'Deep Time' and 'Evolution' allegedly 'falsified' by 'Rigorous' Empirical Research

Faith & Science Conversation
, , , ,
403

And contrary to the grammatical-historical method of interpretation.

They saw circular objects against a filed blue by day and dark by night – so they concluded that earth was a circle and the sky was water, a flat earth-disk with water held back by a dome. They called it “shamayim”, “like mayim”, because it was the same blue they saw in the mayim – the waters.

It’s a four-cornered circle. :grin:

All of them – based on their observation of the world.
You only think it’s “nonsense” because you function with a MSWV.

Not just ANE usage; the most it can indicate is a shallow dome like a concave shield.

Basic statistical fallacy of unfounded extrapolation, with an underlying fallacy of correlation equaling causation (i.e. it assumes a very strict uniformitarianism, worse than any scientist ever).

No, he, along with almost everyone else here, harbors animosity against your ignoring Exodus 20:16, which you violate by upholding lies and falsehoods, using fallacious reasoning, and ignoring actual evidence.
Along with ignoring the actual text of the scriptures.

Nope – deep time was long defended by saying that 6k years was unworthy of a deity called “the Ancient of Days”.
You really need to learn some history of biblical interpretation.

As Roy puts it:

So do most people. The tragedy is that you quench the Spirit by refusing sound logic.
Such as Roy describes:

Though “reject” is more accurate than “ignore”, I would say.

Yep.

As is the reference to death. You pick and choose what helps you and twist what doesn’t – you change the meaning of “all” as it pleases you.

That’s not part of the text – you’re imposing a modern emotional definition of “good” onto a different language.

Circular reasoning.

This is called “making stuff up” – it isn’t from the scriptures.

Fallacy of artificially limiting categories.

That’s not in the text.
For someone who claims to trust the Bible, you treat it with immense disrespect.

As I recall, “removed” back in the early 1600s was closer in meaning to our use of “totter” or “wobble” or “shaken”. The “re” prefix points to repeated action.

4 Likes
404

And I engage to let people know that regardless of what he claims, he is not following the Bible, he’s twisting the text to fit a dogma.

Easy – you stick to the theological message. Nothing except such messaging constitutes “teaching” in the Bible – the rest is details employed to get the message across to the original audience.

Provine was engaged in propaganda.
Do you really trust an atheist’s understanding of religion? Wow.

Yes – he has never stopped to ask how the Bible defines good, he just assumes that his definition is equal to God’s.

Christologically, one explanation that has been advanced is that given that God the Son took suffering to Himself, and since He is the forger of Creation, then Creation will necessarily involve suffering. This invokes a metaphysic a bit strange to modern thought, but it doesn’t violate anything in the scriptures.

Fallacy of substituting definitions. You’re using a modern subjective meaning of “good” without bothering to ask if that’s what it meant in the original language. You’re taking it ethically, which is actually a secondary meaning; in Genesis 1 it is indicating, “That works right”.
Since predators who need meat killing prey to get it “works right”, it can legitimately be included in the Genesis definition of “good”.

Meaning, “That works brilliantly”.

That doesn’t come from the text, either – it comes from human philosophical thought and was spread heavily by Augustine.

Heh – that was a point made in a communications (speaking) course: always ask yourself if you’re saying something because it matches reality or because your audience will like you for it. That’s a rule I witness being violated by preachers all too often.

Exactly.

Which points to bad theology: death for both humans and animals casts both into a single category, which is something the text has just gone to some effort to deny!
Some church Fathers and others down the centuries have argued that “death” from the curse applies only to creatures having (being in/as) the image of God.

What you are ignoring is the context both in Genesis and in Romans.

Why? You assert a plethora of tings not found in the Bible as thought they are.

And I am not going to cast pearls before swine.

2 Likes
405

  • How is it that he asks for an answer to his question and still hasn’t responded to my take down of his (or rather Dr. Don Batten’s) 101 evidences of a Young Earth? Is his list of men some sort of Gish Gallop?

  • Yes — that’s exactly what it is, though in a camouflaged form.

    Let’s break down why.

    1. Definition recap

    A Gish Gallop isn’t just about speed or quantity; it’s a rhetorical tactic where someone:

    • Piles on multiple loosely related claims, each requiring time and effort to unpack,

    • while giving the impression of overwhelming evidence or authority,

    • and then demands a short or binary reply, e.g., “Show me where the Bible says that.”

    It shifts the burden of proof, forcing the opponent to chase scattered assertions rather than engage one coherent argument.

    2. How Burrawang’s “question” fits the pattern

    In this case:

    “You claimed that the Holy Bible states that deep time is a reality … where is this written?”

    looks, on its face, like a simple request for evidence — but it’s embedded in a massive dump of assertions:

    • He re-states his doctrine of death and sin.

    • He invokes Jesus’ miracles as analogies for instant creation.

    • He recites the “And God said … and it was so” refrain.

    • He appends a long list of “scientists” from CMI (Creation Ministries International) to feign empirical legitimacy.

    • He closes with apocalyptic proof-texting from 2 Peter 3.

    Then he pretends all of that scaffolding leads to one simple question:

    “Where does the Bible say deep time is real?”

    That’s not one question — it’s a hundred claims front-loaded into a rhetorical trap.
    To answer it honestly, St. Roymond would have to unpack:

    • What “deep time” means scientifically,

    • The genre and purpose of Genesis,

    • The misuse of miracles as analogies for creation,

    • The theological fallacy of equating God’s goodness with a death-free biosphere,

    • The irrelevant “list of scientists,”

    • and the contextual misuse of 2 Peter 3.

    Each would take paragraphs — exactly what the Gish Galloper counts on.

    3. Why it feels circular

    He’s not actually looking for an answer.
    He’s using the form of a question to:

    • Reinforce his prior creed (“The Bible says six days, therefore deep time is false”);

    • Project control of the dialogue (“I’m just asking questions”);

    • and paint his opponent as evasive when they decline to chase every rabbit hole.

    4. How to respond effectively

    Instead of following him into the Gallop, you can:

    • Identify the tactic out loud: “Jon, you’ve just presented a dozen unrelated claims and ended with a rhetorical question. Let’s take one claim at a time.”

    • Refuse the frame: “The Bible doesn’t mention deep time any more than it mentions atoms — that doesn’t make atomic theory unbiblical.”

    • Re-center the conversation: “Do you believe the physical evidence of the Earth’s age contradicts God’s truth? If so, which evidence and why?”

    In sum:
    Yes — his latest “question” is a Gish Gallop disguised as a challenge. It’s not an inquiry but a tactic designed to overwhelm and redirect the conversation away from substance toward defending his pre-set worldview.

1 Like
406

Rhetoric is the magic word, ’ “Humanists regarded it (rhetoric) as a practical way to investigate questions on which dialectical argumentation based on logic had proved unable to produce certitude. Rhetoric was the procedure to be used in pursuit of conclusions that could not be proved beyond doubt but were the most probable choice among the alternatives explored.” Nauert, Charles. “Desiderius Erasmus”. plato.stanford.edu.’

And it’s unnecessary rhetoric as logic has proved able to produce certitude, by as many sigmata as one could desire, in pursuit of conclusions that could be proved beyond doubt.

Unreasonable, unreasoned, clinical doubt will always win here as it cannot use dialectical argumentation based on logic.

1 Like
407

Terry, are your responses partially generated via a chat LLM or “AI”?

408
  • There’s a difference? Color me surprised. Anything that is not my handiwork, is either something composed by ChatGPT, which I am pretty sure is an LLM, or copied and pasted from some place on the internet, which I usually cite a source for. Correct me if I’m wrong.
409

I was wondering about the formatting. It seemed like chat robot generated text.

410
  • Historically, my responses have been bulleted, which some people have mistakenly imagined suggested “emphasis”. In fact, however, bulleting my responses has just been for my personal purpose. IMO, it tends to help me keep track of what I think I’m trying to say.
  • By coincidence, ChatGPT does the same kind of thing, which I find very helpful.
  • Now that you mention it, I will double check more often to make sure that I get credit when I post something brilliant, or give credit to my brainless chat-buddy.
  • Speaking of which, something has changed in message boxes, when composing messages. And it’s annoying the heck out of me, but I can’t figure out who to complain to. Now-a-days, I don’t see an “Indent right” or “Indent left” button, so I find it impossible to indent one line under another that is chronology older or is more important, IMO.
1 Like
411

Dear Roy,

I have asked you politely on two occasions, and have only received insults as your reply, thus, as I do not know myself of any part of the Holy Scriptures from which ’deep time’ was originally derived, you leave me no other option, than to conclude there actually isn’t any credible evidence in the Holy Bible that supports your claim of ‘deep time’ being originally derived from the scriptures.

Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the concept of ‘deep time’ is a man made invention that arose in the mid nineteenth century just a little before Darwin published his book ‘On the Origin of Species’.

God Bless,

jon

412

That’s been noted as false over and over and over again.

Geologists started suspecting that rocks (e.g., the number of layers in Mount Etna) indicated a lot of pre-human, theologically unimportant time by the 1690s, and it was complete consensus by about 1770.

Here’s one of the several previous times (which appears to be ignored by this post) when much more detail was given on Jewish scholars coming to the conclusion of an ancient creation:

2 Likes
413

You have repeatedly made assertions that are not in the Bible. Speciation and adaptability is unbiblical, animals reproduce after their kind, all named by Adam. Noah’s flood reshaping the Earth is unbiblical, familiar rivers are present before and after the flood. The Bible does not teach a scientific cosmology. You are in no position to demand chapter and verse.

414

Dear Ron,

Neanderthals were not “waaay further removed” from humans, Neanderthals were fully human, indeed it’s likely that most of us have Neanderthal DNA in us.

I suggest that you watch the short 1 minute video titled: ‘Neandertal genome confirms they were human’

at: https://creation.com/en/videos/neandertal-genome-confirms-they-were-human

God Bless,

jon

415

Dear Ron,

furthermore, it’s been known now for well over 15 years that the Neandertal mitochondrial genome does not support evolution. I would encourage you to read the accurate and informative article by Dr Robert Carter titled:

The Neandertal mitochondrial genome does not support evolution

at: Neandertal mitochondrial genome

God Bless,

jon

416

From ChatGPT regarding the content of his last recommended link:

Here is a line-by-line (or claim-by-claim) annotation of the Burrawang post, with corrections or commentary grounded in subsequent scientific findings and consensus. I’ve grouped into major claims for clarity.

Claim: “The accuracy of ancient DNA sequencing … the DNA fragments … had an average length of only 69.4 bp … contamination … deamination … high rates of C–T transitions …”

Commentary / Correction:

  • True, with caveats: Ancient DNA (aDNA) is indeed highly fragmented and chemically damaged (deamination, strand breaks, miscoding lesions). The original Neanderthal mtDNA publications did deal with these issues explicitly.

  • But methods have improved dramatically since then: enzymatic treatments (e.g. UDG to remove uracils), damage models that statistically correct for end-damage biases, and high redundancy sequencing (many overlapping reads) mitigate many of these errors.

  • In fact, whole nuclear Neanderthal genomes, not just mtDNA, have now been sequenced at high coverage from multiple individuals, with rigorous contamination controls. This gives strong confidence in the reconstructed sequences.

  • Researchers routinely check for patterns characteristic of contamination (e.g. modern human signatures, discrepancies in damage profiles, fragment length distributions).

