Jump to content


Photo

How Did The Animals From Noah's Ark Populate The Earth


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
38 replies to this topic

#21 hugenot

hugenot

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 17 February 2012 - 02:55 PM

and in all the beasts of the earth. in all the beasts of the earth this part it looks like if God bless the animals of the ark AND and the others animals in the earth.

Its probably God created more animals after all he recreate all the plants around the globe right?


Noah took two babes of each kind. Noe every specie. Two dogs, two cats, ect. There are minor changes in one specie. But one specie cannot change into another specie, this is impossible! The evolution theory teaches that everything came from a rock, according to them all we see is derived from rocks! I think they watched too much Stars wars on tv! http://www.bible-tub...f-the-earth.php

#22 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:11 AM

Noah took two babes of each kind. Noe every specie. Two dogs, two cats, ect. There are minor changes in one specie. But one specie cannot change into another specie, this is impossible! The evolution theory teaches that everything came from a rock, according to them all we see is derived from rocks! I think they watched too much Stars wars on tv! http://www.bible-tub...f-the-earth.php


Well, do remember that baby animals take less space than adults, but they also require MUCH more tending and care, so either Noah and his family were working 24/7 nonstop for 4 months (or a year, according to some) for a number of baby animals, or he also had divine help during that time to help him survive.

And no, evolution doesn't say we evolved from rocks. I'm sorry, but that's a gross misrepresentation of the modern synthesis of evolution. I don't go around saying Barnie was crucified and died for your sins, I'd appreciate you return the favour by not slandering the theory of evolution.


As for the flood, do please remember that since salt water covered the entire earth, then the great majority of the planet would not be suitable for plant life, as salt would have deposited everywhere on earth. Thus, when Noah would have opened the ark, there would be no plants for herbivores to feed on.

Also remember that after 4 months (or a year) spend in the ark, Noah will release all animals. So the poor predators, who've been eating beef jerky for 4 months (or a year) walk out and see all these tasty herbivores well within claw's reach. All it takes is for 1 predator to kill 1 individual from a pair, and we have extinction of a species. Zebras and sprinkbok are well adapted to escape the claws of lions and cheetahs (well, zebras only when they are in herds anyways) but cows and sheep have no such excuse.

Then there is the problem of bringing the polar bears back to the North Pole, the penguins back to the South Pole, the koalas back to Australia, the pandas back to asia, and the capybaras back to south america, all the while providing them their required special diet.

And there is also the little-recognized problem of inbreeding between the survivors of the Flood. 2 pairs of animals mean at most 4 alleles of each gene are present in the population, and assuming animals back then weren't genetically perfect, there is at least a 25% chance than an allele might be defective. This WILL create huge problems for population genetics later on. Of course it will be less dire for the 'unclean' species, of which there are seven pairs.

And finally, one last thing I wish to adress, as a direct consequence of the above. Some time in the last 10,000 years, a global extinction event lead to the near extinction of the cheetah species. The handful of survivors then managed to ensure the survival of the species. However, it created a bottleneck effect on the genepool. Since say 80% of the gene pool was wiped out, only 20% of the original genes survived, resulting in a MUCH more homogenous population. Cheetahs are so similar genetically that you can do a skin graft from one to another with almot no chance of there being a rejection.

Now this event happened somewhere around 10,000 years ago, which everyone here will agree would be around the time of the flood. Now if this botleneck effect applies to cheetahs due to their drastically reduced population, why do we not see this bottleneck effect on every single species on earth that was aboard Noah's ark. Or, on the flip side, why is the bottleneck effect present only in the cheetahs and a few other species, rather than for every species living today?

I have asked these questions once or twice, but I have never recieved an answer. I do hope to get an answer here, as the members of this forum seem to be very well educated in regards to evoluton vs creation. I do wish to understand the creation model better, as my understanding of it is uincomplete, and I do not wish t misrepresent it and attack a straw-man.

Thank you for your time!
Alex

#23 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:22 AM

I'm sorry, but that's a gross misrepresentation of the modern synthesis of evolution. I don't go around saying Barnie was crucified and died for your sins, I'd appreciate you return the favour by not slandering the theory of evolution.

I apologize on behalf of the Christians here for the misrepresentation of your religion. I know how frustrating that can be.

#24 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 15 March 2012 - 11:39 AM

I apologize on behalf of the Christians here for the misrepresentation of your religion. I know how frustrating that can be.

Well, if you see science as religion...

#25 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 15 March 2012 - 11:27 PM

Well, do remember that baby animals take less space than adults, but they also require MUCH more tending and care, so either Noah and his family were working 24/7 nonstop for 4 months (or a year, according to some) for a number of baby animals, or he also had divine help during that time to help him survive.

And no, evolution doesn't say we evolved from rocks. I'm sorry, but that's a gross misrepresentation of the modern synthesis of evolution. I don't go around saying Barnie was crucified and died for your sins, I'd appreciate you return the favour by not slandering the theory of evolution.


As for the flood, do please remember that since salt water covered the entire earth, then the great majority of the planet would not be suitable for plant life, as salt would have deposited everywhere on earth. Thus, when Noah would have opened the ark, there would be no plants for herbivores to feed on.

Also remember that after 4 months (or a year) spend in the ark, Noah will release all animals. So the poor predators, who've been eating beef jerky for 4 months (or a year) walk out and see all these tasty herbivores well within claw's reach. All it takes is for 1 predator to kill 1 individual from a pair, and we have extinction of a species. Zebras and sprinkbok are well adapted to escape the claws of lions and cheetahs (well, zebras only when they are in herds anyways) but cows and sheep have no such excuse.

Then there is the problem of bringing the polar bears back to the North Pole, the penguins back to the South Pole, the koalas back to Australia, the pandas back to asia, and the capybaras back to south america, all the while providing them their required special diet.

And there is also the little-recognized problem of inbreeding between the survivors of the Flood. 2 pairs of animals mean at most 4 alleles of each gene are present in the population, and assuming animals back then weren't genetically perfect, there is at least a 25% chance than an allele might be defective. This WILL create huge problems for population genetics later on. Of course it will be less dire for the 'unclean' species, of which there are seven pairs.

And finally, one last thing I wish to adress, as a direct consequence of the above. Some time in the last 10,000 years, a global extinction event lead to the near extinction of the cheetah species. The handful of survivors then managed to ensure the survival of the species. However, it created a bottleneck effect on the genepool. Since say 80% of the gene pool was wiped out, only 20% of the original genes survived, resulting in a MUCH more homogenous population. Cheetahs are so similar genetically that you can do a skin graft from one to another with almot no chance of there being a rejection.

Now this event happened somewhere around 10,000 years ago, which everyone here will agree would be around the time of the flood. Now if this botleneck effect applies to cheetahs due to their drastically reduced population, why do we not see this bottleneck effect on every single species on earth that was aboard Noah's ark. Or, on the flip side, why is the bottleneck effect present only in the cheetahs and a few other species, rather than for every species living today?

I have asked these questions once or twice, but I have never recieved an answer. I do hope to get an answer here, as the members of this forum seem to be very well educated in regards to evoluton vs creation. I do wish to understand the creation model better, as my understanding of it is uincomplete, and I do not wish t misrepresent it and attack a straw-man.

Thank you for your time!
Alex


I believe evolutionists greatly overestimate the timeframes no matter which methodology is being used, whether genetic generation guessing, or rock dating etc etc

ie the bottleneck for cheetahs could have happened 1000 years ago not due to any global extinction but due to the particular vulnerability of that particular species, and the ark "bottlenecks" could have happened 4350 years ago showing more diversity across most other types. Another view could be that the cheetah is merely a micro-evolved large cat, and it evolved from a pair of particularly fast cats about 1 or 2 thousand years ago, long after the ark event.

Inbreeding was less significant 4350 years ago because it was closer to creation 6200 years ago. The DNA was less affected by inbreeding and therefore there was no moral or biblical law back then regarding inbreeding. All your objections can be answered by one simple fact, according to the flood model, over 95% of all species did die off then, so your predictions about the difficulty for life to survive after the flood are spot-on.

As for the flooding event, and salt deposits covering the earth, salt occurs mainly from evaporation. With fast runoff from rapidly dropping water levels this would not necessarily leave such a significant salt deposit to prevent vegetation, especially with surface waters diluted by rainwater and the possibility of salt levels being slightly lower 4300 years ago. Sedimentation from the dropping flood waters would have covered over the surface anyway.

#26 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:43 AM

Well, if you see science as religion...

Oh, I mispoke.

I'm sorry, but that's a gross misrepresentation of the modern synthesis of evolution. I don't go around saying Barnie was crucified and died for your sins, I'd appreciate you return the favour by not slandering the theory of evolution.

I apologize on behalf of the Christians here for the misrepresentation of your god. I know how frustrating that can be.

After all God and religion are two separate things.

#27 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 17 March 2012 - 12:42 PM

Oh, I mispoke.
I apologize on behalf of the Christians here for the misrepresentation of your god. I know how frustrating that can be.

After all God and religion are two separate things.


I do not pray to science, as I know that would be perfectly futile. I do not ask forgiveness from science, because I know I should ask forgiveness from my fellow men and women whom I have wronged. I do not praise science, as it is only the result of the intelligence and dedication of men and women who have built the scientific method, build scientific models, and find scientific evidence that allow us to better our lives. I will tell this to any person, whether they be atheist or theist, that praising science as a god is erroneous and will get us nowhere. Science is a tool to help us discover and understand the universe in which we live, nothing less, nothing more. Please, do tell me why you think science is my god.

#28 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 17 March 2012 - 10:09 PM

NewPath, I will attempt to answer your post here, but I think a disclaimer is necessary before I begin.
First off, I would like to describe how this post comes across to me. I'm not trying to paint you in a bad light, I'm just saying, this is how your points came across to me. I do honestly hope I am wrong. To me, your post sounds like 'According to me, scientists have no idea what they do, they are all wrong, and these are the reasons I think I'm right' without ever providing a source or an explanation based on evidence for the position you take. I'm sorry, but to me, the message smells of scientific ignorance. I cannot take your criticism seriously because it does not seem (to me) that you understand the concepts you are criticizing.
Again, I'm not trying to discredit or insult you, but this is how the message sounded like on my end. I don't want to offend you. Do please tell me where I was wrong in reading your message.

I believe evolutionists greatly overestimate the timeframes no matter which methodology is being used, whether genetic generation guessing, or rock dating etc etc

ie the bottleneck for cheetahs could have happened 1000 years ago not due to any global extinction but due to the particular vulnerability of that particular species, and the ark "bottlenecks" could have happened 4350 years ago showing more diversity across most other types. Another view could be that the cheetah is merely a micro-evolved large cat, and it evolved from a pair of particularly fast cats about 1 or 2 thousand years ago, long after the ark event.

Well, first off you have not provided any reasons for why any methodology used by scientists would be wrong, other than your say-so. Honestly, I don't even know if you understand the basic of those concepts.

Second, for the bit with cheetahs. You are saying in essence that the bottleneck happened after the Flood, and that the bottleneck issue did happen and was resolved over time by all of the other species. In short, cheetahs had 2 bottlenecks, they just didn't have time to recover from the second one. This would be consistent with your assumption that scientists are wrong with their methodology of dating via genetic mutations. However, scientists also have proof of genetic variation that is correlated with the various migration routes that primitive homo sapiens took out of Africa into Europe, then Asia and finally the Americas. This would be impossible under a flood model, because that would mean descendants of Noah would have at most 2,000 years to trek from Mount Ararat (I think that's where the Ark ended up?) all the way into china, to evolve very rapidly into chinese, and to lose entirely their culture and to start from scratch, developing a new language system and civilization (the Flood happening 6,000 years ago, minus the 4,000 years of chinese culture). Then, a few of the super-rapidly evolved new chinese would have to trek across an ice bridge between the northeast reaches of Asia into modern-day Alaska, down into North and South America, where they would settle again, forget all about their newly-developped chinese culture and start their Native Indian culture from the ground up, and for some reason stagnating at a relatively primitive level while their European cousins, who had barely had a head start at all (6,000 years from Mount Ararat or whatever to trek into Europe and establish themselves) to massively advance in technology enough for the Spanish Conquistadors to come and butcher the Aztecs and Mayas a few thousand years later. Does any of this sound wrong to anyone?

As for the second opinion, think of this, if by your definition micro-evolution is variation within a species, such as with wolves and dogs, then if the cheetah were a micro-evolved version of a house cat it would still breed with it. Unfortunately, it cannot. You might say that it was micro-evolved from other large cats, but evidence also suggests it cannot interbreed with them. So we are stuck with 2 options: either they did micro-evolve from other species of cats, but became a separate species (and frankly, they're so unique I would put my money on 'macro'evolution here), or they did not micro-evolve from other species of cats.
However, the fact you do not understand that speciation events does not lead to a bottleneck effect tells me you do not really understand the processes at hand.

Inbreeding was less significant 4350 years ago because it was closer to creation 6200 years ago. The DNA was less affected by inbreeding and therefore there was no moral or biblical law back then regarding inbreeding. All your objections can be answered by one simple fact, according to the flood model, over 95% of all species did die off then, so your predictions about the difficulty for life to survive after the flood are spot-on.

I'm sorry, there were exactly 2 of every kind of clean animals coming off the Ark, and you're telling me inbreeding was less significant? I do not understand how a closer date to creation somehow lowers the fact that if a wolf family wants to have more children, the pups will either have to interbreed amongst themselves or with their parents. It also does nothing for the fact that for ever single pair of animals, only 4 alleles of every gene could have possibly been saved. For there to be the diversity we see today, there would have to be DRASTIC mutation rates to create all the other different alleles we see. And drastic mutation rates mean genetic diseases, and inbreeding means an increased chance of having a genetic disease.

I also don't see how the fact you claim over 95% of all species dying off is in any way harming my post or helping yours, because that is part of my point. If more than 95% of all species did indeed die at the flood, that would have made it enormously more difficult for the survivors to re-establish themselves, especially seeing as there are only 2 of each surviving species (except for the unclean kinds, I believe?)

As for the flooding event, and salt deposits covering the earth, salt occurs mainly from evaporation. With fast runoff from rapidly dropping water levels this would not necessarily leave such a significant salt deposit to prevent vegetation, especially with surface waters diluted by rainwater and the possibility of salt levels being slightly lower 4300 years ago. Sedimentation from the dropping flood waters would have covered over the surface anyway.

Salt deposition does indeed occur mainly due to evaporation, but you must also think that, if all of the Flood waters receded, then all the waters left in lakes and inland seas must also be salt water, and that would enormously affect the environment surrounding those lakes. Additionally, if you have fast runoff, and extreme erosion capable of cutting into a few hundred feet of sheer rock such as in the Grand Canyon, then you have more than enough erosion to wash the surface of the earth clean of sediments and deposit it all in the oceans. Many types of plants don't grow too well on naked rock. You also cannot have erosion and sedimentation at the same time. Either there was sedimentation for there to be soil, and no Grand Canyon, or the Flood did indeed make the Grand Canyon, and it washed out all the soil also.

#29 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 18 March 2012 - 05:35 AM

NewPath, I will attempt to answer your post here, but I think a disclaimer is necessary before I begin.
First off, I would like to describe how this post comes across to me. I'm not trying to paint you in a bad light, I'm just saying, this is how your points came across to me. I do honestly hope I am wrong. To me, your post sounds like 'According to me, scientists have no idea what they do, they are all wrong, and these are the reasons I think I'm right' without ever providing a source or an explanation based on evidence for the position you take. I'm sorry, but to me, the message smells of scientific ignorance. I cannot take your criticism seriously because it does not seem (to me) that you understand the concepts you are criticizing.
Again, I'm not trying to discredit or insult you, but this is how the message sounded like on my end. I don't want to offend you. Do please tell me where I was wrong in reading your message


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.

Well, first off you have not provided any reasons for why any methodology used by scientists would be wrong, other than your say-so. Honestly, I don't even know if you understand the basic of those concepts.


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?


Second, for the bit with cheetahs. You are saying in essence that the bottleneck happened after the Flood, and that the bottleneck issue did happen and was resolved over time by all of the other species. In short, cheetahs had 2 bottlenecks, they just didn't have time to recover from the second one. This would be consistent with your assumption that scientists are wrong with their methodology of dating via genetic mutations. However, scientists also have proof of genetic variation that is correlated with the various migration routes that primitive homo sapiens took out of Africa into Europe, then Asia and finally the Americas. This would be impossible under a flood model, because that would mean descendants of Noah would have at most 2,000 years to trek from Mount Ararat (I think that's where the Ark ended up?) all the way into china, to evolve very rapidly into chinese, and to lose entirely their culture and to start from scratch, developing a new language system and civilization (the Flood happening 6,000 years ago, minus the 4,000 years of chinese culture). Then, a few of the super-rapidly evolved new chinese would have to trek across an ice bridge between the northeast reaches of Asia into modern-day Alaska, down into North and South America, where they would settle again, forget all about their newly-developped chinese culture and start their Native Indian culture from the ground up, and for some reason stagnating at a relatively primitive level while their European cousins, who had barely had a head start at all (6,000 years from Mount Ararat or whatever to trek into Europe and establish themselves) to massively advance in technology enough for the Spanish Conquistadors to come and butcher the Aztecs and Mayas a few thousand years later. Does any of this sound wrong to anyone?


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.

As for the second opinion, think of this, if by your definition micro-evolution is variation within a species, such as with wolves and dogs, then if the cheetah were a micro-evolved version of a house cat it would still breed with it. Unfortunately, it cannot. You might say that it was micro-evolved from other large cats, but evidence also suggests it cannot interbreed with them. So we are stuck with 2 options: either they did micro-evolve from other species of cats, but became a separate species (and frankly, they're so unique I would put my money on 'macro'evolution here), or they did not micro-evolve from other species of cats.


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.

I'm sorry, there were exactly 2 of every kind of clean animals coming off the Ark, and you're telling me inbreeding was less significant? I do not understand how a closer date to creation somehow lowers the fact that if a wolf family wants to have more children, the pups will either have to interbreed amongst themselves or with their parents. It also does nothing for the fact that for ever single pair of animals, only 4 alleles of every gene could have possibly been saved. For there to be the diversity we see today, there would have to be DRASTIC mutation rates to create all the other different alleles we see. And drastic mutation rates mean genetic diseases, and inbreeding means an increased chance of having a genetic disease.

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.

I also don't see how the fact you claim over 95% of all species dying off is in any way harming my post or helping yours, because that is part of my point. If more than 95% of all species did indeed die at the flood, that would have made it enormously more difficult for the survivors to re-establish themselves, especially seeing as there are only 2 of each surviving species (except for the unclean kinds, I believe?)

Ok I was agreeing with you on this point, yes it was difficult for animals to survive after being let out of the Ark.

Salt deposition does indeed occur mainly due to evaporation, but you must also think that, if all of the Flood waters receded, then all the waters left in lakes and inland seas must also be salt water, and that would enormously affect the environment surrounding those lakes. Additionally, if you have fast runoff, and extreme erosion capable of cutting into a few hundred feet of sheer rock such as in the Grand Canyon, then you have more than enough erosion to wash the surface of the earth clean of sediments and deposit it all in the oceans. Many types of plants don't grow too well on naked rock. You also cannot have erosion and sedimentation at the same time. Either there was sedimentation for there to be soil, and no Grand Canyon, or the Flood did indeed make the Grand Canyon, and it washed out all the soil also

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?

#30 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 19 March 2012 - 06:24 PM

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 :P
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.

#31 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 20 March 2012 - 12:54 PM

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.


No problem. I will try to express myself more clearly about my ideas.

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.

Will just have to agree to disagree here, if its no longer random, I don't see how the half-life rate can still be applicable. If the half-life rate is incorrect, this would explain why dates do often have consensus yet could be out by the same proportions across alpha and beta 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


I thought your link would explain more about dating the bottleneck of the cheetah. Instead it seems to be a critique of alleged arrogance in evangelical Christians. To explain this so-called arrogance I will try to put it into terms you can understand. Within every human is a spirit. This spirit has the potential to get into oneness with God. It contains a higher form of knowledge than the intellect. You know those autistic types than can jump to a high level mathematical answer instinctively through the subconscious use of their brainpower? Something spiritual like that exists in a dormant state among all mankind, yet it contains higher knowledge. This spirit only activates when coming into contact with God. This occurs mainly through the bible, or through Christians whose spirits are active and no longer dormant. This spirit man gets excited when the gospel is preached or when confronted with pure truth. At that moment when the spirit is exposed to truth, its up to the controlling entity, the human mind and heart, to receive the truth of God's revelation with joy, or to reject it. If the truth is accepted there is a tangible awareness of your entire being coming alive. This in in the form of peace and joy. From that moment on, you are literally a new person despite your mind and emotions not being trained in the news ways of this alive spirit that is living inside of you. But at that moment you know things, not intellectual things, but spiritual things. You know that the bible is literally true, that Jesus is the one on whom you rely on for everything. Your trust in the bible goes far beyond temporary contradictions of current cientific thought because there is a spirit inside you that confirms things to you, and is in direct communication with God himself, despite your intellect not yet understanding much. That is why simple people with very limited intellect can manipulate scientific principles through simple prayers of faith and followed by miracles. There is nothing consistent about the way in which us Christians behave because we are always learning to let this "spirit man " dominate and its quelled by our intellect and human emotions, but despite our imperfections there is this underlying awareness that our spirits were dead and are now alive. And so we say things with more certainty and in our own eyes, a stronger confirmation than mere intellect. This will probably sound like foolishness to you, but its my best attempt to explain this extreme confidence us Christians have .



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.


You use the term "ludicrous". I thought I had already demonstrated that cultures change rapidly, so do languages. English is a new language. I thought that historians agreed that modern humans are about 80000 years old, and modern cities and writing were developed about 10000 years ago. So I need actual evidence from you why the 6000 years timeframe is incorrect and yet the 10000 year timeframe is ok. Really would the difference between the two views be so extreme that 10000 years is acceptable and 6000 years of cultural development is ludicrous? I would say that the emergence of modern civilisation simultaneously across the earth in different forms so recently would point towards some sort of human bottleneck effect rather than prove continuous isolated seperate development. There are some points of commonality between the advanced ancient civilisations.

The bible indicates a sudden change of habits from all mankind being centralised in the Middle East, to this rapid dispersion. We do not know how far they intended to spread, but God wanted to spread them, and humans can travel vast distances. It does not require 500 years to walk across a continent, especially for a migratory population determined to get as far away from the Middle East as possible.




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.

My point was that if the bottleneck occurred more recently than the ark, this would explain the later bottleneck and I asked for proof why you would associate the bottleneck with the flood? If you have no proof of a 10000 bp date up to a 4000 bp date for the bottleneck, then the cheetahs bottleneck could have occurred a lot more recently which makes your point null and void. And you seemed to have mentioned that you dont have the proof of the old dating of the cheetahs bottleneck, so this particular point is over with surely?



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.

You are looking at modern animals and making assumptions. What if Noah let out all the animals and the lions did eat a lot of them, that would explain the extinctions surely? So I agree, a lot of extinctions, but there are an infinite variety of ways in which the new ecosysystem could have immediately developed after the flood. A simple acknowledgment that its possible that life could have survived through a simple and intelligent release of the Ark's animals would be closer to what we both know as truth, surely, if you are honest with yourself? We just don't know how many of each type there were, how many predators survived on the dying fish of the receding flood-waters, and we could both spend forever giving various scenarios in which all the animals would have died off, as opposed to various ways in which some could have survived. These particular arguments of evolutionists just are not intellectually stimulating.



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.

My particular view is to compress the flood closer to the Permian-Triassic boundary, which has a lot of evidence for a far-reaching flood. I therefore do not explain away most geologic layers as formed by the flood as per the current standard creationist flood model.


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.


I should change my title there, because my view is pretty unique, and not the similar to OEC's.

I believe the earth existed long before the 6 days of creation. I believe the layers of fossils containing those particular species described in Genesis 1 are all recent, within the last 6500 years. I believe the Carboniferous period is the pre-flood period, occurring simultaneously with the trilobite proliferation of the low oxygen pre-flood oceans of the Cambrian. The Permian and Permian-Triassic boundary are flood layers from about 4350 years ago. Triassic is post-flood. All observable civilisations are from 4350 years ago to present as per Kohl's revised dating of history.

#32 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 20 March 2012 - 01:13 PM

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.


This was a little complicated for me, but nevertheless you just seem to be saying that there is diversity at the moment. Now why would you feel that this diversity of the current observed allelle variants could not have occurred over 4300 years.

As for vulnerability to disease, I believe that 95% of all species died off during the P-T transition which I equate with the flood. If all these animals were on the ark, they didn't survive very well after the flood. So I am in agreement about a harsh environment , lack of genetic diversity, vulnerability of species. 5% survived all that. Unfortunately the cheetah will never be a proliferate species, but is a good example of the kind of lack of diversity the other species would have had after the flood. If cheetahs did proliferate and we examined them in about 3000 years time, would we see all the variations that we currently observe in most species right now? I would like to know if there is any mechanism that would prevent this diversification of alleles in merely a 4350 year period.

