At 09:38 AM 12/19/97 -0600, Eduardo G. Moros wrote:
>Glenn Morton wrote:
>>
>> At 09:50 AM 12/18/97 -0600, Eduardo G. Moros wrote:
>>>There is a subtle fragrance of error in believing things should be some
way or
>> >another because we think that that's they way they ought to be.
>> So, how does one determine whether it is you or I who is doing that?
>
>
>We both do it. Is it enough to admit it?
>
No it is not enough to admit it. We should all try to avoid it. In order
to avoid it, we have to have some ability to detect its occurrence. If we
can't detect who is doing more "beleiving what they want to beleive" than
another, then I would say that this is a meaningless ad hominem which allows
one to avoid having to look at the data.
>> You have
>> committed here a subtle argumentum ad hominem. You are implying that a
>> zealous person does not need to be listened to.
>
>Not true. I'm not implying anything. I'm just saying that, IMHO, you seem to
>be pushing a bit to much, perhaps a bit beyond of what the data can say. But
>don't pay attention to me too much either :-), I'm sure Galileo's ideas were
>perceived the same way. Let me put it this way, honestly and humbly, if I
>were you I would exercise more caution.
I am anything but a shrinking violet. As to caution, I have spent 28 years
digging into this area looking for a solution that matches both the
Scripture and the scientific data. At some point an individual must make a
decision as to what they believe. At this stage in my life if I don't make
a decision to fight for my beliefs, then I may never have that opportunity.
I was cautious and conservative for far too long. It is time for many
Christians to face up to the fact that we are not teaching the observational
data correctly.
>
>>Does my "zeal" mean that my data is erroneous?
>
>NO. It doesn't make it right either. I guess only time and research will
tell.
Since I have spent 28 years studying this area and everything connected to
it, do you think that might be enough research for me? Isn't it time that
I discuss what I have found in all that research?
>
>> Show me where the data is erroneous and that will temper my zeal.
>
>I have not said that "your" data is erroneous, I said that your interpretation
>of the data appear very speculative at times.
>
>> >> And by the way, lions etc don't carve the skulls of their dead into
shallow
>> >> bowls.
>> >
>> >Are you sure? Are you sure lions don't do that? There is a probability you
>> >know, that they could, a probability which is higher than that of
>> macroevolution.
>>
>> Oh come now. Talk about pushing too hard in a direction.
>
>You got it, I was doing it on purpose. They way I sounded to you is how you
>sound to me.
But humans actually have been observed carving bones of all sorts of
creatures; lions haven't. It isn't the same at all.
>
>> When was the last
>> time you saw a lion or a kitty cat take a stone tool and *carve* the skull of
>> a comrade they just ate.
>
>I believe they have powerful teeth and paws, not to mention that they are in
>the custom of dragging their prey for miles on all kinds of terrain. (See
>how one can keep on finding self satisfying explanations?)
Dragging a prey over terrain is identical to carving with a stone tool???
You find that self satisfying?? You are easily satisfied.
>
>> Come on, tell me when you saw this. When was the
>> last time you saw a kitty build a religious altar. But Homo erectus built
>> one at Bilzingsleben 400,000 years ago. They paved a region around a large
>> stone, placed a bison horn on each side of it and apparently sacrificed
>> people, since there was a human skull, and no other human bones, at the foot
>> of the big stone.
>
>There could be alternative explanations - that's my point.
Then present them.
>
>> >> And I presume you would hold that those New Guinean natives who got
>> >> Kuru from eating the brains of their relatives are not human and were not
>> >> engaging in religious activity.
>> >
>> >You certainly have a way for confusing the issue. We were talking about
>> >hominids is a distant past, now you equate that situation with contemporary
>> >humans. Humans are by nature religious, even atheists are religious. The
>> >argument that because we have today cannibalism mixed with religious
>> >sacrifices implies that hominids were religious because they were
cannibals is
>> >simply non sequitur.
>>
>> Why should we treat differently an ancient human who behaved identically as
>> a modern human would? What is the basis for your saying that an ugly
>> two-legged hominid who buried his child with grave offerings or who buried a
>> comrade with flowers is not like us? Or who made a flute to play a song, or
>> made spears with which to hunt (the oldest spears are 400,000 years old)
>> Other than predjudice what evidence can you provide?
>
>Well, now you call me prejudiced !!!
>
>> Don't you know that the Western World did not recognize many of the
>> indigenous peoples as human because they were different looking and the were
>> not "civilized" like the European and thus the Europeans could enslave them,
>> kidnap them or simply kill them.
>
>Yes I know that, but what does it have to do with evolution? You like to mix.
>Are you now accusing me of some kind of racism?
>
>> These primitive peoples *were* engaging in
>> activities with stone tools identical to those of the ancient hominids,
*were*
>> creating altars just like the ancient hominids but according to you we are
>> supposed to accept today's primitive peoples as fully human but not anyone
>> who lived before some arbitrary time, even if the activity appears to be the
>> same.
>
>You sure sound sure of yourself (*---*).
I am. I have done the hard work of going into the anthropological
literature. I have boxes upon boxes of anthropological articles and many
shelves of anthro books that I have read. I know the data. How many
anthropological articles have you read?
>
>Again, as with the brain, these
>people are here, here today, I can see them, I can talk to them, I can study
>them first hand (in my country of origin they remained completely isolated
>until very recently). I'm afraid that 400k yr. can confuse things.
You can't do this with ancient Egyptians yet you accept them as human. You
can't talk to tutankhamen. You can't even study his brain as it was removed
from his body. Apply the same standard to the egyptians as you do to the
hominids.
>
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm