After the Flood!

[philadiddle]

I have two questions about what happened after the worldwide flood.

First question, what did lions eat just after the flood? It's not just lions (or whatever wild cat was the "kind" on the ark) it's also bears, wolves, etc. There are many meat eating "kinds" of animals, but after the flood there wouldn't have been much to eat, and they couldn't eat the animals from the ark or they wouldn't have time to reproduce.

Second question. There are animals like the three toed sloth that are adapted exceptionally well to their rain forest environment. They are also very slow and have a particular diet. How did they get back to the rain forest from the mountain in the middle of a desert? What did they eat along the way? Could they even have survived the heat without dehydrating, because their bodies weren't made for desert survival.

Just wondering.

 

[laptoppop]

I have two questions about what happened after the worldwide flood.

First question, what did lions eat just after the flood? It's not just lions (or whatever wild cat was the "kind" on the ark) it's also bears, wolves, etc. There are many meat eating "kinds" of animals, but after the flood there wouldn't have been much to eat, and they couldn't eat the animals from the ark or they wouldn't have time to reproduce.

The Bible is silent on this issue - so this is just my speculation:
It is not said how *any* of the animals ate on the ark. Some folks have calculated that there was plenty of room for food, other folks (like me) tend to think that most, if not all, of the animals were in hibernation. Remember, Noah did not collect the animals, God brought them to him. So, Noah could have brought post-flood food on the ark, or maybe the rabbits weren't in hibernation <grin>.

Second question. There are animals like the three toed sloth that are adapted exceptionally well to their rain forest environment. They are also very slow and have a particular diet. How did they get back to the rain forest from the mountain in the middle of a desert? What did they eat along the way? Could they even have survived the heat without dehydrating, because their bodies weren't made for desert survival.

Just wondering.

Two points - the post flood world did not instantly become what we see today. There were huge adjustments as the waters receded all of the way, including the ice age. A global event like this would have repercussions for a LONG time -- hundreds of years, perhaps, before it settled out into today's climate. One common explanation for how the animals dispersed was on floating mats of debris from the flood. Yes, this has a big element of "Goddidit" - but as a creationist, I don't see a reason to limit God to only natural processes.

 

[Mick116]

I have two questions about what happened after the worldwide flood.

First question, what did lions eat just after the flood? It's not just lions (or whatever wild cat was the "kind" on the ark) it's also bears, wolves, etc. There are many meat eating "kinds" of animals, but after the flood there wouldn't have been much to eat, and they couldn't eat the animals from the ark or they wouldn't have time to reproduce.

Second question. There are animals like the three toed sloth that are adapted exceptionally well to their rain forest environment. They are also very slow and have a particular diet. How did they get back to the rain forest from the mountain in the middle of a desert? What did they eat along the way? Could they even have survived the heat without dehydrating, because their bodies weren't made for desert survival.

Just wondering.

The Flood was not worldwide, as evidenced by the problems you have suggested, and countless others.

For instance, did Noah and family have to recreate the often very specific habitats and diets for the animals - think of animals such as moles, koalas etc?

What about parasitic organisms such as tapeworms, heartworms, sheep blowflies etc. that need hosts to survive - either they evolved/were created after the Flood, or the hosts were very sick animals.

Some have suggested a recreation of certain organisms after the Flood, or God-induced hibernation. The problem with such views is that there is absolutely no Scriptural support; one must read these into the Bible, while rejecting a much more plausible interpretation: the Flood was local, covering the "land" of the region, as opposed to the whole "world".

 

[laptoppop]

You reject a global flood, yet look for Scriptural support for various details? It's much more reasonable to accept the details given (global nature of the flood) than to expect more details than are given.

There are a lot of problems with making the flood "local", including passages throughout Scripture which talk about the global nature, the covering of the peaks, the very need for Noah to build an ark instead of moving -- you can go a long way in 100 years, etc., etc.

 

[Assyrian]

There is nothing in the account that says it was a global flood. Are you saying God could only order Noah to build an ark of the flood was global? That is setting limits on God. You can go a long way in a hundred years, but you can't preach like Noah was supposed to if you run away.

As for the highest hills being covered, the language only tells us about the highest hills in that region, the highest hills Noah could see, not Everest or the Andes.

 

[Mick116]

There is nothing in the account that says it was a global flood. Are you saying God could only order Noah to build an ark of the flood was global? That is setting limits on God. You can go a long way in a hundred years, but you can't preach like Noah was supposed to if you run away.

As for the highest hills being covered, the language only tells us about the highest hills in that region, the highest hills Noah could see, not Everest or the Andes.

Exactly.

