Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Risky Rat) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Salt Water Taffy Message-ID: <1398@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 08:25:44 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1398 Posted: Wed Aug 14 08:25:44 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 22:25:39 EDT References: <384@phri.UUCP> <41500003@ur-univax.UUCP> Organization: Mousetrap Records Lines: 49 > [Steve Robiner] > well now, if you believe in the flood as described in the Bible, then Noah > took two of every animal that exists on the Earth and brought them on the Ark. > Well, since the Earth's water is more than 70% salt water the flood water > would be salty, so Noah just could have made a giant aquarium ( out of > wood of course ) and put the couple thousand species of freshwater fish > in there and then dumped them in the nearest lake after the flood. Right? > no problem. Well, except that there would not be anymore freshwater anywhere > on Earth - oh well. It seems to me that if one believes in the flood "as described in the Bible", then one will be unlikely to believe that Noah took fish on the Ark. It also seems to me that, as is often true, the above is characterized by ignorance of the idea being attacked. Whether the account of the flood in the Bible is true or not, the above objection does not really address that account. It only seems to. Another point is that if one wishes to construct a hypothesis (such as that above) one ought also seek to disprove it and/or construct alternatives. In this case, there is little difficulty. Suppose that Noah did as supposed here. What would he do with the freshwater fish, in view of the lack of freshwater? I think that we can all agree that rain exists today, and perhaps we can agree that it would be reasonable to extrapolate its occurrence backwards in time several millenia. We may suppose then, that there would be at least a few freshwater resevoirs being formed, into which the fish could be released. This also has its difficulties (e.g., how to account for global distribution of freshwater fish), and I'm sure some are thinking that I'm off on one of my pedantic over-literal binges, but I do so here to illustrate a point: Not all crap arguments in this newsgroup come from the creationist side. If Mr Robiner wishes to make a statement about with flood, he should (i) first find out what it is supposed to entail, and object that *that*, as opposed to objecting to his own private (i.e., straw) version of it, and (ii) try to think of plausible replies to his objections. The latter is usually a worthwhile exercise. It is virtually never a waste of time to consider how an argument might be received by someone not holding to the same point of view. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Ritual and Ceremony: Life Itself. |