How Would A Global Flood Effect Life On The Polar Caps?

[Brakeman]

How would a Global Flood effect life on the polar caps? I mean polar bears, seals and penguins could probably have been just fine for at least 40 days, as ICE FLOATS.

 

So no penguins or Polar bears on the ark then fundies?

[Searska]

As a former biology major, the idea of a global flood makes me shudder. Disregarding the how for a moment (because that's its own loaded issue) a global flood would cause such a massive ecological disaster that it would likely cause the biggest mass extinction since the dinosaurs. Bigger, even, depending on how much land remained if any.

 

Seals, polar bears, and penguins would die out just like the land animals. They still need to come ashore to breed.

 

I guess it also depends on if the flood was fresh water or salt water.

 

On the bright side, any land left would be prime beach front property.

[dB-Paradox]

I think in arguing this subject (or any biblical subject) with fundies is a waste of time, as they have an answer for everything. First off, I think they might argue against ice caps, as those might have been the result of the flood. There are better arguments, like the mixture of fresh and saltwater. I'm not sure what their answer is for that, but I'm sure they have one!

[mwc]

How would a Global Flood effect life on the polar caps? I mean polar bears, seals and penguins could probably have been just fine for at least 40 days, as ICE FLOATS.

 

So no penguins or Polar bears on the ark then fundies?

How well do things float and/or swim in a 40 day downpour? The water that was magically stashed underground decided to come out to play at the same time so that probably made things pretty rough. And the whole earth was supposedly covered for a whole year. It covered the highest mountains of the day (no matter what lame excuse you want to give for trying to make them a lot shorter than now). I don't think the ice did too well nor did the animals that tried floating about on it. Only gopher wood was good enough for this job. It's very durable in floods and has all the magical properties needed to survive a catastrophe and then become unknown to everyone afterward.

 

mwc

[skepticalme]

I've always wondered how all the animals not indigenous to the middle east got on the boat. How did the kangaroos and grizzle bears get over there? How did they get back? If the flood water was salty, how did the fresh water fish survive? If the fllod water was fresh, how did ocean creatures survive? How did animal populations rebuild with such small gene pools? How did the plants survive? Did Noah have a seed vault on board as well? So many holes. Of couse, if you are explaining the whole event with magic anyway then I guess you could write off anything. Then again, if magic is involved, why use a flood and a boat in the first place. Couldn't god just snap his fingers and make all the "evil" people vanish into thin air leaving Noah, his family and all the animals intact?

[mwc]

I've always wondered how all the animals not indigenous to the middle east got on the boat. How did the kangaroos and grizzle bears get over there? How did they get back?

Based on the nonsensical arguments, and without too much detail, before the flood the world eco-system was different and so were the water levels. So these animals basically just walked on over on land-bridges and the like. The return isn't as easy to explain. They either returned on floating debris (possibly because they enjoyed the year at sea so much they yearned for just a little more), land bridges that have since been lost, or (and this seems to be a favorite) the planet experienced a rapid form of continental drift taking the various animals along with them slowing to the speed we now measure today.

 

If the flood water was salty, how did the fresh water fish survive? If the fllod water was fresh, how did ocean creatures survive? How did animal populations rebuild with such small gene pools? How did the plants survive? Did Noah have a seed vault on board as well? So many holes. Of couse, if you are explaining the whole event with magic anyway then I guess you could write off anything.

The salt water mixed with the fresh water so that the salt water, being heavier, sank (of course) and the fish suited for that environment went lower into the ocean while those suited for the fresh water stayed closer to the surface. The churning caused by the storms brought nutrients that they needed to survive around for them to eat.

 

Plants went dormant in various forms until conditions were right for them to re-emerge.

 

Then again, if magic is involved, why use a flood and a boat in the first place. Couldn't god just snap his fingers and make all the "evil" people vanish into thin air leaving Noah, his family and all the animals intact?

Once you invoke magic you no longer have a need for Noah, his family or the animals. Just wipe the slate clean...

 

mwc

[♦ Fuego ♦]

I've wondered about the asteroid hit that they are saying killed the dinosaurs and changed the climate dramatically. Such an event would cause complete upheaval, global flooding, etc. I wonder if anyone has worked out from what is known, which creatures would be likely to survive and how things grew from that point on. We find the wooly mammoths apparently quick frozen with their last meal in their teeth, and this also seems to indicate a dramatic event. Current thought is that humans didn't arise until well after this. I wonder if there was any kind of distant memory of the event to create this global flood idea in so many cultures, or if that was something simply drawn from the tales of other cultures as people interacted.

[Shyone]

I've wondered about the asteroid hit that they are saying killed the dinosaurs and changed the climate dramatically. Such an event would cause complete upheaval, global flooding, etc. I wonder if anyone has worked out from what is known, which creatures would be likely to survive and how things grew from that point on. We find the wooly mammoths apparently quick frozen with their last meal in their teeth, and this also seems to indicate a dramatic event. Current thought is that humans didn't arise until well after this. I wonder if there was any kind of distant memory of the event to create this global flood idea in so many cultures, or if that was something simply drawn from the tales of other cultures as people interacted.

65 million years ago, our human ancestors were little more than lemur looking creatures. While they may have been clever for a quadrupedal mammal, I doubt that any present quadrupedal mammal would have any "distant memories" since they would have no language, and memories are not transmitted genetically.

[★ Citsonga ★]

There are better arguments, like the mixture of fresh and saltwater. I'm not sure what their answer is for that, but I'm sure they have one!

 

I've recently found that question to be rather interesting. I used to follow a good bit of creationist literature, and I don't specifically recall ever seeing them address that question.

 

The salt water mixed with the fresh water so that the salt water, being heavier, sank (of course) and the fish suited for that environment went lower into the ocean while those suited for the fresh water stayed closer to the surface. The churning caused by the storms brought nutrients that they needed to survive around for them to eat.

 

I can imagine them suggesting something along those lines. However, I would have to think that such churning would upset that separation of saltwater & freshwater and kill off the freshwater life.

[★ Citsonga ★]

By the way, an interesting biblical refutation of creationism can be found in the psalms.

 

Creationists argue that the "waters which were above the firmament" mentioned in Genesis 1:7 refers to some water vapor or ice canopy around the earth, which they claim turned into the rain that flooded the earth.

 

Yet Psalm 148:4, which supposedly came long after the flood, speaks of the "waters that be above the heavens" as still being in place.

 

So much for that canopy disappearing during Noah's flood!

[Shyone]

There are better arguments, like the mixture of fresh and saltwater. I'm not sure what their answer is for that, but I'm sure they have one!

 

I've recently found that question to be rather interesting. I used to follow a good bit of creationist literature, and I don't specifically recall ever seeing them address that question.

 

The salt water mixed with the fresh water so that the salt water, being heavier, sank (of course) and the fish suited for that environment went lower into the ocean while those suited for the fresh water stayed closer to the surface. The churning caused by the storms brought nutrients that they needed to survive around for them to eat.

 

I can imagine them suggesting something along those lines. However, I would have to think that such churning would upset that separation of saltwater & freshwater and kill off the freshwater life.

I haven't delved much into Creationist literature, but I understand they explain the disappearance of the dinosaurs because of the flood. How do they explain the disappearance of extinct species of fish? Like the ichtyosaurus which were all deposited in Jurassic deposits. The location in that specific stratum can't be explained by the same mechanisms that deposited the dinosaurs (by the Creationists).

 

One would also wonder about the Tiktaalik, an extinct fish with lobed extremities and a neck found in deposits dated to 375 million years ago.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I haven't delved much into Creationist literature, but I understand they explain the disappearance of the dinosaurs because of the flood. How do they explain the disappearance of extinct species of fish? Like the ichtyosaurus which were all deposited in Jurassic deposits. The location in that specific stratum can't be explained by the same mechanisms that deposited the dinosaurs (by the Creationists).

 

One would also wonder about the Tiktaalik, an extinct fish with lobed extremities and a neck found in deposits dated to 375 million years ago.

 

They don't actually claim that the dinosaurs became extinct during the flood, but that some were on the ark and became extinct shortly after the flood. Basically, they claim that a few of each "kind" (species or whatever) of land animal that existed at the time of the flood survived the flood, so nothing became extinct in the flood. They would leave room for some things becoming extinct prior to the flood, but from what I recall they typically maintain that most of the extinctions happened after the flood due to a change in environment (which makes one wonder why gawd would have Noah go through the trouble of saving dinos and other animals on the ark only to then be introduced to a hostile environment that would kill them off).

 

As far as the aquatic life, I don't specifically recall whether they would allow for extinctions during the flood, but I suspect that they wouldn't. I believe they argue that some of each survived the flood.

 

As far as the geological layers, while creationists argue that *most* of the layers were laid down during the flood, they leave room for a few layers to have been laid down at different times. That gives them a little bit of wiggle room, but not as much as they'd like.

 

Basically, it's all nonsense based on taking the writings of primitive superstitious people as absolute, literal truth. All they can do is try to twist and contort the evidence in hopes of making it fit what the bible says. They cannot let the evidence lead where it may if it contradicts their precious book. You know, the whole "trust the word of God, not the word of man" argument.

[mwc]

I can imagine them suggesting something along those lines. However, I would have to think that such churning would upset that separation of saltwater & freshwater and kill off the freshwater life.

One of the first threads I got involved with here was on this and this was the argument made. It just went on and on and on and on. It was some guy from CARM as I recall. I surprised he didn't whip out some Power Point slides the way he went on about the whole flood being an actual event.

 

I'm not sure but I think his answer to the mixing of the waters was something like they never were very violently churned. The water came out of the ground in some way and the rain came down in some way that it allowed for a rather calm mixing effect. So the fish could go the right areas for them as these events happened until things settled out (ie. fresh water fish would group over to the left, salt water fish to the right, the rest in the middle somewhere and then as the rains let up and things settled by weight the fish followed along with it).

 

This was also beneficial for the ark, of course, since it was tossed about but had a nice gentle ride like a huge luxury car (my words...I don't really remember what he said exactly). The folks on the ark could get fresh fish by just dropping a hook from the top of the ark and fresh water by dropping down buckets since the top-most water was all fresh. Temperature was accounted for by relative distances. Sea level is X degrees. So once it rained and sea level was now 3000 feet higher (or whatever) then it would still be X degrees and the just as nice as if you were down at the local beach. Couldn't seem to understand that since air pressure doesn't seem to work that way but whatever...these are the pre-flood, flood, post-flood worlds and they all work magically different.

 

mwc

[★ Citsonga ★]

I'm not sure but I think his answer to the mixing of the waters was something like they never were very violently churned.

 

That's interesting. From what I recall the creationist literature that I read claimed that there was indeed violent churning in the flood. I am a few years removed from it now, though. At any rate, they'll say whatever floats their boat (pun intended) to try to make the flood story sound reasonable....

[Shyone]

I'm not sure but I think his answer to the mixing of the waters was something like they never were very violently churned.

 

That's interesting. From what I recall the creationist literature that I read claimed that there was indeed violent churning in the flood. I am a few years removed from it now, though. At any rate, they'll say whatever floats their boat (pun intended) to try to make the flood story sound reasonable....

I wouldn't be surprized to find that the same creationist would say different things at different times depending upon what evidence he was trying to erase.