#33 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 20 March 2012 - 08:26 PM

I would like to know if there is any mechanism that would prevent this diversification of alleles in merely a 4350 year period.

No. Diversification is controlled by a maximum genetic divergence, not by time.

#34 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 22 March 2012 - 02:22 PM

Will just have to agree to disagree here, if its no longer random, I don't see how the half-life rate can still be applicable. If the half-life rate is incorrect, this would explain why dates do often have consensus yet could be out by the same proportions across alpha and beta decay.

The decay of individual radioactive particles is still random. There is no way to predict when any single atom will split. Think of it this way: when you are emptying a bathtub, it is impossible to know exactly when a certain specific water molecule is going to leave the tub. However, by looking at the flow of water out of the tub and the amount of water left in, despite the randomness of individual water molecules, you can still make predictions about when the tub will be emptied.
I don't see how if the half-life is wrong, there can be any consensus whatsoever between different dating methods, could you explain me your logic?


I thought your link would explain more about dating the bottleneck of the cheetah. Instead it seems to be a critique of alleged arrogance in evangelical Christians. To explain this so-called arrogance I will try to put it into terms you can understand. Within every human is a spirit. This spirit has the potential to get into oneness with God. It contains a higher form of knowledge than the intellect. You know those autistic types than can jump to a high level mathematical answer instinctively through the subconscious use of their brainpower? Something spiritual like that exists in a dormant state among all mankind, yet it contains higher knowledge. This spirit only activates when coming into contact with God. This occurs mainly through the bible, or through Christians whose spirits are active and no longer dormant. This spirit man gets excited when the gospel is preached or when confronted with pure truth. At that moment when the spirit is exposed to truth, its up to the controlling entity, the human mind and heart, to receive the truth of God's revelation with joy, or to reject it. If the truth is accepted there is a tangible awareness of your entire being coming alive. This in in the form of peace and joy. From that moment on, you are literally a new person despite your mind and emotions not being trained in the news ways of this alive spirit that is living inside of you. But at that moment you know things, not intellectual things, but spiritual things. You know that the bible is literally true, that Jesus is the one on whom you rely on for everything. Your trust in the bible goes far beyond temporary contradictions of current cientific thought because there is a spirit inside you that confirms things to you, and is in direct communication with God himself, despite your intellect not yet understanding much. That is why simple people with very limited intellect can manipulate scientific principles through simple prayers of faith and followed by miracles. There is nothing consistent about the way in which us Christians behave because we are always learning to let this "spirit man " dominate and its quelled by our intellect and human emotions, but despite our imperfections there is this underlying awareness that our spirits were dead and are now alive. And so we say things with more certainty and in our own eyes, a stronger confirmation than mere intellect. This will probably sound like foolishness to you, but its my best attempt to explain this extreme confidence us Christians have .

I'm sorry, did I send you the wrong link? Because I have no idea where all this came from. The link was supposed to direct you to the scientific paper I (sort of) read to try to understand how the date was obtained for the genetic bottleneck of cheetahs. I have no idea why you started talking to me about humans and souls and pride of evangelicals where none of that is mentioned at all in the link. Why did you bring this up?
As an aside though, I find your beliefs very interesting. I do not share those beliefs, and I would be unable to share the same beliefs, but I understand that some people do believe this. I simply wish to point out though that of all the arguments you presented to me herein, one only needs to change Bible for Quran and Christians for Muslims, and you would have verbatim exactly the same argument Muslims would use. I'm sure that people of different religions all over the world all throughout time thought the same thing of their religion also. I would only like that you reflect on this.


You use the term "ludicrous". I thought I had already demonstrated that cultures change rapidly, so do languages. English is a new language. I thought that historians agreed that modern humans are about 80000 years old, and modern cities and writing were developed about 10000 years ago. So I need actual evidence from you why the 6000 years timeframe is incorrect and yet the 10000 year timeframe is ok. Really would the difference between the two views be so extreme that 10000 years is acceptable and 6000 years of cultural development is ludicrous? I would say that the emergence of modern civilisation simultaneously across the earth in different forms so recently would point towards some sort of human bottleneck effect rather than prove continuous isolated seperate development. There are some points of commonality between the advanced ancient civilisations.

I completely agree, cultures can and do change quickly, although religions of the world attempt to stabilize societies by preventing change, ie keeping peace and the establishment of power in place. There is nothing wrong with that. On the one hand you have changing cultures, on the other you have religions and people trying to keep their traditional ways. What I do find ludicrous is that a civilization would split, and that every single split group would completely drop their culture, history, oral and written language, not only once, but repeatedly, as they move across Asia, within 4,000 years. On a longer period of time, cultures could be change more and less suddenly. However, that would still require that massive migrations would happen before a culture has a definite writing system, for the reason I stated above.
As for culture spreading, humans are very good at plagiarism :P Someone sees someone else doing or making something better, he's going to copy for his own benefit. So when one culture started, others probably copied them. I do agree though, we don't know nearly enough about the emergence of civilization to pronounce ourselves with 100% certainty on what was the cause for societies to form.

The bible indicates a sudden change of habits from all mankind being centralised in the Middle East, to this rapid dispersion. We do not know how far they intended to spread, but God wanted to spread them, and humans can travel vast distances. It does not require 500 years to walk across a continent, especially for a migratory population determined to get as far away from the Middle East as possible.

Well, seeing as according to the theory of evolution, mankind walked out of Africa by passing through the Middle East to other areas of the world, one can understand how many see similarities between the two. However, what I object to, is that if Israelis migrate and travel for 1000 years, they will not forget they were Israelis half-way through and arrive at the other end speaking Chinese. That is exactly what you are describing to me, when you say that people from the middle-east traveled all across the globe.


My point was that if the bottleneck occurred more recently than the ark, this would explain the later bottleneck and I asked for proof why you would associate the bottleneck with the flood? If you have no proof of a 10000 bp date up to a 4000 bp date for the bottleneck, then the cheetahs bottleneck could have occurred a lot more recently which makes your point null and void. And you seemed to have mentioned that you dont have the proof of the old dating of the cheetahs bottleneck, so this particular point is over with surely?

I understand that. I have said that when animals stepped out of the Ark, that would create an enormous and obvious bottleneck effect for every species which had survived aboard the Ark had the flood happened. However, due to lack of evidence for a global flood ad lack of evidence of such a bottleneck, I think it is not realistic to continue to assert that Noah's flood was a real event some 4000-6000 years ago.
I have given you proof of the dating of the bottleneck through the scientific paper I gave you a link to, and you told me you thought the paper was dealing with the arrogance of evangelical Christians. The evidence is in there, one merely has to look.
Radiometric dating would be useless for determining the age of this event, because there's nothing to date. Also, what would be your evidence that such a genetic bottleneck has happened 4,000 and not 10,000 years ago?



You are looking at modern animals and making assumptions. What if Noah let out all the animals and the lions did eat a lot of them, that would explain the extinctions surely? So I agree, a lot of extinctions, but there are an infinite variety of ways in which the new ecosysystem could have immediately developed after the flood. A simple acknowledgment that its possible that life could have survived through a simple and intelligent release of the Ark's animals would be closer to what we both know as truth, surely, if you are honest with yourself? We just don't know how many of each type there were, how many predators survived on the dying fish of the receding flood-waters, and we could both spend forever giving various scenarios in which all the animals would have died off, as opposed to various ways in which some could have survived. These particular arguments of evolutionists just are not intellectually stimulating.

I simply wish to point out that many creationists also have the same problem when dealing with evolution. Some take it to mean that a trout gave birth to a frog gave birth to a crocodile gave birth to a flamingo and a dog, and that a dog gave birth to a cat. All the animals I have listed are as modern and evolved as all the others, that would not be an example from common descent.
Let me ask, what would be the point of saving let's say 50,000 species for the sake of convenience, if less than half of them (and this is generous) were to survive, most of which dying not because of predators, but because of the environmental conditions? And yes, such an event that a global flood happened, that a man took all the animals from all over the planet, from the North Pole to the South Pole to the Americas to Africa to Asia, and stuffed them all into a boat for an indeterminate period of time ranging from a month and a half to a year, with enough food to feed them all, and intelligently releasing them so they don't immediately die the moment he opens the door, yes, that would be possible. However, that would be very unlikely. Much less likely than the theory of evolution, I would put forward. With creationism, one has to find a reason for why every modern species is alive. Not so with evolution.


I should change my title there, because my view is pretty unique, and not the similar to OEC's.

I believe the earth existed long before the 6 days of creation. I believe the layers of fossils containing those particular species described in Genesis 1 are all recent, within the last 6500 years. I believe the Carboniferous period is the pre-flood period, occurring simultaneously with the trilobite proliferation of the low oxygen pre-flood oceans of the Cambrian. The Permian and Permian-Triassic boundary are flood layers from about 4350 years ago. Triassic is post-flood. All observable civilisations are from 4350 years ago to present as per Kohl's revised dating of history.

Ah, so you take the names of the modern ages of the earth (Permian, Triassic, etc) and compress them within a 10,000 year timeframe, is that it?

This was a little complicated for me, but nevertheless you just seem to be saying that there is diversity at the moment. Now why would you feel that this diversity of the current observed allelle variants could not have occurred over 4300 years.

As for vulnerability to disease, I believe that 95% of all species died off during the P-T transition which I equate with the flood. If all these animals were on the ark, they didn't survive very well after the flood. So I am in agreement about a harsh environment , lack of genetic diversity, vulnerability of species. 5% survived all that. Unfortunately the cheetah will never be a proliferate species, but is a good example of the kind of lack of diversity the other species would have had after the flood. If cheetahs did proliferate and we examined them in about 3000 years time, would we see all the variations that we currently observe in most species right now? I would like to know if there is any mechanism that would prevent this diversification of alleles in merely a 4350 year period.

Yes, there is diversity at the moment, although for cheetahs such diversity is extremely low. As to why I feel such diversity is not possible within 4,000 years, it is due to the rate at which organisms acquire mutations. Such a rate does not allow for rapid mutations within a short span of time necessary to explain what little diversity we see.
I also wish to point out that there were many major extinction events in the secular timeline of the earth, and that our estimates place that around 5% of life also did survive such extinctions. If such events are impossible to survive without the Ark, then one needs to explain why Noah build many boats to save the world many times, but only spoke of once. On the other hand, perhaps species survived such events without Noah's help. In that case, why was his help necessary THIS time?

I'm not sure I understand the rest. Do you have specific questions?

#35 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 23 March 2012 - 12:15 AM

The decay of individual radioactive particles is still random. There is no way to predict when any single atom will split. Think of it this way: when you are emptying a bathtub, it is impossible to know exactly when a certain specific water molecule is going to leave the tub. However, by looking at the flow of water out of the tub and the amount of water left in, despite the randomness of individual water molecules, you can still make predictions about when the tub will be emptied.
I don't see how if the half-life is wrong, there can be any consensus whatsoever between different dating methods, could you explain me your logic?


I really do get what you are saying here, but I don't think you get what I am saying. Flip a coin 1000 times and get on average 500 heads, and you can use the half life rate. Flip a coin 1000 times and get on average 485 heads, you cannot use the half-life, even if there remains a consistent pattern through the randomness. The exponential rate is influenced by the non-random factor, and can swing the final result out by huge numbers. Let us just agree to disgree on this.


I'm sorry, did I send you the wrong link? Because I have no idea where all this came from. The link was supposed to direct you to the scientific paper I (sort of) read to try to understand how the date was obtained for the genetic bottleneck of cheetahs. I have no idea why you started talking to me about humans and souls and pride of evangelicals where none of that is mentioned at all in the link. Why did you bring this up?
As an aside though, I find your beliefs very interesting. I do not share those beliefs, and I would be unable to share the same beliefs, but I understand that some people do believe this. I simply wish to point out though that of all the arguments you presented to me herein, one only needs to change Bible for Quran and Christians for Muslims, and you would have verbatim exactly the same argument Muslims would use. I'm sure that people of different religions all over the world all throughout time thought the same thing of their religion also. I would only like that you reflect on this.

I think you did send me the wrong link. As for Muslims, they wouldn't quite describe this coming alive of the spirit in the terms that I have described.

Well, seeing as according to the theory of evolution, mankind walked out of Africa by passing through the Middle East to other areas of the world, one can understand how many see similarities between the two. However, what I object to, is that if Israelis migrate and travel for 1000 years, they will not forget they were Israelis half-way through and arrive at the other end speaking Chinese. That is exactly what you are describing to me, when you say that people from the middle-east traveled all across the globe.

They do not forget, most do describe walking away from a flood. As I said the bible does explain the languages, the sudden supernatural intervention of changed languages was the reason they abandoned their Middle Eastern building project and spread suddenly thoughout the world. Most retained the memory of a flood. This may seem unlikely to you that a nation will forget some aspects and remember some aspects of their origins, seems very likely to me, so we are becoming subjective in this discussion. All I can say is that from my point of view your objection seems to have no real validity. The establishment of the nations in the forms and cultures of today, with their stories of origins, all seems like a likely post-flood scenario to me, over time stories change, religions change, people forget, cultures change. But essentially these nations spread out from the middle east and retained some similarities and similar stories. Please note that originally the similarities were stronger because of these nations strange propensity for a pyramid culture across earth.

Your main objection seems to be continuously changing cultures, I don';t really understand that objection. Take England, with their tribes, invasions from the Nordic tribes, Feudal society, Industrialised society, modern capitalism. I don't know history, all I see is rapidly changing cultures over hundreds of years , let alone 4000 years. Also please understand that they could easily have arrived simultaneously across all continents, ie a rapid migration event and thereafter most major civilisations have had 4000 years to develop.

I understand that. I have said that when animals stepped out of the Ark, that would create an enormous and obvious bottleneck effect for every species which had survived aboard the Ark had the flood happened. However, due to lack of evidence for a global flood ad lack of evidence of such a bottleneck, I think it is not realistic to continue to assert that Noah's flood was a real event some 4000-6000 years ago.
I have given you proof of the dating of the bottleneck through the scientific paper I gave you a link to, and you told me you thought the paper was dealing with the arrogance of evangelical Christians. The evidence is in there, one merely has to look.
Radiometric dating would be useless for determining the age of this event, because there's nothing to date. Also, what would be your evidence that such a genetic bottleneck has happened 4,000 and not 10,000 years ago?


Can you give me the link again please. Like I said , is there any reason to believe that the type of allele differences found today could not have occurred over 4300 years. the cheetah shows signs of a more recent bottleneck, therefore there is less diversity.





I simply wish to point out that many creationists also have the same problem when dealing with evolution. Some take it to mean that a trout gave birth to a frog gave birth to a crocodile gave birth to a flamingo and a dog, and that a dog gave birth to a cat. All the animals I have listed are as modern and evolved as all the others, that would not be an example from common descent.
Let me ask, what would be the point of saving let's say 50,000 species for the sake of convenience, if less than half of them (and this is generous) were to survive, most of which dying not because of predators, but because of the environmental conditions? And yes, such an event that a global flood happened, that a man took all the animals from all over the planet, from the North Pole to the South Pole to the Americas to Africa to Asia, and stuffed them all into a boat for an indeterminate period of time ranging from a month and a half to a year, with enough food to feed them all, and intelligently releasing them so they don't immediately die the moment he opens the door, yes, that would be possible. However, that would be very unlikely. Much less likely than the theory of evolution, I would put forward. With creationism, one has to find a reason for why every modern species is alive. Not so with evolution.


Well its survival in both cases, the Triassic world was dry, which explains those particular proliferations and extinctions from both a creation and evolution perspective. The purpose of taking all the animals is to allow for possiblities. Let nature take its course instead of pre-empting nature's course. Sure God could have left out certain animals, but maybe he chose two of some just to give a good meal to the predators while the more suited were running away. Who knows, the general point is that the flood is a conceivable model.





Ah, so you take the names of the modern ages of the earth (Permian, Triassic, etc) and compress them within a 10,000 year timeframe, is that it?

Basically, but also simplified, Cambrian and Carboniferous are simultaneous, the Cambrian focussing more on marine fossils. Permian is the reflection of Carboniferous flood fossils. Triassic is the dry and silted period after the flood. Jurassic is during the loss of oxygen period - a carry over from the loss of vegetation during the flood.



Yes, there is diversity at the moment, although for cheetahs such diversity is extremely low. As to why I feel such diversity is not possible within 4,000 years, it is due to the rate at which organisms acquire mutations. Such a rate does not allow for rapid mutations within a short span of time necessary to explain what little diversity we see.

Have you got evidence for this or are you guessing?


I also wish to point out that there were many major extinction events in the secular timeline of the earth, and that our estimates place that around 5% of life also did survive such extinctions. If such events are impossible to survive without the Ark, then one needs to explain why Noah build many boats to save the world many times, but only spoke of once. On the other hand, perhaps species survived such events without Noah's help. In that case, why was his help necessary THIS time?

The flood was a more complete event, it would have killed off all larger animals if God had not intervened with an Ark. Other extinction events still allowed humans and eco-systems conducive to humans to survive.

#36 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 23 March 2012 - 02:38 AM

No. Diversification is controlled by a maximum genetic divergence, not by time.


Thanks for that article which seems to place limitations on evolution. But I think you missed the point of my question which was in answer to Alex's earlier post:

I'm sorry, there were exactly 2 of every kind of clean animals coming off the Ark, and you're telling me inbreeding was less significant? I do not understand how a closer date to creation somehow lowers the fact that if a wolf family wants to have more children, the pups will either have to interbreed amongst themselves or with their parents. It also does nothing for the fact that for ever single pair of animals, only 4 alleles of every gene could have possibly been saved. For there to be the diversity we see today, there would have to be DRASTIC mutation rates to create all the other different alleles we see. And drastic mutation rates mean genetic diseases, and inbreeding means an increased chance of having a genetic disease.


Alex seems to believe that the current observable diversity within a species is impossible to occur in 4350 years since the flood. He bases his point on a pair of Ark animals having between them only 4 alleles of every gene and therefore questions the extent of current diversity being able to fit in with the flood model. I haven't seen his proof for his point yet, but the flood model would require some divergence from the original genetic bottleneck effect of the flood, to explain today's diversity. Do you believe the genetic diversity observed today can fit into the short timeframe of 4350 years after the flood?

#37 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 23 March 2012 - 09:27 AM

Do you believe the genetic diversity observed today can fit into the short timeframe of 4350 years after the flood?

Yes. And I think my link explains why. :)

Diversity is not a sign of an increase in information - rather the opposite. The more divergent a population is, the less robust it is. If a population has adapted to an environment, its ability to repeat such a feat is lessened.

Thus the animals off the ark had a far higher capacity for adaptation.

