----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Jun 1999 09:20:01 -0000
From: asa-digest-owner@udomo.calvin.edu (asa-digest)
Subject: asa-digest V1 #1279
asa-digest Saturday, June 26 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1279
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
**************************
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 10:00:52 PDT
From: Adam Crowl <qraal@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Context (was Fish to Amphibian)
Hi ASA,
Depends on what you take those verses to mean. The consistent
self-interpretation of the Gospels on themselves indicates that the
so-called "Second Coming" spoken of in those passages is really Jesus
"coming in the clouds" [i.e. in Judgement] against Jerusalem. That makes the
most sense of the biblical data for an imminent "Return", since Jesus
consistently speaks of "this generation" seeing his prophecies fulfilled.
Nothing else is honest with the text.
Whether that has implications with wider applications than to just those
passages is another issue. But the "global" perspective can be just "local".
And in apocalyptic language even the stars can fall from the sky.
Adam
>From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
>Reply-To: vernon.jenkins@virgin.net
>To: David Campbell <bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu>
>CC: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Context (was Fish to Amphibian)
>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:40:09 +0100
>
>Hi David,
>
>Thanks for your input.
>
>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?
>
>Regards,
>
>Vernon
>
>http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
>
>http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:57:15 -0500
From: "Glenn R. Morton" <grmorton@waymark.net>
Subject: Re: global flood (was fish to amphibians)
HI Vernon,
Vernon wrote:
>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?
The purpose would have been clearly to save animals which were special to
man or animals from that region that weren't special to man. By making the
flood local, it means that tens of thousands of animals don't have to be
cared for by Noah et al, and this then avoids some of the really silly
problems, and even sillier solutions that some YECs have proposed, for an
overcrowded ark would have. If all animals were on the ark, the manure and
urine problems would be so great as to flood the ark itself. Woodmorrappe
says that urine could drain overboard, but this would be impossible from
the lowest deck. He even says that the animals were trained to defecate on
command into buckets held by Noah and the others. An ark with several
thousand animals would use up the oxygen quite rapidly, the heat given off
by the animals would over heat the ark (ever been in a crowded room and
felt hot? The ark would be worse). Such problems and the silly solutions
YECs have proposed make the Bible a laughing stock among reasonable peoples.
Fewer animals fewer problems like this. And then the Bible can avoid the
'help' that the YECs give it. Avoiding YEC interpretation makes the Bible
look a bit more reasonable.
>
>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.
I keep repeating and you keep intentionally ignoring the fact that it is
not an evolution induced interpretation. The silliness of the YEC global
flood is what made me change to a local flood. Only after that did I
eventually become an evolutionist. Please don't forget this again and
please don't make that same statement again. I get the feeling you are
ignoring me and believing what you want to beleive.
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. >
Hardly.
>(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?
My understanding is that God destroyed the LAND (eretz) which is what David
Campbell pointed out to you. It ain't land anymore, it is seabottom. You
are inconsistent concerning Gen. 6:13. Here you want to avoid the clear
implications that God destroyed the eretz. you say that eretz means
'planet earth' and use that meaning to support a global flood. But when
the planet earth must be destroyed, you squirm and claim that the eretz was
only re-arranged, not destroyed. You continue to ignore the fact that Abram
was told to get off 'planet earth' (eretz). If you are correct that eretz
means planet earth, then Abram disobeyed God. You interpret eretz
inconsistently depending upon what meaning you require for your theological
position at the time. This means that you really aren't paying attention
to what the Bible says. You are only paying attention to what your
theology requires. To you, your theology has become 'The Word of God'
rather than the Bible.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:26:15 -0400
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
Subject: Rimmer and the ark: manure
Glenn Morton wrote:
"By making the flood local, it means that tens of thousands of animals
don't have to be cared for by Noah et al, and this then avoids some of the
really silly problems, and even sillier solutions that some YECs have
proposed, for an overcrowded ark would have. If all animals were on the
ark, the manure and urine problems would be so great as to flood the ark
itself. Woodmorrappe says that urine could drain overboard, but this would
be impossible from the lowest deck. He even says that the animals were
trained to defecate on command into buckets held by Noah and the others. An
ark with several thousand animals would use up the oxygen quite rapidly, the
heat given off by the animals would over heat the ark (ever been in a
crowded room and felt hot? The ark would be worse). Such problems and the
silly solutions YECs have proposed make the Bible a laughing stock among
reasonable peoples."
This reminds me of a story Rimmer used to tell, about a debate on biblical
inerrancy that he had with a self-styled "atheist" in Denver, ca. 1930. The
following is taken from the tape I've asked ASAers to help me locate, the
one I no longer have:
Rimmer tells the story with great relish, setting up the audience for the
best possible response as he tells how his opponent insisted that nothing
not explicitly mentioned in the biblical text could be affirmed by either
man. When Rimmer agreed to this, his opponent claimed immediate victory.
The ark, he said, had no manure chute, since none is mentioned in the text.
Thus within thirty days, the ark would have been filled with methane gas,
and the animals would have died. There was, Rimmer recalled, "a very fine
lady seated behind me, the wife of a public official. She reached over and
pulled my coat-tail, and said, `That's a dirty argument; don't let him get
away with it.' I sat there, `Don't worry, I'll clean him up and the
argument at the same time.'" Punctuated with raucous laughter from the
hall, Rimmer went on to relate how he had conceded that the colonel was
right -- there was no manure chute. "But according to his rule we don't
need one. There could be nothing in the ark not specifically mentioned in
the text. And when I read the text it says the ark had two sides and two
ends and a top -- but no bottom is mentioned!"
Thought readers might enjoy this,
Ted Davis
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 14:38:11 -0700
From: "Hofmann, Jim" <jhofmann@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU>
Subject: RE: global flood (was fish to amphibians)
Has there been discussion on this list of Ryan & Pitman's "Noah's Flood:
the new scientific discoveries about the event that changed history"? (1998,
Simon & Schuster)
If so, I'll check the archives. If not, what do people think about the
book's argument?
Jim Hofmann
Cal State Fullerton
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:18:27 +0100
From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Subject: Re: Fish to Amphibian
Hello Paul,
I appreciate your writing, and thank you for the information. However, I
have to say that with respect to the ongoing discussion regarding the
extent of the Flood, it appears to matter little whether our thinking
involves 'planet Earth' or 'flat circular disc floating upon an ocean'.
To achieve God's purposes, was the globe (or disc) completely immersed?
or was it not? Thinking sensibly is hardly a time-dependent thing! Moses
understood the Flood had to be global, and could hardly have said more
to convince the reader of the fact.
Vernon
PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
>
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> >We first meet the Hebrew word 'eretz' in Gn.1:1. It certainly means
> >planet Earth there, wouldn't you agree?
>
> The one thing we can be sure of from the historical and biblical context is
> that 'eretz' in Gn 1:1 does NOT mean "planet Earth" William Tanner showed
> that the word "earth" in the Bible never means Planet Earth ["'Planet Earth'?
> or 'Land'?" in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (June, 97)
> 111-115]. He worked mostly from the Greek language and historical sources.
> In my own paper, working from anthropological, historical, biblical and
> linguistic (mainly Hebrew) data ["The geographical meaning of 'earth' and
> 'seas' in Gen 1:10" in the Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997) 231-55]
> I showed that when the word 'eretz' is used in the OT in a universal sense,
> its meaning is a flat circular disc floating upon an ocean.
> The theological doctrine of creation found in Gen 1:1 can and should be
> applied to planet Earth, but, it is the theology which is the revelation in
> Gen 1, not the definition of the "Earth."
>
> If Gen 1 is "VCR history" as seen and revealed by God rather than an
> accommodation to the views of the times, Christians are bound to believe in a
> flat earth floating upon an ocean beneath a solid sky. When will the
> literalists be consistent and either affirm the biblical description of the
> earth and the universe or stop implying that they are the serious Christians
> and those who do not accept the Bible literally are not?
>
> Paul S.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 20:25:10 -0500
From: "Glenn R. Morton" <grmorton@waymark.net>
Subject: RE: global flood (was fish to amphibians)
At 02:38 PM 6/26/99 -0700, Hofmann, Jim wrote:
> Has there been discussion on this list of Ryan & Pitman's "Noah's Flood:
>the new scientific discoveries about the event that changed history"? (1998,
>Simon & Schuster)
>
>If so, I'll check the archives. If not, what do people think about the
>book's argument?
I have a discussion of it on my web page
http://www.isource.net/bseaflod.htm
I don't think it will work
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 18:55:48 -0700
From: Robert Miller <rlmiller@garlic.com>
Subject: News items
Did anyone note the 2 interesting news items in the July Scientific
American? On page 28 an item taken from the April 27 Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences described a possible near extinction of
humans in the past million years. The suggestion comes from a study of
mtDNA and they speculate it could have been caused by disease, natural
disaster or connflict. Do you suppose they would consider a flood as a
natural disaster?
Then on page 30 a hominid discovered in Ethiopia is dated 2.5 mya and
was found with animal bones that had been cut and broken, an apparent
tool user.His species name, garhi, means surprise in Afar. This from the
April 23 Science.
Bob Miller
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 23:19:35
From: jimsmith@aol.com
Subject: CERTIFIED GIFTED PSYCHICS
SPEAK TO REAL LIVE CERTIFIED GIFTED PSYCHICS CALL 1 800 592 7827
------------------------------
End of asa-digest V1 #1280
**************************