positive evidence of creationism

"well,as i said,the likelyhood that insects could last for 6 months adrift on a leaf on the ocean is next to non existant if you know anything about insect biology and life cycles."
--Ok here we go, great, I thought you said that 'i'm afraid that common sense dictates that i proceed under the more likely assumption that insects could not have survived a world wide flood.' If it is more than common scence, ie 'if you know anything about insect biology and life cycles.'. Present something to combat the theory that insects can infact survive through this."Your answer was to assume that insects back then were completely different than they are today."
--Absolutely not 'completely' different, just not as specialized, as 'e'volution requires."I've also stated that the 40 day long downpoor itself would have been the death of most insects but you countered by saying that it didn't rain all that much."
--Technically I didn't say that 'it didn't rain all that much' I said that It didn't rain with the force and violence you propose it needed."Then I explained to you that while some insects can survive on the surface of water of a limited time at least,most insect will drown by simply being wet...you didn't even answer that one."
--I didn't answer it? Im sorry, well my answer would be that they wouldn't be on the surface of the water, and also no doubt about 1 in every 1000 insects would have died in that time. I would argue that they would all die just from being wet, also insects grew to be of considerably larger size than they are today, mesquito's 10 times larger, the normal ant size would have been 1 inch long."need i go on?"
--Yes please.-------------------

The fact of the matter is that this is all pure conjectures on both our parts. But the main difference between your argument and mine is that mine does not seek to alter known insect physiology to make them capable of surviving a world wide flood for which,lets face it,there are at least as much evidence AGAINTS it then there is FOR it. True,there have been insects like mosquitoes that were much larger then their contemporary cousins but evidence points to them having existed well before 6000 years ago and their larger size would actually have played against them in a world wide flood scenario,as A: it would limit their choices of "survival leaves rafts" and B: they would have had to go on for well over 6 months without having any food (blood) to ingest. Furthermore,one can infer that IF there were fist sized mosquitoes in those days,then it would be logical to assume that the large anthropods back then could have grown to be as large as small dogs. And since the bigger an animal is,the more food it requires,i dont see how such a large creature could have spend 6 months+ floating on a tree trunk and have had enough food supply to weather those 6 months...and then we get to the problem of reproduction during and after those 6 months. Anthropods,and especially large ones,are by their nature,solitary creatures and female spiders do not tolerate the presence of males anywhere near them,except during mating periods. At any other time,they either drive them off or kill them outright. So for large anthropods to survive to this day,at least two of each species of spiders,male and female,would have had to survive for 6 months with vitrually no food supply and then,wash ashore in the same general area. By themselves each of these facts present very serious problems to insect flood survivability theory but when you start to add them up,the odds against their survival quiclky shoots to astronomical levels.But more to the point,the only existing "historical" record (and i'm being very generous here BTW) mentioning a world wide flood is quite clear and unambiguous about this; EVERYTHING not contained on the ark perished.

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 01-27-2002]

"The fact of the matter is that this is all pure conjectures on both our parts. But the main difference between your argument and mine is that mine does not seek to alter known insect physiology to make them capable of surviving a world wide flood for which,lets face it,there are at least as much evidence AGAINTS it then there is FOR it."
--You are assuming the way things are today, is how they have always been, in which is very obviously known that things were very different some time ago whether you go on a evolutionary time scale or not. Multi-ton Sea turtles, 70ft long sharks, 30ft wing span pterosaurs, and ofcourse the massive mesquito's, ants and 900 pound beavers, as we know beavers never stop growing as do the reptiles, which is why dinosaurs could get so enormous anyways."True,there have been insects like mosquitoes that were much larger then their contemporary cousins but evidence points to them having existed well before 6000 years ago."
--You can't use an evolutionary framework to go against a biblical happening, so you must automatically consider these mesquito's as being burried in the flood for it to be at all considered a relevant assertion, just as I must do when considering evolutionary theories."and their larger size would actually have played against them in a world wide flood scenario,as A: it would limit their choices of "survival leaves rafts" and B: they would have had to go on for well over 6 months without having any food (blood) to ingest. Furthermore,one can infer that IF there were fist sized mosquitoes in those days,then it would be logical to assume that the large anthropods back then could have grown to be as large as small dogs."
--A:How would it limit their choices of 'survival leaves rafts' as you portray it my wording. This would be for their survival, not against.
--B:Who said they drank blood? I'm not sure on mesquito's but as we know, some spiders will resort toward eating pollen to sustain them, though this is not highly sufficient as their adapted diet, this is evident that, if they were not as specialized they would not have had their specialized diet as they do today.
--C:Sure anthropods would have also grown to enormous size, but who's to say those were the ones that could live? They probley did, some probley didn't, as they would have their negatives and positives, negatives being their higher weight, and intern they would have to be in a special location or on a massive vegetation mat. But their positives being, their ability to be higher in the food chain, but ants and other small insects would have been a problem, they also would have been further no problem with rain, so it would be able to be on the outside and not confine to shelter inside a mat, depending on the violent degree of the rain (violent towards the spider/anthropods perspective)."And since the bigger an animal is,the more food it requires,i dont see how such a large creature could have spend 6 months+ floating on a tree trunk and have had enough food supply to weather those 6 months..."
--Food, being vegetation, or possibly other insects, would have been absolutely abundant during the flood, with vegetation covering the earth enormously before the flood as is evident by the fossil formations with abundant plant life in them."and then we get to the problem of reproduction during and after those 6 months. Anthropods,and especially large ones,are by their nature,solitary creatures and female spiders do not tolerate the presence of males anywhere near them,except during mating periods. At any other time,they either drive them off or kill them outright. So for large anthropods to survive to this day,at least two of each species of spiders,male and female,would have had to survive for 6 months with vitrually no food supply and then,wash ashore in the same general area. By themselves each of these facts present very serious problems to insect flood survivability theory but when you start to add them up,the odds against their survival quiclky shoots to astronomical levels."
--I highly doubt that almost any form of life would have had any interest in mating or killing anything unless it is in need of food, or is comfortable in mating in this rather chaotic event, survival would have been a tad of a higher priority."But more to the point,the only existing "historical" record (and i'm being very generous here BTW) mentioning a world wide flood is quite clear and unambiguous about this; EVERYTHING not contained on the ark perished."
--Absolutely not, everything not containing the breath of life through nostrils and living on land perished, insects do not have 'nostrils' nor do fish and other crustacians and whales and dolphins live on land. I think whoever wrote these chapters of Genesis were quite intelligent when writting this key point down.------------------

I am not assuming that thing the way they are today are the same as they were in the past but neither do i assume that those changes occured suddently in recent past(4550 years ago being fairly recent as far as i'm concerned).Who says that i cant use evolutionary arguments to counter the Biblical flood? You are constantly using biblical argument to support it.Mosquitos drink blood...thats their only sustenance. Some spiders consume pollen(which in itself presents yet another problem) but most spiders consume other animals and insects by liquifying their insides with their venom and drinking it. A tarentula requires its weight in food every 3-4 weeks or it starves so each tarentula surviving the flood would have required huge amounts of food supply for the 6 months long cruise on their luxurious floating logs...which also presents the problem of buyoyancy(not sure about the spelling). Trees,leaves and twigs dont float indefinitely even on calm water,let alone moving and often violent waters of oceans. I seriously doubt that there would have been much floating vegetation if any left at the end of 6 months. As for the survival instinct of spiders,you make sound like a consious decision on their part. The nature of female anthropods is to attack any male coming near them EXCEPT during mating season...and even then,the male has to do his things and then get the hell out of Dodge on the double if he doesn't want to wind up on the menu of his latest conquest because yes,spiders are canibals...every last one of them. This alone creates a very specific difficulty to overcome. It is concievable that given enough time,their species would learn to overcome it but 6 months certainly does not qualify as enough time by any stretch of the imagination. History and biology has all demonstrated that a sudden change in a species's ecosystem almost invariably results in the extinction of said species because specification and adaptations require several generations. I dont know about you but i for one consider a sudden world wide flood followed by an equally sudden ice age(i'm taking your word for it)constitute a huge change in the ecosystem of land dwelling,moderate to tropical climate inhabiting creatures.

