[Published on Pentecost Day:]
New blog on the kid: Can Old Earthers Still Believe Mankind Was Created 10 000 Years Ago? ·
Creation vs. Evolution: Why is Fr. Robinson against Young Earth Creationism? ·
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: SSPX News (feat. Andrew and Fr. Robinson) Try to Defend Old Earth Creationism ·
Fr. Robinson, Part 2 ·
Fr. Robinson Attacking Biblical Chronology (But Not Special Creation of Man) (the last one was actually for the afternoon, but here we go)
First, we are not speaking of "theological mankind" in some kind of Swamidass perspective. We speak of the real creation of the first creatures that we would based on anatomy recognise as or suspect to be people.
Second, did they ever?
Apparently, yes.
Here are two old earth creationists in Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913:
1) In fact, M. Guibert is of opinion that with our present knowledge there is nothing compelling us to extend the existence of man beyond 10,000 years. Such questions as the antiquity of civilization, which had reached a high pitch in Babylonia and Egypt 4000 years B. C., the radical differences of language at the same early period, differences of race (cf. the white, black, and yellow races), which do not seem to have been modified within the historic period, and the remains of human workmanship going back to a very remote antiquity — all these things seem to lead to the conclusion that the existence of man on earth goes back far beyond the traditional 4,000 years.
2) Professor Driver says ("Genesis", p. xxxvi): "Upon the most moderate estimate it cannot be less than 20,000 years."
Catholic Encyclopedia : Biblical Chronology
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03731a.htm
I think we can dismiss "20 000 years" unless there was a lost very longlived civilisation preserving the Genesis 3 account in writing, like if there were such a thing on Atlantis.
10 000 years sounds more like Biblical chronology, even if it doubles the time from Adam to Abraham compared to LXX.
Now, can we get there with Old Earth today?
We need to understand that Neanderthals are men, since many of us share genes with them. Not "all of us" like say the genes we share with apes, or dogs, which could be explained by the common creator, but many of us. Neanderthals are ancestral to some and not to others. Also, since we have traces of human behaviour. Hashtag, division between vegetarians, pescetarians, ritual cannibals, burial in red ochre, good tools, keeping a man found in Shanidar alive after he became one armed. They descended from Adam and Eve.
We must next understand that Denisovans are men, since somewhat fewer of us share genes with them. Also, they have made children with Neanderthals, also, their genome is close to Antecessor in Atapuerca, whose anatomy is close to Heidelbergians, and these between them as well as Denisovans have shown human behaviour. Ritual cannibalism in Atapuerca, building beautiful shelters in Terra Amata, toolmaking ... near a Denisovan remains, a very well made bone needle was found. They descended from Adam and Eve.
Homo heidelbergensis hunted large animals for food although the hides may also have been useful, especially in colder areas. The fossilised bones of these animals have shown that large animals including rhinos, hippopotamus, bears, horses and deer were targeted. These animals were skilfully hunted then butchered in an orderly fashion that suggests that these people were working in co-operative groups.
Homo heidelbergensis
Australian Museum : Author(s) Fran Dorey Updated 28/06/21
https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/homo-heidelbergensis/
The reason Denisovans aren't classed as Heidelbergians, the reason Atapuerca Antecessors aren't classed as Denisovan or even as Heidelbergians by all, is mainly the
sharp difference of age. If all of these came from the Flood, that would fall somewhat flat. Pun intended.
So, what about them descending from Adam and Eve? We can put them into the last 10 000 years like 100 years ago?
Well, they are carbon dated, in some examples. The youngest body parts or bodies of Neanderthals and Denisovans are carbon dated to c. 40 000 years ago.
This means, they are presumed to have had an original sample value near 100 pmC, which takes seven halflives, seven times 5730 years, to get to a level of 0.78 pmC, which we can measure.
How much lower than 100 pmC can the carbon level have been if the Earth is Very Old? I think 50 pmC is already over the top (or if you prefer under the bottom) and 25 pmC is Quixotically unrealistic.
Let me tell you why. 100 pmC is not a natural constant. But it is a quasi constant, resulting from a balance of two opposed factors, the actual constant which is the decay rate or half life (mathemetically they differ, but they refer in different ways to the same physical reality), which applies to the "sample in the atmosphere" as much as to any sealed off samples. The other factor, which is not a constant, is the amount of cosmic rays that reach us, and the density of Nitrogen 14 the particles can target in the outer atmosphere. However, if there was no major upheaval evne affecting the atmosphere, in the Flood, there would be no reason for the density of Nitrogen 14 to have been different. If there are no angelic movers of heavenly bodies, and Old Earthers tend to go with Modern Cosmology, there is not much that would point to the input of cosmic rays being different either.
But 25 pmC will only account for making the sample 11 460 years older than dated. If you halve that to get to 12.5 pmC, you already need to be dealing with a fairly new atmosphere. You might as well in that case go down to the level I propose, they are just 5000 years old, and the original content was 1.45 pmC, accounting for 35 000 extra years. Then, between the Flood and the Fall of Troy, the medium rate of production was 5 times higher than now, going so high as 20 times higher in parts of the time from Flood to Babel. It slowed down considerably, though not yet totally to present rate, between Fall of Jericho and Fall of Troy.
As said, if the atmosphere had been 100 000 years old or 1 000 000 or 1 000 000 000 years old or more, we would very likely not had as low a level as 25 pmC at any point in the relevant past. More radioactivity may to some extent speed up decay, but it will also contaminate Carbon 12, so the net effect is you will get more Carbon 14, not less. And 11 460 years without any cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere at all is certainly unrealistic too. So, even 25 pmC is lower than the atmosphere could get. But that would just eliminate 11 460 years, leaving 28 540 for the Neanderthal skeleta and at least 1500 years earlier, 30 000 BP, for Adam and Eve.
Cases where a Book was written in the light of the information which the writer already possesses from natural sources, without special research, are found in the Epistles, and also apparently in the instance of Genesis. Moses would seem to have put into writing the traditions that had been preserved, perhaps in writing or perhaps in the memory of the people, and it is probable that the young children were taught the story by their parents, in the way in which it was ordered that the remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt should be kept alive. (Exodus xii. 26, 27.) The history of the Creation cannot have been known except by revelation; but there is no reason to suppose that this revelation was made to Moses. More probably it was made to Adam, and became known to Moses through human sources. When we speak thus of history having come down to Moses by tradition, we do not mean to imply that there was any special guarantee that the whole of this traditional history should be preserved free from corruption; the case is not like that of the Tradition by which the knowledge of the Christian Revelation is preserved, free from admixture of error, in the Church ; it is enough that God's providence preserved Moses from being misled by any errors that may have crept into the current account.
Creation vs. Evolution: Sylvester Joseph Hunter on Genesis, Henry Morris on 15 Cubits
LD 5.V.2024 | Hans Georg Lundahl 4:59 AM
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/05/sylvester-joseph-hunter-on-genesis.html
Haydock reckons the same for Genesis 3. And this has implications, as I noted under a video by Fr. Robinson:
If one accepts 40 000 years, I think that would be fatal.
a) Trojan War was two periods of together c. 700 years before the sons of Peisistratos put it into writing, Homer being the division and coming about halfway. Note, while I defend Homeric truth, I think Homer did some distortion too. According to Walter Leaf, all about Achilles and Hector, indeed all about Hector, was added for human interest. At least an option.
b) Homer to sons of Peisistratos, if not in years, at least in generational overlaps, is comparable to Haydock's Adam to Moses or my Adam to Abraham.
c) Kosovo Polje to 1928 when Milman Parry wrote is 639 years. That's somewhat longer than Homer to sons of Peisistratos, but not twice.
So, a faithful transmission purely orally of 40 000 years, I think is out of question.
It's not just a question of learning by heart, but language and concepts would change a lot in that amount of time, and that would imply distortions that accumulate. For a faithful transmission of Genesis 3, stick with Young Earth. And that chapter is so important, like both Original Sin and Mary's sinlessness.
Let me add here, so would a transmission across 28 500 years be, from Adam to Moses ... or 28 000 years, from Adam to Abraham. And, of course, as said at the outset, 20 000 years.
A scenario in which mankind had well organised but lost prehistoric civilisations would help some ... but not all that much. One would in that case basically want to extend sth like the Nodian civilisation as long as possible, but a Sethite version. The problem becomes, if there is a carbon date that fits several items of the Flood, it's more arguably 40 000 BP than 10 000 BP. And after the Flood, you have technology loss, unless you add some kind of Atlantis like parallel to the Palaeolithic remains we find.
So, you want a faithful transmission of Genesis 3 to Abraham and Moses, what you don't want is people actually having lived 40 000 years ago. You want the carbon date reinterpreted to sth acceptable, you don't want the atmosphere to be 100 000 years or more older than Adam.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Wednesday in the Pentecost Novena
15.V.2024
Will be published on Pentecost. / Was published.
