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

You create severe problems with an interpretation that places the evolution of genus Homo after the flood, but creationists still propose such things. One writes, for example:

​

Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow9], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man-all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel The non-transitions in ”human evolution’-on evolutionists’ terms[/i], by John Woodmorappe.

​

What is particularly amusing are the implications if this wonderful bit of creationist “science” were actually correct. For every tweak they make in established science there are several unintended implications.For example, let's look at the claim that the change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to these four species of fossil man took place since the Babel incident, which is usually placed after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago.This change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man!This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only proposed such a change themselves, but see it several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!This problem of creation "science" illustrates what happens when you try to twist established science to fit a biblical framework. For every forced fit there are many more unintended complications. Eventually you have to realize, after tweaking the facts to accommodate still more complications and creating still more problems, that natural history and human evolution just can't be force fit into a strict biblical framework.And nothing short of abandoning all of science for a purely imaginary world can make them fit.

There are many thousands of reasons the flood story doesn't work.Just one, but a rather serious one--There is no scientific evidence for a global flood 4,500 years ago.It does no good to make up stories of how the animals could eat, or crawl, run or fly back to their proper places, nor how they all fit onto the ark, or any of the rest if you can't find evidence of a global flood at the appointed time.A flood that large should be noticeable! Where's the evidence?

Nice try. But you can't just bend evidence around to suit your position.There is no evidence for a global flood about 4,500 years ago. If there had been such a flood, you would expect to find evidence of that flood everywhere, including your back yard.Now, I do archaeology for a living. I have poked into the ground in hundreds of "back yards" and in many of those places have been able to put together a cultural chronology backed up by radiocarbon dating and other evidence. And in all of those excavations there has been no trace or a flood at the appointed time. You go from 6,000 to 5,000 to 4,000 years just fine, there is no break which would be caused by a flood.Now there is no way you can interpret those facts any other way; creationists can only deny them.Another example: in southern Alaska there was a partial skeleton found in On Your Knees Cave. It was radiocarbon dated to 10,300 years ago. The mitochondrial DNA matched 40+ living descendants stretched from California to the tip of South America. There was no discontinuity and replacement with the mtDNA patterns of Noah's kin.I have a similar example from my own work, just a bit older than half that age but still pre-"flood" in age. Again, no discontinuity and replacement with Near Eastern mtDNA types.The evidence is just not there for a global flood at about 4,500 years ago and no amount of worldview can make the flood magically appear. And no amount of denial will make the evidence against the flood magically disappear.

Abstract of the article on On Your Knees Cave (the full journal article is available for a fee, or the journal will be found in many major libraries): AbstractI prefer not to link to my own article.Your doubt of science and your belief in a global flood does not constitute scientific evidence. I suspect that no amount of evidence would faze your belief in that flood because your belief is not based in evidence.Scientists have piled up an immense amount of evidence that the global flood never happened and you just shrug that off as a "worldview" problem.You should just admit that you are following your belief and not make any claims that it is based in science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

Placing organisms on a tree of life based on morphology seems to
me to be quite arbitrary and unscientific.

---

And you would prefer to do it based on what?