Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whales are air-breathing mammals. Since the deluge occurred flooding the entire land mass of the Earth over a period of time of 40 days and 40 nights, that suggests the volume of water pouring down over the entire planet would make Niagara Falls seem like a drizzle. Whales have to come up for air on a regular basis. With as much water coming down, whales would have drowned from a lack of air. In other words, it would have been necessary for whales to be included onboard the Ark in order to spare their lives.
First of all you need to duplicate exactly what occurred during the deluge to see if Whales would drown during a heavy downpour.
Secondly you'd have to prove whales would have to be on board the ark to survive.
Saying so does not prove so.
Quote:
If you mean fish such as salmon, please keep in mind that whales are not fishes. The salinity of water is necessary (helps fight infection) for whales, along with other factors. Rivers aren't deep enough for whales to dive nor do they provide enough food for whales.
There are plenty of other aquatic animals that are not harmed by fresh water. Sharks go up fresh water rivers as well. Besides, you'd have to prove (re-duplicate} exactly what the salinity of the oceans would have been during the world-wide flood of Noah's flood in order to make any kind of absolute statement that aquatic animals could or could not survive in such an environment. All such statements are just special pleading until you duplicate the environment of that time. Dig?
Do you think perhaps in the past the whales might of all been freshwater eusebius, and only adapted after the flood did a 180 on their ecosystems?
The point is not, per rifleman's post, if whales were freshwater or not but did they have to be on board the ark to be saved? Did the lessened salinity cause the death of whales or could it? What was the exact level of salinity during the flood of Noah's day? These questions need to be answered by rifleman or he is just making unproven statements.
Has anyone brought up the simple, obvious fact that there is not enough water on the planet--nor has there ever been since creatures more advanced than fish have existed--to cause a flood that would cover the entire Earth?
Or is that one of those "God can do anything/work in mysterious ways when he's out to kill millions of innocent people" kinds of things?
I really don't have time to redo the research to provide you the exact sources of this info. However, common sense would force one to understand that this event didn't occur as the Bible suggests.
Care to share what common sense you used to come up with that conclusion? Remember that such thing called common sense is nothing something that can be used as a universal rule for everybody to go by. What is common sense to you may not be to others, 2+2=4 which does not need common sense because all you have to is add. However, in the case of a flood that may have happened thousands of years ago is subject to personal biases from both sides to either agree or disagree.
Also, as I stated before there other research from individual that have said it is possible such event could have happened.
Another point, how does the Bible suggest it happens? The reason I ask if because people have interpreted some angles of the event differently but in the overall picture certain scientist have do have an open mind to at least say it is possible such event could have happened. Take care.
First of all you need to duplicate exactly what occurred during the deluge to see if Whales would drown during a heavy downpour.
Secondly you'd have to prove whales would have to be on board the ark to survive.
Saying so does not prove so.
If a downpour was significant enough to flood the entire planet in a period of 40 days, the amount of water coming down would be staggeringly enormous. Whales do not have a trachea connected to their throat. They don't have gills like fish do. Instead, whales breath (inhale and exhale) through blowholes located on top of their back. In a deluge such as that described as the biblical flood, there'd be so much water falling that the blowholes of whales would take in too much of the falling water causing the animal to drown in a short time. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Talk to any marine biologist. How Do Whales Breathe?
However, since whales do indeed inhabit the oceans today, if the great flood of Noah is to be considered as a remote possibility, then whales would have had to have been sheltered to survive. In this case, the mythical Ark would have been the only suitable shelter available during such a deluge. Obviously, that would also mean tanks to keep them both bouyant and moist.
I don't need to prove the point because there were no whales on an Ark. Even if there was an Ark, and there's no evidence of it apart from ancient texts, the dimensions of said Ark would not be large enough to contain whales along with animals of every other sort within said vessel, not to mention food supply for all of them. It doesn't take rocket science to figure it out.
Think about it. Either the flood took place as the bible says, or the story was perhaps based instead on a large but regional flood and exaggerated to fit legendary beliefs of the biblical writers much later. In this case, most likely borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Black Sea is being looked at as a possible source for the legendary origins of the great flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the biblical story of Noah's flood, though as yet, still unproven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
There are plenty of other aquatic animals that are not harmed by fresh water. Sharks go up fresh water rivers as well. Besides, you'd have to prove (re-duplicate} exactly what the salinity of the oceans would have been during the world-wide flood of Noah's flood in order to make any kind of absolute statement that aquatic animals could or could not survive in such an environment. All such statements are just special pleading until you duplicate the environment of that time. Dig?
