Glenn writes:
>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!
I was not assuming my conclusion, I was "hypothesizing" or postulating it.
There is a big difference.
Glenn writes:
>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.
Birds build nests that are quite complicated. Bees build complicated
structures, beavers build dams. The list could go on and on. My point
is that defining man in the way Glenn has is highly unsatisfying and
arbitrary.
Glenn continues:
>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.
That they are incapable of accomplishments such as fire, weapons and carrying
ochre does not mean they are inferior to Habilis.
Glenn continues:
>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.
I am at a significant disadvantage here because I don't know the evidence for
modern human civilization in New Guinea. I would not be alarmed, however,
if a single thermoluminescence measurement indicated the age of modern
humans as being greater than 40,000 years.
>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.
I was obviously not suggesting that any hominid non-humans exist NOW nor would
I blame racism on Darwin. (The implication I would is based on a note I sent
to Thomas Moore where he said Hitler had said that he was doing what he was
doing for "God". I responded by saying that, IF ANYTHING, Darwin was more
responsible for the Holocaust then Christianity.) By the way, since all of
the cultures you speak of have religions, this means they are human by my
definition and my definition would not be a basis for racism.
Glenn continues:
>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.
Hugh Ross says the Biblical date for the creation of Adam and Eve is between
6,000 and 50,000 years. The SCIENTIFIC date for RELIGIOUS ARTIFACTS is between
8,000 and 24,000 years. Hugh Ross argues that this means the scientific date
for modern humans is between 8,000 and 24,000 years.
As for my allowing the humanity of old New Guineans be questioned, Jim Foley
pointed out that the evidence for the simultaneous evolution of human beings
(in relation to our discussion of the "out of Africa" theory) was that
modern human beings share regional resemblances with more primitive hominids.
If this is true and if the mitochondrial Eve theory is validated by Stonekings
New Guinea measurements, then hominids and humans can share similar features
without sharing common ancestry.
Glenn writes:
>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.
I find it difficult to beleive that thermoluminescence is so accurate
that the archeological date is 60,000 years with no error bars. Until
I can see and analyze the assumptions that were made, I will not believe
the 60,000 year date.
In Christ,
robert van de water
associate researcher
UCLA