The God Culture: The Philippines is the Center of the Center of Marine Biodiversity

The scientific fact that the Philippines is the "center of the center of marine biodiversity" plays a central role in Timothy Jay Schwab's claim that the Philippines is the land of creation and thus the location of the Garden of Eden, Ophir, Tarshish, etc. So central is this to his thesis that the second video The God Culture produced to promote their new book "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure" is focused on this claim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCgbHXVJePo

Where did creation occur? Marine life survived the flood. The center of the center of marine biodiversity on the entire planet is the Philippines. Epicenter of the coral triangle. The Philippines land of creation.

That is a very truncated statement of Tim's doctrine concerning the Philippines' marine biodiversity as being proof that the Philippines is the "land of creation." That phrase is problematic in itself because God created an entire planet not just one land. This claim is also discussed elsewhere in his videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz2Bmcm05_A

4:23 So if we want to know the origin of man and animals the land of creation we know exactly where to look it's not difficult. We don't go looking for bones of man or land animals who rebooted during the flood as all but what was on the ark was wiped out but those creatures which were not wiped out by the flood, marine species. Find the most diverse population of marine life on earth and you have actually found the land of creation. Now, see that is science, observation, and even logic.

6:59 The Carpenter report on environmental biology of fishes reports "The Philippines is not only part of the center but is, in fact the epicentre of marine biodiversity, with the richest concentration of marine life on the entire planet." See not actually debatable is it. The Philippines is the land of creation

"Find the most diverse population of marine life on earth and you have actually found the land of creation. Now, see that is science, observation, and even logic."  That's actually called an assumption. Why would a diverse marine population tell us anything about the creation of man or land animals? Tim does not say. He simply asserts it as being true.

As I previously wrote Tim does not actually cite the Carpenter report's findings. Instead he cites a brief summary of the report. Let's look at the report and see what it actually says.

Carpenter Report

From the Synopsis:

Analysis of distribution data for 2983 species reveals a pattern of richness on a finer scale and identifies a peak of marine biodiversity in the central Philippine Islands and a secondary peak between peninsular Malaysia and Sumatra. This pattern is repeated in diverse habitat and higher taxa classes, most rigorously for marine shore fishes, supporting geohistorical hypotheses as the most general unifying explanations.

From the Methods section:

Related to the area of accumulation hypothesis is that the IMPA also serves as an area of refuge (Bellwood & Hughes 2001) because it encompasses the most extensive and diverse tropical shallow water marine habitat on earth.

pg. 5-6

Results:

Analysis of the 2983 combined ranges reveals the central Philippines as the area of highest diversity and endemism (Figure 5a, b). A secondary area of high diversity is located between the tip of Malaysia and Sumatra and extends along north- eastern Sumatra and northern Java (Figure 5a). Both diversity centers are repeated in subsets of data based on distribution, habitat, all inverte- brate taxa, and shore fishes.

pg. 6 

Discussions

Because of its greater area, Indonesia may eventually be shown to have a greater overall marine biodiversity than the Philippines. However, there is a higher concentration of species per unit area in the Philippines than anywhere in Indonesia, including Wallacea, according to our study.

pg.8 

The hypothesis that the IMPA is a center of origin is not falsified by the central Philippine epicenter of diversity. However, it is not readily apparent why geological events that promoted allopatric speciation may have been more prevalent in the Philippines than in Wallacea.

pg.10 

The overall conclusion from our study is that the diversity found in the IMPA is likely a combination of many processes, as evidenced by the secondary center of diversity we observed. However the higher number of species per unit area in the Philippines than elsewhere in the IMPA indicates that concentrated allopatric speciation and island integration across the Philippine archipelago appears to have played an important role in shaping the diversity of the IMPA. These hypotheses warrant further testing through refined vicariance biogeography methods and molecular phylogeographic approaches.

pg. 13

To sum up according to this paper, "multiple datasets show global maxima of marine biodiversity in the Indo–Malay–Philippines archipelago (IMPA)." However the epicenter of this diversity is the Philippines. This diversity consists in "the number of species per unit area" and not the number of unique species per se which only number 2,983. There is also a "secondary peak" of diversity "between peninsular Malaysia and Sumatra."   This map illustrates these findings.

The top 10% of species richness is in shades of red and yellow and the remaining decreasing increments of species richness are indicated by lighter shades of blue. The greatest diversity is red (1693 to 1736 species), followed by pink (1650 to 1692 species), yellow (1606 to 1649 species), and light yellow (1563 to 1605 species).

pg.7

The map in the bottom corner (f) shows how this diversity overlaps. The entire area is a global center of marine biodiversity "per unit area" not in the number of species per se which is only 2,983. The diversity in the IMPA stems from it being crowded and not because there is a high number of unique species in the area.

What does this mean for Tim's thesis that the Philippines has the most diverse marine life and is thus the land of creation? It means his claim is very misleading. It is readily apparent that he does not understand that the diversity consists in distribution of species "per unit area" and not in the number of unique species per se. In this study only the distribution of 2,983 species were studied. The region with the greatest number of those species "per unit area" is the Philippines. Those same species are distributed throughout the IMPA but in lower, but not by much, numbers. The entire area is a center of marine biodiversity with the Philippines being the epicenter.  Why is that? The author, Kent Carpenter, says more study is needed. 

There are far more then 2,983 marine species on the planet. Are there other areas with even more diverse populations of marine life? Of course.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2914069/

We analyze the state of knowledge of marine biodiversity based on the geographic distribution of georeferenced species records and regional taxonomic lists. A total of 12,046 marine species are reported in this paper for the Caribbean region. 

The total number of endemic species for those taxa is 1,563, which represents 25.6% of the species for these groups.

This paper on Caribbean marine biodiversity analyses 12,046 species and 25.6% of them are endemic, native, to the region. Likewise the Mediterranean Sea is a hotspot of biodiversity and boasts of many endemic species.

Mediterranean Sea

A rough estimate of more than 8,500 species of macroscopic marine organisms should live in the Mediterranean Sea, corresponding to somewhat between 4% and 18% of the world marine species. This is a conspicuous figure if one considers that the Mediterranean Sea is only 0.82% in surface area and 0.32% in volume as compared to the world ocean. 

As a result, the Mediterranean Sea is considered as a true hotspot of biodiversity [1, 2, 10], even by virtue of the high rates of endeCism it supports (an estimated 20–30% of marine species in the Mediterranean are considered endemic to the Basin.)

How does Tim account for this diversity in the Carribrean and the Mediterranean? Why does the marine biodiversity of the Philippines indicate it is the land of creation when it does not have the most unique species? The diversity of the Philippines is "per unit area" not per species. There are 6x more species in the Caribbean and 25.6% of those are endemic to the Caribbean which means they are not found in the Philippines. Likewise in the Mediterranean there are 8,500 unique species and 20-30% are endemic to that body of water. Why isn't the Caribbean the land of creation when it has more species? Tim does not explain any of this. He has probably not even considered it as he has not bothered to conduct any meaningful research into marine biodiversity. Instead he has taken a study about the Philippines which, as indicated by his lack of reference to it, he has not read and distorted its findings out of all proportion.

Closely tied to his appeal that the Philippines is the center of marine biodiversity on the planet is Tim's claim that there was no ocean before the flood. This claim is not rooted in science but in faith. Specifically faith in the narrative of the apocryphal Jewish text 2 Esdras.

pg. 270

2 Esdras narrows this down to a percentage we can understand. Only one-seventh of the Earth before the Flood was water which is approximately 15%. This is extremely significant as there are many who lose sight that the ocean did not exist at that time but was formed by the flood. 

The reason this matters is Genesis 2 is depicting the only major aqua nerve system on the Earth at that time.

pg. 270-271

 Tim's faith in 2 Esdras leads him to claim that only 1/7th of the earth was water before the flood.

2 Esdras 6:42 Upon the third day thou didst command that the waters should be gathered in the seventh part of the earth: six parts hast thou dried up, and kept them, to the intent that of these some being planted of God and tilled might serve thee.

In 2 Esdras 14 Ezra tell us that the books of Moses were burned up and God gives him a revelation to write them down. In fact he writes down 204 books, 70 of which remain secret.

2 Esdras:14:21: For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things that are done of thee, or the work that shall begin.

37: So I took the five men, as he commanded me, and we went into the field, and remained there. 

38: And the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, Esdras, open thy mouth, and drink that I give thee to drink. 

42: The Highest gave understanding unto the five men, and they wrote the wonderful visions of the night that were told, which they knew not: and they sat forty days, and they wrote in the day, and at night they ate bread. 

43: As for me. I spake in the day, and I held not my tongue by night. 

44: In forty days they wrote two hundred and four books. 

45: And it came to pass, when the forty days were filled, that the Highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast written publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it: 

46: But keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people: 

47: For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge. 

48: And I did so.

From this passage we learn that Ezra, inspired by God, dictated the books of Moses plus a lot of other things he withheld. That means faith in this text requires a belief that our current text of Genesis originates from this event and that we are missing a lot of other texts. 

Now let's read Timothy Jay Schwab's interpretation of Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:10 KJV

And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.  

Hebrew:yam: יָם:sea, mighty river (Nile), salt sea.

The Hebrew yam can mean sea but it is also used for mighty river and even the Salt Sea or Dead Sea who is not a sea but a lake. Yam is obviously a generic word referring to a large body of water not narrowing down the specifics nor does such requirement exist. The word is not a definitive word for ocean nor does Genesis 1-6 ever describe an ocean but five mega-rivers which we will locate with perhaps lakes we call basins today.

pg. 271

According to Tim 2 Esdras is history which means Ezra rewrote the writings of Moses at the dictation of God himself. How does Tim explain this nonspecific language in Genesis 1 when 2 Esdras 6 is very specific? How does he explain the differing creation stories between Genesis 1 and 2 Esdras 6? 2 Esdras 6:49-52 relates an interesting narrative about Enoch and Leviathan which is nowhere to be found in Genesis.

49: Then didst thou ordain two living creatures, the one thou calledst Enoch, and the other Leviathan; 

50: And didst separate the one from the other: for the seventh part, namely, where the water was gathered together, might not hold them both.

51: Unto Enoch thou gavest one part, which was dried up the third day, that he should dwell in the same part, wherein are a thousand hills:

52: But unto Leviathan thou gavest the seventh part, namely, the moist; and hast kept him to be devoured of whom thou wilt, and when.

Which Enoch is this? It can't be the "seventh from Adam." Neither Ezra nor Tim explains.

Timothy Jay Schwab's belief that there was no ocean before the flood results in two absurdities. 

The first absurdity, as I pointed out elsewhere, is that is if the Garden of Eden is under the Sulu Sea, as Tim teaches, then that means there was no marine biodiversity in the Sulu Sea before the flood because there was no Sulu Sea until after the flood. So why would marine biodiversity which appears after the flood and not at creation tell us anything about "the land of creation?" This fact alone destroys his ridiculous claim that the Philippines' marine biodiversity indicates the Philippines is "the land of creation."

The second absurdity is that Tim has no explanation for saline waters and the creatures who thrive in them. On this planet there are freshwater ecosystems and there are saltwater ecosystems. The fact is freshwater marine life cannot survive in saltwater and vice versa.

https://www.livescience.com/32167-can-saltwater-fish-live-in-fresh-water.html

Some fish species can live in both freshwater and saltwater. These species are called euryhaline fish. However, most fish species can only survive in one or the other based on their salinity tolerance, or how much salt their bodies can handle. 

Most fish that can only tolerate narrow ranges of salinity and are highly sensitive to any changes in the levels of salt to the water in which they dwell. These fish are known as stenohaline species and include goldfish, which can live only in a freshwater environment. 

Reversely, tuna can exist exclusively in saltwater, according to the NMFS. 

In fact, freshwater fish will often be unable to survive if the salinity levels of their surrounding water reaches more than .05 percent, according to the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII).

Tim's thesis that there was no antediluvian world ocean means there would have to be no life which requires the world ocean for its habitat. This includes whales, dolphins, corals, sharks, clownfish, tuna, octopi, squids, and mollusks just to name a few. As Genesis 1 says:

21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Were blue whales, dolphins, sharks, clownfish, tuna, and all the rest swimming around in large freshwater lakes which made up only 1/7 of the earth's surface? And after the flood did they adapt to the salinity of the ocean? Just what is the origin of the world ocean's saline content? For Tim to have a coherent thesis that there was no ocean before the flood he will have to take the above facts into consideration and offer an explanation instead of quickly jumping to mapping out a supposed ancient river system in the ocean trenches.

Most importantly Tim offers no explanation why the waters with the most diversity means that is the land of creation. Like many of his claims it's an unfalsifiable ad hoc hypothesis for which he offers zero explanation. There are 6x more marine species in the Caribbean than in the "center of the center of marine biodiversity." The Philippines may have more species "per unit area" but the Philippines is less diverse in terms of actual species. The waters of the IMPA and the Philippines are simply more crowded.

We also see his scriptural explanations from 2 Esdras do not pan out. Of course 2 Esdras is not scripture and has never been scripture. Nor is it science. It is apocryphal Jewish literature which is certainly not solid ground on which to build a case for anything scientific.