Proof for Noah's Flood

[dhchristian]

One of the greatest proofs for the Genesis account comes from the mouth of the very people opposed to the Creation account in Genesis. 

Due to the Lack of transitional fossils, some evolutionists proposed that evolution was marked by "punctuated Equilibrium" as opposed to gradualism. This is  a scientific explanation for why there are so few transitional forms in the fossil record. The following is from Wikipedia on this topic just to help you understand this.

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once a species appears in the fossil record the population will become stable, showing little evolutionary change for most of its geological history.^[1] This state of little or no morphological change is called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.

Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the idea that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.^[3]

In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.^[1] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's model of geographic speciation,^[4] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,^[5] and their own empirical research.^[6][7] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin^[8] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Well this theory in light what scripture says regarding of the Flood of Noah's day makes perfect sense. The Flood of Noah being the big Punctuation mark in the History of the earth. The Apostle Peter writes: 

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (2 Peter 3:3-6)

By Denying God, the evolutionists are denying the proofs of a cataclysmic flood (willingly are ignorant of it) Yet they are forced to contend with the evidences that are out there for this so they come up with a theory such as punctuated Equilibrium to explain this sort of cataclysm. I Find this very amusing, because this theory goes against the very assumptions of Darwinian evolution of uniformitarianism of the historical record. You see, Darwinian evolution relies on time and chance for change, Punctuated equilibrium nullifies time and chance and a uniform history. 

The genesis account says that God spared 2 of the various kinds Of animals. So he had two dogs on the ark, not two great danes, and two huskies, and two German shepherds. He may have had two wolves, and two foxes and two Jackals as well on the ark, but the varieties of each kind were not present. This is a reason for the large variance in numbers of animals on the ark the next paragraph speaks of. Then there were seven of every clean animal on board, such as sheep, one of which was sacrificed when the flood was over by Noah. 

It is estimated that there were anywhere from 5000 to 35,ooo animals on the ark. The average size of the animals would have been about the size of a sheep requiring about 12 cubic feet to house each animal. That would make the ark about 1/3 full of animals leaving the other 2/3 for food provisions for them, and Noah and his family. When these Kinds then departed from the ark and started to breed there was an explosion of species that came from these Kinds, depending on the environment into which they moved the varieties would grow exponentially. This is your punctuated equilibrium, since the environment of the earth was dramatically changed by the flood (the waters over the earth were no longer there) the variations increased from those original pre-dilluvian kinds to the ones we have today which are largely living in "stasis" with minor fluctuations from environmental changes. (Microevolution)

We also see this in exponential growth in the human species. Where as before the flood the races were likely similar in appearance due to the waters over the earth, the new environment made certain skin colors thrive in certain environment more than others, because of the solar radiation arriving on the earth. This also caused the lifespan of Humans to decrease exponentially as the pre flood people lived up to 900+ years this shrunk down to the hundred or so years after the flood we now have. This would also cause the reproductive age to be younger, so a reproductive generation for say humans became 20-40 years as opposed to the long reproductive generations before the flood. What does this mean? Faster repopulation of the planet. 

There is the old adage would you take a penny a day double or a million dollars in one day, and the wise answer would be a penny a day doubled for 30 days because you would end up with 5 million dollars in 30 days. Well that would mean that the population of the earth with 20 year reproductive generations could grow to millions over the course 600 years which is the case we see in human history. Obviously environmental things affect this such as disease and wars, but population reproduction rates exploded after the flood as did diversification of species. Different breeds of dogs, and different breeds of foxes and wolves began to develop over a short time span. (the reproductive generation of most animals is a about a year or two, compared to the human 20 years, so they would multiply faster and cover the earth quicker as well as diversify faster).

Conclusion:

So Here we see (forgive my rambling post) that depending on which set assumptions you approach the facts with, whether Biblical or evolutionists, you will interpret that facts differently. Evolutionists had to explain this set of evidences with a materialistic invention "punctuated Equilibrium" where as we who believe the Bible see this as evidence of the Flood of Noah.  

 

 

[The Barbarian]

On 3/3/2020 at 7:40 AM, dhchristian said:

Due to the Lack of transitional fossils,

YE creationists disagree with you:

Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e4d/0ab89242a5ddc40a8a74fc53361861fbcabf.pdf

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.

YE Creationist Dr. Todd Wood

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

 

On 3/3/2020 at 7:40 AM, dhchristian said:

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once a species appears in the fossil record the population will become stable, showing little evolutionary change for most of its geological history.^[

This was one of Darwin's predictions in On The Origin of Species.    It also fits the observed data, showing that unusual species are often found in small populations in out-of-the-way places.   The process is not surprising.  

1. population is isolated in a new environment.

2. Natural selection makes the population more fit.

3. When fitness increases, evolution slows down or stops.

This matches observed cases.    One of the reasons this works, is the "founder effect", the likelihood that a smaller population will have less diversity, and therefore will tend to diverge from the larger populations more rapidly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect

On 3/3/2020 at 7:40 AM, dhchristian said:

By Denying God, the evolutionists are denying the proofs of a cataclysmic flood (willingly are ignorant of it)

Denying the modern revision of YE creationism, is not denying God.    It's denying changes fallible men have made to scripture.

On 3/3/2020 at 7:40 AM, dhchristian said:

We also see this in exponential growth in the human species. Where as before the flood the races were likely similar in appearance due to the waters over the earth, the new environment made certain skin colors thrive in certain environment more than others, because of the solar radiation arriving on the earth. This also caused the lifespan of Humans to decrease exponentially as the pre flood people lived up to 900+ years this shrunk down to the hundred or so years after the flood we now have. This would also cause the reproductive age to be younger, so a reproductive generation for say humans became 20-40 years as opposed to the long reproductive generations before the flood. What does this mean? Faster repopulation of the planet. 

All this is man's addition to scripture, which does not support any of it.   Nor is there any scientific evidence that the amount of solar radiation could change life spans to 10% of what they had been before.   It's just a story people insert into God's word to make it more acceptable to them.

 

 

 

/

[dhchristian]

On 3/3/2020 at 8:40 AM, dhchristian said:

Conclusion:

So Here we see (forgive my rambling post) that depending on which set assumptions you approach the facts with, whether Biblical or evolutionists, you will interpret that facts differently. Evolutionists had to explain this set of evidences with a materialistic invention "punctuated Equilibrium" where as we who believe the Bible see this as evidence of the Flood of Noah.  

bump

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, dhchristian said:

So Here we see (forgive my rambling post) that depending on which set assumptions you approach the facts with

No assumptions necessary.  Facts are required.   And as you see, the facts, such as the large number of transitional fossils cited by your fellow YE creationists, indicate common descent, and are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."  (Dr. Wise's words) 

Wise still prefers to go with his interpretation of scripture, but he's honest enough to admit what the evidence is, as is Dr. Wood, who also acknoweldges that the evidence does support evolution.

6 hours ago, dhchristian said:

whether Biblical or evolutionists, you will interpret that facts differently.

Not if one is honest enough to acknowledge the facts.   As you see, honest and informed creationists admit that the evidence supports evolutionary theory,even if they prefer to believe their interpretation of scripture instead.

 

 

[Paul James]

On 3/2/2020 at 2:59 AM, dhchristian said:

The following link shows evidence from Chinese writing of the Biblical Narrative. There is a lot more to this evidence and I suggest you go and look up some videos on this as they do a better job explaining this than just this article. For a starter read this to get the gist of this evidence as it is quite amazing when you learn this and how accurate it is with genesis account. I Have just copied one of the symbols from this link here, there are many more such confirmations for things like the Garden of Eden, the Devil, the Tower of Babel, the confusion of Languages etc.

https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/chinese-characters-and-genesis/

 

 

I have the book, and it made very interesting reading.

[Paul James]

On 3/3/2020 at 3:55 AM, dhchristian said:

What this article, and many of the other evidences of the flood show, is that depending on what assumptions one comes to look at the evidence with they will either reject the Bible or this will affirm the biblical narrative. Just as Romans 1 writes, the evidence for God and his hand at work is all around in the creation, but man willfully ignores this evidence and denies God. 

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:19-20)

The evidences for the flood of Noah and the accuracy of the Biblical account is overwhelming, But if you begin with the evolutionists glasses on you will spin that evidence to meet your views as the evolutionists have done with this genetic evidence. 

The belief in evolution is a matter of the will.  They understand exactly that the evidence more thoroughly proves a young earth and Noah's flood, but they choose not to believe it.  It is an act of the will with them, not a lack of understanding.  We can produce all the evidence that is available, and they will deny it because they are totally committed in their will that evolution is what they believe.

Of course, it is more convenient to believe in evolution and the non-existence of the God of the Bible, because they are unwilling to accept that they have a moral responsibility to God in the way they live their lives.  With evolutionists there is always favourite sins they don't want to give up, and therefore deny that God exists.  It they are professing Christians, then they want to have a belief in a god and a jesus (neither of the Bible) and continue in their favourite sins as well.  These are the ones who will say that their god is a god of love who will accept them along with their sinfulness, not being prepared to accept that the God of the Bible is also a God of justice who will judge us all on the basis of our compliance with the Ten Commandments.

The evolutionist jesus is a someone who will help them to being better human beings, instead of the Jesus of the Bible who died on the cross to finish God's plan of salvation, taking the penalty for our sinfulness upon Himself.  Genuine converts to the Jesus of the Bible will be found guilty at the judgment, but because Jesus has taken their penalty for it upon Himself, God's case against them will be dismissed.   But the evolutionist jesus, being a mental image, will condemn those who follow him because they will be adding idolatry to their other sins.

[Paul James]

On 3/3/2020 at 4:06 AM, dhchristian said:

What evolutionists make of this data

The evolutionary explanations for the above data are contradictory and confusing to say the least. Depending on which genes they use in their research, different bottlenecks ranging from 2 million years ago to 60,000 years ago are proposed. On top of this, they're also proposing different bottlenecks for males and females (e.g. a male bottleneck around 142,000 years ago and a different bottleneck for females around 200,000 years ago).

For the sake of simplicity, here is a general take on their beliefs concerning the required bottlenecking:

1. There was a population bottleneck in which humanity almost became extinct, about 70,000 years ago.
   1. The population became as low as 1,000 to 10,000.
   2. Even though many women made up these numbers during the bottleneck, only the lineage of one of them (dubbed “Mitochondrial Eve”) survived. All the other mtDNA lineages ended in dead-ends (childless couples or boys-only families). What are the odds of this happening?
   3. In much the same way, only one Y chromosome lineage survived from a single male (dubbed Y-chromosomal Adam). All other Y lineages ended in dead-ends (childless couples or girls-only families). Again, what are the odds of this happening? Then imagine what the odds are for BOTH male and female lineages suffering the same fate. Alternatively, how about there was actually only one male and one female in the beginning?
2. Another theory suggests a “long bottleneck” where the population dropped to around 2,000, and remained at that population for at least 100,000 years. Credible?

How evolutionists apply long timelines

You're probably thinking something like “the evolutionists are stating tens to hundreds of thousands of years, to millions of years of human history - how can it be just thousands of years instead?”

Well, evolutionists base their dates on evolutionary assumptions. They assume that evolution is true to start with, and so they assume that the fossil record represents millions to billions of years of history – bacteria evolving upwards through worms, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, primates and us. With this timeline in mind, they calibrate everything to fit to this timeline.

They use an idea called Molecular Clocks – that there is a fixed rate of mutations per year in any population. How do they know what this rate is? They calculate it by using evolutionary assumptions as I mentioned above – based on their interpretation of the fossil record.

E.g. they believe that humans and baboons shared a common ancestor “x” years ago, so they look at human's mtDNA and at baboon's mtDNA, and get the number of differences between the two, which is “y”. Then the mutation rate per year would be y/x. This type of logic has resulted in estimates for when their “Mitochondrial Eve” lived to be between 70,000 to 800,000 years ago.

As you can see, Molecular Clocks are derived from the assumption that evolution is true and that we're related to baboons/chimps/etc. There's no actual measurement of hundreds of thousands of years.

With their timeline in mind, the fossil record represents millions of years of separate catastrophic events (local floods, extinctions, volcanic flows, earthquakes, etc), whereas under the creation model most of these events occurred during and after the Flood.

New analysis points to a recent human genome

The following paper came out not that long ago (Jan 2013), throwing the idea that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years (millions of years if you include earlier “ancestors”) into question:

10th Jan 2013 - “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7431/full/nature11690.html

A couple of excerpts (SNV = Single Nucleotide Variant = 1 mutation/copying error): 

• “Large-scale surveys of human genetic variation have reported signatures of recent explosive population growth, notable for an excess of rare genetic variants, suggesting that many mutations arose recently”
• “We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000–10,000 years”

What this is basically saying is, most mutations in humans occurred in the last 5,000-10,000 years. Obviously, this was not expected by evolutionists who believe that humans have been around for 200,000 to millions of years.

If evolution is to be believed, then for hundreds of thousands of years (or a few million years), human DNA hardly received any mutations, then in the last few thousand years most of the DNA damage we've all inherited occurred. Sound feasible? Or how about this: there was simply no human history prior to a few thousand years ago.

As you'll recall from above re: Molecular Clocks – that evolutionists assume that there is set mutation rates per year, and use that rate to date our supposed ancestors – some might say that these new findings have thrown the Molecular Clocks into the bin.

http://www.astirinch.com/creation/dna-proof-of-noahs-flood/

There is a theory that in the foreseeable future with the continued decay of genetic information, human life will eventually become extinct, because there will be insufficient genetic information for the last generation of humans to be able to produce offspring that will survive.

[Paul James]

On 3/3/2020 at 6:09 AM, The Barbarian said:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:19-23)

Of course, it's not a prophesy; that's just your revision to make it more acceptable to you.    But it was a rather bad choice, given Paul's words...

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 

As you have seen, there are creationists who have tried to glorify him not as God but as a being with a human-like body, in spite of His Son telling us that spirits have no bodies, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man.   

Ignoring the things God has shown us in His creation, they instead invented a revision of Genesis from their own imaginations.

The evolutionists have done that because they choose to dream up what they think Genesis means for them so they can escape their moral responsibility to God.  What Creationists have done is just accept what Genesis literally says.

[Paul James]

On 3/3/2020 at 7:13 AM, The Barbarian said:

Barbarian observes:

Radicals on Chinese characters aren't usually what they would be by themselves.   They generally are semantic or phonetic hints about the meaning of the character.

And  "口" (kou) does not mean "people."   "People" would  be "人" (ren).

Yes.   Someone thought it would be more convincing if they said it meant "people" rather than "mouth."   I think we all got that.

 

 

"We all" didn't get it. The Bible-believing genuinely converted Christians, including me,  didn't get it at all!  Just like my dearly departed mother who used to sit in her sitting room in our small home town saying "everyone in our town believes (whatever)", when the only person who did actually believe it was herself.

[Paul James]

On 3/3/2020 at 7:06 AM, The Barbarian said:

That's a common superstition, but it's completely false.    The first indication that we had of a truly ancient Earth came from geologists who realized that what they saw could not possibly have happened in a few thousand years.   And they knew this long before Darwin.

Not long after Darwin, physicists, using well-confirmed heat calculations, showed that the Earth, even if it merely cooled off from its original state, would be at a minimum of tens of millions of years old.

And just a little later, physicists showed that there were rocks on Earth billions of years old.

Astronomers later showed that our sun was of a group of stars that are fairly long-lived, and ours is about 4 billion years old.

None of these are "evolutionary" and none of them are "assumptions."    You've been badly misled.

No.   It says that mutations occur fairly rapidly, and most mutations in humans have been modified again by subsequent mutations.   Would you like me to show you the difference?

 

No.  The only stuff you can show me is evolutionary jibber jabber.