The YEC Hypothesis.

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'd like to ask my own question...

when one looks at science [prob a loaded term to many on this forum], science can track the moments of humans from a single 'origin' in Africa somewhere,and how humans spread across the globe, over thousands of years. Now lets hold off the argument about the timing of these findings, but I ask the question...

Why is the platypus only found in ONE part of the world. If it climbed off a boat in Africa somewhere, there would be several generations before i got to Australia, and it would have branched out from Africa to be all over the world. this is not the case for the platypus, and there are many other examples of animals that also show they did not start their migration from Africa around 4000 years ago.

How does a YEC explain this ?

There is no scientifically correct method to determine where a particular species started out from.

Some animals might have originated in a certain spot and later migrated elsewhere. Others may have been transported along with our human ancestors.

Noah's family and their descendents had a strong motivation to preserve the original Ark inhabitants and their descendents. They also would have preserved the art of ship building.

Reconstructing history via fossils would have beeen difficult after the flood; besides, sheer survival would have had a much higher priority.
 

Lithopaedion

New member
There is no scientifically correct method to determine where a particular species started out from.

Right. Since God just does stuff, we can't really know anything with any degree of certainty. But it is good that we aren't providing ad hoc explanations after all, but ideas grounded in observable phenomena.

Some animals might have originated in a certain spot and later migrated elsewhere.

They might have. Or not. Maybe they didn't start in a certain spot, but somewhere else nearby. Or some other certain point a bit further away to the north or northwest. Or maybe they didn't migrate elsewhere, but stayed. Or maybe they migrated elsewhere, but then returned, creating the illusion that they didn't migrate. Or perhaps other animals were involved somehow.

Others may have been transported along with our human ancestors.

Right. Humans took them along. Or maybe they didn't take along those other animals, but others still (other others). Or maybe they weren't transported along with our human anscestors, but came later along the same route. Or a different route. Who's to say? Maybe the humans didn't transport them, but then regretted it, returned, and picked up some of the animals they had left behind. Or maybe they returned and took some species to another place first before bringing them back to where they were going. Maybe Noah's descendents built a fleet of arks that sailed all around the world dropping animals off in various places. Or only in some places. Or some animals in various places, and other animals in one place. Or one animal in two places, and some other animal in one of those places, and the rest of the animals in yet another place.

Noah's family and their descendents had a strong motivation to preserve the original Ark inhabitants and their descendents. They also would have preserved the art of ship building.

Indeed! They had animals to transport! Gotta get those lemurs to Madagaskar!

Reconstructing history via fossils would have beeen difficult after the flood; besides, sheer survival would have had a much higher priority.

Aha! That's the problem! Noah's sons and daughters didn't set up a museum and spend their time collecting bones. Or maybe they DID spend some of their time reconstructing history with fossils, but God mixed up the bones again just to spite them and show them the futility of mortal effort. Or maybe one of Noah's grandsons researched fossils, but realized that it would be too easy for future men to believe in God by _faith_. The fossils were all so neatly ordered in one layer of debris, that a flood would be obvious. So he spent his time re-burying the fossils in a way that would create the illusion of evolution: hiding the dinosaurs in the deeper layers and the mammals in the upper layers. That took a lot of work, but maybe his cousins gave him a grain stipend to keep him going.

I'm certain that we could even find some Bible verses to support one or more of these hyotheses. Or if not these, then others.
 

Nnoel

New member
There is no scientifically correct method to determine where a particular species started out from.

That is utter rubbish, but unfortunately, the very scientific process that allows us to follow populations of species and how they evolved [hence the example of creatures that have not been found GENETICALLY related to any other creature for hundreds of thousands of years],

oh wait. i just said 'how they evolved'... which means I must have been referring to

A. Ignorant people calling themselves scientists
B. A HUGE conspiracy of people calling themselves scientists formed for the sole purpose of lying to people (because they already know the bible is fact)

C. [the one I prefer] honest people who have earned their academic qualifications and who spend their lives in the search of truth to advance the human race, refining what we already know and breaking new ground for other to explore...

The real dishonest people are those that do their best to confuse science with religion, and have to twist truths and tell blatant lies to make their point.

I found this interesting collection of videos entitled 'why do people laugh at creationists'...

http://thegreenatheist.com/?p=218

watch them all if you're brave enough.

Your local loving Atheist,

Noel.

P.s. I want to start a new thread for people to post comments on the videos... may do later tonight when i get home.
 
Top