Fish on the Ark?

Most fish are very sensitive to salinity, and can only survive variations if they are relatively small.
Marine fish are physiologically adapted to salt water, fresh water fishes are adapted to fresh water, and while a few can tolerate the brackish conditions and wild variations of salinity found in estuarine conditions, most cannot survive there for long, or can only survive there during certain periods of their lifecycle.This begs the question - how did all of the marine fishes survive the sudden deluge of the great flood (assuming it was a deluge of fresh water) - or assuming it was a deluge of salt water of similar salinity to sea water, how did freshwater fishes survive?for that matter most marine and freshwater animals of all phyla have similar problems with variations in salinity tooDid noah have aquariums on board?
Is there any biblical reference to fish on the ark?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

This is so easy to answer even I can answer it.There is only one fish kind. The fish kind before the flood was not sensitive to the salinity of the water. After the flood, the fish kind micro-evolved into many types like the salmon, shark, arowana, and dolphin. But they all still belong to the fish kind because we know that macro-evolution is not possible but micro-evolution is. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Welcome, AreWeNotMen. I hope you find EvC to be a good experience in dialog and debating the topics. Please read through the Forum Guidelines Note the "Peek" button on the lower right of the message boxes. This is there so you can learn how functions in poaring work. Enjoy!

---

For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.

Genesis Chapter 7 states only fowls and unclean/clean beasts. There is no mention of fish or insects, or any fungui/bacteria etc. As for the actual event, insects, fish etc wouldn't need to board the ark since most could survive in water. Trillions, even trillions of trillions of marine life would have been extiguished (as we can see from the fossil strata) but only a small sustainable population of different fishes had to survive the violant floods in order to sustain an active reproducing population, 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. Like many salmon are adapting to changing water tempritures etc. So no there were no fish on the ark. 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. Maybe God did not pick-and-choose with creatures in the flood, maybe it was just survival of the fittest.Edited by noachian, : No reason given.

How do you explain coral?

There must have at least been a lot of ants on the ark, to feed the Anteaters I have to wonder why the "Universal Father" didn't stick all the animals he wanted to save on a mountain top somewhere? And why wipe out all those innocent animals when the purpose of the flood was to smite mankind.

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

Corals survived just as seeds and insects did; by holding on to dear life I suppose. I am no catastrophological scientist so I am not entirly sure of how it went or can't provide you with mountains of evidence to back it up. The flood was largely violent in the what the evolution vogon has named the Cambrian/pre-cambrian stratas, as the floods continued up-land, throught swampland, into mousit rainforest environments, eventually up into deciduous areas with rougher terrain, eventually when it stopped after all the water supplies fueling it had presumably ran out, the waters began to assuage into deep sphincters which we created our today oceans. This assuaging created nearly as much violance as the flood in its beginnings, causing alot of fossilization and petrification due to drowned corpses being covered in sediment as the waters ran off. This is how we got most of our Neogene (and also many Paleogene) fossils I have read/heard/studied. By the time the flood water levels reached the named Neogene regions; the 'fountains of the deep' had most likely ran out and thus the flood was only fueled by heavy rainfall, resulting in a slow paced rise in the water level and thus consuming very slowly the Neogene inhabitants, becaise of such a slow paced rise in flood level, many people and creatures were simply drowned by the water rather than being instantainiously fossilized by a massive 'out-burst' of water carrying thoussands of tons of sediment (how we got most of our fossil graveyard). In conclution; the Neogene creatures were fossilized by the assuaging waters, according to many theories anyhow. In concludion to the answer to your question; corals survived simply by ('luckily' o should I say divinly) not being to violantly hit by the floods, thus a small population survived and reproduced.Edited by noachian, : No reason given.Edited by noachian, : No reason given.

The dolphin?!!?Don't overplay the part, Taz. If you can micro-evolve a dolphin from a fish in 4,300 years, your descendants could be elephants by about the 23rd century.

Oh, I don't know about that. I don't think you should underrate the catastrophologicalness of your science. You're doing very well.

Give Taz credit. I appreciate humor served dry.

---

It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi

They were big wooden vats, actually, made of gopher wood and pitched within and without with pitch. There were a few small glass aquariums for the pitch-sensitive fish, but too much glass would have caused bouyancy problems.All of them probably needed lids to prevent sloshing.And there were perches up in the rafters so the flying fishes could mingle with the bat-birds.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

Personally, I'm surprised I haven't seen a creationist at EvC argue that the dolphin and whale belong to the "fish kind" yet. Before coming here, at other forums I had to explain a million times that dolphins and whales ain't no fish. They're not even cold blooded.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

I have to admit that catastrophological science isn't my strong point, so I don't know where they're classified.Maybe penguins are amphibians.For the sake of the topic, I think Noah had fresh water aquariums on the ark. Or rather, he just kept the freshwater fish kind(s) in the drinking water he would've needed for the land animals.

A wise crack on occasion is acceptable but please don't let it get distractful in the science forums. Thanks.

---

For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.