here is john boy's rebuttle to your arguments...
I'm gonna drop a couple lines of inquiry on this response for the sake of time (mine) and space (a lot of it was redundant or else went off-topic into areas that drifted farther than I want to go at the moment). FYI.
Quote
John Boy:
"The simple answer is "Yes". Written documents, C-14, all of 'em. Every trick in the book that archeologists and anthropologists use for establishing dates."
TrueCreation:
--Reference?
Let's not play this game, OK? It is a waste of time. This stuff is so BASIC that it hurts. These are all just common techniques used to date civilizations. Nothing even a little contraversial.
But...
'Traditional forms of archaeological dating have been strengthened immeasurably by the growth of an extraordinarily diverse range of scientific techniques that helps to demonstrate the truly multi-disciplinary nature of modern archaeology. Traditional methods have not been replaced, however. The definition of sequences by means of stratigraphic excavation remains the basis for observations about sites and for typological studies of artefacts. Scientific dating techniques add precision and allow specific hypotheses about the relationships of sites, regional cultures or forms of artefacts to be tested. (p. 129) Kevin Greene, Archaeology: an introduction, p. 129 (1995)
Chapter 4: Dating the Past
Here's another link. Archaeology Dating Techniques
Quote
--Also you should be weary on checking dates so precise by any dating method, as for instance, you will not get 2689 BC, but a date along the lines of 3000+/- 1000.
Those dates are NOT from C-14 alone, but also documents (Egyptians were very good about writing down things--not to mention building pyramids for their pharoahs and so forth) that talk about "The 10 year reign of So-and-So!", which are matched with other documents indicating events that can be corroberated with others, and so on. Also, some write about events that definitely can be dated, such as solar eclipses, lunar eclipses, and so on. Yes, things like that are really used to determine historical debates.
Also, C-14 is much more accurate than the 33% range you gave. According to a C-14 Dating lab, the standard error rate for 5,000 years is +/-65 years if I read the chart on "Standard Error" correctly.
Radio-Carbon Dating Options
Quote
John Boy:
"So, you're changing the dates of the Flood, now?"
TrueCreation:
--Nope, 2,400-2,600 BC.
OK, but you run into real historical problems. Some of the major pyramids were built BEFORE that date, DURING that date, and AFTER that date. No gap in Egyptian history (again, check out those names of Pharoahs. Do you think they just made those up and the times in which they reigned?
And there is that problem of repopulating the Earth, which might have taken a little time to do. No one told the Egyptians.
Quote
John Boy:
"How far back do you want to go? Egyptian culture was established about 9,000 years ago, give or take. That's quite a long ways from the 2,500 BCE for the flood you gave before. So, which is it? I think a percentage of error of +/- 50% is kinda high, don't ya think, for such a catastrophic, world-changing event--particularly against the total age of the Earth in YEC chronology?"
TrueCreation:
--Reference to the date and the means by obtaining the date?
Since you are sticking with your dates for the flood, I'll let this part drop for now, so it isn't necessary. We'll stick with what we got--I've chased my tail enough for now as it is.
Quote
John Boy:
"The lifespans talked about were within normal human bounds (and the Chinese had a strong affinity toward ancestor worship and reverence toward old-age at the time--so they would have had the motivation to greatly exaggerate the ages of their elderly but didn't really)."
TrueCreation:
--I don't think that the Chineese had access to genetics in that day to lengthen their life-span's.
I only include this part to state I was speaking of exaggerating in the literary sense, not literal sense.
Quote
John Boy:
"which would have happened immediately after the flood by your timeline (and I was being generous to start the building after the flood, even though, by your guesstimate, they were being built before, during, and after the dates you gave)."
TrueCreation:
--I set the date of the building of the pyraminds at about 150-300 years after the Flood.
Based upon what evidence, I wonder? Are you aware that there are also many OTHER pyramids built before the Great ones in Giza? Are you also aware they they are not covered with lots and lots of silt that would have been produced in a flood? Particularly one of a GLOBAL variety?
Quote
John Boy:
"Do you have ANY evidence to support your claims that can be independently verified? Just curious."
TrueCreation:
--If the initial quesiton on is the technique by which they used to obtain the dates of these civilizations are flawed, or insufficient, then that is evidence toward my part.
So that's a "No!", I take it?
By the way, "flawed, or insufficient" evidence on my part is in no way evidence "toward [your] part". If I am wrong it doesn't make you right. And verse vica. If I have to explain that to you, you are in more trouble than you think.
Quote
John Boy:
"OK, when was the Tower of Babel incident? We can run your idea through historical events of the time about that, as well and see how it compares."
TrueCreation:
--Building of the tower of babel would have been anywhere from 60-180 years after the Flood, in my opinion as I would argue. Also, Reference to the dating of the civilizations, as we arent going anywhere in this discussion untill I can obtain something that is relevant toward that question.
Somehow I doubt you're going anywhere even with the references. Such as the ones I already supplied on the previous page that happens to have the names and dates of pharoahs in Egypt (please look them up, if you wish). Now, unless you want to say that they just made it up, please do some of your own reading of archeology/anthropology books. Or at least give a little actual evidence as to why they are in error aside from "I don't believe it".
As for various dating methods, see above. Not to mention that Eygptians have many written records from before the time of the alledged flood that you give. So, written documents in addition to various dating techniques discussed above.
Quote
John Boy:
"I literally laughed out loud when I read this. Who's the one who is ignorant? Can you find an actual geneticist who says that "two of every kind" is enough to pertepuate a species/kind without going extinct?"
TrueCreation:
--Sure:
Haigh, J. and Maynard Smith, J., 1972. Population size and protein variation in man. Genetical Research 19:73—89.
Harkins, R.N., Stenzel, P. and Black, J.A. Noah’s haemoglobin. Nature 241:226.
Interesting. Did you actually read these papers yourself? If so, how did they specifically apply to "two of every kind" (and seven of others--5 of which were sacrificed) and 8 humans being enough to survive? I'd be interested in that.
Somehow I have the feeling you only copied those titles from this "Answers in Genesis" page without bothering to read them or learn what they actually have to say:
In the 1970s, Haigh and Maynard Smith investigated the variation in human haemoglobin and concluded that the human species must have gone through a population bottleneck in the recent past, if most of the variants are due to neutral mutations (that is, mutations not subject to selection).(4) Researchers at the University of Oregon Medical School pointed out that Noah’s flood would have provided such a bottleneck.(5) ...
(4) Haigh, J. and Maynard Smith, J., 1972. Population size and protein variation in man. Genetical Research 19:73—89. Return to text.
(5) Harkins, R.N., Stenzel, P. and Black, J.A. Noah’s haemoglobin. Nature 241:226. Return to text.
Y-Chromosome Adam?
Am I close?
Now, the first paper you gave me apparently has nothing to do with the topic on hand (other than it contains the word "bottleneck", I guess) about two of every kind being enough for genetic diversity not to lead to extinction.
As for the second paper, I tried and tried to find a reference to it. I couldn't find anything on the "Nature" homepage search and our on-line library catalogue doesn't have it available. However, you've piqued my interest. I will do an interlibrary loan and find the article myself and see what it has to say about the topic at hand. A single sentence summation from AiG does not give me great confidence. So, please allow me a couple weeks for this article to come in.
Quote
TrueCreation:
--And heres some more information on the Bottle-Neck and possible cause of genetic variation. Keep in mind Telomere and Telomerase Research.
[Edit for space]
This brief essay is meant solely as a stimulus to further thought, not as a precise model of events. However, it would seem that an explanation along these lines would be feasible, especially if several genes contributed to such longevity. For this scenario to work Noah's sons and their wives would have to have significant heterozygosity at the relevant gene loci. That this could well have been so is suggested by the age of Shem at death -600, considerably less than that of his father.
'Short-lived' alleles of the relevant genes may always have been present, which would mean that in the pre-Flood world, there would have always been some individuals (homozygous for such alleles) living drastically less than the ages recorded for the patriarchs. It may be that these individuals would not have been as short-lived as today, since they might still have had other longevity factors which were subsequently lost, by drift, entirely from the world population, in the first generation after the Flood. Such a loss may account for the major drop in the descendants of the Flood survivors, from the 600+ range to the 400s in one swoop.
The second-stage drop to the 200s may be the result of a second such loss. It should also not be forgotten that the dispersion at Babel in effect caused a number of bottlenecks once again, although we have no definite indication just how tight these were.
It is also likely (if not more so) that genes coding for lesser longevity arose by mutational degeneration, with their frequency of possession rising as time passed. At the moment, too little is known of the exact mechanics of the way in which cells are programmed to die in order to offer more specific suggestions.
The information on lifespans given in Scripture does not cover all the world's peoples then living, but concentrates on one line of descent. The nation of Israel effectively starts from one man (Abraham) and his (closely related) wife, so this is another genetic bottleneck. The course of changing longevity may have been quite different in other population groups.
Just for fun, can you give me a link to the website you pulled this from? I wagering it isn't anyone who studied genetics. I'd like to see this looked over by Sumac or Huxter, etc.
Quote
John Boy:
"Check out the genetic paucity of endangered zoo animals sometime and get back to me if you think it is problematic.
The minimal population of humans and other mammals to maintain enough genetic diversity to all them to survive is about 50, by current guesstimate."
TrueCreation:
--Then those poor little Elephant seals shouldn't even exist dispite their considerably very well condition today.
Well, I can dig up the "Discover" magazine snippet which talks about the viability of minimum populations, if you wish, but here are a couple websites that reach the same conclusion.
Population level is the best single indicator of a species' ability to survive. The minimum viable population (MVP) is the population size of species that will ensure a 99% probability that it will not go extinct within 1000 years. This calculation takes into account the chance events that can occur in the environment, or within the population itself due to genetic variation and changes within the age and sex ratios. The MVP is obtained by studying population data, reproductive levels and life history. A good rule of thumb for vertebrates is to maintain 50 breeding individuals to prevent a species from going extinct in the short term. Population levels closer to 500 are needed to ensure the survival of the species in the long term and to provide a buffer against natural catastrophes. Ideally, 1000 or more individuals should be maintained to guarantee that genetic variability is kept high. [Emphasis Mine]
Minimum Viable Population
Here's another reguarding wild horses that comes to the same conclusion:
Dr. Cothran suggests that managing wild horses at low population levels leaves them vulnerable to a long range loss of genetic diversity. This is the same sort of problem which plagues endangered species around the world. But, just how small is too small? At what point do wild horse populations suffer the risk of irreparable genetic damage?
Based on his DNA analysis, Dr. Cothran now believes that the minimum wild horse and burro herd size is 150-200 animals. Within a herd this large, about 100 animals will be of breeding age. Of those 100, approximately 50 horses would comprise the genetic effective population size. These are the animals actually contributing their genes to the next generation. Dr. Cothran has stated that 50 is a minimum number. A higher number would decrease the chances for inbreeding. [Emphasis Mine]
Elimination and Set-Up for Extinction
I have grave doubt about the scientific veracity of the quote you supplied.
Quote
John Boy:
"Also, it is a problem if people keep dying young when you say they could live to be very, very old before the flood. Where are all these mummies and bodies of 900 year olds that should exist? Why didn't people write about them?"
TrueCreation:
--People did write about them, its called the bible, which is old by the way if you didn't allready know. Also, mummification was an egyptian and possibly other cultural practice.
Sure. There are other cultures that are even older than the Bible that write about their histories. The Egyptains for example. They write about people having normal lifespans. Same for the Chinese. But, I guess their written history doesn't count...
Hey, did you know if you convert the number of years the long-lived patriarchs survived to months that it turns out to be within natural human lifespans (75 years of age)? You don't suppose it could be a mistranslation, do you? It was a common practice in Summeria/Babylon to do just that--transpose years for months. [When converted to months, the ruling times of their kings fit perfectly with the recorded dates by scribes of the period.]
Quote
John Boy:
"Take a guess what their skeletons should look like."
TrueCreation:
--They would look a little something like dirt, they have decayed, I would be surprized if any human at all were to be subject to burrial during the flood (well ofcourse there are some, so I'm surprized). Also its a note that almost all the fragments we find are deformities, seemingly by poor little fellows with arthritise and the like.
The aging process leaves tell-tale changes in morphology of the skeleton. More than just arthritis, gout, and so on. If any ancients lived to be the ripe ol' age of 900 (or even only a spry 300), their bodies would leave behind evidence of that age.
There are quite a few bodies recovered from ancient times (pre-your time of the flood). Oddly, none of them appear to be older than the standard lifespans of humans. In fact, most of them seemed to live a much shorter life.
Quote
John Boy:
"How does a genome become "less specialized"? What does this loss of "specialization" do to the genome? What are you talking about? It seems to me that you are just making this up as you go along. Which is probably what you are doing--Ad Hoc 'R Us."
TrueCreation:
--No, I am not making it up, and excuse me, I meant to say 'more specialized', as I am quite sure that you are well in aquaintance with genetic drift, variability and the like.
Genetics isn't my strong suit (ask Sumac, Huxter, WHF, Robert, and a couple others if you like), but I am familiar enough with the concepts to follow along vaguely and kinda know what's going on. And also know when someone's bluffin'. And you're bluffin'.
Now, before I go (and I've wasted more than enough time on this), I hope you will start posting a little more in the way of evidence to support some of your more outlandish claims. It would make for a refreshing change than your usual simple denials and assertions without evidence
please give me a reply
™ Version 4.2