positive evidence of creationism

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Thanks for posting, truecreation. I have read your response in the flood thread, so we'll try to avoid going over the same ground."
--Thats good, but if emphesis is needed on a various aspect, I would be happy to return to it.

​

"Lets start with my first question: What is the positive scientific evidence that all plant and animal "kinds"(including humans) appeared on earth at the same time within the past 10,000 years?"
--If you are looking in the fossil record, your in a dead end, because you would be to assume that the fossil record was layed down over millions/billions of years. So we must look at another level, genetics and variation, ie 'e'volution. evolution on a micro scale, mutation and natural selection. Speciation is the process that drives this mechenism, thought to take emense periods of time for speciation to occur noticably, it is evident that it is otherwize, for instance on the celluar level, bacteria, variations are extreamly abundant in bacteria, hundreds of thousands of Bacteria are depicted from change. This abundance would have started at the fall or at the beginning of creation when they were created, and would have continued mutating and producing variation and would move rapidly in bacteria because it can reproduce in about 20 minutes. This would be simmilar to the variation of insects we see today, as there are hundreds of thousands of species. Insects, like bacteria would have been producing variation since the fall/creation because they were not needed to be preserved on Noah's ark. Variation is also the reason we see variant beak preferences in Finches as Darwin observed. Moving to a direct answer to your question of what the evidence is that it was all created at once, we cannot use the biblical portrayal of a date to say anything is this because this says so, this cannot be proven, but it can be shown feasable as is all we can show by evidence, in furthering the discussion, is there a problem with todays variation that would combat the theory, as taking place in 4500 years? If not that is direct evidence of feasability, thus it is logical to say that this is the way it could have happend as opposed to a single common ancestor for all life.

​

---

Did i read you right? Are you really making the assertion that every forms of insects not present on the ark would have survived a global flood?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Did i read you right? Are you really making the assertion that every forms of insects not present on the ark would have survived a global flood?"
--Ofcourse not every, but only many are needed, in which there would have been countless billions+ of insects to survive the earth, plenty to produce such variation.

​

---

And i can assure you that 99.9999% of all those insects require solid ground...the vast majority of them would have perished in a world covered by water for 6 months after 40 days of violent rain. the only insects who could have survived would have had to be in this miraculous ark

but the premise of your experiment is missing certain key elements. First,according to creationist models,there never was any rain before the flood and so,insects during the deluge would have found themselves in a completely new environement that was changing by the second over a period of 40 days,clearly not enough tome for specialised insects to adapt themselves. second,for the experiment to be accurate,i would have to throw those leaves and twigs you mention on a patch of land of a given size completely cut off from the surounding environement. Then,i would have to introduce scores of insects within that patch of land. Then,i would have to fill that patch of land with deluvian water in a manner in which at least every square inch of that land patch is being bombarded with water for a period of 40x24 hour periods until the whole patch of land is at least 15 feet under water. Then,i would have to leave that enclosed environement alone for 6 months before removing the water. Then,i would have to see A: How many leaves and twigs actually remained on the surface of the water and B: how many insects actually survived the downpoor of water to make it to the leaves and twigs and C: How many insects actually survived 6 months of this limited environement. Have you,or anyone performed such an experiment?

the part about the rain is a common argument from creationists i've spoken to. As for the rain,it filled the WHOLE world in 40 days...that implies extremely violent downpooring rain to fill the world with water in such a short time. Furthermore,in your pool experiment,was it empty when you placed the twigs and leaves and the insects? Did you fill it for 40 days making sure that water was falling on every part of that space at once? did you leave the environement as such for 6 months?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"the part about the rain is a common argument from creationists i've spoken to. As for the rain,it filled the WHOLE world in 40 days...that implies extremely violent downpooring rain to fill the world with water in such a short time."
--I surelly hope you are not implying that the rain was the source of the flood water, as this is a misunderstanding of the Flood. It simply 'rained', it does not have to be anything that you say it was, and correct me if I am wrong.

​

"Furthermore,in your pool experiment,was it empty when you placed the twigs and leaves and the insects?"
--No it had water in it. what relevance does it make?

​

"Did you fill it for 40 days making sure that water was falling on every part of that space at once? did you leave the environement as such for 6 months?"
--Like I said this was a minimal experiment to explain to you that insects can live on vegetation mats, and they do, unless you can tell me why I am wrong. As also what is the relevance of 'filling it for 40 days making sure that water was falling on every part of the space at once'.

​

---

Well,the Bible says that it rained all over the world for 40 days and 40 nights until the world was covered with water...what am i supposed to conclude from this?If your pool was already full when you placed the insects on the leaves,you installed them on the environement yourself,thus negating the obvious fact that during the alledged flood,the insects would have had to locate a shelter themselves,according to their respective motricity.As for the relevence of filling the pool for a duration of 40 days with water falling on every area at once(raining all over the earth for 40 days),this creates a specific environement and threat to the insects. Many insects are killed outright if they are hit by heavy drops of rain and many more insects will drown if they are wet,even on dry land. And there is a stark difference between 1 day and 6 months+. For starter,most insects dont even live 6 months and require specific environement for reproduction. Also,all insects require food,which coulkd not be provided by remaining for months on a twig.

