Stephen's critique of Glenn's post makes many points, and I wish to
comment on a selection of them.
> The Bible, being the unique revelation from God,
> must have the priority. Ultimately if a scientific fact disagreed
> with a Biblical fact, then the scientific fact must give way.
The strategy of those seeking harmonisation must be to start with
Biblical revelation. But we should not seek to play biblical facts
against scientific facts: (a) all truth belongs to God; (b) "facts"
are not always what they seem to be (see my earlier posting on this).
Agriculture:
> GM>The Scripture clearly indicates that the children of Adam and Eve
> >engaged in agriculture. Genesis 4:2-4 (NIV) The archaeologic
> >record gives no indication of farming occurring 50,000 years ago.
SJ > Here we have a gap of about 40 thousand years to be filled...
> Glenn also overlooks that the Flood intervened between Cain and
> Abel and now. What evidence of Genesis 4 farming may well have been
> largely obliterated. I would regard the "9000 BC" date above as
> probably representing post-Flood activity.
We are not faced with a lack of data, where speculation is
relatively unconstrained. We have plenty of data about Palaeolithic
peoples: their lifestyles, diet, artistry, technology, etc. This
comes from many parts of the world - which means that destruction of
evidences by a local flood is not a defensible position. There is a
clear contrast between their culture and that of the Neolithic
peoples - who were clearly farmers.
> No-one I know claims that "Adam was created 50,000 years ago", so
> Glenn has set up a straw man. Most old-Earth/young-Adam theorists
> claim a *range* of between 10-50 thousand years ago. Indeed, the
> originator of the two-"Adam" theory, E.K.V. (Victor) Pearce
> believes it may have only been 10-12 thousand years ago:
Does Victor Pearce's view address all the data? There are so many
indicatios that Palaeolithic Man was made in God's image. In view of
the difficult environment they lived in, they did quite well: I think
the eskimos provide an analogy (cultural aspects, anatomical
specialisations, etc.) I for one am not prepared to reject the
idea that these Palaeolithic peoples are descendants of Adam.
> GM>Abel could not have kept sheep if Adam was created 50,000 years
> ago. The first sheep are domesticated between 7 and 9000 years B.C.
>
> SJ > "between 7 and 9000 years B.C" is "within the past 50,000
> years". This is just more confirmation of the old-Earth / young Adam
> model.
This type of logic is used several times in Stephen's response, but I
don't find it helpful. There IS a serious gap. But I'm not sure if
it is necessary to use this kind of argument anyway - if he takes the
same line as Victor Pearce. He places Adam in the early Neolithic -
and the problem for him is what to do with the Mesolithic, the
various Palaeolithic groups and Homo erectus.
> GM>My point in all this, is that a viewpoint which claims to harmonize
> >the data, should harmonize the data.
>
> SJ> To date, Glenn has done a good job of showing how a view that
> holds that "modern, spiritual man arose within the past 50,000
> years" does indeed "harmonize the data"! :-)
Not if I am understanding Stephen correctly: all the evidences Glen
is concerned about are understood by you in the context of an early
Neolithic Adam. "Modern, spiritual man" must surely be a descendant
of Adam. So we have both a mismatch between 50,000 years and 10-
12,000 years, and a set of evidences of "modern, spiritual man"
living in rather difficult environments prior to the supposed
creation of Adam.
Stephen, I'm sorry If I've misunderstood your position - but I find
the concept of Gensis 1 man / Genesis 2 Adam a difficult one to get
my mind around.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***