On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:19:13, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>I can't possibly reply to all your long post but I will choose a
>couple of items. I will respond where I think you made factual
>errors. Unfortunately, I found most of your comments to be of a
>non-factual nature merely designed to try to disagree with anything
>I said.
Glenn seems to be setting himself up as the standard of what is
"factual" and therefore anyone who disagrees with or questions what
he posts is automatically making "comments...of a non-factual
nature"! On this basis anyone who does not accept as "factual" that
Adam was a Homo habilis who lived 5.5 million years ago, is
automatically relegated to the realm of the "non-factual".
Actually I agree with Glenn on a lot of things, but the Reflector
exists mainly to debate the things we don't agree on. I try to
follow the Biblical injunction to "Test everything. Hold on to the
good" (1Th 5:21). I am a natural-born sceptic - my favourite apostle
is doubting Thomas! :-) I appreciate the wealth of information that
Glenn shares with us, but he also makes a lot of assertions and
criticisms of others, and therefore he should not expect to go
unchallenged.
GM>You wrote:
SJ>Firstly, "the bone flute" and "bone whistles" are one and the
>same.
GM>No they are not. The whistles are made from reindeer phanges, the
>flutes are made from leg bones of bird and bear. The phalange
>whistles have one hole drilled through a solid bone. The flutes
>have a hole drilled through one side of a HOLLOW bone. The whistle
>makes a single pitched sound. The multi-holed flutes make many
>notes. Some unbroken ones have been found and played.
I would appreciate more details about this. I seem to remember Glenn
being questioned by a musician on the Reflector, and from memory
Glenn could not confirm that these so-called "flutes" could be
played. How many holes do they have and what sort of tune can they
play? If it is no more than a two-tone whistle, then it may simply be
a bird decoy used for hunting and not art.
GM>[big snip]
SJ>These more recent finds, well within the "young-Adam" range, sound
>more like true musical instruments, as opposed to the earlier
>whistles.
GM>The earliest musical instrument is a multi-hole flute from Haua
>Fteah Lybia dating from 80-100 thousand years ago IT IS NOT A
>WHISTLE.
Glenn's actual quote says it is "multiple pitch whistle":
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 20 Oct 1996 16:34:34, Glenn Morton wrote:
Music of the Ages
The oldest flute I have been able to find is a from Haua Fteah in
Libya. It is had at least two perforations and thus was much more
complex than the first flute I mentioned above, the Le Placard Eagle
bone flute. 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,
[...]
>22. C.B.M. McBurney, Haua Fteah (Cyrenaica),(Cambridge: Cambridge
>University Press, 1967), p. 90
-----------------------------------------------------------
>GM>Of the Isturitz find, the original report, written in French,
>describes it thusly,
>[...]
>GM>"At last, I uncovered in 1921 a piece which is without doubt,
>unique, a big bird bone, unfortunately broken at the ends, but
>because still carried three holes, like that of some sort of flute.
>It is without doubt the most ancient musical instrument found."
>[trans. by David Morton]
SJ>Unless it could be played, it could have been something else.
>Holes in a piece of broken bone could mean anything. For example, it
>could have been an ornament with holes to thread cord through.
GM>Anything to avoid having to agree that the anthropological experts
>might know what they are talking about when they identify these as
>flutes, eh Steve?
No. I will agree with Glenn and these "anthropological experts" if
and when you prove your point! :-) I have no vested interest here -
my Pre-Adamite model would have no trouble admitting that early man
had an emerging musical ability, if it was demonstrated. Hugh Ross
might have a problem with it, but I wouldn't.
GM>But you forget something here. The Isturitz flute broken as it
>is, was found with modern man with whome unbroken flutes are also
>found. So, if a flute is broken we can't recognize it as a flute as
>we would be totally unable to recognize a broken saxophone if we
>found one of those in an attic.
If it was found with "unbroken flutes", why be concerned about a
"broken flute"? If they were from vastly different eras, then being
found together in the same locality may not mean anything as far as
each objects' respective use. For example, a unbroken hollow bone
with holes that plays a tune found in a cave from 50kya, may be a
musical instrument (it still could be a hunting decoy). But a broken
hollow bone with holes in it that cannot play a tune from 100kya,
even if found in the same cave, might be simply an ornament or a
whistle. A test would be to make a replica from the same design and
see if it plays.
