Food for Noah's Ark survivors.

It struck me today as I was researching some verses concerning Noah's flood that I would like to ask of those that adhere to the validity of the flood lore an explanation of the problems presented by this verse. Since every living substance was destroyed { the Hebrew word is machah whose definition can be found here Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible} after being submerged for at least 150 days no vegetation could be left upon the entire planet and therefore there would be no forests remaining. Since Noah did not carry with him representatives of these species it is not possible for any of today's plant life to exist.Now to the difficulty. Many forests cannot germinate without fires to provide heat or smoke for the seed to produce germination. Since no forests exist such germination is impossible to accomplish.Without forests many animals have no food source nor cover from predators {especially vital when population numbers off the ark are next to extinction levels}.Since no food source survives the animals that survived the ark would starve to death. The predators would also go first as the plant eaters cannot be eaten without eliminating their only food source.I will delight in hearing how such difficulties can be addressed.
I guess this can be posted in Geology and the Great Flood.

---

"The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look Death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides." - Carl Sagan, Billions and Billions

DoddyThat is fine for them to use as a reason however, in order for them to capitalize upon the assertion they must adhere to the notion that the plants also have a requirement for access to the atmosphere and without access they too perish.
So the question to them becomes what happened to the plant life that allowed them to escape being destroyed utterly while at the same time allow the animals that survived to find sustenance. This also still does not refute the way in which plants that require fire in order to germinate may accomplish this when there are no conditions remaining upon earth in order for them to do so.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

Bump for creationist input. That is if there is any way in which you can.

iceage Well that is the problem isn't it? Since they refuse to participate they are can never be challenged nor can they be considered to be debating the difficulties their ideas present. These answers are fraught with huge difficulties and in another thread I would tackle them, however, this thread is dealing with plant life and the impossibility of its survival after the Noahic flood. It is obvious that such difficulties were not considered since such challenges are insurmountable with such obtuse hand waving and wishful thinking.Real life is far more complex than such simple minded "explanations" would have their flocks of ecologically illiterate adherents believe.

Charley So what about the trees I mentioned in the OP Charley? Care to explain hydroponic flotation of entire forests? Or perhaps even one little ol' redwood tree?

Charley Not really. It is evidence that the trees have been harvested or died out in regions due to climatic changes,however, this does not answer the question I posed you Charley. Please address the way in which an entire forest gets floated as a hydroponic establishment in a world wide flood and there after comes to rest undisturbed sufficient for the forest to continue renewing itself.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

DoddyWell I think I would even settle for that but it seems no creationists will touch this topic at all. I wonder if there is any creationist literature deals with it at all?

DoddyIt is wonderful how much effort is poured into hypothesizing ways in which it could be considered that plants escaped the obliteration of the flood. When we realize that these various hand waving excuses have to account for the survival of an estimated 350,000 species of plants {not to mention the symbiotic interplay of plants and insects as well} in contradiction of the passage in the bible At the same time the supposed purpose of their efforts is to find a means of explaining the apparent absurdities in order to maintain the notion of a biblical view not in contradiction of the facts.

Tazmanian Devil As the context of the verses show the face of the ground included that which was a part of the ground so I think I could validly argue that the plant life was included as well.Regardless, the nature of the flood imposes insurmountable barriers to the survival of animals due to the lack of sustainable plant life of any sort.The lack of response seems to indicate that creationists are quite content to leave this thread well alone.

obvious Child I think this is quite so and I am replying to you here in the hope that the topic I raised here might get some further exposure to critique by members of the creationist side to hear their arguements.

---

" Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!!What a ride!"

ICANT Indeed, so what was the point of having Noah build the ark and of flooding the earth in the first place? God could just as easily have wiped the slate clean without violence or he could have changed mens hearts in the blink of an eye as well.

ICANT Then why the punishment for exercising free choice?

RobI would like to debate this issue with you Rob ,however it will drag the topic too far away from the issue concerning food for NF survivors. Perhaps we can engage in debate in another thread concerning those points you make.

---

" Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!!What a ride!"