Re: The Still-Persistent Myth of the World Flood
| Newsgroups | talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.archeology |
|---|---|
| Organization | wokiesux |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 11/3/24 8:38 PM, [email protected] wrote: > *+-I always wondered: was the flood supposed to be fresh water or salt water? > *+-If it was fresh water (as rain normally is), it would have killed off much > *+-of the ocean life that could only survive in salt water. Conversely, if it > *+-somehow rained salt water, then freshwater-adapted life would not have > *+-survived. > > The reason Jews and Christians see fish as a particularly religious food is > because fish survived the flood, hence are somehow purer. Post-glacial flooding would have been mostly FRESH water ... meaning potentially heavy losses for coastal aquatic life. FISH can MOVE - so they'd have moved away from the fresher water front as much as possible. More fixed kinds of life however - all depends on their real- world tolerances. Hmmm ... 'death layers' of aquatic life that is decidedly not fresh-tolerant could be a good proxy dater ! :-) BTW, *rain* is always gonna be fresh. But then this was all supposed to be MAGIC stuff, right ? :-)