Refuting Creationism - How We Know The Bible Was Made Up By Ignorant People

BibleBlunder

Reconstruction of life in 'Green Arabia'

AI-generated image (ChatGPT4o)

The lush past of the world’s largest desert - Medias - UNIGE

The brown traces represent the beds of ancient streams, organized in dendritic drainage networks that are now abandoned.

© Antoine Delaunay/Guillaume Baby/Abdallah Zaki

While the biblical authors drew heavily from earlier Mesopotamian myths — most notably adapting the flood narrative from the Epic of Gilgamesh — they appear to have had little understanding of the broader historical and environmental context of the region. Recent research highlights a striking omission: the rich prehistoric past of the Arabian Peninsula, just to the south of Mesopotamia.

Far from being an eternal wasteland, the Arabian Peninsula was once a verdant, fertile region. Between approximately 11,000 and 5,500 years ago, it featured extensive river systems, lush vegetation, and a large freshwater lake. This environment supported human settlement and migration, acting as a corridor out of Africa rather than the barrier it is today.

The biblical narrative, especially in Genesis, reflects a parochial worldview, lacking any apparent awareness of the dramatic environmental transformations that shaped the region. The latest findings, published by an international team including researchers from the University of Geneva, show that around 8,000 years ago, a gradual shift in Earth’s orbit triggered a weakening of the monsoon systems. This climatic change led to severe aridification, culminating in the desertification of the region and the disappearance of the once 42-metre-deep lake.

What was once a cradle of biodiversity and human migration is now the Rub’ al-Khali or "Empty Quarter"—one of the most inhospitable deserts on the planet. The contrast between this rich prehistoric reality and the narrow scope of the biblical texts speaks volumes about the limited horizons and historical understanding of their authors.

Refuting Creationism - People Of the Green Sahara - No Flood Noticed

View of the Takarkori rock shelter in Southern Libya.

© Archaeological Mission in the Sahara,
Sapienza University of Rome

View from the Takarkori rock shelter in Southern Libya.

© Archaeological Mission in the Sahara,
Sapienza University of Rome.

First ancient genomes from the Green Sahara deciphered

According to literal interpretations of biblical creationism, the first two humans were created approximately 6,000 years ago without any ancestors. Subsequently, around 4,000 years ago, the Earth was supposedly submerged by a global flood. According to this narrative, all present-day humans descended from the eight survivors who endured a year-long voyage in a large vessel accompanied by two (or, in some accounts, seven) individuals of each animal species. After the flood receded, these survivors are said to have repopulated a barren and sterile world in which all previously existing life had been destroyed.

In contrast, scientific evidence indicates that more than 7,000 years ago, human populations inhabited a Sahara region that was markedly different from today's desert. At the time, a wetter climate supported forests, grasslands, lakes, and rivers. These Saharan people were only distantly related to other non-African populations, as they had diverged from East and South African Homo sapiens around the same period—approximately 50,000 years ago—that modern non-African populations migrated out of Africa into Eurasia. Subsequently, the Saharan population remained largely isolated from both sub-Saharan African and Eurasian populations.

The critical distinction between these two accounts lies in their evidence base. Creationism relies solely on written narratives from a text of uncertain historical authenticity, whereas science relies upon verifiable, physical evidence, in this case DNA extracted from two mummified Saharan individuals discovered in Algeria.

This fundamental difference exemplifies the contrast between religion and science: religion typically relies on tradition, superstition, and narratives lacking empirical support, whereas science is grounded in observable evidence and logical deduction.

The evidence for the existence and origin of this Saharan population comes from the work of researchers at the Dept. of Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. It's significance is that it argues against the green Sahara being one of the migration routes for modern humans out of Africa and a return migration back into Africa because the Saharan population were genetically distinct and have a very low level of Neanderthal DNA unlike the western Eurasian Homo sapiens.

The findings of the group are published open access in Nature. The research is described in a Max Planck Institute News release:

Refuting Creationism - How Earth Was Really Formed

Impression of molten Earth at 300 million years old

AI-Generated image (Chat GPT4.5)

This article is best read on a laptop, desktop, or tablet

Artistic view of Earth’s interior during mantle solidification in the first hundreds of millions of years of Earth’s history. Gravitational segregation of dense, iron-rich magma (in orange) likely formed a basal magma ocean atop the core, that can explain the present-day structure of the lower mantle.

York U research sheds light on earliest days of Earth’s formation - News@York

According to creationist mythology, approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, a supernatural entity conjured Earth into existence out of nothing. This planet, according to the myth, was initially a small, flat surface covered by a dome, centred around the vicinity of the Middle East.

In stark contrast to this mythological narrative, scientific evidence reveals a completely different history — one so profoundly distinct that any metaphorical interpretation of the myth quickly collapses under scrutiny. The Earth is neither flat nor limited to a small region around the ancient Canaanite hills; nor does it possess a dome overhead. No amount of linguistic gymnastics can transform that ancient depiction into anything remotely resembling Earth, although it may well have resembled the perception of Earth from the point of view of scientifically illiterate Bronze Age pastoralists who had never travelled more than a day or two's walk from their homeland and who though the sky was blue because of all the water above the transparent dome overhead.

As though any more refutation of the idea that the Bible contains an inerrant account of actual history, a recent study by a research team led by Assistant Professor Charles-Édouard Boukaré from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at York University in Toronto, Canada, sheds new light on Earth's early geological development. Their research demonstrates how Earth gradually cooled over its first 100 million years, providing valuable insights into the planet’s current thermochemical internal structure.

Refuting Creationism - Scientists Confirm A Simple Model Of The Universe's First 380,000 Years

Credit: ACT Collaboration; ESA/Planck Collaboration.

This article is best read on a laptop, desktop, or tablet

Analysing the cosmic microwave background in high definition has enabled researchers to confirm a simple model of the universe, ruling out many competing alternatives.

Credit: ACT Collaboration; ESA/Planck Collaboration.

Telescope observations reveal universe’s hours-old baby pictures, scientists say - News - Cardiff University

Creationists today face a distinct challenge compared to their predecessors from one or two centuries ago. They must continually devise ways to ignore or dismiss the relentless flow of scientific evidence disproving their beliefs, while simultaneously rationalizing the complete lack of evidence supporting claims of a young Earth, special creation through supernatural means, or the existence of a creator capable of producing a universe from nothing.

Individuals with a normal degree of intellectual honesty, when confronted with overwhelming evidence against their beliefs and a lack of supportive evidence, would naturally see this as grounds for doubt and reassessment. Creationists, however, appear undeterred, convinced that their personal beliefs override scientific evidence without the necessity for evidential justification.

Compounding their difficulties, scientists recently announced a significant advancement: they have mapped the cosmic microwave background radiation—the residual echo of the Big Bang—in unprecedented detail. Utilizing data from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) collaboration, this new research reveals conditions in the universe as they existed only 380,000 years after the Big Bang, roughly 13.8 billion years ago.

On the scale of a human lifetime, this is the equivalent of a photograph of a now middle-aged person, taken one hour after they were born, and, in a confirmation of the principle of Occam's Razor, the simplest model is conformed as the correct model.

What Our Prophets Never Told Us - Because Our Prophets Hadn't Got A Clue

Euclid’s view of the Cat’s Eye Nebula

ESA - Euclid opens data treasure trove, offers glimpse of deep fields

A point I never tire of making because it contrasts so vividly what the authors of the Bible thought the Universe was like and what science is showing us it is really like, is the ludicrously naive description of a small, flat planet with a dome over it, with the moon, sun and starts attached to the dome.

Don't take my word for it. Open your Bible and read the first few pages:

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1.6-10)

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.(Genesis 1.16-18)

How the Bible's authors saw the Universe.

Now compare that with the view of just a small fragment of the universe that the European Space Agency's space telescope, Euclid, has revealed today:

Refuting Creationism - Human Language Had Evolved At Least 100,000 years Before 'Creation Week'!

Image: MIT News; iStock

World languages (for key, see Wikipedia source)

When did human language emerge? | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In stark contrast to biblical literalism's simplistic and contradictory story, recent research provides a very different picture of the origins of human language. According to Bible literalists, there are two versions of how languages come about. In the first, the descendants of each of the sons of Noah spoke different languages; in the second, language originated just five generations after the mythical global flood, when the human population — miraculously expanded from eight closely related survivors - grew large enough to undertake a massive construction project. Supposedly, this project so alarmed God that he intervened by 'confounding their tongues' to stop their cooperation.

In contrast to these Bible stories which compete for the most ludicrous and unlikely, scientists led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have recently suggested that human language actually evolved between 100,000 and 135,000 years before creationists claim the universe itself existed. v

What is the current consensus on the time and place of the origins of language in humans?

There is currently no clear scientific consensus regarding the exact timing and location of the origins of human language, primarily because language leaves no direct fossil evidence. However, there is broad agreement around certain key points:

Timing of Language Origin:

• General timeframe: Most researchers propose that fully-developed spoken language originated between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, during the late Middle or early Upper Palaeolithic period, associated with anatomically modern Homo sapiens.
• Genetic clues: Genetic evidence, particularly the emergence of the FOXP2 gene mutation (linked to speech and language capability), suggests language capacity existed at least around 150,000–200,000 years ago.
• Cultural and archaeological indicators: A notable increase in symbolic behaviour, such as sophisticated art, toolmaking, and ritual practices approximately 40,000–70,000 years ago (often referred to as the "cognitive revolution"), is widely viewed as indirect evidence of fully developed linguistic capabilities. However, many linguists argue for a much earlier, more gradual development extending back hundreds of thousands of years.

Place of Origin:

• Africa hypothesis: The widely supported "Out of Africa" theory of modern human evolution implies that language, like other uniquely human traits, likely emerged first in Africa, associated with early Homo sapiens populations around 150,000–200,000 years ago.
• Multiple origins or dispersal: While most linguists and paleoanthropologists favour an African origin due to genetic and fossil evidence, some researchers have proposed language capabilities could have evolved independently or spread quickly as humans migrated. However, the single-origin hypothesis currently dominates.

Mechanism of Origin:

• Gradual evolution: The prevailing view today is that language evolved gradually through incremental cognitive, anatomical, and social adaptations, rather than appearing abruptly.
• Social complexity: Most researchers believe language emerged alongside increasing social complexity, facilitating cooperation, teaching, and cultural transmission, which in turn provided strong evolutionary advantages.

Current Scientific Consensus:

• No direct fossil evidence means pinpointing exact dates or locations remains speculative.
• Broad consensus: Language emerged gradually, probably in Africa, between 50,000–200,000 years ago, closely tied to the cognitive evolution of anatomically modern humans.

In summary, while the exact details remain debated, the dominant scientific consensus positions the origin of human language firmly within the evolutionary context of anatomically modern Homo sapiens in Africa, sometime around or shortly before humans began their global migrations.

ChatGPT4o [Response to user request]
Retrieved from https://chatgpt.com/

Information Continually updated

The findings of the MIT group are published, open access, in the journal Frontiers in Psychology and are explained by Peter Dizikes in MIT News:

When did human language emerge?

---

A new analysis suggests our language capacity existed at least 135,000 years ago, with language used widely perhaps 35,000 years after that.

---

It is a deep question, from deep in our history: When did human language as we know it emerge? A new survey of genomic evidence suggests our unique language capacity was present at least 135,000 years ago. Subsequently, language might have entered social use 100,000 years ago.

Our species, Homo sapiens, is about 230,000 years old. Estimates of when language originated vary widely, based on different forms of evidence, from fossils to cultural artifacts. The authors of the new analysis took a different approach. They reasoned that since all human languages likely have a common origin — as the researchers strongly think — the key question is how far back in time regional groups began spreading around the world.

The logic is very simple. Every population branching across the globe has human language, and all languages are related. [Based on what the genomics data indicate about the geographic divergence of early human populations] I think we can say with a fair amount of certainty that the first split occurred about 135,000 years ago, so human language capacity must have been present by then, or before.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa, co-author.
Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.

The paper, “Linguistic capacity was present in the Homo sapiens population 135 thousand years ago,” appears in Frontiers in Psychology. The co-authors are Miyagawa, who is a professor emeritus of linguistics and the Kochi-Manjiro Professor of Japanese Language and Culture at MIT; Rob DeSalle, a principal investigator at the American Museum of Natural History’s Institute for Comparative Genomics; Vitor Augusto Nóbrega, a faculty member in linguistics at the University of São Paolo; Remo Nitschke, of the University of Zurich, who worked on the project while at the University of Arizona linguistics department; Mercedes Okumura of the Department of Genetics and Evolutionary Biology at the University of São Paulo; and Ian Tattersall, curator emeritus of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History.

The new paper examines 15 genetic studies of different varieties, published over the past 18 years: Three used data about the inherited Y chromosome, three examined mitochondrial DNA, and nine were whole-genome studies.

All told, the data from these studies suggest an initial regional branching of humans about 135,000 years ago. That is, after the emergence of Homo sapiens, groups of people subsequently moved apart geographically, and some resulting genetic variations have developed, over time, among the different regional subpopulations. The amount of genetic variation shown in the studies allows researchers to estimate the point in time at which Homo sapiens was still one regionally undivided group.

Miyagawa says the studies collectively provide increasingly converging evidence about when these geographic splits started taking place. The first survey of this type was performed by other scholars in 2017, but they had fewer existing genetic studies to draw upon. Now, there are much more published data available, which when considered together point to 135,000 years ago as the likely time of the first split.

The new meta-analysis was possible because “quantity-wise we have more studies, and quality-wise, it’s a narrower window [of time],” says Miyagawa, who also holds an appointment at the University of São Paolo.

Like many linguists, Miyagawa believes all human languages are demonstrably related to each other, something he has examined in his own work. For instance, in his 2010 book, “Why Agree? Why Move?” he analyzed previously unexplored similarities between English, Japanese, and some of the Bantu languages. There are more than 7,000 identified human languages around the globe.

Some scholars have proposed that language capacity dates back a couple of million years, based on the physiological characteristics of other primates. But to Miyagawa, the question is not when primates could utter certain sounds; it is when humans had the cognitive ability to develop language as we know it, combining vocabulary and grammar into a system generating an infinite amount of rules-based expression.

Human language is qualitatively different because there are two things, words and syntax, working together to create this very complex system. No other animal has a parallel structure in their communication system. And that gives us the ability to generate very sophisticated thoughts and to communicate them to others.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa.

This conception of human language origins also holds that humans had the cognitive capacity for language for some period of time before we constructed our first languages.

Language is both a cognitive system and a communication system. My guess is prior to 135,000 years ago, it did start out as a private cognitive system, but relatively quickly that turned into a communications system.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa.

So, how can we know when distinctively human language was first used? The archaeological record is invaluable in this regard. Roughly 100,000 years ago, the evidence shows, there was a widespread appearance of symbolic activity, from meaningful markings on objects to the use of fire to produce ochre, a decorative red color.

Like our complex, highly generative language, these symbolic activities are engaged in by people, and no other creatures. As the paper notes, “behaviors compatible with language and the consistent exercise of symbolic thinking are detectable only in the archaeological record of H. sapiens.”

Among the co-authors, Tattersall has most prominently propounded the view that language served as a kind of ignition for symbolic thinking and other organized activities.

Language was the trigger for modern human behavior. Somehow it stimulated human thinking and helped create these kinds of behaviors. If we are right, people were learning from each other [due to language] and encouraging innovations of the types we saw 100,000 years ago.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa.

To be sure, as the authors acknowledge in the paper, other scholars believe there was a more incremental and broad-based development of new activities around 100,000 years ago, involving materials, tools, and social coordination, with language playing a role in this, but not necessarily being the central force.

For his part, Miyagawa recognizes that there is considerable room for further progress in this area of research, but thinks efforts like the current paper are at least steps toward filling out a more detailed picture of language’s emergence.

Our approach is very empirically based, grounded in the latest genetic understanding of early homo sapiens. I think we are on a good research arc, and I hope this will encourage people to look more at human language and evolution.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa.

Recent genome-level studies on the divergence of early Homo sapiens, based on single nucleotide polymorphisms, suggest that the initial population division within H. sapiens from the original stem occurred approximately 135 thousand years ago. Given that this and all subsequent divisions led to populations with full linguistic capacity, it is reasonable to assume that the potential for language must have been present at the latest by around 135 thousand years ago, before the first division occurred. Had linguistic capacity developed later, we would expect to find some modern human populations without language, or with some fundamentally different mode of communication. Neither is the case. While current evidence does not tell us exactly when language itself appeared, the genomic studies do allow a fairly accurate estimate of the time by which linguistic capacity must have been present in the modern human lineage. Based on the lower boundary of 135 thousand years ago for language, we propose that language may have triggered the widespread appearance of modern human behavior approximately 100 thousand years ago.

1 Introduction
More than any other trait, language defines us as human. Yet there is no clear agreement on when this crucial feature emerged in our evolution. Some who have studied the archaeological record suggest that language emerged in our lineage around 100 thousand years ago (kya) (Tattersall, 2012, 2017, 2018; Wadley, 2021), while others have claimed that some form of language preceded the emergence of modern humans (Albessard-Ball and Balzeau, 2018; Botha, 2020). Indeed, it has been argued [e.g., by Progovac (2016) and Dediu and Levinson (2018)] that language is not uniquely the property of the lineage that produced H. sapiens. Here we accept the reasoning of that behaviors compatible with language and the consistent exercise of symbolic thinking are detectable only in the archaeological record of H. sapiens (Tattersall, 2012; Berwick et al., 2013; Berwick and Chomsky, 2016), and approach the issue of the antiquity of language in our species by showing that, although it is not yet possible to identify the time when a linguistic capacity emerged, genomic evidence allows us to establish with reasonable certainty the latest point at which it must have been present in early H. sapiens populations.

Over the past 15 years, numerous studies have addressed the question of exactly when the first division occurred in the original stem population of early H. sapiens. While those studies do not tell us exactly when language emerged, they allow us to make a reasonable estimate of the lower boundary of the possible time range for this key occurrence. H. sapiens emerged as an anatomically distinctive entity by about 230kya (Vidal et al., 2022). Sometime after that speciation event, the first division occurred, with all descendant populations of that division having full-fledged language. From this universal presence of language, we can deduce that some form of linguistic capacity must have been present before the first population divergence. If the linguistic capacity had emerged in humans after the initial divergence, one would expect to find modern human populations that either do not have language, or that have some communication capacity that differs meaningfully from that of all other human populations. Neither is the case. The 7,000 or so languages in the world today share striking similarities in the ways in which they are constructed phonologically, syntactically, and semantically (Eberhard et al., 2023).

Genomic studies of early H. sapiens population broadly agree that the first division from the original stem is represented today by the Khoisan peoples of Southern Africa (Schlebusch et al., 2012). This conclusion was reached early on Vigilant et al. (1989), Knight et al. (2003), Tishkoff et al. (2007), and Veeramah et al. (2012), and it has more recently been bolstered by studies using newer genomic techniques (Fan et al., 2019; Lorente-Galdos et al., 2019; Schlebusch et al., 2017; Schlebusch et al., 2020; Pakendorf and Stoneking, 2021). The term “Khoisan” refers to a bio-genetic affiliation that is linked both to a proposed ancestor-group and to some modern peoples, living in present-day South Africa, who include modern speakers of the Khoe-Khwadi, Tuu, and Ju-ǂHoan languages that have some genetic affiliation to the first divergence of the human population (Güldemann and Sands, 2009; du Plessis, 2014). It follows that, if we can identify when the first division occurred, we can with reasonable certainty consider that date to define the lower boundary of when human language was present in the ancestral modern human population. Based on the results of studies focusing on whole genome single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), we estimate that this first division occurred at approximately 135kya. ¹

Huybregts (2017) was the first to attempt to pinpoint the timing of the first division in this way. Although he suggested a date of ~125kya, close to our estimate of ~135kya, his estimate was necessarily based on a fairly narrow set of studies showing a remarkably variable range. The studies he examined ranged from the clearly implausible 300kya (Scally and Durbin, 2012), to 180kya (Rito et al., 2013) and as little as 100kya (Schlebusch et al., 2012). Pakendorf and Stoneking (2021) later listed several studies proposing that the first division was older than 160kya (Fan et al., 2019; Lorente-Galdos et al., 2019; Schlebusch et al., 2020), along with four others, from 140 to 110kya, that overlapped with the range suggested by Huybregts (Gronau et al., 2011; Veeramah et al., 2012; Mallick et al., 2016; Song et al., 2017). Several newer studies now allow us to approach the age of the first division with greater precision.

In conclusion, the researchers say:

4 The picture that emerges
Based on the recent genetic studies of early H. sapiens, we have pinpointed approximately 135kya as the moment at which some linguistic capacity must have been present in the human population. Looking forward from this event, modern human behaviors such as body decoration and the production of ochre pieces with symbolic engravings appeared as normative and persistent behaviors around 100kya. We believe that the time lag implied between the lower boundary of when language was present (135kya) and the emergence of normative modern human behaviors across the population suggests that language itself was the trigger that transformed nonlinguistic early H. sapiens (who nonetheless already possessed “language-ready” brains acquired at the origin of the anatomically distinctive species) into the symbolically-mediated beings familiar today. This development of the most sophisticated communication device in evolution allowed our ancestors to accelerate and consolidate symbolically-mediated behaviors until they became the norm for the entire species.

Miyagawa, Shigeru; DeSalle, Rob; Nóbrega, Vitor Augusto; Nitschke, Remo; Okumura, Mercedes; Tattersall, Ian
Linguistic capacity was present in the Homo sapiens population 135 thousand years ago Frontiers in Psychology (2025) 16 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1503900

Copyright: © 2025 The authors.
Published by Frontiers Media S.A. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)

It appears that the evolution of language in humans followed a familiar evolutionary pattern. Genetic mutations, including those affecting the FOXP2 gene—which influences brain development and vocal control—provided cognitive advantages, opening new opportunities for natural selection. This genetic foundation set human evolution onto a new trajectory, much like how feathers, originally evolved for insulation or display in dinosaurs, eventually led to powered flight in birds.

In contrast, simplistic explanations—such as the Bible's depiction of Noah's descendants rapidly diverging into different languages (Genesis 10–11), or a deity magically imposing language barriers to thwart human cooperation at Babel (Genesis 11)—reflect limited imagination and a profound misunderstanding of how closely related languages evolve geographically.

Today, science provides a coherent and evidence-based explanation, emphasizing gene-culture co-evolution and language divergence within geographically dispersed and partially fragmented human populations.

---

Advertisement

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Advertisement

Thank you for sharing!

Tweet Link

Last Modified: Wed Apr 09 2025 11:39:58 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

The Bible's Bad Science - What The Bronze Age Pastoralists Could Never Have Guessed At

Andromeda

By Adam Evans. Uploaded by NotFromUtrecht,CC BY 2.0, Link

Andromeda

By Kanwar Singh - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

NASA's Hubble Provides Bird's-Eye View of Andromeda Galaxy's Ecosystem - NASA Science

Q. How do we know the Bible could not possibly have been written by the god described in it?

A. The Bible describes the god it purports to have been inspired by as all-knowing, yet there is a great deal the Bible gets wrong, and even more that is left out. Clearly, whoever wrote it was ignorant of a great deal and almost all of what little they thought they knew they got hopelessly wrong.

For example, the opening few verses of Genesis make it plain that the authors thought the Universe consisted of a small, flat planet, on which they and everything they knew about lived. This planet had a dome over it from which the sun and moon were hung and in which the stars were embedded. The Bible even described how these stars could be shaken loose during earthquakes whereupon they would fall down to Earth.

This description of the universe bears no resemblance to the real universe and is clearly a description of what someone standing on a hill in Canaan thought his universe consisted of. It could scarcely be further from the truth.

There is simply no reason for an omniscient god to have got it so wrong; it's not even of the category of a 'lie to children', like the planetary model of an atom, designed to foster understanding of some of the properties of atoms without the complication of having to understand some quantum physics. The small, flat planet with a dome over it at the centre of the universe provides nothing by way of a useful model with which we can explain observed phenomena.

It is wrong, plainly and simply, and as such has served throughout the centuries to confuse and mislead, to endarken rather than to enlighten us.

Bible Blunder - How Can Anyone Imagine Tales Like The Tower of Babel Are Real History?

The Tower of Babel as imagined by
Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1526-1569)

Wikipedia - Originally from Google Art Project.
Public Domain, Link

Street children in Accra, Ghana, often speak multiple languages fluently.

How many languages can you learn at the same time? – Ghanaian babies grow up speaking two to six languages - University of Potsdam

Along with nonsense like the Jonah tale and the Exodus myth, the Tower of Babel story must rate as amongst the more ridiculous stories to have been bound up in a single book later declared to be the literal truth as revealed by a creator god.

These nonsense stories refute any notion of omniscient involvement in their telling. They were made up by people with minimal understanding of the subject about which they were writing, so, not surprisingly, they are unravelling as we discover more and see the magnitude of their errors and misunderstanding.

But the nonsense of the Tower of Babel tale should have been apparent to even the Bronze Age mythmakers who made it up as a simplistic attempt to explain the handful of different languages they were aware of, from their limited view of the world which saw everything within a few days walk of the Canaanite Hills as comprising the whole Earth.

That the story was poorly grafted onto other mythologies becomes apparent when you read the immediately preceding chapter, which explained how the descendants of the sons of Noah all spoke different languages, as though that were even remotely likely. Imaging your own family where you and your cousins and your and their children all speak different languages! Apparently, the authors of Genesis had no problem believing that was at all likely.

So, they concocted the following:

Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood. The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.

By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations… (Genesis 10:1-5)

These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations… (Genesis 10:20)

These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations. These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.(Genesis 10:31-32)

So, a whole chapter devoted to why there are so many different languages by constructing an unlikely family tree with each son in each generation speaking different languages. Unlikely though that silly tale is, we turn the page, and what do we see?

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. (Genesis 11:1)

Creationism Refuted - The Real Universe Shows Us The Bible's Authors Just Make Stuff Up -

Euclid image of a bright Einstein ring around galaxy NGC 6505

Close-up of the Einstein ring around galaxy NGC 6505

ESA - Euclid discovers a stunning Einstein ring

No matter how much you insist that words meant something different in those days, or the description is a poetic allegory or a metaphor the meaning of which is beyond us, the early verses of the Bible clearly and unambiguously describe a universe consisting of a small flat planet with a dome over it with the sun, moon and stars stuck to the underside of the dome.

This, of course, is a childlike description of what the authors saw as they looked up into the sky and saw what looked like a dome, and Earth was more or less flat, give or take a few low hills, so that is what, in their child-like naivety, they described:

How the Bible's authors saw the Universe.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1.6-10

---

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1.14-18

Now, as we learn more about the Universe as we develop increasingly sophisticated scientific instruments for examining it, we discover just how childishly naïve the Bible's authors were and so show to anyone interested in truth that the Bible could not possibly have been written or inspired by the creator god described in it, unless that god wanted to mislead us so that it would take humanity another three thousand years or more to discover its lies - and what would have been the point of that?

Mind you, the same creator god could have told us about germs, atoms or electricity or how to make a steam engine or a motor car, but either chose not to or didn't know about those things, because the people who invented it didn't know about those things either. What 'science' there is in the Bible is no better than the primitive understanding of Bronze Age pastoralists.

Refuting Creationism - What Did The Denisovans Ever Do For Us?

Denisova Cave

By Демин Алексей Барнаул - Own work,
CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

Denisovan Girl Reconstruction (Smithsonian)

Artwork by Mayaan Harel, Mayaan Visuals.

New insights into the Denisovans – the new hominin group that interbred with modern day humans - News & Events | Trinity College Dublin

In marked contrast to the childish creationist notion of a single founder couple being magically created without ancestors 6-10,000 years ago, evidence is growing that one ancestral species that contributes some of its DNA to modern non-African humans, the Denisovans, were once widespread especially in Southeast Asia and may have reached South America, or at least people carrying some Denisovan DNA may have done, but not via the traditional route - Siberia, Beringia and Alaska - followed by later Homo sapiens.

My understanding is that they and Neanderthals were most likely direct descendants of H. erectus that migrated out of Africa some 2 million years ago and gave rise to the Denisovans in Eastern Eurasia and Neanderthals in Western Eurasia. These two then interbreed with the H. sapiens migrants as they came up out of Africa and spread throughout Eurasia and down to Melanesia, Austronesia and Oceania.

So, rather than a single ancestral couple magically created out of dirt, without ancestors, as creationists believe, modern non-African humans don't have an ancestral couple, they don't even have a single ancestral species but are the result of hybridization between at least three ancestral species.

There is also evidence, according to two researchers from Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, that there may have been several regional populations of Denisovans, each of which contributed to the Homo sapiens genome at different times. As with other hominin species, they were diversifying as they spread in what may have been the beginnings of classical allopatric speciation.

The Denisovan DNA that was retained by H. sapiens as they migrated into the different environments in Asia was that which gave them an advantage, such as the ability to survive in the low oxygen partial pressure of the Tibetan Plateau - something that the Tibetans have inherited - immunity to certain endemic pathogens and an improved ability to keep their body temperature up during cold weather by burning stored body fats - something that Innuits have inherited.