Some insects do have the capacity to float and even swim to safety but many do not...flying insects such as bees and flys drown when on water,even if they dont sink imediately and all flying insects whould have ad one hell of a time in remaining airborn through 40 days of deluvian rains. anthropods like large spiders could never have survived a world wide flood.As for the fountain of the deep argument,that one has always puzzled me. and on the talk origin web site,they exposed a lot of very obvious problems with that theory. How could there have been enough water to cover the world highest peek contained under the earths crust,what could have caused it to shoot out of wherever it was contained and what could have kept it from returning imediatly in its container below the earth

But this leave theory also assumes calm water,which oceans are not. No lake or pool environement can replicate the conditions of a world wide flood and so your experiment is at best a poor aproximation and that is a generous estimate on my part. There would have been far too many elements stacked against survival of potential adrift insects for it to be even remotely likely

Have you ever looked at an ocean during a storm,let alone a 40 day long storm? 30 foot tidal waves are quite common during those events.

well,if you ever hear of someone doing an experiment that approximates with a decent degree of accuracy the conditions of a world wide flood for the insects,lemme know. Until i see evidence that this could have occured as you described,i'm afraid that common sense dictates that i proceed under the more likely assumption that insects could not have survived a world wide flood.

And as i said,your proposed experiment is lacking far too many key elements to have any credibility as an aproximation of world wide flood conditions...meaning thatthe fact that insects survived in the limited scome of your experiment is in no way an indication that insects could have survived the actual flood.

go back a few post...i've enumerated some of them.

well,as i said,the likelyhood that insects could last for 6 months adrift on a leaf on the ocean is next to non existant if you know anything about insect biology and life cycles. Your answer was to assume that insects back then were completely different than they are today. I've also stated that the 40 day long downpoor itself would have been the death of most insects but you countered by saying that it didn't rain all that much. Then i explained to you that while some insects can survive on the surface of water of a limited time at least,most insect will drown by simply being wet...you didn't even answer that one. need i go on?

The fact of the matter is that this is all pure conjectures on both our parts. But the main difference between your argument and mine is that mine does not seek to alter known insect physiology to make them capable of surviving a world wide flood for which,lets face it,there are at least as much evidence AGAINTS it then there is FOR it. True,there have been insects like mosquitoes that were much larger then their contemporary cousins but evidence points to them having existed well before 6000 years ago and their larger size would actually have played against them in a world wide flood scenario,as A: it would limit their choices of "survival leaves rafts" and B: they would have had to go on for well over 6 months without having any food (blood) to ingest. Furthermore,one can infer that IF there were fist sized mosquitoes in those days,then it would be logical to assume that the large anthropods back then could have grown to be as large as small dogs. And since the bigger an animal is,the more food it requires,i dont see how such a large creature could have spend 6 months+ floating on a tree trunk and have had enough food supply to weather those 6 months...and then we get to the problem of reproduction during and after those 6 months. Anthropods,and especially large ones,are by their nature,solitary creatures and female spiders do not tolerate the presence of males anywhere near them,except during mating periods. At any other time,they either drive them off or kill them outright. So for large anthropods to survive to this day,at least two of each species of spiders,male and female,would have had to survive for 6 months with vitrually no food supply and then,wash ashore in the same general area. By themselves each of these facts present very serious problems to insect flood survivability theory but when you start to add them up,the odds against their survival quiclky shoots to astronomical levels.But more to the point,the only existing "historical" record (and i'm being very generous here BTW) mentioning a world wide flood is quite clear and unambiguous about this; EVERYTHING not contained on the ark perished.

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 01-27-2002]

I am not assuming that thing the way they are today are the same as they were in the past but neither do i assume that those changes occured suddently in recent past(4550 years ago being fairly recent as far as i'm concerned).Who says that i cant use evolutionary arguments to counter the Biblical flood? You are constantly using biblical argument to support it.Mosquitos drink blood...thats their only sustenance. Some spiders consume pollen(which in itself presents yet another problem) but most spiders consume other animals and insects by liquifying their insides with their venom and drinking it. A tarentula requires its weight in food every 3-4 weeks or it starves so each tarentula surviving the flood would have required huge amounts of food supply for the 6 months long cruise on their luxurious floating logs...which also presents the problem of buyoyancy(not sure about the spelling). Trees,leaves and twigs dont float indefinitely even on calm water,let alone moving and often violent waters of oceans. I seriously doubt that there would have been much floating vegetation if any left at the end of 6 months. As for the survival instinct of spiders,you make sound like a consious decision on their part. The nature of female anthropods is to attack any male coming near them EXCEPT during mating season...and even then,the male has to do his things and then get the hell out of Dodge on the double if he doesn't want to wind up on the menu of his latest conquest because yes,spiders are canibals...every last one of them. This alone creates a very specific difficulty to overcome. It is concievable that given enough time,their species would learn to overcome it but 6 months certainly does not qualify as enough time by any stretch of the imagination. History and biology has all demonstrated that a sudden change in a species's ecosystem almost invariably results in the extinction of said species because specification and adaptations require several generations. I dont know about you but i for one consider a sudden world wide flood followed by an equally sudden ice age(i'm taking your word for it)constitute a huge change in the ecosystem of land dwelling,moderate to tropical climate inhabiting creatures.

Ok...i would like you to present me with evidence that animals and insects were not as specialised 4450 years ago as they are today. I would like you to present to me evidence that ~4450 years ago,there was an ice age and that the ocean dried up enough to allow people to travel from on continent to another on foot...I'll take everything into consideration;historical records,biological and microbiological studies,geological evidence,ect.