Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.

I don't see anything beyond microevolution required for all those insect species to have developed.

Well there are two elements to this:1) if a creationist wants to claim - "God made it happy and his magic made the story true" - well that's not subject to falsification because it relies on a magical figure beyond science.2) If a creationist wants to claim - "The flood happened and this is supported by science" - well that version is open to scientific enquiry (well I say "open", it's nonsense in terms of being based upon any form of reality).If you want to claim (1) - great, but it's nothing to do with science (which is what we dicuss in the science forums)If you want to claim (2) - well, hard shit, you are wrong.

CK, the claim can be a mixture of 1 and 2 actually.

Well yes and no - but as soon as God creates special conditions or you introduce "god dunn it", then what do you need science for?You just answer "god dunn it" for all the questions - the flood works that way.

So your argument is that if God does do something, science must steadfastly insist He didn't and offer up other explanations even if they are not true?

quote:

---

So your argument is that if God does do something, science must steadfastly insist He didn't and offer up other explanations even if they are not true?

---

No my argument is that if you want to insist that God did something, then scientists are going to shrug their shoulders and go "great - good for you". Science is not going to "insist" anything about what he did or did not because science cannot test for God, he is beyond science.All of the scientific evidence (in multiple multiple disciplines which when taken together represents a totality that renders the position stupid) indicates that a) the earth is not 5000 years old and b) that the flood did not happen.Why am I going to be looking for or be concerned with intervention of a christian god concept when the physical evidence shows me that the flood never happened?

The theory that the whole earth was flooded has been falsified.
The theory that all animals could fit on the ark has been falsified.
The theory that all animals could have hypermacroevolved after the flood has been falsified.
The theory that all humans are descended from Noah has been falsified.What's left?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Yes, we think evolution is what happened. But evolution of all of today's insect species from a base small enough to fit on the Ark more or less unnoticed, in just over 4000 years, is impossible. Such a development would take a lot of time, in the order of millions of years. Or that God created the earth and everything on it yesterday, complete with our memories and history records and all that. Tell me how we should choose which of the two theories to believe. Your theory and mine are examples of ad hoc explanations. As hoc explanations are a no-no in rational debate.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Has anybody calculated it out? Seems to me I've read that genetic experiments with insects, such as with fruit flies, produce changes quite rapidly. Also there would have been more potential for change back then, more genetic possibilities.As for your ad hoc explanation and mine, the one to be chosen is the one that fits with the Bible. Yours doesn't. Mine may not either, but that's the idea anywayh.

Can you substantiate that?

He probably shouldn't have said it is impossible. But certainly the onus is upon the person claiming that such hyperevolution did occur to show that it both can and did occur. That is why it is an ad-hoc explanation.It is not up to him or anyone else to show how it can't happen. Although I am sure a pretty good case can be made that it can't without further ad-hoc conditions being presented such as "greater genetic diversity" which doesn't make ANY sense given that there was only 2 representatives of each species. Apparently according to Faith genetic diversity is not actually stored in genes.Either way, until there is support for it from her, it IS just an ad-hoc explanation.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Polyploidy.

Yet more ad-hoc. You cannot even demonstrate that such creatures could survive.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

well, the whole ToE is somewhat ad hoc then if asserting that insects could have evolved from a common ancestor is ad hoc.

No, the theory of common decent is based on the construction of nested heirarchies based on EVIDENCE. The TOE does not propose that all insects came from a few pair 4000 years ago so it does not need the ad-hoc addons of polypody, hyperevolution, etc. Regular common breeding and time is enough and that is not too hard to imagine because that is what we see happening today. The problem with Faith's explanation is that it ADDS ad-hoc reasoning and to supplement the LACK of any evidence for the wild hypothesis.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)