The Great Flood

Talk about religion here
Forum rules
Please read the forum rules carefully before you post.

If you like AnimorphsFanForum.com, please consider making a donation. Any donation will go towards the cost of the hosting, the domain and any other running costs.
User avatar
Tobias_Marco
Proud Uncle
Proud Uncle
Posts: 6057
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Somewhere in the realm of time/space

The Great Flood

Post by Tobias_Marco » Mon May 17, 2010 5:35 pm

In Genesis chapter 5 through chapter 9 it tell the story of a man named Noah who is told by GOD to build a boat to save his family and all the animals because GOD was going to wipe the rest of humanity off the face of the Earth like a doctor cutting a tumor out of a sick person's body.

The question is: Did this really happen or is it just a fairy tail told to teach a lesson and to tell your children when you put them to bed?

I was having a conversation with someone on this very topic and asked them if they could point to one non-deadly mutation that has "evolved" in the last 2000 years.

This is what they had to say:

"Fossil records tell us that humans originated in Africa. They would have dark skin because of melanin production. As human ancestors migrated north, they were exposed to fewer UV rays, so there was less of an advantage for dark skin. Mutations at the genetic level can cause variations in skin shade, and as they moved up northwards, those with lighter skin had an advantage in terms of vitamin D, and the slight mutations allowed them to migrate further up north, those with lighter skin mutations more likely to survive. Inuits are almost albino. The mutations over the many years during migration has produced this."

However believe it or not there are many scientist who believe in evolution that unknowingly side with me.
As a Christian I believe that GOD created the universe and everything in it. I believe that as a result of this everything points to GOD in one way or another.

Keep in mind that one of the biggest problems with the theory of an old Earth is that it is given the rate of change remains content.

My Bible says that The Old Testament begins with the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Each of these books was written down by a man named Moses, he was an Israelite, who had been raised as the grandson of the king of Egypt, and as such he had the best education available at that time. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers were written between 1450-1410 BC.

That was long before anyone had ever heard of evolution.

In the book of Genesis chapter 8, verses 1 to 5 it says: But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

"the mountains of Ararat" Mount Judi in Syria is the spot where most Christians believe that Noah's Ark rested.

The Bible says that Noah had 3 sons, they were told by GOD to leave that area and fill the Earth, however they did not listen, and they built a town there.

Then GOD confused their languages forcing them to move in different directions.
That was the tower of Babel.

One group headed south. one group headed north east, another group north west.

Now most people who believe in evolution will tell you that humans came out of Africa, but if one of Noah's sons went south then he would have gone into Africa. This would leave behind a path of genetic variation identical to the one that is in all your books on evolution.

Also worth thinking about is this: If the human race has been around for billions of years and not just 6 to 7 thousand years, then where are all those graves? There should be a lot more dead bodies around here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living men are descended patrilineally (tracing back along the paternal lines of their family tree only). Y-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago in Africa and is the male counterpart of Mitochondrial Eve, although he lived much later than she did, possibly 50,000 to 80,000 years later.

I did a paper once for school. I can't find it now but I will tell you what it said

There was an article about a great flood, it is believed by the person who wrote it that this was the source of all the flood stories, including the story of Noah. They did not believe that this flood covered the whole Earth, but just a large area of it.

There were also two articles about the first common male ancestor and the first common female ancestor.

The papers when looked at together paint this image:
There once was a woman that is the mother of us all, she had a husband and many children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Many generations latter a great disaster took place, most likely a flood.
This disastrous killed ever man on the planet except for the children of one man.

If one man and his wife, his sons and their wives were somehow kept safe then the single common male ancestor would be the father.
But the single common female ancestor would be the ancestor of all of the son's wives.

I was told that I was not looking at other possibilities, such as isolation of human groups.
Isolation and environmental pressure may limit the population of humans.
I was told that genetic drift can explain away everything that I have shown above.
and that I provide no other evidence.

Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the relative frequency in which a gene variant (allele) occurs in a population due to random sampling and chance: The alleles in offspring are a random sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. A population's allele frequency is the fraction of the gene copies that share a particular form.
Genetic drift is an important evolutionary process, which leads to changes in allele frequencies over time. It may cause gene variants to disappear completely, and thereby reduce genetic variability. In contrast to natural selection, which makes gene variants more common or less common depending on their reproductive success, the changes due to genetic drift are not driven by environmental or adaptive pressures, and may be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to reproductive success.

It was argued that "Natural selection predicts that such situations may occur when one individual possesses a trait that is advantageous during these times of pressure, and that the descendants with this trait would survive, hence the majority of survivors having similar genetic properties."

I replied "One family would have a trait that would allow them to survive when all others die off. Such as getting into a large boat and surviving a flood that no one else believed was coming."
This in my view shows how there could be one single male ancestor and a single female ancestor over a thousand years earlier.

The person I was talking to then offered this possibility that I was not thinking about: such as alien invaders coming down, abducting a few people, eliminating the rest, probing the few survivors and putting them back on Earth.
They also informed my that this was not their belief, just that it was something I was not looking at as a possibility.
Lets say that a race of aliens did come to Earth.
They abducted a man, his sons (but not daughters) and the wives of all those people. (Because daughters would have had husbands and pushed the common male ancestor farther back.)
Then these aliens killed every other human on Earth.
I then pointed out that I had said that a disaster had happened and that it was "most likely a flood."
The point is that something killed off ever male human on Earth except for one man and his family who somehow escaped.
I was then told "again, you're making assumptions"
However all the assumptions I have made so far have been biased on facts that are widely accepted by scientists who believe in evolution.

Also because almost every group of people on Earth has a story of a world wide flood and because there is evidence of a flood that covered most of the middle east about 6 thousand years ago I said that this was most likely a flood that wiped all those people out.

"EVERY culture? There was a flood of Asia 6 thousand years ago? where is your evidence? i want sources."
Sumerian great flood
Gilgamesh great flood
Noah's great flood

"Perhaps a lot of cultures lived near water. Considering that people need to drink, that seems quite likely. Places near water are likely to flood, so it may have been a big thing back then."

True, but in this case "the big one" was big enough that only one man and his sons and there wives survived, ether by getting to higher ground, of by getting into some kind of ship (boat or space ship if you want).

Unless of course genetic drift can enplane how a group of scientists who believe in evolution say that all humans beings on Earth had a single common male ancestor who lived 90,000 and 60,000 years ago in Africa, yet our common female ancestor lived 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier.
Keeping in mind that if one generation is 25 years then that means that there are 2000 to 3200 generations between the first common male and first common female ancestor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_sin ... hypothesis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not the most recent ancestor shared by all humans
Main article: Most recent common ancestor

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor (MRCA). Since the mtDNA is inherited maternally and recombination is either rare or absent, it is relatively easy to track the ancestry of the lineages back to a MRCA; however this MRCA is valid only when discussing mitochondrial DNA. In approximate sequence from youngest to oldest we can list various important points in the ancestor of modern human populations:-

* The Human MRCA. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5000 years, even for people born on different continents.[12]
* The Identical ancestors point. Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans comes the time at which all humans who were alive either left no ancestors or are common ancestors to all humans alive today. In other words, from this point back in time "each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors". This is far more recent than Mitochondrial Eve.[12]
* "Y-Chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line ancestor of all living men, was much more recent than Mitochondrial Eve, but is also likely to have been long before the Identical ancestors point.


Wait, so all humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5000 years, even for people born on different continents.
But as a Christian I believe that Adam and Eve lived about 6000 years ago, and that around a thousand years later a man named Noah saved his family in a giant boat called an ark. That means that Noah would have lived at the same time as our "surprisingly recent common ancestor"!
This was all biased on stuff written by a man named Spencer Wells, a man who is not a Christian.

Spencer Wells (born April 6, 1969 in Georgia, United States) is a geneticist and anthropologist, an Explorer-in-Residence at the National Geographic Society, and Frank H.T. Rhodes Class of '56 Professor at Cornell University. He leads The Genographic Project.

