Originally posted by stellspalfie
for theories put forward that claim to use science can we please have links to peer reviewed papers.
Surely you jest. His first statement about fossils is to say there are practically no evidence for fossil humans. WRONG. Then he talks about a supposed similarity between the crash of human population and the crash of population as a result of the flood. The fossil record says humans crashed down to maybe 1000 individuals but the flood story has humans go down to 8 people. He uses that as if evolution timeline and biblical timeline was similar. But in reality, the human population crashed something like 180,000 years ago so there is no putting those two timelines together.
Also, one of his bogus arguments is that the population of early man should have been 40 BILLION people, that based on his BS idea of reproductive rates.
The population of the entire human race in those years was never more than a few million but he uses his BS argument to support his idea there are practically no fossils of early man, very small numbers we have today.
This alone is a total nonsense argument. You don't need a Phd to see that one.
Next he goes into Eve's genetics, total supposition.
He goes on to say the lack of genetic diversity was due to the 3 or 4 wives of the Ark.
He goes on to say this explains the diversity of humans today.
Lets see his peer reviewed papers on it.......
Just another case of all opinion, words, words, more words in a lecture as if that was science.
Sorry, that is not how science works. You don't just start lecturing on a subject with the pre-ordained idea of proving a theory and expect people to just fall over and believe his BS.