Insect diversity falsifies the flood myth

[Arikay]

Thanks. I was pulling from memory.

2nd April 2003 at 08:38 PM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #18




The oldest oceanic lithosphere is somewhere in the ballpark of 180 million years old.

We not only have the oceanic lithosphere record, but we can also look at magnetized basalts (or other rocks with magnetic minerals) on continents which can be even older--that's where paleomagnetism comes from and we can figure out the movement of the plates over time.

There's a great paleomap site out there that has animations of the data over long periods of time...I'm not sure if I can find it at the moment...

 

[troodon]

2nd April 2003 at 08:54 PM look said this in Post #20

Perhaps I should have clarified my magnetic field question. I'll try again.

The earth's magnetic field has been measured for the past 150 years. The records indicate that the field has been decaying much like the half-life spans of radioactive materials. The decay rate show that the field will not be capable of supporting life in approximately 2,000 years. Furthermore, reverse extrapolation reveals that only 20,000 years ago, the field would have been as strong as a magnetic star. Life would not even be capable of going through mitosis. The field would have been way too strong for even amoebas to live. The findings indicate that life was only possible for the past 6,000 to 10,000 years. Any information on that?

Woah, woah. Does this means that decay rates for radioactive isotopes are also consistant and constant or is there something  extra super special about them?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

2nd April 2003 at 11:54 PM look said this in Post #20

Perhaps I should have clarified my magnetic field question. I'll try again.

The earth's magnetic field has been measured for the past 150 years. The records indicate that the field has been decaying much like the half-life spans of radioactive materials. The decay rate show that the field will not be capable of supporting life in approximately 2,000 years. Furthermore, reverse extrapolation reveals that only 20,000 years ago, the field would have been as strong as a magnetic star. Life would not even be capable of going through mitosis. The field would have been way too strong for even amoebas to live. The findings indicate that life was only possible for the past 6,000 to 10,000 years. Any information on that?

No difference. Do you really think we haven't heard this one before--on this very forum even???

The Earth's magnetic field fluctuates in both magnitude and polarity--something well documented in the ocean basins and correlated with continental rocks.

Now that that's falsified and out of the way, I presented numerous other threads that falsify YECism. Furthermore, there was a topic to this thread.

...and since you brought up "radioactive materials," those nuclides with long half-lives also falsify YECism.

 

[Arikay]

easy, sorry to say its missunderstanding of data, and false assumptions.

If you want to see some real evidence about the earths magnetic field, take a look here:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/potfld/faqgeom.shtml

The evidence shows the earths field changes in strength and flip flops.
Oddly enough, none of this evidence (the YEC evidence, not the NASA evidence) would explain the magnetic strips on the ocean floor.

2nd April 2003 at 08:54 PM look said this in Post #20

Perhaps I should have clarified my magnetic field question. I'll try again.

The earth's magnetic field has been measured for the past 150 years. The records indicate that the field has been decaying much like the half-life spans of radioactive materials. The decay rate show that the field will not be capable of supporting life in approximately 2,000 years. Furthermore, reverse extrapolation reveals that only 20,000 years ago, the field would have been as strong as a magnetic star. Life would not even be capable of going through mitosis. The field would have been way too strong for even amoebas to live. The findings indicate that life was only possible for the past 6,000 to 10,000 years. Any information on that?

 

[Arikay]

Sorry Look if we (I) sound condecending or short, however one thing you must understand is that some of the questions you are asking have been falsified here many times.

Many of us get tired when we present tons of information that falsifies the PRATT list (old "evidence" for YEC that has been falsified along time ago), and Tons of information that falsifies YEC and it is just ignored by people.

 

[look]

3rd April 2003 at 12:00 AM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #23
...and since you brought up "radioactive materials," those nuclides with long half-lives also falsify YECism.