 

[shernren]

First question, what did lions eat just after the flood? It's not just lions (or whatever wild cat was the "kind" on the ark) it's also bears, wolves, etc. There are many meat eating "kinds" of animals, but after the flood there wouldn't have been much to eat, and they couldn't eat the animals from the ark or they wouldn't have time to reproduce.

It's a good point. The typical ecological productivity pyramid is extremely bottom heavy. Normally only about 10% of energy is used to build new biomass between any two trophic layers. Crudely speaking, it takes 100kg of grass, to support 10kg of cattle, to support 1kg of lion.

As such, in order for the animals off the ark to survive for any prolonged period of time, the ecological productivity pyramid would have had to be restored very quickly. The base would have been decimated, due to miraculously rapid sedimentation , salinization, and runoff erosion. Remember that it takes, over the long term, 10kg of producer biomass to support 1kg of herbivore: even if Noah had stocked up enough food in the ark, it wouldn't matter in the end if after the Flood, all the animals spilled out onto a plain completely incapable of supporting plants!

Furthermore, the pyramid would have been ridiculously top-heavy, because predators and herbivores would have been aboard in disproportionate numbers. Say there was one pair of each predator kind for each pair of herbivore kind. That's already 10 times less herbivore biomass than needed - take into account also the fact that most herbivores would have been physically a lot smaller than their respective predators.

Nevermind the enormous genetic bottleneck that would have resulted from a pair per genus surviving this ecological catastrophe - it would've been a miracle if any of them were still alive at all a month from the end of the Flood!

 

[Mallon]

There are a lot of problems with making the flood "local", including passages throughout Scripture which talk about the global nature, the covering of the peaks, the very need for Noah to build an ark instead of moving -- you can go a long way in 100 years, etc., etc.

Isn't the common creationist argument that there were no mountains -- or at least, no tall ones -- at the time of the Flood (thereby getting around the problem of plate tectonics)? If so, then I don't see how your argument can be used in favour of a global flood. Can't have it both ways.

 

[laptoppop]

Isn't the common creationist argument that there were no mountains -- or at least, no tall ones -- at the time of the Flood (thereby getting around the problem of plate tectonics)? If so, then I don't see how your argument can be used in favour of a global flood. Can't have it both ways.

Fair enough -- although the reason I've heard has been more about reducing the amount of water required to flood the entire earth. What do plate tectonics have to do with it? Some of the best models these days postulate runaway subduction. In any case, the Scriptures mention mountains - they don't specify how high - so we don't necessarily have to talk Mt. Everest scale for height, but still mountains -- which means the amount of water to cover them

Of course, the Scriptures specifically do not limit it to just the regional mountains. *all* *the entire heavens* (NIV):

Gen 7:19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.
Gen 7:20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

 

[timlamb]

I have two questions about what happened after the worldwide flood.

First question, what did lions eat just after the flood? It's not just lions (or whatever wild cat was the "kind" on the ark) it's also bears, wolves, etc. There are many meat eating "kinds" of animals, but after the flood there wouldn't have been much to eat, and they couldn't eat the animals from the ark or they wouldn't have time to reproduce.

Second question. There are animals like the three toed sloth that are adapted exceptionally well to their rain forest environment. They are also very slow and have a particular diet. How did they get back to the rain forest from the mountain in the middle of a desert? What did they eat along the way? Could they even have survived the heat without dehydrating, because their bodies weren't made for desert survival.

Just wondering.

Some great points have already been made, with hibernation, food storage on the ark, and God being in charge.

Did you forget that the bird brought back an olive branch before the ark ever landed. Vegetation was growing and no need for irrigation. Another thing, I bet God put pregnant animals on the ark to speed the recovery, and some, like the Dinosours and dragons did not survive long after the flood. The other thing is, for the sake of space and handling God most likely put very young animals on the ark (if the meat eater came on as young and the prey as older and giving birth?), those who could be fed the milk of other animals like the cow or goat for instants. The prey could have a couple litters before the lion began eating them (and some like the bears are not strictly meat eaters and there would be fish to supliment)

When all other factors run out there is the will of God which created and sustains all things.

 

[Jase]

Fair enough -- although the reason I've heard has been more about reducing the amount of water required to flood the entire earth. What do plate tectonics have to do with it? Some of the best models these days postulate runaway subduction. In any case, the Scriptures mention mountains - they don't specify how high - so we don't necessarily have to talk Mt. Everest scale for height, but still mountains -- which means the amount of water to cover them

Of course, the Scriptures specifically do not limit it to just the regional mountains. *all* *the entire heavens* (NIV):

Gen 7:19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.
Gen 7:20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

Plate tectonics is important because that's how mountains are produced.

As for "all" the heavens, I see no reason why that can't mean all the heavens that the people of the time knew of.

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip...
Gen 7:20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

How much water is required to raise the sea level 20 feet given the whole world is Flat without any hills ?

 

[Jase]

Some great points have already been made, with hibernation, food storage on the ark, and God being in charge.

If you understood how bad the arguments are, you wouldn't think they were great points.

Did you forget that the bird brought back an olive branch before the ark ever landed. Vegetation was growing and no need for irrigation.

How did plants survive being drowned by water for a year?

Another thing, I bet God put pregnant animals on the ark to speed the recovery, and some, like the Dinosours and dragons did not survive long after the flood.

Dragons are mythological creatures. And what killed off the dinosaurs so suddenly after the waters receded?

The other thing is, for the sake of space and handling God most likely put very young animals on the ark (if the meat eater came on as young and the prey as older and giving birth?), those who could be fed the milk of other animals like the cow or goat for instants. The prey could have a couple litters before the lion began eating them (and some like the bears are not strictly meat eaters and there would be fish to supliment)

Millions of small animals still wouldn't fit on an Ark of the size mentioned.

When all other factors run out there is the will of God which created and sustains all things.

In other words, the God of the gaps argument.

 

[laptoppop]

How did plants survive being drowned by water for a year?

seeds.

Dragons are mythological creatures. And what killed off the dinosaurs so suddenly after the waters receded?

The ice age.

Millions of small animals still wouldn't fit on an Ark of the size mentioned.

Don't need millions -- just one pair of each kind. God selected the animals, not Noah, so we know it was done right.

In other words, the God of the gaps argument.

No, the God is real, alive, loving, and active in His creation argument.

 

[laptoppop]

Plate tectonics is important because that's how mountains are produced.

No, Mallon mentioned them as if there were some problem with them for creationists. The (imho) best modeling right now has runaway subduction of the plates, no problem raising the mountains during later stages.

 

[laptoppop]

Local versus global flood.

You see, I have this strange notion that the Bible was written to communicate, not just with scholars, but with the people. I also see God as timeless and knowing that "the people" would extend far into the future from that time, including different cultures, and that His Scriptures speak to a variety of cultures and people.

As such, grab 100 people off the street. Have them read Genesis 1-11. Ask them two questions: According to what you have read, was the flood global? How long did it take God to create the earth? I am confident that the Scriptures will speak plainly in these matters.

 

[Mallon]

seeds.

Do you know how long it takes for an olive tree to grow? They're very slow-growing plants. They don't grow particularly well in saturated soil, either.

The ice age.

If you're going to accept the evidence for a recent ice age, you should at least be honest and acknowledge the same evidence that suggests it happened over 10,000 years ago. You don't get to pick and chose facts to support you argument.

No, Mallon mentioned them as if there were some problem with them for creationists.

They are a problem for YECs. You can't have mountains without plate tectonics, and according to YECs, plate tectonics did not start until the Flood began. Therefore, there were no mountains for the flood waters to cover. Unless, of course, you want to go ad hoc and argue that catastrophic tectonism caused mountains to pop up overnight and were then covered by the ensuing flood. That's not recorded in the Bible, though.

 

[pgp_protector]

How much water is required to raise the sea level 20 feet given the whole world is Flat without any hills ?

I'd also like to know how much water is required if the mountains are only 1/2 mile high (+20 Feet coverage)

 

[laptoppop]

They are a problem for YECs. You can't have mountains without plate tectonics, and according to YECs, plate tectonics did not start until the Flood began. Therefore, there were no mountains for the flood waters to cover. Unless, of course, you want to go ad hoc and argue that catastrophic tectonism caused mountains to pop up overnight and were then covered by the ensuing flood. That's not recorded in the Bible, though.

Interesting -- I hadn't run across the claim about no plate tectonics until the flood. I don't see any reason that that is a YEC requirement at all. God made the world - with plates - and with an unknown number of mountains of unknown sizes. The plates normally move slowly enough that a couple thousand years from creation to the flood wouldn't be any big thing, just like a couple thousand years from Christ's incarnation until now is no big thing.

Speculation -- there may have been runaway subduction of the plates at the time of the flood - it explains various things. But the plates had to be there to move in such a manner.

 

[Jase]

No, Mallon mentioned them as if there were some problem with them for creationists. The (imho) best modeling right now has runaway subduction of the plates, no problem raising the mountains during later stages.

Well, they are problem for creationists, since plate tectonics is an extremely slow process. Continents move about 5 cms per year. Under the creationist model, they would have had to move thousands of miles in less than a year.