On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Randy Isaac wrote:
> I was puzzled by these paragraphs in his article.
>
> Scientific consensus confirms that humanity originated about 100,000 years
> ago in east Africa near the location ascribed to the Garden of Eden.
> Mitochondrial- and Y-chromosomal DNA markers trace that origin back to one
> man and one woman. Also, this research indicates that humanity migrated
> around the world from in or near the Middle East.
>
> Referred to as the Out-of-Africa hypothesis by evolutionary biologists, this
> account of humanity's origin appears to be simply an awkward attempt to force
> the biblical model into an evolutionary framework. If humanity's genesis
> happened as Scripture describes, genetic diversity patterns should be
> identical to those observed. Science attests to a real Adam and Eve who gave
> rise to all humanity."
>
I saw the same ideas in Rana's book "Who Was Adam?" I think that Hugh Ross (and
presumably also Fuz Rana) believes that the Flood was not global but still
reduced the human population to only eight individuals. If so, why does Rana
worry so much about making Eden fit into the Out-of-Africa hypothesis rather
than doing this with the geographic location of the early descendants of Noah?
Gordon Brown (ASA member)
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jan 28 14:20:19 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 28 2009 - 14:20:19 EST