I've heard that something like 40% of the American public takes the story of Noah literally. My question is, to say nothing of the feasibility of everything else, if the story is true, then why are the marsupials almost all grouped in Australia? If all animals supposedly left from the ark on Mt. Ararat, did ALL of the marsupials just decide to get up and walk on down to Australia? Why didn't they choose to stop anywhere else like India along the way or instead just journey up into Europe? Why did all the penguins decide to take on the long waddle south instead of just journeying up north?
Also, if all the animals left from the ark, you'd expect to find the most animal diversity in one location (the location where the ark landed), like an epicenter of animal diversity, than as opposed to another area further away from the ark. Obviously, this isn't what we see at all in nature.
My ultimate question is, how does someone who believes in the literal interpretation of the story deal with these questions? Just HIGHLY curious of the responses. Thanks!
Also, if all the animals left from the ark, you'd expect to find the most animal diversity in one location (the location where the ark landed), like an epicenter of animal diversity, than as opposed to another area further away from the ark. Obviously, this isn't what we see at all in nature.
My ultimate question is, how does someone who believes in the literal interpretation of the story deal with these questions? Just HIGHLY curious of the responses. Thanks!