Insect diversity falsifies the flood myth

Why are you bringing these threads back from the abyss?

__________________
“The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong

"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver

"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)

I was on another thread. I asked a question, and was directed to go and read them. It was requested that I reply in the various threads.

Sorry to frustrate you, just following directions.

On this thread I was talking about land insects not sea creatures. The fact that the mixing of fresh and salt water implicit in the flood story would have killed off many "kinds" of sea life is a seperate falsification not discussed on this thread.

It does bring up the point of sea mammals. Seals, sea lions and walrus all have the "breath of life" in their nostrils. They must have had interesting trips to the ark and from wherever the ark landed back to their homes. Watching the pair of elephant seals and the walrus pair climb the gangway up into the ark must have been fun as well.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

__________________
A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

Alexander Pope

While reading the OP, I thought of something. Creationists are often harping on about how X brand of plant has Y brand of animal which fertilises it and only it, such as hummingbirds and vanilla or something like this.

There are two options: either each of these was taken on board the ark, or they developed from some other species after the flood. Creationists must reject the latter, since otherwise they would have no argument about this sort of irreducible complexity. (And, of course, since these relationships are irreducibly complex, it would destroy the entire argument of IC.)
But the only alternative is for all of these species to be on board the ark - which leaves the idea that one of each "kind" boarded the ark in tatters, since the kind can either now represent individual species, or it has no taxonomic meaning whatsoever. If kind = species, then you can't fit every kind aboard the ark. Even otherwise there is this risk, since you're adding a lot of species than you would otherwise be able to leave off. But if kind is just an inconsistent meaningless jumble (as we always knew) then creationists cannot use the word to make arguments about macroevolution, or even about the number of animals on the ark.

However, it would make more sense for kind to have a nearly consistent meaning, being that of roughly species, since people tend to distinguish between organisms roughly at a species level, and the implication of the passage is that it is roughly the same level - it doesn't say, "Noah took on board the minimum number of organisms while ensuring that biological diversity would be preserved where it couldn't be re-established by evolution."

Of course, the entire argument is premised on the assumption that creationists are sensible and consistent, which we know is rarely true.