The animals were not outlined, only two of every kind save for seven of the clean. And Noah didn't build a TARDIS. This is still reality and the natural world, where things have to work within the natural laws of physics. Supernatural explanations suddenly make things less impressive, because instead of doing what we understand to be impossible it jumps to using magic that has unlimited potential to do anything.
That is what I mean by opening up more questions. If God intended to move things along by magic, then why not shroud Noah and his family in a giant magic dome to ride out the flood in comfort? Why demand the building of an ark in the first place?
I think all you will get are circular responses that rely on believing the story without question in the first place. I have seen no rational responses and no responses that are not condescending quips about lack of faith in God.
I really got a good laugh over that TARDIS response. Good one.
It doesn't say anything about eating, but it was necessary or they would have died.
Another thing that must be assumed, but has no basis in fact is that even predators were all vegetarians. The acrobatics to rationalize and justify get more and more contorted.
They most definitely were carnivore then. And, no, your dog wouldn't be happy to eat nothing other than vegetables. It would make her sick. Dogs need meat. It's their biology and digestive track. And not to mention nothing but carrots would be way too much vitamin k, which is very destructive to the body, fatal if in high enough amounts.
Of course the carnivores were carnivores and there is no evidence to the contrary. That is all creationist speculation to rationalize the irrational. If the fossil record were all the result of the flood of Genesis, then what is the explanation for finding bones that show the tooth marks from being eaten by carnivores.
If she is only feeding that dog vegetables, it is tantamount to abuse. It is not getting the protein it needs. Dogs have evolved to consume more vegetable matter than their wolf ancestors, but not total subsistence on it alone.
What Darwin wrote about takes numerous generations. And you aren't just talking about diet, it would require everything in their digestive tract from the teeth down to be overhauled.
She is doing what most creationist do. She is confusing phsyiological versatility and developmental flexibility with genetic adaptations that evolve over time. I think it is done out of ignorance of biology, but its persistence appears to be willful.
Adjusting to a different climate is adapting, but by physiological versatility. Our physiologies are plastic enough that we do this regularly, but that is not the adaptations that evolution deals with that have a genetic basis and are heritable.
Those lions will be weak, sickly, and die. That is what they need to survive.
But magic can keep them alive forever without food.
God still has to work within the physical boundaries of the universe. Someone doing that, and making a sea worthy vessel that could survive and safely hold all the critters (which includes humans), working within the physical world would make that impressive. But there are flaws to it, and the only explanation is god doing this or that that requires supernatural means. That's just not impressive.
God may not have to, but we do. And Noah would have too. There is no evidence that he did not. After all, the Bible claims it took him a very long time to build the ark. Why do that? Why the sort of random application of magic? A little here. None there.
Did you not notice I pointed out Noah was given instructions on the clean and unclean animals, but that was long before Moses received the Law in order to know what animals are clean and unclean.
The entire concept of kind is meaningless. It could be species and there is nothing that says it was not. The use of it is more speculation that demands new questions be answered and those questions are never answered except with even more speculation.
If you will notice, there are inconsistencies in the story, just as between Genesis 1 and 2. These indicate that the final copy that made the Bible had multiple sources from within the oral tradition that was being written down. That entire passage about clean and unclean animals is from a different version of the story that is fused into the main one.
The point is that it is not a requirement that this story be deified or taken as history for a person to be Christian. That is usually the point that literalists are trying to make. That a person that does not view it as literal is attacking God or not a "true" Christian. That is nonsense. Challenging literalism is challenging the people that deify the Bible and not God or the message of the Bible.