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

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 09:28:19 -0500 "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
writes:
> Dave wrote:
>
> "I think something is being overlooked here. As I understand Ross's
> gang,
> they hold that all types of creatures are basically direct creations
> of
> God, so that any evolutionary development has to be micro rather
> than
> macro. So, if Neanderthal, erectus, habilis, etc., are different
> species,
> then they were created apart from /Homo sapiens/. I am guessing that
> /H.
> s. sapiens/ would be rejected as indicating that there were other
> human
> beings when there are only hominids."
>
>
>
> I am sure that their view is that people/mankind/human beings are a
> unique
> creation, as are all of the other hominids and other animals. But
> human
> beings also have to be unique in some way that is different than
> animals.
> They are emphasizing this in distinguishing human beings from all of
> the
> other hominids, whether they be homo sapiens, homo erectus,
> australopithecine sp. or other. They need ( and perhaps it is
> theologically
> necessary) to have a disconnection, between humans and the rest of
> the
> animals.
>
> What I don't know yet is how they do this. What distinguishes human
> beings
> from other homo sapiens that are anatomically identical? They have
>
> mentioned behavioral differences, specifically evidence of worship,
> but I
> don't know yet what they mean by this, or when this was supposed to
> occur,
> and why that distinguishes humans from other anatomically identical
> species
> that exhibited similar behavior, (burying the dead, cave painting,
> etc.)
>
>
If I understand Ross and his group correctly, there are NO creatures
anatomically identical to /H. sapiens/. Dick wants to distinguish
Adamites (7 Ka) from the rest on the human race, which is older. But Ross
said that neanderthals were not human beings in one of his essays I read.
If I recall correctly, he claims that human beings originated about 50
Ka. I haven't seen a response to the more recent "little people" from
Flores Island described as similar to /H. erectus/.

Both Dick and Glenn hold that creatures evolved, so my question does not
affect their views. But Ross holds that all creatures were directly
created, with no more than microevolutionary changes involved. This
provides that God created monocellular entities, followed by more complex
ones produced by fiat, most of which became extinct, and finally created
the most complex creatures, man last of all. How can an omniscient and
omnipotent deity be so limited as to have to experimentally develop
creatures that can finally function adequately? Why is his God so slow to
catch on to what is functional? Ross's approach seems consonant with
process theology, not orthodoxy.
Dave
Received on Wed Mar 2 13:41:04 2005