Could it be that it was designed to last that long? There is a paper out there that is gaining acceptance by it's peers. The paper says that the core of the earth really is a nuclear reactor and the fuel would have to have very long life spans to function that long. If you was designing a planet that depended on a nuclear reactor for the purpose of maintaining heat at the core, would you use radioactive material? Why don't somebody start a "ask the geologist" type of thread? I've got a lot of questions to ask. I don't want to start a thread for each question!

 

[LadyShea]

look, do you have the name or author of the paper?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

...and yet if the Earth/Solar System/Universe is only supposed to be 6,000 years old, there would be no nuclides that are extinct either--nuclides that decayed to a daughter and the daughter is more abundant than expected (and the daughter is purely radiogenic). It's also deceptive to create material with the appearance that it has existed for billions of years when it has only existed for 6,000.

It's not exactly a new concept that the major heat source in the Earth is due to radioactive decay either. The core of the earth, however, due to inferences made on the density distribution of the earth and its rotational moment of inertia is mostly of an iron-nickel composition. The outer core is theorized to be liquid--it is convection in this liquid metallic core that causes the earth's magnetic field to exist in the first place (the dominant dipole field, that is).

 

[Gracchus]

I have worked my way through this thread, and once more I have seen a thread distracted from its subject by some trollish off-subject question. I exhort the participants, don't let creationists distract you. Point out to them the subject of the thread. Insist that they stay on topic, or ignore them.

 

[Arikay]

Not a bad idea.

Ok, So any creationist like to explain how the Insect diversity Doesnt Falsify the flood?

 

[look]

3rd April 2003 at 12:42 AM LadyShea said this in Post #27 look, do you have the name or author of the paper?

Better yet, here's some url addys!

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jan252002/126.pdf

http://www.nuclearplanet.com/lamonitor.htm

http://www.discover.com/aug_02/featplanet.html

http://www.nuclearplanet.com/scientific_papers.htm At this one, there are five papers you can see.

http://www.nuclearplanet.com/ This is Herndon's weblog.

Eat and enjoy!

 

[Zadok001]

look:

Drop it, you're off-topic. Start your own thread for the magnetic field. Do you have any argument as to why modern insect diversity DOESN"T falsify a WORLD-WIDE flood?

(JohnR7: We're aware of your views, and honestly, I agree that IF a flood occurred, it was definately local. However, your view is no where close to universal. Most YECs on this board believe in a global flood. This argument is meant to falsify the GLOBAL flood. It's not saying "A flood didn't happen," it's saying "A global flood that covered every mountain on earth approximately 4000 years ago did not happen.")

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

3rd April 2003 at 03:09 PM look said this in Post #31


Better yet, here's some url addys!

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jan252002/126.pdf

http://www.nuclearplanet.com/lamonitor.htm

http://www.discover.com/aug_02/featplanet.html

http://www.nuclearplanet.com/scientific_papers.htm At this one, there are five papers you can see.

http://www.nuclearplanet.com/ This is Herndon's weblog.

Eat and enjoy!

I am not sure why you think the existence of a natural nuclear reactor in what is now West Africa about 2 billion years ago supports a young earth. I think it is actually strong evidence for an old earth but that's another story. The original subject of this thread before you tried to change the subject is the fact that insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.   No YEC has even attempted an explanation which is not surprising since insect diversity does indeed falsify the worldwide flood. 

Of course, geology and paleontology and biogeography  falsify the worldwide flood and they along with other falsifications have been discussed on other thread. Could we please try to stick to the topic of the  this thread with is that insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

The Frum

 

[look]

1st April 2003 at 08:49 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #1

The subject of insects and the flood has come up on another thread so I thought I would expand on it a bit.  As with so many other falsifications of the flood myth creation "scientists" attempt to explain away a tiny part of the problem and then claim they have solved the entire problem.  As usual the YEC "answers" are far off the mark.

