Why YEC can seem plausible

[excreationist]

From "Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition."

How did diseases survive? Many diseases can't survive in hosts other than humans. Many others can only survive in humans and in short-lived arthropod vectors. The list includes typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, syphilis. For these diseases to have survived the Flood, they must all have infected one or more of the eight people aboard the Ark.

Other animals aboard the ark must have suffered from multiple diseases, too, since there are other diseases specific to other animals, and the nonspecific diseases must have been somewhere.

Here are related counter-arguments from YEC sources:

https://creation.com/diseases-on-the-ark

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-did-infectious-diseases-get-on-the-ark/

Why is inbreeding depression not a problem in most species? Harmful recessive alleles occur in significant numbers in most species. (Humans have, on average, 3 to 4 lethal recessive alleles each.) When close relatives breed, the offspring are more likely to be homozygous for these harmful alleles, to the detriment of the offspring. Such inbreeding depression still shows up in cheetahs; they have about 1/6th the number of motile spermatozoa as domestic cats, and of those, almost 80% show morphological abnormalities. [O'Brien et al, 1987] How could more than a handful of species survive the inbreeding depression that comes with establishing a population from a single mating pair?

The problem of inbreeding has to do with mutations that accumulate. I think the YEC belief that animals originally had no mutations makes sense...

The counter-arguments might not fully address the issues but the point is that YECs can easily find related counter-arguments and this makes them feel confident in their beliefs....

 

[atrib]

I think Nephilim are widely accepted to be supernatural (angelic) non-humans of extra terrestrial origin rather than a special type of mutant humans who originated as offspring of Adam and Eve.

We can argue about that but why bother? If we want to conjure up multiple ancestors rather than a single common ancestory for all humans in Genesis it's a short-lived ancestry because Noah's Ark hits the reset button.

Ummm, no. The Noachian flood story is demonstrably untrue. There is no evidence of a Noachian flood in the geology record. None at all. Even more damning for your case, there is no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in humans or other lifeforms on the planet consistent with a Noachian flood type global extermination event. Noah's flood is a made up story, at least on the planetary scale described in the Bible. Did you really not know that?

 

[Lion IRC]

Humans didn't all simultaneously appear in multiple places.
They share a common ancestry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

 

[none]

Humans didn't all simultaneously appear in multiple places.
They share a common ancestry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Did you ever reply to me?

 

[Rhea]

Humans didn't all simultaneously appear in multiple places.
They share a common ancestry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

It sounds like you are claiming Eve lived 155,000 years ago.

According to your link, she was also not the FIRST woman, and she was also not the ONLY woman a the time, and she is also not the ONLY female ancestor of all women. And moreover “she” is not one person, she is an ever moving target, as some of her branches die out, then a more recent woman becomes the ancestor of all.

She is the most recent woman for whom there is an unbroken matrilineal line. But, also accoding to the article, there are women alive today who descended from other women as well, just not in an inbroken line.


Is this what you meant with your link, then? That you “Eve” lived 155,000 years ago (oh, and your “Adam” another 30K years before that, according to your link, and so obvioulsy not her mate,) and that she doesn’t represent a specific person?


So interesting.

 

[atrib]

Humans didn't all simultaneously appear in multiple places.
They share a common ancestry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

That much is true. All humans are believed to be descendants of a population of anatomically modern humans that evolved in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago. And they evolved from earlier populations of the genus Homo who also inhabited this part of the world, and were not poofed into existence by a god some 6,000 years ago. This common ancestry has nothing to do with the Bible story regarding a global flood. A global extinction event of this magnitude would have left an indelible and obvious trace in our DNA, and no such trace exists, so the Biblical story is clearly a work of fiction, or at best, a gross exaggeration of some local flood event. The link you cited indicates that the so-called mitochondrial Eve should not be confused with the character named Eve in the Bible. Why did you forget to note this critical piece of information in your post?

So, are you going to explain why there is no evidence in the geologic and the genetic record for the Noachian flood?

 

[atrib]

Humans didn't all simultaneously appear in multiple places.
They share a common ancestry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

It sounds like you are claiming Eve lived 155,000 years ago.

According to your link, she was also not the FIRST woman, and she was also not the ONLY woman a the time, and she is also not the ONLY female ancestor of all women. And moreover “she” is not one person, she is an ever moving target, as some of her branches die out, then a more recent woman becomes the ancestor of all.

She is the most recent woman for whom there is an unbroken matrilineal line. But, also accoding to the article, there are women alive today who descended from other women as well, just not in an inbroken line.


