[_ Old Earth _] Food for Noah's Animals

[Deep Thought]

I'm sure we've touch on this before, but not sure if it's been covered in detail.

Given that all life forms on earth were destroyed in the great flood, when the ark finally landed on dry land, how did all the animals survive?

It would have taken a very long time for all the vegetation to regenerate (presumably Noah stowed some seeds on board).

What about all the carnivorous animals? If they ate just one other animal, whoops, that species is extinct.

 

[Agricola]

Edit.. MEH just realized you said AFTER
Well Again the following applies, God hand was in it, saw to it animals bred a lot quicker, could be that God arranged things that the predators did not breed until there was enough of the other animals , Noah could well have had a few tons of meat onboard to feed the predators for a few months, we just dont know, but at end of day God was in control and it worked fine.

To start with you obviously have to beleive in God for the flood to work. God brought Noah all the animals for example, God told Noah to build the Ark, God sent the torrential flood which otherwise could not be possible

Therefore it is only logical to conclude that God "controlled" the animals, in that he kept them alive and did not give them so much of an apatite or any at all. I also think that Noah was inteliigent enough to keep preditors away from causing harm in a well secured stall. God would see to it anyway that animals wouldnt kill each other or die from hunger etc.

From a more pratical approach, The ark was huge, many calculations have shown that there was plenty of room left over even with a generous number of breeds and species, it is not hard therefore to image that plenty of meat was stored for the carnivores to eat.

Many animals do not need to eat every day anyway. Lions and other big cats will only eat a couple of times a week and can go with only food once a week. Lets say there are 20 big cats to feed, 6 weeks with a leg of say a sheep or goat per feed at twice a week, 240 legs of a sheep, if you hang these joints in strings of 3 or 4, suspended from celling thats only like 60 odd strings, not going to take that much room is it, you could store them by simply stacking on top of each other held in a couple of large crates, which would take up not much room, especially if you stacked them on top of each other. Same goes for all other types of foods. Its not really a problem or an issue that many people like to think exists to try and debunk the Ark.

 

[Deep Thought]

There's two main issues with your response:

1. The argument that "God's hand was in it" has no Biblical basis.

2. Looking at it from a scientific point of view (which Creationists try to do), the whole story is riddled with problems and a complete lack of evidence.

 

[Barbarian]

Lions need an average of about six kilograms of meat per day. Which is much more than a leg of a goat. So each lion and tiger would need perhaps 800 legs to get through a year. Other large cats could do with slightly less. Other large carnivors such as hyaenas, bears, wolves, and so on would also need similar amounts.

And given the tens of thousands of species of large mammals, the space on the Ark is inadequate by any standard. An ingenious attempt to solve this problem was prepared by John Woodmorappe, who theorized that only a few "kind" of animal were brought aboard the Ark, with all the rest appearing by superhyperevolution from those kinds in just a few thousand years.

The problems with that are obvious, but the problems of housing so many in such a small space are much greater. The Institute for Creation Research has endorsed Woodmorappe's idea.

In an e-mail conversation with me, he confirmed his idea that evolution proceded rapidly up to the level of new families, but no farther. That would solve the problem, except that observed evolution has never gone that fast.

 

[Deep Thought]

Even if there was enough meat on board the Ark, it would have putrefied well and truly before the ark landed.

I honestly don't know how Creationists can in all seriousness take the story of Noah's Ark as literal. The "explanations" they have to invent to explain it all away is breathtaking and frankly just plain amusing.

 

[lordkalvan]

....God hand was in it, saw to it animals bred a lot quicker, could be that God arranged things that the predators did not breed until there was enough of the other animals , Noah could well have had a few tons of meat onboard to feed the predators for a few months, we just dont know, but at end of day God was in control and it worked fine.

'God did it' isn't very much of an explanation, especially when it has no basis in terms of biblical support.

To start with you obviously have to beleive in God for the flood to work. God brought Noah all the animals for example, God told Noah to build the Ark, God sent the torrential flood which otherwise could not be possible

Therefore it is only logical to conclude that God "controlled" the animals, in that he kept them alive and did not give them so much of an apatite or any at all. I also think that Noah was inteliigent enough to keep preditors away from causing harm in a well secured stall. God would see to it anyway that animals wouldnt kill each other or die from hunger etc.

As the entire series of events from the building of the Ark, through the gathering of the animals, through the (assumed) suppressed appetites of the animals and their (assumed) reluctance to follow their natural instincts seem to be dependent on miracles from God, we are surely entitled to ask why God constructed a scenario requiring the Ark in the first place. God could have easily created a 'safe haven' for Noah, his family and all the required animals on land, protected against the effects of the Flood by God's power.

