The Flood

lucaspa · #21 19th January 2004, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Ark Guy

According to the following web site the lowest elevation of Armenia (the area that I have been told by previous Theo-Evs where the flood occured) is 400 meters.

Armenia is up by the Caspian Sea. That's not the area we are considering. Please redo your calculations using the Tigris-Euphrates Valley.

As to races, we only have 4,000 years from the Flood to the present. But we already know 2,000 years ago that the races were established. Actually, we know from the time of Solomon that the races were established -- remember the Queen of Sheba. Also the pictures on the temples and tombs of Egypt at the time of the Exodus show Semitic and Negroid races. That's 1600 BC. So now we have only 400 years or so to establish the races. Not time enough by the extrabiblical knowledge.

Genesis 10 says the races were established after the Flood. So there goes your hypothesis that the wives of the sons of Noah were of different races.

Also, remember that the Tower of Babel story also happens after the Flood.

Bushido216 · #22 19th January 2004, 07:19 PM

Ark Guy pwned

lucaspa is t3h 0wnzors

~1~

Larry · #23 19th January 2004, 09:50 PM

Thank you all for the replies. This gives me much to consider.

I do have some more questions right now, though.

Did the fish change or anything like that? I mean, there would be no physical separation between salt water and fresh water. Did all fresh water fish die out? Did all salt water fish die out? What was the nature of the massive body of water? What kind of impact would this flood have on marine life?

Ark Guy · #24 19th January 2004, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

Genesis 10 says the races were established after the Flood. So there goes your hypothesis that the wives of the sons of Noah were of different races.
.

Chapter and verse please

Ark Guy · #25 19th January 2004, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by Larry

Thank you all for the replies. This gives me much to consider.

I do have some more questions right now, though.

Did the fish change or anything like that? I mean, there would be no physical separation between salt water and fresh water. Did all fresh water fish die out? Did all salt water fish die out? What was the nature of the massive body of water? What kind of impact would this flood have on marine life?

Some fish changed while some fish didn't. The coelecanth apparently didn't change.(which presents a major problem for evolutionism)
Some fish can live in both salt and fresh water. I don't know how deep you want to get into this discussion.
You can consider some of these options below;

1. Some fish can gradually become accustomed to a wide range of ambient salinities.
2. Some fish are an Euryhaline organism. They can live in both saltwater
(SW) and freshwater (FW). For example, the Cichlid fish Tilapia grahami is
found in SW but can maintain itself in FW.
Note: FW has 0 ppt (parts per thousand) of salinity and SW can be as high
as 35ppt of salinity. Most fish can tolerate a large range of this
salinity.
3. As the temperature of water increases a brackish water fish can live in
levels of almost no salinity. This could have occurred near a volcano.
4. Different individuals within the same species can have different salt
tolerances. This would have allowed the fish with the correct tolerance
to survive.
5. Antediluvian fish could have been more tolerant of saltwater that the
fishes of today. Micro evolutionary in salt tolerances could have changed
in the few thousand years since the flood.
6. Antediluvian seas were probably less saltier than todays seas.
7. The layers of FW to SW would have stratified in certain areas of the
globe. The fish could move up or down to adjust itself to the salt level.
8. During the flood sheltered cracks could have formed separating the
hi-saline water from the less saltier walter. This could have provided
protection for the fish and its fauna.
9. Only two of millions/billions?, a male and female of the same kind
needed to survive the flood inorder to repopulate the waters.

Larry · #26 19th January 2004, 10:59 PM

Thank you, Ark Guy.

Dominus Fidelis · #27 20th January 2004, 05:17 AM

I dont see Genesis 10 saying that the races developed after the flood...

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis10.htm

Where?

lucaspa · #28 20th January 2004, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Larry

Thank you all for the replies. This gives me much to consider.

I do have some more questions right now, though.

Did the fish change or anything like that? I mean, there would be no physical separation between salt water and fresh water. Did all fresh water fish die out? Did all salt water fish die out? What was the nature of the massive body of water? What kind of impact would this flood have on marine life?

These are good questions. Genesis 6-8 says that all breathing animals died. It says nothing about sea life. The inferrence is that sea life and plant life were unaffected.

The problem comes with the fossil record. That shows extinct species of fish and other aquatic animals -- like ichthyosaurs. How did they become extinct?

At this point Flood Geology runs over the cliff. Again. If you have all that fresh water mixing with salt water, then you end up with something that either 1) salt water fish will die in or 2) both salt and fresh water fish will die in. There are species of both alive today. There is no credible explanation given by Flood geologists. Lots of handwaving, but no explanation.

Now, we have air breathing mammals in the sea, and some reptiles -- sea turtles, for instance. But other species of air-breathing aquatic creatures -- like ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and belisarius (and extinct species of whale) -- went extinct. Why? There is no overarching explanation in Flood Geology. If you invoke rough water to kill the ichthyosaurs, then why did dolphins, manatees, and sea turtles survive? The first is the same size and shape as ichthyosaurs and the last two are worse swimmers than ichthyosaurs. Any water rough enough to drown all the ichthyosaurs is going to drown them, too.

All in all, these are questions Flood Catastrophism can't deal with.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · #29 20th January 2004, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Larry

Thank you all for the replies. This gives me much to consider.

I do have some more questions right now, though.

Did the fish change or anything like that? I mean, there would be no physical separation between salt water and fresh water. Did all fresh water fish die out? Did all salt water fish die out? What was the nature of the massive body of water? What kind of impact would this flood have on marine life?

This is one of the problems for the flood model.

Very, very few fish are tolerant of large changes of salinity, especially sudden ones. A few estuarine or migratory fish can make the necessary physiological changes, but most fish cannot. The statement that "most fish" can tolerate a wide range of salinity is simply untrue. Most freshwater fish cannot tolerate a salinity anything like the order of magnitude of seawater for longer than a few minutes, and most marine fish are even more restrictive. The oceans are remarkably constant in salinity, and marine fish require very precise parameters in order to survive, as any marine aquarist would be able to tell you. Most freshwater fish are the same - most are very intolerant of salt. It is used by freshwater aquarists as a disease cure at levels well below those found in marine environments, and many species show significant distress at these levels. In fact, freshwater aquarists would be able to tell you just how sensitive to different conditions most fishes are. Had all today's (for example) Symphosodon discus evolved from a single pair that somehow survived the flood it is hard to imagine why it is that now this species can only thrive in water that is very soft, quite acid and as near totally salt free as possible. Creationist references to the euryhaline brackish species are misleading because these animals are a tiny minority of fish species and are not representative - it's a bit like claiming that all birds could survive on nectar drunk straight from flowers because hummingbirds can.

I'm not sure where Tilapia grahami comes into this - it is not a marine fish, but rather comes from a soda lake at 2000' - http://www.fishbase.org/Eschmeyer/Es...ry.cfm?ID=2033. I was suspicious of this as Tilapia are in the Cichlidae family, which is freshwater. Interestingly, their saltwater cousins are the clownfish of Finding Nemo fame, but I digress.

lucaspa · #30 20th January 2004, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Ark Guy

Chapter and verse please

I did give you chapter and verse. Genesis 10. Genesis 10:2-31, to be specific. Ark Guy, you could have gone and looked up Genesis 10 yourself to see if I was correct. If not, then you could have stated why you don't think I was correct.

What you are doing, Ark Guy, is using debate tactics. Try to throw your "opponent" off balance. But this isn't a debate. It's a discussion. We are both searching for truth, and it falls on both of us to check up to see what the data is.

This isn't a personal contest, altho it looks like you are trying to make it one. I simply am not going to go along with this. The truth is what it is. The truth doesn't depend on our debating skills.

In particular, "The sons of Ham -- Cush, Egypt, Libya, and Canaan -- were the ancestors of the peoples who bear their names." verse 5. Now, the Cu*****s and Egyptians were black. Canannites were Semitic or "white". So the inference is that Ham was neither race and the races developed afterward -- according to Genesis 10.

LOL! the editor for "profanity" works even within words! LOL! C-u-s-h-i-t-e-s gets censored. That's pretty funny!

Notice that we get no ancestors of the Asians. What we have are the peoples -- races -- around that end of the Mediterranean (altho the Spanish are mentioned). So we are given the source of blacks and whites.