The insect kinds

[AV1611VET]

Ah, but AV, this is the key difference, no one just accepted the Big Bang because some holy book told them to. Again, I am not overly fond of refering to TalkOrigins prefering primary sources, I'll point out the following Evidences for the Big Bang

So you see, if we were to believe in the Flood of Noah it would require more than a story that looks almost indisitinguishable from any other myth story from any other ancient society. We'd require some actual data in support of that. Independent data.

But you raise a good point. And indeed this is how science works as opposed to dogmatic religion.

I have no idea what point you're making, Thaumaturgy.

Again, bring me up to speed please? What's the problem with beetles and the Ark all of a sudden?

Does anyone know?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is the question too hard?

 

[Psudopod]

The problem is this:

You either have to have a small enough number of species to fit on the ark, and then hyper evolution faster than any evoltionist proposes to get the number of species we see today;

or

there was not enough room on the ark to accomodate everything.

Personally, I don't think this is the biggest problem with the flood, if you are going to invoke miracle solutions. God could have made every animal teeny-tiny minute, and fed them and cleaned them all. Makes the whole ark business kind of redundant, but hey, I'm not god and if a deity wants an ark, I'm not going to stop him.

The biggest problem with the god did it approach is that you have to explain why god put in all that false history. But back to your orginal point, the beetles issue is to show the ark holds no water scientifically, which I think you agree with.

 

[AV1611VET]

But back to your orginal point, the beetles issue is to show the ark holds no water scientifically, which I think you agree with.

Indeed I do --- current scientific paradigms leave no room for miracles.

 

[tanzanos]

If you ask the devil what he thinks of the flood then he would probably reply thus:

GOD DID IT!!!!!!
I SWEAR I DID NOT DO IT!
GOD murdered the whole human race!
Women, children, babes, animals, the whole damn lot!
I was there. I witnessed the genocide. It was horrible.
People drowning!
I couldn't do anything to help! God would not allow me. He is my boss after all!
I cannot intervene without his implicit permission.
I AM INNOCENT!!!!

 

[pgp_protector]

If you ask the devil what he thinks of the flood then he would probably reply thus:

GOD DID IT!!!!!!
I SWEAR I DID NOT DO IT!
GOD murdered the whole human race!
Women, children, babes, animals, the whole damn lot!
I was there. I witnessed the genocide. It was horrible.
People drowning!
I couldn't do anything to help! God would not allow me. He is my boss after all!
I cannot intervene without his implicit permission.
I AM INNOCENT!!!!

Wouldn't that go for any action attributed to the Devil ?
After all can Satan do anything without God's permission ?
If he can, why did he need God's permission to mess with Job ?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I may be wrong here, but the Bible says only things that breathe through their nostrils were taken. This excludes beetles (and all other insects, for that matter).

So how did they survive, if they weren't on the Ark?

 

[AV1611VET]

I may be wrong here, but the Bible says only things that breathe through their nostrils were taken. This excludes beetles (and all other insects, for that matter).

So how did they survive, if they weren't on the Ark?

.

Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Indeed I do --- current scientific paradigms leave no room for miracles.

That's the whole point! You level accusations against belief in the "Big Bang" as being as weird as belief in some hyper-evolution of "kinds" after the Flood. But you ignore the fact that science specifically doesn't work with "miracles".

When a scientist sees the word "miracle" the first thing they think is: "Unproven".

That's kind of how miracles work. You can't prove them, you can't "recreate them", you can't "model" them, you can't really understand them.

But when someone comes along and says they believe in the Big Bang it isn't because they are left to throw their hands up because it was a "miracle"! No, it's because there are independent lines of evidence directly in support of that hypothesis.

Right now the only "evidence" for the Noachian Flood is the Bible. In fact the evidence for a relatively recent global flood are, effectively NON-EXISTENT. It is pretty close to being able to "prove a negative", which is pretty strongly against the hypothesis of a global flood.

So, you see, when you question people's belief in the Big Bang and compare that to some religious belief in the Global Flood and some bizarro-hyper-evolution of kinds afterwards, you fail. Your comparison doesn't hold.

One is an ad hoc hand-waiving explanation to support a religious myth, the other is the direct result of multiple lines of independent evidence in a wholly natural framework.

No one came up with the "big bang" theory and then looked for a way to force others to believe it. It came from trying to figure out why reality looked the way it did.

That's why this is an important issue.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're 2 for 2 now --- the more you talk, the less I think we understand each other.

That's the whole point! You level accusations against belief in the "Big Bang" as being as weird as belief in some hyper-evolution of "kinds" after the Flood.

I don't even understand what you just said here. What accusations? The Big Bang didn't happen. Hyper-evolution doesn't happen. And I'm kinda lost here in what point you're making.

But you ignore the fact that science specifically doesn't work with "miracles".

That's because you make up paradigms that rule out any miracles. Like Jesus walking on water. You [not necessarily you] say He walked on ice, which clearly violates the Scriptures. When asked if it was liquid water He walked on, you simply claim He couldn't have, since no one else can. Well, duh. If everyone else could, then it wouldn't have been a miracle. (Yes, I know, Peter walked on water, too.)

When a scientist sees the word "miracle" the first thing they think is: "Unproven".

I'll have to take your word on that --- on second thought --- I won't. To me, when a scientist sees the word "miracle," he's trained to automatically think, "didn't happen." Thus, saying this or that was a "miracle" is tantamount to saying this or that "didn't happen."

That's kind of how miracles work. You can't prove them, you can't "recreate them", you can't "model" them...

By [scientific] definition, you're not supposed to.

But when someone comes along and says they believe in the Big Bang it isn't because they are left to throw their hands up because it was a "miracle"! No, it's because there are independent lines of evidence directly in support of that hypothesis.

Kinda like saying Jesus didn't walk on water, He walked on ice, then interpreting the context of the story as happening:

• in the winter
• their ship was ice-logged
• it was during an ice storm
• didn't happen
• etc.

Right now the only "evidence" for the Noachian Flood is the Bible. In fact the evidence for a relatively recent global flood are, effectively NON-EXISTENT.

You're preaching to the choir here.

It is pretty close to being able to "prove a negative", which is pretty strongly against the hypothesis of a global flood.

What scientific hypothesis doesn't go strongly against a global flood? Any that did, would automatically be ruled out by definition. If there was solid evidence everywhere that there was a global flood, I'm sure "scientists" would work overtime to come up with a natural explanation.

So, you see, when you question people's belief in the Big Bang and compare that to some religious belief in the Global Flood and some bizarro-hyper-evolution of kinds afterwards, you fail. Your comparison doesn't hold.

I'm under the impression that the Big Bang is a religious belief - but I'm sure you disagree.

One is an ad hoc hand-waiving explanation to support a religious myth, the other is the direct result of multiple lines of independent evidence in a wholly natural framework.

See, there you go. You automatically called it a "myth," rather than "an as-yet unproven hypothesis."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Genesis 6:20[/b]] Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
.

I see your G6:20 and raise you a G6:17 and G7:22. Apparently, they show that only things that breathe through nostrils were taken onboard.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You're 2 for 2 now --- the more you talk, the less I think we understand each other.



I don't even understand what you just said here. What accusations? The Big Bang didn't happen. Hyper-evolution doesn't happen. And I'm kinda lost here in what point you're making.

Oh, sorry, you must have forgotten when you said THIS:

This from people who believe the entire universe was once the size of a pixel???

That's what I'm talking about. Sorry if you forgot what you wrote.

That's because you make up paradigms that rule out any miracles.

No, we rule out unfalsifiable, non-repeatable, non-understandable, unwitnessed, questionable testimony.

If that is how you process data to make decisions, more power to you. I can think of a million ways you'll be taken.

Like Jesus walking on water. You [not necessarily you] say He walked on ice

I go one better and say unless you can prove it happened it didn't necessarily happen. But then I don't have any vested interest in it having to have happened.

, which clearly violates the Scriptures.

There you go. Why does anything have to agree with the Scriptures? Wouldn't it make the scriptures more IMPRESSIVE if reality corresponded to THEM in a provable fashion?

Gosh, that would be so much more impressive. But then God doesn't go for that "impressive stuff" does he? (Except for the parts where someone unknown to us tells us an IMPRESSIVE story long after the fact that a certain IMPRESSIVE event happened.)

