Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 hmm 12 months, lets see gestation periods chimpanzees (237 days), gorilla (257 days) and orangutan (260 days) Asian elephants have a gestation period of 645 days and African elephants 640 days. Dogs and other canines have a gestation period of about 60, which is also the period for cats. Even within the species of apes and monkeys gestation period seem to be a matter of size. For Rhesus monkeys it is 164 days and baboons 187 days. For small animals such as rabbits the period is about 33 days and for mice about 20 days. Cows 284 days,goats 150 days ( so yes could have had 1 kid by then ), roughly same of sheep, pigs a little less , but still only time for 1 litter.Rabbits easily only 33 days so a couple of litters there. Chickens around 22 sdays, ducks a little more, and geese more still, so can have eaten a few of them. The Valley Vegan...........Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote: According to the biblical account, Noah was actually on the ark for a bit over a year. That would have been enough time for many of the creatures to get a few generations worth of breeding going, but not enough for the human population. Therefore, the animals would have had a good head start. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: If that is the case, then if they had two of every species on this tardis like ark, then surely they would have caused extinction of some species? I mean if they were eating them?.....sorry my brain works in mysterious ways......... The Valley Vegan...............jo <jo.heartwork > wrote: I thought it was because God gave permission to eat meat during the flood, so that they might survive. Of course, this would infer that once the plants were visible and growing again, people would stop eating animals. Jo - Shhhhh Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:10 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats Of course there is much disagreement on this subject. About the only thing that can be certain is that originally God gave man a vegetarian diet, and therefore the whole meat eating thing is tied into the fact that man fell from grace. But it is a good book, a worthwhile read. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: Trouble is , I dont want to read a whole book on the subject, just get some informed feedback. Oh I`ve heard all the arguments before where one part of the bible says eat animals , and another contradicts it, just wondered what christian vegans or theological vegans ( if there are any ) think is all...... The Valley Vegan................Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: I think "Dominion" by Matthew Scully is about the best read you could get on a proper Christian ethic regarding animals. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: In my never ending quest to try and understand various faiths and their standpoint on animals , I noticed this christian article, what do you all think? We should treat all creatures with respect, as the early Christians did Nothing is more orthodox, one might think, than the traditional Christmas-card Nativity scene of the ox and ass looking adoringly at Jesus in the stable. Few realise that this much-loved scene has no obvious canonical authority. The canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not depict the animals in the stable, indeed there are no references at all to the animals attending Christ’s birth. The source appears to be the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, a compilation in Latin from the 8th or 9th centuries which draws on an older oral tradition. The ox and the ass, for example, appear on sarcophagi of the 4th and 5th centuries, and on ivory carvings of the fifth and sixth centuries. What we appear to have, then, is a non-canonical elaboration of the line found in Isaiah i, 3 (echoed in Habakkuk iii, 2) that “the ox knows its owner and the ass its master’s crib”. Interesting, one might think, but hardly significant. In fact Pseudo-Matthew is part of a voluminous amount of apocryphal literature that offers strikingly different perspectives on Jesus and animals. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (5th century), Jesus creates sparrows from clay and breathes on a dead fish to bring it back to life. In the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), the entire creation, including the animals, is caught up in a catalepsy at the birth of Jesus. In a Coptic fragment, of unknown date, Jesus heals a mule and remonstrates with its owner: “Now carry on and from now on do not beat it any more, so that you too may find mercy.” The significance of these gospel hints and apocryphal stories is that they testify to an animal-friendly tradition within Christianity. Christ’s birth and ministry are understood as a harbinger of peaceful creaturely relations in fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy that the “wolf shall live with the sheep . . . and a little child shall lead them” (xi, 6). God’s kingdom, then, consists in peaceful, filial, co-operative relations between species. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the instrumentalist views of animals found in classical exponents, such as Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Animals, they believed, were put here for our use. “Hence,” wrote St Thomas, “it is not wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing or in any other way whatever.” But the animal-friendly tradition was kept alive — indeed it flourished — in the lives of many saints of East and West. St Basil the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Isaac the Syrian, and St Cuthbert all commended kindness to animals as a mark of holiness. St Bonaventure, the biographer of St Francis of Assisi, wrote of how he was filled with overwhelming piety when he contemplated God’s other creatures, calling them “brothers” and “sisters” because they had the same origin as himself. Many commentators have dismissed these stories of saints and animals as hagiographical gloss. But, in fact, they carry a strong theological punch: union with God (if it is to be real) must involve communion with all God’s creatures. Attitudes of wonder and celebration cannot easily co-exist with wholly instrumentalist perspectives on animals. Neither did that animal-friendly tradition die out with the great saints. It culminated in the humanitarian movement in the 19th century that saw the first organised campaigns against cruelty to animals and children. Many think that the “dominion” over animals granted in Genesis i, 26 means despotism, but since human beings are subsequently prescribed a vegetarian diet (v29-30), it is difficult to see how herb-eating dominion can be a licence for tyranny Although most think that human salvation alone is Christian doctrine, many Bible verses make clear that the scope of salvation is cosmic. Untrammelled human supremacy, it is supposed, is part of the core message, whereas the Bible indicates how humans are uniquely wicked, capable of making themselves lower than the beasts — the Book of Job compares us unfavourably with the Leviathan and Behemoth (chaps 40-41). Last month more than 100 academics (including 40 theologians) helped to launch the new Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, an international academy dedicated to rethinking the ethics of our treatment of animals. Christianity — once judged to be the cornerstone of “speciesist” and “supremacist” attitudes — in fact comprises resources to help us discover more convivial and respectful relations with animals. Next time we peer into a Christmas crib, with Jesus surrounded by the adoring animals, we should remind ourselves of the survival of an alternative, animal-inclusive tradition at the heart of Christianity. The Rev Professor Andrew Linzey is director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics; www.oxfordanimalethics.com Peter H All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business. Peter H Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Mail. Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Peter H Try the all-new Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal Have a burning question? Go to Answers and get answers from real people who know. Peter H Messenger - with free PC-PC calling and photo sharing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 Maybe they ate the eggs too. Jo - peter VV Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:48 PM Re: Animals must not be skateboards hmm 12 months, lets see gestation periods chimpanzees (237 days), gorilla (257 days) and orangutan (260 days) Asian elephants have a gestation period of 645 days and African elephants 640 days. Dogs and other canines have a gestation period of about 60, which is also the period for cats. Even within the species of apes and monkeys gestation period seem to be a matter of size. For Rhesus monkeys it is 164 days and baboons 187 days. For small animals such as rabbits the period is about 33 days and for mice about 20 days. Cows 284 days,goats 150 days ( so yes could have had 1 kid by then ), roughly same of sheep, pigs a little less , but still only time for 1 litter.Rabbits easily only 33 days so a couple of litters there. Chickens around 22 sdays, ducks a little more, and geese more still, so can have eaten a few of them. The Valley Vegan...........Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote: According to the biblical account, Noah was actually on the ark for a bit over a year. That would have been enough time for many of the creatures to get a few generations worth of breeding going, but not enough for the human population. Therefore, the animals would have had a good head start. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: If that is the case, then if they had two of every species on this tardis like ark, then surely they would have caused extinction of some species? I mean if they were eating them?.....sorry my brain works in mysterious ways......... The Valley Vegan...............jo <jo.heartwork > wrote: I thought it was because God gave permission to eat meat during the flood, so that they might survive. Of course, this would infer that once the plants were visible and growing again, people would stop eating animals. Jo - Shhhhh Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:10 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats Of course there is much disagreement on this subject. About the only thing that can be certain is that originally God gave man a vegetarian diet, and therefore the whole meat eating thing is tied into the fact that man fell from grace. But it is a good book, a worthwhile read. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: Trouble is , I dont want to read a whole book on the subject, just get some informed feedback. Oh I`ve heard all the arguments before where one part of the bible says eat animals , and another contradicts it, just wondered what christian vegans or theological vegans ( if there are any ) think is all...... The Valley Vegan................Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: I think "Dominion" by Matthew Scully is about the best read you could get on a proper Christian ethic regarding animals. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: In my never ending quest to try and understand various faiths and their standpoint on animals , I noticed this christian article, what do you all think? We should treat all creatures with respect, as the early Christians did Nothing is more orthodox, one might think, than the traditional Christmas-card Nativity scene of the ox and ass looking adoringly at Jesus in the stable. Few realise that this much-loved scene has no obvious canonical authority. The canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not depict the animals in the stable, indeed there are no references at all to the animals attending Christ’s birth. The source appears to be the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, a compilation in Latin from the 8th or 9th centuries which draws on an older oral tradition. The ox and the ass, for example, appear on sarcophagi of the 4th and 5th centuries, and on ivory carvings of the fifth and sixth centuries. What we appear to have, then, is a non-canonical elaboration of the line found in Isaiah i, 3 (echoed in Habakkuk iii, 2) that “the ox knows its owner and the ass its master’s crib”. Interesting, one might think, but hardly significant. In fact Pseudo-Matthew is part of a voluminous amount of apocryphal literature that offers strikingly different perspectives on Jesus and animals. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (5th century), Jesus creates sparrows from clay and breathes on a dead fish to bring it back to life. In the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), the entire creation, including the animals, is caught up in a catalepsy at the birth of Jesus. In a Coptic fragment, of unknown date, Jesus heals a mule and remonstrates with its owner: “Now carry on and from now on do not beat it any more, so that you too may find mercy.” The significance of these gospel hints and apocryphal stories is that they testify to an animal-friendly tradition within Christianity. Christ’s birth and ministry are understood as a harbinger of peaceful creaturely relations in fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy that the “wolf shall live with the sheep . . . and a little child shall lead them” (xi, 6). God’s kingdom, then, consists in peaceful, filial, co-operative relations between species. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the instrumentalist views of animals found in classical exponents, such as Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Animals, they believed, were put here for our use. “Hence,” wrote St Thomas, “it is not wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing or in any other way whatever.” But the animal-friendly tradition was kept alive — indeed it flourished — in the lives of many saints of East and West. St Basil the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Isaac the Syrian, and St Cuthbert all commended kindness to animals as a mark of holiness. St Bonaventure, the biographer of St Francis of Assisi, wrote of how he was filled with overwhelming piety when he contemplated God’s other creatures, calling them “brothers” and “sisters” because they had the same origin as himself. Many commentators have dismissed these stories of saints and animals as hagiographical gloss. But, in fact, they carry a strong theological punch: union with God (if it is to be real) must involve communion with all God’s creatures. Attitudes of wonder and celebration cannot easily co-exist with wholly instrumentalist perspectives on animals. Neither did that animal-friendly tradition die out with the great saints. It culminated in the humanitarian movement in the 19th century that saw the first organised campaigns against cruelty to animals and children. Many think that the “dominion” over animals granted in Genesis i, 26 means despotism, but since human beings are subsequently prescribed a vegetarian diet (v29-30), it is difficult to see how herb-eating dominion can be a licence for tyranny Although most think that human salvation alone is Christian doctrine, many Bible verses make clear that the scope of salvation is cosmic. Untrammelled human supremacy, it is supposed, is part of the core message, whereas the Bible indicates how humans are uniquely wicked, capable of making themselves lower than the beasts — the Book of Job compares us unfavourably with the Leviathan and Behemoth (chaps 40-41). Last month more than 100 academics (including 40 theologians) helped to launch the new Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, an international academy dedicated to rethinking the ethics of our treatment of animals. Christianity — once judged to be the cornerstone of “speciesist” and “supremacist” attitudes — in fact comprises resources to help us discover more convivial and respectful relations with animals. Next time we peer into a Christmas crib, with Jesus surrounded by the adoring animals, we should remind ourselves of the survival of an alternative, animal-inclusive tradition at the heart of Christianity. The Rev Professor Andrew Linzey is director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics; www.oxfordanimalethics.com Peter H All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business. Peter H Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Mail. Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Peter H Try the all-new Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal Have a burning question? Go to Answers and get answers from real people who know. Peter H Messenger - with free PC-PC calling and photo sharing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 Im sure if they packed plenty of flour and fruit and veg and nuts they could have supplimented with meat/fowl, and of course fished like mad............ The Valley Vegan..............jo <jo.heartwork wrote: Maybe they ate the eggs too. Jo - peter VV Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:48 PM Re: Animals must not be skateboards hmm 12 months, lets see gestation periods chimpanzees (237 days), gorilla (257 days) and orangutan (260 days) Asian elephants have a gestation period of 645 days and African elephants 640 days. Dogs and other canines have a gestation period of about 60, which is also the period for cats. Even within the species of apes and monkeys gestation period seem to be a matter of size. For Rhesus monkeys it is 164 days and baboons 187 days. For small animals such as rabbits the period is about 33 days and for mice about 20 days. Cows 284 days,goats 150 days ( so yes could have had 1 kid by then ), roughly same of sheep, pigs a little less , but still only time for 1 litter.Rabbits easily only 33 days so a couple of litters there. Chickens around 22 sdays, ducks a little more, and geese more still, so can have eaten a few of them. The Valley Vegan...........Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: According to the biblical account, Noah was actually on the ark for a bit over a year. That would have been enough time for many of the creatures to get a few generations worth of breeding going, but not enough for the human population. Therefore, the animals would have had a good head start. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: If that is the case, then if they had two of every species on this tardis like ark, then surely they would have caused extinction of some species? I mean if they were eating them?.....sorry my brain works in mysterious ways......... The Valley Vegan...............jo <jo.heartwork > wrote: I thought it was because God gave permission to eat meat during the flood, so that they might survive. Of course, this would infer that once the plants were visible and growing again, people would stop eating animals. Jo - Shhhhh Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:10 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats Of course there is much disagreement on this subject. About the only thing that can be certain is that originally God gave man a vegetarian diet, and therefore the whole meat eating thing is tied into the fact that man fell from grace. But it is a good book, a worthwhile read. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: Trouble is , I dont want to read a whole book on the subject, just get some informed feedback. Oh I`ve heard all the arguments before where one part of the bible says eat animals , and another contradicts it, just wondered what christian vegans or theological vegans ( if there are any ) think is all...... The Valley Vegan................Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: I think "Dominion" by Matthew Scully is about the best read you could get on a proper Christian ethic regarding animals. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: In my never ending quest to try and understand various faiths and their standpoint on animals , I noticed this christian article, what do you all think? We should treat all creatures with respect, as the early Christians did Nothing is more orthodox, one might think, than the traditional Christmas-card Nativity scene of the ox and ass looking adoringly at Jesus in the stable. Few realise that this much-loved scene has no obvious canonical authority. The canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not depict the animals in the stable, indeed there are no references at all to the animals attending Christ’s birth. The source appears to be the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, a compilation in Latin from the 8th or 9th centuries which draws on an older oral tradition. The ox and the ass, for example, appear on sarcophagi of the 4th and 5th centuries, and on ivory carvings of the fifth and sixth centuries. What we appear to have, then, is a non-canonical elaboration of the line found in Isaiah i, 3 (echoed in Habakkuk iii, 2) that “the ox knows its owner and the ass its master’s crib”. Interesting, one might think, but hardly significant. In fact Pseudo-Matthew is part of a voluminous amount of apocryphal literature that offers strikingly different perspectives on Jesus and animals. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (5th century), Jesus creates sparrows from clay and breathes on a dead fish to bring it back to life. In the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), the entire creation, including the animals, is caught up in a catalepsy at the birth of Jesus. In a Coptic fragment, of unknown date, Jesus heals a mule and remonstrates with its owner: “Now carry on and from now on do not beat it any more, so that you too may find mercy.” The significance of these gospel hints and apocryphal stories is that they testify to an animal-friendly tradition within Christianity. Christ’s birth and ministry are understood as a harbinger of peaceful creaturely relations in fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy that the “wolf shall live with the sheep . . . and a little child shall lead them” (xi, 6). God’s kingdom, then, consists in peaceful, filial, co-operative relations between species. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the instrumentalist views of animals found in classical exponents, such as Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Animals, they believed, were put here for our use. “Hence,” wrote St Thomas, “it is not wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing or in any other way whatever.” But the animal-friendly tradition was kept alive — indeed it flourished — in the lives of many saints of East and West. St Basil the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Isaac the Syrian, and St Cuthbert all commended kindness to animals as a mark of holiness. St Bonaventure, the biographer of St Francis of Assisi, wrote of how he was filled with overwhelming piety when he contemplated God’s other creatures, calling them “brothers” and “sisters” because they had the same origin as himself. Many commentators have dismissed these stories of saints and animals as hagiographical gloss. But, in fact, they carry a strong theological punch: union with God (if it is to be real) must involve communion with all God’s creatures. Attitudes of wonder and celebration cannot easily co-exist with wholly instrumentalist perspectives on animals. Neither did that animal-friendly tradition die out with the great saints. It culminated in the humanitarian