The diversity of insect life on earth is yet another falisification of the myth of a worldwide flood. It is totally absurd to claim that all of the approximately 850,000 species of insects on earth are descended from those who survived the flood either on floating mats of vegetation or on the ark as accidental passengers as creationists claim these days. In fact, the vast majority of insect species. including entire families and perhaps even entire orders could not have survived a year of flood on floating vegetation and many, perhaps the majority of species could not have survived the alleged worldwide flood either on or off the ark.

Consider the 2000+ species of the order Ephemeroptera (Mayflys), which only live in unpolluted fresh water, many only in running water. The adults have very short lives (some only live 90 minutes) during which they must mate and lay eggs. Even if they somehow live in the salty flood water, which most could not, they will be greatly spread out by the flood.  How will they find their mates and where will they lay their eggs? There are many other insect species that only live in fresh water during parts of their life cycle. How will they survive the flood? Did Noah have a fresh running stream on board the ark?

Then there are the social insects such as bees, ants and wasps,that require a queen and a colony. All those yellow jacket wasps that  fly around in the fall will die by winter, they are workers, the queen and colonies only survive in holes in the ground. How will they survive a worldwide flood on floating vegetation? Around here we have insects called sand hornets or more properly cicada killer wasps. They dig their burrows in sand or soft earth and lay their eggs in locusts that they have killed. The adults do not survive over winter. How will their eggs survive a worldwide flood? You can usually wash them out with a garden hose if you want to. How did they survive forty days of global rain and a year of flood that rearranged all the world's geology?

The caterpillar of the Monarch butterfly only lives on living milkweed plants and Monarchs go through more than one life cycle a year. The adults only feed on nectar and will only lay eggs on living milkweed. While many species of lepidoptera eat various plants, many others eat only specific plants, even if the caterpillars survived somehow, how would cocoons survive, and even if they did how would the adults find other adults to mate with and where would they lay their eggs. Generally, all these life cycles are complete in a year or less. Many of these butterflies and moths are quite fragile. Many other insects require specific living plants or animals for parts of their life cycles.  What about all those insects that feed on nectar from living flowers during parts of their life cycles? How would they survive a year on floating vegetation?


How about desert insects and arachnids that are adapted to live in very dry climates? Do you really think they could all survive for a year in water on floating vegetation?

There are also the cicadas, like the so-called 17 year locusts, that live most of their lives in the ground under a tree, then emerge, live for a short while, mate and lay their eggs in the branches of a tree. After a few days or weeks the eggs hatch and the larvae drop to the ground to live under the tree till the next cycle. They need healthy trees that will live until the next cycle. How did they survive on floating vegetation? What about all the other insects that require mature living trees for their life cycles? How could they have survived after the flood? Did Noah have a small forest on the ark?

These are only a few examples. I am sure that anyone with knowledge of entomology can think of many, many more.

BTW before you give me the “Darwin showed that insects could survive on logs and floating vegetation” claim here is my reply in advance. “Darwin speculated that some snail species survived for some time on floating mats of vegetation or logs going between islands and the mainland and he was probably right. This is not nearly the same as requiring all 'kinds' of insects and invertebrates to survive for more than a year on floating vegetation and then survive after landing on a flood devastated landscape.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

OK, Mr. Frum, I'm going to call it as I see it. I think you are trolling, just waiting to pounce on the poor hapless soul who is taking a stand on his faith in what the Bible plainly states.

Why do I say that? I'll explain that for you and all of the members of the board.

Any person who doesn't know better to dispute your statement without checking all of the references provided, deserves to be made a fool of.

BUT, what you have done is, you made a statement without any references for anybody to check out, thus setting him up for a thrashing. How is he going to even stay on level ground, if he doesn't know what you are talking about? For all he knows, you might have just made all of that up. See my point? We have to know where you are getting your information from. You need to provide references to each point of your statements. That goes for everybody, also. If you want a serious debate, then let's get real! Provide your references! Then, anyone can come into this debate with some idea of what you are talking about.

Until You start doing that, you shouldn't expect any serious debater to come and challenge your threads.

