Depends upon whether that view is true or not. I reject the concept of a
Mesopotamian flood for a whole variety of reasons first among them is that
there is absolutely no geologic evidence of any great flood. Infact all the
physical evidence points against such a flood. (see
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/mflod.htm)
>How big of a flood was needed to destroy that small near coastal budding
>civilization? A flood of the same magnitude as the one striking Mexico
>today could have ravaged the 'cities' (or should we call them 'towns')
>of the Uruk period. This type of catastrophe might be remembered in
>the mythology of the region. So maybe it is no surprize that a flood
>story is found in both Sumerian (or Babylonian) myth and the Pentateuch.
So, which rock layer did the flood leave behind as evidence that it
happened? I can go to the field and point to the rocks left behind by the
1993 Mississippi River floods. Why can't we do that with the supposed
Mesopotamian flood?
>
>Mallowan suggested that the 'Flood' took place right before the
>start of the Dynastic period of Sumerian civilization - and may have
>been one of the causes. He thought that Noah and Zuisudra were the
>same mythic person. So there is at least one archaeologist who has
>associated sedimentary deposits in Mesopotamia with Noah's flood.
Yes, but the sedimentary layer that he advocated as the evidence of the
flood did even cover all of Ur. So it wasn't such a big deal afterall.
>
>But sediments alone do not tell the whole story. Consilience requires
>that the Sumerian flood story must also 'fit into the picture' that
>the concordist presents. It does not do so if 'Noah's flood' was
>the Mediterranean infilling.
Let me ask something about consilience. Does consilience allow for a view
to be considered true only because it is aesthetically pretty? In other
words can a view that is consilient be consilient and be totally falsified
by the observational evidence? Does it only mean that this is what we
must believe but don't pay attention to the data?
>The next issue is whether the evidence that Glenn presented in 'Dating
>Adam' could better be appreciated as corresponding to the 'declaration
>of intention' (Gen 1:26). This raises two questions: Can Homo erectus
>be regarded as 'the intention of man'? Is there a two-teired resemblance
>between Gen. 1 and the evolutionary record?
Why must it be a two tiered resemblance. Why not a 10 tiered resemblance. I
don't see the restrictions on tiers. And if H. erectus is only the
intention of creating man, why did H. erectus do so many things that we do?
It seems to me that H. erectus was much more than an 'intention'. He was
real with real intelligence, religion and real inventions.
>My comment:
>
>I guess I would be a genius if I invented any of these techniques in
>my lifetime. Fortunately, these advances of H. erectus took place over
>many, many generations. Are you saying that the pace of innovation
>for H. erectus was the same as H. sapiens? I think that is the issue
>that Mithen (and other archaeologists) is addressing.
ARRRRGHHHHH!!!! I want to scream when I hear this 'pace of innovation'
canard. No I am not saying that the pace of invention was the same for them
as for western civilization. It doesn't have to be the same. Modern humans
living in Papua New Guinea do not display the same pace of invention as
Americans or Japanese do. Neither was the pace of invention among the
Tasmanians the same as that of Americans. In fact the Tasmanians LOST
technology over the past 8000 years. ARe you saying that the pace of
invention is the measure of humanity? If so, are you willing to say that
Papua New Guineans and Tasmanians are not human?
This whole concept that inventiveness is THE mark of humanity is one of my
pet peeves. To assume that everyone must be inventive as the West has been
in order to be human is filled with 20th century and Western arrogance.
Your personal pace of invention has, by your own tacit acknowledgement,
been zero. Therefore you are not human! According to the latest PSCF
(Dormer and Kinoti, Sept 1999 p. 157), Indians and Arabic society has fewer
patents than anywhere except Central Asia. Their pace of invention is
pathetic. So, by your logic, the Arabs, Indians and Central Asians are not
human!!!! Africans and Chinese aren't that much better. Are you willing to
be consistent with your standards for H. erectus and thus say that
Africans, Arabs, Central Asians, East Indians and the Chinese are not men
but merely the intention of man? Get real. My wife is Arabic and I can
assure you that inspite of her lack of patents, she is quite human.
Inventiveness is NOT a mark of humanity. This is the silliest argument that
I see people advocate in order to avoid the reality that H. erectus was
doing human things---including religion, care for the sick, inventions and
conquering the world.
Go ahead, tell me my wife isn't human!
By the way, H. erectus also was the first person to create a carpentered
planed and polished piece of wood! And the first man made piece of art
comes from their hands also, the phonolite pebble found by Mary Leakey with
a face pecked onto it. (M.D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge
3 Excavations in Beds I and II, 1960-1693, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1971), p. 269)
>My comment:
>
>I see the loss of total cloud cover occurred during the Late Archean
>(the first glaciers correspond to the start of the Proterozoic about
>2.7 Gyr, I think) and the loss of photochemical haze due to the increase
>of oxygen (during the Proterozoic 2.7 to .6 Gyr). These processes
>depend on the exposure of calcium rich contintental rock and photo-
>synthesis, respectively.
The Archean ended 2.5 billion years ago. This was prior to the time that
the first evidence (poor but still evidence) of terrestrial vegetation.
Gutzmer and Beukes write:
"The laterites are of special interest: they extend the fossil record of
pisolitic laterites back ~ 1.5 b.y. from the oldest previously known in
the Phanerozoic; they confirm the existence of an oxygenated atmosphere at
the time; they provide evidence for hot and humid climatic conditions; and
they contain indirect evidence for terrestrial life ~ 2.0
2.2 Ga." ~ Jens Gutzmer and Nicolas J. Beukes, "Earliest laterites and
possible evidence for terrestrial vegetation in the Early Proterozoic,"
Geology March, 1998, p 263
**
"Paleosols preserve information about the composition of the
atmosphere and paleoclimatic conditions. Here we report the discovery of
the first pisolitic laterites of Precambrian age....The pisolitic laterites
provide not only evidence for a highly oxygenated atmosphere and possible
hot and humid climatic conditions in Early Proterozoic time, but also
indicate the presence of terrestrial life on the Kaapvaal craton ~ 2.0
2.2 b.y. ago." ~ Jens Gutzmer and Nicolas J. Beukes, "Earliest laterites
and possible evidence for terrestrial vegetation in the Early Proterozoic,"
Geology March, 1998, p 263
This data contradicts the view that there was a large concentration of CO2
in the atmosphere during the Proterozoic.
>
>Thus, day 4 pedagogically ties into the period when the Earth's atmosphere
>changed from reductive/greenhouse gas rich to oxidative/greenhouse gas less
>rich, a period that follows the earliest continents and the start of
>photosynthetic life.
Which occurs before the events of Day 3.
>
>
>In conclusion:
>
>To wrap this together, my claim is that the declaration of intention of
>man (Gen 1:26) also matches the information presented in Glenn's 'Dating
Adam'
>article.
So, I once again ask you. Are Africans and Chinese people human? They do
not fit your inventiveness scale of humanity.
>
>Gen 1:26 is part of the Creation Story, which bears a two-tiered
>resemblance to the evolutionary record.
>
>In addition, a rendition of a two-tiered resemblance (between Gen 1 and
>the evolutionary record) does not violate the concept that a concordist
>'match' must somehow include the social and literary context of
>ancient Mesopotamia. This is because the resemblance may be regarded
>as a series of visions.
May be regarded yes. But then so can the entire Bible be regarded as a
vision and nothing more. That doesn't make it true that the entire bible is
a vision.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution