Were there fishes on Noah's ark?

Question

Seriously. I know there were animals, 2 of each. But there is no mention about fish. Of course they could live in the water, but there are 2 kinds of water, the sea'ocean is salty, the water around icebergs or in rivers is not. And each fish can live in only one type of water, but the water was the same all around (right?) so only some of them could live in it.

So, Noah's ark only had animals, or fish as well?

gzlakewood: you obvieusly didn't read the entire question

Larina you didn't read everything either. So I will yell:

NOT ALL FISH CAN LIVE IN THE SAME TYPE OF WATER. iF IT WAS SALTY WATER, ONLY HALF OF THE FISH SPECIES COULD LIVE IN IT. IF IT WASN'T SALTY, ALSO ONLY HALF OF THEM COULD LIVE THERE. A RIVER FISH CAN'T SURVIVE IN SALTY WATER AND A SEA FISH CAN'T SURVIVE IN NORMAL WATER

Answer 1

Just one more reason why the biblical flood story cannot be true. Either Noah rescued all the salt water fish or he rescued all the freshwater fish because one or other types would have died if the whole world was flooded. And yes, in answer to someone else's answer, freshwater fish only survive in freshawater and salt water fish only survive in salt water, with very few exceptions such as eels... unless of course you are suggesting that they have subsequently EVOLVED... but oops... evolution isn't allowed because the bible says it doesn't happen... so now you have a choice of either the flood being true or creationism but not both.

And where did Noah put all the trees, bushes, shrubs and plants that would have all died under a 40-day flood?

Where did he store enough soil to cover the entire planet? All the soil would have been sterilised by being submerged for 40 days - soil requires air and microorganisms to function.

Even if Noah had saved all the plants and trees it would have taken hundreds of years before the soil was again fertile enough to support forests.

Did Noah also save all the bacteria that live in the soil? Did he and Mrs. Noah play host to human parasites like tapeworms and malaria in order to save them?

What did the animals eat on the Ark? If there was only one pair of each what did the lions eat... they usually get through a wildebeest or two every week so Noah must've had a small herd of them. If so, what did the wildebeest eat? and the elephants and all the other herbivores?

How did Noah refrigerate parts of the Ark for the animals that need a cold climate?

Did he keep water at near boiling for the thermophile bacteria that only living in volcanically-heated hot springs?

Did Noah rescue the kangaroos? Sea snakes? Every microbe, insect, flea and tick? All the animals from every corner of the world even though they weren't discovered until thousands of years later?

Anyone with half a brain would soon come to realise that the flood story as told in the bible is a total impossibility.

Answer 2

Two matters you have to understand approximately the flood which cope with your arguments. God is all approximately survival of the are compatible and traditional resolution. This isn't anti-God. Evolution makes it possible for for matters to preserve present on a exchanging planet. A massive quantity of fish traditionally did die, however the ones which survived tailored to the brand new stipulations. By the way in which, we now have many many many extra species of animals than existed throughout Noah's time. For illustration, despite the fact that there are five or six species of elephant, just one ancestral elephant pair existed and used to be taken at the ark. After the flood, animals reproduced and dispersed and tailored to new lands and environments, and developed regardless that traditional resolution.

Answer 3

Very true, but which type to choose? I assume that he would have needed to take the salt water ones as the oceans would be highly diluted. This means sharks, whales, dolphins and a bunch of others. Then there are the other water creatures like sea squirts and tidal pool dwellers, wonder if they could have survived the pressure and lack of salt.

Speaking of pressure, all plant life including seeds would have been crushed under that much water.

Answer 4

Noah had animals on the ark. God created fishes as well as the flood. He evidently considered what had to be done so adapted the salt water and fresh water to survive in the water he created for the flood. When it receeded apparently he chose to return them to their original state and location.

Answer 5

I read an article that implied that in the original Hebrew text Noah's flood was a local flood and not world wide this could explain the fishes. Here is the link read it and see what you think.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

Answer 6

I would think that a God powerful enough to cause the earth to be completely covered with water could cause fish, both freshwater and saltwater species, to survive in whatever water they were in. God could have separated the waters from the waters too. One area could be fresh water and another area, of the same expanse, salt water. We are talking about God here, right?


AGAIN, GOD IS GOD AND IF HE WANTS TO MAKE HALF OF AN OCEAN SALTY AND THE OTHER HALF FRESH WATER, HE CAN BECAUSE HE'S GOD. WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?!! DIDN'T HE PART THE RED SEA THROUGH THE HAND OF MOSES?


Here's another "scientific" option for you to consider. Salt water is heavier than fresh water. As the rain (fresh water) fell from the sky, it gathered on top of the salt water, thus there were salt water fishes swimming in the deeper, salty water and fresh water fishes swimming in the fresh water above.

Answer 7

Noah's ark probably had live wells for both kinds of fish!

Answer 8

Are you absolutely, positively sure that a fish can live in only one type of water?

Did you live at this time?

Did you check the salinity of the water?

I think this is something you should spend less time worrying about.

Answer 9

You know, you're totally right. That is another reason why Noah's Ark should be considered fiction rather than fact.

Answer 10

Noah didn't really bulid an ark. That's just a fable in some religious doctrine. Even if it were true, they would most likely have dwelt OUTSIDE of the ark in water, seeing as it is their natural habitat (unless he built fishbowls or something of the like for them).