A new perspective on Genesis 1

[LifeHiscost]

On 12/10/2015 at 1:01 AM, Wingnut said:

The theologically and scientifically correct thing is to keep an open mind.   Only then will the Spirit continue to lead one to all truth.

with one caveat.

…16So Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 'If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. 18"He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.…John 7

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[Wingnut]

The Cambrian explosion has all the hallmarks of a creation event, and none of the hallmarks of an evolutionary event. Even Darwin felt the absence of Pre-cambrian precursor species was a huge downer to his theory. He hoped time would provide the missing links. Time has passed.

There are no "common origins" in this "tree" except the dashed lines at the base which evolutionists theorised, but which have never been found.  
So all the major Phyla were created together, fully functional, setting the plan for all animals, for all time.
Showing God had most basic animal body plans thought out right from the start of life on earth.
Clear proof of intelligent design.


http://www.genesisnet.info/dateien_e..._explosion.php

"Sudden onset of various fossilized animal phyla

One of the most pronounced anomalies in the fossil record can be found at the transition from the Precambrian to the Cambrian .... Cambrian sediments, contain a highly diversified fauna that occurs so suddenly and is so varied that we speak of the “Cambrian explosion” (Valentine 2004) or the “big bang” in paleontology (see Figure 186).
Living organisms from all known phyla, which have hard parts, are found as fossils of the Cambrian period (many already in the Lower Cambrian). These include sponges (Porifera), coelenterates (Coelenterata), annelids (Annelida), Brachiopod (Brachiopoda), arthropods (Arthropoda), mollusks (Mollusca), echinoderms (Echinodermata) and chordates (chordates, including the first vertebrates and jawless fish). The fossil evidence of these phyla in the Cambrian is so prolific that one can clearly differentiate the distinguishable sub-groups (classes). This fossil record is also widely distributed around the world. In contrast, the upper-most rock layers of the Precambrian contain very little fossil evidence, limited to a few multicellular organisms such as coelenterates and sponges (see below).



Figure 186

Fig. 186: Cambrian explosion. Not a tree but a bouquet. This diagram depicts the occurrence of fossils of the major animal phyla over time. The diagram does not look very much like a tree ...

....So it appears that the main differences between the blueprints of all animals were already present in the beginning of the documented fossil record of multicellular organisms. Darwin had already noted the diversity of the Cambrian fossils as a problem for his theory. In a recent monograph, Valentine notes (2004), that this striking discontinuity has since been confirmed by many researches. Among all the Cambrian and Precambrian fossils, there are hardly any forms that can be cited to link different phyla, and even of the few life forms that are present, none of them are suitable as evolutionary transitional forms. The reason for this is that the single unifying characteristic of these few life forms are present in species with such a complex array of other characteristics that would exclude them as transitional species.
Valentine (2004, p. 31, 35) notes that there is no phylum for which the predecessor life form is known. Likewise, there is no known source for the formation of all the known classes of invertebrates (see Figure 44 for the taxonomic units). Some Precambrian fossils are so very different from Cambrian fossils, that their origin is also a mystery. Changes after the Cambrian (ie, the differentiation among the phyla or classes), are also very significant, but smaller in scale than those postulated between phyla that have no fossil evidence for evolution before the Cambrian. “What occurred after that in terms of evolutionary transformations were, for all the variety of forms, basically just variations of the established basic plans that were established during the Cambrian Revolution” (Seilacher 1992, p. 19)....
...Summary
In the Lower Cambrian, fossil representatives of all known animal phyla), which have hard parts, occur almost simultaneously in a large variety of forms and over a wide geographical area. In comparison, the underlying Precambrian rocks contain few multicellular organisms, of which only a few could be interpreted as a precursors to Cambrian forms. The sudden appearance of so many different blueprints (different phyla) at the beginning of the fossil record is also an enigma for evolutionary biologists."

 

[Wingnut]

The "sudden onset of various fossilized animal phyla" is evidence of creation.
 

"This diagram depicts the occurrence of fossils of the major animal phyla over time. The diagram does not look very much like a tree ..."
http://www.genesisnet.info/dateien_en/i42842_cambrian_explosion.php

Let us not shy away from a close examination of the spindle diagrams above.

Know that some parts of it represent hard concrete science and other parts speculative supposition.

The hard concrete science is represented by the thick black spindle lines.  These tell us the strata in which fossils have been found.

Now let's examine the interpretive parts of the diagram or speculative science.  The dashed lines at the base connecting all Phyla into a tree are purely speculative.  This is evolutionary interpretation that all species have a common ancestor.  Evolutionists know better than to suggest that all the Phyla spontaneously burst into being separately, as creationists believe.  For evolution to be true, these lines MUST connect.  But they don't.  Evolutionists then reach for a number of excuses to explain this such as bodies too soft to fossilise, gaps in the fossil record.

Another interpretive part of the diagram is how the Phyla come together at the base, like a bunch of flowers.  The hard science is that we can spread each flower stalk apart and look at it not as an evolutionary tree, but as a piece of ground shooting blades of grass, each blade representing a creation event.  We are allowed to do this since the bending of the flower stalks together is just the BIAS of the evolutionary diagram's artist.  Any honest evolutionist will have to admit this.

Having removed the evolutionary bias from this spindle diagram, namely the dashed lines and the bent black vertical lines, what do we see?  We see a whole lot of Phyla (groups of similar animals) springing out of the Cambrian layer like grass shoots, all separate and viable and abundant.  This diagram is screaming "CREATION".  

So why do some deny this?  In the words of Paul ...
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

What are Professors if not "professors"?
 
To quote the website from which this spindle was taken...

"Living organisms from all known phyla, which have hard parts, are found as fossils of the Cambrian period (many already in the Lower Cambrian). These include sponges (Porifera), coelenterates (Coelenterata), annelids (Annelida), Brachiopod (Brachiopoda), arthropods (Arthropoda), mollusks (Mollusca), echinoderms (Echinodermata) and chordates (chordates, including the first vertebrates and jawless fish). The fossil evidence of these phyla in the Cambrian is so prolific that one can clearly differentiate the distinguishable sub-groups (classes).  This fossil record is also widely distributed around the world."

So all these Phyla and Classes of animals popped into existence in what is called by evolutionists, the "Big Bang" of palaeontology, or "The Cambrian Explosion".

This is not to say that there were not a few animals (sponges, coelenterates or jelly-fish like animals) and many algae found in Pre-cambrian rocks.  These were placed by God on earth before the "Cambium Explosion" to create oxygen so that animals could live in the now oxygenated waters.  God terraforms.  The whole of Genesis 1 tells us that God terraforms.  Old Earth Creationists simply believe that He terraforms more than once.

[Gregory Matthews]

There are two ways to interpret the following:  a) Wingnut is not a nut.  'b) Wingnut is not an interesting person.  c) Wingnut's thought is not an interesting thought.

My initial understanding was for  b.

Interesting thoughts Wingnut, although I am not viewing you as such!!!!

Just shows how easy it is to misunderstand on the Internet.

 

[CoAspen]

...and the correct answer is.....(a)

[Wingnut]

2 hours ago, CoAspen said:

...and the correct answer is.....(a)

Thanks - again  

[Wingnut]

Since all Tertiary education in the natural sciences is taught from an evolutionary point of view, there is a natural selection process going on here.
The process turns out evolutionists.

Why would a creationist subject him/herself to a three year bombardment of course material saturated in evolutionary teaching? This would be totally off-putting and would tend to either chase the creationist into some other field, or simply pressure them into becoming evolutionists.

Thus evolution perpetuates itself, since all graduates are forced to become evolutionists. They in turn become lecturers.

Is it any wonder that biology is heavily BIASED in favour of evolution.
The same applies to palaeontology.

These fields of study are perfect examples of natural selection and survival of the fittest.  

Who is attracted to these courses? Evolutionists.
Who survives these courses? Evolutionists.
Who survives to perpetuate these courses? Evolutionists.
The evolutionary process has been demonstrated in the study of the evolutionary process.

[Wingnut]

Evolutionists are not used to Creationists turning their own best arguments against them.

As Creationists, we believe the Ark was of a limited capacity, and that once released from the ark, the pairs of animals diversified enormously and quickly to give us the huge variety of land animals we see today.

But think about it.  If earth was flooded, this had a dramatic impact on fish.  Fresh water mixed with salty water to cover the earth with a brackish uniformly salty  ocean.  Thus every fish alive today must be an offspring from those fish which could survive this one salinity.  Suppose that a lot of fish died in the Flood, the remnants must have diversified very rapidly in the last 4400 years till today.  Evolutionists like Darwin think that they own this argument.  Darwin used the beaks of finches on the Galapagos Islands as one of his main arguments.  But what if we just embrace the idea that the finch ancestors flew off the Ark, landed on these islands and quickly specialised.  Then the idea supports Creationism.

 

Now look at the following beautiful example of this concept .

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ichlid-fishes/

"Africa's Lake Victoria is home to one of evolution's greatest experiments. In its waters, what began as a single lineage belonging to the cichlid family of fishes has since given rise to a dazzling array of forms. Like Charles Darwin's famous finches, which evolved a wide range of beak shapes and sizes to exploit the different foods available in the Galápagos Islands, these cichlids represent a textbook example of what biologists term an adaptive radiation—the phenomenon whereby one lineage spawns numerous species that evolve specializations to an array of ecological roles. But the Lake Victoria cichlids far surpass Darwin's finches in the astonishing speed with which they diversified: the more than 500 species that live there and only there today all evolved within the past 15,000 to 10,000 years—an eyeblink in geologic terms—compared with the 14 finch species that evolved over several million years."

As a creationist I believe that after the flood, fish diversified and specialised into fresh and salt water kinds.
These in turn diversified to exploit every available niche as the Scientific American article explains.

The pairs of animals coming off the ark likewise diversified into what we see today.
And the process can occur exceedingly fast, in thousands of years, not millions.

[CoAspen]

Diversifying......evolved....a type of evolution.

[Wingnut]

9 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Diversifying......evolved....a type of evolution.

Diversifying, it happens every time a new dog is born. We do not call the huge variety of mutts evolution.

[Gregory Matthews]

If earth was flooded, this had a dramatic impact on fish.  Fresh water mixed with salty water to cover the earth with a brackish uniformly salty  ocean.

Did salty oceans exist prior to the flood?  What if they did not to any major extent?

However, my question raises additional questions and problems.

[CoAspen]

Evolving takes a longer time than a gestation period. Creationist use the term 'adaptation'. But when a species is able to change something because of the world around them, environment, in order to survive they do not revert back to what they once were. You have a new type w/characteristics similar to prior state.

In my my mind it is just semantics, evolve/adapt. Creationist are afraid of using the term, evolution, because of a misunderstanding of the term:  Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

[pierrepaul]

13 hours ago, Wingnut said:

Diversifying, it happens every time a new dog is born. We do not call the huge variety of mutts evolution.

It is not speciation, but it is certainly evolution. Speciation is only one aspect of evolutionary theory.

[Wingnut]

When the Bible speaks of "kind" it does not necessarily mean "species".

Many "species" today may have diversified from one "kind" of animal which came off the Ark.

Below was an article I found enlightening

"To understand the true history of life on Earth, it is important that creation biologists identify the organisms that were created in the beginning. It is generally assumed that the "created kind" is analogous to the taxonomic Family, although numerous exceptions certainly exist. A canonical list of kinds has not been constructed and identifications are extremely provisional (with the exception of humans, on which there is a strong creationist consensus). Baraminologists draw upon several sources of information to identify the created kinds, which include scriptural accounts, hybridization data, and the fossil record. 

It is very important not to confuse the "created kind" with the modern use of the word species. Although animals like the fox and coyote might be considered different taxonomic species, they are still parts of the same "kind" of animal. The created kind is thought to be more often synonymous with the "Family" level of classification in the taxonomic hierarchy; at least in mammals; and occasionally it can extend as high as the order level. Here are some examples: 
Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
Canidae — Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs.
Camelidae — Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas." 
Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.
Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and *****.
Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.
Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials.
Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres. 

Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order, with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative.[10] 
Humanity — Dr. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer of the University of Munich concluded that H. erectus/H. ergaster, Neanderthals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) genus Homo."
http://www.creationwiki.org/Created_kind
 

[Wingnut]

8 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

It is not speciation, but it is certainly evolution. Speciation is only one aspect of evolutionary theory.

God created every species with an ability to diversify.  Dogs are a good example, as are cichlid (pr. sick-lid) fish.

Evolutionists see this as evolution.  I see it as variations within a species or kind.

Sometimes a species which is isolated can change so much that it resembles a new species e.g. the variety of cichlid fish look very different, but they are still cichlids.  

I have not thought of a sound enough argument to persuade evolutionists that this is not evolution, but just the variation which God put into each kind.

If anyone can think of where diversification ends and evolution begins, I would like to hear it.

In all honesty, I don't think I have ever persuaded an evolutionist against believing in evolution.  The only route is to convert them.

Evolution is a faith, so one changes them from one faith to another.

 

[Wingnut]

Sorry, I did not mean to say that anyone who believes in evolution is unconverted.

What I meant to say is that today, the default is to believe in evolution.

Only Christians would think that evolution might not be the answer.

Many Christians believe that God used evolution to generate new species.

Who knows if God created species, and they have the ability to diversify, such that some call it evolution.

Who am I to argue?  I have studied evolution and rejected it, but that still is just my "working hypothesis" for now.

[pierrepaul]

This is the nature of language. Words have different shades of meaning.

The term "evolution" also refers to variations within a species. Thirty years ago some biologists made a distinction between "micro-evolution" (evolution within a species) and "macro-evolution" (speciation). I don't know if these terms are still in use.

This is part of the theory of evolution and is not inconsistent with the literal account in Genesis. Depending on the species, these variations can occur within an observable number of generations. It happens, it is "evolution". But just because it is "evolution" doesn't mean it is evidence for speciation or "macro-evolution".

Not everything about the theory of evolution is wrong.

[Wingnut]

We all [??] believe in diversification.

When 2 of each animal were released from the Ark, these may have been a generic "dog" kind [Canidae] which diversified into wolves,  foxes, jackals, coyotes, and domestic dogs.

Likewise a generic Camelidae may have developed into both the Camel and the Llama.
Bovidae developed into Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.
Equidae into Horses, Zebras, and As***.
Caprinae into Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.

http://www.creationwiki.org/Created_kind  

Cichlids have in human history diversified into 2000 completely different looking fish, some of which cannot breed with each other.

In science, diversification is sometimes called microevolution.

Evolutionists pounce on the FACT that microevolution occurs as PROOF that evolution occurs.

And evolutionists will define evolution as "Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

By THIS definition, microevolution is evolution.

But when we Christians say that evolution did not produce the animals we see today, we say we do not believe in macroevolution, or that one "kind" morphs over time into another "kind".

I happily will say I believe in microevolution, since this is how we get the great diversity of animals from the few which left the Ark.

What I do not believe in is macroevolution.

I can see times when God dumps a whole new biome onto the world after a mass extinction.  These animals thus all have the same birthday.

And this is reasonably easy to prove in arguments with evolutionists.

[Wingnut]

DEFINING EVOLUTION

If one wishes to waste a lot of time and energy, try debating a topic which is not clearly defined.

The word "evolution" means so many different things to so many different people, that one has to decide on a definition first, before arguing the merits and demerits of "evolution".

Why is the following definition of evolution inadequate?

"Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

What is wrong with this definition of a dog?  "A dog is an animal".

While we would all agree that a dog is an animal, the above definition leaves out a lot.

This definition of evolution, adds a little more.

"Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution 

If on Google we type  "evolution definition" we get ... "ev·o·lu·tion noun 1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth." 

Notice how different all definitions are.  This last definition is closer to the topic under discussion in a creation-evolution debate.

Even the above definition I feel leaves out one central belief of evolutionists, which is that all life today came from one common ancestor.

Here is a more user-friendly definition of evolution from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_02

"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The explanation
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales."

 

 

[Wingnut]

One of the simplest proofs against evolution is the following.

Do a Google search for "oldest human civilisation" and this is what one gets...

"Sumer, located in Mesopotamia, is the first known complex civilization, developing the first city-states in the 4th millennium BCE. It was in these cities that the earliest known form of writing, cuneiform script, appeared c. 3000 BCE."

Which proves the Bible.

 

[CoAspen]

Okay....I took your challenge!

List of countries and islands by first human settlement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

Map of human migration, based on studies of mitochondrial (matrilinear) DNA.

Though fossils of hominids have been found dating back millions of years, the earliest known Homo sapiensremains are considered to be a group of bones found at the Omo Kibish Formation, near the EthiopianKibish Mountains. Though believed to be 130,000 years old at their discovery in 1967, recent studies have dated them as far back as 195,000 years old.^[1] From this area, humans spread out to cover all continents except Antarctica by 14,000 BP. According to a recent theory, humans may have crossed over into theArabian Peninsula as early as 125,000 years ago.^[2] From the Middle East, migration continued into Indiaaround 70,000 years ago, and Southeast Asia shortly after. Settlers could have crossed over to Australiaand New Guinea – that were united as one continent at the time due to lower sea levels – as early as 55,000 years ago.^[3] Migration into Europe took somewhat longer to occur; the first definite evidence of human settlement on this continent has been discovered in southern Italy, and dates back 43-45,000 years.^[4] Settlement of Europe may have occurred as early as 45,000 years ago though, according to genetic research.^[5] The Americas were populated by humans at least as early as 14,800 years ago,^[6]though there is great uncertainty about the exact time and manner in which the Americas were populated.^[7]More remote parts of the world, like Iceland, New Zealand and Madagascar were not populated until the historic era.^[8]

[Wingnut]

THE BIBLE TELLS US WHEN THE FIRST CIVILISATION DEVELOPED

Evolution teaches that modern man has been around for 200 000 years.  Any time during that period, by pure dumb luck, civilisation could have started.

Dumb luck is, after all, the evolutionist's "god".

The Bible teaches that modern man was placed on earth 6000 years ago, then came Noah’s flood 2400 BC making this the earliest starting date for modern civilisation.

All pre-flood civilisations would have been wiped out leaving only traces of pre-flood humans.

The Bible also teaches that humans were not created primitive, but possibly superior to us today.  So there was nothing stopping civilisation from beginning instantly after the flood, from a Biblical perspective.  There surely were pre-flood civilisations which now lie buried.

There is general consensus by historians that the “cradle of civilisation” was Sumeria.  This is exactly where the Bible says civilisation began.

Gen 11:1-2 "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.”   Shinar = Sumer. 

Here is one of many internet sites stating when human civilisation began.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab25

"Our knowledge of prehistory derives from surviving objects - the evidence of archaeology. History, by contrast, is based on documents. These various interconnections mean that history, civilization and writing all begin at the same time. That time is about 3100 BC. 
 
Mesopotamia and Egypt: 3100 BC
In about 3200 BC the two earliest civilizations develop in the region where southwest Asia joins northeast Africa. Great rivers are a crucial part of the story. The Sumerians settle in what is now southern Iraq, between the mouths of the Euphrates and the Tigris. Egypt develops in the long narrow strip of the Nile valley.  

Rivers offer two main advantages to a developing civilization. They provide water to irrigate the fields, and they offer the easiest method of transport for a society without paved roads. Rivers will play an equally important role in two other early civilizations - those of the Indus and of northern China. 

The Indus: 2500 BC

It is not known whether contact with Mesopotamia inspires the first civilization of India or whether it is a spontaneous local development, but by about 2500 BC the neolithic villages along the banks of the Indus are on the verge of combining into a unified and sophisticated culture….”
 
When one tries to look up how accurate their dating methods are, we see there is lots of room for error.  So the above dates are close enough to the Biblical date..

Evolution gave us 200 000 years in which civilisation could have developed.  The Bible told us it developed right after the flood, even telling us where it developed.  Why is it that in 200 000 possible years of supposed human evolution there is no sign of civilisation, till it bursts on the scene at more-or-less the date stated in the Bible?  What are the chances that humans were retarded for 195 600 years or 97.8% of their history, and then suddenly became super-smart?  And, "coincidently", this date just happened to be the Biblical date.

Was it because Moses lived in one of the first two most ancient civilisations that he knew the date that civilisation started?

There were plenty of other places such as in the Americas that Moses knew nothing of.  Was Moses just a lucky guesser? 

Either way, it adds great credibility to the Biblical record. 

And when on reads how advanced and modern sumerian civilisation was, one realises that these were NOT PRIMITIVE people, which is also what the Bible says.  I will try to list all the mod-cons their civilisation had, in a later post. 

 

 

 

[CoAspen]

You are ignoring the Wiki post, tell us where it is wrong, exactly. Your dates are simply 'cherry picked' for convenience sake.

[Wingnut]

5 hours ago, CoAspen said:

You are ignoring the Wiki post, tell us where it is wrong, exactly. Your dates are simply 'cherry picked' for convenience sake.

You are talking settlement, I am talking civilisation.

You are talking a bone here, a piece of pottery there.

I am talking major civilisation.

It's very easy to play the "bone and axe-head" picking game and come up with any date one wants.

Much harder to do that with civilisations.

[Wingnut]

5 hours ago, CoAspen said:

You are ignoring the Wiki post, tell us where it is wrong, exactly. Your dates are simply 'cherry picked' for convenience sake.

Earlier in the thread I gave an overview of my beliefs concerning human history.

Before God created Adam and Eve, He experimented with Neanderthals, H. ergaster, H. habilis, H.naledi, H. heidelbergensis etc.

I believe in a 13.8 billion year old universe and 5 billion year old earth.

When God had a suitably sociable and "religious" and "sheep-like" formula, He destroyed earth in a mass extinction, and placed Adam and Eve on earth, together with modern plants and animals.  This left a whole lot of hominid fossils.

 

The descendants of Adam are what is seen in America as Clovis culture, and is dated around 11000 years ago.  This is a C14 dating error since C14 was much more scare in the atmosphere in those days giving an older date.

Then came the flood.

Immediately after this, civilisation occurred in Sumer, in the Tigris/Euphrates basin, exactly as the Bible states.