salt water fish

Lacy Evans · Jul 7, 2003

I was wondering what most folks thought about the fishes during the flood. The argument is that the mixing of salt and fresh water would have killed all of the fish. Is there evidence that salt in the ocean is a recent thing, that salt-water fish have adapted over the past several thousand years. Or that fish eggs can live for a limited time in mixed water

Lacy

Johnv · Jul 7, 2003

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
I was wondering what most folks thought about the fishes during the flood. The argument is that the mixing of salt and fresh water would have killed all of the fish. Is there evidence that salt in the ocean is a recent thing, that salt-water fish have adapted over the past several thousand years. Or that fish eggs can live for a limited time in mixed water

Lacy

No, there's no substancial evidence to indicate that saltwater in the oceans is a recent thing. Inland lakes that were once open to the ocean are typically saline, unless another force has acted upon it. Likewise, most inland lakes that have never been open to the ocean are freshwater, unless anpther force has acted upon it.

Helen · Jul 7, 2003

HI Lacy,

The early water was most probably brackish. In Genesis 1:9, we find the land rose from the waters of the newly-created earth. This would have created quite a geological disruption and released a number of salts from the early rock materials into the seas.

Even today, most fish can survive for some time in slightly brackish water. There are other fish, such as the salmon, who migrate from fresh to salt water and back again.

At the time of the Flood, the majority of water burst forth from the "springs of the great deep" (Gen. 7:11). Thus bursting shows the water was under pressure and came up quite forcefully. This would have had to bring up a great deal of pulverized material with it, much of which was then released into the seas. However the mixing would not have been sudden, but over time with the currents spreading the saltier waters.

Probably a lot of fish species did die. Over 95% of the fossils we find are marine fossils, and many of species that no longer exist.

In the water world after the Flood, it truly would have been survival of the fittest, or natural selection, both of individuals and of populations. In every generation of animals there is a mix of genetic variations. Those varieties, both individual and populations or portions of populations, which could survive and reproduce in the areas they found themselves in, did. Thus the gene pools of various populations became, within a few generations, quite specific to that population and speciation would have been rapid.

This form of speciation via natural selection would have, however, drastically eliminated a good deal of potential genetic variability in each new population, thus giving us many of the varieties we see today as distinct species and even genuses.

One last thing: when the fountains of the deep burst forth, they probably burst along the incipient plate boundaries of the future continents. Thus, although the whole land was flooded, not the whole extent of the water was turbulent. In the central areas of the already existing seas in particular things probably stayed relatively (the key word being 'relatively') calm, allowing the floating vegetation mats and fish populations to be maintained during the much more massive destruction of other areas.

Helen · Jul 7, 2003

No, there's no substancial evidence to indicate that saltwater in the oceans is a recent thing. Inland lakes that were once open to the ocean are typically saline, unless another force has acted upon it. Likewise, most inland lakes that have never been open to the ocean are freshwater, unless anpther force has acted upon it.

All freshwater lakes are the results of rain, snow, glacial melt, springs, etc. This does not invalidate the recent creation.

Johnv · Jul 7, 2003

Originally posted by Helen:
All freshwater lakes are the results of rain, snow, glacial melt, springs, etc. This does not invalidate the recent creation.

We're in agreement. What I said was there's no substancial evidence to indicate that saltwater in the oceans is a recent thing. As far as freshwater lakes, yes, there are several that are a few thousand years old. There are others that are older.

The Galatian · Jul 7, 2003

If the oceans had risen that much, all the coral in the world would have died off at one time. Coral is rather delicate, and cannot tolerate much variation in temperature, light, or salinity.

Yet, we have cores drilled through coral to levels hundreds of thousands of years old, and we have no such episode in sight. All of the atolls in the pacific would be dead if the Flood story were literally true.

Helen · Jul 7, 2003

Galatian, this is a very old bone of yours.

The coral did die. All of it. Much of what is drilled into in the atolls is coral rubble, first of all.

Secondly, corals can grow extremely rapidly in the right environments:
http://globalcoral.org/21-30/Mineral%20Accretion%20Coral%20Documentation.htm -- as an example.

from a study about conditions just in our time (not even considering the highly mineralized waters after the Flood, or their warmth...)

All three of the parameters studied showed a general decrease in values from the north to the south. Temporally, the authors' results indicated that growth characteristics for Porites are "highly variable," with extension and calcification rates varying "as much as ±20-30% about the mean, both from year to year and over the 10-30-year periods." The temporal variability of density was much less at ±10% about the mean, both inter-annually and over 10-30 year periods. The authors also note that their data showed frequent and extended periods of coral growth characteristics that were above or below the long-term mean, cautioning that "it would be unwise to rely on short-term values (say averages over less than 30 years) to assess mean conditions," adding it would be "rash to compare one year's value with another and it would be reckless to compare individual years in different decades without analyzing the long-term trends."
from http://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n15c5.htm

here is some other coral growth only 8 months old:
http://www.augsburg.edu/biology/aquaria/Initial2PhotoSets/boulder_coral.html

from Ariel Roth:
Experiments that my graduate students and I have conducted indicate that one can, at least temporarily, nearly double the rate of coral growth by raising the temperature 5ºC or by increasing the carbonate ion content of seawater. What relationship this might have to past rates of coral reef growth remains to be investigated. Nevertheless a number of facts indicate that coral reef growth rates may be much faster than some of the slower estimates reported in the literature. Our present knowledge does not preclude rapid rates of development; some factors definitely facilitate it.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/06088.htm

In other words, Galatian, you are making 'authoritative' pronouncements that even coral authorities won't make now. Too much has been discovered recently about corals to hold with some of your older ideas. In fact, I'm not sure where I read it, but I do remember a study being done which revealed that the coral grew even faster without the symbiotic algae!

We don't know the precise conditions after the Flood, but we do know that there would have been a lot of shallow seas, warm waters, and highly mineralized environments in those waters. This would all lead, from what we have seen recently, to the possibility of much faster reef formation.

The Galatian · Jul 7, 2003

Galatian, this is a very old bone of yours.

The coral did die. All of it. Much of what is drilled into in the atolls is coral rubble, first of all. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Nope. For example, at Enitiwok atoll, they drilled down nearly a mile, and found no coral rubble. Of course, they drilled down precisely where they expected to find volcanic rock closest to the surface, which would have no rubble.

So no, that's not the case. There was no sign of even a small hiatus in the coral. It has been growing there for hundreds of thousands of years.

Secondly, corals can grow extremely rapidly in the right environments:

Indeed. Black coral, and other precious deep water corals can grow very fast. But they are spindly things, and add little to reefs. The sort of coral that builds reefs grows about 0.5 cm a year, in ideal conditions.

You can get some and set up an aquarium if you like, but the people who do this as a hobby assure me that you won't get reef coral to grow faster than that.

http://globalcoral.org/21-30/Mineral%20Accretion%20Coral%20Documentation.htm -- as an example.

from a study about conditions just in our time (not even considering the highly mineralized waters after the Flood, or their warmth...)

Click to expand...

Let's take a look...

All three of the parameters studied showed a general decrease in values from the north to the south. Temporally, the authors' results indicated that growth characteristics for Porites are "highly variable," with extension and calcification rates varying "as much as ±20-30% about the mean, both from year to year and over the 10-30-year periods." The temporal variability of density was much less at ±10% about the mean, both inter-annually and over 10-30 year periods. The authors also note that their data showed frequent and extended periods of coral growth characteristics that were above or below the long-term mean, cautioning that "it would be unwise to rely on short-term values (say averages over less than 30 years) to assess mean conditions," adding it would be "rash to compare one year's value with another and it would be reckless to compare individual years in different decades without analyzing the long-term trends."
from " target="_blank">http://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n15c5.htm</font>

Click to expand...

http://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n15c5.htm[/quote]<font size=

But all this says is that coral often grows at less than the optimum rate. Let's take Enitiwok. At the point drilled the coral has been growing about 280,000 years, if the conditions are optimum. That could be as long as about 400,000 years if your source is correct.

(aquarium coral growth noted)

Why not just measure the actual growth in situ? That seems to be a more realistic measurement.

from Ariel Roth:
Experiments that my graduate students and I have conducted indicate that one can, at least temporarily, nearly double the rate of coral growth by raising the temperature 5ºC or by increasing the carbonate ion content of seawater.

Click to expand...

Let's take a look at the real world:

"It is important to note that most corals exist near their upper thermal limits. Therefore, even a slight increase in tropical temperatures in the future could have a significant impact on the distribution of corals in the tropics. Temperatures only a few degrees above normal can result in the expulsion of algal symbionts (bleaching) that make an important contribution to their metabolic budget Figure 7.41 . The 3-4o C rise in temperature in the Pacific associated with the 1982-83 El Niño Event has been linked to widespread bleaching off the western coast of Panama Glynn, 1984 and the eventual devastation of the coral community.

At the other end of the temperature spectrum, cold water that upwells off western Panama may similarly limit the occurrence of corals. Glynn & Stewart, 1973 In the northern Florida Keys, Walker, et al., 1982 proposed that the growth rates and distribution of Montastraea annularis were in large part controlled by the periodic influx of cold water pushed out from Florida Bay during the passage of major cold fronts."

http://rmocfis.uprm.edu/~morelock/physical.htm

In other words, Galatian, you are making 'authoritative' pronouncements that even coral authorities won't make now.

Click to expand...

Hmm... last work on large-scale coral growth I know about was D.K. Hubbard's work in 1990. His actual measurements of coral in nature gave rates of 0.7 - 3.3 mm/year(second number is the maximum). Since he used actual growth rings, it's considerably more accurate than other measurements. That certainly fits the previous data.

Too much has been discovered recently about corals to hold with some of your older ideas.

Click to expand...

Not from the most recent work. Do you know of a comprehensive study that is more recent?

In fact, I'm not sure where I read it, but I do remember a study being done which revealed that the coral grew even faster without the symbiotic algae!

Click to expand...

No, that's wrong. Although coral can tolerate short periods of shading (which reduce photosynthesis upon which the corals depend), long term turbidity is quite harmful:

"Shading is probably the most important of all the sediment-related effects. Because it is more subtle than smothering, however, its effects are difficult to quantify. Despite an impressive body of literature (for a review, see Hubbard 1986), little quantitative information exists on the specific responses of reef organisms to sediment loading. The frequency with which coral reefs succumb to turbid water from dredging projects or increased runoff are totally inconsistent with laboratory experiments that have documented surprising tolerance by corals to high doses of sediment over short periods of time. Taylor & Saloman, 1978; Rogers, 1983

The obvious factor here is the effect of long-term exposure. Sediment traps on reefs can be used to measure the sediment influx over a year. Figure 47b shows the relationship between sediment trap loads and the rate of growth of Montastraea annularis. Even lower levels of stress can gradually wear down the reef's defenses if allowed to persist long enough. This accounts for the lack of well-developed reefs along the downwind flanks of most platforms and the increasing number of post-mortem autopsies of reefs killed by dredging or upland clearing."

Not only are creationists at a loss to explain how coral reefs could survive a flood, they are nonplussed by the fact that coral shows hundreds of thousands or even millions of years of uninterruped growth.

And you seem unaware, Helen, that even with the rather extreme variations your guys suggest, the existing coral shows much, much longer timer periods than any YE scenario could support.

And remember, this isn't for the beginning of the world; it's just that particular atoll.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Lacy Evans · Jul 7, 2003

Yo Galation! Start your own thread! The "Coral Mystery Board" Let's talk fishys! (Not really it's relevant.)

Lacy

I am not a uniformitarian. I believe in a young earth (Although I leave open the possibility that Genesis 1 was a re-creation.) ("Replenish the earth") I was just wondering what the (non-uniformitarian)theories were regarding the salt in the oceans before the flood and how the flood affected the fish.

Helen, Thank you for your post. Do you theorize that all the water was brackish? Or just the ocean(s)? And did I understand you (I tend to simplify things)that there may have been "pools" or "streams" of fresh and salt water during the flood. Does anyone know how long fish eggs float around before they hatch and how sensitive they are to salt?

Lacy

Peter101 · Jul 8, 2003

>>>>>>Is there evidence that salt in the ocean is a recent thing, that salt-water fish have adapted over the past several thousand years. Or that fish eggs can live for a limited time in mixed water<<<<<

My impression is that fish, either in salt water or fresh water, depend on reliable and stable conditions for breeding and population growth. Helen and many creationists on the other hand, postulate all sorts of extremely chaotic and unstable environmental conditions at the time of the "flood". Never mind that evidence is lacking for a relatively recent world-wide catastrophe such as the suggested flood. In short, it seems to me that the present variety and distribution of fish is not compatible with a world-wide flood as recently as a few thousand years ago. Rather the current populations of fish seem to be consistent with relatively stable conditions over many thousands of years, perhaps even many millions of years.

Helen · Jul 8, 2003

I am not a uniformitarian. I believe in a young earth (Although I leave open the possibility that Genesis 1 was a re-creation.) ("Replenish the earth") I was just wondering what the (non-uniformitarian)theories were regarding the salt in the oceans before the flood and how the flood affected the fish.

Helen, Thank you for your post. Do you theorize that all the water was brackish? Or just the ocean(s)? And did I understand you (I tend to simplify things)that there may have been "pools" or "streams" of fresh and salt water during the flood. Does anyone know how long fish eggs float around before they hatch and how sensitive they are to salt?

Lacy [/QB]

Lacy, just looking at the Bible, it seems that we can postulate, at the least, that both brackish and fresh water was present on the early earth. The fresh water may be indicated by Genesis 2:6, which indicates streams or mists (or whatever the translators of each particular version decided to call it) were coming up from the ground to water the plants. This may well indicate a massive intrusion of fresh water over the land, which would then drain into the sea at some point (four rivers started in Eden alone!), giving a mix of that water with whatever the saltiness of the original sea was.

Fish eggs hatch in various times, sometimes differently for the same species, depending on temperatures and other environmental conditions! It's not like mammals with definite gestation times. However, keep in mind also that not all the fish died during the Flood, so there were adults left to continue breeding after.

Meatros · Jul 8, 2003

A global flood is a bit hard to swallow, there are so many questions it raises, so little answers. As an example, if anyone would care to take a shot at these, be my guest:

Why do we have polar ice caps? In order for Noah to build an ark that carried enough animals, it would have to be enormous, far greater then what the bible actually says. There are then more problems, what do you feed the creatures? What do you do with their excrement? Also, if you are going to postulate that their was an existing stock (say 8000 animals) then how do you account for the millions (possibly billions) of different species today? The only explanation would be macroevolution, which in the alloted time frame, simply has no evidence to support it. In addition, how many of each animal boarded the ark (7 or 2)? Also, and this is a fatal problem for global flood proponents, please define "kinds". How did Noah gather all the animals? Did they all live in the same area? Did the polar bear, which has very specific living conditions, come down to hop on the ark? If the argument is going to be that the polar bear evolved from a kind, please demonstrate how a new species of bear could evolve that quickly. How did specific geologically isolated creatures get to the islands they now currently inhabit, if the Noah account is true? Why are certain creatures limited to certain places, why are wallabies spred evenly over all the contents? If such a global event occured, how do you account for all the mud that would have made the oceans incredibly muddy? What about the trees, how would they survive? Why wasn't inbreeding a problem for the creatures after the flood? How did mayflies survive? Why do mountain ranges vary in erosion so significantly?

Helen · Jul 8, 2003

You know what would be neat, Meatros? If you actually read the Bible, or if you actually read some of the creation science materials instead of asking questions that have been long since answered -- even here on good old Baptist Board.

You are in italics:

Why do we have polar ice caps?

Because the earth's axis is tilted.

In order for Noah to build an ark that carried enough animals, it would have to be enormous, far greater then what the bible actually says.

No it wouldn't. Only representatives of those kinds of animals which were land animals or flying animals with nephesh, or soul (the breath of life) were directed onto the Ark by God. A few thousand animals with the average size of maybe a large rabbit or, at most, a small sheep.

There are then more problems, what do you feed the creatures?

Noah was told to store food. He did.

What do you do with their excrement?

Wash it overboard or down into the lowest deck as ballast. Ships do the same today.

Also, if you are going to postulate that their was an existing stock (say 8000 animals) then how do you account for the millions (possibly billions) of different species today?

There are not that many species of land animals and birds which fit the description of those taken on the Ark.

In addition, how many of each animal boarded the ark (7 or 2)?

Two of unclean animals, seven of clean.

Also, and this is a fatal problem for global flood proponents, please define "kinds".

Original created populations.

How did Noah gather all the animals?

He didn't have to. God directed them to Noah. Read your Bible.

Did they all live in the same area?

Probably not.

Did the polar bear, which has very specific living conditions, come down to hop on the ark?

The polar bear is most likely a species which came about after the Flood.

If the argument is going to be that the polar bear evolved from a kind, please demonstrate how a new species of bear could evolve that quickly.

Natural selection in cold conditions.

How did specific geologically isolated creatures get to the islands they now currently inhabit, if the Noah account is true?

The continents did not split until the time of Peleg. This allowed several hundred years for migrations. After the split (which probably took several hundred years), some species could not make it where they ended up and so died out.

Why are certain creatures limited to certain places, why are wallabies spred evenly over all the contents?

Contents? Do you mean continents? And wallabies are spread evenly over all the continents? I would love to see a reference or two on that one! In the meantime, certain creatures are limited to certain places because they did the best there and not other places.

If such a global event occured, how do you account for all the mud that would have made the oceans incredibly muddy?

The Flood Layer in Geology

This event correlates well with the debris layer that is found on all continents, except India, a little below the boundary between the Proterozoic and the Cambrian. This debris layer is composed of pebbles, cobbles and boulders bound together in a cement-like matrix. It is called a conglomerate, or diamictite, or tillite. However, the latter term implies a glacial origin. For this reason, one of the current explanations for this worldwide debris layer invokes a "snowball earth" scenario. This scenario postulates that the whole planet is iced over, including the oceans, with glaciers existing at sea level in the tropics [27, 28, 29]. However, Williams and Schmidt list off 10 solid geological reasons why this scenario must be invalid and a different explanation must be sought [30].

Near Adelaide, in South Australia, this initial debris layer is over 300 metres thick [31], while the following deep-water laminated siltstone is over 2400 metres thick and has a high carbon content [32]. This sequence has its counterpart worldwide. In Scotland, for example, the detrital layer is 750 metres thick [33]. In Zaire and Zambia the "Grand Conglomerat" is 300 metres thick and is overlain by about 500 metres of carbonaceous silty shale and black limestone in a manner very similar to the equivalent beds in Adelaide [34]. Geologically, this event dates from the Neo-Proterozoic around 720 million years ago atomically. This closely approximates the time of Noah's Flood, 3536 BC, when the atomic clock is corrected for light-speed variation. A post-Flood tectonic adjustment occurred as the fault systems began to stabilise some 60 orbital years later, which gives an age to the strata laid down then of around 600 million years ago atomically.

http://www.setterfield.org/earlyhist.html

This link will also help explain, I think:
http://www.setterfield.org/snowballearth.htm

What about the trees, how would they survive?

They didn't. Vegetation mats preserved many species, however, in seed and seedling form.

Why wasn't inbreeding a problem for the creatures after the flood?

Inbreeding was not a problem for either people or animals until mutations -- genetic load -- had built to a point making it dangerous. For people, this would have been by the time of Moses.

How did mayflies survive?

Vegetation mats. These preserved insects and amphibians and a lot of plant life.

Why do mountain ranges vary in erosion so significantly?

Because they are made of different materials; and because they were elevated at different times.

Meatros · Jul 8, 2003

You know what would be neat, Meatros? If you actually read the Bible, or if you actually read some of the creation science materials instead of asking questions that have been long since answered -- even here on good old Baptist Board.

Nice attitude Helen, I can see that you're in the proper mindset to guide me to the truth.

Why do we have polar ice caps?

Because the earth's axis is tilted.

This means what exactly? You know that the ice caps aren't created as quickly as the YEC idea needs them to be, so you sidestep the issue.

No it wouldn't. Only representatives of those kinds of animals which were land animals or flying animals with nephesh, or soul (the breath of life) were directed onto the Ark by God. A few thousand animals with the average size of maybe a large rabbit or, at most, a small sheep.

Representatives? In order for the changes between "kinds" to occur, you'd have to concede to a macroevolution on a scale that would be *witnessable*. For example; Did zebra and horses come from a common "kind"?

Noah was told to store food. He did.

In what space? Where? Under the animals? How did Noah prevent them from eating each other? How many "kinds" of animals were there? What is a "kind"?

There are not that many species of land animals and birds which fit the description of those taken on the Ark.

So you are suggesting that less were taken on the ark? So why do we have millions of different species of animals?

Original created populations.

Nice side step, what constitutes a "kind"?

He didn't have to. God directed them to Noah. Read your Bible.

Did God fly the animals that were isolated on an island? Did they get a group discount?

The polar bear is most likely a species which came about after the Flood.

Tell me again why you don't accept macroevolution.

Natural selection in cold conditions.

Pay attention to the latter half of the question: " please demonstrate how a new species of bear could evolve that quickly."

In addition let's use some common sense, why would a bear which wasn't suited for the extreme cold, head up to the artic to begin with? It would have died; the time frame you give wouldn't give it a chance to get acclamated to the weather.

The continents did not split until the time of Peleg. This allowed several hundred years for migrations. After the split (which probably took several hundred years), some species could not make it where they ended up and so died out.

Is there any evidence of this?

In the meantime, certain creatures are limited to certain places because they did the best there and not other places.

Uh huh, and some evidence of this would be... So did Wallabies swim over to Australia after the flood?

They didn't. Vegetation mats preserved many species, however, in seed and seedling form.

Can you provide evidence that this is possible? How did these highly suspicious "Vegetation mats" survive?

Vegetation mats. These preserved insects and amphibians and a lot of plant life.

I find it amusing how far you will stretch things in order to fit your ideas, only to turn around and demand more refined evidence. Your whole post lacks any sort of evidence, it's basically you ad-hocing your way through these answers without applying any critical thought to them.

Helen · Jul 8, 2003

1. It was a matter of frustration that there is so much information here on BB as well as on the rest of the web and in the Bible and yet you ask the same questions that have been answered over and over and over and over again...
Nevertheless, I took the time to answer them.

Of course, if I thought you were really interested in the truth, I probably would not feel quite so frustrated. But I am convinced that a number of you here are simply here to try to denigrate ideas you don't agree with, and the truth has nothing to do with what you are seeking to do here.

So prove me wrong and I would love it!

2. Regarding polar ice caps, you asked WHY we have them, not how they formed quickly. We have them because the earth's axis is tilted. It's as simple as that.

However, if you want to know how they were formed quickly, it is because of storm surges after the massive catastrophes which affected the entire earth: the Flood of Noah, the volcanism of Babel's time, the massive crustal movements during the time of Peleg, as well as the meteorite hits which would have produced some massive disturbances in the ecological zones and storm systems. The ice caps could not have built up based on the lack of snow they get now -- expecially in the Antarctica. It was absolutely necessary for massive and repeated storms to buffet the areas -- most probably in rapid succession.

3. The macroevolution you are demanding was not necessary after the Flood. Both horses and zebras, the examples you chose, are equine. They can interbreed, and have, and are therefore from the same kind.

4. There was plenty of room on the Ark for foodstuffs, especially compressed (which does not take massive technology!). The Bible also indicates quite clearly in Genesis 1 that there was no predation with the original creation, so that wasn't a problem.

5. We have millions of different species of all animals put together. Take away fish, insects, amphibians, land invertebrates -- none of which were on the Ark, and you have a 'few' less today than you are indicating. I really, really do suggest you do a little more reading and a little less shooting off at the keyboard, Meatros.

6. The kind is, again, the originally created population of any group of animals or plants. I can't help it if you don't like the definition, but that's what it is.

7. Your snide comment "Did God fly the animals that were isolated on an island? Did they get a group discount?" tells me more about why you are here than anything else. I have already mentioned that there was only one continent at the time, so no, there were no islands they had to be flown in from. In Genesis 7:8-9, we read, "Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds, and of all creatures that move along the gound, male and female, came to Noah and entered the Ark, as God had commanded Noah." My assumption is that they came under their own locomotion, crawling, creeping, flying.

8.The polar bear is most likely a species which came about after the Flood.Tell me again why you don't accept macroevolution.

It's still a bear.

9. The fast speciation of animals after the Flood was the result of several things:
-- a. genomes close to the original, with a high potential for variation
-- b. empty ecological niches
-- c. natural selection
-- d. later isolation of small populations

10. You wrote: In addition let's use some common sense, why would a bear which wasn't suited for the extreme cold, head up to the artic to begin with? It would have died; the time frame you give wouldn't give it a chance to get acclamated to the weather.
Animals would follow food, first of all. Second, they would continue into areas where they felt the most comfortable and well-fed. In addition, when other sudden changes came, many would have died off, but the few who remained would have then inbred to produce populations such as the polar bear. It's not a matter of becoming acclimated, even in evolutionary terms; it's a matter of being able to survive change because of being a variety equipped to do so in that particular environment.

11. The Atlantic Rift is pretty good evidence of continental split. For the evidence you are looking for, please read Barry's "Brief Earth History"
http://www.setterfield.org/earlyhist.html

which I already linked for you and which I presume you did not take the time for.

12. You aren't paying a bit of attention to anything I am saying, actually, so this is an exercise in futility as far as you are concerned, but perhaps it is of help to some others here. The wallabies did not have to swim to Australia. They migrated there before the continents split.

13. Vegetation mats are quite common still in the world today and build up land themselves in shallow waters, such as in Florida. After the monsoons each year in Southeast Asia, there are vegetation mats which form and harbor life. Really, if you did read a little more and did this sort of nonsense a little less, you would know at least which questions were intelligent ones to ask!

Peter101 · Jul 8, 2003

>>>>>>>6. The kind is, again, the originally created population of any group of animals or plants. I can't help it if you don't like the definition, but that's what it is.<<<<<<

But that is not a useful definition, as it does not define what you mean by "group". Group is just another word for kind, and therefore it is a circular definition.

What constitutes a "group"? Your model, the creationist model, requires definite boundaries between "kinds". What is it that determines those boundaries?

phoenix · Jul 15, 2003

There are species of fish that do live in fresh and saltwater. Though that is because some have over time evovled systems to handle the presence of more salt in the waters in which they live. Then again there are those fish that live in estuaries. Estuaries are areas that have a fluctuating mixture of saltwater and freshwater. You find these where rivers open up into oceans. The fact that you have fish that can readily live in both habitats is in no way an indication of a worldwide flood.

Helen · Jul 15, 2003

No, it's an indication that fish are quite capable of dealing with different environments, though, and that does respond to the question about what did fish do during and after the Flood.

Meatros · Jul 15, 2003

Originally posted by Helen:
No, it's an indication that fish are quite capable of dealing with different environments, though, and that does respond to the question about what did fish do during and after the Flood.

So a few species of fish constitutes *all* species-including the delicate ones that need a specialized environment?

phoenix · Jul 15, 2003

How can that answer the question of how fish adapted to salt saltwater? It takes many years for that to happen not 40 days and 40 nights. If anything that is an indication that the flood did not happen.

salt water fish

New Member

New Member

<img src =/Helen2.gif>

<img src =/Helen2.gif>

New Member

Active Member

<img src =/Helen2.gif>

Active Member

New Member

New Member

<img src =/Helen2.gif>

New Member

<img src =/Helen2.gif>

New Member

<img src =/Helen2.gif>

New Member

phoenix

Guest

<img src =/Helen2.gif>

New Member

phoenix

Guest