Evidence for God from Science

I searched to see if this had been asked before but came up with nothing so I hope I am not repeating an old question.

The question is concerning Genesis 6:17

If God destroys all the living creatures on the Earth in a global flood, how did Noah save all the creatures in the sea?

Dan

Never mind I found the answer here http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ea#p115710
well sort of, if anyone has any elaborations they are still welcome.

Is there a Y.E.C. perspective on this?

Dan

Dan, here straight from AnswersinGenesis.org:

Dr. Ross also asserts that the Flood only wiped out man and “all the nephesh creatures, the soulish creatures associated with humanity.” But that is not what we are told in Genesis. The Flood wiped out all land animals and birds (all creatures in whose nostrils was the breath of life, Genesis 7:21–23), whether they lived in close proximity to humans or not. Given the violence of the Flood and the resulting massive erosion, the sediment-choked floodwaters would have also killed billions of sea creatures (though there would have also been plenty of clean water for the survival of sea creatures too).

Here's the link:http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... mony-flood

One other thing I feel I need to mention, is that the AIG article was written on April 11, 2012, and AIG still spouts this tired rhetoric:

Those Christians who reject the global Flood and accept the millions of years are undermining the clear teaching and authority of the Word of God, regardless of any sincere intentions to the contrary.
Introduction

The question of the nature of the Flood account found in Genesis 6–9 is ultimately a question of biblical authority. It all goes back to starting points. Are we to start with the Bible as our absolute source of truth, or are we to take man’s fallible ideas and try to force them into the Bible? As we will demonstrate, when we read the text for what it says, we must conclude that the Flood was in fact a global flood.

(though there would have also been plenty of clean water for the survival of sea creatures too).

So according to AIG not all sea creatures died, doesn't that contradict what was decreed by God in the Bible? Genesis 6:17


Dan

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

(though there would have also been plenty of clean water for the survival of sea creatures too).

So according to AIG not all sea creatures died, doesn't that contradict what was decreed by God in the Bible? Genesis 6:17

Dan

One would think that any animals that remained alive after the flood, except those on the ark, would go against the YEC global flood theory. But, Apparently they(some YECs) need an 'out'. If all sea creatures were to have died in the global flood, then where did the sea creatures who are alive now, come from? IMO, that's just one problem with the global flood theory.

From what I understand, there are certain sea creatures that only can live in fresh water, OR salt water. Not both. Now, in every global flood story I've read, the fountains of the deep opened up. Meaning, they believe water came from beneath the earth. That, according to YECs, made for a very violent flood. Remember, they also believe most major mountain chains were formed during the global deluge. So, my point is that I can't see how the fresh water and salt water wouldn't have mixed, killing certain sea creatures.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

(though there would have also been plenty of clean water for the survival of sea creatures too).

So according to AIG not all sea creatures died, doesn't that contradict what was decreed by God in the Bible? Genesis 6:17

Dan

One would think that any animals that remained alive after the flood, except those on the ark, would go against the YEC global flood theory. But, Apparently they(some YECs) need an 'out'. If all sea creatures were to have died in the global flood, then where did the sea creatures who are alive now, come from? IMO, that's just one problem with the global flood theory.

From what I understand, there are certain sea creatures that only can live in fresh water, OR salt water. Not both. Now, in every global flood story I've read, the fountains of the deep opened up. Meaning, they believe water came from beneath the earth. That, according to YECs, made for a very violent flood. Remember, they also believe most major mountain chains were formed during the global deluge. So, my point is that I can't see how the fresh water and salt water wouldn't have mixed, killing certain sea creatures.

This is exactly what I was thinking, so I wonder what a Y.E.C. response to this is?

RickD wrote:From what I understand, there are certain sea creatures that only can live in fresh water, OR salt water. Not both. Now, in every global flood story I've read, the fountains of the deep opened up. Meaning, they believe water came from beneath the earth. That, according to YECs, made for a very violent flood. Remember, they also believe most major mountain chains were formed during the global deluge. So, my point is that I can't see how the fresh water and salt water wouldn't have mixed, killing certain sea creatures.

There are plenty of layers of water now separated by temperature or salinity or some other factor which do not mix substantially. As RickD points out the global flood would have been very turbulent and would have been expected to mix the waters. But if you are willing to accept mountain ranges popping up quickly, it should be easy to accept some small areas of water which do not mix due to topography or flow conditions or something else. Or perhaps only a few animals survived which could withstand a range of salinity and they evolved to give the both kinds; or maybe the original fishes could live in either fresh or salt water and only subsequently lost the ability to thrive in both.

sandy_mcd wrote:

RickD wrote:From what I understand, there are certain sea creatures that only can live in fresh water, OR salt water. Not both. Now, in every global flood story I've read, the fountains of the deep opened up. Meaning, they believe water came from beneath the earth. That, according to YECs, made for a very violent flood. Remember, they also believe most major mountain chains were formed during the global deluge. So, my point is that I can't see how the fresh water and salt water wouldn't have mixed, killing certain sea creatures.

There are plenty of layers of water now separated by temperature or salinity or some other factor which do not mix substantially. As RickD points out the global flood would have been very turbulent and would have been expected to mix the waters. But if you are willing to accept mountain ranges popping up quickly, it should be easy to accept some small areas of water which do not mix due to topography or flow conditions or something else. Or perhaps only a few animals survived which could withstand a range of salinity and they evolved to give the both kinds; or maybe the original fishes could live in either fresh or salt water and only subsequently lost the ability to thrive in both.

But the point is if animals survived off the Ark that would contradict what the Bible says, If you have the view point that it was global.

Insert Y.E.C comment here

Dan

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:

RickD wrote:From what I understand, there are certain sea creatures that only can live in fresh water, OR salt water. Not both. Now, in every global flood story I've read, the fountains of the deep opened up. Meaning, they believe water came from beneath the earth. That, according to YECs, made for a very violent flood. Remember, they also believe most major mountain chains were formed during the global deluge. So, my point is that I can't see how the fresh water and salt water wouldn't have mixed, killing certain sea creatures.

There are plenty of layers of water now separated by temperature or salinity or some other factor which do not mix substantially. As RickD points out the global flood would have been very turbulent and would have been expected to mix the waters. But if you are willing to accept mountain ranges popping up quickly, it should be easy to accept some small areas of water which do not mix due to topography or flow conditions or something else. Or perhaps only a few animals survived which could withstand a range of salinity and they evolved to give the both kinds; or maybe the original fishes could live in either fresh or salt water and only subsequently lost the ability to thrive in both.

But the point is if animals survived off the Ark that would contradict what the Bible says, If you have the view point that it was global.

Insert Y.E.C comment here

Dan

Dan, I see what you're saying. According to YEC, God wiped out all people, and all animals(except for those on the ark), because man's sin had influenced all animals on the entire globe. Now, most OEC theories say that all humanity was wiped out, and all animals that were in contact with humans.(again, except for those on the ark). So, what you're asking, is that if in a YEC worldview, sin influenced all animals, why didn't it influence those sea creatures that survived the global YEC flood? I think I have a YEC acceptable answer. Huge aquariums aboard the ark. One fresh water aquarium, and one salt water aquarium. Voila! Problem solved! kinda.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:

RickD wrote:From what I understand, there are certain sea creatures that only can live in fresh water, OR salt water. Not both. Now, in every global flood story I've read, the fountains of the deep opened up. Meaning, they believe water came from beneath the earth. That, according to YECs, made for a very violent flood. Remember, they also believe most major mountain chains were formed during the global deluge. So, my point is that I can't see how the fresh water and salt water wouldn't have mixed, killing certain sea creatures.

There are plenty of layers of water now separated by temperature or salinity or some other factor which do not mix substantially. As RickD points out the global flood would have been very turbulent and would have been expected to mix the waters. But if you are willing to accept mountain ranges popping up quickly, it should be easy to accept some small areas of water which do not mix due to topography or flow conditions or something else. Or perhaps only a few animals survived which could withstand a range of salinity and they evolved to give the both kinds; or maybe the original fishes could live in either fresh or salt water and only subsequently lost the ability to thrive in both.

But the point is if animals survived off the Ark that would contradict what the Bible says, If you have the view point that it was global.

Insert Y.E.C comment here

Dan

Dan, I see what you're saying. According to YEC, God wiped out all people, and all animals(except for those on the ark), because man's sin had influenced all animals on the entire globe. Now, most OEC theories say that all humanity was wiped out, and all animals that were in contact with humans.(again, except for those on the ark). So, what you're asking, is that if in a YEC worldview, sin influenced all animals, why didn't it influence those sea creatures that survived the global YEC flood? I think I have a YEC acceptable answer. Huge aquariums aboard the ark. One fresh water aquarium, and one salt water aquarium. Voila! Problem solved! kinda.

Talk about massive water changes...

One fresh water aquarium, and one salt water aquarium.

That's one big glass tank, but seriously I still wonder what the Y.E.C position is.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:But the point is if animals survived off the Ark that would contradict what the Bible says, If you have the view point that it was global.

Insert Y.E.C comment here

Thanks for the correction; i missed that aspect of the question.
As penance, i listened to Ken Ham http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... the-flood/
He basically says most of them didn't but that fish were more versatile in the past, so some did. [He never addresses the question as posed here.]

sandy_mcd wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:But the point is if animals survived off the Ark that would contradict what the Bible says, If you have the view point that it was global.

Insert Y.E.C comment here

Thanks for the correction; i missed that aspect of the question.
As penance, i listened to Ken Ham http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... the-flood/
He basically says most of them didn't but that fish were more versatile in the past, so some did. [He never addresses the question as posed here.]

Maybe I should drop him an email, but I doubt I would get an answer and I don't want to waste my time.


Dan

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:But the point is if animals survived off the Ark that would contradict what the Bible says, If you have the view point that it was global.

Insert Y.E.C comment here

Thanks for the correction; i missed that aspect of the question.
As penance, i listened to Ken Ham http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... the-flood/
He basically says most of them didn't but that fish were more versatile in the past, so some did. [He never addresses the question as posed here.]

Maybe I should drop him an email, but I doubt I would get an answer and I don't want to waste my time.


Dan

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Fine I will do it tonight seeing I have a bye for basketball, I will keep you posted.

If any Y.E.C's have a rebuttal please feel free to post.



Dan