Javabean

Wait, what? lol you had me going until you stated the ice age happened after Noah's flood. I'm calling it here. You are just a troll trying to mess with the Creationists on this site. You played your hand too hard there my friend. Back in the day the mods would have kicked you out by now. Too funny. Nothing you can say will ever be taken seriously. I mean seriously its in your name KillurBluff. Seriously did you find this forum from an old 4chan archive? Or maybe see it mentioned at another Evolution vs Creationism forum? Nah you know what it doesn't matter.

40F water would melt the ice, especially in ocean water, that was basically my point. Thanks for helping me make it. Yes every living creature needs oxygen. Unless you are talking about microbes that can't survive in an environment that has oxygen in it. If you are talking about plants, then they need CO2, which has oxygen in it. Is there something else i didn't cover? if you want to talk about viruses and bacteria we can, but that doesn't help the story of the ark at all.

Killer, I get why you accused me of moving the goal posts there. And i do apologize that you felt that way. The problem is that the problem of a global flood gets larger and larger the more you think about it. So if you don't mind, I will pull a page from your book and go over a lot of issues in this one post. Currently about 5% of the species of fish are Euryhaline, which means that they can survive in fresh water as well as salt water. We have no reason to believe that it was much different @6000 years ago when the flood was said to have happened. So I will go with that number. Of the remaining species they have a salinity of about .05%, not 5% but .05%. If the environment changes by that much they die. https://www.livescience.com/32167-can-saltwater-fish-live-in-fresh-water.html (i can't find the primary source for this info) What does that tell us about the survival of the fish species? A simple read would say 95% of all fish species go extinct. But a more probable read is that 95% of fresh water species die out, and salt water fish would be fine in the flood waters(if there isn't a lot of sediment). So where did all of the fresh water fish come from that we see today? You can't support the hypothesis that god saved them, because you can't support it biblically. Another issue is that fat moving water also kills fish. Especially if there is a lot of sediment in the water. It creates an environment that depletes the oxygen that they need to survive. Fast moving water is needed to shear mountain tops, as i've heard others here say. And lots of sediments are needed to create all of the sedimentary layers. I won't put a number on how this effects the survival of fish during the flood, because that would be speculative. http://www.nemoquiz.com/riverwood-blog-post-rainfall-and-water-flow/ You now also have to wonder what would have happened to the polar ice caps? The water needs to be warm, otherwise we would see that information in the biblical story of Noah running into ice-burgs. The only logical thing you can conclude is that they would have melted in the flood waters. Then they would have reformed as the waters displaced. But it can't freeze in layers, because that is not how ice forming in water works. There should be 1 thick layer of ice with @6000 years worth of ice layers on top of that due to snowfall on the polar icecaps. So far no ice-cores show a thick layer of ice where the flood is said to have happened. Now back to the breath of life and nostrils stuff. Every living creature needs oxygen to survive. Insects included. Your God would know that. That means in order for the biblical flood to happen the way it is said to have happened Noah would also need to collect 2 of each kind of insect as well. That isn't a problem really, but just something to consider. If they are collected and kept safe upon the ark, then all insects would die. So there you have it, a small list of problems needed to be accounted biblically. If you can't support it biblically then you aren't taking the story even minutely literally, you are just making stuff up...

I'm not a fan of writing within the quote field, it feels wrong and possibly confusing. I'll respond to each point. 1. While i understand that how the universe began to exist, or possibly could have always existed a simple answer is "I don't know" It may be impossible for science to ever discover what was before the beginning, if that is even a thing. 2. Abiogenesis is not something i am familiar with. I know there are scientists who are studying this, but i won't say that it is completely understood or necessarily possible. 3. This is obvious based on your affiliation with Agnostic. 4. Faith is a tricky word. I haven't heard 2 people use it the same way. 5. Okay. Is there any threads you think would make a good reading source for me to see this topic discussed? 6. Belief is not something one chooses to do. You either believe it or you don't. you may have good or bad reasons for believing or not believing, those are separate issues. Like i could say i don't believe in God because the bible classifies bats as birds. That would be a bad reason. The bible could have nothing to do with the existence of a god or gods, and could have been written separately from the knowledge of a god. I only asked about your ideas because i was curious, nothing more. If you wish to continue this conversation i invite you to message me. I'm sure this derailment has gone on long enough. Thanks for the reply!

wow yes i did read the previous answers, and they do not actually answer the question i asked. The point that is different here, which you failed to comprehend, is that i am not referring to any sort of land dwelling animal. i did point out that whales and dolphins do in fact have nostrils. Insects also have a sort of nostril by the way. They have tubes all over their body that brings air into their bodies. Fish have gills, but i feel that calling them a form of nostril crosses over a line that i think is ridiculous The previous posts may have questioned the nature of how marine life would have survived in the flood as described by the Bible. But no one can answer that honestly, unless the answer is "I don't know, the Bible does not cover that". See the problem that you are ignoring is that Fresh water Fish cannot survive in Salt water, and visa-versa. No fish could survive in waters that are moving fast enough to shear the tops of mountains off, they would literally drown to death, be bashed off of rocks or torn to shreds as the water ripped past them. You have not responded to any of these points as far as i can tell. Does this count as a different topic within the scope of this post that you are willing to discuss?

My belief disappeared when i realized i had no good reason to believe. That the only reason why i kept even a deistic level of belief was that it felt comfortable. Once i realized that, my belief just disappeared. What If, I see you list yourself as Agnostic. Based on your post I would classify you as an Agnostic Theist. You believe that there is something out there, but you can't know it, or that it is unknowable. Is that correct?

Firstly, what other people have said isn't really important now is it. What should be important is the conversation between me and you. I am not those other people, so it is wasteful to bring up those conversations. Onto the meat of your post. Which unfortunately doesn't answer the question. It is a nifty dodge I will give you that. Your point is that because the Bible doesn't mention anything related to marine life that God must have saved them all, or given them magical powers to survive in such an alien environment? Or that God put them in a giant fishbowl in the sky, with their preferred environment? I can name any number of things that could have happened. But the problem you run into is that you can't support any reasoning like that biblically. So we are left with the question is this story a parable? The answer has to be yes. It doesn't make sense for a just god to kill all living beings on the face of the earth for finite crimes. Especially when those being had no idea that these 2 legged things were pissing off the Almighty. It is logistically impossible for these people to keep up with the general care of all of these creatures. But you might say that God put these creatures into a slumber, or gave magical powers to the last remaining humans to be able to do all the chores needed. again it isn't supported biblically.

Hey Mike, So I'm not too familiar with how to split up your post to respond to each of the many things you posted. Lets get into it. You are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Even if someone wanted to do a hyper-literalist read of those verses you cannot have Noah die, Because the purpose of this part of the Bible is to save Noah and his family, plus at least 2 of every creature. So we can forget about most of the beginning of your post, because it technically is meaningless to the discussion. If you want to respond to something i said, it is better to not read too much into what i say, or assume i meant something i didn't mean. The more interesting part comes down to the marine life. Yes you can make as many assumptions as you want about what God did, or didn't do when reading any part of the Bible. The problem is that you can't back those statements you made up about the marine life biblically.

Thank you all!

I figured a general topic of saying "Hi!" wouldn't be a bad start to coming back to the forums. I was rather involved in these forums for a few years many moons ago, and left on good terms. I was worn down on answering the same questions over and over again by different people and needed to take a break. I've been surfing the forums for the last month now, and i figured i would dip my toe into the pool again. If this isn't in the right section, i apologize and certainly don't mind if it is moved to the right section.

So what do you call the blow hole if it isn't a nostril? Regardless of how you describe it, God would know that whales and dolphins breath air, so they would have the breath of life in them. Thus they all should have died.

I could be back from time to time. I'm not usually involved in this topic anymore.

Mama, he went on to say in the very next sentence that if Ron has very good reasons to disagree then he should state what those are. I would assume that countless hours researching the science behind it. And being skeptical are 2 very good reasons. I agree the question didn't need to be asked. BUT I do find it very important to think about why the experts in the field agree on the fact of Evolution. There has to be more too it than what we here discuss on this forum.

Do you mean in one step? Here is mister fishy. Here is mister fishy's son with a hoof. Or do you mean here is mister fishy, here millions of generations later is mister amphibian. If the first is what you are looking for, Evolution doesn't say, or suggest that. The only people who do say that about Evolution are Creationists. If it is the later, then look out your window. Any animal that you see has gone under incredible changes to get where it is at today. Obviously not in 1 step, but in successive changes over millions of years. As a Creationist you will not buy that answer. You will state that we have only ever seen birds making more birds, dogs making more dogs, an so forth. If at the very least you understand that big changes don't happen in 1 step.

It's related, but not close enough for me to continue debating on in this thread. A lot of these questions can be answered very similarly. Big changes just don't happen instantly. It always takes many small steps and time to make a mutation spread through a population. Seeing a massive change in a species happen in 1 or 2 generations would cause a lot of questions to be asked.