WT 15 Jan 1962
Questions From Readers
How can we account for animals in isolated lands when the Flood is said to have covered all the earth and the only land animals that survived were those in the ark?—P. G., England.
The presence of certain forms of animal life on Australia and New Zealand, for example, is no valid argument against the Bible account that all life on earth was wiped out in the Flood, except that of Noah and those with him in the ark. How might these animals have migrated from Mount Ararat, where the ark landed, to other continents and to islands? By means of land ridges. Oceanographic studies reported on by Dr. René Malaise and published in the Swedish geographical magazine, Ymer, tell of findings that indicate that there was once a “Mid-Atlantic Ridge,” crossing that ocean above the surface. (New York Times, September 23, 1956) It is possible that there were also other ridges, and animals could have migrated by means of these before such ridges sank below the surface of the ocean.
Nor is that the only possible explanation. Other oceanographic studies have turned up evidence that once there existed a huge South Pacific continent that took in Australia and many of the South Sea isles. If such was the case, then, of course, the animals had no difficulty in migrating to those lands.
This is, as usual, complete rubbish, as the time periods these researchers are talking about are millions of years before Noah.
Honesty has never been a strong point in the Watchtower.