On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 22:56:05 -0500, Glenn Morton wrote:
SJ>The only people who claim that all hominids that are in the genus
>Homo are fully human are yourself and YECs:
GM>So is this supposed to make me blush???? Should I hang my
>head in shame that I and the YECs agree on something???? Such ad
>hominems are useless. I have no shame and when the YECs are
>correct, I will support them in their correctness. I care too much for
>truth to worry about what company that places me in.
What "ad hominems"? I simply pointed out the similarity of your
*position* with that of "YECs". If you "care too much for truth" you
would not claim that my criticism of your *position* is a criticism
of your *person*. Indeed, you evidently accept that what I said was
the "truth", so why all the bluster?
SJ>Thanks to Glenn for these quotes, which, as all his quotes on
>this topic do, document the emerging quality of full humanity!
GM>So you are a materialistic evolutionist who believes that the soul
>has evolved. I suspected as much.
Interesting. Apart from claiming that I said something that I never
said (ie. that "the soul has evolved"), you claim that I am guilty of
"ad hominems" when I compare your position with a group of fellow
Christians, ie. "YECs". You even accept that this is true. Then you
turn around and and make a *real* "ad hominem" by saying that I *am*
"a materialistic evolutionist"!
BTW, it is a respectable theological position, called Traducianism
(which I don't necessarily hold), to maintain that the soul is
transmitted by physical descent:
"According to Traducianism the souls of men are propagated along
with the bodies by generation, and are therefore transmitted to the
children by the parents. In the early Church Tertullian, Rufinus,
Apollinarus, and Gregory of Nyssa were Traducianists. From the days
of Luther Traducianism has been the prevailing view of the Lutheran
Church Among the Reformed it is favored by H. B. Smith and Shedd.
A. H. Strong also prefers it." (Berkhof L., "Systematic Theology",
1958, p197)
>SJ>Current thinking is that Homo sapiens was infiltrating into
>Western Europe at least 50,000 years ago:
>
>"...modern humans appeared in Western Europe 35,000 years ago and
>their modern behavior is immediately part of the archeological
>record. Or so it was assumed. Recently, this view has changed.
>western Europe is now recognized as something of a backwater, and we
>can discern a transformation sweeping across Europe, from east to
>west. Beginning about 50,000 years ago, in Eastern Europe, the
>existing Neanderthal populations disappeared and were replaced by
>modern humans...." (Leakey R., "The Origin of Humankind", 1994,
>p94)
GM>There is no demonstrable anatomically modern human on the
>continent of Europe prior to 33,850 years ago.
I don't know where you get "33,850" from. But Leakey above says
"Beginning about 50,000 years ago...". Besides, you yourself
believe that "the first appearance in the fossil record is not
the first appearance of that form on earth":
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue 27 Jun 1995 12:40 CT
To: evolution@Calvin.EDU, GRMorton@aol.com
From: Glenn.Morton@ORYX.COM
Subject: mesonychids to Whales
Ashby wrote:
"The fact remains that if creature B appears in the fossil record after
creature A, there is no reason to believe that creature B actually existed
before creature A. The best the evolutionist can say is that it is possible
that the vagaries of fossilization have created a false impression."
I don't disagree except at one point. Let us assume that PC is correct and
that the animals are fossilized according to the way geologists think they
are. God creates an animal, it multiplies and begins to spread over the land.
Occassionally one of these critters is going to be buried by a landslide or
caught in a flood an leave it's bones in the rock record. If PC is correct it
is still reasonable to believe that the first appearance in the fossil record
is not the first appearance of that form on earth. Unless you are willing to
believe that in every case, God caused the fossilization of the very first
individual of each form He created. I doubt that you would make such a strong
statement. So why would you expect such a strong statement from the
evolutionist?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You maintain your argument by a double standard. If you applied the
same strict standard to your own arguments as you do to others'
arguments, your 5.5 mya Adam/Noah position would collapse.
SJ>The same question could be asked if "the Aurignacian was the
>product of" Neanderthal man! The point is that there was no
>Aurignacian tools until Homo sapiens appeared:
GM>No. there were Aurignacian tools before the appearance of modern
>humans.
You forgot to add after "before the appearance of modern humans..."
the words "in the fossil record". But as evolutionists are always
claiming, the fossil record is imperfect.
SJ>"If we can accept, as seems likely, that the Aurignacian was
>associated with the spread of Cro-Magnons into Europe, then the
>timing and direction of their colonization can be reconstructed.
>"(Stringer and Gamble, 1993, p. 184)
GM>and
>
>"The identity of the makers of the early Aurignacian in SW France
>is unknown; there are no well-dated hominid remains of any subspecies
>clearly associated with this period."(Straus et al, 1993, p. 13)
>
>and (AMH=modern humans)
>
>"For one thing, despite a century and a quarter of often intensive
>archeological and paleontological research, no remains of AMH attributable to
>the period between about 40-30 ka bp (let alone earlier) have been found in
>Spain or Portugal. Indeed for all of Europe, well-dated remains of AMH are at
>best rare until about 30 ka bp. "(Straus et al, 1993, p. 19)
>
>The entire evidence of modern man in Europe is based upon Aurignacian
>tools, not bodies. If this is incorrect point me to one single undisputed
>homo sapiens in Europe prior to 33,850 B.P. Cite the reference.
I repeat a "reference" from a source you would no doubt accept:
"it is still reasonable to believe that the first appearance in the fossil
record is not the first appearance of that form on earth" (G.R. Morton,
"mesonychids to Whales", 1995).
There is little (if any) doubt among anthropologists and
archaeologists that "Aurignacian tools" were made by "homo sapiens",
even though there are as yet no fossils. Stone tools don't have to
fossilise to be preserved.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------