[Explaining how freshwater fish survived the flood]
That's no problem at all. A global flood is not all the same everywhere -- one would expect huge variations of mineral concentrations, temperature, current, etc. You can imagine huge pockets of fresh water within the overall flood.
35 comments
So, these pockets of fresh water that can supposedly exist in a connected worldwide Ocean, only happen over the one third of the Earth that is not part of our modern Oceans? And I suppose you made lots of models to come to this conclusion, planting different concentrations of minerals and using heat lamps/ice/artificial currents to see if you could replicate this theory on a small scale that is 100% accurate? What? You're just pulling this crap out of your ass to explain some random garbage you read in a 2,000 year old book? Oh, okay.
I can understand where the concept of a global flood came from. Marine fossils are found on mountain tops all around the world. Primitive man, knowing nothing of plate tektonics or land uplifting, thought that the mountain surely must have been underwater. Why modern men would still believe this fairy tale and still attempt to rationalize it is truly a marvel of the modern world.
Star Cluster, I couldn't agree with you more.
I still remember back in high school, some thirty years ago, when some guy in my biology class spouted off about the Flood being responsible for fossils and I just looked at him, dumbfounded that in the 20th century some people still believe that fairy tale.
"A global flood is not all the same everywhere...."
If it's a FLOOD, and it's GLOBAL, then by definition it does have to be the same everywhere -- namely, WET! Now either explain how the fresh water (and its associated fish species) managed to avoid mixing with the salt water (and its associated species), or, better yet, admit that you don't know what the heck you're talking about.
~David D.G.
The waters of the Flood supposedly came from water welling up from the ground and rain. Rain, I assume, would be freshwater, water from inside the earth could be either, I suppose. Perhaps the question should be how did the saltwater fish survive.
Moot point anyway as the Flood story is patently bogus on so many other points.
@laptoppop
You can imagine huge pockets of fresh water within the overall flood.
Um, no. The whole damn body of water would have about the same salinity. Freshwater fish would have died.
WHAT THEORY OF DIFFUSION!!?
...Oh right, it's only a theory. *Rolls eyes*
"Peter, Mel Gibson just walked right off the edge of Mount Rushmore!"
"Of course, Lois. Christians don't believe in gravity."
Star cluster, I can't agree with you on that one at all. Those findings are all recent (and the fuckwits jumped on them as 'proof' even though they clearly the opposite).
(I am showing a little ignorance of Incan culture there though, where your case may be true)
Global flood myths came from ancient times when the people that experienced a flood, thought it did flood the world because it flooded what they knew the world to be. Nothing more.
Yeah, because every river that flows to the sea doesn't become saline as it nears the coast and flattens out. Salt marshes are a myth, as are mangroves and salt marshes, furthermore monster systems like the Amazon, (which has more water flowing through it per day than the next 10 rivers on Earth combined) does actually protrude freshish water out into the sea for about 100kms, still mixes in incredibly quickly. Something turbulent like a flood would mix far more quickly still, just look at all the sediment a flood collects.
Does this fuckwit actually think there's large streams of fresh water floating around the sea in pockets today and it just doesn't mix? He's looking at it ass over tit for starters, it's not about mixing in the fresh water, it's about water absorbing impurities and substances in solution. Salt is something it's incredibly good at absorbing.
Just because I can imagine it doesn't make it too likely.
If you're gonna go ape-shit with theories to something that couldn't have happened, why don't you just say that Lot's statuesque (snort) wife was cast into the oceans to make saltwater and all water was fresh up till that time?
Or, or, how 'bout this one, you're nuts.
the idea of a global flood is the result of bad translation. on the national geographic they did a feature on noah's ark and its origins. Apparently it was a babylonian story that the ancient hebrews heard about and incorporated into their books. Also, it said the word that has come through the ages translated as "global" can also be translated to mean that there was a big flood that flooded a large area, like when a river floods.
<<< A global flood is not all the same everywhere -- one would expect huge variations of mineral concentrations, temperature, current, etc. >>>
One would see gradients in those things, yes - particularly temperature (then again, if you've got enough cloud cover to rain EVERYWHERE for 40 whole days, the Sun probably isn't doing much to maintain a temperature gradient). But the violence with which said floodwaters would be moving would cause a lot of mixing, and while it wouldn't be completely homogenous, there would not be *huge* variations.
<<< You can imagine huge pockets of fresh water within the overall flood. >>>
Sure, you can imagine them. I can imagine a lot of things that run contrary to the laws of physics. If you actually understood the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you would realize that it prohibits this sort of thing from happening spontaneously.
I can also imagine a mountain range taller than the Himalayas made entirely of chocolate, but that doesn't mean such a thing exists.
It would probably still be more feasible than the stupid flood, though.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.