TheLordShark wrote:Well he/she should be, she must've been on the Ark, given that the flood supposedly killed everything in the sea.
But as the existence of all the fish and reef building corals testifies, it didn't. Which is one of the biggest observational refutations of the entire "global flood" fantasy. Not least because, given what we know about the physiology of these organisms, any "global flood" that
actually happened would have exterminated these organisms wholesale. As for fantasy apologetic erections about the "global flood" supposedly keeping fresh and salt water regions separate, despite all the turbulence that would have been present, I'll regard such made up shit as eminently discardable, until I see a working Navier-Stokes fluid dynamic model upholding this assertion. None of which, of course, helps with the reef building corals, because not only would they have been subject to massive osmoregulatory shock, they'd also have been cut off from light by an extra 9,000 metres of water, which would have killed their symbiotic zooxanthelllae, and without those, the corals would have died in pretty short order. Similarly, all the aquatic angiosperm plants would have been exterminated wholesale by the same mechanism, not to mention being buried under millions of tons of silt.
But of course, creationists are so emotionally attached to their fantasy "global flood", despite the implications it has for their magic man as the ultimate biocidal murderer, one that makes Hitler look like a choirboy, that they'll continue making shit up to prop up this fantasy, no matter how often and how hard reality points and laughs at their efforts.
Ian Tattum wrote:It does not actually say that in Genesis- the water creatures seemingly had an exemption.
Except that for the reasons I've given above, said "exemption" would have been non-existent. The wholesale changes in salinity in every body of water on the planet, that would have arisen from the fantasy "global flood", would, if this fantasy event had ever happened, have wiped out
all the reef building corals,
all the stenohaline fishes (i.e, 99% of all known fish species), and
all the aquatic angiosperm plants. They would no longer exist. The tropical fish happily swimming in my two aquaria just 6 feet from my armchair point and laugh at creationist assertions with respect to this.
Ian Tattum wrote:So as Nessie currently lives in fresh water, he would have had a chance of surviving when the seas were massively inundated with fresh ground water and rain water.
Except for the fact that any such organism would have been left with nothing to eat. Which would kick in pretty quickly to kill said organism regardless of any osmoregulatory issues that might have been present. This is based upon the fact that in order to be
active in the cold waters of Loch Ness, any large marine organism would need to be warm-blooded. My understanding is that most of the fish found there reside in the shallows, which become warmer in summer, not an option open to a 50 foot animal, and the fish species in question enter a state of torpor when winter sets in. Consequently, these relatively small, low-mass, cold-blooded organisms can maintain life in the Loch, and also take advantage of the fact that they respire via gills. A large air-breathing marine organism would need to be warm-blooded to maintain any lengthy existence in the Loch, and such an organism would have a much higher energy intake requirement than a cold-blooded fish. Consequently, if such an organism were deprived of food for even a relatively short period of time, it would face death by starvation. I don't know of any warm-blooded organism that can survive without food for a year.
Ian Tattum wrote:Maybe it was the fall of the oceans which strranded him in Loch Ness?
My understanding is that Loch Ness has a connection to the North Sea, via the River Ness and the Beauly Firth. Indeed, some of the alleged sightings of "Nessie" have been in that river, one dating back to the 6th century. I gather the river is deep enough to allow a 50 foot animal to swim through it, as boats larger than this navigate the river regularly.
by 
