Seriously, I must confess that I’m a little bit more sympathetic to the ID community in this respect than the YEC crowd. Far too many of the arguments against ID that I see harp on about it being “religion, not science.” Regardless of its merits, that line of argument does sound like it’s motivated by ideological stances rather than a commitment to factual accuracy.
What ID critics need to focus on is pointing out where the ID guys aren’t getting their facts straight. This is the same point as the one I make here:
“Whitcomb and Morris cite with approval a paleontologist who estimates that the Karroo Formation of southern Africa is believed to contain 800 billion fossil vertebrates with an average size of the fox. There are 126 billion acres on the surface of the earth. Only 30 percent of this area is land, giving a land area of 38 billion acres. If 800 billion animals were spread over the 38 billion available acres, there would be 21 animals with an average size of a fox, per acre, from this deposit alone. This does not include all the vertebrate fossil deposits throughout the rest of the world. Assuming that the Karroo beds are only 1% of the fossil vertebrates in the world (the Karroo beds occupy much less than 1% of the sedimentary column) means that 2100 animals per acre occupied the preflood world. Since an acre is 4840 square yards, each animal would have only 2 square yards, or 18 square feet, of territory. That is an area only 4.2 wide by 4.2 feet long. This can be put in a setting that most Americans can understand. The average house lot is about a quarter acre. Can you imagine every house in your neighborhood surrounded by 525 hungry animals the size of a fox?”
“There are 201 x 10^18 grams of carbon in the hydrocarbons of the earth. In all of the world’s living things, there are only 0.3 x 10^18 grams of carbon. There is 670 times more carbon in petroleum than there is in every living plant and animal on earth. Surely the world was not 670 times more crowded at the time of the Flood than it is today!”
“There are an estimated 15 x 10^18 grams of carbon contained in the coal reserves of the world. An acre of tropical forest contains 525 kilograms of plant matter per square meter. Assuming an 18% carbon content of plant matter, we have 94.5 kilograms of carbon per square meter. Multiplying this by the number of square meters on land, we have approximately the quantity of carbon contained in coal, 15 x 10^18 grams. One can account for all the carbon in coal only by postulating a tropical rain forest over the entire world.”
“There are 6.42 x 10^22 grams of carbon in the limestones of the earth and only 3 x 10^17 grams of carbon in the biosphere of the earth. The flood must have buried 214,000 times more living matter in limestone alone than is currently on the earth.”
It’s math. Math doesn’t have an “atheist worldview” and isn’t plagued by “unfounded presuppositions.” Do the math.
I have 26 translations that contain the Old Testament, and only a handful translate to “people”. They are the least literal, such as the NIV, the paraphrase versions, and the modern NAB Catholic translation. The remainder, including the older Catholic DRA, translate to “flesh” or “creatures”. The same Hebrew word variation is used in both of these passages:
“And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh (בָּשָׂר) had corrupted his way upon the earth.” – Gen 6:12 KJV
“And of every living thing of all flesh (בָּשָׂר) two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.” – Gen 6:19 KJV
I don’t believe God was referring to animal sin, but the corruption of the gene pool by the angels and their hybrid offspring. The corruption included animal hybridization. The extra-biblical Hebrew texts provide more details:
“And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another’s flesh, and drink the blood.” — Enoch 7:5
“And lawlessness increased on the earth and all flesh corrupted its way, alike men and cattle and beasts and birds and everything that walks on the earth all of them corrupted their ways and their orders . . . And God looked upon the earth, and behold it was corrupt, and all flesh had corrupted its orders, and all that were upon the earth had wrought all manner of evil before His eyes.” – Jubilees 5:2-3
“And after this they sinned against the beasts and birds, and all that moves and walks on the earth: and much blood was shed on the earth, and every imagination and desire of men imagined vanity and evil continually.” — Jubilees 7:23
“and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other?, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.” — Jasher 4:18
Correct. Jacob was a godly man. Besides, I doubt the knowledge of hybridization was carried forward, though there is biblical implication that the genes of the human hybrids (the giants) were carried into the new world, probably through Canaan (son of Ham) via Canaan’s mother. Oddly Noah cursed Caanan, and not Ham.
