Beetles and Creationism

Perhaps I should say miracles rather than magic

Originally posted by PotatoError
Perhaps I should say miracles rather than magic

Perhaps you might first guess what the name of the god that caused the flood was?

Go on make a guess.

If I had 2 Beetles on my ark, I'd take George and Ringo.

ES

Originally posted by Phlabibit
If I had 2 Beetles on my ark, I'd take George and Ringo.

ES

I'd take a VW and put a pooper plow on it to keep the deck clear.

Gives a new meaning to dung-beetle dont it?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Perhaps you might first guess what the name of the god that caused the flood was?

Go on make a guess.

hmmmm...I'll say Enlil, with his horned crown. And only Atrahasis was spared.

Do I win?

Originally posted by David C
hmmmm...I'll say Enlil, with his horned crown. And only Atrahasis was spared.

Do I win?

You get the Kewpie doll for the god 🙂

Ziusudra (sumerian) or Utanapishtim (Babylonian)

is your survior Accadian?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Perhaps you might first guess what the name of the god that caused the flood was?

Go on make a guess.

Umm God didn't cause the flood. It was all rational and scientific you know. There was this water canopy you see....and a huge underground reservoir....and..and..did you know they have already found seven arcs on mount Ararat?

Originally posted by PotatoError
Originally posted by frogstomp
[b]Perhaps you might first guess what the name of the god that caused the flood was?

Go on make a guess.

Umm God didn't cause the flood. It was all rational and scientific you know. There was this water canopy you see....and a huge underground reservoir....and..and..did you know they have already found seven arcs on mount Ararat?[/b]

I remember now , before the flood there was no rain,
Just the sun beating down on naked people thru the thick clouds.

Originally posted by frogstomp
I remember now , before the flood there was no rain,
Just the sun beating down on naked people thru the thick clouds.

Froggy, you sure are a piece of work! I thought I was a wise guy! But did you know you're in the Bible? Scoffers, in verse 3 below, and uniformitarians are referred to in verse 4. But do consider verse 5, and if you do 'forget' that God did create it all, don't forget deliberately!

2 Peter chapter 3

3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.

4 They will say, Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.

5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

Originally posted by PotatoError
It isn't microevolution - it is macroevolution.

Beetles represent an order of the insect class. There are eight *families* of beetles. It is quite hillarious to see Creationists unwittingly admitting not only evolution above the species level, but also evolution above family level.

I don't think they realise how different various beetles are. For ...[text shortened]... ld evolve into fireflies (both types of beetle), the Creationists wouldn't be having any of it.

Slow down a bit will ya?
You're driving faster than your headlights!

I think your premise is unclear, and your conclusions are biased.

It doesn't have to be either two beetles, or 800,000. If there is more than one type of beetle and they cannot interbreed with each other (obviously there are many types), then there must have been at least that many pair on the ark. (Probably more since surely some types have become extinct since.) So how many non-interbreeding types are there? Eight you say? I'd grant you 50 if you can demonstrate that none of the fifty could interbreed.

But do remember the concept of variations within a kind,and the vast number of possibilities that can be had from one pair according to genetics. Especially in the case of the original types! Much genetic information has been lost since those days, and once lost, it can never be regained.

Once you settle on a reasonable number of non-interbreeding beetles, then we will gladly and wittingly claim that the rest of the systems and behaviors you refer to have been revealed over generations by the nature of variations occuring randomly, and natural selection doing its work.

And no, silly, noone is claiming that bears were produced from dogs.
But, all the vast variety of dogs (canines being defined by whether they can interbreed with each other) have descended from the one pair on the ark.

Originally posted by chinking58
Froggy, you sure are a piece of work! I thought I was a wise guy! But did you know you're in the Bible? Scoffers, in verse 3 below, and uniformitarians are referred to in verse 4. But do consider verse 5, and if you do 'forget' t ...[text shortened]... ers also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

[/b]

Forget it silly man, so are all you "saved" people in the bible in Matthew 25 as goats.

edit you're just another holier than thou phoney christian that think they're God's posse but in reality just a bunch of the obnoxious twerps

Quote Christ to me or go away.

Originally posted by chinking58
Slow down a bit will ya?
You're driving faster than your headlights!

I think your premise is unclear, and your conclusions are biased.

It doesn't have to be either two beetles, or 800,000. If there is more than one type of beetle and they cannot interbreed with each other (obviously there are many types), then there must have been at least that ...[text shortened]... by whether they can interbreed with each other) have descended from the one pair on the ark.

You, along with your creationist compatriots, employ the notion of kind. Presumably, you think that macroevolution is the evolution of one kind from another, and that macroevolution does not occur. Given your last post, you seem to think that for any two creatures, if they can interbreed, then they are of the same kind. So, you think that it is a necessary condition for difference in kind that two animals cannot interbreed. Is this condition also sufficient for difference in kind, or are there further necessary conditions that, together with your first criterion, are jointly sufficient for a difference in kind?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Forget it silly man, so are all you "saved" people in the bible in Matthew 25 as goats.

edit you're just another holier than thou phoney christian that think they're God's posse but in reality just a bunch of the obnoxious twerps

Quote Christ to me or go away.

What you are doing with Matthew 25 is called forming a cult. You are taking one piece of scripture out of context and basing your religion on it. Maybe you should call it the 'froggy' cult😉

Originally posted by bbarr
You, along with your creationist compatriots, employ the notion of kind. Presumably, you think that macroevolution is the evolution of one kind from another, and that macroevolution does not occur. Given your last post, you seem to think that for any two creatures, if they can interbreed, then they are of the same kind. So, you think that it is a necessary ...[text shortened]... tions that, together with your first criterion, are jointly sufficient for a difference in kind?

sniff snifff....

....I smell a trap......oh well.

I do believe you are stating our (my) case well enough bbar.
I don't know if there is a further necessary condition to define 'kind'.

What are you getting at?

Originally posted by nickybutt
The site talks about 16,000 animals, however I am talking about 800,000 beetles. Can you see the difference? Please explain that!

Still waiting for an answer...