Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Nye-Ham and how evolutionism possibly poisons science in lab, field and theory

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Even if Ken Ham may have fumbled on presentation, the facts may show him possibly closer to the truth on some matters. Rather than focus on the immense claims that are part of most YEC models (young universe, young stars, young planets, intelligent design of life, Noah’s flood, the tower of babel, created kinds, etc.), let me focus on the question of lab and field reporting in historical geology and paleontology, and something Nye said would change his mind. He said something to the effect:

Why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers; for instance, a mammal in trilobite layers

He suggested if we found such things he might change his mind. The first thing to realize is that few if any places on the Earth do we have the following column intact, in fact many of the “layers” are only layers in one’s imagination since they can be side by side or in some cases INVERTED!

It is true that the fossils tend to cluster in certain ways, but let me point out, even in ecosystems present today, limited sets of species tend to cluster around certain geographic areas. Some have argued that the clustering of fossils to particular “layers” (banks or strata is the better term) is due partly to eco-systems. This is sensible, and an occasional exception to a general pattern is what might be expected in the actual physical record versus the imaginary one.

So do we have something that ought to change Nye’s mind. Absolutely!

Many people are surprised when they hear of these creatures being buried together and wonder why they never heard of it before. Below is one evolutionary paleontologist’s explanation.

We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”8

Consider how many more tens of thousands of fossil mammals in ‘dinosaur rock’ are likely being similarly ignored in other parts of the world, with the likelihood of finding even more representatives of the same kinds as modern-day mammals.9

So called age of the dinosaurs

So is there a possibility anomalies are edited out and instead a practice of false reporting (perhaps innocently done) has been perpetuated. They probably think something like: “We found a mammal, that’s clearly contamination because we know mammals aren’t in that era”. So thus we never hear official reports of the anomalies because the anomalies are regarded as contaminants since according to the false narrative, certain creatures didn’t live in certain eras.

This would then admit the possibility at least some (not all) “old” fossils are actually young. Note, this doesn’t not necessarily refute the claim of long ages, it may only demonstrate we are hasty in our conclusions. But to say, “we possibly made a mistake, we possibly don’t know the real age” is heresy in the world of Darwin. Further:

Nye asked a number of times, why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers; for instance, a mammal in trilobite layers. But to the surprise of many, ducks, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. See The so-called ‘Age of Dinosaurs’ and Evolution exams and fossil fallacies.

http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate

Nye also asked how layers could be formed so quickly.

The following video explains why even in principle layers are unlikely to form slowly! Watch the actual lab demonstrations of fast stratification and the vizualizations. You can even see one lab experiment where layers are formed in a matter of minutes 😉 It crushes Nye’s claims about Grand Canyon formation.

In the video Dr. Julien uses the following impressive analysis using a simple physics equation

E = 7/10 m V^2

to explain sedimentary particle segregation. But you don’t need to understand the equation, you just need to watch the video. IMPRESSIVE! Physics crushes Darwinism. 😎

[youtube PL886FFE0E3EA557BE]

HT: JGuy

There you have it. Real but taboo empirical and theoretical science that you won’t get in school. Why? Evolutionism possibly poisons science in lab, field, and theory. Falsehoods are perpetuated, and truth is rarely known.

NOTES

1. Picking out only certain fossils and throwing out others in a dig site is cherry picking. This is yet another area of cherry picking in addition to one I reported on at UD earlier:
The Price of Cherry Picking for Addicted Gamblers and Believers in Darwinism

2. HT JGuy

3. See previous articles at UD that support what I laid out above:
DNA half life only 521 years, so is dino DNA and insect amber DNA young?

C14 dates conflict with Carboniferous era dates 300 million years ago

Creationist Bob Enyart attempts to bribe Darwinist Jack Horner

Mark Armitage possibly the latest victim of Darwinists Inquisition

Astrophysics vs. Darwinists Paleontology

Collagen in Dinosaurs indicates geological timescales are false

Falsifying Darwinism by Falsifying the Geological Column

4. CMI lists Bill Nye’s other “science lies” (Note, I’m not saying Bill is really lying, just mistaken, but “lie” rhymes with Nye:)

http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate

He said that in Kentucky, the Creation Museum stands on many layers of limestone with coral fossils. He claimed there would not be enough time in a creationist timeframe for these creatures to grow, die, and then be fossilized. However, creationist marine biologist Dr Robert Carter has addressed the existence of fossil corals.

The next argument was that there are ice cores with 680,000 layers, each formed in a summer/winter cycle. Again, he claimed that this disproves a creationist timeframe. However, creationists have also answered this, see Greenland ice cores: implicit evidence for catastrophic deposition.

He also claimed that there are trees older than a biblical timeframe allows for. However, dendrochronology is not an exact science; see plant biologist Dr Don Batten’s article on dendrochronology. Nye specifically mentioned bristlecone pines, but there is evidence that they may have more than one growth ring per year as argued at Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines.

His next challenge related to geology. He asked, if the Grand Canyon was the result of a catastrophic global flood, why are there not grand canyons everywhere? But as flood geologists have demonstrated, the Flood would have involved a number of different mechanisms at various stages as the waters drained off the continents. In fact, many erosional features are best explained by a global flood. There is a vast body of creation information in this area; we would send interested readers to our Geology Q&A page.

Nye asked a number of times, why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers; for instance, a mammal in trilobite layers. But to the surprise of many, ducks, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. See The so-called ‘Age of Dinosaurs’ and Evolution exams and fossil fallacies.

Photos by Ian Juby
Polystrate tree Polystrate tree Polystrate tree Polystrate tree trunks.

Nye tried to rebut the idea that there is one human race by showing a graphic of all the different types of hominid skulls that have been discovered to argue that there was a progression in human evolution. However, we know that there is a huge amount of variability in the human race, and many of the skulls in Nye’s graphic were undoubtedly within that range. For more information about how creationists interpret this evidence, see our Anthropology Q&A.

Nye noted that there are no kangaroo fossils showing a migratory path from the Middle East to Australia. However, absent catastrophic, rapid burial, fossilization of a land creature would be a rare event; thus, lions roamed what is now Israel in historical times, but no lion fossils have ever been found there. In addition, marsupial fossils are actually a huge problem for evolutionists, because their fossils are not in Australia, but in Europe and South America. See Biogeography.

Nye claims that the biblical account of the Ark imposes ridiculous demands on natural selection to produce the variety of species we see today. He says that to get from the 14,000 animals on the ark to the millions of species we have today, there would have to be 11 new species formed every day for the past 4,000 years. However, there is a huge error in this calculation. Those 14,000 animals only represent land vertebrates, and do not include insects, marine creatures, or microscopic life. And we know that when we exclude these creatures (and also when we realize that some animals are categorized as different species based on only superficial differences), it becomes far more feasible.
The Ark was claimed to be too big to be made from wood, yet too small to fit all the animals required. However creationists have answered these challenges, see Noah’s Ark Questions and Answers.

Nye claims that evolutionists made the prediction that there would be an intermediate species between fish and tetrapods, and that Tiktaalik fills this gap. However, footprints from a tetrapod were found in a layer dated millions of years older than Tiktaalik, so the intermediary cannot be younger than what it gives rise to. See Is the famous fish-fossil finished?

Nye claims that sexual reproduction arose because it granted superior immunity to disease. However, an explanation of how something is beneficial is not the same as explaining how it came to be in the first place, and this is a common fallacy brought up by evolutionists. It doesn’t matter how beneficial something is, you still need a mechanism to explain how it came to be in the first place, and that is a huge problem for evolution. See Episode 5: Why Sex?

Nye seemed to misunderstand a key creationist argument when he claimed on multiple occasions (even after Ham corrected him), that creationists think that natural laws were different in the past. However, creationists actually think that natural laws are constant, but that God has intervened at various times in events that cannot be explained by uniformitarianism.

Nye celebrates the discovery of the cosmic background radiation which he believes to be a successful prediction for the Big Bang and billions of years of history. However, cosmic microwave background radiation is actually a huge problem for the Big Bang model; see Recent Cosmic Microwave Background data supports creationist cosmologies. There has been years of work in creation cosmology; for more information see Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers.

Nye appeals to radiometric dating, specifically rubidium/strontium, as evidence supporting billions of years. However, different dating methods give different dates for the same rocks, and some dating methods cap the age of the earth at thousands of years, so scientists must pick whichever dating method agrees with their presupposition. Ham gave a slide with a list of such methods; a similar list appears at Age of the earth.

Nye appealed to distant starlight, but see How can distant starlight reach us in just 6,000 years?

Comments
Here is another show stopper for evolution that meets Nye's requirement of an out of place fossil. http://creation.mobi/roraima-pollen Pollen in the Early Cretacious
With all the above in mind, since according to observational science contamination is the least probable of all possibilities (a Holmesian ‘impossible’), there seem to be only two solutions: 1. The whole evolutionary biostratigraphy which places the first angiosperm pollen in the Early Cretaceous30 is wrong, angiosperms being in fact present throughout the entire geologic column (does that sound like something you have already read about?). This would of course be the equivalent of Haldane’s rabbit and mortally wound the ‘evolutionary elephant’. 2. The CF is Tertiary in age and not Paleoproterozoic, completely rejecting radiometric dating. If so, the very concept of radiometric dating and particularly its reliability needs to be questioned. Either possibility is simply unacceptable to the evolutionary establishment, hence the escape into the improbable: contamination - a concept that has already served to settle similar problems before: when radiometric dating is clearly at odds with the established biostratigraphy, contamination (‘radioisotope contamination’) is invoked. Or, when accepting contamination would challenge the very concept of radiometric dating, ‘out of place fossils’ (‘fossil contamination’) are invoked.
So, here is Nye's Cambrian rabbit!tjguy
March 1, 2014
March
03
Mar
1
01
2014
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT
I'm just listening to the debate now. Ham strikes me as a weak debater, allowing Nye to get away with all sorts of subject-shifting (i.e., "is science education good"?) Ham also does not understand his audience. He wants to preach the Bible to people who do not accept its authority. He wants to preach Christian theology and the gospel to a crowd many of whom are hardened against it. Many have heard the gospel song and dance a million times, Guess what? They believe that "science" has proven all that wrong. So you have to deal with the science and the epistemology first, since that supports scripture anyway. Some hearers would be more inclined to believe the scripture as a consequence of removing the obscuring veil of materialist assumption. Anyway, my thoughts about the damage Darwinism does to real science follow.
In the past, evolutionists claimed that there were approximately 180 vestigial organs in humans, including the appendix, the tonsils, the pineal gland, and the thymus. Now we know that: * The appendix is part of the immune system, strategically located at the entrance of the almost sterile ileum from the colon with its normally high bacterial content. * The tonsils have a similar function in the entrance to the pharynx. * The pineal gland secretes melatonin which is a hormone that regulates the circadian rhythm and has other functions. * The thymus is part of the immune system, related to T-cells. HIV attacks T-cells, rendering them ineffective and for this reason is always eventually fatal. ... . Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery.  (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/tjv14n2_vestigial.pdf)
Too bad no one had informed the evolution-immersed doctors of the poor girl in California who died as a result of her tonsillectomy.   So "vestigial" organs are in fact vital parts of our immune system. Likewise, wisdom teeth were never reported to cause problems until modern Western societies and their degenerate diets led to degeneration in the jaw muscles and the resulting squeeze for space. The Creator of teeth is wiser than we credit him for being. For decades doctors have cut inflamed appendices out of people, rather than attempt to heal them. This "throwaway" organ may in fact save your life. Because of reigning Darwinist dogma, real and life-saving science and medicine were forestalled for decades. Inquiry into the actual function of the appendix, tonsils, etc., and the causes and treatment of disorders of those organs, was ignored. Any consideration of the real cause of wisdom tooth overcrowding, too, has been overshadowed by the Darwininan world view in which this is yet another “mistake of evolution." (Yet, as David Menton points out, even if vestigial organs did exist "they would not provide evidence for evolution but rather for devolution.") Far from being the magical Rosetta Stone without which nothing about our world is knowable and science cannot proceed, Darwinism actually produces B.S. -- Bad Science.J-Lib
February 20, 2014
February
02
Feb
20
20
2014
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Sorry, TGuy JGuy StephenSteRusJon
February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
TGuy, Thanks for the links in #114. I found Dr. Carter's presentations interesting and informative. Just another confirmation that it is not the data that supports any one particular viewpoint. Rather, the data must be interpreted to serve as evidence for a viewpoint. Dr. Carter presents an well reasoned and well presented interpretation of the data to serve, comfortably, as in, no shoehorn required, as evidence for a young human race originating from one individual. scordova, Thanks to you for a circumspect championing the young-creationist viewpoint. I am well aware there are some data difficulties for the position. Would that the old earth/universe advocates, theistic or otherwise, could be as aware or, if aware, as forthright, about much data, when not ignored or denied, that need to be shoehorned into their position. It is data that is interpreted as evidence for any particular position in this "fight." We all have the same data. Those who suffer from "selective imagination" will declare that there is "absolutely no evidence" for the position of their opponent. Ironically, they often embezzle the moniker of skeptic and anathematize their opponents as dogmatists. StephenSteRusJon
February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Some documentary evidence humans were contemporaneous with dinosaurs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYHuJayozus :-)scordova
February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
It's quiet in the archives.JGuy
February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Whoa... Ian Juby unquestionably rips apart Bill Nye's arguments. And provides interesting information that is probably lesser known: http://youtu.be/sWLzj_dt1JgJGuy
February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
Nye refuted again on any distinction between historical and operational science. Howso? Saw this zinger of a quote watching Ian Juby's youtube channel as he discussed Ham-Nye debate. And searched and found a copy of it at creation.com My emphasis: “For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” —Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009." http://creation.com/evolution-is-historical-science-in-contrast-with-physics-and-chemistry-mayrJGuy
February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
"Fittest Can’t Survive If They Never Arrive" http://crev.info/2014/02/fittest-cant-survive-if-they-never-arrive/JGuy
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT
Keeping in mind the title of this blog thread: "Nye-Ham and how evolutionism possibly poisons science in lab, field and theory" ... http://www.nature.com/news/1999/990527/full/news990527-3.html excerpt: "When Stidham showed the fossil to other specialists, he met with opposition: people were quite prepared to believe that this fossil was of a parrot until he revealed its age, he recalled at a palaeontological conference last year. Nobody believed that a fossil parrot could be that old."JGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
"Parrot Fossil from the Cretaceous Pushes Back Origin of Modern Land Birds by Robert Sanders, Public Affairs posted November 18, 1998" http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/1118/fossil.htmlJGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
Looking at Volaticotherium and searching around just a little for teeth like it. It might be closer to a flying lemur than a flying squirrel... at least in the skull.JGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT
El Gato Volador! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVFDlg4pbwMkuartus
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
kuartus Yeah, those look different. Maybe there is something similar out there still... or it is extinct for sure. Notice this interesting species... Felis levitus: http://i.imgur.com/qBO4PLG.gifJGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
Skull of Volaticotherium: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/wp-content/blogs.dir/470/files/2012/04/i-3f85f1900c42cd0c435d5296c54f26d0-volaticotherium_skull.jpg Skull of Flying Squirrel: http://www.digimorph.org/specimens/Glaucomys_volans//navthumb.jpg Sure doesn't look like the same kind of animal.kuartus
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
kuartus I figured there is probably some difference, but I'm looking for something significant. AMNH calls this similar in size and shape. I don't know if this is with the artistic skin or not... but so far, if it looks like a squirrel ... flies like a squirrel. :P To be fair, I might even expect a small difference. I don't know where to get the data, not my field of specialty, but would like to see the fossil laid out. I would have expected to see it on the museum website, but it's not there.JGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) on the Volaticotherium: "Although the new gliding mammal is comparable in size and shape to flying squirrels (which are members of Rodentia, an order of placental mammals), V. antiquus is not a direct ancestor of these or any other living mammals, including flying marsupials, flying lemurs, or bats. Instead, V. antiquus provides evidence for the independent origin of flight in this now-extinct lineage of mammals." Apparently, if it's ancient, it must be classified as a different order. I think we discussed this point earlier. The algorithm for classification?: Fossilized creature + Latin name = new order ???JGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
JGuy, The way fossils are classified is by the characteristics of their skeleton. Volaticotherium possesses unique skeletal characteristics not seen in any living order of mammals. The similarities to living flying squirrels is superficial. You gotta go deeper.kuartus
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT
Volaticotherium: http://www.amnh.org/our-research/science-news/2006/new-order-of-mammals-is-announced-with-discovery-of-gliding-mesozoic-mammal-fossilJGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT
JGuy, Actually, the author of the article(Calvin Smith) was the one who responded. My comment, and the author's response, can actually be seen in the Readers' comments section at the bottom of the article: http://creation.com/so-called-age-of-dinosaurs He didn't admit the errors and insisted my problem was with the evolutionists themselves, and he was merely repeating what they said. Point being that their descriptions were inaccurate which is to be expected from popular(not technical)press releases which is what he was using as references. Better to use accurate references lest they mislead readers like they did with this article.kuartus
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT
kuartus I picking randomly... and chose Volaticotherium, which you called a completely extinct order of mammal. Here is Nature's artistic rendering on the cover of one of theri prints: http://imgur.com/d5Dp02B Here is a photo of a flying squirrel: http://imgur.com/OyzZRma What would significantly distinguish these two creatures? Other than that one is a fossil. :P ...especially such that they would not be in the same order?JGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
Kuartus. Sounds like you reached a middleman of some kind. Perhaps, see if you can direct your message to Carl Werner (http://creation.com/carl-werner). He seems to have done a lot in that very specific area. I'm not sure where he works, or how you can reach him. ...or this guy: Dr Clemens @ UC Berkeley http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5eTNoTHewY#t=53JGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
Kuartus, Good work. Thanks! Finally some substantive objections. Salscordova
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
I submitted a comment to the dinosaur article at creation dot com website: "Evolutionists have long recognized that mammals and dinosaurs co-existed, since they place the origin of both groups in the late triassic epoch over 200 million years ago, so this comes as no surprise to anyone. You say that creatures such as ducks, platypuses, and squirrels have been proven to have lived alongside dinosaurs. I dont think thats correct. The duck find you reference is dubious and bird experts disagree that it was a member of the anatid family. Some call the fossil unidentifiable. Gansus is not classified as belonging to any living order of birds. Apparently the skull was not found which means its not certain that it looked like a duck. Ancient monotreme fossils have been found in the mesozoic, but they arent identified as platypuses or any other modern monotreme since the fossils are fragmentary. The squirrel you reference is actually Volaticotherium which is not a squirrel or even a rodent. It belongs to a completely extinct order of mammals. The beaver-like mammal is Castorocauda which is classified as a docodont, a completely exinct order. The badger-like mammal is Repenomamus, which is a triconodont, another extinct order of mammals. All these extinct orders are said to have died out tens of millions of years ago, and have no modern representatives, so I think its dishonest to say that it has been proven that dinosaurs walked alongside modern mammals and birds" Their response was basically that since the layman press releases described them as such, then that means they are not wrong to refer to them in the same way. Pretty lame excuse to double down on their error. It remains a fact that no modern mammals have ever been found alongside dinosaurs.kuartus
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
"Traces of the Bible in our Genetic Code--Dr. Robert Carter" http://youtu.be/CDuLEVu1C4A?t=9m40s ... "The Non Mythical Adam and Eve (Dr Robert Carter, Ph.D. marine biology)" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ftwf0owpzQ ... "Eve: Real Evidence | Origins with Dr. Robert Carter" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su2ix3TwbIsJGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
scordova:
And now the genetics search to see if the genetic structure of humans today conforms to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. Add to that, if we establish bottlenecks in animals that converge on the same date we have affirmed the genetic bottle neck predicted by the flood model.
Interesting. It would also have to work with all races if the flood was global. Remember also that Abraham left his homeland (Ur) and people and his descendants apparently did not intermix with them afterward.Mapou
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-800-000-old-footprints-uk-114052260.htmlJGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Jesus had two earthly parents, and it seems reasonable each parent provides a different genealogy. It is not clear to me which parent is which. There are Jesus "Mythers" (those who disbelieve he was real) and then we could suppose other Mythers like Hezekiah Mythers Levi Mythers David Mythers Abraham Mythers Noah Mythers The gospel according to Matthew includes these names, or names related to those listed, so let me first quote it from Chapter 1:
1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram,[a] 4 and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7 and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph,[b] 8 and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9 and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos,[c] and Amos the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. 12 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel,[d] and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, 15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
Taking Luke's genealogy we can then tie Abraham as follows:
the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah,
Matthew gives an approximation (it is not exact, since it double counts the individual in the deportation) but it is:
17 So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.
So what archaeological evidences do we have. The one most near and dear to me is the one that makes Hezekiah a real historical person: The Taylor Prism
Sennacherib's Annals are the annals of the Assyrian king Sennacherib. They are found inscribed on a number of artifacts, and the final versions were found in three clay prisms inscribed with the same text: the Taylor Prism is in the British Museum, the Oriental Institute Prism in the Oriental Institute of Chicago, and the Jerusalem Prism is in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. The Taylor Prism is one of the earliest cuneiform artefacts analysed in modern Assyriology, having been found a few years prior to the modern deciphering of cuneiform. The annals themselves are notable for describing his siege of Jerusalem during the reign of king Hezekiah. This event is recorded in several books contained in the Bible including Isaiah chapters 33 and 36; 2 Kings 18:17; 2 Chronicles 32:9. The invasion is mentioned by Herodotus, who does not refer to Judea and says the invasion ended at Pelusium on the edge of the Nile delta.[1]
An other wise "throw away" verse in the Bible by most casual readers suddenly lends credibility to a large part of the Genealogy of Christ. Now if Hezekiah is king, so much so that an Assyrian King mentions him, it means this was a real nation, a real kingdom. So then this demolishes the Hezekiah mythers, it establishes faithful transmission of large parts of the genealogical record. So to the "David Mythers", where then do you say David became a myth and how did Hezekiah become a king of a nation only 9 generations later:
David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7 and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph,[b] 8 and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9 and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh
And we have evidence of David, one indirectly supported by the work of The Sketical Zone's very own Joe Felsenstein. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron
Y-chromosomal Aaron is the name given to the hypothesized most recent common ancestor of many of the patrilineal Jewish priestly caste known as Kohanim (singular "Kohen", "Cohen", or Kohane). In the Torah, this ancestor is identified as Aaron, the brother of Moses. The hypothetical most recent common ancestor was therefore jocularly dubbed "Y-chromosomal Aaron", in analogy to Y-chromosomal Adam. The original scientific research was based on the discovery that a majority of present-day Jewish Kohanim either share, or are only one step removed from, a pattern of values for 6 Y-STR markers, which researchers named the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH). However it subsequently became clear that this six marker pattern was widespread in many communities where men had Y chromosomes which fell into Haplogroup J; the six-marker CMH was not specific just to Cohens, nor even just to Jews. ... This is how Joseph Felsenstein`s scientific genetic computer software[41] placed them, considering their haplotypes.
This traces those to the line of Priests in the time of David, and the more direct evidence of David: The Tel Dan Inscription
The Tel Dan inscription, or “House of David” inscription, was discovered in 1993 at the site of Tel Dan in northern Israel in an excavation directed by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran. The broken and fragmentary inscription commemorates the victory of an Aramean king over his two southern neighbors: the “king of Israel” and the “king of the House of David.” In the carefully incised text written in neat Aramaic characters, the Aramean king boasts that he, under the divine guidance of the god Hadad, vanquished several thousand Israelite and Judahite horsemen and charioteers before personally dispatching both of his royal opponents. Unfortunately, the recovered fragments of the “House of David” inscription do not preserve the names of the specific kings involved in this brutal encounter, but most scholars believe the stela recounts a campaign of Hazael of Damascus in which he defeated both Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah.
So there are 14 generations from Abraham to David, and about from 11 Abraham to Noah:
Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah,
Evidence of Abraham. A little weaker, but there is one story in the book of Genesis from the time of Abraham regarding his Nephew Lot and the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zoboim, and Zoar. Make of it what you will: http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/BibleLandsDisplay/Sodom_and_Gomorrah/sodom_and_gomorrah_1.html
In some areas of the ancient city there are numerous golf ball sized sulfur pellets. Some of them are encased in a thin, crust-like shell which was the result of burning. The sulfur pellets were tested by Wyatt and consist of 98% pure sulfur and a trace of magnesium. These brimstone balls would have burned extremely hot! It is interesting that sulfur found in its natural form is only between 40% and 45% pure. This sulfur is extremely high grade. Some of the pellets I found were inside rock-like slag that apparently formed when there was nothing remaining to burn and the inferno was beginning to cool off. One “rock” that I broke open had the sulfur pellet still inside! The samples I collected would burst into an immediate toxic flame when touched with a match. If you visit the site just after a rain storm you will find the brimstone pellets on the flat tops of the ruins. It was obvious to me that a literal rainstorm of burning sulfur fell upon these ancient cities.
So we have fragmentary evidence when it comes to Abraham, but well, that's where the Y-chromosomal Aaron comes in because this traces to the time of Moses and Aaron has a geneology to Abraham. From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron Descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Great-grandfather: Levi, third of 12 sons and tribes of Israel Grandfather: Kohath Father: Amram Mother: Jochebed Sister: Miriam Brother: Moses
So, ironically one our TSZ friends Joe Felsenstein made software assisting the search of Aaron, which is helping establish Abraham as real. That's the sort of Phylogenetic analysis I like, one that can actually identify a real ancestor via common descent! And sure enough, because of modern science, the question of Abraham is now fair game. Hehehe. From a Jewish website: Abraham's Chromosomes
Can recent genetic research give some indication of the existence of the historical Abraham? Recent genetic studies of the Jewish people clearly indicate that the roots of the Jewish nation can be traced to the Middle East. This research confirms the geographical origin of the core of every major Jewish Diaspora community. (See: "Jewish Genes.") Furthermore, the discovery of the "Cohen Gene" -- the genetic signature shared by the majority of Kohanim -- the Jewish priestly family worldwide, is an indication that this signature is that of the ancient Hebrews. (See:"The Cohanim - DNA Connection") Based on the DNA of today's Kohanim, the geneticists have dated their "Most Common Recent Ancestor" to 106 generations ago, approximately 3,300 years before the present. This is in agreement with the Torah's written and oral tradition of the lifetime of Aaron, the original High Priest and founder of the Kohen lineage. Further genetic studies have found that the CMH-the Cohen Modal Haplotype-a haplotype of the MED (J) haplogroup-is not exclusive to Kohanim, and not unique to Jews. It is also found in significant percentages among other Middle Eastern populations, and to a lesser extent, among southern Mediterranean groups. A haplotype is a group of distinct DNA markers -- neutral nucleotide mutations, which when found together indicate a lineage. These particular markers were discovered on the Y-Chromosome, which is passed from father to son, without change, thus establishing a paternal lineage pattern. All of the above is scientific fact, which has only become known in recent years. Using these findings as a basis, perhaps we can speculate and consider some implications of the findings. If the CMH is the genetic signature of Aaron, the father of the Kohanim, it must also have been the genetic signature of Aaron's father, Amram, and that of his father, Kehat, and of his father, Levi. Levi's father was Jacob who also must have had the CMH as his Y-Chromosome genetic signature, as did his father, Isaac. Thus we arrive at Abraham. Abraham was only seven generations removed from Aaron, a matter of a few hundred years. Genetic signatures change slightly only over many generations. Thus, it is very reasonable to assume that the CMH, the most common haplotype among Jewish males, is therefore also the genetic signature of the Patriarch Abraham.
And now the genetics search to see if the genetic structure of humans today conforms to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. Add to that, if we establish bottlenecks in animals that converge on the same date we have affirmed the genetic bottle neck predicted by the flood model. Remember all those tedious genealogies in the Bible? Now it all makes so much sense. It serves as a witness to a modern skeptical scientific culture that is not satisfied with feel-goodism religion, but hard nosed empiricism. God willing the data will pour in, and it will be even more obvious who was closer to the truth, Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, or should I say, Bill Nye vs. God.scordova
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
Magnetosphere concern simply reminds me of one of the six bowls of wrath in Revelation... Revelation 16 "8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun, and it was given to it to scorch men with fire. 9 Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory."JGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
What I do know is almost all the most prominent YEC physicists accept some pole reversals and also supposed evidence for some pole reversals. Beyond that I know nothing. Sorry! But on the topic of the Earth’s magnetic field, we do know it is decreasing, and possibly in a way that suggests the Earth cannot be old. Even if right, I think it is a bit too hard to tell.
If one searches the YEC science literature on this, I think you can see where scientists may have found evidence of rapid reversals. Here's one article from a quick search: http://creation.com/fossil-magnetism-reveals-rapid-reversals-of-the-earths-magnetic-fieldJGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply