Sapiens
Polymathematician
The reality is that a bottleneck that small would likely result in the extinction of any species subjected to it. The answer is real simple ... it never happened.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence for and against young earth creationism.
- Thread starter Brian Schuh
- Start date
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Just a quick search (not easy to find much from non-religious sources) -but some consider such things as Polystrate Fossils -found all over the world -evidence of a flood:
"One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils." Such fossils are found all over the world: especially in and around coal seams. "(from: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm)
Plants would also quickly grow from seeds, etc., after the water receded.
This is about evidence of a major flood -not necessarily the biblical flood -near where the ark would have landed.....
( https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/sep/14/internationalnews.archaeology )
I suppose the human genetic lines might seem to reset more drastically in places far from the resting place of the ark -assuming there were humans there previously -but would otherwise appear as a genetic bottleneck. I have no clue what evidence there might be of that in genes.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Polystrate fossils? You are kidding, of course.
From the National Center for Science Education:
Question: Creationists like Dr. N. A. Rupke, a geologist of the State University of Groningen in the Netherlands, claim that certain fossil trees (which they call "polystrate fossils") extend vertically through many meters of strata. Rupke says they are found in such coal-producing areas as the Ruhr region of Germany, Lancashire in England, and Joggins in Nova Scotia. How do you reply?
Answer: The creationists again mishandle their sources. The evidence shows that the vertical trees were really buried by flooding rivers.
For instance, Scientific Creationism (p. 108) quotes F. M. Broadhurst (1964, p. 866) as saying:
It is clear that trees in position of growth are far from being rare in Lancashire (Teichmuller, 1956 reaches the same conclusion for similar trees in the Rhein-Westfalen Coal Measures), and presumably in all such cases there must have been a rapid rate of sedimentation.
However, Broadhurst has some evidence that river floods buried these trees, evidence that the creationists do not mention. He continues:
... there must have been a rapid rate of sedimentation. This sedimentation occurred, without doubt, in water that could not have been fast-flowing, since the trees were left in a standing position. It is possible that the land surface with its trees was inundated by flood water (possibly on numerous occasions) from adjacent waterways, the flood water bringing with it large amounts of sediment.
He goes on to say that fossil polystrate trees are found only in the coarse-grained rocks, but not in the fine-grained ones. The reason is that the sediments of the latter probably did not settle fast enough to bury the trees before they rotted away:
The most likely explanation of the apparent absence of such trees from these sediments is that the latter accumulated too slowly; any trees decayed and collapsed before they could be enclosed by sediments.
Hence the river flood theory can explain why the trees are found upright and why trees were preserved in some rocks but not others; the creationist catastrophe theory cannot.
Also Stearn, Carroll, and Clark mention the polystrate lycopsid trees in the Pennsylvanian coal deposits of Joggins, Nova Scotia. Their point is simply this: Every so often one or more river floods would bury a forest of lycopsid plants up to ten meters deep in sediment. After each flood, a new lycopsid forest would grow out of the newly deposited sediments. Eventually, as the tops of the trees rotted away, the pulpy interior of the trees would also rot away, leaving the more resistant outer wood surrounding a pit as deep as ten meters.
Primitive reptiles fell into these pits, died of starvation there, and were buried when fresh flood sediments and plant matter filled the pits. Superficially, these trees look as though they support the Noachian flood theory, but ordinary geology explains the evidence much more easily.
From the National Center for Science Education:
Question: Creationists like Dr. N. A. Rupke, a geologist of the State University of Groningen in the Netherlands, claim that certain fossil trees (which they call "polystrate fossils") extend vertically through many meters of strata. Rupke says they are found in such coal-producing areas as the Ruhr region of Germany, Lancashire in England, and Joggins in Nova Scotia. How do you reply?
Answer: The creationists again mishandle their sources. The evidence shows that the vertical trees were really buried by flooding rivers.
For instance, Scientific Creationism (p. 108) quotes F. M. Broadhurst (1964, p. 866) as saying:
It is clear that trees in position of growth are far from being rare in Lancashire (Teichmuller, 1956 reaches the same conclusion for similar trees in the Rhein-Westfalen Coal Measures), and presumably in all such cases there must have been a rapid rate of sedimentation.
However, Broadhurst has some evidence that river floods buried these trees, evidence that the creationists do not mention. He continues:
... there must have been a rapid rate of sedimentation. This sedimentation occurred, without doubt, in water that could not have been fast-flowing, since the trees were left in a standing position. It is possible that the land surface with its trees was inundated by flood water (possibly on numerous occasions) from adjacent waterways, the flood water bringing with it large amounts of sediment.
He goes on to say that fossil polystrate trees are found only in the coarse-grained rocks, but not in the fine-grained ones. The reason is that the sediments of the latter probably did not settle fast enough to bury the trees before they rotted away:
The most likely explanation of the apparent absence of such trees from these sediments is that the latter accumulated too slowly; any trees decayed and collapsed before they could be enclosed by sediments.
Hence the river flood theory can explain why the trees are found upright and why trees were preserved in some rocks but not others; the creationist catastrophe theory cannot.
Also Stearn, Carroll, and Clark mention the polystrate lycopsid trees in the Pennsylvanian coal deposits of Joggins, Nova Scotia. Their point is simply this: Every so often one or more river floods would bury a forest of lycopsid plants up to ten meters deep in sediment. After each flood, a new lycopsid forest would grow out of the newly deposited sediments. Eventually, as the tops of the trees rotted away, the pulpy interior of the trees would also rot away, leaving the more resistant outer wood surrounding a pit as deep as ten meters.
Primitive reptiles fell into these pits, died of starvation there, and were buried when fresh flood sediments and plant matter filled the pits. Superficially, these trees look as though they support the Noachian flood theory, but ordinary geology explains the evidence much more easily.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
earth creationism, always keep me amused, and give me a good laugh. 
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Just saying that was something someone considered evidence. I have not considered it.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
That is assuming they are not related to other marsupials elsewhere, etc. Men are believed to have traveled to Australia by boat or raft as long ago as 50,000 years -so some sort of marsupial hitching a ride on a boat much later is not out of the question.
If the kangaroo is related to other marsupials in the area, the same question would apply to how they traveled to various islands, etc.
One question I would have is how much a species could evolve in about 4,500 years
"Australidelphian Marsupials
For kangaroos, the next highest level of kinship correlates with geography. Diprodontotia is one of the five taxonomic orders in the superorder Australidelphia, which encompasses 200 or so species of mammals found in Australia and New Guinea. The sole exception is the monito del monte of Chile and Argentina, which seems to have more in common with kangaroos and other Australiasian marsupials than with any living species in South America. Australidelphian marsupials include carnivorous species such as the Tasmanian devil and marsupial moles which, like other moles, dig underground burrows."
"The time it takes for species to recognisably diverge in nature seems, purely empirically, to be of the order of a hundred generations. On the other hand, human driven breeding can make massive changes in ten generations. Probably, under extreme stress, nature would speed up as well."
(from: https://www.quora.com/How-fast-do-s...es-it-take-What-about-the-evolution-of-humans)
Last edited:
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
You don't have go far back...
The Greek empire existed approximately 10k years ago..
There are plenty of burial sites and graves, and a lot of tools and pottery found dating back.
also consider you had tribes and clans that are of no specific glory like the known civilization, yet they were social and cultural socialites...
VioletVortex
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure that humanity would die off after about four generations of that kind of inbreeding. Inbreeding is very closely linked to hemophilia, short stature, VWD, susceptibility to certain cancers etc. With the kind of medical care (or lack of thereof) that the Africans had at that time, a few generations of inbreeding would kill everyone.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are a Christian, in which case, your conception of creation is not in line with that of the bible, where god allegedly created Adam and Eve, and they were the progenitors of humanity.
You can tell from the fossil record that homo habilis and homo erectus
were not civilised species, and that they did, in fact exist in prehistoric times. You can tell that they did not have a proper civilisation by the fact that they left the sick and injured behind, and by the lack of artifacts characteristic of a civilization.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
It does not warrant consideration.
There have been kangaroo fossils found in Australia that are millions of years old, so the idea of humans bringing them there isn't plausible.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Don't know much about that -but humans bringing animals wherever they went is definitely plausible -regardless of when.
You can't really take humans out of the equation -as they have the power to change what otherwise would happen.
Are the kangaroos in Australia today directly related to the older marsupials -or is it assumed because they are similar?
Are the bloodlines of the indigenous people unbroken? How might that be known?
I know nothing about DNA -so I do not know what sort of evidence would show what.
Marsupials apparently existed in Australia 25 million years ago -China 125 million years ago -and how any species traveled to exist where they are today is beyond me.
There are more than enough variables when not considering supernatural activity -and adding the variables of what is not stated in scripture would only compound the difficulty.
As the main goal of the flood was to remove humans -animals being essentially collateral damage -and what is actually stated is that there was worldwide deaths of animals and humans -I would focus on finding evidence of that first.
That is... if I did not have other things to do.
While this is interesting to me -it is not extremely important. When I think that the whole young earth creation vs. evolution controversy is based on the misunderstanding of one word and assumptions about the words others wrote -thinking about the various ways physical evidence might be misleading boggles my mind.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void;
Regardless of original intent or belief.... if the word "was" was changed to "became" or "had become" -which is perfectly allowable given the definition -and correct given other scripture -the assumption that what followed was the very beginning would be less likely.
H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass.................
If it was read and understood/taught like this instead.....
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth HAD BECOME without form, and void; ...........which allows for any amount of time
The entire young earth controversy would not exist.
That is one word -so I'm not even going to try to make sense of more evidence than I could possibly understand.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
If you know nothing about DNA, nothing about geology and nothing about bio-geography don't you think you'd best sit this one outt?
Don't know about that, you'd still have the problem of all the "events" from the tower and the flood, to the Exodus and more that never occurred.
Young Earth creationism posits that Pangea existed until the great flood broke it apart into the continents we see today. When Pangea existed, Australia's west coast was connected to India and Tibet. If this was the case a mere 4,000 years ago, then contemporary animals from Australia should have been able to freely migrate to India and Tibet. Therefore, we should see kangaroo fossils/remains in India and Tibet (among those of other modern Australian fauna). As far as I know, no such fossils have been found. This supports the idea of Kangaroos having evolved on Australia after it had already separated from Asia. Kangaroos are not known from South America either, which is where genetic studies show that all modern marsupials have ancestors. South America was once connected to a greener Antarctica at its southern tip, which in turn was connected to Australia. This is how South American marsupials ended up in Australia. Marsupials in the Americas originally came across the landbridge that once connected Asia to Alaska. So they basically migrated around in a giant circle to come to Australia.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Just a quick search (not easy to find much from non-religious sources) -but some consider such things as Polystrate Fossils -found all over the world -evidence of a flood:
(from: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm)
Plants would also quickly grow from seeds, etc., after the water receded.
This is about evidence of a major flood -not necessarily the biblical flood -near where the ark would have landed.....
( https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/sep/14/internationalnews.archaeology )
I suppose the human genetic lines might seem to reset more drastically in places far from the resting place of the ark -assuming there were humans there previously -but would otherwise appear as a genetic bottleneck. I have no clue what evidence there might be of that in genes.
....
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil
A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum.[1] This term is typically applied to "fossil forests" of upright fossil tree trunks and stumps that have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, andAustralia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata.[2] Within Carboniferous coal-bearing strata, it is also very common to find what are called Stigmaria (root stocks) within the same stratum. Stigmaria are completely absent in post-Carboniferous strata, which contain either coal, polystrate trees, or both. The word polystrate is not a standardgeological term. This term is typically found in creationist publications.[1][3]
Upright fossils typically occur in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time - decades to thousands of years long - characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal-plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused bysalt tectonics, global sea-level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Like I said -just a quick search which turned up what some viewed as evidence -don't know much about it.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Zosimus
Active Member
About 300 million years ago, so science tells us, all the continents and landmases were part of one big continent, called Pangaea, surrounded by a giant sea, called Panthalassa. Over the course of millions of years those tectonic plates, moving perhaps 2 inches a year, slowly worked their way into their present configuration that we know today.
Yet, surprisingly, Africa and South America still retain a shape that could be stuck together and fit. Isn't it amazing that erosion was put on hold for 300 million years?
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
You do not understand even the basics of what you're talking about, nor how foolish you're making yourself look...
In your best interest, I recommend that you research (at least briefly) a topic before you try and defend a position against it.
gnostic
The Lost One
If the traditional datings of the Jewish calendar is correct, that would put the 6-day creation at 3777 BCE, and the Flood at 2121 BCE.
Other possible dating put the creation at 3996 BCE and the Flood at 2340 BCE.
Because Genesis doesn't mention any name of city or kingdom that can be historically and archaeologically traced, until after the Flood in Genesis 10, therefore we can only talk of civilisations after the flood.
What I mean by traced, is that the city or kingdom actually exist archaeologically, a real city or a real kingdom. The city, supposedly found and built by Cain, son of Adam, after the murder of Abel - called Enoch (Genesis 4:17) - don't exist, therefore it is considered mythological, invented by the people who wrote Genesis.
Between Genesis 4:17 and Genesis 9, no other cities or civilisations were even listed, so we really don't have anything to work with.
According to Genesis 10:6, the kingdom of Egypt, called Mizraim in KJV, didn't exist, until AFTER THE FLOOD. Egypt (or Mizraim) was supposedly named after the son of Ham.
Also listed, are names of some cities, built by one man, Nimrod, son of Cush and grandson of Ham. Nimrod supposedly had his built in Mesopotamia, with Babylon (Babel in KJV), Uruk (Erech in KJV), Akkad (Accad) and Calneh in Babylonia (Shinar) (Genesis 10:10) and Nineveh, Calah and Rehoboth in Assyria (Asshur) (Genesis 10:11). All of these cities were supposedly built after the flood.
The evidences against YEC is that Egypt, Uruk, Babylon and Akkad all predated 2121 BCE, the supposed Flood.
The building of pyramids began with the 1st king of the 3rd dynasty (2686 - 2613 BCE) of the Old Kingdom, Djoser (2686-2667 BCE).
But Egypt existed, culturally before the two kingdoms (known as the "Two Lands", Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt) were unified (c 3050 BCE) by the 1st dynasty (c 3050 - 2890 BCE), known as the Predynastic period (c the 4000 - c 3050 BCE).
The Predynastic period actually begin at around 6000 BCE, but what is recognisably "Egyptian" can only be found in
the Naqada culture (c 4000 - c 3100 BCE) in Upper Egypt,
and the El Omari culture (c 4000 - 3000 BCE) and Maadi culture (c 4000 - 3200 BCE) in Lower Egypt.
and the El Omari culture (c 4000 - 3000 BCE) and Maadi culture (c 4000 - 3200 BCE) in Lower Egypt.
There are of course, older cultures before these, but I wouldn't worry about the earlier Neolithic cultures in Egypt. Neolithic settlements began appearing by 6000 BCE.
I am mentioning the 4th millennium BCE Predynastic Egypt, because these cultures produced artworks and pottery that were no different from 1st and 2nd dynasties.
And some of Egyptian deities are recognisably found in this millennium, such as Horus, Seth, Hathor, Neit (or Neith), etc. Building of cities also began at this stage; before 4000 BCE, settlements were more like villages than cities.
All these evidences about Egypt showed evidences against the notion that Egypt only existing after the flood, whether it 2121 BCE, or 2340 BCE.
Similarly, it is the same with cities in Mesopotamia.
For instance, the location to Akkad cannot be found, after its destruction by the Gutians around 2150 BCE, causing the collapse of the Akkadian empire. Akkad was a city that was either exist before Sargon of Akkad, or it was built by Sargon. In either cases, Akkad was city of Sargon, not this nonexistent Nimrod.
Sargon (reign 2334 - 2279 BCE) was the founder of the Akkadian dynasty and Akkadian empire, conquering all the cities of Sumer. Although, Akkad is lost, evidences of his existence can be found in artefacts and in comtempoary writings, as well in writings of later date (eg the King List of Sumer) in other cities.
These are evidences that Akkad is much earlier than the 2121 BCE flood. If Ham didn't have children until after the flood, then sons could not have reach adulthood until at the very least 2100 BCE; Genesis 10 doesn't provide any date of when Ham's sons (eg Cush) and Nimrod (grandson) were born, so I made a assumption that if Cush was born in 2120, he would not become a man until he reached 20, hence the date 2100 BCE. And assuming that Nimrod wasn't born til 2120, then he would become a man at 2080 BCE.
These dates are merely assumptions, so don't take it literally or seriously. My point, that if my estimated dates were true, then cities were built much later than 2121 BCE.
And the city of Uruk or Erech is definitely much older than the flood of 2121 and older still than Nimrod. It was one of many important Sumerian cities during the 3rd millennium BCE. But Uruk is even older than Sumerian period. During the 4th millennium BCE, Uruk was then the largest city in the world, and with the largest population. Uruk reached its height between 3600 - 3100 BCE, where it had constructed a number of temples to Inanna (Akkadian-Babylonian Ishtar) and An (Akkadian-Babylonian Anu), and the earliest proto-Sumerian cuneiforms were discovered in pre-Bronze Age Uruk.
But the earliest settlement at Uruk have been dated to about 5000 BCE, during the Eridu period.
So Genesis 10 is also wrong about Uruk. There is no way for post-flood Uruk to be true.
All these refute Genesis post-flood civilisations, without once mentioning human "evolution".