GM>[snip]
>GM>NEANDERTHAL MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
>
>Up to this point all musical instruments have been younger than
>30,000 years B.P. I wanted to establish above what instruments
>have been preserved which were made by modern man between 15,000
>and 30,000 years ago. There are two kinds of instruments, phalange
>whistles and flutes. Amazingly, these same instruments are found
>at Neanderthal sites but in spite of this, statements continue to
>be made that the oldest flute is 30,000 years old made by modern
>man. These statments are simply not true.
SJ>Glenn doesn't know that. Caves can be used by many occupants. It
>is possible that H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis occupied the
>same cave at different times "between 15,000 and 30,000 years". It
>is possible that *all* these "musical instruments" were made and
>used by H. sapiens and not by H. neanderthalensis.
GM>Stephen, this shows how little you know about anthropology.
This from the man who claims that Homo habilis existed 5.5 mya and
built a 3-decker Ark! :-)
GM>The youngest neanderthal is dated around 28,000 years ago from
>Spain. If you have evidence of a later Neanderthal you can become
>famous.
Well, "28,000 years ago" fits within the range "between 15,000 and
30,000 years" by my calculations! :-)
GM>The earliest actual skeletal remains of modern man in Europe comes
>from 30,000 years ago. Prior to that the Aurignacian stone industry
>is believed to be made by modern man, but no actual fossils have
>been found. Some anthropologists have begun to wonder if
>Neanderthal made the earliest Aurignacian tools.
I would have no problem if "Neanderthal made the earliest Aurignacian
tools", but "Some anthropologists have begun to wonder" is not a good
reason for believing it.
>GM>Examples of these kinds of statements are,
>
>Bowers:"Music assumed an important role; the first known instrument, a
>bone flute found in France, dates to around 30,000 years ago."(14)
SJ>It all depends on what one means by "known instrument". Some of
>the earlier, claimed "instruments" may have been decorations.
>Unless they can be demonstrated to be capable of generating music,
>they cannot be claimed to be "known instruments". And a bird decoy
>whistle is not a musical instrument, at least in the sense that
>Glenn is using the term.
GM>Stephen, how many times must I point out that the Haua Fteah flute
>is not a whistle but is capable of making many notes?
Firstly, the "how many times" gives the impression that Glenn has
posted this information many times over a long period. In fact, the
first time Glenn posted it was on 20 Oct 1996.
Secondly, Glenn's post of that date said it was "a fragment of a
vertical 'flute' or multiple pitch whistle". The word "flute" was in
quotations but "whistle" was not. It is Glenn who needs to re-read
his own quotes! :-)
>[snip]
SJ>As stated previously, while I agree with Ross' "young-Adam" basic
>thrust, I see no need to claim that "these hominids..were not
>humans". They were not *fully human*, but I daresay it H.
>erectus and H. neanderthalensis were alive today, they would be
>recognised as human, albeit not fully human.
GM>This is precisely how Europeans justified the slave trade.
I don't understand Glenn's point here. The "Europeans" were claiming
that some members of *H. sapiens* were "not fully human". The
question here is if "H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis" were "fully
human." But even if "H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis were alive
today", and were "not fully human" that does not mean that we would
be "justified" in using them in "the slave trade."
SJ>It is worth noting that Glenn believes is an "Old Adam", ie. that
>Adam was a Homo habilis/erectus dating back 5.5 *million years*.
>There is of course no evidence of *civilisation* existing that far
>back. All the evidence points to an emerging language, art, cuture,
>and technology, which had its full flowering betwenn 50-100 thousand
>years ago.
GM>I notice that the date you cite is getting older. You used to
>never allow anything earlier than 50,000 years.
This is a diversion in the grand tradition of straining at a gnat but
swallowing a camel (Mt 23:24)! :-) This helps Glenn skip over the
real issue that he believes "that Adam was a Homo habilis/erectus
dating back 5.5 *million years*" and that "there is...no evidence of
*civilisation* existing that far back".
Actually, my range above is wrong. The "full flowering" of
"civilisation...language, art, cuture, and technology I would
at present "allow" at no "earlier than 50,000 years".
GM>We are making progress. Consider the village made by H. erectus
>found at Bilzingsleben Germany. It had pavement!
Glenn seems so surpised and excited by this that he gives it an
exclamation mark. But on his Homo habilis Adam/Noah view, this
same "H. erectus" or his ancestor H. habilis, built a 3-decker Ark
5.2 million years before! Now that really *would* be something to be
excited about! :-)
Glenn appears to be referring to his post of 13 Oct 1996 where he
quotes an article about "an open occupation site" dated about "300
000 to 350 000 years BP" which "in the centre" had "a roughly
circular floor" consisting of "a pavement of small pebbles and bone
debris". I can only say, big deal! :-) Laying down "small pebbles
and bone debris" does not seem all that hi-tech, and I doubt if
anyone except Glenn thinks it evidence of a "full flowering"!
GM>Let me point out that emerging can still be applied to us. Our
>technology is still emerging. Thus maybe the Romans were not fully
>human because they didn't have all the technology we do. What the
>anthropological record shows is nothing more than a development of
>technology.
Another red-herring! :-) The Romans were *H. sapiens* and therefore
by definition they were "fully human".
I doubt if any anthropologist would agree with Glenn that "the
anthropological record shows is nothing more than a development of
technology." The "anthropological record" reveals the development of
man's body (including his brain), and the "archaeological record"
reveals the "development of" man's mind, of which "technology" is one
indicator.
>GM>(So what are Christians to think when they find out that
>Neanderthals 80,000 years ago were composing music and making
>musical instruments 90-100,000 years ago?)
SJ>The is no conclusive evidence that "Neanderthals 80,000 years ago
>were composing music", let alone that they were "making musical
>instruments".
GM>Yes there is, it is in the form of a flute made from a bird bone.
Even if they were "composing music", how does this help Glenn's view?
According to him Jubal was playing "the harp and flute" (Gn 4:21) 5
million years before this.
But the most that can be said of this bone fragment is that it was a
"multiple pitch whistle". There is no evidence that those using it
actually were "composing music".
GM>[snip]
>GM>David Keys writes,
>
>"Deep inside a cave in Slovenia, in the north of former Yugoslavia,
>archaeologists have unearthed the world's oldest true musical
>instrument - a flute which appears to have been made by
>Neanderthals around 45,000 years ago."(18)
SJ>Note: "*appears* to have been made by Neanderthals! It could
>equally have been made by H. sapiens. The acid test would be if a
>"musical instrument" was found *before* H. sapiens appeared on the
>scene.
GM>The flute was found before H. sapiens is found in Europe.
As Glenn has pointed out, "The earliest actual skeletal remains of
modern man in Europe comes from 30,000 years ago. Prior to that the
Aurignacian stone industry is believed to be made by modern man, but
no actual fossils have been found. But in any event, when it suits
Glenn, he is a great one for claiming that the earliest fossil found
is not necessarily the first appearance on earth of that fossil.
GM>The Berekhat Ram Venus figurine was made prior to the advent of
modern man on earth.
That is assuming it *was* a "figurine". Renfrew calls it a `figurine'
(with quotes). Marshack himself seems to have shifted his attention
to a much later "incised composition from the site of Quneitra,
Israel" (Marshack A., "On the `Geological' Explanation of the
Berekhat Ram Figurine," Current Anthropology, 36:3, June, 1995, p495)
Indeed, Marshack seems to have given up on the idea that Neandertals
could have made it, because he says of the above 54 kya "incised
composition" that:
"...it's most likely the artist was a more modern human since known
Neanderthal artifacts to date, aside from tools, have been limited to
things like beads and worked ivory." ("Early Etchings", Discover,
Vol. 17, No. 7, July 1996, p26)
GM>The earliest subterranean mining occurred prior to the advent of
>modern man on earth. The first wooden planck made by man occurred
>prior to the advent of modern man on earth.
Yes. All of which mines a big hole in Glenn's H. habilis Adam
theory, which maintains that a 3-decker Ark was built *five million
years* "prior to the advent of modern man on earth"! :-)
GM>[snip]
>GM>The oldest flute I have been able to find is a from Haua Fteah in
>Libya. It is had at least two perforations and thus was much more
>complex than the first flute I mentioned above, the Le Placard Eagle
>bone flute.
SJ>A whole *two* "perforations" makes it "much more complex"? :-) My
>daughter's flute has *sixteen* "perforations" - now that *is*
>"complex"!
GM>It is merely an extension of what the Neanderthal, not modern man,
>invented!
Firstly, as Glenn's own quote states, this was a "multiple pitch
whistle" - the word `flute' was in quotation marks.
Secondly, tis is like saying that the space-station in "2001-A Space
Odyssey" was "merely an extension of" the bone that the ape-man
picked up! It may indeed be, but there are a lot of steps and
brainpower needed before that "mere...extension" becomes a reality.
The Neandertals may have invented bone whistles, but they did not
really take them far:
"Once modern humans became established there was a veritable
explosion of innovation. Painting, engraving, and tool manufacture
changed so quickly that archaeologists divide the periods from
thirty- five thousand years ago to ten thousand years ago into six
separate cultural periods, each with its own style of technology and
innovations. David Wilcox points out that by contrast the Neandertal
populations displayed cultural stasis like Homo erectus. The
Mousterian tool culture that they developed appeared around one
hundred thousand years ago and remained basically uniform across
Europe for sixty-five thousand years. The modern humans that
apparently replaced the Neandertals were, in less than half their
tenure, walking on the moon!" (Templeton J.M. & Herrmann R.L., "Is
God the Only Reality?: Science Points to a Deeper Meaning of the
Universe", Continuum: New York, 1994, p135)
GM>But your statement above is incredible when compared to what you
>say in your next post.
SJ>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>I beg to differ. You obviously are aware that I produced evidence
>of a flute from 80-100 thousand years ago and now you want to ignore
>it.
No. I don't "ignore it". Glenn produced evidence of a "multiple
pitch whistle", not a "flute" - the word "flute" was in quotation
marks in Glenn's own quote. I take it on board that Neandertals may
have been using whistles for hunting (or even for music) "80-100
thousand years ago".
GM>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.
SJ>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:
GM>There is none so blind as those who will not see.
Especially those "who will not see" what their own quotes say! :-)
GM>[snip]
>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)
SJ>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>So you would suggest that maybe H. erectus was unfallen man?
>Interesting thought.
Since I believe that "H. erectus" was not even "man" in the Biblical
(ie. in the completed image of God), and lived before the
Temptation and Fall recorded in Genesis 3, the category "unfallen"
does not apply to him.
GM>I know of no animal, fallen or unfallen, that tans hides.
Glenn's argument here plays on shifting definitions of words. If
"animal" is given its *biological* meaning as including H. sapiens,
then it is clear that any modern tanner is an "animal...that tans
hides"! Glenn clearly invests the word "animal" with a specific
meaning, namely *non-human* "animal". But I have already
acknowledged that all members of the genus Homo are in a sense
"human", albeit not fully human, so I have no problem if H. erectus
tanned hides and wore clothing.
GM>[snip]
SJ>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>Stephen you are using the word whistle over and over without
>acknowledging that a wind instrument with many holes is a flute.
>You are not fairly characterizing the evidence that is there.
First, note that Glenn adroitly skips over the *substantive* issue of
what "spirituality" is.
Secondly, I am only using the word "whistle" becuase that is really
what they were, as his own quote above makes clear.
GM>[snip]
>of flute making
GM>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>Neither is rocket building diagnostic of full humanity. Under
>your use of this term, nothing at all would be evidence for
>humanity, not even farming.
As Glenn well knows, I have many times quoted an anthropological
definition of "human" that I broadly agree with:
"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>[snip]
SJ>We can be absolutely certain, that if he were alive today, Bernard
>Ramm would reject Glenn's "harmonization".
GM>I am glad you can speak with such authority for him. You two must
>have been good friends.
Glenn must have been "good friends" with Ramm too, because he somehow
knows that Ramm would regard Glenn's view that the "creation of man
was several million years ago" was "within the framework" of "an
acceptable harmonization", depite Ramm's explicit statements in the
same book that he regarded "500,000 B.C" as an upper limit and
even "200,000 B.C." as "problematic." (Ramm, 1955, p228).
Glenn just ignores my quotes about what Erickson calls "The Problem
of the Neolithic Elements in Genesis 4": (Erickson, 1985, p486) and
my offering of the Pre-Adamite model as a possible solution. In
particular, Glenn simply ignores the 5 million year gap Homo habilis
Adam theory. I repeat:
"...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)."
Somewhere in Glenn's theory there has to be a gap of 5 million years.
Since the whole point of his theory is to harmonise geology with the
Noahic Flood, Glenn presumably must regard Genesis 1-9 as being 5.5
mya. But the problem is that from the death of Noah in Gn 9:28, we
have what looks like a comparatively modern world with Noah's
descendants building cities in an around Babylon (Gn 10), then
building a tower at Babel, and then being dispersed (Gn 11). At the
very end of Gn 11 we have the beginning of "modern" history, namely
the birth of Abram (Gn 11:27). Where does the 5 myr gap occur?
Glenn's "overwhelming silence" here is deafening! :-)
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------