On Sun, 20 Oct 1996 16:34:34, Glenn Morton wrote:
[continued]
GM>McBurney notes,
>
>"To these may be added a remarkable bone object most plausibly explained
>as a fragment of a vertical 'flute' or multiple pitch whistle, from spit
>1955/64. In this position although directly associated only with a few
>non-diagnostic chips, splinters and splinters of bone it is none the
>less attributable to the Pre-Aurignacian owing to the clear indications
>provided by the overlying spits 1955/61-58, to be discussed in the next
>chapter. These last show every affinity with the material culture as
>described and certainly indicate the continued existence of the
>tradition in the area.
"Pre-Aurignacian", presumably means before "34,000" years ago:
"The Upper Paleolithic essentially begins with the Aurignacian
period, from 34,000 to 30,000 years ago." (Leakey R., "The Origin of
Humankind", Phoenix: London, 1994, p104).
Again, this is within Ross' "young-Adam" range.
GM>"In all important respects preserved the bone tube reproduces the
>features of known paleolithic flutes from the European Gravettian both
>in the East and West, although older by a factor of at least 2 than any
>other specimen known."(22)
The Gravettian period was between 30,000 - 22,000 years ago:
"The people of the Gravettian period, from 30,000 to 22,000 years
ago..." (Leakey, p105)
A "factor of...2" is thus between 60,000 to 44,000 years ago. Still
within Hugh Ross' broad "young-Adam" range.
GM>This object was recovered from the earliest, deepest occupation
>level at Haua Fteah, Libya. Glynn Isaac describes the dating of the
>layer in which the flute was found. (Mousterian levels are the
>Neanderthal layers and these were the layers that yielded two
>Neanderthal mandibles).
Mousterian levels may also be evidence of archaic Homo sapiens:
"...in the Middle East, where both the fossil and archeological
records are good, we see something that is clear and yet paradoxical.
The application of new dating techniques shows that Neanderthals and
modern humans essentially coexisted in the region for as long as
60,000 years. (In 1989, the Tabun Neanderthal was shown to be at
least 100,000 years old, making it a contemporary of the modern
humans from Qafzeh and Skhul.) Throughout that time, the only form
of tool technology we see is that associated with Neanderthals. The
name given to their technology is Mousterian, after the cave of Le
Moustier, in France, where it was first discovered. The fact that
the anatomically modern human populations in the Middle East appear
to have manufactured Mousterianlike technology rather than the
innovation-rich tool assemblages so characteristic of the Upper
Paleolithic means that they were modern in form only, and not in
their behavior." (Leakey R., "The Origin of Humankind", Phoenix:
London, 1994, p95)
GM>He relates,
>
>"The stratigraphy at this cave site in Cyrenaica appears to span an
>unusually large segment of Late Pleistocene time and consequently
>deserves mention apart from its representation in the frequency
>distribution patterns of C14 dates. About 5 metres of deposits were
>excavated below 'Mousterian' levels which have been C14 dated as
>follows:
>
> W 85 Layer XXVIII(Mousterian) 0.034.000+/-0.0028 x 106
> GrN 2564 XXVIII(Mousterian) 0.0434 +/-0.0013 x 106
> GrN 2022 XXVIII(rest fraction) 0.04 +/-0.0015 x 106
> GrN 2023 XXVIII(bone fraction) 0.47 +/-0.032 x 106
>
>"Extrapolation of the sedimentation rate down through the
>underlying strata gives a reasonable geochronometric estimate of at
>least 70 to 80,000 years for the base of the excavation. The small
>artefact sample from the lowest levels represents an idiosyncratic
>industry which includes fairly numerous blades (McBurney. 1967:91),
>burins, Acheulian elements (ibid.:Fig.IV,7:1,2,6), Mousterian elements
>(ibid.:Fig.IV, 1:7:Fig.IV,5:4:Fig. Iv, 7:3), the oldest known fossil
>musical instrument (ibid.:90: A.IV), and perhaps the oldest shell midden
>(ibid.: 99)."(23)
This sounds like a bit of a jumble! One wonders how reliable this
dating is.
GM>While 70-80,000 years seems old, Neanderthals were making music
>10- 20,000 years earlier than this.
Firstly, it may not have been "Neanderthals" and secondly, it may
not have been "music". Blowing whistles to hunt for food is not
the usual meaning of the word "music".
GM>Prolom II is a Neanderthal site from the Crimea and it was
>probably the whistle capital of the ancient world. Forty one
>phalange whistles made from Saiga tatarica were found there.(24)
>This is an early Wurm site which means it is 90-100,000 years old.
Yes, "whistles"! :-) And according to my sources, the Wurm glacial
period began 70,000 years ago:
"The Wurm Glacial Stage began about 70,000 years ago" ("Wurm Glacial
Stage", Encyclopaedia Britannica", Benton, Chicago, 15th edition,
1984, x:769)
GM>The evidence that music and musical instruments extends back to at
>least 100,000 years ago, should cause Christians to ponder the
>ability of our current apologetical schemes to handle the
>observational evidence.
Glenn has produced "evidence that" *whistles* "extend back to at"
*most* "70,000 years ago"! :-) I imagine that few, if any, "current
apologetical schemes" would be unable "to handle" this "observational
evidence".
GM>Only man manufactures complex instruments of music. And the
>earliest Neanderthal flute I have found is more complex than many
>later examples made by anatomically modern men.
Yes. It has two holes instead of one! :-) Besides, it is possible
that this "Neanderthal flute" was "made by anatomically modern men".
GM>Remember the initial comment made by Netti concerning the use of
>music, as a part of religious activities.
It is important to distinguish what we mean by "music" and "religious
activities" and what they may have meant to Neandertal man. See
Dennett's comments above.
GM>Only fallen man engages in religion.
There is a play on the words "man" and "religion' here. Of course
the only "man" that "engages in religion" is "fallen man" - that's
the only "man" there is today! But Adam and Eve no doubt "engaged in
religion" before they fell, unfallen angels "engage in religion" and
of course the non-"fallen man" Jesus "engaged in religion". And
redeemed "man" will "engage in religion" in heaven throughout
eternity.
That pre-Adamic un-"fallen man" may have "engaged in religion" of
some sort, is possible. But it is impossible to know what they
really meant by their "religion". Much of it may have been
sympathetic magic and have little or nothing to do with belief in an
abstract, spiritual God.
GM>Non-spiritual animals do not worship. The concept that music is
>part of religious ritual is supported by the fact that the earliest
>known underground mines dating from around 125,000 years ago, were
>mining pigment which is used by primitive man for body painting.
That "pigment...is used by primitive man" *today* "for body
painting", does not necessarily mean that is what was used for
"125,000 years ago'. But I agree that it is likely.
>Music and art are found together at least as long ago as 100,000
>years ago, was carried out by Neanderthals and archaic homo sapiens.
No. *Whistles* are found *70,000* years ago. And the work may have
been carried out by Neanderthals and archaic homo sapiens. Glenn
follows the evolutionist technique, pioneered by Darwin, of
converting possibilities into probabilities, and probabilities into
certainties:
"Darwin's technique throughout, according to the philosopher Dr
Gertrude Himmelfarb,
"is to convert possibilities into probabilities, and liabilities into
assets. In this particular chapter the solution of each difficulty
in turn came more easily to Darwin as he triumphed over- not simply
disposed of- the preceding one. The reader was put under a
constantly mounting obligation; if he accepted one explanation he was
committed to accept the next. Having first agreed to the theory in
cases where only some of the transitional states were missing, the
reader was expected to acquiesce in those cases where most of the
stages were missing, and finally in those where there was no evidence
of stages at all. Thus by the time the problem of the eye was under
consideration, Darwin was insisting that anyone who had come with him
so far could not rightly hesitate to go further...As possibilities
were promoted into probability, and probability into certainty, so
ignorance itself was raised to a position only once removed from
certain knowledge. When imagination exhausted itself and Darwin
could devise no hypothesis to explain away a difficulty, he resorted
to the blanket assurance that we were too ignorant of the ways of
nature to know why one event occurred rather than another, and hence
ignorant of the explanation that would reconcile the facts to his
theory." (Himmelfarb, G., "Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution", Von
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1959, p275)
(Hitching F., "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong",
Ticknor & Fields: New York, 1982, pp252-253)
GM>It would seem difficult to reject a flute making human-like being
>from the human race. This data is strong evidence that Neanderthals
>and archaic Homo sapiens were human in a Biblical sense of the word.
This is another play on the word "human". Anthropologists recognise
that only Homo sapiens is truly "human":
"What then is "human"? ... We suggest, however, that a sound
explanation of the term be based on the two criteria previously
mentioned: first, a body structured for standing upright and walking
on two legs (bipedalism), thus leaving the arms free for functions
other than locomotion; second, a complex brain that provides the
abilities for abstract thought, symbolic communication, and the
development of culture as a way of life. The term "human," then, is
not synonymous with hominid. Early hominids (Australopithecines)
possessed only one of these criteria-bipedal locomotion. Although H.
erectus is included, anthropologists usually reserve the human
designation for Homo sapiens. With this dual emphasis on biology and
culture, our definition once again underlines the biocultural view of
human evolution." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R., "Introduction To Physical
Anthropology", West Publishing Company: St. Paul, Fifth Edition,
1991, p13)
GM>If that is true, this implies a change in human morphology from
>that time until now. A change of morphology IS evolutionary change.
More word-play! :-) Glenn seeks to win the debate by taking over the
terminology. If indeed, "[a] change of morphology IS evolutionary
change", then of course all debate is at an end. Evolution has won
and Creation has, by definition lost. But this is only *If* "[a]
change of morphology IS evolutionary change". But equallty, "[a]
"change of morphology" could also be the result of Progressive
Creation.
GM>At the very least these facts require that Neanderthal and
>Archaic Homo sapiens were spiritual beings.
That "Neanderthal and Archaic Homo sapiens" made and blew bone
whistles hardly makes them "spiritual beings" in the fullest sense of
the word. My Pre-Adamite model would concede to them an emerging
image of God, like a parly-finished sculture increasly resembles the
final finished product. But Genesis 2 Adamn was the final finished
product and the true image of God (Gn 5:1).
GM>But Neanderthals first appear on earth 230,000 years ago and
>archaic homo sapiens appear around 500,000 years ago. Even Ramm was
>unwillinamites existed. This is demonstrated by the fact that G. H.
Pember wrote his "Earth's Earliest Ages" well before fossil remains
of palaeolithic man had been found or acknowledged. He thought that
Scripture indicated that there were races of men before our own. His
conclusion was drawn from remarks made by the prophet Ezekiel, and
from other passages of scripture. "Why," he wrote, "if a pre-adamic
race really existed upon earth do we not find some indications of it
among the fossil remains? Certainly no human bones have been as yet
detected in primeval rocks; though if any should be hereinafter
discovered, we need find no contradiction to Scripture in the fact."
(G. H. Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages", Hodder & Stoughton, 1876,
p73, in Pearce E.K.V., "Who Was Adam?", Paternoster: Exeter, 1969,
p36)
GM>For the old earth people there is the problem of the place of
>Adam in the human race. Many of these views hold to a recent
>creation of Adam, in the Upper Paleolithic. The problem is that at
>the same time the Neanderthals were making whistles in Prolom II,
>anatomically modern men were just leaving Africa.
Why is this a "problem"? Making "whistles" is hardly an essential
ingredient in the Imago Dei! :-)
GM>Were there two Adams? A Neanderthal Adam and a anatomically
>modern Adam? The Bible would support only one, meaning that the one
>Adam must be considerably prior to this time.
