For Jack Symes, Phil Metzger, Bill Hamilton
Jack wrote:
>>At this point, I am leaning towards Dick's view. If the creation of man means nothing about his actual first appearance (in a biological sense) then there is no reason to make Adam a homo erectus. I am concerned about Glenn's argument against evidence for a substantial flood in neolithic times, which I think is the strongest argument against Dick's view, (and this would apply to Phil's view also).<<<
There is absolutely nothing in the Plio-pleistocene that even remotely matches a flood as described by the Bible. The latest is the infilling of the Med and that actually would begin to sound a bit like the Biblical flood. IMO, there is little reason to remain literal believing in Adam and Eve if one has no flood. One might as well go allegorical/accomodationalist all the way to Genesis 12.
In another note (one I didn't see until tonight as I got back to Beijing), Jack wrote:
>>>I am sure that Hugh Ross considers all living homo's fully human, and all other modern homo sapiens fully human, in fact that is exactly what the model says. <<<<
I am positive that he doesn't. Go look at the quotations on Hugh Ross I have posted over the past month.
***
Phil Metzger wrote:
>>>Has Carol Ann Hill's paper on the geology of the flood appeared in PSCF, yet? IMO, that paper, and the paper by her husband, answer quite well Glenn's objections against a very significant mesopotamian flood. Maybe it wasn't as large as even Carol and her husband argue, but I think they show quite well the physics and geology for a large regional flood are not out of the question.<<<
I would say that in order to answer my objection, they would have to show that the geologic maps of Iraq, which I have studied from several sources, are wrong and that there are widespread Quaternary riverine sediments. What I have seen the quaternary river sediments are confined very closely to the present day river channels. If they can't change that, they can't answer my objection.
***
Bill Hamilton wrote:
>>>I have advanced this argument on this list and elsewhere. In Genesis 1 God says "let the earth bring forth ...". Therefore, in a sense _all_ created creatures (the land creatures anyway) are "the dust of the earth". So when God made Adam from the dust of the earth, He could have been merely transforming an existing creature. I'm sure this argument is not original with me, but I don't know where I got it. Although he doesn't mention it explicitly, Glenn comes close to this in "Foundation, Fall and Flood" in the way he has God make Eve (I think it was Eve -- but maybe it was Adam) from a stillborn primate. Another source _might_ be an article by Roy Clouser in PSCF a number of years ago.<<<
Adam. It is taken from the clue that God tells Adam, for dust you were and to dust you will return. Well, we are corpses before becoming pure dirt. But in one real sense a corpse is dirt.
Received on Thu Mar 2 07:56:33 2006