|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does The Flood Add up? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4445 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Faith writes: NOW. The past is a different story. Of course with the uniformitarian assumption the whole thing is impossible. But we YECs don't operate by that assumption. We have a completely other model in mind. I've seen it - it's not very descriptive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6565 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote: Genesis7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. 7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in. I get this picture of cartoon dinosaur eggs with arms and legs walking up the gangplank of the ark hand in hand. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 3210 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
But we YECs don't operate by that assumption. We have a completely other model in mind. It doesn't matter what model you have in mind. That does not change the facts, which your model does not take into account. You can't just create new facts.
Again you are assuming uniformitarianism and assuming conditions now, and assuming the whole evolutionist program. Well, one can study population genetics in a fruit fly colony in the lab, create bottle necks, etc and watch it all unfolding right in front of you. There is no reason NOT to assume that a human population 4000 years ago would have behaved in a significantly different way in terms of population genetics. Also we have some pretty good data on Amish and royal family populations and we know what inbreeding can do (and they don't generally marry any closer than second cousins. Noah's grandchildren were FIRST cousins). Again you have to provide some evidence that population genetics followed a different set of rules since the parsimonius explanation is that the rules are the same now as then.
Mutation is pretty much IT, and that is full of holes.
Off topic so I won't pursue it except to say that you have never successfully argued that point and you provide no citation so we can safely ignore it as "facts not in evidence."
they still had relative health compared to us, quite dramatically better health. Again, an assertion with no evidence cited. Anyway the state of health of Noah and his family would not have been good for long if a virus being carried by an animal had swept through their tiny population.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1762 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No. In-breeding problems are a result of inbreeding, which you would have in spades in Noah's grandchildren. The only reason inbreeding is a problem is the accumulation of inherited diseases and according to the YEC understanding, there were no diseases at all until the Fall, and considering the long life spans of at least the God-fearing line of Adam's immediate descendants, they died of old age rather than any kind of disease for many many generations after Adam, Noah's generation included. We assume great vigor and genetic diversity even in those eight on the ark, enough to generate all human beings since, certainly diminished from the original vigor and diversity of Adam and Eve but still considerable. Compared to us, astronomically considerable. Inherited diseases to the extent we now face them are a relatively recent phenomenon. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1762 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Again, an assertion with no evidence cited. Anyway the state of health of Noah and his family would not have been good for long if a virus being carried by an animal had swept through their tiny population This is all the working out of YEC theory itself, inferences therefrom, and evidence is not available to anybody on either side of this divide. It's all plausibilities and speculations. I am trying to demonstrate the conceptual consistency of the YEC model itself, which actually does amount to evidence in itself, rightly considered. The animals were just as genetically strong as the human beings. ALL creation has been deteriorating health-wise inexorably since the Fall, but in Noah's day their vigor would have been still very very great. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6565 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote:How could Adam and Eve have had "great diversity"? No matter how you slice it they are only two people and one of them was supposedly made from the other's rib. Does that make her a clone? In any case you have only 4 allels for each gene. Or do you think Adam and Eve had multiple copies of each genome. Of course "unclean" animals should have even less diversity than humans since you reduce them to 2 of each "knd". There should be less diversity in every "kind" of unclean animal than there is in humans but that is not at all what is seen. There are a few species of animals such as the Cheetah that show recent bottlenecks but most do not. Why not? Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6489 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: |
I get this picture of cartoon dinosaur eggs with arms and legs walking up the gangplank of the ark hand in hand.
Yes, it is a cartoon. And as YECs attempt to explain away the problems, it becomes ever more cartoonish. Oh, what a wicked web we weave,When first we practice to deceive. [it may be self deception, but the rhyme still seems appropriate]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1762 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How could Adam and Eve have had "great diversity"? No matter how you slice it they are only two people and one of them was supposedly made from the other's rib. Does that make her a clone? In any case you have only 4 allels for each gene. Or do you think Adam and Eve had multiple copies of each genome. I don't know all the genetics of course, but I think they had lots more variation possible per trait than we do, more loci for a particular trait, for instance, and other ways more genetic diversity can be built into a genome that others have explained in the past, but I'd have to review it all.
Of course "unclean" animals should have even less diversity than humans since you reduce them to 2 of each "knd". There should be less diversity in every "kind" of unclean animal than there is in humans but that is not at all what is seen. There are a few species of animals such as the Cheetah that show recent bottlenecks but most do not. Why not? Because the original (built-in genetic} diversity and health of all living things was astronomically higher than we are capable of imagining at our remove. Other recently bottlenecked animals most likely became extinct however. Somehow the cheetah has held on despite its compromised genetic condition. {By recently I mean much more recently than the ark of course. You think the ark was recent. As a YEC I assume that even through that drastic bottleneck great genetic potential survived in all living things. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1762 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Just for the record, I've never argued for eggs. I've considered the possibility that young dinosaurs might have been taken, but I'm most persuaded by the idea that the particular species of that Kind that was taken on the ark was a smaller Kind, while all the big ones died in the flood. The species that was taken might still have produced some giants afterward, depending on how much genetic diversity was still present in the genome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6565 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
Keep in mind that nobody KNOWS anything for sure about anything concerning the past, including you evos. Of course we know things about the past. We are not talking about the distant past we talking about 4,500 years ago.It's all speculative imagination. Nice try but we do know quite a bit about what the world was like 4,500 years ago. You are talking about the time of the 4th Eqyptian dynasty after all, not billions of years ago. Geographic isolation of different species is quite common. Odd but true that these odd types end up in this one place. Not implausible to my mind that various of them evolved from various parent types that happened to be on the part of the land mass that became Australia. I suggest you look at a map of the earth before the break up of Pangea. Here is a link to a MAP It is a long way from the Middle East to Australia. Among the animals that somehow got there are the Koala, which only lives in Eucalyptus trees, the marsupial mole, a small nearly blind animal that only lives in sandy soil and the echidna, an awarkward marsupial(Added in edit![]() Why no placental mammals? Who knows? Territoriality of some sort maybe. Do you think the tasmanian tiger was able to keep wolves, lions, leopards, hyena, bears and other placental predators away because of territoriality? Do you think kangaroos somehow kept out wildebeest, deer, zebra and all the other placental grazers because of territoriality. It makes no sense at all.
It is quite possible the little brown bat did not exist in Noah's day but subsequently evolved from whatever bat was saved on the ark. The little brown bat appears in the Miocene. Was that before or after the flood? Oh, sorry. I forgot that YECs actually have no idea which fossils are flood deposits and which aren't.
Then they (Kolas) were on the ark and didn't evolve. So what? Then how did these little animals make it all the way back to Australia before the continents split up? How long after the flood was that? Maybe during the 6th Egyptian dynasty if the flood was during the 4th.
So I've heard. Just because you can't imagine how it (rapid continent movement) could have happened without dire consequences doesn't mean it didn't. Nobody KNOWS anything about any of this. We're all applying our imagination. You have more scientific knowledge which gives you more apparent credibility but nevertheless you are still doing nothing but speculating about a past you can't know a thing about. We know how continents move and how they have been moving for billions of years. Sea floor is subducted in subduction zones and created at spreading centers. This necessarily produces new ocean crust and lithosphere and it is hot. Would you like to give us a geophysical model for moving the continents around that doesn't involve subduction and seafloor spreading? Randy Edited by Randy, : Echidna is a monotreme
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1762 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Keep in mind that nobody KNOWS anything for sure about anything concerning the past, including you evos.
Of course we know things about the past. We are not talking about the distant past we talking about 4,500 years ago.It's all speculative imagination. Nice try but we do know quite a bit about what the world was like 4,500 years ago. You are talking about the time of the 4th Eqyptian dynasty after all, not billions of years ago. Yes, and the written record of the Bible trumps all the reconstructed history from archaeology you can come up with to "prove" the timing of the Egyptian dynasties. One written record that has been passed down intact for millennia is worth more than all that after-the-fact reconstruction.
Geographic isolation of different species is quite common. Odd but true that these odd types end up in this one place. Not implausible to my mind that various of them evolved from various parent types that happened to be on the part of the land mass that became Australia. I suggest you look at a map of the earth before the break up of Pangea. Here is a link to a MAPIt is a long way from the Middle East to Australia. Among the animals that somehow got there are the Koala, which only lives in Eucalyptus trees, the marsupial mole, a small nearly blind animal that only lives in sandy soil and the echidna, an awarkward marsupial version of the porcupine. How did these animals not only make that long trip before the continents broke up, but get there ahead of all "kinds" of placenatal mammals that are much better travelers. Why did they make this long hike back to where they just happen to have a fossil record? Did they also make this long hike up to get on the ark? There are no flood deposited fossils of modern Australian marsupials or montremes anywhere in Europe or Asia. There are lots of different maps of Pangaea on the web. Some I've seen show it to be a lot more compact than the one you put up. But certainly those are good questions to think about. I would also think that evolution wouldn't have any easier time explaining it than a YEC.
