On Date: 95-10-18 17:47:57 EDT Jim Bell arguing that modern man had was
created around 40-60,000 years ago, Jim Bell wrote:
:
>>Thus, from the perspective of modern paleontology, modern man "exploded"
onto the scene. Paleoanthropologists like Eldredge and Tattersall agree. WHY
it happened thus they are not yet able to explain, and don't attempt to. And,
to their credit, they don't assume intermediates or gradual development. They
are acting exactly like scientists should.<<
On Date: 95-10-03 18:50:04 EDT Stephen wrote:
>>I don't know exactly when Adam was created or when the Flood
occurred, but I would expect it was in the last 50,000 years.<<
And Hugh Ross wrote:
>>"However, the dates for these finds are well within the biblically
acceptable range for the appearance of Adam and Eve--somewhere between 10,000
and 60,000 years ago according to Bible scholars who have carefully analyzed
the genealogies. Since the oldest art and fabrics date between 25,000 and
30,000 years ago, no contradiction exists between anthropolgoy and Scripture
on this issue." Facts & Faith9:3, p. 2
This view that modern, spiritual man arose within the past 50,000 years has
been used to try to account for the anthropological data and the Biblical
accounts. Because three such eminent people as Stephen, Jim and Hugh all
accept such a view, it is obviously rather widespread. I would like to
examine the implications of this view and show why it won't solve the
problem.
My views have been criticised for the gap in the fossil record between the
earliest fossil of the genus homo and the time I place the flood. I have
argued that the fossil record is imperfect and gaps are a documented part of
the record. In spite of this documentation, some have found these gaps
unsatisfactory and have demanded that the gap be filled now.
On Date: 95-10-10 00:50:53 EDT Jim Bell wrote:
>>Of course, even if we grant a 2 million year range, that still
leaves an enormous gap of 3.5 million years vis-a-vis Glenn's flood. That,
it seems to me, remains a significant problem. <<
And Stephen wrote:
>>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? :-)<<
This is offered in the spirit of "What is good for the goose, is good for the
gander".If this demand is made of my view, then consistency and fairness
would suggest that it ought also to be applied to other views. Let us see
how well the views advocated by Hugh Ross, Jim and Stephen fare under an
examination of the archaeological record. And let's apply the standard that
if the gaps in the record are not filled now, we should reject their view.
Agriculture:
The Scripture clearly indicates that the children of Adam and Eve engaged in
agriculture.
Genesis 4:2-4 (NIV) "Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the
course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to
the LORD."
The archaeologic record gives no indication of farming occurring 50,000 years
ago. Nor does it support the concept of farming earlier than around 9000
BC.( "Agriculture, History of", Encyclopaedia Britannica 1982 1, p. 325.)
Agriculture brings a whole basketfull of technologies with it. One needs
sickles to harvest with and pottery to store the grain and protect it from
rats. Buildings are required for large harvests. When are these associated
technologies found? While ceramic figurines are found from deposits as old
as 27,000 years, the first pots are found in sites dated at 8,000 B.C.(see
J.Guilaine, _Prehistory_, Facts on File, 1986, p. 82) If Adam was created
50,000 years ago, then I am sure those who do not believe in gaps in the
historical and archaeological record would not want to claim that pottery
occurred earlier.
The first flint sickles occur in Palestine among the Natufians around 9000
B.C. ("Agriculture, History of," Encyclopedia Britannica, 1982, 1, p. 325)
Thus the view that Adam was created 50,000 years ago, means that Cain and
Abel, the first farmers were not born for another 40,000 years. Afterall, we
couldn't claim that there might be material in the gaps which had not been
found. That wouldn't be reasonable. :-)
Abel could not have kept sheep if Adam was created 50,000 years ago. The
first sheep are domesticated between 7 and 9000 years B.C.
Cities:
Genesis4:17 NIV "Cain was then building a city and he named it after his son
Enoch."
The first cities are from around 10,000 B.C. (J.Guilaine, _Prehistory_, Facts
on File, 1986, p. 80). Thus unless Cain was 40,000 years after Adam, he
could not have built a city.
Tents:
Genesis 4:20 NIV "Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who
live in tents and raise livestock."
The first documented case of a tent was from the very earliest time of when
Adam would have been created (60,000 years ago.. It is the tent at
Molodova.(Stringer and Gamble, _In search of the Neanderthals_, 1993, p. 157)
But the problem with this is that it was Neanderthal who made the tent. So
either Jabal was not the father of those who lived in tents, Jabal was a
Neanderthal, the events described were much longer ago than we currently
advocate, or the Bible is wrong. Take your pick. I would choose my view
over the last possiblity.
Musical instruments:
Genesis 4:21 NIV His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all
who play the harp and flute."
Apparently the first musical instruments known of in the archaeological
record come from pictures in Sumer from 3,500 B.C. So the view of a 50,000
year old Adam leaves a huge gap between Adam and Jubal a gap of several tens
of thousands of years. Remember, we can't say that there were musical
intruments prior to 3,500 B.C. because there is no evidence of them. We want
to be consistent with the criticisms of my views.
Metalurgy:
Genesis 4:22 "Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of
tools out of bronze and iron."
The first copper tools occur around 5000 B.C.(J.Guilaine, _Prehistory_, Facts
on File, 1986, p. 186). Thus Tubal-Cain must have not known his ancestor
Lamech.
My point in all this, is that a viewpoint which claims to harmonize the data,
should harmonize the data. I do not really understand what the 50,000 year
old Adam view accomplishes. None of the above data fits the Biblical
description so what is the point? Whatever the 50,000 year old Adam view
does, it doesn't harmonize the data. My view allows for the events to be
correct, merely very long ago. It explains why we see the archaeological
record that we do.
Oh yeah, those who believe that writing was what carried the story of the
flood down to Abraham should know that there is no evidence of writing prior
to about 4,000 B. C.
Glenn Morton
16075 Longvista Dr.
Dallas, Texas, 75248