Talk:Parasites during the global flood
A possible creationist response (but it has problems in an of itself)
Creationist could say, "The infectious diseases were not as bad during the flood and rapidly evolved". But how could all those diseases NOT cause symptoms (chemical reactions and genetic drift among microbes)? Unless there was an "Eve"-like figure used as a host for all diseases on Earth. But then again there is no mention of anything like that in the Christian bible. In any case it shows how stupid the ark story is.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Assuming evolution (especially an extremely diverse array of parasites) kind of defeats the point of creationism in the first place, doesn't it? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The Ark-wood gets the equivalent of dry-rot/wet rot in the 'galloping spread form.'
Most diseases/pathogens are in their most virulent format when first introduced to a population rather than when they have evolved to 'co-habit' - or when they are in close enough to other pathogens etc to exchange genetic material/are in a position to species-hop - the Ark will provide a good environment for such things to happen.
In the Science Fiction version there will be the equivalents of the seed bank/whatever containers the surviving populations of 'smallpox, rinderpest and any other such diseases no longer in the wild' are kept.
The group living on low-lying ground fed up with being flooded #every year# and constructing 'sailing barges' (or the equivalents in ) to travel to higher ground and whose story eventually became the Flood myth had the ordinary range of 'parasites and diseases' and there was a brief flurry of illnesses when they started interacting with the inhabitants of other barges from elsewhere who had also ended up on Mount Ararat, and then back to health as usual. Anna Livia (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)