I actually appreciate the honesty, and you are right in some of what you say. I know I do not understand these subjects well, I just have ideas through lateral thinking and hope that those with more knowledge can appreciate the possibilities I bring up. I also deliberately avoid scientific terms so the less scientific can understand what's going on and I may therefore sound more naive than I am.
Thank you for not being offended! I can sense a very interesting conversation will soon follow!
I'm sorry, I understood it as though you were stating those ideas as if they were evidence or proofs of creationism instead of hypothetical thinking. My bad
As for scientific terms, I don't use them too much either, but when I do, I try to educate people about what they mean, to help them decipher the scientific jargon. As a general note to all, no the scientific language is not created specifically to keep the non-initiated out, it is merely attempting to condense the most information possible into the fewest amount of words, and that a lot of words are highly specific.
I have looked quite in depth into the methodology behind rock dating, and have noticed that the exponential rate they have used is consistently the half-life. This exponential rate is completely based on the randomness, the logic is that only in a consistent but random environment will 1000 parent isotopes decay to 500 then 250 then 125 then 62.5 in identical time periods. However this randomness has been proven to be wrong, seemingly showing patterns according to solar activity, please see the thread that I started on this for the scientific backup and link descriptions: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=4995 http://www.physorg.c...s201795438.html
Regarding the cheetah, I was wondering where you got the date of 10000 years ago, a timeframe on which your entire point rests. You refer to me not quoting any evidence , but neither did you, could you tell me why you used that date, rather than say 1000 or 2000 years ago?
Well, no, those factors haven't affected the random nature of the nuclear decay of individual particles, it influences them all in a uniform and somewhat predictable manner, which may be soon explained by a detailed mechanism. The half-life doesn't go up and down randomly, and nuclear decay doesn't start and stop randomly. What we see is an additional unforeseen error in previous measures of calculations. If you measured many objects with a yardstick, trusting it was exactly 3 feet in length, would it mean all your measures are invalid if I showed you it was an inch longer or shorter? Sure, your measures would be less accurate, but that doesn't mean they're useless. Same goes for radioactive decay.
For the cheetah, I had heard of the evidence even though I haven't researched it myself. Thank you for asking that question, as it allowed me to increase my knowledge!
I have found this page and read the scientific article itself, if you would like :http://www.pnas.org/content/90/8/3172.abstract
You are correct in your analysis, and I commend you for getting into the flood model mindset here in such a way that it can be discussed. Regarding languages, the tower of Babel story in the bible describes how mankind was given different languages a few hundred years after the flood. These confused languages caused the migrations. However much of what you say is confirmed by historians because the development and interactions and deteriation of most civilisations are recorded as very recent history. The ability of mankind to travel large distances by foot I hope is not under dispute. Humans often are under pressure to migrate, I believe the following article could have also mentioned an additional pressure of basic economics, larger tracts of land are available for farming and grazing and hunting the further you are from civilisation but whatever the reason humans do tend to migrate . http://www.learner.o...overview_3.html I cannot prove that humans definitely did migrate over 6000 years, can you prove that they had to take 80000 years? Have you got any scientific evidence or your own logic as to why humans cannot breed fast and move quickly and change cultures quickly? Our culture is nothing like the Dark Ages feudal culture, history proves rapidly changing cultures.
I didn't quite get your point about the Chinese, soon after the beginning of Chinese settlement , the same race could have been entering South America. ie a few families preferred to travel further but most of them settled in China. Nations always develop unique characteristics, that is why the native South Americans do not look like the Chinese. These racial characteristics were developed over thousands of years due to adaptations to local conditions.
Thank you. I have spent a few years now discussing things with creationists from all levels, and I have captured what seems to be the gist of creationism, specifically the young earth creationism. I'm sorry if some of the answers I provided were aimed at a young earth belief, because I am very unfamiliar with old earth creationists. I assumed you were a YEC, but I should have taken a closer look at your profile. I will attempt to correct that mistake.
I am not disputing the fact that humans have migrated, nor that they have had many different languages. What I was trying to explain in my earlier post was that even if the Tower of Babel story was true, almost all the people working there had a common culture, a common way of thinking, of building, of being, and a common written language. Even if you change the language, they would have still brought that culture and those writing skills with them on their migration. If that were truly the case, then that would mean that somewhere between the middle-east and India, these 'colonists' would have completely ditched their culture and writing system, starting completely from scratch to form an entirely different society. Then, colonists moving further into modern China would have again completely ditched their culture, way of thinking and writing and have started an entirely new civilization. In a young earth model, with the dating of the Chinese civilization starting almost as soon as 2,000 BC, meaning colonists would have had less than 2,000 years to migrate from Babel to India, ditching their culture and starting anew, and doing so again to reach China. In such a short timeframe, it would be near impossible and frankly ludicrous to imagine. However, neither this nor the fact that Indians, Chinese, Inuit and Aboriginals have very different appearances/gene pools would be an obstacle to old earth creationism, as far as I am aware of it.
It seems that they came close to extinction and then proliferated, that is what a bottleneck is, and I don't see how that would contradict the flood model in any way if at some point since the flood cheetahs came close to extinction.
My point was that if the flood model had caused the genetic bottleneck in cheetahs, then we should observe exactly the same phenomenon in all species which were saved in Noah's Ark. The fact we do not see this indicates many things, among which either the Flood didn't cause a bottleneck at all (which will be extremely difficult to explain), the Global Flood didn't happen, or genetic mutation rates were much higher in the past, which ironically would lead to much faster evolution and adaptation of different species, while creationists claim that mutation rates are too slow to allow the diversity of life.
You are stating this as fact but it would be nice if you also show evidence for this, do you have any evidence that shows that you cannot rapidly diversify the allele frequencies within a species through variation and adaptation in a few thousand years? The finches of the Galapagos Islands and the sparrows of North America are two good exmaples of rapid micro-evolution, I can look up details for you if you want. Micro-evolution does not require mutation, it can occur through adjustments in the allele frequencies through the simple processes of variation and adaptation, both which can occur quickly.
These are the basics of genetics, so I am overjoyed to explain them in detail
Well, at least as much as I understand them. Unfortunately, there's a very real chance that I'll either bore you or talk you to death
So, starting with what is an allele. An allele is simply a functional gene placed on a chromosome in your genome, a chromosome being a single unbroken chain of DNA containing genes, telomeres and centromeres, etc. The important thing is: everyone has 23 pairs of chromosomes, one chromosome per pair comes from your father, the other from your mother, and your entire DNA sequence is contained within those 23 chromosomes. Now, that means that you have 2 alleles of each gene (except for us males due to the Y chromosome, but anyways). You can have a dominant vs a recessive allele, say brown and blond hair. Since brown is dominant over blond, you will have brown hair. Now, most of the characteristics that make us up are influenced by much more than just 2 genes. You have genes that act over genes, silencing or promoting the expression of other genes on completely different chromosomes, etc etc etc, so it is sometimes hard to know exactly what gene does what.
Now, the variety within a species comes from the fact there are multiple alleles of each gene. Whether a gene is the normal functional version, a non-functional version because it was mutated too much, or a version that is different because of a mutation, but which is still functional. It is of course much more complicated than this, but this is the basics.
When two gametes unite, the meiosis process ensures that chromosomes are scrambled around a bit, that some pieces are swapped around (between similar chromosomes of course). This means that there is a huge amount of variety because each gene that affects a different gene can swap around on a different chromosome and will have a different effect on the gene of the other chromosome. At the very bottom, though, all this variety is possible because there are multiple alleles of a huge number of genes.
Now, in a Flood scenario, where only 1 pair of each clean animal is preserved, the maximum total variation permitted at all is shared between exactly 4 alleles, the two the mother is carrying, and the two the father is carrying. No matter the amount of mixing around, the meiosis process splitting and reassembling chromosomes, and the chances that each different offspring will receive a different combination of chromosomes from the mother and the father, there are still only 4 different copies of each allele. If by chance, any of the offsprings were wiped out, and they were the sole carriers of a specific allele, then that variation is gone forever. The fact that there are only 4 alleles means that there is little variation between all of them, and a single disease could wipe them all out easily.
I suggest you look at this table :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_leukocyte_antigen#Tables_of_variant_alleles
It shows the number of different alleles possible for different genes responsible for the immune system in humans. Now, imagine if you cut all that down to exactly 4. It's not looking very good.
The reason why alleles are not produced so fast is because they are mostly the result of mutations within the regular alleles, and mutation rates per generation are very low. You also have to count the fact that natural selection would tend to eliminate alleles whose mutations cause a loss of function. With all that, you have a very low amount of mutations per generation, and a very low amount of individuals reproducing per generation.
And that's not even taking into account the fact that if any of the parent's genomes have genetic defects, then that will create enormous inbreeding problems later on for that species.
For this reason, and many more, I cannot consider the Ark model seriously, until creationists address these very serious issues with scientific explanations of why the laws of genetics were different back then, along with supporting evidence.
Ok I was agreeing with you on this point, yes it was difficult for animals to survive after being let out of the Ark.
Not only that, but how did Noah stop the pair of every single predator species from eating the prey species at their disposal? I'm sure lions, after having nothing but beef jerky (or canned food, or whatever) for more than 4 months, would have been more than happy to eat a nice fat cow. That would spell immediate extinction of the cow species however, and most of the rest of the prey species would be eaten in very short order.
Maybe your point here is to generally describe a hostile environment , which I would agree with. However a world with only harsh surfaces sounds unrealistic. Have you got any scientific proof that the ENTIRE world would HAVE to be like that, with no place for plants and animals to live? Do you seriously have evidence that a flood would have no low lying regions covered by sediments conducive to post-flood seeding and plant-life?
Yes, it is a very unrealistic hypothesis, but then again so is the YEC creationist proposal that the receding waters of the flood carved the entire Grand Canyon out of sheer rock, all its 270 miles or 440 km of its winding and tortuous path through hard rock. Water able to erode that would also have erased everything else clean off the face of the earth. I'm sorry, I was assuming you were using the typical YEC position. This would not apply if you do not believe the Grand Canyon to be the result of a single rapid retreat of flood waters.
Could you please explain to me the gist of what the old earth creationist position is? I have never really discussed with someone about such beliefs, and I am unfamiliar with it. I don't want to misrepresent your position, or use arguments that are entirely unrelated to our positions.