Search This Blog

Sunday, December 12, 2010

"If Darwinists’ beliefs are so fragile that they worry exposure to alternative viewpoints is intolerable, then their beliefs are not worth believing."

I agree with the CreationSafari guys, who said:  "If Darwinists’ beliefs are so fragile that they worry exposure to alternative viewpoints is intolerable, then their beliefs are not worth believing.  And if they think that the public must be protected from such exposure, they disparage the intelligence of their fellow Homo sapiens.   No scientist should fear openness about the evidence.  Bring it on."

Time for another science versus propaganda post (I like that one since it pretty well proves that man and dinosaur trod the same ground and left tracks, which makes sense if you know your history and you are not a propagandized Darwinist).

One of my commenters dismissed something a researcher had said because the Noahic Flood was referenced.  Those of you who have followed this blog know that I have already enumerated the great number of cultures that reference a world-wide flood.  Also I have clearly demonstrated that the majority of cultures in the world have the names of Noah and/or Ham, Shem, Japheth in addition to many references to Babel and those in the Biblical genealogy such as Cush, the founder of the Egyptian Empire.  In view of the sedimentary rock records and the available historical records, the working hypothesis of the objective scientist really should be that it is more likely that there was, indeed, a worldwide flood.  Therefore one should be skeptical of a scientist who does NOT believe in a worldwide flood.

We already know that the population of humanity indicates that everyone came from a small family at about the time of the Flood,  right?

Human Population Rose From Bottleneck   12/27/2002
Researchers at George Washington University measured parts of the human genome and concluded there was a population bottleneck followed by a recovery in the Paleolithic.  They examined 500,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), rapidly-varying parts of DNA, in their analysis:
Distributions of marker density observed at different overlap length scales under a model of recombination and population size change show that the history of the population represented by the public genome sequence is one of collapse followed by a recent phase of mild size recovery.  The inferred times of collapse and recovery are Upper Paleolithic, in agreement with archaeological evidence of the initial modern human colonization of Europe.
The authors warn that the results should be used with caution, since they are inferred by model comparisons based on one data set, using assumed rates of divergence.  Their model of collapse and recovery produced a slightly better fit than other models. Not too much should be gleaned from this report, since there are many assumptions and sources of error, but it seems consistent with the view that human population was wiped out at the time of the Flood and recovered slowly during the Ice Age that followed, as populations migrated from Babel out of the Fertile Crescent and into Europe and Asia.  At least Bible historians would not have a problem with this thesis (except for their evolution-assumed date of 40,000 years ago), but it would seem evolutionists have a puzzle on why a bottleneck would affect the entire human population.

Well, I long ago showed by using basic population genetics tools we can take the population back to approximately the time of the Flood based on the number of humans alive now and basic population reports from history.   We did not need DNA confirmation but we certainly expected it.  By the way,  we keep finding out more and more complexity and functionality in DNA, and every time we do it is another shovel full of dirt to throw on the grave of Darwinism.

Splicing and dicing the human genome

Scientists begin to unravel the splicing code

Published: 1 July 2010(GMT+10)
Compilation of images from iStockphoto
Splicing and dicing the human genome Scientists begin to 
unravel the splicing code

What separates the genomes of simple organisms like sea anemones and jellyfish from humans? Humans have approximately the same number of protein coding genes as these lowly creatures,1 yet we are much more complex organisms. Ignoring the spiritual aspects of humanity, this complexity difference must be coded within our genomes, but where? Since we share many genes with many simpler organisms, the answer does not lie in gene content alone. Rather, the differences are in the non-coding portions of the genome (the so-called “junk DNA”2) and in the way the genes are used to create proteins.

Several decades ago, the “one gene-one enzyme” hypothesis was in vogue. It seemed straightforward that a single protein gene coded for a single protein. In prokaryotic organisms (bacteria), this was easy to show. The known bacterial genes had a defined starting and stopping place and the DNA letters in between spelled out a discrete amino acid sequence. The eukaryotes (organisms with a nucleus; everything from yeast, to plants, to humans) do not have a simple gene structure. Our protein genes are broken up into a series of “exons” (the parts that code for protein) and “introns” (non-coding intervening sequences). To make a protein, the gene is first transcribed into RNA, then the introns are spliced out, the exons are stitched together, and the remainder is translated into protein. Even though complex, the one gene-one enzyme hypothesis was still applied to eukaryotic protein genes.

Over time, however, it was realized that life was not so simple, especially for the eukaryotes. The one gene-one enzyme hypothesis was particularly troubling for the higher (more complex) eukaryotes. For example, the approximately 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes in the human genome3 are used to create 100,000-300,000 distinct proteins (the actual number is uncertain). The low number of genes in the human genome was troubling for several reasons.4 First, this means that we did not have that many more genes than organisms much simpler than us. Second, we needed a way to create many proteins from few genes and nobody knew how this could be done on such a large scale. And third, the complexity of the genomic computer program ratcheted up to even more uncomfortable levels for those who thought we arose through random chance.

From the ENCODE project, we learned that alternate splicing is so pervasive that the definition of the word ‘gene’ is currently under debate.

Even before Human Genome Project5 was complete, we knew that some proteins are manufactured through a process called “alternate splicing”, where exons from different locations in the genome are combined to create many different proteins. From the ENCODE project,6 we learned that alternate splicing is so pervasive that the definition of the word “gene” is currently under debate.7 Thus, the one gene-one enzyme hypothesis turned out to be a gross oversimplification. However, the word and the concept of a “gene” is so useful that for the rest of this article I will be referring to “genes” in the classic sense as a contiguous stretch of DNA with a starting and ending location and a set of introns and exons that could potentially be transcribed, spliced, and translated into a single protein. Each gene, however is made of parts that can be recombined with parts from other genes in different locations in the genome to create proteins not coded by any specific gene.

Alternate splicing is a brilliant design concept that allows for a streamlined genetic program that takes up a fraction of the space compared to a program that coded for each protein independently. But this added complexity comes at a price. It has been conservatively estimated that each intron adds the same amount of complexity as approximately 30 additional DNA letters.8 Thus, the “mutation target” for a gene is increased for each intron added. Consider that the average protein-coding gene has 7-10 introns and that the total length of introns is often longer than the total length of protein coding DNA, and one can see why this is a problem. It takes a lot to maintain such a system and the complexity makes it difficult for naturalistic theories of origins. In fact, a sizeable proportion of human genetic disease has been attributed to mutations within intron-exon splice sites.9 Introns are typically included in the junk DNA category, but they have specific sequences at the head and tail ends that tell the splicing mechanism where to cut, etc., so they are not without function. (Exons also have splice signals at their ends. Thus, some of the information for splicing out the introns is found within the protein-coding portion of the genome. The protein-coding sections code for both protein sequence and splicing patterns at the same time!)

The ENCODE project made the significant discovery that nearly all of the genome was turned into RNA at some point in the life of a cell and that multiple overlapping RNAs were often created from the same stretch of DNA. This was a tremendous blow to junk DNA theorists.10 However, perhaps more importantly, the ENCODE results also documented an amazing amount of alternate splicing. So, here we were, knowing that a huge portion of the genome is active and that the protein-coding portions were being used in complex combinations, but we still did not know how it all came together. Because of this, scientists have been looking for a “splicing code” within the genome that controls the slicing and dicing of the protein genes. This splicing code must account for 1) the complex combinations of exons needed to create hundreds of thousands of proteins from tens of thousands of protein genes, 2) the variation in splicing from cell to cell needed to account for the different proteins expressed in different cell types, and 3) changes in splicing patterns over time as the organism proceeds from fertilized egg to adult (since not all genes are active at all stages in the life cycle). All this information must be coded in the genome, but it also cannot interfere with the protein-coding domains. Thus, most of this information must reside within the introns and in the spaces between genes.

A paper recently appeared in Nature where the authors claimed to have discovered the beginning of the splicing code. What they found is a marvel of complexity. Science labs across the world have been generating tremendous amounts of data and they were able to capitalize on this new knowledge in a massive data mining exercise. Specifically, vast databases have been compiled that tell us which genes are active in different cell lines and at different stages of development. We also know of many DNA-binding factors and their specific sequence targets (usually a short string of very precise letters that are targeted by proteins with whimsical names like “Star”, “Nova”, and “Quaking-like”). With this knowledge, they were able to approach the issue statistically to document significant features that help to control alternate splicing. They found many “motifs” (short DNA words of 5-10 letters each) before and after many exons that were strongly associated with different cell types. In all, they could explain 60% of the alternate splicing patterns found in the human genome just by the presence or absence of these motifs. Many of the motifs were known previously and are sites for known DNA-binding proteins. Many other motifs were new to science.

The median number of tissue-specific motifs associated with splicing, per exon, ranged from 12 for the central nervous system and 19 for embryo.11 There were additional tissue-independent features associated with most or all exons and additional and abundant short motifs that were not considered in the above counts. This means the splicing code is complex and that complex combinations of instructions are needed to control how the many exons combine to produce the multitude of proteins found in the human body.

They also discovered features related to splicing much farther away from the protein-coding regions than they expected. Because of technical limitations, most studies on transcription regulation have historically focused on a few dozen letters immediately upstream or downstream of a target sequence. Here, they document features much further into non-coding regions than previously known (up to 300 letters away). Thus, even more junk DNA has been subsumed into the functional DNA category!

God wrote a genetic computer program that is, to date, unsurpassed by any human technology.

But this is only the beginning. They have only scratched the surface and have already discovered amazing complexity. They only managed a prediction accuracy of 60%. Therefore, much remains to be discovered. Where is the missing information? Perhaps it will be found deeper into the non-coding DNA. Perhaps, because they did not consider the 3-D architecture of the DNA within the nucleus, additional features may be discovered much farther away or even on different chromosomes! The possibilities are endless and we will certainly update you as more is learned.

There is one final implication of this work I would like to discuss. There are many “pseudogenes” in the genome that look like functional genes but have “mutations” that prevent them from being turned into proteins. The presence of pseudogenes has been an enigma since their discovery, but the idea has generally been used to attack creationists and other advocates of design. I believe the arguments are spurious12 and we have written much about them in prior articles.13 Even though functions have been found for many pseudogenes, it is true that, if transcribed and spliced, a pseudogene cannot be translated into a protein. However, now that we are aware of alternate splicing, future work may show that many of the pseudogene exons are incorporated into functional proteins. If so, the entire pseudogene argument will collapse like a house of cards. But, only time will tell.

For now, let us be amazed at the amazingly engineered human genome. God wrote a genetic computer program that is, to date, unsurpassed by any human technology. The wisdom and foresight that went into it is nothing short of stunning. He engineered a string of DNA as long as a person is tall that could withstand thousands of errors (mutations), adapt to changing environments (through self-modifying code that turns different genes on and off, depending on conditions), and that can be packed into a microscopic cell without forming knots! Now we learn that his program is a wonder of data compression and efficiency. It is more sophisticated than anything we have ever contemplated.

Related articles

Further reading


  1. Putnam, N.H., et al., Sea anemone genome reveals ancestral Eumetazoan gene repertoire and genomic organization, Science 317:86–94. Return to text.
  2. Carter, R.W., The slow, painful death of junk DNA. Return to text.
  3. Pennisi, E., Gene counters struggle to get the right answer, Science 301:1040–1041, 2003. Return to text.
  4. Claverie, J. Gene number. What if there are only 30,000 human genes? Science 291:1255–1257, 2001. Return to text.
  5. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, Initial sequence and analysis of the human genome, Nature 409(6822):860–921, 2001. Return to text.
  6. ENCODE Project Consortium, Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project, Nature 447:799–816. Return to text.
  7. Gerstein, M.B., What is a gene, post-ENCODE? History and updated definition, Genome Research 17:669–681, 2007. Return to text.
  8. Lynch, M., Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107(3):961–968, 2010. Return to text.
  9. Barash, Y., et al., Deciphering the splicing code, Nature 465:53–59, 2010. Return to text.
  10. Williams, A., Astonishing DNA complexity update. Return to text.
  11. The use of human embryo data is highly disturbing to me, but this article is not about the ethical, moral, or spiritual ramifications of the “brave” new world of modern science so I will refrain from further comment. Return to text.
  12. The Great Dothan Debate Return to text.
  13. For a list of articles on pseudogenes, see the Junk DNA section of the Vestigial Organs Questions and Answers page. Return to text.

As a postscript to this article,  and referencing the transposon article recently presented, scientists hope to be able to identify and separate baramin into kinds more accurately by identifying the movement of the transposons.   DNA is proving to be immensely interesting to creation scientists and certainly a disaster for Darwinists.   When explorers found the Easter Island's giant heads, they didn't begin to try to figure out they had evolved, they knew they had been fashioned by design!   DNA is much the same.   Of course DNA is far more complex and elegant and amazing than a carved rock, but how can Darwinists be so blind as to understand that stone heads are designed but sophisticated coding software just happened by chance?


Civilization has advanced greatly since those eight people stepped from the Ark, probably armed with all sorts of technological knowledge but facing a world completely devoid of infrastructure.

By the way, what do you think would happen if the world was to be attacked by a series of EMP blasts, taking out the vast majority of our technology?   What if you have houses with no fireplaces, no guns to hunt with, no gardens set up to provide food, no horses to ride?   Your cars won't start, your phones don't work, there is no electric grid, no natural gas, no water from your faucets, and even if you have an old tube radio the radio stations cannot broadcast anyway and your backup generators, if you have them, would soon run out of fuel.   Your food in the fridge would spoil.   You would have to cast off much of your modern concept of living and many of your skills would be of no use. 

Now consider Noah and his family.   They evidently knew how to write and do math and had the ability to build a massive ocean-going passenger boat with the specifications that even today are perfect for the situation that was to come.   Perhaps they had a few tools on board, but there was a world with no homes, no highways, much of it unstable mud and wildly unpredictable weather and a completely foreign land geographically.   We know that they tended to name rivers and mountains after similar structures that existed before the Flood but in fact everything was different and entirely primitive.   In another post we will revisit this post-Flood human scenario.   But I assure you that the history of mankind, if you study the genealogies of cultures around the world, you will typically find varied versions of the exact same story.

Mesopotamian Ziggurat 

Also, not only is the story of Babel reference by other sources, there is an interesting phenomenon in the world of Archaeology in that so many early cultures pyramids and ziggurats were erected, as if the people were building smaller reproductions of the Tower of Babel when they settled into new areas.

The tremendous variety of languages also supports the Bible account of Babel, as God rebooted the language section of brains so that instead of one common language there were dozens of them and the people began to scatter and populate the Earth as they were originally told to do.   Answers in Genesis has a chapter devoted to this theme as follows in the new Answers Book, which I highly recommend.

From Answers in Genesis

When did the events at the Tower of Babel happen? What did the tower look like? Are there any records of Noah’s descendants found throughout the world after they left Babel? What about different languages? Are Noah and his sons found in any ancient genealogies? In this chapter, we’ll examine the fascinating answers to questions about what happened on the plain of Shinar. For background to this chapter, please read Genesis 10–11.

When Did the Event at Babel Occur?

Renowned chronologist Archbishop James Ussher1 placed the time of Babel at 106 years after the Flood, when Peleg was born.2
To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan (Genesis 10:25).
Although this may not be the exact date, it is in range because Peleg was in the fourth generation after the Flood. 

Some have suggested that this division refers to a geophysical splitting of the continents; however, this is associated with the flood of Noah’s time—not the events at Babel. The massive amounts of water and the crustal breakup indicated in Genesis 7:11 (the fountains of the great deep burst forth) were substantial enough to cause catastrophic movements of plates. Continental collision formations, such as high mountains, were already in place prior to Peleg’s day. For example, we know the mountains of Ararat had formed by the end of the Flood because the ark landed there. These mountains are caused by a collision with the Arabian plate and the Eurasian plate. So these would have already moved by the time the Flood had ended.
Continental splitting during the day of Peleg would have caused another global flood! Instead, the division mentioned here refers to the linguistic division that happened when God confused the language at Babel. Even the Jewish historian Josephus (who lived near the time of Christ) stated:
He was called Peleg, because he was born at the dispersion of the nations to their various countries. . . .3
Prominent modern theologians such as John Whitcomb reaffirm this as well.4 According to Archbishop Ussher, the date of Babel would have been near 2242 B.C.5 See table 1 for a comparison to other events according to Ussher. 

Table 1. Major Dates According to Ussher
Major event Date (According to Ussher)
Creation 4004 B.C.
Global Flood 2348 B.C.
Tower of Babel 2242 B.C.
Call of Abraham 1921 B.C.
Time of the Judges (Moses was first) 1491 B.C. (God appeared to Moses in the burning bush)
Time of the Kings (Saul was the first) 1095 B.C.
Split Kingdom 975 B.C.
Christ Was Born 5 B.C.

It was during the days of Peleg that the family groups left the plain of Shinar and traveled to different parts of the world, taking with them their own language that other families couldn’t understand. Not long after this, Babylon (2234 B.C.), Egypt (2188 B.C.), and Greece (2089 B.C.) began.6 Civilizations that were closer to Babel (e.g., those in the Middle East) were established prior to civilizations farther from Babel (e.g., those in Australia or the Americas). 

Even more fascinating is that as people went around the world, they left evidence of this event! Let’s take a look.

Ziggurats throughout the World

The Tower of Babel has traditionally been depicted as a type of ziggurat, although the Bible doesn’t give specific dimensions. The Hebrew word for tower used in Genesis 11, referring to the Tower of Babel, is migdal: a tower; by analogy, a rostrum; figuratively, a (pyramidal) bed of flowers. 

Interestingly, this word means tower but figuratively reflects a flowerbed that yields a pyramidal shape. This gives a little support to the idea that the Tower of Babel may have been pyramidal or ziggurat shaped.
In what is now Iraq, Robert Koldewey excavated a structure some think to be the foundation of the original Tower of Babel. It underlays a later ziggurat that was thought to be built by Hammurabi in the 19th century B.C.7

When people were scattered from the Tower of Babel in the time of Peleg, they likely took this building concept with them to places all over the world. It makes sense that many of the families that were scattered from Babel took varying ideas of the tower to their new lands and began building projects of their own.
Ziggurats, pyramids, mounds, and the like have been found in many parts of the world—from Mesopotamia to Egypt to South America. The ancient Chinese built pyramids and the Mississippian culture built mounds.

Pyramids are classed slightly differently from ziggurats, as are mounds, but the similarities are striking.
Why did the people at Shinar build a tower? Some suspect that they were afraid of another flood, similar to the one that Noah and his sons had informed them about. However, Dr. John Gill casts doubt on this idea.
It is generally thought what led them to it was to secure them from another flood, they might be in fear of; but this seems not likely, since they had the covenant and oath of God, that the earth should never be destroyed by water any more; and besides, had this been the thing in view, they would not have chosen a plain to build on, a plain that lay between two of the greatest rivers, Tigris, and Euphrates, but rather one of the highest mountains and hills they could have found: nor could a building of brick be a sufficient defense against such a force of water, as the waters of the flood were; and besides, but few at most could be preserved at the top of the tower, to which, in such a case, they would have betook themselves.8
The Bible records that the people said among themselves:
Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth. (Genesis 11:4)

It seems that the tower was to be a special place to keep people together, rather than filling the earth as God had commanded them to (Genesis 9:1). It is possible that the tower was built under the guise that it was a place for sacrifice unto God. This would have prevented people from going too far since they would have to come back to offer sacrifices at Babel. 

A recurring theme in Scripture is that people seek to do things they think will honor God but end up disobeying God. One example is when Saul offered a sacrifice when he wasn’t supposed to (1 Samuel 13:8–13). It is better to obey than sacrifice. In fact, many ziggurats and pyramids around the world were used for sacrifice or other sacred religious events, such as burying people (e.g., pharaohs of Egypt). Perhaps the concept of sacred sacrifice and religious festivities with ziggurats was a carryover from Babel. 

Regardless, ziggurats and pyramids all over the world are an excellent confirmation of the original recorded in God’s Word—the Tower of Babel.

Noah in Royal Genealogies of Europe

Biblical Table of Nations
Table 2. Biblical Table of Nations 

The Bible in Genesis 10 gives an outline of family groups that left Babel (see table 2).
These people moved throughout the world and populated virtually every continent. (Was Antarctica ever settled in the past? At this point I am unaware.) Historians have commented on genealogical records in the past and other ancient documents on the origins of various peoples.9
Early Irish Genealogy
Table 3. Irish Genealogies
Permission for use granted by New Wine Press
These genealogies seem to connect prominent modern houses and royal lines with the Table of Nations listed in the Bible. In these genealogies, Noah is found on the top of the lists on many of these documents, some of which feature variant spellings such as Noe, Noa, and Noah

One historian discovered a relationship between the ancient name of Sceaf (Seskef, Scef) and the biblical Japheth.10 This seems reasonable, as Japheth has traditionally been seen as the ancestor of the European nations. Most of the European genealogies researched have a variant of Sceaf with the exception of Irish genealogies, which still used the name Japheth. The Irish genealogical chart is reprinted in table 3.11
Nennius Table of European Nations
Table 4. Nennius’s Table of Nations
Permission for use granted by New Wine Press
Anglo-Saxon chronologies feature six royal houses.12 An eighth century Roman historian, Nennius, developed a table of nations of the lineages of many of the European people groups from Noah’s son Japheth: Gauls, Goths, Bavarians, Saxons, and Romans. Nennius’s table of nations is reproduced in table 4.13
Though it repeats the Goths in two different areas, Nennius’s chart bears strong similarities to the history that Josephus recorded,14 as well as the Bible’s Table of Nations. However, there are clearly enough differences to show that it was neither a copy from the biblical text nor from the Jewish historian Josephus.15
Chinese records also describe Nuah with three sons, Lo Han, Lo Shen, and Jahphu, according to the Miautso people of China.16 Although original documents of ancient sources sometimes no longer exist and one has to rely on quotes from other ancient books, it is interesting how in many places we find similarities to the Table of Nations given in the Bible.

Noah’s Grandsons’ Names Are Everywhere!

History abounds with names that are reused. Names of places become names of people; names of people become names of places. After the Flood, several of Noah’s descendants were named for places prior to the Flood. See table 5 for a list. 

Table 5. A Few Pre-Flood and Post-Flood References
Name Bible Reference Pre-Flood Bible Reference Post-Flood Person
Havilah Genesis 2:11 Genesis 10:7, Genesis 10:29 Noah’s grandson through Ham; Noah’s great, great, great, great grandson through Shem.
Cush Genesis 2:13 Genesis 10:6 Noah’s grandson through Ham
Asshur Genesis 2:14 Genesis 10:22 Noah’s grandson through Shem

Names may vary throughout history. For example, Pennsylvania was named for William Penn; St. Petersburg in Russia was named for Peter the Great, who was ultimately named for Peter who penned two books of the Bible. Names can undergo many changes such as variations in spelling, differences in symbols, and alterations in pronunciation. 

Despite any changes, however, the names of post-Flood regions, cities, rivers, or languages should bear similarity to the names of those leaving Babel. One would be surprised how often these names appear. Table 6 lists some of these.

Table 6. Noah’s Descendants’ Names Reflected Around the World17
Name Descendant of Noah What Is It?
Aramaic Aram Language that came out of Babel and still survives, likely with changes down the ages. Some short parts of the Bible are written in Aramaic. Jesus spoke it on the cross when He said: “ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” (Mark 15:34).
Cush Cush Ancient name of Ethiopia. In fact, people of Ethiopia still call themselves Cushites.
Medes Madai People group often associated with the Persians.
Ashkenaz Ashkenaz Still the Hebrew name for Germany. The French name for Germany has similarities to this too: Allemagne.
Galacia, Gaul, and Galicia Gomer These regions are the old names for an area in modern Turkey, France, and Northwestern Spain, respectively, where Gomer was said to have lived. His family lines continued to spread across southern Europe. The Book of Galatians by Paul was written to the church at Galatia.
Gomeraeg Gomer This is the old name for the Welsh language on the British Isles from their ancestor, Gomer, whose ancestors began to populate the Isle from the mainland.
Javan Javan This is still the Hebrew name for Greece. His sons, Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim (Chittim), and Dodanim still have reference to places in Greece. For example, Paul, the author who penned much of the New Testament, was from the region of Tarshish (Acts 21:39) and a city called Tarsus. Jeremiah mentions Kittim in Jeremiah 2:10 and is modern-day Cyprus (and other nearby ancient regions that now had varied names such as Cethim, Citius, Cethima, Cilicia). The Greeks worshiped Jupiter Dodanaeus from Japheth/Dodanim. The Elysians, were ancient Greek people.
Meshech/ Moscow Mechech Mechech is the old name for Moscow, Russia, and one region called the Mechech Lowland still holds the original name today.
Canaan Canaan The region of Palestine that God removed from the Canaanites for their sin and gave as an inheritance to the Israelites beginning with the conquest of Joshua. It is often termed the Holy Land and is where modern-day Israel resides.
Elamites Elam This was the old name for the Persians prior to Cyrus.
Assyria Asshur Asshur is still the Hebrew name for Assyria.
Hebrew Eber This people group and language was named for Eber. Abraham was a Hebrew, and the bulk of the Old Testament is written in Hebrew.
Taurus/ Toros Tarshish A mountain range in Turkey. Tanais is the old name of the Don River flowing into the Black Sea.
Mizraim Mizraim This is still the Hebrew name for Egypt.

We Don’t Speak the Same Language Anymore!

The Tower of Babel explains why everyone doesn’t speak the same language today.
There are over 6,900 spoken languages in the world today.18 Yet the number of languages emerging from Babel at the time of the dispersion would have been much less than this—likely less than 100 different original language families. 

So where did all these languages come from? Linguists recognize that most languages have similarities to other languages. Related languages belong to what are called language families. These original language families (probably less than 100) resulted from God’s confusion of the language at Babel. Since that time, the original language families have grown and changed into the abundant number of languages today. 

Noah’s great-great-grandson Eber fathered Peleg when the events at Babel took place. The modern language of Hebrew is named after Eber. Noah’s grandson Aram was the progenitor of Aramaic. The Bible lists Noah’s grandsons, great-grandsons, great-great-grandsons, and great-great-great-grandsons who received a language at Babel in Genesis 10. Eber and Aram were but two! 

From Japheth (Genesis 10:2–5) came at least 14 language families; from Ham (Genesis 10:6–20), 39; from Shem (Genesis 10:22–31), at least 25 (excluding Peleg and other children who may have just been born). The total number of languages that may have come out of Babel according to Genesis 10 may have been at least 78, assuming Noah, Ham, Shem, Japheth, and Peleg didn’t receive a new language. This excludes some descendants of Shem who are given slight mention in Genesis 11:11–17; they may have also received a language. 

Both Vistawide World Languages and Cultures19 and Ethnologue,20 companies that provide statistics on language, agree that only 94 languages families have been so far ascertained. With further study in years to come, this may change, but this figure is well within the range of families that dispersed from Babel (Genesis 10). 

Is it feasible for 7,000 languages to develop from less than 100 in 4,000 years? The languages that came out of the confusion at Babel were “root languages” or language families. Over time, those root languages have varied by borrowing from other languages, developing new terms and phrases, and losing previous words and phrases. 

Let’s look at changes in the English language, as an example. English has changed so much over the course of 1,000 years that early speakers would hardly recognize it today. Table 7 provides a look at the changes in Matthew 6:9

Table 7.21
Beginning of Matthew 6:9 Date
Our Father who art in heaven and/or Our Father who is in heaven Late Modern English (1700s)
Our father which art in heauen Early Modern English (1500–1700) (KJV 1611)
Oure fader that art in heuenis Middle English (1100–1500)
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum Old English (c. A.D. 1000)

Just as English has changed significantly over the past 1,000 years, it becomes easy to see how the original languages at Babel could have rapidly changed in the 4,000 years since that time, whether spoken or written.
In conclusion, there exist a great many confirmations of the Bible’s account of the Tower of Babel and what happened as a result. Even stories about a tower and sudden language changes appear in ancient histories from Sumerian, Grecian, Polynesian, Mexican, and Native American sources.22 This is what we would expect since the Tower of Babel was a real event. Language changes, ziggurats, names of Noah found throughout the world, and tower legends are excellent confirmations of the events at Babel. 

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.


  1. James Ussher, The Annals of the World, trans. Larry and Marion Pierce (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003), p. 22. Back
  2. The use of Ussher’s dates are not an across-the-board endorsement of his work. We recognize that any human work contains errors; however, Ussher meticulously researched biblical and ancient history, and we are comfortable with using many of the dates he proposed. Back
  3. William Whiston, The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987), p. 37. Back
  4. John Whitcomb, “Babel,” Creation, June 2002, p. 31–33, online at Back
  5. Ussher, The Annals of the World, p. 22. Back
  6. Larry Pierce, “In the Days of Peleg,” Creation, December 1999, p. 46–49. Back
  7. David Down, “Ziggurats in the News,” Archaeological Diggings, March–April 2007, p. 3–7. Back
  8. Note on Genesis 11:4 in: John Gill, D.D., An Exposition of the Old and New Testament; The Whole Illustrated with Notes, Taken from the Most Ancient Jewish Writings (London: printed for Mathews and Leigh, 18 Strand, by W. Clowes, Northumberland-Court, 1809). Edited, revised, and updated by Larry Pierce, 1994–1995 for The Word CD-ROM. Back
  9. Nennius, Historia Brittonum, edited in the 10th century by Mark the Hermit, with English version by the Rev. W. Gunn, rector of Irstead, Norfolk, printed in London, 1819; Flavius Josephus, The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus the Jewish Historian (~100 A.D.), translated by William Whiston (~1850 A.D.) (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008). Back
  10. Bill Cooper, After the Flood (Chichester, England: New Wine Press, 1995), p. 92–96. Back
  11. Ibid., p. 108. Back
  12. Ibid., p. 84–86. Back
  13. Ibid., p. 49. Back
  14. Whiston, The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged, p. 36–37. Back
  15. Cooper, After the Flood, chapter 3. Back
  16. Edgar Traux, “Genesis According to the Miao People,” Impact, April 1991, online at Back
  17. Information in this table comes from the following sources: Whiston, The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged, p. 36–37; Cooper, After the Flood, p. 170–208; Harold Hunt, “The Sixteen Grandsons of Noah,” Creation, September 1998, p. 22–25, online at Back
  18. Vistawide, “World Language Families,” Back
  19. Ibid. Back
  20. Ethnologue, “Statistical Summaries,” Back
  21. Comparison of Matthew 6:9, Mansfield University, Back
  22. Pam Sheppard, “Tongue-Twisting Tales,” Answers, April–June 2008, p.56–57. Back

There is a tremendous amount of information available on the internet about findings of science with the Darwinist propaganda removed.  I urge readers to check out some of the sites I have referenced as great scientific sites that do real science.   Answers in Genesis,, Institute for Creation Research, Creation-Evolution Headlines and many others are available.

