Monday, July 3, 2017

... on Anthropology concurring with Noah's Flood (a refutation of AronRa)

... on Anthropology concurring with Noah's Flood (a refutation of AronRa) · More on Anthropology

How Anthropology Disproves Noah's Flood

I intro

[He introduced the subject with an excursion on how evolution works, and used a linguistic parable, hence my first comment:]

3:20 The Original Don Quixote was certainly Spanish. It may be a Spanish a few centuries older, but saying Cervantes is between Latin and Spanish is like saying Shakespear is between supposed Proto-Germanic and English.

In a sense, there was a social event when Spanish was first written, and that came when Latin writing ceased to be the writing of the Spanish (i e Castilian) pronunciation. Which up to then had been a pronunciation and popular phraseology of the written language ... Latin.

You probably mean there never was a time when someone was born using all the new traits of Spanish when his parents had used all the older traits of Latin. There was a time when someone whose fathers had distinguished between v and b didn't bother to do that himself. There was a time when someone whose father had pronounced Caelum and Ferrum with short open e (the one which looks like a Greek epsilon in IPA) pronounced them with ie instead. There was a time when someone whose father started ferrum with ach-laut as standin for f weakened this to an h, and a later time when even the h disappeared - while the process started over for a former sh or even zh gone sh, as in Juan.

The point you are making about linguistics is, these were not the same time, and that is fair enough.

II Erectus and Florensis

5:44 Recorded history - a few thousand years. Fossil record of homo erectus - a couple million years.

And these million years are not recorded history, but a phoney dating method (often enough the K-Ar dating which is discredited since Mount St Helen's).

9:14 "none of these should exist"

Not the young Earth creationist view of them.

Lucy, Arti = apes.

Homo erectus (or most of, Peking man and Java man dubious), Heidelbergensis, Neanderthalensis, Denisovan and Sapiens Sapiens = human, descended from Adam.

But you might be coming to a defense of the implication, waiting ...

9:27 When exactly did we Creationists say that Homo erectus cannot exist?

Especially all of us?

10:52 Did you say 17 000 BP for Homo florensis?

If so, a post-Flood man, descending from Noah via Shem, Cham and Japheth.

Not meaning "flood was 40 000 / 35 000 years ago" BUT "flood would carbon date as 40 000 / 35 000 years ago", and I presume the 17 000 BP date for Hobbit would have been a carbon date.

III Genetic diversity of post-Flood man

12:28 I recall seeing a video with Cavalli Sforza (or if it was an online article, it was last year, OK) in which there was a notice that Near East was a possible alternative to Africa, genetically speaking.

Which is of course a far better fit with post-Flood humanity starting at Ararat.

12:58 "average once every 60 generations"

In a post-Babel break up with resulting genetic bottlenecks all over the place, the new markers would have broken through very much quicker than once every 60 generations, meaning this "genetic clock" is severely off.

13:30 Two little things.

"no evidence of a global flood" - outside all the fossils.

"shorelines fluctuating substantially" - sure, which would be why early post-Flood boat builders would have to be seeked out by scuba divers, by now, if even that would help.

Also, this is a solution to how cangaroos came from Ararat to Oz after the Flood.

14:11 [He had mentioned dating by supervolcano Toba] OK, potassium argon was debunked at Mount St Helen's.

Do you have any carbon date? While off, they would show a bit more about relative position within Biblical chronology.

15:53 You know, black Africans could have a recent ancestry in Kish and other parts of Sumer ... Sargon was lauded by Akkadians for expelling black heads = Sumerians, and Kish matches Kush, the ancestor of south of Egypt Africans.

I find that match fairly good.

IV Cheddar Man and Population of Britain

16:03 "The skeletal remains date to the Mesolithic (ca. 7150 BC),"

Now, 7150 BC is after 8600 BC - the archaeological or carbon dated end of Göbekli Tepe, which I identify with the Tower or Babel project.

So, Cheddar man came to Britain after Babel. And not 1500 years after it either, as the carbon dates would per se suggest. With fast rising carbon 14 in atmosphere, this would reduce to perhaps less than a century, perhaps a little more.

I take it there were about 400 to 450 years between Babel and Stonehenge - in real Biblical chronology. And megalithic structures were not built with 1000-year long delays as some carbon dates would suggest, but in time spans reminiscent of building of some cathedrals.

16:11 No, I'll not "ignore" mutation rates because I am a Creationist, I'll consider them as unknown because that they are.

THEN they can be roughly and on average concluded from either evolutionist or creationist scenarios, giving very different averages. But these averages cannot be used as an independent dating tool to prove either scenario.

And if carbon dated 7150 BC is before any suggested date for Flood, this carbon date presumes the C14 content was about 100 pmc (% modern carbon, as I am sure you know, some other readers of this might not know this), and if carbon content back "then" - when Cheddar man lived - c. 50 pmc, this means he has c. one half life, c. 5730 years too much in the carbon dates.

16:41 As compressing the carbon dates of Cheddar man to ... know what, I'll cite relevant portion of my dating table:

55.763 pmc 7486 BC

Shelah +
2633 BC

XIX 2617 BC
58.038 pmc 7114 BC

Creation vs. Evolution : Interim III, Flood to Abraham with Syncellus

7150 BC is between inflated carbon dates 7486 BC and 7114 BC (closer to the latter), and this means the real date for this would be (also closer to the latter) between 2657 BC and 2617 BC (with a Flood in 3358 BC according to the monk George Syncellus - I tend to use more St Jerome's chronology).

Of course a man who died around the time of the post-Flood patriarch Shelah could have living descendants now! No problem at all!

16:49 "this could only be the case if there was never a global Flood"

Or, significant alternative, if the Global Flood was earlier than the Cheddar Man.

Which is the normal YEC position.

17:05 I am on the contrary delighted that Cheddar man had a descendant half a mile away!

It means that Belloc was right, Anglo-Saxon invasion was not simply replacing one population with another. Nor was any (possible, but not certain) Celtic invasion prior to the Roman one, which we know involved legions and romanisation, but no major replacement of populations.

It is a complete strawman you are drawing up about creationists!

V Pacific Coast DNA marker from peopling of Americas

17:27 13 000 - 14 000 years old. Pacific coast of Americas, tools and bones.

= 11 000 - 12 000 BC.

XII 2906 BC
26.23 pmc 13 969 BC

XIII 2865 BC
33.994 pmc 11 785 BC

Shem +
2858 BC

Peleg *
2829 BC

XIV 2824 BC
44.057 pmc 9600 BC

Much closer to 2865 BC than either to 2906 BC or 2824 BC (with Flood in 3358 BC, as it is from same table as previous).

18:10 I agree with the genetic markers, I have as "whatever excuse is necessary" simply a rising carbon 14 level, meaning the datings are systematically inflated, fortunately, thanks to the mechanism in a systematically deflatable way, which makes radiocarbon dating useful as a tool for YEC too. Once you do the necessary modifications.

18:28 "took tens of thousands of years"

You know, European migrations to Americas have resulted in even greater populations of mainly European descended people and these have NOT taken 10 000 years or even 5000 years. Rather, less than 500 years, since the influx to Statten Island after 1900 is fairly marginal to the whites of the Americas.

18:32 "from only 8 people" - yes.

"in only a century or so" - not quite.

Use the LXX or Samaritan version for post-Flood patriarchs, and you have about a thousand years between Flood and Abraham.

18:54 As stated, I am very much accepting this genetic marker.

One of the things it means is that carbon dated 14 000 BP is post-Flood, a confirmation of what I was thinking anyway.

19:07 No shit Sherlock!

My dear Watson, the one thing you overlooked is that the carbon date for 14 000 BP could be in reality a post-Flood one and that because of carbon 14 levels rising in the post-Flood atmosphere.

No comments: