The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

bumper234

Obliq wrote: »

Oh. Dear. Yes, it really does, doesn't it? How awful.

Still though, I'm sure JC can come up with there actually having been more humans than just Noah and family to survive and repopulate the earth. Or wait....magic! They were magic humans, with none of the weird DNA that sin has generated. I forgot.

Yeah i am actually looking forward to hearing his explanation of how it worked, i could do with a laugh

shruikan2553

bumper234 wrote: »

This kinda kills off the idea of Noah and his few relatives re populating the earth.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-incest-case-filthy-and-severely-deformed-children-found-in-remote-farming-community-after-generations-of-inbreeding-8998115.html

Australia incest case: Filthy and severely deformed children found in remote farming community after generations of inbreeding



The family is believed to trace back to the children’s great-grandparents, who were brother and sister. The incestuous siblings had a number of children, with these children raising another generation children of offspring among themselves. This third generation also chose to inbreed, giving birth to the children recently found living in squalor in the valley.In total, at least 40 inbred people were believed to have been born in the network of huts – which were not served with any electricity or running water.

Depends, did they start work on pyramid style constructions? If they did then maybe the flood did happen.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That makes J C look like Charles Darwin by comparison.

I'm not married to a cousin and I don't believe in the power of mutagenesis to do anything except degrade and destroy genetic information ... apart from that, I thank you for your comparison of myself to Darwin!!:D:)

MrPudding

bumper234 wrote: »

Yeah i am actually looking forward to hearing his explanation of how it worked, i could do with a laugh

Noah, remember he lived to almost 1000, had near perfect DNA. Therefore there was plenty of room for inbreeding after the flood as the full effects from the fall had not taken effect. The inbreeding, in conjunction with the fall, resulted in the drop in quality of DNA.

MrP

J C

Obliq wrote: »

Oh. Dear. Yes, it really does, doesn't it? How awful.

Still though, I'm sure JC can come up with there actually having been more humans than just Noah and family to survive and repopulate the earth. Or wait....magic! They were magic humans, with none of the weird DNA that sin has generated. I forgot.

Don't panic Obliq ... Creation Science to the rescue!!!:)

Inbreeding today is not a good idea ... although, even still, first cousins may still legally marry, just like Charles Darwin did.
The genetic reason why close relatives shouldn't marry is because of the risk of recessive deleterious traits becoming homozygous from such matings, thus resulting in illness and congenital disease.

Back in Noah's time, the human genome was much more 'perfect' than it is today due to the accumulation of mutations since then.
In addition, Noah's family was already quite 'outbred' to begin with ... as Noah and his three sons were probably married to unrelated women. In the first generation after the Flood, their children would, of necesssity, have to marry their first cousins ... but in the second generation second cousins would be available for marriage and by the fifth generation after the Flood, fifth cousins would be marrying each other and these people would be effectively 'genetic strangers' to each other.:)

Quote:-Wikipedia
"Marriages between first and second cousins account for over 10% of marriages worldwide. They are particularly common in the Middle East, where in some nations they account for over half of all marriages."

... so even today despite the much higher risk of birth defects, marriage between people that are closely related occur 'without the sky caving in'.

bumper234

J C wrote: »

Don't panic Obliq ... Creation Science to the rescue!!!:)

Inbreeding today is not a good idea ... although, even yet, first cousins may still marry legally, just like Charles Darwin did.
The genetic reason why close relatives shouldn't marry is because of the risk of recessive deleterious traits becoming homozygous from such matings, thus resulting in illness and congenital disease.

Back in Noah's time, the human genome was much more 'perfect' than it is today due to the accumulation of mutations since then.
In addition, Noah's family was already quite 'outbred' to begin with ... as Noah and his three sons were probably married to unrelated women. In the first generation after the Flood, their children would, of necesssity, have to marry their first cousins ... but in the second generation second cousins would be available for marriage and by the fifth generation after the Flood, fifth cousins would be marrying each other and these people would be effectively 'genetic strangers' to each other.:)

BWAHHHHHHHHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Sorry folks but that was my first reaction, nope it's still my reaction!

J C

bumper234 wrote: »

BWAHHHHHHHHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Sorry folks but that was my first reaction, nope it's still my reaction!

Ha Ha !!:)

bumper234

J C wrote: »

Ha Ha !!:)

For the record I would love to see your evidence for this.


