It's a well known fact that neither skill, nor intelligence, are equally distributed among human beings. As much as I love my Christian brethren, I have to admit this is just as true for us. We have some brilliant apologists on our side, but we also have many goofballs. Thus, while we have many who can articulate the Cosmological argument, we also have those who will ask questions like "if we evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?"
Every Evolutionist who has ever heard that question knows how cringey it is. The more confidently it is asked, the more awkward it becomes. This, ladles and gentlespoons, is exactly how I feel listening to the overwhelming majority of objections to Genesis.
An example can be seen in the header image. With a woefully inadequate depiction of the ark, we see the caption "Something you never hear the young-earth flood-geology folks addressing. Why put Noah through the process of bringing on tons of food and water and feeding a bunch of animals for a year when God, allegedly, knows that as soon as the ship hit the sand that half of the animals were going to eat the other half. /sigh". This is attached to a meme, which states "My favourite part of the ible is when, after the flood the ark landed, and all the carnivores waited until their prey reporduced before eating them."
There is so much wrong with this sparkling example of a cliche that it's obvious no one involved, whether they made it, posted it, or unironically liked/shared it, actually took any measure of time studying what Christians actually believe, nor asking a real Creationist (or at least, one worth asking) this question to see if their objection works.
To begin with, it's strange that the post frames it as a geology question, when in reality, the issue here is biological in nature. Geology, in simple terms, is the study of rocks. When speaking of "young-earth flood-geology", you're not talking about the ark or its inhabitants. You're talking about both the origins of the Earth, how the flood affected it, and what's gone on since then. Geology is so utterly unconcerned with animals that it can even be done on other astronomical objects (comets, the moon, other planets, etc.) on which life never existed. In other words, all of them... It is the Earth that was designed for sustaining life, and life is designed to inhabit the Earth.
So already it's hard to take the objection seriously. However, we can ignore this obvious blunder and assume the question was asked by a more competent apologist. Carnivores on the ark: Why bother with them, and how didn't they just delete the entire eco-system after the flood?
As it stands, the internet is replete with high-tech search engines, such as Google, Bing, and Duck Duck Go (my personal recommendation, as they neither fiddle with the search results, nor track your data). It is very easy to search something along the lines of "how do Creationists deal with carnivores and Noah's ark?", or "what did carnivores eat after Noah's flood", or any number of other terms. The fact that I need to explain how to use a search engine in 2023 is less than encouraging, but apparently, it is necessary.
But even searching the answer online is unnecessary if you possess both critical thinking skills, and any knowledge about the Creationist position what so ever. See, contrary to the assertion of the meme, the Bible does not say there were carnivores on the ark, nor does it say they conveniently waited. This is where atheists jump the gun and start raising a whole bunch of other objections, like "then how didn't they drown?", or "but it does say two of every kind of animal, so carnivores are necessarily implied". The value of listening cannot be understated: resist the urge to jump that gun.
The atheist misunderstanding comes in when atheists omit two critical details. The first is that, contrary to popular opinion, Creationists do not reject change over time. In fact, we literally invented it. Charles Darwin was a habitual plagiarist, stealing basically all of his ideas from other sources. That included Christians, such as Edward Blyth, who wrote about Natural Selection long before Darwin. It would appear that the University of Cambridge is, or at least was at one point in time, in possession of an article by Blyth, with Darwin's own hand-written notes all over it. Thus, yes, Creationists believe species change over time.
The second is a critical Biblical event: The Fall. The Fall had a major effect on not only the Earth, but the entire Creation (Romans 8:22). This event changed what was once a "very good" creation into a sin-stained wreck. If you do not understand The Fall, you do not understand Christianity.
Both of these key facts mean that carnivores are no kind of objection to the "young" Earth position. Consider the cactus in this image. What you are looking at is actually not just one species. Rather, the red top is called a moon cactus (Gymnocalycium mihanovichii), a species of cactus that cannot produce chlorophyll. This, while giving it an appealing visage, also gives it the amazing ability to die very rapidly. That is, unless it is grafted onto another succulent to sustain it.
Now, if one is ignorant of the Creationist position, one might ask why God designed such a succulent? Why create something that cannot sustain itself? But if one understands both speciation and The Fall, one can figure out that the moon cactus is descended from a species that actually could sustain itself. Furthermore, the original moon cactus did not even have spikes. In Genesis 3:17-19, we see God's punishment to Adam. He curses the very ground, causing it to produce agricultural nuisances such as thorns and thistles.
Earlier on in the chapter, God also speaks to Satan, telling him that he is cursed above all animals (Genesis 3:14). The implication? The animals are also cursed. However, God does not go into detail about this particular aspect of the curse.
The simplest explanation of The Fall is 3 words: Sin brought death. But God never specifies how this will happen, neither on an individual, nor grand scale. We don't even know how Adam himself died. Peacefully in his sleep? Slowly, of some disease? In some tragic accident? We can probably rule out murder, since God makes a particular spectacle of Cain's murderous act, and Lamech later on speaks of this as if it's the only murder that ever happened up to that point, but as far as all other causes go, all we know is that "After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died." (Genesis 5:4-5).
One thing we do know about the animals of Genesis is that before sin, they were actually herbivorous. At the end of Genesis 1, we read "And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day." (Genesis 1:29-31).
In an eco-system without death, this makes sense, just as it does in an eco-system shortly after the introduction of death. It also means there were no carnivores in the beginning. Back then, as will one day happen again (Isaiah 11:6-9), wolves, lambs, lions, calves, bears, oxen, vipers, humans, all lived together in perfect harmony.
For human beings, a vegetarian lifestyle was maintained even up to the time of the flood. At least, as far as the righteous were concerned. After the flood, God made a covenant with mankind, saying "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs." (Genesis 9:2-3). But this covenant extends only to us. God didn't tell cows, or guinea pigs, or elephants, or llamas, that they could eat whatever they wanted. So what happened?
The Bible actually doesn't say. When did animals start eating meat? It could have been immediately after The Fall. Adam took a bite out of the fruit, suddenly a lion took a bite out of a zebra. But it's more likely it was a gradual thing. In fact, part of the reasoning for the flood is "God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth." (Genesis 6:12). Thus, God says to Noah "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth." (Genesis 6:13).
Two key elements here: All flesh is corrupted, and that corruption lead to the Earth being filled with violence. Is it not likely this violence included carnivory? It's possible this included carnivory among humans. Maybe, though they were only allowed to eat plants up to this point, they chose to eat meat regardless. And it seems more than likely animals would have as well.
So obviously we have the whole ordeal with the ark. The ark, of course, being a preservation effort. Everything that breathed air was destroyed, save those on the ark. Now, if God is destroying the Earth because of the violence, is He going to choose the most violent animals to preserve on the ark, or a more peaceful example? Baloo, or Mor'du? Baloo, of course! He's not going to pick the savage beasts who genuinely will obliterate half the eco-system the moment the ark hits the sand, He's going to pick the Little Tykes of the world.
Little Tyke is actually a fantastic example. Without consuming so much as a single drop of blood in her entire life, this pacifistic lioness managed to exceed the average weight of a lioness by 72lbs. Given that even in recent history, there have been examples of "carnivorous" animals living vegetarian lifestyles, even beasts as notoriously carnivorous as a lion, it does not seem too be a stretch to suggest that they were more capable of doing so in the days of the flood. Thus, we do not have to assume a single carnivore would have set foot on that ark, or that they would have needed to suffer a moment of starvation in the days after stepping off.
Ultimately, carnivory is an effect of sin, not an inbuilt feature. Not only were animals quite capable of maintaining a vegetarian diet, but to this day, many animals that "should" be carnivorous are not! The fruit bat, the panda, the kinkajou, the palm nut vulture, these all have the features that would make them fantastic killing machines, yet the vast majority of them, with few exceptions, do not eat flesh.
With all of this in mind, we can safely conclude that the objection from carnivores is no kind of threat to flood "geology". Instead, it is one of many examples of an objection that could be answered before it even leaves the atheist's head, if only they would take pleasure in understanding. However, as Proverbs 18:2 says, "A fool has no delight in understanding,
But in expressing his own heart."
Carnivory is a result of this very attitude. Adam and Eve, rather than listen to God, trusted in themselves, disobeying Him, and plunging the world into unending futility. But there is a way out. The sin that brought death into the world can be forgiven, thanks to one death in particular: The death of the Son of God.
Taking on the flesh of a man, Jesus, the Son of God, lived a perfect life from His youth. Whereas we disobey God on a daily basis from the day we are able, Jesus never once broke God's Holy law. Thus, He, and He alone, merited eternal life. Nevertheless, He was crucified, suffering the full wrath of God for sin. This means we, who are sinners, can instead receive His reward. The sole condition is faith, for as Scripture says, "...“The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”" (Romans 10:8-13).
Thus, the choice is yours. You may continue in your stubborn rebellion, being consumed by your own sin as a lion chews on the corpse of an antelope. But there is an ark, ready to carry you to safety in the Kingdom of God. Get on it.