Creation was meant to be a place of provision and protection. That’s what the ordering of the six days of creation communicates. But Genesis 1:1-2:3 sets in motion a big idea that drives the whole biblical story from beginning to end. The temple theme is rooted in the seven day structure of creation and opens up the possibility that the author did not use “days” to express length of time, but rather to set up the all important temple metaphor as the lens through which we understand the creation narrative.
The Next Three Posts
I’ve decided to cover this topic in three separate posts in order to keep it simple and clear. In this post I’ll talk about the two short segments of text (Gen 1:1 and 2:1-3) that are our current focus. Why are they separate from the six days, how do they work together? We’ll find another important aspect of symmetry in the text.
In the second post I’ll talk about temples in the ancient Near East (ANE). For people in the ANE, the temple was an ever present picture of how they related to their god(s) in every day life. Worship for them was not a Sunday morning affair. Worship for them determined the success or failure of every aspect of life. Since Moses draws on the temple concept as a way of relating to God in the creation account, we’ll need to start here in order to carefully parse out what Moses is and is not claiming.
Finally, in the third post, I’ll bring together the ideas of the first two posts and show that Moses is trying to make one important point. Creation is a temple. That is an earth shaking revelation but we won’t be able to understand just how earth shaking until we’ve gone through the first two posts.
Creation is a temple.
After all of this, we should be able to see that not only is the creation of Gen 1 not necessarily in chronological order (see the first post), but that the six days of creation plus rest on the seventh are there to create the temple imagery in the text and are not necessarily making any claims about creative acts taking place at a particular time in history or in the span of six, 24-hour days.
Let’s Begin by Reading Through the Proper Lens
In the previous post on the Gen 1 creation account we looked just at the six days of creation in Gen 1:2-31 and we said we would leave Gen 1:1 (the title of the creation account) and Gen 2:1-3 (the seventh day-the day of rest) for a separate post. But is there any really good reason for treating these texts separately?
Two of These Things are Not Like the Others
I’ve already pointed out that Gen 1:2-31 is typical Hebrew narrative from a grammatical-syntactical point of view. There is an introductory sentence (Now the earth was formless…) that gives us basic background information that sets the action of the narrative in motion in verse 3 (And God said). Genesis 1:1 stands outside of this typical Hebrew narrative structure. In my opinion, it serves as a title or summary of all that follows.
Even the seventh day, the day of rest in Gen 2:1-3, is quite different from the other six days. This seventh day does not demonstrate any structural similarity to the six days of creative activity. It doesn’t begin “And God said,” and it doesn’t end, “and there was evening and there was morning” like every other day does. Of course, most obviously, there is no creative activity. God did not create rest on the seventh day and he doesn’t declare anything good. So, like the first verse, this seventh day is outside the structure of the six days of creative activity.
More Symmetry in the Creation Account
Not only do these two segments of text stand apart from the six days of creative activity, but people have noticed they have something in common.
Genesis 1:1 has four major parts. Here they are in the order they appear in Hebrew:
1. In the beginning
2. Created
3. God
4. The Heavens and the Earth.
If you take away “in the beginning” and then look at the seventh day in Gen 2:1-3, you’ll see that all three basic elements from Gen 1:1 appear. It gets more interesting than that, actually, because the three appear in reverse order:
3. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished…
2. on the seventh day God finished his work…
1. on it God rested from all … he had done in creation.
That’s interesting, but does it mean anything? Yes, it certainly does. In the last post I pointed out that symmetry is a way of conserving or communicating meaning. By repeating these key phrases in reverse order the author has created a beautiful symmetry around the six days of creation. This kind of symmetry is typical in Hebrew literature and it has a name—it’s an inclusio. An inclusio typically serves two functions. First, it marks the boundaries of the text. This text begins in Gen 1:1 and ends with Gen 2:1-2. Simple as that. The second function is more important for us to consider because often times, an inclusio serves as an interpretive filter through which we read the main portion of text that lies inside.
OK There’s an Inclusio—What Does that Mean?
It’s one thing to spot an inclusio and say we need to read the whole text through its lens. But what exactly does that mean here? In order to see just what effect this feature has on our reading we need to take a step back and look at temples in the ancient Near East. That will help us put the pieces of this puzzle together.
The Evangelical’s Creation Conundrum: Navigating the Scylla and the Charybdis of Science and Scripture
- The Evangelical’s Creation Conundrum: Navigating the Scylla and the Charybdis
- Designed for Order: The ANE Wisdom Worldview
- The Fear of Yahweh is the Beginning of Wisdom: The Israelite Wisdom Worldview
- Consilience: The Unity of Science and Scripture in the Matrix of Wisdom
- Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star, How I Wonder When You Are
- The Structural Symmetry of the Six Days of Creation
- Creation is a Temple: Reading Creation through the Proper Interpretive Lens
- Creation is a Temple: The Temple as a Meme in the Ancient Near East and Genesis 1
- Creation is a Temple: Moses’ Brilliant Literary and Theological Move in Genesis 1
- When a Day Might not be a Day
- Reading Genesis 1 as Literature and the Three Problems it Creates for Evangelicals
- How Can the Creation Account in Genesis 1 be Both History and Literature?
- Has Anyone Ever Read Genesis 1 Like this Before?
- The Paradox of Perspicuity: How Would a Regular Person Ever Understand Genesis 1 This Way?
David Duff says
Inclusio – so I’m learning a new term. You’d better have the next installment soon – this one was a cliffhanger. And can you give me a few other examples of narrative inclusios in Scripture so I can compare? Thanks!
Todd Patterson says
Thanks for commenting! I’ll try to follow up quickly but I do have a packed month or two coming up. We’ll see.
As for the use of inclusio in other places. There are some book level examples. For example the book of Judges has a double introduction and a double conclusion. The first introduction and last conclusion have parallel ideas and the second introduction and first conclusion have parallel ideas. This creates an envelope around the whole book A-B || B’-A’. Where A (Judges 1:1-2:5) is wars with Canaanites where the Canaanites are “devoted to destruction” (see Dt 7) and A’ (Judges 19:1-21:25) is war with an Israelite tribe that is “devoted to destruction.” And where B (Judges 2:6-3:6) is Israel serving false gods due to Canaanite influence and B’ ( 17:1-18:31) is Israel serving false gods due to influence from within Israel.
Joshua may also have an inclusio around the book. Compare 1:1-5:12 and 22:1-24:33. If this is not an inclusio it would only be because the whole book is shaped by an A-B-B’-A’ pattern. Same with 1Kings 1-11, the story of Solomon, which begins with three opponents (1:1-2:46 and 11:14-43) and ends with three opponents. But there may be a more complete chiastic structure here as well (A-B-C…C-B-A).
An example on a smaller scale is Psalms 1 and 2. These Psalms are usually considered to work together as the intro to the book of Psalms. The inclusio is the “blessed is/are” in 1:1 and 2:12.
Also see Psalms 103 and 104, “Bless the Lord, Oh my soul!” at the beginning and end of each of these Psalms.
They can be found on even smaller scales (verse level) in poetic literature (prophets and psalms) but I don’t remember specific examples of those off the top of my head.
Inclusios (A-main text-A) are common and they are similar to chiasms (A-B-C-B-A) where whole texts are arranged in a parallel or symmetrical structure. In fact, “inclusio” and “chiasm” is our terminology, not theirs. These are our categories for special cases of a broader principle of Hebrew literature (and ANE literature in general, both narrative and poetic texts) that it was common to use various modes of repetition to structure a text on every level from book level to verse level and everything in between. It is ubiquitous. In Genesis, for example, look at 9:6a which is made up of 2 lines of three words each:
who-spills blood of-man (A-B-C || C-B-A) by-man his-blood let-spill
What’s more, there are many other ways that repetition is used to structure a text. We saw this in the six days of creation. Watching for repetition and the way that repetition structures a text is an important part of learning to do a close reading of the biblical text. We certainly get the gist of what the author is saying without noticing the chiasm, but we fine tune our reading and gain confidence that we are reading correctly when we notice these structural features.
Some people say, for example, that based on the grammar of Gen 1 we can clearly see that it is Hebrew historical narrative. And they’re right. The problem is, they sometimes conclude that therefore it is not poetically shaped. But that is just false. The whole book of Genesis is Hebrew historical narrative and is poetically shaped. Three out of five major narrative sections Gen 6-9 (flood narrative), 11-24 (Abraham narrative), and 26-35 (Jacob narrative) are all arranged from beginning to end in a chiastic pattern. Poetic shaping is very much a part of Hebrew historical narrative no matter where you look.
Don Hedges says
Todd, I just wondered if you’d yet had a chance to view the conversation between Drs. Collins and Mohler on the topic, “Does Scripture Speak Definitively on the Age of the Universe?” sponsored by the Henry Center (http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/resource/genesis-the-age-of-the-earth-does-scripture-speak-definitively-on-the-age-of-the-universe/)–and if so, what you thought about it.
Todd Patterson says
Hi Don. Thanks for reading and thanks for the question. I decided to answer it in a new post I called, “Why Al Mohler Should not Play Poker and Other Words of Wisdom Relating to the Age of the Universe.“
Rick Duff says
Enjoyed this first writing of the bookends found around chuncks of scripture. Plenty was provided for me to digest 🙂 Have you written, or found theologians you support who use descriptions of the human body as a temple model of communion with the Holy Spirit? Would enjoy your thoughts about this disconnection from the external dwelling places being Earth, Heaven, and structural temples compared to the biological temples God creates to allow for the indwelling and personal meetings with His Holy Spirit.
Todd Patterson says
Hi Rick, thanks for taking the time to read and comment. I really appreciate it.
In a series that I did, but never quite finished, on the Book of Acts, I have a post called, “Mount Sinai and the Pentecost: Recreating the People of God.”
In that post I talk about Pentecost being an intentional reference to Exodus. In Exodus, after the tabernacle and the sacrificial system is set up the covenant between God and his people is established. Once established, God’s presence (the pillar of fire or smoke) comes down from Mt. Sinai and rests over the tent of meeting. In other words, God is present with his people in the midst of the camp.
In Acts, because of what Christ has done, God’s Spirit now comes down from heaven in little pillars of fire that rest over each believer. Each believer is now a dwelling place for the glory of God.
Because Christ has justified us, we stand before God holy and we no longer need the sacrificial system to mediate our relationship to God. God dwells within us, we are a holy of holies.
I’m afraid I’m not sure which commentary or book you would find this interpretation or what further reading you could do on this topic but if I run into something I will let you know.
Thanks again!
Brian O'Malley says
I’m probably nit-picking a bit here on the inclusio. But in Gen 2:1-3, I see “the heavens and the earth”, God, God, created, God. Instead of seeing A-B-C-C’-B’-A’, I see A-B-C-C’-B’-B’-A’-B’. Then again, Dr. V always thought I saw things as too black and white. 🙂 I think it might be a stronger argument to let A = God created and B = the heavens and the earth, which yields A-B-B’-A’. The space between B’ and A’ expands on a few things: God completed His works and He rested on the 7th day. God blessed the 7th day and He set it apart/made it holy … for on it He rested from all His works which God created (A’).
Todd Patterson says
Nice catch! You’re right. Thanks for taking the time to look at the Hebrew and for asking a question I left out in the interest of space. I don’t think you’re too black and white. I think what you’ve noticed is just the right kind of thing we need to think about because we need to think carefully about whether or not what we see in the text is really there.
There are a couple of things that make this seem like a less than perfect symmetrical pattern. For example, even though he uses the word “create” only near the end of verse 3, he does use the word “make” several times (2x verse 2, once more verse 3). You pointed out that even the word “create” occurs between the second and third occurrence of “God.”
In the end, we have to answer the question: “Did the author do this on purpose or did this just happen because it naturally (without the author’s design) works out that way?” If the author did this on purpose then we can say there is an intentional connection with the potential for significance. To me, the idea of writing out these structures as A-B-C, etc. (like I do with the symmetry of the six days of creation) is our way of getting a grasp on the literary shaping of the text that is helpful for us but probably overly schematic, not just for an ancient author, but authors in general. I think there are other aspects of the text we need to consider in order to evaluate whether or not these kinds of structures are intentional shaping. Here’s how I generally think about it.
First, is a careful reader (not a casual reader and not a close reader, but one who is careful and familiar with literary conventions of the day) going to notice a connection between Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:1-3 that is going to cause them to go back and take a closer look? I think the answer to that question is yes. The three key terms of Gen 1:1 all appear in Gen 2:1-3. Also, there is the fact that Gen 2:1-3, the seventh day, is unlike any of the other six days of creation. It sticks out. These two aspects of the text will show up to the careful reader.
Second, spotting a connection between the texts should cause the careful reader to go back and take a closer look—”Is there something going on that I need to pay attention to?” Again, I think the careful reader will discover more connections. Even though the seventh day is really about God setting it apart as a holy day of rest, the idea of God creating the heavens and the earth runs through all three verses from beginning to end with strange emphasis. Strange emphasis implies intentionality and so he’s clearly trying to connect the seventh day to Gen 1:1. Now, given that connection, it becomes interesting to note that the three (out of four) key lexical elements from Gen 1:1 make their appearance in Gen 2:1-3 in reverse order. First heaven and earth show up as the subject of a passive verb (this verb is a passive /Pual/ in only 2 of its 416 occurrences in the Hebrew Bible), then the word “God” makes its appearance and finally “create.” To me it is important that it would have been really natural to say in Gen 2:1 “And so created God the heavens and the earth” as a clear connection to Gen 1:1. But he makes the verb passive so he doesn’t have to use “God” as the subject (he can keep it back for later) and he uses “completion” and “make” several times in order to hold off “create” for the end of the verse. All of these things should confirm to the careful reader that the author has done something intentional. (You can see this is my first level of explanation in direct answer to your comment. The key words reappear in reverse order even though they get repeated more often and maybe even “out of order.”)
But why? This is the third factor in evaluating a structure. When I step away from evaluating the fine details of the structure, is there anything the author wants to say by it? In poetic texts I’ve often seen shaping that doesn’t have an immediate meaning associated with it. Or at least I can’t figure it out. But in narrative texts that are poetically shaped I can’t think of an instance where there isn’t some reason for it. In this case, I think I see a clear reason. Rather than just repeating Gen 1:1 at the end as a way of tying the beginning and end together, Moses has intertwined the creation of heaven and earth with the consecration of the seventh day. The seventh day is the consummation of creation. Creation is the seventh day, the seventh day is creation. That is his point. But what does that mean? That’s what the next two posts are about and my argument here won’t really be complete until I show why that is. But once I do, I think it will “just fit” and provide a very satisfying reason that Moses wrote the text in just this way.
So yes, “God” shows up again after the word “create” and screws up a nice A-B-C-C-B-A pattern. But I think those patterns are our inventions that are helpful for us to see better what’s going on. But I don’t think we should evaluate the structure of the text on the basis of a lettered pattern. We need to continually move down into the details of the structure while staying rooted in the level of the text as a whole. We have to be more gestalt.
Helmut Welke says
While I appreciate Todd and his family and their commitment to Christian missions, many of you who have read my comments here, realize that Todd and I do not agree on the use of ANE poetry techniques as a method to interpret to the Inspired Word if God. More importantly Todd admits he does not know much about the science used to justify a billion year old and the strong scientific problems with them – that in fact most verifiable facts of science indicate our planet and solar system cannot be millions of years old, let alone billions. As a result of our meetings last year, I was inspired to bring some verifiable Creation Science info to TEDS and Trinity International University. Working with a local group, we are holding a Creation Truth conference at the AT Olson chapel in Deerfield, Il on Sept. 23, 2017. Two of our key note speakers are world class scientists who have published in secular peer reviewed science journals. Dr. John Sanford is a recognized world leader in Genetics and Dr. Steve Austin is a field researcher with a PhD in Sedimentary Geology from Penn State. (Steve was just featured in the recent film, “Is Genesis History?” – too bad this film was not available while Todd was in the States) Our 3rd keynote is David Lovi who is a local pastor at an E.Free Church and holds 2 masters degrees from TEDS. You can learn about the conference and registration at MidwestCreationFellowship.org/TruthConf or you can email me for info and registration by mail.. – Helmut Welke- [email protected]
TMal says
“Most verifiable facts of science indicate our planet and solar system cannot be millions of years old…”
As an interested party with background experience in geology and paleobiology, I’m afraid this claim just simply isn’t true
Todd says
Hi TMal, thanks for reading and especially for interacting. Perhaps if Helmut provided some specific examples of verifiable facts of science that indicate our planet and solar system cannot be millions of years old, then you could give a response.
Helmut Welke says
Todd here are some of my favorite reasons. Can’t list them all here, but you can check the websites listed below.
1. DNA in ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years. Bacterial DNA is relatively small and fragile to begin with. It deteriorates fast. See also number 5.
2. Decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago and not even in the 100’s of thousands.. Dr. John Sanford, in his book: “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome”, (Ivan Press, 2005) documents this very well from the perspective an expert in mutations and DNA. (Dr. Sanford is the inventor of the Gene Gun and a world renowned expert on plant genetics and mutations.) This has been confirmed by realistic modeling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, on the order of thousands of years. This is consistent with the early studies (1998) of mtDNA that indicated a mitochondrial “Eve” lived only 6000 years ago – based on known rapid mutation rates. There is also a 2012 study on DNA that said “We peaked as a species 2000-6000 years ago”. These facts about mutations and the decline of the human genome, are consistent with a Biblical perspective of Adam and Eve living only 6000 years ago – falling into sin with the result of mutations and decline of the genome ever since. It is strong evidence we are devolving – not evolving.
3. Unfossilized dinosaur bones and other fossils. Many fossil bones ‘dated’ at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth. They should either be totally fossilized or disintegrated in well less than a million years.
4. Soft Biological tissue in Dinosaur bones have been found numerous times since 1995. Biological tissue, even if microscopic inside a buried bone, cannot last for 1 million years, let alone 65 million. The presence of iron also does not help. In recent reports researchers ‘pureed bird blood’ to see if it did knock back germs that would have devoured the dinosaur soft tissue. While the artificial puree did inhibit the tissue eating germs, there are at least five observations that soundly refute “the hypothesis that iron contributes to preservation in deep time.” See: http://www.icr.org/article/can-iron-preserve-fossil-proteins-for/
5. Dinosaur DNA strands recovered in Dinosaur tissue have been found since 2012. DNA and its decay rate have been studied and in a separate British paper in 2012, it has been shown that DNA in a bone cannot last for 100,000 years, let alone 65-80 million. This and number 4 show conclusively that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and destroys the millions of years timeline of evolutionary history.
6. Carbon-14 in Dinosaur bones. Every time a dinosaur bone has been subjected to a blind test for C-14 dating, it comes back with an age of thousands of years. C-14 is actually a young earth creationist’s best friend because it shows up in anything that once was alive. And C-14 is only good for around 80,000 years or so. This makes the 65 million+ age of dinosaur bones all by itself impossible. A counter claim is that all this C14 in Dino Bones is the result of contamination. But then why should we trust any C14 dating? Does this rebuttal mean the labs don’t know how to keep their equipment clean and sterile? Or don’t know how to prepare specimens? And many of the results have significant amounts of C14, with resultant dates under 20,000 years.
7. HUGE bent Rock layers. There are thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. E.g. the Kaibab upwarp in Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened). There are examples of this around the world. This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood and an earthquake only a short time later.
8. The decay of the earth’s magnetic field. Exponential decay is evident from measurements and is consistent with the theory of free decay since creation. The data clearly suggests an age of the earth of only thousands of years. Dr. Russ Humphreys, an award winning physicist from Sandia National Laboratories determined that Earth’s magnetic field allows for a maximum age of earth at 20,000 years.
9. Too much Helium in Zircons. The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive
elements, retained in zircons in deeply buried granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the assumed billions of years. There is simply too much helium in these crystals. This was noticed by many secular geologists but never researched. As part of the RATE team, physicist Dr. Humphreys calculated what the diffusion rate of helium in Zircons would have to be based on 2 different scenarios. One; if the rocks were ~6000 years old and another if the rocks were indeed 1.5 billion years old. He published these results and predictions before extensive measurements of helium diffusion were made. An independent lab then made the extensive measurements on the diffusion rates and provided the data in 2003. The 6000 year-old earth prediction was almost a bulls-eye correct prediction while the billion year old projection was off by a factor of 100,000!
See: “Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth”.
10. Recession of the moon from the earth. Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age. The Earth and the Moon cannot be more than 1 billion years old- at the maximum, and more likely much less.
11. Mercury’s Magnetic field. The presence of a significant magnetic field around Mercury is not consistent with its supposed age of billions of years. A planet so small should have cooled down enough so any liquid core would solidify, preventing the evolutionists’ ‘dynamo’ mechanism.
12. The outer planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields, but they should have been nearly dissipated long ago if they are as old as claimed according to evolutionary long-age beliefs. Assuming a solar system age of thousands of years, physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys successfully predicted the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, in print, before Voyager 2 measured them. Out of hundreds of scientists who made such predictions, only Dr. Humphreys used a model assuming a solar system that is 6,000 years old instead of 4+ billion. Dr. Humphreys’ prediction was the ONLY one that was correct. This is big in science. He should have received a noble prize for this prediction.
13. Magnetic fields of Jupiter’s larger moons, Ganymede, Io, and Europa, have magnetic fields, which they should not have if they were billions of years old, because they have solid cores and so no theoretical dynamo could generate the magnetic fields. This is also consistent with physicist Russ Humphreys’ predictions based on a young solar system.
See also, Spencer, W., Ganymede: the surprisingly magnetic moon, Journal of Creation 23(1):8–9, 2009.
14. Volcanically active moons of Jupiter (Io) are consistent with youthfulness (Galileo mission recorded 80 active volcanoes). If Io had been erupting over 4.5 billion years at even 10% of its current rate, it would have erupted its entire mass 40 times. Io looks like a young moon and does not fit with the supposed billions of year’s age for the solar system. Gravitational tugging from Jupiter and other moons accounts for only a minor amount of the excess heat produced.
15. The existence of short-period comets (orbital period less than 200 years), e.g. Halley, which
have a life of less than 20,000 years, is consistent with an age of the solar system of less than 10,000
years. Ad hoc hypotheses have to be invented to circumvent this evidence such as the Kuiper Belt
being a source for ‘new’ comets, but there are too many discrepancies. The belt does not have enough material and also the size of Kuiper Belt Objects (KBO’s) do not come close or overlap with the sizes of short period comets.
16. Lifetime of long-period comets (orbital period greater than 200 years) that are sun-grazing comets or others like Hyakutake or Hale–Bopp means they could not have originated with the solar system 4.5 billion years ago. However, their existence is consistent with a young age for the solar system. An ad hoc Oort Cloud was invented to try to account for these comets still being present
after billions of years. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever for the Oort cloud. It was simply ‘made up’ – as admitted by even atheist Carl Sagan.
17. Recent photographs and atmospheric measurements of Pluto show a very young planetoid.
On 14 July 2015 a phenomenally successful flyby of Pluto and its moons was made by the New Horizons spacecraft. And one thing stood out to everyone: Pluto looks young! In some of the news conferences, secular scientists actually looked baffled when explaining what New Horizons revealed.
The surface was expected to be full of ancient craters, but some parts looked very smooth – a ‘young’ surface and in some areas with mountains that seemed to be shaped ‘recently’. The smoothed surface indicates internal heat of Pluto’s core is still very much there. If Pluto was billions of years old, it should be nothing but a very cold crater-marked rock. Internal heat indicates Pluto is very young.
For more see – 101 evidences for young age of the earth and the universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Carbon 14: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/
The end of long age radiometric dating: http://qccsa.org/the-end-of-long-age-radiometric-dating/
Helmut Welke says
Sorry TMal. My claim is true. I take this and my hard earned reputation seriously. I would not say it if I could not back it up. I have spent the better part of 40 years investigating this question and the age of the earth from Science. Your silly assertion is just that – an assertion from ‘Herd Think’, because I doubt you have investigated the real science and the data behind radiometric dating, and the data from NASA space probes and verifiable investigations that have been done on earth. I urge you to start reading the alternative opinions and supporting data from very well qualified scientists. (Dr. Russ Humphreys (award winning physicist) and colleagues at Creation.com; or Dr. Randy J. Guliuzza and staff at ICR.org and others like Dr. John Sanford, world class geneticist),. I can also send you a few summary articles I have written – assuming you are willing to engage in honest discussion. I will be answering your other claims as I can, but you write me at [email protected]
TMal says
Actually, given that I’m a scientist with degrees in biology and paleontology (and have similarly studied these issues for over 40 years) (Plus, the fact that I am well acquainted with YEC claims and “supporting data” having formerly been a YEC myself who vigorously defended the YEC position with the same “supporting data”) I’m actually well informed on the subject, including first hand experience. We don’t even have to talk about radiometric dating, just the physical geologic/paleontologic record itself. It not support young ages or evidence a global flood. I wish I could say otherwise, but then I would be lying.
TMal says
On an additional note, I would add that Todd is not using any nefarious, biblically compromising approach to interpret scripture, but using the correct approach that even YEC organizations like Creation Ministries International advocate of interpreting scripture according to original meaning and in the proper historical, cultural context of the time.
