Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

[Subduction Zone]

You can't post support, and what may seem obvious inside your head is not the same outside.

I can, but I would probably be wasting my time with you. You do not understand even the rather simple concept of scientific evidence.

I did not claim that genetics applied to the bunny, while you suggest that they apply for Noah. Do you recant?

But you did and why should I?

Read their posts and see if they line up with the word.

We have been over this. You did not support your claim.

Back up the Noah connection then. Or simply apologize for making bogus claims in the name of science.

There is no "Noah connections" so how would I back it up? You can't test the genetics of something that never existed.

You can be funny. Albeit accidentally.

Not funny at all. Though almost every post of yours is a joke here. You make claims that you can never support. Meanwhile I can support mine. Sometimes I will, but if someone is an obvious denier of evidence sometimes I make people work for evidence.

Since you do not know a thing about laws in Noah's day, you are emitting empty words.

Again since there was no Noah this is a nonsensical claim of yours.

Part of my support is that science cannot say anything about it. Yay or nay. Might as well ask a donkey.

Wrong again. Of course science can make claims about the past. The fact that you won't let yourself understand is not a valid debating point.

Tyre was kinked to Satan and the end time if I recall? try to find something you can talk sensibly about.

In your opinion, which has no value in the big scheme of things against God.

Keep telling yourself that and some day you might be able to believe it.

Post flood populating is best explained with a different past.

And since you can't show that there was a "different past", neither biblically and more importantly scientifically then you have inadvertently demonstrated that there was no flood. Thank you.

 

[dad]

I can, but...

ZZzzz

But you did and why should I?

Snore...

There is no "Noah connections" so how would I back it up? You can't test the genetics of something that never existed.

So you recant? You now claim that genetics would not go back to the days of Noah? Get a position and stick to it man.

Meanwhile I can support mine. Sometimes I will, but...

Cut the jokes and admit you can't. You don't. That relegates your claims to the scrap heap.

if someone is an obvious denier of evidence sometimes I make people work for evidence.

Drum roll please...SZ continues to pretend he could produce the goods...

Again since there was no Noah this is a nonsensical claim of yours.

You mention him a lot. Would you say modern genetics go back that far?

Wrong again. Of course science can make claims about the past.

So can Mickey Mouse. The trick is to prove it, at least offer very solid evidence.

Tyre was kinked to Satan and the end time if I recall? try to find something you can talk sensibly about.

You do realize that God launched into talking about Satan from the verse where the king was being talked about? It is one thing to be woefully ignorant of basic prophesy and another thing altogether to try to use the cuckoo conclusions gleaned from such ignorance to try to bash the bible.

And since you can't show that there was a "different past", neither biblically and more importantly scientifically

Yes, from Scripture it is a very very valid viewpoint that the operative word for the past was different. The long lives, the spirits among men, the timing of the flood and start of speciating etc etc. It is also a great way to look at post flood populating rates.

then you have inadvertently demonstrated that there was no flood.

The inability of science to be able to demonstrate any state of nature in the past is actually not a demonstration that there was no flood. There is not even a remote connection..work on connecting those peaky dots.

As I search posts, I see that it was perhaps another poster that made this comment


"but we know a great deal about how genetic diversity arises and what it looks like for different demographic histories. Modern human genetic diversity did not come from 5 individuals (Noah, wife, 3 daughters-in-law) at any time within the last half million years or so."


If genetics worked differently than maybe it did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ZZzzz

Snore...

So you recant? You now claim that genetics would not go back to the days of Noah? Get a position and stick to it man.


Cut the jokes and admit you can't. You don't. That relegates your claims to the scrap heap.

Drum roll please...SZ continues to pretend he could produce the goods...

You mention him a lot. Would you say modern genetics go back that far?

So can Mickey Mouse. The trick is to prove it, at least offer very solid evidence.

You do realize that God launched into talking about Satan from the verse where the king was being talked about? It is one thing to be woefully ignorant of basic prophesy and another thing altogether to try to use the cuckoo conclusions gleaned from such ignorance to try to bash the bible.


Yes, from Scripture it is a very very valid viewpoint that the operative word for the past was different. The long lives, the spirits among men, the timing of the flood and start of speciating etc etc. It is also a great way to look at post flood populating rates.
The inability of science to be able to demonstrate any state of nature in the past is actually not a demonstration that there was no flood. There is not even a remote connection..work on connecting those peaky dots.

As I search posts, I see that it was perhaps another poster that made this comment


"but we know a great deal about how genetic diversity arises and what it looks like for different demographic histories. Modern human genetic diversity did not come from 5 individuals (Noah, wife, 3 daughters-in-law) at any time within the last half million years or so."


If genetics worked differently than maybe it did.

dad, I will be happy to help you learn anytime that you are ready. Your main method of defense is to keep yourself willfully ignorant.

 

[dad]

dad, I will be happy to help you learn anytime that you are ready. Your main method of defense is to keep yourself willfully ignorant.

I think the question you need to address is how can you prove that genetics existed persay in the days of the first men off the ark?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the question you need to address is how can you prove that genetics existed persay in the days of the first men off the ark?

There was no ark. When you can explain this then we can talk about the ark:

"2009-08-20-01800 USA Utah 316 Goosenecks SP" by www.Gernot-Keller.com (User: Gernot Keller), London - Canon 5D. Licensed under CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2009-08-20-01800_USA_Utah_316_Goosenecks_SP.jpg#/media/File:2009-08-20-01800_USA_Utah_316_Goosenecks_SP."

 

[FutureAndAHope]

How do you explain the following:

Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square metre per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.

The above was taken from the the following article which also shows growth rates support the food, not deny it.

Where are all the people? - creation.com

 

[JacksBratt]

Not at all. We have billions of years to generate the observed biological diversity. You have only a few thousand years. That gives us almost a million times as much time as you had. You need to read up on the concept of a population bottleneck. We can see the results of a much less severe population bottleneck that occurred ten thousand years ago with cheetahs. They still have not recovered from it to date.

And the lack of universal population bottlenecks is only one of the many many pieces of evidence that tells us that the Noah's Ark story never happened. Since my training was in geology many many years ago I like the using incised meanders.

How in the world does it matter how many years you have. You either have the genetic diversity or you don't.

If you start with three brothers and three unrelated women, compared to one solitary organism.

You either have to create more genetic information or all of it is contained in the single celled being.

Either way, one organism vs three related and three unrelated. Ten years, one thousand, one billion......same data as the original. Time doesn't create new information. If it did, we would just apply it to the three couples and the problem goes away anyway.

 

[JacksBratt]

There was no ark. When you can explain this then we can talk about the ark:

Firstly, I deleted the picture from my post.
It would be nice if you could do the same
so that the whole book of "War and Peace"
would not fit on one line of our posts...

Awesome pic by the way.


Secondly, can you tell me where all the earth
from the slow erosion of this canyon went?
That is, if it was slowly eroded.
It should be somewhere and that's a lot of
dirt to move and hide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How in the world does it matter how many years you have. You either have the genetic diversity or you don't.

If you start with three brothers and three unrelated women, compared to one solitary organism.

You either have to create more genetic information or all of it is contained in the single celled being.

Either way, one organism vs three related and three unrelated. Ten years, one thousand, one billion......same data as the original. Time doesn't create new information. If it did, we would just apply it to the three couples and the problem goes away anyway.

Genetic diversity as time increases. The rate can measured, calculated and extrapolated. There has not been anywhere near enough time for today's observed diversity to come from three couples in such a short period of time.

Once again Cheetahs went through a much less severe bottleneck from a longer time ago and they are nowhere near recovered from theirs.

Tell me, what would happen to you if we took the skin of some random stranger and transplanted it onto your skin? You better look up "tissue rejection".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Firstly, I deleted the picture from my post.
It would be nice if you could do the same
so that the whole book of "War and Peace"
would not fit on one line of our posts...

Awesome pic by the way.


Secondly, can you tell me where all the earth
from the slow erosion of this canyon went?
That is, if it was slowly eroded.
It should be somewhere and that's a lot of
dirt to move and hide.

I could use a smaller picture, but that one is so impressive. Ark believers cannot explain the formation. It can only be explained by the standard model of biology. In other words, it took millions of years for that particular valley to form.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you explain the following:

Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square metre per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.

The above was taken from the the following article which also shows growth rates support the food, not deny it.

Where are all the people? - creation.com

It is a mistake to assume that the population growth rate has always been constant. In fact for most of our history on this Earth our population has been relatively constant. Sometimes even negative. Your oversimplified view of population growth is simply wrong.

By the way, try making the same sort of population growth assumptions for bacteria based upon their possible population growth rates.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, here is that same picture again, but smaller. Can any flood proponents explain it? I will tell you what your error was:

 

[justlookinla]

I could use a smaller picture, but that one is so impressive. Ark believers cannot explain the formation. It can only be explained by the standard model of biology. In other words, it took millions of years for that particular valley to form.

Biology explains the formation. How?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biology explains the formation. How?

No, geology explains the formation. Flud geology utterly fails.

 

[AV1611VET]

Flud geology utterly fails.

I'm more interested in Flood theology, than I am Flood geology.

 

[justlookinla]

No, geology explains the formation. Flud geology utterly fails.

Ok, you indicated it was explained by biology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, you indicated it was explained by biology.

Not really, I merely stated that creationists can't explain it since almost all creationists also believe in the ark story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm more interested in Flood theology, than I am Flood geology.

It is just as failed of a study. Why waste your time?

 

[AV1611VET]

It is just as failed of a study. Why waste your time?

LOL

I'm not the one traipsing around looking for a sign of the Flood in rock layers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL

I'm not the one traipsing around looking for a sign of the Flood in rock layers.

Me either. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. Your side lost over 200 years ago.