--If you are looking in the fossil record, your in a dead end, because you would be to assume that the fossil record was layed down over millions/billions of years
--------------------------------------------------------------------
At least, True Creation, you concede that the fossil record appears to have been lad down over million/billions of years and therfore directly contradicts young earth creationism.you then on to argue(I think) that there is genetic evidence that shows that the millions of species presently living on earth could have somehow evolved from basic kinds in the past five? ten? thousand years.
True Creation, I am glad that you concede that micro and indeed even macro evolution happens, which is what would have had to have happened if todays diversity had evolved from a few basic kinds. You should realise however that virtually no evoluntionary biologist believes that evolution could happen at that superfast rate.
True Creation, have you ever heard the maxim " He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool?" I am trying to put this in the kindest light, but if you don't know about genetics or evolutionary biology, you will look like a fool arguing about it.
Do some research, babe.Read an introductionary textbook on evolutionary biology. Ask some questions of people who know.There are some such folk on this very message board. Serously, read up and then draw some conclusions. Then we can talk.

"I am not assuming that thing the way they are today are the same as they were in the past but neither do i assume that those changes occured suddently in recent past(4550 years ago being fairly recent as far as i'm concerned)."
--What stops them from these changes occuring suddenly? 4350 or so years ago to me seems very long ago, but ofcourse it is practically nothing on a macro scale."Who says that i cant use evolutionary arguments to counter the Biblical flood? You are constantly using biblical argument to support it."
--In this particular case it is not at all exceptable, you are trying to counter the feasability of these insects in a biblical framework, by saying that they lived 6000 years ago. Your using your own doctrine to counter biblical feasability, it just doesn't work like that. It would be simmilar for me to say that since no or even if you consider the few that are suseptable of bein transitionals since there arent enough, therefore, it goes against the evolutionary theory, that would be an incorrect statement on my part when challenging evolution's 'feasability', that is, is it possible."Mosquitos drink blood...thats their only sustenance."
--Well, you tempted me to actually do a short research on mosphitos, and guess what I happend to stumble on in encarta:

quote:

---

...the mouthparts of the female are long, adapted for piercing and for sucking blood. The male, which feeds on nectar and water, has rudimentary mouthparts. Females of this group prefer the blood of warm-blooded animals.

​

"Mosquito." Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

---

I also found this quote interesting also in Encarta:

quote:

---

Female mosquitoes lay their eggs only in water; some species lay their eggs in running water, others in woodland pools, marshes, swamps, estuaries, or in containers such as rain barrels.

​

"Mosquito." Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

---

--Thus if they just had to lay their eggs they could have done it fine, no telling if they would live though beside the point."Some spiders consume pollen(which in itself presents yet another problem) but most spiders consume other animals and insects by liquifying their insides with their venom and drinking it. A tarentula requires its weight in food every 3-4 weeks or it starves so each tarentula surviving the flood would have required huge amounts of food supply for the 6 months long cruise on their luxurious floating logs...which also presents the problem of buyoyancy(not sure about the spelling)."
--The point is that variation brings about specialized diets, even evolutionary doctrine knows this, thus spiders would not be as adapt to their diet. What is the problem that the ability to eat pollen gives?"Trees,leaves and twigs dont float indefinitely even on calm water,let alone moving and often violent waters of oceans. I seriously doubt that there would have been much floating vegetation if any left at the end of 6 months."
--Vegetation surely can float for long periods of time, some would sink by the end of this time, but when such vegetation is piled on top of each other, and especially if there are any logs under it, it will float for a very long time, the logs themselves will float for years, as some logs still float in spirit lake today I beleive from Mt. Saint Hellens."As for the survival instinct of spiders,you make sound like a consious decision on their part. The nature of female anthropods is to attack any male coming near them EXCEPT during mating season...and even then,the male has to do his things and then get the hell out of Dodge on the double if he doesn't want to wind up on the menu of his latest conquest because yes,spiders are canibals...every last one of them."
--This happens rarely and when it does happen, the male almost always gets away, need spiders even be interested in mating during a flood."This alone creates a very specific difficulty to overcome. It is concievable that given enough time,their species would learn to overcome it but 6 months certainly does not qualify as enough time by any stretch of the imagination."
--I have not yet encountered really any sufficient problems in this area of the Flood, as you yourslelf are helping me realise that more and more."History and biology has all demonstrated that a sudden change in a species's ecosystem almost invariably results in the extinction of said species because specification and adaptations require several generations."
--Ofcourse they would, that is because they are specialized. Like I said before, during this period of time, veriety had not yet taken place to any relativelly effective degree that would indeed rear it toward survival in its condition."I dont know about you but i for one consider a sudden world wide flood followed by an equally sudden ice age(i'm taking your word for it)constitute a huge change in the ecosystem of land dwelling,moderate to tropical climate inhabiting creatures."
--The Ice age would have taken much more time for it to set in after and during the flood. Many years may have passed before it concluded its highest degree of glacial boundaries, leaving much room for insects to adapt, though for many reptiles, it would have been catastrophic, which would have lended in the end of the dinosaurs in the geologic column.------------------

"At least, True Creation, you concede that the fossil record appears to have been lad down over million/billions of years and therfore directly contradicts young earth creationism."
--I in no way shape or form, say that the fossil record at all appears to have been layed down over millions/billions of years. I simply said that for the ones that would rather use a conduct and strategy of ignorance to make my proposals look bad by using an evolutionary framework to discredit a biblical happening, that it would have been a mistake in advance."you then on to argue(I think) that there is genetic evidence that shows that the millions of species presently living on earth could have somehow evolved from basic kinds in the past five? ten? thousand years."
--I really didn't say this, I was asking if anyone would be able to show me how my statement that I see no problem in speciation over this 'short' period of time, would be contredicted by science/evidence."True Creation, I am glad that you concede that micro and indeed even macro evolution happens, which is what would have had to have happened if todays diversity had evolved from a few basic kinds."
--LoL..oh you truely made me laugh . You seem to be getting a Macro Evolutionary transformation and a Macro level effect intertwined as if it is the same. You see very small things can happen, and have devistating effects, take for instance the veriety of bacteria, new verieties are being created numberlessly every single day, thus speciation."You should realise however that virtually no evoluntionary biologist believes that evolution could happen at that superfast rate."
--So contredicts the evidence.AiG - Brisk Biters - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4034.asp

quote:

---

This may even be ‘the general mechanism for speciation in all multi-cellular creatures’ (by making it impossible to ‘back-breed’ with a parent population). Graves says, ‘We thought it took millions of years of long-term selection for a jumping gene to be activated. We’ve now shown that it can happen maybe in five minutes after fertilisation.’ These are exciting times to be a creationist.

​

La Trobe Bulletin, September 1998, pp. 7—8

---

"True Creation, have you ever heard the maxim " He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool?" I am trying to put this in the kindest light, but if you don't know about genetics or evolutionary biology, you will look like a fool arguing about it."
--I don't think that I would look like a fool unless I present it as though I was confident in my assertions that I concied in ignorantly portraying me being superior, ie saying your stupid because of so and so. But, in the majority, the way I present information, I don't see myself or anyone else presenting it as so, as being a fool but a 'seaker of truth'."Do some research, babe.Read an introductionary textbook on evolutionary biology. Ask some questions of people who know.There are some such folk on this very message board. Serously, read up and then draw some conclusions. Then we can talk."
--We can talk now, 'babe'.
--I have read up on some evolutionary biology, not as much, and probley not even as close to as much as some in these forums, but I know the basics, and I also know where to get informaiton when I so desire it's presence.------------------

Ok...i would like you to present me with evidence that animals and insects were not as specialised 4450 years ago as they are today. I would like you to present to me evidence that ~4450 years ago,there was an ice age and that the ocean dried up enough to allow people to travel from on continent to another on foot...I'll take everything into consideration;historical records,biological and microbiological studies,geological evidence,ect.

"Ok...i would like you to present me with evidence that animals and insects were not as specialised 4450 years ago as they are today."
--Sure, do you agree speciation occurs? If you do, which I surelly hope so, even more so to believe in evolution, you would agree speciation is a specialization process, activation of jumping genes activating and thus producing a more specialized trait, this is why we have verieties of bears, polar bear, brown bear, black bear, grizzly bear, panda bear, and thus, 5000 or so thousand types of misquitos, and different beak verieties in finches as Darwin observed. More discussion is urged if anything is unclear or needs emphesis."I would like you to present to me evidence that ~4450 years ago,there was an ice age"
--We all know that there was atleast one ice age, and I am sure you agree with the evidence of an ice age, also the evidence does not point it to being 10-12000 years ago, as I have tried to go through with participants in this forum earlier, but it seemed to be avoided or discontinued."and that the ocean dried up enough to allow people to travel from on continent to another on foot..."
--The effects of the flood, as you know, would have been the ice age, now what we know by the ice age is that it sucked up water, now using present day water in the oceans, if you drain it suffiently to the continental shelf, you would be able to walk virtually to any continent in the world, Australia is connected to the asian coninents, asia to North america by the well known passage through the continental shelf to alaska, and North America to south america. Anything could have walked virtually anywhere, as is shown on my very nice oceanographic sea floor and crustal elevation topographical map."I'll take everything into consideration;historical records,biological and microbiological studies,geological evidence,ect."
--Great ------------------

You have not answered my question. I do know about specification of animals but you implied earlier that animals and insects at the time of Noah were not yet specified...i asked you what specific evidence you have to that effect?What evidence you you have that 4450 ago,the ocean dried up enough to allow one to walk from one continent to another? What evidence is there that the Ice age occured 4450 years ago and not 12000 years ago?

"You have not answered my question."
--I wasn't expecting my answers to be adequite as I was more entering into a discussion, thus a conversation and more than one post towards conclusion."I do know about specification of animals but you implied earlier that animals and insects at the time of Noah were not yet specified...i asked you what specific evidence you have to that effect?"
--I think I know what you mean, but I would be wondering, what else would you expect to find if they were not as specefied?"What evidence you you have that 4450 ago,the ocean dried up enough to allow one to walk from one continent to another?"
--This would depend on when the ice age occured, and thus the 'sucking up' of the water into the polar glaciers, so we move on to the next question."What evidence is there that the Ice age occured 4450 years ago and not 12000 years ago?"Sure, hows about those ice cores huh? This is one of my sources for the aircraft being burried under approx. 250ft of ice in greenland.ICR - Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-226.htm

quote:

---

The Greenland Society of Atlanta has recently attempted to excavate a 10-foot diameter shaft in the Greenland ice pack to remove two B-17 Flying Fortresses and six P-38 Lightning fighters trapped under an estimated 250 feet of ice for almost 50 years (Bloomberg, 1989). Aside from the fascination with salvaging several vintage aircraft for parts and movie rights, the fact that these aircraft were buried so deeply in such a short time focuses attention on the time scales used to estimate the chronologies of ice.

​

If the aircraft were buried under about 250 feet of ice and snow in about 50 years, this means the ice sheet has been accumulating at an average rate of five feet per year. The Greenland ice sheet averages almost 4000 feet thick. If we were to assume the ice sheet has been accumulating at this rate since its beginning, it would take less than 1000 years for it to form and the recent-creation model might seem to be vindicated.

---

--This ice could have easily as you see formed in this time. I good reading of the link that I gave the quote from gives other examples of Ice core's and the age of the earth and thus the ice age. I am not sure what other dating mechenism would be made relevant in it, if you can think of one, i'd like to discuss it.------------------

In my opinion,what i expect to find 4550 years ago are animals and insect that were every bit as specified back then as they are today and i'm asking you what evidence you posssess that should lead me to conclude that specification had yet to occur at that time. Exemple: We know today that mosquitoes sustain themselve of blood. That is a rather specialised diet. Is there some evidence that 4550 years ago,mosquitoes could ingest ANY type of liquid,such as tree sap (from the proverbial floating log they alledgedly rode the flood upon) or even water filled with planctons,much like a whale does? Or even Koala bears. We know that they eat leaves of eucaliptus trees today. Is there evidence that should lead us to believe that this was not their sole diet 4550 years ago?As for the ice cores,i believe it is entirely concievable that just as they accumulate sheets of snow and ice on top of them,the graciers are being eroded away from the bottom or on their sides by water currents,which may means that they have reached some sort of a relative equilibrium. It is also possible that when those planes crashed,they dug very deep in the snow or that the fuel they carried ignited and the heat caused the snow around them to melt and made them sink IN the glaciers.

"In my opinion,what i expect to find 4550 years ago are animals and insect that were every bit as specified back then as they are today and i'm asking you what evidence you posssess that should lead me to conclude that specification had yet to occur at that time."
--You are asking a question that basically is near impossible, as many species are extreamly hard to detect merely by fossilized bone. But lets see your examples."Exemple: We know today that mosquitoes sustain themselve of blood. That is a rather specialised diet. Is there some evidence that 4550 years ago,mosquitoes could ingest ANY type of liquid,such as tree sap (from the proverbial floating log they alledgedly rode the flood upon) or even water filled with planctons,much like a whale does?"
--I quote from a previous post on this very page my post #52.

quote:

---

"Mosquitos drink blood...thats their only sustenance."
--Well, you tempted me to actually do a short research on mosphitos, and guess what I happend to stumble on in encarta:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

...the mouthparts of the female are long, adapted for piercing and for sucking blood. The male, which feeds on nectar and water, has rudimentary mouthparts. Females of this group prefer the blood of warm-blooded animals.
"Mosquito." Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

"Or even Koala bears. We know that they eat leaves of eucaliptus trees today. Is there evidence that should lead us to believe that this was not their sole diet 4550 years ago?"
--They could have been less finicky about their diet earlier, though the adaption of their eucaliptus is very much what it was promenantly designed for."As for the ice cores,i believe it is entirely concievable that just as they accumulate sheets of snow and ice on top of them,the graciers are being eroded away from the bottom or on their sides by water currents,which may means that they have reached some sort of a relative equilibrium."
--I doubt it would reach an equilibrium as glacial erosion and deposit, is not constant and varies."It is also possible that when those planes crashed,they dug very deep in the snow or that the fuel they carried ignited and the heat caused the snow around them to melt and made them sink IN the glaciers."
--Then why was there no 'dip' in the snow, and why was there so many thousands of layers burried above the plane, if there was there should have been signs of erosion.
--Ice cores can't be used as a suportive age of the earth hypothesis.------------------

The claim of 250ft of ice accumulating on aircraft is absurd because the actual climate data from Greenland contradicts it.Accumulation of snow in Greenland on one summit, 1800s-Present
(Avg: 0.246 meters/year) http://www.ume.maine.edu/GISP2/DATA/Accum.htmlICR conveniently ignores direct measurements of ice accumulation in favor of indirect methods? Why?Also they ignore some other interesting possible explanations for 250 ft of ice. Avalanches and blowing snow.

"The claim of 250ft of ice accumulating on aircraft is absurd because the actual climate data from Greenland contradicts it."
Then it shouldn't be down there then should it, here is the site dedicated to the plane:
--The Lost Squadron (1932) — Pre-Code Hollywood Gem"ICR conveniently ignores direct measurements of ice accumulation in favor of indirect methods? Why?"
--The actual depth was 268ft."Also they ignore some other interesting possible explanations for 250 ft of ice. Avalanches and blowing snow."
--I think that these are conceivable, but there should be evidence to substantiate it. I think I would like to e-mail the project manager and ask a couple questions, what is it you would expect to observe in the glacial formation from (A):An Avalanche and (B):Blowing snow?------------------