I said:
>First, how big a flood was needed to give rise to the story of
>Noah's flood?
Glenn replied:
>I would answer with this: how accurate does the story have to be in order
for it to be true. That is the question I have.
My comment:
My goal in concordism is to find a 'match' between the Biblical stories
and the evolutionary and archaeological record. That 'match' gives us
complementing views; insight into the Biblical story and the appreciation
corresponding evolution event/epoch. So I do not weigh the story of
Noah's flood as true or false. Rather, does it point to something that
actually happened?
The circumstantial evidence that points to a catastrophic local flood
includes 1. sedimentary deposits noted by Mallowan (that do not include
Ur, but are widespread) 2. the Sumerian flood story that is very similar
to the Biblical 3. a cultural change corresponding to the sediments and
the flood story (start of the Dynastic period). Also, other flood stories
from around the world do not pertain because they may be referring to
different phenomema.
That flood is 'historical' - an event that actually happened. The
correspondence
does not require that all the details in Biblical tale be met. As I
mentioned before, two literary traditions are incorporated into the story.
Each presents different details. A concordist view must appreciate the
JEDP hypothesis and take it seriously. I believe that we can classify
the story of Noah's flood as a legend pertaining to that event.
The question is: Does that make the Biblical flood story false? To me it makes
the flood story like the Iliad - the epic poem about the Trojan War -
which I would say is simultaneously true and false. It is legend.
Which brings us to Fischer's ideas:
I said:
>Consilience says that beauty flows from greater awareness of the
>interconnectedness of truth. I believe Fischer's claim that
>the stories of Adam and Eve pertain to Mesopotamian prehistory,
>even though I do not agree with all the details of his association.
>You reject this claim.
Glenn replied:
DArn right I reject Fischer's view. He has water flowing uphill (see out
debate in 1996. I have never seen that happen.
My question:
What a way to resolve the issue. I believe that Fischer is also
in search of a concordist 'match'. I've learned a lot from him,
even though I agree with many of your criticisms (like the 'less than
human' character of the non-Adamites). I feel that it is unfair to
put his work into a box with such a trivial label.
Which brings us to the critical issue under discussion:
I said:
>We also differ on whether the pace of innovation is characteristic
>of H. sapiens.
Glenn replied:
... you have a double standard here. You claim that erectus can't be
human because he didn't have the pace of innovation that you require. But
then you dismiss and refuse to respond to examples of modern humans who
have similar rates of invention. You can't have it both ways. Your
position here is ad hoc. It is designed to admit only morphologically
modern humans but exclude erectus. And lacking an objective way to do that
you now decide not to defend your view.
My comment:
I think that the label 'H. erectus' by archeaologists says it all. It
is not only the 'pace of innovation' that separates sapiens from erectus.
There are anatomical differences as well. But most important is this
question: Is it more appropriate to regard H. erectus and habilis as the
'intention of man' corresponding to Gen 1:26 than as Adam?
Since H. erectus and habilis are ancestral (directly or indirectly) to sapiens,
I say yes. In contrast, you define what is 'human': religion, language ...
and so forth, and claim that erectus enjoyed these features. However,
the character of those features could have been very different than
what we are familiar with. That is why I brought up the ideas of Steven
Mithen. My position is not ad hoc because it does not rely on 'defining
what it is to be human'. It relies on the classification of anthropologists.
The correspondence between Genesis 1 and the evolution of humans
1:26 intention of man H. erectus and habilis
1:27 creation of man H. sapiens appears in fossil record
1:28 blessing of man Upper Paleolithic cultural effluorescence
1:29 plants for humans Early Neolithic realization of agriculture
1:30 fodder for animals Animal husbandry combined with agriculture in
Developed Neotlithic
is robust. It brings us to the doorway of the Developed Neolithic - the
period that Fischer (and others) associate with the stories of Adam and
Eve. As for whether the other days of Genesis 1 'match' the evolutionary
record - we could continue to argue details.
But the key, for me, is that the inventiveness, language, and religious
indications of H. erectus points to the 'intention of man', in an
ancestral species, rather than Adam of Gen 2.
Ray