If the world was flooded and noah saved all the land animals, then what about the fish? The salt and freshwater fish would live in a mixed environment clearly hazardous to their health. Can anybody clear this up?
shareI can't answer that, I'm sorry; But that's a really intresting question. I don't know where he would've put fish on the ark, but if he was supposed to have every species on the ark, there should've been fish.
"You undercounted the sassy"~Veronica Mars
Its also a funny fact, that we always picture that Noa took 2 elephants, 2 tigers and so on.
but today there are many deffirent kinds og tiger and elephants.
stil Evan only had 2 elephants and 2 tigers, and 2 lions ect.
i guees that from the time Noa saved the animal all the animals developed into all thoses species we know today.
i guess its the same with the fish.
when Noa lived, there where only saltwater fish, and then some developed into freshwater fish..
which explane why saltwater fish are so much more beautiful that freshwater.
they had more time to develop beauty ;)
everything can be defined by good or bad. Balance if you will.
life is Balance.
-BenjaMin.
If the whole myth about Noah and the arc happened, every animal in the world would be retarded with hundreds of birth defects. The same goes with Adam and Eve. You have to remember, people sat down and decided to write the bible based off of dreams they had and stories they liked to believe explained things.
sharethe animals in the world do have hundreds of birth defects...
shareNo, they are functioning animals. Inbreeding animals is just as danerous as inbreeding people. Would you have kids with one of your siblings?
shareyou guys have a lack of understanding in genetics. In breeding DOES NOT NECESSARILY generate birth defects. They only generate birth defects if two recessive genes come together, and even the chances of that happening is quite slim because recessive genes make up only 0.1% of every animal population. The onyl reason why in breeding is dangerous is because two animals of the same genetic structure have a much higher chance of matching recessive genes to manifest birth defects. However, the chances of this happening are still very low, in the margin of 1-25%, because you need BOTH recessive genes to manifest a symptom, and being recessive, most of the time, offspring won't have these recessive genes.
shareYou are a moron... if everyone originated from the same 2 people and we have been inbreeding ALL THIS TIME... what % would you put the defects at then?
God you people are stupid.
None of you has a firm grasp on genetics. The first two humans, assuming they had the same genetic sequence (as a literal reading of the Bible might suggest), and that both had no discernible defects, would have an extremely low probability of having any kids, grandkids, greatgrandkids, etc. with birth defects. This is primarily because variability in a species is caused by mutations in the genetic sequence. The mutations (over time, if the mutation is not fatal) give rise to what we call "dominant" and "recessive" traits (physical/mental manifestations based on underlying genetic coding). It would take a number of generations for the "recessive" and "dominant" genes to be properly distributed in the population in order to allow for the proper combination of parental genes that would give rise to mental or physical deformities.
Id rather be moronic than rude.
You can't go on blaming yourself forever. Just blame yourself once, then move on.
the bible was not written to serve as a source of factual historical information. it contains narratives, that is stories, some contain historical references of the time, others do not. if the 2 of each animal bit was true, then yes all the animals we have today would have been inbred at some stage. but if you want to go into picky bits read gen 7:2-4 which states that 7 of each animal ritually clean was to be taken onto the ark. if this were true then inbreeding didnt necessariliy occur
shareJust to make a devil's advocate question... how do we know that all people and animals today DON'T have birth defects? Maybe we are all retarded. 8 )
shareTo say nothing about the fact that meterologists and geologists have debunked the story because there isn't enough water on the planet to flood it. The treetards would have you believe that the polar icecaps will melt which will flood the earth. It won't, it would raise the sea leve would only rise by about 230 feet (70 meters).
_______________
My iMDB profile http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4297325/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1
Actually, Noah was instructed to take seven and two of clean and unclean animals, probably very young for purposes of space and feeding requirements. Not to mention a lion cub would be easier to deal with than an adult.
"Gen 7:2 You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female;"
Only air breathing animals were taken aboard. The following:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c037.html
or
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/444.asp
may help explain the fish thing. There's been a lot of time for change and micro-evolution. Also, surely Noah and his family were of a specific ethnicity that their posterity (micro)evolved into the multiple races we have on this planet today.
> i guees that from the time Noa saved the animal all the animals developed into all thoses species we know today.
Um, no. Recall that fervant Bible thumpers do not believe in evolution. Apparently Noah managed to save two of every species that is alive on earth today.
That's one really big boat.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
[deleted]
> Beside, where in the Bible does it say that they were adult animals? There would be plenty of room, even for the dinosaurs.
You do realize that there are millions of different species of land mammals live today, don't you? Even if they were all babies and there were just one million species, two million animals is a lot.
Let's say each animal was a baby and was cruely put in a pen that was a cube two feet on each side. The arc would need a volume of 16 million cubic feet.
That arc is now a quarter of a mile long, wide, and tall.
And that is just figuring minimun cage size and number of animals and figuring no room for food or moving around between cages.
How big does your book say the ark was?
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
[deleted]
> Big enough.
I can't help but notice your lack of precise figures. I imagine your ark magically changes size to accomodate whatever you are talking about at the time.
For your information, the ark was 300 x 50 x 30 cubits. The Bible is a bit fuzzy on how long a cubit is, but most sources indicate that it is about a foot and a half.
So, the ark described in the Bible is a little longer than a football field and just about as wide and as tall as the goal posts. That's certainly a big boat and is about the size shown in the movie.
But I don't think you are going to fit two of every animal inside, however (and note that the Bible commands not two, but seven of many land animals and seven of all birds).
> How many of those are insects?
Many of them. There are many millions of types of beetles alone.
> There may be hundreds of breed of dogs, but they all came from the same two.
I don't think so. That would mean that evolution is real. I thought that serious followers of the Bible thought that God created all the different types of animals period and they have remained unchanged for 6,000 years.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
[deleted]
> Then I guess you don't need to ask.
Well, I did give you enough opportunities to demonstrate that you know the words from the Bible rather than those of that site youkeep quoting that twists the Bible's words.
When you couldn't, I did. That's not nearly a big enough boat to put two of every animal (seven if you actually read the words of the Bible).
> I've got news for you. It happened.
Well there ya go! I suppose you are back to assuming that some kind of magic happens whenever the words of the Bible contradict real-world physics.
> there should be hundreds of examples of partially evolved animals.
But there are. In fact every species is partially evolved into something else. The problem is that we don't not know what they are elvolving into because we cannot see the future. We'd need to look at the species a million years from now. I'm afraid I will not be alive at that point to have a look.
Imagine that you are standing in the middle of a thousand mile long road. You look at the scenery and admire it. Then you move 1/10th of an inch along the road. The scenery from there is going to look almost exactly the same, isn't it?
But from experience, you know that things look a lot different a hundred miles down the road or even a hundred feet.
Well, that's the pace of evolution. One generation of dog pretty much looks just like its parents. But it is changing, you just won't live long enough to see it.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
I don't think so. That would mean that evolution is real. I thought that serious followers of the Bible thought that God created all the different types of animals period and they have remained unchanged for 6,000 years.
That's true. I thought fish part was inconsistent. Also, in the Bible Noah really took 7 pairs of the 'clean' animals, not just two of everything.
sharei like that theory. i really do.
shareLet's just hope that you don't honestly believe that or I just hope you're not allowed outside without adult supervision.
shareHow old is mankind do you think?
I am pretty sure, those animals we see today were already there with the first homo sapiens.
Evolution takes a little bit more, than a few thousand years.
That is an interesting question...how could fish have survived on the ark?
shareI made a similar point a couple of days ago and True Believer<tm> informed me that "water was different" back then.
Gotta love christian science...
"No one's got a ton of sympathy for guys who throw fat kids in the river"
I am a catholic Christian and anyone of us will tell you that the bible is just stories; only some of them actually true but all with great meaning. There was no great flood, even in our beliefs.
shareI have to ask then, which do you consider true, and what is your criterea for choosing them? And no, there are catholics that are more than far gone enough to claim that the christian bible is pure fact...
"No one's got a ton of sympathy for guys who throw fat kids in the river"
why are you looking for trouble? ok you're not catholic that's your choice, nobody is trying to brainwash you. so why are you trying to prove a point here? just let catholics with their beliefs and go look for trouble somewhere else. people like you are just pathetic.
sharewtf??? You must not be a christian cuz everything that happened in the bible HAPPENED!!!!!!!
The Cape Central Marching Tigers Rocks My Socks Off!!
OK, I have been in a private, parochial school since the age of 4. In my high school years we were required to take many classes on catholicism. We had Dr. in philosophy as well as priests teach these classes. They all enforced in us the idea that the bible is only a guideline for teaching. It was not all true.
shareIt appears that Catholics don't really believe in the Bible. It's not surprising really. For hundreds of years the Catholic church refused to let the Bible be printed in anything but Latin. When Tynsdale translated the Bible into English, they garroted him and then burnt him at the stake. Oh, come on! What in the world could be so bad that you would strangle a person to death and then burn them at the stake?! Please, would some Catholic tell me how this makes the slightest bit of sense?
ToQuestionGod.blogspot.com
,=\.-----""""^==--
;;'( ,___, ,/~\;
' )/>/ \|-,
| `\ | "
" " " WILL
And to you Bandgeekprincess2010, I think you need some growing up to do and you will soon learn a lot. But as far as telling your opinion in matters of faith, you are way out of your league. I mean your favorite movies are cartoons; which require barely any cognitive ability whatsoever to get something out of it. Please tell me who taught you that everything in the bible was true? They should no longer have the ability to spread a false idealogical of catholicism. If you seem to know so mush about this religion please sum up the basis of this religion and what it focuses on.
shareNot all my fav movies are cartoons. And I don't have to prove anything to you!!(and that doesn't mean I can't) You sound like an old fart.
The Cape Central Marching Tigers Rocks My Socks Off!!
I'm 18 *beep*
shareThe Bible is the ordained word of God. Christians should be reading it as truth, but yes, there is some debate about figurative vs. literal meanings of the events - especially those in the old testament. However, I would caution you against claiming that the Bible is full of stories for several reasons. First, the whole basis of Christianity is believing Jesus to be the son of God, who died for humans' sins. Thus, if you're treating the Bible as fictional stories, then you are denying the birth/crucifixion/ressurection of Christ, which is blasphemy. Second, how can you (or anyone else, including your priests and Drs. of Philosophy) accurately determine which stories are true and which are not? Third, faith is called faith because it is "being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see." It's about believing in what you cannot prove, so it makes perfect sense that there would be aspects of God and His word that people today cannot explain. Lastly, using *wtf* and *beep* in this religious debate really negates your positive influence on others. Your life as a Christian probably shouldn't be about proving other Christians wrong with foul language so much as it should be about sharing Christ and God's love with others. Some food for thought....
share[deleted]
Ummmm..
WTH does a flood have to do with evolution? Besides the fact that almost every flood has helped lock in evidence of what form and changes animals have had at the time of each flood supporting evolution.
Nearly every religion talkes about a 'great flood' not just christian based ones.
So nearly as many 'evolutionist' beleive in a large flood as creationist.
But of course since communication was much more limited in those times and people living greater distances between eachother.... a flood the size of Rhode Island would seem like the world.
So even if mutiple floods occured with months between eachother even after a generation or 2 of people passing the story down and those people meting and sharing the tale, many would beleive it would be the same exact flood that affected everybody, thus increasing the size of the flood.
So back to my original point.
If you truly believe.
The fossil record SUPPORTS a global flood more than it supports any claims evolutionists make.Please don't breed.
[deleted]
The thing is, the bible is not the only book that describes a great flood, it is recorded by many religions, even before the bible was written. As to the movie, Evan was only really saving the people from the flooding lake, and would not have needed to save the fish, or any other animals not in the lake's line of fire. The flood thing was just a metaphor.
shareThe bible is a book that people sat down and wrote. It's impossible to argue that. It didn't fall out of the sky. That said, people must have hand written all of it, you may rather say translated it for god, who didn't happen to have a pen and paper to use. At that time, there wasn't a spelling or grammer check. It was hand-written. People have imprefections, so it would be impossible for the bible to be perfect. Also, people could make up things and shoved false information into them unnoticed. It would be mangled up with stories that supposedly happened. People would still believe it, like you, because they say "everything that happened in the bible HAPPENED!!!!!!!"
share"The bible is a book that people sat down and wrote. It's impossible to argue that. It didn't fall out of the sky. That said, people must have hand written all of it, you may rather say translated it for god, who didn't happen to have a pen and paper to use. At that time, there wasn't a spelling or grammer check. It was hand-written. People have imprefections, so it would be impossible for the bible to be perfect. Also, people could make up things and shoved false information into them unnoticed. It would be mangled up with stories that supposedly happened. People would still believe it, like you, because they say "everything that happened in the bible HAPPENED!!!!!!!"
------
Another atheistic fallacy. You are nothing but a 'monkey hybrid' according to your religion, yet you can make a dog sit. What makes you think that an all powerful god couldn't use men to write his Bible?
But, according to you and all Christians, the bible is "The word of God". And if you deny that, you are denying God. So apparently you are bound to believe every word or you are just as bad as we are.
Hey, don't look at me, I didn't make this *beep* up.
WAKE UP AMERICA
Actually, it's not atheistic at all. Who says God had nothing to do with evolution anyway? Yes, we evolved from monkeys (though technically it was monkeys, then apes, and so on...), if that's what you meant by that comment, but somewhere along the way we developed free will and a higher sense of morality than the other animals (ie, a soul), which is why humans no longer refer to themselves as animals. And again, who is to say that God didn't make any of this happen? As far as I'm concerned, evolution does not by any means take God out of the picture.
Personally, the entire theory of evolution makes me admire God even more. But that's just me :)
[deleted]
[deleted]
Because Jesus didn't come to Earth to tell people what to believe. He came to help us be better people.
share[deleted]
People wrote it. It didn't fall out of the sky. People aren't perfect. People make mistakes. Somebody at some point has to have written some piece of false information in it. Of course, most people will deny that could possiblly happen, because they are stubborn and no matter how many errors are found in the book they still say "everything that happened in the bible happened!!!!!!!"
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
"water was different" back then.
My only answer to you people with the "what if.." and "How did he.." questions is this.
Its about Faith.
"We are actors. We are the opposite of people"
Yup, all you need is faith and you can jump off the Empire State Building and when you hit the pavement you'll bounce like Neo in the Matrix. Just pray on the way down and everything will be OK. It's about Faith.
ToQuestionGod.blogspot.com
,=\.-----""""^==--
;;'( ,___, ,/~\;
' )/>/ \|-,
| `\ | "
" " " WILL
Hhahaha...
WAKE UP AMERICA
Tell me about it! Apparently we aren't good enough at rationalization. But no matter what our objection, the bible literalist can ultimately say, "God can do anything he wants." It's the "get out of having-a-brain free" card. God can even plagiarize the Epic of Gilgamesh if he wants to.
http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/deluge.htm
ToQuestionGod.blogspot.com
,=\.-----""""^==--
;;'( ,___, ,/~\;
' )/>/ \|-,
| `\ | "
" " " WILL
Also, how did Noah know that both koalas and pandas only eat one kind of food and how was he able to provide that food?
share[deleted]
dinosaurs?!?!?!
i thought that extreme christians didnt believe in dinosaurs, because there isnt any mention of them in the bible. now you're trying to say that they were still around at the time of Noah's Ark... what is doing?
and didnt the continents break up millions of years ago also?
to try and bring these events into the timeline of the bible seems ridiculous
[deleted]
Some fish live in salt water (which has salt in it if you didn't know). They need the salt. Some fish live in fresh water, and won't survive in salt water. If you mix them up, bad stuff happens.
share[deleted]
No fish were on the ark. Not neccessary.
I dont know if anyone can prove which was the most dominate water in noah's day... salt or fresh.
In either case, assuming the flood was of an opposite type of the majority... The fish that couldn't find (and needed) the salt water died, and the fish that couldn't find (and needed)the fresh water died. All of the rest were fine. That's my opinion.
But no one really knows the nature of the earth before the flood. Scientist don't know because they were not their and whatever they find is subject to opinion and interpretation based on what they do know or think they know.
In my opinion, quit worrying about it cause at the end of the day it doesn't matter. Based on Christian belief you're going to hell if you don't believe a guy, God in the Flesh, died on the cross and came back to life in three days and accept him as your savior. So you tell me, if you believe that, why not believe the flood? If you don't believe that, then why bother with the story of the flood anyway?
What a silly post. ^^^^
shareIt's not a silly post - it exposes a great hole in a literal interpretation of the Noah legend. If God's intent with the flood was to wipe out the world to start again, how would a flood affect ducks and swans? Ducks and swans can float just as well in salt water as in freshwater, so why would a flood have affected them? And if it didn't, then it is hardly a very effective means of destroying the world, is it? It's a big hole in the theory, along with a million others.
And it is certainly true that stories of a Great Flood pre-date Christianity and exist in other religious texts. But it is also true that people in Noah's time were not aware of the size of the planet on which they lived. For them, the Nile Valley they called home was the world, so if the Nile flooded, they saw it is a "worldwide flood". It is a misnomer. They didn't even know that continents like North America and Australia existed back then so how can they say with certainty that the "whole world" flooded? Come on!
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm referring to dwterrel's slanted logic.
share[deleted]
No, I am not missing the point because if his sole purpose of the flood was to erradicate human wickedness, why would he wipe out any animals at all? Why not just wipe out the humans? WHy choose a flood, which would presumably wipe out everything that can't swim or float, when all you wanna do is erradicate humans?
