Posted by Mike O on: 09.18.2008 /
A few weeks ago I was googling Antarctic artifiacts (you don’t have to be around me very long to know that I am fascinated by Antarctica) and stumbled onto a map called The Piri Reis Map on www.world-mysteries.com Basically, it is the earliest known map accurately showing the Antarctic region, dated 1513.
This is an excerpt from the world-mysteries article:
In 1929, a group of historians found an amazing map drawn on a gazelle skin.
Research showed that it was a genuine document drawn in 1513 by Piri Reis, a famous admiral of the Turkish fleet in the sixteenth century.
His passion was cartography. His high rank within the Turkish navy allowed him to have a privileged access to the Imperial Library of Constantinople.
The Turkish admiral admits in a series of notes on the map that he compiled and copied the data from a large number of source maps, some of which dated back to the fourth century BC or earlier.The Controversy
The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how Piri Reis managed to draw such an accurate map of the Antarctic region 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the coastline under the ice. Geological evidence confirms that the latest date Queen Maud Land (Antarctica) could have been charted in an ice-free state is 4000 BC. [...] The Piri Reis map shows that the northern part of that continent has been mapped before the ice did cover it.
Further and more accurate studies have proven that the last period of ice-free condition in the Antarctic ended about 6000 years ago. [...] It is well-known that the first civilization, according to the traditional history, developed in the mid-east around year 3000 BC [...] So, accordingly, none of the known civilizations could have done such a job. Who was here 4000 years BC, being able to do things that NOW are possible with the modern technologies?
Other than the fact that the dates we’re talking about roughly corrolate to the time of biblical Adam, I’m not trying to draw any spiritual conclusions. I just think it’s really cool that this map exists, and that it raises a lot of interesting questions. If you’d like to read the article in it’s entirety, click here.
Comment by: Jason
1I’m going to show this to my son. Alexander is quite interested in ancient history. More battles and mass migrations but also maps. I’m sure he’d like this.
Have you seen the wikipedia interpretation map against the coast of Africa? Amazing.
On the subject of the biblical Adam, do you hold to the idea as a metaphor for the ancient tribes of man, a story or parable, or something a bit more literal? Does your view ever conflict with Christians from other backgrounds?
Comment by: Mike O
2My view on this is actually changing … perhaps. I used to think that Adam and Eve were the only two people God created, and I think that is the generally accepted Christian belief. But there have always been those who think Adam and Eve are representative of God’s creation of man in a general sense.
I have some issues with the belief that God created only one man and one woman now, though.
I do believe there really was an Adam and Eve, and that God really did create them. There is a geneology in Luke Chapter 3 that gives the lineage of Jesus’ father Joseph, all the way back to a single man, Adam. But that doesn’t prove Adam was the only man, just that he actually existed. Assuming, of course, that the genealogy is true, which is reasonable since the contemporaries of Jesus and Luke (the author) never questioned it.
The Bible also says in Romans 5:12 that “sin entered the world through one man,” which would indicate that Adam was the only man God created. That’s where the thought comes from anyway.
But there are also indications that there were other people on earth in Adam’s time.
Genesis 4:13-14 indicates that there were others (possibly descendants of Adam, sure, but this is a really wierd way of referring to your family.
If he were worried about his own family wanting to kill him, being driven from the area wouldn’t strike this fear, staying would.
Also,
Where did Cain get his wife? She may have been his sister, I suppose, but that’s gross.
Bottom line: I don’t know for sure what I believe, but I’m sliding towards the idea that God also created other people.
There’s biblical support for either view, and you can be a Christian either way - it’s not a critical issue.
Plus, an extra-biblical argument that God created other people is that if God only created one man and one woman, as you go back through history and genealogies, they would all drift towards the middle east. But we have ancient civilizations around the world, from Aztecs to Chinese to Barbarians to whatever, that seem to be completely independant of the middle-east, so I don’t know that they do drift towards the middle-east. But the article does say that the first civilization did spring up in the middle east, so that’s interesting.
Short answer? I believe God created Adam and Eve from the dust of the ground. And I beleve that He may have created other people as well. I just don’t know how that all fits with real history.
Comment by: Mike O
3Here’s a thought - the article says that the map shows “the northern coast of Antarctica.” Wouldn’t all of the coast of Antarctica be the northern coast? :)
Comment by: Jason
4I don’t think it does. Assuming you follow the timeline based on the life span of the biblical characters that makes the Earth 6000 ish years old. The existence of people before this date spoils the idea. There are many histories and artifacts that predate this time. However you could read it as parable and you don’t ever need to go up against the evidence.
There’s also that pesky evolution idea that discounts the literal idea of a created human race. It doesn’t discount the idea of a deity planning for humanity through natural processes. There really isn’t an argument against that anymore than there is for it. It’s a nice idea that you could use your bible to support but only if you take Genesis as a misunderstanding or a metaphor that has lost the meaning over time.
Good point. Ignore plate shifting…..
Comment by: joe
5Seems to me that the antarctica coast thing is either coincidence or wishful thinking.
Regarding Eve, there is a theory that all currently living humans have one mitochondrial female ancestor, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Eve
Comment by: Mike O
6Yes, I’m aware of that … I was referring more to whether or not civilizations tend to have all originated from a single point. I think when people say that the first civilization arose around 3000bc, they don’t mean the first people, but rather the first organized collection of people. That timing does roughly corrolate to 6,000 years ago, but I admit that there are human bones and artifacts that date older than that.
If evolution is true, that is.
What do you mean? THe plate shifting was millions of years ago, but we’re talking only 6,000. The plates didn’t shift that recently.
Comment by: Mike O
7Perhaps. I’ve read articles discounting the map, too … and articles that discount those articles.
Comment by: Mike O
8I tried to follow the mitochondrial eve article, but it seems pretty wishful.
Comment by: Jason
9The existence of recorded history for human civilization and the rise of religions may be related. It’s certainly an interesting idea.
On the plate shifting thing I’d say that Antarctica wasn’t always the geographical south pole. at least I don’t think it was. I wasn’t trying to say that continents could visibly shift in the space of a few thousand years. Although that would be cool to witness.
As for this:
I’m missing the tone so I can’t tell if you’re joking or not. Evolution is true just as gravity is true. Both are well established scientific theories. It is true that a new and better theory could supplant either but nothing threatens to do that at the moment.
Comment by: Mike O
10Evolution is not a fact, it’s a theory. I understand why people believe it’s true … and maybe it is. But there are just too many “lucky” things that had to happen “just right” that can’t be reproduced for me to accept it as fact. I’m just getting to where I can see it as a reasonable theory. Some of my key reservations revolve around:
1) Life - we can’t start it, yet it keeps propagating itself
2) I don’t beleive abiogenesis works.
3) male/female sexuality - the origins were asexual, yet somehow male and female evolved seperately, yet compatably, without the need for a new method of reproduction.
4) Symmetry
5) The food chain - What did the first creature(s) feed on, and how did the food chain evolve randomly?
6) The crossover from chemical reactions (abiogenesis?) to organic life - I don’t believe it’s possible.
I’m actually thinking of taking a class on the theory of evolution, because this keeps coming up, and I simply don’t know much about it. I’ve got a lot of good questions, but I don’t really understand the theory itself.
Comment by: Jason
11Gravity is not a fact, it’s a scientific theory. That’s why I say evolution is as true as gravity is true. Both theories are excellent at demonstrating events as we understand them and at predicting things in their own field. Both have been shown to be accurate and useful in understanding the world.
On your points:
1) Evolution says nothing about the origins of life.
2) Abiogenesis is a field of study in it’s infancy that concerns the origins of life. While related to evolution it is not actually part of that theory.
3) You’d have to get into the science of gender but many species have both genders, snails for instance. Perhaps the evolutionary path was simply more efficient when both genders existed in separate beings rather than one.
4) The fact that life is balanced is an indicator that life evolves to fit certain niches.
5) The food chain is another example of evolved creatures changing to fit niches available to them. Don’t forget that the food chain involves more than just animal life. organic matter is broken down by plants, when they die they are broken down in turn by other plants. Animal life also breaks down other organic life forms for food.
6) A lot of life, all life really, involves chemical reactions. Just look at the human digestive system for an example.
Perhaps abiogenesis is over simplified but it is a field of study that is just beginning and one that I think is worthy of more time and resources. How fascinating it is to understand how life came to be.
As for you taking a course I say, go for it. At worst you will gain a better understanding of why people believe it and at best it will give you a completely new perspective on life. I hate to do this to a Christian :) but I can recommend reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins for a very reasoned grounding in evolution.
Alternatively “Evolution: What the Fossils Say & Why it Matters”, “Evolutionary Analysis” by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron, “Evolution for Dummies” or “The Beak of the Finch” by Jonathan Weiner. The last three were recommended to me.
Comment by: joe
12All things in science are theory, provisional facts pending further evidence to the contrary.
As someone (with two natural science degrees), I’d suggest that you two might like to clarify your terms. ‘Evolutionary theory’ seems to mean all things to all people.
Whilst Dawkins is clearly a very clever man and his books are well argued and intelligent, the ‘Blind Watchmaker’ and ‘Climbing Mount Improbable’ cannot be described as ‘a very reasoned grounding in evolution’ as Dawkins provides very little factual evidence in the text. It is in effect an exercise in ‘I can imagine a universe where x happened - therefore it did’. Which is ok, maybe it did happen that way, but just declaring something to be orthodox does not make it true.
Indeed, as recent Dawkins books have shown, he is prepared to go much further than most other scientists in the fields he touches upon during his role as Professor of the Public Understanding of Science - a position which appears to be to do with philosophy than accumulating and analysing hard data.
For me, the evidence that the world is old is indisputable and inarguable. The evidence of genetic relationships between species is good. The evidence of speciation is good and can be observed in real time.
Problems seem to me to be on a more fundamental level. What is the rate of mutation? How long does it take for beneficial genetic traits to be shown throughout a population? Are intermediate forms of complex organs really a competitive advantage - and how can you define competitive advantage anyway (it often becomes a circular discussion). And ultimately, if you are talking about macrochanges in the forms of organisms, how many mutations would be required, how many changes would be needed, how many intermediate forms would be rejected? I don’t believe there is enough time for this to occur, and have never seen anyone offer sensible figures to show it.
Finally, I would say that the fossil record is pretty patchy and poor. Pretty obvious really given the exact conditions you need for fossilisation, but it is like trying to patch together a murder scene from a pile of snapshots. In itself, the fossil record gives no basis for the sweeping statements of Dawkins et al. For example, the Pre-cambrian/Cambrian divide still represents a dramatic change in the complexity of lifeforms that is yet to be fully explained.
Comment by: Mike O
13What I’m looking for would me more of a classroom setting at a local college. I need a structured, instructor-led approach where I can interact and ask whatever questions that arise.
Comment by: Mike O
14Here’s a quote that pretty much describes where I’m at with the whole creation/evolution/religious/secular discussion”
Do I believe in creation? Yes, I do. Do I believe that science has good evidence for evolution? Yes I do. Do I accept that there are artifacts that predate new-earth creation? Yes, I do.
I guess I don’t need a faith that requires me to blindly accept what I believe in the face of evidence to the contrary. That doesn’t mean I just toss away dearly held, well-thought-out beliefs. But a “thinking faith” is what I prefer.
How does the historical record support or refute what I believe to be true?
Will I ever doubt creation? No, I don’t think I ever will. But I ALSO accept the evidence I am faced with. It’s a “thinking faith” that I want.
Comment by: Jason
15Joe, can you recommend a good Evolution Lite book for non-scientists?
Mike, the thing is I don’t believe that evolution is incompatible with religion. I think the evidence, not just evolutionary evidence, is incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis and the time line that suggests the world is between 6000 and 10000 years old but the bible never dates the Earth. That’s something that human beings did.
If you claim that the planet is 6000 years old then this is a question for science. we can examine the geological record, carbon date artifacts, look at cultures that left historical records and a host of other things and say that the claim is false.
If you claim that the Cambrian explosion was caused by divine intervention then you have a harder time collecting the evidence to refute it. I went to college with one post grad vulcanology (nothing to do with Star Trek) student who was convinced of God’s existence primarily because of the sudden (geologically speaking) introduction of fossils.
I prefer a more natural explanation but, as long as the evidence is collected and viewed objectively, any reasonable explanation can be tested. It’s the untestable ones that I’m wary of.
Comment by: Joe
16Jason - I can’t really. I don’t get on well with light/lite science literature.
Degree level biology coursebooks are fairly good, such as Campbell’s Biology for an overview.
Mike - I doubt you are going to find a course with an instructor with wide enough knowledge. Even if you did, you’d be far better off doing much of the reading for yourself rather than expecting the instructor to tell you the correct answer.
I’d suggest you enroll at a research university with structured courses and a good library.
Comment by: Jason
17It’s been a while since I’ve studied biology but I might just give your recommendation a go. Another one I’m interested in is Eugenie Scott’s Evolution vs Creationism but not for the biological explanation.
Comment by: joe
18It is a standard first year university text. Not overboard on detail, but covers a lot of ground.
Comment by: Jason
19Sounds perfect.