Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 58351

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.

svend, RR 49 Comments [2/9/2009 4:26:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
pete

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.

2/9/2009 4:33:11 AM

ClockworkBunny

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.

2/9/2009 4:41:29 AM

Orion

*citation needed*

2/9/2009 4:42:19 AM



Your stupidity is so dense it crushes small children

2/9/2009 4:44:06 AM

Zoo

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?

2/9/2009 4:44:17 AM

MPW

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.

2/9/2009 4:48:04 AM

MPW

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.

2/9/2009 4:50:47 AM

Satyricon

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.

2/9/2009 5:00:19 AM

booley

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.

2/9/2009 5:05:44 AM

QT

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.

2/9/2009 5:10:43 AM

Sasha

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.

2/9/2009 5:11:11 AM

John_in_Oz

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.
Damn shame you fail. Sucks to be you.
Oh- your ten people bottleneck story isn't true either.

2/9/2009 5:15:51 AM

A Friend

Flat out wrong. A worldwide flood would be impossible. But of course you always have your cop out "goddidit" answer.

2/9/2009 5:37:51 AM

anonymous

"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

2/9/2009 5:48:57 AM

DaMentalFunism

Your understanding of gene sequencing increases nothing.

2/9/2009 6:02:55 AM

Potentate Argyros of the Gaystapo

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.

2/9/2009 6:17:19 AM

Elm

And exactly where is the data on this? Oh right it's from the Bible... Nevermind

2/9/2009 6:48:36 AM

atrasicarius

That's ten thousand people, dumbass.

2/9/2009 7:01:25 AM

Mrs. Antichrist

Actually, that event occurred roughly 75,000 years ago, and the population was reduced to 10,000, not 10.

2/9/2009 7:13:42 AM

Miles

Where is the citation for this outrageous, laughable claim? Hint: Hovind and Ham don't count. I have rarely read such ridiculous drivel.



2/9/2009 8:20:30 AM

aaa

Copypasta from AIG.

2/9/2009 9:07:41 AM



"The evidence for the Ark "

Where is this evidence of which you speak?

2/9/2009 9:35:59 AM

Mandy

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.

2/9/2009 9:54:38 AM

anevilmeme

Stop making up shit for Jeezus.

2/9/2009 11:27:48 AM

Ambrielle

You. Are. Lying. Proud of yourself?

2/9/2009 11:38:58 AM
1 2