It was not a miniscule amount of fish. The only thing you were able to show was that the octupus and coral have a sensitivity to their environment. You DID NOT show that fish eggs wouldn't survive. However, I demonstrated it possible and that it's actually quite possible for them to survive in both environments.

Also, during a global flood their would be trees uprooted, so insects could've easily survived on floating trees that had been uprooted or even inside of them.

You also have to remember, some animals he took 7. I suggest you actually read the account in Genesis. Many of the animals might have even been in a state of hibernation.

You're assuming that the salinity was very high. Maybe it was primarily freshwater. You're making unnessary assumptions. Also, insect eggs could've easily survived WITHIN uprooted trees where they might have stayed dry throughout the flood. It's likely that insects would've went to higher ground as well like mountain ranges which would've been the last areas to be covered by the flood waters, so it's likely that the eggs only had to survive for a short period of times. It's very possible.

No actually I was assuming it would be very very low primarly, if you read my first post you would have noticed that. Very few species of fish are euryhaline and the eggs need to be in the right salinity to develop. Also not all fish lay eggs. It is not likely insects would go to mountain ranges since a lot could not cope with the cold and it would require them being near a mountain range for a start so we can rule that one.
So lets look at it:
1) Animals on the ark - 2 of each species = functionally extinct. 2 animals is to small a population to sustain an animal since the gene pool is far two small.
2) Most fish are not euryhaline so they would nearly all be killed and eggs would not survive the huge salinity changes.
3) Most insects would be wiped out fairly quickly and there would not be suitable habitat for most. You suggestions would not provide suitable habitat for about 99% of insects.

Many fish can withstand both freshwater and saltwater

http://www.mcn.org/ed/CUR/cw/Salmon/FAQ.html

What is an anadromous fish? A catadromous fish?

An anadromous fish, born in fresh water, spends most of its life in the sea and returns to fresh water to spawn. Salmon, smelt, shad, striped bass, and sturgeon are common examples. A catadromous fish does the opposite - lives in fresh water and enters salt water to spawn. Most of the eels are catadromous. <--------------Fish eggs can obviously have resilency is freshwater and saltwater.

1. That is supposition. If they were younglings they could've easily thrived with multiple offspring, especially with God's guidance.

2. Not all the eggs had to survive; just enough to repopulate. God would've guided the repopulation of the species.

3. You're acting like the insects would've stayed in one place and not looked for shelter. Also, please show your calculations that are causing you to arrive at 99 percent?

So how many fish fall into those categories? Salmon and eels yes, sawfish and bullsharks yes? How many more? What about tuna? what about gadoids? How about deep sea fish? Seahorses? How about the vast majority of fish? What about cetaceans too? They can not cope with fresh water except for the river dolphins? Put a whale in fresh water and sea how is does, more importantly put the primary produces of food for marine life in fresh and watch the whole ecosystem collapse. There would be no plankton, no krill, no coral, source of food and no the eggs of marine species would not survive.
DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THE TERM OSMOREGULATION. This is basic biology. Maybe you should learn it.
Well mountains really cold - most insects require greater warmth. To a lot mountains are inaccessible. You think you just transplant a ectothermic species into a hugely different climate and you think it'll just be ok?

Matt, I think it's obvious that WWF has no concept of ichthyology. Those who have a basic grasp of the concept know that what WWF is saying isn't true at all. There are millions of different kinds of fish, and it doesn't matter at all if a dozen or so can survive in both types of water. It's incredibly insignificant. If WWF can provide a link that says a LARGE PERCENTAGE of fish eggs can survive in BOTH types of water WITHOUT constant care by the parent fish and temperature and salinity changes would have NO EFFECT ON A MAJORITY OF THE FISH, then maybe we can have a scientific debate, but until then, WWF is just making himself look uneducated. A link that says a dozen fish can do this doesn't count for anything. Most insects CANNOT live under water. Butterflies, dragonflies, moths, bees, wasps, millipedes, centipedes, worms, flies, gnats, scorpions, mantises, ants, snails, slugs, mosquitoes (their young live in water but the adults would die), mosquito hawks, beetles, spiders, and countless others would drown and die within mere hours, if not minutes, of being submerged in water. That's just common sense.

Anyone who ever owned a fish tank knows you change the water even slightly in the wrong direction one way or the other, and you get dead fish. The eggs are made to be viable in the same environment as the adult fish. Insects would be dead as well, if the entire world rained for forty days and nights, every bug would be dead.

I've read Genesis as well and it says in one story 2 and in another a different number. Hmm two stories with contradictory numbers among many contradictions. Its a parable at best, not fact.

The Flood, according to the bible, completely covered all the Earth including the 'tall mountains' for at least 150 days. This is not a 'short time' in the life of insects, especially those that require flowering plants (and hence living plants) for food (bees anyone?)

Using the Western honeybee as an example, the average gestation period from egg to adult is approx 24 days (for drones), 21 days (for workers) and 16 days (for a queen) source. Even if Noah took the bee eggs on board the ark those eggs would have hatched before the waters stopped rising (40 days) and then would have had another 150 days to survive on nothing. Eggs surviving in floating logs? Same problem.

If the Flood happened the bee would be extinct.

We all inside kind of know that the flood didnt happen around the whole world, however, there was probably a large flood around the general area of Babylon. Some guy mustve wrote about the flood and how wide it spread, not knowing how large the world really was.

WWF, thanks for ignoring my post. I know they weren't favorable to your argument, but I guess your silence on them speaks volumes. I gave you rationale for the continents not being together a few thousand years ago. That destroys your whole argument that the animals were able to spread out across the globe because they land was all one mass.

So please answer me this-How did the animals get to the Galapagos or Australia? If you are content with saying "God did it" and it is your faith, then I am fine with that. But don't try to come on here and use scientific evidence to prove a global flood.

You seem to be so numb to evidence against your ideas. You actually think that you demonstrated that fish eggs could survive a global flood! That is just too funny. And admit this-If we take your silly idea that the only fish that survived were those who tolerate fresh and saltwater, THEN YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION! It is simple because that is the ONLY way to explain the diversity we see today.

OK I see the argument of fish still rages. Yes it is true that some fish can live in both fresh and salt water for a very LIMITED LIMITED LIMITED LIMITED LIMITED time span. OK got that? LIMITED!!!!!! Bull shark is a prime example. The bullshark has the ability to store salt in it's body. It can swim up fresh water streams to hunt. Does anyone know about the shark attacks in New Jersey from the 1920's? This was a bullshark trhat went up into a freash waterway and killed 4-6(?) people. I'll say it again. LIMITED TIME SPAN!!!!

The following occured to me earlier when I woke up today:

Is it wong to kill a plant for no reason? YES
Is it wrong to kill an animal for no reason? YES
Is it evil to kill a man for no reason? DEFINITELY!
Is it evil to kill a woman for no reason? HOLY CRAP YES!
Is it evil to kill a child for no reason? DEAR FREAKING LORD WITH OUT A DOUBT!!!

Would it be an evil act to destroy EVERY SINGLE LIVING ORGANISM ON THE PLANET just to kill a few evil people and teach a very samll handful of other surviving people a good MORAL lesson?

UNTHINKABLY PROFOUNDLY PINICAL DEFINITION OF EVIL!!!!


What kind of MORAL lesson can you learn from this!!???

What kind of "God" would do such a thing, other than the ABSOLUTE ORIGIN OF EVIL HIMSELF!!! Should you look at "God" in this light, would you not think him to be THE MOST EVIL ENTITY IN ALL EXISENCE??

YES YOU WOULD

Only a God of absolute evil would even think of such an act! And if he were to stand before me, I would punch him in the face for every INNOCENT he killed! And ENJOY delivering every punch!

Thou shall not kill indeed!!!

Any other God would just go.....

OK all of you people that suck..... your outa here!!!!!! All of you others.... go fourth and have a blast!! First drink is on me!!

But no, instead there was.... KILLL KILL KILL KILL KILL EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!! MWU HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Oh!! One more thing about the fish! When the ocean fish swim up fresh water stream to spawn........ don't they do something called DIE when they are done!!!!! I'll say it again...... LIMITED TIME FRAME!!!!!!

I watch this happen every April when the shad come up the Delaware river...... Just though that this idea and FIRST HAND anual experience might relate to this argument. But who am I ya know...... I'm just a scientisc who has studied almost every science there is out there to some degree of another, thats all. I'm nothing at all really..... Also, I'm NEVER afraid to admit it when I am wrong about something.

But if the Bible garbled a few details, or just plain got them wrong, then your proof goes right out the window along with the biblical version of events.

Let's suppose there was a major climatic disturbance (world-wide, yet) caused by some huge disaster (like an asteroid or comet impact). Effects would be world-wide with serious storms almost everywhere and floods at a great many places, but the hills, although rain-soaked, would remain above water. I often hear fundamentalists claim that there are stories of a great flood from all over the world, forgetting that a biblical-style flood would kill those other people, making stories from other than Mesopotamia, impossible. If you want to make those other flood stories true, then this is how it's done.