Glenn is correct that "[t]he Bible would support only one" Adam. But
why must it be a choice between "two Adams" and one
"Adam...considerably prior to this time"? The Pre-Adamite model
would regard these human-like beings as being before Adam and ic
"Nothing requires that the creature into which God breathed human
life should not have been of a species prepared in every way for
humanity, with already a long history of practical intelligence,
artistic sensibility and the capacity for awe and reflection. On
this view, Adam, the first true man, will have had as contemporaries
many creatures of comparable intelligence, widely distributed over
the world...There may be a biblical hint of such a situation in the
surprising impression of an already populous earth given by the words
and deeds of Cain in 4:14,17) (Kidner D., "Genesis: An Introduction
and Commentary", 1967 Tyndale Press, London, pp29-30)
GM>For the young earth creationist the response to these issues is
>equally bad. Morris says that all fossil men are descendants of
>Adam and that they lived after the Great Flood,(26), and yet,
>without these fossil men, he is left with no evidence of a single
>fossil man that he can point to and say that is a victim of the
>Great Flood.
Good point!
GM>But all of this does not take into account the evidence that Homo
>erectus was a carpenter, a manufacturer of water receptacles, a builder
>of pavement and huts, a maker of clothing (which is characteristic of
>fallen man)
This is another fallacy. Just because Adam and Eve were "naked" (Gn
2:25) and then after the Fall wore clothes (Gn 3:7,21), does mean
that if Adam and Eve had not fallen, that they or their descendants
would not have worn clothes as they spread out into cooler parts of
the world.
GM>and a user of ochre for body painting. Some of this evidence
>goes back as far as 1.7 million years ago. These activities are
>quite like the activities of any modern primitive group. Any
>apologetical view which holds to an old earth and a recent creation
>of Adam, ignores the clear evidence for spirituality among men who
>are morphologically archaic.
Glenn first defines "spirituality" as blowing whistles and body
painting and then claims that "morphologically archaic" hominids were
spiritual (in the fullest sense of the word).
GM>In light of the antiquity of music, one of the questions
>Christians should be asking concerns what musical instruments were they
>making out of wood? Wooden objects from times of that antiquity are
>extremely rare. Wood, skin and vegetable matter decay very rapidly
>leaving no trace in the fossil record. If Neanderthal was capable of
>making carved bone flutes, then he was certainly capable of carving
>wooden musical instruments which have not survived.
Only if Glenn has positive evidence that "Neanderthal" Man *was*
making "musical instruments...out of wood" can he claim that they
"have not survived". But personally it would not overly concern me
if 'Neanderthal was capable of making...wooden musical instruments".
It would be more evidence of an emerging imago dei.
Of course, Glenn's theory holds that Homo habilis/erectus built a
3-decker Ark (and presumably a "the harp and flute" -- Gn 4:21) *5
million years before* so it is hard to see why his descendants only
managed to build comparatively simple "musical instruments".
GM>Unless we are willing to believe that the whisles and flutes
>found in 90,000 years old strata are the first instruments, the
>conclusion is inescapable, that earlier flutes remain to be found.
I thought Glenn had already claimed that "Neanderthals...were
composing music and making musical instruments 90-100,000 years
ago"? and "Prolom II is a Neanderthal site" which "was
probably the whistle capital of the ancient world" which "is
90-100,000 years old"?
GM>But since it is easier to make a flute from bamboo or other
>perishable material, it is quite likely that the first flutes were
>probably accidentally discovered by blowing through a hollow reed or
>bamboo in which a slit existed. This technology was probably
>transferred to bone much later.
No doubt. It only shows how simple it is and how little brain-power
(or spitituality) was required. It is therefore not a good
diagnostic of full humanity.
GM>The evidence for modern human behavior seems clear. We have three
>choices: We can either ignore the evidence; we can conclude that the
>Bible is wrong; or we can develop a new apologetic which incorporates
>these facts.
Agreed.
GM>What I have been suggesting (that the creation of man was
>several million years ago) is within the framework that Ramm says is an
>acceptable harmonization. Ramm writes:
>
>"The Bible itself offers no dates for the creation of man. We
>mean by this that there is no such statement in the text of the Bible at
>any place. We may feel that 4000 B.C. or 15,000 B.C. is more consonant
>with the Bible than a date of 500,000 B.C. But we must admit that any
>date of the antiquity of man is an inference from Scripture, not a plain
>declaration of Scripture.
>
>"If the anthropologists are generally correct in their dating of
>man (and we believe they are), and if the Bible contains no specific
>data as to the origin of man, we are then free to try to work out a
>theory of the relationship between the two, respecting both the
>inspiration of Scripture and the facts of science."(27)
This is a misinterpretation of what Ramm means. Nowhere does he say
that "several million years ago" is "an acceptable harmonization."
Ramm clearly gave the upper limit of "500,000 B.C" Just before
Glenn's quote of Ramm, the latter stated that a constraint was the
amount of time one could fit between the Biblical genealogies:
"It was William Henry Green of Princeton Theological Seminary who
demonstrated for certainty to Biblical scholars that the genealogies
of Genesis were not strict father-son relationships. He has been
followed by such men as Orr, Warfield, and Allis. HOW MUCH TIME WE
CAN WEDGE INTO THE GENEALOGIES IS ANOTHER MATTER. But it is now
conceded that we cannot determine the precise age of man from the
genealogies of Genesis. (Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and
Scripture", Paternoster: London, 1955, pp219-220).
Ramm (and I) see a limitation on the antiquity of Adam as imposed by
the constraints of preserving oral and written family history
traditions (Gn 2:4; 5:1; 6:9 ) for hundreds of millennia, as well as
the indication of the spread of civilisation soon after the Flood
(Gn 10). Later on he says "it is problematic to interpret Adam as
having been created at 200,000 B.C", let alone Glenn's 5.5 million
years:
"The chief problem with an origin of man at 500,000 B.C. is the
connexion of Gen. 3 with Gen. 4. We might stretch the tables of
ancestors a few thousand years, but can we stretch them 500,000
years? In the fourth and fifth chapters of Genesis we have lists of
names, ages of people, towns, agriculture, metallurgy, and music-
This implies the ability to write, to count, to build, to farm, to
smelt, and to compose. Further, this is done by the immediate
descendants of Adam. Civilization does not reveal any evidence of
its existence till about 8000 B.C. or, to some, 16,000 B.C. We can
hardly push it back to 500,000 B.C. It is problematic to interpret
Adam as having been created at 200,000 B.C. or earlier, with
civilization not coming into existence till say 8000 B.C." (Ramm B.
"The Christian View of Science and Scripture", Paternoster: London,
1955, p228).
We can be absolutely certain, that if he were alive today, Bernard
Ramm would reject Glenn's "harmonization".
GM>References
>
>1. Bruno Netti, "Music" 1994 Microsoft Encarta.
>2. Ibid.
>3. "Music, Western" Encyclopedia Britannica, 1982, Vol. 12, p 704
>4. "Music, East Asian", Encyclopedia Britannica, 1982, Vol. 12, p 671
>5. Alexander Marshack, The Roots of Civilization, (New York: McGraw-
>Hill, 1972), p. 147.
>6. J.M. Coles and E. S. Higgs, The Archaeology of Early Man, (New York:
>Frederick A. Praeger, 1969), p. 226-227
>7. J.V.S. Megaw, "Penny Whistles and Prehistory," Antiquity XXXIV, 1960,
>pp 6-13, p. 6-7
>8. Ibid., p. 7-8
>9. J.M. Coles and E. S. Higgs, The Archaeology of Early Man, (New York:
>Frederick A. Praeger, 1969), p. 290
>10. E. Passemard, 1944, "La Caverne d'Isturitz en Pays Basque,"
>Prehisoire 9:1-84, p. 24.
>11. J.M. Coles and E. S. Higgs, The Archaeology of Early Man, (New York:
>Frederick A. Praeger, 1969), p. 298
>12. Ibid.
>13. Goran Burenhult, editor,American Museum of Natural History The First
>Humans, (San Francisco: Harper,1993), p. 103 and Richard Leakey and
>Roger Lewin, Origins Reconsidered, (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 322
>14. Bruce Bower, "When the Human Spirit Soared," Science News, 130, Dec.
>13, 1986, p. 378
>15. Hugh Ross, Creation and Time, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993), p.
>141
>16. Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, (Grand
>Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), p. 228
>17. Ian Tattersall, The Fossil Trail (New York: Oxford University Press,
>1995), p.225
>18. David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent, "Independent" Sunday 2/25/96,
>p. 15 Manchester England.
>19. Paul Mellars, The Neanderthal Legacy, (Princeton: University Press,
>1996), p. 373
>20. Ibid. p. 404
>21. Hugh Ross, "Art and Fabric Shed New Light on Human History," Facts &
>Faith, 9:3 (1995)p. 2
>22. C.B.M. McBurney, Haua Fteah (Cyrenaica),(Cambridge: Cambridge
>University Press, 1967), p. 90
>23. Glynn Isaac, in Barbara Isaac, editor, The Archaeology of Human
>Origins, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 71
>24. Vadim N. Stpanchuk, "Prolom II, A Middle Palaeolithic Cave Site in
>the Eastern Crimea with Non-Utilitarian Bone Artefacts," Proceedings of
>the Prehistoric Society 59, 1993, pp 17-37, p. 33-34.
>25. Ramm, op. cit., p. 228
>26. Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, (Minneapolis:
>Dimension, 1972), p. 46-47
>27. Ramm, op. cit, p. 220.
While I give Glenn credit for endeavouring to harmonise the Genesis
account with modern science, his theory of a 5.5 million year old
Homo habilis/erectus Adam, fails to come to grips with the Biblical
picture in Genesis 4-10 of a rapidly developing civilisation in
Mesopotamia. This is what Erickson calls "The Problem of the
Neolithic Elements in Genesis 4":
"If we accept the view that it is language which distinguishes man
from other creatures and hence the first man appeared about 30,000
years ago, an additional problem, to which we have already alluded,
still remains: the problem of the Neolithic elements in Genesis 4.
If Adam was created 30,000 years ago, if Cain and Abel were his
immediate descendants, if we find genuinely Neolithic practices
(e.g., agriculture) in Genesis 4, and if the Neolithic period began
about 10,000 to 8,000 years ago, then we have the problem of a gap of
at least 20,000 years between generations, the ultimate in generation
gaps." (Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", Baker: Grand Rapids
Mi, 1985, p486)
Erickson gives Pre-Adamite theories as two of several suggested
solutions which have been offered (although he perosnally finds them
not completely satisfactory):
"1. The pre-Adamite theory says that Adam was the first human in the
full biblical sense, but was not the first human in the
anthropological sense. There were genuine representatives of Homo
sapiens before him. (E. K. Victor Pearce, Who Was Adam? (Exeter,
England: Paternoster, 1970)
and
3. In the creation account (e.g., Gen. 1:26; 2:7) the Hebrew word
ADM ('adam), which is often used symbolically of the entire human
race, refers to the first man, who is anonymous. In other passages
(e.g., Gen. 4:1; 5:3) it is a proper noun pointing to a specific
individual who came later." (James O. Buswell III, "Adam and
Neolithic Man, Eternity 18, no. 2 (February 1967): 39)
(Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", Baker: Grand Rapids Mi, 1985,
pp486-487).
Unlike Erickson, I find the above two theories quite "satisfactory"
as part of an overall Pre-Adamite model.
But Glenn's extreme "Old-Adam" theory, doesn't address this
"Neolithic Elements in Genesis 4" problem at all - he just consigns
Genesis 4 to prehistoric oblivion and apparently postulates a *5
million-year gap* between *two verses* - the end of the account of
Noah (Gn 9:29) and the beginning of the account of post-Flood
city-building on the plain of Babylon (Gn 10:1ff).
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------