Dan Makes my Point Again

He Thought He Has Refuted YEC, Well, Not My Version · Dan Makes my Point Again

Directly Observed Mutation Rates Disprove Young Earth Creationism
Creation Myths | 29.VII.2026 (US TZ)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i4eIQvNueM

Thank you again for making my point.

At some point in the past, for young earth creationism to work, we need to have had more mutations per generation and less weeding out.

Why is the time after the Flood ideal?

1) We see lowering life spans, suggesting degraded genome or mutations, as well as carbon 14 buildup and on my view even the Ice Age which I set earlier, all three of which hang together with more radiation.
2) Just after the Flood, mankind had pretty few mutations (though the Neanderthal inherited ones are from pre-Flood times), and therefore the arriving mutations were far less likely to do harm.

Noting

that my answers keep disappearing. On the next day, the objections except that of John still stand, but my answers to them are gone. Someone deleted. Not me. Last of July, I email Dan, first of August, they are not restored.

fol alibi

@folalibi2743

Poe's Law in action... :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@folalibi2743 I had to look it up.*

No, my intent wasn't ironic, I'm a Young Earth Creationist, I'm also at loggerheads with CMI over a few things like whether Neanderthals were pre- or post-Flood.

And they have not been eager to look at my tables for carbon 14 build-up either.

* footnote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's law

Winnetouch

@noWinneTouching

Out of all the ancient human skeletons and fossil remains ever unearthed, why haven’t we found a single skeleton with the biological age of a 500 year old human? High radiation leaves clear pathological markers on bone tissue, yet ancient skeletons look biologically identical to modern ones dying in their 60s, 70s, or 80s. Taking patriarchal lifespans directly from bronze age mythic genealogies doesn't magically create the forensic evidence to back it up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@noWinneTouching My point is, the genetics was such that a man of 100 or 200 back then would be biologically like modern 30 or 40.

Mutations changed that.

I'm not sure what levels of radiation you think of.

In my case, it's like maybe 10 to 20 times the modern background radiation.

fol alibi

(Since this doesn't seem to be a parody...) How were Neanderthal mutations inherited from pre-Flood? Through a ghost lineage that was not on the Ark? Or was Japhet's wife a Neanderthal and Seth's a Denisovan? Oh, and there's even less time before the Flood (6000-4350=1650 years) to have accumulated these mutations, especially since people in those times supposedly lived to hundreds of years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@folalibi2743 "How were Neanderthal mutations inherited from pre-Flood?"

Example, if one or more of Noah's daughters in law had a Neanderthal daddy, or if Noah had a Neanderthal mother. Or if his wife was half or full Neanderthal (but if so daughters in law of the sapiens type to account for genomic dominance over the residual Neanderthal genome).

"Or was Japhet's wife a Neanderthal and Seth's a Denisovan?"

Neither of them had non-sapiens mitochondriae, and Denisovan DNA is in a smaller proportion, so probably further off in the ancestry.

"Oh, and there's even less time before the Flood (6000-4350=1650 years)"

Let's speak in BC terms, 5200 - 2957 = 2242 years and probably that involves a misreading about Mathuselah and should be 2262 years.

Less time, but ….

"to have accumulated these mutations,"

Supposing they were only accumulated by natural process rather than accelerated by preternatural ones, involving at some level the Nephelim.

"especially since people in those times supposedly lived to hundreds of years old."

An old daddy obviously legates more mutations to his children than a young one

qiexia

@muskyoxes

Aren't you arguing the wrong way? If mutations are slower and generations are longer, we need a lot more time to account for the observed genomic differences

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@muskyoxes Lifespans were longer, generations maybe not quite as much (except the lineage in the Bible).

After the Flood, previously accumulated mutations were fewer, but the new rate of mutations was not just faster than before but significantly faster than now.

John

@John.0z

How widespread is this flood that you are talking about?

Does it perhaps extend far enough back to encompass the First Australian people... with their 40,000+ uninterrupted culture, without recording new arrivals, and that does not mention a flood at all? What is recorded in Queensland is the retreat on land from a rising sea level that drowned the earlier reef (about 30,000 years ago) and saw the growth of the Great Barrier Reef we now see offshore.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John.0z I highly doubt that their own records can be ascribed a totally fault free chronology.

The 40 000 years date is from thermoluminiscence in sand, which I don't know how to calibrate, but I suppose it disfigures real dates more than carbon dates do.

Lake Mungo 3 (I recall) has a carbon date of c. 20 000 BP, which would be during the post-Flood Ice age or midway in Noah's post-Flood remaining lifespan.

Some time between 2725 BC and 2712 BC. Which are respectively carbon dated (usually) as 18,786 BC and as 17,081 BC, while the carbon 14 level in the atmosphere was rising from 14.329 pmC to 17.585 pmC. Yes, carbon 14 was, on my theory, produced faster than now, and significantly so.

The 30 000 years date would be 28 050 BC, between 2892 BC and 2870 BC, if obtained by carbon dates. Between 65 and 87 years after the Flood.