Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.
Tryannasapien Rex
Junior Member (Idle past 4599 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 02-15-2006


Message 106 of 148 (339322)
08-11-2006 5:27 PM


Ad hoc explanations
If dinosaurs did exist with man then why don't are museums have
artifacts.
Like something hand worked from dinosaur leather
like a belt or a pair of shoes.
Some tool,weapon or piece of jewelry made from dinosaur bones or teeth.
If you could produce such items put them up on eBay and I'll buy them from you, I'll pay any price!!!!!!
Where are all the dinosaurs bone's?
They would be new enough to have DNA in them.
Yet there is not a single dinosaur bone with DNA in it.
If dinosaur did exist with men dinosaur DNA would be as common as sand, ah but for some strange reason there's none to be found.
Hmmm i wounder why
I'll let you in on a little investment secret
I want use the DNA to grow some dinosaurs and build an amuesment park slash zoo I'll call it Jurrassic Park
Sound like a good idea any one want to invest?
The posters who have posted about people who have claimed seen dinosaurs sound like the same people post about other people who have claimed seen little green men.
Why don't we see any pictures drawn by people who lived before 1800's
that look like these animals?
Dinosauria On-Line
Dinosauria On-Line
Dinosauria On-Line
Dinosauria On-Line
Dinosauria On-Line
These to men artist Joe Tucciarone and Jeff Poling
took the time out to dedicate an entire web site to dinosaurs.
Surly Michael Angelo or Leonardo da Vinci would have takin the time out to draw one picture of any one of these fascinating creatures since creatures like this would be common place not like some rare alien sighting
Its funny that you don't find any pictures from any famous artist
from any part of the world drawing any pictures that look like these creatures!!!!
Why is that ?????
And still there are famous artists from all around the world that have drawn pictures
of all kinds of mythical creatures yet none of them look like these creatures.
Again why is that????
If dinosaurs did exist with men ,dinosaurs would common place in man's historical record.
Yet it just not there.
So come on people where is your physical evidence because without it your sighting accounts don't mean much .

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 107 of 148 (339325)
08-11-2006 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
08-11-2006 6:26 AM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
Somehow God answered your prayer in terms of an abandonment of literalism? I don't understand how that happened.
Me neither. All I have to base my conclusion on is that I felt better about myself and about God after the fact. No longer did I have to perform mental contortions just to get the Bible to jive with both reality and itself.
You don't really say how God answered you.
I was pulled off the edge of abandonment by the realizations I had found. I also realized that unlike the Penecostals prescribe, the holy spirit DOES infill you without the seizures and babbling. One instance that was noteworthy for me was when I was visiting my Grandmothers old church. The rest of my family started up there as regulars and I went to see my mom give a lesson because it was a special week, childrens week. The lesson was not particularly inspiring but I felt my whole body become washed with a sense of joy and happiness just being there. It had nothing to do with my mom or the service in particular. I just cried in pure happiness. It was one step among many that I believe God has given to me to help along the right path.
I can only speak for my own experiences. As such, I believe that literalism is bankrupt.
Oh it so IS obvious. But anyway, thanks for that explanation.
Except for the fact that such an opinion is based on a complete disregard for what mainstream geology ACTUALLY says about sedimentation. It is inherent in the statement. It is self-identifying as ignorant of the real theories of mainstream geology. But anyway, we are getting off the point.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 08-11-2006 6:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 08-11-2006 9:33 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 108 of 148 (339422)
08-11-2006 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Jazzns
08-11-2006 5:40 PM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
Sounds to me like God reassured you that the Holy Spirit isn't tied to charismatic interpretations and you then went on to make the leap on your own that literalism, a whole other subject, was bankrupt, because you had mistakenly lumped it together with the charismatic interpretations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Jazzns, posted 08-11-2006 5:40 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Jazzns, posted 08-12-2006 3:55 PM Faith has replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6354 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 109 of 148 (339441)
08-11-2006 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by randman
08-10-2006 11:30 PM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
There are tons of historical accounts of dragons, and not all some sort of mystical creature, but many sightings of large reptilian creatures and some of small, that match very well with dinosaurs. These accounts are extremely widespread and in near every culture, and to continue to ignore them is absurd.
If you want to open a thread and provide examples that you think match very well with dinosaurs I'll be happy to participate. I don't think we should take it futher in a thread about insects.

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by randman, posted 08-10-2006 11:30 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 110 of 148 (339564)
08-12-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Jazzns
08-11-2006 5:13 AM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
He obviously does not understand WHY nested heirarchies are evidence for evolution.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Jazzns, posted 08-11-2006 5:13 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Jazzns, posted 08-12-2006 4:19 PM randman has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 111 of 148 (339566)
08-12-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
08-11-2006 9:33 PM


Possible new topic? Charasmatic literalism
I would argue that if you are going to be a true literalist that you are going to need to lean on much of what drives the charasmatics. Most other interpretations of the NT by other major denominations of Christianity take a MUCH MORE liberal and interpretive perspective of the Bible. If you care to talk about this in a new topic I would enjoy discussing this issue. Just let me know and I will create the topic or you could do it and I will join you.
For me, rejecting the charasmatics and Biblical literalism goes mostly hand in hand. Granted there are some reasons that the charasmatics are frauds apart that is seperate from the issue of Biblical literalism. The charasmatics are also not the only movement within Christianity that espouse literalism. It was two seperate steps that lead from one to the other. The abandonment of the Penecostals, and then the investigation of what true Biblical literalism was. I had to first abandon the church so that my mind was free to even look at the Bible in that way. I had to make that mental and spiritual change before I could even allow myself to go down that path. I think the same would have been true had it not been a charasmatic church but some other literalist church. As long as the church is based upon literalism, I think it IS valid to notice that both the church and the dogma from which it is founded is bankrupt at the same time.
We should probably stop the OT posts. Let me know if you want me to start a new thread.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 08-11-2006 9:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 08-12-2006 4:24 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 112 of 148 (339570)
08-12-2006 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by randman
08-12-2006 3:47 PM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
We may be starting a new thread about literalism and charasmatics so I will defer replying to that part of your post until then. If Faith responds in the affirmative, I respond to the relevent parts of your post there.
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.
You seem to be switching your stories. First you complained that nested heirarchies dont point to the common ancestor. An invalid expectation in and of itself due to an ignorance of both the mechanism and importance of nested heirarchies. Now you are saying that nested heirarchies don't validate RM/NS which is a seperate aspect of the ToE. Common ancestry is a consequence of the ToE validated by nested heirarchies.
I'll also note that JAD's PEH also has gradualism, and common ancestry. I'll also note that the hyperevolution necessary to create diversity from the kinds present on the ark would also be a gradualistic process and include common ancestry; although at a much faster rate. The ad-hoc reasoning given that this is possible, more genetic diversity, falls flat on its face due to its reliance on polypody. As discussed on the other thread, to get the diversty of some of todays species, there would have had to be polypody upwards of 9 degrees. No one can even demonstrate that such a creature could even exist in reality.
I really shouldn't have let you bait me down a path that ignores this simple observation. You brought up nested heirarchies when the issue is the blatant and wild ad-hoc additions to some post flood hyperevolution theory, it itself an ad-hoc explanation to explain how Noah could fit the diversity of live onto an ark described by the Bible.
The simple fact is we do not see gradualism represented in the fossil record and living biota,
You don't seem to understanding that gradualism is neither a pillar of the ToE nor expected to be evident in the fossil record. It is known from multiple lines of evidence that explosions of diversity occur as a result of mass extinction and severe population decline. There is also evidence that larger populations slow down the rate at which new allels spread throught a species. PE is a CONCLUSION from the evidence, NOT an ad-hoc explanation for the punctuated nature of the fossil record. A positive case for PE can be made without referring to the fossil record at all.
and these must be the final arbiters of whether the theory works, and it doesn't.
That is your requirement that no one else need take heed for its obvious irrelevence to the validitiy of the ToE. The more you say things like this, the more you prove that your claim that critics of the ToE understand it more than its proponents is blatantly false.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 3:47 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 4:47 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 113 of 148 (339573)
08-12-2006 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Jazzns
08-12-2006 3:55 PM


Re: Possible new topic? Charasmatic literalism
The subject seems awfully muddled to me, Jazz, but if you propose something about charismatics and literalism I suppose I'll have something to say on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Jazzns, posted 08-12-2006 3:55 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 114 of 148 (339576)
08-12-2006 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Jazzns
08-12-2006 4:19 PM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Jazzns, posted 08-12-2006 4:19 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Jazzns, posted 08-12-2006 5:09 PM randman has replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 148 (339577)
08-12-2006 4:49 PM


Topic Folk
We are in the Science side, in Geology and the Great Flood. Charismatics, Evangelicals and such have no place here. Take that elsewhere.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  •   
    Jazzns
    Member (Idle past 3912 days)
    Posts: 2657
    From: A Better America
    Joined: 07-23-2004


    Message 116 of 148 (339586)
    08-12-2006 5:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 114 by randman
    08-12-2006 4:47 PM


    Re: Ad hoc explanations
    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.
    No one has presented such evidence. If they did they would have world renowned fame. Overthrowing the ToE would make someone a name that would live on with the greats. As it stands, your statements is in ignorance of the actual evidence for the ToE.
    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.
    So you don't disagree that we can determine relatedness from nested heirarchies? You just disagree with what that relatedness means? Common Ancestry vs Common Designer?
    If that is true. Then it boils down to examining why a Common Designer would "design" certain things that fall under matching nested heirarchies like shared psudogenes or retro viral insertions.
    Give that we DO HAVE a mechanism unlike your claim, why should we accept the intellectual black hole of a Common Designer when it seems both dishonest and wasteful of the designer to operate in such a way?
    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.
    If it did, it did so in such a way that looks exactly like heridity. Why should we expect the pattern to match what heridity can produce?
    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.
    This is in stark contradiction to the fact that these pattern match what we would expect if heridity was the mechanism for the changes. You continually make these statements as if they were backed by more than your wishfullness.

