Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

[SLP]

Dear Readers, Peleg was one of Noah's great grandsons.

Evidence?

He lived at the time that HUMANITY was scattered (split) over the whole Earth from Babel.

Where was babel?

Babel was built by one of Noah's grandson's child named Nimrod.

Assertion.

 

[SLP]

Dear SLP, The flood "clean dissolved" Isa 24:19 Adam's Earth and all the creatures there, except those on the Ark. No amount of water would "clean dissolve" our Earth because it's a rock containing molten lava. Thus, your ancient thinking is refuted both scripturally and scientifically. Amen? God Bless you.

MY ancient thinking?

LOLOL!!!!




Whatever you want to pretend, Einstein.

 

[SLP]

Creationists have always admitted upfront that they ultimately base their position on faith that the Bible is the true Word of God.

Even when the 'true' word of God is shown to be absurd. How proud you must be.

But if this is the case, then I do wonder why you would try to argue against evolution pretending to use math or science in the first place?

The funny thing is that you guys (evolutionists) can't admit your faith positions, no matter how obvious it becomes.

Here we go...

Tell me all about MY 'faith positions', but first tell me how You know about MY faith positions.

All anatomical systems in biology, anywhere in existence, *must* have been assembled by natural selection acting on variation. You don't even need to study it, you *know* it's true already.

There is that disingenuous, arrogant, condescending tone I see so often. It is the confidence of ignorance. You fail to understand that what you see as "faith" - akin to YOUR faith that a collection of numerologist musings from the ancient middle east are 100% true - is actually a tentative conclusion premised on what we Do know. As for 'not even studying it' - what is that supposed to mean? What do you think we should do - if there is a specific system that has not yet been studied to the extent that you think it should have been, it should be considered 'created'?

And then what happens when, later on, it is discovered that it arose via natural means? the box that YOU want to put your deity in gets smaller and smaller and smaller.

All of the cosmos *must* have evolved from some mysterious primordial state, and if the evidence doesn't point that way, then it is simply a "god of the gaps" that will be solved in the future.

God of the gaps is YOUR argument. That is the only refuge for your deity these days - time was, it was thought that some deity or another was needed for everything. now, we can understand and explain all sorts of things that primitives used to lay at the feet of God. it is only in the things that we have not yet shown to be understandable and explicable that your deity now lies.
And people like you want to ATTACK people like me for not simply agreeing that God did it is a satisfactory default position.

Absurd!

You guys constantly exude a never-to-be-questioned, faith-based metaphysics

Project much?

Who wrote:

"...faith that the Bible is the true Word of God"

You conflate and confuse the 'faith' of the realist that since natural explanations have a pretty good track record so far, there is cause to be confident that currently unexplained phenomena will likely also have a natural explanation with the 'Faith' of the religionist that God said it, I believe it, thats that.

Sorry - apples and oranges.

so I can't help but laugh when you do the pseudo-skeptic routine and attack others for their own.

I'm sure you laugh at lots of things.

But I note that other than your pompous condescension, you don't seem to offer much in terms of a rational defense of your claims.

 

[dad]

Dear Readers, Peleg was one of Noah's great grandsons. He lived at the time that HUMANITY was scattered (split) over the whole Earth from Babel. Babel was built by one of Noah's grandson's child named Nimrod. Gen 10:10 Our Earth was NOT split but our Humanity was positioned all over the face of the Earth from Babel. Gen 11:9 God Bless you

You don't know what all was divided. Some scholars include the continental division in that. I agree. I go further and suspect that the spiritual was more divided also from the physical here, because spirits used to marry women and etc.

Here is my acid test for you..do you believe that Adam was a real man really created by Jesus, yes or no?? Just be honest and state your opinion.

 

[dad]

Where was babel?.

In the plain. However that area saw massive uplift and etc which I suspect buried the area where the actual tower was.

 

[Aman777]

MY ancient thinking?

LOLOL!!!!




Whatever you want to pretend, Einstein.

Dear SLP, Yes, since you think the present Earth is where Adam lived. Don't you? No wonder you are so ignorant of the fact that Adam's world was "clean dissolved" in the flood. Have you ever read the story? God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

You don't know what all was divided. Some scholars include the continental division in that. I agree. I go further and suspect that the spiritual was more divided also from the physical here, because spirits used to marry women and etc.

Here is my acid test for you..do you believe that Adam was a real man really created by Jesus, yes or no?? Just be honest and state your opinion.

Dear dad, Adam was a real man, who lived for Billions of years in the likeness of Jesus BEFORE he sinned and became a man of flesh, a real man of flesh. ONLY men of flesh can marry (have sex) with a woman of flesh. Those who have sex with spirits are said to have Fantasies. Amen?

 

[dad]

Dear dad, Adam was a real man, who lived for Billions of years

I rest my case!!!

 

[lifepsyop]

You can assume any mutation rate you wish as long as you logical reasoning for why you're assuming it.

BTW, "I want it to be this way" is not logical reasoning.

Here is the amazing double-standard position that evolutionists always take.

We could focus on any area of Evolutionary Creationism to see all sorts of claims bandied about to try and explain various phenomena without a shred of actual observed evidence to back them up... This is 'OK' of course, because it goes to support Evolutionary Creationism.

Here's just one example of countless others.

"Possible Causes of the Cambrian Explosion"

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Developmental Explanations:

It is proposed that the emergence of simple multicellular forms provided a changed context and spatial scale in which novel physical processes and effects were mobilized by the products of genes that had previously evolved to serve unicellular functions."

^^^
Not a shred of evidence that such events occurred.. nothing to be inferred from scientific observation or experimentation of any kind... yet evolutionists propose it because Cambrian animals exist and they need to offer some kind of idea as to why that is.

This kind of ad-hoc, generally base-less, reasoning is rampant throughout evolutionary literature. But such reasoning always gets a pass because of the deeply held belief in Evolutionary Creationism.

Yet when I make the ad-hoc suggestion that mutation rates may have been increased in the past in order to harmonize a YEC model... oh no! I'm committing some kind of intellectual crime... The double-standard is glaring.

As usual, the evolutionist is completely oblivious to the nature of his own theory and ends up being guilty of everything he accuses his opponents' of.

Que the hand-waving...

 

[lifepsyop]

Even when the 'true' word of God is shown to be absurd. How proud you must be.

I would be happy to hold to faith in God's word, even if the evidence did appear to contradict it. And I wouldn't have any problem admitting that either. Let God tell the truth, and all men be liars.

I imagine many Biblical followers of Jesus are going through this test of faith as we speak. They hear all the evolutionists telling them it has been "scientifically proven" that the Bible is false. 99.9% of people simply do not have free time to check the claims of academic institutions and the Evolutionary Priesthood.

On the other hand, I've actually had the time to study Evolution theory and see how much of an illusion it is... how ad-hoc, how malleable, how superstitious it is.

But if this is the case, then I do wonder why you would try to argue against evolution pretending to use math or science in the first place?

Because it is a fable and there is no scientifically persuasive reason to feel obliged to accept it.

95% of evolutionists' arguments as to why "Evolution must be true" are basically laughable when you deconstruct them.

Here we go...

Tell me all about MY 'faith positions', but first tell me how You know about MY faith positions.

I already did.

You hold faith in the evolutionary narrative, that living things, life, the celestial bodies, the very cosmos itself "evolved" into existence from some primordial form.

It's not like this is some big secret, you know.

Even if an evolutionist is a "Christian" it's because they've made up their own vague non-biblical evolutionary-syncretism god that resulted in the same thing that atheistic evolutionists have faith in.

God of the gaps is YOUR argument.

Actually it is the evolutionist's. Whenever there is something he can not explain, he *knows* the answer is still Evolution because otherwise it is a "God of gaps" fallacy. Ironically he is committing the exact same transgression by using the inverse "Evolution of the gaps" argument.

It is already decided that everything about the universe is evolutionary in nature. All academic institutions agree that it is the truth. They just have to figure out exactly how it happened. This is why the evolutionary community's 'science-champion' posturing is such a joke.

That is the only refuge for your deity these days - time was, it was thought that some deity or another was needed for everything. now, we can understand and explain all sorts of things that primitives used to lay at the feet of God.
it is only in the things that we have not yet shown to be understandable and explicable that your deity now lies.

Haha... yes, like you "understand" how natural selection built all the animals from a common primordial ancestor. Or "understand" how the solar system was formed.

The problem is not that you've forced God into tiny gaps, but that you keep trying to reassure yourselves that you have. Why do you think people like you get so worked up when your evolutionary creation narrative is questioned?

If Evolution theory was even 10% as robust as people like you make it out to be then I would agree that God really has been forced into quite tiny gaps. But that is not the case no matter how much pseudo-intellectual bullying you throw at the problem.

And people like you want to ATTACK people like me for not simply agreeing that God did it is a satisfactory default position.

No I attack your arguments because you demand the world accept that evolutionary creation has been scientifically revealed beyond all reasonable doubt. It's simply not true and is easy to expose. You people are philosophers masquerading under science banners. That is the simplest way to put it.

You conflate and confuse the 'faith' of the realist that since natural explanations have a pretty good track record so far,there is cause to be confident that currently unexplained phenomena will likely also have a natural explanation with the 'Faith' of the religionist that God said it, I believe it, thats that.

Not for the mystical feats that you believe nature can explain. You and all evolutionists have faith in every sense of the word.

People had faith in similar forms of evolutionary creation thousands of years ago. There's nothing new under the sun.

 

[sfs]

Dear SLP, The flood "clean dissolved" Isa 24:19 Adam's Earth and all the creatures there, except those on the Ark. No amount of water would "clean dissolve" our Earth because it's a rock containing molten lava. Thus, your ancient thinking is refuted both scripturally and scientifically. Amen? God Bless you.

So we still have no explanation for contemporary genetic diversity that is consistent with a recent global flood.

 

[sfs]

Since my feelings are based on years of experience in arguing with evolutionists.. yes I feel they are somewhat relevant.

Since you do not seem to have learned very much about evolution from all of your years of arguing against it, call me unpersuaded.

Of course there is consensus. And the consensus is usually portrayed to the public as if it is beyond question, yet it also tends to be based on agreed upon assumptions instead of brute facts.

Your reply makes no sense here. What do you mean, "of course there is consensus"? My point was that 15 years ago there very much wasn't consensus. To the extent that scientists were working from "assumptions", they were working from different assumptions. Some were convinced that humans evolved simultaneously across Africa, Asia and Europe, and others that convinced that modern humans arose only in Africa, and spread from there. What created the consensus wasn't the assumptions scientists started with, but the data.

That there has been a serious debate at all shows that this model is not beyond question.

Mind your tenses. That there "has been" a serious debate shows that the model was not beyond question. It says nothing about whether it is currently beyond question. (And of course, it's not beyond question -- no model is in science. It's just very strongly supported by a wealth of genetic data.)

These literature references are not exactly ancient history. Has the absolute truth of human population genetics really been revealed in the last 10 years? I highly doubt it.

Those references are indeed ancient history when it comes to genomics. The first large-scale data of any kind on human genetic variation only appeared in 2002 (in this paper -- which noted that it supported Out of Africa, by the way). The first genome-wide data on genetic variation appeared in 2004 and 2005, with the Perlegen and HapMap datasets. The first unbiased datasets came years later, mostly with the 1000 Genomes Project. I've seen lots of studies that use 1000 Genomes data to support an Out of Africa model, or based on an OoA model, but I haven't seen a single one that interprets it in a multiregional model. Have you?

Mind you, the advocates of a purely Out of Africa model were also wrong. Unambiguously wrong. Anatomically modern humans did interbreed with archaic humans outside Africa, and regional variation in contemporary humans in part results from that interbreeding.

This is how science works: we look at data and we learn stuff.

 

[lifepsyop]

So we still have no explanation for contemporary genetic diversity that is consistent with a recent global flood.

I already suggested a past increase in mutation rates. The YEC model presupposes that parameters of living things have changed significantly (people living over 600 years) since the time of the flood.

By the way, it's not like human genetic diversity is consistent with evolutionary expectations either. (Of course this is no problem for the jello theory designed to be able to accommodate nearly any inconsistencies.)

Culture, population structure, and low genetic diversity in Pleistocene hominins
-2008

"Modern humans display less genetic diversity than great apes, a puzzling finding given our much larger census population size...

Paleogenomic research has shown that modern humans, Neanderthals, and their most recent common ancestor have displayed less genetic diversity than living great apes. The traditional interpretation that low levels of genetic diversity in modern humans resulted from a relatively recent demographic bottleneck cannot account for similarly low levels of genetic diversity in Middle Pleistocene hominins. A more parsimonious hypothesis proposes that the effective population size of the human lineage has been low for more than 500,000 years, but the mechanism responsible for suppressing genetic diversity in Pleistocene hominin populations without similarly affecting that of their hominoid contemporaries remains unknown."

...Modern human genetic diversity has previously been explained as resulting from a relatively recent demographic expansion from a small population that probably exhibited geographic structure. It is worth noting that some genetic loci do not match the expectations of this bottleneck scenario..."

 

[sfs]

I would suspect that sfs has the data to answer these questions. My impression is that a much higher mutation rate and a very recent bottleneck, one needed to produce the observed amount of diversity in the human genome, would not be able to weed out deleterious mutations across the entire human genome. As it is, there is obvious signs of negative selection in the human genome (sfs is much more familiar with the papers).

I think we would also be curious as to how mutation rates slowed down in all species so that the human mutation rate matched those of other modern species. What is the mechanism?

It's hard to evaluate the implications of a recent-Flood model when no one will offer such a model. If you assume that all humans started off with the oft-claimed perfect genomes, and therefore had no genetic variation, then all variation now is the result of mutations in the last, say, 10,000 years. Just in terms of the amount of variation we have, that would require a mutation rate 100 times as large as we observe. Never mind detailed analysis: everyone would just have died with that high a mutation rate. It would represent several hundred deleterious mutations per birth. And no, there's no way we could purge them all by purifying selection. We'd each have to be carrying a load of tens of thousands of damaging variants in order for purifying selection to start being effective in this scenario. Leaving aside the "we'd all be dead" problem, we simply don't carry that many deleterious alleles; the actual number is more like a few hundred.

Note also that mutation isn't a single process: different kinds of mutation happen for different reasons -- some during DNA replication, some during transcription, some spontaneously. Try coming up with a mechanism that would speed up all of those processes by a factor of 100 (compared to similar organisms) and then slow them all down again by the same amount.

Finally, we don't have to make any assumptions about what 4500 year old genomes looked like. All we have to do is look at 4500 year old genomes and see for ourselves. We've got human genomes that are much older than that in the literature at this point.

 

[lifepsyop]

It's hard to evaluate the implications of a recent-Flood model when no one will offer such a model.

Creation scientists publish on aspects of the flood model regularly. Maybe you should try looking them up.

If Creation was a state-sponsored religion like Evolution is, then you'd have a lot more research to draw on. Sorry about that.

If you assume that all humans started off with the oft-claimed perfect genomes, and therefore had no genetic variation, then all variation now is the result of mutations in the last, say, 10,000 years. Just in terms of the amount of variation we have, that would require a mutation rate 100 times as large as we observe.

Yea we get it. Things would have to have been different. I could have told you that by simply reading Genesis and again, noting that humans were living over 600 years of age at the time of the flood. "That's impossible!"

Never mind detailed analysis: everyone would just have died with that high a mutation rate. It would represent several hundred deleterious mutations per birth.

Are you assuming they would have to be randomly dispersed across the genome? If genomes were significantly more intact at this time, then why couldn't they absorb significantly more degradation?

And no, there's no way we could purge them all by purifying selection. We'd each have to be carrying a load of tens of thousands of damaging variants in order for purifying selection to start being effective in this scenario. Leaving aside the "we'd all be dead" problem, we simply don't carry that many deleterious alleles; the actual number is more like a few hundred.

This critique coming from someone who believes mutations were able to build a suite of beautifully functional cellular anatomy (Because, you know, we see things like that happening in nature all the time), before accumulating enough deleterious ones in the genome to cause total extinction. Talk about miracles.

Note also that mutation isn't a single process: different kinds of mutation happen for different reasons -- some during DNA replication, some during transcription, some spontaneously. Try coming up with a mechanism that would speed up all of those processes by a factor of 100 (compared to similar organisms) and then slow them all down again by the same amount.

I'm assuming many drastic changes would have been directly correlated with the overall drastic reduction in fitness of living things from the original creation as accounted for in Genesis. Of course I don't claim to understand how that process unfolded.

I could point to a myriad of evolutionary problems where you lack any observable phenomena to support your hypotheses, yet you accept them because they support an evolutionary narrative.

My God is "The Bible says it happened"
Your God is "Natural Selection did it"

Finally, we don't have to make any assumptions about what 4500 year old genomes looked like. All we have to do is look at 4500 year old genomes and see for ourselves. We've got human genomes that are much older than that in the literature at this point.

Of course, as long as we agree that the dating methods are absolutely correct which produces another rabbit-hole of assumptions to travel down.

 

[dad]

Finally, we don't have to make any assumptions about what 4500 year old genomes looked like. All we have to do is look at 4500 year old genomes and see for ourselves. We've got human genomes that are much older than that in the literature at this point.

No. Not at all. You merely seek to preach about your beliefs that the genetics which depend on laws all worked the same in the unknown past. We do not need to look at mutation as it now happens, nor do we need to date a genome in the ways you wish we would. You are selling a package deal faith and it is high time you realize some aren't buying.

 

[sfs]

Creation scientists publish on aspects of the flood model regularly. Maybe you should try looking them up.

I'm talking about genetics, so models of genetics are what I'm interested in. Creationists do not publish flood- or creation-based models of genetics. If you disagree, find any creationist who offers as simple a statement as what part of genetic diversity dates back to Adam and Eve and how much comes from subsequent mutation.

And I have tried looking at creationist statements on genetics. In fact, I've even written to major creationist organizations, asking them basic questions about genetics. They didn't give me any answers. Surprise me: tell me something about creationist genetics.

If Creation was a state-sponsored religion like Evolution is, then you'd have a lot more research to draw on. Sorry about that.

Money for research only helps if you want to do research.

Yea we get it. Things would have to have been different. I could have told you that by simply reading Genesis and again, noting that humans were living over 600 years of age at the time of the flood. "That's impossible!"

Things would have to have been different in specific ways, ways that have no explanation within creationism, no proposed mechanism, and whose sole justification would be that they would make creationism look like evolution. And ways no one can actually describe.

Are you assuming they would have to be randomly dispersed across the genome? If genomes were significantly more intact at this time, then why couldn't they absorb significantly more degradation?

Since observed genetic variation is indeed randomly dispersed across the genome, and it's that variation we're trying to explain, I don't think it's really an assumption. As for whether they could absorb more degradation, what does that mean? If a mutation destroys a protein, as many mutations do, how does the state of the rest of the genome matter? More to the point, they didn't absorb those mutations: we can see the functional parts of the genome by the lack of diversity there, where purifying selection has purged the deleterious mutations.

This critique coming from someone who believes mutations were able to build a suite of beautifully functional cellular anatomy (Because, you know, we see things like that happening in nature all the time), before accumulating enough deleterious ones in the genome to cause total extinction. Talk about miracles.

Sorry, but sneering is not an argument.

I could point to a myriad of evolutionary problems where you lack any observable phenomena to support your hypotheses, yet you accept them because they support an evolutionary narrative.

Tu quoque is also not a valid argument.

My God is "The Bible says it happened"
Your God is "Natural Selection did it"

My God is the one revealed in Jesus Christ. I think it's a really bad idea to tell him how he had to have done it. I'd much rather look at what he did and see the traces left behind.

Of course, as long as we agree that the dating methods are absolutely correct which produces another rabbit-hole of assumptions to travel down.

We don't have to agree that they're absolutely correct, just very correct -- which of course they are.

 

[lifepsyop]

I'm talking about genetics, so models of genetics are what I'm interested in. Creationists do not publish flood- or creation-based models of genetics. If you disagree, find any creationist who offers as simple a statement as what part of genetic diversity dates back to Adam and Eve and how much comes from subsequent mutation.

And I have tried looking at creationist statements on genetics. In fact, I've even written to major creationist organizations, asking them basic questions about genetics. They didn't give me any answers. Surprise me: tell me something about creationist genetics.

Wow, so there are unknowns. Unheard of. Evolutionists are never guilty of such things.

Money for research only helps if you want to do research.

As far as maintaining popular support for a theory, money is more useful for helping generate endless 'just-so' creative writing sessions of how things "evolved", among other exercises in public relations imagineering.

Things would have to have been different in specific ways, ways that have no explanation within creationism, no proposed mechanism, and whose sole justification would be that they would make creationism look like evolution. And ways no one can actually describe.

When Evolution theory can accommodate such a broad spectrum of data, it's difficult to find things that don't "look like evolution"



DNA mutation clock proves tough to set Nature 2015
Geneticists meet to work out why the rate of change in the genome is so hard to pin down.

The rate is key to calibrating the ‘molecular clock’ that puts DNA-based dates on events in evolutionary history. So at an intimate meeting in Leipzig, Germany, on 25–27 February, a dozen speakers puzzled over why calculations of the rate at which sequence changes pop up in human DNA have been so much lower in recent years than previously...

Reich is at a loss to explain the discrepancy. “The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us,” he says. “It means that the dates we get out of genetics are really quite embarrassingly bad and uncertain.”

Increasingly, Reich and others conclude that the human mutation rate has fluctuated over millions of years. Much of the discussion at the meeting revolved around when it accelerated and decelerated — and why.

Even though the human mutation rate is still uncertain and unstable, Reich proposed at the meeting that researchers use the slower value for their work, at least until better data come along. Just don’t think of it as a constant, he cautions: “This is not the speed of light. This is not physics.”

DNA mutation clock proves tough to set : Nature News & Comment


Genetics could appear in countless different patterns and Evolution could wrap a narrative around it. Evolution is a fog that settles around the data.

Since observed genetic variation is indeed randomly dispersed across the genome, and it's that variation we're trying to explain, I don't think it's really an assumption.

If it means better explaining a particular model, than past differences can be assumed.

Evolutionists assume countless scenarios that cannot be presently observed, in order to better harmonize evolutionary models.

This is where the double-standard begins to creep up.

As for whether they could absorb more degradation, what does that mean? If a mutation destroys a protein, as many mutations do, how does the state of the rest of the genome matter? More to the point, they didn't absorb those mutations: we can see the functional parts of the genome by the lack of diversity there, where purifying selection has purged the deleterious mutations.

So the human genome has accumulated mutations in regions that are non-essential for general health and fitness. (I think it's safe to say that if we didn't survive, we wouldn't have survived, don't you think? )

If we assume increased mutation rates in these non-essential genomic regions in the past, then this would explain larger amounts of genetic diversity in a smaller number of human generations.

Sorry, but sneering is not an argument.

Exposing double-standards is not a sneer. As long as you keep bringing up things that Creationists don't have an explanation for, I'll be happy to remind you that evolutionists are guilty of the same thing.

 

[Aman777]

I rest my case!!!

Dear dad, Adam was in a perfect body just as we will regain in Heaven. He was made in the likeness of Jesus, the Light of the first Day. Gen 1:3 Billions of years from now, Christians will be living in perfect bodies, like Adam had and like the perfect body of Jesus is TODAY.

Or do you deny that Jesus is alive and in a perfect body, Today? When Christians put on the incorruptible, do you think they won't be alive for Billions of years? Amen? God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

So we still have no explanation for contemporary genetic diversity that is consistent with a recent global flood.

Dear sfs, Our Earth has NEVER suffered a Global Flood. It was Adam's world, made on the 2nd Day Gen 1:6-8 which was clean dissolved Isa 24:19 in the flood. You have believed the Theology of ancient men who lived thousands of years before Science.

The genetic diversity came from the prehistoric people who were already here when Noah arrived and brought the Human intelligence of Adam to this Planet. Here is empirical historic evidence of the first Human arrival which began in the mountains of Ararat exactly as Gen 8:4 confirms. God Bless you Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

Noah's 3 grandsons married and produced today's Humans with the prehistoric people (sons of God) who numbered in the Millions 10k years ago when the Ark arrived. Gen 6:4