If we are all descended from Noah ...

1000 years with much less proof of God than Noah had.[/B][/QUOTE]It's a new age! we have the promised comforter in way they did not.

I don't understand this as a response to my earlier post.

Another 'descended from Noah issue' ::If we are all descended from Noah, is 4500 years sufficient
time to get enough diversity in the Y chromosome to be able
to trace which ancestral race the British populations have come
from.This research has been carried out to investigate the genetic
legacy of the Vikings in the British Isles.If there is sufficient time, doesn't that mean that mutations
can and DO occur and that they are not detrimental necessarily ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
If we are all descended from Noah, is 4500 years sufficient
time to get enough diversity in the Y chromosome to be able
to trace which ancestral race the British populations have come
from.

​

This research has been carried out to investigate the genetic
legacy of the Vikings in the British Isles.

​

If there is sufficient time, doesn't that mean that mutations
can and DO occur and that they are not detrimental necessarily ?

---

Is 4500 years sufficient time to get race?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

Exactly ... and it's even less time for that,
since there were Romans, ethopians, Egyptians, Celts,
Picts, Scots, etc. at least 2000 years ago.All of the races of man (and that's JUST man) would have to
have emerged, by mutation, within 2000 years. And the problem
doesn't go away if the wives were of different races, because
there are distict differences in the Y chromosome across different
races ... and that's ONLY carried by males, which means ALL
Y chromosomes on earth should ultimately be Noah's if we are to
believe the Bible.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
[B]Here is an example of the evidence the existence of the Chinese culture prior to 4500 years (time of the mythical Noahchian flood) ago.
< !--UB < !--UB < !--UB http://www.vhs.com/store/teas/tcm.html -->< !--UB < !--UB http://www.vhs.com/store/teas/tcm.html< !--UE--> -->< !--UB http://www.vhs.com/store/teas/tcm.html< !--UE--> -->http://www.vhs.com/store/teas/tcm.html< !--UE-->
Please note that 3494 B,C is 2002 years plus 3494 years equals 5496 years +/- 5 years (for the differences between calenders and Grgorian calender shifts). The chinese were very exact with their record keeping and monitoring their dynasties.{[/quote][/b]I can't let this go by. The date of 3494 BC seems incredibly archaic. My understanding of early civilisations is that there is little evidence of civilisation beyond about 3000 BC - 1st dynasty Egyptians (though there are neolithic settlements going back to 5000 BC). This site seems to provide a better indication of dates for the Yellow River culture:http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCCHINA/YELLOW.HTMOf course, your primary point - that there were people around before 4500 BC is still made. Neolithic and Paeliolithic cultures go back to 150,000 BC. I must do some study on the creationist position, though. I thought that 4004 BC was the date for the creation, which would make Noah later than this.[This message has been edited by Me, 08-29-2002][This message has been edited by Me, 08-29-2002]

I think the literal interpretation for the date
of the flood is 4500 years ago ... that is approx.
2500BC.The Chinese year is up to 4699 or somesuch, and there are one
per western year (averaged over time since they have this
neat leap-month thing going).That's just to recorded Chinese dynasties, and there is a
legendary existence before that that led into the
recorded stuff ... which is entirely believable since cultures
do not arise out of thin air.This puts the start of Chinese culture (recorded) to about
200 years before the flood.

quote:

---

The link you provided merely presented some dates without proving their validity.

---

- Everyone's a harsh skeptic until they're talking about their belief system. - Seriously folks... why would creationists bother with archaeology at all? How is any scientific evidence going to "prove the validity" of anything that contradicts "The Bible (TM)"? My suggestion: just give up trying to find empirical evidence or trying to dabble with science and just believe in miracles. You do anyway... why not apply them?

Doesn't the Indus Valley civilisation pre-date
3000BC ... I'll look it up.

