Jim Bell wrote:
>>I remain troubled by the notion that Noah and his world were around 5.5
million years ago. That Noah was a creature made "in the image of God" but
somehow was not "modern man." That there was a 3.5 million year dark age. I
know these things have to be worked into the theory, but they look more like
Achilles' heels to me. I wish I could respond to Glenn's theorizing like I
do to Walter ReMine's, but I can't. Not yet, at least.<<
First a response, then a suggestion
1. I have documented many many gaps in the fossil record of larger time
frames than the one you don't like.
2. If the Young-earth Creationists are correct in their analysis of the
Kanapoi fossil, then there is evidence of man back near the time I suggest.
From Jim Foley's fossil man FAQ on Talk origins. Jim writes:
>>KP 271, "Kanapoi Hominid": this is a very worn fragment of a lowdr
left humerus (the upper arm bone), discovered by Bryan Patterson in
1965, which is probably between 4 and 5 million years old. Lubenow
(1992) states that this is indistinguishable from a human bone,
Parker and Morris (1982) state that it is a human bone. It is
indeed very similar to modern humans, but it is equally possible
that it belongs to an australopithecine, and its small size is
compatible with that.<<
If it is a human humerous then assuming the dates are correct, it is from
very near the time I suggest. If it is human and it is from 4.5 million
years, then my views have been substantiated. While I doubt that it is human
personally (there is not enough evidence), those who in general you would
agree with, who keep to traditional modes of thought, say it is human. The
only other issue if you agree with their assessment concerns the validity of
the dating processes.
*************************************
Begging and Pleading tone on:
*************************************
I don't mind at all having a lot of people troubled by my notion. Very few
christians remain theologically conservative after a geoscience education. I
have only because I found a novel view. Nor do I want to avoid the very
intense scrutiny and skepticism that any new view MUST be subjected to. But
what frustrates me quicker than anything is documenting something and stating
as clearly as I can why the issue is important and having people act as if I
didn't say anything or acting as if they don't need to deal with the
observational tidbits because they have not had personal knowledge of them
before. We ignore observation at our peril. A case in point: My sons went to
a retreat a week ago at A&M and they asked the speaker a couple of geological
questions.(They have absorbed some geology from me). As they reported, the
speaker didn't want to discuss geology because it was out of his field.
While that may be true, you will not have valid view of Biblical prehistory
without incorporating geology, not to mention paleontology and biology. We
simply must not ignore anything!!!!
If you want, lets take our discussion of the issue out of the public
glare. That way neither of us will be tempted to talk to the audience. While
I know I am a very poor craftsman of the English language, I will do my very
best to let you understand the observational data that I strongly feel
supports my view and which is currently ignored by all parties in the
creation/evolution debate. If we christians advance concepts which are
contradicted by observational data, then we are no better than any false
religion.
glenn