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

[BobRyan]

OK, so far we have nobody that can support their views either scientifically or Biblically.

Ok -- so far Jim still has not been able to make a single point - on "any topic" much less this one.

Jim - making "non-substantive" comment after vaccuous non-subtantive comment may seem like a good way to carry your argument forward -- but it is not working as well as you might be imagining.

Step 1. IF the OP "is to be believed" sincere then the DOCUMENT it is referencing must be "READ" instead of simply bantered about and ignored.

It is amazing how often this simple logical exercise appears to be "confusing" to those who have embraced what Patterson refers to as the "anti-knowledge" of Darwinism.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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?

Am I sure the text says this?

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.

Seems to me you could make an equally case for 2 of everything

Only by ignoring Gen 7:2-3. As it turns out -- I don't do that.

so in answer to the question "what would the carnivores eat" -- we have an obvious solution "FROM the text".

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?

Again the answer is obvious.

The text says the animals went in by twos and by sevens depending on their kinds the text also says that Noah took food for the animals and the people. What we don't know is whether animals on the ark went into a state of hybernation or semi-hybernation for that year as many of them do in normal life when food is scarce. If they did -- it is likely that many of them did not breed during that period.

When you are guessing about details "not evident in the text" -- it remains " a guess in theory".

So again - just stating the obvious.

Bob said
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 Carnivore 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?

Again - it is helpful to "Read the text".

Gen 1
23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 Then God said, ""Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind''; and it was so.
25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, ""Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.''
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "" Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.''
29 Then God said, ""Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;
30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food''; and it was so.
31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day

The point remains "from the text".

Unless you are suggesting T Rex survived the Flood, we know that it must have been an obligate carnivore before that event.

I don't even know that T-Rex made the ark. Again - difficult to speculate on what is not in the text.

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.

True - certainly lions would have started out as God specifies in Gen 1 -- eating plant food and would have then "changed" to eat flesh food "at some point".

In Gen 3 we see a "curse" added and plant life is changed to include thorns and thistles "according to the text".

Gen 3
17 Then to Adam He said, ""Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, "You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.
18 ""Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field;

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?

Imagining is not the point - the text says the animals that God created were eating plants.

I am simply answering the OP question ABOUt the text FROM the text.

Lot's of "imagining"and "story telling' may also be added - but is not as useful even though a "lucky guess" could turn out to be correct.

It is one thing to claim that you do not agree with the text -- it is another not to even know what it says and the difference between a wild guess outside of the text - vs a direct honest rendering of the text itself within the parameters of valid exegesis.

Bob

 

[Deep Thought]

Bob, you are under the false assumption that I (and many other Atheists) haven't read the Bible. I have read the Bible (although not recently), which is more than I can say for a lot of Christians and our resident Creationists.

There are quite a few Christians who become Atheists after thoroughly reading the Bible and realising that it is full of contradictions and errors.

Back to topic now.

Bob (or anyone else). How do you propose that an olive tree grew without invoking the magical hand of God?

Do you agree that no part of Noah's Ark story can be considered scientific?

 

[KenEOTE]

Well the how about that they were in the Ark for a long time over a year the water would have started to drain over time. it only rained for 40 days. Then it stopped so after those 40 days the water started to go down. Eventually growth began. it never said a full tree grew. I have grown Avocado trees in less than a month they had branches and leaves. I am not sure about Olive trees. But you are you making the assumption that it was a full grown tree?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, you are under the false assumption that I (and many other Atheists) haven't read the Bible.

I am more than happy to see atheist posting cogent well-read well-informed positions regarding the actual text of the Bible when they ask questions ABOUT the Bible.

I have read the Bible (although not recently), which is more than I can say for a lot of Christians and our resident Creationists.

If I left you with the impression that I look to you to tell me how much of the Bible - Bible-believing Christians are reading - then let me clear this up for you - I am not looking to you as someone who has something to say on that point.

There are quite a few Christians who become Atheists after thoroughly reading the Bible and realising that it is full of contradictions and errors.

Indeed Darwin did that very thing comparing what he saw actually IN the bible vs the myths and story telling that he was engaged in -- he saw clearly that they were not compatible and so left Christianity declaring his "disbelief" to be at last "total and complete".

DT
Bob (or anyone else). How do you propose that an olive tree grew without invoking the magical hand of God?

DT -- what part of "GOD caused the FLOOD, GOD closed the door of the ark GOD opened the door of the ark.. Noah offerred sacrifices to GOD" in Gen 6-9 leads you to believe that Christians DO NOT consider that GOD would be involved in saving mankind and the animals?

Your question makes no sense at all.

Do you agree that no part of Noah's Ark story can be considered scientific?

NO part of the flood story can be considered ATHEIST.

NO part of the flood story can be considered "Man did it on his own" OR "this is just a local flood -- nothing unnusual here".

IF you are arguing that "Science should not be ABLE TO DETECT a global flood taking place 4500 years ago" then your argument is just silly - right from the start.

Bob

 

[jmm9683]

OK, so far we have nobody that can support their views either scientifically or Biblically.

Ok -- so far Jim still has not been able to make a single point - on "any topic" much less this one.

Jim - making "non-substantive" comment after vaccuous non-subtantive comment may seem like a good way to carry your argument forward -- but it is not working as well as you might be imagining.

Step 1. IF the OP "is to be believed" sincere then the DOCUMENT it is referencing must be "READ" instead of simply bantered about and ignored.

It is amazing how often this simple logical exercise appears to be "confusing" to those who have embraced what Patterson refers to as the "anti-knowledge" of Darwinism.

Bob

Bob you're an idiot. Stop quote mining and then maybe I'll take you seriously.

 

[BobRyan]

Substance Jim - your constant resort to low-brow vaccuous factless posts is not as compelling a form of argument as you seem to imagine.

Try something that has substance, fact, merit and is to the point of the topic at hand. Try to be convincing. Try to put together a cogent compelling thought first -- then post.

I can only help you so far here -- at some point you have to be interesting in getting yourself out of that rant-first think-second hole you are digging.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ok - maybe Jim does not need to have that instructive advice - twice!! ;-)

 

[jmm9683]

Substance Jim - your constant resort to low-brow vaccuous factless posts is not as compelling a form of argument as you seem to imagine.

Try something that has substance, fact, merit and is to the point of the topic at hand. Try to be convincing. Try to put together a cogent compelling thought first -- then post.

I can only help you so far here -- at some point you have to be interesting in getting yourself out of that rant-first think-second hole you are digging.

Bob

This is coming from someone that constantly spams the board with the same quote mines, uses loaded language like "atheist darwin high priests", and thinks there is a world-wide conspiracy to hide the "truth" aka ID. You are a joke.

The only responses to the scientific inconsistencies of this story is that God must have did it this way or that way without showing evidence for it.

 

[Deep Thought]

Do you agree that no part of Noah's Ark story can be considered scientific?

NO part of the flood story can be considered ATHEIST.

If it is to be taken literally, then I agree with you.

NO part of the flood story can be considered "Man did it on his own" OR "this is just a local flood -- nothing unnusual here".

Agreed with the first part, but disagree with the second part.

IF you are arguing that "Science should not be ABLE TO DETECT a global flood taking place 4500 years ago" then your argument is just silly - right from the start.

Better phrased as "there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support a global flood 4500 years ago".

Anyway, you've effectively answered my question that the story of Noah's Ark can NOT be viewed scientifically and can only be considered in the Biblical context (literal or not).

 

[BobRyan]

Wrong -- FLOODS "can be detected" as it "turns out". And we have abundant evidence that the entire earth was covered by water AND that we had a mass extinction of all ilfe on land.

you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink as we see when it comes to devotees to atheist darwinism.

Next.

But -- is that really the level of your OP question????? "Can floods be detected"???

I thought you had more in mind than that.

Bob

 

[Deep Thought]

OK Bob, present your BEST scientific evidence you can for a global flood and mass extinction.

Whether you are talking about a global flood, Noah's Ark, 6 day creation, talking snakes, 800 year old humans, etc, etc, etc, there is not one single shred of evidence that you can provide. If you could, you would become world famous overnight.

 

[freeway]

OK Bob, present your BEST scientific evidence you can for a global flood and mass extinction.

Whether you are talking about a global flood, Noah's Ark, 6 day creation, talking snakes, 800 year old humans, etc, etc, etc, there is not one single shred of evidence that you can provide. If you could, you would become world famous overnight.

I know I know I said I was out of here, but this is really a very good topic.. so I'm back.. oh boy

this is a photo of fossils, tens of thousands of rhinoceros, hippo, camels, and many other creatures that all died in the same place and apparently at the same time near Agate Springs, Nebraska. Why did all these animals migrate to the same spot at the same time just to die together? Did they slowly become fossilized over millions of years? No, a more likely scenario is that these animals were all searching for higher ground during the destruction of the flood of Noah and they found high ground near what is now Agate Springs, Neb. and they were all quickly buried by the fall out from volcanic eruptions and were instantly fossilized. At least ten such burial sites with many thousands of different kinds of animals have been found in the world.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/grave/grave.htm

 

[freeway]

high in the mountains of Utah these are ripples made into rock form of course water moving over them.. question when did the water get this deep to do this to these rocks.. and they are found all over the world...