 

[Arikay]

Look: can you explain to us how all these insects survived the flood?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

3rd April 2003 at 08:27 PM look said this in Post #34



OK, Mr. Frum, I'm going to call it as I see it. I think you are trolling, just waiting to pounce on the poor hapless soul who is taking a stand on his faith in what the Bible plainly states.

Why do I say that? I'll explain that for you and all of the members of the board.

Any person who doesn't know better to dispute your statement without checking all of the references provided, deserves to be made a fool of.

BUT, what you have done is, you made a statement without any references for anybody to check out, thus setting him up for a thrashing. How is he going to even stay on level ground, if he doesn't know what you are talking about? For all he knows, you might have just made all of that up. See my point? We have to know where you are getting your information from. You need to provide references to each point of your statements. That goes for everybody, also. If you want a serious debate, then let's get real! Provide your references! Then, anyone can come into this debate with some idea of what you are talking about.

Until You start doing that, you shouldn't expect any serious debater to come and challenge your threads.

OK here are few references. Check them out.
Here is a page that says there are a million species.

http://www.earthlife.net/insects/six.html

about 350,000 of them are beetles.

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Coleoptera&contgroup=Endopterygota

Some general pages of links on insects

http://www.isis.vt.edu/~fanjun/text/Links.html

http://www.ento.vt.edu/Courses/Undergraduate/IHS/InsectsonWWW/html_files/general.html

Entomology on the world wide web

http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology/links.html

Here is a page on Ephemeroptera

http://www.esg.montana.edu/dlg/aim/ephem/ephem.html

monarch butterfies

http://www.monarchwatch.org/ The larvae only eat milkweed.

http://www.monarchmagic.com/faqcontent.html


They get the toxin that protects the adult and their coloration from substances in the milkweed.

http://nene.essortment.com/whatisamona_rgad.htm

Periodical Cicadas

http://www.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/Magicicada/Periodical/Index.html

The cicada killer wasp

http://www.uky.edu/Agriculture/Entomology/entfacts/misc/ef004.htm

Wasps including ground dwelling wasps. Note that Bumblebees also nest in the ground.

http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/nathis/insects/mowasp/

I didn't even mention that nearly all of the 8-10,000 species of ants live in the ground.

http://www.si.edu/resource/faq/nmnh/buginfo/wasps.htm

They have various strategies to survive local floods but they can drown and I don't think they could survive having thousands of feet of sediments deposited on their nests.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[euphoric]

3rd April 2003 at 08:27 PM look said this in Post #34



OK, Mr. Frum, I'm going to call it as I see it. I think you are trolling, just waiting to pounce on the poor hapless soul who is taking a stand on his faith in what the Bible plainly states.

Why do I say that? I'll explain that for you and all of the members of the board.

Any person who doesn't know better to dispute your statement without checking all of the references provided, deserves to be made a fool of.

BUT, what you have done is, you made a statement without any references for anybody to check out, thus setting him up for a thrashing. How is he going to even stay on level ground, if he doesn't know what you are talking about? For all he knows, you might have just made all of that up. See my point? We have to know where you are getting your information from. You need to provide references to each point of your statements. That goes for everybody, also. If you want a serious debate, then let's get real! Provide your references! Then, anyone can come into this debate with some idea of what you are talking about.

Until You start doing that, you shouldn't expect any serious debater to come and challenge your threads.

As my father used to say when I would try to BS my way out of a question I didn't have an answer for:

RTFQ  ATFQ

Now answer the question that was asked and stop stalling.

-brett

 

[look]

Thanks, Frum! I shall begin on these right away!

Euphoric, BUG OFF!!!

 

[euphoric]

3rd April 2003 at 11:57 PM look said this in Post #38

Thanks, Frum! I shall begin on these right away!

Euphoric, BUG OFF!!!

Answer the question.  Stop trying to change the subject and answer the question.

-brett

 

[look]

3rd April 2003 at 07:54 PM euphoric said this in Post #39



Answer the question.  Stop trying to change the subject and answer the question.

-brett

What is your problem?