Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

[Subduction Zone]

Just your usual science vs. theology debates.

I think people are getting tired of hearing Jesus walked on water.

And Elvis turned water in to tequila.

 

[JacksBratt]

Getting enough people is easy. Getting the right amount and frequency of genetic diversity (i.e. what we see in humans) is not.

And, I say again,,,,,,

Ya, for that you would need a single spontanious life form that needs to figure out how to find a food source, somewhere, figure out what part of itself will absorb the nutrients, what part will convert it to energy that it can use.

Then figure out how to self replicate, and then from this one solitary organism we can get all the genetic diversity of the earth.

But, you cannot get the biodiversity of just the human race from three related males and three unrelated females...... That's too much of a stretch..... somehow!

Am I the only one that sees the Irony here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And, I say again,,,,,,

Ya, for that you would need a single spontanious life form that needs to figure out how to find a food source, somewhere, figure out what part of itself will absorb the nutrients, what part will convert it to energy that it can use.

Then figure out how to self replicate, and then from this one solitary organism we can get all the genetic diversity of the earth.

But, you cannot get the biodiversity of just the human race from three related males and three unrelated females...... That's too much of a stretch..... somehow!

Am I the only one that sees the Irony here.

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.

 

[TorturedSoul]

Well i think for a NASA astronaut to go looking for Noah's ark says something about it's validity. I may have been just localized and then mixed with other nations. The first cities were in Asia which could have been the land of Nod where Cain went.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well i think for a NASA astronaut to go looking for Noah's ark says something about it's validity.

I think Noah may have dismantled the Ark to build his homestead.

 

[TorturedSoul]

I think Noah may have dismantled the Ark to build his homestead.

Now that makes sense, he was the first vineyarder, must have been huge.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now that makes sense, he was the first vineyarder, must have been huge.

Yup!

 

[dad]

I think Noah may have dismantled the Ark to build his homestead.

Gopher wood cask aged wine. Could be tasty.

 

[sfs]

And, I say again,,,,,,

Ya, for that you would need a single spontanious life form that needs to figure out how to find a food source, somewhere, figure out what part of itself will absorb the nutrients, what part will convert it to energy that it can use.

Then figure out how to self replicate, and then from this one solitary organism we can get all the genetic diversity of the earth.

Huh? Regardless of where the first life came from -- miraculous creation or chemistry -- yes, there would plenty of time to get all of the genetic diversity on earth.

But, you cannot get the biodiversity of just the human race from three related males and three unrelated females...... That's too much of a stretch..... somehow!

Yes, that's too much of a stretch. We have only vague ideas about how the first life could have come to exist, 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.

Am I the only one that sees the Irony here.

Science isn't exactly your thing, is it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well i think for a NASA astronaut to go looking for Noah's ark says something about it's validity. I may have been just localized and then mixed with other nations. The first cities were in Asia which could have been the land of Nod where Cain went.

No, referring to a NASA astronaut is only a false appeal to authority.

It is an error on the same order as saying "My eye doctor tells me that if I use 30W-5 motor oil I will double my mileage. "

Your eye doctor is probably not an expert on cars. NASA astronauts are rarely experts on the sciences.

And all science tells us that there was no flood. There are parts of the Bible that are clearly folk stories and nothing more.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, referring to a NASA astronaut is only a false appeal to authority.

It's called speaking ex cathedra.

I hear [a form of] that a lot when I quote a footnote from [the late] Mr. Morris' Defender's Study Bible, or when I quote Gail Riplinger.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's called speaking ex cathedra.

I hear [a form of] that a lot when I quote a footnote from [the late] Mr. Morris' Defender's Study Bible, or when I quote Gail Riplinger.

And no one can do that and have any credibility.

The reason that you hear that about Morris is that he has shown himself to be extremely ignorant about almost all science many times over.

 

[AV1611VET]

The reason that you hear that about Morris is that he has shown himself to be extremely ignorant about almost all science many times over.

You've read his footnotes, have you?

Here's an example of his work:

From the Defender's Study Bible:

Jacob did know from long experience as a shepherd and stock breeder, that some "heterozygous" animals would be in the flock, even though all appeared to be "homozygous," so that at least a few animals would be born spotted and speckled, even from Laban's solid-colored animals. He trusted the Lord to determine how many.

These striped rods were not for the purpose of inducing some "prenatal influence" on the animals. With his seventy years or more of practical experience with large flocks, Jacob knew better than that. Either the chemicals from the wood or the sight of the streaked rods must have served as an aphrodisiac for the animals, inducing them to mate as they came to the troughs. Jacob only used the rods with the stronger animals, so that the progeny would also be strong. Under usual conditions, this stratagem should have greatly benefited Laban's flocks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've read his footnotes, have you?

Here's an example of his work:

I know it is solid gold

 

[AV1611VET]

I know it is solid gold

QV my Morris Challenge thread:

Internet scientists* here like to point out that real scientists are not qualified to refute Internet scientists' interpretations of the Scriptures, because these real scientists would be speaking outside of their respective fields of expertise.

So I'm going to give you poly-experts a chance to demonstrate your point.

Here is a passage of Scripture that you poly-experts interpret as saying the Bible teaches geocentrism:

Joshua 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

And here is [the late] Henry M. Morris' -- an hydraulics engineer -- interpretation of that passage:

One objection to the long day account is that the writer made a scientific mistake when he said that the sun stood still. The sun does not move, it is argued, so Joshua should have told the earth to stand still. The sun does move, however, and so does every star, planet and satellite in the universe, so far as known. Scientifically, every motion must therefore actually be expressed as relative motion, using some arbitrarily assumed reference point of zero motion. The latter is normally chosen for maximum convenience and simplicity of calculations. As far as relative motion of sun and earth is concerned, the optimum method normally used is to define the point of the observer as the point of zero motion. Thus the most scientific approach (as in the Bible) is to assume that the sun moves relative to the earth.

Here is my challenge:

Highlight in red what Morris said wrong.

* Those who appeal to the scientific method as a valid tool for refuting the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

QV my Morris Challenge thread:

Yep, more idiocy from a person that lost all credibility. He forgot the most obvious and correct answer. Many times at times of stress time may seem to mover very slowly. The Sun of course did not stand still, the Earth of course did not stand still. It only seemed to be a very long day. Instead he shows that he is fool by interpreting a poetic verse literally.

 

[sandybay]

year 280 > 25 billion

year 295 > 125 billion

Have you any idea why the earths population has not gone to over 25 billion in the last 15 years?

Do you know what the 'infant mortality rate' is?

Perhaps you should stop believing what you want to believe and start believing what has been shown to be true.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

? Believe?

About sex and sexuality.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think Noah may have dismantled the Ark to build his homestead.

Don't forget the compost.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, that's too much of a stretch. We have only vague ideas about how the first life could have come to exist, 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.

Dogs can achieve incredible genetic diversity in a very short time, but humans can't?