you're reading...
Biblical authority, Creation/Evolution, science

The Historical Argument against the Evolutionary Timeline

The following post was inspired by Reddit user stcordova (http://www.reddit.com/user/stcordova) who posted in the Creation Reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/2pnvao/almost_simultaneous_origins_of_civilizations) a topic I realized I had never blogged about here before.


The Bible claims that at the Tower of Babel, God dispersed all gathered peoples by confusing their languages.  Many Christians understand this as the starting of the different people groups / civilizations from one original group about 4000 years ago.  If we use this proposition as our hypothesis, the evidence in the world appears to confirm this claim over and over.

The following graphic called the “Cradle of Civilization” maps the earliest emergence of each major world civilization.



And… none of them earlier than 3000 BC.  That seems to confirm our hypothesis so far!  Now see this graphic detailing the earliest emergence of languages:



Again, in this data – we have no record of any major language before 3000 BC which is in line with our hypothesis.  The other remarkable part of this list (click the link to see more) is that the majority of the world languages originated at roughly the same time!

Another point of evidence to consider is world population growth:



The growth of population matches well with what we would expect given a Young-Earth / Flood / Babel scenario.  The population explosion begins shortly after 3000 BC which correlates well with the data on languages and civilization emergences.

Also interesting to note on this topic is an article written by K.J. Duursma for creation.com about linguistics and how under an evolutionary worldview we should expect a common ancestor of all languages – which we do not find:

“The ultimate question is whether all human languages are genetically related, but the evidence for this is scarce.  There are few words which are similar in all languages…  This is a problem for secular linguists.  If man evolved from an ape-like ancestor, man would at some point have gained the ability to speak.  If speech did evolve somewhere, somehow, we would expect to find that all languages are genetically related.  They clearly are not.”




Young-earth creation would predict that recorded human history would begin following the flood, approx. 4000 BC.  Data across multiple disciplines including historical civilizations, languages, population growths, and historical linguistics confirm this prediction.


About Tim



2 thoughts on “The Historical Argument against the Evolutionary Timeline

  1. No, just no. Those graphs are incomplete; mostly because it seems you’ve chosen graphs that start with the Bronze Age (because people like to break things up into nice, manageable groups), not the start of civilisation or writing itself.

    For example, the Uruk period – referenced in the civilisation chart – actually extends for a thousand years or so before the start of that timeline. The Ur (or Ubaid) period, in turn, came before that.

    In fact, some of the charts you’ve picked explicitly reference such earlier material. The cuneiform section of the language timeline refers to the proto-cuneiform tablet date to 1,000 years before the start of that chronology. That, in turn, is descended from clay bulla; some of which date to as early as 8,000 BC.

    So no, there was not some sudden; dramatic emergence of language, civilisation and stuff around 3,000 BC. Rather, around 3,000 BC some people invented Bronze. Archaeologists later figured that would be a nice point to start some of their timelines.

    If you want to see some longer timelines; feel free to look into the preceding periods such as the Neolithic, Mesolithic or – my personal favourite – the Palaeolithic

    Posted by Adam Benton | December 20, 2014, 3:37 am
    • Even if the charts are incomplete and need to add another 1-2000 years, that is much more compatible with a YEC timeline than with an evolutionary one. Obviously if you start adding several thousand years to the dating method, then we would probably need to start discussing the reliability of the particular dating methods.

      Posted by Tim | December 20, 2014, 10:46 pm

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: