Summations Only

Of course I can have positive evidence that neither Biblical Flood ever happened and I have given it to you time after time after time after time.Only liars, the willfull ignorant and the deluded think a Biblocal flood ever happened.The proof is really simple, so simple any honest person will gree.If the Biblical Flood happened then every living creature MUST show a genetic bottleneck and at the same period of time. Except as usual that is just bullshit. The fact is as has been pointed out to you that the terms come from different traditions and always describe different gods.Have you ever actually read the Bible Faith?

I have given the reasonable answer to your claim about the bottleneck many many times. There WAS a bottleneck but you calculate it from the assumptions of evolutionary time whereas I calculate it from the assumptions of Biblical time. In Biblical time because Creation started out as perfect and death did not exist until the Fall, there was no genetic deterioration of the sort that is now reflected in the drastic genetic reduction of a bottleneck.At the time of the Flood there would have been sufficient genetic variability for even a drastic bottleneck to leave the enormous genetic variability from which all life forms continued to thrive and evolve microevolutionarily from the time of the Flood until now. The original genome would have had a much larger percentage of heterozygosity such that even when highly compromised as a result of the Flood it wouldn't compromise the viability of any of the Species. The variety of new phenotypes would be much smaller of course, and you can look at the fossil record for some hint at the enormous numbers of pre-Flood phenotypic variations that no longer exist -- if you can pry yourself loose from the evo assumptions long enough to consider the facts. The percentage of human heterozygosity today is about 7%, which is probably comparable to the percentage in all the animal Species. If it was even as low as 50% at the Flood the great loss due to that event would not show the usual signs of bottleneck we see today, but there would still be a huge amount of variability.It wouldn't be until after a few thousand years of degeneration due to the death that entered at the Fall and the massive death at the Flood that we'd start to see the situation of so many fixed loci occurring in severely genetically depleted speciesk, such as the cheetah and the elephant seal and wherever else we find severe recent bottlenecks.You've been answered many times already.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not in the Bible they don't.

The problem is, Faith, that you put your worldview ahead of everything, to the point that you engage in frequent misrepresentation. Whether this misrepresentation is intentional lying or simply a strong delusion is hard to tell, but it is undeniable.

quote:

---

The link I posted to the discussion of Mark got the usual put-downs, including the objection that the writer's defense of the Christian understanding of the Biblical record as the work of the Holy Spirit is just "pride."

---

In fact I pointed out that the article on Mark denied that the author was an eyewitness, and even that the Gospel was entirely accurate, accepting the words of Papias, as transmitted by Eusebius. I even told Gollfly that i thought that his criticism was unfair.The pride I referred to was referring to a different arrival altogether, and was about the claim to have a special understanding of the Bible - a claim not backed up in any way by the article itself. I guess that you could respond to that by admitting that the criticisms had some validity.

quote:

---

But a Spirit-led believer knows things you don't know, it's just a fact.

---

It's just a lie that you tell yourself, exalting yourself while rejecting the words of the Bible. It is pride and self-worship. Believe it if you must, but bragging about is is no sort of argument - and you'd be a fool to use it as such. The more so since it is easily seen to be false.

quote:

---

At the time of the Flood there would have been sufficient genetic variability for even a drastic bottleneck to leave the enormous genetic variability from which all life forms continued to thrive and evolve microevolutionarily from the time of the Flood until now.

---

You do realise that that doesn't make sense? That even with maximised genetic variation before the flood you would still be limited to 2 alleles per individual at any given locus?

Yes of course I realize that. We're talking about LOTS of gene loci, remember, not just what's left over now after most of it has become "junk DNA" so there would most likely be many more loci per trait than we see now. And we know there can be many alleles per locus in a population too and yes I know it's not clear how these arise in the Creation model. This variability in the whole population is what would diminish with a bottleneck, but remain sufficient with the greater genetic diversity at the time of the Flood (as compared to now) to produce all the phenotypic variations since then.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I put GOD's worldview ahead of everything else. It's Biblical, PK: That's how I read that discussion at the link.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yes of course I realize that. We're talking about LOTS of gene loci, remember, not just what's left over now after most of it has become "junk DNA" so there would most likely be many more loci per trait than we see now

---

I'm afraid that that is - at absolute best - implausible speculation lacking any positive evidence. Or to put it another way, a desperate excuse for clinging to belief in spite of the evidence.

quote:

---

And we know there can be many alleles per locus in a population too and yes I know it's not clear how these arise in the Creation model.

---

More accurately there is no viable explanation for them given the assumptions of YEC. That is why we conclude that the bottleneck did not occur. We have the evidence and you do not.

quote:

---

I put GOD's worldview ahead of everything else.

---

Calling your worldview "GOD's" doesn't make it so.

quote:

---

It's Biblical, PK:

---

And a clear example of how the Bible is flawed, in that it encourages such bad behaviour. Would you really say that it was intended to give those that twist and misrepresent the Bible an excuse to exalt themselves? And can you see that it does?

