Talk to any zoologist and they'll tell you you need a breeding population of a few hundred for a species to avoid serious, serious inbreeding. The fewer you have, the more recessives emerge, the more susceptible the population is to any new stress, the less it is capable of adapting and surviving in new conditions. Many endangered species have dropped to the point where the mating couples may only be several score. Their continued survival has required heroic measures on the part of animal biologists, and it's in doubt if they can continue tosurvive in the wild (condors, to take just one well-known example). And it shows up unmistakably as a lack of variation in their DNA.
You flood guys say that EVERY species in the world was reduced to a breeding population of two (except I guess for humans, who were only reduced to, what was it? 8?)
There is NO evidence that that was so. The DNA doesn't show it. Genetic variation in every species is far beyond what would have existed if there was just a breeding population of two, four or five thousand years ago. Damned near the entire biosphere would have gone extinct a couple thousand years ago. Didn't happen.
The evidence does show we had a population crunch ourselves--humans are not that genetically diverse--all those people who make a big thing out of so-called "race" are totally whacked--we ain't that different--but ours was around 160,000 years ago, and the breeding population was probably around 10,000, not two, when biologically modern humans emerged in Africa. Got nothing to do with what would have happened if the biblical flood story had any actual reality.
xingu, I think, talks about creation myths. Not everybody has flood myths. And for those that do, remember, it is THEIR ANCESTORS who survive, and those ancestors are NOT related to Noah--kinda makes it hard for you to use those myths as somehow supportive of the biblical flood.
There is NO evidence of a universal flood. Flood deposition is very clear when it shows up in the archaeological and geological record. It is very different from normal deposition. And there is nothing even remotely like a universal flood layer. There are only very localized flood layers. And there are huge areas that have no flood deposition layers at all. And the areas that do have flood layers have no consistency as to time of deposition--from millions of years ago, to three weeks ago in New Orleans. Here in New England, you generally get undisturbed Ice Age soil, which is again very different from post-Ice Age soil, between about eighteen inches and two feet down. And there is no general flood deposition in the post-Ice Age layers.
In the Middle East, there has been continuous human occupation in some sites, e.g. Jericho, for up to 9000 years, well before any possible date for a biblical flood. There is NO evidence of floods, other than localized ones, nothing general, covering even all of Mesopotamia,no evidence of population crunches, where the population of the entire region would have been reduced to eight, and believe me, those would show up in the record. That kind of gap just doesn't exist.
You get a drop in population from a few hundred thousand to eight, especially in a literate population which those were (at least amongst the elite), you're going to get all kinds of discontinuities and changes in culture. And you're going to get mention in the records. And we have A LOT of records. And they're not there. Nor are the discontinuities.
There is no credible positive evidence the biblical flood actually took place. And the flood is incompatible with the evidence we do have.
Talk to any zoologist and they'll tell you you need a breeding population of a few hundred for a species to avoid serious, serious inbreeding. The fewer you have, the more recessives emerge, the more susceptible the population is to any new stress, the less it is capable of adapting and surviving in new conditions. Many endangered species have dropped to the point where the mating couples may only be several score. Their continued survival has required heroic measures on the part of animal biologists, and it's in doubt if they can continue tosurvive in the wild (condors, to take just one well-known example). And it shows up unmistakably as a lack of variation in their DNA.
You flood guys say that EVERY species in the world was reduced to a breeding population of two (except I guess for humans, who were only reduced to, what was it? 8?)
There is NO evidence that that was so. The DNA doesn't show it. Genetic variation in every species is far beyond what would have existed if there was just a breeding population of two, four or five thousand years ago. Damned near the entire biosphere would have gone extinct a couple thousand years ago. Didn't happen.
The evidence does show we had a population crunch ourselves--humans are not that genetically diverse--all those people who make a big thing out of so-called "race" are totally whacked--we ain't that different--but ours was around 160,000 years ago, and the breeding population was probably around 10,000, not two, when biologically modern humans emerged in Africa. Got nothing to do with what would have happened if the biblical flood story had any actual reality.
xingu, I think, talks about creation myths. Not everybody has flood myths. And for those that do, remember, it is THEIR ANCESTORS who survive, and those ancestors are NOT related to Noah--kinda makes it hard for you to use those myths as somehow supportive of the biblical flood.
There is NO evidence of a universal flood. Flood deposition is very clear when it shows up in the archaeological and geological record. It is very different from normal deposition. And there is nothing even remotely like a universal flood layer. There are only very localized flood layers. And there are huge areas that have no flood deposition layers at all. And the areas that do have flood layers have no consistency as to time of deposition--from millions of years ago, to three weeks ago in New Orleans. Here in New England, you generally get undisturbed Ice Age soil, which is again very different from post-Ice Age soil, between about eighteen inches and two feet down. And there is no general flood deposition in the post-Ice Age layers.
In the Middle East, there has been continuous human occupation in some sites, e.g. Jericho, for up to 9000 years, well before any possible date for a biblical flood. There is NO evidence of floods, other than localized ones, nothing general, covering even all of Mesopotamia,no evidence of population crunches, where the population of the entire region would have been reduced to eight, and believe me, those would show up in the record. That kind of gap just doesn't exist.
You get a drop in population from a few hundred thousand to eight, especially in a literate population which those were (at least amongst the elite), you're going to get all kinds of discontinuities and changes in culture. And you're going to get mention in the records. And we have A LOT of records. And they're not there. Nor are the discontinuities.
There is no credible positive evidence the biblical flood actually took place. And the flood is incompatible with the evidence we do have.
Whoops, sorry for the double post (especially as long as it turned out to be)--everything froze and nothing seemed to be uploading for five minutes or so, so I cancelled and tried again, but the first one apparently got thru.. Apologies.
I am constantly amazed at the foolishness of the Creationist who constantly stick to their ancient mythology despite the mass of science and reasoning that tells them it's wrong.
For example, the flood advocates say the Himalayas are proof that the flood waters covered even the tallest mountains because the top of mount Everest is limestone. But I have yet to see one Creationist, or science, create limestone in five months.
It's fascinating to see these poor souls read the first chapter of Genesis and now think they now know more than the world's physicist, chemists, geologist, biologist and astronomers.
Where did the water go?
Were there rainbows before the flood?
cicerone imposter wrote:After the world flood, who delivered all the different animals, birds, insects, and plants to the seven continents of the world? The eight humans in Noah's family? How long did that take?
They probably flew, walk and swam .
username wrote:Just from a time-and-labor point of view, not to mention from physics, chemistry, biological, anthropological, and archaeological viewpoints, the whole Noah idea is impossible.
cicerone imposter wrote:After the world flood, who delivered all the different animals, birds, insects, and plants to the seven continents of the world? The eight humans in Noah's family? How long did that take?
CI and Username, while I agree with your arguments from a scientific point of view, it's pretty clear that super-magic *poofism* solves all these problems. And it's already a given that you are arguing against poofists. They already believe that a flood covered the whole planet, and that animals and plants from around the world, without the means to get to and fro, came marching aboard at the word of God. You can give up rationally based arguments at that point.
It's kind of pointless to argue science against magic and logic against irrationality.
Unless you just like to see things like this:
Intrepid wrote: They probably flew, walk and swam .
Intrepid, if you're going to answer a challenge like that, do yourself a favor and just say *poofism*. It's all you have to say and we can't beat that argument within the realm of science. But when you try to defend things like the flood with naturalistic arguments, it just becomes comical.
rosborne979 wrote:patiodog wrote:Wolves are a lot closer to extinction than dogs are.
Dogs *are* Wolves. Just real fancy selections of the basic lupine gene pool.
It's amazing how much diversity exists in the gene pool of even a single species. All of the dogs we have today are just selected and focused variants of the Grey Wolf.
Reaching back...
Technically, yes, but if all of the wild wolves died out, you'd miss 'em. It's like pornography or diarrhea -- you know it when you see it.
patiodog wrote:rosborne979 wrote:patiodog wrote:Wolves are a lot closer to extinction than dogs are.
Dogs *are* Wolves. Just real fancy selections of the basic lupine gene pool.
It's amazing how much diversity exists in the gene pool of even a single species. All of the dogs we have today are just selected and focused variants of the Grey Wolf.
Reaching back...
Technically, yes, but if all of the wild wolves died out, you'd miss 'em.
Yes, I would, very much.
I was just making a comment on the genetic connection between wolves and dogs. Sorry if I missed the context of your post.
Believe me, I do not condone the intentional or accidental extinction of wolves in any way.
Species come and go on this planet as a natrual course of things, and I'm inclinded to see ourselves as just another natural event on this planet which will affect species diversity as a blip in the process 10 million years from now. But I also think we have the right to make our choices while we're here, and of the few species alive today which might be protected from the outbreak of homo sapiens, wolves seem worth the effort to protect.
You know its a Biblical "fact" that Noah liked to get hammered periodically. Here we have a Biblical patriarch with a known drinking problem that we have in direct charge of an incredible piece of heavy equipment.
And the Creationists say that they dont believe in dumb luck.
rosborne, I continue this debate with the creationists, because they look more silly every time they post a rebut. It's the only enjoyment I get daily.
They are so afraid that what they believed all their lives can be a lie, we can see how irrational, illogical, and desparate they are.
Faith can be a unreliable partner.
cicerone imposter wrote:After the world flood, who delivered all the different animals, birds, insects, and plants to the seven continents of the world? The eight humans in Noah's family? How long did that take?
Why is it supposed that anyone must 'deliver' animals anywhere? Can they not walk, run , fly ?
rosborne979 wrote:username wrote:Just from a time-and-labor point of view, not to mention from physics, chemistry, biological, anthropological, and archaeological viewpoints, the whole Noah idea is impossible.
cicerone imposter wrote:After the world flood, who delivered all the different animals, birds, insects, and plants to the seven continents of the world? The eight humans in Noah's family? How long did that take?
CI and Username, while I agree with your arguments from a scientific point of view, it's pretty clear that super-magic *poofism* solves all these problems. And it's already a given that you are arguing against poofists. They already believe that a flood covered the whole planet, and that animals and plants from around the world, without the means to get to and fro, came marching aboard at the word of God. You can give up rationally based arguments at that point.
It's kind of pointless to argue science against magic and logic against irrationality.
Unless you just like to see things like this:
Intrepid wrote: They probably flew, walk and swam .
Intrepid, if you're going to answer a challenge like that, do yourself a favor and just say *poofism*. It's all you have to say and we can't beat that argument within the realm of science. But when you try to defend things like the flood with naturalistic arguments, it just becomes comical.
You call that a challenge? I call that silliness. I responded to a sarcastic comment in a sarcastic way. Something I should not have done. You thought it was serious answer to something posed in the usual way we are accustomed to? I wasn't defending anything with that answer, I was making a comment. If you can't tell the difference, you are probably trying to be too scientific.
cicerone imposter wrote:rosborne, I continue this debate with the creationists, because they look more silly every time they post a rebut. It's the only enjoyment I get daily.
You call the comments that you make debate? OK...whatever makes you happy. If this is your only daily enjoyment, you should really get a hobby or something.
Quote:They are so afraid that what they believed all their lives can be a lie, we can see how irrational, illogical, and desparate they are.
This could just as easily be written for you as by you.
Quote:Faith can be a unreliable partner.
How can faith be unreliable? What is faith partnered with? Is this a form of debate?
username wrote:Talk to any zoologist and they'll tell you you need a breeding population of a few hundred for a species to avoid serious, serious inbreeding.
If a new species 'evolved' from a existing species, then at some early point do you not begin with just two of the new species?
xingu wrote:I am constantly amazed at the foolishness of the Creationist who constantly stick to their ancient mythology despite the mass of science and reasoning that tells them it's wrong.
For example, the flood advocates say the Himalayas are proof that the flood waters covered even the tallest mountains because the top of mount Everest is limestone. But I have yet to see one Creationist, or science, create limestone in five months.
It's fascinating to see these poor souls read the first chapter of Genesis and now think they now know more than the world's physicist, chemists, geologist, biologist and astronomers.
Where did the water go?
Were there rainbows before the flood?
Okay then how did sedimentary rock come about on Everest? Obviously it was underwater at some point, was it not?
How tall was it when that was the case? Good question.
I love it when someone asks 'where did the water go?'
Well, 3/4 of the earth's surface is STILL covered with water, so most of it didn't have to GO anywhere. If, in the past, the earth's mountain ranges were not as tall as we see them today (which all would agree.. They simply disagree as to WHEN this was the case.) then it's not hard to see how all of the earth's surface could be covered with water, is it?
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1634856#1634856
The above post summarizes the evidence against the Noah flood story. It is from a new A2k member.
Quote:Okay then how did sedimentary rock come about on Everest? Obviously it was underwater at some point, was it not?
. If you look at all the Himalayas, you can see that the "fabric' of all the various sedimentary and metamorphic layers are all rolled up sortof like a big throw rug that the kids have pushed into a big pile at one end of the room. The kids pushed some big fluffy toy and the rug just piles and loops up with a line of folds almost perpendicular to the direction from which the kids have pushed the toy. Same thing, except think of India as a big fluffy toy and its slammed up againsts the underbelly of Asia causing "the rug " f the Himalayas to just roll up. Rock is an extremely plastic material in large hundreds of sq kilometer chunks. It gets rafted by "floating on the mantle " and piles up in various mountain belts.
There isnt enough water on earth to account for a sea level rise above todays MSL much higher than 300 ft AMSL+, even when all the glaciers are melted.
As far as your question that you critique"where did all the water go?" is no different than the question that Creationists ask "where did all tyhe salt go"
Thats why I doubt that Creationists have, as you say, some claimed ownership of "The available evidence" . Mostly because, since your side doesnt spend any time collecting any, it doesnt have to collate it and attempt to make it all jibe. We have a lot of data in bio, chemistry, physics, geology, and the only way it comes together is in a manner that Dobzhansky and Gould (separately) have stated. "Its an old earth wherein only a tectonic model and an evolutionary explanation of life make any sense" (forgive my paraphrase)
wandel, I liked usernames logic too, one of the reasons we now have a big concern about the Right Whale is that the "critical mass deck" below which a free ranging population wont interbreed may have been achieved for this species.Its on a worldwide decline since the 60's and theres nothing, short of a "hacking" program that will produce more young whales. In the Bay of Fundy, Right whales were quite common. Now its an occasion to see one.
Real life then tries to state that isnt this a failure in evolution. Real life has an imperfect acceptance of evidence and data because he doesnt wish to recognize the other side of evolution , which is extinction.
Pauligirl wrote:real life wrote:Pauligirl wrote:
So, when was that flood?
P
Are you asking when the scripture says it happened?
Moses, in the Book of Genesis wrote:And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
Apparently this is when. I guess I don't see your point. Couldn't you have found this out by looking it up?
I know what the scripture says. I was looking for something close to an actual date.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/noahs_flood.asp
The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC +/- 11 years.
Do you agree with them?
P
I have never worked out a chronology for the Flood. But I have no large problem with the info you posted. In any case, it would be something in the low thousands of years , not millions, if that is the point you are trying to establish.
farmerman wrote:Quote:Okay then how did sedimentary rock come about on Everest? Obviously it was underwater at some point, was it not?
. If you look at all the Himalayas, you can see that the "fabric' of all the various sedimentary and metamorphic layers are all rolled up sortof like a big throw rug that the kids have pushed into a big pile at one end of the room. The kids pushed some big fluffy toy and the rug just piles and loops up with a line of folds almost perpendicular to the direction from which the kids have pushed the toy. Same thing, except think of India as a big fluffy toy and its slammed up againsts the underbelly of Asia causing "the rug " f the Himalayas to just roll up. Rock is an extremely plastic material in large hundreds of sq kilometer chunks. It gets rafted by "floating on the mantle " and piles up in various mountain belts.
There isnt enough water on earth to account for a sea level rise above todays MSL much higher than 300 ft AMSL+, even when all the glaciers are melted.
As far as your question that you critique"where did all the water go?" is no different than the question that Creationists ask "where did all tyhe salt go"
Thats why I doubt that Creationists have, as you say, some claimed ownership of "The available evidence" . Mostly because, since your side doesnt spend any time collecting any, it doesnt have to collate it and attempt to make it all jibe. We have a lot of data in bio, chemistry, physics, geology, and the only way it comes together is in a manner that Dobzhansky and Gould (separately) have stated. "Its an old earth wherein only a tectonic model and an evolutionary explanation of life make any sense" (forgive my paraphrase)
Well, the water is all here. And if the continents were at one point united, as many propose (they disagree on WHEN), then actually MUCH LESS water would have been necessary to inundate the land mass if it were in one spot, as opposed to if the Flood happened when the land masses were spread globally, as we see them today.
Do you want to address the salt question? Why is there not enough salt in the oceans to account for the billions of years that evolutionists say they must have to make their theory workable?
