What did carnivores eat after the flood?

[otseng]

Quarkhead asked a good question. So I'm creating a new topic here to address it.

After all the animals stepped off Noah's ark, what did the carnivores eat? All the (land) animals perished in a world-wide flood. So the only animals that carnivores could eat were those that stepped off the boat. Wouldn't they have all eaten each other? And also what did the carnivores eat while they were in the ark?

[nygreenguy]

Then what about carnivorous plants? A plant cant rely on a dead fly simply happening to fall into its lair.

everything was herbivorous before the flood. Especially the animals that God led to Noah.[/quote]

Impossible in so many ways. There is zero evidence to support your claim, and all the evidence shows otherwise. As I said, what about the carnivorous plants? Many plants can NOT survive without eating other organisms, they are carnivores.

Also, eating plants is NOT as easy as it seems. The entire digestive system from tooth to anus of an herbivore is evolved to digest plants. There are whole organs devoted to simply breaking down the cellulose in the plant matter. Carnivores can NOT do this. Many carnivores also fail to have the teeth necessary to grind up plant matter into a form which is digestible. Carnivore teeth are adapted to ripping and tearing, not grinding.

Also, where are all the fossils of these alleged herbivores? We can see, obviously, carnivorous animals and plants in the fossil record. What you propose is simply impossible.

[superimposed]

Sorry but you are again making an assumption. Can you show me that all these animals ate meat before the flood including venus fly traps. I would be interested to see this evidence.

[nygreenguy]

Sorry but you are again making an assumption. Can you show me that all these animals ate meat before the flood including venus fly traps. I would be interested to see this evidence.

I'm not making an assumption, I just GAVE you the evidence. The fossils evidence shows us the anatomical features of meat eaters. The do not posses the necessary biological modifications for digesting meat.

Once again, another creationist who cant understand basic biology.

As for plants, its ecologically impossible for them to survive without eating meat. We can see the types of environments these plants resided in and we know what types of nutrients are available in such environments.

And dont give me the bs you are "interested". Thats a bold faced lie. You are not interested in anything we have to say, as your replies to us have shown that you dont even read what we write, let alone show any honest interest.

[JoeyKnothead]

Carnivores by definition will have eaten meat almost exclusively before, during, and after this flood. As mentioned before, it may have been carrion, but it was meat. Any other foods and the animal becomes an omnivore, herbivore, or anything but a carnivore.

Then what about carnivorous plants? A plant cant rely on a dead fly simply happening to fall into its lair.

Ask the flood folks. I was simply pointing out that a carnivorous animal is a meat eater.

When asking "What did carnivores eat?" the proper answer is a diet composed almost exclusively of meat or flesh. This applies to carnivorous plants as well.

If we presuppose the flood occurred we are bound to conclude carnivorous animals ate meat after the flood.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 59:

>Snip because the poster himself says he's lying about his claims, and offers no way to know where the truth is<

...Well ok I made up some of that but the rest is definitely verifiable in science books. And the bible.

Leaves one wondering what else you make up as you post herein.

Were you taught to lie as part of your religious training, or do you come by it naturally?

I'll dismiss that entire section as lies.

Or the flood was 1656 years after creation which puts it abbout 4700 - 5000 years ago.

Or you're lying here as well.

[McCulloch]

Noah the animals stayed on the ark 7 days they very likely had additional food onboard and didn't eat the very last scrap.

What Bible did you get that from?
The book of Genesis has the animals in the ark for a lot longer than that.

[McCulloch]

The flood was right before the KT boundary about 65 million yrs ago
[...]
Or the flood was 1656 years after creation which puts it abbout 4700 - 5000 years ago.

Please make up your mind. There are orders of magnitude difference in these two answers. So, please answer, when was the alleged flood?

[Cathar1950]

The flood was right before the KT boundary about 65 million yrs ago
[...]
Or the flood was 1656 years after creation which puts it abbout 4700 - 5000 years ago.

Please make up your mind. There are orders of magnitude difference in these two answers. So, please answer, when was the alleged flood?

And now we can see why he can't see contradictions in the Bible.
Much like their use of science. They use all kinds of Baconian science to show their Bible is right and when it shows it to be wrong on even their interpretations the science is suddenly no good.

[FinalEnigma]

Lets look at the dates a little. If the animals were all herbivores before the flood and then 'microevolved' into carnivores after...

The t rex is exclusively a carnivore. We know this from fossils, which supposedly all came from the flood, so that's one problem. but back to the dates I mentioned.

We know there haven't been any t-rexes around in the last 1000-2000 years - We'd have heard about it if they were wandering about Rome or medieval England.
Superimposed said that the flood occurred 4700 - 5000 years ago. Alright, so that means that the T-rex evolved from an exclusive herbivore, to an exclusive carnivore, and then went extinct, in less than 3000 years.

Ny, you're a biologist, and I wouldn't know how to goggle that so - is that remotely plausible, or does superimposed have more faith in evolution than we do?

[nygreenguy]

Lets look at the dates a little. If the animals were all herbivores before the flood and then 'microevolved' into carnivores after...

The t rex is exclusively a carnivore. We know this from fossils, which supposedly all came from the flood, so that's one problem. but back to the dates I mentioned.

We know there haven't been any t-rexes around in the last 1000-2000 years - We'd have heard about it if they were wandering about Rome or medieval England.
Superimposed said that the flood occurred 4700 - 5000 years ago. Alright, so that means that the T-rex evolved from an exclusive herbivore, to an exclusive carnivore, and then went extinct, in less than 3000 years.

Ny, you're a biologist, and I wouldn't know how to goggle that so - is that remotely plausible, or does superimposed have more faith in evolution than we do?

I have debunked this idea of rapid evolution many times and my main argument is its genetic impossibility. See, many genes have different traits called alleles. These are like green eyes, blue eyes, brown eyes. So, we have 3 different alleles.

Now, a flood would have narrowed down any population to only 4 alleles of any given trait because of the 2 diploid survivors. We can NOT have such diversity with only 4 alleles. We need hundreds of alleles for every gene. So, the idea that the diversity in the genes was there, like many creationists claim, is false. The only other possibility is mutation. Mutation rates that fast are simply not sustainable. Mutations are RANDOM. Its statistically impossible to get that many beneficial mutations in such a short period of time.

We then also come to occams razor. If the creationist takes the mutation hypothesis as true, then there is no need for a flood because nature can do it all on its own.

The creationist has only one route to take when it come to noahs flood and that is miracles and faith. To sit here and it somehow try to show how science proves this event happened is beyond unscientific, its ludicrous.