Interestingly enough Hugh Ross, Fuz Rana and Michael
Schele are doing a monthly series this year called
Adam:Miracle, Myth, or Monkey. They claim that they will
use the latest evidence to present a model for human
origins that is consistent with (their) interpretation of
the Bible.
I have subscribed to this, and have listened to the first
two messages. I have taken notes so can pass on what they
say if you are interested, but so far nothing really that
interesting.
The do make the following distinction; human beings, are
those created in the image of God, and they are not
hominids. Hominids are bipedal primates with large brain
capacities that are not human beings. (So neanderthal, and
archaic homo sapiens are not human beings, but are
hominids, and the most recent homo sapiens sapiens are
human beings but not hominids.) They also say that human
beings are anatomically distinct, but also behaviorally
distinct. The behavior, I think, that they think is what
"the image of God is" is evidence of worshipping the
creator.
So far they havent discussed when human being first
appeared and what evidence they think indicates this.
They also have not indicated how homo sapiens species
that are anatomically identical to human beings, are not
human beings. I will fill you in after subsequent
messages.
Unfortunatly they do not have a forum for this series.
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:17:46 -0500
Dick Fischer <dickfischer@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>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 16:30:07 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 16:30:08 EST