No, I know what you are thinking, they stayed in the water stupid, or it is just a metaphore. But for those who think it was literal, Consider the following.
Their are two types of fish. Salt water fish and fresh water fish. Fresh water fish die in salt water and vise versa. If the Entire planet was flooded then their would noly be an odd mixture of the two, since rain is fresh water, that neither could live in. Also all plant life would die since the flood lasted one year, it only rained 40 days and nights, look it up. Since sun light can only penatrate about 2,000 ft inso water, and everest is over 24,000 feet high there would be no sunlight for sea plant life to photosynthesize.
2006-10-03 11:12:16 · 15 answers · asked by zatcsu 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
For all of you talking about Geology and everest and such.
Umm, I have taken Geology classes, and my Dad earned his Doctorate in the field. The reason their are fossils on Mountains has to do with upwelling and continental drift. The pressure of the rain that would have had to fall at to cover the earth in 40days and nights would be equivilant to that of a water saw. It would have literally cut the arc, people, and mountains.
To say that Everest would have risen after the flood violates principle of uniformitaism, which is a basic principle of Geology, physics, and chemistry.
2006-10-03 11:29:18 · update #1
He didn't need to take them..They were fish..Fish live in water??We clear?God bless.
2006-10-03 11:21:07 · answer #1 · answered by John G 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like your question. Here are some possiblities. All the earth was totally flooded by the same water as you said. The fish survived in that water. After the flood the mountains rose which explains seas shells on mountain tops. It also explains the continental shelf. I think the salty flood waters ran off to the current oceans except for lakes such as the Great Salt Lake which ran off the other side of the Rockies. Rain water is fresh and most lakes, streams, and rivers are fresh. Fish can survive in both salt and fresh water if the change is gradual. I have heard of an experiement where a fresh water aquarium became a salt water aquarium by slowly adding salt to the water and the fish survived.
Re: Additional details You are assuming the mountains were as high and the only flood water source was from above. The Bible disagrees with those assumptions. Please explain uniformitaism, (-1 sp)to us not as educated as yourself. I really would be interested in an understandable explanation.
2006-10-03 11:23:57 · answer #2 · answered by creationrocks2006 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
before the flood the earth was relatively flat Everest came into being because of the flood waters and pressure on the earth look at it scientifically the flood waters are still here, and do you not think that a God capable of creating the diverse planet couldn't prevent fresh water fish from surviving?
He is Almighty, the fact is if you are a sceptic you could never believe it but then why should you when most churches don't
2006-10-03 11:20:23 · answer #3 · answered by Twilight_dreaming 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the fish stayed in the ocean, your right the water did mix but as time progressed the fish had to adapt, (not evolve) to live in its environment, the flood didn't last one year, look it up.
And everest wasn't 24,000 feet back then. The bible says GOD created the valleys and mountains so the water would run off, that is why there are seashells on the top of MT.Everest. look it up. And did anyone know, that was the first time anyone had seen rain?
God told Noah to take 7pairs of everyclean animal and 2 of every unclean (if I remember right) that roamed the earth, it didn't include fish.
2006-10-03 11:16:46 · answer #4 · answered by JaimeM 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nothing is mentioned of fish at all. So where ever the fish was that needed fresh water thats where they was. And those that needed salt water was where there was salt water. Only thing on the ark was animals that creeped upon the earth and birds.
2006-10-03 11:21:17 · answer #5 · answered by iwant_u2_wantme2000 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You make a good point. Well God told Noah to take 2 of each living thing and put it on the ark. Who is to say that both types of fish were not on the ark in pairs??
2006-10-03 11:17:54 · answer #6 · answered by yeppers 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It suppose to be that the 2 varieties can exist in the others environments on a diltued level and the difference is not that pronounced
2006-10-03 11:16:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He had cute little buckets of salt and fresh water. God took care of all that before they loaded Up.
2006-10-03 11:17:42 · answer #8 · answered by Sugar 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he made them swim beside the ark. i mean, it wouldnt make sense to put them in a fish bowl and let them live all cramped up with no space to swim around freely when not even fish food (very yummy by the way) was invented at the time.
2006-10-03 11:15:57 · answer #9 · answered by r.d 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is a good question, but I don't have an answer for you. Although, by reading your questions a few more came to mind for me.....:)
2006-10-03 11:18:17 · answer #10 · answered by neener892004 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