And the question remains: what about fish and ducks?? Most of the "Christains" on this board believe in a literal translation, and that God took EVERY creature onto the Ark to save them from the floods, even the 1.3 billion types of insect (or something like that). So once again, what about fish and ducks? It's a hole. One of many.
[deleted]
First, Saltwater is lighter in weight then freshwater. So in most cases the two will not mix easily. So most fish should have been safe in large bodies of water.
Second, sure ducks can float in calm water but I imagine with bad weather and waves they will drown.
My 2 cents!!
"It's not an iPhone, it's a big ass table. Take that Apple " - MS Surface
It is the fresh water that is lighter. I otherwise see what your saying. They will mix over time though in any case.
shareYou raise a great point. If the omnipotent God wanted to eradicate wicked humans, why didn't he just poof the bad ones into nonexistence? Some people say it wouldn't have made as dramatic of a story. But given the mania over the "rapture" I think they are wrong. Let's assume all the people were wicked except Noah's family. Anyone would have to assume that infants couldn't be counted as wicked. What if everyone on earth disappeared except Noah's family and all the infants in the world? God could control all the animals and have them pick up the infants and bring them to Noah to care for. Or the animals could raise them a la "The Jungle Book". It would still make for an interesting and dramatic story and not make God look like a complete ass or leave so many apparent contradictions in geology. I guess creative writing is not God's thing.
ToQuestionGod.blogspot.com
,=\.-----""""^==--
;;'( ,___, ,/~\;
' )/>/ \|-,
| `\ | "
" " " WILL
[deleted]
yet they were being raised by wicked parents, so how could they possibly turn out any different.If they were given to good people to raise them. What kind of question is that? Do you feel you need to make excuses for the God of the Bible?
[deleted]
As if the Creator of the Universe, Author of Life, and Origin of all Morality needs me to make "excuses" as you call them. Maybe you should take a step back and realize that you can not possibly comprehend the mind of God.If you look at what has been said, it is you who presume to know the unknowable. I don't claim that there even is a God much less that anyone can know anything about it. In fact, I say the exact opposite. Neither the universe nor life needed to be "created" at all. God and morality are human inventions. Maybe you should "take a step back" and quit making bombasitic claims as if they are facts.
[deleted]
God revealed himself to man...That's news to me. I was ordained and used to teach Bible classes and yet never had God reveal himself to me. I've seen a lot of stuff written by people who claim such things. I've seen zero proof. Quit blowing smoke and try living in the real world for a change.
[deleted]
Nice little display of willful ignorance with a dash of bigotry. It must be a big handicap for you to be immune to reason.
toQuestionGod.blogspot.com
,=\.-----""""^==--
;;'( ,___, ,/~\;
' )/>/ \|-,
| `\ | "
" " " WILL
[deleted]
Well well. That was an impressive bit of doublespeak.
Let's see. Your assumption is that people who aren't Christians automatically throw out facts. A ridiculous assumption based on extreme bias and a lifetime of brainwashing. And you think that an ancient piece of superstitious claptrap written by a bunch of ignorant bronze agers somehow negates any discovery that modern humans can make that might contradict said superstitious nonsense.
Historical facts of the Bible do not include anyone being a God or a creator nor are there any historical facts proving miracles of any kinds. The only historical facts in the Bible are the setting and a few names of real people to give it the flavor of authenticity. Any historical fiction does the same. There are no scientific facts in the Bible that can't be seen with the naked eye of a child. There no real prophecies in the Bible. A cheap psychic has a better track record. There is no evidence that anyone even requires a savior much less that one ever existed. And who gives one minim if a fictional character never question a bunch of old scrolls?
Try again. It seems you have $hit stains on your rose colored glasses.
I think you now know the answer to your question. If not, you are beyond help.
ToQuestionGod.blogspot.com
,=\.-----""""^==--
;;'( ,___, ,/~\;
' )/>/ \|-,
| `\ | "
" " " WILL
[deleted]
There are plenty of books written by Christians AND non-Christians showing why Evolution can't be true.Now who is denying science? There are, by far, more books that can prove it is a fact and can show how these books that attempt to refute it are drivel. You are just parroting the party line. You can't make the truth go away by denying proven facts. Evolution is a fact of nature. There are no scientists in the entire world working in the life sciences who can get any real work done if they refuse to accept this. Because that is how nature works. You can beat the drum as long and loud as you like and evolution will still be a fact. Stick your head in the sand if you like. It's no skin off my nose.
So who's just throwing things out, now? You're making a broad, generalized, unsubstantiated claim.Excuse me, Maynard, but I used to teach this stuff and I can easily point directly to unquestionably failed prophecies in the Bible. Apologetics does not make the failure of the Bible go away. It makes people's eyes glaze over with sheer amazement at the lengths people will go to in order to keep their indoctrination and traditions intact no matter how idiotic they are. This is not the place for a debate of this kind but I am not discarding any facts. You are. I am discounting prophecy claims of the Bible because they were all either self-fulfilling prophecies, revisionism, loose interpretations, or utter failures.
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.bprc.org/topics/fulfill.html
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml
I'm not sure you know the question.I'm not sure you know your butt from a muffin.
[deleted]
not speaking directly to the person above...
I find it amazing that people who have never been God can suggests how a God would do things. Kind of like people who've never had kids trying to tell people who have kids how to raise them. Its illogical.
[deleted]
I hope so I love a nice freshwater bass!
share[deleted]
Fish aren't animals.
shareWhat?!!
What the hell are they then, tea doily's that have escaped
Aunt Mary's sewing room?
PLEASE tell me you're joking and not a complete imbecile.
Are you by any chance running for public office?
"Tea Doily's" That is priceless. Thanks for the laugh. It brought to mind Jonathan Winters saying, "That puts a kink in my doily"
ToQuestionGod.blogspot.com
,=\.-----""""^==--
;;'( ,___, ,/~\;
' )/>/ \|-,
| `\ | "
" " " WILL
You must remember God controlled the flood, therefore I get the feeling he had some sort of power to keep the fish alive.
Just a thought...
Well, of course an omnipotent being can do anything he damn well pleases. Unfortunately, if anything can happen, there goes any possibility of understanding. That's the problem with believing in magic. If magic works, nothing can ever be understood. I'd much rather live in a world where we have some dependable basis for understanding things. But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
ToQuestionGod.blogspot.com
,=\.-----""""^==--
;;'( ,___, ,/~\;
' )/>/ \|-,
| `\ | "
" " " WILL
I've not read this whole thread, so sorry if I say something that's been said already.
The Bible CANNOT be taken literally all the time. I believe that when we read the the entire Earth was flooded, it wasn't flooded to the point where the entire Earth was flooded all at once but more like the flood moved around consuming different continents at different times. Nearly every continent's history has mention of a big flood and also shows evidence of the same. There were probably a lot of arks and a lot more survivors of the flood than were on Noah's Ark.
As far as the salt water fish and fresh water fish, I don't know the answer but as history has proved over and over again, inhabitants of this Earth are very adaptable to change. If the salt water and the fresh water were mixed in some places, I'm sure the fish would survive somehow. And just because The Bible says that there were 2 of every species on Noah's Ark, doesn't mean exactly that. As I said, I don't believe The Earth was flooded completely as The Bible states. Considering how many continents there are with their own species and how large the earth is, could they have really been brought across the whole Earth just so they could be on Noah's Ark? Perhaps so, but I have a hard time believing it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
We can go into hours of discussion about how The Bible can't be taken literally. Another example I'd like to give is in the beginning. It states, in so many words, that The Earth was created in 6 days and on the 7th, God rested. Are we really suppose to believe that God created The Earth in 144 hours? That would be ridiculous. God is God, but he can't break the laws of the universe. The 6 days actually refers to 6 periods of time, maybe it's days as God see them which are different from our days. But since the books in The Bible were not directly written by God, the writer(s) made it so we could better understand it. Which brings up another point...The Bible was translated many years ago...by a MAN. Men are not perfect and make mistakes, thus, some things in The Bible may not be entirely accurate and some things were perhaps written so it was easier to understand and teach. So to take The Bible literally, word for word, would be naive and a huge mistake. In my personal opinion that is. Now I'm not saying The Bible is false, it's just best to think logically sometimes rather than just blind faith that man is not going to make mistakes. God does allow men, even so-called men of God to make mistakes, it's all part of free will.
Hopefully that makes sense to more than just me...
God is God, but he can't break the laws of the universe
Yeah, God is God and he can break the laws of the universe because he created it. Anyways, like as said before God might have had some control over this, but if I make it up there, I'll be sure to give the lord a ring-a-ding-ding and ask him bout it.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]