What happened to all the dead rotting carcasses?

quote:

---

Originally posted by David unfamous:
Something I never thought of really. But where did all the hundreds of millions of dead human and animal remains go after the flood? What about the stench and potential disease from such a slaughter?

​

After he'd killed all the men, women and children, did he do some kind of clean up operation?

​

Forgive me if this has already been discussed.

---

They all got neatly sorted and buried and the deeper they got buried the less likely their representatives on the ark were to survive.
Glenn Morton illustrates this
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fish.htm
Here is the correlation.
Triassic there are 4 genera--no living members
Jurassic, 43 genera-no living members ,
Cretaceous 36 genera-no living members,
Paleocene 213 genera-no living members,
Eocene 569 genera-3 extant genera,
Oligocene 494 genera 11 extant genera,
Miocene 749 genera 57 extant genera,
Pliocene762 genera 133 extant genera,
Pleistocene, 830 genera 417 extant generaQuite remarkable don't you think?Of course they didn't all get buried. You see a bunch of them "washed up" and all the predatory species lived on their rotting carcasses for a few years while prey species built up sufficient numbers to sustain a ecosystem. At least that's what the YECs have told me. I guess it all makes sense to them somehow.Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coragyps:
DID NOT!!!! They all got raptured. Kind of a dress rehearsal, I think.

---

Well that would certainly put them on "high ground". I guess some of them came down from heaven once in a while to make tracks and build nests between flood surges.Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I thought Chara's question a good one. How many people are estimated to have been there according to science?

---

​

I can't find anything directly relevant. I'd guess maybe 100 million globally. I would like to see some good data though.

​

---

You can find estimates of world population atU.S. Census Bureau: Page not foundThey vary quit a bit and of course it depends on when the supposed worldwide flood is supposed to have occurred. AiG puts the flood at around 2500 BC, during the 4th Egyptian Dynasty and during the early dynastic period in Sumer which followed the Urik and Jedmat Nasr periods and about the time that civilization were developing in the Indus Valley and China so the population was probably about 15-30 million and it would seem that the vast majority of them somehow failed to notice the worldwide flood and kept on about their business as if it had never occurred.When you are talking about animals it is a different story. There are estimated to be about 800 billion fossils of animals in the Karoo formation in South Africa alone.Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd editionAll of them are Permian and early Triassic animals so when you put them with all the late Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous animals as well as whatever tertiary fossils are supposed to be flood deposits you find that the pre-flood earth must have had animals standing one atop the other or at least shoulder to shoulder over its entire surface.Randy

quote:

---

Thanks. I couldn't tell you how many times I have looked for a chart like that.

​

Looks like my estimate was way off. According to the chart and when the flood occurred, we are looking at 5 to 25 million humans.

---

You're welcome. I guess that if there were 10,000,000 people on earth at the time of the flood of Noah about 9,990,000 somehow failed to notice it. On the other hand for the YEC senario to be correct there must have been zillions of dinosaurs and therapsid reptiles and later beasties literally covering the surface of the earth so there should have been a LOT of rotting carcasses post flood. Even 5 million humans must have been a little crowed preflood especially since you also need vast forests covering the entire surface of the earth to account for all the coal that was supposedly produced by the flood. The YEC preflood earth would have been a pretty amazing place.Randy

quote:

---

from the funkmaster: But look at a man like Da Vinci WOW. Incredible mind, and why? because he had the ability to bring his creativity into science, and his art was great because of his science in his creating.

---

Yes Leonardo was so advanced that he understood that there never was a worldwide flood and that fossils on mountain tops were evidence of mountain building and not a flood. You can read about it http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html

quote:

---

In Leonardo's day there were several hypotheses of how it was that shells and other living creatures were found in rocks on the tops of mountans. Some believed the shells to have been carried there by the Biblical Flood; others thought that these shells had grown in the rocks. Leonardo had no patience with either hypothesis, and refuted both using his careful observations. Concerning the second hypothesis, he wrote that "such an opinion cannot exist in a brain of much reason; because here are the years of their growth, numbered on their shells, and there are large and small ones to be seen which could not have grown without food, and could not have fed without motion -- and here they could not move." There was every sign that these shells had once been living organisms. What about the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible? Leonardo doubted the existence of a single worldwide flood, noting that there would have been no place for the water to go when it receded. He also noted that "if the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time." He noted that rain falling on mountains rushed downhill, not uphill, and suggested that any Great Flood would have carried fossils away from the land, not towards it. He described sessile fossils such as oysters and corals, and considered it impossible that one flood could have carried them 300 miles inland, or that they could have crawled 300 miles in the forty days and nights of the Biblical flood.

​

How did those shells come to lie at the tops of mountains? Leonardo's answer was remarkably close to the modern one: fossils were once-living organisms that had been buried at a time before the mountains were raised: "it must be presumed that in those places there were sea coasts, where all the shells were thrown up, broken, and divided. . ." Where there is now land, there was once ocean. It was possible, Leonardo thought, that some fossils were buried by floods -- this idea probably came from his observations of the floods of the Arno River and other rivers of north Italy -- but these floods had been repeated, local catastrophes, not a single Great Flood. To Leonardo da Vinci, as to modern paleontologists, fossils indicated the history of the Earth, which extends far beyond human records. As Leonardo himself wrote:

​

Since things are much more ancient than letters, it is no marvel if, in our day, no records exist of these seas having covered so many countries. . . But sufficient for us is the testimony of things created in the salt waters, and found again in high mountains far from the seas.

---

[Fixed close quote. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 11-27-2002]