STRING THEORY
Chuck Warman wrote:
>
>At 06:19 PM 8/13/96, Gelnn Moron wrote:
>
>>Can Jim make a single prediction about future discoveries which his
>>view requires? Can Henry Morris? Can Hugh Ross? I can think of
>>absolutely no data which their view or any christian apologistetical
view >>predicts. And successful prediction is the only way that any
viewpoint can >>be shown to be correct.
>>
>If memory serves, Hugh Ross made several predictions about the
>"extra-dimensionality" of God, and the implications for cosmology,
>before string theory made his statements scientifically respectable.
>
>Chuck
>
I asked:
>I would like to know when those predictions were made. String theory has
>been around for a nomber of years.
Chuck never responded to this, so I did some research (not exhaustive).
The first publication I am aware of from Hugh Ross concerning the
multidimensionality of God, is his 1989 book _The Fingerprint of God_.
If this is a prediction, then it is a funny sort of prediction. The
first String theory article I have run across (once again, this is not
exhaustive) is by J. Scherk, "An Introduction to the Theory of Dual
Models and Strings," Reviews of Modern Physics, 47:1, pp 123-164. There
is a 1985 Nature article:" M. B. Green, "Unification of Forces and
Particles in Superstring Theory", 4009-414 and a 1986 Nature article: A.
de Rujula, " Superstrings and Supersymmetry," p. 678. There is also a
Sept. 1986 Scientific American article by Michael Green titled
"Superstrings".
Now, if one can find a publication by Hugh Ross prior to 1975 asserting
that God is extradimensional, then I would grant Chuck's point.
PREDICTIONS ABOUT FOSSIL MAN
This point was raised in a private conversation I am having with a
gentleman about fossil man. Here are the predictions Hugh Ross has made
about fossil man:
"How does this archeological data square with the biblical record of
humankind? As I discuss in my book _Creation and Time_, the design and
use of tools is a function of intelligence, perhaps emotions and will,
too, but not necessarily of the spiritual dimension of a creature.
Therefore tool design and use is something all birds and mammals could
exhibit, given adequate intelligence." Hugh Ross, "Art and Fabric Shed
New Light on Human History," Facts & Faith,9:3 (1995) p.2
The work that Hugh Ross is discussing here is John E. Yellen, et al., "A
Middle Stone Age Worked Bone Industry from Katanda, Upper Semliki Valley
Zaire," Science, April, 28, 1995, p. 553-556 and Alison S. Brooks, et
al, "Dating and Context of Three Middle Stone Age Sites with Bone Points
in the Upper Semliki Valley, Zaire," Science, April, 28, 1995, p. 548-
553
Ross' statement contradicts wildly the data collected from Kanzi, a
bonobo that was taught to make stone tools. Schick and Toth, who taught
Kanzi, admit that the chimp has a very, very poor ability to make tools.
In fact his tools ares much worse than those created by the earliest
toolmaker in Africa, the Oldowan tools. (See Kathy D. Schick and
Nicholas Toth, Making Silent Stones Speak, (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1993), p. 139 and Donald C. Johanson, Lenora Johanson, and
Blake Edgar, Ancestors, (New York: Villard Books, 1994), p. 128)
His statement also strongly contradicts the work he is citing. The
Upper Semliki Valley site contains fragmentary anatomically modern human
skeletal material and an Upper Paleolithic tool industry yet dates to
89,000 years ago, in the Middle Paleolithic. This is consistent with
other fossil evidence. Anatomically modern humans first appear in
Africa around 120,000 years ago, so a date of 89,000 for modern human
material is not out of line with other sites. The only thing that is
odd here is the bone tools. These tools are made by grinding them
against stone.
Contrary to what Hugh Ross implies, NO NON-HUMAN CREATES BONE TOOLS BY
GRINDING THE BONE ON STONE! In fact the authors even comment on the
symbolic and stylistic content of the bone tools. Yellen et al write:
"The presence of other, geographically limited hafted projectile
traditions within the MSA[Middle Stone Age], such as the Lupemban or
Bambata, reflects that African hominids not only possessed considerable
technological capabilities at this time but also incorporated symbolic
or stylistic content into their projectile forms."~John E. Yellen,
Alison S. Brooks, Els Cornelissen, Michael J. Mehlman, Kathlyn Stewart,
"A Middle Stone Age Worked Bone Industry from Katanda, Upper Semliki
Valley Zaire," Science, April, 28, 1995, p. 555
The final point against this aspect of Ross' view is he now must hold to
the view that some anatomically modern humans are not HUMAN!!! This is
a very dangerous view which can lead to bad things.
Ross writes:
"However, the dates for these finds are well within the biblically
acceptable range for the appearance of Adam and Eve -- somewhere between
10,000 and 60,000 years ago according to Bible scholars who have
carefully analyzed the genealogies. Since the oldest art and fabrics
date between 25,000 and 30,000 years ago, no contradiction exists
between anthropology and Scripture on this issue." Hugh Ross, "Art and
Fabric Shed New Light on Human History," Facts & Faith, 9:3 (1995)p. 2
But the oldest art is 330,000 years old. And where does the Bible say
that 60,000 and no further can the genealogies be stretched? What
verse? What hermeneutical principle allows only up to 60,000 years?
This is pure guess work and feeling; nothing else.
"While bipedal, tool-using, large brained hominids roamed the earth
at least as long ago as one million years, evidence for religious relics
and altars dates back only 8,000 to 24,000 years. Thus the secular
anthropological date for the first spirit creatures is in complete
agreement with the biblical date."~Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God,
(Orange: Promise Publishing, 1991), p. 159-160.
This is not true. If the Golan Venus (Berekhat Ram figurine) is used in
the same fashion as the 24,000 year old Venus figurines, then it is a
religious relic. The Golan Venus dates to 330,000 years ago. Alexander
Marshack, the world's leading authority on upper Paleolithic art, has
said that this is a valid art work. (Alexander Marshack, "On the
"Geological' Explanation of the Berekhat Ram Figurine," Current
Anthropology, 36:3, June, 1995, p. 495. See also Desmond Morris, The
Human Animal, (New York: Crown Publishing, 1994), p. 186-188)
Speaking of the mitochondrial Eve view (which has been discredited now)
Ross writes:
"If this is the case, we should see biologists' date for "Adam and Eve"
drop from a maximum of about 200,000 years ago to a date within the
biblical range of about 10,000 to 60,000 years ago."Hugh Ross,
"Chromosome Study Stuns Evolutionists," Facts & Faith, 9:3,(1995) p. 3
Once again why is 100,000 years Biblically unacceptable? Does this mean
that if we find evidence of human activity from 100,000 years ago, the
Bible is wrong?
Finally, Ross writes:
"Bipedal, tool-using, large-brained primates (called hominids by
anthropologists) may have roamed the earth as long ago as one million
years, but religious relics and altars date back only 8,000 to 24,000
years. Thus, the secular archaeological date for the first spirit
creatures is in complete agreement with the biblical date.
"Some differences, however, between the Bible and secular
anthropology remain. By the biblical definition, these hominids may
have been intelligent mammals, but they were not humans. Nor did Adam
and Eve physically descend from them. (According to Genesis 1:26-28 the
human species was created complete and brand-new by God through His own
personal miraculous intervention.) Even here, though, support from
anthropology is emerging. New evidence indicates that the various
hominid species may have gone extinct before, or as a result of, the
appearance of modern humans. At the very least,'abrupt transitions
between [hominid]species' is widely acknowledged."~Hugh Ross, Creation
and Time, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993), p. 141
His references are very old, from the early 80's. And no one
acknowledges such an abrupt transition. There is a pretty gradual
transition between H. erectus and modern humans. Fagan writes:
"The entire evolutionary process--the transition from developed
Homo erectus to early archaic Homo sapiens, then, finally, into Homo
sapiens sapiens--does not appear to have occurred rapidly. Rather, it
was a slow and continuous development that took as much as half a
million years. For this reason, it is very hard to draw a clear
taxonomic boundary between Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens on the
one hand, and between archaic and anatomically modern Homo sapiens on
the other. Both Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens display
considerable anatomical variation."~Brian M. Fagan, The Journey From
Eden, (London: Thames and Hudson, 1990), p.60
Now, if Ross beleives that Neanderthals (who first appear at 230,000
years) went extinct as a result of the appearance of modern humans, are
not human, then why was the Neanderthal the apparent inventor of the
flute? (see http://www.zrc-sazu.si/www/iza/piscal.html ) Surely Ross
can not claim that musical instrument "...design and use is something
all birds and mammals could exhibit, given adequate intelligence."
Nearly everything I can find that Ross says about fossil man is
factually erroneous. Ross would predict that the Neanderthal could not
have invented the flute. Ross would predict that some anatomically
modern humans are not human. Ross erroneously says that there is an
abrupt transition between erectus and modern man. Ross ignores art work
prior to his 60,000 year time limit for the Bible to be true. Ross
places the truth of the Bible in unneeded peril by insisting on an
arbitrary 60,000 year limit for evidence of human spirituality.
In short, Ross is wrong. Christian apologists must do better at fitting
fossil man into the picture.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm
Only 1 more day till I get this ^%$#&*@ cast off my arm