Jim, I hate to say it this way, but if you had been listening to what I have
been saying instead of always trying to figure some cute way to respond, the
view would be no more confusing now. I have only been saying the same thing
for several months now and in my opinion the problems science is throwing at
the Christian world view are serious and need to be taken more seriously than
you seem to be taking it. I will guarantee you that the professor in college
teaching your children this stuff will make them take it seriously.
Jim wrote:
>>Now he writes these were not "modern man." So there are two classes of
"human beings" now. That's a new one. First, "image of God" man; Second,
"modern man. Are there any anthropologists who believe this?<<
This is getting tiresome. The image of God does not depend on any particular
set of physical traits. My wife's Down's Syndrome Uncle does not look
normal, but he too is made in the image of God. In my view Homo erectus
were as human on the inside as you and I. Their looks were different, but
that does not make them non-human. They almost certainly spoke. Their brains
had Broca's area, the complex tools they made have never been made by any
chimp or gorilla and they used fire. What is the problem here understanding
what I am saying. Humanity's body shape has changed over the years.
Chinese do not look like me. They are short. Their faces a little flatter
with eyes having epicanthral folds. They are also made in the image of God.
Pygmies do not look like me. They too are made in the image of God. Are
you seriously suggesting that looks defines who is and is not made in the
image of God? If you are I would suggest that you seriously need to rethink
the implications of your position.
Jim wrote:
>>But then he suggests these people were not "modern." I'm finding it
increasingly difficult to piece together what Glenn is actually asserting. <<
Is anyone else having this trouble? Joe Riemer doesn't seem to have this
problem and he raised an interesting intelligent objection to my views. See
his post and my response. I try to be clear, but I am not sure you and I
speak the same language. If you want the best exposition of my views read
the book!
JIm wrote:
>>Glenn responded:
<<I am saying that Noah's body morphology may have been different from ours.
period.>>
This doesn't answer my question. Are we descendents of Noah, as the Bible
states? Or did human evolution take place at the same time, leading to us
independently? <<
Yes we are descended from Noah who may not have looked like you and I. This
means he may have had a different morphological form.
Jim wrote:
>> I don't see a "pre-modern" morphologically-dissimilar human form
described, or concurrent evolution of human beings alongside Noah's line. <<
Jim, I don't see a description of Noah's looks in my Bible. What Book,
chapter and verse is that in? I didn't say anything at all about concurrent
evolution. I really don't know where you come up with these things. I did
not use the word concurrent at all.
Jim wrote:
>>And I don't see any of this in science. I asserted that NO ONE in the
scientific community thinks man existed 5.5 million years ago. Can you cite
anyone who does? Can you give us any article that asserts tools and language
were known 5.5 million years ago? That there is a 3.5 million year dark age
for man<<
Being human is a very subjective judgement. We have no H.Erectus to examine
today. Nor do we have a Neanderthal to chat with. While I freely admit that
I can not cite anyone who believes that language and humans (with different
looks) existed 5.5 million years ago, I do believe that my list of fossils
with the gaps (which you seem to have ignored) covers that issue quite well.
I believe that it shows what I am suggesting is not out of line with
documented cases in the fossil record. But I can cite people who are willing
to admit that homo erectus with thought processes,and planning abilities
lived up to 1.5 million years ago.
I cite Ian Tattersall, The Fossil Trail, Oxford, 1995, p. 242.
"Thus, following the invention about 1.5 myr ago of handaxes and related
bifacial implements such as picks and cleavers, we have to wait another 0.5
myr before we encounter any notable advance in stoneworking technology. And
even here, change expressed itself simply as a working technology. And even
here, change expressed itself simply as a refinement of the basic
handaxe-making technique. At about 1.0 myr ago, handaxes began to be made
thinner, using a technique known as 'platform preparation,' in which the
axe's edge was initially made less oblique, to provide a surface at which
more force could be directed. This advance was associated with at least
occasional use of 'soft hammers,' made of gentler organic materials - bone,
wood, antler -- rather than of brittle stone. Who was responsible for this
invention? We don't know; associated hominid fossils don't exist. But we can
be pretty sure that these early hominids had some powers of abstract
reasoning, for as Kathy Schick and NIck Toth point out, platform preparation
is not an intuitively obvious procedure. Which raises a question we've so
far avoided: could these advanced Acheuleans be described as human? In a
strict legalistic sense, I suppose they must be considered ex officio humans,
as members of the genus Homo. But that is not to say that we would
intuitively recognize them as such if we were to encounter a group of them
while out for a stroll on the savanna."
But the fact that we might not recognize them as human is no big deal.
Europeans failed to recognize Africans as human for several centuries. So
the fact that we might recognize them is not indicative of the lack of
humaness on their part but possibly our lack of good judgment. Also there
was very little morphological difference between the 1.5 million year old
H.erectus and the 1.0 myr erectus. The change in tool shape was not
correlated with a change in morphology. It appears to be an INVENTION. But
now something a little sadder.
Sorry, Jim, I had hoped we could have a more fruitful discussion, but I guess
we can't. I am getting to tired of repeating the same thing to you and never
seeing any evidence that you take what I say seriously or even reading what I
write. Last night you claimed you didn't know what the list of questions was
for. Joe Riemers was able to understand it. I can't figure out why you can't
understand it or why you seem to treat what I say with such frivolity. I
don't mind disagreement. I love a good rational debate about the issues
because everyone learns and gets better. But it would be nice to feel that
one's views are at least respected enough so that the debate opponent took
the time to understand what was being said and written. I hope you will
forgive me but I need a break from this. I am through with our discussion
for a while.
glenn