 

[freeway]

another one is fossilized trees gowning up through millions of years of rock.. question how did this happen?.. also I live near Mt Saint Helen's in Washington.. and this is happening right now.. trees where up rooted by the eruption and ended up in Spirit Lake as the trees with their roots intake began to sink bottom first and cover with sediment... again proof of a flood.

 

[freeway]

One more thing... it is said that if the earth was smooth, without uplift of the continents and mountains the water contained in the oceans of the world could cover the earth up to around 5,000 to 8,000 ft.. At the time of Noah it had never rained, also it is believed by some that the mountains where formed by the continental shifts and uplifts when the fountains of the deep erupted. I will try to find the link for this.. just remember reading it somewhere... will look. 8-) 8-)

found one.. I don't remember reading this one but it says the same thing.....

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=77
here is another one....
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/ge ... lood.shtml

 

[lordkalvan]

Am I sure the text says this?

[quote:4f8af]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.

But you are ignoring those other verses of Genesis which are susceptible of a different interpretation, even to the extent of contradicting the conclusion you are supporting by selectively quoting only these two verses. Are you of cherry-picking only those parts of the Bible that support what you think the Bible 'ought' to say?

[quote:4f8af]Seems to me you could make an equally case for 2 of everything

Only by ignoring Gen 7:2-3. As it turns out -- I don't do that.[/quote:4f8af]
So just by ignoring those other verses which do not directly support your argument. See above.

so in answer to the question "what would the carnivores eat" -- we have an obvious solution "FROM the text".

Which is?

[quote:4f8af]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?[/quote:4f8af]

Again the answer is obvious.

The text says the animals went in by twos and by sevens depending on their kinds the text also says that Noah took food for the animals and the people. What we don't know is whether animals on the ark went into a state of hybernation or semi-hybernation for that year as many of them do in normal life when food is scarce. If they did -- it is likely that many of them did not breed during that period.

But what we do know is that only certain animals hibernate or estivate. I am unaware of any birds that follow this practice and, of the larger mammals, it is pretty much restricted to bears.

When you are guessing about details "not evident in the text" -- it remains " a guess in theory".

But it is helpful if that guess can be supported.

[quote:4f8af]Is meat-eating specifically excluded by Genesis 1?

Again - it is helpful to "Read the text".
.....
The point remains "from the text".[/quote:4f8af]
In parentheses, I find your use of multi-sized font and different colours confusing to follow. However, as far as the point you are making goes, you seem only to be confirming that Genesis 1 indeed does not specifically exclude meat-eating.

[quote:4f8af]Unless you are suggesting T Rex survived the Flood, we know that it must have been an obligate carnivore before that event.

I don't even know that T-Rex made the ark. Again - difficult to speculate on what is not in the text.[/quote:4f8af]
But you are happy to speculate about things that might support your argument. If T Rex didn't make the Ark, it was an obligate carnivore before the Flood, which suggests other animals were also obligate carnivores before the Flood, which impacts on any speculations about what they may have eaten on board the Ark, and how that food was gathered, stored, preserved and distributed.

[quote:4f8af]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.

True - certainly lions would have started out as God specifies in Gen 1 -- eating plant food and would have then "changed" to eat flesh food "at some point".[/quote:4f8af]
So is that "changing" anything but evolution under another name?

In Gen 3 we see a "curse" added and plant life is changed to include thorns and thistles "according to the text".

The verses do not support a change to meat-eating.

[quote:4f8af]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?

Imagining is not the point - the text says the animals that God created were eating plants.[/quote:4f8af]
My choice of wording has confused you about the the intent of my question; my apologies. Change 'Do you imagine' to 'Do you think it likely'.

I am simply answering the OP question ABOUt the text FROM the text.

Lot's of "imagining"and "story telling' may also be added - but is not as useful even though a "lucky guess" could turn out to be correct.

It seems that you are happy with "imagining" and "story-telling"that might tend to support the conclusions you wish to draw from your interpretation of the Old Testament, but more inclined to dismiss them as pointless when they tend in a different direction.

It is one thing to claim that you do not agree with the text -- it is another not to even know what it says and the difference between a wild guess outside of the text - vs a direct honest rendering of the text itself within the parameters of valid exegesis.

[/quote:4f8af]
That I do not agree with your interpretation of the text is not evidence that I do 'not even know what it says'. Do you ignore parts of the text that do not support your argument and draw conclusions from others that are only there in your own imagination? I rather think you do, as I have shown above.

 

[BobRyan]

Substance Jim - your constant resort to low-brow vaccuous factless posts is not as compelling a form of argument as you seem to imagine.

Try something that has substance, fact, merit and is to the point of the topic at hand. Try to be convincing. Try to put together a cogent compelling thought first -- then post.

I can only help you so far here -- at some point you have to be interesting in getting yourself out of that rant-first think-second hole you are digging.

Bob

Jim
This is coming from someone that constantly spams the board with the same quote mines

Quote "mines"??? in arizona??? ;-)

You seem to be stuck on non-substantive posts. I am simply asking you to try to rise above your depraved sinful nature -- try to post something that has a point.

If you are not able to understand Patterson's arguments - fine... pick something you can respond to.

This is a thread on the details in scripture regarding the flood. Your nonsensical insults and "we don't believe that text" arguments are pointless.

[quote:cfffa]
The only responses to the scientific inconsistencies of this story is that God must have did it this way or that way without showing evidence for it.

[/quote:cfffa]

The text "SAYS" God caused the flood and it SAYS He saved humanity -- why not read "the text" on a thread that is ABOUT the text instead of being so married to non-substantive posts?

I am just asking that you frame a compelling argument -- then post.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Wrong -- FLOODS "can be detected" as it "turns out". And we have abundant evidence that the entire earth was covered by water AND that we had a mass extinction of all ilfe on land.

you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink as we see when it comes to devotees to atheist darwinism.

OK Bob, present your BEST scientific evidence you can for a global flood and mass extinction.

Freeway beat me to the punch.

However - as I said "you can lead a horse to water"...

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Am I sure the text says this?

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.

But you are ignoring those other verses of Genesis which are susceptible of a different interpretation, even to the extent of contradicting the conclusion you are supporting by selectively quoting only these two verses. Are you of cherry-picking only those parts of the Bible that support what you think the Bible 'ought' to say?

Seems to me you could make an equally case for 2 of everything

[quote:e15c5]Bob said
Only by ignoring Gen 7:2-3. As it turns out -- I don't do that.

So just by ignoring those other verses which do not directly support your argument. See above.
[/quote:e15c5]

You engage in the either-or-fallacy instead to make your point.

I rely on both-and exegesis FROM The text. In the exegetical model all data on the topic is ADDED to frame the summary. In either or snippet models (we also call that eisegesis) one simply tries to spin one text against another to come up with a solution that DOES Not work at all.

As you are proposing.

Surely you see that.

In the BOTH-AND exegetical solution -- we see the animals going in -- in pairs... all of them. But the clean go in as pairs of SEVEN and the unclean - simply as a single pair.

BOTH-AND solutions avoid the transparent fallacy of either-OR (eisegesis whose only purpose is to create unworkable conclusions in scripture).

Bob said -

so in answer to the question "what would the carnivores eat" -- we have an obvious solution "FROM the text" (as already posted).

LK Which is?

Notice that your answer is telling in two areas.

1. You did not read my prior posts.
2. You are seeking a non-solution in your snippet either-or appraoch to the text.

But as already pointed out -

Bob said -

They were a year on the ark. In theory a few animals (non-predators for example) might have been born on the ark.

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

Bob said

Again the answer is obvious. (Numbering for your convenience)

The text says

1. the animals went in by twos and by sevens depending on their kinds

2. the text also says that Noah took food for the animals and the people.

3. What we don't know is whether animals on the ark went into a state of hybernation or semi-hybernation for that year as many of them do in normal life when food is scarce.

3 a. If they did -- it is likely that many of them did not breed during that period.

Either way - we have "solutions galore" instead of your problem-under-every-rock assumptions.

But what we do know is that only certain animals hibernate or estivate. I am unaware of any birds that follow this practice and, of the larger mammals, it is pretty much restricted to bears.

Is it your guess that God 'was stuck" after CAUSING the flood - in terms of using the SAME solution of "hybernation' that HE created in some animals (not just bears) -- for preserving life on the ark.

Does it "make sense IN THE TEXT" to blindly "assume" that having CREATED all life in 6 days (chapter 1-2) and even creating some animals with the ability of true hybernation and others with semi-hybernation -- that he could then CAUSE a world wide flood but then was "stuck"??

I am simply offering MULTIPLE solutions for the problem-under-ever-rock crew.

When you are guessing about details "not evident in the text" -- it remains " a guess in theory".

But it is helpful if that guess can be supported.

Indeed - and SINCE it turns out that God CREATED the animals that DO hybernate and CAUSED the flood and then CAUSED the saving-miracle of the Ark and the animals entering the ark, the door opening and closing etc etc -- the guess that the SAME CAUSE (already DEMONSTRATED to be well able to CREATE the ability to hybernate) was available for a hybernate solution on the ark - is simply in keeping with that the text DOES say... though as I have already stated it is still a guess since it is not "IN" the text.

hence the difference between exegesis and eisegesis.

Bob