Fish on the Ark?

Wow. This is a great thread! There are so many good posts and points on both sides.Okay I want to put my 2 cents in.First even though i feel that this and the salt issue is off topic I want to post a quick response to: ... The Kingdoms, Phylums, Subphylums and Infraphylums didn't come around until way after the bible was written. IMO, they saw it in the water and said.. "fish"-------
my response to the thread topic
-------
I think the fish died during the flood by the hot water and massive disruption of sediment (buried in mud) from the fountains of the deep breaking up. In other words Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory. There are several theories on the great deluge and catastrophology, but from what I have seen thus far, this one explains the fish dying the best.Edited by antiLIE, : i really should preview lol...

---

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

I am a creationists. I really am not understandeing your post.

---

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

OH!! No.. i said, I never claimed not to be a creationists.

---

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

Respondents please keep your replies on topic. Issues not related to the topic should be taken up in other threads. --AdminRAZD; they closed the thread, here is my reply.Okay the question was asked why I disagree with evolution. You said "Note that this is how science operates: take observations, develop conclusions from those observations, formulate a theory based on those conclusions, and then test the theory." I agree. The difference is your starting point. What I mean is the basis of foundation. We should follow science wherever it may lead, but we as humans have made it a medium to justify our belief in origin (this includes naturalists). My belief in origin is supernatural; begins and ends with the Massoretic and Koine scriptures. This is why I disagree with Evolution. My starting point is faith in my God, the creator and destroyer of all. Biological macroevolution requires long periods of time for dramatic changes to take effect. I am very aware of the assumptions evolutionists make about creationists not understanding how or what macroevolution is. I do know and understand it. I do not assume that one kind of animal decided to change to another kind. I understand that macroevolution is the same as microevolution just added time that diversely extends the change and result from speciation. This is my issue. I believe that we did not have the time claimed by the assumptions made by some evidences. I am not denying evidence by making this statement. I am denying the Conclusions made based on the evidence. I remember reading some one on this forum made the statement about if we deny evolution then we throw out all of the other fields of science like geology, paleontology and cosmology. I disagree. I believe that the evidence and results from study and examination from the scientific fields can be interpreted in favor of short time instead of long times. This is also a debate in hermeneutical studies as well. I could mention some of the evidences and scientific studies like gravitational time dilation and universal vs local times, radiometric dating .etc but this is another argument all together. This is the answer I give to the question about why I "disagree" with evolution. Time.Edited by Admin, : Add note at top.

---

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei