Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

[dad]

just sit quietly for a moment and think about that emboldened section. If you are a person of average intelligence, it should eventually dawn upon you that something doesn't make sense.

How could the light from stars, billions of kilometres away, be instantly available to be seen here, if those stars had only just been created? Remember, that starlight is not like an instant snapshot or photographic slide that your God could display on a screen. Light is a constant stream of waves/particles. They must have originated from somewhere. And we know that that 'somewhere' is extremely far away, from where that stream takes thousands of years to reach us.

Sorry, but your claim just doesn't add up.

That brings to mind a question God asked a man.


Job 38:19 - Where is the way where light dwelleth?


What is the true source of light? Could it be Christ? The creator? If He is the source, then light could exist in a way that allowed it to be seen since He was HERE when creating! Now just because Light started somewhere ( At Christ, if He is the source...later at the stars) doesn't mean that how light exists now long after the fact is how it existed then! Science may have it backwards! The Light was right here, the source!


So, God, that is my official attempt to answer your question to Job. I think Light dwells with you.


Now how would poor little science EVER be able to figure that out?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I have another question for the creationists in the forum (by "creationists" I mean the people who are Biblical literalists).

If you take the account of the Flood in the Book of Genesis as literal (ie, global flood with the only survivors being in Noah's Ark), how do you explain the Earth's repopulation and current human diversity starting with a population of 8 (related) people roughly 4400 years ago? Your explanation must respect the current archaeological evidence pertaining to this period.

Explain also how the current biodiversity was achieved from 2 animals of each "kind" and 7 of clean "kind" (note that, according to Genesis, 1 animal each of clean kind was sacrificed after the Ark came down on Ararat), plus whatever plants Noah and his family took into the Ark.

No magical explanations allowed, please.

-----SSH

You are forgetting that the genome was closer to its perfect state at this time. Mutations had not yet degraded it to the point where it is today. Things are lost through mutation, no change, or rearrangement of what already exists through transcription, or dominance and recessive genes. Nothing new has ever been observed to be created from pre-existing life.

So you need to start explaining how new genes arose, when your own laws of genetics has shown its impossibility?

Mendelian inheritance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your own scientists have given up on it as a viable cause.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Yet here you are - arguing for what your own science declares as an impossibility.

 

[Aman777]

just sit quietly for a moment and think about that emboldened section. If you are a person of average intelligence, it should eventually dawn upon you that something doesn't make sense.

How could the light from stars, billions of kilometres away, be instantly available to be seen here, if those stars had only just been created? Remember, that starlight is not like an instant snapshot or photographic slide that your God could display on a screen. Light is a constant stream of waves/particles. They must have originated from somewhere. And we know that that 'somewhere' is extremely far away, from where that stream takes thousands of years to reach us.

Sorry, but your claim just doesn't add up.

Dear Readers, Here is the Chronology of the entire Creation, Scripturally.

BEFORE the Day...God brings into the physical world air, dust and water but darkness/death was upon everything He had made apart from Himself. Gen 1:1-2.

Day 1: God comes into the physical world as the Light in order to overcome the darkness/death. His name is YHWH in the Old and Jesus in the New Testament. Gen 1:3

Day 2: God (The Trinity) makes a firmament or boundary/container which protects Adam's world from the water into which the firmament is placed. Gen 1:6-8

Day 3: God places water in the firmament and dry land appears and God calls it Earth. Gen 1:9-10 LORD God (YHWH/Jesus) makes Adam BEFORE the plants herbs and rain are made. Gen 2:4-7 On the SAME Day God made our Universe, the 3rd Day.

Day 4: God caused the Big Bang of our Cosmos on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4 and correctly shows that the FIRST Stars of our Universe did NOT appear until Hundreds of Millions of years later on the 4th Day. Gen 1:16

Day 5: God created "every living creature that moveth" Gen 1:21 from the water. Today's Science falsely calls this creation "natural".

Day 6: God creates mankind in His Image Spiritually AFTER Cain kills Abel. Gen 5:1-2 This brings us up to the present time because God is STILL creating Adam (mankind) in His Image or in Christ TODAY. Gen 1:27 We will NOT advance to the PROPHECY of Gen 1:28-31 until AFTER Jesus returns and changes all creatures into Vegetarians. Gen 1:30.

God Bless you

 

[dad]

Dear Readers, Here is the Chronology of the entire Creation, Scripturally.

BEFORE the Day...God brings into the physical world air, dust and water but darkness/death was upon everything He had made apart from Himself. Gen 1:1-2.

? Death? How do you read that in, is it because it starts with 'D' like darkness!? Before the day? Before WHAT day? Certainly not before the day it was made.

Day 1: God comes into the physical world as the Light in order to overcome the darkness/death.

Nothing was created yet so what died?

Sorry, you made that up.

Day 2: God (The Trinity) makes a firmament or boundary/container which protects Adam's world from the water into which the firmament is placed. Gen 1:6-8

The stars are in that firmament so don't go saying it was some corked in city under a silly lake.

Day 3: God places water in the firmament and dry land appears and God calls it Earth. Gen 1:9-10 LORD God (YHWH/Jesus) makes Adam BEFORE the plants herbs and rain are made. Gen 2:4-7 On the SAME Day God made our Universe, the 3rd Day.

No. You conflate Gen 2 which states it was already all finished. Done. Then you try to have Adam created on some other day than he already was created and stated to have been created. The lengths people will go to to prop up cult claims are ridiculous. I suggest we respect the truth. Sanity too.

Day 4: God caused the Big Bang of our Cosmos on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4 and correctly shows that the FIRST Stars of our Universe did NOT appear until Hundreds of Millions of years later on the 4th Day. Gen 1:16

Wow. Once you leave reason and Scripture you get into la la land FAST! Now you have creation from some big bang rather than Christ. Funny also how the world was made first stars later and you invoke some explosion that results in the earth days after it was created.

Day 5: God created "every living creature that moveth" Gen 1:21 from the water. Today's Science falsely calls this creation "natural".

'This' creation? I guess it better get in line with other creations then?

Day 6: God creates mankind in His Image Spiritually AFTER Cain kills Abel.

Now you want to wait for a murder after the fall for man to have been made in God's image! Beware kids. This stuff is not just normal delusion. It is deeper and dangerous.

Gen 5:1-2 This brings us up to the present time because God is STILL creating Adam (mankind) in His Image or in Christ TODAY.

So Adam was not a man God created, but you and I according to you. Adam the first man is you basically?

Gen 1:27 We will NOT advance to the PROPHECY of Gen 1:28-31 until AFTER Jesus returns and changes all creatures into Vegetarians. Gen 1:30.

Oh? Will He turn us into smokers, climate change experts, and recycle freaks, and vegans, and unisex also? It is true that nothing will hurt or destroy and we will not eat meat in the future, but your vague reference to a prophesy in Genesis, woven into your cultish scenarios is murky nonsense.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You are forgetting that the genome was closer to its perfect state at this time. Mutations had not yet degraded it to the point where it is today. Things are lost through mutation, no change, or rearrangement of what already exists through transcription, or dominance and recessive genes. Nothing new has ever been observed to be created from pre-existing life.

So you need to start explaining how new genes arose, when your own laws of genetics has shown its impossibility?

Mendelian inheritance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your own scientists have given up on it as a viable cause.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Yet here you are - arguing for what your own science declares as an impossibility.

There is no such thing as a perfect state for a genome. Remain static and face eventual extinction in a changing environment you cannot change with; change and potentially produce genetic diseases, there is no means by which the genome can be perfect when it has to exist in an imperfect environment.

Additionally, mutation does not degrade our genome exclusively, although it is thanks to mutations that made certain genes not work which promoted our brain growth and allowed our skulls to be a shape that wouldn't impede it.

The rest of your initial statement is just flat out wrong; we have seen bacteria develop the ability to digest materials that are completely man-made and have existed for less than 200 years, that is something new. Have your genome looked at, you have 50-60 mutations your parents don't, some invariably will be additions, not just deletions. Most will have no impact at all. But we have observed it so much that you might as well be saying 2+2= sandwich and expect people to take you seriously.

