Brad; modern Y chromosone studies have demonstrated that all men share a common male ancestry. 7,500 years is definately more than enough time for the level of genetic differences to have developed if one considers that there were mutations already underway in the family line prior to that point.

Who's to say what the exact racial/genetic background of this family was prior to the biblical account? Could this be why this particular family was chosen? It was hardly rare in those days.

Sorry but that seemingly rational arguement doesn't hold up. Under the right circumstances, with the right rate of breeding after that point, 7,500 years is enough time.

If the biblical account were untrue, and evolution alone accounts for human beings, why aren't there several families represented around the world? We know that all human males decend from a single patriarchical family. Evolutionists claim this is because we all evolved from the same species, but if this were true there would still be other geneticly different male families represented because evlolution supposedly occurs in a species, not just one family in a species. This just isn't the case. Y chromosone studies lead back to a single male family origin.

This lends credence to the biblical account of Noah's flood.

As to the ice ages, I just don't see the conflict. The bible doesn't address this topic one way or the other. The bible addresses the middle eastern area of the world. This area was never covered in ice during these periods, so why would it speak of it? Some people get the mistaken idea that the entire world was covered in ice during these periods, but that simply isn't the case as any geologist can tell you.

I know it's considered fun and chic to poke fun at Christians these days, and I'm sure you enjoy it greatly, but I find these tired, feeble old arguements to be just that; tired and feeble.

well...yall have lost me in a couple regards here. starting with the timeline, 7500 bce is on the oldest possible end of the noah scale isnt it? wouldnt approximately 5500 be more likely?

next, i was under the impression the results of genetic or chromosone research supported the out of africa model and that native inhabitants of australia appear to have fewer y chromosone variations from the african ancestor than did residents of other geographic areas

As to the ice ages, I just don't see the conflict. The bible doesn't address this topic one way or the other. The bible addresses the middle eastern area of the world. This area was never covered in ice during these periods, so why would it speak of it? Some people get the mistaken idea that the entire world was covered in ice during these periods, but that simply isn't the case as any geologist can tell you.

there seems to be credible evidence that the last ice age (6?00 bce) had significant effects in the middle east since the glaciers locked up so much water. those who lived in the area around what is now the black sea would likely have been drawn close to what was then a huge lake. when the temperature and rainfall normalized again, the mediterranean broke thru the natural land barrier. what followed must have been an incredible flood...possibly noahs flood? since the timelines correspond, it seems unusual there isnt mention of the effects of ice age/glaciers

masonm, admittedly this started as a sort of parody. yall hadda take it serious (joking) in any event, you and draginol offered reasonable, cogent points of view and ive tried to respond in kind.

KINGBEE...................IT APPEARS YOU'VE DONE YOUR HOMEWORK ON THIS SUBJECT. MY FINDINGS ARE SIMILAR.

THE CURRENT SCENARIO OF GLOBAL WARMING IS REALLY IRRATIONAL. TRUE SCIENCE SUPPORTS THE IDEA THAT GLOBAL WARMING MAY EVEN HELP THE CLIMATES OF THE WORLD. MORE FOOD WILL BE PRODUCED, ICY AREAS WOULD BECOME PRODUCTIVE. THIS RECENT MOVIE, "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW", IS TOTAL FANTASY AND COULD NEVER HAPPEN. THIS GLOBAL WARMING CRAP IS BASED ON UNSOUND SPECULATION AND IS COMPLETLY WITHOUT MERRIT. ITS A COMPLETE FANTASY.

Here's an interesting tidbit to think on. The British mathematician Hoyle (known widely for his books on gaming) came up with these mega numbers after studying the latest data on single cell structure. The complexities of inter-action that take place every second in a cell are so vast and intricate that man has not even conceived of a computer that might accomplish that one second of...(should I call it accident?). He (who by the way is an atheist) went on to formulate what it would take to have the biological blendings (my terminology ) occur and his concusions were thus; (I'm sure I'll not be exact, but hopefully make my point) 10 to the 40,000th power years. To put this in a kind of perspctive, the electron, the most numerous thing known to man (I wanted to say 'in creation') comes in somewhere around 10 to the 40th power in number. What that translates to is trillions times trillions or zillions times zillions, or what ever number you want to come up with, are the odds that chance put together a single cell. Another way of putting it is 'no way, Hosea'. To be specific, let me say that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...

'no way, Hosea'

better dont let jose hear you sayin dat.

keeping that incredible complexity in mind, would a creator who launched such an incredibly intricate process with the simplest possible lifeform and then let things develop from there be more glorious than one who churned out everything in a static final version release?

masonm, admittedly this started as a sort of parody.

Actually I thought it was a satirical/humorous article and read it in that vein. These types of topics always generate a fair amount of debate (often heated) and I just wanted to do my part to fan the flames.

Marvin Are you still living under a rock? Do you mean to tell me that it is more believable that we were created out of dirt and not evolved from apes?? The bible is a collection of stories and nothing else. I find it laughable that .01% of "prayers" that are answered is considered a high success rate while the 99.99% that is not answered is "god's will"

Let me leave you with two things
1) religion is the opium for masses
2) Religion is regard by the common as true, by the wise as false and by rulers as useful.

7,500 years is definately more than enough time for the level of genetic differences to have developed if one considers that there were mutations already underway in the family line prior to that point.

I'm sorry that's an absurd statement.  The rate of mitochondria DNA mutation is predictable. 7,500 years is not even remotely long enough to account for the differences.

I find it quite likely that all living humans are descended from a single genetic set as that is simply a mathametical certainty. Just not in the way you may be thinking. If you take a population of say 1,000 people. Within 100 generations, every single person is going to have the same common ancestor. It does not, by any means, imply that we started out with only 2 people (except maybe in Great Britain where the goofed up teeth certainly make one reconsider <g>).

Mr. Cooley - I see you're trolling again. Wonder why you haven't replied to my post in your "PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS" thread. . . could it be that you can only repeat the same claims over and over without all that bothersome thinking that would go into formulating a rebuttal?

Oh, here's that evidence you wanted:Link

Umm... I saw someone wuote the mathematician Hoyle above and Hoyle's analysis is known to be deeply flawed in its assumptions. Hoyle is assuming we are trying to make a complete cell, we're not, we're trying to make one or two of the basic chemicals that must have made up early "life" i.e. basic amino acids, bases, water, methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide. All of which are statistically likely to have been made in the early part of the Earth's life.

Also on Noah, Brad quite rightly cites mitochondrial DNA as proof that the Noah's ark story could not have happened. Through analysis of the DNA it has been proved that humans evolved from seven different tribal groupings at least 30,000 years ago. Noah's ark happened at most 7,500 years ago and mitochondrial DNA only comes from the mother, so if the Noah's ark story were true only one 'family' of mitochondria would be traceable not the seven we see today. The Noah story therefore cannot have happened. Also need I mention that animal populations (including humans) would have been decimated by congenital defects from excessive inbreeding? There also would not have been enough time for the wide range of variation we see today to have developed and why is there no indication of a great flood in any of the fossil records?

"For evolution to have occurred, all the parts of the puzzle must fit. And the evolutionary theory is missing over 90 percent of the pieces. Where are the missing links? What came first, the chicken or the egg? Evolution is shiek to believe these days. But in truth, it is the most fraudulent bunch of bullshit ever told to the idiot masses by their high and mighty educators and leaders. It is a belief with no proof whatsoever to support it."



Whereas Creationism is missing 99 percent of the pieces? If you ask me, religion (namely Christianity)is the "most fraudulent bunch of bullshit ever told to the idiot masses by their high and mighty [blah blah blah]." Belief with no proof is exactly what most religions are founded off of. You can call the bible "proof," but it's anything but. Some random guy could've just discovered the "joy" of smoking a special type of grass, and decided to write down a whole lot of stories in a little book for all any of us know.

Through analysis of the DNA it has been proved that humans evolved from seven different tribal groupings at least 30,000 years ago

For the argument - Could it be possible that there were other survivors of the flood, in different parts of the world?

However - Can you imagine trying to round up just 30 different types of wild animal - 2 by 2? Then get them on to a boat, that is big enough to hold them all. Then keep them on that boat until out of the flood - without them all killing eachother?!

Thats just 30 (60) animals - let alone every animal in existance! Even if he managed it, who knows how many animals wouldnt have mated due to the stresses of being couped up, so without even counting recent extinctions, there were likely many more species than we have today.

I bet that boat stank of animal shit too!

There are some parts of the Bible (I have not read it all) which sound possible, some which sound plausable, others which sound fantastic and others which sound true. There are also others that just sound rediculous, and the Noahs ark story is one of the latter.

The British mathematician Hoyle

Hoyle did superb work when he was young. But in his later years he went senile. Among other things, he believed that influenza was caused by microbes from space.

The stat cited has been *very* throroughly debunked, if you look around on google.

Since Cooley (Coolie?) doesn't believe in Evolution, he must believe in the Biblical version of Creation. Which must mean he's a Christian. And he used the word "bullshit". Typical hypocritical Christian.

imajinit, if you're correct, why doesn't the Bible mention Evolution? Isn't it supposed to contain all knowledge? And I've always heard the "how long was a day?" argument using the Sun as the measurement tool. God didn't create the Sun on the first day, so how was a day measured until he created it?