Can you cite some internal Biblical evidence or external archaeological
evidence that states that 50,80 or 100,000 are O.K. but 100,001 years are
unacceptable? If there were actually a limit based upon some Biblical fact I
would agree. What Whitcomb and Morris are saying is merely personall
prejudice. It is O.K. to have personal prejudices but they do get in the way
of explaining the data. Besides, Whitcomb and Morris are arguing against the
position of Bernard Ramm there. I thought you liked Ramm's ideas.
You wrote:
>>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)<<
That is what I am claiming. There is anthropological data which needs
explaining. I will post on that tonight. But Whitcomb and Morris are NOT
arguing for a 100,000 years, they are arguing against it.
As to all of us stretching the genealogies, I find the criticism of the
size of my gap funny in light of the fact that everyone is doing it, but no
one wants a gap to big so no one will really notice that there is a gap. It
is as if a gap is unseemly so if we make it small, no one will notice. Or
better yet, it is like criticizing the prostitute who charges $5,000,000
while accepting the prostitute who charges $100,000 or $10,000 or $6,000. We
are all doing the same thing. I am just more expensive! :-)
Stephen wrote:
>>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 wasthe entire
genus Homo, then presumably that would match the genetic data?<<
But the Bible does not talk of a two Adam man. I do not like any of my
choices when it comes to the MHC data. But all other genetic data can be
accounted for by my 5 million dollar gap. Oops, I mean 5 million year gap.
Stephen wrote:
>>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. <<
I have not really used the probability argument in the origin of life
question. Others have, but all I have done was say that our argument against
it is wrong and weak. The odds of finding a particular protein even after
life arises would be impossible even with selection if only one of the
protiens would perform the function. The argument has broader implications
than you are allowing.
glenn