On Sat, 23 Sep 1995 12:51:02 -0400 Glenn wrote:
>Stephen Jones wrote:
SJ>I can accept...age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years, using the
Uranium-Lead method. However, I am not so sure that it can date using
such short ages as 5 MY using the U-Pb >method. Does anyone know what
method was used to date Glenn's exhibits?<<
GM>Good question Stephen. Until the late 1980's archaeology had a lot
>of difficulty dating the time periods between 50,000 and 1 million
>years. This gap was called the "muddle in the middle". Several
>dating techniques have now been developed to give absolute ages to
>the objects. First, thermoluminescence of burnt flint can be used in
>a range of 2,000 years to 500,000 years...The second method is
>Electron Spin Resonance....This method has been used to date the
>appearance of the earliest modern humans at 100,000 years in Qafzeh
>cave, Israel....The thorium-lead method can be used to date things
>from 5000 to 350,000 years....It is useful in caves...
Thanks to Glenn for this. I note the above methods only go back
"500,000 years". This leaves a gap of a mere 5 milion years in Glenn's
argument?
GM>I do want it clearly understood that no modern human skeleton has
>been dated to 5.5 million years ago. The earliest Australopithecus
>is from that time frame. And none of the art objects I have been
>mentioning come from the 5.5 million year time frame.
So Glenn's argument that the Flood occurred 5.5 million years ago
has a minor problem in that there were no human beings (apart
from "Australopithecines") around at the time? :-)
GMMy point with the anthropological data is that current Christian
>apologetics (PC, and YEC) fail to account for the time frame of man's
>appearance on earth. One can go with Stephen's 2 Adam approach, but
>I don't see that in Scripture anywhere. I only see one Adam.
I agree there is only "one Adam" - in Gn 2. I use the "2 Adam" name
as a shorthand. It is really Gn 1 man - Gn 2 Adam.
Glenn says he can see only one Adam, in the Bible, yet Gn 1 seems to
deals with plants, animals and man as broad category. In other words,
Gn 1 man could be interpreted as the genus Homo. Yet Gn 2 Adam is an
individual. Gn 1 and and Gn 2 are actually from two different source
tablets named by the footers:
"the generations of the heavens and of the earth" (Gn 2:4), ie. Gn
1:1-2:4a, and
"the book of the generations of Adam" (Gn 5:1), ie. Gn 2:4b-Gn 5:1.
Biblical scholars have always noted that the two "creation" accounts
in Gn 1 and 2 are not identical, but complementary.
GM>Of the dating of the flood, (i.e., the empty Mediterranean) Bill
>Hamilton wrote:
BH>Geologists like to have several lines of evidence when they date
>things, so I presume some additional evidence must have been
>available, but either I don't remember it form the book, or Glenn
>didn't discuss it. In any case, the flooding of the Mediterranean is
>considered pretty well established by the geology and oceanography
>communities -- it was not Glenn's invention.<<
There was no suggestion that the 5.5 MY date for the flooding of the
Mediterranean was "Glenn's invention".
GM>To date the time of the Mediterranean desciccation there are
>several lines of evidence. There is paleomagnetism which can be used
>to date the deep sea sediments in the Mediterranean. There are
>volcanic flows and dykes which can be dated by potassium argon.
>Worldwide, as well as over large regional areas, microscopic animals
>appear in the same stratigraphic order wherever we drill. These are
>microcropic index fossils are tied into volcanic flows. The
>appearance and disappearance of a particular suite of microfossils is
>also used. They all point to a time of around 5.5 million years for
>the dry Mediterranean.
Thanks to Glenn for this info.
[...]
GM>The one thing which would prove my view is the finding of some
>artifact from the Miocene/Pliocene boundary in the Mediterranean.
>Unfortunately, I do not have such evidence.
Glenn admits he has no evidence that human beings existed at the
"Miocene/Pliocene boundary", ie. 5.5 MY ago. His arguments for art,
etc. at 3.5 x 10^5 years or so, are not much support for his claim
that Noah built the Ark 5.5 x 10^6 years ago. Glenn seems out of step
with his own evidence by an order of magnitude! It's hard to
compare numbers. The scale below illustrates the enormous credibility
gap in Glenn's theory (even if H. erectus is fully human):
-------------------------------------------------------- Mediterranean
------------------------------------- Glenn's gap
------------------- Homo erectus
---- Art
-- Neanderthal
- Cro-Magnon
....|.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|
5 4 3 2 1 0
Million years ago
(Sorry if this doesn't come out on your screen. If not, try a
monospaced font).
I prefer the Gn 1 man - Gn 2 Adam model, since IMHO it conforms
better to the Biblical and scientific evidence.
God bless.
Stephen