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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 114 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 4:47 PM randman has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 117 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 5:37 PM Jazzns has not replied

      
    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 117 of 148 (339603)
    08-12-2006 5:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 116 by Jazzns
    08-12-2006 5:09 PM


    Re: Ad hoc explanations
    No one has presented such evidence. If they did they would have world renowned fame.
    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.
    If that is true. Then it boils down to examining why a Common Designer would "design" certain things that fall under matching nested heirarchies like shared psudogenes or retro viral insertions.
    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.
    Give that we DO HAVE a mechanism unlike your claim
    Your mechanism has been proven wrong, but you guys won't accept it.
    If it did, it did so in such a way that looks exactly like heridity ....This is in stark contradiction to the fact that these pattern match what we would expect if heridity was the mechanism for the changes.
    Wrong, you have matched similarities and then wonder why such similarities match. Unbeleivable!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 116 by Jazzns, posted 08-12-2006 5:09 PM Jazzns has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 118 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2006 9:05 PM randman has not replied
     Message 128 by Admin, posted 08-13-2006 7:37 PM randman has not replied

      
    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1467 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

      
    Randy
    Member (Idle past 6247 days)
    Posts: 420
    From: Cincinnati OH USA
    Joined: 07-19-2002


    Message 119 of 148 (339769)
    08-13-2006 8:14 AM
    Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
    08-08-2006 3:00 PM


    Re: Hypermacroevolution strikes again
    quote:
    I don't see anything beyond microevolution required for all those insect species to have developed.
    In attempt to get back to the topic of my OP I thought I would address this.
    You don't see it because you refuse to look just as you refuse to look at all the other evidence showing that that global flood is a myth. Consider again cicadas. They all have a life cycle with a nymph stage that spends at least a year underground. Most spend 2 to 17 years underground. During this stage they require the roots of living trees to survive. The longest life cycle is the famous 17 year variety. The adults live a few weeks and mate. The females lay eggs in small brances of living trees where they hatch. After hatching the nymphs drop to the ground and burrow in.
    An insect that only lives a few weeks above ground and needs to live at least a year in the ground feeding on living trees simply could not survive a global flood on or off the ark.
    What insect that could have survive a year long global flood, could have hypervolved into cicdas through microevolution in a few thousand years? How could a completely different life cycle in some cases taking up to 17 years (so you don't have thousands of generations} have evolved through microevolution?
    After you answer this one you can try to 1,500 species of ephemeroptera that also could not have survived the global flood.
    Randy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 31 by Faith, posted 08-08-2006 3:00 PM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 121 by Faith, posted 08-13-2006 11:46 AM Randy has replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 120 of 148 (339780)
    08-13-2006 11:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Randy
    08-29-2002 11:31 PM


    The marine fossil argument is NOT on topic in this thread. Please revive an old one or start a new one. It appears there has been no recent focussed thread on this topic.
    Another falsification of the worldwide flood myth is the diversity of insect life on earth. It is totally absurd to claim that all of the approximately 850,000 species of insects on earth are descended from those who survived the flood either on floating mats of vegetation or on the ark as accidental passengers as creationists claim these days.
    This seems like a very asinine argument to me for several reasons. Not all insects that we have on earth today had to be alive in the antediluvian world. Case in point: There are many subspecies of canine, Dobermin, Chihuahua, Beagles, etc... All of these canines had a progenitor within its own kind. We could easily assume justifiably the same for ever specie/sub-specie relationship. Therefore, it was not neccesary to have Beagles onboard the Ark the because there were no Beagles around that time, however, there would have been its progenitor. That's why billions or millions of different types of insects would be a neccessity. Aside from all that, the argument your are presenting is one of incredulity based on speculation. But here is what we know from physical evidence: Marine fossils are found all over the world, in landlocked nations, and atop the highest mountain peaks. How is that marine life can be found on Mt. Everest, a 27 thousand foot tall peak in a lanlocked nation far, far away from any large bodies of water? Everest isn't the only one. On Mt. Ararat in modern-day Turkey, where the Ark was said to have come to rest, the same is found. Mt. Ararat is 17,000 feet high and nowhere remotely close to large bodies of water. Even my own experience, I have personally seen many marine fossils. Growing up, I used to find fossilized clam shells and whatnot all the time. But this was in Miami, Fl, which is only one foot about sea level. Evidence tells us that where I lived, it once was a swamp, likely part of the Everglades. This is explainable. But in the last place I lived, Flagstaff, AZ, we've found marine fossils. Flagstaff is 7,000 ft above sea level and its a landlocked state. And the places I mentioned are not the only ones. This phenomena is recorded all over the world. That's quite a feat for a world that never endured a massive Deluge, a Deluge that is recorded by many, many cultures.
    What are the odds that all this physical evidence should defy so many long-held paradigms about the ancient world? One or two might be able to be explained as an anamoly due to massive erosion and subduction as result, but not all of them; especialy those nations so far from water and peaks so high off of the ground.
    Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add
    Edited by AdminNosy, : Topic warning!

    “If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Randy, posted 08-29-2002 11:31 PM Randy 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