The actual evidence supports my version of the Creation model just fine.

• Accounts for the huge percentage of junk DNA in the genome of most Species as due to death over time, and especially to the massive death at the huge bottleneck of the Flood;
  ​
• Accounts for the invisibility of the bottleneck in today's genome by the postulated greater genetic variability in earlier times so that a bottleneck doesn't produce the drastic condition of fixed loci for the most characteristic traits as it would now;
  ​
• Accounts for the low percentage of heterozygosity in the genome now as opposed to the postulated greater percentage at the time of the Flood and certainly in the pre-Flood world, as due to the gradual genetic diminishment over time as phenotypes split off into their own separate populations. Each new isolated population does have reduced genetic diversity compared to the whole population. Yes, it has to.

There are probably items I've forgotten to include here.ABE: OK here's another:

• Accounts for the fossil record with its amazing variety of life forms that are related to forms today but nevertheless quite different.

/ABEAll of the above would naturally be the case based on the Creation model and none of it violates the actual facts observed today. (You've never proved, despite trying, that genetic diversity EVER increases in any new population except one formed from hybrids or the re-introduction of gene flow. You assert it but can't prove it), NEVER from isolation of subpopulations. and such isolation would have been the most common situation as the animals dispersed in the years following the Flood. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't see it as exalting anybody or feeding anybody's pride, and I'm afraid that's just another way spiritual discernment is needed for a right assessment of biblical revelation.Instead of arguing about all this you could consider it might be true and get yourself born again. That way you'd have inside knowledge.

quote:

---

I don't see it as exalting anybody or feeding anybody's pride, and I'm afraid that's just another way spiritual discernment is needed for a right assessment of biblical revelation.

---

Of course you can't see it because you are blind to so many things you don't want to see. But claiming to be special and better than normal people is as clear an example of pride as you can get. Except perhaps, for boasting about it and expecting people to believe you. And that's what you're defending.

quote:

---

Instead of arguing about all this you could consider it might be true and get yourself born again. That way you'd have inside knowledge.

---

I'd rather try Christianity. And i don't consider that worth my time.

You are in a cult. The same as Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Literal Muslims etc don't think they are in a cult. They are special like you.
As long as you listen to cult members and read the cult websites, you'll happily stay deluded, while preaching absurdity.

So Hinduism must be the One True Religion.

Well, let us be accurate here. You weren't rebutting evidence and argument with your own evidence and argument using a "preacherly style." You were ignoring the evidence and argument and just preaching. I actually love your "preacherly style." It has provided some excellent insights into how believers (of any stripe) think. But this thread isn't a contest for who can give the best sermon promoting divine Biblical inerrancy. That the Bible is God's Word is what you're trying to prove. You can't assume what you're trying to prove. For believers this thread is an opportunity to step outside the believer box and see what objective evidence they can muster for the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. If you're unwilling to do that then you shouldn't be in this thread. There's a word for text that means something other than what it says: erroneous. In such cases apologists are often just making up excuses without explanation. Sure, believers accept the baseless explanations without question, but offering baseless explanations to anyone else is senseless.Concerning the conflicting number of pairs of birds taken aboard the ark, you need to find out why an apologist would write a commentary claiming that where Genesis says literally "seven seven" that it actually means "three pair plus one."Here are the key conflicting statements on this topic from Genesis. I include authorship according to the documentary hypothesis so you can see it is the Yahwist author who specifies seven pair for clean animals, and the Priestly author who thinks one pair is enough whether clean or unclean. You need to find explanations for the conflicts that have a foundation built upon evidence:

• Genesis 7:2-3: God instructs Noah to take seven pairs of each clean kind, including the bird kind. (Yahwist)
• Genesis 7:8-9: One pair of every kind, clean and unclean and including the bird kind, enters the ark. (Priestly)
• Genesis 7:14-16: One pair of every kind, including the bird kind, enters the ark. (Priestly)

Then why were you explaining to us how you know that, for example, Mark was written by Mark the Evangelist while inspired by God when you actually believe it's something we can't understand because of "our own fallen intellect"? No one's turning your beliefs into accusations against you. What's actually happening here is that you're offering your beliefs as if they were evidence, and so your beliefs are being subjected to the same kind of scrutiny as evidence. If you were just to say, "This is what I believe out of faith, not evidence," then no one would have any problem with it. But you can't do that because a key element of fundamentalism is a claim that belief is based upon evidence, not faith. But when you examine your beliefs for the evidence behind them you find nothing. You're left with nothing to offer but your beliefs. If what you claim to know (because you're a "Spirit-led believer") has no objective evidence behind it, then it can't be a fact. Not in the way that anyone else would ever use the word fact. Why don't you invite the people over at Evolution Fairy Tale to come over here and give you a hand.--Percy