>None of this supports Glenn's view that this was in any sense a
>developed member of the genus Homo. Even at 4.2 mya, *1.3 million
>years after* Glenn's putative 5.5 million-year old Adam, this would
>still be only "early members of genus Homo". I therefore stand by
>what I said: "Glenn...claims that Adam was a 5.5 million-year old
>Homo habilis, without a scrap of scientific or Biblical evidence!
>There is *not one* scientific authority anywhere who believes that
>Homo habilis existed 5.5 million years ago".
>
Stephen:
Sophistry is unbecoming you.
>Even if we grant the facts that Glenn cites in his "Early Man (Hopmo)
>at 4.2 myr" post , namely: 1. the hominid to which the fossilised
>lower left humeral fragment known as KNM-KP 271 belonged, had an
>upper arm similar to Homo sapiens; and 2. it lived 4.2 million years
>ago; it does not not support Glenn's theory that Adam was a "Homo
>habilis" who "existed 5.5 million years ago". Apart from a huge 1.3
>million year gap, all it would show is that an unknown hominoid had
>an upper arm similar in shape to modern man. Glenn seems to be
>claiming that if a homoinoid had one part of a bone that was similar
>to modern man, then the rest of its body and brain must also be
>similar to modern man?
>
At one time you told me that I could not find evidence that Homo lived prior
to around 2 million years. Here I go out and find that evidence and how you
move the bar. Shame, shame.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm