The evidence for the Ark increases with as our understanding of gene sequencing showed that about "10,000 years ago a distaster reduced the worlds population to just about 10 people. Imagine that 8 people on the ark and some how the scientist are able to determin that actually happened, but when you tell them the Bible history about the flood they refuse to believe.
50 comments
Sigh. "The Flood" never happened. "The Ark" never existed. "Gene sequencing" shows no such thing.
Please, just stop quoting Kent Hovind and the AIG. They don't have the most basic understanding of any scientific discipline and they lie like rugs.
Indeed, such gene sequencing would not prove a great flood.
However... and I say this as a theist who does not believe in the Bible at all... there are stories from various parts of the ancient world that tell of a great flood, one that destroyed most of humanity. This may be an indication of SOMEthing.
Not Noah et al, though. Noah is only one flood story out of many.
What? There is such evidence for the cheetah species (about 12kya the data suggests the population was reduced to just a handful of individuals, probably corresponding with the extinction event with the last ice age), and guess what? They're all practically identical to each other. You can graft skin from one cheetah to a definitely completely unrelated one and there is no rejection, when a sample from domestic cats is always rejected.
If there were such evidence for people, why do we all look so different and have different predispositions to disease, both genetic and externally caused?
Ah, yes, the fallacy of "feces fabricatum." I.e., making shit up.
It's actually in the standard repertoire of responses to Young Earth Creationists to point out that there's no sign in our DNA of a bottleneck that severe at any point in the last 6,000-10,000 years.
To ClockWork Bunny above, who said, " there are stories from various parts of the ancient world that tell of a great flood, one that destroyed most of humanity. This may be an indication of SOMEthing."
It's an indication that floods were a major and fairly frequent disaster for many ancient agricultural communities, and that legends and mythology often involve taking things from ordinary real life and making them much bigger and better or worse.
I believe you're referring to the genetic bottleneck in humanity, circa 70000 years ago corresponding to the eruption the Indonesian volcano, Mt. Toba (currently Lake Toba). During this genetic bottleneck the estimated population of H. sapiens was down to an estimated 10000 or so, not 10.
You were only off by a few orders of magnitude.
Uhh No.
There was a bottle neck among the human population..100,000 years ago.
And while it was a small group there is no evidence it was as small as 8 people (the inbreeding alone would have led to our extinction if that were the case)
And there's no evidence of a similar bottlenecking among all the rest of the world's species, which kinda blows your "ark" theory.
Fail. There was a population bottleneck sometime around 100,000 to 70,000 years ago that reduced the human population to somewhere between 15 to 10 thousand.
Reducing the human population to a single family of eight people would most likely result in extinction due to a lack of gene variation.
If the human population had been reduced to about 10 people, there would be no human population today. Try to learn something that wasn't written by Bronze Age nomads.
Edited to add: QT beat me to it.
Oh wow, if that's true, you might just have some evidence! Of course you be able to show the same thing for EVERY species if your ark story was true.
"10,000 years ago a distaster reduced the worlds population to just about 10 people"
Impossible, the Earth is only 6,000 years old :3
Bullshit, you heretic! That is a lie of evil scientists. The Bible clearly states that the Earth is not older than 6,000 years, created in 4,004 BC.
Actually, that event occurred roughly 75,000 years ago, and the population was reduced to 10,000, not 10.
Wrong. In fact, the bottleneck was about 70,000 years ago, and the human population was reduced to around 10,000 individuals.
In the Noah's Ark story, there was a breeding population of five, not eight people left. Noah, his wife and their three daughters in law. The sons don't count, as they were produced by Mr and Mrs Noah. They contributed nothing to the gene pool except what they got from their parents.
"understanding of gene sequencing showed that about "10,000 years ago a distaster reduced the worlds population to just about 10 people. "
You have no understanding of gene sequencing.
Your lack of understanding of gene sequencing does not constitute evidence.
First of all, the geological record does not support any world-wide flood.
Secondly, many cultures (Egyptian, Chinese, Indian, and Maso-American) flourished before, during, and after supposed world-wide flood, yet their records have no mention of such a major event.
Third, how the heck did Noah gather two penguins from Antartica when Antarctica wasn't discovered until the mid 1800s?
Fourth, a major portion of the plant and animal kingdom does not reproduce sexually.
And last of all, why would Noah be considered the only true Christian worthy of life when he was a drunk who constantly exposed himself to his children?
And in actuality, the gene sequence gives credit to Evolution. But thanks for playing.
Homo Sapiens almost became exctinct from 50,000-70,000 YA, when the hyman population crashed and went as low as 2,000, according to genetic research. Imagine everyone on Earth fitting into a concert hall. We are descended from those 2,000, and that is why there is so little genetic diversity in the human population. No large wooden ships. You fail genetics.
OK, so is it 8 people or 10 or 5 as in the bible? So, you expect everyone to believe that in 10,000 years (6,000 is the common belief) they mushroomed to 5,000,000,000 people or so? Then somehow they managed to morph into Chinese, Indians, Africans, Mexicans and hundreds of other races. How did that happen? I also never did understand how the kangaroos all got transported to Australia after the flood. The penguins just swam to Antartica. Where did all that water drain to?
Lying for Jeebus. You are going to hell my friend.
Actually, I am lying there. You are not now, nor will you ever be, my friend.
If the human race was reduced to less than a couple thousand people, OUR ENTIRE FUCKING SPECIES WOULD GO EXTINCT. PERIOD. LOOK UP "GENETICS", CHRIST-TARDS.
And in only 10,000 years, the human population went from "just about 10" to 7 billion? And with all the war, disease, natural disasters and perhaps the biggest killer of mankind; human stupidity?
I'm just going to quote TV Tropes:
"This, of course, ignores real population genetics , where a certain minimum number of genetically divergent (i.e. unrelated) individuals are needed in a gene pool to maintain a healthy genetic diversity over the generations. For humans it is an estimated 497 individuals (no joke) although 1,000+ is to be preferred. The general rule of thumb is the "50/500" guideline that a population founded by 50 genetically diverse humans in isolation would last about 2,000 years before inbreeding did them in, while 500 or more stand a chance of lasting indefinitely so long as all of them reproduce and no major disasters wipe out a significant part of the gene pool during that time (although as with everything else involving genetics, this is a gross oversimplification and varies greatly with the conditions encountered). You usually won't find this in direct siblings . More casually, this results in the unspoken implication that said newly propagated species does not have a problem with incest. This rarely comes up. "
10,000 years ago, humans started farming, and this led to a population spike.
Plus there is no fucking way 10 people could breed a society of Egyptians, and the Hebrews to serve them, in 100 years.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