The giants were present in Canaan when the children of Israel began the conquest of the promised land, and the Lord declared Joshua’s warfare finished when the last of the the clans of giants were defeated:
“There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained. So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.” – Jos 11:22-23 KJV
I believe it does. The oceans of today are vast empty places. Somedays we would cruise for 20 miles or more without seeing a single fish outside the harbor. Imagine the same oceans overpopulated with now extinct species.
BTW, I believe I now know what happened to the massive heap of dead squid bodies.
In other words, all the translations interested in conveying the meaning, not providing a crib sheet to the Hebrew. Yeah, I know. I have an MA in Bible Translation.
You believe God was referring to something no one at the time had a concept of, “corruption of the gene pool,” not something everyone understood, human wickedness? Why would God be talking about a scientific concept no one would understand for thousands of years instead of something everyone was living out? What good would that revelation possibly do for its original audience?
So, we aren’t supposed to refer to clear facts revealed in nature as revealing God’s truth, but we are supposed to refer to non-canonical texts as revealing God’s truth? I don’t accept that. Extra-biblical texts have their use in biblical studies, but they aren’t inspired and they aren’t authoritative.
So, now that the human genome has been mapped, I suppose we could find these angel genes in modern day Lebanese? Oh right, they were utterly annihilated because Joshua says so. (Isn’t Joshua the book that causes the most problems for innerancy advocates?)
I would rather do less imagining and more math. Because math can be checked, but imaginations can create all sorts of possible worlds that physically don’t and can’t exist. There is a difference between “overpopulated” and “impossible.” Did you even look at the numbers in the link I gave you? Saying you can imagine something different than what the math says is not super meaningful or compelling to me.
I looked at your first link and decided it’s not worth my time to look at the others. The authors acknowledge that the 800 billion fossils is an educated guess, but point out no one actually counted them. Was anyone actually confused on that point? Then they go on to do something I see all the time in Creationist literature that I find extremely deceptive and off-putting. They take something that clearly means one thing in the context being discussed (in this case reptiles that are the size of small foxes) and switch in something that uses the same word, but means something different (reptiles of an unspecified, undoubtedly smaller size).
“Let us, however, assume that the 800-billion figure is correct. But how much geographic area did these creatures have available to them during life? We know that the Karoo reptile fossils exist at a concentration notably higher than most rocks elsewhere on earth, so it stands to reason that they were washed into the area of present day South Africa during the Flood. Let us, however, conservatively assume that they originally lived in an area only equal to present-day subequatorial Africa.This amounts to an area of 10 million square kilometers, implying a population density of 800 reptile individuals per hectare.Those anti-creationists who proclaim that such population densities are impossible are in for a rude shock. Simple studies of actual reptile population densities show that the requisite densities of reptiles not only are possible but do in fact exist even on today’s earth. It should be stressed that these are locally-supported populations and not local congregations of animals. And such population densities are nowhere near the levels needed to tax the requisite vegetation required to support such a highly populated food chain, much less the sunlight necessary
to support the ecosystem.”
800 individuals per hectare. A hectare is a roughly a major league baseball field. Oh, reptiles exist in those densities in some places today. Ones the size of small foxes? Oh wait, we conveniently ignored that part. And the expert the author is citing on this fact that reptile populations of this size exist? Himself. From a published, peer reviewed study? Nope, from a paper he presented at a Creationist conference.
“Moreover, it is universally accepted that the antediluvian earth must have been considerably more hospitable to life than is its present impoverished post-Flood remnant. So what is today an atypically productive region with an atypically-high local reptile population most probably was the norm in the antediluvian world.”
Universally accepted? In what universe? Sure, the earth was different then, hand wave, hand wave, imagine, imagine, no facts, no facts. Seriously, I have no idea how you find this stuff compelling.
I am honestly not trying to sound condescending, but do you spend any time reading actual professional journals in any discipline? It should be obvious that “Technical Journal 14.2” is not up to par. The author has an MA from “a midwestern US state university”? Which one? “He is a science educator” Technically, anyone who publishes a blog about science could call themselves a “science educator.” Where, in what field?
This article was published in 2000 and of its 10 cited sources, half are from the 1960s or earlier.
The whole article is two and a half pages long. How does that constitute actual engagement with the argument it is supposedly rebutting?
Of course they did not know modern terms, but until the 3rd century – actually, until Augustine – the Jewish and Christian world almost universally believed that angels (e.g., Gen 6 “sons of God”) rebelled against God and married earthly women. Their (hybrid) offspring were the giants of old. The demons of Christ’s day were the disemboded spirits of the (hybrid) giants. It was Augustine who popularized the notion that Gen 6:2, 4 was referring to men, and not angels. A few early statements:
1st Century: “This notion, that the fallen angels were, in some sense, the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity.” [Josephus, Flavius, “The Complete Works: Antiquities of the Jews.” Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1934, Gen 6:2, fn43, p.58]
1st Century: “NOW this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers; and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness, whereby they made God to be their enemy. For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land.” [Josephus, Flavius, “The Complete Works: Antiquities of the Jews.” Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1934, Gen 6:2, Book III.3.1, p.58]
2nd Century: “These angels, then, who have fallen from heaven, and haunt the air and the earth, and are no longer able to rise to heavenly things, and the souls of the giants, which are the demons who wander about the world, perform actions similar, the one (that is, the demons) to the natures they have received, the other (that is, the angels) to the appetites they have indulged.” [Roberts & Donaldson, Athenagora, A Plea for Christians, “Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 02.” Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1913, Chap.XXV, p.317]
3rd Century: “When Almighty God, to beautify the nature of the world, willed that that earth should be visited by angels, when they were sent down they despised His laws. Such was the beauty of women, that it turned them aside; so that, being contaminated, they could not return to heaven. Rebels from God, they uttered words against Him. Then the Highest uttered His judgment against them; and from their seed giants are said to have been born. By them arts were made known in the earth, and they taught the dyeing of wool, and everything which is done; and to them, when they died, men erected images. But the Almighty, because they were of an evil seed, did not approve that, when dead, they should be brought back from death. Whence wandering they now subvert many bodies, and it is such as these especially that ye this day worship and pray to as gods.” [Roberts & Donaldson, Commodianus, The Instructions, The Worship of Demons, “Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 04.” Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1913, Chap III, Gen 6:4, p.466]
This is one of the first, if not the first ECF who expressed some doubt in the angel/women understanding:
3rd Century: “When men multiplied on the earth, the angels of heaven came together with the daughters of men. In some copies I found ‘the sons of God.’ What is meant by the Spirit, in my opinion, is that the descendants of Seth are called the sons of God on account of the righteous men and patriarchs who have sprung from him, even down to the Saviour Himself; but that the descendants of Cain are named the seed of men, as having nothing divine in them, on account of the wickedness of their race and the inequality of their nature, being a mixed people, and having stirred the indignation of God. But if it is thought that these refer to angels, we must take them to be those who deal with magic and jugglery, who taught the women the motions of the stars and the knowledge of things celestial, by whose power they conceived the giants as their children, by whom wickedness came to its height on the earth, until God decreed that the whole race of the living should perish in their impiety by the deluge.” [Roberts & Donaldson, Julius Africanus, On the Mythical Chronology of the Egyptians and Chaldeans., “Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 06.” Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1886, Chap II, p.310]
And, finally, Augustine:
“These words of the divine book sufficiently indicate that already there were giants in the earth in those days, in which the sons of God took wives of the children of men, when they loved them because they were good, that is, fair. For it is the custom of this Scripture to call those who are beautiful in appearance ‘good.’ But after this connection had been formed, then too were giants born. For the words are: ‘There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men.’ Therefore there were giants both before, ‘in those days,’ and ‘also after that.’ And the words, ‘they bare children to them,’ show plainly enough that before the sons of God fell in this fashion they begat children to God, not to themselves,—that is to say, not moved by the lust of sexual intercourse, but discharging the duty of propagation, intending to produce not a family to gratify their own pride, but citizens to people the city of God; and to these they as God’s angels would bear the message, that they should place their hope in God, like him who was born of Seth, the son of resurrection, and who hoped to call on the name of the Lord God, in which hope they and their offspring would be co-heirs of eternal blessings, and brethren in the family of which God is the Father.” [Schaff, Philip, Augustine, The City of God, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 1 Vol 02.” Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1886, Book XV.23, p.304]
I do not believe is necessary to seek understanding outside the bible. But at least two of the New Testament authors – Peter and Jude – quoted from at least one extra-canonical text (Enoch).