Is this what you meant with your link, then? That you “Eve” lived 155,000 years ago (oh, and your “Adam” another 30K years before that, according to your link, and so obvioulsy not her mate,) and that she doesn’t represent a specific person?


So interesting.

He is not claiming anything. He is posting a link that is unrelated to his earlier claim in an attempt to suggest that the two are somehow related, and that the link provides evidence to support his position. Which it doesn't. He is careful not to make any definitive statements or discuss the facts presented in the link - which he likely believes adds up to plausible deniability if he is challenged. Hints and innuendo, that is all he does.

 

[excreationist]

.....There is no evidence of a Noachian flood in the geology record. None at all.....

A fossil of a fish still eating:

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fascinating-fossils-glimpse-creation-museum-collection/

See also post #142

These things are seen as evidence by YECs even if they might technically not be evidence.

 

[Lion IRC]

Humans didn't all simultaneously appear in multiple places.
They share a common ancestry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Did you ever reply to me?

You mean post #152?
The one where you asked me if I was serious?
Yep, I +repped you and answered that I was serious.

Latest Reputation Given
Thread: Why YEC can seem plausible
"Yes. Serious,"

 

[Lion IRC]

He is not claiming anything.

I claimed humans didn't all simultaneously appear in multiple places.

He is posting a link that is unrelated to his earlier claim in an attempt to suggest that the two are somehow related, and that the link provides evidence to support his position. Which it doesn't. He is careful not to make any definitive statements...

I made this definitive statement - Humans didn't all simultaneously appear in multiple places.
They share a common ancestry.

or discuss the facts presented in the link...

Yep. Facts.
Which verify my claim.

- which he likely believes adds up to plausible deniability if he is challenged.

If I'm challenged?
Sure. I'll wait. Lemme know if you got anything that amounts to a 'challenge' to my factual claim.

Hints and innuendo, that is all he does.

So far you're the one doing all the hinting - about some forthcoming 'challenge'. It's your game of innuendo pal.
Why don't you use the quote function instead of oblique references to some "earlier claim" and what you imagine I'm 'suggesting' and what you believe it all... adds up to.

 

[Harry Bosch]

.....There is no evidence of a Noachian flood in the geology record. None at all.....

A fossil of a fish still eating:

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fascinating-fossils-glimpse-creation-museum-collection/

See also post #142

These things are seen as evidence by YECs even if they might technically not be evidence.

That isn't evidence for a flood. Have you ever studied how a fossil made? Floods leave behind very distinctive layers that are very easily identified. I studied it in college in Pacific NW. We were able to very easily identify several large local floods in several different beaches in the NW. But there is no evidence of a large global flood. There is evidence of a large regional flood in the middle east around 7,500 years ago which would coincide with the biblical flood story. If you're curious, here's a great story on it:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/

 

[Learner]

.....There is no evidence of a Noachian flood in the geology record. None at all.....

A fossil of a fish still eating:

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fascinating-fossils-glimpse-creation-museum-collection/

See also post #142

These things are seen as evidence by YECs even if they might technically not be evidence.

Yeah, there are quite a few anomalies to the conventional, similar to this, like groups of animals, in groups, or dinosaurs suddenly being buried under tons of sediment. Speaking of 'mitochondrial eve, this talk in the video, would also be evidence for the YEC.

Exerpt from the video poster with a little context:

So the fertilized egg comprises of a combination of the dad and mom's nuclear DNA and a precise copy of the mom's mtDNA, yet none of the dad's mtDNA. The outcome is that mtDNA is handed down solely along the maternal line. This signifies that all of the mtDNA in the cells of an individual's body are copies of his/her mom's mtDNA, and all of the mom's mtDNA is a copy of her mom's, and so on. No matter how far back you go, mtDNA is constantly inherited solely from the mom. If you went back 6 generations in your own ancestral tree, you would see that your nuclear DNA is inherited from 32 men and 32 women. Your mtDNA, on the other hand, would have originated from only one of those 32 women!


Secular scientists who calculate the human generations going through the past, no doubt must be scrtching their heads after finding age estimates through the scientific method, when calcullating maternal mtDNA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bf-M4osucw

 

[Harry Bosch]

.....There is no evidence of a Noachian flood in the geology record. None at all.....

A fossil of a fish still eating:

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fascinating-fossils-glimpse-creation-museum-collection/

See also post #142

These things are seen as evidence by YECs even if they might technically not be evidence.

Yeah, there are quite a few anomalies to the conventional, similar to this, like groups of animals or dinosaurs suddenly being buried under sediment. Speaking of 'mitochondrial eve, this talk in the video, would also be evidence for the YEC.

Exerpt from the video poster:

So the fertilized egg comprises of a combination of the dad and mom's nuclear DNA and a precise copy of the mom's mtDNA, yet none of the dad's mtDNA. The outcome is that mtDNA is handed down solely along the maternal line. This signifies that all of the mtDNA in the cells of an individual's body are copies of his/her mom's mtDNA, and all of the mom's mtDNA is a copy of her mom's, and so on. No matter how far back you go, mtDNA is constantly inherited solely from the mom.

Secular scientists who calculate the human generations going through the past, must be scrtching their heads after finding age extsimates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bf-M4osucw

?? There are hundred's of local floods every year that could capture a local fish eating another fish and burying it. How is that fossil evidence of a global flood? Are you trying to say that only a global flood would produce that type of fossil? If so, why? The above fossil would be evidence of a global flood if the fossils were found in a layer that is found all over the world. And this would be very easy for a half competent geologist to spot.

 

[Learner]

Obviously we can't watch any footage of the flood, but really... Is it that hard to believe seriously, as a valid theory when 72% of the Earth is covered by water?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Obviously we can't watch any footage of the flood, but really... Is it that hard to believe seriously, as a valid theory when 72% of the Earth is covered by water?

Well, there just isn't any evidence for one. For example, the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs laid a level of sentiment that covered the earth. We can see it in the same time period in the fields of Iraq, Oregon, Texas and etc all over the world. It sticks out. Where is the global evidence of a global flood?

 

[Learner]

?? There are hundred's of local floods every year that could capture a local fish eating another fish and burying it. How is that fossil evidence of a global flood? Are you trying to say that only a global flood would produce that type of fossil? If so, why?

Interestingly as you mention that. I'll just say briefly (as I recall) There have been studies or experiments which shows that fosilization can be produced in very short times, almost instantly, which could easily be mistaken for being much older. IOW estimating fossil age may not have been quite accurate as first proposed (depending on the particular subject in focus ).

 

[Learner]

Obviously we can't watch any footage of the flood, but really... Is it that hard to believe seriously, as a valid theory when 72% of the Earth is covered by water?

Well, there just isn't any evidence for one. For example, the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs laid a level of sentiment that covered the earth. We can see it in the same time period in the fields of Iraq, Oregon, Texas and etc all over the world. It sticks out. Where is the global evidence of a global flood?

Asteroid hitting the earth is an idea, a good idea but then so is the flood.

(Funny enough, I vaguely remember a chap suggesting the proposition that most of our water came from an asteroid/ asteroids, in which asteroids were frozen seas from another exploding planet, that was also hit by an asteroid from a planet before that - a series in succession that happens in the universe. Perhaps this was what he was getting at, an interesting thought at the time, it could be both asteroid and flood)

 

[Harry Bosch]

Obviously we can't watch any footage of the flood, but really... Is it that hard to believe seriously, as a valid theory when 72% of the Earth is covered by water?

Well, there just isn't any evidence for one. For example, the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs laid a level of sentiment that covered the earth. We can see it in the same time period in the fields of Iraq, Oregon, Texas and etc all over the world. It sticks out. Where is the global evidence of a global flood?

Asteroid hitting the earth is an idea, a good idea but then so is the flood.

Not exactly. We have evidence in the layers for the asteroid. We have evidence for local floods. Why no evidence for global flood? By the way, there is no need to take my word for it. Just study it. Here's a great place to start:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/

Just read the story.

 

[Learner]

Ahh the smithsonians, not surprised here.

But I will do that Harry, thanks for the link.

 

[DrZoidberg]

?? There are hundred's of local floods every year that could capture a local fish eating another fish and burying it. How is that fossil evidence of a global flood? Are you trying to say that only a global flood would produce that type of fossil? If so, why?

Interestingly as you mention that. I'll just say briefly (as I recall) There have been studies or experiments which shows that fosilization can be produced in very short times, almost instantly, which could easily be mistaken for being much older. IOW estimating fossil age may not have been quite accurate as first proposed (depending on the particular subject in focus ).

What I don't understand is why you necessarily have to interpret the flood story as being about the entire world? The Old Testament is very Jew-centric. What's the problem with interpreting the flood story as being about destroying Jews only? It would explain how Cain got... well... laid.

Not to mention that the Noah's flood story clearly is a reworking of the Utnapishtim flood story. That came from a culture with radically different morals from what later became Christianity. A culture where screwing around, getting drunk and slaying your enemies was a all virtue. I mean, let's face it. Gilgamesh is an asshole. If God spared those guys then wtf was he thinking?

My point is that there's many ways to interpret the Noah story that avoids getting geologists involved.