The Post-Noah's Flood Period is Explained by Evolution

Hi Jenifer,Your idea closely mirrors what I would have believed when I was a Christian. I agree that, if a deity exists, science is the best and most accurate method of determining what that deity did and how.Unfortunately, it simply doesn't match the evidence. The most direct and simple way to test the Flood (and this works whether you use "superevolution" or have literally every species on the Ark, either way) is to test for a genetic bottleneck.The Flood story specifically states that unclean creatures came in pairs, and the clean creatures came in sevens. There were also only a few humans on the Ark, restricted to Noah's family.Genetic testing can detect population bottlenecks where all of the members of a species descended from just a few original members. We have detected such bottlenecks in some organisms. Humans, in fact, had a genetic bottleneck a few thousand years ago - unfortunately, it was over 10,000 years back, not the 4,000 or so deducted from a literal reading of the genealogy timeline from the Bible, and the bottleneck was not 12 individuals, but rather a few thousand.This bottleneck, if the Flood happened, should correspond for every species on Earth, because all species should have been constrained to just the individuals present on the Ark. For those species we do detect bottlenecks, they do not correspond to a similar date range. For most species, there is no bottleneck at all. This means that, without a direct miracle (and if you allow those there is no point in a scientific inquiry or rationalization with the Bible, because you can break any of the rules on a whim with magic), the Flood story as literally told in the Bible is in direct and specific contradiction with the evidence we observe.Further, Noah would need to have sufficient numbers of the "precursor" species of all present species within walking distance of the Ark's construction site, and would need to sail the entire world to deposit the necessary species in their specific habitats. For instance, whatever precursor to marsupials (like kangaroos) would need to have originated in the middle-east, and then be deposited in Australia after the Flood to allow the family to "super-evolve" into the variety currently seen in marsupials.So unfortunately the evidence directly contradicts your attempt at apologetics. It's certainly feasible for an all-powerful deity to use miracles to account for these things, but at that point you're assuming that the deity would miraculously engineer evidence in such a way to specifically contradict what he actually did, and that doesn't fit with a deity who supposedly never lies.

That sounds all well and good, but it still doesn't address the observed fact that most creatures do not have the genetic bottleneck they would need to have if their populations were restricted so much, and those that do have bottlenecks don't match up to anything approaching a similar date range as they should if the Flood happened.If you dismiss everything with miracles, it begs the question of why your deity feels the need to cover his tracks so deliberately. It also puts you in the uncomfortable position of having a compeltely unfalsifiable and untestable argument, where not only is nothing known but it is in fact impossible to know anything with any degree of accuracy. It puts you on the same level as suggesting we are living in the Matrix, and it's an intellectual dead-end.

Flooding is an extremely common event. It is not surprising in the least to find flood myths in various regions all over the world. An actual global flood being the source of these mythis is, however, both an extraordinart and a testable claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.The physical evidence does not agree with a global flood. At all.There is no global sediment layer. Fossils are found sorted not by body density and swimming capability, but ratehr in a fashion that agrees with radiometric dating, models of the fossilization process, and geological dating to suggest that the fossil record was built up over eons as opposed to in a sudden global flood. Metal tools, which presumeably do not float and cannot swim, are always found above various species of plants and animals that could either float or swim and would be sorted in higher layers than dense inanimate objects. There is insufficient water on the planet to cause a global flood (unless you suggest catastrophic geological events that cause more problems for the flood position than they solve). There is much, much more, but for the sake of brevity, the flood myth has been thoroughly disproven across multiple disciplines.The extraordinary claims of the Biblical flood myth do not match up with the physical evidence we see today any more than the claims of the Norse creation myth. The flood never happened. 1) Bare links are discouraged here. A quote of the relevant information you are linking to, as well as an argument in your own words is much preferred.2) "Apologetics" is essentailly the practice of smashing, bending, and distorting evidence to fit into a preconceived conclusion rather than following the evidence to whatever conclusion it leads. This is an extremely biased approach that leaves little or no connection between the pre-established conclusion and reality. In other words, apologetics is for idiots who would rather protect a sacred cow than live in the real world. Bullshit. Most scientists believe in God.But the real point is that scientists, by virtue of the scientific method which is designe specifically to avoid apologetics and maintain objectivity, do not begin with any sort of conclusion. They begin with evidence, establish a hypothesis to explain that evidence, and then test the hypothesis to ensure accuracy. Conclusions come last, whether about a deity or anything else.You're just projecting what you do onto science, trying to say "yeah, but you do it too." The problem is that science does not begin with the conclusion - science ends with the conclusion. Make your argument in your own words, and quote the relevant portions of your support. Do not provide bare links. It is not our job to do your homework for you.ABE: Having skimmed over your apologetics website, your argument is nothing more than the ridiculous assertion that "since many cultures have global flood myths, and many of these involve a single family taking all of their animals onto a boat, the global flood must have been a true event." This amounts to nothing more than many bare assertions rather than just one. Such an argument is overridden by the complete and total lack of any physical evidence suggesting that a global flood ever happened, and the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And any "thinker" who follows apologetics is not a very objective thinker.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

Becasue the Creationist sources tend to argue either from ignorance (talking about things they don't even remotely understand becasue they aren't scientists, surprise surprise) or outright propose falsehoods, directly "lying for Christ."Creationist sources are universally unreliable when it comes to a connection to anything real. They fabricate evidence, pretend that science supports their "theories" when it does not even in the slightest, and generally embarrass themselves when examined by anyone who remembers middle-school level science classes. It's unfortunate that the majority of Americans do not remember them. As a percentage, more scientists believe in a deity of some sort than do not. Very, very few believe the Bible is literally true,but a very large percentage would even identify themselves as "Christian." We have several right here on this board. Did you read your article? Ballard's "theory" is a massive local Flood, one which flooded the area surrounding the Black Sea. This does not fit with the literal Biblical account. It's not even close, as he's not even seriously suggesting even a local version of a "total killer" event.If it's not the literal version of the Biblical Flood story, where the entire Earth is covered, including the mountains, to a depth of 15 cubits from 40 days of rain (and the "fountains of the deep") with the water persisting for 150 days before beginning to subside, then this cannot be reasonably considered "support" for the Biblical Flood myth.All it is is a real-world potential explanation for the event that the Flood myth was based on. If Ballard is correct, then the Bible is completely wrong.