----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Jun 1999 09:20:01 -0000
From: asa-digest-owner@udomo.calvin.edu (asa-digest)
Subject: asa-digest V1 #1278
asa-digest Friday, June 25 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1278
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:20:02 -0700
From: "John M. Lynch" <jmlynch@geocities.com>
Subject: Re: Neanderthal hybrid is real
> Trinkaus et al are reporting that this child INDEED HAD SOME OF THE
> CHARACTERISTICALLY NEANDERTHAL MUSCLE ATTACHMENTS!!!!!!
>
> This child is a hybrid. If Neanderthal could breed with us, then he WAS
> us!
While I generally agree with Glenn regarding the fossil record, readers have
to be very careful examining the evidence for hybridization as presented in
the PNAS paper.
As Tattersall and Schwartz note in a commentary in the same issue of PNAS (p
7117 - 7119) , many of the features that Duarte et al advocate as indicating
hybridism are in fact highly variable in H. sapiens and in H.
neanderthalensis - "there is nothing about the craniodental elements thus
far know and described that would be unusual for a Homo sapiens at this
young developmental age." As they note, this is a "brave and imaginative
interpretation of which it is unlikely that a majority of
paleoanthropologists will consider proven."
Sample sizes of one can tell us very little, particularly if the authors
want to extrapolate the results to indicate that hybridization had been
ongoing for serveral millennia (which they are forced to do, as they were
not able to argue that the specimen was a 50:50 [F1] hybrid). Until further
putative hybrids are found, it is best not to beleive that hybridization is
proven in any way.
Let's wait and see what happens ...
- - -jml
- ------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 23:06:58 +0100
From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Subject: Re: Fish to Amphibian
Gordon,
I only evidence that the flood referred to in Ps.29:10 is the same as -
or is of the same order as - the Noahic Flood is the use of the Hebrew
word 'mabbul'. Its 12 other appearances occur in Genesis where it is
used specifically to designate this event. The context of the Psalm
appears to offer no direct help.
Regards,
Vernon
gordon brown wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > It was a large vessel, commissioned by God, and robust enough to meet
> > the demands of the 'mabbul' (It is interesting that though there are
> > several Hebrew words meaning 'flood', this one is reserved for this
> > particular event - described in the Greek as 'kataklusmos'). I think
> > 'ocean-going' is implied.
>
> Vernon,
>
> Why do you believe that in Psalm 29:10 mabbul refers to the Flood of
> Noah's time? What in the context demands this? Isn't this psalm about the
> power of God displayed in a heavy thunderstorm as it moves from the sea
> across the mountains and out over the desert?
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
- ------------------------------
End of asa-digest V1 #1278
**************************
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 13:23:42 -0400
From: bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu (David Campbell)
Subject: Re: Context (was Fish to Amphibian)
>I believe I have responded to most of the points you raise in my replies
>to Glenn, George and Gordon. However, on the matter of the context of
>Mt.24:37-39/Lk.17:26-27, viz the unexpected nature of the 'second
>coming', this will be a global event, will it not?
It will be global, but I do not see that in focus in those passages. The
parallel with Sodom particularly suggests that geography is not the focus
here.
Mt. 24:26-31 and Lk. 17:22-24 speak of its universal obviousness, but Mt.
24:32-25:46 and Lk. 17:26-33 focus on "Be ready!". Nothing about the
extent seems to be stated.
If you haven't, I would recommend that you read Glenn Morton's scenario for
the Flood and see how well it meets your objections. The whole land is
destroyed by flooding.
David C.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 16:13:49 -0400
From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Subject: cry for help
Well folks, I'm back after a few months in Berkeley & have a request. I recall
years ago reading of Pauli's response to the newspaper announcement of Heisenberg's
nonlinear unified field equation in which Heisenberg was quoted as saying that all the
problems of physics were now solved in principle and that it only remained to work out
the details. Pauli's comment in a letter to another colleague was a blank rectangle &
the caption, "I can paint like Titian. Only the details are missing."
The problem: I want to include this in the book I'm working on (the application
to overly optimistic claims about chemical evolution is obvious), but I can't recall &
can't locate a reference. I've tried Pauli's collected papers & the big Heisenberg bio.
Anybody recall coming across this & where? (I've probably quoted it on this list so if
you just have a vague recollectionit may be from that.)
Thanks,
George
- --
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 00:00:42 +0100
From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Subject: Re: global flood (was fish to amphibians)
Hi Glenn,
Apropos your latest post I would like to make two brief points:
(1) You said "...the scripture says that God would destroy all the
animals in the 'eretz', not all the animals on the earth."
Assuming for the sake of argument that your 'local flood' scenario is
correct, we would expect to find across the globe representatives of all
bird and animal 'kinds' that had escaped the ravages of the Deluge.
What, then, was God's purpose in commanding Noah to build so large a
vessel? Could it have been anything other than to ensure the
preservation of planet Earth's fauna along with man?
Clearly, your initial premise leads us to conclude that Noah and his
family enjoyed the company of animals! - for otherwise, what was the
purpose of them being there?! I suggest that your evolution-induced
interpretation of Gn.6-9 trivialises the whole episode. Only by
believing that all animal life outside the ark was destroyed can we make
sense of it all. It follows that the Flood must have been global.
(2) You appear to be making great play of Gn.6:13 where God refers to
the destruction of the earth. I have already suggested what I believe to
be a reasonable reading of this matter in respect of a global flood, viz
"...in the sense that the terrain was no longer what it was - suggested
by the 'breaking up' of the 'fountains of the great deep' (Gn.7:11) - he
effectively eradicated the old order." What is your understanding of it
in a local sense? Can it be greatly different from mine?
Sincerely,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
------------------------------
End of asa-digest V1 #1279
**************************