A Christian Eye on Politics

Fake News Assists Evolution's Claims

Established datings for the first civilisations support the Bible dating

April 23rd, 2017.

S ome of the more sensationalist newspapers love to carry 'stories' masquerading as genuine news in an attempt to stir up controversy. This happens more especially on the weekend, mainly in the tabloid-type newspapers. On Saturday 22nd April, 2017, The Mail Online carried an especially daft and wholly unsubstantiated claim about events which supposedly occurred on earth around 11,000 BC.

The article commences with this:

"Ancient symbols carved into stone at an archaeological site in Turkey tell the story of a devastating comet impact that triggered a mini ice age more than 13,000 years ago, scientists believe.

Evidence from the carvings, made on a pillar known as the Vulture Stone, suggests that a swarm of comet fragments hit the Earth in around 11000 BC.

One image of a headless man is thought to symbolise human disaster and extensive loss of life.

The devastating event, which wiped out creatures such as woolly mammoths, also helped spark the rise of civilisation."

It is then claimed that this led to an 'ice age' (just one of many, apparently).

The article continues thus,

"Scientists have speculated for decades that a comet could have caused the sharp drop in temperature during a period known as the Younger Dryas. The Younger Dryas is seen as a crucial period in humanity's history as it coincides with the beginnings of agriculture and the first Neolithic civilisations.

Scientists were analysing the mysterious symbols carved onto stone pillars at Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey to find out if they could be linked to constellations. .."

And on and on it goes. A brief, cursory glance at the article might give the impression that there is real evidence that all of this actually happened. There is not. I repeat: There is not. Perusing the article, one quickly finds the liberal use of expressions such as these: "thought to be," "estimates suggest," "the team suggest," "it probably," "may indicate," "they claim," and so on. Now consider one or two actual sentences from the article:

"They claim that a carving showing a headless man may indicate human disaster and extensive loss of life."

But, of course the carving might mean nothing of the kind! It might an just be an idle sketching or a description of a local execution.

Here is another:

"By interpreting the animals as astronomical symbols, and using computer software to match their positions to patterns of stars, researchers dated the event to 10,950BC. It probably resulted from the break-up of a giant comet in the inner solar system. "

Hmm! - did you carefully read that bit? All of this, of course, is sheer nonsense and is completely devoid of any serious evidence; it might be 'possible,' but it is the 'mystic Meg' level of 'possibility' (that is, for those who remember her), yet Alice in Wonderland is far more believable.

So the article is hype, sensationalism and, to be perfectly frank, fake news of the highest order (highest order of sheer fantasy, that is).

So the article claims that the suggested momentous happenings, including comet strikes, led to the rise of the first human civilisations. But whilst such things could possibly have been a factor, no substantial evidence really suggests this at all. In any criminal trial "evidence" of this flimsiness would be quickly thrown out of court! We really all need to remind ourselves that it remains the case that the first human civilisations can only be dated to something like 3,500 BC. Occasionally articles appear which suggests dates as early as 21,000BC but none of this can be grounded in serious evidence, it is just pure hype and unbridled speculation, usually with an evolutionary agenda.

What we actually know is that the first human societies appear somewhere around 4,000-3,500 BC, this also happens to agree with Bible teaching. In his truly marvellous 1960s BBC TV series, 'Civilisation,' Premier historian Kenneth Clark stated:

"Three or four times in history, man has made a leap forward which would have been unthinkable under ordinary evolutionary is around 3,000 BC when - quite suddenly - civilisation appeared not only in Egypt and Mesopotamia but in the Indus valley." ('Civilisation,' Programme 2, The Great Thaw, BBC TV, 1969).

Formidable historian Kenneth Clark, considered an intellectual 'heavyweight' in his time, was quite clear that nothing in evolutionary teaching could account for the great leaps forward in knowledge and understanding which he believed occurred around 3,000 BC (the first civilisations), then in the 6th century BC (Greek culture becomes established), and finally around 1100 (the Catholic Church becomes a major political body affecting every area of life). In this same programme Clark also stated that "Western civilisation was the creation of the church."

The dating of the first civilisations was always agreed upon by the major historians and archaeologists, only in the last few years have some frankly silly claims been made by people who have not carried out sufficient research. To suggest that civilisations were around as early as 21,000 BC flies in the face of hundreds of years of established scholarship. Frankly, you would only do it to attempt to prop-up the teaching of evolution; certainly many evolutionists have long been dismayed that more established datings for the first civilisations support the Bible dating.

Don't believe everything you read!

The Christian Hawk, April 24th, 2017.