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

Glenn

How will your good friend Socrates/Socratism on the Theology web cope with all that? There is a lot to unravel and reject.

Will he swallow some hemlock or will a 'roo kick him back to Kiwi land?

Seriously there is no way out for anyone who wants to deny all this!

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Glenn Morton
  To: D. F. Siemens, Jr. ; drsyme@cablespeed.com
  Cc: pruest@mail-ms.sunrise.ch ; gmurphy@raex.com ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 2:13 AM
  Subject: 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 Tue Feb 24 05:00:17 2004