On Sat, 9 Sep 1995 18:29:55 -0400 Glenn wrote:
SJ>...the problem with Glenn's Mediterranean/old-Flood theory is that
>it does not seem to fit the Biblical data of a post-Flood world in
>the Fertile Crescent (Gn 10-12).<<
GM>What you should say is that it doesn't fit the concept of an
>IMMEDIATE post-flood world in the Fertile Crescent. A strict
>chronology in Genesis 11 leaves Noah alive at the same time that
>Abraham is alive and yet not many really believe that. Even Whitcomb
>and Morris do not believe this. They say,
GM>"If the strict-chronology interpretation of Genesis 11 is correct,
>all the postdiluvian patriarchs, including Noah, would still have
>been living when Abram was fifty years old...such a situation would
>seem astonishing, if not almost incredible." Genesis Flood, p 477.
GM>If Morris believes that there is a significant gap in time, why
>can't I? How long of a gap?
Whitcomb and Morris answer Glenn's question. They continue:
"...it seems the strict-chronology view must be set aside in order to
allow for the death of these patriarchs long before the time of
Abram...Thus it seems Biblically possible, or even probable, that the
Flood occurred several millenia before Abraham...To stretch the
genealogy of Genesis 11 to cover a period of over 100,000 years is to
do violence to the chronological framework of all subsequent Bible
history and prophecy."
(Whitcomb J.C., & Morris H.M., "The Genesis Flood", 1961, Baker, Grand
Rapids MI, pp478,483,485)
GM>If you tell me that my 5 million year
>gap is too much I would ask on what basis you make that charge?
See above. A strict father-son chronology of the patriarchs is not
necessary. But a stretching of these to beyond a hundred thousand
years seems difficult to believe.
GM>Whatever value one puts into this gap, we are all doing the same
>thing. The only question is how large the gap should be. I contend
>that because of the genetic diversity, the time it takes for a cave
>to form so a post-flood man can live in it requires a large gap. How
>large is the gap you want? Or do you believe that Eber lived in
>Jacob's time?
I agree we all must stretch the genealogies to fit the Biblical and
scientific data. Many (including Whitcomb and Morris) could
believe a gap of 100,000 years. Not many could believe a gap of 5
million years (if that is what you claim).
[...]
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>However, PC does not hold to a global Flood, and therefore does not
>believe there was any genetic bottleneck among plants and animals at
>the time of the Flood. Descendants from the inhabitants of the Ark
>later mingled with their kinds from other regions outside the scope of
>the Flood.<<
GM>I would agree that your model answers the problem of an extremely
>recent genetic bottleneck.
Thanks to Glenn for this confirmation.
GM>In another post, Stephen wrote concerning how God created the
world. >:
SJ>Why does it have to be either-or rather than both-and? Does not
>Glenn commit here the obverse fallacy of assuming that if God did it
>"like a magician" (to use his analogy), then God didn't design the
>universe "as an engineer"?<<
GM>This is a good point. I go my way because I think the evidence
>supports the engineer model of God's activity. I do not rule out the
>other model which is my complaint about the way Christianity deals
>with evolution. They seem to think it inconceivable that God could
>work in any fashion other than the miraculous when it comes to life.
>I feel that since God acts like an engineer with regards to the
>planets there is no reason to rule out him acting like this in
>relation to life. If the evidence supported the other view, I would
>go that way.
There is no reason to confine the Infinite to any one human analogy:
"Finally, these different kinds of design suggest at least five
different models of God as Designer:
- God as engineer (e.g., in the order, efficiency and complexity of
the world)
- God as speaker and author (e.g., in the information content in DNA)
- God as playful artist (e.g, in the aesthetic aspects of the world)
- God as mathematician (e.g., in the mathematical character of the
world and the different laws that describe it, as well as in the
usefulness of mathematics as means for discovering new laws
describing reality)
- God as provider (e.g, in the beneficial aspects of reality, in the
suitability of the senses and intellect for gaining knowledge of the
world)
There is no reason to limit God as Designer to any one of these. All
of them capture different aspects of what Christian theists mean when
they claim God as Designer."
(Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence
for an Intelligent Designer", 1994, Inter Varsity Press,Illinois, p25)
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>Besides, I can find nothing by Ross that says that says that God
>reset man's genetic clock back to zero, when He created Adam.<<
GM>If there could only be two alleles in Adam's day, that IS a reset
>of the genetic clock. Even if Hugh Ross has changed to a 60,000 year
>time frame, even that might not be enough.
OK. Thanks to Glenn for this. But on a two-Adam model, there could be
a larger genetic pool from whom modern man came. If Gn 1 man was
the entire genus Homo, then presumably that would match the genetic
data?
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>1. Creation of man: a) man was either created de novo with an
>apparent genetic history; or b) that he was created from pre-existing
>genetic material, ie. from hominid stock; and/or c) that he later
>mingled with pre-Adamite homids; and<<
GM>Man could not be created with a genetic history if there were only
>two humans on the earth. Adam and Eve together can only carry 4
>alleles. In the human population we now find at some locations, lots
>of alleles. To say that Adam was created with a genetic history in
>this case is like saying that a pint jug was created with a gallon
>of water in it. It is an oxymoron.
Again thanks to Glenn. See above.
>In yet a third post, Stephen wrote:
>GM>Thanks for this point, Art. If this is the case, then THIS is
>where Christians should argue their case against the reductionist
>view of the origin of life. To argue against the origin of life from
>the probabilities simply is weak. I have shown a two step process, 1
>creation of a long string 2. random excision of sub-strings, which
>makes the finding of a particular functional unit much, much more
>likely. The probability argument is too weak to support the weight
>of any anti-evolutionary arguments.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>Perhaps Glenn could re-calculate his probability estimates, taking
>into account B & T's factors above? Until he does, he can hardly
>continue to claim his simple English-language sentence analogy
>disproves the creationist argument from improbability against the
>chance origin of life. <<
GM>Stephen, we were talking about cytochrome c in the post you are
>quoting.
I do not understand Glenn's point here. He was discussing the chance
of a single-step origin of a protein molecule from amino acids as a
step toward the abiogenetic origin of life. He used a simple English
sentence as an analogy. I quoted Bradley & Thaxton who pointed out
that English letters are an inadequate analogy for amino acids, which
can form in many more complex ways. I asked Glenn to factor these
problems that B & T raised into his calculations and let us know the
result. Until then, Glenn's argument based on his simplistic analogy
seems to lack realism.
God bless.
Stephen