>>Glenn wrote:
>If you put it that way, I can't prove that any other person I see is >human.
Just because I see a body with a head balanced on it, >does not mean that
there is a person at home inside that >object. But I must reasonably
conclude that there is, even if >they look a little different than me.
Similarly, if the Homo >erectus engaged in woodworking (which only man does)
and >carried around ochre (which only man doe) and harnessed fire >(which
only man does) and manufactured stone tools (which <only man does), and had
both Broca's and Wernicke's areas >(which only man does), then I see little
difference in according >him some status of humanity just like I accord you
the status of >humanity.
This is circular reasoning. Let's say I hypothesize that there were
non-human creatures that used fire, engaged in wood working, carried around
ochre, manufactured stone tools and had Broca's and Wernicke's area. How
would you disprove me? <<
***end quote***
When you say "Let us hypothesize that there were non-human creatures that
used fire, engaged in wood working, carried around ochre... how would you
disprove me?" I would say that you are engaging in a logical fallacy of
assuming the result you want. Of course I can't disprove you if you assume
the conclusion!
You wrote:
>> You would say, "But only man does these things." I am by no means
convinced that this is true. In fact, I believe that God created hominids to
perform the role of ecological placeholder for human beings while he planted
the Garden and prepared to Create Adam. How do these hominids differ from
us?<<
Fine, you believe this. But what is your evidence. Where are the animals
today which engage inwoodworking, carrying ochre, harnessing fire, making
stone tools, and carving spears and making art? You have no evidence to
support your position. I have the observational FACT that you can not point
to a single animal which engages in these activities to back up your
assertion.
Look at it this way. Logically if I assume that computers are run by little
invisible elves who live underneath the raised floors of computer rooms, how
would you disprove me? Your only response is to say "I have the
observational fact that you can not point to a single elf!"
As Hugh Ross points out, the only Biblical difference between animals and
humans is the ability to have a relationship with God. I would, therefore,
believe that these creatures were human if I found something like, "The
Confessions of Saint UGGistine", but not if I found a simple stone tool.
Many non-primate animals are, after all, capable of amazingly sophisticated
behavior and one can only speculate as to what they might be like if they had
hands and an upright posture. (Consider dolphins.)<<
****end quote****
What great material, or literature acheivement have the dolphins produced?
If there is dolphin poetry, I am unaware of it. If there are dolphin
philosophy societies, I see no proof of them. Where are the stone tools of
the dolphins, the kelp gathering activities, the carving of weapons? Yeah,
they look really sophisticated.
You wrote:
>>Glenn's reasoning is also circular when he says, "only man has Broca's and
Wernicke's Areas". Other primates that everyone would agree are non-human
have areas that are homologous to Broca's Area (and I assume Wernicke's as
well) but these areas aren't called Broca's Area or Wernicke's Area because
these areas are associated with speech, and it is possible to demonstrate
that these primates do not speak.<<<
There is more to the difference between ape brain and human brain than merely
Broca's and Wernicke's area. There is blood drainage differences. But of
Broca's area Falk writes:
>>The one area of the cortex that best distinguishes an ape brain from a
human brain is the frontal lobes. A triangular fold of gray matter known as
Broca's area appears in left frontal lobes of humans and is associated with
speech. THIS AREA DOES NOT APPEAR IN APE BRAINS. Not only is the lower
frontal lobe the best area for distinguishing an ape brain from a human
brain, but it is also the area which is most likely to leave a good
impression on the inside of the skull and therefore appear on an endocast--a
happy accident." Dean Falk, _Braindance_, (New York: Henry Holt, 1992, p.
48-49
You wrote:
>>I realized the error immediately after sending the post. Oh, well. Sorry.
I would not agree, by the way, that the New Guineans that are supposed to
have been there 60,000 years ago were fully human in the Biblical sense.
(That their skeletons might have been identical doesn't bother me.)<<
So now we have New Guineans who look identical with modern humans who are not
really human and can not form a spiritual relationship with God. Since there
is almost no difference between the modern New Guineans and those from 60,000
years ago, how do we know that the modern ones are capable of forming a
relationship with God? Your view point leads to horrible conclusions.
1. Since New Guineans have existed in that form for 60,000 years then they
probably are not related to Adam, since no one has suggested that Eden was in
New Guinea.
2. Assuming that people who look, and act like us are not human is largely
what propelled racism in the past few centuries. And since all that was done
prior to Darwin, racism can not be blamed on evolution. Racism is a part of
the human condition.
3. Under your view, maybe we better re-evaluate whether or not to send
missionaries to them. Don't want to waste our money you know.
You wrote:
>>Understand me clearly. I do not say I have no bias. I say that
materialists (and even some Christians) are biased when they evaluate
evidence for evolution. I make no secret that I believe in Hugh Ross's PC
scenario and, therefore, will freely admit to interpreting data in the light
of what it would predict.<<
It predicts that there is no human activity prior to 8-24,000 years, (see
Creation and Time p.141) The data contradicts that prediction and in order
to hang onto it you are willing to let the humanity of old New Guineans who
look like modern New Guineans be questioned.
You write:
>>Wrong. Let's say the age was 10,000-80,000 years. Stoneking chooses
60,000 years because to report the full range would make this "shockingly
recent" (quoting Shreeve) estimate unpalatable to the evolutionary community.
The data does give the youngest date so far, but that does not mean that
Stoneking's assumptions favored the youngest possible date.<<
No, Stoneking chose 60,000 years because that is what the archaeological
evidence says about the settlement of New Guinea. Your ability to contort
the evidence is quite amazing.
glenn