Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.

Sure, show me one fossil of a flying dragon. I dont mean one of those anorexic pterosaurs, puny archeropteryx, or unwinged Kimodos. I mean a real pot-bellied, fire breathing, treasure-hoarding, real magical mythical dragon like in Pern, Smaug, or Puff.Unicorn, cyclops, and multi-headed hydra fossils will receive extra credit.

We're way off topic with this - we're meant to be talking about insects not ancient reptiles, but I hope the admins will let it slideI can't take the time to reply to this properly (it's just gone three in the morning over here and I need to be in bed) but I just wanted to thank you for posting that randman.Researching those claims gave me one of the best laughs I've had in ages (I know, I need to get out more ).I just can't resist pointing this out to you. This claim is pants-wettingly funny: Ok, let's just get the first bit out of the way - irrespective of whether it is a pterosaur, bat, bird or something else do you take any story seriously that involves a creature being trapped alive inside a sandstone boulder!? It's clearly nonsense from the outset.But it gets side-splittingly better thanks to our friends at Answers In Genesis who very kindly give us a more detailed account: At least they had the good sense to drop the 'trapped in a boulder' bit There are two problems with this story though.First Pterodactylus (TER-o-DACK-ti-lus) was a pterosaur, with a wingspan of about 50-75 cm (20-30 inches) - just a tad short of 3.22 meters wouldn't you say?Secondly there is no such species as Pterodactylus anas. Fortunately Talk Origins offers an explanation of what's going on: Too funny for words.If the admins haven't shut us down I'll get to the rest tomorrow.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Don't forget demons, imps, and devils. Then theres the famous Titans, legendary mermaids, satyrs, centaurs, leprechauns, griffins, chimeras, hippogryphs, dryads, minotaurs etc.

I assume you mean coelacanth - and as far as we know all of the coelacanth species found in the fossil record are extinct.The extant coelacanth are different species to all of the many known fossil species.Now I really am going to bed Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

The fact some accounts are fictitious does not make all accounts wrong, or well, let's apply that to evolutionists. I suppose Haeckel's forgeries and the many overstatements and hoaxes produced by evos makes all evo data wrong, eh?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.But hey, I suppose George Washington never lived because someone said he threw a silver dollar across the Potomac river.

This source article places the flood about 2,500 BC (4,500 years ago) while it appears it happened 3,500 BC (5,500 years ago) if one is to believe the age of the Bristlecone pine (4767 years)and the submerged spruce trees that all C14 dated 11,000 years. The spruce tree growing 5,000 -6,000 years before the biblical world flood accounts for all the spruce trees dating 11,000 years.This article does a pretty good job of explaining the problems of tree ring dating because of contamination due to the pourous nature of wood due the older rings are alive while the tree is yet living.Its not uncommon for trees to have more than one annual tree ring which given the older tree rings in living trees are alive raises serious questions of trees dating 15,000 years old is more likely a question of contamination.http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/c14/******resource articleHowever, if we accept biblical chronology to be accurate, we get some very interesting results. For instance, the flood which occurred during Noah's time (2500BC). Note that from Fig 1, that around 4500 years ago, the amount of C14 present was only about half that of 1950 AD. This would cause an error of about 5700 years. Hence, if the book of Genesis is accurate, the flood would yield a radiocarbon date of 4500+5700 years. 10200 years bp.The ice-age could be another event related to the flood. While dating wood samples from a forest in Wisconsin, Dr Willard Libby wrote, "Apparently the spruce forest was submerged, pushed over, and buried under glacial drift by the last advancing ice sheet in this region." (Science Vol 113, pg 117, Feb 1951) All samples from this buried forest yielded about 11000 radiocarbon years.The tree trunk grows vertically upwards. If all new intake of carbon is only deposited at the outermost ring, the tree would only be able to grow fatter and fatter without getting taller. The question we need to ask is: As the tree grows, are all nutrients transported without affecting the old rings? It is hard to imagine a scenario where the tree trunk gets taller if nutrients were only allowed to be transported at the outermost layer.Here are a few reasons to believe that an old ring is not 'dead'.i) Wood is porous, there are capillaries which are capable of transporting fluids. Consider the analogy of drinking milk from a straw. The straw may be 100 years old, but the milk may have been produced from a cow just a week ago. Thus dating the straw would not yield the age of the straw, but rather the age of the straw 'contaminated' by the milk. If someone wants to claim that tree ring calibration is a valid method, he should first prove that the capillaries in an old ring have not tranported any fluids since their formation. Is there any evidence that only the outermost layer function as the xylem and phloem?Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

