What About All the Fish?

[dad]

You understand that this explains nothing? I love how you use the word "apparently", as if it's a proven fact. ..

It is as proven as anything old agers have to offer on the past. We do not understand how the spiritual works, with science, now do we? WE can look for clues, like we needed meat about the same time, but not before the flood. Lifespans were different, intermarriage was not bad, so it seems we were less damaged than now in some ways, and light was different, and possibly no gravity as we know it. Add to this, no radioactive decay generally, so I would think less radiation all around. If these tidbits don't help you, then I guess you will just have to keep it at admitting you don't know.

 

[dad]

Except that everything you've said about the Bible is speculation -- how does it help us establish anything, let alone down to an atomic level?

How would anything help you? You stick to the present, and science, don't worry about things that require a spiritual element to comprehend them. This would only be a fruitless excercise with your state of denial!

 

[Nathan Poe]

How would anything help you? You stick to the present, and science, don't worry about things that require a spiritual element to comprehend them. This would only be a fruitless excercise with your state of denial!

Clearly then, you have no answers. The Bible says nothing about anything at the atomic, molecular, or cellular level, so anything that happens there is pure dad speculation.

 

[dad]

Clearly then, you have no answers. The Bible says nothing about anything at the atomic, molecular, or cellular level, so anything that happens there is pure dad speculation.

Of course it does, otherwise trees in a week could not be. Eternal life, etc. But since you don't believe the bible anyhow, it seems a little hypocritical to be concerned with what it does tell us?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Of course it does, otherwise trees in a week could not be. Eternal life, etc.

But the Bible is the only source that says any of these things happened -- So you change the laws of nature to speculate how it did.

But since you don't believe the bible anyhow, it seems a little hypocritical to be concerned with what it does tell us?

Not at all. Educators such as myself are continually plagued by religious fundamentalists who insist that their mythology be taught as fact.

The mythology, however, does contain some good advice: Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

 

[dad]

But the Bible is the only source that says any of these things happened -- So you change the laws of nature to speculate how it did.

No, you have no way of saying how the laws of nature were! You can't talk! All you can do is belittle the bible, cause it does tell us how different it was! The change is simply something noted from the record, and the evidence combined, noted, not created by anyone.

Not at all. Educators such as myself are continually plagued by religious fundamentalists who insist that their mythology be taught as fact.

Go bless them! Go guys go! Sell all your churches, and throw a few bucks at it for layers, etc. That couldn't hurt. I'm thinking of a new fireplace, where I can burn a few books I think deserve it.

The mythology, however, does contain some good advice: Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

For a while, but in the end the good will tiumph somethin fierce.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Dad's merged universe is not wholly without extrabiblical support- it would explain other mythologies as well.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, you have no way of saying how the laws of nature were!

Actually, I do. Extrapolate from the present.

Without biblical literalism, there's be no reason to do otherwise.

You can't talk! All you can do is belittle the bible, cause it does tell us how different it was!

No, YOU are the one telling us how different it was, based on your basless assumption that the Bible is meant to be taken literally.

Belittilng you is not the same as belittling the Bible. Belittling you is more like hunting cows with a howitzer.

The change is simply something noted from the record, and the evidence combined, noted, not created by anyone.

Only problem with that is that the Bible is not a "record," at least not the parts we're referring to.

Go bless them! Go guys go! Sell all your churches, and throw a few bucks at it for layers, etc. That couldn't hurt. I'm thinking of a new fireplace, where I can burn a few books I think deserve it.

When you run out of books, which people will you burn first? Those who wrote the books or those who read them?

For a while, but in the end the good will tiumph somethin fierce.

Which is why I fight the greatest evil of all (the only evil, according to Socrates) -- Ignorance.


"You offer people a shining paradise, but as long as the prerequisite for that shining paradise is ignorance, bigotry, and hate... I say the hell with it." -- Inherit the Wind.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Dad's merged universe is not wholly without extrabiblical support- it would explain other mythologies as well.

So, one thing that Dad's merged universe has in common with Atheism is that it puts all mythologies on equal footing.

Of course, one can always dad-hoc the Bible into special significance.

 

[TheBear]

Keep in mind, the global flood water level is said to be over 5 miles above sea level - higher than Mt. Everest, across the globe. That adds many times more crushing pressure, to many forms of seabed marine life.

 

[dad]

Actually, I do. Extrapolate from the present.

Ha. Here we have it. Assume the oresent into the future and past. How sweet it is.

Without biblical literalism, there's be no reason to do otherwise.

With science either, no reason to do it exists, beside, we feel like it, it must be, ya think?

No, YOU are the one telling us how different it was, based on your basless assumption that the Bible is meant to be taken literally.

You're the one telling us without proof how same it was! Then you proceed from this nowhere, nothing standpoint to assume the bible doesn't mean what it says, when you don't even believe that!

Belittilng you is not the same as belittling the Bible. Belittling you is more like hunting cows with a howitzer.

Spiritual cows. Might as well pack up your toys, kid, they ain't gonna help you, ot hurt me!

Only problem with that is that the Bible is not a "record," at least not the parts we're referring to.

It is, a well preserved document that is the record of all records. Regardless of what is in your bean.

When you run out of books, which people will you burn first? Those who wrote the books or those who read them?

I try to save not burn. As well as try to save kids from you burning them.

Which is why I fight the greatest evil of all (the only evil, according to Socrates) -- Ignorance.

Knight of the shining fantasy.

"You offer people a shining paradise, but as long as the prerequisite for that shining paradise is ignorance, bigotry, and hate... I say the hell with it." -- Inherit the Wind.

Your kind of wind I don't want to inherit. We have an inheritance, christians do. You have gas.

 

[dad]

So, one thing that Dad's merged universe has in common with Atheism is that it puts all mythologies on equal footing.

Of course, one can always dad-hoc the Bible into special significance.

Except old ageism, that is just there to make the other false beliefs feel like maybe they have something on the ball compared to your nothing.

 

[LVdesigns]

Assuming what? That it was mostly salt water before the flood? Or fresh, or what?

I really doesn't matter. Flop the ratios and the point still stands. Take a moment to think about it.

You need to remember the difference between is and was.

I don't see a problem with my usage of the terms.

But if a lot of the salt came up from below to begin with, it means there was a lot down there, or up there, whichever the case. Now, with more water coming from the same places in the flood, why would we assume a drastic salt difference? The 10 cups coming in may have had some more salt, for example.

But, where are you getting the idea that there was a lot of salt in the ground. Is this pure speculation again?

I am talking about a different time, not now, and how it now works. Just like if we look ahead to heaven, we see it will work very differently. It would be silly to suggest it was the same. When the spiritual is added to the physical, it all works very differently. The mistake that has been made has been to assume it will be, and was the same as now!

Wouldn't the spiritual have been added to the physical back in the garden of eden? I really don't know what you are talking about.

Even if your assumptions about the species and everything did make sense. It still fails to answer the question of why there is no geological evidence of a flood. And how such a tiny ark could hold even just 50 animal pairs, supplies, etc for about a year. And some other common issues concerning the validity of the noah flood story. But, I don't want to get into all this other stuff because, frankly, the discussion is beginning to give me a headache.

Disagree, you may, but you cannot do it on any basis other than your beliefs and assumptions. Can you? Light was different even, and light is very important to life here, like plants. Everything was different almost.

Yes, I can disagree and do so on a very logical basis. There is no reason to believe that the laws of physics and nature have changed and I understand how evolution works.
​

​

 

[dad]

I really doesn't matter. Flop the ratios and the point still stands. Take a moment to think about it.

If there were some lakes of fresh water, say, 1% of the earth, and some salt water, say, 7% of the earth, and we added a world of water, so what? Think about it.

I don't see a problem with my usage of the terms.

Because you assume it is as it was. Prove it.

But, where are you getting the idea that there was a lot of salt in the ground. Is this pure speculation again?

Not in the ground, deep below the earth in subteranean chambers.
We know that water used to come up to water the earth, not rain come down. It may be assumed it brought with it certain things. We have the bible timeframe of creation. We know the salt on the earth. Today's processes do not reflect that timeframe. Therefore we have reason to believe this was the case.

Wouldn't the spiritual have been added to the physical back in the garden of eden? I really don't know what you are talking about.

At creation there was both, yes. But there came a time a century after the flood where it was seperated, it seems. We now are in the physical only. Vert different from the past.

Even if your assumptions about the species and everything did make sense. It still fails to answer the question of why there is no geological evidence of a flood.

If you knew what to look for there is.

And how such a tiny ark could hold even just 50 animal pairs, supplies, etc for about a year.

Easy. 470 something feet long. 3 floors. Plus, remember, all we need is one pair of tigers. The 30 something species we now have were hyper evoluted from them. Not so many on the ark after all!

And some other common issues concerning the validity of the noah flood story. But, I don't want to get into all this other stuff because, frankly, the discussion is beginning to give me a headache.

Sorry you were misinformed.

Yes, I can disagree and do so on a very logical basis. There is no reason to believe that the laws of physics and nature have changed

Great, so show us please the reasons we know they have not.

and I understand how evolution works.

So do I. No long ages!

​

​

 

[anunbeliever]

Going with the idea that the fish quickly evolved to their new environment. How would fresh water fish adapt quickly enough to the changing salinity of the water? After the waters went away, how did they then quickly re-adapt to how they are now?

Maybe all marine life died during the cataclysm and God recreated them from scratch afterwards?

 

[MQTA]

from DNA is how that story goes

I don't know what to believe any more, so I'm just going to throw out all beliefs and just forget the whole thing. Call me when the world agrees on one thing

 

[AirPo]

Actually, I do. Extrapolate from the present.

Ha. Here we have it. Assume the oresent into the future and past. How sweet it is.

You have a problem with extrapolation? Perhaps you can explain why your HI technique is more reasonable.

 

[LittleNipper]

Keep in mind, the global flood water level is said to be over 5 miles above sea level - higher than Mt. Everest, across the globe. That adds many times more crushing pressure, to many forms of seabed marine life.

The reality is that there is the strong possibility that Mount Everest is simply an example of a sign of the Great Flood (a result). My feeling is that as subterranean aquatic caverns collapsed, that the plates above buckled and slid.. This would eventually produce the various continents out of one. My guess is that at one time there was one sea.... Genesis 1:9 And GOD said, "Let the water under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear:" and it was so. Any underground reservior would also be a kind of sea.... GOD protected Noah. GOD protected a chosen remnant of marine creatures. None of this is so hard to believe ---- at least not for me. But then I trust in the Divine Will of a Divine GOD who is capable of CREATION, SANCTIFICATION, LOVE, MERCY, and GRACE.

 

[DailyBlessings]

But, where are you getting the idea that there was a lot of salt in the ground. Is this pure speculation again?

Not so much speculation as necessity- if you believe in the global flood, then the floodwaters had to have been salty or the ocean wouldn't be.

 

[LittleNipper]

Not so much speculation as necessity- if you believe in the global flood, then the floodwaters had to have been salty or the ocean wouldn't be.

The reality is that the seas are becoming more salty as time progresses. The dead sea is too salty today to support fish. The FLOOD's waters would have likely produced areas of salty and rather clean. This exists under Florida today ---- where fresh water sits on top salty in various areas.....