Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2014, 08:32 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2014 08:40 PM by Metazoa Zeke.)
Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
With population bottlenecks effecting the animals of land we know animals are a problem for the flood. But what about Aquatic animals? There must be no problems with those right? Are aquatic animals able to fit with the flood? You already know the answers my sexy friendsThumbsup. Aquatic animals didn't have to fit on the ark but there are problems. There are three. Fish and breathing,why certain aquatic tetrapods aren't alive and food. Now lets go over these problems shall we.

The first are fish. There are two types of fish. They're fresh water and salt water fish. As you know most can not survive in the water opposite of that you live in.[1] This would be a major problem. Rain is always fresh water because salt can not evaporate into the air. Also it would rain 40 days and nights the saltwater fish would be in trouble. But what about fish like salmon and bull sharks which can survive in both. They're the exception not the rule. So if the flood did happen most saltwater fish would be extinct. I can here them saying uniformitarianism your just assuming that all fish were either fresh water or salt water at the time. I would say present evidence that they did breath fresh water 4000 years ago.[2] Geochemistry can detect salinity through fossils and strata. So we can prove that salinity existed even past 4000 years ago. Can they disprove it is the question?

The next problem is aquatic tetrapods. These animals breath air so salt or fresh water didn't play a huge part. However there are more problems. It's the fact most shouldn't have died. If we grant the creationist that uniformitarianism is wrong to them and that the climate has always been the same then certain animals should be alive today. Liopleurodon should be alive. It's diet was mainly large marine organisms. Cetaceans and plesiosaurs would have made excellent meals. However they died out? Why? To be fair a creationist would say that after the flood the earth changed. However there are two problems. Their main argument about oxygen being higher before the flood and larger organisms died after due to loss of oxygen won't work here. Blue whales reach a length of more then 100 feet[3] while Liopleurodon reached only 21 feet at best[4]. So if this was the case megalodon would have a better chance of surviving. Also they can say that there was climate change afterwards. However Liopleurodons could have lived in tropic areas. What other animals would live their? Well whales live in tropic areas of course. But so would plesiosaurs and other marine tetrapods. There is no real excuse of why these should be dead in a creationist model.

The final problem is food. But not the lack of it but the over abundance of it. Aquatic tetrapods have been reported to have eaten animals from land they don't usually eat. Orcas for example have been reported to have eaten moose.[5] So why wouldn't basilosaurus enjoy a tasty meal of grogonopsid. If creationist really wanted to prove their flood just find a Basilosaurus with a grogonopsid skeleton in its stomach region, or a plesiosaur with pikaia in its gut. This would disprove evolution and might give them a fighting chance.

Animals period are the floods worst nightmare. Each of these amazing animals disprove the global flood of the bible and the quran. In fact aquatic fauna is much worst. There are also fauna that lived on land but didn't have nostrils. If there is a problem with these please use scrutiny and sources. Thanks for reading and have a good dayBig Grin

1. http://www.livescience.com/32167-can-sal...water.html

2. http://downloads.palass.org/palaeobiolog...ction4.pdf

3. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/an...lue-whale/

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liopleurodon

5. http://themarinedetective.com/2013/03/02...er-whales/

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
03-02-2014, 08:58 PM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
I saw that russle crow was doing a Noah movie...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 09:03 PM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
(03-02-2014 08:58 PM)Drich Wrote:  I saw that russle crow was doing a Noah movie...

Ya and ray comfort is making an independent film that says this movies is historically acurate.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 02:21 AM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
It probably doesn't help creationists that 75% of the existing saltwater fish species on Earth actually evolved from freshwater species...

But there are so many huge holes in the Noah story that it takes a truly delusional mind to rationalize and ignore all of them and STILL believe in a worldwide flood...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cleanholio's post
06-02-2014, 11:11 AM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
(03-02-2014 08:32 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  There are two types of fish. They're fresh water and salt water fish.

(04-02-2014 02:21 AM)Cleanholio Wrote:  It probably doesn't help creationists that 75% of the existing saltwater fish species on Earth actually evolved from freshwater species...

There are fresh water and salt water fish now because the are bodies of water with fresh water and some with salt water, but that might not have been the case before the flood. We have no way of knowing whether the oceans were salty then. If they weren't then all existing saltwater fish evolved from freshwater fish. In using the word "evolved" I am not denying creation. There is more than one kind of evolution.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...3/genetics

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
(06-02-2014 11:11 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 08:32 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  There are two types of fish. They're fresh water and salt water fish.

(04-02-2014 02:21 AM)Cleanholio Wrote:  It probably doesn't help creationists that 75% of the existing saltwater fish species on Earth actually evolved from freshwater species...

There are fresh water and salt water fish now because the are bodies of water with fresh water and some with salt water, but that might not have been the case before the flood. We have no way of knowing whether the oceans were salty then. If they weren't then all existing saltwater fish evolved from freshwater fish. In using the word "evolved" I am not denying creation. There is more than one kind of evolution.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...3/genetics
http://downloads.palass.org/palaeobiolog...ction4.pdf

Look at 4.19.3 were it explains that we can instead of looking at answers in genesis. So salinity did exist before your flood. There is no escaping it. Give actual scinece sources next time so start with websites like this
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/
http://www.pnas.org/
http://www.nature.com/

Find problems with my post from websites like that not those that say that already say if it contradicts the bible its wrong no matter how demonstrable it is. Then use those to disprove my point. Good luck your going to need it Evil_monster

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2014, 01:27 PM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
(06-02-2014 11:11 AM)theophilus Wrote:  There are fresh water and salt water fish now because the are bodies of water with fresh water and some with salt water, but that might not have been the case before the flood. We have no way of knowing whether the oceans were salty then.

That sounds like a testable claim. We do, in fact, know that the oceans have been salty for quite some time:

[Image: salinity-oceans-earth-histo.gif]

There's even a field of study on the subject. Ask the scientists. They have a way of knowing, as opposed to guessing and making things up to suit their narrative.


(06-02-2014 11:11 AM)theophilus Wrote:  There is more than one kind of evolution.

No, there's not.


Edit: Ninja'd by the OP!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
06-02-2014, 01:38 PM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
(03-02-2014 08:32 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  With population bottlenecks effecting the animals of land we know animals are a problem for the flood. But what about Aquatic animals? There must be no problems with those right? Are aquatic animals able to fit with the flood? You already know the answers my sexy friendsThumbsup. Aquatic animals didn't have to fit on the ark but there are problems. There are three. Fish and breathing,why certain aquatic tetrapods aren't alive and food. Now lets go over these problems shall we.

The first are fish. There are two types of fish. They're fresh water and salt water fish. As you know most can not survive in the water opposite of that you live in.[1] This would be a major problem. Rain is always fresh water because salt can not evaporate into the air. Also it would rain 40 days and nights the saltwater fish would be in trouble. But what about fish like salmon and bull sharks which can survive in both. They're the exception not the rule. So if the flood did happen most saltwater fish would be extinct. I can here them saying uniformitarianism your just assuming that all fish were either fresh water or salt water at the time. I would say present evidence that they did breath fresh water 4000 years ago.[2] Geochemistry can detect salinity through fossils and strata. So we can prove that salinity existed even past 4000 years ago. Can they disprove it is the question?

The next problem is aquatic tetrapods. These animals breath air so salt or fresh water didn't play a huge part. However there are more problems. It's the fact most shouldn't have died. If we grant the creationist that uniformitarianism is wrong to them and that the climate has always been the same then certain animals should be alive today. Liopleurodon should be alive. It's diet was mainly large marine organisms. Cetaceans and plesiosaurs would have made excellent meals. However they died out? Why? To be fair a creationist would say that after the flood the earth changed. However there are two problems. Their main argument about oxygen being higher before the flood and larger organisms died after due to loss of oxygen won't work here. Blue whales reach a length of more then 100 feet[3] while Liopleurodon reached only 21 feet at best[4]. So if this was the case megalodon would have a better chance of surviving. Also they can say that there was climate change afterwards. However Liopleurodons could have lived in tropic areas. What other animals would live their? Well whales live in tropic areas of course. But so would plesiosaurs and other marine tetrapods. There is no real excuse of why these should be dead in a creationist model.

The final problem is food. But not the lack of it but the over abundance of it. Aquatic tetrapods have been reported to have eaten animals from land they don't usually eat. Orcas for example have been reported to have eaten moose.[5] So why wouldn't basilosaurus enjoy a tasty meal of grogonopsid. If creationist really wanted to prove their flood just find a Basilosaurus with a grogonopsid skeleton in its stomach region, or a plesiosaur with pikaia in its gut. This would disprove evolution and might give them a fighting chance.

Animals period are the floods worst nightmare. Each of these amazing animals disprove the global flood of the bible and the quran. In fact aquatic fauna is much worst. There are also fauna that lived on land but didn't have nostrils. If there is a problem with these please use scrutiny and sources. Thanks for reading and have a good dayBig Grin

1. http://www.livescience.com/32167-can-sal...water.html

2. http://downloads.palass.org/palaeobiolog...ction4.pdf

3. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/an...lue-whale/

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liopleurodon

5. http://themarinedetective.com/2013/03/02...er-whales/

Cool post.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
06-02-2014, 01:52 PM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
(06-02-2014 01:38 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 08:32 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  With population bottlenecks effecting the animals of land we know animals are a problem for the flood. But what about Aquatic animals? There must be no problems with those right? Are aquatic animals able to fit with the flood? You already know the answers my sexy friendsThumbsup. Aquatic animals didn't have to fit on the ark but there are problems. There are three. Fish and breathing,why certain aquatic tetrapods aren't alive and food. Now lets go over these problems shall we.

The first are fish. There are two types of fish. They're fresh water and salt water fish. As you know most can not survive in the water opposite of that you live in.[1] This would be a major problem. Rain is always fresh water because salt can not evaporate into the air. Also it would rain 40 days and nights the saltwater fish would be in trouble. But what about fish like salmon and bull sharks which can survive in both. They're the exception not the rule. So if the flood did happen most saltwater fish would be extinct. I can here them saying uniformitarianism your just assuming that all fish were either fresh water or salt water at the time. I would say present evidence that they did breath fresh water 4000 years ago.[2] Geochemistry can detect salinity through fossils and strata. So we can prove that salinity existed even past 4000 years ago. Can they disprove it is the question?

The next problem is aquatic tetrapods. These animals breath air so salt or fresh water didn't play a huge part. However there are more problems. It's the fact most shouldn't have died. If we grant the creationist that uniformitarianism is wrong to them and that the climate has always been the same then certain animals should be alive today. Liopleurodon should be alive. It's diet was mainly large marine organisms. Cetaceans and plesiosaurs would have made excellent meals. However they died out? Why? To be fair a creationist would say that after the flood the earth changed. However there are two problems. Their main argument about oxygen being higher before the flood and larger organisms died after due to loss of oxygen won't work here. Blue whales reach a length of more then 100 feet[3] while Liopleurodon reached only 21 feet at best[4]. So if this was the case megalodon would have a better chance of surviving. Also they can say that there was climate change afterwards. However Liopleurodons could have lived in tropic areas. What other animals would live their? Well whales live in tropic areas of course. But so would plesiosaurs and other marine tetrapods. There is no real excuse of why these should be dead in a creationist model.

The final problem is food. But not the lack of it but the over abundance of it. Aquatic tetrapods have been reported to have eaten animals from land they don't usually eat. Orcas for example have been reported to have eaten moose.[5] So why wouldn't basilosaurus enjoy a tasty meal of grogonopsid. If creationist really wanted to prove their flood just find a Basilosaurus with a grogonopsid skeleton in its stomach region, or a plesiosaur with pikaia in its gut. This would disprove evolution and might give them a fighting chance.

Animals period are the floods worst nightmare. Each of these amazing animals disprove the global flood of the bible and the quran. In fact aquatic fauna is much worst. There are also fauna that lived on land but didn't have nostrils. If there is a problem with these please use scrutiny and sources. Thanks for reading and have a good dayBig Grin

1. http://www.livescience.com/32167-can-sal...water.html

2. http://downloads.palass.org/palaeobiolog...ction4.pdf

3. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/an...lue-whale/

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liopleurodon

5. http://themarinedetective.com/2013/03/02...er-whales/

Cool post.

Thanks it's good to see that i can help

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2014, 04:32 PM
RE: Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna
(06-02-2014 01:27 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(06-02-2014 11:11 AM)theophilus Wrote:  There are fresh water and salt water fish now because the are bodies of water with fresh water and some with salt water, but that might not have been the case before the flood. We have no way of knowing whether the oceans were salty then.

That sounds like a testable claim. We do, in fact, know that the oceans have been salty for quite some time:

[Image: salinity-oceans-earth-histo.gif]

There's even a field of study on the subject. Ask the scientists. They have a way of knowing, as opposed to guessing and making things up to suit their narrative.


(06-02-2014 11:11 AM)theophilus Wrote:  There is more than one kind of evolution.

No, there's not.


Edit: Ninja'd by the OP!

Before i forget thanks rob its always good to learn something new. I never knew they had a field of study for it.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: