redemptive history

Glenn.Morton@ORYX.COM
Wed 23 Aug 1995 11:56 CT

One further item which should have gone into that syllogism I presented last
night. For the YEC's who might not want to consider Homo erectus a human,
there are two facts which speak against that position. First Homo erectus
lived in caves eroded into rocks which most young earth creationists would
consider as having been deposited in the flood. Thus these guys must be post
flood because you can not catastrophically deposit a cave (read 'hole') in the
ground. Since almost all of the fossil men have had some representatives found
in caves, it would appear that they must be post-diluvial in the YEC view.
They are all found in tertiary strata which Kurt Wise and Steve Austin in a
recent BSN interview (reference at home) admitted had to be post-flood. So
where are the preflood bodies that the YEC view would require as evidence of
the populated pre-flood world?

Second for anyone who wishes to deny the status of human to homo erectus, the
question becomes, do we really want to have a non-human,tool-making,
weapon-making, non-spiritual being on the planet? Some might answer yes, but
in my mind that would diminish the specialness of man.It is better to include
him (and his possible porno-venus figure of 300k yr ago) than to theologically
have to deal with a non-human weapon maker.

Assuming this venus figure I mentioned last night was made by homo erectus, do
we want to theologically deal with a non-human purveyor of pornographic
statues? Frankly, this sounds more like fallen man than risen ape.

glenn