the marsupials to get from Mount Ararat to Oz after the ark landed and everything went off to multiply. It's along way to hop, ie over the oceans.

Been there, tried this one.

Answer was the breaking up of the continents. Peleg - Gen 10:25 (I think)

Also have been told that Satan did it and something about criminals, desolation, etc.

Final answer - goddidit

Nothing really reasonable.

Got ugly after that.

HerNibs

blutoski · 27th January 2007, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by arthurchappell

As Australia wasn't discovered until the 18th century

That would be surprising news to the Aborigines...

Creationists explain kangaroos the same way they explain other animals: postdiluvian migration, possibly assisted by human migration.

What is more difficult to explain is why all the mammals on the continent are marsupial or egg-layers, but nowhere else.

Darth Rotor · 27th January 2007, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by blutoski

What is more difficult to explain is why all the mammals on the continent are marsupial or egg-layers, but nowhere else.

Something in the water, perhaps, or too much Fosters.

Quote:

How did Kangaroos survive the flood?

I am guessing they had life preservers in their pockets.

DR

RUnuts · 27th January 2007, 08:32 AM

Most important where did all the water go?

Darth Rotor · 27th January 2007, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by RUnuts

Most important where did all the water go?

Down the drain? Into Antarctic Ice Sheets?

DR

slingblade · 27th January 2007, 08:38 AM

God was thirsty?

Gord_in_Toronto · 27th January 2007, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by arthurchappell

My question to the Creationists - How did Kangaroos survive the flood? As Australia wasn't discovered until the 18th century - then Noah did well to either get them on the ark, or for the marsupials to get from Mount Ararat to Oz after the ark landed and everything went off to multiply. It's along way to hop, ie over the oceans.

Err. Umm. It's because . . . oh, I know. Gravity was much less then and they could take really loooong hops. Also, explains how Adam was 112ft tall and did not fall over.

Any more?

arthurchappell · 27th January 2007, 09:19 AM

Yes, the Aborigines certainly found Australia, though they are not likely to be the lost tribe of Isreal or stowaways on the ark - possibly they evolved from South Pacific islanders who sailed there - also wonder why of everyone on Earth as the waters rose Noah alone, allowing for family, had the sense to get on a boat. Surely anyone near a port would have had access to ships and boats - there's no mention in Genesis of God sinking other vessels - even if they didn't take as many animals as they could, some folks would suely have got into some kind of floating vessel, and started fishing for food.

Bikewer · 27th January 2007, 09:39 AM

In one of Stephen J. Gould's books, he has an amusing description of all the creatures from the Ark fleeing hell-bent from advancing humans so as to get to their proper environmental niche before man arrives to "discover" them.

The Koala has a particularly hard time.....

SimonD · 27th January 2007, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Something in the water, perhaps, or too much Fosters.

[derail]

DR - Australians don't really drink fosters. We think of it as revenge on the British - they drink more of it then we do (I tastes bloody awful)

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I am guessing they had life preservers in their pockets.

I was going to say they hopped to it, but I can hear the groans already

Darth Rotor · 27th January 2007, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by simon dalton

[derail]

DR - Australians don't really drink fosters. We think of it as revenge on the British - they drink more of it then we do (I tastes bloody awful)

OK, Victoria Bitter. Happy now?

DR

DangerousBeliefs · 27th January 2007, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by simon dalton

[derail]

DR - Australians don't really drink fosters. We think of it as revenge on the British - they drink more of it then we do (I tastes bloody awful)

'tis a silly little thread anyway....

I wouldn't say Fosters was "awful". It's just not that great... like Budweiser that so many people swill here in the US/Canada... mediocre.

SimonD · 27th January 2007, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by DangerousBeliefs

'tis a silly little thread anyway....

I wouldn't say Fosters was "awful". It's just not that great... like Budweiser that so many people swill here in the US/Canada... mediocre.

Perhaps we could start another thread

Taste of beer is subjective, I agree. Don't think much of Budweiser either. As we say here - 'weak as piss"

SimonD · 27th January 2007, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

OK, Victoria Bitter. Happy now?

DR

I was only having a bit of fun DR

- VB is okay !

ETA - I am derailing this thread - sorry

ChristineR · 27th January 2007, 10:41 AM

The kangaroos got out on Mt. Ararat and then the dirt under their feet continued to move until it stopped in Australia.

Also, the kangaroos hopped in the general direction of the proto-Australian dirt per God's directions.

Other theories involve rafts of floating vegetation, which the kangaroos hopped to under God's directions and which they then rode towards Australia.

Most creationists use a combination of this sort of stuff. At some point you throw up your hands and say "that's absurd!" at which time they point out that God is really awesome and can do much cooler stuff like making billions of stars on one day.

These are the people who think that evolution could never have happened by chance, too.

The Atheist · 27th January 2007, 11:48 PM

[quote=simon dalton;2291519Australians don't really drink fosters. We think of it as revenge on the British - they drink more of it then we do (I tastes bloody awful) [/QUOTE]

Appropriate that it should be brought up in a thread about kangaroos, though. I'm sure I read how Fosters was a by-product of kangaroo farming.

Zep · 27th January 2007, 11:57 PM

Fosters = LaBatts Blue.

True! Same company, same recipe.

Davo · 28th January 2007, 12:05 AM

Sorry, but you are all wrong.

Kangaroos hitched a lift on the back of giant migrating Koala Bears.

davefoc · 28th January 2007, 12:52 AM

Another Noah's Ark thread. Yeah. You can never have too many Noah's Ark threads.

I believe Dr. Richard Paley has the answer to the OP question:
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/kangaroo.html

The flood occurred before the continents had broken up so that all the various kinds of animals lived around the time of Noah.

So Kangaroos were just part of the local fauna of the middle east. And how, you non-believing skeptics might ask, did the kangaroos get to Australia after the flood. Dr. Paley has two theories on that. The first theory is that they just walked (Don't forget Australia is just part of Pangea after the flood). The second theory is that they "rafted" across the Tethys Sea on floating mats of vegetation ripped up by the Flood. However, this, he says, is still controversial.

UnrepentantSinner · 28th January 2007, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by blutoski

What is more difficult to explain is why all the mammals on the continent are marsupial or egg-layers, but nowhere else.

That's close, but not quite correct as there are marsupials extant in North America (Opossums a wide spread in the south) and there are numerous fossil examples of marsupial species in all parts of the Western Hemisphere. But there are no living marsupials anywhere in Eurasia or Africa. Somehow they all only went to Australia or they crossed the ocean to the Western Hemisphere. Additionally, no placental mammals seemed to have gone to Australia.

Creationists then have to explain why marsupials only were able to make it to Australia and to North America (don't forget, they claim the Grand Canyon is the result of the flood so it had to be in place when the animals were spreading) but no placental made it to Australia and no marsupials/monotremes made it to Eurasia/Africa.

Davo · 28th January 2007, 02:01 AM

The flood occurred before the continents had broken up so that all the various kinds of animals lived around the time of Noah.

So Kangaroos were just part of the local fauna of the middle east. And how, you non-believing skeptics might ask, did the kangaroos get to Australia after the flood. Dr. Paley has two theories on that. The first theory is that they just walked (Don't forget Australia is just part of Pangea after the flood). The second theory is that they "rafted" across the Tethys Sea on floating mats of vegetation ripped up by the Flood. However, this, he says, is still controversial.[/quote].

Ummm, debateable

I can`t imagine Koala bears travelling from somewhere in the middle east to Australia, especially with their unique diet.

The same goes for animals like Polar Bears

UnrepentantSinner · 28th January 2007, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by arthurchappell

Yes, the Aborigines certainly found Australia, though they are not likely to be the lost tribe of Isreal or stowaways on the ark - possibly they evolved from South Pacific islanders who sailed there.

Aborigines pre-date what we know as Polynesians by about 30-35,000 years. Australia was almost completely cut off from Asia before the Australnesian expansions began in China about 3500 b.c.

H3LL · 28th January 2007, 02:44 AM

The earth was flat and all creatures much, much bigger and more stretchy.

Even Jebus tied his ass to a tree and walked to Jeruselem...Very elastic.

Those that couldn't manage giant 7 league steps (not stretchy enough) would be carried by huge bats, which were birds in those times.

I don't see a problem myself. It all makes sense.

.

Beerina · 28th January 2007, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by RUnuts

Most important where did all the water go?

The universe was obviously made of nothing but water before God made the Earth. It's all around you -- around the land, under the land (wells, fountains), above the air (rain falls).

The spirit of the Lord moved over this watery chaos, and then slew the great sea dragon Leviathan (said references still existing in Psalms, though it's been expurgated from Genesis), and split it's giant body in half, the lower half becoming the land, the upper half the hard "vault" above in the sky. Together they form a pocket in which we live.

When the flood occured, not only were the windows in the vault above opened, allowing severe rain, but so, too, were the "fonts below" "busted up", allowing water to flood in upwards from below.

So where did the water go? Back where it was before the flood -- back into the infinite mass of chaotic water "out there" on the other sides of the dragon's body.

I'm surprised no scientists have written a paper on this cosmology.

davefoc · 28th January 2007, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Davo

Ummm, debateable

Yes, there just doesn't seem to be enough evidence to decide between the rafting and the walking theories.

Quote:

I can`t imagine Koala bears traveling from somewhere in the middle east to Australia, especially with their unique diet.

The same goes for animals like Polar Bears

At least on the issue of koalas, Dr. Paley has anticipated your naive question. From his site:

Quote:

A naive question that a Biblical skeptic will often ask is: "How could Koalas have lived in the Middle East if there were no eucalyptus trees there?"

The answer to this is simple when we remember that the Lord's creations were created before the Fall and that their current physiological state is the result of the degeneration (due to the effects of entropy) of their original, more informationally-complex genes. In the Garden of Eden, koalas ate of all the trees (save the Tree of Knowledge, of course) not just eucalyptus trees. The two koalas who were aboard the Ark must have not yet degenerated to being only able to subsist on eucalyptus and this state of affairs must have happened after they migrated to Australia. Early Middle Eastern koalas would have been happy to munch away on figs or the like.

Mr. Stick · 28th January 2007, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davefoc

At least on the issue of koalas, Dr. Paley has anticipated your naive question. From his site:

Quote:

A naive question that a Biblical skeptic will often ask is: "How could Koalas have lived in the Middle East if there were no eucalyptus trees there?"

The answer to this is simple when we remember that the Lord's creations were created before the Fall and that their current physiological state is the result of the degeneration (due to the effects of entropy) of their original, more informationally-complex genes. In the Garden of Eden, koalas ate of all the trees (save the Tree of Knowledge, of course) not just eucalyptus trees. The two koalas who were aboard the Ark must have not yet degenerated to being only able to subsist on eucalyptus and this state of affairs must have happened after they migrated to Australia. Early Middle Eastern koalas would have been happy to munch away on figs or the like.

OMG, is this a JOKE??? Or do people really believe this stuff?

CFLarsen · 28th January 2007, 08:05 AM

They skipped out.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 28th January 2007, 08:43 AM

Does the Bible explain how Noah got the word out to all the creatures so that they would know to head toward the ark? How was it determined which two of each kind would take the trip? Does it mention any surprise on the part of all the other humans to see pairs of odd creatures travelling along?

~~ Paul

Gord_in_Toronto · 28th January 2007, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Does the Bible explain how Noah got the word out to all the creatures so that they would know to head toward the ark? How was it determined which two of each kind would take the trip? Does it mention any surprise on the part of all the other humans to see pairs of odd creatures travelling along?

~~ Paul

God used his pals -- the talking donkeys and snakes.

Abdul Alhazred · 28th January 2007, 09:00 AM

Never mind how kangaroos survived the flood.

Obviously they were on the ark. Didn't Noah live for centuries before the flood? Plenty of time to round up a couple of kangaroos.

On the other hand, how did the kangaroos get back home from Mount Ararat after the flood?

At least the platypuses could swim.

WildCat · 28th January 2007, 09:46 AM

Never mind.

davefoc · 28th January 2007, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred

Never mind how kangaroos survived the flood.

Obviously they were on the ark. Didn't Noah live for centuries before the flood? Plenty of time to round up a couple of kangaroos.

Ah, finally a believer.

Quote:

On the other hand, how did the kangaroos get back home from Mount Ararat after the flood?

At least the platypuses could swim.

Your question was already anticipated. From the my post above:

Quote:

And how, you non-believing skeptics might ask, did the kangaroos get to Australia after the flood.

Dr. Paley has two theories on that. The first theory is that they just walked (Don't forget Australia is just part of Pangea after the flood). The second theory is that they "rafted" across the Tethys Sea on floating mats of vegetation ripped up by the Flood. However, this, he says, is still controversial.

I kind of like the floating map theory. Maybe with a little extension where the platypi use their tales to propel the raft to Australia. They could eat the raft on the way. Don't forget this is before entropy has degraded their digestion so that they can eat only eucalyptus. Or maybe the raft was made of eucalyptus branches and leaves. Perhaps I should mention my theory to Dr. Paley.

UnrepentantSinner · 28th January 2007, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Does the Bible explain how Noah got the word out to all the creatures so that they would know to head toward the ark? How was it determined which two of each kind would take the trip? Does it mention any surprise on the part of all the other humans to see pairs of odd creatures travelling along?

Yes, God summoned them. God said 2 of every in one chapter and 2 of every unclean and 7 of every clean in another chapter. No it does not.

- edit, here's a link to Genesis 7. It looks like the two different numbers are both in that chapter.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen007.html

TragicMonkey · 29th January 2007, 02:49 AM

Two logical possibilities:

1. Kangaroos possessed, at that time, Satanic powers and could teleport. They have subsequently lost those powers since they were visited by Saint Euleutherian, who converted them.

2. The Flood was botched due to lazy contracters. God delegated the task to Ra, who didn't do a very thorough job. But God really needed a vacation, and he had written down exactly how to do it, so it's not his fault. Blame the god industry. They're turning out unqualified gods, diplomas in hand, and despite there being thousands of gods only a few are worth hiring. I blame lax standards and grade inflation.

UnrepentantSinner · 29th January 2007, 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

2. The Flood was botched due to lazy contracters. God delegated the task to Ra, who didn't do a very thorough job.

Maybe he should have had Satet/Satis do it instead of a the Sun god.

Zep · 29th January 2007, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Stick

OMG, is this a JOKE??? Or do people really believe this stuff?

Sadly, yes.

FarSideOfTheMoon · 29th January 2007, 05:15 AM

I never really thought about it before, but how lucky was god that none of the animals died on the ark. Or maybe some did, and we don't have those species anymore.

Seems a bit of a risky strategy, if it was me, I would have built a bigger ark and had 4, or maybe even 6 or each animal.

27th January 2007, 05:42 AM	#1
arthurchappell New Blood Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: manchester, england Posts: 21	kangaroos survived the flood how? My question to the Creationists - How did Kangaroos survive the flood? As Australia wasn't discovered until the 18th century - then Noah did well to either get them on the ark, or for the marsupials to get from Mount Ararat to Oz after the ark landed and everything went off to multiply. It's along way to hop, ie over the oceans.

27th January 2007, 06:45 AM	#2
DangerousBeliefs Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,304	Kangaroos? They were carried by both an African and European swallow. Try fish instead... that's much more difficult.
	__________________ Posting and you...

27th January 2007, 07:01 AM	#3
DangerousBeliefs Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,304	Originally Posted by DangerousBeliefs Try fish instead... that's much more difficult. In fact, I take that back... try Beetles instead.... About 350,000 known species today with estimates of millions of species as yet to be discovered.
	__________________ Posting and you...

27th January 2007, 07:15 AM	#4
HerNibs Scholar Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 102	Originally Posted by arthurchappell My question to the Creationists - How did Kangaroos survive the flood? As Australia wasn't discovered until the 18th century - then Noah did well to either get them on the ark, or for the marsupials to get from Mount Ararat to Oz after the ark landed and everything went off to multiply. It's along way to hop, ie over the oceans. Been there, tried this one. Answer was the breaking up of the continents. Peleg - Gen 10:25 (I think) Also have been told that Satan did it and something about criminals, desolation, etc. Final answer - goddidit Nothing really reasonable. Got ugly after that. HerNibs
HerNibs Scholar Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 102	__________________ My male parent once said "When I was younger, I had a dream that I would die poor." He quit working the next day and hasn't held a real job since. He's broke. Now he tells people he is psychic. I have him to thank for my skepticism.

27th January 2007, 08:27 AM	#5
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,990	Originally Posted by arthurchappell As Australia wasn't discovered until the 18th century That would be surprising news to the Aborigines... Creationists explain kangaroos the same way they explain other animals: postdiluvian migration, possibly assisted by human migration. What is more difficult to explain is why all the mammals on the continent are marsupial or egg-layers, but nowhere else.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

27th January 2007, 08:29 AM	#6
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by blutoski What is more difficult to explain is why all the mammals on the continent are marsupial or egg-layers, but nowhere else. Something in the water, perhaps, or too much Fosters. Quote: How did Kangaroos survive the flood? I am guessing they had life preservers in their pockets. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

27th January 2007, 08:32 AM	#7
RUnuts Student Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 31	Most important where did all the water go?

27th January 2007, 08:37 AM	#8
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by RUnuts Most important where did all the water go? Down the drain? Into Antarctic Ice Sheets? DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

27th January 2007, 08:38 AM	#9
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	God was thirsty?
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

27th January 2007, 08:39 AM	#10
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,418	Originally Posted by arthurchappell My question to the Creationists - How did Kangaroos survive the flood? As Australia wasn't discovered until the 18th century - then Noah did well to either get them on the ark, or for the marsupials to get from Mount Ararat to Oz after the ark landed and everything went off to multiply. It's along way to hop, ie over the oceans. Err. Umm. It's because . . . oh, I know. Gravity was much less then and they could take really loooong hops. Also, explains how Adam was 112ft tall and did not fall over. Any more?
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

27th January 2007, 09:19 AM	#11
arthurchappell New Blood Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: manchester, england Posts: 21	Yes, the Aborigines certainly found Australia, though they are not likely to be the lost tribe of Isreal or stowaways on the ark - possibly they evolved from South Pacific islanders who sailed there - also wonder why of everyone on Earth as the waters rose Noah alone, allowing for family, had the sense to get on a boat. Surely anyone near a port would have had access to ships and boats - there's no mention in Genesis of God sinking other vessels - even if they didn't take as many animals as they could, some folks would suely have got into some kind of floating vessel, and started fishing for food.

27th January 2007, 09:39 AM	#12
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,536	In one of Stephen J. Gould's books, he has an amusing description of all the creatures from the Ark fleeing hell-bent from advancing humans so as to get to their proper environmental niche before man arrives to "discover" them. The Koala has a particularly hard time.....

27th January 2007, 09:57 AM	#13
SimonD Rouge Element Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Talking with Glyph Posts: 1,044	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Something in the water, perhaps, or too much Fosters. [derail] DR - Australians don't really drink fosters. We think of it as revenge on the British - they drink more of it then we do (I tastes bloody awful) Originally Posted by Darth Rotor I am guessing they had life preservers in their pockets. I was going to say they hopped to it, but I can hear the groans already
	Last edited by SimonD; 27th January 2007 at 09:58 AM. Reason: grammer

27th January 2007, 10:06 AM	#14
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by simon dalton [derail] DR - Australians don't really drink fosters. We think of it as revenge on the British - they drink more of it then we do (I tastes bloody awful) OK, Victoria Bitter. Happy now? DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

27th January 2007, 10:23 AM	#16
SimonD Rouge Element Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Talking with Glyph Posts: 1,044	Originally Posted by DangerousBeliefs 'tis a silly little thread anyway.... I wouldn't say Fosters was "awful". It's just not that great... like Budweiser that so many people swill here in the US/Canada... mediocre. Perhaps we could start another thread Taste of beer is subjective, I agree. Don't think much of Budweiser either. As we say here - 'weak as piss"
	Last edited by SimonD; 27th January 2007 at 10:53 AM. Reason: spelling

27th January 2007, 10:24 AM	#17
SimonD Rouge Element Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Talking with Glyph Posts: 1,044	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor OK, Victoria Bitter. Happy now? DR I was only having a bit of fun DR - VB is okay ! ETA - I am derailing this thread - sorry

27th January 2007, 10:41 AM	#18
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	The kangaroos got out on Mt. Ararat and then the dirt under their feet continued to move until it stopped in Australia. Also, the kangaroos hopped in the general direction of the proto-Australian dirt per God's directions. Other theories involve rafts of floating vegetation, which the kangaroos hopped to under God's directions and which they then rode towards Australia. Most creationists use a combination of this sort of stuff. At some point you throw up your hands and say "that's absurd!" at which time they point out that God is really awesome and can do much cooler stuff like making billions of stars on one day. These are the people who think that evolution could never have happened by chance, too.
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	__________________ Avatar (c) Neopets.com

27th January 2007, 11:48 PM	#19
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Within smelling distance of the Grammar Death Camps Posts: 13,928	[quote=simon dalton;2291519Australians don't really drink fosters. We think of it as revenge on the British - they drink more of it then we do (I tastes bloody awful) [/QUOTE] Appropriate that it should be brought up in a thread about kangaroos, though. I'm sure I read how Fosters was a by-product of kangaroo farming.
	__________________ Jeff Wagg, Communication and Outreach Manager for the James Randi Educational Foundation posted: It is my job to inform other JREF employees about people who wish to do the JREF harm, and you [The Atheist] are one of those.

27th January 2007, 11:57 PM	#20
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Fosters = LaBatts Blue. True! Same company, same recipe.
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

28th January 2007, 12:05 AM	#21
Davo Thinker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Auckland Posts: 218	Sorry, but you are all wrong. Kangaroos hitched a lift on the back of giant migrating Koala Bears.

28th January 2007, 12:52 AM	#22
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 7,262	Another Noah's Ark thread. Yeah. You can never have too many Noah's Ark threads. I believe Dr. Richard Paley has the answer to the OP question: http://objectiveministries.org/creation/kangaroo.html The flood occurred before the continents had broken up so that all the various kinds of animals lived around the time of Noah. So Kangaroos were just part of the local fauna of the middle east. And how, you non-believing skeptics might ask, did the kangaroos get to Australia after the flood. Dr. Paley has two theories on that. The first theory is that they just walked (Don't forget Australia is just part of Pangea after the flood). The second theory is that they "rafted" across the Tethys Sea on floating mats of vegetation ripped up by the Flood. However, this, he says, is still controversial.

28th January 2007, 01:55 AM	#23
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,361	Originally Posted by blutoski What is more difficult to explain is why all the mammals on the continent are marsupial or egg-layers, but nowhere else. That's close, but not quite correct as there are marsupials extant in North America (Opossums a wide spread in the south) and there are numerous fossil examples of marsupial species in all parts of the Western Hemisphere. But there are no living marsupials anywhere in Eurasia or Africa. Somehow they all only went to Australia or they crossed the ocean to the Western Hemisphere. Additionally, no placental mammals seemed to have gone to Australia. Creationists then have to explain why marsupials only were able to make it to Australia and to North America (don't forget, they claim the Grand Canyon is the result of the flood so it had to be in place when the animals were spreading) but no placental made it to Australia and no marsupials/monotremes made it to Eurasia/Africa.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

28th January 2007, 02:01 AM	#24
Davo Thinker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Auckland Posts: 218	The flood occurred before the continents had broken up so that all the various kinds of animals lived around the time of Noah. So Kangaroos were just part of the local fauna of the middle east. And how, you non-believing skeptics might ask, did the kangaroos get to Australia after the flood. Dr. Paley has two theories on that. The first theory is that they just walked (Don't forget Australia is just part of Pangea after the flood). The second theory is that they "rafted" across the Tethys Sea on floating mats of vegetation ripped up by the Flood. However, this, he says, is still controversial.[/quote]. Ummm, debateable I can`t imagine Koala bears travelling from somewhere in the middle east to Australia, especially with their unique diet. The same goes for animals like Polar Bears

28th January 2007, 02:02 AM	#25
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,361	Originally Posted by arthurchappell Yes, the Aborigines certainly found Australia, though they are not likely to be the lost tribe of Isreal or stowaways on the ark - possibly they evolved from South Pacific islanders who sailed there. Aborigines pre-date what we know as Polynesians by about 30-35,000 years. Australia was almost completely cut off from Asia before the Australnesian expansions began in China about 3500 b.c.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

28th January 2007, 02:44 AM	#26
H3LL Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: (ləʊˈkeɪʃən) - n. 1. a site or position; situation. Posts: 4,976	The earth was flat and all creatures much, much bigger and more stretchy. Even Jebus tied his ass to a tree and walked to Jeruselem...Very elastic. Those that couldn't manage giant 7 league steps (not stretchy enough) would be carried by huge bats, which were birds in those times. I don't see a problem myself. It all makes sense. .
	__________________ "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it". - PTerry Top 10 Reasons Why I Procrastinate: 1.

28th January 2007, 05:07 AM	#27
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by RUnuts Most important where did all the water go? The universe was obviously made of nothing but water before God made the Earth. It's all around you -- around the land, under the land (wells, fountains), above the air (rain falls). The spirit of the Lord moved over this watery chaos, and then slew the great sea dragon Leviathan (said references still existing in Psalms, though it's been expurgated from Genesis), and split it's giant body in half, the lower half becoming the land, the upper half the hard "vault" above in the sky. Together they form a pocket in which we live. When the flood occured, not only were the windows in the vault above opened, allowing severe rain, but so, too, were the "fonts below" "busted up", allowing water to flood in upwards from below. So where did the water go? Back where it was before the flood -- back into the infinite mass of chaotic water "out there" on the other sides of the dragon's body. I'm surprised no scientists have written a paper on this cosmology.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

28th January 2007, 07:29 AM	#28
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 7,262	Originally Posted by Davo Ummm, debateable Yes, there just doesn't seem to be enough evidence to decide between the rafting and the walking theories. Quote: I can`t imagine Koala bears traveling from somewhere in the middle east to Australia, especially with their unique diet. The same goes for animals like Polar Bears At least on the issue of koalas, Dr. Paley has anticipated your naive question. From his site: Quote: A naive question that a Biblical skeptic will often ask is: "How could Koalas have lived in the Middle East if there were no eucalyptus trees there?" The answer to this is simple when we remember that the Lord's creations were created before the Fall and that their current physiological state is the result of the degeneration (due to the effects of entropy) of their original, more informationally-complex genes. In the Garden of Eden, koalas ate of all the trees (save the Tree of Knowledge, of course) not just eucalyptus trees. The two koalas who were aboard the Ark must have not yet degenerated to being only able to subsist on eucalyptus and this state of affairs must have happened after they migrated to Australia. Early Middle Eastern koalas would have been happy to munch away on figs or the like.

28th January 2007, 08:03 AM	#29
Mr. Stick Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Denmark Posts: 231	Quote: Originally Posted by davefoc At least on the issue of koalas, Dr. Paley has anticipated your naive question. From his site: Quote: A naive question that a Biblical skeptic will often ask is: "How could Koalas have lived in the Middle East if there were no eucalyptus trees there?" The answer to this is simple when we remember that the Lord's creations were created before the Fall and that their current physiological state is the result of the degeneration (due to the effects of entropy) of their original, more informationally-complex genes. In the Garden of Eden, koalas ate of all the trees (save the Tree of Knowledge, of course) not just eucalyptus trees. The two koalas who were aboard the Ark must have not yet degenerated to being only able to subsist on eucalyptus and this state of affairs must have happened after they migrated to Australia. Early Middle Eastern koalas would have been happy to munch away on figs or the like. OMG, is this a JOKE??? Or do people really believe this stuff?
	__________________ John Edward: But, I'm a psychic. Stan Marsh: No, dude. You're a douche. John Edward: I'm not a douche. What if I really believed dead people talk to me? Stan Marsh: Then, you're a stupid douche!

28th January 2007, 08:05 AM	#30
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	They skipped out.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

28th January 2007, 08:43 AM	#31
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	Does the Bible explain how Noah got the word out to all the creatures so that they would know to head toward the ark? How was it determined which two of each kind would take the trip? Does it mention any surprise on the part of all the other humans to see pairs of odd creatures travelling along? ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

28th January 2007, 08:52 AM	#32
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,418	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Does the Bible explain how Noah got the word out to all the creatures so that they would know to head toward the ark? How was it determined which two of each kind would take the trip? Does it mention any surprise on the part of all the other humans to see pairs of odd creatures travelling along? ~~ Paul God used his pals -- the talking donkeys and snakes.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

28th January 2007, 09:00 AM	#33
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	Never mind how kangaroos survived the flood. Obviously they were on the ark. Didn't Noah live for centuries before the flood? Plenty of time to round up a couple of kangaroos. On the other hand, how did the kangaroos get back home from Mount Ararat after the flood? At least the platypuses could swim.
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

28th January 2007, 09:46 AM	#34
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,106	Never mind.

28th January 2007, 12:38 PM	#35
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 7,262	Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred Never mind how kangaroos survived the flood. Obviously they were on the ark. Didn't Noah live for centuries before the flood? Plenty of time to round up a couple of kangaroos. Ah, finally a believer. Quote: On the other hand, how did the kangaroos get back home from Mount Ararat after the flood? At least the platypuses could swim. Your question was already anticipated. From the my post above: Quote: And how, you non-believing skeptics might ask, did the kangaroos get to Australia after the flood. Dr. Paley has two theories on that. The first theory is that they just walked (Don't forget Australia is just part of Pangea after the flood). The second theory is that they "rafted" across the Tethys Sea on floating mats of vegetation ripped up by the Flood. However, this, he says, is still controversial. I kind of like the floating map theory. Maybe with a little extension where the platypi use their tales to propel the raft to Australia. They could eat the raft on the way. Don't forget this is before entropy has degraded their digestion so that they can eat only eucalyptus. Or maybe the raft was made of eucalyptus branches and leaves. Perhaps I should mention my theory to Dr. Paley.

28th January 2007, 05:49 PM	#36
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,361	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Does the Bible explain how Noah got the word out to all the creatures so that they would know to head toward the ark? How was it determined which two of each kind would take the trip? Does it mention any surprise on the part of all the other humans to see pairs of odd creatures travelling along? Yes, God summoned them. God said 2 of every in one chapter and 2 of every unclean and 7 of every clean in another chapter. No it does not. - edit, here's a link to Genesis 7. It looks like the two different numbers are both in that chapter. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen007.html
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics. Last edited by UnrepentantSinner; 28th January 2007 at 06:00 PM.