-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I'd like to try a different approach Megaman.
James Ussher placed the date of Creation in 4004 BC, and the date of Noah's Flood in 2348 BC. It's the date of the Flood I am interested in at the moment. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Flood was an actual event then humanity experienced the eradication of all races of mankind on that date with the exception of the racial group Noah and his family represented. This would mean that all existing racial groups must have evolved from Noah's family. How long did it take for today’s racial groups to arise? If we take the art work and records of antiquity as a gauge then our contemporary groupings were already present 2000 years ago. Have a look a the busts created by the Greeks and Romans, the Chinese terracotta army, and so. It would seem there has been little change in the past 2000 years. It's very likely that the origin of today's races actually stretches much further back than 2000 years ago. If so, when did Noah's family give rise to the present human diversity?
If the Creation account is accurate then Noah's family must have evolved very rapidly and then stopped evolving. How do you account for this? If such enormous change took place in the first 2000 years following the Flood why didn't that rapid change continue in the second 2000 years? Does it make any sense to you? To make matters worse for the Creation story, all human diversity had been wiped out by the Flood.
Evolutionists often argue that the small human population following the flood would have resulted in a genetic bottleneck. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think there were only seven individuals in Noah's family. Creationists counter that the human genome was so stable back then that Noah's grandchildren were protected from genetic errors, but without genetic errors you can't have genetic adaption to the environment, and without adaptation new races will not arise.
The Creation account on this level seems self-defeating. How can you account for all the new races of mankind arising in such a short time and then stabilizing so no further changes take place? If little genetic change has taken place in the past two millennium then by Creationist reckoning the human genome must have become a lot hardier, but this contradicts Creationist claims about it becoming more susceptible to genetic alteration.
The only way I can rationalize this is by arguing that the Flood was a lot further back than 4000 years ago. I've had my own genome tested by Ancestry.ca and my R1b haplogroup is estimated to have originated 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. The question is, is that even a long enough span of time to evolve the human groups we see on Earth today?
PS: If you haven't seen the Terracotta Army, do so. It's truly amazing!
"The Terracotta Army or the "Terra Cotta Warriors and Horses", is a collection of terracotta sculptures depicting the armies of Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor of China. It is a form of funerary art buried with the emperor in 210–209 BC and whose purpose was to protect the emperor in his afterlife." If you haven't seen this check it out at Wikipedia. It's absolutely stunning.
See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terracotta_Army>
James Ussher placed the date of Creation in 4004 BC, and the date of Noah's Flood in 2348 BC. It's the date of the Flood I am interested in at the moment. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Flood was an actual event then humanity experienced the eradication of all races of mankind on that date with the exception of the racial group Noah and his family represented. This would mean that all existing racial groups must have evolved from Noah's family. How long did it take for today’s racial groups to arise? If we take the art work and records of antiquity as a gauge then our contemporary groupings were already present 2000 years ago. Have a look a the busts created by the Greeks and Romans, the Chinese terracotta army, and so. It would seem there has been little change in the past 2000 years. It's very likely that the origin of today's races actually stretches much further back than 2000 years ago. If so, when did Noah's family give rise to the present human diversity?
If the Creation account is accurate then Noah's family must have evolved very rapidly and then stopped evolving. How do you account for this? If such enormous change took place in the first 2000 years following the Flood why didn't that rapid change continue in the second 2000 years? Does it make any sense to you? To make matters worse for the Creation story, all human diversity had been wiped out by the Flood.
Evolutionists often argue that the small human population following the flood would have resulted in a genetic bottleneck. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think there were only seven individuals in Noah's family. Creationists counter that the human genome was so stable back then that Noah's grandchildren were protected from genetic errors, but without genetic errors you can't have genetic adaption to the environment, and without adaptation new races will not arise.
The Creation account on this level seems self-defeating. How can you account for all the new races of mankind arising in such a short time and then stabilizing so no further changes take place? If little genetic change has taken place in the past two millennium then by Creationist reckoning the human genome must have become a lot hardier, but this contradicts Creationist claims about it becoming more susceptible to genetic alteration.
The only way I can rationalize this is by arguing that the Flood was a lot further back than 4000 years ago. I've had my own genome tested by Ancestry.ca and my R1b haplogroup is estimated to have originated 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. The question is, is that even a long enough span of time to evolve the human groups we see on Earth today?
PS: If you haven't seen the Terracotta Army, do so. It's truly amazing!
"The Terracotta Army or the "Terra Cotta Warriors and Horses", is a collection of terracotta sculptures depicting the armies of Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor of China. It is a form of funerary art buried with the emperor in 210–209 BC and whose purpose was to protect the emperor in his afterlife." If you haven't seen this check it out at Wikipedia. It's absolutely stunning.
See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terracotta_Army>
M
Likely? based on what? Conjecture and hypothesis. I don't see much more in here other than "Well, there's this alternative, which is really just an opinion."
Who says the change stopped after 2000 years? I've never heard any creationist say this. It's obvious genetic mutations haven't stopped in the modern day. Heck, we have things like genetic diseases which didn't exist 4000 years ago, and you're trying to tell me the change has stopped. Sorry, but this just isn't adding up.
1. There were 8 people on the ark. Noah and his wife, and his 3 sons and their wives.
2. You ask for a genetic bottleneck from the flood, that's what we've been seeing. You can even see evidence of this right in the Bible. Genetics has an effect on our lifespan. Look how long the people lived prior to the flood, 700+ years was the norm (Enoch was the exception). Then, no one born after the flood lived to be over 600 years old, and you can see a sharp and rapid decline into the 100s and lower not too long after the flood.
3. Yes, I believe the human genome was more stable back then (hence they didn't have things like genetic diseases back then). But to think that just because the genome was more stable that genetic errors would not occur at all is preposterous on your part, especially considering how it would be close family members that were making offspring.
It only takes 1-2 generations of offspring to have a noticeable change. Just look at Mendel's flower breeding experiments.
There's a slight problem with dating the flood to 35,000-40,000 years ago. All the ancient cultures from the middle east had all their ancient calanders starting all around the same time, and year 0 was the year after the flood.
Who says the change stopped after 2000 years? I've never heard any creationist say this. It's obvious genetic mutations haven't stopped in the modern day. Heck, we have things like genetic diseases which didn't exist 4000 years ago, and you're trying to tell me the change has stopped. Sorry, but this just isn't adding up.
1. There were 8 people on the ark. Noah and his wife, and his 3 sons and their wives.
2. You ask for a genetic bottleneck from the flood, that's what we've been seeing. You can even see evidence of this right in the Bible. Genetics has an effect on our lifespan. Look how long the people lived prior to the flood, 700+ years was the norm (Enoch was the exception). Then, no one born after the flood lived to be over 600 years old, and you can see a sharp and rapid decline into the 100s and lower not too long after the flood.
3. Yes, I believe the human genome was more stable back then (hence they didn't have things like genetic diseases back then). But to think that just because the genome was more stable that genetic errors would not occur at all is preposterous on your part, especially considering how it would be close family members that were making offspring.
It only takes 1-2 generations of offspring to have a noticeable change. Just look at Mendel's flower breeding experiments.
There's a slight problem with dating the flood to 35,000-40,000 years ago. All the ancient cultures from the middle east had all their ancient calanders starting all around the same time, and year 0 was the year after the flood.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
As a Christian I believe the flood happened. The question I have is was it global or regional? I can't say. I have never placed a date on it or cared to "prove" it existed. Science is man's attempt to group thru reality to find truth. Science is limited to what it can test. The science of today may not be the science of tomorrow as science if frequently updated as new evidence is discovered.
Perhaps today the evidence can not prove a flood. Who knows what tomorrow might bring? ALl I know is the bible states that it happened and I believe it in faith.
Perhaps today the evidence can not prove a flood. Who knows what tomorrow might bring? ALl I know is the bible states that it happened and I believe it in faith.
M
I don't see much of a point raised in the first paragraph, because here's your conclusion.
But I don't see where you presented strong evidence for this, only hypothesis and theorizing. Also, the phrase "It's likely" or "it's very likely" doesn't carry much weight with me. I prefer absolutes and confidence, instead of possibilities, maybes, and likelys. That probably stems from reading the Bible so much, with so many bold and confident proclaimations, like when Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth, and the life." (John 14:6) Jesus didn't say he was one possible way, or he might be the way, or he's likely the way, He boldly proclaimed he was THE way.
The 2348 BC you quoted sounds about right, maybe too early, but it's been a while since I researched flood estimation dates, and I'm terrible at remembering dates anyhow. 2348 BC almost sounds like not far enough back to me, but from what I remember, the flood should be between 3200-2300 BC. Is that range good enough for you to work with, or shall I look for something more exact again?
But I don't see where you presented strong evidence for this, only hypothesis and theorizing. Also, the phrase "It's likely" or "it's very likely" doesn't carry much weight with me. I prefer absolutes and confidence, instead of possibilities, maybes, and likelys. That probably stems from reading the Bible so much, with so many bold and confident proclaimations, like when Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth, and the life." (John 14:6) Jesus didn't say he was one possible way, or he might be the way, or he's likely the way, He boldly proclaimed he was THE way.
The 2348 BC you quoted sounds about right, maybe too early, but it's been a while since I researched flood estimation dates, and I'm terrible at remembering dates anyhow. 2348 BC almost sounds like not far enough back to me, but from what I remember, the flood should be between 3200-2300 BC. Is that range good enough for you to work with, or shall I look for something more exact again?
M
The main point you brought up is that there was change for 2000 years after the flood, and that supposedly change has stopped for the 2000 years after that. But note the word supposedly. There really isn't anything for me to address, because the notion that change has stopped for the past 2000 years is nothing but conjecture, conjecture that I don't know who you're pulling it from, but it isn't from any creationists I've heard of. I even gave examples of how the claim that we have stopped changing for the last 2000 years is inaccurate, so there goes your point.
...I think the main point was that if one accepts such a date for the flood and its global scale you'd have to explain how there were flourishing civilizations of different ethnicities around this period of time. You know, it's almost as if there wasn't a global flood that destroyed all of mankind save one family.
I mean, good luck in establishing ethnic groups and empires in South America, Australia, or China within a century after the flood that purportedly annihilated them.
I mean, good luck in establishing ethnic groups and empires in South America, Australia, or China within a century after the flood that purportedly annihilated them.
Archaeological sites, books they wrote, annals and historical compilations written by later generations, structures they erected, their enduring myths etc.
Of course, if a "flooder" doubts all of these, then it's quite easy to turn around and ask how they know ancient Israel even existed. Might want to check ancient Israelite chronicles or accounts of their monarchs and their myths, just as one would with any other civilisation (found, of course, in the Bible).
It's interesting to note that many of these seemingly unconnected groups - the Chinese, the Incans, First Nations in North America, the Sumerians etc. all have their own narrative that describes a great flood. Legends from cultures without an emphasis on written language are difficult to understand, but the Chinese place it during the reign of an emperor who ruled 2356–2255 BC.
But obviously it didn't destroy them - or else they wouldn't be around to tell the tale, would they?
Of course, if a "flooder" doubts all of these, then it's quite easy to turn around and ask how they know ancient Israel even existed. Might want to check ancient Israelite chronicles or accounts of their monarchs and their myths, just as one would with any other civilisation (found, of course, in the Bible).
It's interesting to note that many of these seemingly unconnected groups - the Chinese, the Incans, First Nations in North America, the Sumerians etc. all have their own narrative that describes a great flood. Legends from cultures without an emphasis on written language are difficult to understand, but the Chinese place it during the reign of an emperor who ruled 2356–2255 BC.
But obviously it didn't destroy them - or else they wouldn't be around to tell the tale, would they?