Noah's Flood vs Aquatic Fauna

[Duke Guilmon]

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/

[ThomM]

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/

Actually - the myth of Noah's ark is one thing that has already been proven not to have happened.

If you use the time line of the Jewish Calendar (Or even the Anglican timeline of the bible) - the flood happened after the Great Pyramid was constructed - yet there is no water damage to the Pyramid.

In fact -there is no evidence that a "worldwide" flood of the magnitude in the bible happened during the Human era. The are plenty of local floods - many of major size - but none even could approach that of the claimed great flood

A column of water 50,000 feet high would have reduced every human created object to ruble - yet we have lots of things around that predate the MYTH

[Cyberman]

I can sink Noah's Ark with a single picture:



The diluvianist explanation for how the fragile coccolith exoskeletons managed to survive the year-long flood, or got laid down in such a way as to give the illusion of aeons-old fossil deposits post-flood, had better be a bloody good one.

A similar case can be made regerding the Antarctic ice sheet, which apparently either stayed put and unaffected beneath the waves or floated around a bit before obediently settling itself back on top of the Antarctic continental landmass exactly as if it had never moved.

[Jackalope]

A similar case can be made regerding the Antarctic ice sheet, which apparently either stayed put and unaffected beneath the waves or floated around a bit before obediently settling itself back on top of the Antarctic continental landmass exactly as if it had never moved.

Further a problem for young earth creationists is the existence of 800,000 years of known Antarctic ice core history, not to mention the geologic history recorded in Loess deposits and varves.

The Earth is demonstrably older than they claim - even without the use of radiometric chronology that they often object to.

How a nominally educated person today can still cling to this nonsense is beyond me.

[vorlon13]

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/

Actually - the myth of Noah's ark is one thing that has already been proven not to have happened.

If you use the time line of the Jewish Calendar (Or even the Anglican timeline of the bible) - the flood happened after the Great Pyramid was constructed - yet there is no water damage to the Pyramid.

In fact -there is no evidence that a "worldwide" flood of the magnitude in the bible happened during the Human era. The are plenty of local floods - many of major size - but none even could approach that of the claimed great flood

A column of water 50,000 feet high would have reduced every human created object to ruble - yet we have lots of things around that predate the MYTH

Good points, and additionally, rain raining at a rate to accumulate 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 or whatever it took to cover all the (uneroded) mountains of that era would in fact be astonishing in it's intensity. Your bathroom shower would not accumulate 30,000 feet of water if allowed to run for 40 days, assuming your tub was 30,000 feet deep.

I'm not sure anyone experiencing rainfall at that rate (Noah for instance) would call the phenomena rain, it would be that intense.

Let's say 40,000 feet of water accumulates in 40 days, working the math, it comes out to 500 inches of rain per hour!!!

The rainiest places on earth receive around 500 inches per year!! That flow rate would would be absolutely astonishing to anyone experiencing it. Waterproofing the ark would be extraordinarily difficult, with rainfall at that rate, the ark would have been overwhelmed in minutes or hours from even a tiny leak.

[Zidneya]

My online christian stalker(don't ask) just send me this.






So I gotta ask. By already willing to talk about Noahs flood isn't I don't know put us in the very same of level of stupidity as some believers. Don't get me wrong ThePaleolithicFreethinker your arguments are very logical like the others that appear. But I mean can't we just I dunno admit this is a whole bunch of nonsense and move on.

I'm sorry if I offended you ThePaleolithicFreethinker I didn't mean that I'm just questioning why we have to defend our atheism where christians come up with this kind of …… let's call it illusions.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

And then there's the creationists' 'vapour canopy' model. There are a whole raft of problems with this, my own personal favourite being the latent heat of vapourization needed to turn the canopy into liquid water.

The fine folks over at the SecWeb have calculated that this would have raised the temperature of the atmosphere to 6000F, with an associated rise in ocean temperature.

Since the flood account never mentions, 'And Noah and his issue did come forth from the ark and feasted upon the bouillabaisse that was all around them,' we can pretty much dismiss the vapour canopy model.

Boru

[Duke Guilmon]

My online christian stalker(don't ask) just send me this.






So I gotta ask. By already willing to talk about Noahs flood isn't I don't know put us in the very same of level of stupidity as some believers. Don't get me wrong ThePaleolithicFreethinker your arguments are very logical like the others that appear. But I mean can't we just I dunno admit this is a whole bunch of nonsense and move on.

I'm sorry if I offended you ThePaleolithicFreethinker I didn't mean that I'm just questioning why we have to defend our atheism where christians come up with this kind of …… let's call it illusions.

That video was sad. First the title is misleading as if it was supposed to show how dinosaurs went extinct. Second, we don't use dinosaurs to educate people on evolution, we use genetics, experiments, and fossils based on predictions to show that evolution is the best model for biodiversity. Third the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs at all. Why? Because it never describes one. They can go on about behemoth but never once was behemoth drawn as a dinosaur. Look here is one of behemoth and his counter part Leviathan

Behemoth doesn't look like a dinosaur does he. So why in the world would he look like a hippo until the creationist movement began? Because they themselves know that dinosaurs can be use for their needs.

Dinosaurs living with man is depending. I say yes because birds are still extant. Non avian dinosaurs are no because we don't have evidence they were alive in at least the past 100,000 years.

Sorry for the tangent but I had to address the points of this video.

[RobbyPants]

The diluvianist explanation for how the fragile coccolith exoskeletons managed to survive the year-long flood, or got laid down in such a way as to give the illusion of aeons-old fossil deposits post-flood, had better be a bloody good one.

God is testing you/Satan is deceiving you and you are failing/fell for it.

Of course, you'd think those arguments would cause more trouble than they solve, but it doesn't seem to bother the apologist.

[Zidneya]

That video was sad. First the title is misleading as if it was supposed to show how dinosaurs went extinct. Second, we don't use dinosaurs to educate people on evolution, we use genetics, experiments, and fossils based on predictions to show that evolution is the best model for biodiversity. Third the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs at all. Why? Because it never describes one. They can go on about behemoth but never once was behemoth drawn as a dinosaur. Look here is one of behemoth and his counter part Leviathan

Behemoth doesn't look like a dinosaur does he. So why in the world would he look like a hippo until the creationist movement began? Because they themselves know that dinosaurs can be use for their needs.

Dinosaurs living with man is depending. I say yes because birds are still extant. Non avian dinosaurs are no because we don't have evidence they were alive in at least the past 100,000 years.

Sorry for the tangent but I had to address the points of this video.

Do you mind that I used your statements on a FINAL REPLY THAT I HAD WITH THAT NUT JOB?!!

She even included an article and added as "evidence".

"But recently, there has been evidence that Noah carried them in the Ark! Read this http://www.christianpost.com/news/dinosa...am-101701/ Cool, huh? " 

Dinosaurs on Noahs arc yeah right, if this is suppose to explain how all the dinosaurs species got extinct ,considering that dinosaurs existed over 135 million years for that arc to contain all the dinosaur species that have existed in all those years all along with all the animals that exist today that thing must had been the size of Wyoming to contain all those animals.

And of course that wouldn't have been a problem because after all God with his super flawless powers would have made that possible. All praise the lord hurry for my former piece of **** smart ass christian stalker.