Awards

* National Merit Scholar
* Phi Beta Kappa
* Howard Hughes Medical Institute Predoctoral Fellowship
* Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship
* CINE Golden Eagle, Journey of Man
* Fellow of The Explorers Club
* Kistler Prize
* Outstanding Young Texas Ex (Texas Exes)


This is about as unbiased as you can get.
True education, true science, true religion is the search for truth.
Matthew 28:16-20, John 3:14-20

User avatar
Blu
Rampant Drunk
Rampant Drunk
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:07 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Location: Behind you

Re: The Great Flood

Post by Blu » Thu May 20, 2010 2:15 pm

I shall get to refuting this when i get the time... hopefully this weekend

User avatar
Tobias_Marco
Proud Uncle
Proud Uncle
Posts: 6057
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Somewhere in the realm of time/space

Re: The Great Flood

Post by Tobias_Marco » Sat May 22, 2010 10:58 am

<You have no idea how disappointed I was when I saw that was all that you wrote.>
<The leading expert in DNA, a man who believes in evolution, has had his work used to support Christianity's clam that the Earth and the human raise were created in 6 days about 6,000 years ago and all you can say is that you'll get back to it?>
EDIT: 05/24/2010
BLu just changed his signature to have an image that says "We have the fossils. We win"

Well I would just like to take some time to talk about those fossils.
As I understand it, most fossils are of insects, these insects are just like the ones we have today.
According to evolution there should be some kind of change.
Now lets look at the changes that we can see.
In the Animorph books Marco can turn into a gorilla.
Evolution DOES NOT say that humans evolved from gorillas, only that we have the same family line.
Saying that gorillas evolved into humans is like saying that my aunt's grand children (ages 1-9) will someday evolve into me.
Just because we have the same grandfather does not mean that one will turn into the other.

However scientists say that they have found the fossil remains of some of these beings, the ones that came between great grandpa (the common ancestor to both humans and gorillas) and humans.

I hope to spend some time looking at each of these beings and proving that none of them are what scientist clam they are.

Then I plan to have you tell me "From what did the duck billed platypus evolve from?"

Acording to the "Modern evolutionary synthesis" these "Transitional fossils" are Australopithecus africanus (Taung Child), Java Man, Homo erectus, and Sinanthropus pekinensis (Peking Man), just to name a few.

Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct hominin which lived between 3.7 and 2.9 million years ago.

Australopithecus africanus was an early hominid, an australopithecine, who lived between 2–3 million years ago in the Pliocene.

Java Man is the name given to fossils discovered in 1891 at Trinil - Ngawi Regency on the banks of the Solo River in East Java, Indonesia, one of the first known specimens of Homo erectus. Its discoverer, Eugène Dubois, gave it the scientific name Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.

Homo erectus (from the Latin ērĭgĕre, "to put up, set upright") is an extinct species of hominid that originated in Africa—and spread as far as China and Java—from the end of the Pliocene epoch to the later Pleistocene, about 1.8 to 1.3 million years ago.

Peking Man (Chinese: 北京猿人; pinyin: Běijīng Yuánrén), also called Sinanthropus pekinensis (currently Homo erectus pekinensis), is an example of Homo erectus. A group of fossil specimens was discovered in 1923-27 during excavations at Zhoukoudian (Chou K'ou-tien) near Beijing (written 'Peking' before the adoption of the Pinyin romanization system), China. More recently, the finds have been dated from roughly 500,000 years ago,[1] although a new 26Al/10Be dating suggests they may be as much as 680,000-780,000 years old.

Homo sapiens the only extant member of the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family. However, in some cases the term is used to refer to any member of the genus Homo.

However it strikes me that most of our talk about evolution should happen here:
http://animorphsfanforum.com/viewtopic. ... 91&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This topic (the one you are in right now) is for using DNA, and geology to prove or disprove that the world was once covered by a flood, that wiped out almost every human left on the planet. (It would have been perfect conditions to create fossils, just so you know)
True education, true science, true religion is the search for truth.
Matthew 28:16-20, John 3:14-20

User avatar
Master Crayak
Commander
Commander
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:37 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Rachel

Re: The Great Flood

Post by Master Crayak » Mon May 31, 2010 7:38 pm

Alright, lets say that the3 universe was created in the big bang and then Earth formed.
Humans evolved over many millions and billions of years.
Sometime after humans showed up, about 5,000 years ago some guy builds a great big boat and puts his sons, their wives and a whole bunch of animals into the boat.
Then a big flood kills every living thing in the area.
Then every member of the human race is from the line of this one man.
So what?
What does it matter if this one guy is the great, great grandpa of every single (and married) human being on Earth?
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... =172#comic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Blu
Rampant Drunk
Rampant Drunk
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:07 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Location: Behind you

Re: The Great Flood

Post by Blu » Thu Jun 03, 2010 2:22 pm

Here we go:
Tobias_Marco wrote: In Genesis chapter 5 through chapter 9 it tell the story of a man named Noah who is told by GOD to build a boat to save his family and all the animals because GOD was going to wipe the rest of humanity off the face of the Earth like a doctor cutting a tumor out of a sick person's body.
Sounds like a loving God to me... but let’s see what your argument is anyway...
Tobias_Marco wrote: The question is: Did this really happen or is it just a fairy tail told to teach a lesson and to tell your children when you put them to bed?
I would rather read them a more appropriate story that doesn’t involve most people on Earth dying.
Tobias_Marco wrote: I was having a conversation with someone on this very topic and asked them if they could point to one non-deadly mutation that has "evolved" in the last 2000 years.
I am a little confused as to why you ask for one that has occurred within the last 200 years. Surely it makes no difference?
I would like to refer you to a research project by one Richard Lenski:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo ... experiment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Read more about it here:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/Publications.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some more examples:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tobias_Marco wrote: This is what they had to say:

"Fossil records tell us that humans originated in Africa. They would have dark skin because of melanin production. As human ancestors migrated north, they were exposed to fewer UV rays, so there was less of an advantage for dark skin. Mutations at the genetic level can cause variations in skin shade, and as they moved up northwards, those with lighter skin had an advantage in terms of vitamin D, and the slight mutations allowed them to migrate further up north, those with lighter skin mutations more likely to survive. Inuits are almost albino. The mutations over the many years during migration has produced this."
Here is the detail on Vitamin D:
Melanin pigment protects an individual from ultraviolet light, and aids in the synthesising of vitamin D in the intense sunlight. Vitamin D is not usually found in foods humans eat (though it is added nowadays). Those with mutations that produced lighter skin in such intense sun conditions were more likely to die from skin cancer.
As humans migrated up North, the sunlight was not intense enough for those with darker skin to synthesise enough Vitamin D, and those with paler skin are at an advantage, as they can produce more vitamin D in less intense conditions. Hence the mutation, though initially harmful, became beneficial with migration.
Tobias_Marco wrote: However believe it or not there are many scientist who believe in evolution that unknowingly side with me.
As a Christian I believe that GOD created the universe and everything in it. I believe that as a result of this everything points to GOD in one way or another.
Side with you on what? That God exists? Of course there are those scientists, but they just don’t take the bible literally. They may believe that the universe started with a god, but an evolutionary biologist will never say the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, otherwise they wouldn’t be an evolutionary biologist.
Oh, and arguing from authority is a logical fallacy. It makes no difference if a few smart people agree with you. It doesn’t make it any more true.
Tobias_Marco wrote: Keep in mind that one of the biggest problems with the theory of an old Earth is that it is given the rate of change remains content.
I still don’t know what you mean. That’s a very vague statement .
Keep in mind that one of the biggest problems with the theory of a young earth is that pretty much every bit of peer reviewed scientific research goes against the claim, including the many types of dating techniques.
Explaining the flaws in Young Earth arguments: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tobias_Marco wrote: My Bible says that The Old Testament begins with the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Each of these books was written down by a man named Moses, he was an Israelite, who had been raised as the grandson of the king of Egypt, and as such he had the best education available at that time. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers were written between 1450-1410 BC.
Tolkien wrote The Hobbit, The fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and that other one. He was a smart guy as well. The books must be true!
There is debate as to when and by who the bible was written. Until you can prove to me the person and date, I can’t accept it as completely correct. Even if i assumed it was correct, it still proves nothing.