Notice that Darwinist brains are still set on "censorship" as if Darwinsm was a precious religious doctrine to be protected at all costs?   To quote Stephen Meyer, "Beware of one hand clapping."  

Best Qualified Candidate Expelled Over Views on Evolution, Design     12/11/2010    

Dec 11, 2010 — For daring to question evolution, an astronomer who was the best qualified candidate to become director of a new observatory lost out.  “No one denies that astronomer Martin Gaskell was the leading candidate for the founding director of a new observatory at the University of Kentucky in 2007 – until his writings on evolution came to light,” a report on Courier-Journal reported.  Martin Gaskell is suing the University, claiming that his views on evolution, religion and intelligent design cost him the position.

    “UK, in a legal brief, acknowledged that concerns over Gaskell’s views on evolution played a role in the decision to chose another candidate,” the article said.  The strategy seems now to paint him in a bad light: “But it argued that this was a valid scientific concern, and that there were other factors, including a poor review from a previous supervisor and UK faculty views that he was a poor listener.”

    Gaskell’s lawsuit, however, claims that “UK officials repeatedly referred to his religion in their discussions and e-mails” as the real reason.  One astronomy professor, for instance, “feared embarrassing headlines about Kentucky’s flagship university hiring a ‘creationist’ in a state already home to the controversial Creation Museum.”  Three biology professors and a geology professor also hammered that theme, that hiring Gaskell would be a “disaster” and an embarrassment to the university, even though Gaskell disagrees with the young-earth position of the Creation Museum.  Some of his views, which resemble those of old-earth astronomer Hugh Ross, are published on his personal webpage.

    Gaskell’s academic opponents worried about his denial of evolution, and his support for intelligent design.  “UK biologists said in their e-mails that evidence for evolution was so overwhelming that Gaskell had no scientific basis to raise questions about it.”  They also pointed to the Dover case to argue that intelligent design is not science, though that regional ruling did not apply to the state of Kentucky.  Since concern over his views on evolution and intelligent design appears to constitute the bulk of their objections over his hiring, their concerns about Gaskell’s social skills appears to be a distraction, a red herring expressed after the lawsuit was filed.  According to the article, “a federal judge says Gaskell has a right to a jury trial over his allegation that he lost the job because he is a Christian and ‘potentially evangelical.’”  The case is being represented by the American Center for Law and Justice.

    Gaskell’s academic page is posted on the University of Texas website.  He is also a classical composer in his spare time, when not doing astrophysics.
The pattern is the same everywhere.  If you have watched Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled, you’ve seen how the Darwin funDOmentalists (Darwin-Only) refuse to debate the evidence, but instead retreat to character assassination, association, glittering generalities, fear-mongering, and sidestepping and subversion to keep out anyone who dares to defy the Darwin Party Line.
    It’s going on in the case of the American Freedom Alliance right now, where the California Museum of Science broke a contract rather than allow two pro-I.D. groups access to the facilities, lest it tarnish their pure-Darwin image.  Evolution News broke the story about how internal emails showed that despite their public statements, the real issue was preventing intelligent design from getting any publicity by the museum.

    In this story, Gaskell lost a prestigious job even thought he was the best qualified, because of worry that he could be “potentially evangelical” – an unlawful prior restraint on free speech.  Would the opposite situation have concerned his colleagues, if a staunch atheist were to be judged “potentially evangelical” about his theological position?  (Of course not; such a candidate would probably be honored by academia and the media.)

    Even the “potential” exposure was enough to expel this man, without any evidence he had actually tried to influence anyone at the university or observatory about his views.  This can only mean one thing: the Darwin Party, whose hardcore stance on secular evolution represents a small fraction of American opinion, is running scared.  The DODOs cannot afford to give a platform to anyone who might potentially expose to the public the existence of alternative views other than 100% materialism.  They will destroy careers to keep ideological purity in their ranks.

    This tactic cannot work forever, because it is self-refuting; it violates academia’s own ostensible commitment to the Enlightenment ideals of reason and tolerance (and, ironically, it also fights Darwinian fitness itself – by imposing goal-directed behavior against whatever unguided “mutation” supposedly led to the accidental emergence of religion/creationism in early man’s rise from the apes, that was somehow preserved by natural selection; see 10/26/2008 and 05/27/2008).

    If Darwinists’ beliefs are so fragile that they worry exposure to alternative viewpoints is intolerable, then their beliefs are not worth believing.  And if they think that the public must be protected from such exposure, they disparage the intelligence of their fellow Homo sapiens.   No scientist should fear openness about the evidence.  Bring it on.
Next headline on:  AstronomyDarwin and EvolutionIntelligent DesignEducationPhilosophy of ScienceBible and Theology

True that!   The reason Darwinists fear the teaching of Intelligent Design and Creationism is because, if the evidence is presented for both sides then Darwinism looks ridiculously outmoded.    It is as if we have made our students go out to an outhouse to do their excretory duty while hiding the existence of actual bathrooms with commodes and sinks. 

Darwinism is in trouble, so we must be vigilant to watch out for lies being promoted such as the arsenic bacteria.   No longer can we take what scientists say at face value, for we know that their is a large group within the scientific community that is far more concerned about protecting their naturalistic materialistic atheistic point of view than they are with truth.


j said...

"In view of the sedimentary rock records and the available historical records, the working hypothesis of the objective scientist really should be that it is more likely that there was, indeed, a worldwide flood. Therefore one should be skeptical of a scientist who does NOT believe in a worldwide flood."

Except that the rock record does not support a flood. And as every lawyer knows, eyewitness testimony is unreliable and hearsay testimony is so unreliable it's not even allowed.

Anonymous said...

The layering of fossils in rock records is not compatible with a one-year global flood that took place 4,000 years ago.

Ergo the Noah's Flood hypothesis is falsified. End of story. What more is there to say?

radar said...

The layering of fossils in rock records is not compatible with a one-year global flood that took place 4,000 years ago.

Ergo the Noah's Flood hypothesis is falsified. End of story. What more is there to say?

I suppose that you are quite ignorant or well-propagandized. The long ages rock layers theory was based on Uniformitarianism and yet the rocks are catastrophic and associated with a water event. So just because you say so, the evidence is what counts. The geological column is mythical, the vast numbers of missing or out-of-place layers and other anomalies kill off the long ages theory and testable, repeatable flume observations have been able to confirm the kinds of layering we see in the real world.

radar said...

Every lawyer knows that eyewitness testimony is of great value and turns circumstantial evidence into evidence that is supported. The rock records appear to be from catastrophic events and the eyewitness account in the Bible confirms it. Hearsay evidence is usually not allowed but that is not applicable here.

Jon Woolf said...

"Every lawyer knows that eyewitness testimony is of great value"

Quite the contrary: every decent lawyer knows that eyewitness testimony is not reliable, and 'circumstantial' and forensic evidence are far more valuable.

"The rock records appear to be from catastrophic events"

Except where they don't. Do I really need to post that long list of questions for which you have no answers yet again, Radar?

(Note: This is my third attempt to post this. Two previous comments along similar lines have vanished. Both contained links; I'm posting this without those links, in hopes that it's the links that screwing up the comment software)

Anonymous said...

"Every lawyer knows that eyewitness testimony is of great value"

Quite the contrary: every decent lawyer knows that eyewitness testimony is not reliable, and 'circumstantial' and forensic evidence are far more valuable.

Just because eyewitness testimony is not reliable does not necessarily mean it is not of great value. At least to a particular side.

Hearsay evidence is usually not allowed but that is not applicable here.



Anonymous said...

"The long ages rock layers theory was based on Uniformitarianism and yet the rocks are catastrophic and associated with a water event. So just because you say so, the evidence is what counts."

Exactly. Some rocks being catastrophic does not speak against the current understanding of uniformitarianism. I hope you understand that.

But a young Earth and a global flood that allegedly took place in one year can simply not explain (and is falsified by), among other things, the sequential appearance of fossils in the fossil record as well as the existence of Large Igneous Provinces.

This is physical evidence that is available to us that falsifies the YEC hypothesis. Deny it all you want, it won't go away.

radar said...

Total BS.

Fossils are not orderly. The trick of identifying layers by the index fossils has backfired on Darwinists, as the layering goes all wrong. Sometimes the same organism is given a new name to cover that up. But anomalies are still a problem, and nonconformities and polystrates and so on.

LIPS are part of the rapid subduction/earthquake/volcanic activity associated with the flood event and/or other catastrophic events. They do not fit the Darwinist storyline.

All sedimentary rock layers are catastrophic. Uniformitarianism is dead. Commenters give three paragraph statements as if they were authorities. I make fifty paragraph posts completely falsifying their claims. Works for me.

Anonymous said...

Wow, and you call other people brainwashed?


Jon Woolf said...

"Fossils are not orderly. The trick of identifying layers by the index fossils has backfired on Darwinists, as the layering goes all wrong."

Examples? Evidence, citations, specifics?

"LIPS are part of the rapid subduction/earthquake/volcanic activity associated with the flood event and/or other catastrophic events."

And this allows for the appearance of fossiliferous sedimentary rocks in between the basalt layers ... how, exactly?

"All sedimentary rock layers are catastrophic."


Yes, I know some creationists emote emotionally about studies that (they claim) show that several varve-like sedimentary layers can form in a single year. But the Green River Formation contains millions of varves. To get that many varves in a single year, you'd have to have one varve forming every six seconds.


oops, sorry, I couldn't even type that with a straight face...

Anonymous said...

"Yes, I know some creationists emote emotionally about studies that (they claim) show that several varve-like sedimentary layers can form in a single year. But the Green River Formation contains millions of varves. To get that many varves in a single year, you'd have to have one varve forming every six seconds. "

Always the same with creationists: they spot something that if you apply some glaring logical fallacies and squint real hard, and then they think it falsifies mainstream science.

Ask them to back it up and they scatter.

Radar's stuck in that same partner.

Entertaining to watch, but it can't be much fun for him.