No amount of arguments about science and the age of the earth or creation vs. evolution will change the fact that ANE creation accounts like those found in ancient Egypt have striking similarities to Genesis 1 including correspondence to the same sequence of events seen in Genesis 1 from the divine “hovering” over the dark, waters of the deep, to then the creation of light before the sun, moon, and stars, to the separation of waters, the appearance of land, the appearance of plants, and later animals, etc., etc. There are too many similarities to be coincidence.
Not only that, but in a lot of ways Genesis 1 seems to function as an anti-pagan polemic that repudiates these Egyptian creation stories step-by-step.
Who knows? Perhaps what we’re seeing is not only the rescue of the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery but then God delivering to them at Sinai a repudiation of the pagan accounts they’d been immersed and indoctrinated with while in slavery.
Whatever actually happened, at least one thing is certain: Genesis 1 has far more in common with Egyptian creation accounts and ANE cosmologies than it does with modern science and society put together, and therefore, is going to be a far more accurate historical, cultural context (the correct one in fact) for understanding the original meaning and intent of Genesis 1, than our very foreign modern scientific ideas that are thousands of years removed from the original context of Genesis.
Now you can protest this all you want and even reject the standard exegetical approach entirely, but that will still not make the problems go away. If you reject Todd’s conclusions, then it is still encumbent on you to explain why Egyptian creation accounts are so similar to Genesis 1, which itself appears to be an anti-pagan polemic repudiation of these very accounts. If you reject all this, then what would you offer in return to explain these uncanny similarities? Simply saying you disagree with the approach doesn’t make the similarities disappear.
Helmut says
TMal. (What’s your real name?). Creation Science today is not the same thing as “your parent’s C.S.” Today we have overwhelming solid rock evidence for The global flood as well as genetic evidence that Darwin’s theory is scientifically dead. Modern 21st century science has buried Darwin’s 19th century myth. I do not expect you to take my word for it, I know. Just like I do not take your word for your position. No matter how many degrees you say you have. I have worked with too many major university dept heads and academia in general. People are people and easily follow the herd, and today’s environment in academia stifles free thought and any view that even just admits the amount of apparent design in biological systems looks amazing – gets stifled and professors loose funding and when possible denied tenure. Even without mentioning GOD. Just discussing the apparent ‘design’ is persecuted significantly.
If you are open to it, I would like to mail you a copy of Dr. Sanford‘s landmark book, “Genetic Entropy”. Dr. John Sanford spent most of his professional career as an atheist evolution believer. He did not become a Christian until late in his 40s. He is the inventor of the gene gun. He knows mutations. He knows how genetics works today better than most. He has published over 100 papers in scientific journals. You owe it to yourself to at least read his book. So send me your mailing address and I would be happy to mail it to you, no charge.
TMal says
Helmut, you’re simply copy-pasting YEC “arguments” and misinformation that has already been debunked, or that is just simply irrelevant. You need new arguments.
It never ceases to amaze me how YECs spend so much time trying to find flaws in precisely measured radioactive decay rates while at the same time trying to prove young ages by rates that are all over the place and continually varying. Case in point, helium concentration in zircons is simply unreliable for use in geochronology. And the fact that you cite the YEC RATE Project as evidence for young ages shows me you haven’t even read the report yourself, including the admitted problems the authors note in that report that contradict their unsupported conclusions.
I’m a little surprised that you’re still using the 1985 Carl Sagan quote about no observational evidence for an Oort Cloud (despite the fact inference is a valid form of reasoning that YECs use all the time themselves). Haven’t you heard? We now have direct observational evidence of Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud objects, so you can’t use that “argument” anymore. The new YEC tactic is to now argue that these objects are the wrong size and too large to serve as material for comets (while admitting that collisions would produce smaller fragments and that the size of the observed objects simply reflects the limits of what our telescopes are able to see…and while completely ignoring the fact that here we have yet another example of a successful prediction made by science that has been confirmed).
If you knew about geology you would know that “HUGE bent rock layers” mean nothing and certainly aren’t evidence of a global flood. If you want to prove a global flood then you first need to figure out how to explain changing succession of paleoenvironments. And no, I don’t mean the order of fossils but the actual rock record. I could take you out into the field and show you buried valleys and river channels and ancient lakes and deserts and swamps and estuaries and tidal flats and how we map changes in sea level laterally and vertically over time. I wish I could tell you differently. I’ve looked. I’ve been out in the field with some of the top YEC geologists and I’ve tried to make it work. I believe Noah’s flood was a based on a real historical event and I acknowledge that the account presents a worldwide catastrophic event. But I can’t find anywhere in the fossil/geologic record to put it. That’s just being honest. We have evidence for numerous large scale mega-floods, but we have no evidence for a global flood. The best that we’ve been able to come up with is the very sad, pathetic ad hoc “solution” that Noah’s flood left all this evidence when it happened and then conveniently eroded it all away as it receded leaving no evidence of its occurrence. That’s the “best” I’ve been able to do. If you refuse to accept this lack of evidence then it is encumbent on you to account for all the incongruent data. You can start by showing how to erase all the evidence for all the different environments that we can see right before our eyes, including our ability to track changes and expansion-contractions in the lateral geographic extent of environments over time.
The “soft-tissue” in dinosaurs certainly is an interesting and unexpected one, I’ll grant you that. But it still does nothing to counter the evidence for long-ages. There is also a lot of misinformation flying around about this with people falsely believing we’re cracking open dinosaur bones and finding fresh flesh-and-blood tissue, which is entirely false. In order to preserve anything in the fossil record regardless of time entails modification and arresting decay. If you’re going to reject the “iron” mechanism then you still need to come up with a preservation mechanism of your own because even burial in a recent flood scenario does not explain the preservation. The truth of the matter is that this “soft tissue” evidences *some* of the characteristics of soft tissue like pliability *after* it has been freed of impregnating minerals, and whatever preservation mechanism is responsible the evidence indicates that it involves cross-linking analogous to what we see in formaldehyde preservation, which in theory can last indefinitely because decay has been arrested. So it’s truly not problematic for long ages anymore than dinosaur feather preservation in amber which can also last indefinitely. Most importantly, it tells us nothing about age one way or the other. If I give you a jar with formaldehyde preserved critters in it or a piece of amber and nothing more, there is no way to tell from that how old it is and when exactly the preservation occurred. The most we can say is that whether it’s old or young, decay had to be arrested fairly quickly. But once it’s arrested and preserved there’s no way to tell how long it has remained in that preserved state (which is why we don’t actually use the dinosaur bones themselves to determine the age…because we can’t, there’s no way to do so).
Which brings us to C14 dating of dinosaur bones. Scientists are not lying when they say that any C14 dates of dinosaur bones are meaningless, and no, not because of any assumption of long ages, but because the very preservation process itself destroys the original C14 signature. This is true, regardless of whether it took millions or only thousands of years in a global flood to preserve the bones. In order to preserve them the bones still undergo recrystallization, and mineral replacement, and diagenetic alteration that overwrites and destroys the original isotopic signature. In short, C14 dating of dinosaur bones is useless because there’s no original C14 remaining NOT because of old ages, but because of the preservation process itself (even under a young earth model).
The YEC of course will say how convenient this is, yet it’s the truth. In fact, not too long ago some scientists published the results of what they claimed was a recalibrated method that allows us to reliably C14 date dinosaur bones. The results matched old age expectations, giving a date of around 70 million years for the dinosaur bones. Guess what happened? The method has been criticized and the results rejected by other scientists. But why on earth would secular scientists who are supposedly just cherry-picking dates that conform with their old age evolutionary assumptions—why would they reject a 70 million year old date that supports their view? For the same reasons that I have already explained to you above. You literally cannot obtain useful, reliable information about the age of dinosaur bones using C14 dating. The taphonomic processes the bones are subjected to make any attempts moot.
The truth is that while scientists still make mistakes and get ensnared by assumptions that they do so far less than YECs–who must ALWAYS assume that ANYTHING contrary to their YEC views by default MUST be wrong. THAT ALONE is enough to make anyone skeptical and unaccepting of YEC claims, because it’s YECs–and NOT scientists–who make the assumptions and who’ve rigged everything to turn out in their favor. They have to, because they can’t allow themselves to ever be wrong. There is too much at stake. They even admit that they rely on their interpretation of scripture first, which I have no problem with. But then you can’t call it science. YECs have already made up their mind what the results must be, and so, surprise, surprise the results always turn out that way, because they have to.
And for that reason, YEC “results” cannot be trusted, because with the exception of a handful, they’re not truly interested in doing real science, they’re only interested in finding confirmation of what they have already predetermined must be true.
So as I did in the other article comments, I challenge you here as well as a Christian of integrity to do what the respectable real-deal YECs do who actually are respected in the scientific community. Can you demonstrate the integrity they have by acknowledging the current weight of scientific evidence does not support young ages or a global flood and that you have faith and confidence that science will still one day vindicate your position in the future, but that you acknowledge that currently it does not? Can you be like these respectable YECs who demonstrate honesty and Christian integrity?
*On a side note, I must once again point out that NONE of this creation-evolution, age of the earth, etc., etc., has any bearing on the problem of similarities between Genesis 1 and Egyptian creation accounts, including matching sequence of events. Rejecting Todd’s approach still doesn’t make these similarities go away, so it is still encumbent on you to provide an alternate explanation.
TMal says
Thank you Helmut for the kind offer. I genuinely appreciate that, but I’m already familiar with Sanford’s “Genetic Entropy” book, and it would take too long to review it here. But I will offer one comment to consider from a statement in the prologue of his book where he writes:
“Modern Darwinism is built upon what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted.”
Unfortunately, the entire premise of Sanford’s book–as a debunking of Modern Darwinism’s “Primary Axiom”–is flawed to begin with. As a said in the comments to you on the other article (the temple meme article I believe), modern biology has moved beyond the older, oversimplified “axiom” encapsulated in neo-Darwinian mutation-selection theory.
Instead of seeing genome evolution as a gradual, step-wise series of mutation “accidents” in static genomes that are then fixed by positive selection we now have abundant evidence that genomes are dynamic “read-write” information processing systems under biologic, genetic control that enable cells to rapidly restructure genomes from small to large scale changes up to whole genome duplication events that we have observed on real time.
The emerging picture is one of “evolvability” mechanisms that cells possess. There is even abundant evidence that random mutations are less “accidents” and instead more biologic responses to environmental stimuli (such as starvation response in bacteria), where bacteria purposely switch to low-fidelity replicating enzymes that increase mutation rates to improve survivability chances due to increased genetic variation.
As far as our “side” goes, this make the origin of life and initial origin of these genetic mechanisms all the more difficult to explain, but evolution all the easier once cells are in possession of said mechanisms. ID has actually used these findings to advance intelligent design arguments of an intelligent designer who created living things with built-in evolvability mechanisms that enable such genetic changes.
Unfortunately for Sanford’s book (who I recognize did a ton of work and I recognize his credentials so his book is worth considering, although I wish it was a professional level book submitted to peer review)—unfortunately Sanford’s “Genetic Entropy” book is attacking what is now effectively a strawman.
Helmut Welke says
What a bunch of malarkey.
Yes we have learned a lot more about the complexity of how DNA works. It is an amazing complex program, that can adjust itself in a way we wish artificial intelligence programs could – but in a more amazing manner. (This makes the chance development of DNA that atheists believe in – even more impossible, doesn’t it?) Dr. Robert Carter discusses this aspect very nicely in his segment of the documentary “Is Genesis History?” But DNA has been working this way all along since God wrote the original code. It is a preservation routine that allows for rather quick adaptations but cannot change a fin into a leg. DNA still has limits and cannot, will not, completely rewrite the code to change the myriad of differences between chimp anatomy / abilities and Human anatomy. Especially when it comes to the brain and spinal cord/backbone. To say it can, is pure speculation, not science.
But ever since sin entered the world, mutations (copying mistakes) began degrading the code. Slowly but steadily. Mutations are real, and today we know they are happening faster than we thought just 15 years ago. There are about 100 new mutations every generation. Most are neutral or minor, but more and more are causing more genetic defects. And the accumulation of all mutations since sin entered the world, is making it worse and worse. Geneticists called this ‘Genetic Load or Burden” and it is still very real. The fact of mutations and the decline of our genome is not negated by new discoveries. To say that Dr. Sanford‘s book ‘Genetic Entropy, is an out of date attack on a ‘strawman’ is a very ignorant and wrong statement – especially since you refuse to even read the book and learn what it is all about. Reading and disagreeing with the Forward, does not count.
Sorry Tmal. You have also lost credibility for not explaining who you are. Where did you get your degrees? At what university(s) and years? I have seen too many basement trolls pretending to be scientists and attacking the real science that confirms the YEC position. They copy and paste from anti-YEC sites, mock the authors and do not cite their sources wild claims – which is what you seem to be doing in your posts.
Your opening statement “The 1-2% DNA similarity between chimps and humans has been confirmed.” Is a lie. (I assume you miswrote that – from 1-2% DNA difference) It was never ‘confirmed’. That 1-2% difference was doubtful from the beginning in 2005, and has been expanding ever since, to a minimum of 15% difference. As asked, please cite any article in the last 5 years from a peer-reviewed genetics research journal that confirms a 98% similarity between chimps and humans. That 98.8% similarity has so totally been debunked and alone makes any evolution from chimp-like animal to human impossible. This is confirmed form the work of evolutionary geneticists as I cited previously. They may still believe in evolution for whatever reason (at least publicly) – but they are showing from their own research Darwinian evolution cannot and did not happen.
The Chromosome 2 fusion story is totally debunked. Again, if you have recent references to the contrary, please cite the article(s) from recent Genetics related peer-reviewed journals – a full reference with titles and issue numbers please. Moving the fusion site for convenience sake to hang onto this fairy tale does not negate the multiple issues of head to head fusion of 2 functioning chromosomes. There is no sign of these telomeres fusing together nor is there an indication of a second centromere in human chromosome 2. The combined lengths of Chimp Chromosomes 2A and 2B is also 24 million base pairs longer. Where would these missing nucleotides have gone? How could a creature function with this much information missing and also pass it on with a mate with a similar malfunction, to future generations of only humans?
The “wait-time” problem is also real and was already known in general before Dr Sanford published in a secular peer-reviewed genetics journal. His simulation work sealed it. I know Dr Sanford personally. He has described how he spent most of his career as an evolutionist and now states emphatically genetics proves Darwin’s theory wrong. Mutations are still very real and cannot do what evolutionists want them to do. Genetically we are going down – not up. We are devolving – not evolving. When his paper on this Wait Time issue was published in a secular journal, evolutionary geneticists contacted him. Dr Sanford answered questions and provided the simulation source code. The evolutionary colleagues could not find anything wrong with the source code or the conclusions. Then they went silent.
You also tried to indicate that YEC organizations like Creation Ministries International agrees with Todd. They definitely do not. I know personally Drs. Gary Bates, Rob Carter, Michael Oard as well as many staff members. Oh, there may be some surface commonality among all of us on basic statements like interpreting scripture according to original meaning and in the proper historical, cultural context of the time. But Todd is not doing simply that, because he raises ANE writings to the level of Scripture. His conclusions are totally different, and you should not try to minimize that or give the impression that Todd agrees with CMI on the issues at hand.
So, if you want to continue this discussion, here or elsewhere, tell us who you are and provide the references requested on these specific issues as requested.
TMal says
“Most verifiable facts of science indicate our planet and solar system cannot be millions of years old…”
As an interested party with background experience in geology and paleobiology, I’m afraid your claim is quite simply false. It is one thing to maintain belief that one day science will vindicate the YEC position. It is quite another to pretend it already does. That is simply dishonest and spreads misinformation. There are respected professional scientists who regularly publish peer-reviewed research who also believe in a YEC position. These professionals are honest enough to admit where the current scientific evidence does and does not support the YEC position. All YECs need to follow their lead and example of integrity.
TMal says
Helmut, yeah pretty much par for the course. You also misrepresent what I said about Creation Ministries International (typical). I’m under no obligation to give my name nor will I brow beaten nor do I care about being credible in your eyes. I’m more concerned about other people being misled into errors. t’s really quite simple:
(1) You have not accounted for similarities between Genesis and pagan Egyptian creation accounts
(2) You claim to follow Genesis literally and yet you erroneously anachronize by reading your own “mutation” theory back into the fall. I’m sorry, but Genesis says nothing about mutations. That is your own addition to the Bible.
(2) You have not debunked or proven anything. The scientific consensus is against you, not because of evolutionary or old age assumptions but simply because the weight of the evidence is against YEC
(3) I’m sorry, but you are the one who needs an updated understanding of evolution. You should start with Shapiro’s Nothing Makes Sense in Evolution Except in Light of Genomics and his book Evolution for the 21st century, and then go from there in order to understand why your wasting your time and energy attacking early 20th century strawman conception of evolution as strictly mutation-selection. If you choose to remain uniformed, then that’s on you.
(4) Unless I missed it, I didn’t see where you discussed the weaknesses of YEC. I told you where the weakness is for naturalists. Again, that is why no one should believe a word you say, until you can first give a balanced assessment of your own YEC view. What is the evidence that doesn’t support YEC? There’s plenty of counter evidence that real-deal YECs who are the real professional scientists that they will acknowledge because they are fair and honest about the current state of scientific evidence and have the Christian integrity to do so.
(5) Anyone can stir up dust, but can you get it to settle? You nit pick perceived problems with evolution while pretending that YEC is perfect and perfectly supported by evidence, which is simply not true, while offering no scientific proposal of your own that can explain the facts better.. Anyone following this exchange should thus not only require you to give a balanced assessment of YEC but also require you to demonstrate in a full and comprehensive manner how YEC explains the geologic and paleontological evidence better than anything else. Again, you can start by figuring out to make the observational evidence disappear–that is what to do about the succession of paleoenvironments we literally see in the field (no old age assumptions needed), or the repeated succession-extinctions of benthic marine invertebrate assemblages throughout the record that can’t be explained by ecological zonation or hydrologic sorting or catastrophic plate tectonics. After you figure that out, I have hundreds more problems for you to “solve” with ad hoc hypotheses.
If you want to be frank and honest, then there is only one creationist view that can potentially account for the geologic and paleontological records: progressive creationism. Yes, I know what you’re going to say and I agree–it doesn’t fit a YEC interpretation of Genesis or even an OEC. But it’s still an honest description of what the records look like and it’s still the ONLY creationist view that can potentially come close to accounting for the records. All life does not appear on earth at the same time but at different times with intervening extinctions. No old age assumptions there. This is simply a physical description of the records. When you go up through the records you find marine communities that exist then go extinct and are replaced by a new community of marine organisms which exist and then go extinct to be replaced by a new marine community, etc., etc., repeat. Hydrologic sorting doesn’t explain it because these include poorly sorted assemblages. Ecological zonation in a global flood doesn’t explain it because these are all marine communities. In short, what’s on the bottom of the ocean changes dozens of times.
TMal says
Helmut it’s the other way around. If you want to continue the discussion then you need to demonstrate that you can be fair minded by stating the weaknesses of the YEC position. I have already stated that the origin of life remains a weakness that is unexplained by science. I will also acknowledge additional failings in evolutionary theory. But first I want to see that you can acknowledge the weaknesses in your own position too. If you’re unable to do so, then you demonstrate your lack of objectivity, your lack of fair mindedness and that it is pointless to continue. I’ve made a concession about the origin of life. What can you concede is problematic for YEC? I am more than willing to have a fair and civil dicussion. But you must demonstrate that you can be fair as well.
Helmut Welke says
First, please admit your opening statement was wrong and fallacious and deceiving. Either that or provide a recent paper from a peer-reviewed genetics related research paper that still defends the 98.8% similarity between chimp and human DNA. That would be fair for you to admit since that was your opening statement.
The Origin of life is too obvious a weakness. So is going from a single cell organism to a multiple cell organism. And of course so is going from a chimp like creature to a modern human being. I am not playing your games by your rules. Be fair and admit You have no science journals that strongly defend human evolution either in the fossil record or from DNA. Speculation does not count.
We are created directly in the image of God and NOT via a process that depends on death and suffering over eons of time.
Helmut Welke says
Yep par for the course on your part. I am glad you apparently believe in God. but you still have not backed up your claims with any science journals. So my points about Human and Chimp DNA BIG differences stand.
(1) “Similarities between Genesis and pagan Egyptian creation accounts”? Irrelevant to a science discussion and not that similar. The Egyptians and most ANE peoples had multi-deities. The Hebrews needed Gods account and to remember that HE said, “I am God and there is NO other”.
(2) ” I’m sorry, but Genesis says nothing about mutations.”? Of course Genesis does not use the word mutations. But It is a reasonable deduction for the fall of mankind, the curse and death entering the world. Mutations and their deleterious effect which is getting worse is well documented in the science literature. It makes perfect sense if you only stop and think about it.
(2) “You have not debunked or proven anything. The scientific consensus is against you”?. I already know what the secular consensus is and that your claim that the 1-2% difference between chimp and human DNA has been thoroughly debunked. You offered no scientific rebuttal except attacking me. And I know what the scientific evidence shows, including fossils and the rock strata. Lets not fill Todd’s blog with that. We all know there are the little to no transitional forms in the fossil record. From Oak trees to Dinosaurs to Humans. The Cambrian explosion continues to be a big problem for evolution believers. I do not want to fill Todd’s Blog with that. There is more than enough information in books, DVDs and on the web. If you don’t want to accept the scientific evidence. fine.
(3) “an updated understanding of evolution” – James Shapiro’s book is not new, and he has not won over the rest of the evolutionary community. I guess he and you (as his disciple), are proposing a 3rd mechanism for evolution. For generations, Darwin’s idea of a Lamarckian type evolution (inherited traits) was the ‘consensus’ view of settled science. Then when that did not work out, Neo-Darwinsim with mutations and natural selection became the ‘consensus’ view. Generations later, and now that is not working out. So Shapiro and others have a 3rd way: ‘natural genetic engineering’. But in an exchange with William A. Dembski “he cannot answer where do the fundamental biological structures that make natural genetic engineering possible come from in the first place?”
Tmal – If you will not tolerate ideas from YEC sites, I suggest you get more familiar with the Discovery Institute and their great offerings such as “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design” by Stephen C. Meyer. or the newer book “A Mousetrap for Darwin” by Michael J. Behe.
See also this exchange https://evolutionnews.org/2012/01/is_james_shapir/
and
https://evolutionnews.org/2012/01/observations_re/
(4) “the weaknesses of YEC”?. Another useless discussion not needed on Todd’s blog. I am sure you can provide your own list and do not attack my integrity because I don’t have time to play your games. You won’t even come out of the shadows, so do your own research for the weaknesses on both sides and the answers.. I am already satisfied that the evidence that is verifiable, is very strong for an earth and solar system that cannot be more than 20,000 years as the maximum. Particularly based on the work of Russ Humphreys on planetary magnetic fields and the NASA space probes that reveal heat signatures of planets and moons that cannot be even be a few million years old. I already provided a list with brief descriptions of 17 evidences. You can find 50 or so more on your own.
(5) “Anyone can stir up dust”.? Well it seems that is exactly what you set out to do by coming to Todd’s blog. None of your claims have been substantiated with science references, especially your ‘confirmation’ of Chimp-Human DNA similarity. You came here to throw stones at my defense of YEC views and evidences. “The Consensus view” has never been a scientific proof. Just see number 3 above.
We are not going to convince each other. But you do need to learn Shapiro’s conceptual weaknesses. Have a very Merry Christmas.
“All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of mankind, another flesh of animals, another flesh of birds, and another of fish.” -1 Corinthians 15:39 (see, the New Testament says we are not evolved from fish, either!)
TMal says
Yes Helmut, you will not be easily convinced. I remember how blind and narrow minded I was as a YEC. I was so sure I was right too. As a YEC you also can’t allow yourself to ever be wrong. So you have demonstrated that you are not fair minded and lack objectivity. That is the big difference between science and YEC pseudoscience. YEC pretends to be science but the truth is YEC proponents have already decided they know what’s right. That’s not science. The irony is that YECs say they uphold scripture and downplay science as a fallible human enterprise, but the truth is YECs care an awful lot about having validation from fallible science, when they shouldn’t. The worst is how YECs misrepresent the true message of the Bible. The test is easy. If it is an interpretation foreign to the original context then it’s an erroneous interpretation. No one in Bible times would have deduced the fall was about mutations. By interpreting Genesis through the lens of modern science and rationalism inherited from the Enlightenment we make Genesis divine revelation for only us today, which is the height of modern hubris.
I support your right to express your views and opinions. The more concerning issue is how YECs have elevated these issues to such importance that it competes with the gospel. It’s simple: a person’s belief about the age of the earth is not a salvation issue, but you wouldn’t know this by the amount of time and energy YECs spend judging other Christians who disagree. That is not the gospel. That is not the faith that saves. That is counter to it.
Helmut Welke says
There you go. The same old insults to me and your righteousness. Sorry I don’t have the time for fruitless discussions with someone who accuses me of the very things they are guilty of. You still have not acknowledged your mistake on Human-Chimp DNA similarity. And you still have only insults and no science documentation, which I did provide on this issue from several sources. And all the other items i provided but you ignored.
I also fully know age of earth is not a salvation issue by itself. But it is an authority of God’s Word issue. And every denomination that got tricked into your views on evolution in the last 120 years, has become ineffective and no longer preaches the Gospel with any effectiveness. The history is there, right in front of us. Is that your real objective?
So, over the long run it does become a salvation issue. Later generations have walked away from the Truth of the Bible. If they cannot trust Genesis 1-11; they figure they cannot trust Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
On a recent speaking tour I ran into just such an individual. Raised in a church, understood some creation concepts, but could not defend them and now calls himself an atheist- or at least leaning that way. But on the other hand, I also met a young man raised in an atheist home and indoctrinated in evo theory. He listened and asked good questions, as part of the group and with me personally later. He is getting answers that will allow him to rationally trust Jesus as his personal savior. The Gospel is the heart of what I do and my motivation to the hard work of research, reading science journal papers from many sources and making sense of it all. You do not know me. So, quit with the insults and questioning my integrity.
Spend the next month with your family, preparing to worship the Christ at Christmas and maybe pick up Michael Behe’s new book: “A Mouse trap for Darwin” . As a parting gift here is a noteworthy endorsement – “If you fear to doubt Darwinism, read further at your own peril. Behe’s devastating rebuttals are here in spades. If, however, you are ready and willing to follow the evidence, take heart: Behe guides us into state-of-the-art biochemistry—and into the case for intelligent design—with elegance, clarity, and good grace. This collection is a delight.”
Marcos Eberlin, PhD, member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences and winner of the prestigious Thomas Medal (2016)
TMal says
There are too many errors in what you say and not enough time to address them. Shapiro is just the start. Don’t confuse his debate with Coyne with a lack of acceptance. Learn about the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis and how it is different from neo-Darwinian strawmen you continue to attack.
There is also nothing to admit with chimp-human DNA similarity. I found the information you presented fascinating (Although you misreported. Buggs’ 84% was a minimum estimate. Honest reporting would dictate you report his 95% maximum estimate as well). And if it’s true what Richard Buggs says, then that’s fantastic, and science will adjust accordingly. In fact, that reflects the self-correcting nature of science. Something YECs can never do. However, I traced the quotation you gave from Buggs to an online discussion. So there’s still no quantitative correction to the existing results (the citation you gave to Todd Preuss about differences being greater than 98% was a qualitative statement). So if his figures are correct, then Buggs needs to get his calculations published in a peer reviewed journal so the numbers can be updated.
But what you don’t seem to understand is that such an adjustment in numbers, even if it did happen, is not some devastating blow to evolution, but simply added confirmation. If there is a greater percent genetic difference in non-coding regions vs. the still valid 1-2% difference in coding regions of chimps and humans, then that would match evolutionary predictions that noncoding regions accumulate genetic changes faster then coding regions. The predictive, explanatory power of evolutionary theory is demonstrated once again. By contrast, what scientific predictions can YEC make on this topic that would have foreseen such a result? The answer is none whatsoever. And let’s be honest here. You and I both know that it doesn’t really matter what the percent similarity is. If it were 99.9% similarity between chimps and humans (or 98% in coding regions like it is!) YECs would still say that is not evidence of evolution.
Plus, the amount of time and energy you spend on this belies the inconvenient truth and reality of the situation: Scientists you quote like Todd Preuss and Richard Buggs are convinced that humans and chimps share a common ancestry. Now why is that? And don’t give me some nonsense about how they supposedly just assume it’s true. What reasons do you think they would give for their acceptance of human-chimp common ancestry, and have you devoted a comparable amount of time trying to understand those reasons? I highly doubt it. You’re looking for reasons to support what you already believe. That’s not science.
As far as “insults,” I’m sorry you think so. I’ve spoken strongly but no more than you have toward me including disparagements you’ve made of me. I don’t take it personally though. Nor should you. My hope is that we actually could have a fair minded discussion. To clarify, a useful dialogue would be one where both sides let their guards down, stop trying to defend and attack, and take a step back and be honest about the evidence for evolution as well as the weaknesses and problems and do the same for YEC. I am able to do that. I am asking you to do the same. If you’re able to do so, then fantastic. That would demonstrate that we can both be honest and fair-minded.
I’m still open to doing so, and if you are too, then great. However, I think there’s something more important to discuss first with regard to salvation. I must point out that you seem to contradict yourself. You say the age of the earth is not a salvation issue “in itself,” but then say “in the long run” it ultimately is a salvation issue. That doesn’t work for me. It either is or isn’t a salvation issue.
I would suggest that what you’re really trying to say is that people losing confidence in the Bible contributes to their losing their faith. On this we can both agree. However, we are no doubt at odds as to the specifics of what this really means. From your perspective you no doubt see evolution as the culprit. From my perspective, the problem is turning the Bible into something that it’s not, making it say something different from its original meaning, and erroneously judging it by fallible human standards of today.
You got me curious though. It would be interesting to see where we agree and disagree on this and how much common ground we can find. For example, what would be your reaction to someone who claims the Bible does not give exact numbers and quantities; that it contains grammatical errors; that it will sometimes use hyperbole and exaggerate beyond what actually happened even in historical narratives to emphasize or make a theological point; that the events in historical narratives aren’t always presented in the chronological order in which they actually occurred; that it is not possible to literally translate the Bible into other languages?
Helmut Welke says
Well I am glad to see that you finally admitted (albeit tacitly) that your opening statement was fallacious. The 98.8% similarity was questionable to begin with, due to a small ‘cherry-picked’ sample and a complete disregard for InDels. 1.2% difference between chimp and human DNA has definitely not been confirmed in the last 15 years. Anything over this number does result in rational people realizing this chimp to human evolution story is impossible. It’s just too big of a difference when you consider the genome is 3 billion nucleotides long. And virtually all of it is used at some point in your life. The concept of junk DNA is gone. I don’t know why Buggs has not published in a journal his findings. Maybe he still mulling over the implications. Maybe others don’t like those findings and are reluctant to publish for now. But he is a qualified geneticist and he clearly says “The percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%”. He knows very well how to do the DNA comparisons, and even carries his arithmetic to 2 decimal points – and clearly says so.
Another highly qualified geneticist, Dr. Jeff Tomkins, from a different worldview, independently arrived at the same conclusion. Dr, Tomkins (wrote in a peer-reviewed journal) published the results from his own study. “the align-able regions of the chimpanzee sequencing contigs were only 84.4% identical to their respective matches in the human genome.” Both these calculations were derived without the acknowledgment that major parts of the Chimp and Human DNA are not align-able and no calculations of difference can be made. And do not try to attack Dr. Tomkins. If you do, then you are attacking not just an honest man, but his Genetics faculty colleagues and the Clemson University Environmental Genomics Laboratory.
You spend a lot time on ad hominem attacks, making wild and very old claims about creationists. That and your refusal to identify yourself plus making the same old claims over and over is part of the reason I will not play your games. More importantly, I don’t have the time. It will take a small book to refute your claims and answer your charges against me. I do have a life, I am reading other books and journals and spending time with kids and grandkids this Christmas season. I suggest you do the same.
You can hang onto your faith in Darwin, but it is over. As suggested, you should read some of the books from The Discovery Institute. Those series of books in the last 10 years have completely slapped down evolutionary theory. I don’t have time to argue with you. If you are serious, I also suggest you get the brand new DVD “Dismantled”. You (and others) can get it here.
https://www.back2genesis.org/dismantled
The DVD includes evidence supported by leading, peer-reviewed scientific journals and interviews with several well-credentialed scientists. It all shows how the findings from modern science are collapsing the theory of evolution. You do not need me to point it out.
Oh, By the way, the Discovery Institute has a new member. You should follow his example.
A German Paleontologist, Dr. Günter Bechly was a life-long believer in Darwin. From 1999 until the end of 2016, he served as the curator for amber and fossil insects in the Department of Paleontology at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart. He graduated summa cum laude with his PhD in geosciences from Eberhard-Karls-University in Tübingen.
For the 2009 anniversary of Darwin’s book, he was asked to create a display of how modern science text books support Darwin. He wanted to compare these to the ‘religious’ books of the Intelligent Design movement. In preparation he felt he needed to read some of the ID books so he could defend his viewpoint against their supporters. What he found amazed him. The intelligent design books actually had better and more modern science with good documentation in them than the usual Darwin text books.
Although the 2009 Darwin exhibition was a catalyst for his move toward intelligent design, he had already had many honest doubts. Dr. Bechly describes two gut feelings he had long before he ever voiced his skepticism of Darwin openly. First, he felt that it just didn’t make sense to say that if you just wait long enough, “bare rock will turn into Beethoven”.
Second, during his scientific study, he came to resent the evolutionary “just-so” stories that covered poor science in a narrative sheen. And as a paleontologist, he knew that the fossil record did not contain the slow, gradual transitions Darwinism requires. Over time, his scientific studies pushed him further and further away from traditional evolutionary biology. Today Dr. Bechly is strongly opposed to Darwinism as a theory with any scientific value. He is currently a Senior Fellow with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. You can read his articles here: https://www.discovery.org/p/bechly/
TMal says
On a final note, it’s truly sad that I still have yet to find a fair minded YEC who will present the evidence for and against. There are problems with YEC, and there is evidence for evolution—even if you disagree and think evolution is ultimately wrong a fair minded individual would not say there is absolutely no evidence for evolution, but would recognize there is even if they think it’s less than YEC. A fair minded person would also criticize equally. You accuse evolution and old age views as being ad hoc while being completely blind to the ad hoc nature of YEC at every turn that they then present as “proof.”
One example will suffice (since you are unwilling to present a balanced view and want to portray YEC as perfect): In order to “fit” everything into a one year global flood YECs have to speed the rate of plate tectonics to 5-10 meters a second and also increase the rate of radioactive decay more than five fold in order to account for “continental drift” and the amount of radioactive decay observed in the record and in order to form the Hawaiian Islands quickly (and the Pacific Plate has to also change the angle of its direction while traveling 5-10 meters second in order to account for the formation of the Emperor Seamounts; and then of course there’s the problem of increasing ages as one goes from the Hawaiian Islands to the Emperor Seamounts, and a host of other problems)….The rate of radioactive decay and plate tectonics has to increase dramatically during the flood and then decrease back to normal, observed rates after the flood in order to make things work…You can’t get more ad hoc than that.
Of course the problem with ad hoc “solutions” is they make up things in an attempt to solve problems but often only create more problems. Thus, YEC organizations like AIG and ICR and the YEC RATE Project have been honest enough to acknowledge that the heat produced by increasing the rate of radioactive decay to squeeze it into a one year global flood time frame would be too hot and vaporize the oceans, melt part of the earth’s crust and make inhabitable for life….I have absolutely no problem with a commitment to a YEC position as long as it comes with truth and honesty.
*I assume that Kurt Wise (I’m sure you know the name since he’s worked with many YECs including Austin and on the Genesis as History show)–I assume he is still one of the respectable YECs—the only YEC Stephen J Gould ever respected. Kurt is firmly committed to a YEC position and believes science will one day vindicate YEC but if he’s still the Kurt Wise that I knew then he’ll also be honest enough to acknowledge the weight of scientific evidence currently supports old ages–he believes this will one day young ages will be supported by the weight of scientific evidence, but he’s honest enough to acknowledge that currently it does not. He is also a decent, upstanding individual who is not abrasive, or judgmental or pushy (like a lot of YECs unfortunately are) but demonstrates the love of Christ. That’s what YEC needs to become. I will back any YEC who behaves that way with decency, professionalism and honesty and integrity.
*I appreciate your Christmas wish and return to you the same with a very Merry Christmas to you, Helmut. And I strongly encourage you to reach out to Kurt (perhaps you already know him) and really have a heart to heart and ask him for his honest answer of what the current weight of scientific evidence supports. But even more important ask him how YECs should be conducting themselves, what’s effective and what’s not, and how he would like to see YECs portray themselves and conduct themselves and interact with others, and then please, please listen to what he has to say. I know you’re only doing what you think is right, but what I will call the “militant” approach of YECs (for lack of a better word) is not the way to go and does not communicate the love of Christ. There is a way to communicate Christ’s love while still being committed to YEC, but this is not the way. Reach out to Kurt about this, listen, and then try to adopt the approach he suggests. It is far more effective.
TMal says
For those who are interested:
YECs and IDers often confuse the “what”and “how” of things: i.e., “what occurred” vs. “how it occurred.” They spend an exorbitant amount of time trying to discredit the process (the “how”) of evolution (often attacking older, oversimplified neo-Darwinian strawman conceptions of evolution), while failing to understand that even if for sake of argument they are correct that it merely shows the proposed process is incorrect, but does nothing to counter or discredit the evidence for “what occurred.” That is, it does nothing to discredit the evidence that evolution has still occurred, regardless of how or by what process or even if the process was unknown. For example:
(1) Humans and chimps have 100,000 or so endogenous retrovirus (ERVs) elements in the same, corresponding locations in their genomes. Put simply, ERVs are the remnants of viral genetic material that gets randomly, inserted into our DNA as a result of viral infections. It is far more likely that humans and chimps inherited these 100,000 ERVs from a common ancestor, than independently acquired them, similar to the improbability of two books independently acquiring 100,000 spaghetti stains in the same, corresponding locations by luck. The typical YEC response is that such similarities merely show independent creation according to a common design, but that doesn’t work here, because these are secondary viral infections that would have to come after an original creation. Importantly, the question of *how* (i.e., by what process) chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor is a separate question that is irrelevant to the *what*, for even if we had no mechanism at all, that still would not change the evidence from ERVs that humans and chimps are related.
Here is a website that explains this in greater detail with helpful diagrams: https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2015/11/
(2) In fact, the evidence goes beyond this. ERVs are found in the genomes of all vertebrates, and as with humans and chimps can similarly be used to demonstrate common ancestry and shared evolutionary history.
(3) Human chromosome number 2 is the result of two chromosomes that have been fused together end-to-end. The ends of chromosomes are called telomeres, and chromosome 2 not only has telomeres at the ends, but also has side-by-side telomeres in the “middle” of the chromosome (where they’re not supposed to be), evidencing this end-to-end fusion event. This fusion event shows that our human chromosome 2 has a prior history and also explains why humans have one less pair of chromosomes than other apes (23 compared to 24). The process by which this occurred (i.e., the “how”) is a separate question from the “what,” and even if we had no mechanism does not change the evidence that we used to have 24 pairs of chromosomes and now have 23 pairs as a result of this end-to-end chromosome fusion event. The alternative YEC/ID explanation requires us to believe that an intelligent designer created our chromosome number 2 with an additional set of telomeres in the “middle” (instead of the ends) that falsely gives the appearance of a past fusion event occurrence.
Here is a website that explains the fusion event in chromosome 2 in simple terms with added diagrams: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/bill-nye-creationism-evolution/
(4) Mitochondria and chloroplasts in plant and animal cells are comparable in size to bacteria, they divide like bacteria, they have their own DNA that contains bacterial genes that are replicated and transcribed/translated by bacterial-type replication and transcription/translation machinery and bacterial type ribosomes (that are also susceptible to antibiotics—because they’re bacterial!)—unlike the rest of the plant and animal cell. All these things are also specific enough that we can identify the specific type of bacteria that shares these characteristics.
Therefore, based on the observational facts, it looks like mitochondria and chloroplasts came from bacteria (This is known as “endosymbiosis”). This is an entirely rational and logical conclusion to draw based on the observational evidence. While some reject evolution, one can hardly fault others for drawing such a conclusion, because there is nothing illogical about it, and it is an entirely natural and even obvious conclusion to draw.
We can state this even more simply: just as viral DNA in a genome must come from viruses, bacterial DNA in plant cells must have come from bacteria. Thus, the clear evidence shows that plant cells have a past history that included the acquisition of bacterial DNA. For sake of argument, let’s say that neo-Darwinian mutation and natural selection cannot explain this. Even if this were true and we didn’t know *how* it occurred, that still would not change the fact that it still occurred.
In fact, there are IDers who acknowledge this. In his article, Serial Endosymbiosis and Intelligent Design, Michael Buratovich doesn’t believe natural selection can fully account for bacterial endosymbiosis, but acknowledges the evidence still shows that evolution occurred. The important point to notice is that again, regardless of the *how* it occurred it still does not change the fact that it still occurred, as ID proponent Buratovich notes:
“Based on the present available data, an endosymbiotic origin for mitochondria and chloroplasts seems to be a reasonable conclusion despite the unanswered questions that remain. Chloroplasts from a variety of photosynthetic organisms show very similar features and have kept many of their bacterial features. It is difficult to convincingly explain these bacterial features in a nonhistorical manner.”
Literally tens of thousands of additional examples can be added to these four. Again, for sake of argument, even if natural selection and mutation fail to explain *how* evolution occurred, that still would do nothing to change the evidence that evolution still occurred, regardless of the mechanism.
TMal says
Todd,
Regarding your request about recommendations (which I will post here as well), there are of course, many resources available on the “creation-evolution” topic. Here are two off the top of my head that I think your readers will find useful:
(1) Letters to Creationists (“Your Intelligent Designer is too Small”):
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/about/
This is a blog maintained by a committed evangelical Christian with degrees in Near Eastern Studies and Chemical Engineering who also was a former YEC. The link above will take you to his main page where you can find links to critiques of virtually all the main YEC arguments, including:
Critiques of young earth arguments; evidence of old earth; Grand Canyon geology; transitional fossils; soft tissue in dinosaur fossils; the Cambrian explosion (Review of book “Darwin’s Doubt”); human-ape common ancestry; natural selection, mutations, micro-/macroevolution, etc.; Review of Behe’s book “Edge of Evolution”; Review of John Sanford’s book “Genetic Entropy”; historical roots of YEC; Bible and theology; and much, much more.
(1) Biologos
https://biologos.org/about-us
Founded by evangelical Christian and internationally renowned biologist Francis Collins who led the Human Genome Project and is the director of the National Institutes of Health, and the author of the best-selling book, The Language of God (One of the most brilliant–and humble–individuals I have ever met). Biologos includes contributions from pastors, theologians, and scientists on a wide range of topics. In their own words:
“Are science and religion at war? Many people today believe they are in conflict. BioLogos exists to show that you don’t have to choose between modern science and biblical faith.”
Mission: “Biologos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith.”
Core Commitments: “We embrace the historical Christian faith, upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible. We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years. We seek truth, ever learning as we study the natural world and the Bible. We strive for humility and gracious dialogue with those who hold other views. We aim for excellence in all areas, from science to education to business practices.”
TMal says
Helmut,
Regarding your most recent reply, again there is nothing to admit. The 1-2% difference is still the official word on the subject, until someone like Buggs can demonstrate otherwise with a peer-reviewed publication. The 1-2% difference is still valid for coding regions. That on the face of it there seems to be a greater percent difference in non-coding regions matches evolutionary predictions that genetic changes accumulate faster in such regions.
Also, non-alignable elements in humans and chimps are not problematic. You also continue to misreport. Buggs’ numbers are similalrly based on incomplete data. His 84% was a minimum value. He even says this himself and says the maximum value is around 95%.
Your statement that anything greater than a 1-2% difference between chimp and human genomes makes common ancestry impossible is quite simply false. There is no objective, gold standard cut-off. The numbers are what they are. In fact, scientists were surprised by the small genetic difference and expected it to be greater than 1-2% because of the morphological differences between humans and chimps. Conventional thought is that the disparity is due to differential gene expression and changes in regulatory genes.
Again, the fact that there is only a 1-2% difference in coding regions and greater percent difference in non-coding regions matches evolutionary predictions. This genetic variation, including lack of one-to-one correspondence is also not problematic but entirely consistent with what we now know about genomes; namely, that far from older erroneous assumptions that genomes are static, and unchanging, genomes are in fact dynamic “read-write” systems that can undergo rapid restructuring on both small and large scales, and include all sorts of transposable elements and “jumping genes,” and chromosomal rearrangements.
It is also a mistake to think that differences in morphology solely result from genome differences.
That is false. Some times even the SAME gene sequence can result in different morphologies, due to gene expression, RNA editing and how it is spliced, or the same gene can simply be retained and differentially expressed to varying degrees (like a “dimmer” switch) or inactivated entirely by epigenetics. Some phenotyoic differences are not the result of genes at all but due to differences in developmental timing or phenotypic plasticity.
It is all as fascinating as it is complex, and percent genomic differences are simply one aspect of that complexity. The advances we’ve made in understanding have not weakened the case for evolution, but strengthened it. The evidence for common ancestry has never been stronger.
This is not “faith” in Darwin but simply what the evidence supports. There is no such thing as “faith” in Darwin among scientists and that is simply a creationist construct with no basis in reality. If you think that then you really don’t know how scientists think and operate. Also, my faith is not in Darwin, but in Jesus Christ and I will thank you to remember that.
As far as the Discovery Institute, I already know and have most of their material. And same as you, I’m not impressed by titles, nor with anecdotal info, so that new paleontologist needs to support his ID beliefs in a reputable peer-reviewed science journal in order to have credibility.
I also don’t know why you’d bring up rarity of gradualism in the fossil record, because everyone knows that. I’m not trying to belittle you. I’m telling you the truth. You’re attacking what is now effectively a strawman. Modern evolution does not equal “Darwinism” or even Neo-Darwinism. To show yourself informed, you should stop using terms like “Darwinism” except in a historical context and learn more about the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (no that is not an insult, but friendly advice).
Helmut Welke says
When I say “Darwinism” or “Faith in Darwin” i am referring to an unfounded confidence in full macro-evolution. This goes back to Darwin and even before him, referring to the concept that all living things today evolved from a single-celled organism. This story says that this single cell morphed into jellyfish-type creatures as well as seaweed, etc; and then on to back-boned fish which decided to crawl onto land and turn into amphibians and eventually salamanders and T-Rexes. As well as Oak trees, rose bushes, wheat, grape-vines plus giraffes, beetles, mammoths, and us – very creative human beings. Think about what a fantastic story that is. Each step between biological kinds or family classifications requires large amounts of new and usable information. For such a fantastic story, one should have fantastic proof. And I am sorry you don’t have it. Darwin admitted he did not have it, and You really don’t either. Not proof. You admit you don’t really know the ‘process’, now that neo-Darwinism has been discredited and un-workable. Shapiro’s idea sounds more like ID than anything else which is a reason he is being resisted. His book was not peer-reviewed either by the way.
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is a recognition that the genome extends beyond the DNA molecule and that the field of epi-genetics makes our underlying overall genetics even more complicated than we could have imagined not long ago. But it still is limited in ability to create significantly new information. It can modify information and open up sections of DNA that are not normally needed or are part of a back-up system – but it appears to be more of a God-designed preservation mechanism. It helps organisms survive by surprisingly quick adaptations to environmental changes and available food supply. Dr. Randy Guliuzza at ICR has been advocate for this idea at least, to be the main driver for adaptation (or micro-evolution) and not mutations. But there is no indication it can re-engineer a fish into a frog – with all of the detailed internal anatomy completely rearranged and redesigned from the backbone to the skin. And it is a big point of contention in the evolutionary community. Most biologists still insist that EES is not ‘needed’.
You said, “it merely shows the proposed process is incorrect, but does nothing to counter or discredit the evidence for “what occurred.” That is, it does nothing to discredit the evidence that evolution has still occurred, regardless of how or by what process or even if the process was unknown.” – I find that statement to be incredibly anti-science. A theory has to at least have a viable proposal for how it occurred, otherwise its just a story trying to connect dots on a sheet of paper one way, when the dots can be connected in a variety of different ways and you end up not proving anything.
Your final statement, “even if natural selection and mutation fail to explain *how* evolution occurred, that still would do nothing to change the evidence that evolution still occurred, regardless of the mechanism.” – Really? Honestly this sounds more like a statement of faith and not science since you don’t have much evidence and no process to make the idea feasible. You admit there is little to no evidence in the fossil record. And your 4 items above? I will answer those outdated items as I have time this weekend. Too many family events coming up.
TMal says
Helmut, you are a master of rhetoric and propaganda, I grant you that, but short on scientific evidence, and it is important for people to not be confused about the difference between the two. You have also misrepresented my words and attributed to me things I haven’t said (as I will further discuss below), and I kindly ask you to stop.
Your assessment of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) is incorrect and deficient, so as I said you still need to learn more about it. EES is not simply the addition of epigenetics. Your statement that most biologists say EES is not needed is false. Most biologists reject both extremes of *entire replacement* of evolutionary theory or *not needed*, and accept EES as a valid extension of and beyond Neo-Darwinism/the Modern Synthesis—beyond the simple mutation-selection theory that most people still think of evolution as and which you continue to attack as a strawman, so there is still much learning you need to do on this subject. I recommend the intro level site extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com for a good overview, which includes comparison tables explaining the difference between the Modern Synthesis and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, and has additional links to peer-reviewed publications.
James Shapiro’s conceptual framework of “natural genetic engineering” is what other scientists have objected to the most. I, too, question this terminology. However, the mass amount of underlying empirical research is sound and accepted by all scientists. The idea of “evolvability” mechanisms in cells is also not original to Shapiro. He has simply provided additional confirmation with a voluminous amount of research. His professional-level book “Evolution: a View from the 21st Century” amasses much of this data, but if you think he has no profession peer-reviewed papers on the subject, then you are mistaken. I have already given
you one such example, which I will repeat again: “Nothing in Evolution Makes Sense Except in Light of Genomics: *Read-Write* Genome Evolution as an Active Biological Process.”
Bottom line: the presence of evolvability mechanisms has been established beyond doubt as well as evidence for rapid genomic restructuring on both small and large scales as a biological process. (As I said, this creates more problems for the origin of these mechanisms, and some ID proponents have incorporated this and now argue that an intelligent designer created organisms with these built-in evolvability capacities).
I have not “admitted” we don’t know the process. I said, “for argument sake” to make a point. We, in fact, know the processes plural better than ever before.
I also did not “admit” there is “little to no evidence in the fossil record.” You have again misrepresented my words. My statement about the rarity of gradualism in the fossil record simply reflects that gradualism is not the dominant mode of evolution (nor is Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium” by rapid speciation in peripheral isolates). Gradualism still occurs and is evidenced (YEC assertions that there are no transitional forms are false), but gradualism is not the dominant mode of evolution. The documented existence of rapid genomic restructuring mecanisms–including processes we have observed in real-time—further evidence this. You incorrectly see my statement about the rarity of gradualism as constituting some “admission” because you are still incorrectly thinking of evolution solely in terms of 20th century Neo-Darwinism step-by-step, small scale gradulaistic change via mutation-selection. Once again, you are attacking strawmen.
Regarding the rest, you directly demonstrate my point about YECs common failure to distinguish the *what occurred* from the *how it occurred* (i.e., the process). These are separate questions. My use of “for argument sake” and “even if” was not an admission of any kind, but to make a point, and you have perfectly demonstrated it by conflating process—*the how*—with *the what.*
For example, when we find physical evidence of viral genetic material that has been incorporated into the human genome, we know that such material is not original to our genome, but originated from viruses and has been secondarily incorporated into our genome. Now we, in fact, know and understand the processes involved. But my point is that FOR ARGUMENT SAKE EVEN IF we didn’t know by what process this occurs that still would not change the physical evidence that it still occurred. EVEN IF we didn’t know *the how*–the process–we would not turn around and say, “Gee, we don’t know how this could have happened, so I guess the human genome doesn’t contain viral genetic material after all.” Everyone can see how such a “conclusion” is illogical and does not follow, because the physical evidence is still there, and lack of a mechanism to explain why the physical evidence is there, does nothing to change the fact that the physical evidence is still there in our genome.
Yet this is the type of illogical argument that YECs routinely employ.
Thus, when we similarly look at mitochondria and chloroplasts (responsible for oxidative metabolism and oxidative photosynthesis respectively) in eukaryotic cells (animals, plants, fungi, proists, algae) that have a nucleus (unlike prokaryotes–bacteria, archaebacteria–which lack a nucleus); and when we observe that mitochondria and chloroplasts each have their own genome separate from the genome in the cell nucleus; and that the DNA in these genomes is a circular chromosome like bacteria (instead of linear chromosomes like ours); and contain bacterial genes that we can identify as specific to alpha-proteobacteria (for mitochondria) and cyanobacteria (for chloroplasts); with bacterial-type arrangements and structural elements that are distinctive and different from the structure of eukaryotic genes; and when we further see that during protein synthesis these genes are transcribed/translated via bacterial type machinery and ribosomes that are susceptible to antibiotics (unlike eukaryotic ribosomes)—then just as viral genetic material in our genomes must have come from viruses, so also bacterial genetic material in eukaryotic cells must have come from bacteria.
Now, FOR ARGUMENT SAKE EVEN IF we had absolutely no idea at all how this could have occurred, we would not say, “Gee, I guess eukaryotic cells don’t contain bacterial genetic material after all,” because they still do.
Thus, we have direct observable physical evidence that significant functional parts in eukaryotic cells that are involved in metabolism and photosynthesis have components that are bacterial in origin. However this happened, and by whatever means or process this occurred or EVEN IF we have absolutely no idea how it occurred or EVEN IF there is no naturalistic mechanism possible and it had to be the work an intelligent designer—whatever the cause, whatever the reason, however it got there—eukaryotic cells STILL contain bacterial components that are NOT eukaryotic but bacterial in origin, just as viral genetic material must be viral in origin. This not a matter of faith but physical evidence plain and simple.
Helmut says
There you go again with the ad hominem attacks. Saying I don’t know my science and that YEC’s misrepresent facts of science as verified; is just your propaganda. The way you dismissed paleontologist Dr Pechly was very mean spirited. And I’m sorry. Ken Miller had to recant his attack on Dr. Tomkins. the debunking of the Chromosome 2 fusion story stands. No time now, but I will respond to your supposed science evidences.
TMal says
Regarding your complaints about “full macroevolution,” I would add that one of the big problems with such YEC complaints is that they are qualitative and based on gut feelings and impressions and guesses without any hard science to back it up. Put another way, YECs always say they accept micro-/horizontal/limited evolution within “kinds,” but reject macro-/vertical/large scale evolution, but I have yet to see any YEC claims based in science as to where exactly that dividing line is. “Kinds” used to be equated with “species” but that no longer works due to the indisputable evidence we have for speciation that most YECs now recognize. All I see are subjective guesses by YECs as to how much evolution seems or feels “too much” to accept.
So instead of speaking in vague generalities and subjective feelings of what seems like “too much” evolution to accept, please tell me very specifically where exactly the dividing line is between possible and “impossible” evolution, and on what scientific basis you draw that line.
Helmut Welke says
And I would say that your complaints about YEC scientists are ad hoc, born out of a commitment to Darwin. Complaints about Darwin’s story have been real for 100 years – based on evidence against evo and evidence for creation that gets ignored. To call it gut ‘feelings’ is just another insult…. The secular scientific community is simply enamored with the idea of explaining the rich diversity of life without God. But that has been getting harder and harder to do. And No one has referred to the Biblical kinds as the modern ‘species’ classification for probably over 100 years. Many of our classifications of species today just grew out of the early attempts to classify biology over 100 years ago and are not really consistent across all the Phyla in the animal kingdom.
For decades now the biblical ‘Kinds’ appears to be close to the “Family” level of classifications, but not exclusively. For example the clear division of the Cat Kind (family Felidae) and Dog + Wolf Kind (family Canidae). This is an ongoing area of research – to determine what is the Biblical Kinds across the animal kingdom. The Creation Research Society calls this the eKinds Project.
https://www.creationresearch.org/ekinds-examination-kinds-natural-diversification-speciation
The eKINDS project is developing a new statistical tool that seeks to group species based on molecular similarities. A more detailed explanation of the methodology, with application to fungi, appears in a recent (peer reviewed) Creation Research Society Quarterly (O’Micks, 2017). The project is based on empirical science, no matter how you complain about it.
TMal says
And there you go taking things too personal again. You don’t seem to understand what an ad hominen attack really is (and no, that wasn’t one). I wasn’t attacking you. Your statements about EES were incorrect. I merely said you need to learn more about it. That is a fact. You do (Just as sure as I am that you know more about engineering than I do). YECs also routinely misrepresent facts. That is a fact as well that can be demonstrated by a line by line analysis of just about any ICR or AIG article, which I’ve had to do many times. And your claim that my dismissal of paleontologist Pechly was “very mean spirited” is ridiculous and unfounded (apologies if I hurt your feelings for saying so). All I said is that he needs to defend his ID beliefs in a reputable peer-reviewed journal to be credible. That is another statement of fact. I have no idea how you get “very mean spirited” out of that. As far as Miller and Tomkins, I’m really not interested in any spat they’ve had. Show me (from the reputable peer-reviewed scientific research) where the scientific consensus on chromosome 2 fusion has been “debunked.” And when I say “scientific consensus” I am of course referring to acceptance based on published research (NOT an appeal to authority or bandwagon fallacy). Things change all the time in science. So, if you can show me where the scientific consensus on this has changed, hey, then no big deal. I have no problem revising my thoughts on the subject. That is the self-correcting nature of science.
Helmut Welke says
You know very well that ‘consensus’ is not how science facts get verified. ‘ Voting on what idea I like’ – and calling that settled science would have held us all back for centuries. The statement “YECs also routinely misrepresent facts.” Is again a personal attack and is itself a misrepresentation. You are just trying to shut down discussion, and not willing to consider the alternative points of view that are reasonable – given the actual facts when separated from the evolutionary speculation.
Helmut Welke says
Your number 3- The Mother Jones news? A left wing political news organization? Really? First the article is from 2014. It is outdated and their headline features a 1982 picture of Chromosomes from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. It is as out of date and wrong as Haeckel’s drawings of embryonic recapitulation. Unfortunately, that fraud is still in Jr and Sr High textbooks. Some parents showed them to me just this past January 2020.
Re: Supposed Fusion Site on Human Chromosome 2: This was first speculated on decades ago and then the proposed location documented by evolutionary geneticists in 2002, because there were some possible signs of known telomeric repetitions. The location was further defined in 2005. Dr. Tomkins who is a seasoned and well experienced genetics researcher, was not that dumb or inexperienced that he and others studied the wrong site on Human chromosome 2. Neither Tmal nor Professor Ken Miller are geneticists doing actual genetics work. (Ken Miller is a molecular biologist with expertise on Cell membranes, and not a researcher on the genome. He is a known Creationist-Hater and is oft given to overstating his case in heavy handed language that the data does not support.)
In your MJ article it quotes Miller as saying that the fusion site is “more than 1,300 bases away from the gene,” he says. Shortly after this Miller story was published, Dr. Tomkins contacted Dr. Miller directly. After an email exchange of data sources, Miller admitted his mistake to Tomkins: Miller wrote “in this transcript, the fusion site is in the middle of the first [gene] exon as you note.” Tomkins was right, Miller was wrong. But no correction from MJ news.
Mooney (the MJ article writer) apparently wanted to give the impression that the “fusion site” is useless junk DNA, produced by random evolutionary mutations. The evidence suggests otherwise — it’s an important, functional gene.
At the risk of too much technical jargon for this blog, here are two excerpts from Dr. Tomkins paper. But most of us interested can still follow the story and what human chromosome 2 shows us. Besides being in an active gene the are other reasons that this is not a fusion site from ancient chimp DNA. (All apes, chimps and monkeys have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs. A very distinct difference that is growing in distinction every year as we learn more details. Note the ‘end cap’ discussion starting in the 2nd part of this long quote…
> “As initially reported by Fan et al. (2002b), the putative 800 base fusion sequence is located somewhere inside a CHLR1 pseudogene within human chromosome region 2q13–2q14.1. The idea of a head-to-head telomeric fusion first emerged when a putative fusion site was cloned and sequenced, showing a signature of about 800 bases in length on human chromosome two in region 2q13 (Ijdo et al. 1991). In 2002, researchers completely sequenced and annotated ~614 Kb of DNA surrounding the fusion site (Fan et al. 2002a; Fan et al. 2002b). The two studies published by Fan et al. brought to light a number of serious problems that completely contradicted the fusion model, discussed in turn below.
First, was the problem of lack of synteny (corresponding gene content and DNA sequence similarity) with chimpanzee surrounding the putative fusion region on human chromosome 2. In addition to the unaccounted for extreme loss of chimp DNA in the hypothetical fusion, the putative fusion site was surrounded by a wide array of functional genes and putative pseudogenes with no homology to the ends of chimpanzee chromosomes 2A or 2B, their supposed ancestral sites of origin. Since the researchers could not find any similarity with chimpanzee for the gene content surrounding the putative fusion site, they postulated that the genes were transferred from other parts of the human genome after the fusion event occurred.
Second, the putative fusion sequence is highly degenerate given the inferred evolutionary timescale. In their paper, Fan et al. (2002a, p. 1657) state “Only 48% of the 127 repeats in RP11–395L14 and 46% of the 158 repeats in M73018 are perfect TTAGGG or TTGGGG units” and “If the fusion occurred within the telomeric repeat arrays less than ~6 Mya, why are the arrays at the fusion site so degenerate?” Tomkins and Bergman reevaluated the degeneracy of the fusion site along with the possible presence of other telomere repeats in a 177 Kb region surrounding it and found that not only was the putative fusion sequence itself ambiguous, but restricted to a single region of only about 800 bases in length (Tomkins and Bergman 2011a).
Third, one of the most remarkable discoveries about the putative fusion site by Fan et al. (2002b) was its location inside a CHLR1-like pseudogene (now called DDX11L2) as shown in Fig. 1 of their report (Fan et al. 2002b, p. 1664). However, the text of their report did not specifically discuss its anomalous location inside the pseudogene, despite the fact that their graphical annotation clearly showed that it was.
Since 2002, this region of the human genome has been updated with improved annotations as well as a significant amount of unpublished publicly available ENCODE data. As demonstrated in this report, the purported fusion site encodes an active transcription factor binding site and is definitively located inside the first intron of a functional RNA helicase gene transcribed on the minus strand. The location of the putative fusion sequence inside a functional and highly expressed gene associated with a wide variety of cellular processes strongly negates the idea that it is the by-product of a hypothetical head-to-head telomeric fusion.”
— (Continuing a few pages later) –
“A putative, but degenerate head-to-head telomere fusion-like sequence of about 800 bases is one of the key pieces of evidence used by evolutionists to support the human chromosome 2 fusion model of two smaller ape-like chromosomes. However, the DNA sequence features do not match evolutionary expectations, being
surprisingly small in size and extremely degenerate (Fan et al. 2002a; Tomkins and Bergman 2011a). In addition, the putative fusion site is not characterized by the presence of satellite DNA, a hallmark of known fusion events in living mammals, which was a surprise to researchers who first discovered it (Ijdo et al. 1991). Interestingly, chimpanzee chromosome end caps are rich in a type of satellite DNA specific to chimpanzee sub-telomeric regions, including the ends of chromosomes 2A and 2B (Ventura et al. 2012).
Yet none of this chimp end cap satDNA is located in the human genome, much less on chromosome 2 near the fusion site. Evolutionists have attempted to explain this anomaly by suggesting that the chimp-specific satDNA has been somehow eliminated over the course of human evolution and expanded in chimpanzee, a purely ad hoc explanation (Ventura et al. 2012).
In fact, the chromosomal end cap DNA composition of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans has recently been found to be species-specific— representing a type of taxonomically restricted DNA sequence (Ventura et al. 2012). In a creationist model of origins, taxonomically restricted DNA sequences, are clear DNA-based evidence for all of these different types of apes and humans, being created uniquely after their kind. Clearly, the end cap DNA regions of humans and apes shows no evidence of descending along a lineage of common ancestry, much less fusing in a human-chimp common ancestor to form a new chromosome.
Remarkably, Ventura et al. (2012) go through an incredibly convoluted and complex hypothetical model to try and explain their primate evolution negating results in light of the sacred idea of a chromosome fusion. To explain the lack of chimp satDNA in human near the alleged fusion site, they claim that the satDNA was selectively deleted during the fusion event, while portions of the telomeric sequence were preserved. They also claim that a large section of DNA at the end of chimp chromosome 2B, which strangely had some homology to an internal region of human chromosome 10, was also deleted out in the process. Not only does the end cap composition of ape and human chromosomes nullify the concept of a fusion event to produce human chromosome 2, but so does the extreme lack of genetic synteny surrounding the purported fusion site on human chromosome 2. As mentioned previously, a 614 Kb region surrounding the fusion site was sequenced and annotated showing a large number of genes and pseudogenes surrounding the alleged fusion sequence, all of which had no synteny to chimpanzee chromosomes 2A or 2B, their supposed ancestral sites of origin (Fan et al. 2002b).
Instead of capitulating on the idea of an evolutionary fusion, the authors postulated that the gene neighborhood surrounding the purported fusion site was derived by duplication and copying from other genes and regions around the human genome. Amazingly, the authors also noted the presence of the fusion site as being located inside a putative RNA helicase pseudogene in one of their figures, but minimized the evidence of the discovery in the text of their report (Fan et al. 2002b).
Ultimately, the fact that the fusion site is located inside a possibly important and functional gene is inconsistent with the hypothesis that it arose from some sort of major genetic aberration, such as a chromosomal fusion. In this report, the purported fusion site and its remarkable presence inside a clearly active gene is revisited with fresh data mined from the human genome project combined with gene expression data available in a variety of public databases.”<
—
If you would like a copy of this paper with all the references, please send me an email. [email protected]. The fusion site theory has been debunked and no geneticist has been able to refute this fact. It was just a bad assumption with speculation hoping to salvage the 'we came from Chimps story'… We are created differently from the apes and chimps. There is no fusion site, The major ape animals and humans all have unique "end caps" on their telomeres. There also several other problems with this end to end fusion, such as the 24 million nucleotides in Chimp Chromosome 2B and not found in humans.
——————-
“But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” – 1 Thessalonians 5:21
TMal says
Helmut, you lost me on your first sentence. “Mother Jones” news. What are you referring to?
Helmut says
Your post from 2020-12-03 at 15:12 contained a link to a Mother Jones page.
Ken Miller did recant his erroneous statement in an email exchange with Dr Tomkins.
You continue to disparage YEC scientists and most of your supposed facts are out of date. The EES is interesting but you overstate your case. It fits the creation model as well, and perhaps better than evolutionary model.
TMal says
Helmut,
True or False: abutting reverse-forward telomere motifs are found in the middle of chromosome 2.
Helmut says
The human genome is full of internal telomeric repeats, but no evidence of any head-to-head pure chimp telomeres fusing. NONE. Many scientists have reported on the internal telomeric repeats since the first draft of the human genome was published in 2001. Chromosome fusions have been documented in other species, but there are no examples of a head-to-head fusion. The telomeres help prevent this -it is what they were designed to do. There is absolutely no sign of the known chimp telomere ‘endcaps’ in human chromosome 2.
If a head-to-head fusion occurred, it should also leave behind evidence of the original telomeres, i.e. a characteristic repetitive telomere sequence (TTAGGG), in both forwards and backwards direction. There are telomere motifs in this area, but they don’t repeat in the fashion they would if they were truly telomeric. As mentioned, these telomere motifs can also be found in many other parts of the genome.
I am so sorry for you, TMal. I know it is hard for anyone to make a major change to their worldview paradigm, But if you start to research both sides better, maybe you can do it. Pray about it. But the refutation of the fusion story stands. Chimps and humans were created separately in the beginning. Variation yes, some of it fairly quickly, as you indicated. But humans have always been humans. Chimps of various types have always been chimps. Nothing in between. You said you were a Christian. Maybe instead of trying to take sides with the atheist and agnostic camp, who are always changing their story – you should be glad you can trust your Bible. You can still believe in Billions of years like Hugh Ross. thats okay – but not Darwins story.
TMal says
Helmut, thank you for your comments.
Regarding Tomkins: I do not find him credible nor do I trust anything he says unless I can independently verify it. I have seen him make far too many unfounded, non-factual statements (like his 70% human-chimp difference error; you get upset about accurate 98% statements but where is your outrage over Tomkins’ mistake?). He also routinely misrepresents peer-reviewed research. We can go through examples if you like (One such example that comes to mind is his ICR article “Endosymbiosis: a theory in crisis”).
Regarding Miller and Tomkins: Miller never recanted or conceded or admitted anything and has publicly stated that all these YEC claims about him doing so are “nonsense” and a misrepresentation of what he said. But as I said, I really don’t care about any spat the two of them had.
Regarding chromosome 2 fusion: It remains the most parsimonious explanation of the data and has not been “debunked” in the least. You have failed to demonstrate any change in the evidence-based scientific consensus on this. It is only “debunked” in the minds of YECs who want and wish and need it to be.
(1) Chromosome fusion events are rare but they are *not* hypothetical. We have documented occurrences of such in the genomes of other organisms.
(2) The chromosome 2 fusion site in humans evidences end-to-end telomere fusion with 18 reverse telomere motifs on one side and 18 forward telomere motifs on the other. If it looks like two joined telomeres (and it does) and quacks like two joined telomeres….
(3) That it is not pristine but degenerate means nothing. In fact, telomere-telomere fusion can’t occur unless they are degenerate. Also, such “arguments” do nothing to address the actual evidence of telomere-telomere joining, and saying, “well yes, but the telomeres are degenerate” is actually an admission of the evidence. It’s like arguing that a red car isn’t red because the paint job’s faded or is faded too much or too little from what one might expect. It’s still red, my friend. Saying it’s faded, doesn’t make it a different color. The end-to-end forward and reverse telomere motif sequences are still there and they aren’t going away.
(4) Contrary to what you think, the nearby DDX11L2 pseudogene–instead of being evidence against fusion–is actually additional confirmation that this is, in fact, an end-to-end telomere-telomere fusion in the middle of a chromosome, because all genes and pseudogenes in the DDX family are subteleomeric. So lo and behold, not only do we find telomere-telomere sequences in the middle of the chromosome (instead of the ends) where they normally aren’t supposed to be, but the locus also includes known subteleomeric pseudogenes. That is additional confirming evidence that these teleomeric sequences are, in fact, what they appear to be.
(5) Gene banks classify DDX11L2 as a *pseudogene* in the DDX (“DeaD boX”) family of genes related to helicases (just because DDX11L2 can be transcribed doesn’t mean it’s a functional gene, nor is it highly expressed).
(6) There are two known RNA transcripts of the DDX11L2 pseudogene:
(A) The most common (which I’ll call *transcript A*) does *not* span the fusion site but is to the “left” of the fusion site (i.e., downstream) and has an expression level of about 20-25% of that for functional DDX genes. The exon (“expressed” sequence) closest to the fusion site is the promoter where transcription is initiated, and then proceeds from right to left away from the fusion site.
(B) The second (which I’ll call *transcript B*), is much rarer in occurrence and was first known from only one gene bank. Transcript B includes all the exons in transcript A, plus one additional exon. This extra exon is to the “right” of the fusion site. This exon serves as the promoter where transcription is initiated (instead of the exon just to the left of the fusion site that is the promoter for transcript A). Transcription proceeds from right to left across the fusion site to the other exons of transcript A. Transcript B “spans” the fusion site in the sense that the fusion site is an intron (an intervening sequence that is transcribed but then cut out and removed so that the transcribed exons can be spliced together to make the final RNA transcript). The expression level for this transcript is even lower–about 7% of that for functional DDX genes.
(7) Importantly, it is the exons to the left of the fusion site (i.e., the exons of transcript A) that identify it as a member of the DDX11 gene family; not the extra, alternate promoter to the right of the fusion site.
(8) We don’t even need to debate about “functionality”–that will just cloud the discussion. It doesn’t really matter whether transcript B is “functional” or not or even whether it exhibits a range of functionality (call it whatever you want). The simple fact is that most genes have multiple promoters and it is not uncommon for genes to share promoters with other genes.
Thus, what’s more likely:
Option 1: A promoter originally associated with a different gene on a different chromosome is now sometimes being used by a known subteleomere pseudogene due to its close proximity as a result of a telomere-telomere fusion event (evidenced by reverse-and-forward teleomere motifs)?
Or,
Option 2: Transcription across a chromosome fusion site must mean that the clear, tell-tale sign of such a telomere-teleomere fusion (i.e., reverse-forward teleomere motifs) is an illusion.
*Option 1 is clearly the most parsimonious explanation that accounts for all the evidence. Option 2 require us to ignore the clear reverse-forward teleomeric signal of an end-to-end telomere-telomere fusion event. And even if we do so, option 2 still does not account for all the physical evidence: it still doesn’t explain why we have adjacent reverse-forward telomere motifs and subteleomeric pseudogenes in the middle of a chromosome! Option 2 is like finding a yellow paint splotch on our red car and claiming that proves the car isn’t truly red, when we can still clearly see that it is. The reverse-forward teleomere sequence evidence is still there.
(9) Subteleomere variation provides additional support for option 1. Subteleomeres are one of the most highly varied, polymorphic regions of chromosomes subject to recombination and rearrangements. The fact there are two possible transcripts (A and B) evidences a small part of this variation. For argument sake, even if DDX11L2 is an important functional, highly expressed gene then that would be evidence for how fast evolution and gene neofunctionalization can occur even “within kinds.”
(10) “Arguments” about lack of synteny with chimps and one-to-one correspondence are not problematic for the same reason. Subteleomeres exhibit a wide range of variation and plasticity and aren’t the same even among humans. The fact that transcript B does not always occur is one small example of such variation.
(11) Besides, DDX11 is itself a recognized homolog shared with non-human primates, and the genes on either side of the cryptic centromere remnant in chromosome 2 do exhibit synteny with chimps.
(12) And do you know how common transcription factor binding sites are on chromosomes? The mere presence of one even by the fusion site means nothing. Plus, there are about 6,000 TF binding sites on chromosome 2 and the one you’re speaking of didn’t make the cut; meaning, it can bind a TF but doesn’t actively do so (It’s activity level is about 0.022 if I recall, and 0.1 is the minimum level to be considered an active TF binding site. But even if it were active, so what. Now our red car has a hood ornament and somehow that makes it impossible for our car to be red?
*The bottom line is this: NONE of your “arguments” change the fact that abutting reverse-forward teleomere sequences are found in the middle of chomosome 2. The car is still red.
Helmut says
Your list here has many inaccuracies and half-truths and outdated information as well as very poor speculation. Please reveal what web site you copied this from? Or do you have science journal references? Any references?
When Tomkins paper came out in 2013, many evolutionists scrambled to refute it as you are trying to do here. Ken Miller accused Tomkins of even doing his analysis on the wrong location. After a direct email exchange Miller admitted Tomkins had the right location, and Miller recanted. But Miller and others still tried to refute the findings that the Chromosome fusion was not possible. They have made mistakes and also new data has come out that strengthened the refutation of fusion.
This alleged interstitial telomeric repeat site of the human chromosome 2 fusion corresponding to chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B of a hypothetical common ancestor is actually a second promoter in the DDX11L2 long noncoding RNA gene. In a later paper Tomkins writes, “Additional ENCODE related data are provided in this report that not only debunk evolutionary criticism and obfuscation in response to this discovery, but solidify the original finding.”…
The fusion site sequence binds to at least 12 different transcription factors, including RNA polymerase II, the key enzyme that transcribes genes. Tompkins 2nd paper also shows “that along with the binding of RNA polymerase is the fact that transcription has also been shown to initiate inside the fusion-like sequence in a classic promoter-like fashion. These data also intersect with transcriptionally active histone marks and open active chromatin profiles that are hallmarks of promoters. These data, as a whole, strongly validate the alleged fusion sequence as a functional promoter element, not some random accident of fusion.”
“It is also shown that the alleged cryptic centromere site, which is very short in length compared to a normal centromere, is completely situated inside the actively expressed protein coding gene ANKRD30BL—encoding both exon and intron regions… Taken together, genomic data for both the alleged fusion and cryptic centromere sites refute the concept of fusion in a human-chimpanzee common ancestor.”
You can read more by Dr Tomkins and get his references here: https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/debunking-the-debunkers/
And https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=icc_proceedings
TMal says
Helmut,
There’s no need to feel sorry for me. The facts are on my side. And you didn’t actually answer my question. The answer is true: yes, there are abutting reverse-forward teleomeric motifs in the middle of chomosome 2. And as I said pristine, non-degenerate teleomeres can’t fuse, so of course you’re not going to find pristine tandem repeats. The sequences are degenerate teleomeric/subteleomeric sequences and the presence of the DDX11L2 subteleomeric pseudogene confirms it. Even your Tomkins guy acknowledges this, and YECs are desperate to try to explain away the glaring truth staring them right in the face. Like I said, YECs selectively pick and choose what they want and ignore the rest. And instead of wanting to know the truth and asking me to show you, you say I’m disparaging creationists, when you should be asking me to demonstrate what I’ve said about Tomkins. Do you want to know the truth? Do you want to see how Tomkins misrepresents the sources he cites like in his ICR article “Endosymbiosis: a theory in crisis”? It’s detestable and dishonest, and it’s only one article of many.
I also notice that instead of actually addressing the evidentiary points I’ve made you’ve retreated to rhetoric. That’s fine, but we both know the truth: you have failed to debunk anything. I asked you to show me the peer reviewed research published in reputable science journals that overturn the chromosome 2 fusion evidence and you have failed to do so. You’ve cited primary research, but none of it directly addresses the chromosome 2 fusion event, much less debunks it. Sorry, YEC “sources” don’t count for anything and aren’t credible unless they go through peer review. You’ve touted Tomkins’ credentials and sung his praises about all the peer reviewed publications he has. That’s fantastic. If his so-called evidence “debunking” chromosome 2 is that airtight and unassailable then he should have no problem getting it through peer review. The fact that he can get other research published but not this is very telling and tells us what we need to know about his so-called “proof.”
Still waiting for you to present the pros and cons of YEC, or is it your claim that the YEC position is perfect and has no weaknesses?
TMal says
Whether it’s intellectual dishonesty or being dishonest with themselves, either way we see yet again that YECs can never be wrong. There’s too much at stake and they have too much skin in the game. The fusion site isn’t “pure” and “pristine” enough for YECs even though it’s not expected to be. However, if it were in fact “pure” and “pristine” would YECs then accept it? Of course not. They would then complain that it’s too perfect and doesn’t show enough degeneration. In fact, here Helmut does both: he claims it’s not “pure” enough while at the same time earlier claiming that it hasn’t degenerated enough if evolution was true. Which is it? He also tries to confuse the issue by saying there are many telomere repeats (TTAGGG) throughout the chromosome. Well of course there are. But that’s not the question is it: How many abutting reverse-forward telomere motifs comparable to the fusion site are found in chromosome 2? That’s the real question. We will wait for an answer.
Helmut Welke says
Sorry. I do see you accusing those who disagree with you on Darwin’s theory to be ‘dishonest’. I find that to be very offensive. You cannot defend Darwin with hard science, with modern facts, (despite your claims) – so you call all those who honestly see the giant holes in Darwin’s story, and conflicting data, as the ‘dishonest’ ones. That IS just an ad hominem fallacy. Most of your posts are just part of a smear campaign. Yet your defense of Darwin, (besides personal name calling and dismissals), is so much “just So Stories”.
Like your statement, “ERVs are the remnants of viral genetic material that gets randomly, inserted into our DNA as a result of viral infections.” – Nobody KNOWS that. It was a very speculative idea over 10 years ago. at the time, maybe the ERV sections looked similar in some ways to retro RNAviruses, but that was just an early observation. To build a story that these are ancient Virus infections from a primeval ancestor – is just speculation. It is not proof – though you can consider it a possiblity in those days.
It took a long time to investigate those ERV’s thoroughly and with targeted research. You can choose to still believe the evolutionary explanation version, due to your a priori commitment to evolutionary theory, but today it is a best a very poor idea.
Today we know that ERVs (and LINEs and SINEs) have biological functions. They function as epigenetic switches, structural elements and as variation-inducing genetic elements. They are part of the original created genome to rapidly induce variation, adaptations and speciation (within a kind). This is perhaps where the EES ideas come from today. But it is not evidence of Macro-Evolution. Today it actually looks more like some of these RNA Viruses (retroviruses) have their origin in these animal genetic elements due to the uptake and integration of host genes in their genetic make-up. That is the modern explanation and negates the old story. You can choose to disagree, and dismiss the new evidence, but do not call those you disagree with as the ‘dishonest’ ones. That would be itself ‘dishonest’.
Helmut says
You are grasping at straws and not addressing the myriad of problems with head to fusion telomere fusion. That’s NOT science. That’s speculation about a story you cannot prove while you ignore the real science that clearly shows it is not a fusion site. It just isn’t. If your own DDX11L2 genes did not actively express themselves you would die when cells could not correctly reproduce themselves. Protest all you want, You are just trying to salvage an impossible story of chimp to human evolution. That story has been falling apart since Piltdown man was proven to be a fraud in the 1950’s.
The fusion story becomes even more untenable when we consider the complete absence of chimpanzee subtelomeric specific heterochromatic repeats that are missing in and around the alleged fusion signature that should have been present at some level in the hypothetical hominid common ancestor (Ventura et al. 2012). As stated in the publication by Ventura et al., “Chimpanzee and gorilla chromosomes differ from human chromosomes by the presence of large blocks of subterminal heterochromatin thought to be composed primarily of arrays of tandem satellite sequence.” In fact, the amount of chimpanzee subtelomeric sequence now mysteriously missing in humans is amazingly large. Ventura et al. state, “While variable in size, most of the satellite tracts were >20 kbp, with some exceeding 60 kbp within a given BAC [bacterial artificial chromosome—a cloned large insert genomic fragment in a single copy bacterial vector].” The presence of abundant amounts of chimpanzee-specific subtelomeric satellite DNA sequence in chimpanzee, but completely absent in human, is not only a major problem for the chromosome 2 fusion model, but human evolution from a common ancestor with chimpanzee in general.
“All genetic data in living mammals up to this point shows that telomere-satelliteDNA or satelliteDNA-satelliteDNA are the hallmark signatures of naturally occurring but rare chromosomal fusion sites in nature, not telomere-telomere fusions (Chaves et al. 2003; Tsipouri et al. 2008; Adega et al. 2009). Some evolutionists may counter this data with the argument that telomere-telomere fusions have been observed in the rearranged aberrant genomes of human cancer cells. However, these genomic aberrations are not indicative of normal healthy cells, but instead are the products of the failure of mechanisms maintaining genomic integrity in cells – leading to disease and death of the organism (Tanaka et al. 2012; Tanaka et al. 2014; Tu et al. 2015).” Cancer leads to death. Cancer does not create new and more complex body parts and especially the human brain. We are not chimps and never were.
TMal says
Yeah, heard that story before. Evolution and old ages have supposedly been debunked and scientists are in a state of confusion and grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to “save” old ages and evolution, everything is on the verge of collapse, blah blah blah….Yeah, YECs have been saying this for nearly a century now. Still waiting for the big collapse that’s so imminent to happen. Your ploy won’t work Helmut. You can say it’s debunked as many times as you want. It still doesn’t make it true. It’s sad really. You’re using it as a cover to try to hide the fact that you have failed to demonstrate that the chromosome 2 fusion event has actually been debunked among scientists. Because it hasn’t. It’s still accepted and remains the evidence-based scientific consensus. An honest person would at least acknowledge that.
Helmut says
I know that the fusion story is ‘accepted’ – so are other ‘urban myths’. That does not make them true and you continue to ignore all the problems with the fusion story. I know if you loose it, its like a domino falling and knocking down the rest of the evolutionary stories. So I understand your stubbornness in not letting it go. I have not said anything like the creation account is without weakness. but the evolutionary story from a single cell, to mankind? has several multiples times the number of problems and near impossibilities. 10’s of thousands of scientists around the globe do not believe in the evolutionary story. A minority yes, But I say they are correct and they have good scientific reasons for doing so. No matter your denials.
TMal says
And it’s quite hilarious that you would make accusations of “speculation” and “that’s NOT science.” Come on Helmut. Stop lying to yourself. In order to make a global flood work you have to inexplicably speed up the rate of continental drift and radioactive decay (producing enough heat to vaporize the oceans and partially melt the crust!) and then inexplicably slow the rate of continental drift and radioactive decay back down again after the flood. Where’s the science in that? That’s totally ad hoc. This is the second time I’ve brought it up. Maybe you should spend more time trying to solve the myriad of problems that exist for the YEC position. This is one of the reasons people don’t take YECs seriously. Because they don’t practice what they preach, and it’s truly quite hypocritical.
Helmut says
there you go again. Mocking people you do not agree with. Changing the subject. Research is ongoing on both sides.
Helmut says
Re: ERV’s and ancient viruses. You claimed that ERVs are the result of viral infections. They are not.
You claimed that ERVs are found in the genomes of all vertebrates, and can be used to demonstrate common ancestry. That is not true. It might possibly be true if you wanted to speculate, but by itself, it does not prove anything like common ancestry. And what we now know makes this also unlikely.
These sections of our genome are critical and help control rapid adoption responses. I knew you story was wrong, but you would not believe me so I asked my friend Peter Borger to comment. Dr. Borger is a Dutch research geneticist is an advanced researcher in gene expression. He has a M.Sc. in Biology (Honours biochemistry and molecular genetics) and a Ph.D. in Medical Sciences from the University of Groningen, The Netherlands. He has worked for several leading academic science institutes, including the University of Groningen (Netherlands), the University of Sydney and the University of Basel. Dr. Borger has published over 50 articles in leading international journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine. He most recently worked on the non-protein coding part of the genome; how it is shaping the regulatory genome and how it may contribute to complex diseases, including asthma, COPD and cancer. He is also the author of “Darwin Revisited”. He wrote back –
“Yes the old ERV song again. I have rebutted and refuted this argument about 10 years ago. Attached find all my papers relevant to the topic. You can also recommend my book:”
https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Revisited-understand-biology-century/dp/6202315113
“The short version is that ERVs and LINEs and SINEs have biological functions. The function as epigenetic switches, structural elements and as variation-inducing genetic elements. They are part of the created baranome (uncommited genome of created kinds) to rapidly induce variation, adaptations and speciation (within a kind). One sort of RNA Viruses (retroviruses) have their origin in these genetic elements due to the uptake and integration of host genes in their genetic make-up. This is illustrated in my articles (part 3). So, like always, Darwinians have cause and effect upside-down.”
If anyone would like his series of articles please contact me – or just get the book. It is rather technical. Here is an excerpt:
“One of the findings of the new biology was that the DNA of most (if not all) organisms contains jumping genetic elements. The mainstream opinion is that these elements are the remnants of ancient invasions of RNA viruses. RNA viruses are a class of viruses that use RNA molecule(s) for information storage”. …. “Molecular genetic analyses have demonstrated that genomes, including those of humans and primates, are riddled with ‘endogenous retroviruses’ (ERVs), which are currently explained as the remnants of ancient RNA virus-invasions. RNA virus origin can be estimated using homologous genes found in both ERVs and modern RNA virus families. By using the best estimates for rates of evolutionary change (i.e. nucleotide substitution) and assuming an approximate molecular clock, the families of RNA viruses found today ‘could only have appeared very recently, probably not more than about 50,000 years ago’. These data imply that present-day RNA viruses may have originated much more recently than our own species.”
Dr Borger introduces the acronym of Variation-inducing genetic elements (VIGEs). Later he says, “Now that we have redefined ERVs as a specific class of VIGEs, which were present in the genomes from the day they were created, it is not difficult to see how RNA viruses came into being. RNA viruses have emerged from VIGEs. – ERVs, LINEs and SINEs are the genetic ancestors of RNA viruses. Darwinists are wrong in promoting ERVs as remnants of invasions of RNA viruses; it is the other way around.” He backs this up with a discussion and documentation too long to put here.
TMal says
Sorry Helmut. While some ERVs have acquired secondary functions most have not and ERV insertions leave tell tale signatures. Borger’s just another creationist with an agenda. There’s really no point for you to continue posting. I’m not the one who needs convincing. All your so-called “evidence” needs to pass rigorous peer-review standards for reputable science journals. That’s who needs to be convinced.
I don’t care how many degrees or publications YECs have on topics unrelated to YEC. If the evidence is truly on YECs’ side, then they need to properly demonstrate it via professional peer-review like any scientist. Anyone can talk about how great they are from the sidelines, but YECs need to prove it by getting in the game which they have yet to even qualify for.
Helmut says
creation scientists are very much in the ‘game’. but you know very well that a known Evolution Doubter has little to no chance to be published in the mainstream journals. The persecution is getting worse in the last few years. Its not an excuse. Unfortunately that is the way it is.
TMal says
Wrong. False. It’s actually the other way around. Scientists have always changed when the evidence warrants it. You even said so yourself. Scientists will also publish research that doesn’t fit expectations all the time. By contrast, YECs are “perfect” and never make any mistakes or acknowledge any weaknesses or incongruent data. But that’s not the real world nor is it honest.
Helmut says
nasty comment with out basis. Evolution believers like you will not acknowledge any weaknesses or incongruent data. Which is why I will not play your game.
TMal says
Flat earthers call the round earth “hypothesis” a myth too. Sounds like sour grapes Helmut. I’ve already addressed your so-called “arguments.” They’re bogus. But again, I’m not the one who needs to be convinced. If the “evidence” is so powerful and irrefutable, then it should have no problem passing professional peer review.
TMal says
And it’s not a mockery Helmut. It IS hypocritical. Nor did I change the subject. The chromosome 2 fusion event is based on observational evidence. Trying to drum up imaginary problems doesn’t make the evidence go away. A real scientist looks at all the evidence collectively to arrive at the most parsimonious explanation. YECs don’t. They decide what evidence they like and what evidence they don’t instead of fairly addressing the collective evidence.
Helmut says
Another false attack. There is a lot of evidence out there, with facts that make the fusion story implausible. Your opinion is just that an opinion.
TMal says
There is no game Helmut. Nor is it mockery or meanness. YECs are hypocritical. I’m still waiting for you to prove me wrong. And I didn’t change the subject. I already addressed your arguments. They’re bogus. Real scientists pursue the most parsimonious explanation based on the collective evidence. YECs by contrast don’t but pick and choose the evidence they like and reject what they don’t in order to try to bolster what they’ve already decided is true. I don’t know why you think that’s disparaging or untrue. YEC organizations admit it all the time.
Helmut Welke says
Most of your posts are dripping with mockery and are very condescending. I have presented a lot of hard science evidence in these posts and shown hard scientific evidence that things like a supposed fusion site and ancient viruses in human DNA is not science based on confirmed facts. Too much of science these days is mere speculation. If it fits the narrative of evolution, then it can be embellished and carried forward. It may take some time, but the many ‘proofs’ of evolution have fallen by the wayside when more details emerge and more is known. The previous speculations are swept aside. Yet the old ideas carry on and are picked up by internet trolls like Tmal and continued to be presented as proof, when they are not viable arguments anymore.
Tmal started wtth a utterly false statement, very confidently, That “the 98.8% similarity between Human and Chimp DNA has been CONFIMED”. It took a while, but he finally admitted that Human Chimp DNA are NOT 98.8% the same. The difference today done by a number of researchers on both sides of the issue is at least 5% difference, more likely 15% different and possibly even more. Yet Evolutionists own statistical models need that 98 to 99% similarity. Or the whole story falls apart. There is simply not enough time of even 6 million years to account for the large differences beyond 2%.
Compounding this complex issue is the fact that the chimpanzee genome assembly is still based largely on the human genomic framework. Yes, because of the assumption that humans came from chimps, researchers started with the chimpanzee genome based on the human genome assembly (Warren et al. 2006). As pieces of actual Chimp DNA were sequenced (small sections usually under 1000 base pairs), they were fitted in to the human framework. Then to say the overall human and chip genomes are 98% similar is an exercise in circular reasoning.
The structure if the CHIMP and Human Chromosomes are also different. You can NOT brush this aside and say that does not matter. That’s a ridiculous disregard for the evidence. Researchers on both sides agree there are parts of the genome that are so different, you cannot calculate a number to account for these big differences.
It is also now known that the initial chimpanzee genome was contaminated with human DNA, which is a huge problem in genomics. There are a number of studies by secular researchers showing that many public DNA databases, from bacteria to fish, have significant levels of human contamination. Human DNA literally gets into the samples. Contamination is a major issue. Human DNA comes from researchers’ fingers, coughing, sneezing, etc., and it gets into the samples. Now researchers are taking greater steps to alleviate that problem. This was especially prevalent back in the earliest phases of genome projects, when the first chimpanzee was sequenced – and even then only a small portion of it.
We finally have a good mapping of the Chimp Y chromosome, not based on the human Y Ch. Recently, for the first time, the chimpanzee DNA sequence for a chromosome was assembled and oriented based on a Y chromosome map/framework built for chimpanzee and not human. The results astounded the secular researchers. As far as looking at specific genes, the chimp and human Y chromosomes had a dramatic difference in gene content of 53 percent. In other words, the chimp was lacking approximately half of the genes found on a human Y chromosome. The human Y chromosome contains a third more gene categories–entirely different classes of genes–compared to chimps.
Because virtually every structural aspect of the human and chimp Y chromosomes was different, it was hard to arrive at an overall similarity estimate between the two. The secular researchers did postulate an overall 70 percent similarity, – but did not take into account size differences or structural arrangement differences. This was done by concluding that only 70 percent of the chimp sequence could be aligned with the human sequence–not taking into account the major differences within the alignments.
In other words, 70 percent was a conservative estimate, especially when considering that 50 percent of the human genes were missing from the chimp, and that the regions that did have some similarity were located in completely different patterns.
And since each respective Y chromosome appears fully integrated and interdependently stable with its host organism, the most logical inference from the Y chromosome data is that humans and chimpanzees were each specially created as distinct creatures. There is so much more but enough for this blog.
“But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” – 1 Thessalonians 5:21
TMal says
because they’ve already decided what the answer is. And YEC organizations admit this, so I don’t know why you’d call this disparaging or deny it
TMal says
Then YECs need to prove it Helmut instead of making excuses and regardless of whether or not they think the deck’s unfairly stacked against them. Professional peer-review is the only way for YEC to gain credibility.
TMal says
Helmut,
It looks like we will have to leave it there. The YEC position is quite diverse and ranges from top notch professional scientists (absolutely!) to the other extreme of individuals who I will not name that AIG, ICR and other YEC organizations are embarrassed by and have distanced themselves from. That is a step in the right direction. There are YEC scientists who I absolutely support 100%, because they do it right through peer review and relationship building in the scientific community. It’s the harder road but in the end it elevates these YEC scientists’ work to legitimacy. Please know that my statement about peer review is not idle talk. Any YEC research that goes through the process that professional scientists are required to submit to I will support 100%. I genuinely mean that. Done right, through peer review YECs have achieved some significant inroads. Such as revision of “varves” (I was actually there on site when that discovery was made that varves aren’t strictly annual).
That said I wish you well Helmut. I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas. May the Lord bless you and keep you.
Helmut Welke says
Thank you for these kind comments. Had you started this way we might have had a better discussion of what is a fact and what is speculation from both sides. But in general, it is hard to have a good discussion purely on an internet blog, especially when one side stays anonymous and calls the other side dishonest.
Had we met face to face, I am sure we could have a good discussion -and been more personal and become friends who still disagree on this topic. So I do wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy new year.
This testimony is a final gift for 2020: Dr. David Gelernter is a well-known American Information scientist. He is a prominent Yale professor of computer science, who also predicted in advance the internet of today. He says he was predisposed to believe in Darwinism, yet when he investigated it, he found it wanting. Finally, in 2019, he publicly denounced Darwinism as not only improbable, but statistically “a dead loss”.
In interviews, Gelernter also explains that what’s known as the “Cambrian Explosion” showed the exact opposite of what Darwin predicted the fossil record would show. Instead of change developing in a gradual, step-by-step fashion, the animal-groups that appeared during the Cambrian Explosion arrived fully formed—and their forms resisted all major changes to their body plans.
Next, Gelernter shows how modern molecular biology has essentially destroyed Darwin’s theory by showing the complexity of protein and the impossibility that proteins could have formed randomly. (Molecular biologist Douglas Axe) estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, the odds of an amino acid capable of folding into a stable protein is 1 in 1074. This is the same as saying the chance origin of a complex protein is zero. And then you need a large number of proteins to appear at the same time, to perform a usable function. It is clear mutations cannot do what Darwinists want them to do.
In other words: neo-Darwinian evolution is—so far—a dead loss. “Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. “, he said.
This and many other reasons are why Dr. Gelernter had to renounce Darwin – the science is too overwhelming against it happening. See: https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/giving-up-darwin/
“But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” – 1 Thessalonians 5:21
TMal says
For anyone who is interested:
YECs and IDers often confuse the “what”and “how” of things: i.e., “what occurred” vs. “how it occurred.” They spend an exorbitant amount of time trying to discredit the process (the “how”) of evolution (often attacking older, oversimplified neo-Darwinian strawman conceptions of evolution), while failing to understand that even if for sake of argument they are correct that it merely shows the proposed process is incorrect, but does nothing to counter or discredit the evidence for “what occurred.” That is, it does nothing to discredit the evidence that evolution has still occurred, regardless of how or by what process or even if the process was unknown. For example:
(1) Humans and chimps have 100,000 or so endogenous retrovirus (ERVs) elements in the same, corresponding locations in their genomes. Put simply, ERVs are the remnants of viral genetic material that gets randomly, inserted into our DNA as a result of viral infections. It is far more likely that humans and chimps inherited these 100,000 ERVs from a common ancestor, than independently acquired them, similar to the improbability of two books independently acquiring 100,000 spaghetti stains in the same, corresponding locations by luck. The typical YEC response is that such similarities merely show independent creation according to a common design, but that doesn’t work here, because these are secondary viral infections that would have to come after an original creation. Importantly, the question of *how* (i.e., by what process) chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor is a separate question that is irrelevant to the *what*, for even if we had no mechanism at all, that still would not change the evidence from ERVs that humans and chimps are related.
Here is a website that explains this in greater detail with helpful diagrams: https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2015/11/
(2) In fact, the evidence goes beyond this. ERVs are found in the genomes of all vertebrates, and as with humans and chimps can similarly be used to demonstrate common ancestry and shared evolutionary history.
(3) Human chromosome number 2 is the result of two chromosomes that have been fused together end-to-end. The ends of chromosomes are called telomeres, and chromosome 2 not only has telomeres at the ends, but also has side-by-side telomeres in the “middle” of the chromosome (where they’re not supposed to be), evidencing this end-to-end fusion event. This fusion event shows that our human chromosome 2 has a prior history and also explains why humans have one less pair of chromosomes than other apes (23 compared to 24). The process by which this occurred (i.e., the “how”) is a separate question from the “what,” and even if we had no mechanism does not change the evidence that we used to have 24 pairs of chromosomes and now have 23 pairs as a result of this end-to-end chromosome fusion event. The alternative YEC/ID explanation requires us to believe that an intelligent designer created our chromosome number 2 with an additional set of telomeres in the “middle” (instead of the ends) that falsely gives the appearance of a past fusion event occurrence.
Here is a website that explains the fusion event in chromosome 2 in simple terms with added diagrams: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/bill-nye-creationism-evolution/
(4) Mitochondria and chloroplasts in plant and animal cells are comparable in size to bacteria, they divide like bacteria, they have their own DNA that contains bacterial genes that are replicated and transcribed/translated by bacterial-type replication and transcription/translation machinery and bacterial type ribosomes (that are also susceptible to antibiotics—because they’re bacterial!)—unlike the rest of the plant and animal cell. All these things are also specific enough that we can identify the specific type of bacteria that shares these characteristics.
Therefore, based on the observational facts, it looks like mitochondria and chloroplasts came from bacteria (This is known as “endosymbiosis”). This is an entirely rational and logical conclusion to draw based on the observational evidence. While some reject evolution, one can hardly fault others for drawing such a conclusion, because there is nothing illogical about it, and it is an entirely natural and even obvious conclusion to draw.
