I've read with interest the arguments about how many creatures fit on the arc and how could they repopulate the world. And I had an odd thought the other day and was wondering if the question of the fish had ever been kicked around. Specifically, marine fish, which are generally sensitive to changes in salinity, would not have survived the dilution of the oceans by the addition of enough fresh water (in the form of rain) to completely flood the earth to the height of the highest mountain. So, how is it that we have marine fish after the flood?

Just a thought.

C

I think someone asked ksc this at one point in the Evolution/Creation forum, but no one really answered it. It's good that you're bringing it up again.

Of course, one of each went into the ark and not one pair of each because counting and sexing are rational activities.

Here's a poem for you:

If he had know unstructured space is a deluge
and stocked his life-houseboot with all the animals,
. . . even the wolves,
he might have floated.

But obstinate he stated: the land is solid,
and stamped!
watching his foot go down through stone up to the knee.

Amos

The same answer as to the question, "Why didn't the dinosaurs eat everything on the Ark?" ......goddidit

I've thought about the other side of the question. If dinosaurs and man lived at the same time, then why didn't the sea creatures living during the dinosaur era survive the flood? Since they are creatures that live in water, they should have survived. Also, have there ever been fossils of sea creatures found on land which would give credence to the flood?

Virtually all marine fossils are FOUND on land but none I know of were DEPOSITED there, i.e the sediments that they are found in are of marine origin.

Also other evidence that the flood theory should leave is land fossils in deep sea marine deposits which we also do not find (just think where that 170 ton sauropod would end up when it sinks).

Amen-Moses

During the period of the flood, time went into fast forward and the fish evolved.

Wake me up when you find out how many pounds of fresh eucalyptus leaves were on board to feed the koala bears.

Naaaah. I don't think so:

"Of clean beasts, and of beasts that [are] not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah."

Nothing about gathering up the fishies. I suspect the writers of Genesis simply didn't think about the salt/freshwater snag. How were they to know that someday, people would take the story seriously?

diana

According to the late unlamented ksc :

1. koalas might have had a different diet
2. koalas might have eaten dried leaves
3. koalas might have eaten food dipped in eucalyptus oil
4. koalas were babies and they drank milk.

There might have been a few other, equally ridiculous suggestions, but these are all I can remember.

NEXT!