Also note that you claim Genesis was written in 1450. I don’t think Moses was around in the times of Genesis to witness all of this.
Tobias_Marco wrote: That was long before anyone had ever heard of evolution.
Tobias_Marco wrote: In the book of Genesis chapter 8, verses 1 to 5 it says: But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
A little evidence that isn’t from the bible would be nice. Until then, it’s at best a pleasant story (apart from all the killing of course).
Also, explain to me where the water came from, and where it went afterwards.
Tobias_Marco wrote: "the mountains of Ararat" Mount Judi in Syria is the spot where most Christians believe that Noah's Ark rested.
I’m waiting for them to find it.
Tobias_Marco wrote: The Bible says that Noah had 3 sons, they were told by GOD to leave that area and fill the Earth, however they did not listen, and they built a town there.
Again, evidence would be nice...
Tobias_Marco wrote: Then GOD confused their languages forcing them to move in different directions.
That was the tower of Babel.
Evidence...
Tobias_Marco wrote: One group headed south. one group headed north east, another group north west.
Your evidence seems to simply be quoting a bible story at me. I’m sorry, but that’s not how science works.
Tobias_Marco wrote: Now most people who believe in evolution will tell you that humans came out of Africa, but if one of Noah's sons went south then he would have gone into Africa. This would leave behind a path of genetic variation identical to the one that is in all your books on evolution.
Difference being that evidence shows that humans lived in Africa, before migrated outwards over a million years ago: http://evolution.suite101.com/article.c ... nd_dmanisi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If that theory is true, then a) no fossil would be found over 6000 years old, and b) the earliest fossils would be found in Asia.
Neither one is true.
Tobias_Marco wrote: Also worth thinking about is this: If the human race has been around for billions of years and not just 6 to 7 thousand years, then where are all those graves? There should be a lot more dead bodies around here.
Firstly, humans have only been around an estimated 7 million years.
You wanna see old dead human bones? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Just because they don’t have gravestones doesn’t mean they don’t count, you know...
And this one came up just recently: http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/ns_na ... 85422.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Noah’s kids got to Mexico rather fast!
Tobias_Marco wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living men are descended patrilineally (tracing back along the paternal lines of their family tree only). Y-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago in Africa and is the male counterpart of Mitochondrial Eve, although he lived much later than she did, possibly 50,000 to 80,000 years later.
This is true, and you also seem to be conceding the 6000-year-old Earth idea if you believe these to be true.
This, despite what you may think, does not prove that the Bible is true. Bottlenecks in populations, genetic drift and natural selection, give valid explanations for this.
Also, Adam and Eve were definitely not older than 10,000 years old.
There have also been fossils found before these time periods: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tobias_Marco wrote: I did a paper once for school. I can't find it now but I will tell you what it said
Would be nice to see.
Tobias_Marco wrote: There was an article about a great flood, it is believed by the person who wrote it that this was the source of all the flood stories, including the story of Noah. They did not believe that this flood covered the whole Earth, but just a large area of it.
Explain to me how the Egyptians escaped the great flood: http://www.schoolsliaison.org.uk/kids/a ... _egypt.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tobias_Marco wrote: There were also two articles about the first common male ancestor and the first common female ancestor.
Sources please. You can’t just claim an article says something, then not post it.
Tobias_Marco wrote: The papers when looked at together paint this image:
There once was a woman that is the mother of us all, she had a husband and many children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Evolution gives valid explanations, as previously explained. Human fossils have been found that date earlier than Mito-Eve.
Tobias_Marco wrote: Many generations latter a great disaster took place, most likely a flood.
This disastrous killed ever man on the planet except for the children of one man.
Please refer back to the Egyptians, who were around during that time period and document no such flood.
Just because a large number of cultures told stories of large floods doesn’t make a global flood true. Humans usually will live near water, which will often flood. Stories will arise from these floods. Saying that a lot of cultures had stories of floods proves nothing except that floods were seen as big events.
Tobias_Marco wrote: If one man and his wife, his sons and their wives were somehow kept safe then the single common male ancestor would be the father.
But the single common female ancestor would be the ancestor of all of the son's wives.
Already gone over this. All you have to do is prove that the flood happened without using the bible.
Tobias_Marco wrote: I was told that I was not looking at other possibilities, such as isolation of human groups.
Isolation and environmental pressure may limit the population of humans.
I was told that genetic drift can explain away everything that I have shown above.
and that I provide no other evidence.
Genetic drift is a valid explanation that may be the case. You can’t just take something that is unknown and replace it with another unknown. Scientific knowledge has to be applied to explain events like these. Scientists don’t come across something difficult to explain and say ‘well, Godunnit’.
If you want your explanation to be taken seriously, you must first prove that the flood happened, which you have failed to do.
Tobias_Marco wrote: Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the relative frequency in which a gene variant (allele) occurs in a population due to random sampling and chance: The alleles in offspring are a random sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. A population's allele frequency is the fraction of the gene copies that share a particular form.
Genetic drift is an important evolutionary process, which leads to changes in allele frequencies over time. It may cause gene variants to disappear completely, and thereby reduce genetic variability. In contrast to natural selection, which makes gene variants more common or less common depending on their reproductive success, the changes due to genetic drift are not driven by environmental or adaptive pressures, and may be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to reproductive success.
Sounds just about right. Can I have the source?
Tobias_Marco wrote: It was argued that "Natural selection predicts that such situations may occur when one individual possesses a trait that is advantageous during these times of pressure, and that the descendants with this trait would survive, hence the majority of survivors having similar genetic properties."
Again, it’s definitely plausible.
Tobias_Marco wrote: I replied "One family would have a trait that would allow them to survive when all others die off. Such as getting into a large boat and surviving a flood that no one else believed was coming."
This in my view shows how there could be one single male ancestor and a single female ancestor over a thousand years earlier.
Yeah, about a few 10,000 years ago, with about a 50,000 year difference between them...
And saying that it was a flood does nothing to help your position, since you provide no evidence to support it.
Tobias_Marco wrote: The person I was talking to then offered this possibility that I was not thinking about: such as alien invaders coming down, abducting a few people, eliminating the rest, probing the few survivors and putting them back on Earth.
They also informed my that this was not their belief, just that it was something I was not looking at as a possibility.
Lets say that a race of aliens did come to Earth.
They abducted a man, his sons (but not daughters) and the wives of all those people. (Because daughters would have had husbands and pushed the common male ancestor farther back.)
Then these aliens killed every other human on Earth.
I then pointed out that I had said that a disaster had happened and that it was "most likely a flood."
The point is that something killed off ever male human on Earth except for one man and his family who somehow escaped.
I was then told "again, you're making assumptions"
However all the assumptions I have made so far have been biased on facts that are widely accepted by scientists who believe in evolution.
Just for the record, the reason i meant the alien thing is because it is exactly what you have done. You find some facts, and explain it with an unproven, factless story. Please don’t misrepresent me =P It’s a bit dishonest, making me sound like it’s a possibility.
Again, please, provide me ANY evidence of such a disaster, because there is currently no evidence that neither you or anyone has put forward. Just cos you say it happened doesn’t mean that it did.
A total wipeout of all but a single family humans would mean that the genetic variation we have today would not exist. Such variation is not possible is such limited time from then till now.
Tobias_Marco wrote: Also because almost every group of people on Earth has a story of a world wide flood and because there is evidence of a flood that covered most of the middle east about 6 thousand years ago I said that this was most likely a flood that wiped all those people out.
All I need to find is ONE group who has no great flood story, and the global flood is disproven. I have previously given a link to such a group.
Once again, you provide no sources to back up these claims. Your debating skills are letting you down because it gives me nothing to debate over. Give me the peer reviewed science articles that make these claims and perhaps I will take your arguements more seriously.
Tobias_Marco wrote: "EVERY culture? There was a flood of Asia 6 thousand years ago? where is your evidence? i want sources."
Sumerian great flood
Gilgamesh great flood
Noah's great flood
Sources please. More information please. Don’t just throw names at me, especially the latter. How am I supposed to know if there is any evidence or how big they were?
SOURCES!!!
One more thing, quoted specific floods is no evidence for a global flood, which is your main claim.
Tobias_Marco wrote: "Perhaps a lot of cultures lived near water. Considering that people need to drink, that seems quite likely. Places near water are likely to flood, so it may have been a big thing back then."
Tobias_Marco wrote: True, but in this case "the big one" was big enough that only one man and his sons and there wives survived, ether by getting to higher ground, of by getting into some kind of ship (boat or space ship if you want).
You know what I’m going to say to this...
Evidence. Please.
Tobias_Marco wrote: Unless of course genetic drift can enplane how a group of scientists who believe in evolution say that all humans beings on Earth had a single common male ancestor who lived 90,000 and 60,000 years ago in Africa, yet our common female ancestor lived 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier.
Keeping in mind that if one generation is 25 years then that means that there are 2000 to 3200 generations between the first common male and first common female ancestor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_sin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... hypothesis
Yes, it can explain it. Is that so hard to understand? If so, please read some books on the subject.
Tobias_Marco wrote: Not the most recent ancestor shared by all humans
Main article: Most recent common ancestor
Tobias_Marco wrote: Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor (MRCA). Since the mtDNA is inherited maternally and recombination is either rare or absent, it is relatively easy to track the ancestry of the lineages back to a MRCA; however this MRCA is valid only when discussing mitochondrial DNA. In approximate sequence from youngest to oldest we can list various important points in the ancestor of modern human populations:-
Do you know what the mitochondria is?
Tobias_Marco wrote: * The Human MRCA. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5000 years, even for people born on different continents.[12]
* The Identical ancestors point. Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans comes the time at which all humans who were alive either left no ancestors or are common ancestors to all humans alive today. In other words, from this point back in time "each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors". This is far more recent than Mitochondrial Eve.[12]
* "Y-Chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line ancestor of all living men, was much more recent than Mitochondrial Eve, but is also likely to have been long before the Identical ancestors point.
Gone over this...

Tobias_Marco wrote: Wait, so all humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5000 years, even for people born on different continents.
But as a Christian I believe that Adam and Eve lived about 6000 years ago, and that around a thousand years later a man named Noah saved his family in a giant boat called an ark. That means that Noah would have lived at the same time as our "surprisingly recent common ancestor"!
This was all biased on stuff written by a man named Spencer Wells, a man who is not a Christian.
Oh yeah! So the whole bible must be true! Bats are actually birds! The Earth is flat and the Sun rotates around it!
Just because something looks related doesn’t mean it is so. Instead of just cramming in the bible to look as if it fits research, you have to actually prove the flood happened. Otherwise you are just using a God-of-the-gaps argument where you shove in God wherever something isn’t fully explained. It is a logical fallacy.
Finding one thing in a book like the bible that seems to fit research does not mean the entire thing, nor the single thing, is true.
Tobias_Marco wrote: Spencer Wells (born April 6, 1969 in Georgia, United States) is a geneticist and anthropologist, an Explorer-in-Residence at the National Geographic Society, and Frank H.T. Rhodes Class of '56 Professor at Cornell University. He leads The Genographic Project.
He never once said that it proved God, that it proved any flood, or as far as I’m concerned anything religious. I may be wrong, since you did not provide me with any sources for me to check, but I’m pretty sure I’m not.

I must say that I’m not impressed. You provided me no evidence of the flood, but instead just claimed that it was true, then used God-of-the-gaps arguments without acknowledging that the data can be well explained by current scientific concepts. Being ignorant of those is no excuse to refuse it.
You provided much few sources to back up many of your claims and made blind assertions like they were fact. You made science findings ‘fit’ your bible without any attempt to provide evidence for that which you are explaining the data with.

Thanks though =) sorry i took so long.

User avatar
Luna May
GPC Tamer
GPC Tamer
Posts: 5956
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:00 am
Gender: [Female][/Female]
Favourite Animorph: Cassie
Location: The Inside of My Head, Israel

Re: The Great Flood

Post by Luna May » Sat Jun 05, 2010 6:33 am

Dude, that's a LONG POST.
I'm reading and answering it on Word, with my answers in color, so that I don't mess anything up with an overload of

Code: Select all

[quote][/quote]
thingies.

I can and will answer the second post while I'm at it.
You know what, I'll do it now.
BLu just changed his signature to have an image that says "We have the fossils. We win"

Well I would just like to take some time to talk about those fossils.
As I understand it, most fossils are of insects, these insects are just like the ones we have today.
Wrong. Think 'Dinosaur', for a start. Then go on to human evolution (instead of tiring both of us with data, I'm inserting a rough chart):Image
According to evolution there should be some kind of change.
Now lets look at the changes that we can see.
Nope. You like allegories and analogies, to here's one for you.
I know it doesn't fit the subject exactly, but it's close enough.
In the Animorph books Marco can turn into a gorilla.
...Huh? What dos that have to do with anything?
Evolution DOES NOT say that humans evolved from gorillas, only that we have the same family line.
Depending on your deffinition of 'family' naturally. That's the friendly-to-the-masses explanaiton, I guess.
Saying that gorillas evolved into humans is like saying that my aunt's grand children (ages 1-9) will someday evolve into me.
Oh, I get it. Look, TM, they don't mean 'family' as in 'family ties'. That's like when people say that dogs and wolves, or else orcas and dolphins, are 'cousins'. They don't mean it in a literal sense. And anyways, the vast majority of humans aren't cousins, and yet you can't deny we're part of the same species. Furthemore, evolution is a LONG process. Plus, genetically speaking, the second an embryo is created, that's the creature. Its DNA doesn't change as it matures. So in that sense, your cousins were born like you. Which they undoubltedly have, as any genetic testing will show. Evolution happens by generations, not lifetimes.
Here's an interesting fact. Did you know that the human brain is incapable of understanding big numbers? After a certain point, which varies amond individuals, the numbers cease to have a true meaning. This is one of the reasons the theory of evulution is hard to grasp, in an intellectual sense, because people can't visualize billions. They just can't. Why? Well, those who accept evolution might say that since one doesn't have to confront such abstract ideas or notions in the wilderness, since big sums aren't something a creature can experience anyways, there was no point investing resources in this type of cognitive function, since it decreases the creature's ability to survive.
Just because we have the same grandfather does not mean that one will turn into the other.
Not turn, but be born. And yes, it does. Your DNA is far more similar to that of your cousins than to mine.
However scientists say that they have found the fossil remains of some of these beings, the ones that came between great grandpa (the common ancestor to both humans and gorillas) and humans.
Evolution doesn't just happen after four generations. I mean, seriously, c'mon. The Bible, written by humans, uses concepts humans can understand. Just like it uses metaphors from the lives of people that lived during that era, so that they could grasp he ideas presented to them. These metaphors mean little to us now, because time (a lot of it in a human sense, a mere blip in the universal sense) has passed. And stuff changes over time. It's hard to deny that.
I hope to spend some time looking at each of these beings and proving that none of them are what scientist claim they are.
Well, good luck with that. I can provide you with the information you plan to tackle.
Then I plan to have you tell me "From what did the duck billed platypus evolve from?"
This is the simplified explanation.
In most parts of the earth, prey and predators co-evolved in order to survive.
Each became more complex and adapted to the environment so that it could keep existing.
Those who failed were wiped out, meaning they became extinct.
The most adapted survived, and kept reproducing.
Simple enough.
Now, Australia is an island.
For millions of years, there were no serious predators there.
There was no need to evolve to 'beat' the predators.
So most species kept the same with very little change for a long, long time, because there was no need to change.
The very same happened in NZ and in Madagascar.
The wildlife confronted a new need for change a few hundred years ago, when the Europeans came and brought their own native species into the previously isolated island (in Hebrew this is called מינים פולשים).
Now the endemics are in the first evolutionary struggle for survival they had to confront (as a species) in a long time.
In a few million years, they'll either succeed of dissapear.
Acording to the "Modern evolutionary synthesis" these "Transitional fossils" are Australopithecus africanus (Taung Child), Java Man, Homo erectus, and Sinanthropus pekinensis (Peking Man), just to name a few.

Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct hominin which lived between 3.7 and 2.9 million years ago.

Australopithecus africanus was an early hominid, an australopithecine, who lived between 2–3 million years ago in the Pliocene.

Java Man is the name given to fossils discovered in 1891 at Trinil - Ngawi Regency on the banks of the Solo River in East Java, Indonesia, one of the first known specimens of Homo erectus. Its discoverer, Eugène Dubois, gave it the scientific name Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.

Homo erectus (from the Latin ērĭgĕre, "to put up, set upright") is an extinct species of hominid that originated in Africa—and spread as far as China and Java—from the end of the Pliocene epoch to the later Pleistocene, about 1.8 to 1.3 million years ago.

Peking Man (Chinese: 北京猿人; pinyin: Běijīng Yuánrén), also called Sinanthropus pekinensis (currently Homo erectus pekinensis), is an example of Homo erectus. A group of fossil specimens was discovered in 1923-27 during excavations at Zhoukoudian (Chou K'ou-tien) near Beijing (written 'Peking' before the adoption of the Pinyin romanization system), China. More recently, the finds have been dated from roughly 500,000 years ago,[1] although a new 26Al/10Be dating suggests they may be as much as 680,000-780,000 years old.

Homo sapiens the only extant member of the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family. However, in some cases the term is used to refer to any member of the genus Homo.

However it strikes me that most of our talk about evolution should happen here:
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=191&start=0

This topic (the one you are in right now) is for using DNA, and geology to prove or disprove that the world was once covered by a flood, that wiped out almost every human left on the planet. (It would have been perfect conditions to create fossils, just so you know)
Prove it, please, and we'll proceed from there.

Wow, I think I'm too tired to continue. Sorry if I typed some nonsense, I'll clean it up sometime. Later.

EDIT: Before I'm gone, I decided to round up at least a few vids for you to look at. I'm aware of the fact that most of them may not be very nice towards NEC, but we'll have to cope with that for the time being.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3H ... Fego5yd2UE[/youtube]






I think that the big problem is extremism. What is, say, 30% of the Bible was real. That's be astounding enough by itself. Wanting to go 'All Or Nothing', and grasping at straws trying to get whole credit. Compromise.
Okay, I can't concentrate enough to phrase this out in English. See ya.


Or better yet,



Image

Avv © Culpeo-Fox

Image
*hi fives Blu*

Isn't quite sure how I feel about anything at the moment.

User avatar
Blu
Rampant Drunk
Rampant Drunk
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:07 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Location: Behind you

Re: The Great Flood

Post by Blu » Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:15 am

Thanks Luna :) you did a good job with that lot. I was still worn out by the first essay he gave lol

To go into more detail about the Platypus, it is part of a group of mammals that diverged from other mammals early on in their evolution. Just go to the wiki page on the platypus to see what i mean. I'm sorry, but to properly explain myself i would need to nomenclatures, and im too tired to learn them atm. It's explained weel enough there.

The platypus is no challenge to the forces of evolution, as you may think. The platypus evolved in a now mostly extinct group of organisms who split from mammals during the time when mammals first began evolving from reptiles, hence the similarites to reptiles.

Because of their different environment, where there were few predators, there was little need to evolve, because evolution relies on selective pressure. That is why crocodilians have been relatively unchanged for millions of years, because there was a lack of sufficient pressure to force selection.

To talk of the platypus as if it were proof against evolution is to argue from ignorance.The evolution of the platypus, because of its appearance, has been well documented and studied by scientists.

Oh, and about your comment on proving to scientists that they were wrong, all you have to do is write a paper explaining how they are wrong, and then sending it off for peer review.

Go on, I dare you...

User avatar
Luna May
GPC Tamer
GPC Tamer
Posts: 5956
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:00 am
Gender: [Female][/Female]
Favourite Animorph: Cassie
Location: The Inside of My Head, Israel

Re: The Great Flood

Post by Luna May » Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:55 am

Guess what?
National Geographic arrived today.
They wrote a page about platypi.
I'd take a picture of it and upload it here, but I don't know how legal that is, with the copyrights and all, and seeing as my copy is in Hebrew anyways, I don't know how much good it would do.
Look for the June edition at your library, they probably have it. It's short, yet to the point.

And to other news: I've finished my Reply To TM's Really Really Long Post. :lol:
Here it is.

EDIT: I can't believe it. I can't upload it.
The extension docx is not allowed.
No way. I'll ask Mik for help.

Re-EDIT: Well, for the time being, here's the non-color-coded version. It's pretty incomprihensible, though.
Hopefully it'll only be a timely arrangement.

Re-re-EDIT: Seems like it won't fit in a single post. So it's double-posting time! :roll2:
Image

Avv © Culpeo-Fox

Image
*hi fives Blu*

Isn't quite sure how I feel about anything at the moment.

User avatar
Luna May
GPC Tamer
GPC Tamer
Posts: 5956
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:00 am
Gender: [Female][/Female]
Favourite Animorph: Cassie
Location: The Inside of My Head, Israel

Re: The Great Flood

Post by Luna May » Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:25 am

Turns out that I couldn't stand posting such an overly sloppy post, so I sat down and cropped it up. It's far from perfect, but at least now it's intelligible.
Great Flood- Response wrote:
In Genesis chapter 5 through chapter 9 it tell the story of a man named Noah who is told by GOD to build a boat to save his family and all the animals because GOD was going to wipe the rest of humanity off the face of the Earth like a doctor cutting a tumour out of a sick person's body.
Emphasis on 'story'. And the simile means nothing, since there isn't any definition of the 'sick person' in question. If the 'illness' is man's inherent evil, which God implanted in the species him/herself (saying that God is male is just plain wrong), then why isn't God cutting that out? In the myth, God wipes out the vast majority of the human race. Including young children and unborn babies. There's a whole list of moral implications right there.
The question is: Did this really happen or is it just a fairy tale told to teach a lesson and to tell your children when you put them to bed?
It's a myth. What lesson does this story serve? 'If you mess up and get some inferiors in a sticky situation, and want to wriggle out of it once it's getting uncomfortable, feel free to kill them all, and to balance it out, feel free to allow the laws of physics to keep on working?' How educational. There's the third option you refrained from mentioning, though, which is this: Maybe something happened many, many years ago, and was told by word of mouth for a long time. The story may be composed of layers of fiction in varying levels, shrouding a core of truth. This compromise seems like the most plausible to me. Appearing in an old document grants no claim an immovable status as true or false. There's a children's game we call 'Broken Phone', which I suppose exists in some variation in other countries as well, under other names. You gather up a group of kids, line them up in a long row, and whisper something in the first one's ear (a single word if they're young, a phrase if they're a bit older, and sometimes a short story). This kid leans over towards the next kid in line and whispers what he or she heard into their ear, and so on. The last kid in line then exclaims what he or she heard out loud. If there's an error, which happens most times, the kids each tell the group what they heard (or remembered, big difference here), in reverse order, until they find out who made the mistake. The objective of the game is to get to the end with the exact same phrase you started with, but it's a pretty rare occurrence. You could try to pin this on the fact that the participants are kids, but if you try this with adults you'll get the same results. Remember that the people of the Bible didn't know that they had to be careful with the legend's exact phrasing until the book was syndicated and granted a holy title much later.
I was having a conversation with someone on this very topic and asked them if they could point to one non-deadly mutation that has "evolved" in the last 2,000 years.
Easy. Bacterium that can digest nylon. Lice immune to pesticide. Next.
This is what they had to say:

"Fossil records tell us that humans originated in Africa. They would have dark skin because of melanin production. As human ancestors migrated north, they were exposed to fewer UV rays, so there was less of an advantage for dark skin. Mutations at the genetic level can cause variations in skin shade, and as they moved up northwards, those with lighter skin had an advantage in terms of vitamin D, and the slight mutations allowed them to migrate further up north, those with lighter skin mutations more likely to survive. Inuits are almost albino. The mutations over the many years during migration has produced this."
Well said.
However believe it or not there are many scientists who believe in evolution that unknowingly side with me.
On what, exactly? Tell us your claims, explain them, and then tell us of those who agree with you, unknowingly or otherwise.
As a Christian I believe that GOD created the universe and everything in it.
Humans invented the motor engine. Explain, please. I believe that as a result of this everything points to GOD in one way or another. Why should it? Does God watermark his stuff so other beings don't copycat on him/her? Well, maybe it's just smugness. Or the oh-so-infamous pride. I can't get myself to respect a guy who uses terror and threats to force those weaker than him to worship him. He controls people through fear and menace. That's tyranny, and I don't stand for it.

