AIG live chat on “When was the Ice Age in Biblical History?”

| 95 Comments

This ought to be good. In a comment, diogeneslamp0 alerts us to a live chat on that topic scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday) on the Facebook page of AIG’s Answers Magazine. Diogeneslamp0 notes

On the topic of how kangaroos got to Australia after Noah’s Flood: at 2pm tomorrow, April 16 Answers in Genesis will hold a live chat at Facebook about AIG’s marvelous Super-fast Ice-Age Timeline and Map (which has the Ice Age lasting from about ~2220 to ~2115 BC, and all recorded human civilization post-2100 BC). I predict that any pointed questions they receive will be deleted quickly and permanently, so if you want some entertainment you will have to monitor it live. You may want to copy and archive any choice questions they receive before they’re deleted.

I presume that AIG’s “2:00 pm” is Eastern Daylight Time (=1800 GMT). Diogeneslamp0 has some representative questions one might ask at the linked comment.

95 Comments

Yes, 2PM ET (according to the AiG page pointed to above. Unfortunately, I will be otherwise occupied at the time.

I’d like to hear about how cattle, sheep and goats managed to speciate from the (presumably) clean 14 of the bovid-kind on the Ark in eight human generations from Flood to Abraham. The story of Abraham in the Bible clearly distinguishes between these three members of the family Bovidae.

given this B.S. as typical of their writings and “research”, it’s understandable how the authors couldn’t land respectable positions anywhere other than a place like AIG, though maybe the Discovery Institute might be interested?

Ummm…last time I checked, EDT was GMT -4 (EST is GMT -5.) So 2 PM EDT is 1600 GMT.

W. H. Heydt said:

Ummm…last time I checked, EDT was GMT -4 (EST is GMT -5.) So 2 PM EDT is 1600 GMT.

2pm = 1400 (12pm = 1200)

TomS said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Ummm…last time I checked, EDT was GMT -4 (EST is GMT -5.) So 2 PM EDT is 1600 GMT.

2pm = 1400 (12pm = 1200)

./headdesk I sit corrected (and I should have known…). Ah, well…I can admit when I make a mistake. (Unlike a certain Ham…)

I’m always amazed by these timelines. AIG’s timeline shows that Noah left the ark almost exactly 200 years after the Giza pyramids were completed. There was an uninterrupted period of almost 1,200 years of pyramid building which completely spanned The Flood™, and no one in Egypt seemed to notice or even remark on it. We have almost 6,000 years of written history, and not a single writer seemed to have noticed that everyone in the world died 4,000 years ago.

Their timeline also claims that the “First Cities” show up around 2,100 B.C., though Ur is known to have existed as early as 4,000 to 3,000 B.C. (originally a coastal city), and Jericho appears to have been settled as early as 9,000 B.C. Yet, according to the AIG timeline:

The Persian Gulf apparently did not exist during the Ice Age. [listed as from 2,250B.C. to 2,000 B.C. !!!] The ocean was so low that coastal waters became dry land. Conditions were harsh, so archaeologists do not find cities from this time. After the ice melted and filled the gulf, however, people returned to the area and built cities like Ur, a thriving port on the gulf.

Funny that no one told the Egyptians nor any of the city states in Mesopotamia or the Indus valley about any of this harsh deprivation.

Well all you have to do is ignore all of the evidence and presto, the earth is young! Just ignore the tree ring data, the ice core data, the pollen stratigraphy data, the coral reef data, all of the radio carbon dating evidence, continental drift, glaciation, etc. etc. etc. And then there is all of the biogeography and genetic data, but I guess that’s too hard to understand anyway. Of course you won’t be able to fool anyone who knows anything at all about any of this data. I guess that’s why they feel the need to control education as well.

I forgot magnetic pole reversals. Oh well, too late now.

We historians and philologists of the Ancient Near East naturally have similar “disagreements” with the YECs and similar buffoons writing such papers. Obviously, such a timeline is exactly as ludicrous in the face of the evidence from the ANE as it is when set against that from biology. And while the YEC community loves to point out dissent from evolutionary theory among biologists (or act like they have found some), I am aware of no professional, practicing historian, archaeologist or philologist of the ANE who holds to a 6000 timeframe, though there may well be some that have escaped my attention. It is interesting that though the YECs have launched (or never stopped launching) such a virulent assault on evolutionary biology in the educational system and tried to get its “theories” taught alongside it, they do not seem to have made any serious attempts to do the same in the historical fields. Of course, such silliness will be taught in private religious schools and colleges, but I know of no campaigns, lawsuits or legislative efforts to insert a YEC reading of historical sources into public education such as biologists have had to contend with. Why is this? It is surely not that fear a confrontation with the clear evidence. They have shown clearly that they are capable of “dealing” with such in the case of biology. Presumably it has to do with the matter of scale, i.e. since historical and archaeological evidence only proves YEC theories wrong by some thousands or tens of thousands of years, respectively, evobio proves them wrong by many hundreds of millions of years. This allows them to act like the historical and archaeological evidence can be whipped into form with a few minor tweaks and nudges, while evobio blows it all completely out of the water. Little do they know, that the former is just as devestating. Sigh…

It would be interesting to see AIG discuss the five (not one) ice ages that geologists have identified along with their corresponding very long warm interglacial periods. The fifth ice age has had four glacial periods with interglacial periods as well. We are likely living in one now between the fourth and possible future fifth glacial episode. Not only does AIG need to explain how “the” Ice Age occurred in less than 200 years, but also explain five of them with their obvious non-glacial sediments interspersed between them. Then there is the “snowball earth” evidence for the second identified ice age not to mention how all this fits with the often abused Second Law of Thermodynamics! Oh, and why are human artifacts found only with the latest of the last ice age glacial periods and not all of the ice ages?

Also, the Permo-Carboniferous glaciation (~300 Mya) was massive, and produced striations on several continents that point radially out from what was then the South Pole, recording the northward flow of glaciers on the ancient southern continent of Gondwana. However, AIG’s Creation Museum has a huge display that clearly states that Pangea [Gondwana is the southern part of Pangea] formed AND existed AND broke apart all under water at the bottom of the ocean during the one year of Noah’s Flood. This causes countless problems for fossil distributions and many geological lines of evidence caused by Permo-Carboniferous glaciation.

If you re-assemble S. America, Africa, Madagascar, India, Australia, etc. around Antarctica, thus re-forming Gondwana, the glacial striations point radially out from the then-South Pole like a daisy flower, and the numerous fossils of leaves of the fern glossopteris form a near-perfect circle at the edge of the glaciated region.

Moreover, the present-day distribution of living Nothofagus [Southern Beech trees] is scattered about the Southern Hemisphere today, with apparent randomness, but if you re-assemble Gondwana they would form an arc about the then-South Pole. If, as AIG claims, Pangea formed AND broke apart all under water at the bottom of the ocean during the one year of Noah’s Flood, how could Southern Beech trees, after the Flood was over, know they should grow only on continents that have fossils of Southern Beeches that got buried during Noah’s Flood?

Fossils of glossopteris and Nothofagus have both been found in Antarctica, as predicted by conventional plate tectonics. Outside of the arc of glossopteris fossils, in further semi-circles or arcs are distributed the fossils of Triassic era synapsid (not dinosaur) reptile species like lystrosaurus (once very, very numerous) and cynognathus. Fossils of the fresh-water aquatic reptile mesosaurus (not to be confused with mosasaurs) form an arc inside the glossopteris arc.

But if, as AIG claims, Pangea formed AND broke apart all under water at the bottom of the ocean during the one year of Noah’s Flood, then how can you explain the glacial striations pointing radially outward from the then-South Pole, the glacial pavements, the glacial sediments, and the tillites of the Permo-Carboniferous era; not to mention the arc-like distribution about the then-South Pole of fossils of living trees like Southern Beeches and extinct ferns like glossopteris; and extinct reptiles like lystrosaurus, cynognathus, and mesosaurus– but NO mammal fossils, NO whale fossils, and NO bird fossils with that distribution?

and not a single writer seemed to have noticed that everyone in the world died 4,000 years ago.

Well of course they didn’t notice, they had all drowned!

What?

Oh.

Never mind.

Jared Miller said:

We historians and philologists of the Ancient Near East naturally have similar “disagreements” with the YECs and similar buffoons writing such papers. Obviously, such a timeline is exactly as ludicrous in the face of the evidence from the ANE as it is when set against that from biology. And while the YEC community loves to point out dissent from evolutionary theory among biologists (or act like they have found some), I am aware of no professional, practicing historian, archaeologist or philologist of the ANE who holds to a 6000 timeframe, though there may well be some that have escaped my attention. It is interesting that though the YECs have launched (or never stopped launching) such a virulent assault on evolutionary biology in the educational system and tried to get its “theories” taught alongside it, they do not seem to have made any serious attempts to do the same in the historical fields. Of course, such silliness will be taught in private religious schools and colleges, but I know of no campaigns, lawsuits or legislative efforts to insert a YEC reading of historical sources into public education such as biologists have had to contend with. Why is this? It is surely not that fear a confrontation with the clear evidence. They have shown clearly that they are capable of “dealing” with such in the case of biology. Presumably it has to do with the matter of scale, i.e. since historical and archaeological evidence only proves YEC theories wrong by some thousands or tens of thousands of years, respectively, evobio proves them wrong by many hundreds of millions of years. This allows them to act like the historical and archaeological evidence can be whipped into form with a few minor tweaks and nudges, while evobio blows it all completely out of the water. Little do they know, that the former is just as devestating. Sigh…

Jared,

Since you are an expert on ANE history, please correct me if I’m wrong.

You probably know that Young Earth creationists, in order to squeeze Egyptian chronology to fit Noah’s Flood, often invoke the authority of David Rohl and his New Egyptian chronology.

Unless I’m mistaken Rohl’s chronology only shortens Egyptian chronology by 350 years, whereas the creationists need to shorten it by 1,000 years. This is because start of the Early Dynastic Period is reliably dated around the time of the Narmer Pallette at 3,100 BC (the Narmer Pallette has hieroglyphics and describes the historical unification of Upper and Lower Egypt.) But in the AIG document it says that all human civilization comes after their Ice Week, so Egypt and Sumeria cannot start until 2,100 BC.

What’s worse for the creationists, Rohl’s New Chronology is keyed to astronomical events like eclipses (I think; correct me if I’m wrong) which can’t be moved around without changing the laws of planetary motion. So the creationists can shorten Egyptian chronology by 350 years at a maximum, they’re off by 650 years, and they can’t invoke Rohl’s authority or Rohl’s arguments because they’re based partially on astronomical events that are fixed in time, and can’t be moved unless creationists invoke miracles to alter the laws of planetary motion.

and they can’t invoke Rohl’s authority or Rohl’s arguments because they’re based partially on astronomical events that are fixed in time, and can’t be moved unless creationists invoke miracles to alter the laws of planetary motion.

The angels that were pushing the planets around were a bit off around that time?

Well, invoking the “authority” of David Rohl in ANE studies would be like invoking the “authority” of Dembski in biology, and indeed, his chronology wouldn’t help the YECs much anyway. Apart from issues of authority, Rohl’s chronology is all but universally rejected by mainstream researchers because it leads to a multitude of contradictions with evidence from various directions, something that will be familiar to the biologists who frequent these pages. The Narmer Pallette would be one of hundreds of pieces of evidence that fit much more convincingly with the conventional chronologies than with a chronology reduced by 350 (or more) years. (The Narmer Palette alone won’t get you very far toward constructing a reliable chronology.) Again, familiar to biologists will be the tendency to cherry pick those pieces of evidence that one would like to believe would support a certain scheme, then to either ignore or do violence to any evidence that seems to counter your pet paradigm, accusations that persons such as Rohl often find themselves faced with, accusations that they never seem to get around to addressing head on. It is true of course that planetary motion cannot be fiddled with; the real trick, however is correlating any mention of an astronomical event in an historical source with the event known from the astronomical sciences. This indeed is replete with challenges and can only be used together with all the other lines of reasoning. So when the supporters of a chronology claim to have “the solution”, because it is anchored to astronomical events, red flags should go up all over the place. This is not to reject them entirely, but to align them along with all the other evidence.

Crud I’m in a meeting for this ‘talk’. I’m curious as to how they explain the massive swings in temperature for their ice age to present. I’m fairly certain that ancient tribes of humans weren’t burning fossil fuels to increase global temps.

Aside, I heard about something similar in which they would be explaining how marsupials ended up in Australia after the Flud™. Has anyone else heard this or am I just hearing things?

Well, if the Flud rearranged the continents and all that, maybe Australia used to be a lot closer than it is now?

Either I was not looking at the actual chat or it had very little response from AIG. Most often I saw a “read this chapter” or “read this article” rather than an answer, but most questions were avoided or ignored altogether. Was I looking at the wrong thing?

lkeithlu said:

Either I was not looking at the actual chat or it had very little response from AIG. Most often I saw a “read this chapter” or “read this article” rather than an answer, but most questions were avoided or ignored altogether. Was I looking at the wrong thing?

Given my experiences… you were in exactly the right place. Sadly…

ogremk5 said:

lkeithlu said:

Either I was not looking at the actual chat or it had very little response from AIG. Most often I saw a “read this chapter” or “read this article” rather than an answer, but most questions were avoided or ignored altogether. Was I looking at the wrong thing?

Given my experiences… you were in exactly the right place. Sadly…

Ahhh…okay. Then it was pretty pathetic.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

I’ve sent Byers’ raving to the BW. See him there, please.

lkeithlu said:

Either I was not looking at the actual chat or it had very little response from AIG. Most often I saw a “read this chapter” or “read this article” rather than an answer, but most questions were avoided or ignored altogether. Was I looking at the wrong thing?

That’s exactly what happened.

Jared Miller said:

Well, invoking the “authority” of David Rohl in ANE studies would be like invoking the “authority” of Dembski in biology, and indeed, his chronology wouldn’t help the YECs much anyway. Apart from issues of authority, Rohl’s chronology is all but universally rejected by mainstream researchers because it leads to a multitude of contradictions with evidence from various directions, something that will be familiar to the biologists who frequent these pages. The Narmer Pallette would be one of hundreds of pieces of evidence that fit much more convincingly with the conventional chronologies than with a chronology reduced by 350 (or more) years. (The Narmer Palette alone won’t get you very far toward constructing a reliable chronology.) Again, familiar to biologists will be the tendency to cherry pick those pieces of evidence that one would like to believe would support a certain scheme, then to either ignore or do violence to any evidence that seems to counter your pet paradigm, accusations that persons such as Rohl often find themselves faced with, accusations that they never seem to get around to addressing head on. It is true of course that planetary motion cannot be fiddled with; the real trick, however is correlating any mention of an astronomical event in an historical source with the event known from the astronomical sciences. This indeed is replete with challenges and can only be used together with all the other lines of reasoning. So when the supporters of a chronology claim to have “the solution”, because it is anchored to astronomical events, red flags should go up all over the place. This is not to reject them entirely, but to align them along with all the other evidence.

Jared,

the Wikipedia page on Rohl’s New Chronology includes almost no substantive objections to the NC, except for radiocarbon dating, and it makes Rohl’s critics look very closed-minded. Perhaps this page needs updating with some substantive criticisms?

Richard B. Hoppe said:

I’ve sent Byers’ raving to the BW. See him there, please.

Thank you.

lkeithlu said:

ogremk5 said:

lkeithlu said:

Either I was not looking at the actual chat or it had very little response from AIG. Most often I saw a “read this chapter” or “read this article” rather than an answer, but most questions were avoided or ignored altogether. Was I looking at the wrong thing?

Given my experiences… you were in exactly the right place. Sadly…

Ahhh…okay. Then it was pretty pathetic.

Yup. For example, there was this exchange:

Kevin Nelstead You still haven’t answered the first question about Yellowstone.

Answers Magazine Sorry, we didn’t see the Yellowstone question. Can you restate? Thanks! -Mike

Richard B. Hoppe Here it is:

Kevin Nelstead I have written a review of the Ice Age article at geochristian.wordpress.com . In the authors’ scenario, Yellowstone volcanism would have to have happened during the ice age, as tephra (ash) deposits from Yellowstone are found between layers of glacial till on the plains. The Yellowstone Caldera had three “supervolcano” eruptions, plus numerous smaller eruptions. On top of all of this, Yellowstone had a large ice cap during the ice age, and there is good evidence for glaciation in between eruptions as well. How do you fit numerous volcanic eruptions and multiple glaciations into one ice age only 250 years long?

Answers Magazine Hi Richard, That’s a good question but very specific and outside of the scope of the actual article. The staff geologist who cowrote the article with me is not present, and I did not run across this specific question during the production of the article.

Richard B. Hoppe It’s Kevin’s question, and directly addresses issues strongly implicated in your article.

No subsequent answer. And it’s plain that they gave no thought whatsoever to the consequences of cramming the “Ice Age” into (at most) 250 years. Keerist.

diogeneslamp0 said:

lkeithlu said:

Either I was not looking at the actual chat or it had very little response from AIG. Most often I saw a “read this chapter” or “read this article” rather than an answer, but most questions were avoided or ignored altogether. Was I looking at the wrong thing?

That’s exactly what happened.

Pity, I was hoping for a fun, protracted fight.

“That’s a good question but very specific and outside of the scope of the actual article.”

That’s what happens when a question gets specific. You find out that you didn’t know as much as you thought, and now it’s time to evade. I am astounded at how general (and limited) your knowledge has to be to buy into this.

Carl Drews said:

If you want an example of a young-earth creationist who is also an archaeologist, Bryant Wood is your man. He says “The Biblical Date for Exodus is 1446 BC”:

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos[…]ffmeier.aspx

Professor James Hoffmeier disagrees:

http://www.questia.com/library/1P3-[…]s-a-response

Hoffmeier and Kitchen say the Exodus occurred in ~1250 BC. Wood’s chronology crams too much history up against The Flood, but that’s a problem he and other YECs must address. This PT thread is about YECs and chronology.

Without getting into the whole difficult issue of “biblical archaeology”, and at the risk of launching an ad hominem, Bryant Wood is Research Director of the Associates for Biblical Research, and thus something akin to what the Discovery Institute represents for biologists, though slightly less devious. They openly state on their web site that theirs is a “ministry” and profess biblical inerrancy.

diogeneslamp0 said:

The Wikipedia page on Rohl’s New Chronology gives Kitchen as the only knowledgeable critic of Rohl, with other scholars allegedly deferring to Kitchen’s authority.

If Kitchen were a creationist or fundamentalist, it would be ironic as creationists cite Rohl to shorten Egyptian chronology, but Kitchen opposes Rohl.

Kenneth Kitchen is indeed a highly respected don of Egyptology. Intriguingly, he has been one of the few who have been for the most part able to compartmentalize between their scientific research and their christian and biblical beliefs. He publishes Egyptological work of the highest quality as well as “biblical” research that is complete flapdoodle. He is perhaps a bit like Francis Crick in this way, though Crick of course does not publish (as far as I know) all kinds of religious nonsense, for the most part keeping to a profession of belief while being able to produce leading research in his field. Another such brilliant Orientalist who has published Assyriological work of the utmost quality (and quantity) but who has, especially in his later years, strayed into religious incoherency, is Simo Parpola. Unfortunately, unlike Kitchen, his religious beliefs have begun to encroach on some of his scientific work as well.

diogeneslamp0 said:

I’ll start with the ones in German!

Hi Diogenes, If you prefer German, I can give you plenty more in German. I was of course assuming that English would be your primary language.

Jared Miller said:

diogeneslamp0 said: I’ll start with the ones in German!

Hi Diogenes, If you prefer German, I can give you plenty more in German. I was of course assuming that English would be your primary language.

How about a web-accessible review of the issue in English for those of us whose German courses are decades in the past?

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Jared Miller said:

diogeneslamp0 said: I’ll start with the ones in German!

Hi Diogenes, If you prefer German, I can give you plenty more in German. I was of course assuming that English would be your primary language.

How about a web-accessible review of the issue in English for those of us whose German courses are decades in the past?

There’s nothing really that properly fits the bill. The closest thing that I’m aware of would be http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronol[…]potamia.html

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on April 15, 2013 3:22 PM.

Alopochen aegyptiaca was the previous entry in this blog.

How useful are words? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter