>GR>By the way, I will ask this again. Is there any fact which would
> disprove t
>GR>2-Adam theory? If you don't answer I would presume that nothing could
>GR>disprove it.
>
>Glenn,
>
>On your web page, regarding your own 2-Adam theory, you state:
>
Paul, my view is not a 2-Adam theory. A two adam theory has Genesis 1 man
being sub human and genesis 2 man being like us. I don't believe that. Your
assumption here is wrong. I believe that Adam did not look like you or me.
That does not make him sub-human. Adam had to be prior to the time that
language formed. As you can see, I believe that that means Adam was AT LEAST
prior to 1.5 myr ago. Otherwise, you have language possessing non-humans
walking the earth.
>"As I mentioned above, Genesis 2 is a totally separate event occurred
>billions of years after Genesis 1"
>
>and
>
>"Can this scenario be proven?... No,"
>
>So in essence you are saying, I can offer a theory which I cannot prove.
>I ask you for data that will disprove it. There is no force in the
>question.
>
I can not prove it yet. But I do hope that the future will bring me a
successful prediction. That is what the predictions I told Jim Bell about are
for. Successful predictions are the way science works. If a form of Homo is
found far back towards the 5.5 myr range, then I would consider that a
successful prediction. No other Christian harmonization offers prediction.
We seem to run from it for fear that we might be proven wrong. I might be
proven wrong but we can not run from it.
>At one extreme of science we see the limited working hypothesis by which
>we design specific experimentation. On the other end we have the general
>theory, which guides the design and interpretation of all study in a
>certain field.
>
>Then we have theories built upon theories. Since you cannot test the
>2-Adam evolutionary theory, it cannot be proven or disproven.
Once again, I don't have a 2 adam theory. That is Stephen's theory.
As to tests, if you read, as you must have, the post entitled "Jim's poor view
of the Neanderthal" you would see the predictions. Predictions are how
theories are tested. My view is fully testable.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm