Fish on the Ark?

Dolphins are air breathers, the smae as whales, plesiosaurs, etc. they did not evolve, either macro or micro from fish. Edited by imageinvisible, : added text in qs boxEdited by AdminNWR, : shortened appearance of link

For the same reason, as arachnopilia was so kind to point out in another thread, that the coelocanth (which appears in only one period of the geological column and subsequetly disappears from the fossil record, which lead scientists to believe it had gone extinct 80 mya) does not appear in every subsequent layer of the geological column since it's supposed appearance/evolution. If it survived for 80 million years (as evolutionist suppose) it is quite resonable to think that it should have appeared (atleast once or twice) in the geological column prior to it's being found alive. There are plenty of other phyla of creatures that appear before the plesiosaurs that are still alive today (or appear in layers above), but which do not appear in the same layers as those which contain plesiosaurs. Your reasoning seems to suggest that since they where not burried with plesiosaurs they did not exist at the same time as the plesiosaurs, they only existed before and after. I do not completely understand the mechanism for why dolphins and plesiosaurs don't appear in the same layers (if in fact they do not [there have been several claims of fossils being found in layers that they should not appear in because the current postulate of evolution says they did not evolve until later] that are not made public) but not knowing the mechanism doesn't stop science from claiming that something occured. (I give you big bang and evolution as two examples)* other Lazurus taxons:
Laotian rock rat, Lazarussuchus, GracilidrisAs to the topic, there are many families of fish, even today, that can survive in both salt and fresh water environments. It is our contintion that just because a certain organism that is alive today cannot survive a salinity change does not mean that it could not survive such in the past. This is a direct result of the second law of thermodynamics, that ordered systems degrade or erode into less organized systems. That an organism alive today cannot survive salinity changes today is a result of a loss of information due to speciation/mutation (adaptation to a new environment which was the direct result of the flood). The earth today is not the same as the earth before the flood.Creationist theories have stated several things, for one: that the salinity of the ocean today is far higher than it was in the past, that it is a direct result of erosion of minerals on land that make their way to the ocean thus adding more salt and minerals to the ocean. Secound that there (dispite assertions from mainstream scientist/evolutionist) is no means by which this salinity is being removed at, or near, the same rate that it is being introduced. ergo that the salinity of the oceans has been steadily (predictably) increasing since the flood, and the waters that covered the earth where far less salty (so to speak).The question might arise as to how, if there was a flood (which obviously would have stired up a great deal of salts and soluble minerals) why then where they deposited on the land masses rather than remain in the oceans that where supposed to cover the earth. The solution to this (for those of you who know and understand solutions [pun intended]) is oversaturation, only a certain amount of soluable materials will saturate a liquid in a given amount of time, the rest settles to the bottom of the solution (i.e. what evolutionist call the geological column) these soluables then become the cementing minerals that created the sandstone/sedimentary rocks of the geological column. The action of sedimentation removed most of these minerals from the water and left them in the sediments. Also that the oceans where not created salty, the water was fresh and desalinated from the begining. As for corals, yes if you remove the salts from the water 'all at once,' they will no doubt die. (again this is a result of loss of information through adaptation) They have adapted to that environment. But if you remove just a little bit of the salt every generation or so, they will most likly adapt to the change and survive. (this should be testable, though it may require a test that lasts for several years)

---

Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.

Or the dead sea, or the great salt lake? Oh wait, it did. I'll try to be gently, kind, and loving. Do you have any information handy on the hydrolitic cycle? Point one: Salt is not carried by evaporated water. Point two: what is the differeance between the great lakes and lake baikal and the great 'salt' lake and the dead sea? Hint: run off; both into and out of, the lakes/sea.as for question one, ALL of the fish fossils in the geological column are pre-flood. Everything alive today is post-flood. Pre-flood fish where different in that the sea (when it was created) had no salts in it and where therefore fresh water, meaning that all the pre-flood fish where fresh water fish. Any avertion to desalination now is strictly due to a loss of genetic information or to adaptation to the current environment. Furthermore it seems that it would be far easier to become acustomed (environmentaly speaking) to increasing levels of salination than it would to decreasing salination; but in either case, I recomend Leuisiana and florida for fishing. Especially those lakes that run off directly into the gulf of mexico, best fresh 'and' salt water fishing in the world. There are several phyla and species of fish in that area that routinely travel from salt to fresh water and back without any ill effects. Also try Alaska during the salmon run. Furthermore there are many sharks (I remember seeing a national geagraphic special I believe it was) that, though they get slugish in fresh water (due primarally to beter oxygen tranfer) do not exhibit any ill effects to desalination (atleast under short term conditions). I feel the same way concerning the 'uinformitarian principle'. What evidence is there that a certain process has ALWAYS occured at the same rates they do now?*I know this is off topic and if you would like to debate it somewhere else I would be glade to, especially since someone would try to bring up radioactive decay rates as being rock solid proof [sic] of the uniformitarian principle. However I recently read an artical by an evolutionist who was tring to contradict another creationist claim of observations concerning pulonium 218 radio halos in granite bedrock by saying that the radio active materials concerned where (esentially) being reenergized by other radio active particles. I'm sure I can find the article again.*My point being that lack of evidence, even (or should that say especially) by evolutionary standards, does not necessaraly constitute special pleading.

---

Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.

I disagree, but I cannot debate it in this thread.

I should point out (though it may be off topic) that the common creationsit model uses runaway subduction and catastrophic plate tectonics, as well as an enormous amounts of volcanic activity as the primary (next to God) cause of the flood. A literal reading of the text in Genesis seems to indicate that there was a single landmass prior to the flood. It is the breaking up of this landmass that the creation model uses as a prelude to the flood. Fourthermore two things in the scriptures acounts for where the water came from, the breaking up of the fountains of the deep and the opening of the widows of heaven. The most basic literal interpritation of these two statements is that the water was coming from both the sky and the earth. (please bear with me I am explaining this so that I can get to another point to the question you are asking) Even by evolutionry standards the fossil record seems to indicate that the deep sea creatures where buried first, followed by the shallow water creatures, then the larger land animals. (but even in this there is a good deal of 'jumbling up' as you say of the creatures in the fossil record)( Anomalously Occurring Fossils just one list of anomaluosly occuring fossils) This portion of the flood has been termed the Permian-triassic extinction. These creatures, the deeper ocean (near bottom dwelling), shallow water creatures, and near coastal area land animals would have been prime casualties of volcanicaly/earthquake induced tidal waves. Creatures such as dolpines and whales, which require air to breath stay closer to the surface of the water (especially when out in the deeper ocean) and therefore (just like ships today) would have avoided the tidal waves. Those creatures that where not caught in the initial tidal waves where slowly forced to higher ground until there was no ground. (note that the faster of said creatures would most likly be the last to be burried) finaly dolphines and whales would have been near the last to have been burried requiring that they be 'beached' in shallower areas as the waters receeded. (Disclaimer: as far as I know, no creation scientist has put forth this kind of explaination, I'm just going on common sense here, and I may very well be wrong. I do have several quaries out to some crationist scientist concerning a model like this one and am currently waiting for feedback. If I find such an hypothesis that has been put forth by a creationist I will be sure to let you know. I.E. this is my own idea garnered from a 'cursory' examination of the evidence and information available to me, and is subject to revision)I did however get this off of a creation websight concerning Woodmorappe, John, 1996 book Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study : to the question you asked concerning the layers and the organisms found there in: Actually such a pattern fits the Flood model quite well. The Biblical kind can extend beyond genus to family, and this changes the pattern significantly. However, those genera that survived the Flood would be the least likely to be buried particularly in lower deposits, since they would be able [to] swim above the deposits. In this case the pattern would be based on how well a given genus could survive the Flood. So even in the Flood model the fossil order in question would be an order of death and even extinction.As to similarities between creatures, you seem to be overlooking that 'living fossils' (as they have been termed) some of which date back to 500 mya by evolutionary standards don't exhibit any morphological differances (or minor ones if any) from their ancient fossils. The coelacanth, nautilus, and wollemi pine (to name a few) are good examles of this.As far as numbers to salination rates I am still looking for those figures.

---

Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.

Genesis 1:9 And God saith, `Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so. 10 And God calleth to the dry land `Earth,' and to the collection of the waters He hath called `Seas;' and God seeth that [it is] good.The inferance is clear that if all of the water was gathered into one place, that the land likewise was gathered into one place. i.e. one ocean, one landmass. IOW pangia, but this is off topic, if you want we can take the issue to the 'what does the Bible say' thread. Not true there is plenty of evidence, but off topic. Hince an obsevation that seems to support a global flood, that even when we find land animals they are generally buried with water borne creatures. Evolutionists have their postulates as to why we find land animals mixed in with marine creatures, and creationist have theirs, this is a matter of interpriting the evidence. The evidence for both sides is the same only the starting presuppositions are different. Niether view point will ever be proven as an uncontestable fact becuase the occurance was not observed in the first person by anyone alive today and it cannot be repeated. All we can do on either side of the fence is make assumptions and see how well our assumptions fit with our interpritation of the evidence. Evolutionist claim that the geological column was greated over hundreds of millions of years, however there is a large amount of observational data that indicates otherwise, but I don't see evolutionists throwing out their theories just because some of the evidence doesn't fit. Yes well it is an old list if you didn't notice. It was compiled in 1984 I believe and needs to be revised, I'm fairly certain some more OOP fossils have been found to add to the list to take the place of any that have been relagated to 'reworking'.as for you asertions on Coelacanth: coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years but in fact the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record. However, some of the extinct species, particularly those of the last known fossil coelacanth, the Cretaceous genus Macropoma, closely resemble the living species. You are speaking of specication not genus and as my earlier post pointed out evolutionary ideas concerning genus/phyla/family are faulty and is at best a smokescreen for trying to provide proof of evolution. More observable evidence of a recent catostrophic global flood, and the resultant adaptation of surviving species to the new, greatly altered, environment; as well as the subsiquent extinction of those that could not adapt. This same 'bottlekneck' can be found in almost every species alive today, including humans, but evolutionary theories want to ignore the possibility that all of these bottleknecks occured as the result of one single event. When you exclude information like this who is the real culprite of misinformation?Evolutionary theories are stuck on the idea that variations within a phyla/genus (IOW speciation) is proof that things have evolved, it is not. It only proves that organisms can and do adapt to a changing environment. If there where another living species of wollemi pine that could add it's genetic information to the one that exists in australia, then a new species would be born. For example the Lion and the Tiger. Evolution would have us believe that since these two creatures are of a different species that they are unrelated in that they inhabit two seperate branches of the evolutionary tree. But these two creatures can mate and produce viable living offspring, that can even themselves reproduce, thus creating a new species call Ligers. The misinformation is that minor changes in skin/coat color, size, eating habits, the loss of certain abilities (like flight etc.) are all proof of evolution, when they are not. They are proof of an organisms ability to adapt to a particular environment. This process does not add any new genetic information, it can only work with what it has and for the most part results in a loss of genetic divercity/variability. So the idea that the wollemi pine is not the same wollemi pine found in fossil records is flawed. The only difference is that the wollemi pine in australia has had @3000 years to adapt to it's new environment. The same can be said of the coelacath. There is no morphological difference, it is still recognizable as a coelacath. Thogh it is off topic I will make two points. 1. that land does not move even when the water is moving over the top of it and 2. That uprooted plants in a flood can move quite rapidly, and create an enormous amount of devistation.

---

Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.

It would be very off topic to go into much detail here concerning the ancestry of man. I will howevery show you my sources and give you a quick rundown. Answers | Answers in Genesis I speak, concerning a 'bottlekneck' in human history, of the Mitochondrial DNA inherited by all humans. The only two explainations of which are that all humans where born of a. one human female or b. a small group of human females of which only the mitochondrial DNA of one survived. The history of the earth as outlined in the Bible agrees with both conclusions. IOW c. both a. and b. a. being Eve, and b. being Noah's wife and the wives of Noah's children. Identical in that there is only one race, Human. Which is what the Bible has stated all along. Any apearent diferances are due strictly to speciation, or adaptation to a particular environment. i.e. slight diferances in color variations, distinctive features selected both environmentaly like hight to climat ratios, and socialy like facial features. Like the Bible says there are many tribes, mant tongues, and many nations but only one race decended from adam and eve; man. I do not know if there is curently a thread along these lines of discussion. Until believers in uniformitarianism can provide evidence of their previous state of physics, there is no reason to assume that the uniformitarian principle is true. I believe that there is a thread on this if you would like to go there and debate it further Obvious Child. There is a conciderable amount of observational data which calls into question the UP.And DrAdiquate down there has just demonstrated the tendancy for evolutionists to arbitrarily discount anything that a creationist says by attempting to deny that we have observable evidence in place of made-up nonsense. However in so doing he has just refuted PaulK concerning water being good at buring things, and natural selection and speciation.BTW I found those figures for ocean salination rates. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis As noted in this source and in the material referances this source cites (4,5, and 6); The minimum possible rate in the past (of sodium input), even if the most generous assumptions are granted to evolutionists, is 356 million tonnes/year. While the maximum possible rate in the past (of sodium output), even if the most generous assumptions are granted to evolutionists, is 206 million tonnes/year. Which gives an absolute maximum age for the earths ocean at 62 million years (Not counting a global flood).PS to PaulK for a general introduction to Catastrophic Plate Techtonics please see Dr. Baumgardner's articles for the CPT forum at these two sites: Forum on Catastrophic Plate Tectonics | Answers in Genesis http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCcpt.html If you want to discuss them further I am sure we can find a better thread in which to do so.

---

Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.

Actualy the referances cited (concerning ocean salinity) aren't from Gish, whoever that is, they are from geologist Dr. Steve Austin and physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys. Now Dr. Austin I am not familiar with his work but Dr. Humphrys work I am familiar with. Particularly his magnetic field theory which acuratly predicted the magnetic field strength of Uranus and Neptunes magnetic fields before they where measured (10. Paleomagnatism), and his starlight and time theory, a creationist cosmology model.As far as AiG is concerned they have a feedback link; if you have a problem with something that is posted on their site feel free to try and refute it, I'm sure the scientist/s involed would enjoy discussing it with you.'A servant is not greater thsn his Master.'

---

Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.