Fish on the Ark?

Genesis Chapter 7 states only fowls and unclean/clean beasts. There is no mention of fish or insects, or any fungui/bacteria etc. As for the actual event, insects, fish etc wouldn't need to board the ark since most could survive in water. Trillions, even trillions of trillions of marine life would have been extiguished (as we can see from the fossil strata) but only a small sustainable population of different fishes had to survive the violant floods in order to sustain an active reproducing population, eventually breeding into different highly altering environments the fishes adapted and variated up until the many differnet fishes we have today and it still goes on. Like many salmon are adapting to changing water tempritures etc. So no there were no fish on the ark. Remember the Universal Father was in control of the nature as the flood obliterated it, so I am sure God could have sustained the right spicies of fish for his plan for the Post-flood adaption. Maybe God did not pick-and-choose with creatures in the flood, maybe it was just survival of the fittest.Edited by noachian, : No reason given.

Corals survived just as seeds and insects did; by holding on to dear life I suppose. I am no catastrophological scientist so I am not entirly sure of how it went or can't provide you with mountains of evidence to back it up. The flood was largely violent in the what the evolution vogon has named the Cambrian/pre-cambrian stratas, as the floods continued up-land, throught swampland, into mousit rainforest environments, eventually up into deciduous areas with rougher terrain, eventually when it stopped after all the water supplies fueling it had presumably ran out, the waters began to assuage into deep sphincters which we created our today oceans. This assuaging created nearly as much violance as the flood in its beginnings, causing alot of fossilization and petrification due to drowned corpses being covered in sediment as the waters ran off. This is how we got most of our Neogene (and also many Paleogene) fossils I have read/heard/studied. By the time the flood water levels reached the named Neogene regions; the 'fountains of the deep' had most likely ran out and thus the flood was only fueled by heavy rainfall, resulting in a slow paced rise in the water level and thus consuming very slowly the Neogene inhabitants, becaise of such a slow paced rise in flood level, many people and creatures were simply drowned by the water rather than being instantainiously fossilized by a massive 'out-burst' of water carrying thoussands of tons of sediment (how we got most of our fossil graveyard). In conclution; the Neogene creatures were fossilized by the assuaging waters, according to many theories anyhow. In concludion to the answer to your question; corals survived simply by ('luckily' o should I say divinly) not being to violantly hit by the floods, thus a small population survived and reproduced.Edited by noachian, : No reason given.Edited by noachian, : No reason given.

In answer to your question Tanypteryx, You or I are no people to question the Universal Father's methods of preserving specific spiecies. God always nature to handle itself most of the time, so dureing the flood; it was maybe safer/wiser to have the animals under human care.As for the 'innocent' animals, well there has to be sacrifices in order to get to where you want to be. Natural Selection is ten times worse. And about your 'animals-on-a-mountain top' scheme, its not up to me to explain to you why God chose an Ark.

Oh yes, fully aware that evolutionary science dates Neogene fossils over 20m years, the question you should be asking (yourself) is "Is the catastrophy theory wrong or are evolutionary sciences dating methods wrong?"

Yes, I do realise that this particular section of the forum is a sceince forum, and I am also aware that Divine Providence caused the flood to happen. Sometimes we just have to except that 'goddidit'. Here's how it goes: Sports is a Social Sphere, Politics is also a Scoial Sphere. Sports and politics interact with eachother (laws on sport, country teams, national pride, Prime Minister/Queen rewarding players of a sports team etc). Science is a Social Shpere, the sphere in which we learn about the natural world and how it works. Religion is also a Social Sphere, the sphere in which laws of morality are given and the sphere in which people worship their chosen god or choose to live their life. Religion and Politics interact, for instance here in the United Kingdom our Head of State (HM Queen Elizabeth II) is also Head of the Anglican Church and titled Defender of the Faith (whoes agreement is needed in the law making process). Also there are Bishops in the House of Lords (which agreement are needed in the law making process). Science and Religion also interact (well Religion tries its best, but Science has none of it), Religion lays down ethic and moral laws for science to abide by in its functions. Also Science gives an explaination to Religion for how photosythensis works. But often Science comes with the attitude of "Leave God out of this", I have never heard a Bishop saying "Leave science out of it", that would be most unusual. God plays little part in Science and Science plays little part in Religion because they are both two entirly different Scoial Spheres, "It is not Sciences place to say what is right or wrong, just as it is not Religions place to say how far the earth is from the sun." However this does not mean God has no place in Science, since he did invent it. Just like a Clergyman acknowlaging a baby is born due to the fushion of a sperm and egg cell, or a Scientist acknowlaging that the baby is given a soul by God when it forms. So yes this is a Science forum, but yes I can also say "goddidit".