No, that was the purpose of the flood and the Canaanite conquest – to get rid of them. The final nail in their coffin was the crucifixion, which completed the destruction of the giant spirits (the NT demons that Jesus confronted), and the stripping Satan of his absolute authority over the nations:
“And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.” – Luk 4:5-7 KJV
“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” – Mat 28:18-19 KJV
(The physical nation of old covenant Israel is another matter altogether. It was destroyed in the first century. A remnant were saved.)
That is a strange thing to say. It was kill or be killed in those days. Joshua’s obeyed the Lord’s commands and rid the land of those who might destroy or corrupt the nation of Israel. Not everyone was driven out:
“Nevertheless the children of Israel expelled not the Geshurites, nor the Maachathites: but the Geshurites and the Maachathites dwell among the Israelites until this day.” – Jos 13:13 KJV
“As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.” – Jos 15:63 KJV
Rahab and her family were also saved.
Math is one thing; math based on unprovable assumptions is another altogether.
The article you linked is loaded with assumptions, Christy:
“There are clearly too many animals found in the geologic column. (then book promotion).”
“If this claim is true, that the fossil record represents the remains of a single prediluvial world, then there should not be enough fossils to overcrowd the world.”
“Most animals would be destroyed in the Flood, not preserved.”
“Thus if the geologic column consists of one single biosphere which was destroyed in one year, there should be very few fossils and certainly not enough of them to fill up today’s earth.”
And that is only the first page. He made more:
“There is 670 times more carbon in petroleum than there is in every living plant and animal on earth.”
"The time required to form the Austin Chalk is far longer than one year. "
“In water depth of 100 feet there is not nearly enough calcium to deposit such a volume of chalk.”
“Additionally, the quantity of chalk seen in the world is far too great to have been contained in the preflood world hypothesized by young-earth creationists.”
The article you linked, which was published by an author who has a BS in physics, was quoting from a 1961 paper, and none of his dated sources are later than 1983.
Minus footnotes, the article you linked has 14, 200 characters; the one I linked was 8,050. But who’s counting?
Your research focuses 100% on oil and natural gas, LXX. For the sake of argument, I will grant you that every single drop of oil and gas on the planet comes from non-biotic sources.
In just the United States, total coal resources (both recoverable and non-recoverable) are 9 x 10^19 g (source). Coal is 78% carbon, so that yields 7 x 10^19 g carbon. This is more than the world’s coal reserves because reserves do not include coal that is not economically recoverable.
We are likely excluding roughly 3/4 of the world’s coal resources, as approximately 3/4 of the world’s coal reserves are outside the U.S. (source)
All of the world’s living things contain 3 x 10^17 g of carbon.
There is 233 times more carbon in coal than in all the living things of the earth.
Surely the world was not 233 times more crowded at the time of the Flood than it is today!
And we have yet to account for other kinds of fossils, such as the cliffs of Dover.
And I’ve got to say: floating forests across all the world’s oceans is – I don’t know how to say this particularly diplomatically – an outright fantasy. The scientific journals have published plenty of articles that challenge the biogenesis of petroleum hydrocarbons. There is no reason to think they wouldn’t do the same for coal deposits. I really don’t try to sound harsh, but the appeal to fantasy is not very convincing.
No, it’s maths based on observations and measurement.
I’m sorry, but “unprovable assumptions” isn’t some kind of shibboleth that you can use to fob off evidence that you don’t like. Even if they really were assumptions (and most of what you’re calling assumptions aren’t even assumptions in the first place), they’re not as unprovable as you think they are, for reasons that I’ve already stated.
If you want to claim that something is an unprovable assumption, you need to (a) state clearly what is being assumed, (b) give a plausible reason – with evidence – as to why the assumption could be wrong and to what extent, and (c) explain why any tests for the assumption (e.g. cross-checks between independent methods) could be misleading.
It also wasn’t a journal article, it was a blog post summarizing information, but point taken. The fact remains that Creationist science is based on willful denial and there are very good reasons they can’t get published in anything other than their own propaganda magazines. It’s too bad this isn’t obvious to you.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
262
It is interesting to note that these arguments require the present natural laws and mechanisms to be the same in the past. Don’t you discount things like radiometric dating because they use these same assumptions? Don’t you think it is a bit hypocritical to throw out some arguments because they use these assumptions, but then accept other arguments even though they use those very same assumptions?
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
263
My favorite example from that essay is the crinoids:
"Much of the massive limestone formation is composed of sand-sized particles of calcium carbonate, fragments of crinoid plates, and shells broken by the waves. Such a sedimentary rock qualifies for the name sandstone because it is composed of particles of sand size cemented together; because the term sandstone is commonly understood to refer to a quartz-rich rock, however, these limestone sandstones are better called calcarenites. The Madison sea must have been shallow, and the waves and currents strong, to break the shells and plates of the animals when they died. The sorting of the calcite grains and the cross-bedding that is common in this formation are additional evidence of waves and currents at work. Even in Mississippian rocks, where whole crinoids are rare fossils, and as a result, it is easy to underestimate the population of these animals during the Paleozoic era. Crinoidal limestones, such as the Mission Canyon-Livingstone unit, provide an estimate, even though it be of necessity a rough one, of their abundance in the clear shallow seas they loved. In the Canadian Rockies the Livingstone limestone was deposited to a thickness of 2,000 feet on the margin of the Cordilleran geosyncline, but it thins rapidly eastward to a thickness of about 1,000 feet in the Front Ranges and to about 500 feet in the Williston Basin. Even though its crinoidal content decreases eastward, it may be calculated to represent at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates. How many millions, billions, trillions of crinoids would be required to provide such a deposit? The number staggers the imagination."46
That’s 2,000 feet of piled up crinoid plates. For those who may not know, this is what crinoids look like on the ocean floor:
It is laughable to think there were enough crinoids in a sea floor environment to produce a 2,000 foot deposit made up almost entirely of their broken up bits. Obviously, it takes very long time periods for crinoids to grow, live, die, break apart in currents, and then pile up to make a deposit that is 2,000 feet thick. A single flood can’t do this.
It is also worth mentioning that just in this one deposit there is enough broken up crinoid pieces to cover the entire earth in a 1/4 inch of crinoid plates. THIS IS JUST ONE DEPOSIT OF MANY.
4 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
264
I fully agree that it is best to address the arguments as given without going into someone’s motivations or worldviews.
At the same time, there is a historical context that has shaped ID. The movement began as an effort to get around court decisions that banned the teaching of creationism in public schools. The Discovery Institute was the founding organization for the ID movement, and this is what they wrote in an internal memo (the infamous Wedge Document):
“Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.”
“Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”
The ID movement was and is a religious and political movement. This is factually accurate.
Oh right, they were utterly annihilated because Joshua says so. (Isn’t Joshua the book that causes the most problems for innerancy advocates?)