Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.

It didn't have to live on the ark. It evolved afterward from whatever insect was on the ark. Nemesis Juggernaut's discussion of how beagles weren't on the ark either is my argument, the one I've been making all along. That's merely microevolution from an original member of the kind, demonstrable even within a few centuries. Same thing for insects. Previous greater genetic possibilities (which decrease with each speciation event).

quote:

---

It didn't have to live on the ark. It evolved afterward from whatever insect was on the ark.

---

What "kind" of insect that could have lived on the ark could it have "micro" evolved from?

quote:

---

Nemesis Juggernaut's discussion of how beagles weren't on the ark either is my argument, the one I've been making all along. That's merely microevolution from an original member of the kind, demonstrable even within a few centuries. Same thing for insects.

---

Beagles don't have a completely different life cycle from other dogs or even other mammals for that that matter.

quote:

---

Previous greater genetic possibilities (which decrease with each speciation event).

---

When in doubt make up an ad-hoc non explanation.Since cicadas appear in the supposedly flood deposited fossil record in the Cretaceous I guess you have to postulate that something hypemicroevolved back to cicadas after the flood.This whole hyperevolution nonsense is just totally silly and shows how desperate YECs are in the face of overwhelming scientfic evidence against their Bronze Age mythology. You invoke hyper-evolution of a totally different life cycle over a few thousand years when you think your myth requires it and deny evolution at a much lower level over a few million when you think it contradicts your mythology.Randy

You believe that time, space, and matter spontaneously generated out of absolute nothingness and lack zero empirical evidence of any transspecific evolution, yet you have the temerity to call Faith's explanation ad hoc? That's rich. You do realize that we are thousands of times removed from an original copy right? The very first specimen was concievably in prime, genetic disposition, far more pure genetically than what we see now.

Marine fossils are NOT on topic here

All of your hypothesis is purely speculative based on incredulity. I have given you an empiracle example of a global flood with marine organisms found all over the world. How do you explain that? And when you do explain it, isn't that an ad hoc explanation?Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

The marine fossils on mountains are NOT on topic here.I suggest you consider a new thread on the topic. Be warned that the dogs will salivate at the first sight of it.

quote:

---

I have given you an empiracle example of a global flood with marine organisms found all over the world. How do you explain that? And when you do explain it, isn't that an ad hoc explanation?

---

As pointed out by the admin marine fossils in mountain sediments are not on topic here but Leonardo Divinci first realized that they are not evidence of a global flood. They are easily explained by modern geology while you have no chance of explaining insect diversity if the global flood is not a myth. I am sure there is at least one topic on this board on the multiple ways the fossil record falsifies the global flood so why don't you either post there or open an new thread. There are many people here quite capable of refuting that particular nonsense but it is not appropriate to respond to it further on this thread. The topic here is insect diversity and the inability of entire families of insects to survive a global flood on or off of the mythical ark.

quote:

---

You do realize that we are thousands of times removed from an original copy right? The very first specimen was concievably in prime, genetic disposition, far more pure genetically than what we see now.

---

Actually 4,000 years is only 235 generations of 17 year cicadas not thousands. The claims about insects diversity arising over a few hundred years because the "original genome was more pure" is just nonsense and only shows that you don't understand genetics. How did cicadas just happen to evolve after the flood and also exist in the flood deposited fossil record?Randy

Alright, marine life is OT to this particular debate. I will stop using that as a basis for my argument on this particular thread. But how is it an impossibility for insects? Only unclean animals came onboard in pairs of two, while clean animals came onboard in pairs of seven. As far as vegetation, seeds can remain on the surface and begin to germinate once in good soil after the waters recede."You shall take seven pairs of every clean animal with you, the male and his female. Of the animals that are not clean, take two, one male and one female." -Genesis 7:2 What? First of all, I assume your argument stems from whether or not there was enough room on the Ark to house that many animals. Cicadas, I assume you would realize, are tiny creatures. So, even if there were mulitple Cicadidae, how would it present a problem? I assume you are also aware that cicadas have far more generations than mammals. I don't know where you are getting 235 generations, as if it presents the notion that Cicadidae only mate once in their lifetime. You also forget that there was no predation in the beginning. Aside from which, you seem to forget that a supernatural event precipitated all of the animals to come to Noah in the first place. You're telling me that God would some how be stiffled by this asinine but specious plea to begin with? I guess I'm not at all seeing where this presents a problem?

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

Exactly what does "prime genetic disposition" mean?As for "more pure genetically", wouldn't that mean less diversity rather than more?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Hi Randman,I wasn't sure exactly where best to dive in to try to stauch the off-topic discussion, so I'm picking here: Evolutionary fraud is not the topic of this thread. Please stop issuing broad accusations in threads with very specific topics. It's inflammatory and off-topic. I have recently offered on a couple of occasions to promote an evolutionary fraud topic if you would like to discuss it, and you haven't accepted the offer. But refusing the offer doesn't make your persistent introduction of this topic into other threads okay.Since you've been here for a while and understand this very well yet persist anyway, I'm suspending you for 24 hours.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

What? First of all, I assume your argument stems from whether or not there was enough room on the Ark to house that many animals. Cicadas, I assume you would realize, are tiny creatures. So, even if there were mulitple Cicadidae, how would it present a problem?

---

Then you didn't read the OP at all did you? It has nothing to do with room on the ark. Do you think there was room for a forest with living trees for the nymph stages of the cicadas to live in?

quote:

---

I assume you are also aware that cicadas have far more generations than mammals. I don't know where you are getting 235 generations, as if it presents the notion that Cicadidae only mate once in their lifetime.

---

Cicadas do mate only once in their lifetimes. The 17 year periodical cicadas only mate once every 17 years. I suggest you actually try to read the posts you are responding to.

quote:

---

You also forget that there was no predation in the beginning.

---

You are using one myth to try to justify another but it doesn't help.

quote:

---

Aside from which, you seem to forget that a supernatural event precipitated all of the animals to come to Noah in the first place.

---

Poof God did it doesn't really explain anything here. You might as well say God poofed world into existence last Tuesday with all the evidence of long ages intact.

quote:

---

You're telling me that God would some how be stiffled by this asinine but specious plea to begin with? I guess I'm not at all seeing where this presents a problem?

---

It was God's supposed plan to flood the earth to get rid of evil and somehow keep all species alive on a big wooden boat that would have been asinine if it had actually occured but it didn't and that is also off topic here.What we see is that young earth creationists have no way to explain insect diversity if there really were a global flood a few thousand years ago.Randy

First of all, most cicadas don't have a lifecycle where they are in their nymph stages for 17 years. Most are within 2-6 years. I see that you conveniently left that out. Secondly, this underground hibernation is to protect them from predators. In the antediluvian world there was no predation, hence, there was no fear of being eaten. Lastly, you seem to forget that Almighty God is in control here and that He couldn't have forgot about the disposition of the little 'ol Cicada.I'll bet after you saw this article on a fundyatheist website you were elated. If this is the best argument against the Flood then that's just sad. Aside from which, there is far more tangible evidence to support the Flood than there is pure speculation against it. Seriously, this is an argument based on mere conjecture.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

quote:

---

First of all, most cicadas don't have a lifecycle where they are in their nymph stages for 17 years. Most are within 2-6 years.

---

And how could animals that live 2 to 4 years underground feeding on the roots of living trees have survived a global flood? Of course they couldn't have.

quote:

---

I see that you conveniently left that out.

---

I have discussed that on other posts but it doesn't matter. None of them could have survived the global flood.

quote:

---

Secondly, this underground hibernation is to protect them from predators. In the antediluvian world there was no predation, hence, there was no fear of being eaten.

---

You are using one myth to try to justify another here but they don't just live underground to escape predators. In fact there is underground predation of cicada nymphs which is why I had so much trouble with moles before the last big hatch of 17 year cicadas. They live underground to feed on the roots of living trees while they develop.

quote:

---

Lastly, you seem to forget that Almighty God is in control here and that He couldn't have forgot about the disposition of the little 'ol Cicada.

