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

[KenEOTE]

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)

Interesting. So who dated them? I mena did someone put a sign up 55 Million Years ago? WHo gave you those figures? Or were you there? I am always curious when people throw out large numbers.

Also the thing about

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

How is the Koala a problem for the Ark?

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

No that is just common sense. I mean You have an Ark you want to get as many on as you can you are not going to out and find the biggest animals. In college didn't you ever try to pack a bunch of people into a small place? Did you go find the biggest people or the smallest people?

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?

Well we do know that it took Noah and his sons a while to build it. It was not a weekend job. It was approx. 120 years to get ready.

This will actually be my last post in this one, because I don't care what the animals ate.
Of course you can think you won, whatever you wish, I am not so prideful that I have to go on and on about something. I do know we can argue these theories till death and it will not change your mind and you will not change my mind. It was fun though. I enjoyed the banter.

 

[lordkalvan]

.......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)

Interesting. So who dated them? I mena did someone put a sign up 55 Million Years ago? WHo gave you those figures? Or were you there? I am always curious when people throw out large numbers.

You were quite happy to put forward a date for the 'oldest' desert that matched your preferred timescale. What was the basis for this date? How was it calculated? Did someone put a sign up for you? Were you there? In terms of a human lifetime, 4,000 years is just as remote at 55 million. I am always curious when people accept one date that matches their worldview, but reject others because they don't.

Also the thing aabout

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

How is the Koala a problem for the Ark?

I'm sure Deep Thought will tell you why as well, but a little research will quickly inform you as to the strictly limited diet of the koala. And the giant panda, for that matter.

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

No that is just common sense. I mean You have an Ark you want to get as many on as you can you are not going to out and find the biggest animals. In college didn't you ever try to pack a bunch of people into a small place? Did you go find the biggest people or the smallest people?

Your argument lacks either supporting evidence or much thought. How long does it take juvenile animals to mature? How soon can juvenile animals be removed from their parents? What special dietary requirements might juvenile animals have that mature ones wouldn't?

Well we do know that it took Noah and his sons a while to build it. It was not a weekend job. It was approx. 120 years to get ready.

I can find no biblical justification for this timescale. As far as I can see the Bible is entirely silent on how long it took to build the Ark. Can you supply a reference?

This will actually be my last post in this one, because I don't care what the animals ate.
Of course you can think you won, whatever you wish, I am not so prideful that I have to go on and on about something. I do know we can argue these theories till death and it will not change your mind and you will not change my mind. It was fun though. I enjoyed the banter.

I see. So you prefer handwaving, assertion and rhetoric to analysis and considered argument, I can assure you that my mind is entirely open to persuasive argument based on evidence; yours appears to be made up already.

 

[KenEOTE]

Here is a site that has some points to look at about the Ark.

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=77

Now I am waving. Sorry I lied before in saying that was my last post. Enjoy the read.

 

[Deep Thought]

This will actually be my last post in this one, because I don't care what the animals ate.
Of course you can think you won, whatever you wish, I am not so prideful that I have to go on and on about something. I do know we can argue these theories till death and it will not change your mind and you will not change my mind. It was fun though. I enjoyed the banter.

I find that a very disappointing attitude to have. I don't think it has anything to do with pride and more to do with protecting your belief systems that have obvious flaws. If you were really honest with yourself, you would have to accept that the flood Myth is just that - a myth.

As for Kent Hovind's article, it's the usual list of false assumptions and wild speculation. Note the number of times the article says "may have".

Let's see if our resident Creationists, Bob and John have anything new to add.

 

[freeway]

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?

this is a question that unbelievers will alway disagree with no matter what the answers are form a creationist or Christian would be... but what did they eat?, why is it so hard to think that God did not provide for them all. After all was it not God that brought them to the ark, was is not God that closed the door, was it not God that caused the rain to fall for the first time, and the flood gates to open.. God could and have made plants grow, flowers bloom way beyond there normal speed. Take Jonah where God causes a plant to grow to give him shade form the heat, and then took it away by the use of a worm... I don't see the problem with the animals being able to eat..Could not an all powerful God take care of this simple task.. Could it be that we will never know all things that God has done and have to just rely of faith that it was taken care of by Him.. maybe they where all babies? but one thing for sure, God took care of them to further his creation and even save man who has come so far just to say God did not and could not do it........... simple.. 8-)

Jonah 4:6

 

[Deep Thought]

OK, so we've discounted any scientific evidence/reasoning for Noah's flood/Ark, so that just we are just left with the Biblical explanation.

Please note that the majority of Christians see what the story of Noah really is - a myth/allegory/fable (take your pick).