I'd suggest taking a closer look at the gene pool around Noah. Before the Flood Noah had his wife and three sons. Each son had a wife. Each wife could easily have been quite diverse in origin, perhaps one of the lineage of Cain, another of the Seth line. There is no mention of Abel having or not having a wife before Cain killed him, so all we know is there was no son of Abel, or that would have been stated. If there had been a daughter there would be no mention at all of his family. It is possible one of the wives of Noah's sons was from the stock of Abel, adding some genetic variety. All 8 people could easily have been carrying quite a wide variety making up a sufficient gene pool to carry us this far. The "races" found post-Flood would have had their beginnings pre-Flood. Additional "races" would then develop post-Flood within the same processes. I prefer to avoid the "race" term in preference of "variety" as in 'varieties within a species'. The potential for what we call "racial" features comes from within normal chromosome mixing combined with geographical separation of varieties. I think the geographical separation is the major influence on the process, followed by inter-breeding. In societies with cultures that demand pairing with "their kind" there is much more liklihood of development and long-term retention of a particular set of characteristics that become more refined with time, labelled "race".In short I don't think there is sufficient cause to assume there was genetic mutation or evolution of branches of people making up the "races". The races as we know them could easily have developed naturally, the seed of which spanned the time pre and post Flood, in the making the past 6 or 7 thousand years with no interruption overall.

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:Who did Caine and Abel marry if they were the only two offspring of Adam and Eve actually meantioned and there weren't anyother people on Earth at the time? Did they marry their mother?BTW, you need at least a minimum of 40 unrelated couples to make a genetically healthy population for any real length of time. Any less and you have many problems with inbreeding that take much time to weed out if at all possible.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-14-2002]

From Genesis 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.It can be surmised that daughters had been born earlier, for throughout Scriptures the eventual arrival of a male was so announced in so many other words. It never was considered worth mention that a daughter was born since the seed is through the male.From Genesis 4:17
And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.It is fair to surmise Cain brought his wife, a sister born of Eve, or cousin, or neice, to a land he called Nod, and there "knew" her. The timeline of events could have covered decades. Such inbreeding in the beginning is not considered genetically hazardous by any geneticist I have read. That separation of peoples bearing the same pristine genetic source would have been a very healthy way to handle men marrying sisters for quite some long time, to be repeated many times over as people spread across the globe. It wasn't until Moses received the Law that such behavior was prohibited. Until then there was no danger in it, Abraham himself being married with blessing to his half-sister Sarah. In any case, it wouldn't have been necessary for brothers and sisters to marry past the first 2 generations, having many cousins and neices to choose from, and as time passed, many more remote relatives in the field. Keep in mind the effects of selection in genetics, and physical/geographical effects of separation. I don't follow the notion of evolutionary assumptions, but certainly believe the possibilities of chromosome mixing to be of staggering numerical diversity. In all the millennia of chromosome pairing and development of "varieties" of men, even today when diverse "races" mate, the progeny rarely favor either parent explicitly, due to a 'devolution' of supposed evolutionary "branches". That supposed evolution is reversible is enough evidence for me to dismiss the concept in favor of known genetic principles. It simply took a lot of time for genetic copying errors to accumulate as sin escalated in the world. Too many bad genes were dealt with in the Flood, resetting the field. No doubt the eight who survived carried some bad genes, but normally the good ones prohibit the bad from manifesting deformities. It would have been wise and expected that soon enough the males born to Noah and his sons would prefer mates other than sisters or cousins. It wasn't long before sin resumed with its accumulation of bad genes and the need to make marriage to close relatives the wrong thing to do.From Genesis 5:4-5
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: [5] And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.We can assume Eve was alongside all those years populating the earth quite regularly. Josephus estimates "The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters." How many children were possible in 930 years of child bearing? We don't know how long Eve lived, as only the death of Adam is recorded, typical of Hebrew emphasis. Nor does the Bible state how many children there were, but surely MANY.You claim it would take the 40 unrelated couples to make a genetically healthy population. I question that, but also doubt we can say the gene pool is healthy now anyway. It is FULL of copying errors with all the mutations imaginable. Starting with less than that 80 individual scenario is sort of moot to me anyway. If you are an eolutionist, you think it all began with the emergence of A man from some mutation of a lower life form such as an ape. I find it incomprehensible that 80 or more arose simultaneously from apes in time for them to breed in their lifetimes. The modern evolutionary concept of species considers the inability to reproduce with nearest ancestors to be definitive. That would require spontaneous emergence of the 80 individuals capable of reproducing to all be of the same species.I think 6,000 years of cultural awareness of the dangers of interbreeding has been sufficient to clean up the gene pool, and elimination of many of the accumulated copying errors through careful selection.

