On Thu, 28 Sep 1995 23:22:18 -0400 Glenn wrote:
>I wrote:
>GM>You have already set up that conflict by ignoring the
>anthropological data and insisting on a recent creation of Adam.<<
>
>Stephen replied:
SJ>No. The two-Adam model fits both sets of data nicely.<<
GM>Ok. Please outline your views. You did once say that you thought
>Neanderthals might be human but if you have decided to reject them, tell me
>your views about the flood, the creation timing etc and support it with data.
I am amazed at this request of Glenn. I have been outlining my views
ad nauseam, I would have thought! I am pressed for time at present,
so I will briefly outline my views in one-liners:
1. Creation - I am a Progressive Creationist who believes that Bible
and Nature are both "books" from God.
2. Man - I lean to a two-Adam model, ie. Gn 1 Man and Gn 2 Adam.
Adam was a fairly recent appearance. Neanderthals might be fully
human, or they might not. Depends on the evidence. I lean to the
view that they were not, ie. they are included in Gn 1 man.
3. Flood - I believe the Flood was a large local flood in Mesopotamia.
>In another post Stephen wrote:
SJ>It can't be any longer than 125,000 years because according
>to the Hominid FAQ, "Neandertal man existed between 125,000
>and 35,000 years ago".<<
GM>Not true. the FAQ needs updating (and I hate to go against Jim
>Foley in his area of strength--[ I just saw Jim's post on this. Here
>is a reference] ). According to Christopher Stringer and Clive
>Gamble, _In Search of the Neanderthals_ (Thames and Hudson, 1993),
>p. 47, and 66 the earliest Neanderthals came from Ehringsdorf
>Germany, dated by uranium series and electron spin resonance at
>230,000 years.
Thanks to Glenn for the info. I trust Jim will update the FAQ?
God bless.
Stephen