Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
4th April 2003 at 01:04 AM look said this in Post #40
What is your problem?
My problem is the fact that you are avoiding the question that was asked in the OP and yet you have the temerity to accuse the original poster of trolling. The question that was originally asked is one of many that pose a serious problem to the flood story and rather than address it, you are trying to weasel your way out of the question.
So one more time, how did these insects which have very strict dietary and environmental requirements survive a global flood?
Falsifies the flood myth in which framework? Creations or Evolutions?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Descarte, “It is truth very certain that, when it is not in our power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable.”
It falsifies the myth of Noah's Biblically described flood. Genesis. The evidence presented here proves that the events described in the Bible DID NOT OCCUR.
__________________ --Zadok001, aka Greater Good fanatic
4th April 2003 at 03:36 PM Zadok001 said this in Post #42
*bumpity bumpity bump*
Anyone actually want to answer the OP? Anyone?
Actually the 'OP' could be used to show that the Ark need not carry all of the different species, including INSECTS. I will explain.
While frum's references were acceptable for today's insect kingdom, the citations did not prove an important part of the question of how the insects survived the flood. It is, for most of you, well known that "speciation" does occur. The evolution scientists use it to show that evolution does occur. However, the same example can be used to argue that the ark did not need to carry all of these different species on board. With that in mind, it is not implausable to consider that there had to be some insect stowaways on that ship, from which all of today's insects decended from. Maybe God intended some of the insects to dispose of 12 tons of daily animal excrement, eh?
Another theory I can advance is that some of the bugs that lived underground survived via hibernation. It is known that some ant queens and also wasp queens can hibernate for up to one year. That of course doesn't account for all of the flying insects. Rest assured, there are different ways these insects survived the global flood and expanded to the present insect kingdom.
Take that, Zadok... Just kidding...
__________________
My Daddy owns the whole universe and Jesus is my older brother!!! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
4th April 2003 at 08:14 PM look said this in Post #45
Another theory I can advance is that some of the bugs that lived underground survived via hibernation. It is known that some ant queens and also wasp queens can hibernate for up to one year. That of course doesn't account for all of the flying insects. Rest assured, there are different ways these insects survived the global flood and expanded to the present insect kingdom.
Wouldn't all those thousands of feet of water cause too much pressure for anything to live underground?
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
4th April 2003 at 11:14 PM look said this in Post #45
Another theory I can advance is that some of the bugs that lived underground survived via hibernation. It is known that some ant queens and also wasp queens can hibernate for up to one year. That of course doesn't account for all of the flying insects. Rest assured, there are different ways these insects survived the global flood and expanded to the present insect kingdom.
Not if this flood was supposed to be cataclysmic enough to responsible for the current mountain ranges.
And troodon brings up the point of water pressure (which, if the mountain ranges were the same as today, would be a pretty big problem).
Either way, your theory has some hoop jumping to do if it is to explain how insects could have hibernated under ground.
4th April 2003 at 11:24 PM Arikay said this in Post #47
Yeah, but remember, those thousands of feet of water were supposed to have crushed all the animals into oil and coal.
Another good point.
This is why the flood hypothesis was tossed out 200 years ago. There are so many contradicting hypotheses for how things were supposed to have worked during the flood, it is virtually impossible to satisfy the criteria for all of them.
Except, of course, if you start randomly invoking God whenever a flood hypothesis fails.
Without saying god did it (which goes against literal creation) I have yet to see a flood theory that doesnt contradict itself.
So far, the best Flood Model I have seen is the flood Model that says the flood waters covered Mt Everest. It may have big problems with science, but it has the least amount of creationist contradictions. Although it still has quite a few.
Just kidding... 
Linear Mode
