>On Sat, 30 Nov 1996 17:46:30, Glenn Morton wrote:
>
>GM>I just listened to Hugh Ross' program tonight, Reasons to Believe.
>>He said a lot of things about anthropology with are totally
>>incorrect. He said that the creation of man must have been within
>>the last 60,000 years.
>
>I do not necessarily agree with everything Hugh Ross writes, but I
>feel I must once again defend him from another one of Glenn's
>attacks. At the outset I want to reiterate what I have said many
>times before, that I give credit to Glenn for taking the Biblical
>account of the Flood as historical and attempting to find a
>concordance between it an geology. But....
>
>Firstly, we should all keep in mind that Glenn believes that Adam was
>a Homo habilis/erectus who lived 5.5 million years ago, which is
>definitely "about anthropology...totally incorrect." In picking
>fault with Hugh Ross, for being allegedly "about anthropology...
>totally incorrect" Glenn could ponder Mt 7:3: "Why do you look at
>the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to
>the plank in your own eye?" :-)
>
Thanks for the advice.
>Secondly Ross is not as rigid on the "60,000 years" as Glenn makes
>out. In his recent Facts & Faith, Ross said it could be "even
>earlier":
>
this is the first time ross has ever said that.
>Now Ross may be wrong, but he is basing his view on scientific
>evidence, which Glenn no doubt knows about, but fails to mention.
>
You know what I think about this implicit charge that I am being dishonest.
You owe me an apology if you can not prove this sentence.
>>GM>2. There is no evidence for language prior to 40,000 years ago.
>>
>>Fact: The first evidence for the brain structures which are
>>involved in speech are dated to 2.0 million years and come from the
>>1470 skull.
>
>This does not mean that Homo erectus had "language" (in any full
>sense of the word):
>GM>Because of this Falk can write:
>>
>>"Although those of us who study hominid brain evolution
>>('paleoneurologists') are notorious for our disagreements, we do
>>seem to agree that early hominids may have been capable of language.
>>What accounts for this unusual agreement is the strength and
>>convergence of biological/comparative evidence that favors an early
>>origin for language."~Dean Falk, "Comments", Current Anthropology
>>30:2, April 1989, p. 141
>
>Glenn neglects to mention what I have pointed out before, namely that
>Falk's is a minority view among anthropologists:
>
>"Although the view that language was a relatively rapid development
>coincident with the emergence of modern humans is widely supported,
>it does not completely dominate anthropological thinking. Dean Falk,
>whose studies of the evolution of the human brain I referred to in
>chapter 3, defends the proposition that language developed early:"
>(Leakey R., "The Origin of Humankind", Phoenix: London, 1994, p126)
And richard Leakey must be in this minority also: You cited him not me:
>"All the discussion of hominid evolution so far in this book points
>to a major change in hominid adaptation when the genus Homo appeared.
>I suspect, therefore, that only with the evolution of Homo habilis
>did some form of spoken language begin. Like Bickerton, I suspect
>that this was a protolanguage of sorts, simple in content and
>structure, but a means of communication beyond that of apes and of
>australopithecines." (Leakey R., "The Origin of Humankind", Phoenix:
>London, 1994, p129)
And even the critic says there was some language which I cited below:
>>GM>3. He said that Neanderthal had no capacity for speech.
>>
>>GM>One of the most vocal critics of Neanderthal speech capabilities
>>wrote:
>>
>>"This is not to say that classic Neanderthals lacked speech
>>capabilities and language. As I have pointed out in every
>>publication on this topic, the classic Neanderthal supralaryngeal
>>vocal tract would have allowed speech; the archaeological evidence
>>of Neanderthal culture, moreover, is consistent with their having
>>some form of language, and the new data reported by Bar-Yosef and
>>his colleagues reinforce these conclusions."~Philip Lieberman, "On
>>the Kebara KMH 2 Hyoid and Neanderthal Speech," Current
>>Anthropology, 34:2(April 1993): 172-175, p. 174
>
>Yes, "some form of language", but not necessarily a complex language
>like modern Homo sapiens:
>
So? As I have mentioned many times, my wife's retarded uncle speaks a
simplifed language but he is spiritual.
>>4. He said that anatomically modern humans are not found on any
>>continent until 25-30,000 years ago.
>>
>>Fact:
>>
>>"Border Cave has provided an infant's skeleton, an adult skull, two
>>partial adult mandibles, and some postcranial bones whose
>>assignement to Homo sapiens sapiens is undisputed. The deposits
>>containing the fossils are clearly older than the 50,000-40,000-
>>years-ago range of conventional radiocarbon dating and contain
>>artifacts resembling those which are thought to date from the Last
>>Interglaciation at Klasies River Mouth, that is, sometime between
>>130,000 and 74,000 years ago. "~Richard G. Klein, The Human Career,
>>(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989), p. 353
>
>If Hugh Ross really said "anatomically modern humans", then he is
>wrong. But the problem is that what Ross means by "human" is
>different from what an anthropologist would mean by it:
>
>"Bipedal tool-using, large-brained primates (called hominids by
>anthropologists) may have roamed the earth as long ago as one
>million years...Some differences, however, between the Bible and
>secular anthropology remain. By the biblical definition, these
>hominids may have been intelligent mammals, but they were not humans.
>Nor did Adam and Eve physically descend from them." (Ross H.,
>"Creation and Time", NavPress: Colorado Springs CO, 1994, p141)
>
>GM>This makes me want to cry because he is so influential and so
>>wrong.
>
>This "so wrong" is from the person who claims that Adam was a Homo
>habilus/erectus who lived 5.5 mya! :-)
Your use of a smiley is wrong. This is not a joke coming from you. You do
this far too often.
>
>Ross' ministry is blessed by God, so it must be right in what
>matters most. Glenn really should acknowledge this. Even if Ross
>is "wrong" in his downplaying of the emergent humanity of the genus
>Homo, this is a comparatively minor detail.
ICR claims that they are Blessed by God and so it must be right in what
matters most. They are actually more influential than Ross. and you should
acknowledge that!
But more importantly, it is not ethically correct to do wrong in the pursuit
of right.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm