Neo-Science: Lessons in Circular Reasoning
Neo-science presumes macro-evolution has occurred since the fossil record exists. So the fossil record is used to prove macro-evolution. The darwinites presume the millions of years necessary for macro-evolution to occur. They hang their hat on radio-metric dating because it gives the desired answers. So when soft tissue and blood cells are found in dinosaur fossils that are presumed to be millions of years old, the immediate reaction is to circle the wagons to protect their theory.
The theory is used to filter the evidence. It never occurs to the neo-science community that the theory could be wrong, nor do they ever critically examine the assumptions inherent in radio-metric dating. Evidence contradictory to the theory is ignored or denied. By doing so they cut themselves off from the data that cries out to them for attention that the theory is the problem. This is why we say that neo-science has exchanged the scientific method for the defence of darwinism. They need the theory to be right in order to confirm their godless world view. They have left off being considered scientists and have become the new fundamentalists, only their prophet is Darwin instead of Moses.
The Evidence of Ancient Trees
There is much evidence of young earth which we intend to begin presenting in order to expose the neo-science community as darwinite frauds. The scientific method demands that data that challenges the accepted theory be seriously considered. The history of scientific discovery teaches the scientist that anomalous data leads to advancements in science; history also shows the scientist that the community is wed to their theory and change is resisted irrationally. The real scientist understands these things. That’s why we refer to the darwinites as frauds.
One such evidence of young earth that is also supportive of the biblical framework concerns the study of ancient wood and trees. Trees are the oldest living things. Why are no trees extant that date more that 3 millennium BC [from reference 2]? We ask the question not to solicit more neo-science nonsense built on a foundation of nonsense, but to consider this evidence in the light of the Genesis record.
Here is the statement from reference 1 that prompted this article…
‘The date provided for the door [3063 BC], cannot be correct…the worldwide Flood of Noah had not yet occurred when the door is claimed to have been made. That Flood obliterated mankind and human artifacts, except for those preserved on the Ark.’
Assumptions regarding Biblical Chronology
What are the assumptions that promoted ICR to have such confidence in a Flood date later than 3000 BC? Is there another answer that also upholds a high view of Genesis as authoritative and is consistent not only with the ancient tree evidence but also the dates of the earliest post Flood civilizations? Let's address these questions...
The question of interest is whether Moses intended to convey to his readers that the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided a chronology from the beginning of the world. When a good man like B. B. Warfield says that “it is precarious in the highest degree to draw chronological inferences from genealogical tables” we must proceed with caution, but proceed we will because we are image bearers and priests to our God through Jesus Christ just as every New Covenant believer with open Bible.
Ussher’s chronology provides the following dates for key events in the Biblical history of the world.
Creation: 4004 BC
Noah’s Flood: 2348 BC
We understand Warfield’s objection to this chronology. The ancient Babylonian civilization dates to 4000 BC and after the confusion of tongues the Egyptian civilization dates to 3000 BC. From the Biblical framework of history these must be post Genesis Flood, meaning the Flood date must be much older than 4000 BC to allow time for repopulation.
Let’s look at the way the genealogy is read and the assumption that is made in deriving the chronology…
‘Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters. So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died’ [Genesis 5:6-8].
The assumption made in the chronology is that Enosh is the immediate son of Seth. Therefore, their life spans begin to overlap when Seth is 105 years old at the birth of Enosh. This method of reading seems contrary to the purpose of time keeping with reference to patriarchs since it allows Noah to be born within the life span of Enosh even though he is 7 generations removed. This can be seen below in the genealogy chart provided by Walt Brown....
We believe the genealogy is a method of marking time. Just as we in this age reference time to Jesus Christ; this is the year of our Lord 2010. The ancients used their patriarchs to reference time; thus, providing a record of time since the beginning of time. But in order to do this the life spans must usually be consecutive, not concurrent. Is there any justification of this in the text? We believe there is…
Our premise is that the verb ‘begot’ is ambiguous; it does not necessarily imply an immediate father-son relationship, but can mean an ancestral relationship. In order to remove the ambiguity in the genealogies the verb ‘called his name’ is added to mean an immediate father-son relationship. So, the life spans should be concurrent in the few cases where naming the son is added, but the patriarchal life spans should be end to end when the verb begot is used alone. Here are 2 examples in Genesis 5. Note that the naming verb is used at the beginning of the genealogy and at the time of Noah when the line was cut off…
And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. [Genesis 5:3-5]
Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and had a son. And he called his name Noah, saying, “This one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD has cursed.” After he begot Noah, Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years, and had sons and daughters. So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died. [Genesis 5:28-31]
So what happens to the chronology when this different assumption is made in the reading of the genealogy?
A Different Reading with respect to Ussher...
This proposed reading of the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies gives 6023 years from Adam to the Flood compared with the 1656 years from Ussher, adding 4367 years from Adam to the Flood.
The new reading gives 3183 years from the Flood to the death of Joseph compared with Ussher’s 713 years, adding 2470 to the post flood chronology.
Ussher Begot and Called His Name
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creation 4004 BC 4004 + 4367 + 2470 = 10841 BC
Flood 2348 BC 10841 – 6023 = 4818 BC
This Flood date better correlates with the archeological evidence of the earliest civilization dated at 4000 BC. This date correlates to the generation in the genealogy that led to the building of the city in the plain of Shinar [Genesis 11].
The Genesis Flood event introduced a severe thermodynamic disturbance on the earth through the release of the subterranean waters. This disturbance took centuries to reach a new equilibrium in global temperature and resulted in the ice age. The best work being done in the earth sciences on this subject is by Walt Brown @ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ29.html
In the aftermath of the catastrophic events of the global flood of Noah’s day, it does not seem unreasonable to expect nearly a millennium for mankind to repopulate and rebuild a civilization.
We are not dogmatic about the reading of the genealogy or the chronology. We offer it for consideration that Ussher’s dates should not be held as inspired truth. They are subject to error based on interpretation of the inspired text. We believe these new dates are more reasonable and still uphold the integrety of the Genesis record. Christians need not be intimidated by the darwinites for believing the biblical testimony that the earth is young. The Bible believer need not stand in opposition to science. It is neo-science that we oppose.