[tacticalogic]

If the fossils are the result of animals killed by the flood, and Noah didn't take any of the fish or other aquatic animals aboard the arc because they would survive the flood, then all of the fossils should be land animals.

There should be no fossils of aquatic animals to speak of, since they wouldn't have been killed, and therefore wouldn't have left any fossils behind.

[CottShop]

[[If the fossils are the result of animals killed by the flood, and Noah didn’t take any of the fish or other aquatic animals aboard]]

Not true- He had an aquarium with goldfish and japanese fighting fish, and fresh water catfish, as well he had a freezer full of Haddock and Shark, and various other yummies to snack on which fell overboard and got stuck in the mud when hte ark hit a speedbump.

[[There should be no fossils of aquatic animals to speak of, since they wouldn’t have been killed,]]

Actually- yeah they would have died- this wasn’t just a nice little trickle event- the pressures and sediments were massive- some might have survived but it’s almost a certainty some would have died and been buried alive as we have fossils of fish in the act of giving birth that were fossilized.

[GodGunsGuts]

Are you honestly postulating that the rapid currents and deposition involved in a GLOBAL FLOOD would not rapidly bury and fossilize any aquatic animals?

[editor-surveyor]

"There should be no fossils of aquatic animals to speak of, since they wouldn't have been killed, and therefore wouldn't have left any fossils behind"

That makes no sense at all. The flood waters were intensely hot, and very little could have survived.

[Liberty1970]

If the fossils are the result of animals killed by the flood, and Noah didn't take any of the fish or other aquatic animals aboard the arc because they would survive the flood, then all of the fossils should be land animals. There should be no fossils of aquatic animals to speak of, since they wouldn't have been killed, and therefore wouldn't have left any fossils behind.

There was a 100% death rate for terrestrial life during the Flood. But so long as there was even a 0.01% (or whatever) survival rate among sea life, the sea life would not have needed to go on the ark. There would have been sufficient survivors to re-establish their populations after things settled down. As a practical matter I expect that the vast majority of aquatic life did die in the Kataklusmos. (To use the Greek NT term for this event.)

I notice the evolutionists here have once again failed to respond to the article in question.

[count-your-change]

Fish are killed by floods as I’ve observed. Muddy water and high amounts of sediments often choke fishs’ gills and fish are often trapped in pools of receding flood waters. Flood pools were always a good place to catch fish.

So you’re comment, “There should be no fossils of aquatic animals to speak of, since they wouldn’t have been killed, and therefore wouldn’t have left any fossils behind.”, is at odds with reality.

[demshateGod]

Except the earth changed drastically under the weight of all that water. Mountains collapsing perhaps, earth moving and covering those big lizards that lived in the ocean.