Stone Age, Bronze Age

[juliod]

One of the many problems with creationism is the existance of Stone Ages and Bronze Ages.

Forget about scientific dating of remains. The mere fact that these societies existed is proof that creationism is false.

Genesis says that we had both Iron and Bronze within a few generations of Adam and Even. Genesis 4:22 reads "Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah. "

The descent of Tubal-Cain is as follows:

Cain
Enoch
Irad
Mahujael
Methushael
Lamech
Tubal-Cain

So by the time of Tubal-Cain the use of iron tools was fully developed. How then could there have been whole societies based only on stone tools? Or copper? Or bronze?

Any tiny groups that might have split off without the technology would have been wiped out by the flood. And afterwards, Genesis 11 says that all people lived in a unified society and culture. After Babel they were spread over the world when the languages were created.

So, in sum: Couldn't happen, Didn't happen.

DanZ

[seventil]

With that being said, I think that a minor mathematics lesson is in order.

Cain = 1
Cain's Kids = 20
Cain's Kids Kids = 400
Cain's Kids Kids Kids = 8000
Cain's Kids Kids Kids Kids = 160,000
Cain's Kids Kids Kids Kids Kids = 3,200,000
Cain's Kids Kids Kids Kids Kids = 64,000,000

Your model is overly simplistic. You're assuming no deaths, and that every single person was a female capable of self-impregnation. Such a thing simply cannot happen. Also, with all of the population in perpetual child-birth/raising/etc, who would be making food? Who would be building houses? Basically, with 20 children apiece, our hemaphrodites would spend at least 20 years occupied with nothing but doing children.

Heheh... you're right about the self-impregnation part. You'd have to cut each of the estimates in half, so you'd end up with a total of 32,000,000. My bad... it's early over here.

As for the lack of realism, I agree to a point - but I thought that infant mortalities and deaths and such would be balanced out by the overly conservative number of average children each family would have (which I put at 20). I know it's not conservative by today's means, but the pre-Flood world was much different than the one today. This may bring up a question, however; what would the worlds population need to be to satisfy your minimum requirement of being able to be "diverse" and wide-spread?

Nyril, I've been reading through your post and looking up some of the things you posted. Very interesting; however, I have a problem with one of the things they use in the model: The age that women stop producing children (why 55? if they live to be 150, 300, whatever...) - isn't 55 a bit too low?

I've been looking over the stats, and I don't see how your simulation could have concluded that half the world's population is under 13. I know you put a lifespan of 120 on there - but remember, some of these people lived to be over 900 in a pre-Flood world. While this itself is another topic, I think that we have to assume that the average lifespan in those days was at least 500 years. Although there would be a huge number of children at any given time, it wouldn't be as skewed as in the simulation you ran. Just my two cents.

[juliod]

This is based on the logic that I demonstrated above;

It's also utterly unbiblical.

And I don't think it is germane to the argument. In fact, I don't understand exactly what your point is. If we are in the iron age in Genesis 4, and there are 64 million people around the world, then there should be an utter absense of stone-age civilizations.

If we assume the loss of metal technology at the flood, but the retention of knowledge of it, and your exponential population growth, then there should again be no stone age, but an immediate recovery of metal technology.

I don't see that your invoking exponential growth makes any important point.

DanZ

[youngborean]

the Giza Pyramids and the Sphinx are all generally dated as occuring before the Biblical flood date as well.

When are you dating the Giza pyramids? The Sun Boat that supposedly belonged to Khufu was Radio Carbon Dated to 2600. The Giza pyramids were dated to the 26th Century BC on this website.

http://www.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html

The step pyramid dates to Dosjer who was only a century and a half earlier:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_f ... oser.shtml


You are right in pointing out the fact that there is a overlap of a few hundred years in dating if a year of 2300-2400 for the flood is to be accepted, but I consider that to be negligible. I believe both dates have a margin of error and would argue that the flood did happen before the building of these structures. Although some have attempted to argue that they were built before.

[youngborean]

The main question is why is there a transition from stone to metals? The fact is that the authors of the bible were unfamiliar with stone tools. They had no archeologists themselves and were unaware of previous societies that had existed.

Maybe the authors of the bible just didn't think it was that important to have a chapter on stone tools. Either way, the fact they are not mentioned hardly proves your argument.

[Lotan]

The Giza pyramids were dated to the 26th Century BC on this website.

Yes the Gizamids were built (with copper tools!) during the Old Kingdom period of Egypt, but what of the preceding millenia of Egyptian prehistory? These are the dates used by egyptologists, but if are going to selectively present evidence from archaeology does that mean that you accept the rest of it; ie. evidence for modern humans practising an old stone age culture (paleolithic) as far back as 500,000 years ago, with no trace of any "global flood'?

[youngborean]

Hey Lotan,

I think 26th century is the Old to Middle Kingdom. As far as paleolithic goes, how do we date a stone tool? If there is no metal around what would you use? I don't wholly accept Archeology after studying it, I find many of them are lazy with their science and make great assumptions. But I do think that archeology would be a good sub forum for this site where we could get more specific. I really don't know what happened 500,000 years ago. I'm not even sure we really know what happened 5000 years ago. Looking at the data from the pyramids they range from 2600-2100 BC. They choose the older date at a lower confidence level to match Reignal data from hyrogliphics at sites. Why aren't these texts given the same scrutiny as the bible? This is one of the greatest mysteries to me. People are very earger to disprove the account of the bible and don't use the same fevor to analyze other historical texts, Gilgamesh, etc. This was something we talked about in Religious studies a lot. The history of these disciplines seems to be linked to a desire for people to discredit their stale and overbearing Victorian roots. So in a way Christianity has a head start in scrutiny.

[Lotan]

People are very earger to disprove the account of the bible and don't use the same fevor to analyze other historical texts, Gilgamesh, etc.

Um, who is eager to disprove the bible?
Who doesn't use the same fervor to analyze other historical texts?
Who taught you this rubbish?
Please name one assyriologist that considers the 'Epic of Gilgamesh' to be a factual history.
Your characterization of archaeologists as "lazy with their science" is the usual apologist tactic of trying to discredit anyone that holds an opinion that differs from theirs. Are the geologists and physicists who provide absolute dates "lazy with their science" also?

[youngborean]

This is easy. For instance, how many Crictical theories are there on the Quran, Vedas, Egyptian Hyroglyphs or the Epic of Gilgamesh? I wasn't claiming that these are always accepted as historical fact, but there are not many disputes of the dating of the Epic. Why is this? Becasue religious studies evolved in a Christian religious context. It's really not far-fetched.

The use of Storytelling Hyroglyphs as historical documents for dating Egyptian Kings seems no different to me than using the Bible to retell history. But there is no immediate speculation that these texts are innaccurate, which exists when using the bible for dating. This is a result of a competitive spirit that exists between people who study texts and people who study artifacts. If it is dug up, Archeologists attempt to validate it above and beyond something written that was passed through generations.

I don't think it is apologetic to think that there are shortcomings of a particular discipline. The Archeologists I studied under were unable to explain the science they used. I think this only reflects a knowledge gap in the recent desire of Archeologists to use scientific dating techniques rather than attempting to prove or disprove texts. As time progresses, I believe more Archeologists will also have degrees in Science. I don't think that the Geologists or physicists are lazy, only their published results will look very different than the Archeologist's.

I think your overreacting by calling my position rubbish. In fact, I would say that you were resorting to insulting was truly the mark of an apologetic argument. It makes it easy for you to disagree with me if you first state that it is rubbish.

[juliod]

but there are not many disputes of the dating of the Epic. Why is this?

This is easy too. It is because no one is claiming those texts to be true, and that real knowledge has to be cast aside for some ancient myths.

DanZ

[Lotan]

This is easy. For instance, how many Crictical theories are there on the Quran, Vedas, Egyptian Hyroglyphs or the Epic of Gilgamesh? I wasn't claiming that these are always accepted as historical fact, but there are not many disputes of the dating of the Epic.

What sort of theories are you looking for? I doubt many archaeologists would bother to argue that these texts aren't strictly historical. Why would there be a dispute over the age of the epic, and what does that have to do with the bible?

Why is this? Becasue religious studies evolved in a Christian religious context. It's really not far-fetched.

What's not far-fetched? I don't see your point.

The use of Storytelling Hyroglyphs as historical documents for dating Egyptian Kings seems no different to me than using the Bible to retell history.

You're right. That's why archaeologists don't rely on them as their sole source of information or expect them to be infallible.

But there is no immediate speculation that these texts are innaccurate, which exists when using the bible for dating.

ROTFL What books have you been reading?

This is a result of a competitive spirit that exists between people who study texts and people who study artifacts. If it is dug up, Archeologists attempt to validate it above and beyond something written that was passed through generations.

Why not? You can tell a lot of pretty stories about unicorns, but if you really want me to believe, dig one up. In other words, a written account is invalidated by contrary physical evidence.

I think this only reflects a knowledge gap in the recent desire of Archeologists to use scientific dating techniques rather than attempting to prove or disprove texts.

For the life of me, I have no idea what you mean. What recent desire? Prove or disprove which texts?

I don't think that the Geologists or physicists are lazy, only their published results will look very different than the Archeologist's.

What does this mean? Will a geologist publish one date and an archaeologist publish another? How will their results look different?

It makes it easy for you to disagree with me if you first state that it is rubbish.

What I consider to be rubbish is this:

People are very earger to disprove the account of the bible and don't use the same fevor to analyze other historical texts, Gilgamesh, etc.

In some cases archaeology confirms the biblical account, in other cases it doesn't. If you believe that this is a result of some imagined bias on the part of the entire field of archaeology please provide your evidence. I can't think of even one ancient text that is considered by historians to be 100% historically factual, can you? Why does the OT deserve special treatment?
Your attempt to discredit archaeologists as...
"...lazy with their science...make great assumptions...earger(sic) to disprove the account of the bible...don't use the same fevor(sic) to analyze other historical texts...unable to explain the science they used..."
... is a distortion, that's why I consider it rubbish. Please don't take that as an insult, it's not personal.

It makes it easy for you to disagree with me if you first state that it is rubbish.

It's easy for me to disagree with you even if I don't say that!