Local Flood

[Floodnut]

Do you see the irony in your words?

1. No miracle necessary
2. Natural means (assertion)

Actually 1 and 2 are saying the same thing. and it is not an assertion, but a suggestion. There may have been a miracle, but not necessarily.

Proof:

Proof? I don't need proof. I am not providing proof. I am telling you that the Bible says the fish and aquatic creatures were not in the Ark. I am the one who tells you what the Bible says, you are the one who disputes it. If I say there were fish in the Ark you would ridicule that. But I am telling you that the Bible makes it plain that fish were not in the Ark.

3. Were outside the ark because...
4. Weren't inside the ark, and...
5. Are now alive, therefore...
6. Did survive

I'm convinced. What was that about extra-biblical evidence?

Who ever said anything about extra biblical evidence? You maybe? I am simply telling you what the Bible says. Then I tell you what is observable present day reality: Fish are here today. You need proof for this? That is weird. From the biblical Christian perspective, enough original seed species survived the flood year in small pockets of water with appropriate salinity to be the source of all fish living today.

And this is incredible to someone who believes that Mathematicians derived from microbic goo?

 

[nvxplorer]

Actually 1 and 2 are saying the same thing. and it is not an assertion, but a suggestion. There may have been a miracle, but not necessarily.



Proof? I don't need proof. I am not providing proof. I am telling you that the Bible says the fish and aquatic creatures were not in the Ark. I am the one who tells you what the Bible says, you are the one who disputes it. If I say there were fish in the Ark you would ridicule that. But I am telling you that the Bible makes it plain that fish were not in the Ark.



Who ever said anything about extra biblical evidence? You maybe? I am simply telling you what the Bible says. Then I tell you what is observable present day reality: Fish are here today. You need proof for this? That is weird. From the biblical Christian perspective, enough original seed species survived the flood year in small pockets of water with appropriate salinity to be the source of all fish living today.

I know what the Bible says. Citing the Bible is hardly convincing. You may as well say, "I believe the Bible; that's my story, and I'm sticking to it."

And this is incredible to someone who believes that Mathematicians derived from microbic goo?

I'm amazed at this oft repeated hyperbole. Science deals with evidence and logic, not faith. Why one would equate empirical knowledge to belief in magic is beyond me.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

so sorry, it is not a NON-issue for a dolphin. Dolphins and Whales for the most part require Salt water for their survival. Their skin needs salt water.

Interestingly, sea water is harder for any mammal to live in long term because of the difficulties of nor being able to drink the water. But the issue I was thinking of is the skin. That of cetaceans, like all mammals, is waterproof. That of fish is semi-permeable. This means that fish suffer major osmotic problems when put in water that is not the right salinity for them.

However, you are correct in one thing. Seawater cetaceans do eventually suffer damage in the form of skin disease if in freshwater for too long. Live and learn. I amend my original point to "considerably less of an issue". What I mean is that if you stick a s/w dolphin in a f/w environment it will eventally suffer skin complaints. If you stick 99% of marine fish in a f/w environment they will be dead in an hour from a massive inrush of water under osmotic pressure through their skins.

Furthermore, we are not asserting that it is a non-issue for fish. There are salt water fish and fresh water fish. There are salt water shrimp and clams as well as and fresh water shrimp and clams. There are other species that prefer the inbetween water of brackish estuaries. Aquatic species need to be in their own respective environments.

Which is why they'd have died in the flood when those salinities were rapidly changed.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Who ever said anything about extra biblical evidence?

If you don't have extrabiblical evidence (the Bible is not evidence for itself; it is an assertion, as it is the only reason anyone would seriously posit a global flood in the first place, that is, unless Sumerian religious beliefs were still seriously considered because they monopolized the same flood story first), then don't pretend like your position is scientific in any way.

If you don't have extrabiblical evidence and just make unsubstantiated assertions and continue to evade basic questions and evidences, then don't expect your position to be taken seriously.

Your continual claim to being automatically right as if you are infallible without providing a single valid reason why you are right does not lend your position any credibility whatsoever.

On this forum we discuss evidence, and bring in evidence to back up our claims.

If you don't want to engage in such a serious discussion, and if you just want to say continually, "the Bible says it so I believe it," over and over again, fine, but at least admit your position is entirely faith based, has zero evidence, is believed despite the evidence, and that as a result, there's no purpose in you posting here at all. It's fine if you want to take that route, but at least don't pretend like you've backed up your claims or that your explanations are scientific.

 

[Dr.GH]

Proof? I don't need proof. I am not providing proof.

The most honest thing I have ever heard{read} a creationst say{write}.

 

[Floodnut]

However, you are correct in one thing.
Which is why they'd have died in the flood when those salinities were rapidly changed.

I was correct in more than one thing. I said that F/w fish cannot survive long in a S/w environment and V/V. And I was correct about the dolphins and whales having problems as well.

How rapidly would salinities change in a flood? How long do you suppose it will take for the Major oceans of the world to become equal in salinity? How long will it take for the northern hemispher waters to thoroughly mix? The waters of the Gulf Stream and the Japan Current are distinct in composition from the waters and currents above, below, and beside them. When will they become mixed?

The waters of the small lake remain unmixed after the ice melts for a couple of months. Then, as any fisherman knows. we experience the lake turning upside down due to the decomposition of the organic materials that had sunk to the bottom.

So you are sure then that in a world wide flood [which you deny, but if it happened], you are sure that the waters would be thoroughly mixed and that all fresh water fish would have been killed by the new higher levels of salt, and that all salt water fish would have been killed by the lower levels? There could have been no gradiations of salinity?

 

[Floodnut]

I know what the Bible says. Citing the Bible is hardly convincing. You may as well say, "I believe the Bible; that's my story, and I'm sticking to it."

I'm amazed at this oft repeated hyperbole. Science deals with evidence and logic, not faith. Why one would equate empirical knowledge to belief in magic is beyond me.

You attempt to refute and reject the flood, which is a biblical report.

SO, I am merely endeavoring to help you to more accurately understand what the Bible actually describes in a flood. No fish were on the Ark. They survived outside the Ark according to the Bible. So, if you and others reject the account because there was no room on the Ark for the fish, you are rejecting something that the Bible never said.

Now please prove to me or suggest to me how you can KNOW exactly the dynamics of a world wide flood lasting 150 days and how you can be sure that there would be in such an occurance full and complete mixing of the waters over the entire planet?

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought Mesopotamia was the first civilization?

China was -- Mesopotamia was the cradle of civilization after the Flood.