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:From Genesis 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

​

It can be surmised that daughters had been born earlier, for throughout Scriptures the eventual arrival of a male was so announced in so many other words. It never was considered worth mention that a daughter was born since the seed is through the male.Actually the sperm is the fertilizer, the "seed" is in the woman already it is called an Ovum, or egg. Do you know anything about reproductive science? Both the Sperm and Ovum carry equal amounts of the DNA required to produce an offspring. Do you hold the mistaken belief that all a woman does is carry the man's "seed" for him and that she doesn't have any real genetic say in it?From Genesis 4:17
And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.How could he have "known" her since there were no other people.It is fair to surmise Cain brought his wife, a sister born of Eve, or cousin, or neice, to a land he called Nod, and there "knew" her.Adam and Eve were only "children"This is all only speculation.From Genesis 5:4-5
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: [5] And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

​

We can assume Eve was alongside all those years populating the earth quite regularly. Josephus estimates "The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters." How many children were possible in 930 years of child bearing? We don't know how long Eve lived, as only the death of Adam is recorded, typical of Hebrew emphasis. Nor does the Bible state how many children there were, but surely MANY.You are only assuming. Many claimed great life spans back then, but the truth is that for most of humanity's existence the average lifespan was around 18 years, with a max of between 30 and 40 years. This is one reason why we "fall apart" when were reach our 30's and 40's. A long life wasn't important as long as we lived long enough to reproduce and raise our children to maturity. It has really only been recently that we have been able to extend it to what it is now of around an average of 80 years. BTW, if the rate continues to climb a person born now could expect to see an average lifespan of about 110 years. We are seeing more and more people celebrating their 100th and more birthdays.You claim it would take the 40 unrelated couples to make a genetically healthy population. I question that, but also doubt we can say the gene pool is healthy now anyway. It is FULL of copying errors with all the mutations imaginable. Starting with less than that 80 individual scenario is sort of moot to me anyway. If you are an eolutionist, you think it all began with the emergence of A man from some mutation of a lower life form such as an ape. I find it incomprehensible that 80 or more arose simultaneously from apes in time for them to breed in their lifetimes. The modern evolutionary concept of species considers the inability to reproduce with nearest ancestors to be definitive. That would require spontaneous emergence of the 80 individuals capable of reproducing to all be of the same species.Hardly. It appears that you don't understand genetics as well. It is not a matter of a sudden change, but a gradual one where in each generation the differences add up. We see this now in the Equus family where they are now to a point where they can still inter-breed and produce offspring, but most are infertile though not all are. Evoution is a very wasteful process.
BTW, we are still a member of the primate family.I think 6,000 years of cultural awareness of the dangers of interbreeding has been sufficient to clean up the gene pool, and elimination of many of the accumulated copying errors through careful selection.They knew of the problems of in-breeding long ago, that is why they made up taboos about having sex with one's close relatives. The vast majority of our DNA is not actually active, but leftovers from our evolutionary ancestors. It is called our "Junk" DNA. This is how they were able to complete the Book of Man through the Human Genome Project much faster than they originally expected.BTW, this link should be of some interest. Make sure to read the entire site, not just what you want.The Human Family Tree: 10 Adams and 18 EvesBTW, they are not actually speaking of the biblical Adam and Eve, but only as a label.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-15-2002]

Now, for once I am going to answer in the Magesterium of ReligionI believe that there are many religions other than Christanity and Judaism becuase there are many paths to whatever you want to attain. There are many religions becuase it is man's way of trying to relate to something greater than himself. As there are many difference choices of career there are many choices of religions. Why? Becuase everyone would not be happy being in the same career or the same religion.I am personally an atheist. This is my only guess as to why there are so many religions.Also if you want to go by the Christain mythology - then there are plenty of New Testament passages that state that many false teachers will come and teach things that are not part of the "gospel". It is written in the Bible, and the Bible "PREDICTS" it. So the question is answered within the Christain odology. [mispelled I know]But to get a grander picture, that pretty much is pretty broadsweeping.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:Now, for once I am going to answer in the Magesterium of Religion

​

I believe that there are many religions other than Christanity and Judaism becuase there are many paths to whatever you want to attain. There are many religions becuase it is man's way of trying to relate to something greater than himself. As there are many difference choices of career there are many choices of religions. Why? Becuase everyone would not be happy being in the same career or the same religion.

​

I am personally an atheist. This is my only guess as to why there are so many religions.Have you read the first post of my thread, "Why People want to believe there is a god"?http://EvC Forum: Why people want to believe there is a god. -->EvC Forum: Why people want to believe there is a god.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-15-2002]