-_- mutation, what are these "laws of impossibility" you speak of? BTW, Mendel had no idea about mutation, you cannot expect to understand modern science with out of date information. Mendel only dealt with pea plants for a certain number of generations, the absolute most simple means of observing how traits are inherited, not how they arise.

Negatory, you are reading one little piece and making your own conclusions.

I want a statement of an actual scientist saying that.

 

[SLP]

You are forgetting that the genome was closer to its perfect state at this time.

You are forgetting to provide actual evidence that 'the genome' was ever in a perfect state.

Mutations had not yet degraded it to the point where it is today.

Mere assertion.

Things are lost through mutation, no change, or rearrangement of what already exists through transcription, or dominance and recessive genes. Nothing new has ever been observed to be created from pre-existing life.

Define what you mean by "observed" in this context.

So you need to start explaining how new genes arose, when your own laws of genetics has shown its impossibility?

Mendelian inheritance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Says nothing of new genes.

Funny thing - I recently finished teaching the CHAPTER on how new genes arise in my evolution class. It is amazing how confident one can be about how things are impossible when they 1. get their information from people with a vested interest in making their target audience reject the real facts and to BELIEVE this is impossible and 2. when they don't know any better.

I believe it was Russell who wrote that the problem with the world is that the informed are tentative but the ignorant are [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-sure.

Your own scientists have given up on it as a viable cause.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

That was a paper on breeding via induced mutations.

Shall I present the papers demonstrating that intercessory prayer does not work and demand that you accept that Jesus is not real?

Yet here you are - arguing for what your own science declares as an impossibility.

Except that this is not true. You present ignorance-based falsehoods as absolute truth. Interesting.

By the way - I found this in, literally, 3 seconds on the internet:

Mechanisms of new-gene origination : New genes as drivers of phenotypic evolution : Nature Reviews Genetics : Nature Publishing Group
"Mechanisms of new-gene origination"

But hey - your YEC website of choice said otherwise, so....

 

[morse86]

I have another question for the creationists in the forum (by "creationists" I mean the people who are Biblical literalists).

If you take the account of the Flood in the Book of Genesis as literal (ie, global flood with the only survivors being in Noah's Ark), how do you explain the Earth's repopulation and current human diversity starting with a population of 8 (related) people roughly 4400 years ago? Your explanation must respect the current archaeological evidence pertaining to this period.

Explain also how the current biodiversity was achieved from 2 animals of each "kind" and 7 of clean "kind" (note that, according to Genesis, 1 animal each of clean kind was sacrificed after the Ark came down on t), plus whatever plants Noah and his family took into the Ark.

No magical explanations allowed, please.

-----SSH

This is too easy answer. Mathematically, it works out.

Watch this short 15 minute (part of a sermon) presentation by Pastor anderson and you will see how it works out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJDuXjolhxA

 

[sfs]

This is too easy answer. Mathematically, it works out.

Watch this short 15 minute (part of a sermon) presentation by Pastor anderson and you will see how it works out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJDuXjolhxA

Didn't answer the question.

 

[SLP]

This is too easy answer. Mathematically, it works out.

Watch this short 15 minute (part of a sermon) presentation by Pastor anderson and you will see how it works out:

Must have missed the part where extant diversity is explained.

 

[Queller]

I was allowing for some trees that might take longer than others. I also pointed out the tree that grew in Noah's day in a week or so, as well as the garden planted where trees grew in creation week.


Maybe, I'd have to see the context. What the garden Jesus planted grew in one day?
Yes. Do you know how to ask adult questions?

The rings would not have represented seasons. The rings would have to represent parts of the day or week if a tree grew in weeks.

Sorry but tree rings represent seasons, not days or weeks. Seasons.

 

[Queller]

Why wouldn't they?

Because tree rings represent tree growth during different seasons. If there were no seasons, why would there be rings?

Now can you answer my question?

