animals on the ark

Of course the more parsimonious explanation that doesn't require God to be an agricultural extension agent is that the writer of Genesis knew Mosaic law and simply incorporated it into the story to make it more understandable for Jewish readers.

quote:

---

It is generally understood by Bible believers that what God gave in the Mosaic Law was simply explicit statements of what had been known intuitively to humanity already, in the first generations after Adam and Eve, before the Fall had blurred their thinking beyond recovery. Given as explicit law to counter continued corruption and to fix it in the form of written commandments

---

What? You think people intuitively knew that it is OK to eat grasshoppers and not bacon cheeseburgers?

...which was when, exactly?cain seemed to lack the intuitive understanding that murdering his brother was wrong. heck, adam seemed to lack the intuitive understanding that you follow god, and no one else, and that was before "the fall."after cain and able, not much is said of anyone until noah, and by then i'm sure you agree the world had gone to hell.

---

Excuse my bad english please ... I wonder, why JP is permanently referering to the Book Noah's Ark, by John Woodmorappe.No, I havn't read the book, but a bit of googling is enough to find some critical reviews about this book.Someone should be ashamed, if he has nothing else to refer to as such a funny book.Let me quote some sentences of this reviews. (references below)>It seems he used the "it could have happened this way" approach so often that one wonders why he even bothered to conduct any research.<>Many of his references are from young-earth-creationist (YEC) researchers and are used without any doubts as to the reliability.<http://www.amazon.com/...duct/0932766412/002-2995807-6962409>On page 44 he claims "I now consider non-biological sources of flameless illumination. There are many references to 'luminous gems' in ancient literature, along with an apocryphal account of luminous pearls being used on the Ark."<>Having rejected the accepted rates of molecular clocks Woodmorappe is forced to talk about "mutator genes" which cause mutations, radioactivity and the mutagenic effects of a stressful environment (citing a creationist source). He refers to a "burst of mutations among Noah's immediate post-Flood descendants".<>He appeals to gradual acclimatization of amphibians and fish to the salinity of the flood waters. But exactly how a global flood was able to gradually occur is unexplained.<>He relies on wind entering the upper level to cool and ventilate the ark. His calculation is merely wind speed times the window area. But anyone who has ever performed a fluid flow calculation will know that you can not calculate the problem in this fashion. Hydrodynamic equations must be used and friction taken into account. His method for calculating air flow is far too simple.<>Many of the arguments depend upon mathematical calculations which are not displayed, either in footnotes or appendices. This leaves the mathematically oriented reader wondering if the mathematics was correct. He claims that calculations show ark animals produced between 6 and 12 tons of airborne moisture. None of the assumptions are displayed to allow the reader to evaluate such a claim. Calculations of the heat production by animals in the ark are claimed to show that there is no problem with this issue, but the lack of calculations force the reader to depend upon the author for the validity of that statement.<>Amphibians and invertebrates like terrestrial snails are not on the ark. He spends very little space describing how these animals could have survived out in the turbulent flood waters.<Review of John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"Of course, refusing to read this book makes myself vulnerable, but I have the feeling I waste my time.greetz aspleniumEdited by asplenium, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Excuse my bad english please ...
I wonder, why JP is permanently referering to the Book Noah's Ark, by John Woodmorappe.

​

No, I havn't read the book, but a bit of googling is enough to find some critical reviews about this book.

---

I assume so. I have read the book and even the most negative reviews that I have read on the internet don't really adequately cover just how bogus it is. It would take a book to point out all the nonsense in the book. One of my favorites is the supposed possibility of teaching large animals to pee in buckets. Anyone who has ever see a mare or a cow pee would rather clean up the mess than hold the bucket. The other is taking baby animals of large mammals to save on space and food. He has forgotten what it means to be a mammal. I wonder if NOah had a big refrigerator full of their mother's milk and who supposedly took the time to hand feed them all. You can teach calves to drink from a bucket but you still need the milk and it is quite time consuming. Take it from someone who has spent a lot of time feeding baby calves milk from buckets.It is really obvious to me that Woodmorappe has absolutely no idea of what it would take to actually do the things he claims that Noah and his small family accomplished.Randy

Hi! I'm new here, so forgive me if my approach to this topic is a bit off.This is a general question to creationists who assert that only two of each (vaguely-defined) "kind" were brought onto the ark and them disseminated to all corners of the globe and evolved into the varying species we see today. This has been claimed by a few on this thread and I am tying it in to this post because of the quotes asplenium provided from the book Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (which I noticed none of it's defenders have bothered to do).If the flood story is true and say the number of "kinds" was in the few thousands (I've seen numbers ranging from 2-15,000), which would be necessary or else the whole story falls to pieces, how can creationists then attempt to dismiss macro-evolution? How else would you explain a dove and a raven (if indeed, those were the two kinds of birds) evolving into the smallest and environment specific hummingbird and also the ostrich and the penguin(which don't fly, by the way...maybe an example of how wings could be present and "useless" for flying at the same time) and the hawks and the woodpeckers and so on. If God created/designed each individual species in such perfect balance with it's respective environment, then how do you explain the chaos of a "hyper-evolution" sequence which would have assuredly happened after the flood (it's hysterical seeing creationists utilize evolution theory in their post-diluvian world)? Did God somehow direct this process? And if so, why couldn't he have just done this before and then stricken humanity with a plague or other catastrophe directed solely at humans since they were the ones who transgressed against him? Why wash out the whole Earth and all the flora and fauna, but preserve each kind if he was unhappy with the whole lot of them? Were the two representatives of each kind purer than the rest, like Noah and his kin?Another point of contention is that Freelancer proposed that all carnivores can survive on a vegetarian diet (and I think Randy rebutted him/her, but I want to go into more detail). That is unequivocally false. Cats for example (and not just your domestic cat, but ALL cats) cannot survive without meat. There are many feline essential vitamins/proteins found only in meat such as taurine (without it cats will go blind) and vitamin b12 and the preformed vitamin A which is found in meat (there is a vitamin A found in plants, but cats cannot utilize it). They also cannot synthesize many substances from non-meat sources which other animals (including other carnivores) can such as Arachidonic acid (a fatty acid), Niacin and Thiamin and their diets should be very high in protein, which is very hard to do with plants as your only source. Diets high in fiber and polyunsaturated fats (found in vegetable oils) are detrimental to their health. So, please explain to me how a pair of cats were fed over the course of a year in addition to all the other animals on the ark.Oh and one more thing. Most mammals (and especially large herbivores), if taken as babies as many creationists suggest, require milk to survive until weaned. They cannot eat hay or grains or meat unless it is mashed up until very soft (the work keeps piling up for poor Noah) and even then do not provide enough nutrients and fats to bulk them up to their healthy adult sizes (remember these animals needed to be in good health so that they could breed after departing the ark). How would the milk be stored and not spoil? Or do you suggest that Noah and his family took the time to wean each animal before or after departing? On the same vein, how would certain baby animals learn to survive in the wild if there were no adults around to teach them (i.e. predators learning to hunt and prey learning to hide). Just about any animal that is raised for any significant time by their mothers/parents has to do so for a reason...to learn. Or else they die. Period. Did Noah teach them? I doubt it. And don't come back that they wouldn't need to know how to survive in a more barren environment because that's just horseshit...there would have needed to be some kind of predator/prey environment. Speaking of which...once the animals were sent on their merry way, what is stopping the proto-wolf from eating both the proto rabbits seeing as how he was denied fresh meat for a year? Interesting questions, these, don't you think? I have many more. Feel free to answer as many or as few as you like.Sorry this is so long-winded and varied, but I've been lurking for awhile and I guess I tried to get alot out at once. Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.Edited by Jaderis, : typos

Maybe Noah was a dairy farmer in his pre flood life and just hung on to a couple of prize Holsteins and Guernseys? A couple of hours milking the cows by hand shouldn't have been a problem. After all there were eight people on board, right? Surely someone had time to milk the cows. Actually I saw a rather bad movie once of Noah's flood and they had Noah giving milk to the big cats, which is how they got around the predator/prey thingy. When one goes down the "just so" story road all things are possible.

lol. My vet told me never to give cow's milk to my cat. Apparently it makes them sick.

yeah, it does. they like it though.but, apparently, i've heard that cats also like antifreeze, and that does a little more than make them sick.

---

Isn't it obvious what happened? The Ark flew around the earth at near lightspeed and thus they didn't need to feed the animals! When they came back to normal speed the flood was over - it was only about an hour to them.

My cat like sticky labels, plastic tags, rubber bands and staples from my staple gun. I have observed him eat all of them. The staple made him sick almost straight away (which is probably a good thing) but the other stuff was never to be seen again.
He also spends a good bit of his time eating my potted ferns and palms, which really pisses me off Basicly cats are pretty dumb really.

basically.my cats catch things, and eat them. we had one vomit up about 90% of a rat once, in the house. whole. to this day, i have no idea how he smallowed a rat larger than his head.

---

I grew up on a dairy farm and we gave the test milk to the cats all of the time with no apparent ill effects. Of course we never consulted a vet. The vet was for the cows. The cats were on their own, as there were always more where they came from. Sorry but that was the life of a semi-feral barn cat.

You do realise you've just come up with an explanation that is better than most (any?) of those used by the YECs!? Now all we have to do is find out how Noah got the Ark moving so fast without destroying it. Directed Sauropod farts perhaps?

---

Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after

That was what I thought too.
I thought the idea sounded daft so I put out a saucer of milk.
Then I spent several hours cleaning up cat puke from beds, chairs, carpets.I wonder if the difference is that you fed them fresh milk wheras the stuff I gave to mine was pasteurized?