On Mon, 31 Mar 1997 22:12:21 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
SJ>This is just another example of Glenn trying to disqualify rivals so
>he doesn't have to consider their arguments. Even granted that some
>of "Wilcox's views" may be wrong and "His material...outdated",
>his central claim that "modern humans that apparently replaced the
>Neandertals were, in less than half their tenure, walking on the
>moon" is surely beyond dispute?
GM>LESS than half the time? Oh no. The earliest Neanderthal
>known is dated at 230,000 years ago. The last is 33,000 years ago
>for a 197,000 year tenure for the Neanderthal. (see Christopher
>Stringer and Clive Gamble, _In Search of the Neanderthals_, p. 69)
I half-expected Glenn to seize on the "less than half their tenure" part
and ignore the rest of Wilcox' argument, namely that:
"The modern humans that apparently replaced the Neandertals were"
[within a comparatively short time later] "...walking on the moon!"
(Wilcox D., "Created in Eternity, Unfolded in Time," in Templeton
J.M. & Herrmann R.L., "Is God the Only Reality?", 1994, p135)
GM>Modern man appeared in Africa, maybe at Omo 130,000 years
>ago. Johanson writes:
>
>"Chris believes that Omo I may be the oldest modern skull and
>skeleton because its postcranial bones are more modern in
>morphology than any specimens from Klasies. The uranium series
>dating technique, which was applied to shells from the same
>sediment layer where the skull was found, produced an age of
>130,000 years."~Donald C. Johanson, Lenora Johanson, and Blake
>Edgar, Ancestors, (New York: Villard Books, 1994), p. 239
>
>This gives modern man a 130,000 year tenure.
The problem here is with Glenn's interpretation of the word
"modern". Wilcox is using it in the sense of the sudden appearance
of *fully* modern man only 40,000 years ago:
"Modern humans exploded across the map of the world around
40,000 years ago." (Templeton J.M. & Herrmann R.L., "Is God the
Only Reality?" 1994, p135)
He is contrasting this with Neandertals represented by the
Mousterian tool culture which first appeared 100,000 years ago:
"David Wilcox points out that by contrast the Neandertal populations
displayed cultural stasis like Homo erectus. The Mousterian tool
culture that they developed appeared around one hundred thousand
years ago and remained basically uniform across Europe for
sixty-five thousand years. The modern humans that apparently
replaced the Neandertals were, in less than half their tenure,
walking on the moon!" (Wilcox D., "Created in Eternity, Unfolded in
Time," in Templeton J.M. & Herrmann R.L., "Is God the Only
Reality?", 1994, p135)
GM>Let's do the division:
>
>130,000/197,000 = 65% which is more than half. Thus, Wilcox is
>wrong in his assertion that modern man has walked on the moon in
>LESS THAN HALF the tenure that Neanderthal walked on the
>earth. Some books mark the early neanderthal as being 150,000
>years old so I gave Wilcox a break by using the older date.
Wilcox is not necessarily "wrong". His "less than half their
tenure" is evidently based on *culture* rather than bones (Upper
Paleolithic vs Mousterian), ie. 40,000/100,000 = 40%.
But even accepting for the moment Glenn's figure of "65%", Wilcox's basic
argument is still valid, namely that the difference between "modern humans"
and "Neandertals" is *vast*, eg:
"The modern humans that apparently replaced the Neandertals were,
in" only 65% "of their tenure, walking on the moon!"
GM>Sorry Steve but that is the way the math works out. I hope you
>don't think I rigged the laws of division to "disqualify a rival" I really
>am not that powerful.
See above. Glenn once more has "rigged" the contest by chosing his
own definitions in order that he can "then disqualify rivals so he
doesn't have to consider their arguments."
Glenn just ignores the whole point that the best that Neandertal man
did was make a bone flute (or whatever Glenn wants to claim),
whereas "modern humans" have already been "walking on the moon".
GM>The whole thing wrong with Wilcox's math is that he was using outdated
>material which had not yet included the new knowledge that modern man lived
>prior to 50,000 years.
No. See above. As often with Glenn (shades of his argument with
Hugh Ross!) his argument is based on definitions of his own
chosing, without finding out what the person he is accusing of being
"wrong" is actually saying.
In any event, Glenn who calls Wilcox and other Christian apologists
"wrong", himself believes that Adam and Eve were "Homo habilis or
Australopithecus" who lived 5.5 million years ago:
"The only way to fit the scriptural account with the scientific
observations is to have Adam and Eve be Homo habilis or
Australopithecus." (Morton G.R., "A Theory for Creationists", DMD
Publishing Co., 1996, http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm).
Reflectorites will note that Glenn hardly ever advances his own
theory of man's origin when he is trying to disqualify other
theories. His strategy seems to be to attempt to disqualify all
competing Christian theories of man's origin, leaving his own the
last one standing by default.
God bless
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------