If they didn't grow naturally, why would they have rings?

Or did they?

Did they what?

Without having hewn the tree immediately, we wouldn't know if they had rings or not.

If the tree did not grow over the course of seasons, then there would be no rings.

However, since everything was created in its mature state, I see no reason why they would not have rings.

If there were tree rings in a tree that had not grown naturally, then they were placed there. Placing tree rings which represent growth over many season in a tree that did experience seasonal growth would be deceptive. Why are you OK with God being deceptive.

God's authority is limitless.

Can God lie or deceive us?

As easy an an author can write, "A tree stood in the field." God could say "Let there be a tree."

Why would God be deceptive and say "let there be a tree with tree rings even though there have been no seasons to create those rings?

Presumably Adam had DNA, which would indicate a DNA history; and yet he was not born from human flesh.

Why would Adam have DNA with a history if Adam was created ex nihilo? DNA history would indicate something that came before Adam.

Considering that God could replicate this world perfectly with a simple command, it's beyond our ability to comprehend but not impossible for an omnipotent God.

I'm not claiming anything is impossible for God. I'm saying that some things YEC want God to have done are illogical given what the Bible tells us about God.

Genesis 2 neither concerns nor contradicts the order of creation.

Genesis 1 has plants created on Day 3, land animals created on Day 5. Adam created on Day 6.

Genesis 2 has Adam created on the same day as plants and the land animals created later.

It's the story of the creation of man, who God created from the dust of the earth and placed in the garden of Eden. Since man was created of day six, Eden had to have been created no later than day 6.

Eden had to be created no later than Day 4 because the animals are created afterwards.

 

[Queller]

Do you recognize that there is a difference between natural growth and a supernatural creation?

Yes, I do. That's kind of the point.

Trees are not created by supernatural today. They do, however, exist, which indicates that they had some point of origin.

Science tells how God made them.

Everything in Genesis 1, even the light from states light years away, was created in its mature state relative to the earth.

Which makes the YEC God a deceiver since we see things in that light that appear to have happened millions of years ago. Since the earth is only 6,000 years (according to YECs) that means we are seeing things that never happened.

The light from the stars could be seen instantly, not because of the physics involved, but because that was as God intended.

The problem is not just the light itself but the data contained in that light.

 

[Aman777]

Genesis 1 has plants created on Day 3, land animals created on Day 5. Adam created on Day 6.

Genesis 2 has Adam created on the same day as plants and the land animals created later.

It's the story of the creation of man, who God created from the dust of the earth and placed in the garden of Eden. Since man was created of day six, Eden had to have been created no later than day 6.
​

Eden had to be created no later than Day 4 because the animals are created afterwards.

Dear Readers, Adam was "formed" of the dust BEFORE the plants of the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-7 Adam and Eve were both "created" in God's Image or born again Spiritually on the 6th Day. Gen 5:1-2 Eden was made the 3rd Day Gen 2:8 and then the LORD planted the first trees in Eden.

Adam was formed physically the 3rd Day and born again Spiritually or created in Christ on the 6th Day. 1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. Amen?

 

[Queller]

Search for fast....or ultra fast, or super fast evolution.

PLOS Genetics: Ultrafast Evolution and Loss of CRISPRs ...
journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen...
Feb 9, 2012 - (2012) Correction: Ultrafast Evolution and Loss of CRISPRs Following a Host Shift in a Novel Wildlife Pathogen, Mycoplasma gallisepticum.
PLOS Genetics: Correction: Ultrafast Evolution and Loss of ...
journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/annotation/...aa54...
Correction: Ultrafast Evolution and Loss of CRISPRs Following a Host Shift in a Novel Wildlife Pathogen, Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Nigel F. Delaney,; Susan ...
Ultrafast evolution and loss of CRISPRs following a host ...
National Center for Biotechnology Information...
National Center for Biotechnology Information
by NF Delaney - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 41 - ‎Related articles PLoS Genet. 2012 Feb;8(2):e1002511. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002511. Epub 2012 Feb 9. Ultrafast evolution and loss of CRISPRs following a host shift in a ...

