Does The Flood Add up?

I have a few common sense questions of my own to add.
1: How did the two koalas and kangaroos get back to Australia after the flood, and why were they not noticed in the middle east?
2: How did the pair of echidnas survive when there was only one pair of termites for them to eat, and how did the termites survive if they were eaten?
3: Koalas are very fussy eaters. How much eucalyptus leaves did they have to store on the ark, and where did they find the refrigerator to keep those leaves fresh?

This thread was started almost 2 weeks ago. As yet, no flood proponent has responded to the questions raised.Or should we assume all are in agreement, that it does not add up?

Thanks for that link to an older thread. I'll be browsing through that. I haven't found any good flood proponent arguments in the first 40 posts.It always seemed obvious to me that the flood story was a fable. Perhaps that's because I'm Australian by birth, and the flood story did not seem consistent with our unique fauna. But one would think it should be just as obvious to Americans, and for similar reasons.Added in edit:I have now finished reading that biogeography thread. It was hilarious, particularly after Robert Byers joined in. I had to keep checking my browser to see if I had been redirected to the Onion.This message has been edited by nwr, 08-21-2005 06:23 PM

It's pretty amusing. About once every 3 years, I hear a report of Noah's ark being discovered. How many arks were there? How many Noah's were there? Or did the flood happen many times?

And only 8 zookeepers to take care of them all. As a vetinary trainee you should already see a problem there. Rabbits are known to do well in Australia. Why didn't they migrate there. The same question applies to sheep.What did they feed the koalas and the echidnas on the ark?

Yes, that would be another big problem.

They would need to do more than just feed the critters. They would need to clean out their dung, and get them some exercise. If Aussie animals were on the ark, isn't it strange that none of them were even explicitely mentioned? These animals are odd enough, that you would think something would have been written about them.

When you remember all of the other animals, then those 8 zookeepers would be shovelling it all day, and they wouldn't be able to keep up.

I'm guessing. Probably the quoting was messed up, and the Admin fixed it. If you preview your message before posting, that's less likely to happen.

The problem is that there was only one pair of dung beetles on the ark. That's not enough to take care of the elephant droppings.

That would require an extraordinarily high rate of macro-evolution.

quote:

---

gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

---

What do you take to be the meaning of "every creeping thing of the earth" in that text?If you exclude insect types on the ark, you still have not solved the problem of how to feed the echidnas or other insectivorous species.

What is normally meant by "genetic diversity" is the range of genes present in the population as a whole. The expression "genetic diversity" doesn't mean anything if applied to "each creature", at least with the normal meaning of the terminology. If you are going to use non-standard meanings, then you need to define your terminology. What reduces with reproductive isolation, is the genetic diversity of the population as a whole.

Yes, it is a cartoon. And as YECs attempt to explain away the problems, it becomes ever more cartoonish.Oh, what a wicked web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive.[it may be self deception, but the rhyme still seems appropriate]

The difference between the Australian animals, and anything likely to have been in the middle east, is far far greater than the difference between humans and other apes. It makes no sense to say that the Australian animals are of the same kind as middle east species, yet to deny that humans and chimpanzees are part of a common kind. If you think it that easy, then you have no argument against evolution, including the evolution of humans from earlier creatures. The differences across ring species are quite small. The differences between kangaroos, echidnas, koalas are huge. Yet you do claim to know that the flood story is true history, in spite of the fact that anybody who uses a little common sense can see that it is only an ancient fable.