... and the oceans merging with freshwater would kill all the freshwater fish...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgMra5zuLtKAU3n8GdmORF7d7BR.?qid=20070818170813AA6PDJ9
We're trying hard here for you to show you actually know something. Help yourselves out.
2007-08-18 13:19:52 · 24 answers · asked by Bad Liberal 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
"We're trying hard here for you to show you actually know something. Help yourselves out."
The condescending tone of your question shows that you are trying to ridicule the beliefs of others rather than seek to know the truth.
2007-08-18 14:12:18 · answer #1 · answered by Beng T 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Actually no it wouldn't. Think about the vastness of the oceans and many miles deep they are. Now think about a flood of rain water. Ummm nope. Oh, and by the way....freshwater does merge with saltwater every day.... every hear of rivers running through to the seas? :)
2007-08-18 21:35:07 · answer #2 · answered by aali_and_harith 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
its one of the many reasons I think its crap.
Not to mention, where would they have put the fish on the ark? It requires at least 1 gallon of water to take care of one gold fish. The ark would have been nothing but full of water and that wouldn't even remotely carry all the fish in the world. And then what about the ocean mammals like the dolphin and the whale? Those things aren't exactly small.
And for that matter... where'd they put the food for all these animals and fish? Did they have one person just taking care of the fish? Cleaning a 10 gallon tank takes about 4 hours if you're doing it properly, so what in hell did they do for these fish? They aren't exactly intelligent animals and would have dirtied the water they're in at an astronomical rate. It wouldn't even have lasted a day, never mind lasting 40 days.
But then... Christians aren't exactly known for their logic.
2007-08-18 20:30:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well, yes, I suppose that is true. But how do you know that the fish were even developed into saltwater or freshwater fish yet? I mean, as an evolutionist (I'm assuming you are an evolutionist...), you of all people should believe that big changes such as a saltwater or freshwater fish slowly adapting would be quite possible. It's conceivable that originally, there was salt in all of the water and that the rivers carried it into the ocean, therefore leaving the rivers freshwater. It would make sense if salt was gradually deposited into the ocean, and the fish living in the rivers adjusted slowly to the salt-free water. Then, when it flooded, your lovely freshwater fish would be able to cope just fine.
I don't know. Makes more sense than the Theory of Evolution to me.
2007-08-18 20:34:00 · answer #4 · answered by sporker 2 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Looks as though quite a few have never had aquariums or else they'd know that there have to be separate aquariums for marine and freshwater fish. Only a very few fish can survive in both elements and they tend to be the few that thrive in estuaries which always have varying degrees of salinity.
2007-08-18 20:33:44 · answer #5 · answered by genaddt 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not if the ocean was fresh to begin with, and possibly made salty as a result of that flood. Nevertheless, you assume a uniform distribution of salinity vs depth of the ocean. I could just as easily speculate that the salt water fish(given that the ocean was salty) survived at the bottom of the ocean where it was saltier, while the fresh water fish survived at the top where it was less salty.
2007-08-18 20:57:42 · answer #6 · answered by w2 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Did you know that there is actual archaeological evidence of a large flood in the ancient world. Also, right off the top of my head I can think of two other ancient religions that had flood stories--the Greeks and the Sumerians. I'm sure there are others. In fact many of the ancient religions have many similar stories. I don't literally believe the flood story. I imagine that some fish were able to stay low enough in the rivers that they didn't all die. I base this theory on the fact that we had a lot of flooding around where I live this summer and there are still fish in the rivers. They all didn't get washed away. While I realize in the geographical area we are dealing with that there is the chance that salt and fresh water could combine, I still think that some of both types of fish could go low enough in their respective bodies of water to avoid contamination and survive.
2007-08-18 20:30:22 · answer #7 · answered by Purdey EP 7 · 0⤊ 5⤋
I apologize if I am mistaken but I thought that only 1 percent of the water on earth was fresh... is that enough to kill the fish?
2007-08-18 20:25:55 · answer #8 · answered by deflateddog777 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Who says there was sea water, and it didnt just come from the salt from the flooded lands. The seas get saltier every year, dont YOU know that if the seas were millions of years old that nothing could live in them, they would be like the dead sea.
Ever see a salmon go from salt water to fresh water. They die after a while, but thats direct exposure to a completely different environment. Ever see the salmon in the Great Lakes, that were transplanted from the Ocean?
2007-08-18 20:30:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 6⤋
**laughs** I got the first Q.. I dont know why they over looked that.
Perhaps you should create an experiment with fresh and salt water fish in an aquarium
2007-08-18 20:28:07 · answer #10 · answered by Indiana Raven 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What can I say? The penguins are still griping that he dropped them off in an eternally frozen hell instead of their home in Peru.
The real question is where did he put the whales?
2007-08-18 20:40:40 · answer #11 · answered by The angels have the phone box. 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