From a more pratical approach, The ark was huge, many calculations have shown that there was plenty of room left over even with a generous number of breeds and species, it is not hard therefore to image that plenty of meat was stored for the carnivores to eat.

I have never seen estimates for the Ark that don't make it larger than any wooden vessel ever built. There is a practical limit on the size of wooden vessels. The Ark as described far exceeds them. It was also unpowered. It would have been unseaworthy and unable to survive the Flood without miraculous intervention. You are also begging the question of how eight people could care for the many thousands of animals that, according to the logic-bending demands of creationist literalism, must have been present on the Ark. You can only invoke miracles again.

Many animals do not need to eat every day anyway. Lions and other big cats will only eat a couple of times a week and can go with only food once a week. Lets say there are 20 big cats to feed, 6 weeks with a leg of say a sheep or goat per feed at twice a week, 240 legs of a sheep, if you hang these joints in strings of 3 or 4, suspended from celling thats only like 60 odd strings, not going to take that much room is it, you could store them by simply stacking on top of each other held in a couple of large crates, which would take up not much room, especially if you stacked them on top of each other. Same goes for all other types of foods. Its not really a problem or an issue that many people like to think exists to try and debunk the Ark.

Why not invoke miraculous concentrated feed pellets? Your whole argument is devoid of an understanding of the practicalities of feeding and caring for animals on the scale required and of any meaningful analysis of their dietary requirements, the volume of food required, how it would be gathered, how it would be stored and how it would preserved. If you want to invoke miracles, fine, but you have no biblical support for those miracles and you must make them up wholesale in order for the story to make any sort of sense even to yourself.

It is far more probable that either the Flood story is a much exaggerated retelling of the events of a localized flood (see, for example, the investigations carried out by the British Museum and the University of Pennsylvania in Assyria in the 1920s that discovered some eight feet of flood-deposited clay around the ancient city of Ur) or else a moral allegory. As Christ used parables to illustrate his teachings, I do not see why anyone should have problems in understanding that the writers of the Old Testament might have used similar literary devices to illustrate their own.

 

[Agricola]

Oh dear silly me, I should have seen this is another atheist trap designed to waste my time. back to the old scenario again where if events like the flood and ark could be proved in a way that satisfies scientific analysis then athiests etc could all say, well it was just simply somthing that happened and is 100% possible without the intervention of God.

However becuase it does not fit in with science models and thinking then it is simply dismissed as a fantasy story. The key part of this is God, but you will not allow Christians to use God as a reason, so reject anything supernatural as a valid explination, which is very blinkered and narrow minded.

 

[lordkalvan]

Oh dear silly me, I should have seen this is another atheist trap designed to waste my time. back to the old scenario again where if events like the flood and ark could be proved in a way that satisfies scientific analysis then athiests etc could all say, well it was just simply somthing that happened and is 100% possible without the intervention of God.

However becuase it does not fit in with science models and thinking then it is simply dismissed as a fantasy story. The key part of this is God, but you will not allow Christians to use God as a reason, so reject anything supernatural as a valid explination, which is very blinkered and narrow minded.

You assume, without evidence, that I am an atheist.

It is only the creationist interpretation of Christianity that requires the story of Genesis to be literally true and, in order for it to be literally true, invokes a whole series of miracles that are not referred to in Genesis at all.

You put forward ideas that sought to rationalize the story of the Flood and justify it in terms of (a) the ability to feed carnivorous big cats on board the Ark by wholly natural means and (b) miraculous intervention by God to support all those aspects of the story which violate our hard-won understanding of how and why things work as they do. All I did was point out the weaknesses in and limitations of the naturalistic aspects of your explanation and the ex facto miraculous interventions required to support the parts of the tale that even you regard as not susceptible of a naturalistic explanation, miraculous interventions that are wholly unsupported by anything in Genesis.

It is possible to be a Christian and look on the Old Testament as moral allegory and an explanation tailored to the understanding of peoples whose knowledge of the workings of the natural world was far less than ours. It is creationists who appear to want to have their cake and eat it too, calling on naturalistic explanations where they think they can get away with them and supernatural explanations where even they can see the absurdity of seeking naturalistic ones.

 

[KenEOTE]

Actually. Lets think. It only takes a couple days for vegitation to begin to grow. The Ark landed on teh mountain. They didn't get off right then it was weeks later things started to grow. Rats and rabbits reproduce quickly. In just a few weeks. So it wouldn't take that long.

 

[KenEOTE]

It is possible to be a Christian and look on the Old Testament as moral allegory and an explanation tailored to the understanding of peoples whose knowledge of the workings of the natural world was far less than ours.

My question is then. What parts are allegory and what parts are true? As a Jewish man Jesus would have believed in creation as it was taught in the Torah, so then perhaps he was not really God, cause God would have known how it all went down. Or perhaps the whole story of Christ is an allegory. He may night have existed at all, then what we have is teachings to better ourlives. Which is fine, but then you are no longer a Christian, becaue at some point a Christian has to have faith in Christ, but how do we know whether or not the whole Bible is not just some sort of Allegory written by men to better society?

 

[Deep Thought]

Actually. Lets think. It only takes a couple days for vegitation to begin to grow. The Ark landed on teh mountain. They didn't get off right then it was weeks later things started to grow. Rats and rabbits reproduce quickly. In just a few weeks. So it wouldn't take that long.

I know of no forests that can grow in a couple of days. There are so many animals that require trees exclusively for their food and shelter. Remember that a lot of animals rely on the flowers and fruits of trees.

I could go on and on and on.

My point is, why try to desperately hang on to something that isn't supported scientifically *or* biblically?

 

[lordkalvan]

My question is then. What parts are allegory and what parts are true? As a Jewish man Jesus would have believed in creation as it was taught in the Torah, so then perhaps he was not really God, cause God would have known how it all went down. Or perhaps the whole story of Christ is an allegory. He may night have existed at all, then what we have is teachings to better ourlives. Which is fine, but then you are no longer a Christian, becaue at some point a Christian has to have faith in Christ, but how do we know whether or not the whole Bible is not just some sort of Allegory written by men to better society?

And the short answer is, we don't. We can only use our intelligence and ability to reason to illuminate our understanding.

If you believe in God then we were given intelligence and reason by God for a purpose. To suppose that God would expect us to use that intelligence and reason in any way but to understand the world and universe we inhabit according to the 'rules' that we observe seems perverse.

The 'rules' of physics, of geology, of biology, of cosmology, of all the sciences, the study of archaeology, all these disciplines lead us to conclude that the Earth and the Universe are old, and that the Bible is not inerrant and so cannot be the literal word of God. This is not surprising because the Bible is the result of imperfection, of humanity struggling to interpret divine revelation in a way that made sense three thousand years ago. Those who wrote the gospels suffered from similar limitations.

Whether Christ existed or not is certainly debatable as there is no definitive evidence one way or the other; this is not to say that the message of Christ is meaningless or irrelevant, nor does it deny that the personalization of Christ and Christ's teachings were given to humanity divinely. Again, divine revelation can take many forms. Religions are the results of humanity's attempts to understand this divine revelation; it would be strange indeed if God allowed us only one grimy window through which to peer in our efforts to do this and refused to give us even the wherewithal to clean that window to improve the view. The claims of any religion or any sect within a religion to have found the one true path to God and salvation are ultimately self-defeating and the product of human corruption and arrogance.

 

[Free]

and that the Bible is not inerrant and so cannot be the literal word of God.

Actually, I think it leads to the opposite but it depends on what you mean by inerrant.

Whether Christ existed or not is certainly debatable as there is no definitive evidence one way or the other;

Most scholars, whether Christian or not, tend to agree that Jesus existed. The debate is whether what the Bible says about him is true or not.

The claims of any religion or any sect within a religion to have found the one true path to God and salvation are ultimately self-defeating and the product of human corruption and arrogance.

Actually, it is the claim that all religions lead to God that is self-defeating. The majority of religions, if not all of them, are contradictory at the core of their beliefs. Therefore, as reason would suggest, they cannot all be true. It is possible that one is true or that none are true, but it is impossible that all are true. That one religion would have the true path to God makes more sense if God has truly revealed himself and I fail to see how it would be arrogant to claim such.

 

[KenEOTE]

Whether Christ existed or not is certainly debatable as there is no definitive evidence one way or the other; this is not to say that the message of Christ is meaningless or irrelevant, nor does it deny that the personalization of Christ and Christ's teachings were given to humanity divinely.

How can Christ be personal if he didn't exist? Also if all is allegory how can we be certain that they were given divinely? Perhaps God is allegory as well. Created by man to explain what he could not explain. Perhaps man knew if he didn't have a "god" that it would lead to chaos because there would be no absolutes.

That then baits the question of God giving us the ability to reason. What is true reason? What is truth? If you are basis for truth is in Biblical teaching and yet claim it is allegory how is that truth? I just don't see how you can choose which parts are allegory and which are not. How do you define which things are giving divinely and which are man made?

How could you also claim to be a "Christian" and yet say that whether Christ existed or not is debatable? If you can't be sure of even that how can you be sure of an afterlife and of your faith? What is your faith based on?

 

[Deep Thought]

Can we return to the topic of this thread.

Are there any Creationists out there who are willing to give a Biblical and/or scientific answer to the question?

 

[KenEOTE]

OK I have a question for you what animals can only require trees for food. Also they would have had the Ark there as a shelter for a while. We also have to think that the animals Noah took were very young not full grown at the time they entered the ark. The other thing one would have to come to terms with is that if God went to great lengths to tell Noah how to build the Ark, brought the animals and then flooded the whole earth. He would have probably also informed Noah how much food to bring and what good to bring. He was very detailed in which animals to bring 2 of and which ones to bring 7 of. That is of course if you believe in God. If you don't then no argument will actually satisfy you. Also if the story is all allegory what does it matter anyway?

Also the fact that all cultures have a story concerning a world wide flood and a family being saved because of a large boat filled with animals, lends one to believe perhaps it was based off of a true story.

Did you also know that the oldest known desert in the world is approx. 4000 years old. Which if you do the biblical math would have started after the Flood. A little Trivia.

 

[lordkalvan]

Actually, I think it leads to the opposite but it depends on what you mean by inerrant.

Why do you conclude that it leads to the opposite? As Deep Thought observes a few posts down, however, we have moved away from the OP. Perhaps these posts should be moved to another thread by the mods? As to what I understand by an inerrant Bible:

Biblical inerrancy is the conservative evangelical doctrinal position that in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction; "referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts." Inerrancy is distinguished from Biblical infallibility (or limited inerrancy), which holds that the Bible is inerrant on issues of faith and practice but not history or science.

From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy.

Most scholars, whether Christian or not, tend to agree that Jesus existed. The debate is whether what the Bible says about him is true or not.

And many scholars have and do hold differing opinions: Bruno Bauer, John M. Robertson, G.A. Wells, Michael Martin and Earl Doherty to name some. This suggests that the matter is by no means settled. I agree that the accuracy of the Bible on the life of Christ is also debatable.

....it is the claim that all religions lead to God that is self-defeating. The majority of religions, if not all of them, are contradictory at the core of their beliefs. Therefore, as reason would suggest, they cannot all be true. It is possible that one is true or that none are true, but it is impossible that all are true. That one religion would have the true path to God makes more sense if God has truly revealed himself and I fail to see how it would be arrogant to claim such.

Is truth absolute or are there shades of truth? You seem to be implying both: all religions are contradictory, but one religion has the true path. Why must this be so? Why would God reveal himself to one group rather than another? Why would one human interpretation of divine revelation be more (or less) likely to be true? What are the consequences of there being but one 'true' religion? I thought there were many rooms in the mansion of God?

 

[lordkalvan]

How can Christ be personal if he didn't exist?....

I am happy to continue this discussion on another thread as Deep Thought suggests. If the mods move the relevant posts, perhaps we can continue this discussion there?

 

[Deep Thought]

OK I have a question for you what animals can only require trees for food.

There's quite a few, but perhaps the most well known (and causes even more problems for the Ark myth) is the Koala.

Also they would have had the Ark there as a shelter for a while. We also have to think that the animals Noah took were very young not full grown at the time they entered the ark. The other thing one would have to come to terms with is that if God went to great lengths to tell Noah how to build the Ark, brought the animals and then flooded the whole earth. He would have probably also informed Noah how much food to bring and what good to bring.

There is no biblical information to back up your theories.

He was very detailed in which animals to bring 2 of and which ones to bring 7 of. That is of course if you believe in God. If you don't then no argument will actually satisfy you.

Your definition of "very detailed" certainly isn't the same as mine. The Bible is very vague as to what types of animals were on the Ark. It certainly doesn't mention animals not know to people in the middle east like polar bears, penguins, kangaroos etc.

Also if the story is all allegory what does it matter anyway?

Because Creationists are trying to teach this myth as science in schools.

Also the fact that all cultures have a story concerning a world wide flood and a family being saved because of a large boat filled with animals, lends one to believe perhaps it was based off of a true story.

Not all cultures have flood myths, but it is true that a large number do. This is not surprising since most cultures developed around rivers and deltas, so flooding was quite common.

Note that many of the flood myths don't include an ark with animals. They are many and various.

Once you delve into a bit of history, you'll soon learn that Christianity has borrowed myths and customs from many other earlier religions and cultures.

Pre-dating Noah's story are:

Sumerian:

The gods had decided to destroy mankind. The god Enlil warned the priest-king Ziusudra ("Long of Life") of the coming flood by speaking to a wall while Ziusudra listened at the side. He was instructed to build a great ship and carry beasts and birds upon it. Violent winds came, and a flood of rain covered the earth for seven days and nights. Then Ziusudra opened a window in the large boat, allowing sunlight to enter, and he prostrated himself before the sun-god Utu. After landing, he sacrificed a sheep and an ox and bowed before Anu and Enlil. For protecting the animals and the seed of mankind, he was granted eternal life and taken to the country of Dilmun, where the sun rises.

Babylonian:

Three times (every 1200 years), the gods were distressed by the disturbance from human overpopulation. The gods dealt with the problem first by plague, then by famine. Both times, the god Enki advised men to bribe the god causing the problem. The third time, Enlil advised the gods to destroy all humans with a flood, but Enki had Atrahasis build an ark and so escape. Also on the boat were cattle, wild animals and birds, and Atrahasis' family. When the storm came, Atrahasis sealed the door with bitumen and cut the boat's rope. The storm god Adad raged, turning the day black. After the seven-day flood, the gods regretted their action. Atrahasis made an offering to them, at which the gods gathered like flies, and Enki established barren women and stillbirth to avoid the problem in the future.

Assyrian:

The gods, led by Enlil, agreed to cleanse the earth of an overpopulated humanity, but Utnapishtim was warned by the god Ea in a dream. He and some craftsmen built a large boat (one acre in area, seven decks) in a week. He then loaded it with his family, the craftsmen, and "the seed of all living creatures." The waters of the abyss rose up, and it stormed for six days. Even the gods were frightened by the flood's fury. Upon seeing all the people killed, the gods repented and wept. The waters covered everything but the top of the mountain Nisur, where the boat landed. Seven days later, Utnapishtim released a dove, but it returned finding nowhere else to land. He next returned a sparrow, which also returned, and then a raven, which did not return. Thus he knew the waters had receded enough for the people to emerge. Utnapishtim made a sacrifice to the gods. He and his wife were given immortality and lived at the end of the earth.

Did you also know that the oldest known desert in the world is approx. 4000 years old. Which if you do the biblical math would have started after the Flood. A little Trivia.

A little trivia that is incorrect.

The oldest desert in the world is the Namib Desert which borders modern day Namibia and Angola. It has been arid and semi-arid for around the last 55 million years.

The Atacama Desert is around 20 million years old, so that also blows your 4000 year old figure out of the water (pun intended)

 

[lordkalvan]

....We also have to think that the animals Noah took were very young not full grown at the time they entered the ark.

Why do you think this? Is this because it is the only way the biblical story makes 'sense' to you?

The other thing one would have to come to terms with is that if God went to great lengths to tell Noah how to build the Ark, brought the animals and then flooded the whole earth. He would have probably also informed Noah how much food to bring and what good to bring.

Which makes the logistics of the Ark even more difficult to reconcile. How many animals are you proposing aboard the Ark? How much food are you proposing they needed for the period on board the Ark? How much food are you proposing they needed in the post-Flood period? How are you proposing this food was gathered and preserved? How much work would have been involved in this process? How much work would have been involved in loading it aboard the Ark? How much work would have been involved in distributing it to the animals on board the Ark?

He was very detailed in which animals to bring 2 of and which ones to bring 7 of.

In my opinion Genesis 7 seems confused and garbled when it discusses this:

7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
....
7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth.
7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
....
7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Two, seven or fourteen? Which was which? This is not 'very detailed'.

Also the fact that all cultures have a story concerning a world wide flood and a family being saved because of a large boat filled with animals, lends one to believe perhaps it was based off of a true story.

No, all cultures do not have such a tale. Many cultures do, but even within those cultures the tales vary significantly. Also, can you think of any reasons unrelated to the biblical tale why many cultures would have such legends and stories about floods?

Did you also know that the oldest known desert in the world is approx. 4000 years old. Which if you do the biblical math would have started after the Flood. A little Trivia.

This is simply not true:

The Namib Desert....is considered one of the oldest deserts in the world, having endured arid or semi-arid conditions for at least 55 million years....

From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namib_Desert.