Then how did these little animals make it all the way back to Australia before the continents split up? How long after the flood was that? Maybe during the 6th Egyptian dynasty if the flood was during the 4th. The timing of the Egyptian dynasties is obviously off.
We do know how continents move and how they have been moving for billions of years. You know ONLY how they move NOW, not how they have been moving for any great time in the past, not even how they moved a hundred years ago for sure.
Sea floor is subducted in subduction zones and created at spreading centers. This necessarily produces new ocean crust and lithosphere and it is hot. Would you like to give us a geophysical model for moving the continents around that doesn't involve subduction and seafloor spreading? No, that is the way it happens. It just happened faster 4500 years ago and has since slowed down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
It took merely Jacob and his family of twelve sons and their families to grow to more than a million Israelites in Egypt in 400 years starting around 1850 BC or so. It is mathematically possible. So we'd assume that the Egyptians had multiplied on a similar scale after the Flood a few hundred years earlier, and that pyramid-building was what the Israelites were doing there. Yes, we just assume different dates. Except it makes no mention of pyramid building in the Bible. Nor do the pyramids show any evidence of having been built by Israelites. Another thing, all of your arguments hinge on assumptions and belief that the Bible is accurate to the word. You say "if we assume this, and then assume this, all these assumptions and the conclusions we can draw from them are self-supporting" (not in those words). The problem is that you have nothing but assumptions. You can use the Bible as evidence in some places, but not here, these are the Science Forums. You need some scientific evidence. You can't just come up with one assumption after another in support of your view. Even if the math works out, that doesn't mean anything, because all of the evidence works against you. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1762 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Another thing, all of your arguments hinge on assumptions and belief that the Bible is accurate to the word. Definitely.
You say "if we assume this, and then assume this, all these assumptions and the conclusions we can draw from them are self-supporting" (not in those words). The problem is that you have nothing but assumptions. Based on the Bible as accurate report, yes, that is true, plus some known facts about genetics and fossils and the like, which certainly others know better than I do. And what do you have? Reconstructions of the past based on the uniformitarian assumption and some known facts, and speculations of exactly the same sort I'm doing based on those things.
You can use the Bible as evidence in some places, but not here, these are the Science Forums. You need some scientific evidence. You can't just come up with one assumption after another in support of your view. Even if the math works out, that doesn't mean anything, because all of the evidence works against you. It holds together quite nicely as a consistent picture, and that ought to count for a great deal. However, now that you are pulling science rank against the Bible, this is probably why I didn't post on this thread originally. I don't know if it was you or somebody else that was complaining that no YECs had posted on this thread, but that's probably why. There's no point in any of us posting on a science thread given the specific demands made on such a thread, violations of which get us suspended all the time. So. Sorry I posted anything at all here. It really belonged in Theological Creationism and ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1762 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It took merely Jacob and his family of twelve sons and their families to grow to more than a million Israelites in Egypt in 400 years starting around 1850 BC or so. It is mathematically possible. So we'd assume that the Egyptians had multiplied on a similar scale after the Flood a few hundred years earlier, and that pyramid-building was what the Israelites were doing there. Yes, we just assume different dates.
Except it makes no mention of pyramid building in the Bible. Nor do the pyramids show any evidence of having been built by Israelites. They may not have been building pyramids since their work had to do with brick-making rather than rock-hewing-and-hauling. But the absence of a mention of pyramids in the Bible is no evidence that they weren't known at the time or that their work had nothing at all to do with them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 156 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, and the written record of the Bible trumps all the reconstructed history from archaeology you can come up with to "prove" the timing of the Egyptian dynasties. Maybe in your beliefs but this is the Science side.
You know ONLY how they move NOW, not how they have been moving for any great time in the past, not even how they moved a hundred years ago for sure. This is another of those misconceptions you love to bring up. Certainly NOTHING, including the existence of GOD can be known for sure, but we can know about the past with a very high degree of certainty. The Continents did not move without leaving records, and those records are there for all to read. Some of the evidence is:
No Faith, we can know what happened in the past. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025