• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Insect diversity falsifies the flood myth

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Frumious Bandersnatch, Apr 1, 2003.

  1. look

    look A New Species of Man®

    814
    +9
    Word of Faith
    Single
    US-Constitution
    YEP

    Who knows? Those requirements of the PRESENT DAY SPECIES are not necessarily the same requirements of the pre-flood species, are they? If so, can you prove that?

    Why don't you go ask Noah? Why would there have to be HUGE ant colonies or for that matter, HOUSING for a few hundred thousand species of beetles? Have you forgotten about speciation? A single queen ant of each kind would do nicely, and a couple from each major kind of beetle would be able to replenish the earth.

    Can you prove that the pre-flood insects needed as much care as your "bug houses"? Besides, there is a BIG difference between a small confined space as your "bug house" and a barge with over 50,000 sq. ft. in space. In considering that the pre-flood insects were not necessarily similar to today's insects, why do you feel that the ark didn't have enough space for a few butterflies? If they didn't require care in the wild, then what makes it different in the ark (not knowing if there was even a garden in the ark)?

    In closing, the pre-flood world perished and the survivors (insects to man) had to (here is that evolutionary term, *AAGHH*) ADAPT to the new and drastically changed enviroment. Thereby making the creation behave and live differently than they did before the flood.

    That was why I added the part about the dietary needs of all the survivors being changed in post #59.

    Bye! :wave:
     
  2. Arikay

    Arikay HI

    +177
    Taoist
    Well, the article did get quite a few things wrong, one is
    Fishes. . . . . . . . . . . .20,600. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .zero
    Other marine life . . . 192,605. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .zero


    Fish and marine life are Living. Either the bible lied when it said all life was killed, or they died too.

    A problem with your insect idea is that you are making assumptions. You assume that they lived differently back then, without any proof. They may have, but you have no evidence to support it.
     
  3. Frumious Bandersnatch

    Frumious Bandersnatch Contributor

    +306
    Unitarian
    I am talking about entire families and maybe even entire orders of insects that could not survive on or off the ark NOT species. You not only need hyperevolution you need hyper macroevolution. This idea that there have been huge changes in the requirments of tens of  thousands of different species in less than 5000 years is so absurd that it hardly requires comment but since you cling to it I must. You can't get 2000 species of ephemeroptera, for example, from non ephemeroptera species in 5000 years without super rapid macro evolution and ephemeroptera could not have survived the flood on or off the ark.

    As I said it's not the room. It is the necessity of caring for all these insects. BTW there are about 9,000 species of ants worldwide.
    http://entomology.unl.edu/lgh/insectid/lec30_Hymenoptera_bees_ants.htm


    and about 350,000 species of beetles

    http://wildlife.faunanet.gov.au/group.cfm?Group_ID=23

    How much speciation do you want in 5000 years? I guess you could start with a thousand beetle species and get to current numbers with only 70 speciation events per month on average.  That's only a little over 2 new species every day. It may make make sense to you, but not to me.  Somehow I have trouble imaginging two new species of beetle popping into existence every day through hyperevolution.

    Except that there is NO evidence of these super rapid changes in the past 5000 years and the changes you require go far beyond speciation.  You require macro evolution at rates that far exceed any ever proposed by evolutionary biologists and your microevolution rates are really off the wall.

    So if you want to believe in super rapid hyper-macroevolution go ahead.  It is actually rather amusing that you deny evolution beyond speciation on one hand and invoke hypermacroevolution when your worldwide flood myth is challegened by reality.  

    So their dietary needs changed from vegetarians to carnivores for all currently carnivorous species but they are all still the same "kind".   The idea that no animals ate meat before the flood is so silly that I don't see how anyone can accept it. Certainly no one but a YEC would believe something that goofy and there are even a lot of YECs who are not that far out. Let me ask you this question. Was a vegetarian praying mantis still a member of the praying mantis kind?


    (Added in edit: I am aware that the usual definition of macroevolution in evolutionary biology is speciation. I decided to use the creationist definition of speciation as microevolution for puposes of this discussion. )


    The Frumious Bandersnatch
     
  4. Frumious Bandersnatch

    Frumious Bandersnatch Contributor

    +306
    Unitarian
    It's not just that there is no proof. There is no evidence for this ad hoc assumption and evidence against it. I am sure new insect life styles evolved in the cretaceous with the radiation of flowering plants but there is certainly no evidence that most insects lived radically different lifestyles a few thousand years ago or that there were drastically fewer species of insects a few thousand years ago. Of course there is no evidence of the "preflood" behavior of animals of any kind because there never was a worldwide flood.

    The Frumious Bandersnatch
     
  5. look

    look A New Species of Man®

    814
    +9
    Word of Faith
    Single
    US-Constitution
    That list is a list of the different species ONBOARD the ark. Of course the fish were not on board.

    This article will show you (if you want to hear) plausible solutions to your problem. Of course it is only speculation from observations of the evidence before us. Just like evolution.

    If the whole earth were covered by water in the flood, then there would have been a mixing of fresh and salt waters. Many of today's fish species are specialized and do not survive in water of radically different saltiness to their usual habitat. So how did they survive the flood?

    Note that the Bible tells us that only land-dwelling, air-breating animals and birds were taken on the ark (Genesis 7:14-15, 21-23).

    We do not know how salty the sea was before the flood. The flood was initiated by the breaking up of the "fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11). Whatever the "fountains of the great deep" were (see Noah's Flood - What did all the water come from?), the flood must have been associated with massive earth movements, because of the weight of the water alone, which would have resulted in great volcanic activity.

    Volcanoes emit huge amounts of steam, and underwater lava creates hot water/steam, which dissolves minerals, adding salt to the water. Furthermore, erosion accompanying the movement of water off the continents after the flood would have added salt to the oceans. In other words, we would expect the pre-flood ocean waters to be less salty than they were after the flood.

    The problem for fish coping with saltiness is this: fish in fresh water tend to absorb water, because the saltiness of their body fluids draws in water (by osmosis). Fish in saltwater tend to lose water from their bodies because the surrounding water is saltier than their body fluids.


    Saltwater/Freshwater Adaptation in Fish Today

    Many of today's marine organisms, especially estuarine and tidepool species, are able to survive large changes in salinity. For example, starfish will tolerate as low as 16-18 percent of the normal concentration of seawater.


    There are migratory species of fish that travel between salt and fresh water. For example, salmon, striped bass, and Atlantic spurgeon spawn in fresh water and mature in salt water. Eels reproduce in salt water and grow to maturity in fresh water streams and lakes. So, many of today's species of fish are able to adjust to both fresh water and salt water.

    There is also evidence of post-flood specialization within a kind of fish. For example, the Atlantic sturgeon is a migratory salt/freshwater species but the Siberian sturgeon (a different species of the same kind) lives only in fresh water.

    Many families[1] of fish contain both fresh and saltwater species. These include the families of toadfish, garpike, bowfin, sturgeon, herring/ anchovy, salmon/trout/pike, catfish, clingfish, stickleback, scorpionfish, and flatfish. Indeed, most of the families alive today have both fresh and saltwater representatives. This suggests that the ability to tolerate large changes in salinity was present in most fish at the time of the flood. Specialization, through natural selection, may have resulted in the loss of this ability in many species since then.

    Hybrids of wild trout (fresh water) and farmed salmon (migratory species) have been discovered in Scotland,[2] suggesting that the differences between freshwater and marine types may be quite minor. Indeed, the differences in physiology seem to be largely differences in degree rather than kind.


    The kidneys of freshwater species excrete excess water (the urine has low salt concentration) and those of marine species excrete excess salt (the urine has high salt concentration). Saltwater sharks have high concentrations of urea in the blood to retain water in the saltwater environment whereas freshwater sharks have low concentrations of urea to avoid accumulating water. When sawfish move from salt water to fresh water they increase their urine output 20 fold, and their blood urea concentration decreases to less than one-third.

    Major public aquariums use the ability of fish to adapt to water of different salinity from their normal habitat to exhibit freshwater and saltwater species together. The fish can adapt if the salinity is changed slowly enough.

    So, many fish species today have the capacity to adapt to both fresh and salt water within their own lifetimes.

    Aquatic air-breathing mammals such as whales and dolphins would have been better placed than many fish to survive the flood because of the turbidity of the water, changes in temperature, etc. The fossil record testifies to the massive destruction of marine life, with marine creatures accounting for 95 percent of the fossil record.[3] Some, such as trilobites and ichthyosaurs, probably became extinct at that time. This is consistent with the Bible account of the flood beginning with the breaking up of the "fountains of the great deep" (i.e., beginning in the sea; "the great deep" means the oceans).

    There is also a possibility that stable fresh and saltwater layers developed and persisted in some parts of the ocean. Fresh water can sit on top of salt water for extended periods of time. Turbulence may have been sufficiently low at high latitudes for such layering to persist and allow the survival of both freshwater and saltwater species in those areas.

    Conclusion

    There are many simple, plausible explanations for how fresh and saltwater fish could have survived the flood. There is no reason to doubt the reality of the flood as described in the Bible.

    Footnotes

    "Family is one of the main levels of classification for fish. In fish there is plenty of evidence for hybridization within families -- the trout/salmon family, for example -- suggesting that families may represent the biblical "kind" in fish.



    B. Charron, "Escape to Sterility for Designer Fish" New Scientist, 1995, 146(1979):22.



    There is a huge number of marine fossils. If they really formed in the manner claimed by evolutionists (over hundreds of millions of years), then transitional fossils showing gradual change from one kind to another should be most evident here. But they are conspicuous by their absence. Furthermore, fossils of such things as jellyfish, starfish, and clams are found near the bottom of the fossil record of multi-cellular organisms, and yet they are still around today, fundamentally unchanged.

    It's the same evidence you think supports evolution. ADAPTATION or survival of the fittest or natural selection. Take your pick. Something made them adapt! The fossil evidence shows that! Both sides make assumptions, both sides argue, but the creation science can be shown as the more valid theory by logic. There are more problems with the theory of evolution which really shows that it is more of a religion. An "Atheistic Humanistic" approach, which you will of course deny.:rolleyes:
     
  6. Arikay

    Arikay HI

    +177
    Taoist
    You do realize that if:
    If the whole earth were covered by water in the flood, then there would have been a mixing of fresh and salt waters. Many of today's fish species are specialized and do not survive in water of radically different saltiness to their usual habitat. So how did they survive the flood?

    Note that the Bible tells us that only land-dwelling, air-breating animals and birds were taken on the ark (Genesis 7:14-15, 21-23).


    Is true, then god is a liar. Plain and simple.

    "Gen 7:4__ For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. "

    Notice, the "and every living substance that I have made [god made fish] will i destroy from off the face of the earth."

    So according to your creationist argument, God is a liar.


    "Gen 7:23__ And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark. "

    Although it does make a partial list, it also says "and noah only remained [alive] and they that [were] with him in the ark."

    So again, the creationist argument ignores this part of the bible.
    And calls god a Liar.
     
  7. Frumious Bandersnatch

    Frumious Bandersnatch Contributor

    +306
    Unitarian
    Look,

    It is off topic here but I will address a few of the things wrong with your fishy post.
    Actually the fossil record of bottom dwelling organisms is not really like what is claimed here and falsifies the flood myth but that's another story. I have posted on it before. Maybe I will again later.

    Since you mention the fossil record of fish I will post a bit on it here. Let's make the absurd assumption that there actually was a global flood. I agree that many fish could have survived. However, many fish did die. And just like mammals their survival was proportional to where they got buried in the fossil record. None of the genera that got buried deep are still alive. I wonder why not. These were fish that lived all over the oceans. Glenn Morton provides a detailed discussion of the problems that fish fossils provide for the myth of a global flood. Here are the detail of survival.

    http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fish.htm

    <TT>youngest period # Fish genera # living genera # extinct genera </TT>

    <TT>Recent &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3245 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3245 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0
    Pleistocene &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;422 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;408 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14
    Pliocene &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;416 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;372 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;44
    Miocene &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;496 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;320 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;176
    Oligocene &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;321 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;207 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;114
    Eocene &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;398 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;157 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;241
    Paleocene &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;124 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;53 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;71
    Cretaceous &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;340 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;38 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;302
    Jurassic &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;146 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;141
    Triassic &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;175 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;175
    Permian &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;86 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 86
    Pennsylvanian &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;106 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;106
    Mississippian &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;163 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;163
    Devonian &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;524 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;524
    Silurian &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;57 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;57
    Ordovician &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5
    Cambrian &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1
    </TT>

    <TT>Oldest period</TT>
    And before you bring the coelacanth which might be considered a single exception, Glenn has pointed out that extant species are of a different genus than any found in the fossil record.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep02.html

    None of the fish that got buried below what we call the Triassic Survived the flood. What a coincidence!&nbsp;How do you explain this burial pattern? Perhaps the solution is that there never was a worldwide flood.

