Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)

So you can learn? Your example misses the point entirely. We're talking about precipitation/deposition within a body of water.Have a look at the following picture. Can you see the layer of muddy deposit left behind? If this was a global flood that would be your layer.Flood PictureEdited by RickJB, : No reason given.

No I didn't you just beat my edit to post.
The way I see it is that genetics should teach us a lot about our history.
I don't understand though, according to genetics, we are all derived from one Y male and one mitochondrial female. So how do we tell if a bottleneck has occurred if we all have the same genes? Do we contain somewhere in our genes all the alleles for every possible physical trait?

I'm not talking about agenetic bottleneck in just our species. I'm talking about one in all the species of the planet.A global flood that kills off almost all of the animals would leave a record in the form of a bottleneck in the genetic information in all of the animals that now exist after the flood.That we don't see that bottleneck shows that there wasn't a flood.

Give it a couple of years and it will look like this.
This town was under water a couple of years ago.

Ok. I'll have to do some reading to get an understanding of bottlenecks.However, if what I read is speculative, say to three degrees of 95% probability, ie (A_p(B_p(C_p))) where C is dependent on B which is dependent on A, then to me it just becomes junk I reject it and I'll wait for the geneticists.

You can't be serious?! The deposits on the road were removed by human activity! Explain to me exactly how the floor of that house would clean itself?You really aren't thinking this through.

Lucy, how about making these two statements of yours mesh, then: If you're vaporising the freakin' ocean, the atmosphere will all be above 100C by a considerable margin. The oceans outweigh the air by a few hundredfold. That's the beginning of what's wrong with your "rationale." The scenario is absurd in that it only looks at one or two of the bits of information available. That's what's wrong with it.

Your argument is COMPLETELY absurd. Why would billions of cubic miles of superheated water only raise the temperature locally when the superheated water rose into the sky to come down as rain?Do you understand the sheer amount of energy that is contained in billions of cubic MILES of superheated water?

Wow an entire broad field of physical science refuted by the 'ignorance is bliss' argument. Sorry national economies, military, educational institutions, Lucy says no more mining and drilling, no more water management, no pollution remediation, only the ignorant will be allowed to discover future raw materials.So, Lucy, are there any other fields of human endeavor you believe is trumped by your ignorance? medicine, physics, chemistry, or ahem...biology?One advantage to actually knowing what one is talking about is one does not look like a fool.My suggestion is read the first year geology text, then the chemistry one and the physics one. Your posts show an appalling ignorance of all three subjects.If your 'thinking for yourself' trumps even any subfield of these works, you will be awarded over a million dollars in Stockholm.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Redundant to what others have already said, but their names don't begin with "Admin" -So it's better to think for yourself than to learn what others have learned before you? Isn't that willful ignorance?Perhaps you should read up on Morton's Demon.NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE!Maybe do a little more thinking before you post.Adminnemooseus

BottlenecksMossie parasiteNot surprising that mossies would have a field day after the flood.TB Interesting conclusions2006Cat ParasiteHuman bottleneck. very interestingCS your bottlenecks are nothing more than a deliberate diversion. We can have as much mantle exposed as we need to vaporise just as much of the ocean that we need to raise the temperature just enough to melt the ice and make it rain just enough.I wans't there I didn't see it. I'm just interested to know if it was possible.But the brain dead scientists are drowning in their own irony.Moose you should suspend yourself for breaking rules 2, 8 and10Edited by LucyTheApe, : grammar

From your own source:

quote:

---

...24,500 and 57,500 years ago (depending on different estimates of the nucleotide substitution rate);

---

How so? They have nothing to do with a bottleneck.

quote:

---

Despite the existence of a sexual phase in the life cycle, T. gondii has an unusual population structure dominated by three clonal lineages that predominate in North America and Europe, (Types I, II, and III). These lineages were founded by common ancestors ~10,000 yr ago. The recent origin and widespread distribution of the clonal lineages is attributed to the circumvention of the sexual cycle by a new mode of transmission”asexual transmission between intermediate hosts.

---

A common ancestor ~10,000 years ago does not mean a genetic bottleneck. According to a quick reading of your source, that would be roughly ten thousand generations ago, making it somewhere around 20,000 years in the past. Yes, it is, but not for the reasons you seem to think it is. No, they aren't.The two bottlenecks you've put forth ( the other wasn't even a bottleneck, simply a note of common ancestry) occurred at wildly different times, and neither occurred anywhere near the time of the FLood as documented in teh Bible.More specifically, every single species should show a bottleneck at the same time. Not one or two, not a hundred, but all species should have a genetic bottleneck that dates around the time of the Flood as recorded in teh Bible.Even one species which does not show evidence of a bottleneck in the past 4-5000 years or so contradicts the Biblical Flood myth.Both of your examples of bottlenecks disagree with the Flood myth as presented in teh Bible, both by occurring at different times, and by occurring at a time before the Bible presents life having even been Created at all. Congratulations, your own sources disprove your position. And the answer is "no, it's not." Exposing the mantle to flash-vaporize "part of" the ocean?! Are you really that ignorant?Here's the very basic simple fact: any scenario involving vaporizing significant portions of the ocean makes a Flood redundant, as all life on Earth would be boiled alive by the sudden increase in temperature. Not to mention the atmospheric effects of superheated steam entering the atmosphere - the global weather changes would make a 40-day rainstorm look pretty pathetic. Noah's little boat would never have survived. AND you have to deal with the fact that superheated steam from teh bottom of the ocean cools ratehr quickly, and doesn't reache the surface. You'd have to increase the temperature of teh entirety of the oceans to a point where, again, all life would cease and not due to a Flood.Your scenario would have resulted in "the Great Boiling" rather than "the Great Flood." We, of course, see evidence of neither. Methinks someone should stop playing with fire, lest they get burned. Particularly when your posts are so devoid of actual content - tha admins have had a poor view of nonsense posts in teh recent past, and your posts dangerously approach that level.Perhaps rather than "thinking for yourself" you should try to educate yourself on physics and geology and biology before making such completely ignorant and unsupported statements.

The article you linked to regarding a human genetic bottleneck does not support a global flood 4,350 years ago.Nor does the evidence I believe I have posted to you before from the western US, where there is a skeleton dated 10,300 years from southern Alaska that can be linked to living descendants stretching from California to the tip of South America. We see continuity of mtDNA in this case, with no break and replacement by mtDNA associated with Noah's female kin.(Recent findings of human coprolites from southern Oregon dated over 14,000 have the same DNA. This argues against both the young earth belief and the global flood belief.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Lucy,First of all, I would like to say that I'm sorry I was so crabby with you in my last message. There was no call for it.Secondly, I am confused as to where you now stand on your claim that; In Message 191 you seem less sure; Are you no longer standing by your original claim? The above statements do contradict each other. Just as food for thought, I found this image, of a boulder moved by a flash flood in Venezuela (taken from here). No matter what you might say about hydrodynamics and surface area, it should be obvious that a force of nature capable of moving this should be capable of shifting a few hammers.

---

Mutate and Survive

How can a flash flood be compared to a universal flood?A flash flood is caused by water descending from a higher location to a lower location in volume that rivers and streams can not handle.A flood that water is rising from every direction at one time would not have the effect of a flash flood.As I understand the Bibical flood most of the water would have come from the fountains of the deep that were opened up. These are fresh water springs that are in the oceans. The waters would have come up from the seas and not necessarly wash down from the mountains (if any mountains existed at the time of the flood).God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."