Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.

He probably shouldn't have said it is impossible. But certainly the onus is upon the person claiming that such hyperevolution did occur to show that it both can and did occur. That is why it is an ad-hoc explanation.It is not up to him or anyone else to show how it can't happen. Although I am sure a pretty good case can be made that it can't without further ad-hoc conditions being presented such as "greater genetic diversity" which doesn't make ANY sense given that there was only 2 representatives of each species. Apparently according to Faith genetic diversity is not actually stored in genes.Either way, until there is support for it from her, it IS just an ad-hoc explanation.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

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

Yet more ad-hoc. You cannot even demonstrate that such creatures could survive.

---

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

No, the theory of common decent is based on the construction of nested heirarchies based on EVIDENCE. The TOE does not propose that all insects came from a few pair 4000 years ago so it does not need the ad-hoc addons of polypody, hyperevolution, etc. Regular common breeding and time is enough and that is not too hard to imagine because that is what we see happening today. The problem with Faith's explanation is that it ADDS ad-hoc reasoning and to supplement the LACK of any evidence for the wild hypothesis.

---

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

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)

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)

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. 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. 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)

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)

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. 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. 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. 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)

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. 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? 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? 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)