Records say civilization was man's original state (Talk.Origins)

Response ArticleThis article (Records say civilization was man's original state (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Index

Claim CH134:

Records say civilization was man's original condition. Written records converge on an origin about 3000 BC. Other dating methods are uncertain.

Source: Bible Study Manuals, n.d. Creationism vs evolution (cont.)

• Titcomb, J. H., 1871. On the antiquity of civilization. Journal of the Transactions of The Victoria Institute, Journal of 1870-71, pp. 3-25.

CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. Written records began after civilization; they don't record man's original state.

Actually there is one; the Bible; but it would be circular reasoning to use it as evidence in support of the Bible. Because this claim relies on a lack of extra Biblical writings to the contrary, it is a weak argument. The best that can be said is that there is no evidence for the development of civilization.

Human fossils, however, show that humans are older than writing or other indications of civilization.

This assumes that a absence of evidence is evidence of absence, that not necessarily that case, and it is a weak argument, for the same reason that the original claim is weak.

Many of the dating methods showing man's prehistoric antiquity are verified, among other ways, by comparison with written history.

Actually these methods particularly C-14 are calibrated in part by written history. It also assumes that the chronology being used is accurate. Finally projecting them back to beyond written history, assumes a degree uniformity that if Noah's Flood actually occurred would not exist.