For my first post, I hope to have come up with an intriguing question: which animals would populate the earth today if the flood really happened?
Let's assume that the ark was indeed large enough to contain all land animals (which, according to most YECs includes the dinosaurs, if I'm not mistaken) and that there was enough food. So, after the flood the ark sits 4000m high on Mt Ararat and Noah opens the doors to release them all. What happens? Who gets killed first and who survives? Who freezes to death and who makes it off the mountain?
And did Noah release the chickens and cows and pigs and sheep as well, or did he keep them in the ark so that he didn't have to catch them later if he wanted eggs & bacon for breakfast?
And what would we find on Mt Ararat, except for the ark, of course? Would there be evidence of a massive slaughtering of slow, fat animals by tigers, velociraptors, and so on?
Basically only insects, a few small rodents, maybe an amphibian or two. Possibly a few species of bird make it out alive. A handful of fish and other aquatic animals survive the devastation of the oceans.
After the flood the world is covered in a thick layer of mud, unsuited for most plant life, and treacherous to any large animal. The herbivores die first, unable to feed and unable to escape the predators. The predators die soon after with nothing to feed on. That leaves the smaller animals that could root through the mud to live on, surviving on the corpses of the dead, and the animal and plant matter washed up from the flood.
And did Noah release the chickens and cows and pigs and sheep as well, or did he keep them in the ark so that he didn't have to catch them later if he wanted eggs & bacon for breakfast?
No bacon, he was Jewish.
Then, pretty much what Mr. Jack said, so further miracles would be required from God.
Oh, and the animals on the Ark must have been utterly infested with parasites, and shaking with disease - after all, they all needed to survive the flood too.
Oh, and the animals on the Ark must have been utterly infested with parasites, and shaking with disease - after all, they all needed to survive the flood too.
This is a point I'd never considered. The animals on the ark would have needed to play host to every disease and parasite on the planet. And in the case of humans, Noah's small clan would have had to play host to plague, smallpox, tuberculosis, polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough, diphtheria, scarlet fever, etc. And all types of genetic defects, too.
Even assuming a miraculous regeneration of plant life, the predators would probably eat most of the herbivores and then starve. Even without that the genetic bottleneck would have pretty severe effects so a lot of the species (especially the "unclean" species) could be expected to die out within a few generations anyway.
So the real answer would be "mainly those that didn't need to be on the ark"
And in the case of humans, Noah's small clan would have had to play host to plague, smallpox, tuberculosis, polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough, diphtheria, scarlet fever, etc. And all types of genetic defects, too.
Though not all diseases that afflict humans are human specific. For example, armadillos can get leprosy.
Mr Jack writes: Oh, and the animals on the Ark must have been utterly infested with parasites, and shaking with disease - after all, they all needed to survive the flood too.
Oh, no. That cannot be right. There were only allowed to be two of each parasite, one male and one female. (We have to go with the literal wording, remember).
Hmm, without the intestinal bacteria, Noah and family must have had severe digestive problems on that trip.
Oh, no. That cannot be right. There were only allowed to be two of each parasite, one male and one female. (We have to go with the literal wording, remember).
Well, of course. They'll only have taken one male and one female on board - but they're there for a year and an adult flea (for example) lays 50 eggs a day, each of which can hatch and reach adulthood within two weeks.
I'd point out that there are known island populations thought to have been established by a single pregnant female. That's even more extreme than a population of 4 individuals.
quote:I'd point out that there are known island populations thought to have been established by a single pregnant female. That's even more extreme than a population of 4 individuals.
Depending on whether each pair was put in a cage together or not, there might have been some pregnant animals in the ark when it stranded on Mt Ararat.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)
