Skip to comments.Fish Studies Answer Flood Question
Posted on 03/09/2009 9:18:57 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Fish Studies Answer Flood Question
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
According to the Bible, the world before Noahs Flood, including the oceans, must have been idyllic. That was destroyed by the year-long global deluge, during which the earths land mass broke into continents, massive amounts of sediment were deposited and then partially eroded, and new and perhaps deeper oceans became more salty from continental runoff. If this historical picture is accurate, then at least one area of confusion needs to be addressed: How did saltwater fish live through all that?...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
The United States Department of Agriculture has been conducting research to enable populations of saltwater pompano and cobiaalso known as black kingfish or black salmonto thrive inland in fresher waters.2 Remarkably, pompano have been raised successfully in water with five parts salt per thousand, quite a bit less than the oceans ever-increasing salt concentration of 35 parts per thousand.3
The ability of pompano to adapt to such a different salinity so quicklybeing modern products of thousands of pompano generations that lived exclusively in salty seasshows a fraction of the biological flexibility that many fish at the time of the Flood must have had. This flexibility allowed those fish and other sea creatures to survive the cataclysm and to adapt to new environments after the Flood.
Thank you :o)
All the best—GGG
Teh Stupid is strong in this one.
“Year-long”...? What happened to 40 days and 40 nights? Also, where does the Bible call post-Eden Earth “idyllic” or suggest that the continents were fused until the flood?!
The global judgement that the catastrophists envision to account for all the geological evidence of a much older world would have generated sufficient heat to cook every fish in the ocean. So God not only preserved Noah and his family, He also miraculously preserved all the fish species he wanted to survive (but for some reason He hated trilobites).
Those (FISH) that survived must have had inherent abilities to quickly adapt to rapid changes in salt concentration, among other factors. Millennia have elapsed since the flood, and since genetic robustness diminishes with time, it is likely that many fish that today have narrow salinity tolerances came from ancestors that had broader potential in that area..
This theory require a rapid speciation that even Darwin could not dream of. Yet no evidence to back this up in DNA or genetic studies. At least evolution postulate "junk DNA", not stories about fish in restaurants.
it was so idyllic that the flood was necessary.
Forget the salt. Young Earthers promote rapid and massive movements of the continents. Yet that much seafloor volcanic activity would have poached the salmon.
==This theory require a rapid speciation that even Darwin could not dream of. Yet no evidence to back this up in DNA or genetic studies. At least evolution postulate “junk DNA”, not stories about fish in restaurants.
The reason Darwin could not dream of such rapid adaptation and speciation is because he put on the materialist straightjacket of random changes plus natural selection. We now know, via the “new biology” (which includes the field of epigenetics), that many organism have the capacity to adapt on-the-fly. From a creationist perspective, this means that God frontloaded his creatures with the capacity to adapt to a variety of environmental conditions.
==At least evolution postulate “junk DNA”
Which, along with Darwin’s so-called Tree of Life, is on the way out the scientific window.
While “creation research” stuff is fun to read, this movement has become it’s own religeon. It’s purpose is to prove God by natural evidence.
A person either takes God at His Word by faith, or chooses a god of his own design, in this case creationism.
>>What happened to 40 days and 40 nights?<<
This is not directed at you, but I am using your comment as a springboard.
It is amazing how many of those who condemn the teachings of Christianity from what they see as an “I studied Christianity and know that it is silly” viewpoint when, in fact, they have a “vacation bible school” understanding of it.
Your comment is the type one of these may make. Anyone who actually studied (or even read with average reading comprehension) the Bible account of Noah would know that 40 days was how long it rained, not how long he was actually “at sea”, which was significantly longer.
C. S. Lewis once commented (and I paraphrase) that Bible detractors often put up a childes perspective of the bible against an adults perspective on that teaching to which they are comparing it. Not surprisingly, the Bible then comes up lacking.
==A person either takes God at His Word by faith, or chooses a god of his own design, in this case creationism.
The Bible is filled with historical references and invites the believer and unbeliever alike to check them out. Indeed, the first historical reference in the Bible is Genesis 1:1!
Thanks for the ping!
I stand by my orginal statement.
God has said, “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein.
Who shall ascend unto the hill of the Lord, or who shall stand in His holy place? He that has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not lifted up his soul to vanity nor sworn deceitfully.”
This is Psalm 24. It speaks to God the creator of earth and
the owner of what He has made, God the creator and owner of salvation.
If I have to accept He is my creator, I have to accept His ownership and authority over me.
I have observed creation research progress from providing interesting observations to becoming religeous apologists.
Creation is not the end all of who God is and His purpose for us.
God the creator is rejected because His ownership and authority is rejected.
What is the specific scriptural support for "the year-long global deluge, during which the earths land mass broke into continents, massive amounts of sediment were deposited and then partially eroded, and new and perhaps deeper oceans became more salty from continental runoff."
To borrow your statement: this isn't directed at you, but I'm using it as a springboard. Lewis's statement also applies to evolution detractors, who often seem to be stuck on Mr. Garrison's (South Park) idea of how it's supposed to happen rather than a true understanding of the theory. Not surprisingly, the theory then looks ridiculous to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.