The problem in your reasoning that "God-did-it" is that it isn't supported by the Bible and is only any issue if you try to interpret the story of Noah literally.

 

[KenEOTE]

As for Kent Hovind's article, it's the usual list of false assumptions and wild speculation. Note the number of times the article says "may have".

Ok I wasn't going to come back but had to say one thing.

You allow evolutionist to say it may have been this way or may have been that way all the time. They have wild speculation as well. But a creationist can't say may have? Why the double standard? Is not the part of a scientist to speculate and to theorize and then test it?

I am not afraid of you questioning my beliefs. I was not scared away. I have a family and I have work and I don't have time for all the threads. I realized there are more important things in this world than trying to figure out what animals ate on the ark and when they got off the ark. I am not sure what the value is in figuring that out. If we did know what they ate how is that going to help our world today?

So what if some of us choose to believe the Biblical account of creation, what harm does it do you? It inspires us to realize we have a purpose and a God who created us. If we are all just an accident there is no value in human life, it is here for a bit then gone. There is no purpose to it.

 

[DavidLee]

I'll just pop my head in here for a moment (I know I'll be sorry).

OK, so we've discounted any scientific evidence/reasoning for Noah's flood/Ark, so that just we are just left with the Biblical explanation.

We have discounted nothing. You have discounted. The biblical explanation is enough for me. It is obviously not enough for you.

Please note that the majority of Christians see what the story of Noah really is - a myth/allegory/fable (take your pick).

That may be true with respect to your circle of friends, but not in mine. Please don't read the lack of responses here as anything other than a lack of interested readers. Take me for instance. I read most of the threads, but I won't post unless I think I can add something constructive to the discussion. You're just looking for something to do. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope so.

The problem in your reasoning that "God-did-it" is that it isn't supported by the Bible and is only any issue if you try to interpret the story of Noah literally.

We will not be able to come to an agreement about this topic since you seem bent on proving the bible wrong. Please get in line with the others.

 

[freeway]

"Deep Thought"]OK, so we've discounted any scientific evidence/reasoning for Noah's flood/Ark, so that just we are just left with the Biblical explanation.

You mean like, you'd like an interview with Noah, or his family.. not goin to happen of course... Second.. "left with just the bible" well it may not be anything to you or just a bunch of words that make up a story... Well for me its the most, most important book or I should say books ever collected together to form one book, that ever will be written.. in this book is the secret to creation of the universe, the Creator of said universe, and the way to eternal life... and you want me to just pass it off as "some book"..............get a life

Please note that the majority of Christians see what the story of Noah really is - a myth/allegory/fable (take your pick).

majority.... yea......ok.... you've been talkin to the wrong group again.. wait, tomorrow they'll change their minds again.. no big thing for them.... come to my church and ask them, and see what answer you get....

The problem in your reasoning that "God-did-it" is that it isn't supported by the Bible and is only any issue if you try to interpret the story of Noah literally.

You bet I take the bible literally.. with special attention of certain words or phases, you know Jesus is the doorway...things of that nature....let me see.... "isn't supported by the bible"... umh seems to be in the bible that is enough support for me. Man your reasoning is beyond me........... oh and last thing..........GOD DID IT... 8-) 8-) 8-)

 

[jmm9683]

OK, so far we have nobody that can support their views either scientifically or Biblically. Anyone else want to put up some evidence? If not then I don't really see the point of this thread continuing.

P.S. freeway, most Christians don't take the view that everything in the Bible is literal. You are in the minority as much as that may surprise you.

 

[freeway]

OK, so far we have nobody that can support their views either scientifically or Biblically. Anyone else want to put up some evidence? If not then I don't really see the point of this thread continuing.

P.S. freeway, most Christians don't take the view that everything in the Bible is literal. You are in the minority as much as that may surprise you.

yea thats what I like a atheist telling me how to interpret the bible..........deep... support let me see.........The Bible..........wow that took a lot of hard digging, hours on hours of contemplating weighing all the facts to come up with that.. thanks jmm.. you made me work for that one.. :-D 8-) btw... you can't prove it didn't happen that way.. now can you!!!


PS jmm9683.... you can't prove to me where we came from either... go figure.. nuff said...

 

[jmm9683]

OK, so far we have nobody that can support their views either scientifically or Biblically. Anyone else want to put up some evidence? If not then I don't really see the point of this thread continuing.

P.S. freeway, most Christians don't take the view that everything in the Bible is literal. You are in the minority as much as that may surprise you.

yea thats what I like a atheist telling me how to interpret the bible..........deep... support let me see.........The Bible..........wow that took a lot of hard digging, hours on hours of contemplating weighing all the facts to come up with that.. thanks jmm.. you made me work for that one.. :-D 8-) btw... you can't prove it didn't happen that way.. now can you!!!


