What is the difference between a Flat Earther and a Creationist?

[Salvador]

Here we go again. The presumption that the Biblical account is irreconcilable with the scientific theory of evolution is dubious. I reject it.

Human genetic diversity is too great for there to have ever been a human population size that consisted of much less than ca. 10,000 individuals. Pairwise Sequentially Markovian Coalescent (PSMC) analysis confirms a population bottleneck in humans that consisted of no fewer than probably ca. 10,000 individuals. (Li, Heng and Durbin, Richard ) "Inference of Human Population History from Individual Whole-Genome Sequences" Nature International Weekly Journal of Science 28 July 2001 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v47...10231.html

If there were the most severe population bottlenecking such as one breeding pair that is portrayed in the case of the Biblical Adam and Eve, then there would be a maximum of 4 alleles passed on by Adam and Eve to their children. Furthermore, the subsequent inbreeding would cause some loss of alleles due to genetic drifting. There would not have been genetic diversity in the small group of Adam, Eve and their children who would've had to commit incest among each other for the procreation of their inbred children. A lack of genetic diversity would have persisted for thousands of generations until genetic mutations could cause the genetic diversity of today's population. Based on the number of different alleles there are for the number of genes within the current population and the known rate of mutations per nucleotide sites in humans, geneticists can calculate the minimum number of people needed to create the current amount of genetic diversity. Numerous genetic studies suggest that there were several thousands of people more than two people during the most severe population bottleneck which ever occurred in human history.

DNA segments (Alu repeats ) insert themselves at various chromosomal locations. There are various forms of Alu sequences and several thousand families of Alu. One well-studied family of Alu is called Ya5, which has been inserted into human chromosomes at 57 mapped locations. If we were to have descended from a single pair of ancestors such as Adam and Eve, then we all would have each of the 57 elements inserted at the same location points of our chromosomes. "However, the human population consists of groups of people who share some insertion points but not others. The multiple shared categories make it clear that although a human population bottleneck occurred, it was definitely never as small as two. In fact, this line of evidence also indicates that there were at least several thousand people when the population was at its smallest". ( Venema, Dennis and Falk, Darrel ) " Does genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple?" 5 April 2001 http://biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-p...mal-couple
Coalescent theory analysis of single nucleotide polymorphism and linkage disequilibrium indicates the mean effective population size for hominid lineage is 100,000 individuals over the course of the last 30 million years. "The effective population size estimated from linkage disequilibrium is a minimum of ca, 10,000 followed by an expansion in the last 20,000 years." ( Tenesa, Albert, Navarro, Paul, Hayes, Ben J., Duffy, David L., Clarke, Geraldine, Goodard, Mike E. and Visscher, Peter M. ) " Recent Human Effective Population Size Estimated from Linkage Disequilibrium" Genome Research 17 April 2007 Ancestral Population Genomics: The Coalescent Hidden Markov Model Approach

Indeed, there is ample genetic evidence that the Biblical Adam and Eve never existed.

 

[Shaul]

ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 7 instances of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs.

Johnson, Welkin E.; Coffin, John M. (1999-08-31). "Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96(18): 10254–10260. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9610254J. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 17875. PMID 10468595.

Showing that you know how to cut and paste doesn’t excuse a demonstrated lack of understanding between the proper use of the scientific terms “fact” and “theory” as you have done.

 

[Shaul]

Human genetic diversity is too great for there to have ever been a human population size that consisted of much less than ca. 10,000 individuals. Pairwise Sequentially Markovian Coalescent (PSMC) analysis confirms a population bottleneck in humans that consisted of no fewer than probably ca. 10,000 individuals. (Li, Heng and Durbin, Richard ) "Inference of Human Population History from Individual Whole-Genome Sequences" Nature International Weekly Journal of Science 28 July 2001 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v47...10231.html

If there were the most severe population bottlenecking such as one breeding pair that is portrayed in the case of the Biblical Adam and Eve, then there would be a maximum of 4 alleles passed on by Adam and Eve to their children. Furthermore, the subsequent inbreeding would cause some loss of alleles due to genetic drifting. There would not have been genetic diversity in the small group of Adam, Eve and their children who would've had to commit incest among each other for the procreation of their inbred children. A lack of genetic diversity would have persisted for thousands of generations until genetic mutations could cause the genetic diversity of today's population. Based on the number of different alleles there are for the number of genes within the current population and the known rate of mutations per nucleotide sites in humans, geneticists can calculate the minimum number of people needed to create the current amount of genetic diversity. Numerous genetic studies suggest that there were several thousands of people more than two people during the most severe population bottleneck which ever occurred in human history.

DNA segments (Alu repeats ) insert themselves at various chromosomal locations. There are various forms of Alu sequences and several thousand families of Alu. One well-studied family of Alu is called Ya5, which has been inserted into human chromosomes at 57 mapped locations. If we were to have descended from a single pair of ancestors such as Adam and Eve, then we all would have each of the 57 elements inserted at the same location points of our chromosomes. "However, the human population consists of groups of people who share some insertion points but not others. The multiple shared categories make it clear that although a human population bottleneck occurred, it was definitely never as small as two. In fact, this line of evidence also indicates that there were at least several thousand people when the population was at its smallest". ( Venema, Dennis and Falk, Darrel ) " Does genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple?" 5 April 2001 http://biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-p...mal-couple
Coalescent theory analysis of single nucleotide polymorphism and linkage disequilibrium indicates the mean effective population size for hominid lineage is 100,000 individuals over the course of the last 30 million years. "The effective population size estimated from linkage disequilibrium is a minimum of ca, 10,000 followed by an expansion in the last 20,000 years." ( Tenesa, Albert, Navarro, Paul, Hayes, Ben J., Duffy, David L., Clarke, Geraldine, Goodard, Mike E. and Visscher, Peter M. ) " Recent Human Effective Population Size Estimated from Linkage Disequilibrium" Genome Research 17 April 2007 Ancestral Population Genomics: The Coalescent Hidden Markov Model Approach

Indeed, there is ample genetic evidence that the Biblical Adam and Eve never existed.

All you have demonstrated here is that you know how to cut and paste and that you want to attack some straw man cartoon of the Biblical account.

 

[Salvador]

Showing that you know how to cut and paste doesn’t excuse a demonstrated lack of understanding between the proper use of the scientific terms “fact” and “theory” as you have done.

I've copied and pasted what I myself have written in my own words. From nobody else online will you find what I've written.

There's overwhelming fossil record evidence as well as genetic evidence of significant enough gene pool changes within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population. There's little doubt all life forms share a common ancestor; so then, evolution is about as debatable as the Earth's ellipsoid shape.

 

[Salvador]

All you have demonstrated here is that you know how to cut and paste and that you want to attack some straw man cartoon of the Biblical account.

The Biblical account of creation, regarding the origin of homo sapiens is false; because the Biblical geneaology of Jesus's family tree has a time span of 77 generations listed between his generation and Adam whom the Bible claims was the "first man". Reference: (Luke 3:23-38) and Eve whom the Bible claims as the mother of all the living. (Genesis 3:20)

Of course, the Bible is wrong about the origin of mankind; in fact, there were people prior to the 76th generation before Christ that allegedly was spawned by Adam and Eve.

Adam as being the first man and perpetrator of original sin is an important premise of Christianity. If Adam wasn't the first man, then there isn't actually any "origin sin". Jesus supposedly died on the Cross to save humankind from "original sin". If there isn't any "original sin" from which to be saved, then Jesus Christ's death on the Cross is pretty pointless and meaningless. Evidently, there were many generations of people prior to the 76th generation before Christ whom the Bible claims was spawned by Adam. So then, Adam, Eve and original sin are mythological. There is neither any "first man" nor "original sin" throughout human evolution. Thus, Jesus Christ having died on the cross to save mankind from "original sin" is not reality but is rather mythological.

Based on genetic diversity, there's never been a human population bottleneck as low as one primordial couple.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I think a more interesting title would have been, "What is the same between a creationist and a flat earther?"

he was sure.....decades ago
and insisted I had no proof the earth is round

Geophysics is not my strong suit; neither is math; so I would struggle with this a bit myself.

Psychologically, denialism is the same regardless of what's being denied. Deniers of the holocaust, global warming, spherical earth, evolution, vaccines....they all employ the same general defense mechanisms.

I agree. I believe that most irrational belief systems are cut from the same stone.

I suspect my grandfather leaned to evidence

I had none as we sat at the table

That's because you weren't familiar with their arguments. You had plenty of evidence; you just didn't realize it; starting with, for example, if the earth were flat, we would all see the same night sky ... but we don't. Can't see the Southern Cross at any time during the year where I am ....

Most Flat Earthers also seem to be conspiracy theorists.

So are Creationists. After all, scientists are conspiring against the "truth" of "god".

 

[Messianic Israelite]

The similarity between flat-earth theories and evolution is absence of evidence: macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

 

[sooda]

I think a more interesting title would have been, "What is the same between a creationist and a flat earther?"



Geophysics is not my strong suit; neither is math; so I would struggle with this a bit myself.



I agree. I believe that most irrational belief systems are cut from the same stone.



That's because you weren't familiar with their arguments. You had plenty of evidence; you just didn't realize it; starting with, for example, if the earth were flat, we would all see the same night sky ... but we don't. Can't see the Southern Cross at any time during the year where I am ....



So are Creationists. After all, scientists are conspiring against the "truth" of "god".

Not against God.. against myths. By the time Adam and Eve came along the Sumerians were experienced farmers and had invented sailboats, irrigation and a bunch of other stuff.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The similarity between flat-earth theories and evolution is absence of evidence: macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

There is more evidence for evolution than I hold hope that you would accept.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And once you make government part of your conspiracy, anything goes.

Especially if you also allow for magic to happen, on top of that.

I've always felt that there is no valid argument to be made to a theist who believes in a miracle working god.
Allowing for miracles to happen whenever the god in question feels like producing one, gives you a free pass to literally explain away ANYTHING AT ALL.

Contradicting evidence, like no universal genetic bottleneck contradicting the flood narrative? No problem: god miraculously produced genetic variation, avoiding a bottleneck.

No way for 8 people to take care of all those animals? No problem: God miraculously made it possible anyway.

There is literally NOTHING that you can't "explain away" when you get to invoke magic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, evolution is a verifiable theory, it is not a proven fact. If you wish to presume the mantle of defender of science it would help if you use correct scientific terminology.

Evolution factually happens.
Evolution theory explains the process by which evolution occurs.

Consider gravity.
Gravity factually exists.
Theories of gravity addres how gravity works, by what processes gravity occurs.

Scientific theories, explain scientific facts.
Evolution is a fact. Evolution theory explains said fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You too can be a graduate of FECU:

 

[Subduction Zone]

The similarity between flat-earth theories and evolution is absence of evidence: macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

And this proves my point. Utter incomprehension of the concept of evidence and a massive attack of Dunning Kruger.

You might as well be a Flat Earther.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here we go again. The presumption that the Biblical account is irreconcilable with the scientific theory of evolution is dubious. I reject it.

The Biblical account is irreconcilable with a heck of a lot more than evolution.

The order of events in Genesis has the Earth created before the Sun. Evolution seems like a quibble against that major error.

 

[Kenny]

also have more sympathy for creationists, since they've generally had creationism drilled into them by their family and society from long before they had the capacity for rational thought;

Then again, there are those who didn't have it drilled into them and yet believe that God created it.

 

[Kenny]

I suppose creationism in terms of God-did-it is neither falsifiable nor verifiable. Whereas, the Earth's shape is verifiable.

that statement was GREAT

 

[ratiocinator]

The similarity between flat-earth theories and evolution is absence of evidence: macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

It's actually quite remarkable how you managed to cram so much wrongness into so few words.

• There is no fundamental difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution.
• There is plenty of evidence for evolution.
• Direct observation is not the only evidence possible.
• You wouldn't expect what many creationists call "macro" evolution in "breeding experiments".
• What creationists refer to as "macro" evolution changes according to what evidence they happen to think they can't deny, even to their gullible audience.
• There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for creationism. Even if evolution were to be totally disproved, it wouldn't make literal creationism any more credible.

 

[Polymath257]

I've done a simple experiment proving the Earth's nearly spherical shape and size.

I've calculated the Earth's circumference by observing and measuring the North Star's angle of view from my horizon with a clinometer at 46 degrees latitude and then comparing Polaris' angle of view from my horizon at 43 degrees latitude. Using an odometer, I measured the 200 miles of distance I traveled north to south on I-29 between 46 and 43 degrees latitude.
I then took the 200 miles distance difference and divided it by the 3 degrees latitude difference and calculated 66.666 miles per 1 degree of distance. Then I multiplied 66.666 miles * 360 to calculate the Earth's circumference at 24,000 miles.

Eratosthenes would have been proud.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then again, there are those who didn't have it drilled into them and yet believe that God created it.

I don't think that the term "creationism" applies to any belief that God created the universe. IMO, creationism describes the belief - or spectrum of belief - that the universe and/or life arose by supernatural intervention as opposed to natural process like evolution and those described in the models for formation of the universe/the Solar System/Earth/etc. derived scientifically.

 

[Kenny]

I don't think that the term "creationism" applies to any belief that God created the universe. IMO, creationism describes the belief - or spectrum of belief - that the universe and/or life arose by supernatural intervention as opposed to natural process like evolution and those described in the models for formation of the universe/the Solar System/Earth/etc. derived scientifically.

I agree with your definition.

I don't think they are necessary contrary to each other.