A question about the creationist model?

Question

How does it explain (and I mean explain, not disprove the alternative) the fact that meat eating creatures survived the first hundreds of years after the flood without eating? (because if they ate, they wouldnt let the "kinds" reproduce and repopulate the earth?. and how do you explain that, according to you, the reason "aledgedly more evolved" or more complex species fossils are found nearer the surface of the ground because they were fleeing from the flood and since they are more intelligent they made it to the high ground, but some slow dull animals like moles and insects apparently outsmarted and outrun raptors and flying species?

Even if rodents could feed thousands of species starting with low numbers and reproducing 10X every months:
1) Most carnivores would have starved because they would have to wait until rats were numerous (and if they didnt, why are there still rats?)
2) Do you think they wouldnt hunt the first prey they saw instead of selecting the mice only for the creationism argument´s sake?

Answer 1

If I could play devil's advocate here, and turn this into an interesting biology question ...

... Don't forget that the animals (and Noahs' family) were shut up in the Ark for just about 1 year (12 months). So Noah and company had to keep the carnivores fed for that time. So, the first job of the representatives of those rodent species, and the other herbivores, would have been to start reproducing to keep the carnivores fed for the year. It would be a necessary (and even interesting) calculation of whether the Ark had the carrying capacity for those carnivores represented in the reproducing herbivores. (Incidentally, Noah & co. would have had to keep those herbivores fed as well ... with the right kind of food ...eucaliptus leaves for the koalas, fresh bamboo for the pandas, etc.)

The Ark would make an interesting carrying capacity study.

...

Also, I don't think emperorisnaked understood your second question. Apparently he is not up on the creationist explanation of the distribution of the different animals in the strata around the world in terms of animals fleeing the rising waters ... the more complex they were, the higher they got. It is an impressive explanation, if for no other reason than the limited amount of thought put into it ... namely, the dinosaurs all seem to have made it to a certain level, and no higher, while the moles and sloths seemed to have *all* made it to much higher ground.

---

Of course, my favorite question is that of biogeography. E.g., not only do all kangaroo fossils indicate that the kangaroos caught by the flood were in Australia, but a representative pair of kangaroos (and all the marsupials) managed to hop their way to Noah's region before the flood, and then to hop back to Australia (and *only* to Australia) from Mt. Ararat after the flood.

Answer 2

Creationism is just a desperate fantasy invented to support a dieing religion, better to spend ones time concentrating on real science. Some other questions it doesn't answer is how the Australian and S.American monotremes and marsupials got back to their respective continents without leaving any fossils or other ruminant clues. As well as penguins going back to Antarctica. What did Eucalyptus specific feeders the Koala Bears do for food on the way home through the Eucalyptus barren Middle East ? And, not only did the moles and other slow mammals out run the raptors to high ground, so did all the DEAD men and DEAD mammals that died between the supposed fall and the supposed flood ! Yes, trilobites were so slow that even dead men can out run them.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Answer 3

Creationism is a religious dogma. It does not have to explain. Everything is the way it is because it is the will of a supernatural power. Any explanation they have is not based on reason and are comical in how contrived they can be. (e.g. monkeys got from the old world to the new world by floating on the billions of trees that were uprooted in the flood).

The recent court case in Dover Delaware showed how Intelligent Design/Creation Science is nothing but religion with another name. Behe was destroyed under questioning and had to admit that his view is one of faith and not science.

Answer 4

I explain this by saying that Moses exaggerated the extent of the Great Flood.

Sure, there was flooding (have a look at the water erosion on the Sphynx!), but it didn't cover the whole world.

Answer 5

Creationists are experts at coming up with preposterous explanations for biblical stories, but mostly they concentrate on finding minor discrepancies in the known facts about evolution and say "Ah ha! That proves creationism is true!"

Answer 6

the point of creationism vs. evolutionism is not about truth vs. truth but belief vs. truth.

you could believe in creationism and know about evolution at the same time. just gotta try hard enough....

Answer 7

Rodentia birth rates could easily supply carnivores.

The rest of your question is incoherent. If all animals outside the ark were killed in a flood then the fossil record would show this and it does.

The rest has to deal with dispersion rates over land and continental shifts of the species moreover then evolution of more complex forms.

Answer 8

Whoever came up wit this stuff should have a good career writing redneck fiction.