There is an Egyptian account of a huge flood during the First Dynasty. By collecting descriptions of astronomical events associated with these other flood stores, Bruce Masse has pin-pointed the date: "on or about May 10, 2807 BC." The years 2806 to 2802 BC show a disturbance in the growth rates of trees in North America. The dates are right and something BIG happened about then. I submit that we have a real-life model for Noah's "Flood."
Doug

Check White Mountain data set: growth reduction from 2806 to 2802 BC. BTW: the very existence of a tree-ring chronology going back 11,000 years is pretty good evidence the "Flood" wasn't total.
Doug

Considering that Genesis describes the flood as “fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered” and further considering that the highest mountain is over 29,000 feet high; the world would have to have it’s surface buried under 5.45 miles of water. Since the planetary volume is around 535,662,531,270,633 (yep, 535 Trillion plus) sq miles at present; adding 5.45 miles of water to that volume would increase it by several billion more sq miles. The piddling 5million plus sq miles of water found below the surface would not even come close to accounting for more than 1/1,000,000,000th of the needed water. Even if you could account for the water, the heat energy released by the fountains of the deep and the water needed for 40 days and 40 nights (that’s 6 inches a minute and for every gram of water vapor converted to liquid water, 10 calories of heat is released) would raise the planetary surface temperature to around 2000 degrees farenheit! Can you spell baked Noah and company? I doubt if “Gopher wood” was very fire r******ant! Since a calorie is approximately .004 BTU and one 1 inch of rain over 1 square acre will contain 857,250,000 grams of liquid water, and 6 inches of rain was falling per minute 12,858,750,000 BTUs would be released each minute, per square acre, 24 hours a day for 40 days, just from the rainfall alone. With a universally overcast sky, the large majority of the heat would be held at the surface and not dissipated into space (you can see this today even, a cloudy night will be warmer than a clear night). Now adding the magmaic heat that would accompany the fountains of the deep, once again largely held to the surface, the planetary surface would quickly become overheated with any rain forming being instantly returned to vapor form…hence it could not have rained 40 days and 40 nights!

I'm having trouble finding that on the Intertubes - Is the growth reduction indicative of being submerged, rather than, say, lack of sunlight due to atmospheric disturbance, and are the findings consistent across the entire of America?

I know that people mean well - but let's be honest. There is no way to disprove the flood. There's no way to determine conditions on the planet at that time to that degree of certainty. To assume the planet would heat to 2000 degrees - come on! It's all speculation and assumption.

Well - we do have the polar ice cores that go back several hundreds of thousands of years. There's no indication within those that a global flood ever took place.

My proof of no global flood lies in the animals that currently live on the Galapagos islands and Australia. There is just no way for those animals to get back to those places after a global flood if the only ones that survived where with Noah.

Googul "Ultimate Tree Ring". The data set is called WM2. It's a table of numbers. Just find the years and look at the values for the listed years, compared to those on either side.

Growth reduction like this is usually the result either of extreme drought or extreme cold. Unfortunately, the dataset gives no indication of whether there were unseasonal frosts during those years (You would have to find the original cores and examine them under a microscope.). This type of pattern would be more indicative of a longer-than-normal winter and/or very cold summers.

Impossible to say whether this was continent-wide or not. There are only a few chronologies that go back this far and the few that there are don't give a clear picture.
Doug

I'll bring the beer (what kind do you want) if you bring the marshmallows.


Backed by some hard math.....

Booya!

Specution? No that is something called physics, and this can be recreated in a lab.

Need I say this again... The largest length for Noah's Ark was 515 feet. This can carry only 69,954 pounds. This equals 4.5 savanna elephants. Not including people, food, water, 3 decks, and other supplies for 7 months and 17 days. Ok if you want to go your route with haveing only infants and toddlers on the boat it could carry more. But an entire planet full of life? 1-7 pairs of each living organism? Nope! you can't event carry a single town's species with this tiny ship. Just think logically. Look at the facts. You simply can NOT carry even a single TOWN'S species on this tiny ship. If you think you can do it with a town's species than show me. Just a town. Thats not so hard is it? It can even be a small town. The kind you can blink while driving and miss.

I'll even help build the ship!

