Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 1 of 148 (16272)
08-29-2002 11:31 PM


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.
In fact, the vast majority of insect species and in some cases entire families and even orders could not have survived a year of flood on floating vegetation and many, perhaps the majority of species could not have survived the flood either on or off the ark.
Consider the 1500 species of the order Ephemeroptera (Mayflys), which only live in fresh water and in which the adult lives only 1 day or less (some only live 90 minutes) during which it must mate and lay eggs. Even if they somehow survived the salty flood water, (which most could not), they will be greatly spread out by the flood. How will they find their mates and where will they lay their eggs? There are many other insect species that only live in fresh water during parts of their life cycle. How will they survive the flood?
Then there are the social insects such as bees, ants and wasps,that require a queen and a colony. All those yellow jacket wasps we see flying around here in the fall will die by winter, they are workers, the queen and colonies only survive in holes in the ground. How will they survive a worldwide flood on floating vegetation? In Ohio we have large wasps called sand hornets or more properly cicada killer wasps. They dig their burrows in sand or soft earth and lay their eggs in locusts that they have killed. The adults do not survive over winter. How will their eggs survive a worldwide flood? You can usually wash them out with a garden hose if you want to.
The caterpillar of the Monarch butterfly only lives on living milkweed plants, Monarchs go through more than one life cycle a year and the adults only feed on nectar. While many species of lepidoptera eat various plants, many others eat only specific plants, even if the caterpillars survived somehow, how would cocoons survive, and even if they did how would the adults find other adults to mate with and where would they lay their eggs. Generally, all these life cycles are complete in a year or less and in many cases much less. Many of these butterflies and moths are quite fragile. Many other insects require specific living plants or animals for parts of their life cycles. What about all those insects that feed on nectar from living flowers during parts of their life cycles? How would they survive a year on floating vegetation?
Consider parasitic wasps known as chalcids.
Below is a quote about them from
http://res2.agr.ca/ecorc/apss/chalintr.htm
Structurally and biologically, chalcids are probably as diverse as the rest of the parasitic Hymenoptera put together. They range in size from the smallest insect known, Dicopomorpha echmepterygis Mockford (1997), at about 130 microns (0.13 mm), to over 25 mm, including bizarre as well as beautiful winged and wingless forms. Special techniques are required to collect and preserve chalcids for study because of their small size and often extreme fragility. (emphasis added)
Chalchids don’t sound like they would do too well on floating vegetation for a year.
How about desert insects and arachnids that are adapted to live in very dry climates? Do you really think they could all survive for a year in water on floating vegetation?
There are also the cicadas, like the so-called 17 year locusts, that live most of their lives in the ground under a tree, then emerge, live for a short while, mate and lay their eggs in the branches of a tree. After a few days or weeks the eggs hatch and the larvae drop to the ground to live under the tree till the next cycle. They need healthy trees that will live until the next cycle. How did they survive a worldwide flood that supposedly rearranged all the world's geology on floating vegetation? What about all the other insects that require mature living trees for their life cycles? How could they have survived after the flood?
There are huge numbers of parasitic insects and invertebrates that require specialized animal hosts for at least part of their annual life cycle. Do you think those poor animals on the ark were carrying all the parasites of their respective 'kinds'? Did the humans carry all the fleas and ticks and other insect parasites that plague mankind? What about all the other invertebrate parasites, such as liver flukes and blood flukes, some of which are fatal? Did the animals and people on the ark carry all these parasites?
These are only a few examples. I am sure that anyone with knowledge of entomology can think of many, many more.
BTW before you give me the Darwin showed that insects could survive on logs and floating vegetation claim here is my reply in advance. Darwin speculated that some snails could survive for some time on floating mats of vegetation or logs going between islands and the mainland. This is not nearly the same as requiring all 'kinds' of insects and invertebrates to survive for more than a year on floating vegetation and then survive after landing on a flood devastated landscape.
Randy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-30-2002 12:50 AM Randy has not replied
 Message 9 by Randy, posted 05-07-2003 12:12 AM Randy has not replied
 Message 10 by Mangetout, posted 05-07-2003 5:31 AM Randy has not replied
 Message 11 by leetchd, posted 05-07-2003 6:30 AM Randy has replied
 Message 29 by randman, posted 08-08-2006 2:54 PM Randy has not replied
 Message 120 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-13-2006 11:39 AM Randy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 148 (16274)
08-30-2002 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Randy
08-29-2002 11:31 PM


^ I agree this is all very hard to imagine. If you want to treat it as a falsification, fine.
However, there are so many features of the geo-column that suggest the Biblical flood that I will stick to that model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Randy, posted 08-29-2002 11:31 PM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by edge, posted 08-30-2002 1:34 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 3 of 148 (16281)
08-30-2002 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
08-30-2002 12:50 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I agree this is all very hard to imagine. If you want to treat it as a falsification, fine.
Is that all you have to say about this? Could you please explain why your model is superior to mainstream science which actually explains this phenomenon rather than just dismiss it as you have done?
quote:
However, there are so many features of the geo-column that suggest the Biblical flood that I will stick to that model. You haven't presented any such thing yet.
Another unsupported assertion. What are these features?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-30-2002 12:50 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-30-2002 1:59 AM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 148 (16283)
08-30-2002 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by edge
08-30-2002 1:34 AM


^ The fact that you have to ask me again what we think is suggestive of the flood is why I will not answer. You tell me what you think we think. Then this is a useful discussion. I can tell you what I think you think. If you can't after 3 months of this then I am talking to a brick wall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by edge, posted 08-30-2002 1:34 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by nos482, posted 08-30-2002 7:50 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 6 by Randy, posted 08-30-2002 10:34 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 7 by John, posted 08-30-2002 10:40 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 8 by edge, posted 08-30-2002 11:30 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 138 by fallacycop, posted 08-26-2006 8:07 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 148 (16297)
08-30-2002 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
08-30-2002 1:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ The fact that you have to ask me again what we think is suggestive of the flood is why I will not answer. You tell me what you think we think. Then this is a useful discussion. I can tell you what I think you think. If you can't after 3 months of this then I am talking to a brick wall.
In other words you can't. You have nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-30-2002 1:59 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 6 of 148 (16300)
08-30-2002 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
08-30-2002 1:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ The fact that you have to ask me again what we think is suggestive of the flood is why I will not answer. You tell me what you think we think. Then this is a useful discussion. I can tell you what I think you think. If you can't after 3 months of this then I am talking to a brick wall.
I have read over those threads and you have had all your assertions about features "suggestive" of a worldwide flood refuted over and over and there are many features of the world's geology that could not have been formed by a flood even your magic multiple surging flood so I can see why you don't want to discuss it further. That discussion belongs on other threads anyway. There are several falsifications of the flood myth. The fossil record, biodiversity, biogeography and aspects of geology have all been discussed here recently and there are others. The only support for a worldwide flood is found in your particular interpretation of the book of Genesus. Insect biodiversity is only one aspect of the falsification of the flood by biodiversity but it is one that YEC can't hope to deal with. How many falsifications are required to show that something is false? Usually one is enough. I have a few more flood falsifications that I can post but apparently for YECs no level of falsification will be sufficient. And you say you are talking to a brick wall!
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-30-2002 1:59 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 148 (16302)
08-30-2002 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
08-30-2002 1:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The fact that you have to ask me again what we think is suggestive of the flood is why I will not answer.
I thought you were not answering because all of your supporting data has been thoroughly thrashed.
quote:
You tell me what you think we think.
I can tell you what you think, more or less. What I can't do is comprehend why you still believe what you do after having your various hypothesis shot to heck. This is the real question. This is why people keep asking you to repeat yourself-- if I may be so bold as to speak generally for your opposition.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-30-2002 1:59 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 8 of 148 (16306)
08-30-2002 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
08-30-2002 1:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ The fact that you have to ask me again what we think is suggestive of the flood is why I will not answer. You tell me what you think we think. Then this is a useful discussion. I can tell you what I think you think. If you can't after 3 months of this then I am talking to a brick wall.
No, no, no. You just don't get it. Saying something is true does not make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it. We have tried to make this a meaningful discussion by pointing out the weak points in your arguments. We did this in the spirit of helping you understand the science of geology. You have simply not responded in most cases, and resorted to your 'hunches' in others. That leaves us with the only alternative that you accept our reservations regarding your theory. That is why we are amazed that you still adhere to it so adamantly. Please explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-30-2002 1:59 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 9 of 148 (39170)
05-07-2003 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Randy
08-29-2002 11:31 PM


Bump
Since this seems to have come up on another thread I thought I would bump it.
The "best" answer I ever got to this was from the infamous Karl Crawford who said the flood collected a forest along with its dirt to keep ground dwelling insects alive.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Randy, posted 08-29-2002 11:31 PM Randy has not replied

  
Mangetout
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 148 (39206)
05-07-2003 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Randy
08-29-2002 11:31 PM


Whilst I agree with the thrust of your statement (animal diversity is too great and many species are too sensitive to have survived); I question one or two of your facts;
Yellowjacket queens do not overwinter exclusively in holes in the ground; they will hide up in any sort of cool, dry nook (of which there would admittedly be rather few if the flood myth were true)
Mayflies are short-lived as adults, but the larval stage lives for almost a year; perhaps they could have survived this way in one of the thousands of barrels of essential drinking water that there wouldn't have been room for on board the ark.
As I said though, I quite agree with the thrust of your statement; there are just too many surviving organisms that would not have been able to maintain their life cycle; some of these are microscopic - some diseases, for example, cannot survive in small populations - the number of available hosts being exhausted by immunity or death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Randy, posted 08-29-2002 11:31 PM Randy has not replied

  
leetchd
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 148 (39210)
05-07-2003 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Randy
08-29-2002 11:31 PM


you make your first mistake in the second sentence. you are correct, it sounds abserd to assume that 850,000 species of insects could survive on the ark. the Bible says in Gen 6, that two of every kind, not species were brought onto the ark.
as for the Ephemeroptera, it is only the adult live cycle that lives for only 1 day. also, assuming that the mayflies were not on the ark for some reason, after the rain that had to happen and did happen for forty days and nights, the salt water would not have a very strong consentration of salt.
amasingly, I have personally seen some wasps survive an alaskan winter of colder than -70 F in trees, if they were in the ground, the would be crushed by the contraction of the earth at that temperature. Here in AK, we have what is called a Black Spruce Wasp with stingers over an inch long, these rugged insects manage to survive flooding that happens in the winter, a world wide flood would be nothing for them (especially on an ark). As for the chalcids,only one of every kind was saved.
The need to have living plants to survive, does nothing to disprove the flood, the people that lived during Noah's time were very good farmers, that is how the spent their lives. So Noah brought some
plants onboard.
with the bringing on of a few live plants comes some dirt, no problem for the cicadads.insects that need mature plants to grow, had no problems after the flood, there were five months to grow plants again, and it has been postulated that the O2 level in the air was much greater in the time of the flood plants grow much better in a high O2 environment than they do in the atmosphere that we now have. also the need for vegitationfor the animals shuch as giraffs indicates that Noah brought some trees on board.
the parisitic invertabrae were also brought on the ark, but who brought them, it does not matter whether the humans, or the dogs brought them, it is even likely that they hybernated as do most types of human pestalince when they are under a harsh environment
I dont even buy the these insects survived on a floating mass of vegitation, the ark was huge, so fitting one of every kind of animal on it was not a hard thing to do.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 05-07-2003 6:48 AM leetchd has not replied
 Message 13 by Randy, posted 05-07-2003 8:57 AM leetchd has not replied
 Message 14 by Mangetout, posted 05-07-2003 9:58 AM leetchd has not replied
 Message 16 by kalimero, posted 07-03-2006 3:30 PM leetchd has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 12 of 148 (39211)
05-07-2003 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by leetchd
05-07-2003 6:30 AM


