During the last Ice Age when the oceans were up to 300 feet lower than they are today, an extensive cave system on the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico was exposed, above sea level, allowing it to potentially be occupied by animals and humans. When the massive ice sheets melted from the Earth’s surface causing the oceans to rise, these cave systems were drowned and are now only accessible by divers.
In 2012, divers exploring one of these drowned caves systems discovered a nearly complete human skeleton on the cave floor over 3000 feet from the nearest entrance. Pieces of that skeleton have been dated yielding an age estimated at 13,000 years before present (Stinnesbeck et al. 2017).
What was this person doing thousands of years ago deep inside a dark cave? A recently published research paper (MacDonald et al. 2020) provides one answer: they were mining the caves for ochre used to make red paint. Cave divers have painstakingly mapped large portions of one cave network and smaller portions of two others, identifying hundreds of ochre mining locations throughout the caves.It is apparent that this mining operation wasn’t merely the product of a few excursions to get a little bit of clay pigment. This was an organized industry that, evidence suggests, took place over a stretch of at least a thousand years. Evidence of extensive and prolonged use of these caves comes in the form of cairns—man-made piles of stones—produced from stacks of broken stalactites and stalagmites, large numbers of stalactites removed from locations in the cave to allow people to pass through smaller passages, and abundant charcoal from fires. The charcoal was dated from 12,000 to 10,000 years old. Layers of charcoal showed use at multiple intervals. Charcoal and stalactites removed from the ceiling had been covered by additional layers of flowstone (sheetlike deposits of minerals on surfaces from thin layers of mineral-rich waters flowing over them) indicating the passage of time after their use but prior to the cave system being inundated by rising sea levels and water tables.
A tight squeeze! When did this mining activity occur in the young-earth timeline of human history?
Native Americans drawing on resources in caves 10,000 years ago (or much more, see: Evidence grows that peopling of the Americas began more than 20,000 years ago) is anathema to young earth creationists (YECs) who insist that all people alive today are dispersed descendants of a sole population that had gathered 4250 years ago, possibly only 100 years after Noah’s Flood, at Babel in the Middle East (see timeline below). According to the typical young-earth interpretation of history, some of those people left Babel and quickly migrated through Asia over the Bering Strait and into the New World. The land bridge between North America and Asia had just formed during an Ice Age that also began 4250 years ago. From there, individuals migrated down into North America, Central America and eventually South America.
Therefore, for young-earth creationists the oldest date of human occupation of these caves must be no more than 4250 years (2250 B.C.) before present and probably several hundred years more recent than that. I’ve explored this unrealistic timeline several times in the past (Human Remains in a Drowned Ice Age Cave Contradict Young-Earth Chronology, Underwater Cave Yields Fossilized Teenager From the Ice Age, and Man-made Hunting Structure Discovered Under Lake Huron: A North American Doggerland?). Many addition problems with this compressed time-span are provided in GeoChristian’s excellent article: The Pleistocene is not in the Bible — A critique of “When Was the Ice Age in Biblical History?”
Each of these illustrates how, once again, the young-earth timeline runs afoul of observations from the world around us. The YEC literalistic hermeneutic drives them to defend (and to create) hypotheses that aren’t required either by the scriptures of God’s revelation through the world around us.
The evidence of extensive mining in a cave system only accessible during the last Ice Age is challenging to the typical timeline found in material published by a leading creationist organization, Answers in Genesis (e.g. figure above) but more recently Dr. Nathanial Jeanson has proposed a potentially even more restricted timeline of human migration. In a series of videos, Dr. Jeanson methodically unpacks his new ideas for the “New History of the Human Race” wherein he uses molecular analyses of Y chromosome DNA data to reinterpret conventional timelines and geographical migration patterns within the context of all human lineages beginning with Noah and his sons 4350 years ago. In this series, he repeatedly speculates that there could have been no people—or at least no established cultures*—in the New World prior to the global famine during the time of Joseph’s rule in Egypt around 1900 B.C. (see previous post: Answers from Jeanson: Revealing the Truth of Joseph’s Global Famine?)
Regarding a global famine, he takes a cue from YEC meteorologist Michael Oard who proposes that a global drought may have been caused by a post-Flood Ice Age whose maximum effects may have occurred 500 to 700 years after Noah’s flood. This places it before or around the time when Joseph was in Egypt. Jeanson speculates that this Ice Age-induced global drought may have caused the global famine which led to people from the whole earth coming to Egypt to buy grain.
That individuals living in the Yucatan experienced drought conditions and thought about making, let alone actually making, the trek all the way to Egypt to procure grain seems far fetched at best. But Jeanson has crafted for himself a possible rescuing mechanism. Using a new method to convert conventional dates to young-earth-acceptable dates (see below), Jeanson suggests that people had yet to migrate to the New World by the time of Joseph. For example, in Episode 22 of his video series on the New History of Human Races he says: “I find this fascinating. Again the very preliminary research and progress may change, but given what we have now, this suggests that the only civilizations around at the time of Joseph (are) in close geographic proximity to Egypt.”
If Jeanson is correct then the whole world coming to Joseph would not have required migrations from the New World since that land was not yet populated by humans at the time. This would make his interpretation of the Joseph account as a global event slightly more plausible.
However, I would suggest that Jeanson’s thesis that the New World might be uninhabited at the time of Joseph is wrong. He needs to consider the abundant evidence of widespread occupation and sophisticated cultural advancement of people in the New World during the Ice Age. That would include this well-developed mining operation which could only have existed during an Ice Age when sea levels were much lower than present. For the YEC, this must have been at a time when Joseph was presiding over Egypt. Therefore if he insists on a biblical interpretation of Genesis 41 (that peoples from the whole world came to Egypt) he would also need to include Native Americans traveling from all parts of the New Word to Egypt at this time.
Converting conventional dates to young-earth dates?
But what about those 10,000 to 12,000 year old dates obtained from charcoal and the remains of people and large animals that also found their way into the caves while they were above sea level? Dr. Jeanson has developed a crude conversion table to allow creationists to quickly convert any conventional date into a young-earth-acceptable date. He does through a rather opaque set of calculations based on Y-chromosome differences and estimates of population size over time. You will have to watch his videos to hear his explanation (Jeanson 2019, 2020). In the screen capture below I have used a visualization of his conversion table to convert a 10,000 year old conventional date for the youngest ochre mines to a young-earth-acceptable one. The blue dotted lines represent a standard deviation-type range where conventional vs YEC dates should be found. I have drawn orange arrows to indicate how 10000 B.C. (12,000 years before present) would convert to YEC time. This conversion reveals that the 12,000 year old C14 dates are equivalent to a young-earth date between 2000 and 2100 years B.C which would be 4000 to 4100 years ago. Joseph is thought to have ruled in Egypt around 1900 B.C. (3900 years before present).
Jeanson’s conversion method places the evidence for human occupation of the Yucatan peninsula 100+ years before Joseph’s famine. This is but one example of evidence of people living in the New World during the most recent Ice Age. If Jeanson wishes to propose an abrupt end to the Ice Age 500 to 700 years after the Flood, he will need to accommodate a significant and widespread New World population (see: Evidence grows that peopling of the Americas began more than 20,000 years ago). Similar archaeological finds from Canada (my Lake Huron example above), to drowned camps off the coast of Florida and numerous Ice Age settlements on through South America (Amazonian Forest Islands: Accidental Products of Ancient Human Occupation) were present during that Ice Age and, thus, before and up to the time when Joseph was distributing grain during the seven years in which “all the world came to Egypt.”
Let’s review the timeline constraints for a young-earth chronology:
1) Formation of the rock in which the caves are found occurred during the Noahic Flood 4250 year ago (roughly 2250 BC)
2) Erosion of the cavities to form the caves: post-flood (possible some erosion while below sea level but limited in scope) but no significant erosion until sea levels had dropped at least 100 to 300 feet below their present levels. This is thought to have occurred during an Ice Age that followed a global Flood. The sea levels would have been their lowest about 500 to 700 years after the Flood (i.e. around the time of Joseph’s famine.)
3) Prior to people entering the cave, large stalagmites and stalagmites formed on the roof and floors of the cave.
4) Humans begin to migrate to the New World after the event at Babel. Jeanson proposes this event at 100 years after the Flood, and other YECs place that event as much as 400 years after the Flood. (Sometime between 2150 BC and 1850 BC)
5) Humans migrated from the Middle East to North and South America. Some settled in the Yucatan peninsula, eventually entered the caves, and engaged in extensive ochre mining. At that time, they broke off stalagmites that had just previously formed prior to their entry, to use as location makers and to allow them to maneuver through tight spots.
6) During and following their use of the cave, flowstone formed over the intentionally broken stalagmites indicating the passage of even more time.
7) Humans made fires in the cave producing charcoal found in dozens of locations. Some charcoal fire pits were found to be covered with flowstone, which can only form while the cave is moist, but not flooded. This indicates the passage of time from when fire was used in the cave to when the cave was finally inundated by sea level rise.
8) YECs believe the Ice Age ended rather abruptly, at most 700 years after the Flood, causing oceans to rise to near their current level. Hence all (above water) human activity in these caves would have been brought to an end at that point.
Ochre mines and remains of humans in ancient drowned caves are powerful evidence of early migration and establishment of organized cultures in the New World. A young-earth chronology with strict limits on the first date of entry into the New World (e.g. after Babel or after Joseph’s famine) is increasingly at odds with evidence of ancient occupation of the New World.
Jeanson is faced with several choices: 1) either acknowledge that people were in the New World at the time of Joseph and continue to maintain that people from the whole world including the New World were saved by Joseph’s stocks of grain, 2) reassess and recalibrate his timeline conversion metric so that the dates for these early citizens of the New World correspond to young-earth dates younger than Joseph’s reign in Egypt, or 3) reassess his interpretation of Genesis 41 and allow all of the land to reference the Levant region.
*A caveat: Jeason might hypothesize that people migrated to the New World soon after Babel and occupied places like this cave system. But then they all died prior to the time of Joseph leaving the New World uninhabited for a time. Then there was another way of migration bringing new people into the New World. There is some evidence of replacement of original Native Americans (e.g. Clovis culture) with new migrations. However, I would respond that the Yucatan cave system is not the oldest evidence of human occupation of the New World. Furthermore, a skull found in the Yucatan cave has been analyzed as the mitochondrial DNA present in that fossil is similar to peoples that have had molecular analyses done (Chatters et al. 2014). The mitochondrial DNA was a type similar to Native Americans that are alive today. This evidence suggests a continuous habitation of peoples in this region from the end of the last Ice Age through the present.
Ardelean, C.F., Becerra-Valdivia, L., Pedersen, M.W. et al. Evidence of human occupation in Mexico around the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2509-0
Chatters, James C., Douglas J. Kennett, Yemane Asmerom, Brian M. Kemp, Victor Polyak, Alberto Nava Blank, Patricia A. Beddows et al. “Late Pleistocene human skeleton and mtDNA link Paleoamericans and modern Native Americans.” science 344, no. 6185 (2014): 750-754.
Collins, S. V., E. G. Reinhardt, D. Rissolo, J. C. Chatters, A. Nava Blank, and P. Luna Erreguerena. “Reconstructing water level in Hoyo Negro, Quintana Roo, Mexico, implications for early Paleoamerican and faunal access.” Quaternary Science Reviews 124 (2015): 68-83.
de Azevedo, Soledad, Maria C. Bortolini, Sandro L. Bonatto, Tábita Hünemeier, Fabrício R. Santos, and Rolando González‐José. “Ancient remains and the first peopling of the A mericas: Reassessing the Hoyo Negro skull.” American journal of physical anthropology 158, no. 3 (2015): 514-521.
Jeanson, Nathaniel T. 2019. “Testing the Predictions of the Young-Earth Y Chromosome Molecular Clock: Population Growth Curves Confirm the Recent Origin of Human Y Chromosome Differences” Answers Research Journal 12 (December 4): 405–423.
Jeanson, Nathaniel T. 2020. Young-Earth Y Chromosome Clocks Confirm Known Post-Columbian Amerindian Population History and Suggest Pre-Columbian Population Replacement in the Americas. Answers Research Journal 12: 13-23.
MacDonald, Brandi L., James C. Chatters, Eduard G. Reinhardt, Fred Devos, Sam Meacham, Dominique Rissolo, Barry Rock et al. “Paleoindian ochre mines in the submerged caves of the Yucatán Peninsula, Quintana Roo, Mexico.” Science Advances 6, no. 27 (2020): eaba1219.
Editing provided by Michael Callen
I can only admire your patience and thoroughness.
Is Jeanson really proposing that In Joseph’s time, the “whole world” including the Middle East was in the grip of an ice age? Then what about all those camels? (A side issue: you probably know Karen Armstrong’s argument that Abraham’s camels show that Genesis is unhistorical, But since we are told that Abraham came from Mesopotamia, I don’t find her argument convincing)
LikeLiked by 2 people
He is saying that he believes the language of Genesis 41 requires that the famine is a worldwide event. In his mind, an Ice Age at that time would provide a natural mechanisms for creating a worldwide famine. I’m not sure why a people group living on the coast eating a diet of fish would be so impacted by a drought/famine that they would feel they have to travel to Egypt to get grain, but he thinks that at least representatives of all people would have come to Egypt to be saved by Joseph.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed. Even less do I understand how the Ice Age (I think AIG only acknowledges one, although Agassiz identified four by tracking erratics, and we now know of far more) could have happened, with all that that would have implied the Middle East, with no mention in any historical record other than the reference to Josephs famine, and no reference to that famine in any other society’s records
Absolutely love this stuff. I am glad that you’re back to posting on a semi-regular basis again. Lately, I’ve found myself on Reddit trying to mitigate the dialogue between Christian brothers/sisters who are YECs and the people who argue against them.
I think that the approach you take on your blog is the way to challenge YEC beliefs. Instead of posing the debate as “evolution vs. creation,” you narrow in on very specific details. I have been inspired by your work and have a number of posts that attempt the same thing. What I’ve realized between studying (and reading your stuff and Phillip J. Senter’s) is that prehistoric mammals- not dinosaurs- are the most problematic for the YEC to explain. Check out this short Reddit post I made on the topic.
Here is a link
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good stuff there. Thanks for sharing. I think you are exactly right that prehistoric mammals (I would also thrown in some other groups like the cycodonts as mammal relatives) are a big problem and YEC flouder around trying to explain them especially since these fossils often sit before or after the Flood/post-Flood boundary depending on which YEC you talk to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another juicy post, Joel! More stuff to include in Vol 2 of “The Rocks Were There.”
Jeanson is backing AiG out over this chronological precipice with gusto, that’s for sure. His 2020 paper “Young-Earth Y Chromosome Clocks Confirm Known Post-Columbian Amerindian Population History and Suggest Pre-Columbian Population Replacement in the Americas.” Answers in Genesis Answers Research Journal 13: 23-33. tries to buttress the genetics of it, but reflects the fact that for too long young earthers pretty much ignored the rest of the world in offering their Flood narratives.
For Jeanson to tackle the topic now is too little, too late, as so much more data has piled up in the decades since Henry Morris and Duane Gish were active. But I’ll draw attention to the additional nuggets lurking in their chronology: those “First Wholly Mammoths” appearing AFTER the Tower of Babel. The perils of what Whitehead once called “misplaced concreteness” seem to be alive and well in YEC-land.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As usual no problem. Its just what YEC should predict. these caves, probably, were usable by the people in the very short time, at most 3 centuries, of the “ice age”. So all one needs is to bring this age post flood, couple of centuries, then a few months of rapid melt and all is done. So say about 2000 BC.I suspect people never got in the americas until about 1700 BC or later. There might be problems with wht the caves are not flooded. For example the land may of dropped or rather raised after the weight of the ice was lifted. not sure if ice was there however. its difficult to figure dates in these things even if these few people were competent. yet incompetence in these matters is common. its very few who go into them and not the best I think.
Us usual, you have ignored all the evidence and just made up a response with no basis in any form of reality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robert, you’re making up numbers. You have offered not a scintilla of evidence for any of your dates (because you can’t), and because all the dates in the YEC mythology are equally arbitrary and made up (even later events like the Exodus can’t be squared between the traditional dating of 1500 BC or so and the 1200 BC dating required to make sense of the New Kingdom references in the narrative), you could have put in anything and your dogmas would be just as functionally uninformative.
Where were maize and potatoes, Robert? And rice? Any in Eden? How come they were unknown anywhere outside the Americas or Asia? There is a vast interlocking network of foodstuffs which make no sense at all in the creationist mythology, underscoring the absolute uselessness of YEC as a functional explanatory model. But then your side has ignored most of the evidence from the get-go, and the pile up of data field in the last century or so means you’re never going to catch up.
As a parlor game, all we need to do is quote you, attribute it to an evolutionist, and watch your creationist colleagues attack the statements as unwarranted “just so” story speculation. It’s what you do. And nothing else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maize? parlours? Like old time evolutionism time has past on old concepts. Anyways there is no problem in caves, dry or undry, It all works in creationist models. No touchdown or points *for those who remember football games)
Unfortunately, almost anything and everything works for YEC ‘models’. Everything, except reality. The modern day Scribes and Pharisees resent and reject all knowledge they cannot control.
Another non-answer from you. FYI I could have said “corn” for maize, but that would be less clear since “corn” is what many languages call wheat. Anyway, all of us can watch you continuing to be the Robert that you are, someone who will never account for any of the data, but always imagine that you have.
It still amazes me that these YECcies just keep on making Ad Hoc explanations, for anything and everything. No real evidence, or support, or corroboration required or desired.
Can they even perceive how this looks to the reasonable minds of the world? Do they even care that they are helping to empty out churches of the young, and the educated?
It drives me nuts!
Do the YEC people make any comment on the quantity of grain needed to feed the whole world? Surely it would be impossible grow enough in Egypt to feed a world-wide population for seven years! How would it be transported all the way to China for instance?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve never seen any attempt at such a calculation. Jeanson estimates there were only 5 to 10 million males alive at this time which might be more manageable if most were living in the Levant region. But yes, a bit rediculous to think that a caravan would come from China to get enough grain to support even thousands of people. No matter the famine, its not like every river would have been dry or that there would have been no fish in lake or the sea that people would turn to before thinking of making a 10000 mile trek to Egypt to get a sack of grain. And how would they even know that Egypt had such a reserve? Would the Chinese have even know what Egypt was if they are peoples that migrated from Babel directly to China? This idea of a global famines produces 100 new questions instead of helping the YEC view.
I don’t believe that the migration of peoples happened post-Babel but began before Babel (Genesis 10). I have explained my interpretation here: https://www.academia.edu/36158948/The_confusion_of_language_in_the_interpretation_of_Genesis_11
Briefly, I argue that it was the people participating in Nimrod’s empire-building who are described in Genesis 11 and not the whole population of the Middle East (let alone the whole world).
If you take this approach then the YEC view becomes even more tenuous.
Your EQ paper certainly illustrates how functionally useless the Genesis account is for clarifying much of anything about even the local Mesopotamian region, let alone the planet. Dueling textual comparisons in the Bible is what has been going on for centuries, but for what actually happened there, its best to consult the archaeological record (which you didn’t seem keen to draw on).
This of course is far from the cataclysmic shuffleboard that YEC favors. For those who didn’t look into Chris’ paper, his position is that there was no global Flood (hear that, Robert?) and that (page 36) scripture doesn’t require anything beyond a local or regional flood (which is a much easier Atrahasis boat to float since we have objective evidence for the disastrous flooding of the Tigris-Euphrates in the millennia prior to the Bible authors picking up the tradition in their own derived Genesis text).
Can you recommend a source (preferably publicly downloadble but academically citable) for “the disastrous flooding of the Tigris-Euphrates in the millennia prior to …”?
That’s a tall order, Paul, the public access part. What work has been done is scattered across lots of specialized journals and appeared over many decades. I suppose one that helps a bit is the 1967 Kramer review https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/reflections-on-the-mesopotamian-flood/ but that is still a Golden Oldie, though it is useful for the summary of the mythic coverage end.
There’s a 2007 review by Morozova that brings together lots of the material, that one is available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230035623_A_review_of_Holocene_avulsions_of_the_Tigris_and_Euphrates_Rivers_and_possible_effects_on_the_evolution_of_civilizations_in_Lower_Mesopotamia/link/59ee1bf54585154350e802ff/download
For contrast, the neighboring Indus Valley culture had its own problems, though as much with drought as flooding Staubwasser et al’s 2003 paper http://sites.bu.edu/thompsonlab/files/2018/01/Staubwasser_et_al-2003-Geophysical_Research_Letters.pdf which offers a contrast because their lack of a deciphered written language and dearth of later mythic recycling means their experience has exited the field in a way the sloshes of Mesopotamia haven’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for those comments. I didn’t go into archaeological issues since I was dealing with a textual problem – namely why the change in terms from Genesis 10 (lashon) to Genesis 11 (saphah)? I don’t see the text of Genesis as functionally useless, but I reject what Roy Clouser calls the “encyclopaedic assumption” (https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1991/PSCF3-91Clouser.html) that the text can answer any and every question we have. The problem has been the misuse of the Scriptures, expecting it to answer questions which it is not intended to do. Also space is limited for most journal articles.
Genesis may well draw on various sources and traditions, but presents them as a narrative of God’s redeeming activity, not as a history in the modern sense, and certainly not as a compendium of scientific explanations for e.g. the geological strata. My approach to interpreting Scripture was dealt with here: https://www.academia.edu/39857782/Redemptive-Historical_Interpretation_in_Dutch_Neo-Calvinism
That post-flood graphic brought me to the blog a couple years ago, and I still marvel and how preposterous it is. Your post makes it like a one-two punch.
In Joel’s “review” section, the date at point 1) should be “roughly 2350.” Otherwise, another great NH article, and the Comments informative as well. I’m using the Yucatan cave mining (5 miles inland, south of Cancun) to do my bit, persuading my Bible-believing fellowship to cut loose from Ken Ham & Co. — and seeing some light at the end of this (to me) 30-year tunnel. The “middle ground” to give YEC folk a place to jump to is God’s very recent Creation of everything seen today about 9,700 years ago, a Virtual History being God’s way to “hide” himself (Isaiah 45:15). We might thank current YECism for providing so much incredibly unreal material these days for people to find wanting. GLL
A bit off topic, but someone here might have a good answer: the “generations of Noah” make the most sense if we regard them as describing the lineage of peoples, rather than individuals. What scholarly research is there into the meaning of these genealogies, from the point of view of the original author (or Author)?
This is for Paul, asking a good question. I know of no “research” on what you ask from Genesis 10:1 that would help. Your reference to “lineage of peoples” points me at Genesis 10:31-32, very much in your favor. It’s simply a very practical thing, that if 6000 B.C. should be the best Flood date for any who claim Creation “up to 10,000 years ago,” that then we have to ADD at least 40 names to the list from Shem to Terah, father of Abram. For instance, if you add 10 or 15 just before Peleg, there need be no sudden drop in longevity. We can’t even know if a named patriarch was the son of an unknown father’s 2nd or 3rd wife. What you want is a faithful transmission of the story from a pious elder to an equally pious great-grandson in the line that they didn’t know would end at Abraham. So my answer would be that “peoples” and “individuals” are both right. All the above, of course, blows away the foolishness of a 2349-2348 B.C. Flood date. Just now, I’ve seen a report of an ancient Bible Land cremation in (or above) a 2-foot pit in which the bone bits were found — pre-Flood in my view. GLL
Thanks,Gerhold. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that even from the point of view of a biblical literalist, treating the genealogies as direct lines of individual dissent is a misreading. One further piece of internal evidence in favour of yourview is a reference to Mizraim; Mizraim, the two Egypts, which only makes sense if you’re referring to the nation and, at that, at a stage after upper and lower Egypt were united.
Does anyone here know how this subject is discussed, either among those who accept traditional authorship, or in the context of modern critical analysis of the origins of the text? Friedman (“Who wrote the Bible?”), noted exponent of this analysis, regards the genealogies as an interpolation, from a source outside the J-E-P-D classification
Paul — While Covid-19 slows down everything these days, we can stay focused on the need to tell the world WHY a Flood date of 2349-2348 BC is a self-delusion. Just lately, I hope that you didn’t miss a report of an extinct cave bear from a Siberian island with C-14 only a 50th or 100th as much as found in any polar bear on short rations today. And now two smaller burrowing dinosaurs, Changmiania, from China, from the lower Cretaceous, likely victims of volcanic ash. If (IF) most geology is from just the first 150 days of God’s Flood, these two were about Day 140, after a month or two of floating about, dead, in a hot soup. So, how are their bones perfectly articulated? And how are these two creatures of the same species, in a Chinese location of massive preservation, still TOGETHER? GLL
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, we have a steady stream of well dated fossils going back to the Precambrian, though unfortunately the accumulation of evidence of this kind will do nothing to persuade the committed biblical literalist.
A question for everyone here; One common escape route from such literalism is by way of recognition of the age of the Earth. An alternative and complementary escape route is by way of discussion of the textual complexity of the Pentateuch, and the evidence for multiple authorship and for changing beliefs and agendas over time. At its simplest, the JEPD analysis, aThes spelt out for example in Friedman’s * Who Wrote the Bible?* although I believe that this has been further refined and fragmented, as one would expect with a mature theory dealing with complex data.
This line of argument offers a reinterpretation of the text, which actually enriches it rather than belittlng it, and I am rather surprised to see it used so little in discussions of this kind.
To play the devil’s advocate (irony not lost on myself), I would ask how we know the sea level changed rather than the land experienced a tectonic drop. After all, modern earthquakes are known to have raised or lowered a land area by multiple meters. Couldn’t this, combined with the YEC belief that fast formation of cave structures is supportable by recent examples, suggest a different chronology?
Well, for one thing, speed. Tectonics is a slow process, and though quakes can shift land rapidly, a shift of 300 feet in a short time of even centuries is impossible. Plus, this can be seen all over the Caribbean, and the rest of the world where the geologic evidence remains. It is simply easier to see in the limestone caves of the Caribbean. This drop of sea level can likewise be seen in submerged canyons around the world. NOTE: there is a distinct cut-off to such erosion, around the 300 foot below present level. You will NOT see canyons cut miles down to the bottom of ocean basins, depsite what some YECcies claim about a lack of ocean water prior to Noah’s Flood. The Creation itself is our witness. However, and sadly, the YECcies will continue to provide Chewbacca defense of their baseless claims.