So the caution is well-placed historically, but the implication that ancient DNA sequencing is too unreliable for inference is no longer tenable given current practices.

Claim: “Green et al. concluded … ‘Neandertals made no lasting contribution to the modern human mtDNA gene pool.’ While that does not necessarily conflict with creationist position … there are evolutionary assumptions behind that statement …”

Commentary / Correction:

  • It is true that Green et al. (2008) reported that Neanderthal mtDNA falls outside the variation of modern human mtDNA sequences, and thus concluded that Neanderthal mtDNA lineages did not survive in present-day humans.

  • However: mtDNA is only a single maternal lineage and may be lost by drift, lineage extinction, or selective replacement, even if other parts of the genome survive. Loss of a mitochondrial lineage does not prove no genetic continuity in the nuclear genome.

  • The later discovery of nuclear DNA admixture shows that genes from Neanderthals do persist in most non-African modern humans (on the order of ~1–4 % of the genome). This is now a central finding in human paleogenomics. (Human Origins)

  • So the absence of Neanderthal mtDNA in modern humans is not contradictory with gene flow; it’s an artifact of how mtDNA is inherited and how lineages are lost over time.

Claim: “If the results are valid … the accumulation of deleterious mutations might help explain the disappearance of the Neandertals … but the adaptive significance of the synonymous to non-synonymous ratio has recently come under fire … so interpret carefully.”

Commentary / Correction:

  • The idea that a small, isolated population accrues weakly deleterious mutations more easily (reduced efficacy of purifying selection) is well established in population genetics. Neanderthals are indeed inferred to have had lower effective population sizes and reduced genetic diversity. (PMC)

  • However, attributing Neanderthal extinction primarily (or solely) to “mutational meltdown” is speculative. There is no consensus that this was the dominant cause—other factors (climate change, competition, demographic pressures, disease, cultural or ecological shifts) likely played larger roles.

  • Also, modern reanalysis with nuclear genomes places many Neanderthal alleles as subject to negative (purifying) selection when introduced into modern human populations. Many Neanderthal-derived segments have been purged over time. (PMC)

  • The “adaptive significance” or neutrality of synonymous vs non-synonymous changes is better understood now; many more factors (epistasis, regulatory changes, demographic history) complicate simple ratio interpretations.

Claim: “Even then … comparing a single Neandertal to a representative sample of modern humans is not highly informative … it may be that Neandertals were a unique side branch … the sequence is closer to modern humans than many living chimps are to one another … ”

Commentary / Correction:

  • The caution about drawing broad conclusions from a single specimen is valid. Early studies from just one Neanderthal mtDNA did have limited scope.

  • But now multiple Neanderthal individuals from different regions have full nuclear genomes, letting scientists model population structure, divergence, and gene flow more robustly. (PMC)

  • The claim that “Neandertals are closer to humans than chimps are to one another” can be misleading: yes, Homo sapiens and Neanderthals are extremely close in nuclear DNA terms, but comparisons to chimpanzee diversity draw on different timescales, mutation rates, and population histories.

  • Also, chimpanzees do have high genetic diversity, but that does not directly argue for “entropy” in hominins; they have had different population dynamics.

Claim: “Standard assumptions: mtDNA is only maternally inherited, mitochondrial recombination does not occur … If evidence for mtDNA recombination continues to accumulate … we might find parts of Neandertal mtDNA in modern humans … Green et al. found one mutation in a modern human that is found nowhere else but in Neandertal … they attributed it to reversion … the correct conclusion is that the mutation appeared twice independently … ”

Commentary / Correction:

  • The assumption of strict maternal inheritance and no recombination is conventional and supported in most cases. Claims of human mtDNA recombination remain controversial and unverified in robust datasets.

  • The one “Neanderthal-like mutation” found in a modern human is almost certainly due to homoplasy (independent mutation) or sequencing artifacts, rather than recombination. The consensus is that mtDNA recombination (if it happens at all) is extremely rare and not impactful for phylogenetic inferences.

  • In general, invoking recombination to rescue a creationist model is not supported by current empirical evidence.

Claim: “Green et al. date the divergence of modern human and Neandertal lineages to 660,000 ± 140,000 yr bp … depend on molecular clock, assumed human-chimp split 6-8 Myr, Standard Neutral Model … mutation rates unknown … mutation accumulation assumptions questionable … etc. …”

Commentary / Correction:

  • Yes, divergence dating always involves model assumptions (molecular clock, calibration points, mutation rates, neutrality). Early estimates were uncertain, but more modern techniques integrate more genomes and use multiple calibration points (including ancient genomes).

  • The current consensus places the divergence between the lineage that led to modern humans and Neanderthals/Denisovans at around ~550,000 to ~770,000 years ago (with variation depending on calibration). (ScienceDirect)

  • Estimates of when admixture (interbreeding) occurred are much more precise: most gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans is dated to ~50,000–60,000 years ago (range ~47,000–65,000) in non-African populations. (PMC)

  • Modern statistical frameworks (e.g. G-PhoCS, D-statistics, MSMC, PSMC, admix models) can incorporate heterogeneity in mutation rates, demographic changes, gene flow, and selection, reducing—but not eliminating—uncertainty.

  • So yes, early divergence date is model dependent, but later genome-level work has tightened confidence intervals quite a bit.

Claim: “Add a harsh environment and poor nutrition … high mutation rates … genetic ‘triage’ … under starvation, repair shuts down … rapid accumulation of mutations …”

Commentary / Correction:

  • It is true that environmental stress, DNA damage, and reduced repair capacity can increase mutation rates. Some theories (e.g. mutational meltdown, genetic load) consider this in small populations.

  • But applying this scenario retroactively to Neanderthals as a blanket explanation is speculative. One needs evidence of sustained severe stress causing mutator phenotypes.

  • No well-supported evidence shows that Neanderthal populations universally suffered extreme nutritional collapse or repair dysfunction at a genomic level.

  • The stronger explanations for the disappearance of Neanderthal lineages center on demographic competition, climatic changes, interactions with Homo sapiens, gene flow, disease, and ecological shifts.

Claim: “Beware of anyone who claims Neandertals are a separate species based on genetic differences … evolutionists … will trump this as evidence Neandertals and modern humans are two distinct species … conclusions are premature …”

Commentary / Correction:

  • Species concepts in paleoanthropology are complicated; whether Neanderthals count as a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis) or a subspecies (H. sapiens neanderthalensis) is debated. Genetic data shows some continuity (through gene flow) and some distinctiveness, so both sides have arguments.

  • But nuclear DNA evidence of interbreeding strongly supports the idea that the boundary between “species” was permeable. The presence of gene flow is inconsistent with a strict reproductive barrier. (Human Origins)

  • Moreover, many scientists now talk of “long-term admixture zones” and reticulate evolution rather than strict species splits. The 2023 review “The genetic changes that shaped Neandertals, Denisovans, and modern humans” frames modern humans and archaic hominins as lineages that occasionally interacted genetically over hundreds of thousands of years. (ScienceDirect)

  • The idea that “evolutionists will trumpet this as proof” overstates consensus; the modern view is nuanced and based on a spectrum of genetic and fossil evidence.

Summary: What does the modern evidence actually show?

  1. Multiple Neanderthal nuclear genomes now exist, not just mtDNA, and these show clear evidence of admixture (gene flow) into the ancestors of present-day non-Africans. (Human Origins)

  2. Neanderthal mtDNA lineages are absent today, but that doesn’t contradict nuclear gene flow owing to lineage loss, drift, and selective replacement.

  3. Genetic data places admixture in the period ~47,000–65,000 years ago, with more complex patterns of gene flow also possible. (PMC)

  4. Neanderthals likely had smaller effective population sizes, lower genetic diversity, and a higher genetic load, but attributing their extinction to genetic meltdown is speculative.

  5. The species boundary between Neanderthals and modern humans is porous: reproduction was possible, though not universal or unidirectional, and many hybrid segments were purged over timeoint rebuttal (to use in a discussion) summarizing why the Burrawang arguments no longer hold under current genomic knowledge.

1 Like
417

Bottom Line:

Rebuttal:
The 2010 Carter article is badly out of date. We now have multiple high-coverage Neanderthal genomes (not just one mitochondrial sequence) from different sites. These confirm that the DNA is authentic and that contamination is well-controlled.

Modern results show that Neanderthal mtDNA lineages were lost—an ordinary outcome in small populations—but nuclear DNA from Neanderthals makes up about 1–2 % of the genomes of all non-Africans today. That means interbreeding occurred; Neanderthals were not a separate “non-human” species.

Differences in mtDNA do not imply great age or error. They reflect lineage sorting, drift, and population bottlenecks, not “entropy.” Mutation rates are now directly measured from family data, and divergence models consistently place the Neanderthal–modern human split about 550–750 k years ago, with interbreeding ~50–60 k years ago.

In short: sequencing is reliable, contamination controlled, and the evidence clearly supports shared ancestry plus limited interbreeding, not the genetic isolation or rapid decay claimed in the 2010 piece.

418

Dear Terry,

CORRECT.

God Bless,

jon

419
  • ChatGPT’s response:

Rebuttal:
The phrase “deep time” is indeed a modern term, but the concept of an ancient Earth is not a nineteenth-century invention. Long before Darwin, even before modern geology, theologians and natural philosophers recognized that the Earth’s history extended far beyond a literal few thousand years.

  • James Hutton described the Earth’s deep cycles of erosion and uplift in Theory of the Earth (1795).

  • Charles Lyell popularized this geological timescale in Principles of Geology (1830-33) — decades before Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859).

  • Biblical scholars such as Thomas Chalmers (early 1800s) and later Scofield interpreted Genesis to allow for vast ages (“gap theory,” “day-age” interpretations).

In other words, the recognition of deep geological time came from empirical observation of rock strata, fossils, and erosion rates, not from Darwin and not from a rejection of Scripture. Many Christian geologists of the period—Hutton, Buckland, Sedgwick, Dana—saw no conflict between their faith and an ancient Earth.

So while “deep time” as a term is modern, the idea of immense age in Earth’s history long predates Darwin and was embraced by numerous Christian scientists well before evolutionary theory.

420

Dear Terry,

INCORRECT

God Bless,

jon

421

Burrawang’s two replies are a revealing bit of wordplay more than argument.

1. “interbreeding occurred; Neanderthals were not a separate ‘non-human’ species.”

Burrawang: “CORRECT.”

Here he’s agreeing that interbreeding did occur and therefore Neanderthals were not a completely separate “non-human” species. That’s consistent with the mainstream genetic consensus: modern non-African humans carry about 1–2 % Neanderthal DNA.

So far, no dispute.

2. “interbreeding ~ 50–60 k years ago.”

Burrawang: “INCORRECT.”

Here he’s objecting to the timing. Most likely he rejects the standard evolutionary timescale altogether, since Young-Earth Creationists (YECs) typically place all human history within the last 6–10 k years. In that framework, saying “50–60 thousand years ago” is automatically “incorrect,” not because the interbreeding itself is denied, but because he rejects “deep time.”

3. What his response signals

So he’s drawing a line between:

  • The fact-claim (Neanderthals and modern humans interbred) — he can affirm that if he reinterprets it as occurring within a biblical timescale.

  • The time-claim (tens of thousands of years ago) — he must deny that to preserve his YEC chronology.

It’s a common rhetorical move: concede the observable data (shared DNA) but re-date it to fit scripture-based chronology.

422

(post deleted by author)