These are about the evolution of a bacterial pathogen, not the evolution of an animal.

They also appear to be nothing more than different links to the same article so the only reason I can think of that you would post them multiple times is to pad the number of links.

Ultrafast Evolution of Imidazole after Electronic Excitation ...
pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp3078198
American Chemical Society
by R Montero - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 8 - ‎Related articles Oct 22, 2012 - The ultrafast dynamics of the imidazole chromophore has been tracked after electronic excitation in the 250–217 nm energy region, by time ...

This is about the evolution of a chemical compound, imidazole chromophore, not the evolution of an animal.

Scientists map ultrafast evolution of chemical bonds - Desy
News Search - Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY...
Apr 2, 2015 - Now an international collaboration has been able to map the evolution of the chemical bonds in these kinds of ultrafast processes on the level ...
Ultrafast evolution of photonic eigenstates in : k: -space ...
Nature Publishing Group : science journals, jobs, and information › Journal home › Archive › LetterNature
by RJP Engelen - ‎2007 - ‎Cited by 41 - ‎Related articles Apr 1, 2007 - Ultrafast evolution of photonic eigenstates in k-space. Rob J. P. Engelen, Yoshimasa Sugimoto, Henkjan Gersen, Naoki Ikeda, Kiyoshi ...

These links are to a study changes in wave properties in such things as light and sound waves and has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of animals.

Also appears to be another example of you posting multiple links to the same article in an effort to pad the post.

Ultrafast Evolution and Loss of CRISPRs Following a ... - VIVO
vivo.nkn.uidaho.edu/vivo/display/W000300725500030
Ultrafast Evolution and Loss of CRISPRs Following a Host Shift in a Novel Wildlife Pathogen, Mycoplasma gallisepticum | Research and expertise at the ...
Advances in Mycoplasma Research and Treatment: 2012 ...
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1481606921
2012 - ‎Medical
(2011 SEP 20) Harvard University, Cambridge: Ultrafast Evolution and Loss of CRlSPRs Following a Host Shift in a Novel Wildlife[/I]

These are nothing more than two more links to the same study as the first three you posted.

What you appear to have here is eight different links to three articles, none of which have anything to do with the evolution of animals.

Do you honestly think that the above addresses the issue of necessary hyperfast evolution of animals in the 4,400 years since the Flood?

As with above,
Seek ye not and find not.

NIV
15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.

KJV
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Perhaps I'm missing it but I see nothing whatsoever in that verse that indicates God chose the animals that would be on the Ark, which was after all, your original assertion.

 

[Queller]

If you happen to snap a spear of asparagus, you'd find it 600% weaker
compared to a tree branch of the same size.

Which has nothing to do with anything but... OK.

 

[Queller]

Genesis 1 has plants created on Day 3, land animals created on Day 5. Adam created on Day 6.

Genesis 2 has Adam created on the same day as plants and the land animals created later.

It's the story of the creation of man, who God created from the dust of the earth and placed in the garden of Eden. Since man was created of day six, Eden had to have been created no later than day 6.
​

Eden had to be created no later than Day 4 because the animals are created afterwards.

I know, that's what I said.

Dear Readers, Adam was "formed" of the dust BEFORE the plants of the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-7 Adam and Eve were both "created" in God's Image or born again Spiritually on the 6th Day. Gen 5:1-2 Eden was made the 3rd Day Gen 2:8 and then the LORD planted the first trees in Eden.

Adam was formed physically the 3rd Day and born again Spiritually or created in Christ on the 6th Day. 1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. Amen?

So Adam had no soul for the several billion years he stood around watching Jesus create?

 

[Queller]

dad vs. Aman777 vs KWCrazy...

I love watching YECs squabble among themselves. It certainly showcases the problems of the YEC position.

 

[sfs]

Meanwhile, no creationist has explained how the Flood is consistent with observed genetic diversity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Meanwhile, no creationist has explained how the Flood is consistent with observed genetic diversity.

Really?

 

[SLP]

Really?

Yes.