Refuting Creationism - The Japanese People Didn't Notice Noah's Genocidal Flood!

Representation of Jomo-period life in Japan in the shadow of Mount Fuji

AI-generated (ChatGPT4o)

Human remains from the Yayoi period, approximately 2,300 years ago, from which DNA was extracted.

Map of Japan showing Sakhalin (far north) and the Kuril and Ryukyu Islands

Google Map

Traces of ancient immigration patterns to Japan found in 2000-year-old genome | SCHOOL OF SCIENCE THE UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO

Being parochial Bronze Age pastoralists who knew about nothing and nowhere that was more than a day or two's walk from their hill pastures in Canaan, those who made up the Hebrew creation myths could not possibly have been aware that there were other cultures in far-away places like China, Korea and Japan, which had ancient histories going way back before the myth-makers thought Earth was created, and which were unscathed by an global flood at the time in which they set that tale.

Had they been aware of them, they could have made up slightly more plausible myths with a more realistic timeline, instead of requiring their believers to try to compress everything that's happened in the entire 14-billion-year-old Universe into 10,000 years.

But how could they have done so when they had no-one to teach them the real history of the planet and the people living on it? All they had was their own limited imagination and a handful if inherited myths from neighbouring culture, like Egypt and Sumeria, for theirs was a backward, illiterate culture from the fearful infancy of our species, dependent on oral traditions and superstitions.

How could they possibly have known, for example, that a population of humans had been more or less isolated for about 6,500 years, ending at about the time the myth-makers believed Earth was made out of nothing by magic, complete with a dome over it to cover the small, flat place they called home? They would have known nothing about immigration from China or from the Korean Peninsula into the Japanese archipelago that brought this period of isolation to an end and probably resulted in the present-day population of Japan.

So, of course, they saw nothing wrong with inventing a tale about a genocidal flood killing everyone apart from 8 related survivors, or of building a tower to reach above the dome or about a panicking god making them all speak different languages so they couldn't work in cooperative groups any more, and yet, if their tale is to be believed, the descendants of those few survivors, all speaking different languages, migrated to places like China, Korea and Japan where they all adopted the local language and writing that had been used for several thousand years, forgot all about Noah and his flood and invented new gods and religions, whereas the myth-makers of Canaan remembered it all word-perfect in every detail...

So, how do we know the record they left was wrong?

Refuting Creationism - How Mars Became Unsuitable For Life As We Know It - 3 Billion Years Before 'Creation Week'

Artist's concept of an early Mars with liquid water (blue areas) on its surface.

NASA/MAVEN/The Lunar and Planetary Institute

self-portrait of NASA's Curiosity Mars rover

By NASA - http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA19920, Public Domain, Link

NASA: New Insights into How Mars Became Uninhabitable - NASA Science

The Middle Eastern Bronze Age pastoralists who made up the Hebrew creation myths that later found themselves bound up in a book declared to be the inerrant word of a god, were probably aware of the planet Mars.

Certainly, the Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans were and even named it after one of their gods - Nergal, Her Dashur, Ares and Mars, respectively. Because of its red colour, it was associated with blood and, by extension, war and violence.

But of course, the authors of Genesis thought it was stuck to the dome over their small flat planet, so they assumed it was made during 'Creation Week' and so had as little knowledge of its history as they had of their own planet - i.e., none at all. Had they realised Mars had water forming oceans, lakes and rivers 3 billion years earlier (they didn't even have a word for a number so large), they could have made up a slightly more plausible creation myth, at least as far as a time-scale is concerned.

But of course, as a small red light stuck to the dome, they had no more idea than fly how it got there, why it looked red or what it could tell them about planetary orbits. Although they don't even give it a mentions, presumably they must have had some inkling that it was different to the other little lights as it 'wandered' over the undersurface of the dome, like some of the other little lights - magical mystery, probably involving angels or other magic spirits, no doubt.

But what was it exactly that changed Mars from being a wet planet, with an atmosphere and probably suitable for life to evolve on, to being a cold, dry, unsuitable, even hostile place, where life as we know it could not exist, certainly on its surface or as advanced multicellular organisms.