---

But the Bible says that all creeping and flying things that weren't on the ark died. Cicadas and many other families of insects couldn't have survived on or off the ark. It doesn't say that God poofed some animals that couldn't have survived on or off the ark into a hyperspace warp to protect them during the flood. It said everything not on the ark died.Do you think there was a forest on the ark to preserve the cicadas. Do you think there was a flowing stream to preserve the many mayfly species that only live in moving fresh water? Do you think there was a lake on board for the hundreds of species of ephemeroptera that only live in fresh water lakes? Do you think there was sand or loose soil for the cicada killer wasps to bury cicadas they had killed with their eggs? Do you think there were living plants for all the species of insects that require specific living plants for potions of their life cycles? Who took care of all the tens of thousands of "kinds" of insects on the ark? There are estimated to be up to a million species of insects in existence. To think they are all descendants of survivors of an global flood a few thousand years ago is purely ridiculous.

quote:

---

I'll bet after you saw this article on a fundyatheist website you were elated.

---

you would loose your bet. I came up with this because I know something about insects and read some total nonsense in a fundy YEC book about insects surviving the flood on floating vegetation.

quote:

---

If this is the best argument against the Flood then that's just sad.

---

Actually it is only one of dozens of irrefutable arguments showing that the global flood is a myth. There are many others as topics on this board. What is really sad is that anyone still takes Bronze Age mythology seriously in this day and age.

quote:

---

Aside from which, there is far more tangible evidence to support the Flood than there is pure speculation against it.

---

There is absolutely no evidence for a global flood and massive evidence against it. If you think there is evidence for a global flood start a new thread but be prepared to be demolished.

quote:

---

Seriously, this is an argument based on mere conjecture.

---

No it is an argument based on knowledge of insect physiology and diversity which you clearly don't have and don't want to have as ignorance of nearly all of science is required to sustain belief in the global flood myth.RandyEdited by Randy, : Extra words crept in

The topic is insect diversity not dragons.

quote:

---

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.

---

SO THIS IS WHAT U QUOTE
It doesn't say and had long, sharp, pointed horns on its head your statement is just an out right lie!!!HERE'S THE full passage that you didnt quote
wikiepedie \/ \/

quote:

---

legend has it that the creature inhabited the area of Nerluc in Provence, and devastated the landscape far and wide. The Tarasque was a sort of
dragon with six short legs like a Bear's,
an ox-like body covered with a turtle shell,
and a scaly tail that ended in a scorpion's sting.
It had a lion's head,
horse's ears,
and the face of a bitter old man.

---

No dinosaur had six legs
dinosaurs don't have stinger tails
loin head horses ears and the face of a bitter old man.
sound's like a myth to me
a dinosaur YEA RIGHT LAUGHING TO MY GRAVE
trying to hide the truth are you MR.randman????

quote:

---

A scientist named Ulysses Aldrovandus carefully described a small "dragon" seen along a farm road in northern Italy.

---

small "dragon">a modern day lizard

quote:

---

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.

---

could have been kimodo dragon like lizards or alligators
again just mordern day lizard sightings

quote:

---

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

---

wikipedie

quote:

---

Later in his reign, a monster (Belua) appeared from the Irish Sea and began devouring the inhabitants of the western shores. In an attempt to stop this savagery, Morvidus met the beast in single-combat and used every weapon he could against her, but to no avail. The monster lunged at Morvidus and consumed him.

---

a monster not a dinosaur
stop trying to stretch the truth randman

quote:

---

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.

---

a 13ft crocodile could
is this all you got
tall tales and monster sightings
if there was so many sighting there would be also physical evidence to go with it
namely Dino poop
ah but you never here about a 500lb Dino poop sighting
now do ya
also don't forget the dinosaur bones they would have viable DNA in them where are theyEdited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

If it is falsifiable then it's science is it not ?Edited by AdminNosy, : Topic warningEdited by AdminNosy, : removed topic warning it's close enough

Science is a process used to examine and explain our world.Once something is falsified unequivocally it is then put aside. The examination of our world with the flood "hypothesis" in mind was done about 200 years ago. The hypothesis failed these tests.To continue to espouse the idea when there is no new evidence to support it and lots more to falsify it is NOT a scientific approach.This thread covers just one of the many lines of evidence that are unexplainable by the flood "hypothosis".

No. Everything that is false is not science.The flood has been falsified by science.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC