Noah's Ark

[rusra02]

Other valid points that creationists can't understand or explain away:

• What do animals eat after the flood, if all plants were destroyed by global flood?
• What do carnivore animals eat, but other animals?

The above questions relate to redistributing animals throughout the world.

Creationists like rusra02 don't understand if the land was cover to the depth of the highest mountains (like those in the Himalaya and the Andes, then land vegetation would not survive the freezing water, nor the tonnes of crushing pressures exerted on everything, right down to seeds.

Top soils would have disappeared would have disappeared from erosion on the 1st ten days of rains. Top soils that wouldn't be recovered for decades. There wouldn't be Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations because it would be virtually impossible to start farming because of no top soil.

• What do animals eat after the flood, if all plants were destroyed by global flood?

Plant life apparently recovered quickly after the Flood. Genesis 8:11 records that the dove Noah sent from the Ark returned with an oliver leaf, indicating plant life. As you probably know, seeds can sprout and produce edible material in just weeks.

​

​

​

What do carnivore animals eat, but other animals?

The Bible indicates that, at least while in the Ark, animals lived on vegetation. (Genesis 6:21) Bible prophecies indicate that animals now carnivores will not be so when God's will is fully done on earth. (Isaiah 11:6-9) I believe the Bible teaches that animals and man were created to be at peace and get their nourishment from plants, not by killing other animals. (Genesis 1:30)

It is at least immodest to claim to know 'valid points that creationists can't understand or explain.' I do not believe the mountains such as today's Himalaya's and Andes were anywhere near as high before the Flood as they are today. Nor can anyone today do more than speculate and surmise what effects a global Flood had on the Earth. Despite protests to the contrary, the Noachian Deluge was a unique, one-time act of God and controlled by God. No one alive on earth today can prove authoritatively what were the effects of this catastrophic event.

 

[Looncall]

<snip>

Continuance of older culture prior to/after purported flood date
Date estimates for supposed older cultures are based on admittedly imperfect dating techniques.

<snip>

Not admitted by anyone who understands them. What uncertainties there are, are nowhere near what you need to support your silly myth. You are lying through your teeth. I hope you have a good dentist.

 

[camanintx]

Again, that argument doesn't "hold water". The Bible states that God took animals into the ark "according to their kinds", such as dog kind, horse kind, or cow kind. The various species of horses, dogs, or cows all descended from one or several reproductive pairs, which is what Noah took into the Ark. The ability to produce great variety within a "kind" was built-in by God, who created each kind, and did not involve "evolution" as that word is commonly understood.

So all of the various animals existing today descended from a few pairs that survived the flood just 4,000 years ago but they couldn't have evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago? If that is possible, then why don't we see the same rate of change today?

 

[shawn001]

"No one alive on earth today can prove authoritatively what were the effects of this catastrophic event."

Because they have already proven there was no flood for an absolute fact!!!

and since I have this up from the other post, the "first flower" and evolution, which you were 100% wrong on here it is for you to watch.

[youtube]C96SdSef8pA[/youtube]
The First Flower (NOVA Documentary) - YouTube

This also

"I do not believe the mountains such as today's Himalaya's and Andes were anywhere near as high.

Because you also don't understand plate tectonics and volcanism that has been proven with GPS and the NAVY mapping the ocean floors somewhere around the mid 1960's.

 

[johnhanks]

Again, that argument doesn't "hold water". The Bible states that God took animals into the ark "according to their kinds", such as dog kind, horse kind, or cow kind...

The usual creationist list of animal "kinds", straight out of a pre-schooler's 'Our Animal Friends' picture book.

Rusra, the vast, vast, vast majority of animal species are not mammals or even vertebrates. How many beetle "kinds" did Noah take on the ark? Just one, which subsequently gave rise to all half million or so current species? Or was Noah able to identify and take on board founder members of all 500-odd families? He was one hell of an entolologist if he did. Do you imagine he also had the zoological expertise to seek out symphilid kind, tardigrade kind, nematode kind?

It's no coincidence that creationists shun any close acquaintance with biology: let the astonishing biodiversity of the real world into your head, and the pure absurdity of the flood story becomes impossible to avoid. Safer to stick with doggies, horsies and moo-cows.

 

[gnostic]

What do carnivore animals eat, but other animals?

The Bible indicates that, at least while in the Ark, animals lived on vegetation. (Genesis 6:21) Bible prophecies indicate that animals now carnivores will not be so when God's will is fully done on earth. (Isaiah 11:6-9) I believe the Bible teaches that animals and man were created to be at peace and get their nourishment from plants, not by killing other animals. (Genesis 1:30)

I'm not talking about what they (carnivore animals) eat in the Ark, but after every animals had disembarked from the Ark.

Carnivores would have to eat, once they leave the ark.

Since most of animals on the Ark came in pair, but it would require more than just a pair to repopulate the entire world, and animals such as carnivores required to eat, as well as travel, to hunt their prey, or in other case, scavenge. If they hunt again, once they leave the Ark, a lot of animals would become extinct in less than a year after disembarking.

And there are no evidence to support that carnivore animals can become herbivores overnight, then switch back to carnivores, 1 year later, once the flood is over. It is ridiculous that you'd think that this could happen.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Despite protests to the contrary, the Noachian Deluge was a unique, one-time act of God and controlled by God. No one alive on earth today can prove authoritatively what were the effects of this catastrophic event.

Despite claims to the contrary, we actually know it never happened.

 

[rusra02]

So all of the various animals existing today descended from a few pairs that survived the flood just 4,000 years ago but they couldn't have evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago? If that is possible, then why don't we see the same rate of change today?

The extent of variation has limits, although these changes continue to occur. There is no credible evidence that one family of plants or animals changes into another family.

 

[rusra02]

The usual creationist list of animal "kinds", straight out of a pre-schooler's 'Our Animal Friends' picture book.

Rusra, the vast, vast, vast majority of animal species are not mammals or even vertebrates. How many beetle "kinds" did Noah take on the ark? Just one, which subsequently gave rise to all half million or so current species? Or was Noah able to identify and take on board founder members of all 500-odd families? He was one hell of an entolologist if he did. Do you imagine he also had the zoological expertise to seek out symphilid kind, tardigrade kind, nematode kind?

It's no coincidence that creationists shun any close acquaintance with biology: let the astonishing biodiversity of the real world into your head, and the pure absurdity of the flood story becomes impossible to avoid. Safer to stick with doggies, horsies and moo-cows.

Your claim that persons who believe in creation "shun any close acquaintance with biology" is disproven by the biologists who reject evolution and accept the evidence for creation. I doubt if Noah was an entomologist, but am pretty sure Jehovah knew which insects would need to be in the Ark, or otherwise survive the Flood. Persons who don't believe in God and attempt to leave him out of man's history, thus blind themselves to the facts, in my opinion. (Psalm 10:4)

 

[Zoe Doidge]

Earlier I posted about the energy requirements to raise mountains over a relatively short period of time.

If we say that before the flood there was only 1/10 as much water in the oceans as there is now, then the tallest mountain could only have been about 2,488M high for the flood waters to cover it.

In order to change from pre-flood to what we see today that mountain would have needed to have grown slightly less than 6,360M over the course of 40 days. Normally mountains grow at a rate of a few mm per year (the Himalayas grows by about 5 mm per year), so to accomplish this would require them to grow around 11,615,276 times the amount they normally do over 40 days.

Even the cooler parts of the Asthenosphere are over 1,000 degrees Celsius. An increase in the amount of energy involved here at the above rate would make it an absolute minimum of 700 times hotter than the core of the sun.

 

[johnhanks]

Your claim that persons who believe in creation "shun any close acquaintance with biology" is disproven by the biologists who reject evolution and accept the evidence for creation.

I'd be very interested to read how they square the ark story with biological reality.

I doubt if Noah was an entomologist, but am pretty sure Jehovah knew which insects would need to be in the Ark, or otherwise survive the Flood. Persons who don't believe in God and attempt to leave him out of man's history, thus blind themselves to the facts, in my opinion. (Psalm 10:4)

Yes, believers can always tidy up the inconsistencies and impossibilities by saying 'God took care of it', but it seems to me that doesn't help you much. According to the Genesis account Noah and the ark were god's ways of saving the virtuous people and animals. As soon as you have to have god doing other magic on top of that (like your suggestion that he provided Noah with all the necessary insects, presumably spiriting them from South America, Africa etc) then you have to ask why the ark and the flood were needed in the story at all - why could god not just magic the whole event?

The people who wrote down the ark myth obviously knew no science and imagined that the story as they wrote it adequately covered all contingencies. It's only modern creationists, realising how inadequate the Genesis story is, who have to run around applying the sticking plaster of additional magic.

 

[secret2]

The extent of variation has limits, although these changes continue to occur. There is no credible evidence that one family of plants or animals changes into another family.

Because the correct way of understanding it is 'one family branches into many'.

 

[camanintx]

The extent of variation has limits, although these changes continue to occur. There is no credible evidence that one family of plants or animals changes into another family.

Neither you or anyone else has managed to explain just what these "limits" are. Care to try again?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Because the correct way of understanding it is 'one family branches into many'.

Exactly. We've tried explaining to him many, many times to no avail....