Fish on the Ark?

quote:

---

As for the actual event, insects, fish etc wouldn't need to board the ark since most could survive in water.

---

No they can't. Few insects can survive in water, most of the insects you're thinking of are water striders and they don't live in the water, but walk on the water, which doesn't work if the water is choppy. And few fish can survive serious salinity changes. Only a relative few, such as the bullshark can tolerate massive changes in salinity. Furthermore, many species are density specific. Changes in salinity change pressure. How you intend to deal with that I'd love to see. And how are large predators going to survive when the food pyramid has been wiped out?

quote:

---

Trillions, even trillions of trillions of marine life would have been extiguished (as we can see from the fossil strata)

---

Except that the strata doesn't support a flood belief. If the flood was true, we'd see strata with trilobites and humans. What we see is what evolution predicted. And don't even try to argue that complexity changes fluid mechanics. A 50 ton mammoth does not sink slower then a 1/2 an once primitive reptile.

quote:

---

, eventually breeding into different highly altering environments the fishes adapted and variated up until the many differnet fishes we have today and it still goes on.

---

See the early posts for a mockery of that argument. There is no indication of such rapid changes in species.

quote:

---

Like many salmon are adapting to changing water tempritures etc.

---

Not quite. Salmon undergo a specific change in their bodies to tolerate a single one time change in salinity and temperature. Not what you are arguing.

quote:

---

Remember the Universal Father was in control of the nature as the flood obliterated it, so I am sure God could have sustained the right spicies of fish for his plan for the Post-flood adaption.

---

Magic. Got it

Even if the dates were wrong, the flood still has a number of fatal flaws.The fossil record does not show a homogeneous mix of primitive and complex organisms. If the flood happened, we should see T-rex fossils with humans and Anomalocaris. That doesn't happen.And the flood has a various number of serious heat problems.And what did the plants eat? Flooding the world with brine results in salted earth. Most plants, especially plants that herbivores eat, can't grow in soil that has material amounts of salt in it.And how did Noah maintain the animals?

quote:

---

Why noone has found 100 million year old bear fossil, or human fossil? Because they did not live at the same time.

​

If there was one kind of fish befoure flood, where did sharks come

---

All good questions. Don't hold your breath expecting an answer from creationists though. I don't expect them to even acknowledge my posts exists.

Isn't it kind of pointless to discuss that when so many factors all point to the outcome that the flood never happened?

I agree with the Doc. Just because the flood may be total hash as a literal event, doesn't mean the bible is false or that God doesn't exist. Furthermore, it does not prove that the concept of God, or Gods is false. The Abrahamic God's invalidity does not make all Gods invalid.

Let's assume this is true.Since they all did not evolve and therefore existed at the same time, why is it we have no record of a bottle nose dolphin in the same layer as a plesiosaurs?

quote:

---

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.

---

You have a coupled flawed arguments there. First of all, the coelocanth is largely a deep water fish. Thus, its fossils, if any will be found on former sea bed. There's a problem with this, specifically that tectonics plates recycle sea bed, along with all of the fossils imbeded. And coelocanth is a catch all name for a number of different species.

quote:

---

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.

---

Aside from the problem of plate tectonics recycling sea bed crust...But we know that bottle nose dolphins do enter shore zones, same as peloisaurs. The problem of deep water is not a problem here. And especially if you consider that the world is only 6,000 years old.

quote:

---

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.

---

Could you name such a species? Or are you just citing that from AiG which omits the name of such a species?

quote:

---

Your reasoning seems to suggest that since they where not buried with plesiosaurs they did not exist at the same time as the plesiosaurs, they only existed before and after.

---

I'd have to know which species you were talking about. Creationist tend to have a nasty habit of lying or fabricating stories. Often they'll claim that the same exact species was found before and after but not during and omit that the species actually evolved into something found during the same period and another advanced form was found after. You'll have to excuse my long history of distrusting liars.

quote:

---

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)

---

Do you know who Occam was?

quote:

---

As to the topic, there are many families of fish, even today, that can survive in both salt and fresh water environments.

---

Not really. Few species can survive long in a brine environment, or rapid changes. One of the few is the Bullshark and it has some radical ways of doing it that virtually no other species has. Salmon undergo a twice in a lifetime change that changes their gills. The idea that many species can simply switch on and off is just false.

quote:

---

The earth today is not the same as the earth before the flood.

---

True, but the principles of physics were not. That is what creationism requires. A radical change in the laws of physics without any evidence .You have some ideas, but until you have evidence for them, there's no point in actually talking about them. There is no evidence that the oceans were massively less salty. There is no evidence of such sediment through a flood. Plus if the majority of the salt that is in the oceans was on land, few things could grow. Fantasy land you live in.

quote:

---

What evidence is there that a certain process has ALWAYS occurred at the same rates they do now?

---

How about the lack of evidence to suggest the contrary?Stuff happens at the rate it happens due to the laws of physics, thermodynamics, whatever. Now, for things to have occurred at fundamentally different rates in the past, there would have to be different natural laws. Thus, according to many creationists ideas, there would need to be a change in these physical laws. The problem is, there is no evidence to suggest that these natural laws were any different. We're not saying that uniformity is absolutely true, just that there is no empirical, tangible evidence to suggest that it is not true. Until there is evidence to suggest that natural laws changed, particularly after the flood (which itself has a number of fatal flaws), uinformitarian principle will remain what is accepted.

A belief that states that things were different back then, that the laws of physics were different is not a poor belief. What is a poor belief is to believe that and believe this change in the fundamental nature of physics left no trace of itself is. Until disbelievers of uinformitarism can provide evidence of this previous state of physics, there is no reason to assume uinformitarianism is false.

quote:

---

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.

---

Such as?There is no previous state of physics other then the one in the singularity of origin.The basic problem I have with your argument is that it leaves no evidence. Why would a radical shift in physics leave absolutely no proof of ever existing? Furthermore, as I understand biblical arguments prior to the fall, things did not eat other and death was something entirely new after the fall. The problem is no such evidence exists for radical changes in the blink of an eye. Essentially we should see an organism that has the parts to self synthesize food and then find one after the fall with the parts necessary to digest food from other sources. That simply doesn't exist. That's not physics, but you get the point.I want to see an argument for why such a radical change in the very fundamentals of physics would leave absolutely no trace of ever existing.Until then uniformitarianism is accepted. If you can provide a better model that has evidence and addresses the key problem of leaving no trace, you may have a point. until then...

"If you're going to have delusions, you might as well go for the really satisfying ones" - Marcus Cole