Mad Dawg: Well you are completely right! They could have come there in a variety of ways, lets see:
- brought to australia by a travelling circus ca. 100 mio years ago
- sailed to australia by ship 100 mio years ago
- sailed to australia by ship 5000 years ago
- put in australia by aliens
- the flying spaghettimonster made them in australia 3500 years ago out of boots and a raincoat
- a whale swallowed the animals, swam to australia and spat them onto the beach
- they momentarely developed wings, flew to australia and lost the wings again.
As i understand your idea involve a couple of the themes from above, most importantly number 1 but lets not get lost there - you are OFCOURSE right, they COULD have come to australia a gazillion different ways, evolution is just one of them.
Now this is out of the way lets move on, you wrote: "Let’s get real here if we took all the "it could be"/"it is possible to imagine" statements out of an evolution book, there would be precious little left. The reason you have trouble with total picture of creationism is that you have no idea what it is. I have seen precious little evidence that you understand creationist thought. And yet, evos constantly whine about creationists not understanding what evolution is. " ... " If you have a question, ask."
That i will do :-). How would you, if not by evolution, explain the distribution of animals in australia today and in the past? Please give details, i love details! try to put years on it, provide evidence, etc. For example: Which animals existed in australia before and after the flood? Where was australia located relative to the other tectonic plates before the flood?
After you are done, try to give a couple of nontrivial predictions of your hypothesis. I mean, all of the things i mentioned above COULD have happened, they just offer very little predictive power.
you know, my picture of creationism is that creationists never ever try to give a coherent picture of anything, because if they did that 2 things would be clear: They dont make any quantitative predictions about the world and they dont offer a coherent worldview, just a lot of "iffs". Lets see if i am right on that one.