So same genus but different species? Isn't that essentially the same practically for what we are talking about, right?Heck, can we even say it's a different species? Sometimes different species and genera actually breed in the wild and produce offspring, showing they really are basically the same species, just one with a wider range than most.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

As previously pointed out, your assertions concerning the absolute and unquestioning belief in accounts concerning dragons is off topic. If you would like, please start a thread about how all past human testimony is always more reliable than any common sense explanation concerning physical evidence in any historical narrative of perceived truth.Just remember, all past accounts of reality from all cultures would then be fair game. If one chooses to defend personal narrative as the sole guide to historical knowledge on one particular topic, one then is also justly compelled to logically defend the entire content of all such narratives, lest one be guilty of quote mining.Edited by anglagard, : added the entire content of

This is not the place to discuss bristlecone pines or dating.If you think your source does a "This article does a pretty good job of explaining the problems of tree ring dating" then you should take it to:
Message 1Since our more permanent YEC'ers seem unable to handle that thread.Note the important point is correlations. Does your source have an explanation for them? Edited by AdminNosy, : correcting msg link

The fact that by this statement you have no idea why nested heirarchies are evidence is all too telling of EXACTLY how you DO NOT understand the ToE. Nested heirarchies DO NOT need to identify the common ancestor. No one has ever seen an electron either.

---

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

Jazz, since you are a Christian, don't you ever have doubts about what science says when it contradicts scripture?

Sure. I battle with that all the time. I used to let it get to me. Like you, I came from a bit of a charasmatic background. I was baptized Penecostal although I never could get the whole speaking in tounges thing. I HURT me so bad that I was so open to God and he wouldn't give me the gift that was PROMISED. Then I realized that the charasmatics are mostly a sham. My faith was destroyed for awhile. Then I prayed one prayer to God in Jesus's name to help guide me to the truth whatever that may be. It was the most heartfelt prayer that I have ever prayed. I was begging for my eternal soul. It was the most important thing I have ever done. Since then I feel I have never been closer to God because I abandoned literalism.Sometimes it is not just that science contradicts the Bible, it is because the BIBLE contradicts the Bible. This happened all the time in Bible study and when I would question it there would be this crazy off the wall explanation for why it wasn't REALLY a contradiction. As soon as that happened though, literalism was abandoned anyway. It just took me to many years to figure that out.This is off topic though. My comment to randman is simply that by his statment he is essentially admitting ignorance. He will claim all day that he understands evolution better than "the evos" but it is BLATANTLY obvious by that statement that such self praise is false. It is demonstrably false. He obviously does not understand WHY nested heirarchies are evidence for evolution.We have had similar conversations before. This type of things stemms from the fact that most Creationists FAIL to go out and really learn about evolution or geology before they try to refute it. They end up looking like what they really are, ignorant. Hence they go say things like the above or in the other case we are familiar with, "It is OBVIOUSLY impossible that sediment could build up like that over MILLIONS OF YEARS."

---

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

I know it's off topic but I didn't really understand this. Somehow God answered your prayer in terms of an abandonment of literalism? I don't understand how that happened. You don't really say how God answered you.I guess you read how I also prayed when in a quandary about some charismatic beliefs, but the answer I got did not contradict a literal reading of the Bible at all. Incident after incident that had confused me was answered with the Biblical teaching that showed its falseness -- just about the opposite of what you say happened to you. Oh it so IS obvious. But anyway, thanks for that explanation. I don't understand why you put charismatics in particular in the place of literalism since they are but one small corner of literalism, but that's sort of beside the point I guess.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Oh it so IS obvious.

---

Yeah.Hunderds of thousands of PhD Geologists, who have devoted their lives to becoming experts, are morons compared to you.Where can we read your thesis?

Chimps are not thought to be the common ancestor of chimps and bonobos. You can find these diagrams in many places, here's the first one I found: To tie this in to the topic, species divergence takes time. Almost all evidence from the natural world conflicts with the idea of a 6000 year-old earth and a global flood as the origin of world geology, and insect diversity is but a tiny part of that evidence.--Percy