Walter asked:

John W. Burgeson (johnburgeson@juno.com)
Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:44:31 -0700

Walter asked:
" Why should this be so? I can see your point when it is the duplication
of something that exists (like wine or fish circa 30AD)--- but why does
that
logic apply to the "first man". Why should there _necessarily_ be a
"history" of something nearly like a man before that?"

Tree rings are a "history" of a tree's life.
They are also necessary to allow a mature tree stand.
They appear, therefore, to be necessary.

A navel on Adam may, or may not, be necessary for Adam to be completely
healthy. So Adam's naval may, or may not, have been present. (Gosse talks
to this in OMPHALOS, of course -- the word "Omphalos" is Greek for
navel).

My arguments do not include the fossil record, of course; they are
concerned only with what we, as scientists, would expect to observe and
measure were we to be present
a. At Cana.
b. At the 5,000 man feast.
c. On day #8 of a fiat creation.
d. Other Biblical events (your choice)

I have difficulty thinking I can address #1 or #2 intelligently and, at
the same time, discounting #3 with a shrug.

Burgy