First of all it would be VERY strange because Adam and Eve would have to have every genetic possible allele in existance in their bodies. One would have to have all dominant traits and the other have all recessive traits, or a mixture of the two. Not only that but their offspring would have to carry every allelle they possesed. Which is VERY unlikely considering how the production of gametes work and the fact that every gamete has a different variation of the parent's DNA.
Furthermore, all genes (both dominant and recessive plus others *some alleles have three or even four possibilities*) would have to be present when Noah came about. Let's just forget anything before the flood (lets assume it was 4,400 years ago..2,400 BC) From that time, humans would have to have reproduced, traveled, settled and found ways to survive. Everyone with me so far? From those few people, who HAD TO BE a "mixture" of every trait, all the races would have had to MICROEVOLVE into black, white, hispanic, asian, etc..
Not only that but in the 2400 years between Christ and Noah, the population would have to have moved and expanded to all reaches of Europe, Asia, and Africa, go through micro-evolution into their adapted forms (black in africa, whites in europe, asians in asia, and whatever middle easterners are called.), and then set up civilizations.
It is impossible for those micro evolutions to occur between the 2,400 years before Christ came along, much less by now. Hardy Weignberg problems show that it would be impossible, but Again, I will give you guys the benefit of the doubt.
Lets take a look at empirical evidence.
Here are dates of rulers and their pyramids.
-Bent Pyramid-Pharaoh Snefru (2680-2565 BC)
-The sphynx is a mythical creature and his pyramid that supposedly was built by the Pharaoh Khafre-Chephren about 2500 B.C.
-Pyramid of Pepi II (2250 B.C.)
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/pyramids/pyramids.html
This is fine and dandy. Let's assume that two people populated the earth enough to have the pyramids build in 2600BC. What about 2250BC, only 150 years after the flood? Doesn't seem possible, eh? They would have had to travel to the place where it was built, settle, reproduce exponentially, and build something that takes up to a century in 150 years? Hmm.
And according to this (it doesn't state any beleifs, I am just taking the INFORMATION and applying it to this discussion..http://searchenginez.com/2012/america_pyramids.html
Humans were in the America's as early as 800 BC and no latter than 100 AD according to the time one mound was built in Miamisburg Mound, Ohio.
quote:
________________________________________
Near Mexico’s current capital, this city of ruins was thought to have been home to 125,000 people in 600 AD. Teotihuacan was founded in 100 BC, and deserted by 750 AD, which sounds tragic yet few civilizations manage to last 850 years.
________________________________________
So they spread into what is now Mexico and set up a VERY LARGE city by 100 BC.. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but cities with 125,000 people don't just spring up out of nowheres, there has to be preexistant civilization there with a base of agriculture and other things in order to sustain such a place?
So in 2,300 years, civilization spread completely to the other side of the globe. Let's not even take into account the time that that Alaska-Russia land or ice bridge was there... the last Ice Age, which was supposedly longer than that, but according to Creationists, that is science, science is right, except for evolution.... Hmm since when is Ice Ages part of evolution?
Ok this one is kinda corny because it has to do with pigs but civilizations were in asia by 2250 according to this. So in 150 years, they build the pyramids and some of them already traversed from whereever in the Middle East it is that the ARC landed to Asin? Hmm.http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Shores/7484/time/tl-civ1.htm
was supposedly longer than that, but according to Creationists, that is science, science is right, except for evolution.... Hmm since when is Ice Ages part of evolution?
Ok this one is kinda corny because it has to do with pigs but civilizations were in asia by 2250 according to this. So in 150 years, they build the pyramids and some of them already traversed from whereever in the Middle East it is that the ARC landed to Asin? Hmm.http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Shores/7484/time/tl-civ1.htm
ok now just look at when Mayans came to be... Not only did they start a civilization across the globe 400 years after the flood, they were a group of people which had already microevolved into one race. Let's not even get into the logistics of those people moving that great a distance, nor the amount of rapid population growth that would have been needed. Also notice there are sustained civilizations THROUGH the flood... Then Indus and China civilizations that started during if not right after the flood...
http://chaos1.hypermart.net/anciv/
Facts? I've presented so many in threads like this, but they get totally ignored. If there would be a symposium on "creation vs. evolution" to decide which was correct, it would be overwhelming the amount of evidence that evolution would win. BUT the creationists who are there would ignore it all because of the whole "carbon dating" argument and the clause that they claim God has that "he could have made things in a pre-existant state" (meaning that he made the fossils appear without their having any real animals like that... EVER)
pre existing fossils- goes against their claims and studies that fossils can form in only a few years or weeks instead of the thousands of years normally though of.
carbon (using the fallacy that if carbon dating isn't accurate, then all the other isotope dating methods MUST be wrong too.) dating is "not accurate"- even though they use this and it is true (to an extent because it is only found to be innaccurate by 3% AT THE MOST with and avereage of innaccuracy by 1.6 or 1.7%.), they also use it in order to prove that the bible is 2000 years old and to date other artifacts in their favor.
Flood-Church says it happened the way it said in the bible. Creationists can't make up their mind if the bible is to be taken literally or not. If it is, then it is TOTALLY disproven because the flood CANNOT have covered the entire Earth. If it isn't to be taken literally, then why do they argue the flood really happened using evidence such as sea shells on mountaintops? I mean, if it's supposed to be a local flood, there is no way it would make water reach levels high as mountaintops. Why, if it didn't happen, does the bible say that judgement or whatever was passed and only those animals that were good or whatever survived. Creationists also argue that this is why there aren't anymore Dinosaurs... BUT they also claim there are dinosaurs ( they say lizards are just dinosaurs that haven't grown enough because there isn't the same amounts of foods as before the flood and they claim lock ness monster and other things are dinosaurs) and the existance of them PROVE that evolutionists are wrong because that means that they weren't extinct... WELL DUH, that means evolutionists made a mistake (not that they were wrong) I mean come on, evolutionists haven't claimed that they are all extint or whatever, but there has been ntohing to prove otherwise, except tabloid reports. Also, if it is not literal, then why should we beleive anything else in there, like all the miracles, and that Adam and Eve were the only people, and Jesus never had a relationship with a woman/ Mary Magdeline was a *****...(let's not get into that because there are plenty of things that the church is hiding from the public that could possibly destroy it.) I've also already proven without a shaddow of a doubt that it CANNOT be taken literal because of the rise of civilizations around the world before, during and immediately after this "flood."
Lattely people like Freud have been questioning my Christianism (is that a word?) for my disregarding the good book and it's teachings..First I am not against it's teachings and... well I'm not trying to disgrace it or anything, but only trying to prove that Evolution IS possible and the evidence points to THAT rather than man being created by God in 7 days. That's another point... some say Earth was created in 7 days, but some say those days were MILLIONS of years old to support their "devine evolution" theory, yet the church and bible studiers that are ALOT smarter than these people say it is to be taken literally because it is a normal 7 days because God means what he says in the bible.
Here is evidence in a variety of sites.. the last one is the most extensive and provides the most complete case for evolution I have ever seen online before..
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/HTML/live.html
http://www.tim-thompson.com/*****-fossils.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
There you guys go... have fun.
actually i dont:crap:
