Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 29 of 148 (338563)
08-08-2006 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Randy
08-29-2002 11:31 PM


absurdity of the critic's argument
Another falsification of the worldwide flood myth is the diversity of insect life on earth.
One thing that puzzles me on the evo argument here. The story of the Flood records that "the Lord" closed the door to the Ark himself, right?
16And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him; and the LORD shut him in.
That's a very unusual statement in the Bible because it suggests a direct physical action by God. Now whether you want to see it that way, the story itself involves God causing the Flood, and so the truth is that it is impossible for science based on the technology today to falsify the story of the Flood.
It is possible to falsify perhaps a certain theory on how the Flood occurred. For example, if one says the Flood happened this way, you might could prove or disprove that to a certain degree, but to claim the story itself is falsified is ludicrous.

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 32 by CK, posted 08-08-2006 3:00 PM randman has replied
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 08-08-2006 3:27 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 33 of 148 (338576)
08-08-2006 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by CK
08-08-2006 3:00 PM


Re: absurdity of the critic's argument
CK, the claim can be a mixture of 1 and 2 actually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by CK, posted 08-08-2006 3:00 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by CK, posted 08-08-2006 3:10 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 35 of 148 (338579)
08-08-2006 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by CK
08-08-2006 3:10 PM


Re: absurdity of the critic's argument
So your argument is that if God does do something, science must steadfastly insist He didn't and offer up other explanations even if they are not true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by CK, posted 08-08-2006 3:10 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by CK, posted 08-08-2006 3:21 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 40 of 148 (338612)
08-08-2006 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Parasomnium
08-08-2006 5:00 PM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
But evolution of all of today's insect species from a base small enough to fit on the Ark more or less unnoticed, in just over 4000 years, is impossible.
Can you substantiate that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Parasomnium, posted 08-08-2006 5:00 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Jazzns, posted 08-08-2006 5:22 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 44 of 148 (338634)
08-08-2006 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Jazzns
08-08-2006 5:22 PM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
well, the whole ToE is somewhat ad hoc then if asserting that insects could have evolved from a common ancestor is ad hoc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Jazzns, posted 08-08-2006 5:22 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Jazzns, posted 08-09-2006 11:05 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 56 of 148 (338923)
08-10-2006 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Jazzns
08-09-2006 11:05 AM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
Except jazzns, nested heirarchies without ever seeing the common ancestor in living biota or the fossil record is not evidence for ToE. Quite simply, the fossil record and living biota are the hard evidence and since they totally contradict ToE, ToE must be false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Jazzns, posted 08-09-2006 11:05 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by kuresu, posted 08-10-2006 11:19 AM randman has replied
 Message 100 by Jazzns, posted 08-11-2006 4:37 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 57 of 148 (338925)
08-10-2006 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Quetzal
08-09-2006 9:59 PM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
For you guys to resort to written records is a joke. Written records denote dinosaurs being observed in Roman and other times, even a few hundred years ago. All we hear today are the exagerrated stories of dragons, but going back to actual reports, some quite credible, the descriptions often fit dinosaurs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Quetzal, posted 08-09-2006 9:59 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by kuresu, posted 08-10-2006 11:14 AM randman has not replied
 Message 84 by MangyTiger, posted 08-10-2006 7:31 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 64 of 148 (339007)
08-10-2006 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by kuresu
08-10-2006 11:19 AM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
Evolution is an on-going process. There is no reason to think that if evolution primarily proceeds via groups within a species separating for whatever reason and evolving into new species and then new genera and new families of species, so that we see a split, with a common ancestor giving rise to 2 or more strains of species, that we should not expect to see the common ancestor living.
Certainly, there should be some instances where the common ancestor went extinct, but we should see some instances where the common ancestor is not extinct. There is no reason not to.
What is your basis for saying they should always have gone extinct, and always moreover have never left any fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by kuresu, posted 08-10-2006 11:19 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by kuresu, posted 08-10-2006 4:34 PM randman has replied
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2006 5:23 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 66 of 148 (339014)
08-10-2006 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by kuresu
08-10-2006 4:34 PM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
Did I say that all went extinct? Did I say that all did not leave fossils? I don't think so.
There are living common ancestors, but those splits are young, like with us and chimps and bonobos.
OK, kuresu, please tell me the name of the living common ancestor to all hominds, or all primates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by kuresu, posted 08-10-2006 4:34 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by kuresu, posted 08-10-2006 5:15 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 69 of 148 (339033)
08-10-2006 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by crashfrog
08-10-2006 5:23 PM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
The common ancestor? Look at the charts and so forth naming various families of species, etc,...and you will always see the mythical common ancestor un-named because there are no fossils or living common ancestors on those charts.
Some put one up awhile back with the darker-colored sections the actual species and the lighter-colored areas the blanks, and it was remarkable how consistent this pattern is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2006 5:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2006 5:40 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 85 of 148 (339087)
08-10-2006 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by MangyTiger
08-10-2006 7:31 PM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
The city of Nerluc was renamed in honor of the killing of a "dragon" there. This animal was bigger than an ox and had long, sharp, pointed horns on its head. There were a number of different horned dinosaurs. The Triceratops is one example.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITALY
A scientist named Ulysses Aldrovandus carefully described a small "dragon" seen along a farm road in northern Italy. The date was May 13, 1572. The poor, rare creature was so small that a farmer killed it just by knocking it on the head with his walking stick.
The animal had done nothing wrong but hiss at the farmer's oxen as they approached it on the road. The scientist got the dead body and made measurements and a drawing. He even had the animal mounted for a museum. It had a long neck, a very long tail and a fat body.
The skeletons of a number of ancient reptile-like creatures match this basic description.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHINA
Thousands of dragon stories and pictures can be found in ancient Chinese books and art. One interesting legend tells about a famous Chinese man named Yu. After the great world flood, Yu surveyed the land of China and divided it into sections. He "built channels to drain the water off to the sea" and helped make the land livable again. Many snakes and "dragons" were driven from the marshlands when Yu created the new farmlands.
Ancient Chinese books even tell of a family that kept "dragons" and raised babies. It is said that in those days, Chinese kings used "dragons" for pulling royal chariots on special occasions, a fact of which famous explorer Marco Polo himself attested to.
One account takes us back to the days of the early Britons, from whom the modern Welsh are descended. They provide us with our earliest surviving European accounts of reptilian monsters, one of whom killed and devoured King Morvidus in 336 B.C. We are told in the amazing account, translated for us by Geoffrey of Monmouth, that the monster "gulped down the body of Morvidus as a big fish swallows a little one." Geoffrey himself described the animal as a Belua. The Belua was described as reptilian, and when we endeavor to compare it with any other animal of today, coupled with the fact that it gulped down Morvidus "as a big fish swallows a little one," we find it difficult in doing so. No land animal of today, let alone reptilian, could devour a human by such standards. Therefore, Geoffrey was either a flat out liar, or he told the truth.
In the British Isles alone there are approximately 200 locations in which dinosaur activity has been reported. Going into the future to the year 1405, we now visit Bures in Soffolk, where a chronicle reveals to us the physical reality of yet another dinosaur:
"Close to the town of Bures, near Sudbury, there has lately appeared, to the great hurt of the countryside, a dragon, vast in body, with a crested head, teeth like a saw, and a tail extending to an enormous length. Having slaughtered the shepherd of a flock, it devoured many sheep."
After an unsuccessful attempt by local archers to kill the beast, due to its impenetrable hide:
"...in order to destroy him, all the country people around were summoned. But when the dragon saw that he was again to be assailed with arrows, he fled into a marsh or mere and there hid himself among the long reeds, and was no more seen."
As you continue to read, you may perhaps think to yourself, "Why aren't these chronicles from history more well known? Why have I not heard or read about these things before?" Sadly, most historians throw aside these accounts, simply because the word "dragon" is used. As the term "dinosaur" wasn't invented until the 1800s, to do so is foolish and a detriment to history itself.
In the 15th century, according to a contemporary chronicle that still survives in Canterbury Cathedral's library, the following incident was reported. On the afternoon of Friday, September 26, 1449, two giant reptiles were seen fighting on the banks of the River Stour (near the village of Little Cornard) which marked the English county borders of Suffolk and Essex. One was black, and the other "reddish and spotted". After an hour-long struggle that took place "to the admiration of many beholding them", the black monster yielded and returned to its lair, the scene of the conflict being known ever since as Sharpfight Meadow.
As late as August, 1614, the following sober account was given of a strange reptile that was encountered in St. Leonard's Forest in Sussex.
The sighting was near a village that was known as 'Dragon's Green' long before this report was published. Original writing has been kept for authenticity:
"This serpent is reputed to be nine feete, or rather more, in length, and shaped almost in the form of an axletree of a cart: a quantite of thickness in the middest, and somewhat smaller at both endes. The former part, which he shootes forth as a necke, is supposed to be an elle long (3 ft. 9 inch); with a white ring, as it were, of scales about it. The scales along his back seem to be blackish, and so much as is discovered under his bellie, appeareth to be red . . . it is likewise discovered to have large feete, but the eye may there be deceived, for some suppose that serpents have no feete . . . (The dragon) rids away as fast as a man can run. His food (rabbits) is thought to be, for the most part, in a conie-warren, which he much frequents . . . There are likewise upon either side of him discovered two great bunches so big as a large foote-ball, and (as some thinke) will in time grow to wings, but God, I hope, will (to defend the poor people in the neighbourhood) that he shall be destroyed before he grows to fledge."
This dragon was reportedly seen in various places within a circuit of three or four miles, and the pamphlet named some of the still-living witnesses who had seen him. These included as follows: John Steele, Christopher Holder, and a certain "widow woman dwelling neare Faygate". Another witness was "the carrier of Horsham, who lieth at the White Horse (inn) in Southwark". One of the locals set his two mastiffs onto the monster, and apart from losing his dogs, he was fortunate to escape with his own life, for the dragon was already credited with the deaths of a man and woman at whom it had spat and how consequently had been killed by its venom. When approached unwittingly, our pamphleteer tells us the monster was:
"...of countenance very proud and at the sight or hearing of men or cattel will raise his neck upright and seem to listen and looke about, with great arrogancy."
Fascinating . . . a true eyewitness account of typically reptilian behavior.
Going ahead to the year 1867, less than 200 years ago (2 years after the American Civil War), the monster that lived in the woods around Fittleworth in Sussex was last seen. It would reportedly run up to people hissing and spitting if they happened to stumble across it unawares, although it never harmed anyone. Several such cases could be cited, but suffice it to say that too many incidents like these are reported down through the centuries and from all sorts of locations for us to say that they are all fairy-tales.
TrueAuthority.com - Dinosaurs - Dinosaurs In History
Here are some details from supposed dinosaur sightings.
