Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.

No, you obviously don't get it that nested heirarchies does not validate random mutations and natural selection as a means of evolving all of life. The simple fact is we do not see gradualism represented in the fossil record and living biota, and these must be the final arbiters of whether the theory works, and it doesn't.So you will have to look for other explanations for nest heirarchies, whether artistic similarity (from the Creator), an unknown creative factor embedded within creation, guidance from other dimensions influencing biology at a quantum and chemical level, or a prescribed evolutioanary hypothesis as some evos have come out with, but the Darwinian approach doesn't work. It doesn't fit the evidence.As far as literalism, I think a lot of confusion stems from not understanding the processes involved that produced prophecy and scripture, and despite your negative experiences with Pentecostals, you might learn something from the Charismatic and other spiritual experience-oriented wings within Christianity in that regard, in terms of trying to understand the spiritual and religious experiences that translated into much of the Bible.Moreover, I think all groups that fall into a sort of group-think mode share the same phoniness you experienced in Pentecostalism. People think it's this church stream over here or that one, but in reality, you just experienced the negative side of group dynamics for human relations, and it happens with all sorts of belief systems, and is very destructive, but has next to nothing to do with some of the various pecularities of those belief systems, except for common traits such as overly authoritarian, putting the group's identity ahead of one's own, and other various things. I suspect, but cannot be sure, that part of the liberation you experienced was your resistance to the group identity and putting your own identity and mind forward within yourself as valid. You may have, in fact, been resisting a form of witchcraft.But that doesn't mean the Bible is not the inspired word of God. You can debate that inspiration, etc,...but turning towards man to explain the truth of a spiritual book that necessitates illumination from God is not wise.

First, you don't seem to grasp what I mean by gradualism and certainly JAD's theory is not gradualistic. The evidence suggests that very small changes adding up, whether this happens quickly or not, did not occur, and cannot explain life as we see it today, nor the fossil record. What we see is sudden appearance, and so if creatures did evolve from one another, it would have to be something more like the hopeful monster theory put forward awhile back.Furthermore, the reason nested heirarchies minus the mechanism of natural selection does not necessarily point to a common ancestor is because we really cannot say what has caused the nested heirarchies without that mechanism. It could just be that evos have created the nested heirarchies out of creatures that were specially created or evolved or appeared via some sort of mechanism outside of mainstream evolutionary thought.What we do know, or should know, is that mutations and gradual small changes via natural selection is not the mechanism for organic evolution of the major taxa.

It's presented all the time. You guys refuse to accept facts. Keep in mind it took 130 years to get evos to back off Haeckel's nonsense, and even today the remnants of the Biogenetic law are still presented as if there was some merit to recapitulation all along. The fact it was all based on forgeries never bothered most evos, it seems.So considering how difficult it was to get evos to moderate and accept facts on that one instance, it is not surprising that mainstream evos continue to ignore the facts in other areas. Nope. That statement contains so many errors in thinking that it'd take longer than I have right now to correct it. Suffice to say, you are assuming a static timeline, and ignoring several other possibilities besides special creation, though special creation of the kinds could be correct. Your mechanism has been proven wrong, but you guys won't accept it. Wrong, you have matched similarities and then wonder why such similarities match. Unbeleivable!