Below is an email I am sending to a friend of mine who is a YEC. Am I doing
a
1. Great
2. Adequate
3. Miserable
4. Terrible
job at this? Should I continue it?
My friend had begun by asking me about a recent reference in Science News
about Neandertal man. I responded by, in part, sharing some of Glenn's
posts to this LISTSERV on the subject. She responded and I have just
replied; her response is fully quoted in my reply. I am really inclined to
drop the matter -- she is a smart lady but not scientifically trained as
far as I know.
Comments appreciated.
Burgy
-----------------------
>>OK, my brain is tired just skimming over these! Don't bother me with the
facts, my mind is made up!>>
Haha. I don't really think so.
>>No - really, I don't like to argue (or even politely 'discuss') over
something that is so time consuming that I struggle to breathe. I don't
believe we were descended from apes.>>
Fair enough. I will point out that the assertion you question here is not
"descended from apes," but "descended, along with apes, from a common
ancestor."
But the issue you started with is Neandertal man, also sometimes
(mistakenly)
called "Neanderthal man." Here is the issue my friend Glenn Morton is
struggling with:
From the data collected so far, it appears that the life forms we call
"Neanderthal man"
engaged in house building, communication (language), tool shaping, fire
taming, art and worship activities. It also appears that they were
different looking than modern humanity, although if dressed appropriately,
they would just have appeared as fairly different looking humans, more
different than Australian aborigines, or African pygmys, or the very tall
tribe from Africa whose name I cannot right now recall, but not as
different, for example, as a present day chimpanzee.
My supposition is that, if a tribe of these life forms were encounterd by a
Christian
missionary in Africa today, they would be treated as any other newly
discovered tribe,
greeted, traded with, evangelized, etc. And if they were hunted for food or
sport, the world would rise in disapproval.
These life forms existed many thousands of years ago, and there is serious
disagreement about how related they are to present day humanity. Hence the
article you referenced, which is simply another data point used in these
debates.
Some people think that these life forms were not related to the biblical
Adam & Eve; others think differently; many think the question is moot
because Adam & Eve are symbolic of the beginnings and not "real people."
Rational, godly, Christian minds exist on all sides of this issue. It is
not a simple issue. My friend Glenn Morton holds, for instance, that Adam &
Eve were real people, the Neandertal people were a descendent line which
went extinct. Oh yes, Adam & Eve lived at least 2,000,000 years ago,
probably longer ago than that. Noah's flood, in his theory, was a real, but
local flood, which took place millions of years ago when the Med suddenly
was filled from the Atlantic ocean, an event which is fairly well attested
to by geological research.
>>The only 'evolution' I can see are like the butterfly and the frog. But
those aren't real, because frogs lay eggs that 'evolve' into frogs, and
butterflies come out of cocoons that the
caterpillar spun - the same caterpillar that came from the butterfly!>>
That is, of course, just a life form development, not evolution in the
general
sense it is used by people today.
>>I believe in a literal 6-day creation. But I also believe in the 'first
flood' theory that speaks of a world before this one. >>
Fair enough. Scientifically, there appears to be no evidence (data) to
substantiate
this claim; one must posit a miracle in which all the debris is cleaned up
afterwards to assert its factuality. And, of course, this is well within
the power of
an all powerful God to do. The usual argument is that He would not do such
a
thing, because it leaves evidence that He practiced deceit. (I don't buy
this
argument, BTW, but many folks do).
>>I don't know if people live on other planets - don't really care.>>
Off topic, isn't this? From what I've read, Christian thinkers over the
ages
have had various thoughts along this line. For the most part they agreed
with the
first part of your statement but not the second part.
>>All I know is that God put enough into His word for us to digest for a
life-time and still never
get to really know Him until we meet Him in Glory. I also know it is a
King's privilege to hide a matter, and a man of understanding can search it
out, if he digs as for hidden treasure.>>
One of the glories of the ASA LISTSERV is that it is inhabited (mostly) by
folks who pretty much agree with these sentiments.
>>AND I know that God has said He has foretold us ALL THINGS
(Mk.13:23/Matt.10:26/Lk.12:2/Mk.4:22-25/Amos 3:7/ Is.43:9/Dan.12:10
---should I go on?) Just what doesn't 'ALL THINGS' cover?>>
Hey! Lots of things. Scripture does not tell us anything about how to build
cars, or even that cars would ever exist. Or the internet. Or tobasco
sauce. Or TV, eyeglasses, Boy Scouts, electricity, etc. etc.
>>God has hidden in his word all we would ever need to know and I am having
the time of my life digging...>>
By that statement, you don't need to know how to use email. Well -- maybe
you do have a point here -- need to know" vs "like to know." Yet -- you
need to know many things (I assert) that are not in Scripture -- how to
feed yourself, how to take care of your house, how to get to church, how to
drive a car if you need one to get to church, etc.
Interest chat we are having. In the next life we will all have lots of
opportunity to find out how wrong we've been on many issues!
Blessings
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 05 2000 - 16:43:33 EDT