Whether or not pterosaur (“winged lizard”) is technically a dinosaur, this flying reptile is still believed by some to have died out 65 million years ago. However, there have been dozens of dinosaur sightings in recent years in the United States alone. In 1961, a business man flying his own plane over the Hudson River Valley was ”buzzed’ by what he said could only be described as a pterodactyl type creature. In 1976 there were at least three very similar sightings in Texas, including one in which three elementary teachers in San Antonio all reported seeing the same creature. One of the most fascinating sightings occurred in 1856 when a railway tunnel was being dug between St.-Dizier and Nancy, France. The Illustrated London News on February 9, 1856, reports that when a large limestone boulder was split open, a creature with a wingspan of 10’ 7” spilled out, flapped its wings, then died, leaving a precise mold of its body in the stone. Recorded sightings of thunderbirds are no stranger to in the American Southwest.1
Since 1938, the coelacanth fish species, believed to have been extinct for a millennia, has turned up as dinosaur sightings in waters from South Africa to Indonesia. One of the most recent sightings of coelacanth were identified during a 2002 dive off the shores of Sodowana, South Africa. Until these live specimens were sighted and studied, they had only been known from fossils.2
By far, the most fascinating dinosaur sightings come out of Africa with similar creatures spotted in Papua, New Guinea. These stories have been persistent for centuries and are too similar to be ignored. A specialized field of study, crypto zoology, has pursued these findings for many years. Consistently over the past 100 years natives talk about mokele-mbembe (blocker-of-rivers). These dinosaur sightings come from varied areas, but are startlingly similar. All of them involve a creature that spends most of its time in the water, though it climbs ashore during the day in search of food. Its size is approximately between an elephant and hippopotamus but with a long neck and small head. And the mokele-mbembe feeds off of specific vegetation and fruit growing along the water’s edge. No matter where they have been spotted in Africa, the natives all say that hippopotamus and alligators quickly leave the section of the river where this creature roams. It is very territorial and aggressively protects its area. Every time natives are shown pictures, they quickly identify a sauropod-type dinosaur, similar in shape to a small Apatosaurus. In 1983, university-trained biologist Marcellin Agnagna began his own excursions into these areas and describes his sighting in an area near Lake Tele. David Woetzel, president and CEO of CCR Data systems is another frequent researcher gathering sighting information of the mokele-mbembe in Africa.3
Sightings of Ogopogo, a plesiosaur-type creature, are abundant and have been well documented in Canada for the past 130 years.
Dinosaur Sightings
Dragons are universally claimed to have been observed in cultures around the world. Keep in mind that despite embellishments and tales, there are consistent accounts around the world that show nothing more than seeing a dinosaur-type of creature.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by MangyTiger, posted 08-10-2006 7:31 PM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by anglagard, posted 08-10-2006 10:07 PM randman has replied
 Message 92 by MangyTiger, posted 08-10-2006 10:50 PM randman has replied
 Message 132 by Tryannasapien Rex, posted 08-24-2006 5:18 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 86 of 148 (339091)
08-10-2006 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by kuresu
08-10-2006 5:15 PM


not the common ancestor
Dryopithecus is interesting, but I don't think he is considered the common ancestor of hominds.
All remains date to between 13 million and 10 million years ago, likely after the common ancestor of the Asian and African ape clades.
http://www.johnhawks.net/...hecus/dryopithecus_overview.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by kuresu, posted 08-10-2006 5:15 PM kuresu has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 90 of 148 (339106)
08-10-2006 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by anglagard
08-10-2006 10:07 PM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
Ceolith was extinct for 65 million years.....until a few years ago.
Recapitulation was a fact, at least for evos.
People tell for centuries of seeing dinosaur-type creatures, with fewer reports as time goes on, and lo and behold, we find thousands of fossils indicating such creatures did live.....hmmm,.....but somehow we are suppossed to discount the eyewitness accounts despite a mountain of physical evidence such creatures lived?
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by anglagard, posted 08-10-2006 10:07 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by anglagard, posted 08-10-2006 10:48 PM randman has not replied
 Message 94 by MangyTiger, posted 08-10-2006 11:08 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 95 of 148 (339112)
08-10-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by MangyTiger
08-10-2006 10:50 PM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by MangyTiger, posted 08-10-2006 10:50 PM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by anglagard, posted 08-11-2006 2:36 AM randman has not replied
 Message 109 by MangyTiger, posted 08-11-2006 10:29 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 97 of 148 (339118)
08-11-2006 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by MangyTiger
08-10-2006 11:08 PM


Re: Ad hoc explanations
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by MangyTiger, posted 08-10-2006 11:08 PM MangyTiger 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