PS jmm9683.... you can't prove to me where we came from either... go figure.. nuff said...

You don't have to listen to me how to interpret the Bible, most Christians don't believe the Bible is literally true. And the burden of proof is on you, creationists always seem to forget what that is. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist, or ghosts, or aliens. But it doesn't change the fact that you avoided the topic because you have no evidence either scientifically or through scripture that support the rationalizations fundamentalists make for a literal interpretation.

 

[lordkalvan]

I have no problem with creationists or anyone else interpreting the Bible however they want to, even to the extent of claiming it supports a young Earth, a global Flood, patriarchs with lifespans in the several hundreds of years and everything else that belongs in the realm of myth and fable.

I don't even mind creationists resorting to the 'God did it' argument when logic and rationality fail them and even they can see that without 'God did it' the imagined reality that is central to their beliefs comes tumbling around their ears.

What I do have a problem with is proposals to place these wholly untestable and unfalsifiable ideas on anything like an equal footing with the hard won knowledge that leads us to a better understanding of how the Universe works and our place within it.

What I do have a problem with is creationists cherry-picking those bits of knowledge that seem to support their arguments and dismissing those bits that seem to undermine it with the 'God did it' argument.

What I do have a problem with is any attempts to impose theologically-derived rules on how understanding can be pursued.

The Bible - and particularly the Old Testament - is clearly a product of its time and sits in the context of the limited understanding of those by and for whom it was written. It may indeed contain divine revelation, but that divine revelation was written down by imperfect people with imperfect understanding, struggling to make sense of something within the limits of their own experience and knowledge. That experience and knowledge was very different from what it is now. The Old Testament demonstrably and unsurprisingly contains inaccuracies, errors and contradictions. The scientific evidence for the antiquity of the Universe, Earth and life is overwhelming. If God exists and if God has given us intelligence and reasoning for any purpose at all, it must at the very least encompass allowing us to understand more fully the true glory of God's creation and our place within it: E pur si muove.

 

[Deep Thought]

As for Kent Hovind's article, it's the usual list of false assumptions and wild speculation. Note the number of times the article says "may have".

Ok I wasn't going to come back but had to say one thing.

You allow evolutionist to say it may have been this way or may have been that way all the time. They have wild speculation as well. But a creationist can't say may have? Why the double standard? Is not the part of a scientist to speculate and to theorize and then test it?

There's no double standard. I suspect you don't understand what evolution really is and how the scientific process actually works.

I am not afraid of you questioning my beliefs. I was not scared away. I have a family and I have work and I don't have time for all the threads. I realized there are more important things in this world than trying to figure out what animals ate on the ark and when they got off the ark. I am not sure what the value is in figuring that out. If we did know what they ate how is that going to help our world today?

It would give some small element of validity of the literal interpretation of Noah's Ark.

So what if some of us choose to believe the Biblical account of creation, what harm does it do you?

As explained twice already, the harm is that Creationists want to teach these stories as science.

It inspires us to realize we have a purpose and a God who created us. If we are all just an accident there is no value in human life, it is here for a bit then gone. There is no purpose to it.

There is great purpose in life without a God. I'd argue that life is much more precious and worthwhile when you realise you have just one life in this universe.

 

[Orion]

You know, while reading this thread, Deap Thought and lordkalvan have not been unreasonable in their arguments and have stated them in a well thought out manner. What I find interesting is that their words and arguments are systematically ignored, favored by the "God did it" whenever something doesn't make sense.

The supposed reason for the flood is that "all men continually thought evil in their hearts". Why the need for such an extravegant method of their destruction? The animals, trees, and topography of the planet are seperate from "the sin of men". If it were "the humans who constantly thought evil in their hearts" which was the problem that God found on his planet, then it would have been no problem for "God did it", by each one of them dropping dead where they stood. The animals definitely weren't thinking evil all the time, and certainly the young children and babies weren't, so . . . . . .

That makes me wonder about the possibility of a catastrophic flood event happening, like the one being suggested at the Black Sea part of the world, due to the breaking down of a natural "dam" causing a once fertil flood plane to be innundated by huge amounts of water, making it appear to those inhabitants as if the whole earth was being affected. As the story was told through the generations, someone, trying to figure out why it happened, and only having the notion that "a god must have been angry" as their only reason, it eventually found its way into various cultures and religions, including the ancient Hebrews, . . . . just spun differently.

