The Flood - Animals and their minimum food requirement

I've heard a few creationists say that Noah may have taken immature animals aboard his ark instead of fully grown Tyrannosaurs and such. In this article, Jonathan Sarfati makes that claim. Younger animals would take up less space and need less food, which supposedly makes the whole story slightly less insane so that creationists can accept it as an unadulterated fact of history. A response to this comes to mind that I haven't seen before - that Noah and company would have to go to a great deal of trouble to accumulate all these young animals at the same time. Animals breed at all different times of the year, they grow at different rates, and many are helpless when young. It seems unlikely to me that Jews of circa 2000 BC would have domesticated all kinds (whatever your definition of this word!) of dinosaurs, elephants, and so on, without leaving a trace of any such effort. How could Noah have met the needs of such a large menagerie of animals, many of which no one in his part of the world had even heard of, and especially when many of them are dependent on their parents for milk?

That is a good point. I also wonder how many types of butterflies and moths went extinct when Noah disturbed their cocoons. They couldn't have been taken aboard as adults, as some of them would not live long enough, and many of them need fresh flowers to drink nectar from.

So, are you suggesting that animals have become less domesticated through history?Also, I find it odd than Noah came up with all sorts of animal-powered technology which immediately afterwards disappeared from history. Isn't it simpler to just assume Noah's ark is a myth, just like the thousands of other myths from other cultures that Biblical literalists don't believe in?Edited by Gary, : changed something about animal powered technology

The Bible claims that Noah lived 350 years after the flood, dying at the age of 950. This is in Genesis 9:29. I would think that over the course of 350 years, someone would have found a use for the technology he developed, which would be quite advanced for his time. He could have helped rebuild civilization, since he was obviously quite spry at 600, building the largest object ever made up until that time and keeping it afloat while taking care of thousands of animals. Had Noah existed, he would have been able to greatly advance technology, but for some reason he did not, choosing instead to leave not a scrap of evidence of his own existence besides a story so absurd that any thinking person should be able to discount it. It isn't for the kids who are taught these things by people who they assume aren't lying. Disbelief is often more of a choice than belief.

Technology in Noah's time, whenever that was, was so primitive that Noah would not see any need to keep his accomplishments secret. I'm glad we can agree that there is no evidence. Why should anyone believe this story?

You might want to correct that - the article says it can lift 1500 tons, not 15,000.I don't see what the big deal is about shoving things in between rocks. If you lay two bricks atop one another, can you shove a piece of paper in between them?