#38 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 23 March 2012 - 10:16 AM

I'm sorry, did I send you the wrong link? Because I have no idea where all this came from. The link was supposed to direct you to the scientific paper I (sort of) read to try to understand how the date was obtained for the genetic bottleneck of cheetahs. I have no idea why you started talking to me about humans and souls and pride of evangelicals where none of that is mentioned at all in the link. Why did you bring this up?
As an aside though, I find your beliefs very interesting. I do not share those beliefs, and I would be unable to share the same beliefs, but I understand that some people do believe this. I simply wish to point out though that of all the arguments you presented to me herein, one only needs to change Bible for Quran and Christians for Muslims, and you would have verbatim exactly the same argument Muslims would use. I'm sure that people of different religions all over the world all throughout time thought the same thing of their religion also. I would only like that you reflect on this.


Ok I'm kinda glad I gave you that "philosophical" background to Chistianity, but I retried that link and got the correct article now, sorry for answering the wrong article!

A quote from that article says the following:

The timing of a bottleneck is difficult to assess, but certain aspects of the cheetah's natural history suggest it may have occurred near the end of the last ice age (late Pleistocene, approximately 10,000 years ago), when a remarkable extinction of large vertebrates occurred on several continents


This is way too vague to be convincing, "may have occurred", "approximately", "difficult to assess".

Maybe it occurred 1000 or 3000 years ago, we cannot rely on an article that isn't even confident of their own dates.

#39 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 31 October 2012 - 07:55 AM

Wow! A hole bunch of issues here?
http://www.dinosaurc...arbondating.htm

Here is a post above from a group who had the bones, not the substrate around the bones of dinos, Mammoths and others including man. Conclusion--man, Dino's, and Mammoths etc. were all contemporaries and lived at the same time. Instead of millions or billions of years, all of them dated under 50,000 years, and one Allasaurus dated in at 16,000 years. This new method or relatively new, proves the C14 is indeed found in fossil bones because they are not old. This also boes well with the evidences of Dino;s having lived on into our times in mans written history.

Having said this: The salt fresh water thing above is absurd. Many fish have been experimented over the years with fresh and salt water, even small changes to an eco system of bottom diversity will die off immediately!!! Fish like tunas, sword fish, will die out of salt water...

No one can say the "bible" says the earth is 6,000 years old. This date is described by many who have traced biblical blood lines back to 6,000 years. But there are some that believe gaps and other problems with this make it 10,000 years. It is not a forgone Creationist conclusion that 6,000 years are the exact and reliable date. Given Genesis gap adherents there is room for longer periods of time, but suffice to say that God created the whole bio-sphere in 6/24 hour periods. IF God is who he is, then why does he need any more the 6/24 hours???

Dr. Carl Werner has found and documented 435 different fossil mammals found in Dino strata, this bodes for the article above I posted and there have been human remains that have been found in such strata but disregarded or explained away, but not many. Carl points out that our museums have never put up a display that actually shows the strata with all the other fossils found mixed in the strata.

There are many layers such as the grand canyon where dinos are found above the flood deposits as identified by some flood geologists which has not been explained. BUt there are other areas like the Karoo fossil beds which imply a cyclical disaster and not one fell swoop disaster that kille doff an estimated 800 billion animals. Unfortunately I have found that in some rare cases some of our very good creationists YE people have left out relevant information from their publishings....

Also many of these biblical issues are actually problems with hermeneutics and not biblical authority....we all as Christians have biblical authority to speak forth Gods Word....

Lastly the idea of God bringing just one dog couple on the boat is questionable beyond all. Dr. werner again has pointed out that animals do not have any control over their own DNA, since we have a plathora of fossil evidence of living fossils which would have implied certian life before the flood, there is no doubt that these aniamls existed before the flood. When God says to be fruitful and multiply, no one who understands the bible can infer that GOd had said if two cows mate the offspring will be cows and urocks, or bison, or water buffalo???? There is no proof or observation in history that such a thing has ever happened, But there sure is total evidence of fixity of species, even in the evolutionary world Eldridge and Gould published paper son stasis in the fossil record. (no change) why because of DNA. THe only way DNA can be changed is through the procreative genes. No amont of environmental change can effect these genes, so don't let some of this stuff being espoused by AiG with no examination what so ever. These guys dream up stuff and put it out there and people buy it.... Evey example of dogs changing have been through hybridization hwich indeed is procreative gene change. Mans tampering and rare nature cross overs like the Goode's Horned LIzard as an example or the Galapagos Pink Iguana are all examples of hybridization but not that of adaptive varation. Be leery of this examine it yourself.

Lastly I am a young earther, 6/24 hour periods, I think old earth creation does not fit with the biblical narrative. If dino's. man. and Mammoths and cave bears and saber tooth's were contemporaries, this all has been predicted by creationists based on the narrative of Genesis. So there are "evidences" that are becoming more and more clear--but may not fall within the pale of some of the older inferences by YE creationists. Many of these things have been challenged yet people still are teaching this stuff to creationist Christians it sounds great, but in reality some of it is not note worthy or true.

Also there are a lot of YE creationists that are challenging the floating matts theory there are so many holes in that and issues with survivability over hundreds of years. One has to assume that a couple of any specie lived in order to procreate offspring.... No one is discussing symbiotic relationships with respect to the animal and insect and plant kingdom, all which of they do not have these relationships they die??? And some one above passed over insects like it was anon-issue. There are over 11,000 million insect species in the Amazon alone, how do you account ofr thes living through the flood? whether on the ARK as some believe or were not because they were not nephesh air breathers in the sense of other animals....

Lastly some one made a comment about species verses Kinds. I will say this that Christians early on observed species...in science. The species explantion for our diversity has held up well and is one of the best definitions of our diversity in existence. Recently reading the works from some creationists trying to put kinds in some order seemed dismal to me. They may come with some new classification system, but before you go throwing the baby out with the bathwater, there is nothing wrong with using species, because as we define it, "species" did enter the Ark. We have a huge fossil record and amber encase fossils that clearly show most of the modern and exssitent secies lived on or before the flood. So whats the thing about Kinds? Kinds was the biblical way of speaking out certian faimilys of animals but it also spoke of specific animals as well? So if you are using Biblical Kinds as some way of expressing a creationist point of view, I think you need not invoke that unless you are proponent of adaptive varation, then I understand you agenda and reasoning for disregaurding the species, but I as a Creationists will indeed continue to use kind and species interchangably, because kind can be either one and is very cealry used as such in the Word......!

My two cents on the exchange above....




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users