I'll even suggest 3 towns: Lost Springs, Wyoming population 4 when the last time I drove by, Raven Rock New Jersey, and Pittstown NJ

How about not even a town. Let's try a zoo! Bronx Zoo, Philly Zoo, Central Park Zoo. Waddaya say?

One zoo, one ship! 515 feet, 3 decks, food, water, containment, all supplies for 7 months and 17 days. Waddaya say! Oh, and not one single fatality! Think it can be done?

Also throw in there some savere emotional trauma and depression, because you have to PRETEND, your family, friends, every one you ever met, everyone you ever seen, every single life form that you take for granted is dead.

Am I being harsh? Yes I am! But this is the ugly reality that Noah would have had to contend with. Please note abouve me saying PRETEND. I would wish harm on NO ONE of coarse!

Again, Booya!!

Seashells on Everest. Booya booya boogie woogie boo!

Tectonic activity.
http://www.mountain.org/education/subexplore/explore02.cfm

Whoops.....

( http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/noahs_flood.htm )
Do Sea Shell Fossils on Mt. Everest Prove Noah's Flood?

Creationist View
Sea shell fossils found on Mt. Everest prove that it was once covered by water. This proves that a great flood occurred.

Evolutionist View
Sea shell fossils found on Mt. Everest only show that is was once under water. Millions of years ago the area of Mt. Everest at sea level. The Himalayas were formed by the shifting of the tectonic plates which forced the ground upwards.

Want to learn more?

Missing Links, p20
The Geology of Everest
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/floodmount.html

Creationist: Awesome! I've got two eyes - I can see!

Skeptic: Well, actually you've got an optic nerve that gathers signals in the form of light impulses through your cornea and sends these signals to your brain that in turn gives an impression, or interpretation really of what you think you're seeing and gives meaning to your illusion!

Creationist: Oh, I thought I could see.

Yeti, I am not trying to call you out or anything, but it seems you believe in a global Noah's flood. Correct? Okay now if you are content with just saying "God did it," then feel free to ignore this. However, that has never seemed to be your style. Would you care to explain how the animals we see today are on the Galapagos islands and Australia? WWF gave up after having his arguments dismantled. It seem he now knows the truth. Again if you don't feel the need to use evidence to prove you faith then I suppose don't bother to answer (BTW that is not a bad thing.) But it just seems that something like a global flood would be pretty obvious.

Big deal there is aquatic life fossiles in the desert..... Those mountain were not always there dude. Land formations change. Tyr studying some paleoclimatology and paleogeography. It happens all the time.

If your so confident than accept my challenge! One zoo, one boat 515 ft long

OOPse!!!! i quoted me! lol! this is supposed to be towards Yeti

I'm so not awake tonight! :-P Sorry people

From what I gather, there's not many of us creationists around here to call out. To answer your intimation - yes, I've always accepted the bible's account of a global flood by faith. I've never really looked into proving it. And yes, I would have to say that even before I begin to look into it there are two presuppositions that I would raise. One, God had something to do with the flood and its' survivors; Two, there should be some evidence of it.

I have formulated no proofs or arguments in favor of the global flood nor have I contemplated the matter or looked into it whatsoever. But, there are some things that I could begin to consider just off the top of my head.

1. Tectonic/volcanic activity is not always slow, deliberate and measurable. You are aware that there have been documented islands that appear overnight. This could be proven with a simple Google search.

2. It has been shown that there are tropical plants beneath the polar icecaps.

3. The Sahara: has it always been there or did it arise around ten thousand years ago? I don't recall the numbers on that one.

4. Recent evidence shows that the pyramids of Egypt were under sea water.

5. Ice cores? I don't know anything about that topic.

6. Fauna of Galapagos/Madagascar/Australia, etc. - they are distinct and unique, no question about that. How did they arise? Well if you believe in evolution the obvious answer is natural selection right? How would they be accounted for assuming the flood? I don't know. It would take some serious study and contemplation. One thing is sure. Sea levels have changed even in the last few thousand years.

This is not easy topic. I hesitate to even get involved because if I've learned one thing around here - no matter what I come up with you guys manage to shoot it down. Sometimes you don't even give props or accept your tenuous position. I mean you guys refuse to give an inch. So, I don't know.

Thought you might find this helpful

Ice Cores - Wikipedia
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icgate.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4121
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/...4060917108.html

Its actually pretty interesting. I don't know a whole lot about it, but we can glean a lot of information from ice core samples.

Math seems to solve alot of problems.I would try to figure it out myself,but...ugh,not good at it X).

Caution I am not entering into the scientific debate of this all but simply proposing a few thoughts to Yetiman.

Maybe the flood was not global? It's purpose was only to destroy the Nephilim and those who followed them for they continuously did wicked? Maybe mankind was not as far spread then as they are now? In that case only all of mankind needed to be destroyed? When God said He would bring waters 'upon the earth' to destroy 'all flesh' the actual words between both of those quotes are simply translated as 'erets and basar.

'Erets is used a few times in Genesis 11 for example: 'And the whole earth' was one language. What is in quotes is all translated as the one word 'erets. So it reads: 'Erets was one language. The next is 'in the land' of Shinar so it reads: And it came to pass as they journeyed from the east that they found a plain 'erets of Shinar and they dwelt there. Clearly 'erets does not have to mean the whole entire planet but it can mean that.

When God closed up Adam's 'flesh' in Genesis 2 the word is basar. When a man shall become one 'flesh' with his wife the word again is basar. Basar does not have to mean every single animal though it is possible that it does.

It was not until Babel did men gain different languages then spread out. Man clinging together closely before then in one region of the world is not a far stretch then.

I do believe the environment was different before the flood and that it did not rain before that.

Also I agree with you that we cannot really know if carbon dating is accurate, if current plate tectonics have the same speed throughout the ages, the landmass could have been considerably smaller before allowing a global flood and all the land we see today could have risen, there are numerous possibilities. I will not ignore science but I will not plan my spiritual life or prepare for the afterlife based on science.

I didn't think the biblical flood wanted any disproving .common sense should be enough for most


fullywired

Let me ask a question. If there were a discovery of fossilized/petrified gopherwood made on the upper slopes of Mount Ararat; how would interpret this find?

I hope your not going to trot that old chesnut out again,




fullywired

There we go again. Refer to post #181. Why not just answer honestly?

Answer: We would attempt to discredit the evidence, deny it's existence, reject the claim, disparage the finder, call you irrational for bringing it up and send you packing to your silly book of fables because you aren't scientists, never will be, arent' too bright and we don't really care what you have to say.

How's that for predicting your responses? I must be a prophet after all.

I would be sceptical because it is good science to be sceptical and subject it to rigorous examination and then make a after extensive study make a conclusion from that.

How the fact remains that a global flood would leave this planet pretty much barren in terms of life. Most marine and terrestrial life would be wiped out completely and there is simply not the water and there is no evidence.

Have you ever seen the petrified stumps of Glasgow Scotland? Interesting 300 million year old fossils right? What's fascinating about these fossils is that they look very similar to modern day tree stumps from a clear-cut logging operation. I wonder how that can be? You ever think about it? There were no humans around 300 million years ago to cut down trees. Take a look at the bases of trees blown over by wind, flood, or volcanic explosion. You'll notice that they don't look like the Glasgow fossils. Trees that are destroyed in natural disasters don't have nice clean lines.

Your no Daniel .leave it to the experts .You are relying on people having short memories . The Ararat story has been discredited more times than you have had hot dinners


fullywired

Hi Doug,

I've found the following via the International Tree Ring Data Bank for the dates in question:

Bodensee 4 Archaeological (GER; 47N,9E; Billamboz,A.)
* QUSP (Ring Width, Standard)

Methuselah Walk (USA; 37N,118W; Graybill,D.A.)
* PILO (Ring Width, Standard)

Thorne Moors T70 (GBR; 53N,0W; Boswijk,G.)
* PISY (Ring Width, Standard)

White Mountains Master (USA; 37N,118W; Ferguson,C.W.;Schulman,E.;Fritts,H.C.)
* PILO (Ring Width, Standard)

Now - I may be reading these wrong (as Tree Rings aren't really my thing), but I don't see anything particularly stunning for the 2806 - 2802 BC data.

What I think I'm seeing is this:



For those of us who are unfamiliar with what these numbers mean - they're essentially unitless, and are in proportion to the average size tree ring (which is given a default vaue of 1.000)

If I'm right, then the Thorne Moors data (From Great Britain) seems to show a marked decrease in Growth during the 2802-2806 BC period, but none of the other samples seem to indicate that this was on a world-wide scale.

Sorry Yeti, you are jumping to conclusions there. It does not suggest logging operations or a global flood.

Petrified....as in turned to stone....yeah that could very well happen.

Stone can take a lot of compressional stress but very little torsional before it breaks.

How would a fossilized tree stump be subjected to torsional forces?



PS. Mattshark - ya, I know but sometimes you just throw stuff out there and see if it sticks. I was pointed to it as a bit of a mystery.