    The Frumious Bandersnatch

    The Frumious Bandersnatch
     
  8. look

    look A New Species of Man®

    814
    +9
    Word of Faith
    Single
    US-Constitution


    How can you be so sure they couldn't survive on the ark? Do you have the blueprints for the ark?



    I would guess you missed my point about them being able to take care of themselves...:rolleyes:

    Why do you have a hard time with the thought of .5 million pairs of each on the ark? :scratch:

    And we are supposed to overlook the missing links for your theory?

    I don't deny speciation, I deny that it took as long as you say it did.

    Oh please! Is a vegetarian human still a member of the human kind? :rolleyes:


    Well, I would rather use the same definitions as the darwinites *gasp! Did I really say that?* ;)
     
  9. look

    look A New Species of Man®

    814
    +9
    Word of Faith
    Single
    US-Constitution


    I would guess you didn't see my response in post #65

    You forgot the "every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind", part. But that's OK.

    Yes, I do agree God made fish, but they didn't live on the face of the earth. It's very strange that you can't see the context is in the "FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH" part, not the "from the depths of the seas". You have a really serious problem seeing the verses, even though they are right before your eyes. Can I pray for you? :pray:
     
  10. Arikay

    Arikay HI

    +177
    Taoist
    See the problem here is that you are *interpreting* the verse to fit your needs.

    By interpreting this verse in this way you are calling gods statement in Gen 7:4 a lie.

    God stated he would destroy "every living substance" Fish are alive. So either god is a liar or the fish died.

    Can you not see that you are interpreting the bible and twisting it to your will? Can I pray for you? (hehe :) )
     
  11. look

    look A New Species of Man®

    814
    +9
    Word of Faith
    Single
    US-Constitution

    This is assuming that the burial layers are many millions of years old. How do you know they are really that old?

    Without the hypothesis of eons required to form these layers, it does indeed prove there was a worldwide flood. BTW, it is impossible for any fossil to form without the rapid layering of sedimentation. See citation.
     
  12. Frumious Bandersnatch

    Frumious Bandersnatch Contributor

    +306
    Unitarian
    No but the directions for building it are pretty clear. I don't remember the part about the fresh water streams and ponds for the mayflies. I don't remember the part about the living trees for the periodical cicadas to live under either.
    There are a huge numbers of insects that couldn't take care of themselves on this wooden big boat. If you look into the care and feeding of insects you will find it is far more difficult than you are letting on. I suppose the terminites did OK though.

    You are the one who said they didn't have to be there. I don't have a problem with a million beetles crawling around this big boat.

    Your "model" for insect survival requires far more than speciation as I pointed out.

    In case you haven't noticed humans are omnivores. They can chose what they eat. Many animals are not omnivores. Mantids only eat other insects. They never eat anyting else. They would have to be quite different creatures to live by eating leaves and grass.&nbsp; Here's a little bit on caring for them.
    http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2154.html
    I wonder who cared for them on the ark. Oh that's right they ate veggies before the flood. I forgot.&nbsp; I guess someone just had to feed them some grapes every now and then.

    A snake that lived by eating only fruits and veggies&nbsp;would also be a rather different "kind" of snake.

    The Frumious Bandersnatch
     
  13. look

    look A New Species of Man®

    814
    +9
    Word of Faith
    Single
    US-Constitution
    Arikay, you're sick! :sick:

    I think anybody can see that you are the one who is interpreting God's scripture by lifting a verse out of it's context. When you read the Bible, or really anything you study, you have to accept it all in the whole context, not just take a part of a verse out and say 'this is what it says'. You look silly doing that. But that's your problem.
     
  14. Frumious Bandersnatch

    Frumious Bandersnatch Contributor

    +306
    Unitarian
    No. There is no assumption about the specific ages of the layers.&nbsp; The results show that very different populations of fish lived on earth at different times and were deposited in time sequence. If all the fish that ever lived, lived in the preflood ocean and all their fossils were buried by the flood they should be buried together and they clearly aren't.

    So you can't explain it. I am not surprised.&nbsp;

    So are you claiming that all fossils were deposited by the worldwide flood? Most creationists don't. Most YECs claim that some portion of the fossil record is post flood.&nbsp; Why don't you tell us exactly which layers and which fossils were deposited by the alleged worldwide flood? Then we can focus our discussion on those layers. If this totally unique worldwide event is not a myth it should be pretty easy to indentify specifically which fossils it deposited. Right? So please answer this simple question for us.

    The Frumious Bandersnatch
     
  15. Arikay

    Arikay HI

    +177
    Taoist
    Im sick? Thank. :)

    Well, when I take the bible literally, I refuse to ignore parts of it over other parts. To do so is to not take it literally.

    In Gen 7:4 God States that he will kill all living substances (animals). So either God Is a Liar, or the fish died.

    Why do you ignore this line? It is a stement made by god, yet you are refusing to take this line literally why?

    Why do you cling to a man made theory (AIG) over gods inspired word?

    If we can ignore this statement made by god, how many other statements can we just ignore?

    Please, tell me how ignoring a statement made by god, is taking the bible literally?

     
  16. look

    look A New Species of Man®

    814
    +9
    Word of Faith
    Single
    US-Constitution
    That's assuming that they were the same in the pre-flood state as they are now.

    Neither do I. However I was advancing several hypothesis about the insects.

    Not quite. Speciation is speciation. Notwithstanding that new species are being discovered almost every day. My disagreement is the theory it took millions of years.

    I agree. It's called adaptation.

    Now you're thinking!

    That's the first time I have ever seen anybody answer their own quote. You're pretty sly, it looks like you tried to make the quote about the mantids one of mine. Weird. Just where did that quote come from, anyway?
     
  17. look

    look A New Species of Man®

    814
    +9
    Word of Faith
    Single
    US-Constitution

    Here is Genesis 7

    1. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
    2. Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
    3. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
    4. For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
    5. And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.
    6. And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
    7. And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
    8. Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
    9. There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
    10. And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
    11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
    12. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
    13. In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
    14. They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
    15. And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
    16. And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.
    17. And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
    18. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
    19. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
    20. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
    21. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
    22. All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
    23. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark[/u].
    24. And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.


    It seems to me, no mention of any fishes or anything that lived in the waters is in the context. The verses always talk about lifeforms that lives on the ground. Out of all of the lifeforms mentioned here in these verses, marine lifeforms are NEVER mentioned here.

    Arikay, you are full of disrespect for God and you are a liar. It is plainly obvious for all to see. I've put the whole scripture out there for everybody to see. You got caught with your pants down. *Arikay sheepishly pulls pants up*:D
     
  18. troodon

    troodon Be wise and be smart

    +51
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    No insects on mats of vegetation then, right?
     
  19. Arikay

    Arikay HI

    +177
    Taoist
    You do realize by treating some scripture over others you are interpreting the bible?

    I agree, the animals were killed off, however god also says all Living creatures, you are again ignoreing that line.
    In Gen 1 god created fish and called them living creatures.

    It doesnt appear you are trully defending the scripture, only your version of the scripture, the version which supports your beliefs.

    I also would question why it was nessacary to try and insult me at the end?

    :( :rolleyes:

    :D






     
  20. Frumious Bandersnatch

    Frumious Bandersnatch Contributor

    +306
    Unitarian
    The quote on mantids came from this link which is in my post right before the quote after I say "Here's a little bit on caring for them. "

    http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2154.html

    Now it looks to me like you are claiming that animals changed from one "kind", ie a kind that was vegetarian only, to a different kind, a kind that is carnivorous only, not only rapidly but instantly after the flood. So much for the "kinds" barrier that creationists talk so much about. You really are some outrageous evolutionist.&nbsp; So all you need are some totally ad hoc assumptions about how insects changed with the flood, hypermacro evolution&nbsp;to replace some families of insects that would have been wiped out or to produce&nbsp;new families of insects if they didn't exist&nbsp;before the flood along with maybe a magical insect house on the ark and an instaneous&nbsp;magical change&nbsp;causing&nbsp;several thousand insect species&nbsp;to become carnivores&nbsp;and you think you have solved the problem.&nbsp;

    I wonder, do you think parasitic wasps were parasitic before the flood? &nbsp;Does having their larvae feed on other insects count as being carnivores? I would think so. There are estimated to be as many as 100,000 species in the Superfamily Ichneumonoidae, did they all pop up magically after the flood or did they adapt from wasps that laid their eggs in fruits.&nbsp; http://www.earthlife.net/insects/parasit.html

    How much instantaneous hypermacroevolution are you invoking here? You have gone way past Richard Dawkins. You may be the world's most fervent evolutionist.

    The Frumious Bandersnatch
     
Loading...