I have recently been perusing this thread and found it hilarious that once again, the creationist has to call upon evolution to bail himself out of a tight corner!
Williams is the current world title holder for unsupported assertion now that Kent Hovind has literally lost it, and we see him running true to form here: "Who said the disease existed before the flood?...You are also surely aware that mutation occurs? I submit that the Mycobacterium leprae bacillus is a bacteria that was once a useful ecological agent before the flood, and mutated after the flood into its nasty form we see today."
How is this possible? The post flood world was supposed to be one free of sin! That was the whole purpose of the incompetent and klutzy flood that this god supposedly called down - to clean the world of sin. Apparently this god was so stupid that he could think of no other way than to mercilessly slaughter countless millions of living things, but when you worship a barbaric, child-murdering god, this is what you get.
So this god of love and mercy not only (literally) flushed the planet of sinners, but he then allowed every disease known to humanity to fester in this new, sin-free Eden? No wonder Noah got drunk.
Typically, all I see here is a just-so story, in which Fred Williams specialises. I see no effort whatsoever going into explaining what it was that leprosy did before the flood that was useful, nor what the mutations were which switched it from its benign role to that of gruesome disease. How did these mutations occur in a creature that was perfectly created by a perfect god? What were the mutations? What creationist research has there been to support these assertions?
Williams: "It is entirely reasonable and possible that a post-flood world would see a rapid increase in mutated bacteria, including undesirables such as Mycobacterium leprae."
And the evidence for this assertion is? Oh, I forgot, there is none. This is yet another just-so story made up especially to bolster the creation fairytale.
Budikka
™ Version 4.2