RE: [asa] RE: In defense of Paul Seely (Part 1)

 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:00 PM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] RE: In defense of Paul Seely (Part 1)

>>> My timeframe stops at 7,000 years ago when humans finally settled the
Tigris/Euphrates alluvial plain. <<<
 
GRM:Yep, a young-earth creationist ;-)
 
 .
 

[Glenn Morton] >>> GRM: Dick, you really shouldn't throw stones at my theory
that equally apply to yours. Who would be stupid enough to drown in the
Mesopotamian flood? Walk to the Zagros mountains.
 
That's all the Sumerians had to do. Remember, they had pre-flood kings and
flourished as a civilization after the flood. The Akkadians, who were
Adamites, were located further west, were too far from the mountains, and
weren't so fortunate. <<<
 
GRM: Dick, given the topographic relief in an east-west direction, all they
had to do was see an area 10 feet higher than the water level and that would
easily be possible.
 
>>>>> Richard Leakey
"'I am increasingly of the view that all of the material
currently referred to as Homo erectus should in fact be placed
within the species sapiens [which would]project Homo sapiens as a
species that can be traced from the present, back to a little
over two million years.'
 
I'll give you two million years. Who cares? That still leaves you three
and a half million years short. Ask Leakey about farm animals and harps.
Or have we forgotten it's Genesis we're talking about. Not mammalian
bipeds.<<<
 
 GRM: Let me say that I had previously pointed out on this list that many
anthropologists think man is a single evolving species from many millions of
years ago to the present. But because it doesn't fit your theory you forget
this data. Secondly you say who cares then you talke about mammalian bipeds.
That is inconsistent. The reality is that too many apologists decide first
what the answer is and then twist the facts to fit their theory.
 
As to being short, did you consider the gaps in the fossil record of other
animals? Of course not. here is the data again
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gaps.htm
 
Here is some of the data on that page
 
 
group.................oldest fossil..2nd oldest.......gap.....reference
Cetaceans................53.5.Myr.....50.Myr.........3.5.Myr...51
bisexual.plants...........465.Myr....460.Myr...........5.Myr...42
Elephantine.animals........60.Myr.....52.Myr...........8.Myr...38
birds.....................147.Myr....139.Myr...........8.Myr...27
Angiosperms...............140.Myr....130.Myr..........10.Myr...52
Earliest.vertebrate.......530.Myr....520.Myr..........10.Myr...39
Marine.turtles............110.Myr....100.Myr..........10.Myr...46
Forest.fire.charcoal......360.Myr....350.Myr..........10.Myr...20
Dinosaurs.................240.Myr....228.Myr..........12.Myr...24

 When one sees this kind of gap between the first fossil and the second
oldest fossil of various groups, and one knows that the animal was on earth
during the 10 million time frame in which no fossil evidence exists, you
know that gaps are not the problem novices at geology think they are.
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 14 07:39:21 2006