RE: Re: How to interpret Adam (was: Re: Kerkut)

The Australians were in place over 60,000 years ago. see
Australia's oldest human remains: age of the Lake Mungo 3
skeleton

Alan Thorne, Rainer Grnn, Graham Mortimer, Nigel A. Spooner,
John J. Simpson, Malcolm McCulloch, Lois Taylor, Darren
Curnoe

We have carried out a comprehensive ESR and U-series dating
study on the Lake Mungo 3 (LM3) human skeleton. The isotopic
Th/U and Pa/U ratios indicate
that some minor uranium mobilization may have occurred in
the past. Taking such effects into account, the best age
estimate for the human skeleton is obtained
through the combination of U-series and ESR analyses
yielding 62,000+/-6000 years. This age is in close agreement
with OSL age estimates on the sediment into
which the skeleton was buried of 61,000+/-2000 years.
Furthermore, we obtained a U-series age of 81,000+/-21,000
years for the calcitic matrix that was precipitated on the bones after
burial. All age results are
considerably older than the previously assumed age of LM3
and demonstrate the necessity for directly
dating hominid remains. We conclude that the Lake Mungo 3
burial documents the earliest known human presence on the
Australian continent. The age implies that
people who were skeletally within the range of the present
Australian indigenous population colonized the continent
during or before oxygen isotope stage 4
(57,000-71,000 years). Copyright 1999 Academic Press

Journal of Human Evolution, v 36, n 6, June, 1999, p591-612

The idea which Drsyme is advocating is ad hoc. It is a spiritual difference
which can not be detected. That smacks of "I can believe what I want with
no one able to contradict me" type of methodology.

Except that science most assuredly CAN falsify the concept that we are all
descended from a single pair created 7000 years ago. There simply is too
much genetic variability in the human population for it all to have arisen
in the past few thousand years. For some genetic systems which require 5
million years to explain the variations within the human family, see
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hegene.htm
  -----Original Message-----
  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
  Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 1:59 PM
  To: drsyme@cablespeed.com
  Cc: pruest@mail-ms.sunrise.ch; gmurphy@raex.com; asa@calvin.edu
  Subject: Re: Re: How to interpret Adam (was: Re: Kerkut)

  On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:20:11 Drsyme <drsyme@cablespeed.com> writes:
    What do you mean by genuinely human here? If you mean biologically
human, ok, but couldnt there be more to being human than just biology?
Could a 4th possiblity be that Adam and Eve were true historical figures
that God created in his own image around what 7000 years ago, give or take a
few thousand. There were other homo sapiens around then of course, and
prior to this, but somehow Adam and Eve were different, spritually only
perhaps, a difference that science is unable to discern. And we are all
descendants of Adam and Eve only.

    If we are all descendants of a late Adam and Eve, you need a clear
explanation how the more ancient populations of the Americas (>12Ka) and
Australia (>40Ka ?) were replaced, or, failing that, how they can be
converted to Christ without being members of the truly human race. This last
seems to be required as being "spiritually different." You also have to
explain the clear evidences of worship going back at least tens of thousands
of years that Glenn has collected. I see no way to come up with a rationally
consistent explanation for a late Adam. It is easy to give an ad hoc
explanation for some point or other, but to craft a view that is consistent
with broader requirements is exceedingly difficult, especially given the
human proclivity to hang tenaciously to multiple unwarranted preconceptions.
    Dave
Received on Mon Feb 23 21:13:35 2004