On Sat, 23 Sep 1995 12:55:12 -0400 Glenn wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>Glenn oversimplifies by lumping PC's with YEC's in believing in
>"the recent creation of man"....PC's accept the radiometric age of
>the universe at 4.6 BY. On the basis of the Biblical evidence, PC's
>do believe man is comparatively recent, but they are willing to
>adjust their Biblical views with the scientific data.
GM>If PC's, like you, accept the radiometric dating, why do you then
>reject the radiometric and other dating of the earliest Neanderthals,
>which you yourself said might be fully human....
I do not "reject the radiometric and other dating of the earliest
Neanderthals". I have asked what method was used. BTW I don't accept
that Neanderthals were "fully human". Only Gn 2 Adam is "fully
human". I would probably see H. erectus, Neanderthal Man and
Cro-Magnon man as emerging humanity of Gn 1 man.
[...]
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>The same acute degree of conflict between Bible vs science need not
>occur with PC.
GM>You have already set up that conflict by ignoring the
anthropological data and insisting on a recent creation of Adam.
No. The two-Adam model fits both sets of data nicely.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>I understand some fire evidence has been re-interpreted as natural
>fire? In any event I would not see the use of fire as unusual in a
>hominid with emerging intelligence.<<
GM>I thought you didn't want to explain mankind by evolution and yet
>you have several times talked about "emerging intelligence". You are
>inconsistent here. If you believe that Man was not derived from the
>ape or ape-man, then the "intelligence" of those critters has nothing
>to do with the intelligence of man.
Glenn seems to think that the only way something can "emerge" is
by "evolution". It can also emerge by Progressive Creation.
Glenn continues with his stereotype of me as a type of YEC. I have
not ruled out man being derived from earlier hominids, whether by
common design of genetic material. Indeed, I have stated publicly
that I am impressed by Terry Gray's vitamin C psuedogene argument.
GM>As to the fire being re-interpreted, I have not heard of this
>suggestion. Besides it would be amazing to find that natural fires
>occurred just where mankind camped and rarely occurred anywhere else.
I don't make a big thing of it. I accept that early man used fire.
But it is almost certain that at some stage a fire would have burnt
through the site of every human camp.
>I wrote:
>GM>"Remains of red deer, elephant, an extinct species of rhinoceros,
>mountain goat and wild boar reveal the hut dwellers' tast for
>meat...animals...were hunted rather than scavenged. Shells of
>oysters, mussels and limpets...resources of the sea....little to
>suggest what plant foods were collected...<<
>
>Stephen replied:
SJ>I presume this is added to disprove YEC's original vegetarianism
>theory?<<
GM>No. Since I believe that the flood was prior to this time, the
>love of meat in fossil man would require that if the Bible is
>historically accurate, then the Flood, and subsequent consent for
>meat eating occurred before this time. Stephen, Think about what I
>am saying in the context of my views.
See previous message. I do not believe the Bible teaches original
vegetarianism.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>Seriously, primitive art is not necessarily diagnostic of full
humanity.<<
GM>I fear that the evidence means nothing to you. Your belief that
>your interpretation is the right one is more important than really
>matching the data of science with the data of the Bible.
Glenn assumes that his "interpretation" of "the evidence" is the
only right one. As usual, we must agree to differ.
>I wrote:
>GM> There are two approaches to explaining this data away.<<
>Stephen replied:
SJ>Glenn could have said "explaining the data" without adding the
>"away"! :-) The "away" assumes that Glenn infallibly knows that his
>TE interpretation is the only right one?<<
GM>Stephen in constructing any worldview, one must do one of two
>things with a data point. 1.You either believe it, and incorporate
>it into the viewpoint, or 2. You disbelive it and explain why it is
not a data point. There is no third option. In the case of evidence
>for campsites, 330,000 year old art etc, your view must explain why
>those data are not really data against your view. This is why you
>keep saying that they are not evidence of "full humanity" You are
>explaining the data points away, not incorporating them. What
>animal creates statues of itself? Name one. If you can't, then
>refusal to see this as a sign of humanity becomes evidence that you
>don't WANT to see them as humanity.
I do not say that this "data" is not data, and neither did I say that
these early hominoids are "animals". But neither do I see them as
fully human either. The evidence is consistent with an emerging
humanity.
GM>I do not assume that I infallibly know that my TE view is the only
>right one. I do know, that my view is the only one that can
>accomodate things like the recent discovery of the Golan Venus
>without major alterations or mental gymnastics to avoid the obviously
>conclusion that some human, 330,000 years ago, had enough spiritual
>awareness to carve a statue of his wife or girlfriend.
Glenn and I obviously have a different interpretation of what is
"spiritual awareness"! :-) An emergening aesthetic sense is fully
consistent with an emerging humanity.
>Stephen quoted Erickson:
GM>"Man is distinguished by the presence and use of complex symbolism
>or, more specifically, of language. While the making of tools and
>burial of the dead point to a fairly sophisticated pattern of
>behavior, it is language which makes possible the type of
>relationship with God which would be experienced by a being created
>in the image of God. On this basis, one can correlate the beginning
>of man in the full biblical sense with the evidence of a great
>cultural outburst about 30,000 to 40,000 years ago. The first man is
>not to be identified with Neanderthal man, but somewhat later,
>probably with Cro-Magnon man. (James W. Murk, "Evidence for a Late
>Pleistocene Creation of Man," Journal of the American Scientific
>Affiliation 17, no. 2 (June 1965): 37-49).<<
GM>There is no way that a non-written language can be fossilized.
>This extreme view of man's behavior would not believe that there is
>no evidence that a soul existed until a language was proven. Since
>the first written language is from around 3000 B.C. I guess there
>were no evidence of a soul in man prior to that time. This inspite
>of evidence of cities prior to that time. But as you say, building
>Nests (homes), even close together, does not constitute evidence of
>humanly activity. After all, a home is just a complex nest. Maybe
>you're correct. And since the earliest language is Egyptian, I guess
>that means that Adam was an Egyptian.
My quote above says nothing about "written language".
GM>All the quotes you have about language are based on no evidence of
>a physical nature. How do you fossilize a spoken language. There
>are cultures today which do not produce much in the way of physical
>artifacts, e.g. the !Kung of the Kalahari. Reliance of cultural
>artifacts in this case to define humanity excludes a prehistoric
>version of the !Kung.
Indeed, the essence of man's full humanity is in his non-material
nature:
"Let us also observe that the Bible teaches that what distinguishes
man from the lower 'kinds' is not the structure of this organism, but,
rather, his having been made in the image and likeness of the
Almighty." (Carnell E.J., "An Introduction to Christian Apologetics",
Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1948, p240)
I have already answered the Bushman of the Kalahari argument in an
earlier message. They are a special case, due to their desert
environment.
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------