On Thu, 16 Nov 1995 22:32:20 -0500 you wrote:
>Stephen Jones wrote:
>GM>I see nothing in the scripture which requires a few tens of
>thousands of years and no more for the creation of Adam nor does
>the scientific data "broadly" fit this view.
SJ>Agreed. There is no actual statement in scripture that says when
Adam
>was created. But most scholars who believe in a literal Adam would
>place it within the last 10-50 thousand years, based on inferences
>from Gn 1-11.<<
GM>So why must most scholars be right? This is an ad populum argument.
>What evidence do they advance in support of their contention.
Glenn didn't really read what I said. I said "most scholars... based
on inferences from Gn 1-11".
GM>I have advanced
>several things which support my view (broca's brain, 2.0 Myr: first tool use
>to make tool rather than get food, 1.5 Myr; first hut, 400Kyr: first art,
>330 Kyr etc) What evidence do they cite to disprove these data points and
>prove their position. I have heard none yet.
I agree with Glenn that many Biblical scholars are not grappling with
these anthropological data. Pearce's two-"Adam" model is one way of
reconciling the Biblical and scientific data. Pushing Adam back 5
million years is another. I prefer the former as IMHO more in harmony
with the Biblical data.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>Glenn is making the assumption that the "man" of Genesis 1 is the
>same as the "Adam" of Genesis 2. The two-"Adam" model would see this
>evidence of emerging intelligence such as tool making, as included in
>the making of man in Gn 1:26-27.<<
GM>Actually, I am not making that assumption at all. I have
repeatedly stated
>that the days in Genesis 1 are Days of Proclamation ala Alan Hayward, which
>means that man in genesis 1 is a generic name for mankind. But nothing was
>actually accomplished in Genesis 1. Genesis 1 merely represents the
>proclaiming by God of what WAS TO BE IN THE FUTURE. It was the laying >down of the ground rules of the universe. Thus, Genesis 1 refers to mankind,
>Genesis 2 refers to Adam the first man.
Yes. I have Alan Hayward's book "Creation and Evolution: Rethinking
the Evidence from Science and the Bible", 1995, Bethany House
Publishers, on Glenn's recommendation! :-)
It appears that Hayward has a type of two-Adam model, too?
GM>Pearce, from whom you get the 2-Adam model, even gives good
>linguistic evidence that there is a separation between
>these two usages. He writes:
>"The Hebrew word adam supports such an interpretation. It
>is a generic noun meaning 'man' or 'mankind' in Genesis I. In
>chapters 2 to 4 the definite article is added and it becomes 'the
>Adam' or 'the man' (or individual). From Genesis 3:17 onwards
>the noun also becomes an individual's name 'Adam'.~E.K. Victor
>Pearce, Who was Adam? (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, Ltd.,
>1969), p. 21
Yes. I thought I posted the same quote.
GM>As to your recitation of the sudden appearance of carved objects, I
have
>previously pointed out that it was the invention of the burin which allowed
>finely carved objects to be produced. What you cite as "a sharp
>distinction between the abilities of Homo sapiens and other hominids." is
>nothing more than the results of the invention of the burin- an engraving
>tool.
I can't recall that I gave a "recitation of the sudden appearance of
carved objects". Perhaps it was Jim Bell?
I do however believe there was a "a sharp distinction between the
abilities of Homo sapiens and other hominids", as acknowledged even by
evolutionists:
"Our closest ancestors and cousins, Homo erectus, the Neanderthals,
and others, possessed mental abilities of a high order, as indicated
by their range of tools and other artifacts. But only Homo sapiens
shows direct evidence for the kind of abstract reasoning, including
numerical and aesthetic modes, that we identify as distinctively
human. All indications of ice-age reckoning-the calendar sticks and
counting blades-belong to Homo sapiens. And all the ice-age art-the
cave paintings, the Venus figures, the horse- head carvings, the
reindeer bas-reliefs-was done by our species. By evidence now
available, Neanderthal knew nothing of representational art." (Gould
S.J., "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History",
Penguin: London, 1991, p320)
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------