Keep in mind that one of the biggest problems with the theory of an old Earth is that it is given the rate of change remains content. Why is that? If you say 'The Second Rule of Thermodynamics', then I'm going to have to play dirty and ask you what the other rules are. And once you explain them thoroughly and intelligently, proving that you understand them, I will ask you how any why you have proven yourself wrong.
My Bible says that The Old Testament begins with the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Originally known as Bereshit (At the Beginning), Shmot (The Names), Va'ikra (And So [He] Cried), Bamidbar [In The Desert) and Dvarim (Things), all titles derived from the first words in said book.
Each of these books was written down by a man named Moses,
Prove it.
he was an Israelite,
An Ivri, actually, but close enough.
who had been raised as the grandson of the king of Egypt, and as such he had the best education available at that time.
From what we know, that seems adequate.
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers were written between 1450-1410 BC.
*shrug* I'll have to look that up, since I don't know. For the time being, I'll take your word for it.
That was long before anyone had ever heard of evolution.
True. It was also a long time before someone heard of Newton's Laws, heliocentricism, or the continent of north America.
In the book of Genesis chapter 8, verses 1 to 5 it says: But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
I don't buy those nifty translations. If I'm going to discuss ancient scriptures that have been meddled with one time too many as it is, I'm going straight to the source, or what is widely perceived as such. I'll be right back with the original.
Okay, here we are, Bereshit, Perek Khet (Chapter Khet, Khet being the eighth letter):
בראשית פרק ח
א וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-נֹחַ, וְאֵת כָּל-הַחַיָּה וְאֶת-כָּל-הַבְּהֵמָה, אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ בַּתֵּבָה; וַיַּעֲבֵר אֱלֹהִים רוּחַ עַל-הָאָרֶץ, וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ הַמָּיִם. ב וַיִּסָּכְרוּ מַעְיְנֹת תְּהוֹם, וַאֲרֻבֹּת הַשָּׁמָיִם; וַיִּכָּלֵא הַגֶּשֶׁם, מִן-הַשָּׁמָיִם. ג וַיָּשֻׁבוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ, הָלוֹךְ וָשׁוֹב; וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם--מִקְצֵה, חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם. ד וַתָּנַח הַתֵּבָה בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי, בְּשִׁבְעָה-עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ, עַל, הָרֵי אֲרָרָט. ה וְהַמַּיִם, הָיוּ הָלוֹךְ וְחָסוֹר, עַד, הַחֹדֶשׁ הָעֲשִׂירִי; בָּעֲשִׂירִי בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ, נִרְאוּ רָאשֵׁי הֶהָרִים.
This is what I see here:
1 And God remembered, Noah, [pronounced No-akh, by the way…] and all (of) the animal and all (of) the beast, with him in the ark; and God passed a wind on the land, and the water [or waters; this words is a bit like fish or sheep in English. You know, always plural].
2 And the springs of the abyss were dammed, and the chimneys [I guess this word has changes with the centuries…] of the skies; and the rain was imprisoned, from the sky.
3 And the water was/came back over the land, to and fro; and there was water missing from the edge, fifty and one hundred days.
4 And the ark rested on the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat.
5 And the water, was to and fro [I suspect a typographical error here, since S and Z sound very much alike, but I'll omit my personal interpretations for the time being] until the tenth month; on the eleventh of the month, the heads of the mountains were seen.
Turns out the translation was pretty good, considering shifting from Hebrew to Greek, possibly to Latin, and then to English. Well done, translator.
"the mountains of Ararat" Mount Judi in Syria is the spot where most Christians believe that Noah's Ark rested.
According to...?
The Bible says that Noah had 3 sons,
Yeah, Shem, Kham and Yefet.
they were told by GOD to leave that area and fill the Earth, however they did not listen, and they built a town there.
Perek Tet (Ninth Chapter):
בראשית פרק ט
א וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-נֹחַ וְאֶת-בָּנָיו; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ, וּמִלְאוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ. ב וּמוֹרַאֲכֶם וְחִתְּכֶם, יִהְיֶה, עַל כָּל-חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ, וְעַל כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם; בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה וּבְכָל-דְּגֵי הַיָּם, בְּיֶדְכֶם נִתָּנוּ. ג כָּל-רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא-חַי, לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה: כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב, נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת-כֹּל. ד אַךְ-בָּשָׂר, בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. ה וְאַךְ אֶת-דִּמְכֶם לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם אֶדְרֹשׁ, מִיַּד כָּל-חַיָּה אֶדְרְשֶׁנּוּ; וּמִיַּד הָאָדָם, מִיַּד אִישׁ אָחִיו--אֶדְרֹשׁ, אֶת-נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם. ו שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם, בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ: כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֶת-הָאָדָם. ז וְאַתֶּם, פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ; שִׁרְצוּ בָאָרֶץ, וּרְבוּ-בָהּ. {ס}
ח וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל-נֹחַ, וְאֶל-בָּנָיו אִתּוֹ לֵאמֹר. ט וַאֲנִי, הִנְנִי מֵקִים אֶת-בְּרִיתִי אִתְּכֶם, וְאֶת-זַרְעֲכֶם, אַחֲרֵיכֶם. י וְאֵת כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר אִתְּכֶם, בָּעוֹף בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ אִתְּכֶם; מִכֹּל יֹצְאֵי הַתֵּבָה, לְכֹל חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ. יא וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת-בְּרִיתִי אִתְּכֶם, וְלֹא-יִכָּרֵת כָּל-בָּשָׂר עוֹד מִמֵּי הַמַּבּוּל; וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה עוֹד מַבּוּל, לְשַׁחֵת הָאָרֶץ. יב וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, זֹאת אוֹת-הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר-אֲנִי נֹתֵן בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, וּבֵין כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, אֲשֶׁר אִתְּכֶם--לְדֹרֹת, עוֹלָם. יג אֶת-קַשְׁתִּי, נָתַתִּי בֶּעָנָן; וְהָיְתָה לְאוֹת בְּרִית, בֵּינִי וּבֵין הָאָרֶץ. יד וְהָיָה, בְּעַנְנִי עָנָן עַל-הָאָרֶץ, וְנִרְאֲתָה הַקֶּשֶׁת, בֶּעָנָן. טו וְזָכַרְתִּי אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, אֲשֶׁר בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, וּבֵין כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, בְּכָל-בָּשָׂר; וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה עוֹד הַמַּיִם לְמַבּוּל, לְשַׁחֵת כָּל-בָּשָׂר. טז וְהָיְתָה הַקֶּשֶׁת, בֶּעָנָן; וּרְאִיתִיהָ, לִזְכֹּר בְּרִית עוֹלָם, בֵּין אֱלֹהִים, וּבֵין כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה בְּכָל-בָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר עַל-הָאָרֶץ. יז וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, אֶל-נֹחַ: זֹאת אוֹת-הַבְּרִית, אֲשֶׁר הֲקִמֹתִי, בֵּינִי, וּבֵין כָּל-בָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר עַל-הָאָרֶץ. {פ}
יח וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי-נֹחַ, הַיֹּצְאִים מִן-הַתֵּבָה--שֵׁם, וְחָם וָיָפֶת; וְחָם, הוּא אֲבִי כְנָעַן. יט שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵלֶּה, בְּנֵי-נֹחַ; וּמֵאֵלֶּה, נָפְצָה כָל-הָאָרֶץ. כ וַיָּחֶל נֹחַ, אִישׁ הָאֲדָמָה; וַיִּטַּע, כָּרֶם. כא וַיֵּשְׁתְּ מִן-הַיַּיִן, וַיִּשְׁכָּר; וַיִּתְגַּל, בְּתוֹךְ אָהֳלֹה. כב וַיַּרְא, חָם אֲבִי כְנַעַן, אֵת, עֶרְוַת אָבִיו; וַיַּגֵּד לִשְׁנֵי-אֶחָיו, בַּחוּץ. כג וַיִּקַּח שֵׁם וָיֶפֶת אֶת-הַשִּׂמְלָה, וַיָּשִׂימוּ עַל-שְׁכֶם שְׁנֵיהֶם, וַיֵּלְכוּ אֲחֹרַנִּית, וַיְכַסּוּ אֵת עֶרְוַת אֲבִיהֶם; וּפְנֵיהֶם, אֲחֹרַנִּית, וְעֶרְוַת אֲבִיהֶם, לֹא רָאוּ. כד וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ, מִיֵּינוֹ; וַיֵּדַע, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה לוֹ בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן. כה וַיֹּאמֶר, אָרוּר כְּנָעַן: עֶבֶד עֲבָדִים, יִהְיֶה לְאֶחָיו. כו וַיֹּאמֶר, בָּרוּךְ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי שֵׁם; וִיהִי כְנַעַן, עֶבֶד לָמוֹ. כז יַפְתְּ אֱלֹהִים לְיֶפֶת, וְיִשְׁכֹּן בְּאָהֳלֵי-שֵׁם; וִיהִי כְנַעַן, עֶבֶד לָמוֹ. כח וַיְחִי-נֹחַ, אַחַר הַמַּבּוּל, שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה, וַחֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה. כט וַיִּהְיוּ, כָּל-יְמֵי-נֹחַ, תְּשַׁע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה, וַחֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה; וַיָּמֹת. {פ}

If someone wants me to translate it, I will, but I want to get this thing done for the moment. This is the summary: God tells Noah and his sons to get the reproduction goin' (the expression Pru Urvu is appears quite copiously throughout the Bible ;) ) and fill the land (not such a tough challenge, seeing as competition was conveniently asphyxiated and decomposed for their comfort… A bottlenose if I ever saw one. Wonder we survived at all. Natural selection?). He says all living creatures are in their hands, that they can eat any living creature and that all plants are for them. But don't eat people, guys, that's not cool. People are God-shaped, so if you kill people, your blood will be spilt too. And again, to get back to the happier, livelier and less morbid parts, he goes back to the subject of intercourse and figuratively taps his mighty foot asking them to get a move with it, please.
Second part goes thus: God tells Noah and his sons (still no sign of the female half [at least] of the group) that he's gonna make a pact with them (reassurance issues?), and with all the lovely creatures of the earth that are in the ark with them (and that he waved off as expendable vermin not six verses ago), which is that the flood waters won't kill anyone else, and not only that, but there will be no more ginormous floods ever again. Pinky swear. Anyways, they get the rainbow as a gift, remember the flood, bla blah, some repetition, and that's about it.
Third part: The three sons are Shem, Kham and Yefet. Kham is the father of Cna'an (the land on Can'an id going to be the land of Israel in a few eons, just wait. Accordingly, Shem is claimed to be the source of Semmetic people, those being Jews and Arabs, and hence the origin of the expression Anti-Semitism, Anti-Shemiut in Hebrew, meaning Anti-Belonging-To-Shem). Back to topic, the three went off to settle the land, and their Dad stayed right there and started a vineyard.
From here the story gets nasty. Noah gets drunk, starts doing PG-16 stuff in the tent, Kham catches him at it (why was the guy peeking into his father's tent anyways?) and tells his brothers (who stayed outside) that he saw his dad's… you know. Shem and Yefet grab a dress, each holding one side, and walk backwards towards their dad, so as not to see him in his shame. They spread the dress over his private parts without looking at him. Some time later Noah wakes up with one hell of a hangover and finds out what his little kid has done (I'm guessing this refers to Kham the peeping tom), so he choses the rational, sobered-up course of action and curses Kham's son, his grandson, to be his brother's slave. So he goes all 'Praise the Lord, who is oh-so-cool that he'll make Cna'an's offsprings the slaves of Shem and Yefet's offsprings for me because I flatter him so nicely'. And apparently it works. *shrugs* So Noah lives for 350 years after the flood. Then he dies. Then we're told that he lived 950 years in total. Then they remind us that he's dead. And that's about it.
I guess Noah kept grape seeds in the ark's store-room, just in case.
Then GOD confused their languages forcing them to move in different directions.
That was the tower of Babel.
Aren't you forgetting a kind of crucial element in this plot twist? You know, the story of the tower?
One group headed south. One group headed north east, another group north west.
Okay.
Hmmm, I can't help wondering what happened to all those poor saltwater fish who'se water sources got all diluted all of a sudden. I'm guessing they got depressurized and eventually went kaboom.
Poor fish.
Now most people who believe in evolution will tell you that humans came out of Africa, but if one of Noah's sons went south then he would have gone into Africa. This would leave behind a path of genetic variation identical to the one that is in all your books on evolution.
Memo: men can't create offsprings out of banana leaves*. It takes females for that. Hopefully of the same species, but perverted stuff aside, who says South=Africa? How far did this guy go?
And evolution says the origins of man lie in the continent Africa, meaning that the very first creature classified via DNA as a human would have been born there. That would be The First Man. Evolution says that the process from dirt to human was a little slower than the speed-painting brought to us by Genesis. Going from microorganism to H. Sapiens takes time. Not to mention getting that microorganism out of the water in the first place, but that's an entirely different story.
Also worth thinking about is this: If the human race has been around for billions of years and not just 6 to 7 thousand years, then where are all those graves? There should be a lot more dead bodies around here.
Ever heard of decomposition? Some live things eat dead things. And anyways, why should they build graves? How does in benefit anyone, aside from keeping a rotting, smelly corpse out of the way? Just drop it in the forest and let the predators have it. Circle of life and whatnot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living men are descended patrilineally (tracing back along the paternal lines of their family tree only). Y-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago in Africa and is the male counterpart of Mitochondrial Eve, although he lived much later than she did, possibly 50,000 to 80,000 years later.
Hmm, sounds scientific. Go on.
I did a paper once for school. I can't find it now but I will tell you what it said

There was an article about a great flood, it is believed by the person who wrote it that this was the source of all the flood stories, including the story of Noah. They did not believe that this flood covered the whole Earth, but just a large area of it.
Sounds plausible. Depends on when it happened, and why. I do know that almost every culture has a flood story in its myth archives somewhere. It could be partially due to civilization osmosis, though.
There were also two articles about the first common male ancestor and the first common female ancestor.

The papers when looked at together paint this image:
There once was a woman that is the mother of us all, she had a husband and many children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Good for her. Monogamic mammals are hard to come across. Go on.