Perhaps you would like to elaborate on your assertions. You can start be explaining why "kind" should not be read as at least a rough equivalent to "species". (Please bear in mind the fact that "kind" is a translation dating to before "species" was used in the modern sense).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by leetchd, posted 05-07-2003 6:30 AM leetchd has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 13 of 148 (39216)
05-07-2003 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by leetchd
05-07-2003 6:30 AM


quote:
you make your first mistake in the second sentence. you are correct, it sounds abserd to assume that 850,000 species of insects could survive on the ark. the Bible says in Gen 6, that two of every kind, not species were brought onto the ark.
I am saying that many families of insects could not have survived on or off the ark. These days most YEC use the "floating vegetation" claim but that is just absurd.
quote:
as for the Ephemeroptera, it is only the adult live cycle that lives for only 1 day. also, assuming that the mayflies were not on the ark for some reason, after the rain that had to happen and did happen for forty days and nights, the salt water would not have a very strong consentration of salt.
Which of course would have killed many species of salt water marine organisms. Where did all this fresh water come from and where did it go?
quote:
Here in AK, we have what is called a Black Spruce Wasp with stingers over an inch long, these rugged insects manage to survive flooding that happens in the winter, a world wide flood would be nothing for them (especially on an ark).
And this flooding lasted for how many months?
quote:
As for the chalcids,only one of every kind was saved.
How? Many of these are fragile and many are parasitic on other specific insect species.
quote:
The need to have living plants to survive, does nothing to disprove the flood, the people that lived during Noah's time were very good farmers, that is how the spent their lives. So Noah brought some plants onboard.
So you think Noah had some living trees on board so that cicadas could live in the dirt below their roots? Did he have glass windows so that plants could get sunlight without letting in the 40 days and nights of global rain? How would there be sunlight to let in during 40 days and night of global rain?
quote:
with the bringing on of a few live plants comes some dirt, no problem for the cicadads.insects that need mature plants to grow, had no problems after the flood, there were five months to grow plants again, and it has been postulated that the O2 level in the air was much greater in the time of the flood plants grow much better in a high O2 environment than they do in the atmosphere that we now have. also the need for vegitationfor the animals shuch as giraffs indicates that Noah brought some trees on board.
So you do think Noah brought trees on board. How does that work on a big boat that has to survive 40 days and night of continous rain? Maybe he had giant grow lights.
I don't see why plants would grow better in higher O2. Plants take in CO2 and produce O2. If CO2 were a lot higher I don't think animals would do too well.
quote:
the parisitic invertabrae were also brought on the ark, but who brought them, it does not matter whether the humans, or the dogs brought them, it is even likely that they hybernated as do most types of human pestalince when they are under a harsh environment
And what about those parasites that are fatal to their hosts. Parasite kills host, end of kind and end of parasite.
quote:
I dont even buy the these insects survived on a floating mass of vegitation, the ark was huge, so fitting one of every kind of animal on it was not a hard thing to do.
Many insects require very specialized living conditions and many would require some care and feeding. A big wooden boat won't have the conditions needed and 8 people couldn't even take care of the all the vertebrate "kinds" without adding thousands of insect kinds. That is why AiG goes for the floating vegetation dodge.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by leetchd, posted 05-07-2003 6:30 AM leetchd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 10:45 AM Randy has not replied

  
Mangetout
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 148 (39224)
05-07-2003 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by leetchd
05-07-2003 6:30 AM


quote:
...So Noah brought some
plants onboard.
with the bringing on of a few live plants comes some dirt...
It would have had to be more than 'some' or 'a few' - most plants (and their seeds) cannot survive prolonged inundation)
quote:
Here in AK, we have what is called a Black Spruce Wasp with stingers over an inch long, these rugged insects manage to survive flooding that happens in the winter
I can't find any reference to an insect called 'Black Spruce Wasp' - presumably this is some kind of wood wasp and the stinger is actually an ovipositor - please could you identify the species, so we can have a look at its habits?
My prediction is that we will discover that it survives the flooding by a)overwintering above ground in tree bark fissures, b)overwintering as larvae inside the living sapwood or c)overwintering somewhere else(geographically).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by leetchd, posted 05-07-2003 6:30 AM leetchd has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 15 of 148 (328505)
07-03-2006 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Randy
05-07-2003 8:57 AM


Bump
Since insect diversity is another way the flood doesn't add up I thought I would just bump this thread.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Randy, posted 05-07-2003 8:57 AM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 9:37 PM Randy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024