I am not a population geneticist but I would think that there would be strong evidence in population genetics against the destruction of all human life except for one family 4,000 years ago. Think of the bottleneck created by reducing the human population to one couple and their offspring - even if you do throw in the spouses of offspring.
It is worse than that. The bottle neck would show up in every species living today.
Ah, not if there was new and improved super evolution at work. Interesting how those folk who insist that life couldn't have evolved all of its stunning variety in 6,000 years have no problem proposing that it all happened in 4,000 years. Holy cognitive dissonance!
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
The relevant evidence clearly shows that Homo sapiens sensu lato is a separate and distinct entity from the other hominids. No overall evolutionary progression is to be found. Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man–all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.
From: "The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’–on evolutionists’ terms."
Here is a good response:
But what is even more amusing — what if this wonderful bit of creationist “science” was actually correct? It would have the following implications, most of which run contrary to what creationists generally claim:
The change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to these four species of fossil man took place since the Babel incident, which is usually placed after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago. The change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only proposed such a change themselves, but see it several hundreds of times faster and in reverse! ...
I say this with as much respect as I can, the only reason this debate has lasted so long is because of the long line of ignorant Creationists that come here that havn't or don't want to realise that Creationism in it's current form doesn't fit into the Scientific method. So when people like myself are new to the whole thing we don't realise this right off the bat. It's like boot camp and you guys are the drill sergants, another crop of creationists every couple months, but that's what keeps the debate alive. Im not conceding that Creationism is wrong, it's just not Scientific in it's current form. So now what? I think a lot of Creation Scientists are lazy because they "know" their right and therefore don't see a need to put forth the effort to try to mold it around the Scientific method. Something needs to change.
While it is the end of my self-imposed exile, I feel I must apologize for my previous behavior in this thread in acknowledging your willingness to consider other viewpoints.
Therefore I am sorry, and with that ask no quarter as to my poor behavior.
As to the scientific facts, I give no quarter. However, I will refrain from posting in this thread unless I personally deem it absolutely necessary.
I leave this discussion to those who are kinder and have more patience than I have recently shown.
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. — Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
hopping in here kind of late, and i didnt read the entire thread. so i might be repeating something.
As far as the Agate fossil beds, i have been there several times, and have read some of the original research papers on it.
I you would be interested i can give a short but fairly detailed account of how the fossil bed formed.
Basically, it was a drying water hole, much like what you might see in a film from Africa on the nature channel. There is such clear and obvious proof that the deposit did not result from a flood!
Things like the fact that animals died and bones accumulated for at least two years, and that many of the bones show the telltale signs of being scavenged and trampled. So there was neither rapid burial nor did all the animals die at remotely the same time. There are other things, but those anyone can look at and see for himself. And it just is not consistent with a flood.
Whether or not there was a "flood" may be another matter, but one would have to look elsewhere for evidence of it. That place isnt it.
I'm not sure of the claimed date of this fossil bed. Yet there is no reason to see it other then it is.A very special case of a collection of life preserved and turned to stone by a special SINGLE event. The trampling can just be because the creatures were drowning and panicing. The scavenging might just be minor impulses of some of the creatures to seek food in the disaster or are just biting each other in fear or in the way. It could all be from a quick event dealing with rising water. If its below the k-t line.
I'm not sure of the claimed date of this fossil bed. Yet there is no reason to see it other then it is.A very special case of a collection of life preserved and turned to stone by a special SINGLE event. The trampling can just be because the creatures were drowning and panicing. The scavenging might just be minor impulses of some of the creatures to seek food in the disaster or are just biting each other in fear or in the way. It could all be from a quick event dealing with rising water. If its below the k-t line. ............................................................................. Sorry i dont have the quote feature figured out.
The age is about 20 millions years, not a "claimed" age.
When you speak of seeing it as other than it is, you are doing just that.
It was not a "single event" can be demonstrated by the fact that there are many bones that lay about on the surface for over a year before burial. There was no sudden burial, as shown by the uniformity of the deposit, all of it above and below being very fine grain material as would be carried by a slow shallow river, typical of the flat arid plains of the time.
The bones are not "turned to stone". I have one here in my hand. The original calcium phosphate (bone) is still present. Some minerals including silica and manganese are now also present, and they are mildly radioactive.
A careful examination of the fossil bed... which believe me, has been done, and there are specimens in museums in many places including Germany...shows many details simply not consistent with your scenario. One being the varied age and condition of the skeletons after death. Another being there was no unique burial event.
The site is a river channel. Waterholes in river channels dry up. Animals congregate in a drought. Fossils are being formed all over the world, every day, as we sit here. Did you think that EVERY fossil is from one event, a flood for which there is no data anywhere?
"It could all be from a quick event dealing with rising water. If its below the k-t line."
And how would quick rising water bury them? They would float away. it could NOT be from a 'quick event" nor from rising water.
All due respect but you dont know the age, dont know that it came 40 millions years after the "k-t" (boundary, not line) and dont know anything about the conditions of the site, but you still know that the specialists who have put in many many hours of the most painstaking work understand it less than you do at a glance? That really is not reasonable.
Don't waste your time with Byers. He's been at this for years. He won't produce any meaningful data and won't produce any testable hypotheses.
Its pretty simple. He says that it all happened in a single flood event but won't produce any scientific evidence for such an event because he's afraid that real scientists will challenge him.
Everything is: They COULD have been buried in a flash flood. They COULD have been sorted out due to the turbulent waters. They COULD have scavanged and slowly picked eachother apart while fighting to swim and stay alive during a falsh flood in the midst such turbulent waters capable of sorting geologic strata churned underneath them.
The date changes things. this would be above the k-t line and to this YEC dude it means a post flood event. So it could be from events lasting over a few years and so scavenging could happen. Still water actions can do anything where segregated flow events are going on.
What happened here was either volcanic coverings or the movement of sediment over the land that covered the creatures to a small depth. then later more movement of sediment would of followed and covered the rest. indeed the fossils are likely not to have been turned to stone as this happens from great pressure upon deposition like in the great flood. these later actions are not as powerful and so bones not so encased.
I see these events as happening at most over a few years but probably less then ten years and this about a few centuries after the flood. So about 2100 to 1900 BC.
This is the fulcrum verse which applies to all descriptions of the flood:
quote: Gen 7/1 And the LORD said unto Noah: 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation.
Note the words 'thou and all thy house into the ark' - this refers only to Noah's family and domestic animals. Note the words ' in this generation' - this refers to the people in Noah's environment [not the entire world].
Note also that no wild animals [snakes, tigers, bears] are listed. Note also the exacting dimensions of the boat - they align only with a small group of people and animals. Note the close vicinity where the boat settled when the flood sub-sided: Mount Ararat, not Tasmania.
Grammatically, one must proceed to the nearest and only logical path. Verses which describe all the mountains being covered thus require correct contextual adjustment: to the people of this vicinity, it did appear as the whole world was covered [expressionism], mostly because at this ancient times, people never ventured outside their towns all their lives. Its not like today, where we see an earthquake in NZ on TV and we know this applies to one particular area - this is a very dfferent time period and the writings acknowledge this and appears an astute contemporary work of high order and merit. If, for example, the writings included this as a flood only impacting one corner f the world, it would violate its time period: the people of this time never knew of Tasmania; indeed Tasmania never existed then for all all credible purposes.
For a lesson in true authenticity and credibility, this is the first recording of hisorical factors, such as the mention of Mount Ararat in its correct location, and the pristine engineering blueprints of a boat. Of note aso, the allocation of two animals of each kind shows anticipation of continueing life after the flood [as opposed a conclusion of destruction of the world]; the mention of clean animals [consumable; kosher] caters to forthcoming laws in the same document. This was a regional flood, in an area known for such floods, and is written as if it was done in its contemporary times or via some form of knowledge which is mysterious: a host of scholars and scientists have agreed the names appearing in Noah's geneology are 100% authentic of ts tmes - a factor included in scientific assessments.
quote:Chuck77 writes: I say this with as much respect as I can, the only reason this debate has lasted so long is because of the long line of ignorant Creationists that come here that havn't or don't want to realise that Creationism in it's current form doesn't fit into the Scientific method.
It depends what one understands about creationism. The NT version is very different, more like a Walt Disney view and should not be regarded as the assessment, appearing 2000 years later with no record of its observance or knowledge: the depiction of a 6000 year earth is an embarrassment for those who understand creationism, and it has nothing whatsoever to do wth Genesis when correctly read.
The other problem is that negating creationism does not prove anything, and I know of no scientific alternatives to it - you have not mentioned one. Galeleo did not disprove the flat earth merely by saying it is not credible science - he actually had to prove an alternative - he did so!
Creationism cannot be cast aside so easily. After all, there are only two possibilities how this universe emerged: via a Universe Creator - or otherwise; not bad odds. Please nominate the 'OTHERWISE' scientifically, and be assured I will respond scientifically also?