How did the Aborigines get to Australia?

Fast decay kind of cooks the earth too.

They walked, sailed, waded and/or swam, arriving in Australia some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, or earlier, after leaving Africa some tens of thousands of years previously.The evidence we have on this comes from archaeology, genetics and related fields.This evidence has nothing to do with any mythical floods, nor with decay rates for that matter.

Actually, not so easy.First, "Pangaea... is hypothesized as a supercontinent that existed during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras, forming 300 million years ago and beginning to break up approximately 200 million years ago" [Wiki].For your statement to be accurate humans and all modern critters had to be cavorting about some 200+ million years ago. That does not compute, as the earliest modern humans are some 200,000 years old.So your dating is off by some 200+ million years. How do you explain this little boo-boo? Where did those 200+million years suddenly go?

Unless your opinion has some evidence behind it, it is worthless.This is part of the denial that creationists typically resort to when they find themselves faced with uncomfortable facts.But tell us, just when did the marsupials arrive in Australia?Shortly after 4,350 years ago? Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

And how do creationists evaluate the accuracy of their hypotheses?Do they compare against real world evidence, like science does?And what if that real world evidence contradicts their hypotheses (as it almost always does)?In the current case you have been shown numerous reasons why your hypothesis concerning Australia and marsupials is incorrect. Can you revise your hypothesis?

The problem for proponents of a "great flood" is that the "marine fossils, sedimentary deposits and fossil graveyards" don't occur at a single specific time. They are spread out over >3 billion years.Doesn't that detract from the credibility of your argument?

An area with gaps of 15 miles or so of water does not make a land bridge.Check the Bering land bridge for comparison. Something like 1,000 miles north to south, all dry land.That's a land bridge.

The flood story, and the feats performed by the arc, have so many holes in them I wouldn't put much faith in anything anyone claimed for either.For example, the date for marsupials in Australia is placed about 50 million years ago, while the date biblical scholars agree upon for the flood is about 4,350 years ago.That's an error factor of about 11,000 x. Conflating those two disparate events is such a stretch that it does not engender much confidence in anyone making such a claim.In most science an error factor of 5-10% is considered totally unacceptable. It would be nice if religious apologetics was as rigorous a discipline, but given the "evidence" it has to work with I can understand why it is not.