Insect diversity falsifies the flood myth

[Pete Harcoff]

5th April 2003 at 10:08 PM troodon said this in Post #78

No insects on mats of vegetation then, right?

Someone better tell Hovind.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

6th April 2003 at 04:29 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #81



Someone better tell Hovind.

These YEC guys never can get their stories straight.  That's why I like the web page.

Debunking Creation Science with Creation Science

http://www.darwin.ws/contradictions/


The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[look]

5th April 2003 at 10:24 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #80



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.  So all you need are some totally ad hoc assumptions about how insects changed with the flood, hypermacro evolution to replace some families of insects that would have been wiped out or to produce new families of insects if they didn't exist before the flood along with maybe a magical insect house on the ark and an instaneous magical change causing several thousand insect species to become carnivores and you think you have solved the problem. 

I wonder, do you think parasitic wasps were parasitic before the flood?  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.  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

Thank you!

But I know Noah's flood was worldwide. :b :b :b

Besides, God had a big hand in it. Ta-ta!

 

[Arikay]

If god had a big hand in it (as in god did it) then it cant be considered science. As a supernatural all powerfull being is not provable.

Im still confused as to why its ok for a creationist to ignore statements made by god in the bible?

 

[Freedom777]

If god had a big hand in it (as in god did it) then it cant be considered science. As a supernatural all powerfull being is not provable.

Ya mean it can't be considered naturalist science Big difference.
Molecules to man evolution is not provable either Arikay

 

[Freedom777]

Frumious Many evolutionist disagree and counterdict each other all the time.

 

[Arikay]

Well, actually I didnt mean provable. But more or less falsifiable.

An all powerfull being being called in whenever we dont understand something, doesnt belong in science.

(BTW, Evolution would be single cell to man. or ape ancestor to man, as evolution doesnt deal with how molecules became life )

 

[Freedom777]

No matter what we know, theirs more that will never know.

 

[wblastyn]

Frumious Many evolutionist disagree and counterdict each other all the time.

Yes, because creationists are so consistant [/sarcasm]

No matter what we know, theirs more that will never know.

Hence, "theories" in science.

Molecules to man evolution is not provable either Arikay

How do you know?

 

[KitsapGirl]

Because the Bible says that everything with the breath of life its nostrils died in the flood and they have nostrils and breath. It also does say in a following verse that everything on dry land died so maybe YECs could weasel out of it that way. 

However,  as I pointed out many families of insects could not have survived on or off the ark.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Genesis 6:17 "And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die." He never said that the sea creatures would be destroyed.

 

[Split Rock]

Genesis 6:17 "And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die." He never said that the sea creatures would be destroyed.

Why are you bringing these threads back from the abyss?

 

[KitsapGirl]

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.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Genesis 6:17 "And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die." He never said that the sea creatures would be destroyed.

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."

 

[FishFace]

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.