>For example, I said in response that the fossil record is not just of
>individuals, it is of large central populations (Gould), which are
>formed from undetectable small, peripherally isolated populations.
>Therefore if Glenn is claiming that H. habilis existed as a small
>peripheral isolate population for 3.5 million years then his theory is
>unfalsifiable. OTOH if he is claiming that H. habilis existed was a
>large central population for 3.5 MY then it is difficult to believe.
>Claims that other species were not found (eg. tarsiers), ignores the
>fact that H. habilis did more than leave behind his bones - he left
>artifacts. Also, the search for hominids has been much more intensive
>than for tarsiers, etc.
>
There is a difference between unfalsifiable, unverifiable, and difficult to
verify. A small population may be difficult to find. You have to look in
the correct place (which may not have been examined yet). This does not make
the view either unfalsifiable or unverifiable. A discovery of the proper
nature will verify what I have suggested. For example, a Habilis or erectus
found in much older strata would be consistent with and substantiate my
view. The dredging up of an artifact from a core in the Mediterranean would
prove my case if it came from the Messinian age strata. Even the discovery of
an artifact at the base of the Nile canyon as far south as Aswan would prove
my case. Thus the view is verifiable.
Is it unfalsifiable. Not in the postivist sense. It is in prinicple
falsifiable. An exhaustive search, while difficult, of the proper interval
in the basinal Mediterranean would falsify my view. The discovery that
stromatolites (rocks which must be deposited in less than 30 feet of water)
could be deposited in thousands of feet of water and that highly oxygenated
sediments mimicking desert deposits could be deposited under thousands of
feet of water would deal my view a near fatal blow.
On the other hand, I see no way to falisfy or verify your two Adam view.
If I say that some character is indicative of humanity, you say it is
emerging humanity. Exactly what would falsify your 2-Adam view?
Stephen wrote:
>>Glenn fails to see the distinction between Gn 1-11 which is
*pre-history* and the rest of scripture post-Abraham which is datable,
verifiable *history*.<<
So are we to cease all efforts at making the early parts of the Scripture
verifiable history? I really can't see a reason to give up entirely. The
Scripture really does present everyone a real problem in deciding the exact
place in which it begins to describe nonverifiable history. Was Terah a myth?
Was Nahor an imaginary person? Was Serug the first mythical personage?
Maybe it was Reu who had no real existence? Maybe Peleg or Eber was the
fable. You can continue this back to Noah.
One thing is absolutely certain. These patriarchs either did exist or they
didn't. You can not avoid that. This is not an issue of whether the
Biblical document is true or not but a matter of fact or falsehood. Even if
we have no independent knowledge of their existence that has no bearing on
the fact or falsehood of their existence. I have lots of ancestors from the
8th century of whom I have no knowledge. This lack of knowledge does not
mean they did not really exist.
Given that, name for me the place you think the list becomes fable. I know
you can't prove it but what is your gut feel?
Stephen wrote:
>>There is a difference in not knowing *exactly* where and when the
Flood was, but believing in its general time and location within
limits. It is one thing to believe the Flood may have been in
Mesopotamia within the last 10 - 50 thousand years, and another to
believe it happened to a different species (ie. H. habilis), in the
Mediterranean, 5500 thousand years ago.<<
First I see no reason for the limits. Second, historical events especially
geological events, usually leave some historical or geological evidence of
themselves. To say that the flood left no evidence of itself, means that we
are asking every skeptic to believe that we are correct when we can give them
no more evidence that our document is historically accurate than the believer
in leprechauns can give for the leprechaun's existence.
Stephen wrote:
>>"I am not bothered that I don't know EXACTLY where or when the Flood
ocurred. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A LITERAL NOAH, ARK AND FLOOD because Jesus
seemed to (Mt 24:38; Lk 17:27), but IF the Biblical account
turns out to be a "creation-myth" BASED ON THAT ORIGNAL LITERAL EVENT IN
PRE-HISTORY, then my faith won't be shaken one little bit.<<
Let me paraphrase this. "I am not bothered that I don't know EXACTLY where
or when the Leprechaun's live. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A LITERAL LEPRECHAUN,
POT OF GOLD AND WISHES"
I am not trying to belittle what Jesus believed or what you believe, but I am
merely trying to point out that there is no reason for believing one
statement over the other. If you can show me evidence for your flood, then I
have a reason to believe your statement and you can then point out that my
statement has no observational evidence to support it. In that case the
Biblical record is correct and my leprechauns are not.
Stephen wrote:
>>There is not even that. As Glenn blithely deletyes and ignores, the
Genesis story mentions subterranean *springs*, whereas Glenn's story
mentions a *dam*.<<
You want springs, how about the water escaping from the subterranean water
which was stored in the rocks of the surrounding continents? All rocks are
saturated with water. If you drained the Mediterranean, then waters would
ooze out of the rocks along the continental slopes of all continents
surrounding the basin. Prior to the Flood, Genesis 2:6 would be literally
fulfilled. "but streams came up from the the earth and watered the whole
surface of the earth." Genesis 2:6, NIV
O.K. Stephen you have your springs. These waters would also add to the
flood. :-)
Stephen wrote:
>>But at least Glenn acknowledges that there is no "no Biblical or
anthropological evidence for his "5.5 MY Mediterranean Flood".<<
Stephen, you became very confused here. You attributed what you wrote to me.
In the post I am responding to, here is what you have.
******************************************************************************
*****
*>Stephen wrote:
*
*SJ>See previous. Subterranean "springs" being broken up and a *
*>surface oceanic dam breaking in are two very different things. There *
*>is no Biblical or anthropological evidence for Glenn's 5.5 MY *
*>Mediterranean Flood.<<
*
*
*
*GM>There is PLENTY of geological evidence!
*
******************************************************************************
*****
You are the one that suggested there was no evidence. I (the part with the
GM> in front of it said I disagreed. Please do not attribute what you write
to me.
Stephen writes:
>>Again this proves my point. The rain water in Glenn's story mainly
comes from the already flooded basin. It is largely irrelevant.<<
No, the rain comes from the FLOODING basin. Once the basin is filled, the
rain stops.
Stephen writes:
>>I have the same problem as Glenn. But it is important to put things
in their proper perspective. The Flood story is about sin,
righteousness, judgement and mercy, in short *salvation*. It is not
about geology.<<
Real floods, like the 1993 Mississippi River Floods leave many feet of
sediment as a testimony to their occurence. Fables do not leave such
evidence. Thus if one wants a real flood of any sort, one should expect to
be able to examine the geological evidence of the occurrence. The
historicity of the flood depends upon the record written in the geologic
record every bit as much as the historicity of the foundation of the
Christian Church depends upon the written record of its occurrence.
glenn