Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1498 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 54 of 148 (338857)
08-10-2006 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by johnfolton
08-09-2006 11:51 PM


Re: Bristlecone pine
Creationists mention trees float above the surface of the earth, insects and their larvas would of survived on things that float explaining the great diversity of insects.
Not all insects have a larval stage. Even the ones that do would not have survived the 180 days of the flood, for the most part.
Moreover, the Bible says that the Flood caused the death of all life "that has the breath of life." Insects, like all terrestrial animals, aspirate. Thus, they have the breath of life (though their spiricles, roughly equivalent to nostrils.)
If the 7,000 year clock started aproximately the 6556 year into the creation week that being the creation date of mankind then if were nearing the end of the seventh thousand year since the creation of mankind
If we're nearing the end of the "seventh thousand year since the creation of mankind" then the Bible records as past history things that wouldn't happen for thousands of years.
Can you explain this discrepancy? If Genesis contains prophecy, why isn't it clearly deliniated as such, like it is for the other prophecies that the Bible offers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by johnfolton, posted 08-09-2006 11:51 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1498 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 68 of 148 (339029)
08-10-2006 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by randman
08-10-2006 4:20 PM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
There is no reason to think that if evolution primarily proceeds via groups within a species separating for whatever reason and evolving into new species and then new genera and new families of species, so that we see a split, with a common ancestor giving rise to 2 or more strains of species, that we should not expect to see the common ancestor living.
All species eventually go extinct, so in fact, depending on how far back the split is, we should definately expect the common ancestor to be exinct.
What is your basis for saying they should always have gone extinct, and always moreover have never left any fossils.
They do, often, leave fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by randman, posted 08-10-2006 4:20 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 08-10-2006 5:36 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1498 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 70 of 148 (339036)
08-10-2006 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by randman
08-10-2006 5:36 PM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
Look at the charts and so forth naming various families of species, etc,...and you will always see the mythical common ancestor un-named because there are no fossils or living common ancestors on those charts.
Nonsense. I realize you just make it up as you go along, Randman, but you really need to try harder than this. What, you think I don't have a stack of phylogenetics texts sitting around the house?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 08-10-2006 5:36 PM randman has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1498 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 118 of 148 (339690)
08-12-2006 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by randman
08-12-2006 5:37 PM


Everything proves creationism III
Scientific knowledge changes and that has effects on evolutionary models, but that proves creationism, because otherwise why couldn't evolutionists keep their story straight? Creationist explanations are constantly changing too, but that proves creationism, because obviously that represents the advancement and refinement of a model moving closer to the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 5:37 PM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024