Many generations latter a great disaster took place, most likely a flood.
This disastrous killed ever man on the planet except for the children of one man.
Sounds a bit unlikely, unless they all happened to be extremely lucky and gathered up somewhere high, or on something that floated (probably the first, since they'd have to eat), and were the only group survivors (lone survivors would die out, and so would their genetic contribution to the species). Well, I guess stuff happens. How much of a probability risk we're willing to take is not up to me to decide.
If one man and his wife, his sons and their wives were somehow kept safe then the single common male ancestor would be the father.
But the single common female ancestor would be the ancestor of all of the son's wives.
In other words, no common female ancestor. I'm thankful there's no incest in this storyline.
I was told that I was not looking at other possibilities, such as isolation of human groups.
Isolation and environmental pressure may limit the population of humans.
Bottlenecks. Pandas and cheetahs come to mind. This kind of scenario severely limits the gene pool.
I was told that genetic drift can explain away everything that I have shown above.
and that I provide no other evidence.
Well, whoever said that did have a point. If you want people to believe you, you need to try and prove it.
Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the relative frequency in which a gene variant (allele) occurs in a population due to random sampling and chance: The alleles in offspring are a random sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. A population's allele frequency is the fraction of the gene copies that share a particular form.
Ooh, I knew this would happen eventually. I learned this stuff in Hebrew. Relearning this is going to get really tiresome.
Sorry, this isn't your fault. I'll read it up somewhere. It wouldn't be fair of me to reply to these statements when I can't completely understand what I'm reading. In the name of decency, I'll refrain from commenting on the parts concerning information I don't know.
Genetic drift is an important evolutionary process, which leads to changes in allele frequencies over time. It may cause gene variants to disappear completely, and thereby reduce genetic variability. In contrast to natural selection, which makes gene variants more common or less common depending on their reproductive success, the changes due to genetic drift are not driven by environmental or adaptive pressures, and may be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to reproductive success.
Oh, it's not so bad. I think I can get the hang of most of it.
It was argued that "Natural selection predicts that such situations may occur when one individual possesses a trait that is advantageous during these times of pressure, and that the descendants with this trait would survive, hence the majority of survivors having similar genetic properties."
Yeah, they're right. I think I get it. * is proud*
I replied "One family would have a trait that would allow them to survive when all others die off. Such as getting into a large boat and surviving a flood that no one else believed was coming."
As far as I know, there's no 'Rad-Flood-Predicting-Boat-Building-and-Deep-Sea-Fishing-Skillz'. I highly doubt a family won the genetic lottery with an in-built watercraft manual. But I don't know that for sure, so...
This in my view shows how there could be one single male ancestor and a single female ancestor over a thousand years earlier.
...Huh?
Wait, what?
The person I was talking to then offered this possibility that I was not thinking about: such as alien invaders coming down, abducting a few people, eliminating the rest, probing the few survivors and putting them back on Earth.
...of course.
They also informed me that this was not their belief, just that it was something I was not looking at as a possibility.
Well, it's true. And just as probable as a metaphysical alien from outside the universe doing it, as the Good Book says.
Let's say that a race of aliens did come to Earth.
Okay. :D Hey, I'm an Anifan, I'm allowed some enthusiasm.
They abducted a man, his sons (but not daughters) and the wives of all those people. (Because daughters would have had husbands
or rapists, never forget the rapists
and pushed the common male ancestor farther back.)
Then these aliens killed every other human on Earth.
...cuz they were... ugly?
I mean, seriously, what just happened here? Why are humans even interesting enough to consider killing? 'specially the archaic ones. They barely knew how to rub a pair or sticks together. I mean, come on.
I then pointed out that I had said that a disaster had happened and that it was "most likely a flood."
Why is that the most likely? What makes that option likely at all? Ancient lore?
The point is that something killed off ever male human on Earth except for one man and his family who somehow escaped.
Or maybe they were just the most thriving. Or else he had many 'wives'. Or, you know, anti-chronological inter-family children. As in, uh, what's the word for this, lewdness? Well, stuff that's branded off as immoral by almost any standard I can think of.
I was then told "again, you're making assumptions"
Tru dat.
However all the assumptions I have made so far have been based on facts that are widely accepted by scientists who believe in evolution.
Nope. That's like saying 'Computer mice are named after mice, therefore when you click on one a real mouse somewhere gets a brain tumour'. This claim won't impress Microsoft's attorney when you charge them of encouraging animal abuse for gain and profit. It makes no sense unless you somehow prove it.
Also because almost every group of people on Earth has a story of a worldwide flood
Yup
and because there is evidence of a flood that covered most of the middle east about 6 thousand years ago
Where? Can we see it?
I said that this was most likely a flood that wiped all those people out.
A questionable probability at most.
"EVERY culture? There was a flood of Asia 6 thousand years ago? Where is your evidence? I want sources."
Well, yeah.
Sumerian great flood
Gilgamesh great flood
Never heard of those two, so I guess it's researching time. To the internets! *whizzz*
Noah's great flood
...Seriously? I'm going to get tired of saying this, but since when is the Bible a source of scientific proof for anything?
"Perhaps a lot of cultures lived near water. Considering that people need to drink, that seems quite likely. Places near water are likely to flood, so it may have been a big thing back then."
What about rivers, ponds, lakes... Well, assuming they lived in the Middle East, I guess it can make sense. There isn't much water to come by. *is struck by idea* When did Thetis dry up? *is off to find out*
True, but in this case "the big one" was big enough that only one man and his sons and their wives survived, ether by getting to higher ground, of by getting into some kind of ship (boat or space ship
LOLWUT.
if you want).
...Seriously, no.
Unless of course genetic drift can explain how a group of scientists who believe in evolution say that all humans beings on Earth had a single common male ancestor who lived 90,000 and
sounds like Jesus with time management issues... Nah, just kidding. I think you meant 'between', not 'and'. Being reborn sounds a little problematic.
60,000 years ago in Africa, yet our common female ancestor lived 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier.
Keeping in mind that if one generation is 25 years then that means that there are 2000 to 3200 generations between the first common male and first common female ancestor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_sin ... hypothesis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not the most recent ancestor shared by all humans
Main article: Most recent common ancestor

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor (MRCA). Since the mt DNA is inherited maternally and recombination is either rare or absent, it is relatively easy to track the ancestry of the lineages back to a MRCA; however this MRCA is valid only when discussing mitochondrial DNA. In approximate sequence from youngest to oldest we can list various important points in the ancestor of modern human populations:-

* The Human MRCA. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5000 years, even for people born on different continents.[12]
* The Identical ancestors point. Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans comes the time at which all humans who were alive either left no ancestors or are common ancestors to all humans alive today. In other words, from this point back in time "each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors". This is far more recent than Mitochondrial Eve.[12]
* "Y-Chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line ancestor of all living men, was much more recent than Mitochondrial Eve, but is also likely to have been long before the Identical ancestors point.


Wait, so all humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5000 years, even for people born on different continents.
But as a Christian I believe that Adam and Eve lived about 6000 years ago, and that around a thousand years later a man named Noah saved his family in a giant boat called an ark. That means that Noah would have lived at the same time as our "surprisingly recent common ancestor"!
Cool. So that means they weren't the First Humans Ever, but the First People of the Post-Flood Era. Or Post-Ice-Age, I guess. How does the ice age interlace with the Big Flood theory? Glaciers melting? Blending these two events might be worth a conspiracy-filled shot.
This was all based on stuff written by a man named Spencer Wells, a man who is not a Christian.

Spencer Wells (born April 6, 1969 in Georgia, United States) is a geneticist and anthropologist, an Explorer-in-Residence at the National Geographic Society, and Frank H.T. Rhodes Class of '56 Professor at Cornell University. He leads The Genographic Project.

Awards

* National Merit Scholar
* Phi Beta Kappa
* Howard Hughes Medical Institute Predoctoral Fellowship
* Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship
* CINE Golden Eagle, Journey of Man
* Fellow of The Explorers Club
* Kistler Prize
* Outstanding Young Texas Ex (Texas Exes)


This is about as unbiased as you can get.
No one is unbiased, or else in any way objective, but that is another matter entirely.

Whew, I made it through the Post of Seven Pages. Now known as the Post Reply of Eleven Pages. Yaaaaaaaah. Two hours and something.
Wow.

Sorry if I was a bit crass (I suppose I was at some point or another). I'm not really sure of what I'm typing. Also, if there are any mistakes, I'll appreciate it if you point them out.
And lastly, I'm sorry if I messed up some of the English. ^^
Please picture my text in this color. Thankyu.
Image

Avv © Culpeo-Fox

Image
*hi fives Blu*

Isn't quite sure how I feel about anything at the moment.

User avatar
Blu
Rampant Drunk
Rampant Drunk
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:07 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Location: Behind you

Re: The Great Flood

Post by Blu » Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:49 am

Let's wait for his reply, Luna :D

Oh, and just for the record, I was the guy he was quoting a lot.