animals on the ark

No I think not. Introduction of a new food will almost always do that with dogs or cats, if not done gradually. Our cats got the waste milk from day one so their systems were accustomed to it. I suspect had we given them a can of commercial cat food they would have gotten just as sick as your cats did on milk.

Cat stuff needs to find a better home, perhaps the Poll: Cat Person or Dog Person? - A lite topic topic.Maybe also better focus on the topic theme for the non cat stuff?AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Get right topic number into link.

---

Yes, a few cows/goats/sheep/etc would be easy for one of the eight to milk every day if that were the only task that they had, but it was argued earlier that the work entailed in caring for all the thousands (we're using the low estimates put forth by floodists here for the sake of argument because if it were milions like the rest of us suspect it should be, no argument would be necessry) of animals every single day, plus caring for themselves (eating, bathing, sleeping, maybe a couple minutes here and there to relax and play cards) was already waaaaay too much for 8 people to handle and I think that is a fair argument, so milking those cows/goats/sheep/etc and then manually delivering the milk to each animal doesn't seem like "no problem" anymore.Besides the fact that there would need to be more than just a few cows/goats/sheep/etc to feed so many other animals and that those cows/goats/sheep/etc would need to be adult sized in order to produce the milk. And the fact that carnivorous animals cannot survive off of milk alone for a whole year (they start out as infants, but grow quite a bit in the space of a year) and remain healthy. Especially the cats which have very specific vitamin requirements which milk does not fulfill and most adult cats (as well as most other adult animals) are lactose intolerant. I don't even want to imagine the cleanup involved with thousands of animals having constant diarrhea. Also the diagnosis and remedy for dehydration in animals would probably be beyond Noah's understanding and the animals would die because he simply didn't know they needed more water and even if he knew what to do, the strain on the water supply would be great and the more frequent watering of the animals would be even more work for the 8 humans aboard. Seems more and more ridiculous every time I think about it.

Eh, I thought I made it blatently clear that my "Noah's Dairy" scenario was very much made with my tongue firmly tucked into my cheek with my comment about "just so" stories. Apparently not. Anyway, no rebuttal argument necessary. My post was entirely a spoof of "Creation Science" "research".

I figured that and I didn't mean my response to be an attack on you, so I apologize if it appeared that way. What I was really trying to accomplish was an addendum to my previous post and a further argument against the use of milk to feed the animals. You just happened to be the one to bring the loophole I left in my original post to my attention and I used it to elaborate.Again, I did recognize the sarcasm and next time I will acknowledge such statements before using them to bring up a point.

CK writes

quote:

---

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.

---

MangyTiger reponds

quote:

---

You do realise you've just come up with an explanation that is better than most (any?) of those used by the YECs!?

---

I must admit that this is the first time the thought of using time dilation to explain the flood story has ever been presented to me. And yes, I agree that this is probably the best explanation for the flood story yet.

quote:

---

Now all we have to do is find out how Noah got the Ark moving so fast without destroying it. Directed Sauropod farts perhaps?

---

Isn't it obvious that God gave Noah warp drive technology?

I think a worm hole opened just inside the main hatch.Either that or "Honey, I shrank the critters!"More seriously, once you posit divine intervention, why quibble about the logistics? What's the difference between inexhaustible baskets of loaves and fishes and an unfillable boat?If a being powerful enough to create the universe wants everybody on the boat, everybody gets on the boat.

quote:

---

I think a worm hole opened just inside the main hatch.

​

Either that or "Honey, I shrank the critters!"

​

More seriously, once you posit divine intervention, why quibble about the logistics? What's the difference between inexhaustible baskets of loaves and fishes and an unfillable boat?

​

If a being powerful enough to create the universe wants everybody on the boat, everybody gets on the boat.

---

Maybe they had a replicator, like on Star Trek. You just walked up to it and said "Lion chow" or "Monkey chow" or "Bat food", and out popped the food you needed. Maybe it automatically scooped up dino dung and converted it into prime rib.I do remember a YEC on the old OCW board telling us that the explanation for biogeography is that God "teletransported" the animals off the ark to the appropriate locations around the world. It makes more sense than any other YEC explanation I have ever heard for biogeography. "Two roos to beam up Scotty"Transporting animals by sea in ancient times was very tricky under the best of conditions. Horses often died from being pitched around and animals often go "off their feed" in unfamilar circumstances. I have seen projectile diarrhea from cattle under less stress than they would suffer on the ark. A medium sized cow can hit you from about 10 feet away. I have seen it. Imagine that multiplied by several thousand.The idea that 8 people could care for thousands of different "kinds" of animals on a big boat with no steering during a flood that was supposed to be rearranging all the worlds geology is so silly that it would be totally laughable if their weren't some people who are so gullible as to take it seriously.RandyEdited by Randy, : No reason given.

Randy writes

quote:

---

The idea that 8 people could care for thousands of different "kinds" of animals on a big boat with no steering during a flood that was supposed to be rearranging all the worlds geology is so silly that it would be totally laughable if their weren't some people who are so gullible as to take it seriously.

---

Hey, don't laugh! Some of these people are your parents, your brothers and sisters, your friends, your wife/husband, your teachers, and even me (once upon a time at least).I've been trying for years to figure out how such a fairy tale could have been believed by otherwise bright minded people for ages. Until then, we have to assume that either most of the people in the world are complete idiots or there is something hypnotizing about this story.

I'd pay good money to see that - from about twenty feet away!

---

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

On my most memorable occasion the perp was a 1,000 pound angus and the vic, who took it in the chest, was wearing a previously clean white dress shirt. If there had been any swear words I didn't know by then I would have learned them that day.Randy Edited by Randy, : spelling ect.

You know, there was a MASH (TV) episode about the Colonel taking a hit from a "colicky horse"...reports of the real thing are infinitely more frightening.I'd pay a lot more than $20 to see that, if i could pick the target.

Ok, so obviously nobody knows all the answers, but think about this...In biblical times, the "world" to them was where they lived. So as far we know, the "worldwide" flood it talks about in the Bible could have just been in their little corner of the world, thus elimnating all the confusion about how Noah got all the animals and such and such in the Ark.

Yes, this is a possibility. However Young Earth Creationists (YECs) dismiss it, and insist on a global flood.By the way, welcome to EvCforum.

A possibility, but as nwr points out, the literalists insist that the flood was a global flood, and so must have contained representatives of all the "kinds" of animals.Your scenario also presents some problems as well. If there were a flood in the Middle East, there should be some pretty clear evidence of it in the archaeological record. After all, floods leave some pretty distinctive sediments behind. It should be possible to find a single layer of flood deposits throughout the Middle East that dates to a single time.Also, is it possible to flood the Middle East for a year, as Genesis states? The Middle East is not a bowl which can hold water -- the rain would pretty much flow away without building up overmuch. You can get flash floods in the valleys, but these would be very local, very temporary events. In this case, there would be no need to preserve the animals (they would not be in danger of extinction), nor would a boat be necessary -- Noah could have been warned to walk out of the area.The flood is an interesting, and perhaps educational, story as a fable, but no matter how you look at it it is pretty ridiculous as an actual historical event.Sort of like how, on another thread, someone is trying to claim that the Genesis creation story somehow describes the actual origin of the universe and the earth as modern science understands it. At some point you just have to realize that there is zero historical correspondence between various events described and actual history, and then just accept the stories for the value that they have, if any, as moral fables.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw