On Fri, 3 Nov 1995 06:58:54 -0500 Glenn wrote:
GM>In a message dated 95-11-02 19:47:42 EST, you write:
SJ>Glenn has *not* "documented a mismatch". He set out to refute the
>view held by Hugh Ross, Jim Bell and myself that modern man arose
>"within 50,000 years" and then produced evidence that indeed
>he did. Glenn then changed his argument mid-stream to claim that
>"Adam arose 50,000 years ago", which is *not* what we believe.
GM>You miss entirely the arguments I have made. My arguments are not
>at all based upon Adam being created exactly 50,000 years ago. They
>are against ANY view which believes Adam was created LESS than at the
>very least 2 million years ago! I don't care whether you believe in
>a 10,000 year old creation of Adam, a 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 year
>creation of Adam. There was evidence of human activities and human
>characteristics much longer ago than that!
That was *not* what Glenn was originally arguing. He made a number of
statements of things that occurred very recently and argued that they
are too *recent* (not too *old*), for a view that Adam was created
50,000 years ago. eg:
----------------------------------------------------------
>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.
>Nor does it support the concept of farming earlier
>than around 9000 BC.( "Agriculture, History of", Encyclopaedia
>Britannica 1982 1, p. 325.)
and
>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.
and
GM>Agriculture brings a whole basketfull of technologies with it. One
>needs sickles to harvest with and pottery to store the grain and
>protect it from rats. Buildings are required for large harvests.
>When are these associated technologies found? While ceramic
>figurines are found from deposits as old as 27,000 years, the first
>pots are found in sites dated at 8,000 B.C.(see J.Guilaine,
>_Prehistory_, Facts on File, 1986, p. 82) If Adam was created 50,000
>years ago, then I am sure those who do not believe in gaps in the
>historical and archaeological record would not want to claim that
>pottery occurred earlier.
and
GM>The first flint sickles occur in Palestine among the Natufians
>around 9000 B.C. ("Agriculture, History of," Encyclopedia
>Britannica, 1982, 1, p. 325) Thus the view that Adam was created
>50,000 years ago, means that Cain and Abel, the first farmers were
>not born for another 40,000 years. After all, we couldn't claim that
>there might be material in the gaps which had not been found. That
>wouldn't be reasonable. :-)
GM>Genesis4:17 NIV "Cain was then building a city and he named it
>after his son Enoch."
and
GM>Cities:
>The first cities are from around 10,000 B.C. (J.Guilaine,
>_Prehistory_, Facts on File, 1986, p. 80). Thus unless Cain was
>40,000 years after Adam, he could not have built a city.
and
GM>Tents:
>Genesis 4:20 NIV "Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of
>those who live in tents and raise livestock." The first documented
>case of a tent was from the very earliest time of when Adam would
>have been created (60,000 years ago.. It is the tent at
>Molodova.(Stringer and Gamble, _In search of the Neanderthals_, 1993,
>p. 157) But the problem with this is that it was Neanderthal who made
>the tent. So either Jabal was not the father of those who lived in
>tents, Jabal was a Neanderthal, the events described were much longer
>ago than we currently advocate, or the Bible is wrong. Take your
>pick. I would choose my view over the last possiblity.
and
GM>Musical instruments:
>Genesis 4:21 NIV His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of
>all who play the harp and flute."
GM>Apparently the first musical instruments known of in the
>archaeological record come from pictures in Sumer from 3,500 B.C. So
>the view of a 50,000 year old Adam leaves a huge gap between Adam and
>Jubal a gap of several tens of thousands of years. Remember, we
>can't say that there were musical intruments prior to 3,500 B.C.
>because there is no evidence of them. We want to be consistent with
>the criticisms of my views.
and
GM>Metalurgy:
>Genesis 4:22 "Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds
>of tools out of bronze and iron."
>The first copper tools occur around 5000 B.C.(J.Guilaine,
>_Prehistory_, Facts on File, 1986, p. 186). Thus Tubal-Cain must
>have not known his ancestor Lamech.
and
GM>Oh yeah, those who believe that writing was what carried the story
>of the flood down to Abraham should know that there is no evidence of
>writing prior to about 4,000 B. C.
----------------------------------------------------------
Glenn has not acknowledged my point-by-point responses to these points
he raised. He now changes the subject.
GM>I have outlined lots of traits that fossil man had, prior to 50,000
years ago
>which unite him with us. These include art, spears, Broca's area for speech,
>woodwork and leather working.
These have all been answered. The above all fit within the two-"Adam"
model.
GM>There is one trait I didn't go into last night. That is the
>predominance of right-handedness in us and in fossil man
>Schick and Toth write:
>
>"In modern human populations approximately 90 percent of people are
>dominantly right-handed (dextral) and about 10 percent are dominantly left-
>handed (sinistral). This is a very unusual pattern, and it is unique to
>humans. In the rest of the animal world, including nonhuman primates, the
>breakdown of handedness (or pawedness) tends to be about 50 percent
>left-handed and 50 percent right-handed."~Kathy D. Schick and Nicholas Toth,
>Making Silent Stones Speak, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993), p.140
>
>Thus if we can find evidence of right-handedness in the fossil record it
>supports the idea that these fossil men were more like us than the animals.
GM>The first place we find evidence is in the brain.
>"By 2.0 million years ago, when the first relatively complete skulls of Homo
>are found, these show evidence of profound increase in cranial capacity as
>well as possible reorganization of brain structure (as seen in the casts or
>impressions of the brain's lobes that appear on the inside of the skull), in
>contrast with australopithecines, who show no such evidence for cerebral
>reorganization. Such extreme asymmetry is evident in modern humans, in whom
>it appears to be correlated with lateralization, between left and right
>hemispheres, of various functions of the brain. Such asymmetrical
>organization may also be correlated with preferential right-handedness (we
>will return to this question later). But australopitheciens do not show such
>asymmetry in their brain. It seems that this evolved when the larger-brained
>hominid was doing someting critical for its survival that depended upon and
>selected intelligence."~Kathy D. Schick and Nicholas Toth, Making Silent
>Stones Speak, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993), p.103
[...]
GM>Sometimes there is physical evidence of right-handedness on the
teeth.
[...]
GM>Sometimes there is evidence in the stone tools for
right-handedness.
[...]
This is very interesting, but it is really no different from the other
uniquely human things that Glenn raised. I at least am not claiming
that hominids were "animals". Under the two-"Adam" model they would
be regarded as Genesis 1 man.
GM>Stephen wrote:
SJ>Pearce believes that Adam was Gn 2 Adam and earlier hominid forms
>were Gn 1 man.<<
GM>Yeah but does Pearce explain why the word for man in Genesis 1 is
>Adama and the word for Adam in Genesis 2 is Adama? They are the
>same word. Thus I see little justification for this view.
GM>You wrote:
SJ>Peace does not believe that Adam was "50,000 year old". If you are
>going to reject a view, then please first take the trouble to state it
>properly! :-)<<
GM>As mentioned above, it doesn't matter if he believe man was created
>less than 50,000 years ago, his view is contradicted by the data.
Glenn has not yet shown that Pearce's "view is contradicted by the
data". Using a broad two-"Adam" model, I have had no problems with
the "data" Glenn has put forward.
GM>I ordered Pearce's book today.
Good. I should make the point that I do not necessarily agree with
everything Pearce says in his book "Who was Adam?" The book was
written in 1969, and I am sure that even Pearce does not agree with
everything he wrote at that time.
My two-"Adam" model simply claims that the man of Genesis 1 is the
*category* Homo, and the Adam of Genesis 2 was an *individual*.
Arguments for an emerging humanity in Homo erectus and Neanderthal Man
fit therefore, under the two-Adam model, within the general category
of Genesis 1 man.
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------