Summations Only

Please don't get hung up on the particular word anyone happens to use to characterize the likelihood of something for which there is no evidence and much counter evidence. If in your view they have misused the word "impossible", please don't take it as an excuse to misinterpret their meaning and go off half-cocked. Let's keep the discussion constructive and on-topic.

Which assumptions?You have been ducking the thread I started for radiocarbon dating for close to two months now.Sorry, you do not get to dismiss radiocarbon dating like that, with a simple hand-wave.Either document your silly claims over in that other thread or stop talking about radiocarbon entirely.

okay, we finally have your position. You believe because you believe the Bible.But that of course does not have anything to do with truth or reality and Yes, Virginia, sciences including geology do refute the Biblical Flood myths. For you to claim otherwise is simply a lie. Now if you want to say "I don't believe science refutes the Biblical flood myth." then that fine. You are free to believe any damnfool thing you want.As to what a genetic bottleneck would look like, as has been explained to you repeatedly, it would show a founders population of either four individuals, fourteen individuals or in the case of humans eight individuals.It is up to you to show that all pigs, camels, rabbits, moles, mice, cats, dogs, bears, lions, tigers, vultures, eagles, ostriches, storks, herons, bats, locusts, crickets, hawks, swallows, racoons, opossums, and grasshoppers existing today came from a founding population of just four critters only 4500 years ago.You will have to show a bottleneck signature of a founding population of just eight human individuals just 4500 years ago.You will have to show that all doves, pigeons, geese, chickens, turkeys, cattle sheep, goats, gazelles, elephants and hippopotamuses are descended from a founder population of 14 critters just 4500 years ago.Now I understand you don't accept reality and do except fantasy, but that does not hold true for most of the world, thank god.The greatest threat to Christianity today is not atheism but rather Christians just like you.Claiming "It's possible ..." or "I don't believe the dating method ..." or "What if the PT boundary was only 4500 years ago ..." or any of the other nonsense palm the pea tactics you present are totally valueless.Remember, it's not me saying that you have to find the signatures outlined above, it is the Bible you claim to believe that demands it.

quote:

---

In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:

​

quote:

---

19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

---

​

In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:

​

quote:

---

2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

---

​

We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:

​

quote:

---

7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earthmen and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the airfor I am grieved that I have made them."

---

​

and in Genesis 7:

​

quote:

---

4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

---

​

In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things.

​

If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7.

​

Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals).

​

Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck.

​

We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species.

​

BUT...

​

If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period.

​

Talk about a big RED flag.

​

That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see.

​

So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood.

​

If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support.

​

If on the other hand that genetic marker is NOT there, then the Flood is refuted.

---

the problem lies not with me, mr unbiased

I understand you guys back eachother up, but really the geological arguments haven't been that great despite the rudeness in which they have been presented.And only bluegenes has presented a decent genetics argument that is still ongoing in the biological forum.So I am not lying. (dramatic wording towards someone who disagrees with you Haha I keep saying I am not trying to prove a flood here.If you would attempt to disprove the flood, you have to show that all of those cattle and sheep and hippos undoubtedly did NOT descend from 14 critters.But not the birds, some more could have flown onto the boat and avoided drowning. I doubt Noah would have killed them all but maybe he did, who knows, the bible does not actually say.

That's a lie. I know the Flood didn't happen as described in the Bible from the evidence that proves that the planet has not been covered in water since humans have existed. And that evidence has nothing to do with radiometric dating.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Untrue. Lots of things you keep saying are untrue.Not only are you trying to prove a flood, you are trying to prove a flood some 250 million years earlier than anyone else.

We didn't realize --- how could we --- that you didn't know what a bottleneck looks like. It's like spending weeks arguing with someone over whether there's an elephant in the room, and then finding out that he has no idea what an elephant is. You talked of the subject with such assurance, how were we to guess that you didn't know the first thing about it? But now you get round to revealing your ignorance, and you try to make it out to be our fault.The signature of a bottleneck is a degree of heterozygosity significantly lower than the equilibrium level.Since "burden of proof" is another concept that seems to have escaped you, here are 23,000,000 peer-reviewed papers which don't describe this as having been observed in all mammals. You're welcome. We've shown you facts in geology, archaeology, and biology. The problem is not that the facts are absent, but that facts do not convince you. Let's try another tack. Here's the sort of argument you find convincing: "I read a book full of stories about wizards, ghosts, and talking animals, and it says the Flood didn't happen". Convinced? Scientists disagree. You know, scientists, those people who, unlike you, know what evidence of a genetic bottleneck looks like? And what the geological record looks like? Those people.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And despite your continued misrepresentation that has been done; if the Bible story was true they would each show the genetic bottleneck marker. They do not.And yes, you are a liar, in particular you continue lying to yourself. And again, have you ever actually read the bible? The very Bible you claim to believe says you are lying yet again.

quote:

---

Genesis 6:

​

7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earthmen and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the airfor I am grieved that I have made them."

---

and

quote:

---

Genesis 7:

​

4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

---

You are free of course to make up any "what if" bullshit you want but the Bible says "Sorry Charley, you don't get the worm."

That is a blatant disregard for the truth. What is being discussed is whether the most recent ancestor is > 40,000 years ago as the scientific evidence shows or whether you can find excuses to reduce that number to 4500 years. Where do you get this 8000 nonsense? Nobody would argue that such a number ruled out the Noahic flood. Yet you quote an article from 1992 that says the bottleneck could have been between 200 years ago and millions of years ago based on a particle piece of evidence. It also cites other evidence that eliminates the 200 year possibility. But ignoring whether the article can pin down the date accurately, what does the fact the evidence is consistent with a bottleneck of millions of years do for your argument that bottlenecks of more than a few hundered years ago are undetectable?Your logic is flawed, and easily seen as such. Let me lay out the some facts.First, a more modern answer for the timing of the bottleneck of cheetahs is between 6000 and 20000 years ago. I'll provide citations if necessary, but I think your cherry picking of your own reference ought to be enough to show your lack of bona fides. Even if you claim that to be consistent with the flood, the cheetah and the elephant seal are among the few animals on earth that show such a bottleneck. Humans do not.The detectability is influenced by how long ago in terms of generations, and how few animals were left.And in that regards a reduction to 14 or fewer animals only a few 1000 years ago is about as severe as it gets. Yet genetics tells us of a common ancestor for humans at no earlier than 40,000 years ago, and a bottleneck for cheetahs that proceeds the time you claim for the flood.If we all descended from essential 5 humans worth of unique genetic material 4500 years, every human on earth ought to be pretty near genetically identical even today. Yes there would be a huge number of mutations in billions of people, but those billions did not simply magically appear 4500 years ago. They built up over time. Yes there would be lots of new mutations between 4500 years ago and now, but each person would be only a few mutations away from a very tight baseline of Noah, his wife, and the wifes of Noah's sons. That kind of lack of diversity ought to be extremely visible.And of course as the population grew, people spread out. Those mutations going on in China right now do not contribute one hill of beans to any genetic difference between me and say jar.The truth of the matter is that our large population of humans is not the deciding factor in what patterns we ought to see. The deciding factors are the depth of the reduction in population, and the number of generations since that reduction.And the reduction of humans to only 8 members, 3 of whom were directly descended from 2 of the 8 is about as extreme a bottle neck as you can imagine. 4500 years is way to short to produce the kind of results we see now, and there are multiple lines of genetic evidence to show that. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You're the one who added that detail. I'll quote you again:

quote:

---

When the bible says that that all the animals were gathered, it does not say that Noah pre-cleansed the Ark. ie there could have been the types of insects and small rodents that currently are found as pests on ships, that added to their core numbers. Message 691

---

What's wrong is to ignore conclusions that correspond to reality and to speculate about conclusions that do not correspond to reality. Let's be more blunt about it: Do you think that Noah would have killed any humans that tried to climb onto the ark? Killing humans was the whole point of the Flood, wasn't it? The terrestrial anumals were just collateral damage.

The repetitiveness and rudeness and lack of moderation carries on unabated. I would complain about numerous accusations of lying, but this forum only bans people for 24 hours which is another biased way of allowing evolutionists to rudely stamp all over the opposition. This keeps your numbers up on the forum, because most people will not put up with this nonsense.I am not sure if I will participate any longer in this unbiased forum. If the posts contained more scientific evidence I would be tempted to do so, but there's not enough science here.(ie if you can find a spot on earth that definitely did not have flooding in the PT boundary please just post your evidence, otherwise refrain from needless nonsense)

It was a typo . Not a "blatant disregard for the truth". How about giving a bloke a bit of benefit of the doubt instead of rudely jumping to conclusions.You could have approached this by saying..."you seem to have a made a mistake there, where did you get that 8000 years from?But no .... absolute rudeness.

What dating methods are the studies relying on? Carbon dating? This thread is not about carbon dating. Or what mutation rates are being used? Have they factored in that increased radiation can effect mutation rates? I need to see these co-called studies that show no bottlenecks? Have you got any? Please post it.How do you measure the depth in the reduction of a population? These are the kind of facts you guys need to be presenting to make a case for no recent genetic bottlenecks.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I already explained that the word "earth" in Hebrew means "land". They did not have a word for planet earth back then because thy did not know the earth was a planet.So I fail to understand where I am "lying". My views are exactly consistent with the bible verse you have quoted and i appreciate that you have quoted them, because its easier to eliminate strawman arguments if we all know my point of view.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.