Proof for Noah's Flood

[dhchristian]

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 Barbarian]

10 hours ago, dhchristian said:

The Human Genome Project was declared complete in April 2003. One of its findings was that all humans have virtually identical DNA. They suggested that this is due to a population bottleneck in our past, where our numbers dwindled so low that we teetered on the brink of extinction.

In addition, coalescence times for Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA have been revised to well above 100,000 years since 2011. Finally, such coalescence would not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Genetic material inherited exclusively from either father or mother can be traced back in time via either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.^[12]

In 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.^[6] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.

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

The times involved in such a theory seem to rule out the literalist reading of the Flood Story.

10 hours ago, dhchristian said:

To summarize, recent genetic studies reveal one Y chromosome lineage, three very similar mtDNA lineages, and the whole human race having virtually identical DNA, firmly matches the Bible's account of Noah's Flood (and Adam & Eve).

Seems not to be so.

 

[dhchristian]

Just now, The Barbarian said:

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

Watch the video I posted, it means mouth. 

Think of it this way, "I have six mouths to feed" as my family has 6 people in it. 

[dhchristian]

Just now, The Barbarian said:

In addition, coalescence times for Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA have been revised to well above 100,000 years since 2011. Finally, such coalescence would not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Genetic material inherited exclusively from either father or mother can be traced back in time via either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.^[12]

In 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.^[6] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.

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/

[dhchristian]

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)

These Verses are prophetically speaking about the evolutionists of today. 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

New analysis points to a recent human genome

Well, let's take a look at that belief:

Here were two clearly distinct species, separated by up to 700,000 years of evolution, yet the remnants of their sexual proclivities are captured in the DNA of the majority of people alive today. What’s more, it soon emerged that our ancestors weren’t only getting it on with Neanderthals.

Just as Pääbo was finishing sequencing the Neanderthal genome, a parcel landed on his desk. It contained a tiny fragment of a finger bone from the Altai mountains in Siberia. The piece was 30,000 to 50,000 years old and was thought to be from another Neanderthal. His team was in for a big surprise. The DNA analysis revealed an entirely new group of archaic humans, now dubbed the Denisovans, which split from a common ancestor with Neanderthals some 500,000 years ago.

Once again, comparisons with modern human genomes showed that the two interbred. Genetic studies reveal this to have happened in Eurasia. They also show that Denisovans ranged from Siberia to South-East Asia, and that at least one of their genes helps modern Tibetans to live at high altitude. The idea that our ancestors hybridised with other hominins was once dismissed. Now it was starting to look as though they would mate with anything vaguely human.

Denisovans are nearly ghosts: we have that one finger bone and a few molars as a physical testament to their existence, but no more. Then in 2016, a true ghost emerged from the genomes of 44 individuals who lived in the Middle East between 14,000 and 3400 years ago. Their DNA held genetic markers indicative of a distinct group of ancient H. sapiens based in the region more than 45,000 years ago. The members of this population are now known as Basal Eurasians, and they present a conundrum. Their DNA, which is still found in modern Europeans, shows none of the telltale signs of interbreeding with Neanderthals. This came as a surprise because ancestral humans mated with Neanderthals very soon after leaving Africa 60,000 years ago in the migration that was to give rise to all people of non-African heritage alive today.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24031992-600-traces-of-mystery-ancient-humans-found-lurking-in-our-genomes/

 

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24031992-600-traces-of-mystery-ancient-humans-found-lurking-in-our-genomes/#ixzz6FYHCJS8p

 

Looks like your guy is really wrong.

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

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)

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

These Verses are prophetically speaking about the evolutionists of today. 

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 Barbarian]

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Well, evolutionists base their dates on evolutionary assumptions.

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.

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

What this is basically saying is, most mutations in humans occurred in the last 5,000-10,000 years.

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?

 

[The Barbarian]

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).

3 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Watch the video I posted, it means mouth. 

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

 

 

[dhchristian]

As Many of you can clearly see by the responses here, the Glasses one looks through of the evidences of these events will determine whether you see the Truth of the Word of God, Or if you Oppose the Truth of the Word of God. When One has their evolutionist glasses on you can show them a mountain of evidence and they will dismiss it and dwell on the one minor disagreement such as the symbol for Mouth in the Chinese characters. By Going after that one miniscule disagreement he can ignore the whole set of evidence. Just for All of you, if you searched the other video I recommended, there was a Chinese man teaching this, to a Chinese audience in Singapore. If there was a glaring error it would have been addressed by the audience or the translator who translated the Speech into Chinese. (Hence the reason why the video was too long to post here). If you have not looked up that video, please do look it up as it is much more thorough. 

Those who are truly in Christ Jesus would rejoice at hearing such evidence, but those with ulterior motives only come to oppose the Truth of the Word of God from being written down. As Far as I am concerned, the responses here from The barbarian show his real allegiances. He is a wolf among the sheep just as the LORD showed me when I first interacted with him, and as others have warned of here. The Lord Jesus will Rebuke him, Not me, as vengeance Belongs to God almighty and one day he will regret his words written here standing in front of the almighty Judge.

How true the Words of Jude ring here. I wrote this post to share of our common salvation and to glorify God who is revealing to us the Truth of the events of scripture with evidence and it ends up being a post where I have to contend for the faith from those who have crept in unawares. Sad isn't it?

I Will leave this open to any who want to seriously comment on this topic. There are mountains of evidence and the genetic evidence presented here is astounding when one calculates the odds of this occurring by chance.

Just ignore the troll and he will go away. Do Not respond to him, or be suckered into replying to his outrageous comment such as the one three comments above this one which is straight out of the mouth of the adversary.

God Bless.  

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by dhchristian