movement in the 19th century that saw the first organised campaigns against cruelty to animals and children. Many think that the “dominion” over animals granted in Genesis i, 26 means despotism, but since human beings are subsequently prescribed a vegetarian diet (v29-30), it is difficult to see how herb-eating dominion can be a licence for tyranny Although most think that human salvation alone is Christian doctrine, many Bible verses make clear that the scope of salvation is cosmic. Untrammelled human supremacy, it is supposed, is part of the core message, whereas the Bible indicates how humans are uniquely wicked, capable of making themselves lower than the beasts — the Book of Job compares us unfavourably with the Leviathan and Behemoth (chaps 40-41). Last month more than 100 academics (including 40 theologians) helped to launch the new Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, an international academy dedicated to rethinking the ethics of our treatment of animals. Christianity — once judged to be the cornerstone of “speciesist” and “supremacist” attitudes — in fact comprises resources to help us discover more convivial and respectful relations with animals. Next time we peer into a Christmas crib, with Jesus surrounded by the adoring animals, we should remind ourselves of the survival of an alternative, animal-inclusive tradition at the heart of Christianity. The Rev Professor Andrew Linzey is director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics; www.oxfordanimalethics.com Peter H All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business. Peter H Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Mail. Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Peter H Try the all-new Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal Have a burning question? Go to Answers and get answers from real people who know. Peter H Messenger - with free PC-PC calling and photo sharing. Peter H All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 why fish btw? tho i suppose that is more of a question fer sharon were the ocean fish suddenly able to breathe in fresh water? peter VV Dec 13, 2006 4:46 PM Re: Animals must not be skateboards Im sure if they packed plenty of flour and fruit and veg and nuts they could have supplimented with meat/fowl, and of course fished like mad............ The Valley Vegan..............jo <jo.heartwork wrote: Maybe they ate the eggs too. Jo - peter VV Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:48 PM Re: Animals must not be skateboards hmm 12 months, lets see gestation periods chimpanzees (237 days), gorilla (257 days) and orangutan (260 days) Asian elephants have a gestation period of 645 days and African elephants 640 days. Dogs and other canines have a gestation period of about 60, which is also the period for cats. Even within the species of apes and monkeys gestation period seem to be a matter of size. For Rhesus monkeys it is 164 days and baboons 187 days. For small animals such as rabbits the period is about 33 days and for mice about 20 days. Cows 284 days,goats 150 days ( so yes could have had 1 kid by then ), roughly same of sheep, pigs a little less , but still only time for 1 litter.Rabbits easily only 33 days so a couple of litters there. Chickens around 22 sdays, ducks a little more, and geese more still, so can have eaten a few of them. The Valley Vegan...........Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: According to the biblical account, Noah was actually on the ark for a bit over a year. That would have been enough time for many of the creatures to get a few generations worth of breeding going, but not enough for the human population. Therefore, the animals would have had a good head start. peace, sharon History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 I didnt think of that, but maybe if gods super evolutionery chemistry set ( the one that evolved humans in six days ) was used again? The Valley Vegan.............fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: why fish btw? tho i suppose that is more of a question fer sharon were the ocean fish suddenly able to breathe in fresh water? peter VV Dec 13, 2006 4:46 PM Re: Animals must not be skateboards Im sure if they packed plenty of flour and fruit and veg and nuts they could have supplimented with meat/fowl, and of course fished like mad............ The Valley Vegan..............jo <jo.heartwork > wrote: Maybe they ate the eggs too. Jo - peter VV Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:48 PM Re: Animals must not be skateboards hmm 12 months, lets see gestation periods chimpanzees (237 days), gorilla (257 days) and orangutan (260 days) Asian elephants have a gestation period of 645 days and African elephants 640 days. Dogs and other canines have a gestation period of about 60, which is also the period for cats. Even within the species of apes and monkeys gestation period seem to be a matter of size. For Rhesus monkeys it is 164 days and baboons 187 days. For small animals such as rabbits the period is about 33 days and for mice about 20 days. Cows 284 days,goats 150 days ( so yes could have had 1 kid by then ), roughly same of sheep, pigs a little less , but still only time for 1 litter.Rabbits easily only 33 days so a couple of litters there. Chickens around 22 sdays, ducks a little more, and geese more still, so can have eaten a few of them. The Valley Vegan...........Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: According to the biblical account, Noah was actually on the ark for a bit over a year. That would have been enough time for many of the creatures to get a few generations worth of breeding going, but not enough for the human population. Therefore, the animals would have had a good head start. peace, sharon History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher Peter H All new Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.