"Back in Noah's time, the human genome was much more 'perfect' than it is today"

MrPudding

bumper234 wrote: »

For the record I would love to see your evidence for this.


"Back in Noah's time, the human genome was much more 'perfect' than it is today"

Noah lived to 950. What more evidence do you need?

MrP

bumper234

MrPudding wrote: »

Noah lived to 950. What more evidence do you need?

MrP

A birth cert would be a start

Pherekydes

bumper234 wrote: »

A birth cert would be a start

And a death cert, of course!

Delirium

MrPudding wrote: »

Noah lived to 950. What more evidence do you need?

MrP

Which is older than Adam lived to be (930). And Enoch is still alive, which puts him at something like 5,000 years old (tip of hat to QI for that nugget :pac:).

robindch

J C wrote: »

Don't panic Obliq ... Creation Science to the rescue!!!:)

Ye gods.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Noah lived to 950. What more evidence do you need?

MrP

You really are very insightful Mr P.:)

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

You really are very insightful Mr P.:)

What I did there was I imagined I had suffered from a massive blow to the head. This then put me, roughly, in the position of a YEC and I was, therefore, able to work out what utter sh1t one might come up with.

MrP

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

What I did there was I imagined I had suffered from a massive blow to the head. This then put me, roughly, in the position of a YEC and I was, therefore, able to work out what utter sh1t one might come up with.

MrP

Please stop punishing yourself for being insightful.

It can be needlessly stressful on you to engage in high levels of denial of your God-given abilities.:)

IT-Guy

J C wrote: »

Please stop punishing yourself for being insightful.

It can be needlessly stressful on you to engage in high levels of denial of your God-given abilities.:)

Nothing god given about Mr.Pudding's insightful abilities, simply the product of an open, educated mind and knowing the difference between reality and fantasy. Speaking of which and without referring to the bible, how do you know the fictional character Noah lived to 950?

kiffer

IT-Guy wrote: »

Nothing god given about Mr.Pudding's insightful abilities, simply the product of an open, educated mind and knowing the difference between reality and fantasy. Speaking of which and without referring to the bible, how do you know the fictional character Noah lived to 950?

Are you calling God a liar?...
Because lies make Baby Jesus cry.
If Noah didn't live to 950 then there is no heaven and there's just gotta be a heaven, there's just gotta be...

Obliq

Obliq wrote: »

Oh. Dear. Yes, it really does, doesn't it? How awful.

Sometime after posting this yesterday, I noticed that my "how awful" might look like I thought it was awful that the Noah's ark myth was blown out of the water by this news story. Surely, I thought, nobody could take me up that way....

J C wrote: »

Don't panic Obliq ... Creation Science to the rescue!!!:)

Oh.

robindch

Wondering about climate change? Wonder no longer as fact-challenged Ken has taken up the challenge of explaining it to his fact-challenged sheep.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab4/climate-change

But soft, what's this Figure 2 in the section "Is the Truth about Climate Change Really Inconvenient?" which has a diagram plotting time versus temperature variation going back over 12,000 years?

Strange indeed for an organization committed to the holybelief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

robinph

Shouldn't the flood have caused a pretty major spike in the temperature of the earth as well at some point on that graph?

J C

robindch wrote: »

Wondering about climate change? Wonder no longer as fact-challenged Ken has taken up the challenge of explaining it to his fact-challenged sheep.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab4/climate-change

But soft, what's this Figure 2 in the section "Is the Truth about Climate Change Really Inconvenient?" which has a diagram plotting time versus temperature variation going back over 12,000 years?

Strange indeed for an organization committed to the holybelief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Quote from the AIG article immediately above Figure 2:-

"No temperature measurements are available before 1880. Scientists have tried to correlate other scientific data with global temperature, but estimating temperatures in this way is fraught with difficulties. Correlation of ice core or tree ring data to global temperatures is full of assumptions that cannot be verified. Figure 2 shows eight different attempts that were made to predict global temperature. The dark line is the average of these data for what they presume to be the last 12,000 years of earth history. Confused as to why anyone would be convinced by these data? You should be. The most recent reconstructions are shown in the insert of figure 2 for the last 2,000 years. These data have led many climatologists to conclude that the climate is much warmer now than in the last 2,000 years."

... Dr. Alan White was using 'Evolutionist' timescales and the average of 'long-agers' graphs to show that current temperatures have declined (if anything) since the initial temperature rise (on the left side of the graph) following the ice age that immediately followed the Flood.

Don't feel too bad, Robin, I see the 7th December issue of New Scientist page 68 refers to the same issue ... where it says that Ken Ham's website 'blithely reproduces a graph of global temperatues over the past 12,000 years'.

J C

robinph wrote: »

Shouldn't the flood have caused a pretty major spike in the temperature of the earth as well at some point on that graph?

The graph starts immediately after the Flood (in the ice age that followed it) ... and the 'spike' (that you're asking about) is on the left of the graph ... and it is the rise in temperature that melted the post-Diluvian ice age icecaps.:)

J C

Obliq wrote: »

Sometime after posting this yesterday, I noticed that my "how awful" might look like I thought it was awful that the Noah's ark myth was blown out of the water by this news story. Surely, I thought, nobody could take me up that way....



Oh.

... a 'Freudian Slip' no doubt!!!
... no need to deny your secret admiration for the Bible.:)

J C

One of the arguments put forward against the genetic evidence that we are all descended from Adam and Eve i.e. one man and one woman was that 'Y-chromosome Adam' was separated in time by thousands of years from 'Mitochondrial Eve'.

... and now I see that recent evidence places 'Y-chromosome Adam' living at the same time as 'Mitochondrial Eve'.

... all they need to do now is to correct the mutation rates ... and voila ... they will be found to have lived 6,000 to 10,000 years ago!!!:)

Quote Wikipedia
"The age for the Y-MRCA has been variously estimated as 188,000,[2] 270,000,[3] 306,000,[4] and 142,000[5] A paper published in March 2013 reported an older estimate of 338,000 years.[6] Then two simultaneous reports in August 2013 provide younger estimates, one suggested 180,000 to 200,000 years,[7] and another, based on the genome sequence of nine different populations, indicated the age between 120,000 and 156,000 years.[8]

Analogous to Y-chromosomal Adam, Mitochondrial Eve is the woman from whom all living humans are descended matrilineally, who lived about 140,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa."

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

One of the arguments put forward against the genetic evidence that we are all descended from Adam and Eve i.e. one man and one woman was that 'Y-chromosome Adam' was separated in time by thousands of years from 'Mitochondrial Eve'.

... and now I see that recent evidence places 'Y-chromosome Adam' living at the same time as 'Mitochondrial Eve'.

... all they need to do now is to correct the mutation rates ... and voila ... they will be found to have lived 6,000 to 10,000 years ago!!!:)

Quote Wikipedia
"The age for the Y-MRCA has been variously estimated as 188,000,[2] 270,000,[3] 306,000,[4] and 142,000[5] A paper published in March 2013 reported an older estimate of 338,000 years.[6] Then two simultaneous reports in August 2013 provide younger estimates, one suggested 180,000 to 200,000 years,[7] and another, based on the genome sequence of nine different populations, indicated the age between 120,000 and 156,000 years.[8]

Analogous to Y-chromosomal Adam, Mitochondrial Eve is the woman from whom all living humans are descended matrilineally, who lived about 140,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa."

By 'correct the mutation rates' I can only assume you mean say 'screw science' and fiddle with the data until it gives the numbers you want, correct?

robindch

Don McLeroy, a dentist who's done his best to damage and corrupt the science standards in his native Texas, gets pwnd by Stephen Colbert's show.

The analysis of how the creationist movement is evolving a new set of greasy tactics is worth a read:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/15/when-creationists-collide-with-stephen-colbert.html

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

{...}

... all they need to do now is to correct the mutation rates ... and voila ... they will be found to have lived 6,000 to 10,000 years ago!!!:)

{...}

"Correct" them a little more...and voila ... they will be found to have lived 60 to 100 years ago!!!:)

Doctor Jimbob

gaynorvader wrote: »

"Correct" them a little more...and voila ... they will be found to have lived 60 to 100 years ago!!!:)

Isn't science wonderful?

robindch

Bill Nye agrees to debate Ken Ham on the 4th of February.

The best of luck to Bill of course, but unless he's been in training, he's not the right guy to go up against a fraud like "doctor-doctor" Ham. Somebody like Hitchens (for the fast, devastating retort) or perhaps Bozo the Clown (to match Ham's value to biology and humanity) would be better:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/event/Nye-Ham-Debate/