1213 wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 9:42 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 5:30 am
...Ok I has a look The Baltic is brackish water and has a lot of fish. Euryhaline fish can survive in brackish water because they have adapted (evolution) to do so. But I get the point that freshwater fish and presumably saltwater fish would be able to manage in an ocean suddenly diluted by fresh water. I doubt they would be able to adapt as quickly as that.
Yes, Baltic sea is Brackish water, meaning, there are areas with higher salinity and areas that have no salt. There are fish that can survive those conditions.
And the point of this is, as in Baltic, also during the great flood, there could have been different salinity levels, some areas could have had more salt than others, which would have provided suitable environment for many different kind of sea creatures. Also, it is possible that at the time of the flood, those animals were more adapted to the conditions than today.
I doubt your argument works as a deluge of fresh water turning into a single global flood of brackish water would not have had convenient pockets of salt and fresh to keep the appropriate fish conveniently alive. All the fish would have been suddenly in a hostile environment whatever they had been adapted to previously. That point about the Baltic was a neat one, I agree,
but we know the way the world works and as a first hypothesis I guess we have fish that have become adapted to brackish water and their cousins out in the Atlantic would not do well if they were suddenly transported to the Finnish coast.
Your hypothesis of pockets of this or that salinity is trying to have your Flood and not have it, with conditions staying the same. Quite apart from it defeats the object of wiping out creation. The argument that maybe it was different then is what we in the trade call 'an excuse'. I know the thinking is,'it's true, there must be some explanation or other'.But that isn't the go -to hypothesis that fits the facts which are, geology says no Flood, biology says no flood possible, Bible says flood story borrowed, unworkable and makes no sense. That's the go -to hypothesis and it is not make excuses for a hypothesis that makes far less sense.
I know you will be doing denial. That's up to you, but rejecting the better hypothesis on Faith is not going to make the best case; the discussions here are not about persuading the believers (though there is more rejoicing in the "Inferno" bar and grill about one Believer who wises up than 1,000 handwaving enthusiasts in a megachurch), but what is the hypothesis that best fits the facts.
So, no, the example of the Baltic, though a nice point, doesn't validate a global flood -theory, even though I still prefer the 'mud slick' objection, as for me, that's the killer. Even so,appreciate the input as without theists arguing for Genesis, Prophecy and the Resurrection, we atheists would have nothing to keep us off the streets.
