>The above argument could be used to justify anything. The whole
>reason Glenn's rejects the usual Mesopotamian location of the Flood is
>because geology has not discovered sediments of it! This is despite
>Biblical (eg. Gn 10:10) and extra-Biblical evidence (eg. Gilgamesh
>epic) for a Mesopotamian location of the Flood.
>
That is not the only reason. As I have noted before, the physics of water
flowing in that basin would be such as to float the ark downhill to the
Persian Gulf. It would neither take a years nor could the ark land on any
mountains. The account would not be very accurate in which case I would view
it with suspicion.
Stephen wrote:
>>Therefore if Glenn is consistent with evolutionary theory, he
presumably must be claiming either that: (a) large central
populations of H. habilus existed for 3.5 million years (5.5 - 2 MYA),
but as yet no evidence of them has not been detected; or (b) H.
habilus existed as "small, peripheral isolate" populations for 3.5
million years but it was only when these grew into large central
populations that fossils of him were found?<<
I prefer the second case. I am glad to see a clear laying out of the
possibilities. Thank you.
There is one other factor in the fossil record which has been ignored by us
up until now. Assume a species originated in a small population at locality
A. Locality A is in an area of rather rapid erosion and not very much
deposition. Any evidence of the small population would be lost. But when
the population spread out to Location B such as East Africa, where
sedimentation was occurring, the first fossils would be found here. But the
age of the earliest fossils are not the age of the earliest individuals. As
the species spreads even further, to lcoation C, his fossils will appear in
strata which is successively younger. Thus, if the first example of that
species is found by a paleontologist at location C It is, for a time the
earliest example of that species. But when someone finally finds the species
at location B, they find an older version. Thus, in order to find a fossil
species at its earliest time, one must look both at the right aged rocks and
in the correct locality. Searching Location B for the earliest fossil of
this hypothetical species will not produce it because the species was not
born at this locality.
This is what I think happened to man after the flood. He lived in a limited
area and thus to find him, you must look in that locality, at the correctly
aged rocks (assuming they have not been eroded away) then then be very lucky.
Only after man became more widespread, do we find relatively numerous
specimens.
Stephen wrote:
>>The problem is that: (a) is difficult to believe, considering the
instensity of the search for fossil hominids and that fossils of
Australopithecines have been found from from 4 MYA; and (b) conflicts
with evolutionary theory in that small peripheral isolate populations
are thought to be relatively short-lived.<<
I disagree with your assessment of b. There is nothing inherent in evolution
that requires a species be large in number and distribution. Species which
arise on an island may remain small for a long, long time.
glenn