Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
The fish would have been basically fresh water and developed a tolerance for salt water as the oceans became saltier. This sediment you speak of would not have been so sever in a young earth. Our fresh water species do quite well in high water today. Some would have been lost but, others would have thrived with the increased food supply.
|
I'm talking about the initial rain.. a species doesn't develop a tolerance over 40 days; populations change over time, not individuals.
The sediment is sufficient that it's responsible for all the geological strata all over the earth, millions upon millions of layers of sediment burying dead animals (which are sorted according to their age as opposed to sorted by their buoyancy if they were all deposited in the same flood), the sediment that is churned up by the supposed erosion that took place to form the grand canyon, all the mountains and valleys, to break the continents apart, but is not sufficient to kill the fish?
It doesn't matter, the amount of energy involved in that kind of release of water would boil all the fish on the planet anyway.
The only way to say there was a global flood is to say that God suspended the laws of physics to pull it off and then hid the evidence and created new misleading evidence afterward.