Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
41 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,940 Year: 21,976/19,786 Month: 539/1,834 Week: 39/500 Day: 39/96 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
Dirk
Member (Idle past 2362 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 16 of 991 (575849)
08-21-2010 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
08-21-2010 6:42 AM


quote:
Even assuming a miraculous regeneration of plant life, the predators would probably eat most of the herbivores and then starve.

Plus that most other animals would die from the climate as well; I don't see a polar bear thriving in the mountains of the Near East, or a pinguin for that matter.

quote:
So the real answer would be "mainly those that didn't need to be on the ark"

So, basically, there would be only fish left. Luckily, science has shown that we all evolved from water animals anyway, so that means that the ark is still not disproven by science


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 08-21-2010 6:42 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Dr Jack, posted 08-21-2010 11:45 AM Dirk has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 17 of 991 (575853)
08-21-2010 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dirk
08-21-2010 11:00 AM


Most fish would die to. They're pretty sensitive to salinity levels in the water. The upheaval of the flood would wipe out the majority of fish species too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dirk, posted 08-21-2010 11:00 AM Dirk has not yet responded

  
rw23
Junior Member (Idle past 3306 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 08-21-2010


Message 18 of 991 (575854)
08-21-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
08-21-2010 10:34 AM


Re: Viability of small populations
> Really? Interesting. Do you have any details?

Cheetahs. They're believed to have gone through a genetic bottleneck during the last ice age. I recall reading one report based upon mitochondrial analysis, which suggested that there may have been as few as seven breeding females at that point. I can't find the exact reference but Wikipedia may give you a starter if you're interested.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 08-21-2010 10:34 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by rw23, posted 08-21-2010 11:53 AM rw23 has not yet responded

  
rw23
Junior Member (Idle past 3306 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 08-21-2010


Message 19 of 991 (575855)
08-21-2010 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by rw23
08-21-2010 11:51 AM


Re: Viability of small populations
Ha! Just realised that seven females matches what the bible says about animals on the ark!

Disclaimer: I'd sooner put my trust in mitochondrial analysis than in anyone's mythology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by rw23, posted 08-21-2010 11:51 AM rw23 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 08-21-2010 12:09 PM rw23 has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 6:26 PM rw23 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31764
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 20 of 991 (575856)
08-21-2010 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by rw23
08-21-2010 11:53 AM


Re: Viability of small populations
And that is the very BEST case, and does not include the humans.

In the myth found in Genesis 7 it says

quote:
2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.


So the largest breeding population is only seven females of a given kind.

The human breeding population is only four females and the unclean breeding population is only two females of any given kind.

Note this is the more forgiving version. The version of the myth found in Genesis 6 says that the breeding populations for humans is still but four however all the other kinds only have a breeding population of two females.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by rw23, posted 08-21-2010 11:53 AM rw23 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 21 of 991 (575916)
08-21-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by rw23
08-21-2010 11:53 AM


Re: Viability of small populations
Ha! Just realised that seven females matches what the bible says about animals on the ark!

Cheetahs aren't kosher, so there would only have been two of them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by rw23, posted 08-21-2010 11:53 AM rw23 has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 991 (575957)
08-21-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dirk
08-20-2010 11:00 PM


Dirk writes:

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?

Hi Dirk. Welcome to EvC. Please stay with us and share more of your stuff.

You have proposed some missconceptions here.

    1> The Genesis record did not cite the landing site high on Mt Ararat. It cited it in the mountains of Ararat, which includes the foothills which would be more suitable for exiting the hoofed animals etc from the ark.

    2> Logically, no dinos were on the ark. they, being the cursed serpents all died either before or at the time of the flood, the cursed short legged belly crawlers and snakes being the cursed offspring hatched from the parent dinos. There have been debates on this, but I'm convinced that that is the clear implication of the Genesis record.

    3> The pre-flood diet of animals and mankind was vegetarian, there being so much vegetation, fewer, shallower and smaller oceans and a super relatively even temperature globally.

    Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food: (Gen 1:30) and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, [I have given] every green herb for food: and it was so.

    4> Having been vegetarians, and likely having an abundance of survival food, including dried food, hay, etc aboard, they would have been disease free and in very good health during the sojourn.

    5> The record does not mention insects. Likely God saw to it that they survived on and in floating debris, some on crevices, etc on the ark itself, and perhaps some, like the animals were providentially directed into the ark or on the animals which went in.

    6> Perhaps God enabled the animals and birds to survive a long hybernating fast during the voyage. After all, he allegedly fed the wandering post-Exodus Israelites with manna from heaven in the wilderness for some forty years.

    7> Whether Noah and his family kept some domestic animals for milk, eggs, travel and work, etc is irrevelant. What is revelant is that they survived and propagated prolifically.

These are a few things for consideration. Creationist claims deserve as much leeway as secularist science allows for their claims. As is the case with unknowns in scientific theories, unknowns exist in the Genesis record.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Delete a word


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dirk, posted 08-20-2010 11:00 PM Dirk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 08-22-2010 1:41 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2010 1:51 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 25 by DrJones*, posted 08-22-2010 2:03 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 2:17 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 08-22-2010 6:55 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Dr Jack, posted 08-22-2010 8:10 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 29 by jar, posted 08-22-2010 9:44 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Dirk, posted 08-22-2010 10:59 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 444 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 23 of 991 (575959)
08-22-2010 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
08-21-2010 10:00 PM


The pre-flood diet of animals and mankind was vegetarian, there being so much vegetation, fewer, shallower and smaller oceans and a super relatively even temperature globally.

Vegetarian? Explain canine teeth in mammals, and carnasial teeth in carnivores.

Even temperature? Please explain the several ice ages.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2010 10:00 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by menes777, posted 09-02-2010 2:28 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 991 (575960)
08-22-2010 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
08-21-2010 10:00 PM


Logically, no dinos were on the ark. they, being the cursed serpents all died either before or at the time of the flood, the cursed short legged belly crawlers and snakes being the cursed offspring hatched from the parent dinos.

Didn't we cover this a few years back? Dinosaurs are birds, not "serpents." I mean I guess if the last time you saw a representation of a dinosaur was when you had dinner in one you might think that dinosaurs were "belly-crawlers", but for the past thirty years or so we've understood that dinosaurs were active, warm-blooded avians with complex behavior, not lumbering scaly simpletons.

And if snakes are the descendants of dinosaurs (they're not) post-Ark, then how could there have been a snake at the beginning of Genesis?

The pre-flood diet of animals and mankind was vegetarian, there being so much vegetation, fewer, shallower and smaller oceans and a super relatively even temperature globally.

Even from your perspective this can't be true; many of the fossil organisms we dig out of the ground have meat-eating teeth, not plant teeth. Since (in the Ark mythology) those are the remains of pre-Ark species, we know that meat-eating must have predated the Ark.

Having been vegetarians, and likely having an abundance of survival food, including dried food, hay, etc aboard, they would have been disease free and in very good health during the sojourn.

Never talked to a rancher, have you, Buz? Vegetarian livestock get diseases too. Frequently as a result of too-rich food and cramped conditions - exactly as it would have been on your ark.

The record does not mention insects.

Probably because insects were beneath the notice and regard of the ancient-times storytellers that originally spun the story of Noah.

Perhaps God enabled the animals and birds to survive a long hybernating fast during the voyage. After all, he allegedly fed the wandering post-Exodus Israelites with manna from heaven in the wilderness for some forty years.

Manna, as every entomologist knows, is nothing more than the waxy secretions of scale insects:

and it's impossible to see how bug slime has anything to do with hibernation.

Frankly the notion that someone as old as you believes in fairy tales of arks and floods is astounding. You should be embarrassed to put this stuff out there like it's true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2010 10:00 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 08-22-2010 11:41 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2021
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 25 of 991 (575961)
08-22-2010 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
08-21-2010 10:00 PM


The pre-flood diet of animals and mankind was vegetarian, there being so much vegetation, fewer, shallower and smaller oceans and a super relatively even temperature globally.

Non sequitur


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2010 10:00 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 26 of 991 (575964)
08-22-2010 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
08-21-2010 10:00 PM


1> The Genesis record did not cite the landing site high on Mt Ararat. It cited it in the mountains of Ararat, which includes the foothills which would be more suitable for exiting the hoofed animals etc from the ark.

The text says that "the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat", and that "in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen."

Which can only mean that the Ark grounded on the mountains of Ararat while they were still submerged. The draft of the Ark can't have been more than 30 cubits (that being its height) so it can't have grounded more than 30 cubits below the highest point of the mountains.

It certainly couldn't have run aground on the foothills while the tops of the mountains were still underwater.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2010 10:00 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 08-28-2010 10:38 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19071
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 27 of 991 (575981)
08-22-2010 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
08-21-2010 10:00 PM


Hi Buz,

Would you be so kind as to limit your claims to those you have evidence for? Thanks.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2010 10:00 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 28 of 991 (575985)
08-22-2010 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
08-21-2010 10:00 PM


The Genesis record did not cite the landing site high on Mt Ararat. It cited it in the mountains of Ararat, which includes the foothills which would be more suitable for exiting the hoofed animals etc from the ark.

It is a curious property of receeding water that the highest points are uncovered first. Let's look at what it says:

quote:
[4] And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

[5] And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen


So, while you're technically correct - it does specify "the mountains of Ararat" - it's also pretty clear that the waters are still covering most of the Earth, thus the Ark must have come to rest on one of the highest points of the mountain since the lower ground would still be underwater.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2010 10:00 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31764
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 29 of 991 (575989)
08-22-2010 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
08-21-2010 10:00 PM


Buz writes:

3> The pre-flood diet of animals and mankind was vegetarian, there being so much vegetation, fewer, shallower and smaller oceans and a super relatively even temperature globally.

Buz, once again you simply post falsehoods, ones that have been shown to be totally refuted and you certainly must be aware that they are false.

You have been shown that the Biblical Flood stories are just myths and the Biblical Flood never happened.

In addition, you were shown that the diet of humans and animals was not vegetarian in a thread over four years ago.

quote:
There is one well known place where we can look to see if there is ANY reality to the assertion of some super-genome and that is with Oetzi the Iceman.

What do we know about Oetzi?

First he was both contemporary with Adam and likely a Grandson.

He lived about 5300 years ago and so Adam was still alive.

His mitochondrial DNA is from the haplogroup K.

He was born and his childhood was near the present town of Feldthurns in what today is Italy, but then moved about 50 km south.

He was around 40-50 years old when he died.

He had eaten twice recently, one Chamois, the other Red Deer meat along with fruit and grain, likely bread.

His shoes were composite, soles of bear skin, uppers deerhide. They were insulated with grasses.

There was blood from four other people on him.

Pollen showed that he ate his last meal in a mid altitude conifer forest and that it was spring time.

The biggest thing is that NOTHING was very different. There were NO signs of some Super-Genome in his makeup, the makeup of the other people, the critters or food, the materials used.


Why do you keep posting false information?

Edited by jar, : fix link stuff


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2010 10:00 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ProtoTypical, posted 08-22-2010 9:52 AM jar has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 30 of 991 (575991)
08-22-2010 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
08-22-2010 9:44 AM


Why do you keep posting false information?

In order to fell the giant with a slingshot one requires magic pebbles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 08-22-2010 9:44 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019