This doesn't mean that any specific god . . . or God. . . . is fiction. I am of the agreement that early religious texts were written in an attempt to understand that which they had no way of knowing (in terms of how the natural universe works). Their error should not be religion! Dogma doesn't make a person more "holy" than others.

 

[freeway]

Orion said:
You know, while reading this thread, Deap Thought and lordkalvan have not been unreasonable in their arguments and have stated them in a well thought out manner. What I find interesting is that their words and arguments are systematically ignored, favored by the "God did it" whenever something doesn't make sense.

Orion and the others ... Please excuse me if I sound like I'm being unreasonable or ill mattered. but don't you suppose that we can't know what the animals ate.. maybe Noah while building that art for 120years grew grain for some animals to eat, where lions and tiger etc. meat eaters before the flood. it is thought not. or yes maybe all we can say is God took care of them.. after all they are here,, some anyway...so I think this kind of question just leads to more questions... and I for one don't have the answers.. sorry... but one last thing... I do know by reading the other post all throughout this forum, no matter what a creationist says... non creationist will argue against..

nuff said in this post for me.... freeway01 loooooooooooooooooooooooooooongg gone 8-) 8-)

 

[Orion]

I understand what you're saying, freeway, and if you have it set in your mind what you choose to believe, then be at peace with it. Why I, and other, comment on such things is for the purpose of showing why I can't embrace the traditions of the Christian church with no questions. My mind just isn't made that way (to just blindly accept the words written by men thousands of years ago as "from the mouth of God"). As I see it, dogma doesn't make a person more holy. God created me with the mind that I have. He must, therefore, have wanted me to have a questioning nature, and inquisitiveness that causes me to reject the status quo, especially if well thought out arguments arise against that status quo. I am not scared by such things in that, even these things do not necessarily automatically mean that "there is no God".

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Hint -- those who ask Bible questions should be interested in actually reading it.

According to "the text" about which you pretend to have interest --

Clean animals went in by "sevens" (sheep, goats, cows, deer .. etc)

Unclean animals (lions for example) went in by twos.

They were a year on the ark. In theory a few animals might have been born on the ark.

Noah does not open the door (if you notice the text) until a Dove returns with an olive leaf -- vegitation is growing and so the herbavores will have "food".

In Genesis 1 we are told that both man AND animals were initially created with a body plan for eating plants not other animals. So the Carnivor attributes had to be "added over time" -- who knows if they were added before the flood or after?

At any rate - All one had to do is read 4 chapters in Genesis to "get these details" but once you consider the word of God to be "unreliable" I suppose reading it becomes "optional".


Darwin certainly found that to be true.



Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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. .

And "Believe in the integrity of God's Word" --

BIG "IF" for the atheist, agnostic and atheist-darwinist-devotee group swarming this part of the discussion board.

Also note that even today WITHOUT the ark - we have animals going into a state of hybernation and some into semi-hybernation over periods of time where food is less available. Since God MADE them -- it is not unreasonable to conclude that He could have had them in a less-active state for that year on the ark.

But then again this is applying reason and common sense to a topic where one actually believes God is wiser and more capable than man.

Not something "everyone" on this thread would be willing to stipulate "in practice".

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Hint -- those who ask Bible questions should be interested in actually reading it.

According to "the text" about which you pretend to have interest --

Clean animals went in by "sevens" (sheep, goats, cows, deer .. etc)

Unclean animals (lions for example) went in by twos.

Are you sure?

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
.....
Gen 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.
Gen 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.
.....
Gen 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
Gen 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Seems to me you could make an equally case for 2 of everything, 2 of most things and 7 of some other things, or even perhaps 2 of some things and 14 of some other things.

They were a year on the ark. In theory a few animals might have been born on the ark.

Why only in theory? Were males and females penned separately? Did God miraculously prevent them breeding?

In Genesis 1 we are told that both man AND animals were initially created with a body plan for eating plants not other animals. So the Carnivor attributes had to be "added over time" -- who knows if they were added before the flood or after?

Is meat-eating specifically excluded by Genesis 1? When did felids becomes obligate carnivores? Unless you are suggesting T Rex survived the Flood, we know that it must have been an obligate carnivore before that event. What process do you suppose caused that change in behaviour and dietary requirements? If the change occurred in T Rex, it is reasonable to suppose it affected other animals that we now know to be carnivores. Do you imagine felids and T Rex, for example, were originally created with the dentistry that fits them for a meat-eating diet and the digestive system that compels them to be obligate carnivores or do you think that it evolved in some way in response to environmental changes? Evidence for your conclusions would be welcome. You seem to be treading on dangerous ground for someone who believes evolution is a fiction.