Re: The Oldest Homo Sapiens: Fossils Push Human Emergence Back To 195,000 Years Ago

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue Mar 01 2005 - 12:17:46 EST

Hi Jack,

Hugh Ross should read this article.  He (like everybody else) tries to align the biblical Adam with an anthropological "Adam" and places him (them) at 60,000 years ago.  That date makes him too early to have lived at the junction of the Tigris and Euphrates where the Bible places him.  There is no trace of civilization there prior to 7,000 years ago, because it took the invention of irrigation to develop the region.  And Ross places him at too late a date that he could be ancestral to all mankind.

In essence, separating the Adam of Genesis, recognizing that he is first of the covenant, from whatever ancient hominid might have started our species is the only workable solution, and it is the one solution everyone avoids.  Hello ...  Is anybody listening?

Dick Fischer  - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org

Do any of you have thoughts on this work? The full article (see url) is quite thorough.
Jack Haas

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
The Oldest Homo Sapiens: Fossils Push Human Emergence Back To 195,000 Years Ago*

<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223122209.htm>

When the bones of two early humans were found in 1967 near Kibish, Ethiopia, they were thought to be 130,000 years old. A few years ago, researchers found 154,000- to 160,000-year-old human bones at Herto, Ethiopia. Now, a new study of the 1967 fossil site indicates the earliest known members of our species, Homo sapiens, roamed Africa about 195,000 years ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Tue Mar 1 12:18:56 2005