fishes

during the great flood of noah's time, it rained so much all the world was covered with water...
so the water either had to be salty(sea water) or fresh(rain)..
if the world was covered with salty water, all the fresh water fish/prawns/crabs/tadpoles would have died..
if the world was covered with fresh water, all the salt water fish/prawns/crabs/abalones would have died...so which is it?i'm new to this stuff, so i'm not sure if this is or is not an issue..

Hi,Take a 'dip' in the Geology and The Great Flood section. You're question is a VFAQ.

Actually, it isn't only the salt that is a problem, but also the suspended sediment-- ie, cloudy, muddy water-- and the temperature or the water. Many fish are restricted to waters of a particular clarity and/or temperature. But check out the flood threads.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

"Actually, it isn't only the salt that is a problem, but also the suspended sediment-- ie, cloudy, muddy water-- and the temperature or the water. Many fish are restricted to waters of a particular clarity and/or temperature. But check out the flood threads."
--Yes be sure to check out, or create a new flood thread. Also keep in mind that what John has pointed is agreeable, though may only be applicable locally. I hope you will consider joining our forum!-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-24-2003]

Most flood models inadvertantly geneate vast temperatures as a corollory of the rapid motion/ increased radiation etc. I think salinity & clarity are the least of the fishes problems.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

have you considered that everything was good in the earth before sin.
have you considered the water canopy as it says in genesis something
like;the water in the firmament above the earth and the water below
God seperated

Have you considered that the "water canopy" has been considered in some detail and doesn't pass muster as an explanation of anything? If it had it would be part of what is researched by geologists.

Have you noticed that, according to that same story, Adam had already lived 900 years and died by the time The Big Wet got there? What does your question have to do with the Flood anyway?Back to the OP itself, corals would have it even worse than many fishes. The typical reef-building coral
* must have sunlight, and so shallow, clean water
* is picky about temperature - only a narrow window will do
* grows very slowly - the Capitan Reef out here in Texas is about 500 meters thick. With a real optimistic growth rate of 1 centimeter per year, that's 5000 years to grow. And that would require sea level to keep perfectly in sync with growth. It's very, very dry and about a mile above sea level out at the base of El Capitan today.Oh, and hello and welcome, new folks![This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-27-2003]

What you are talking about is the "firmament" that God put in place to seperate "the waters above from the earth below." The word firmament is used primarily in the King James Bible.Step out of your shoes for a second. Get rid of all your current presuppositions about what the world is and how it was formed. Look throught the eyes of an ancient Hebrew. Walk outside... what do you see? A gigantic canopy of blue. Now what else is blue? Water. Water even falls down from this gigantic canopy every now and then! The ancient Hebrews believed the Earth existed in a gigantic bubble with water all around. All the stars, the moon, and the sun are all suspended inside this bubble. This seemingly childish way at looking at the world was their science of the day. Its my arguement that God did not intend the Bible to be a scientific textbook, rather an affirmation of the faith.It is illogical to draw inferences about the act of creation when it was written using an understanding of the world that was so primitive.Whats really interesting is that the whole interpretation of Genesis literally thing came as a direct response to Darwin during the 19th century. More specificly, it came from Princeton Theological Seminary. A nonliteralist interpretation of the scriptures dates back to Augustine (see the framework method), and the ancient Hebrews (they saw Genesis as an affirmation of their faith, a tribute that their God was more powerful than any other god).Your view isn't valid theologically or scientifically... you are standing on shacky ground.again if you haven't seen this page please do so. http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/EvolutionaryCreation.htm