I'll have to take your word on that --- on second thought --- I won't. To me, when a scientist sees the word "miracle," he's trained to automatically think, "didn't happen." Thus, saying this or that was a "miracle" is tantamount to saying this or that "didn't happen."

I've got a Prayer Rug someone sent me in the mail. Do you want it? It's really amazing when Jesus opens his eyes! Honest! Someone told me it was soaked in prayers!

By [scientific] definition, you're not supposed to.

Part of the game is RULES. Rules help people get to the right conclusion rather than the conclusion that "makes them feel good".

You're preaching to the choir here.

No, I'm not. YOU will believe something because someone you don't know told you it happened. I need proof. YOU are happy that there's no evidence for an event. You seem somewhat worshipful of the ignorance.

I find ignorance something I don't want to be too much in love with.

If there was solid evidence everywhere that there was a global flood, I'm sure "scientists" would work overtime to come up with a natural explanation.

Are you a Newbie on this board??? Haven't you seen pretty much every geologist on here tell Creationists and Flood-proponents that almost all geologists used to work overtime to PROVE the story of Noah. They built it into their hypotheses...until too much data came in to point out that it was clearly not working.

See, there you go. You automatically called it a "myth," rather than "an as-yet unproven hypothesis."

Sorry, I can't chew your food for you either. You (and countless others throughout history) have never provided any reason to assume it is real. It's your story, prove it to me. It's your magical myth, it's up to you to prove the thing.

That's why what you are talking about ISN'T science. In science you don't go about PROVING NEGATIVES. You support a claim with actual evidence. Whoever has the most evidence and the most independent lines thereof, AND whose hypothesis is the most parsimonious wins.

You seem to want to win by dint of your utter failure to provide evidence other than one data point of unknown and questionable origin (the bible).

 

[Loudmouth]

I have no idea what point you're making, Thaumaturgy.

Again, bring me up to speed please? What's the problem with beetles and the Ark all of a sudden?

Does anyone know?

Wood boring beetles would seem to be a problem.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Wood boring beetles would seem to be a problem.

Well, ya see, that would be a problem if AV didn't have the ability to wave it away with another ad hoc explanation.

Perhaps wood-boring beetles developed from the non-woodboring "Kind" that was loaded onto the ark.

You see, that's the power of MIRACLES in explanation. You can insert them wherever an uncomfortable fact might rise.

You see, Miracles are extremely heavy and dense and will squash whatever you bring up. Even the hard carapace of a wood boring bettle.

Q.E.D.

 

[tanzanos]

AV has the God given right to interpret the Bible as he sees fit. Scientists have no right to question this right. AV1 is the ONLY authority on the Bible worldwide and anything he says happened in the biblical times is correct.

Now when he tries to do the same in fields governed by science then all he accomplishes is to betray his total and absolute lack of scientific knowledge and understanding of the natural world.

 

[Molal]

Termites - they would be a problem as well.

What about foraminifera? Bacteria, fungus................

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, ya see, that would be a problem if AV didn't have the ability to wave it away with another ad hoc explanation.

It reminds me of how children rationalize the existence of Santa Claus. There is no end to ad hoc explanations for why there is a Santa Claus at every shopping mall, or how Santa Claus can deliver presents to millions of children in a single night.

Perhaps wood-boring beetles developed from the non-woodboring "Kind" that was loaded onto the ark.

And I suppose they were fed to the non-pecking kind of woodpecker. This is fun!!!!!

 

[thaumaturgy]

And I suppose they were fed to the non-pecking kind of woodpecker. This is fun!!!!!

Now, now, that's just silly. Non-pecking type of woodpecker, indeed. I think what you are talking about here is the peckerless pecker. It had a limp, downward curved beak incapable of pecking even the least pecker-resistant wood (sometimes called peckerwood).

 

[Nitron]

Here we go 'round the Mulberry bush, the Mulberry bush, the Mulberry bush.

POST 121​

I had accounted for that.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Termites - they

Well, considering that there is a high liklihood that the picture below represents the "termite kind" that was loaded on the ark, there is no reason to be concerned:

Figure 1. Representative member of the "Termite Kind" (also representative of wood-boring beetle kind and wood-destroying fungus kind.)