Yes, there are aquatic animals that are not harmed by fresh water. "Aquatic animals" covers a wide range, but in this case we're talking about salt water, ocean dwelling sea animals. Yes, sharks do sometimes go up fresh water rivers, but not usually far, and not usually for long. Hiowever, your point is meaningless. Obviously whales don't usually head into fresh water areas, although once in a while they do. But it's usually because they're either lost or sick and can't find their way back to the sea. If they can't find their way out, they'll die.
I have no idea how long a whale could survive in fresh water. For 40 days? Maybe, if they were released by then. However, the biblical story of the flood doesn't end at 40 days. With the exception releasing the doves to search for dry land, there's no mention of any other animals being released until the vessel hit dry land. Exactly how you'd release a whale on dry land is... well, you get the point.
The salinity level of the oceans depends on how far back in time you want to go. You'd have to determine when the biblical flood took place. If it occured several thousands (as some biblical belivers claim), or even hundreds of thousands of years, the salinity of the oceans would've been pretty similar to what it is today (minus man-caused contamination). It's taken a billion or more years of erosion by wind and water to slowly build up. Major ice ages (raising and lowering sea levels) and volcanic eruptions can also contribute to changes, but those are very gradual changes.
The real question is the profound volume of water it would take to entirely flood all land masses as claimed. Where did it all come from? Rain? I don't think so. Even if all glaciers and ice caps melted, it wouldn't be enough to cover all the land masses (which include mountains). Where did it all go? Evaporate? Nope. Regardless, if it were true it would indeed cause a rapid change in the salinity of the oceans. That kind of rapid change in 40 days would kill off vast numbers of both salt water creatures and fresh water creatures. Not much time for adaption.
Here's the problem with the global flood scenario. If ALL the water on Earth, that is all sea water, all lakes, rivers, ice caps, groundwater atmospheric water, water inside all plants and animals, etc, were gathered together in a sphere, while it's still a large about, it's not as much as one might think globally. Definitely not enough to cover mountains or mysteriously recede in a few years or even centuries. Just saying it's something to keep in mind. How Much Water is on Earth, the USGS Water Science School
There are plenty of other aquatic animals that are not harmed by fresh water. Sharks go up fresh water rivers as well. Besides, you'd have to prove (re-duplicate} exactly what the salinity of the oceans would have been during the world-wide flood of Noah's flood in order to make any kind of absolute statement that aquatic animals could or could not survive in such an environment. All such statements are just special pleading until you duplicate the environment of that time. Dig?
We know that there has been no evolution and that the land is still exactly where God put it, so just by looking out the window, we have a pretty good idea of what everything was like immediately after God created it.
Where did all that flood water come from, and where did it go? The surface water on the earth amounts to 1.3 million cubic kilometers. Enough water to raise the sea level to the top of Mount Ararat would be 2.5 billion cubic kilometers, so the amount of new water to flood the earth would be 2,000 times the amount we have now. Where did it go? The rainfall for the 40 days and nights would have measured 5 meters of rain (200 inches) per hour.
Oh, wait, I know where it came from. He borrowed the "waters which were under the firmament" Gen. 1:7. And then put it back there afterwards, which is why the land of the world now has water beneath it.
We know that there has been no evolution and that the land is still exactly where God put it, (Fred Phelps told us so, and we can always depend on the clergy for accurate interpretation of the Bible, that's what they are there for, they are never wrong), so just by looking out the window, we have a pretty good idea of what everything was like immediately after God created it.
For those that rely on scientific proof and common sense, the story of Noah and the Flood is just that.... A story.
But for fundamentalist Christians, every word of the story actually happened in real life regardless of what is scientifically or humanly possible...... Because the Bible said so.
You can't argue with these people. They're right and you're wrong, and you're going to hell if you don't believe it. Because the bottom line is this in their eyes..... If you don't believe the story of Noah, than you might as well toss the entire Bible in the trash because you're calling God a liar. Ain't circular reasoning a hoot?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
