The text below does not represent what I think about the Flood, but as this site is a summary of all the theories that analyze the circumstances of the flood, we open space for all hypotheses. (By: Valdemir Mota de Menezes, the Scribe)
---------------------------------
How did the Earths animals get to their present locations after the flood?
One problem that troubles many people is how the animals of the Earth returned to their homes after the flood. How would animals get from the location of the Ark across the ocean to Australia for example.
Let's begin by reaffirming that God's Word does indeed reveal, in the plainest possible terms, that the whole globe was covered in water during the flood. The only survivors were the inhabitants of the Ark, which included at least one breeding pair of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing creature.
Any difficulties in our ability to explain every single situation in detail must therefore be a reflection of our limited understanding.
An island named Krakatoa erupted in 1883, the island remnant remained lifeless for some years, but was eventually colonized by a surprising variety of creatures, including not only insects and earthworms, but birds, lizards, snakes and even a few mammals. No one would expect this surprising array of creatures to have been able to cross the ocean as they obviously did.
Animals can get to isolated areas without the aid of man. For the most part, the animals of Noah's day were faced with far fewer such apparent difficulties. The Ararat region is more or less the mathematical center of the earth's land-masses (Woods, Andrew J., 1973. "The Center of the Earth", ICR Technical Monograph No. 3).
Also as I have stated before, that under the protective canopy before the flood it is quite possible that extreme climates such as deserts and arctic didn't exist. This would mean that Noah would only need to gather animals from his immediate region to attain representatives from the entire world. It wasn't until after the flood that these harsh climates came about causing animals to adapt to them as they migrated there.
Evolutionary anthropologists themselves have no difficulty in acknowledging that men and animals were once freely able to cross the Bering Strait, which separates Asia and the Americas. In fact evolutionists taught and believed that a lowering of the sea level during an ice age (with more water locked up at the poles) would mean that there were land bridges enabling dry-land passage from Europe most of the way to Australia, for example.
We as creationists believe that the aftermath of the flood resulted in the ice age. This fits perfectly with the senario above.
Creationists generally believe there was one great Ice Age after, and as a consequence of, the Flood. This made it possible for animals to migrate over land-bridges for centuries. The large ice caps at the pole which would have covered much father downward than now would have shrunk up a large amount of water creating connections between all of the land masses. After the ice age ended and the Earth began to warm, the sea levels would have risen to the present level cutting these animals off.
How did animals make the long journey? Even though there have been isolated reports of individual animals making startling journeys of thousands of miles, such abilities are not even necessary. A very small number of rabbits were released in Australia by early settlers. Wild rabbits are now found at the very opposite corner (in fact, every corner) of the vast continent. Does that mean that an individual rabbit had to be capable of crossing the whole of Australia? Of course not. Creation speakers are often asked mockingly, "Did the kangaroo hop all the way to Australia?" We see by the rabbit example that this is a somewhat foolish question. However, let us answer it, anyway.
Did the Kangaroo Hop all the Way to Australia? Populations of animals may have had centuries to migrate, relatively slowly, over many generations.
Incidentally, the opposite question (also common), as to whether the two kangaroos hopped all the way from Australia to the Ark, is also easily answered. Genesis 1:9 suggests that there may have been only one land-mass. ("Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.") For all we know, kangaroos might have been feeding within a stone's throw of Noah while he was building the Ark.
The Earth could have easily been one land mass prior to the flood. The Bible states that the waters of the deep exploded upward during the catastrophic event. The entire face of the Earth would have been altered and many seperate land masses could have easily appeared as the water receeded.
It may be asked, if creatures were migrating to Australia over a long time (which journey would have included such places as Indonesia, presumably) why do we not find their fossils en route in such countries? Fossilization is a rare event, requiring, as a rule, sudden burial to prevent decomposition. Fossils found today are a result of the sudden and destructive flood. Animals dying naturally are not fossilized. There must be a sudden rapid burial for fossilization to take place.
Lions lived in Palestine until relatively recent times. Not surprisingly, we don't find lion fossils in Palestine, yet this doesn't prevent us believing the many historical reports of their presence. The millions of bison that once roamed the United States of America have left virtually no fossils. So why should it be a surprise that small populations, presumably under migration pressure from competitors and/or predators, and thus living in only one area for a few generations at most, should leave no fossils?
There is a widespread, but mistaken, belief that marsupials are found only in Australia, thus supporting the idea that they must have evolved there. Live marsupials are found also in America, for instance, and fossil marsupials even in Europe. The recent discovery of a fossil platypus tooth in South America stunned the scientific community (New Scientist, August 24, 1991). Therefore, in evolutionary terms, since they are all believed to have come from a common ancestor, migration between Australia and other areas must have been possible.
We can see clearly that the animals final destination after the flood can easily be explained. No we do not have all of the answers and all of the facts, but we have a very reasonable explanation for the events after the flood.
