>As you said, there are 2 main views of how to fit fossil man into a
>scriptural framework, which I would summarize as
>
>1. recognize fossil apes and fossil men, and a few apparently intermediate
>forms (which don't make a good transitional series) as perhaps post-babel
>populations struggling to survive in difficult postflood conditions
>(Genesis 10-11 on)
>
>- or -
>
>2. try to fit them into Genesis 1&2, which requires placing the fossil
>record below them into Genesis 1 also, and if that fossil record represents
>evolution through millions of years, requires a "day-age" or "gap" view of
>Creation week, and very limited geological impact of the Flood.
>
>
>At present you are choosing the latter view:
>
>> I believe that Adam and Eve were created
>>millions of years ago. The spirituality and other capabilities of fossil
>>man seems to require it.
>
No, I am not choosing the latter view. I do not believe in the gap view at
all and think it is totally unworkable. I am choosing option 1. I am
changing the chronology. Don't think that just because Adam and Eve were
created millions of years ago, one must therefore believe in a gap theory.
I might point out that there is a very smooth sequence of transitional forms
between H. erectus and H. sapiens. It is very difficult to determine to
which class the fossils between 400 kyr and 100 kyr belong.
>The evidences of spiritual awareness would seem to require millions of
>years of the existence of mankind -- if we are to believe radiometric
>dating.
>
>As you may guess, I would offer evidence that this is not our only choice.
>(see upcoming post on the KBS tuff as an example to consider.)
>
>
> We can either ignore the data or agree that a being
>>who was more ape like (he had simian shelf inside the jaw, sloping forehead,
>>browridges, large jaw etc) was a spiritual being.
>
>Some of the evidences of spiritual practices (such as the specially paved
>area for, well, it looked like canabalism...) point to behavior that is not
>christ-like. Is it possible that some of these folks were doing some
>inappropriate cross-breeding also -- not a nice topic at all -- such as
>that alluded to in Genesis 6? (The human heart was not changed at the
>Flood.)
As you say the human heart has not changed. But they must be human to have
a human heart. Also, lots of things that modern humans do is not
christ-like. That does not mean that modern men are cross-breeding with
apes at all. Nor should non-christlike behavior in the past imply
cross-breeding.
>
>> This is an evolutionary change.
>
>These people were "spiritual beings", but it may be that they were not
>headed toward godliness, but were dying out in their unhappy practices.
So are millions of people today.
What is Bilzingsleben? I didn't find it in my German dictionary.
Bilzingsleben is an archeological site. I don't know what it means in the
German. Try looking on a map rather than in the dictionary.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm