>Or -- what is a better alternative under your scenario -- Hugh Ross' view
>that the spiritual awareness he associates with art appeared only 50k years
>ago or so is incorrect. If the thesis of your book is correct, spiritual
>awareness -- still perhaps evidenced by art -- appeared much earlier.
>
>
Thank you for putting this is a more positive light. I have often found that
the path to a better solution goes through the forest of disproofs of what
others have proposed. Finding errors is anyone's view, including mine, is
the only way to make the ultimate explanation better. For instance, in the
case of the 50k or so creation of Adam, the reason the view is wrong is
because there is evidence for human activities PRIOR to that time. Thus, the
acceptable view, MUST, simply must, explain why that evidence is there at
that time. Any hypothesis to harmonize Science and Sriputure which fails to
do that, is not the correct one.
glenn