First point, although the timelines are radically different, genetic research has shown evidence which supports an account similar to that of the biblical noah. Specifically, there is genetic evidence that Humanity experienced a near extinction event in the recent past (relatively speaking) and interestingly that the male population all have a single common ancestor, who is much more recent than the female common ancestor.
Indeed. However, you skip the important numbers: the human population was down to the thousands: it is theorised that, when the Tobe volcano erupted ~70,000 years ago, human numbers were reduced to ~2,000 - ~15,000. This, we think, is the most recent instance of bottlenecking in the human species.
Notice that this has nothing to do with Noah and his flood: there were thousands of individuals, not eight; there was a supervolcano, not a flood (though some local flooding, tsunamis, etc, may have occurred); it occurred seventy millennia ago, not four; it occurred in Indonesia, not across the globe (or even the Middle-East, or Turkey).
The most recent common ancestor to modern males, the so-called "Y-chromosomal Adam", lived ~60,000 years ago. Like many over-eager theists, you appear to have missed the point of this: he was not the
only male of his time. The existence of Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve is to be expected, and don't result from population bottlenecking: they are simply a consequence of how our species reproduces (a male-only lineage and a female-only lineage). Nevertheless, he lived 'only' ten millennia after the Tobe catastrophe.
This indicates that at some point in the past humanity was wiped out down to one surviving male, (or rather a father and his sons who are all of the same genetic line) but that the female genetic line was more diverse, probably because the spouses of the father and his sons were from different family lines.
No, it does not. Papers which deal with Y-chromosomal Adam are quite explicit about this: he was
not the only human male of his time, nor the only human male who's children have descendants today.
Further, the global evidence for a flood is all around you, its just a matter of you choosing not to see it.
Please, save your rhetoric.
Almost society in the world has a flood legend which depicts the complete destruction of civilization.
Is that so surprising? Civilisations grew up around rivers, lakes, seas, and oceans: they were the only places we could readily survive. The domestication of the sheep (which hallmarked our transition from nomads to settlers) required fresh grass and ample water. You might as well posit the existence of a Global Fire, given the preponderance of fire in mythology. Or would it be more logical to attribute these to
individual fires? Fires and floods are common, hence why stories are still made about them today. Do you think we have global floods on a daily basis during the Victorian era, or where they individual accounts and legends?
those who deny the biblical account insist on seeing this as evidence of a multitude of disasterous regional floods. It is just as easily evidence of a global flood.
Not really: a flood leaves a plethora of markers. These are found the world over, yes, but never in the same place. A global flood would leave the tell-tale markers in the same place in the geological column the world over. So... where be it?
Numerous places in the world which are now dry, including mountain ranges, show evidence of having been underwater. This is interpeted by those who don't hold the biblical account as the result of slow geologic change over eons which raised up lands that were once under water etc. Inland seas that drained etc.
It is just as easy to interpet as evidence of the 'biblical flood'.
Not really: the difference between the two explanations is that one is a) parsimonious, b) falsifiable, c) testable (and test
ed), d) evidenced, e) progressive & useful, f) explanatory, etc.
On the other hand, the Biblical Flood doesn't count as an explanation. Why? Because it simply doesn't work! This may be a trite criticism, but it's as true as any other:
where did the water come from? And where did it go?
Further, the archeological evidence at the beginning of civilization, clearly shows that the people migrated down from the mountains into the flatlands and immediately set about building cities, and establishing trade. Which fits with the flood account, and is somewhat unexplainable given the normal view that man gradually evolved into this over millenia.
Source?
Even if you don't take the flood account completely literally and assume it just to be a representative story.. it is pretty clear that something catastrophic happened which probably wiped away pre-existing civilization and made man start over.
And the evidence for that would be...? Mythology and legend? Civilisation hadn't even been invented yet, so the bottlenecking of 70,000 years ago wouldn't have made a sociological dent. And you still haven't explained how Damascus has been continually occupied for eight to ten millennia unperturbed.
Further, it is fairly evident from mythology and legend that most of humanity shares much much closer connection in the ancient world than is generally allowed by the standard view.
Allowed? You talk as if we live in Nazi Germany. Did the librarian in the stern dress take down your books? Teach the controversy indeed.