We can state this even more simply: just as viral DNA in a genome must come from viruses, bacterial DNA in plant cells must have come from bacteria. Thus, the clear evidence shows that plant cells have a past history that included the acquisition of bacterial DNA. For sake of argument, let’s say that neo-Darwinian mutation and natural selection cannot explain this. Even if this were true and we didn’t know *how* it occurred, that still would not change the fact that it still occurred.
In fact, there are IDers acknowledge this. Here is an article by an ID proponent who doesn’t believe natural selection can fully account for bacterial endosymbiosis in eukaryotic cells like plant and animal cells. The important point to notice is that again, regardless of the *how* it occurred it still does not change the fact that it still occurred, as the ID proponent notes:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/38692/617238/1255894963227/The%2BSerial%2BEndosymbiosis%2BTheory.pdf%3Ftoken%3DSOa2xHmbO13JZxET2usqlzpQMwc%253D&ved=2ahUKEwjf9YGhk6TtAhV-TTABHZJACu4QFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3E_fZyAt3cC4Gc7ko_Lm8m pdf
“Based on the present available data, an endosymbiotic origin for mitochondria and chloroplasts seems to be a reasonable conclusion despite the unanswered questions that remain. Chloroplasts from a variety of photosynthetic organisms show very similar features and have kept many of their bacterial features. It is difficult to convincingly explain these bacterial features in a nonhistorical manner.”
Literally tens of thousands of additional examples can be added to these four. Again, for sake of argument, even if natural selection and mutation fail to explain *how* evolution occurred, that still would do nothing to change the evidence that evolution still occurred, regardless of the mechanism.
TMal says
Helmut,
I’m sorry you think my comments are “dripping with mockery and condescension.” Imho you are taking things too personally and also unaware of how strong and condescending you come across yourself. You also have not presented hard science, and a lot of your information is outdated (for example, we have new fossil evidence pushing human-chimp common ancestry back to 10 million years or more). As I said, in order to establish legitimacy YECs must demonstrate their claims through proper professional peer-review. And as I’ve said there are real deal YECs who not only do this but also work to establish relationships in the scientific community and also demonstrate the love of Christ vs. the “evolutionist-bashing” that other YECs do. I am being completely serious here. You accuse me of mockery and condescension, but take a look at the disrespect of YEC literature (and even some of your own words) towards scientists, and take some time to consider how that would come across if you were in their shoes, and then you will understand the reaction to YECs.
Again, you should try to touch base with Kurt Wise and ask for his honest assessment of the current weight of scientific evidence as well as his suggestions for how YECs should conduct themselves.
I know we will continue to disagree, but I thank you for your kind words and send blessings of the same to you and your family.
Helmut Welke says
I know that I am come across ‘strong’ – particularly in emails and internet posts. It is hard to avoid – for both of us. I cannot speak for other people and how they may phrase statements – but I have never called you ‘dishonest’. When you call YEC’s ‘dishonest’ and ‘misrepresent the evidence’ – you are also talking about me. I do take that as a personal insult and not a discussion of the facts as they really are – separated from evolutionary speculation.
Fossil evidence that keeps pushing back into deep time the evolutionary story can also be shown to say there never were any apemen. Just apes and humans – exactly what the Genetic hard evidence also shows – And what the Bible says. Having to change the evo story all the time is not good science – if you never allow for the evidence to falsify the theory. Especially since australopithecines (Lucy and her cousins) and humans lived at the same time. Donald Johanson (discover of Lucy) himself wrote that the evidence suggests that humans “ate australopithecines” along with gazelle and whatever else they could hunt. As an engineer, I have to stick to facts and not speculation about what the facts might say and force fit them into the evolutionary narrative. You do not build bridges or cars based on a narrative you like – but on verifiable facts of science. The known facts of science can also be interpreted to fit the Biblical account of origins – and more easily without having to develop more ‘just so stories’. Or adding another 66% to the evo-timeline.
And maybe that does seem impersonal. (yes I know, engineers can have such winsome personalities!). Finally, Yes, I do know Kurt Wise personally as well. He is as committed to the Bible and YEC science as anyone – and he was trained at Harvard, under J Gould. Just watch his segments in the documentary, “Is Genesis History?”. Have you?
I encourage you to get a better understanding of the Creationist viewpoint and the strong evidence for it. Linus Pauling said “Science is the search for truth, the effort to understand the world.” That’s what we should be doing without prior commitments to evolutionary or any story. Are you really willing to let the science facts lead you to where they can take you? Ask you yourself that, this Christmas season. Jesus said, “you shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free”. That freedom applies to all aspects of our lives. Pray to Jesus (our creator and savoir) for wisdom on this. You make think I do not do that, but I do.
Jesus also made a way for us to receive God’s grace and forgiveness. Jesus was the very first Christmas gift – a gift from God to all who will accept Him. Matthew 1:23 says “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.” (A virgin birth and then the resurrection from the dead – are not very scientific either – but it is the truth.)
John 3:16-17 says it this way: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” Amen.
TMal says
Helmut,
When it comes to YEC literature I can think of only two possibilities for errors and misrepresentations: either (a) intentional, and therefore, dishonest, or (b) unintentional, and therefore, incompetent and sloppy. We can walk through *countless* examples, including articles Tomkins has written, that unequivocally show misrepresentations of other scientists’ research and claims. When Tomkins misquotes or quotes in part while omitting the rest of a quote, or makes it seem like a scientist is claiming there is no evidence for evolution of such-and-such while omitting statements by the same scientist in the same article for evidence of evolution for such-and-such, when he pulls a bait-and-switch saying a scientist’s statement about X means lack of evidence for Y when X is not about Y and when in the same article the scientist states there is unequivocal evidence for evolution based on Y….when I see all these things what else can I conclude: Tomkins either knows what he’s doing and is dishonest, or is unaware and doing sloppy, shoddy work. In my line of work, I do a lot of peer review and see an entire range of quality from exceptional to incompetent, shoddy, substandard and YEC literature almost always falls in the latter category. You may find that harsh and unkind, but it is a truthful statement based on my experience with peer-review, just as sure as I am that as an engineer you would not hesitate to call someone on the carpet for shoddy, substandard engineering/construction work that does not meet the standards of your profession. I am doing the same for my profession just as you would do for yours.
You don’t want me to criticize you, but what am I to think when in response to my statement that new fossil evidence pushes human-chimp common ancestor back to 10 million years or more, you say “Fossil evidence that keeps pushing back into deep time…can also be shown to say there never were any apemen”? What am I to think of your fair-mindedness and objectivity when you summarily dismiss what I’ve said before even learning what precisely it is that I’m referring to? In my experience and in my line of work, what I am accustomed to hearing (and what is professionally expected) in response to a statement like mine is for clarifying questions to be asked and for the evidence to be scrutinized and examined long before drawing any conclusions. And yet you have already decided that this new fossil evidence for evolution can’t possibly be evidence for evolution before even knowing what that evidence is. You have already predetermined the outcome *a priori*. In my profession, that is clear evidence of a bias and unscientific thinking (*a priori* instead of *a posteriori*). I’m not trying to disparage you, but what else am I to conclude when I witness such responses?
What else am I to conclude, when I see you criticize (the self-correcting nature of) science for being science? When I see that, I have to conclude that I’m dealing with either a science denier or someone who doesn’t understand science.
What am I to think when you accuse scientists of not letting evidence falsify evolutionary theories, when I know for a fact that scores of different evolutionary theories are falsified all the time? (which YECs cherry-pick and misrepresent). How am I to take such accusations seriously when there’s, in fact, no way to falsify the dogmatic, unbending religious stance taken by young earth creationists? How do you expect me to respond when from my position YECs don’t practice what they preach? I can give you a thousand-and-one counter evidences to a global flood that YECs simply ignore and hand-wave away. Why aren’t YECs following the evidence where it leads and allowing it to falsify their positions?
How am I supposed to respond to your claims that “As an engineer, you have to stick to the facts and not speculation” when I know of a thousand-and-one facts that you are ignoring, and when I know for a fact from years of personal experience as a former YEC as well as decades of study that there are a plethora of YEC claims that are steeped in speculative conjecture and Rube-Goldberg like ad hoc mental gymnastics that must be done to force fit or explain away inconvenient facts?
I know Kurt Wise too. Ask him. Say to him, I know we believe that science and all facts will ultimately vindicate the YEC position, but would a non-YEC be justified in believing the earth is old based on the current scientific evidence that we do have today? Could we fault someone for believing the earth is old?
TMal says
Helmut,
Again, as per my comments above, you should also contact Kurt Wise and have a real heart to heart with him about the current weight of evidence and best ministry approach for YECs. (See my comments above on this)
TMal says
Helmut,
I have claimed that YEC literature routinely misrepresents other scientists’ statements and research, and that YECs either do this (a) intentionally, and are therefore dishonest, or (b) unintentionally, and are therefore incompetent.
I will back this up with an example. In fact, maybe I will start posting a new example every week or so to demonstrate this.
But before I do, let me first ask you a question: Do you know what the first step is in any research study or scientific investigation? The very first step is to conduct a thorough—and I do mean *thorough,* no-stone-left-unturned–*literature review* of every professional paper ever written on the subject. There is nothing more embarrassing to a scientist, then to submit a manuscript for peer-review only to have it rejected because someone else has already done the same study, or because you missed a study that debunks one or more of your claims or that raises important questions that you failed to address. To a peer-review referee, this is a sign of unprofessionalism and incompetence. Please keep this in mind as we proceed.
Example 1: “Endosymbiosis: A Theory in Crisis” (2015) by YEC scientist Dr. Tomkins: https://www.icr.org/article/endosymbiosis-theory-crisis
As you know, the basic idea of endosymbiosis is that the mitochondria and chloroplasts in eukaryotic cells (of animals, plants, fungi, protists, and algae) were derived in whole or part from bacteria that once lived inside eukaryotic cells (as “endosymbionts”) in a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. Mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own circular DNA like bacteria that is separate from the DNA found in the nuclei of eukaryotic cells. This DNA is replicated by bacterial-type ribosomes, and also contains bacterial-type genes that we can identify as coming from alpha-protobacteria (for mitochondria) and cyanobacteria (for chloroplasts). There is also evidence that some of the mitochondrial and chloroplast genes have been transferred to the DNA of the cell nucleus over time.
Now I’m not interested in debating the theory of endosymbiosis with you, which I know you already reject. My question is singular: regardless of whether or not the theory is true, does Tomkins provide a competent, fair and honest review of the theory in his article? The answer is no, he does not. Almost every line in his article is problematic. I don’t have time to go through them all, but here are some examples:
(1) Tomkins writes: “One idea that has been quite popular for about 50 years is that mitochondria and chloroplasts were derived from a *mythical* process called endosymbiosis.”
Regardless of whether or not mitochondria and chloroplasts are the result of endosymbiosis, the process itself is not “mythical,” but well-documented with countless examples that we see even today of bacterial endosymbionts living inside eukaryotic cells. Is Tomkins unaware of this, and therefore incompetent by failing to do his homework on the subject before attempting his review; or is he aware, and therefore knowingly making a misleading statement?
Numerous studies. Here are a couple examples:
H. Ishikawa, “Biochemical and Molecular Aspects of Endosymbiosis in Insects,” International Review of Cytology 116 (1989): 1–45.
P. Baumann, et al., “Genetics, Physiology, and Evolutionary Relationships of the Genus Buchnera: Intracellular Symbionts of Aphids,” Annual Review of Microbiology 49 (1995): 55–94
(2) Tomkins writes: “It is alleged that at some point in the distant past, a prokaryotic cell (perhaps an archaea) engulfed a bacterium (perhaps a proteo-bacterium), and then, invoking a magical jump in lieu of any scientific explanation, hundreds of genes were somehow “retailored” to new purposes. In addition, many thousands of genes were also thought to be transferred into the cell’s nucleus, while others were discarded.”
Numerous problems, but let’s focus on just one in the second sentence. Tomkins presents the transfer of genes to the nucleus as hypothetical (“It is alleged…[it is] also thought” that “many thousands of genes” were “transferred into the cell’s nucleus”). If I was reviewing Tomkins article for publication, what would be my response to this? Answer: I would be forced to conclude that Tomkins (a geneticist himself) is either incompetent or dishonest. Specifically, I would be forced to conclude that Tomkins has either: (a) failed to do his homework and is unaware that gene transfers like this are not hypothetical at all, but confirmed fact that we have observed in real-time, or (b) that he is aware of these studies and has knowingly misled by consciously omitting any mention of these studies.
Here are a few studies that were published prior to Tomkins’ 2015 article. Each of these studies documents real-time observations of chloroplast and mitochondrial DNA being transferred to the cell nucleus (including in humans), and the rate of gene transfer was quantitatively measured in some of these studies:
Ricchetti, M.; Tekaia, F.; Dujon, B. Continued colonization of the human genome by mitochondrial DNA. PLoS Biol. 2004, 2, e273.
Lloyd, A.H.; Timmis, J.N. Endosymbiotic evolution in action: Real-time observations of chloroplast to nucleus gene transfer. Mob. Genet. Elem. 2011, 1, 216–220.
Huang, C.Y.; Ayliffe, M.A.; Timmis, J.N. Direct measurement of the transfer rate of chloroplast DNA into the nucleus. Nature 2003, 422, 72–76.
Cullis, C.A.; Vorster, B.J.; van der Vyver, C.; Kunert, K.J. Transfer of genetic material between the chloroplast and nucleus: How is it related to stress in plants? Ann. Bot. 2009, 103, 625–633.
Roark, L.M.; Hui, A.Y.; Donnelly, L.; Birchler, J.A.; Newton, K.J. Recent and frequent insertions of chloroplast DNA into maize nuclear chromosomes. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2010, 129, 17–23.
(3) Tomkins continues: “The basic idea for this whole scenario [i.e., endosymbiosis] was originally boosted by the early discovery of genes in both mitochondrial and eukaryotic nuclear genomes that had regions of similarity to bacterial genes, especially proteo-bacteria. However, now that genome sequencing is inexpensive and widespread, the evolutionary story of endosymbiosis has become *increasingly clouded and controversial*. As new bacterial and eukaryotic genomes are sequenced and the proteins they encode are deduced, the whole evolutionary idea of endosymbiosis *has been thrown into utter confusion*.”
Tomkins’ claim is entirely false. Genomic sequencing has not made endosymbiosis “increasingly clouded and controversial” nor “thrown” the “whole evolutionary idea of endosymbiosis” into “utter confusion.” To the contrary, increased genomic sequencing has done the exact opposite: it has taken what used to be a controversial theory, and confirmed the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts beyond any reasonable doubt (see below). Tomkins has the right to reject endosymbiosis, but he does not have the right to misrepresent the current status of endosymbiosis among scientists—a status that is *not* one of “controversy” or “utter confusion,” but of consensus acceptance by the scientific community.
One of the research articles that Tomkins cites even states this! Tomkins cites the following article: Martin, W. et al. 2001. An overview of endosymbiotic models for the origins of eukaryotes, their ATP-producing organelles (mitochondria and hydrogenosomes), and their heterotrophic lifestyle. Biological Chemisty. 382 (11): 1521–1539. Martin et al. make the following statement in their research paper:
“To sum up thus far, endosymbiosis is a good explanatory principle when it comes to accounting for the overall similarity between chloroplasts and mitochondria to free living cyanobacteria and a-proteobacteria, respectively. The overall physiology of both organelle types (John and Whatley, 1975; Gray and Doolittle, 1982), in addition to the sequence and structure of their genomes, ATTEST BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that these organelles were indeed once free-living prokaryotic cells (Martin et al., 1998; Gray et al., 1999).” (emphasis added)
(4) Tomkins continues:
“One of the most unexpected discoveries has been the utter lack of identified genes that would support the evolutionary tale.”—-> Tomkins is lying (or ignorant) (see below)
Tomkins then cites the following paper: Gray, M. W. 2015. Mosaic nature of the mitochondrial proteome: Implications for the origin and evolution of mitochondria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (33): 10133–10138.
Tomkins writes: “As stated in a recent paper,
What was not anticipated was how relatively few mitochondrial proteins with bacterial homologs [sequence similarity] would group specifically with α-Proteobacteria in phylogenetic [evolutionary tree] reconstructions: At most, only 10–20% of any of the mitochondrial proteomes examined so far display a robust α-proteobacterial signal.
This *lack of evidence for mitochondrial genes derived from bacterial origin* in both the mitochondrial DNA and the genome contained in the cell’s nucleus, where most mitochondrial genes are located, is a serious problem for the evolutionary story.”
Tomkins claims there is an “utter lack of identified genes” and “lack of evidence for mitochondrial genes derived from bacterial origin.” To “back” this up he cites a research article about the *proteome*–NOT the *genome*–and in doing so (intentionally or unintentionally) conflates *proteins* with *genes*. In short, Tomkins claims that there is no genetic evidence that the mitochondrial genome is derived from bacterial origin. AND YET, JUST A FEW SENTENCES BEFORE THE PARAGRAPH THAT TOMKINS QUOTES the same article states:
“That the mitochondrial genome is of bacterial (specifically α-proteobacterial) origin is now INDISPUTABLE (15, 16), and that fact has underpinned the CURRENT WIDE ACCEPTANCE of a xenogenous/exogenous (endosymbiotic) origin of the mitochondrion (17, 18), effectively vanquishing autogenous/endogenous (nonsymbiotic) origin hypotheses (e.g., refs. 19–21).” (emphasis added)
Thus, Tomkins cites a scientific research study that supposedly supports his claim that there is an “utter lack” of evidence for the mitochondrial genome being of bacterial origin, WHILE OMITTING THAT THE SAME ARTICLE ACTUALLY STATES THE EXACT OPPOSITE! I have a real difficult time believing that Tomkins carelessly missed this statement just a few sentences before the one that he quotes. I find this incredibly misleading, dishonest and reprehensible.
And there is more…
But this should be sufficient for the moment to illustrate my claim that intentional or not, YEC literature routinely misrepresents other scientists’ statements and research. This is only example out of hundreds that we could go through.
Helmut Welke says
(sigh) 2 long, verbose posts. Little pertinent content. I only entered a post last month on Todd’s blog to point out your glaring error. “98.8% similarity between humans and chimps has been confirmed.” That was a “shoddy” error on your point. The % difference is significantly growing as we get better DNA maps for Chimps. The early ones used Human DNA as a scaffold to build the chimp DNA – a bad assumption. Not to mention the significant amount of human DNA contamination in the chimp samples.
As we map Chimp chromosomes more directly, it is obvious the structure and makeup between the 2 types of DNA is so complex and different that even putting a “% difference” on it is difficult, if not impossible. You said that ‘the structural differences do not matter’. Another shoddy error. It most certainly does matter.
The supposed fusion site on the human chromosome 2 is too small (798 BPs) to be meaningful, when telomers are 5000 to over 10,000 BPs long. Plus, it is in the middle of a fully expressed gene on human Ch 2. The fusion story is just bad speculation. Another shoddy error on your part.
When we finally got a good mapping of Chimp Y chromosome, it turned out to be considerably shorter than the human Y and very different. By the way, Evolution does not even have a plausible explanation for the development of sexual reproduction. Nothing close, when you consider the complexities of hormones, enzymes, different fluids that must all be there as well as the physical apparatus – There is no evolutionary explanation as it ALL has to be there at the same time. It is a designed system. The only plausible explanation is what our Lord and Savior said, “From the beginning, He made them male and female”.
Atheists Dawkins, Nye, and Kraus have all said or agreed with the idea that to teach ‘Creation” to young children was “child abuse”. Do you agree with that? I think teaching children that they are nothing, but glorified apes IS the real child abuse (apart from actual physical abuse, of course). We are reaping the damage in our culture today, of teaching generations of children, that is all they are – glorified monkeys. The sad part is, is that this is no longer a viable scientific theory. We are created in the image of God. And unfortunately, in rebellion to our Creator through sin and not paying attention to HIS word.
I hope this Christmas season you spent time with children and grandchildren teaching them that Jesus came to save us from our sins. That we should rejoice with the angels and the heavenly host- Alleluia, a Savior is born. We live in a fallen world, ravished by sin, including impacts on our DNA. Genetic diseases are increasing. We are devolving – not evolving. The world needs hope that is found in Jesus Christ. I hope we can agree on that.
As far as your vendetta against Jeff Tomkins goes, I am not interested. I will not go through the weeds and down your rabbit holes. Post away, but I doubt there are even half a dozen people reading these posts, and fewer even caring. Not interested and no time, either.
” The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God stands forever.” – Isaiah 40:8
TMal says
The problem Helmut, is that you made an accusation saying that my statements about YECs were unfounded. So then I back it up with undeniable examples. But instead of dealing with the facts you now try to spin it as a personal vendetta. I have no personal vendetta, and you have made it clear that you don’t really want to know the facts nor deal with the truth that YECs misrepresent scientists’ claims and research and don’t practice what they preach.
TMal says
On a more general note, there are some major, fundamental problems with the young earth creationist (YEC) position that make it biblically unsound. For example, the YEC belief that there was no death of any kind before ‘the fall’ and that everything in the fossil record came after ‘the fall’ and is primarily the result of Noah’s flood stands in direct contradiction to what the Bible says.
This is because such a belief requires the garden of Eden to predate the fossil record. This in turn is problematic because the Bible locates the four rivers associated with the garden of Eden on the surface of the earth–on top of the fossil record–not five miles underground where Paleozoic rocks occur in the Middle East (a fact known from extensive drilling).
Most YECs seems blithely unaware of this problem and those YECs who are aware try to explain away this inconvenient truth by claiming the Tigris and Euphrates rivers associated with the garden of Eden in Genesis 2 are not the same rivers as the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in the Middle East, but entirely different rivers that just happen to have the same name.
But the problem with that theory is that it’s not supported by the Bible and actually contradicts and runs counter to the Bible that YECs say they believe in and take literally. For example, Genesis 2:14 directly identifies the Tigris River as the river which ‘flows east of Assyria’, the same river we know today as the Tigris River and the identification with Assyria shows the river still existed (on the surface of the earth) ‘post-flood’ (instead of being buried five miles underground below the Paleozoic). Same thing with the Euphrates River, which is mentioned in Genesis 2 but also again in Genesis 15:18 with the Abrahamic covenant when Yahweh tells Abraham the land of his descendants will extend from Egypt to the great river Euphrates that is still so-named today. Thus, given Mosaic authorship of Genesis, Moses understood the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers associated with the garden of Eden as the same Tigris and Euphrates known in his time and known to us today.
Thus, what the Bible teaches stands in direct contradiction to YEC flood geologists who insist that most of the fossil record was put down in Noah’s flood. It is also difficult to reconcile with those who insist there was no death of any kind before ‘the fall’, since that too would require the garden of Eden to predate all the death in the fossil record.
Helmut says
The four rivers question.
Wayne Ranney, Tmal and others who mock flood geologists create a strawman argument about Eden and the 4 rivers in Genesis 2. Ranney states “which according to them (YE Creationists) means that the Garden of Eden sits atop deposits from the flood.” That quote is nonsensical and unequivocally not true.
Now Genesis 2:10 does say, “Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers”. Clearly these 4 pre-flood rivers (the Tigris, Euphrates, Pishon, and Gihon) are referred to in a pre-flood world and all 4 came from a single source in Eden. There was also a land referred to Assyria or Ashur. Today we have 2 rivers (Tigris and Euphrates) and a region known as Assyria. There is no reason to affirm that ant of these pre-flood geographical names are the exact same rivers in the same locations that carry the same name today. None. People throughout history have re-used names as they migrate around the world. They see a feature or a river and reuse an old name for it because the new location reminds them of a location back ‘home’ or elsewhere in their past. Not always but quite often.
As Noah and his family came down from the mountains of Ararat (a post flood name) they saw these new rivers. As people often do, they most likely say something like, “Oh… This river reminds of (or is of similar size) to the river we called the Euphrates in my youth. And another one reminds me of the old Tigris”.
And the names stuck. Renaming a new feature after an old feature – does not mean they are the same places. The United States is full of place names that settlers re-used from their past in England or Germany. And sometimes the names change over time. Today we call an area New York, but previously other people called it New Amsterdam. And before that Native Americans had another name. A person today when revering to this area would not use an older name, but the modern name we all recognize for the new world location.
Note that the Euphrates and Tigris of today also have different sources, they do not split from a single source. The rivers in Genesis 2 all had a common source. They cannot be same, no one should say so, or say others believe this. If the Global flood was real, it was a super catastrophic event. That Flood along with super volcanoes accomplished abundant geologic work. Eroding sediments here, redepositing them there, pushing up continents, elevating plateaus, denuding terrains, etc., so that the earth today is quite different from before. There is also evidence of massive volcanic action and major uplifting faults across multiple rock layers as the waters receded and plate tectonics broke up continents only to smash plates against each other. This is why Peter wants us to remember Noah’s Flood. It was major judgment against sin and lawlessness. Only Jesus can save us from our sin and disbelief. In 2 Peter 3:6 we read, “the world at that time was destroyed by being flooded with water.”
