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/
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_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=orig15.deviantart.net%2F1dbf%2Ff%2F2011%2F319%2F3%2F3%2Fguilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