We will never find the garden Eden, because all those pre-flood locations are gone. The old river systems and the original hills of creation are gone. God hit the ‘Re-Set button’. Names can change and be re-used but they are not the same features. Let’s return to a deeper confidence in the words of Scripture it self – without adding secular voices to it – either ancient or modern. Once you realize that these rock layers as exposed at Grand Canyon and more to the north at the Grand Staircase could only have been formed in a major flood event. It was a global judgement of rampant sin in the days of Noah. If you look at this way, then you are really humbled as you gaze at the strata. I know I felt a greater confidence in the words of Genesis, God’s Judgment of sin and in His offer of love and forgiveness of sin through the work of Jesus Christ.
TMal says
The problem with your theory Helmut is that it requires us to believe that when Moses writes about the Euphrates River in Genesis 2 and then writes about the Euphrates River again in Genesis 15 (when God is speaking to Abraham in the ‘Post-flood’ period) that two *different* rivers are being referred to by the *same* name, and that we are further somehow supposed to know that two different rivers are being referred to, even though there is NOTHING in these passages of the Bible to suggest that Moses means one river when he references the Euphrates in Genesis 2 (pre-flood) but an entirely different river when he references the Euphrates again in Genesis 15 (post-flood).
Where does it plainly say in the Bible that the Euphrates in Genesis 2 is an entirely different river from the Euphrates in Genesis 15? Answer: it doesn’t. Indeed, there is no reason to even think that two different rivers are being referred to, and no straightforward reading of the Bible would ever come to that conclusion. In fact, the only reason to propose such a strained, ad hoc reading of Scripture is solely for the purpose of trying to save YEC flood theories and their underlying assumptions which don’t fit with the clear, straightforward reading of Scripture. Sorry, we can’t change the plain meaning of Scripture to suit our personal wants and wishes simply because our pet theories require it.
Furthermore, the Tigris River associated with the garden of Eden in Genesis 2 is identified in relation to Post-flood Assyria/Ashur, which means the river was still flowing on the surface of the earth and known to people in Post-flood times. Ergo, the underlying fives miles of fossil record below the surface can’t be from Noah’s flood.
Helmut says
Sorry Tmal. Your denial of a worldwide flood is a very secular belief that is in violation of Scripture as well as common sense in the account. If Noah had 100 years to prepare for a local flood God would have caused Noah and family to move a long distance away. The Ark would not have been needed, let alone be so massive. Birds would not have had to be on the ark. Then there are the many large floods in human history. God said He would never bring such a flood again. You are calling God a liar if the Genesis flood was a local flood. There have been too many large disastrous, but local, floods since then. But He has not brought another global flood and HE will use fire in the next global judgment as indicated by St. Peter. A clear reading of Genesis 6-9 makes it clear the whole world and all the pre-flood hills of creation were inundated. Meditate on the passages around 2 Peter 3:6. It clearly says “the world that then was, being flooded by water, perished”.
The Genesis 2 descriptions of the four rivers clearly state they all came from a single source. The 2 rivers of today that carry the same names clearly have very different sources and flow very differently than the Genesis 2 river descriptions. They cannot be the same rivers. They simply cannot. There is no doubt that people throughout history reuse place names, they may refer to the same place with new names and old places in history with recognizable new names for current audiences. Place names do get reused. Going by only the names of locations is fraught with errors if that’s your only guide. While we have very little else, we do have very specific descriptions of how the 4 rivers in Genesis 2 are single sourced and then flow apart. The Euphrates and Tigris of today are just the opposite. They have very different sources. Try to get it through your head that they cannot be the same rivers. The reuse of names and substitute names overtime is something that has happened in human history very often. That is the best explanation that is consistent with scripture.
HEBREW LANGUAGE and the flood:
A special Hebrew word was reserved for the Flood or Deluge: Mabbul. In every one of the 13 occasions this word is used, it refers to Noah’s Flood. The one use outside of Genesis, Psalm 29:10, refers to the universal sovereignty of God in presiding over the Deluge.
The Hebrew terminology of Genesis 6–9 “The earth” (Heb. erets) is used 46 times in the Flood account in Genesis 6–9, as well as in Genesis 1. The explicit link to the big picture of creation, especially in Genesis 6:6–7, clearly implies a universal Flood. Furthermore, the judgment of God is pronounced not just on all flesh, but on the earth: “And God said to Noah, The end of all flesh has come before me, for the earth is filled with violence through them. And, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” (Gen. 6:13).
“Upon the face of all the earth” (Gen. 7:3, 8:9) clearly connects with the same phrase in the creation account where Adam and Eve are given the plants on Earth to eat (Gen. 1:29). Clearly, in God’s decree the mandate is universal—the whole Earth is their domain. God uses the phrase in Genesis also of the dispersal of people at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:8–9)—again, the context is the whole land surface of the globe. The exact phrase is used nowhere else in Genesis.
“Face of the ground”, used five times in the Flood account, also connects back to the universal context of creation (Gen. 2:6), again emphasizing the universality of the Flood.
“All flesh” (Heb. kol-basar) is used 12 times in the Flood account and nowhere else in Genesis. God said He would destroy “all flesh”, apart from those on the Ark (Gen. 6:13,17),5 and He did (Gen. 7:21–22). In the context of the Flood, ‘all flesh’ clearly includes all nostril-breathing land animals as well as mankind—see Genesis 7:21–23. ‘All flesh’ could not have been confined to a Mesopotamian valley.
“Every living thing” (Heb. kol chai) is again used in the Flood account (Gen. 6:19, 8:1,17) and in the creation account (Gen. 1:28). In the creation account the phrase is used in the context of Adam and Eve’s dominion over the animals. God said (Gen. 7:4) that He would destroy “every living thing” He had made and this happened—only Noah and those with him on the Ark survived (Gen. 7:23).
“Under the whole heaven” (Gen. 7:19) is used six times outside of the Flood account in the Old Testament, and always with a universal meaning (Deut. 2:25, 4:19, Job 28:24, 37:3, 41:11, Dan. 9:12).
“All the fountains of the great deep.” The fountains of the great deep are mentioned only in the Flood account (Gen. 7:11, 8:2) and Proverbs 8:28. ‘The deep’ (Heb. tehom) relates back to creation (Gen. 1:2) where it refers to the one ocean covering the whole world before the land was formed. And it was not just “the fountains of the great deep” but “all the fountains of the great deep” which broke open.
New Testament passages which speak of the Flood use universal language: “the flood came and took them all away” (Jesus, Matt. 24:39); “the flood came and destroyed them all” (Jesus, in Luke 17:27); “did not spare the ancient world [Greek: kosmos], but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly” (2 Pet. 2:5); “a few, that is eight people, were saved through the water” (1 Pet. 3:20); Noah “condemned the world” through his faith in God (Heb. 11:7); “the world that then was, being flooded by water, perished” (2 Pet. 3:6).
The New Testament also has a special word reserved for the Flood, cataclysmos, from which we derive our English word ‘cataclysm’. All these statements describe a global Flood, not some localized event.
TMal says
You wasted a lot of words for no reason preaching to the choir, Helmut. I never said Genesis describes a local flood. You unfairly made this assumption. It clearly doesn’t describe a local flood. In fact, you don’t take it far enough. The language used in Genesis 6-9 connects it to Genesis 1 and in doing so describes a catastrophe not simply of global proportions but almost cosmic proportions presenting the flood as practically a reversal and restoration of creation itself.
And yes, names change, but just simply saying that doesn’t prove that the “Euphrates” river in Genesis 2 is an entirely different river from the “Euphrates” river in Genesis 15, especially when there is no indication in these passages that different rivers are being referred to. And the source waters of the Tigris and Euphrates (and several other rivers) *do* originate in the same geographic area up in the Armenean mountains of Turkey–in an area that YEC flood geologists claim was subjected to tectonic upflift which could have altered and obscured any earlier confluence of the rivers in a pre-flood world.
But the salient point regardless is that the Bible makes NO distinction between the Euphrates in Genesis 2 and 15. And virtually all of Church history and the history of Israel before that has consistently identified the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Genesis 2 with the same ones named today in the Middle East. It has pretty much only been in the last 100 years or so that so-called YEC ‘flood geologists’ have tried to alter the plain meaning of God’s Word to say something it doesn’t say.
God is not the author of confusion, so if two different rivers by the same name were meant in Genesis 2 and 15 then that would have been indicated in God’s Word.
But just for sake of argument let’s say you are correct and that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers so-named today are not the same ones associated with the garden of Eden. Even if that was true and even if we had no idea where these garden of Eden rivers are or what became of them, it still does not change the fact that the Bible identifies these rivers by making reference to Post-flood cities and regions like Cush, Havilah, and Ashur, indicating that these rivers–whatever their names and wherever they are–still existed on the earth’s surface and we’re known to people after the flood.
TMal says
You see Helmut, whether consciously intended or not you have unfairly painted me as an anti-Bible sellout, when in fact I have a deep love of God’s Word and like you only want to understand and follow it as best as I can. But genuine faith on both our parts can still lead to genuine disagreement on non-soteriological issues, and that’s OK. We can still strongly disagree with each other, but we can do so without all the added rhetoric.
You accuse me of being disrespectful to YECs and yes, I have come on strong in our discussions. But I have to be completely honest with you. I’ve only done so out of my own frustration in reaction to the strong rhetoric you’ve used yourself starting with Todd before I even joined the conversation, which I found to be very disrespectful and pushy towards him. I’m sure you’re a well-meaning, loving Christian and you are obviously very passionate for the Lord (as am I!). But over the Internet your zeal comes out as personal attacks, berating people for disagreeing, playing the “God card” (‘if-you-don’t-agree-with-me-then-you’re-opposing-God’-type of coercive rhetoric), and trying to brow-beat people into submissive agreement with you. I’m truly not trying to insult you, but simply being honest with how you come across online. I’m sure you’re not like that in person.
I’m sure we can have a much more positive, respectful and productive conversation if we drop all the rhetoric. I’m willing to do so, and if you’re willing to do so, then I will too.
TMal says
A good resource for Christians on problems with YEC flood geology is the book “Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth” co-authored by 10 Christian geologists. The contradiction discussed above is one of many problems with YEC flood geology addressed in the book. About this problem, one of the co-authors, William Ranney, the following in his blog:
“The diagram shows that during the Biblically described ‘days’ of creation, specific locations in the modern Middle East are described. The Garden of Eden is described as being in the vicinity of the “four rivers” (the Tigris, Euphrates, Pishon, and Gihon rivers) in modern day Kuwait. Other landscape features are described in Genesis, such as the archaeological site of Ashur. All of these features are described before “the flood” such that the Garden of Eden location predates Noah’s flood. But Young Earth Creationists also maintain that all post-Precambrian rocks on Earth were deposited in the flood, which according to them means that the Garden of Eden sits atop deposits from the flood. This one fact shows that flood geologists not only contradict their own “reasoning” but also what is written in the Bible. In our book, we highlight numerous other instances where the flood geology model contradicts the Bible and doesn’t hold water (pardon the pun).”
*Here’s the link to the blog and diagram: https://earthly-musings.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-arizona-daily-sun-newspaper-runs.html
Helmut says
The problem with defenders of old age secular beliefs (like the shadowy TMal) Is that they ignore the details of scripture, what the Bible actually says, as well as cherry picking some facts coupled with poor interpretations to fit their bias. It’s too bad they bend science to fit their bias. This is exactly what Tmal does and what Wayne Ranney does in the book he edited “Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth”. That book is seriously flawed, logically and scientifically, and is little more than a hatchet job against biblical Christians who are also flood geologists. Ranney practically admits as much in his preface and Introduction.
Defenders of the biblical account of creation and a world wide flood actually have a higher standard to live up to. It’s not always easy, but when you stick to the facts and not waste time attacking others, it works well.
A far better book is Steve Austin‘s (with 14 others) “Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe”. If you want to know more about the details – from sand grains and aqueous deposition of the materials in the layers exposed at Grand Canyon – This is still the authoritative book. Steve does not waste time attacking the positions of others. Rather in an a truly scholarly way provides huge amounts of positive evidence that those rock layers exposed the Grand Canyon, were laid down over a period of several months during Noah’s flood. (A 2nd local catastrophe, in northern Arizona and Utah, cut the canyon later, perhaps up to 100’s of years later). Steve has a PhD in sedimentary geology from Penn State. He has spent the equivalent of more than a year below the rim of the Grand Canyon, doing real field research. Many of the authors of the Ranney, et all book, apparently never did field research in the Grand Canyon itself, before writing their chapters in their ‘ancient’ book. They simply repeat false assertions, without good science nor biblical understanding.
Get Steve Austin‘s book, if for no other reason to get a balanced view of this discussion. (I have an extra copy, email me at [email protected] if you want it gratis).
If you prefer watching a movie, the “Is Genesis History?” documentary is also an informative resource. It is an excellent work and discussion on site at many locations, including Grand Canyon and Mt. St. Helen’s. This first DVD and the follow up DVDs are hosted by Del Tackett. It includes Dr. Stephen Boyd (Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages) who is a Hebraist and explains the Hebrew concerning the Creation accounts very well. See https://isgenesishistory.com/product/feature-film/
Contrast Austin’s positive discussion with the negative book by Ranney, et all, which is full of nasty attacks and very poor straw-man arguments. A respected old testament scholar, Dick Averbeck of TEDS told me personally that he believes in a worldwide flood, because the wording of scripture demands it. You cannot get away from this fact of scripture. The Hebrew words describing the flood waters as covering the ‘whole earth’ mean just that “Covering the whole earth”. The Hebrew word for a massive flood (mabbul) is used almost exclusively in the Old testament in Genesis chapters 6 – 11. The word for a local flood or even a large river flooding is not used. In Genesis 7:19-20, the author of Scripture was clearly trying to emphasize that the entire earth under the whole heaven was covered. This was not meant to be understood merely as a flooded valley or heavy rain. The only reason anyone has ever taken this to be a local flood is that they have a presupposed concept that they need to agree with secularists who oppose Scripture no matter what.
A friend of mine has gone through this ancient earth monument book and wrote a 64 page treatise documenting the many fallacies and poor arguments found throughout the book. It is so sad that these self-described Christians spend so much attacking their brothers and sisters in Christ, rather than addressing the multiple scientific problems with old age beliefs and the overwhelming evidence for a worldwide flood. You just have to look and be intellectually honest about it.
Wayne Ranney is also so wrong and disingenuous in describing what flood geologists say about the 4 rivers and the garden of Eden from Genesis. Mesopotamia and Kuwait did not exist in the pre-flood world. More on this later.
TMal says
‘Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth’ is a wonderful book written by professional geologists who are also Bible-believing Christians that invites readers to compare modern geology and YEC flood geology, and decide for themselves which model best explains the evidence. And it does so in a way that is both educational and very respectful. I encourage people to read Austin’s book ‘Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe’ (which I’ve done myself), and then read ‘Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth’, and decide for themselves which book makes the better case and which book is more sound–both scientifically and Scripturally.
TMal says
‘Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth’ is a wonderful book written by professional geologists who are also Bible-believing Christians that invites readers to compare modern geology and flood geology, and decide for themselves which model best explains the evidence. And it does so in a way that is both educational and very respectful. I encourage people to read Austin’s book ‘Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe’ (which I’ve done myself), and then read ‘Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth’, and decide for themselves which book makes the better case and which book is more sound–both scientifically and Scripturally.
Helmut says
Sometimes the Choir does need to be preached to, as well. Yes, both the Tigris and the Euphrates begin in mountains of eastern Turkey. However, the source of the Tigris is Lake Hazar, which is fed by several streams from close by surrounding mountains. The source of the Euphrates is 50 miles from the origin of the Tigris and is fed by a very different set of rivers and streams in other mountains. There is no way to confuse this with the Genesis 2 description of a single river that splits into 4 different rivers.
Some of the names are the same, including a couple of towns or regions – but they cannot be the exact same places. I doubt anyone in church history who studied the description of the Deluge (Mabbul) would expect the rivers and places to be same as in their post flood history. Using modern names for old places just to describe them is common. But we cannot assume they are the exact places, especially when 100’s of years of history and a cataclysmic event is in the interval.
You send a mixed message if you say Genesis describes a “catastrophe not simply of global proportions but almost cosmic proportions presenting the flood as practically a reversal and restoration of creation itself.” I like that phrase of yours, but then you recommended the Raney, et all, book on the Grand Canyon. That is a book by old school geologists, who are NOT all Bible believing Christians. The book defends the old school beliefs of uniformitarianism (which does not allow for a global flood). That is the old viewpoint popularized by Charles Lyell, who purposely sought to discredit the Bible. He taught that the earth is not just incredibly old, but that all strata must be explained by uniform processes as we can see today. No catastrophes allowed. Unfortunately, the European upper classes were looking for a way to dispose of Biblical teachings such as morality and the London lawyer, Lyell, easily convinced them.
BUT, there have always been Scriptural Geologists who believed the Bible’s description of the Deluge and that all fossil bearing rocks where a result of that calamity on the world. Flood Geology is not something new in the 20th century. Not at all. Harvard paleontologist (who accepted uniformitarianism) Steven J Gould, talked about Scriptural Geologists who argued against Lyell. They actually did more field research than Lyell did. Gould writes that Lyell’s “book is one of the most brilliant briefs published by an advocate… Lyell relied upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish. In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes.”
Concerning that Raney, et all, book – it is similar to Lyell’s work. Set up strawmen, incorrectly stating what flood geologists say, and then knock it down. In fact many of the authors, are not known to have ever done field research in the canyon itself. They just write the same old stuff. Most, if not all, of the old arguments used in the poorly done Raney book have long been answered by many flood geologists over the last 50 years, and the rest are answered in more recent creationist works. It would require a full-length book to address all the fallacies – but then are books available such as Steve Austin’s “Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe”.
Plus Mt. St. Helens’ eruption in 1980 and aftershocks provide ample evidence of fast formation of 100’s of feet of strata and then new canyons carved out to great depths in a matter of hours. And this from a relatively small eruption. See “Footprints in the Ash” by John Morris and Steve Austin. Master books (2003, updated 2013). This is a wonderful book, not too long, with many color photographs and easy for laymen to understand.
But just a few of the problems with the Raney Book include their insistence that the Hebrew word eretz does not refer to planet Earth; it only refers to ‘local region’, ‘soil’, and the like (p. 26). The book does not teach what you now say you believe. They ignore the actual usage of that word and others in Hebrew as well as New Testament descriptions of a full global catastrophic flood i.e. “the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. “
Among other fallacies, the Raney book presents a straw man insisting that the pitch Noah used to seal the Ark had to be petroleum-based pitch, but do not say why. And then they mock the fact that global flood believers would say there was little to no petroleum before the flood. They leave out the fact that pitch has historically been made by boiling pine resin with charcoal.
For a further review of the Raney book – please see https://creation.com/review-of-grand-canyon-monument-to-an-ancient-earth
Now, TMal. If you really believe in a world wide cataclysmic flood, maybe you are woefully underestimating the amount of geological damage it would do. Multiple tsunamis and scouring of the old hills of creation which we now still see evidence of at the “Great Unconformity” suggests extreme changes very quickly. Secular geologists just admit, there is about 500 million years ‘missing’ at the great unconformity. But I have seen it and others have written about it. It was a fast event. Saying we are missing half a billion years is pure fantasy. Believe it if you like, but call it an opinion – do not call it science. And the only way to form fossils is by fast and deep burial. We do have rocks laid down by water full of dead things covering the entire earth, about 1 to miles deep, sometimes more. We marine fossils on the Himalaya and all mountain ranges.
We have rock strata with smooth borders between them (no sign of millions of years) that stretch across much of north America. And others across Europe. We have plate tectonics and fountains of the deep – causing sever damage everywhere. And as the mountains rose (crashing plate tectonics) and the ocean floors sank (psalm 104) we have massive sheets of water running off the continents, dumping onto the edges of new continents. This is the best way to understand the shape of continental shelves. As example, the Atlantic coast of the US shows accumulation of runoff material as well as deep edges up to 8 miles. No non-flood mechanism exists to explain the nature and shapes of these continental shelves. As secular geologist Lester King wrote, “Briefly the shelf is too wide, towards the outer edge too deep, to have been controlled by normal wind-generated waves of the ocean surface…”
If you really believe in a world wide flood, get to know more of the evidences. Are there still open questions? Yes. Is research still on going? Yes, but a cataclysmic global flood is still the best explanation of what we see in the world and conforms to the Bible. Amen.
————————————————
“Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, ‘ Where is the promise of His coming? …all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation… For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that … the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. “ – II Peter 3:3-6
TMal says
Helmut, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Although I know we will continue to disagree, it is nice to see we have points of agreement too! For example, it seems we both agree Genesis presents Noah’s flood as global/universal–even cosmic!–in extent. ‘Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth’ (hereafter, ‘GC’) is both right and wrong about the Hebrew. Technically, Heb. eretz (translated ‘earth’) does only mean ‘land’, and when we read the word ‘earth’ in our Bibles our modern minds naturally picture planet earth in space, but the ancient Israelites never would have thought of ‘land/earth’ (Heb. eretz) in that way. But where GC goes wrong is by failing to consider the larger context (a lot of which you have already provided in many of the Bible verses you cite); not least of which is the Hebrew grammar of ‘fountains of the deep’ and ‘floodgates of heaven’ (lit. ‘heavenly ocean’) that clearly connects back to Day 2 of creation, and as such depicts a complete reversal of creation from order–when God separated the waters above from the waters below by the firmament ‘divider’–back into a state of disorder and chaos. Of course, there are other contextual elements, but the sum total clearly presents Noah’s flood as a judgment of universal, cosmic proportions. So we are in agreement on that.
So our difference of opinion is not in what the Bible says about Noah’s flood, but people’s opinions about it outside of the Bible. That is to say that (1) “Scripture presents Noah’s flood as global/universal/cosmic in extent” and (2) “Most of the fossil record is the result of Noah’s flood”, and (3) “There is geologic evidence for Noah’s flood” are three separate claims. Questioning either of the latter two claims does not equate to rejecting the first. Even YECs disagree to varying degrees about the latter two claims. YECs vehemently disagree with each other about where to locate the pre-flood/flood & flood/post-flood boundaries–indeed, there is still no consensus agreement on this. And some YEC geologists find no convincing place to locate the boundaries–no place at all–but see significant problems with all proposed locations, and a near total absence of any geologic evidence at all for a global flood. In light of these problems, I’ve heard some YEC geologists quip (somewhat jokingly I think) that perhaps Noah’s flood eroded away all evidence of its occurrence upon recession. Now these YEC geologists still accept claim #1, mind you, and also claim #2 on faith, but recognize that there are serious problems when it comes to claim #3 (actual geologic evidence in support of claim #2). It’s not that they aren’t aware of the evidences you list. They are. it’s just that they know on closer examination of the details there are compounding problems that call them into question (‘devil’s in the details’ as they say).
Before continuing let me pause briefly to note the obvious: there are varying degrees of evidence for the Bible, as we both already know. Some things in the Bible enjoy tremendous evidentiary support, some things have moderate evidentiary support, some things have little to no evidentiary support, and some things conflict or seem incongruous with currently available evidence. Due to the spotty, inconsistent record of preserved artifacts from antiquity I suspect this will always be so. Now this is not a problem for people of faith, but still requires a measure of honesty in our acknowledgment of where the evidence supports and where it seems incongruous or missing. The example I like to use is the Hittites. At one time (prior to the 1900s) we had little to no evidence outside of the Bible that the Hittites even existed. Of course now we have an embarrassment of archaeological evidence. But prior to this it would have been wrong and simply false to claim we had such evidence before we actually did. Furthermore, acknowledging we have little to no evidence for something in the Bible is not a denial of the Bible, but simply an honest acknowledgment of where we do and don’t have supporting evidence.
So for what it’s worth this at least gives you an idea of where I’m coming from. Like our pre-1900 knowledge of the Hittites, the Bible depicts Noah’s flood as a global/universal event (i.e., I accept claim #1), but I see little to no geologic evidence that the fossil record is the result of Noah’s flood (claims #2 & #3). Believe me, I wish this weren’t true, and it’s certainly not from lack of trying. I’ve wanted it to work and have tried many different ways to get it to work, but in the end I can’t get it to work. It’s a less than satisfying result for sure, and I truly wish I could say otherwise. But in the end, I’m forced to say that Noah’s flood is an example of one of those things in the Bible for which we have little to no evidence.
Now on hearing this it might be tempting to conclude that the reason I can’t see the evidence for Noah’s flood is because I’ve been brainwashed or blinded to the truth by secular, old school geology steeped in assumptions of ‘uniformitarianism’. To this I would say two things. First, YECs really, truly do need to dial-it-back on this constant, incessant charge of uniformitarianism thrown at modern geology. It was true of geology in the past, but is an inaccurate, mischaracterization of geology today. Geologists no longer just assume slow rates of deposition for everything, but recognize the whole gamut from slow to fast to catastrophic. But second, and more to the point, none of that matters anyway, because 100% of my training in geology was under the tutelage of YEC geologists, so I received no purported ‘brainwashing’.
The difficulties with flood geology are in the details. Let’s take the Great Unconformity, for example, that you discuss above. Many YECs locate the pre-flood/flood boundary at the Precambrian-Cambrian Great Unconformity. Let’s go with that. It certainly can’t be below the Great Unconformity as Kurt Wise, Austin and others have noted, because only a short-ways below the Great Unconformity we run into slow-growth, laminated Precambrian *stromatolites* that form *in situ*–in place–and take time to build up one layer at a time by the action of photosynthetic cyanobacteria in lower-energy depositional environments.
(Wise & Snelling, ‘A Note on the Pre-flood/flood boundary in the Grand Canyon’: https://apologetyka.com/ptkr/groups/ptkrmember/mlodoziemcy/Wise%2C%20Snelling%2C%20A%20Note%20on%20the%20Pre-Flood.pdf ; ‘Stromatolites: what they are and mean to us’: https://www2.palomar.edu/users/warmstrong/ls2exams/images/stromatolite1.pdf)
Now let’s say the flood period extends from the Great Unconformity all the way up to the end of the Neogene (Upper Cenozoic), which is a popular choice for the flood/post-flood boundary. The trouble occurs in the middle, where we run into countless difficulties. Here, I give just two. First, on the upper half of the geologic column we run-into the Green River formation of the Eocene well below our proposed flood/post-flood boundary: an extensive, ecologically stable freshwater lake system right in the middle of our flood that we can map both the lateral and vertical boundaries of complete with various freshwater fish, reptiles, insects, and so on, as well as the very problematic occurrence of slow-growth, in situ, laminated *stromatolites* that we can further use to map the changing lake shoreline (and gradation of lake depth) over time. These are real stromatolites of biogenic origin that formed *in situ* with zero evidence for allochthonous transport. Now, I already know all the purported ‘answers’ to these problems, such as Oard’s (who to his credit is also honest enough to acknowledge that his ‘answers’ don’t solve all the problems), and I suppose we could debate the matter if you want. But I have to tell you up front that I’m pretty much a ‘lost cause’ when it comes to this one, because I’ve studied it firsthand myself and know the YEC geologist who is hands-down *the* top, world expert on the Green River formation (among both YEC AND secular geologists)–having spent over thirty years of his professional career studying it: the late Paul Buchheim, who sadly passed away not too long ago. He was a world expert in lacustrine (lake) deposits with a focus on stromatolites. There’s just no wiggle-room that I can see on this and no way around it that I can find (and I’ve tried): it’s a freshwater lake system that was stable for an extended period of time. Thus, I’m forced to adopt the conclusion of the YEC’s top expert on the subject: *it has to be post-flood*. So the flood/post-flood boundary simply can’t be all the way up at the Neogene terminus, but must at minimum be below the Green River formation of the Eocene.
But we find a similar problem at the lower end of the geologic column with *widespread*, multiple-stacked layers of slow-growth, in situ Upper Cambrian stromatolites–far more widespread than realized–that occur well above the Great Unconformity. For this I point you to the work of YEC geologist Ken Coulson whose doctoral dissertation research has since been expanded and published in both professional peer reviewed secular journals as well as YEC journals, including the 2018 Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism.
(From the Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism: ‘Global Deposits of in situ Upper Cambrian microbialites: Implications for a Cohesive Model of Origins’: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=icc_proceedings; Doctoral dissertation: ‘The Growth and Ecology of Upper Cambrian Microbialite Biostromes from the Notch Peak Formation in Utah’: https://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1370&context=etd).
Now I don’t know Ken Coulson, but I do know and/or I’m acquainted with several YEC scientists who oversaw and supervised his doctoral research–including Paul Buchheim (discussed above) and Leonard Brand (who you may recognize as the lead researcher on possible underwater formation of trackways in the Coconino Sandstone: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237516270_Fossil_vertebrate_footprints_in_the_Coconino_Sandstone_Permian_of_northern_Arizona_Evidence_for_underwater_origin).
In addition, Stanley Awramik served on Ken Coulson’s advisory board–which is pretty huge, as Stan is one of the world’s top, leading authorities on fossil stromatolites. Coulson’s expanded research published in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism was also reviewed by John Whitmore and Andrew Snelling.
Whether by secular criteria or the YEC criteria (of Wise & Snelling) for establishing bona fide *in situ* deposition and growth of stromatolites (and ruling out all other possible competing explanations, including allochthonous transport), Coulson came to the same conclusions. He documented the extensive, widespread occurrence of in situ stromatolites of biogenic origin in Upper Cambrian rocks covering a one thousand square mile area. Not only that, he found multiple stromatolite beds over this area that were vertically stacked one atop the other directly or with intervening sedimentary deposition, ranging in vertical thickness from 300 meters up to several kilometers high. Needless to say, these vast numbers of stromatolites covering extensive areas that are found *above* the Great Unconformity represent quiet, low-energy depositional environments ‘that require time frames greater than the one-year period of Noah’s Flood’ to produce. In short, they cannot be Flood-deposits, so the pre-flood/flood boundary cannot be at the Great Unconformity, but must be above it; and at minimum, above these extensive Upper Cambrian sequences of slow-growth, in situ stromatolites. Coulson, himself, suggests the best candidate for the pre-flood/flood boundary above these stromatolites is higher still, all the way up at the Permian/Carboniferous, just before the Mesozoic; which, would limit the flood to just the Mesozoic (plus the Paleocene below the Eocene Green River Formation).
These are but two examples. Unfortunately, what we find is that if we continue this exercise the amount of fossil record available for locating the flood gets ever smaller, and smaller still, until we’ve whittled away the possibilities to virtually nil. This is the problem we encounter. I truly wish there was better news to report.
Does this mean we throw our hands up in despair and stop trying to get it to work? No. Research should continue with the hope that eventually solutions to the myriad problems will be found. We should also continue to correctly teach that the Bible still depicts a flood of global/cosmic proportions. But we should not continue to say Noah’s flood is supported by a tremendous amount of geologic evidence, when, in fact, we have little to none. We can point to examples like the Hittites and draw possible comparisons of how one day we may in fact find such evidence, but honesty requires us to acknowledge the current state of affairs: that we currently have incongruous, conflicting negative evidence with little to no positive evidence. While it’s possible that some are truly unaware of the problems (especially scientists in non-geological fields like biology), all top, professionally trained YEC *geologists* know there are immense problems, but must navigate the delicate landscape at the level of the non-scientist, layperson, churchgoer–carefully deciding how much ‘bad news’ to share or whether to only ever give a 100% positive spin with optimism about future research; while consciously deciding not to burden the layman with ‘technicalities’ that are better kept ‘in-house’).
Helmut says
There you go again. Change the subject to flood boundaries, throw up a smoke screen of trivial details while ignoring the big picture. You are just plain wrong to make such overall statements that basically reflect the opinions of anti-Bible people. No evidence of a worldwide flood? Really? The very best explanation of a worldwide 1-2 mile thick layer of rocks laid down by water and full of dead things, IS it is evidence of a worldwide flood. Trying to explain it by raising and lowering of tranquil seas and solidified desert sand dunes has far more problems. Your adopted opinion is not that great in using reasonable, evidential explanations but relies on a lot of storytelling that introduce more problems than are solved.
From bottom to top of the sedimentary layers we have marine fossils including up on the tops of the highest mountains. You can choose to interpret it differently, but it still fits as evidence for a worldwide flood. And most fossils do not indicate something dying at the edge of a tranquil lake or sea. Almost all fossils, especially large dinosaurs, are found in violent and fast burial scenarios. Fossil graveyards around the world look as if all the creatures went through a mix-master, and then the remains dumped in massive heaps at the end of the flood. And these heaps have marine fossils dispersed throughout. I personally have dug up an Edmontosaurus jaw with the teeth knocked out. A few feet away were some foot bones. Sill have not found the skull, but not far away were fossilized turtle shell pieces. These are not uncommon finds. And you say that should not be considered as evidence for a worldwide violent flood? As a famous person says “C-mon man“.
And then we have bent rock hundreds of feet thick, sometimes going across different strata boundaries, but consistently bent in one curve. The best and most reasonable explanation is that all of the strata was still soft and pliable like modeling clay when a fault or earthquake occurred. A minor bit of cracking there may be, but the evidence fits a worldwide flood where these layers were laid down relatively quickly on top of each other and still wet when the fault occurred. There is no sign of metamorphic changes to explain this bending. These bent rock strata have been documented around the world from New Zealand to the middle east to North America. I have seen it in the Grand Canyon (including massive bent rock formations going almost vertical) as well as in Mexico. No evidence? Ha!
Spirited discussions over where the end of the flood strata may be? Does that means there is no evidence for a worldwide flood? Every one of those flood geologists who have strong opinions on that subject, would also take issue with your blind statement that there is no evidence for a worldwide flood. I have been in the same room with them during discussions like this, and then seen them pray together as well.
Do you think arguing over the terminal point of the flood, negates all the evidence for it? Or discussing microscopic fossils and their Stromatolite remains at the beginning of the flood boundary or into the flood year, or later, negates the other massive evidence for a worldwide flood? Don’t be so silly. It’s hard to take you seriously when you though up your hands and say “sorry we have little to no evidence for the flood” when we actually do. You are right there is still research ongoing on many details, but this does not negate the hard evidence we have already compiled. You continually make such bold overreaching conclusions that do not have anything to do with geological research or whether Stromatolites were created during Creation Week or later or into the post flood period.
A Good Recommendation: If someone wants a newer book that goes over the material evidence for a worldwide flood please see Dr. Timothy Clarey’s new (2020) book: “Carved in Stone: Geological Evidence of the Worldwide Flood”.
Dr. Clarey holds 2 geology related MS degrees, and a Ph.D. in Geology. He has an oil industry background, and utilizes his understanding of oil well and seismic data to see what the rock strata actually reveal about Earth’s past. Even Tmal may be surprised by what he reveals. “Carved in Stone” examines the sedimentary rock record continent by continent, layer by layer. The data provide clear geological evidence of a year-long progressive flood just as described in the Bible. Rock data do not lie.
TMal says
Helmut,
No one is changing the subject. We’re talking about whether the fossil record is the result of Noah’s flood and if so, how much of the fossil record actually should be attributed to Noah’s flood. Locating the pre-flood/flood boundary and flood/post-flood boundary is thus crucial to the discussion. Because if, for example, the flood/post-flood boundary is at the K/T boundary, as some creationists argue, then that means all the so-called mass amounts of ‘evidence’ for the flood that other creationists cite above the K/T boundary *can’t actually be evidence for Noah’s flood*! Similarly, you made a big deal about the Great Unconformity and how it evidences a global catastrophe, yet the in situ stromatolites that CREATIONIST geologists have discovered ABOVE the Great Unconformity prove the Great Unconformity CAN’T be part of the flood, so your supposed ‘evidence’ for the flood CAN’T be evidence for the flood but must be evidence of something else!
***If the evidence for Noah’s flood is so overwhelming, obvious, and unmistakable as you claim, then it should be pretty easy to identify where in the fossil record the flood begins and where it ends. If the ‘rock data do not lie’, then come clean and tell me what the rock records says about where Noah’s flood begins and ends. Do tell, Helmut.
TMal says
….And on a side note, Clarey’s book ‘Carved in Stone’ is NOT geological evidence of a world-wide flood. It can’t be. Why not? Because research that already *assumes* the truth of Noah’s flood from the start, can’t then be used as ‘evidence’ for Noah’s flood! That’s called circular reasoning! Clarey’s 2020 book ‘Carved in Stone’ is largely based on his research on megasequences that was published in the 2018 Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism (‘Use of sedimentary megasequences to re-create pre-Flood geography: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/301493781.pdf ).
Clarey acknowledges on p. 352 of that article under ‘Methods’ where he explains his research methodology that “We also assumed the historical accuracy of the global Flood account as recorded in Genesis.”
So of course he’s going to end up with the conclusion that the data support Noah’s flood, because he started with the assumption that it is true!
TMal says
….In fact, not only is Clarey’s ‘Carved in Stone’ book NOT geological evidence of Noah’s flood, his flood model isn’t even biblical. The claim that ‘the data provide clear geological evidence of a year-long progressive flood JUST AS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE’ is totally false. In order to fit with modern science, Clarey’s flood model requires sea level to rise and fall, and rise and fall, and rise and fall, and rise and fall, and rise and fall, and rise and fall six major times (by as much as 100-400 meters!!) during the same one year global flood in order to fit the six known megasequences in the rock record and harmonize with the findings of modern science. And yet the ‘clear, literal teaching’ of God’s Word is that the flood waters continued to rise and prevail on the earth until ‘God remembered Noah’, and then the waters abated: the waters rose, the waters fell. None of this repeated rising-falling, rising-falling, rising-falling, rising-falling, rising-falling, rising-falling six major times. Does that sound like a ‘Scriptural Geologist’ to you ‘who believes the Bible’? Boy, if I said something like that you’d be all over my case reading me the riot act. Accusing me of promoting ‘a very secular belief that is in violation of Scripture’ and ‘calling God a liar’ and being a ‘defender of secular beliefs’ while ‘ignoring the details of scripture, and what the Bible actually says’ and ‘how the only reason’ one would add things into Scripture is in order to ‘agree with secularists who oppose Scripture no matter what’.
TMal says
There are of course numerous resources available that go into greater detail on all this and the myriad problems with YEC ‘flood theories’. I’ve already mentioned the book ‘Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah’s Flood Explain the Grand Canyon’ (2016). But for a thorough critique of Clarey’s ‘Carved in Stone’ (2020) megasequence flood model (and other YEC flood theories as well), I recommend Dr. Lorence C. Collins’ 2021 book, ‘A Christian Geologist Explains Why the Earth Cannot Be 6,000 Years Old: Let’s Heal the Divide in the Church’: https://bookstore.dorrancepublishing.com/a-christian-geologist-explains-why-the-earth-cannot-be-6-000-years-old-lets-heal-the-divide-in-the-church/
Dr. Collins also has a website with numerous articles addressing these and related issues: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/creation.html
Helmut Welke says
So. I have spent the last 10 days with family and friends including my six grandchildren. Always a special time. I have also received some very good news. First a friend of mine, who is also a Creation speaker and Grand Canyon tour guide, spoke at a church here in the Midwest. As a result, the entire church staff ‘converted’ from OEC to a ‘young earth’ Creation. Many of the people in the pews where already there. YEC just makes too much sense, Biblically and scientifically, to see our planet as very young, and that evolution never happened.
I also have been preparing (it takes a lot of time) to lead another tour of the Grand Canyon on a 4-day rim and raft trip. Covid shut us down last year, but we have been preparing to go this year. It takes a lot of work to plan large buses, hotels, the raft trip as well as dinners and box lunches. We thought there still might be restrictions and buses into the Grand Canyon national Park. But I just found out that all restrictions have been lifted, and buses can go full capacity into the National Park! Very good news.
We had contingency plans, but this is great news. I have over 50 people looking forward to this trip in June. It’s a Biblical tour, and we point out the very many places with evidence that can only be explained by a worldwide deluge. We also get a raft trip on the Colorado river between thousand-foot cliffs on both sides. Yes, there is plenty of evidence for the world wide flood, and that the great unconformity is the lower boundary. There are just too many signs of violence there, much strong evidence of the hills of creation being beveled and pounded by massive tsunamis at or very near the beginning of the flood waters starting to wash upon the one continent of that time. Not all at once, but then we had at least 150 days of this massive geologic activity that included super volcanos as well. This is also the beginning of the ‘Cambrian Explosion’, of life. Most animal phyla are found here and it is a big conundrum for evolutionists. So much so that secular geologists are even proposing to change the name – it does sound too much like evidence for the flood and creation.
A good book that is inexpensive, not to thick and is easy to read is Mike Oard’s “The Deep Time Deception” (2019). It covers how we got the pagan ideas of deep time, and also a lot of science from fossils, C-14, and radiometric dating. A good investment to get the Biblical and scientific basis for the YEC side.
https://www.amazon.com/Deep-Time-Deception-Michael-Oard/dp/1942773684
Helmut says
Stromatolites are not the big indicator of a flood boundary the way you think they are.
You’ve done this error too often in these posts. You hang your hat on one minor piece of evidence and say that proves your bigger point. But you ignore the mounds of evidence that go the other way. A recent example was your claim that the two rivers with the same names as the Genesis 2 rivers must be the same ones. “Ergo, the underlying fives miles of fossil record below the surface can’t be from Noah’s flood.” I had to show you that the rivers of today have different sources. You ignore so much other evidence that points to – yes, “the world that then was, was destroyed.” No one should jump to conclusions the way you do.
Overall, yes, we do find some pieces of evidence that appear to be contradictory. This often happens when trying to reconstruct the distant past. But in this case the overwhelming evidence is that the Great Unconformity is still the best indicator of the onslaught of the deluge. All other criteria point to the Great Unconformity marking the beginning of the Flood. It has been traced across all continents from Arizona to Wisconsin to Libya to Israel. It exhibits too much violence to be anything else, especially to be associated with creation week. Too many dead things just above it. Those sandstone layers just above the great unconformity across the globe include 1. Similar sand-sized grains, 2. The same types of fossils such as trilobites, 3. Similar chemical and mineral makeup such as feldspar, and 4. Similar sedimentary features of cross bedding that indicate directional water flows. Just some of what cannot be ignored.
We also have the bent rocks, with different strata bent together across their boundaries. Those boundaries are said to be missing 100- 140 million years. Yet they are smoothly bent as if they were all still moist like modeling clay when the fault happened. No sign of metamorphic changes. No significant cracking. No chance those layers were waiting for millions of years to be bent altogether.
We also have poly-strata fossils going through the layers, with missing millions of years. Some even go through coal seams. No way could these fossils sit around and wait to be completely covered over millions of years.
A lot of research still needs to be done on stromatolites and how they form. This includes the possibility that stromatolites grew much more quickly during the Flood, perhaps due to the huge outpourings of carbonate-charged waters from the fountains of the deep. There is precedent for these types of ‘timing’ errors.
For over a hundred years geologists followed the uniformitarian view that 1000’s of feet of sediments had to be deposited slowly over eons of time. Today we know these layered sediments are laid down very quickly. Experiments in large wave tanks and slurry basins show this to be the case. And of course, Mt St. Helens has proven we get not only 100’s feet of layered sediments laid down quickly, but also a deep canyon cut in a matter of hours. We know this is the case now, though too many old geologists still hang on to their uniformitarian view.
You’re particularly enamored with Ken Coulson ‘s research on stromatolites. His current conclusion is just that – his current position. No one else believes his story about them is correct, including his 3 major reviewers. I contacted him personally. While he likes the idea of a higher boundary due only to his discoveries, no other flood geologists that I know of agree With his conclusion. More research is needed on the formation of Stromatolites and Coulson agrees. Including the influence of high carbonate concentrations as mentioned above. Dr. Coulson however is still a firm young earth creationist. Since you like his conclusion on stromatolites so much – maybe you should also agree with him on a young earth position?
Tmal, you have said many times, the Bible clearly teaches a catastrophic global flood. Notwithstanding your opinion on the evidence, do you tell others that since the Bible teaches it, there must have been a catastrophic global flood at some point in earth’s history? Do you believe and teach that as a true history – based on the Bible?
TMal says
The stromatolites below the Great Unconformity and the thick beds of stromatolites that creationist geologists have discovered above the Great Unconformity in Upper Cambrian rocks would require quiet, low energy depositional conditions and time periods much longer than a single year. So if the pre-flood/flood boundary is at the Great Unconformity, then the flood/post-flood boundary would have to be below these Upper Cambrian stromatolites. That would mean the flood was confined to the Cambrian (and didn’t even include all Cambrian rocks), and that the entire rest of the fossil record is post-flood, including the Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene.
TMal says
Helmut,
This is where you are wrong. Stromatolites are NOT some minor piece of evidence. They are a major piece of evidence. I’ve only given three examples: stromatolites below the Great Unconformity; stromatolites above the Great Unconformity in Upper Cambrian rocks (with a GLOBAL distribution, not some minor regional or local extent); and stromatolites in the Eocene as part of a long-standing stable freshwater lake system. You simply CAN’T grow stromatolites in the middle of a one year flood; that’s not enough time nor the proper conditions.
But do you really think stromatolites are limited to just these three examples? Hardly. We find stromatolites THROUGHOUT the fossil record in rocks of just about EVERY period of the Phanerozoic (inclusive of the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic eras), and also throughout the Precambrian. For example, I haven’t even got to the giant stromatolites of the Jurassic or a host of other examples.
With each example we progressively whittle down flood possibilities in the fossil record until they are virtually nil (EVEN IF I grant you some of your supposed geological evidences for a global flood, we still end up with only small sections of the fossil record that could be possible flood deposits even in theory). We certainly can’t say on the basis of geological evidence that most of the fossil record is the result of Noah’s flood. You can pick a small section in between where we find layers of stromatolites, but you can’t extend Noah’s flood through any layers of stromatolites. And the fact we find stromatolites in rocks of just about every period leads inescapably to the conclusion that most of the fossil record is NOT the result of Noah’s flood and CAN’T be the result of Noah’s flood.
Even the YECs you cite acknowledge stromatolites are a problem and they acknowledge that the only way to deal with this problem is to assume they are either transported or not real stromatolites (despite the evidence to the contrary!).
But that is the problem with a lot of YEC ‘flood geologists’. They pick and choose what they want while assigning questionable interpretations AND while ignoring all the myriad problems and data that don’t fit along the way. You can’t just hand wave away the evidence you don’t like that doesn’t fit your theory and pretend it doesn’t exist. You have to explain and account for the evidence. This is why ‘flood geology’ is not scientific and why it is a failed theory.
Helmut says
There you go – I am wrong – you are wrong. You ignore much more evidence than you accuse me of doing. This is pointless. Flood geology is real science because of the mountains of evidence you choose to ignore. I explained my position. There are good books and web sites to explore.
Now answer this question.
based on the Bible (not withstanding your opinion of the evidence) – DO YOU BELIEVE, there was a catastrophic global flood in earths history. YES or NO?
TMal says
And Helmut your claims about the four rivers of Eden still remain incorrect. How many times must I remind you that EVEN IF the rivers changed their names–which you have yet to demonstrate that Moses intended for us to understand two different rivers when he mentions the Euphrates in Genesis 1 and again in Genesis 15–but EVEN IF the rivers have changed their names or if different rivers have been given the same name it still doesn’t change the fact that the pre-flood description of the rivers in Genesis 2 still associates them with post-flood names and regions like Cush, Havilah, and Ashur, meaning the rivers—whatever their names and whatever their identification–were still on the earth’s surface in post-flood times, and known to people in post-flood times, and readily identifiable by post-flood names.
TMal says
The Bible describes a flood of cosmic proportions. We have no evidence that the fossil record is largely the result of this flood, so as I made extremely clear we have a situation like the Hittites prior to discovery of evidence that the Hittites existed. Some things in the Bible we have evidence for and some things we don’t. Noah’s flood falls into the latter category. I will not lie and tell people there is geological evidence that most of the fossil record is the result of Noah’s flood when it’s not true. The problems with the so-called evidence you cite are manifold and I don’t have time to get into all the problems and misinformation in the claims you make about the Great Unconformity and positions of fossils and rock layers, etc., etc., etc. As I said, we don’t even need to argue about such things. Instead provide evidence that all the tons of slow growth in situ stromatolites in quiet, low energy depositional environments–literally tons and tons of pounds–of slow growth in situ stromatolites in quiet, low energy depositional environments THROUGHOUT the fossil record are not in fact that. Demonstrate that the Green River formation is not a long standing stable giant freshwater lake system right in the middle of your flood. Demonstrate that….I could literally list a thousand and one additional problems that don’t fit with ‘flood theory’.
(By the way, how you coming on the HEAT problem that YECs have acknowledged would accompany accelerated nuclear decay (AND) and catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT) if we tried to squeeze all that into a one year global flood? Enough heat to boil the oceans and melt the earth’s crust, possibly several times over)
TMal says
Now here’s some YEC flood geology I can get behind: ‘Was the Coconino Sandstone Really Formed in a Desert?’: https://newcreation.blog/was-the-coconino-sandstone-really-formed-in-a-desert/ Most YECs jump to conclusions with Brand’s underwater experiments saying something along the lines of, ‘See! This proves the Coconino Sandstone was formed under water! This proves Noah’s flood!’ When at most it only suggests the existence of interdunal desert ponds or intermittent rainy/pluvial conditions. Here is a well balanced YEC article that brings out this distinction and the importance of not taking the evidence farther than it can go. As the article states:
“Importantly, Brand’s work neither “proves” that the Earth is young, nor that Noah’s Flood was global. The evidence is tantalizing and, in conjunction with more recent research, does seem to challenge a simplistic desert interpretation for the Coconino Sandstone, but it would be a mistake to use these data to “prove” the universality of Noah’s Flood.
Many creationists make this mistake. In geology, there is a progression of interpretive thought starting at the level of individual sediment particles, then moving to the processes that deposited those sediment particles, then comparing these processes and sedimentary features to modern analogues.
Once all these steps have been completed, a model can be proposed that explains the deposition of the ancient environment. YEC have yet to construct a model that fully satisfies these requirements for the Coconino Sandstone. As such, we should be careful when using these data to “prove” Noah’s Flood. What these data do suggest, however, is that these “desert” dunes were, at the very least, influenced in some strong way by a very lot of water.”
***Above all and everything else we as Christians must be people of integrity. That means being honest. That means telling the truth and avoid the temptation to stretch the truth. Some things in the Bible we have evidence for and some things we don’t, and the strength of evidence varies depending on the issue at hand. This YEC article is refreshingly honest and notes that “YEC have yet to construct a model that fully satisfies these requirements for the Coconino Sandstone. As such, we should be careful when using these data to ‘prove’ Noah’s Flood.” I’ve only met a handful of YEC geologists who display such straightforward honesty. It is refreshing and something we need more of.