You are very well-read. I did not know that and I have read alot of
literature on this. However, on any find there is usually opposition
literature but that doesn't take the headlines. I think of Charles Oxnard
and his opposition to believing 'Lucy" was anything other than just an
extinct chimpanzee.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Glenn R. Morton <grmorton@waymark.net>
> To: Ron Chitwood <chitw@flash.net>; EVOLUTION@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Glenn wrote:
> Date: Friday, May 22, 1998 8:13 PM
>
> At 04:41 PM 5/22/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote:
> >Glenn>>>>I disagree. I am placing trust in the greek and hebrew
meanings
> >of the
> >words<<<<
> >
> >Glen - Look at Genesis 8:9 KJV "But the dove found no rest for the sole
of
> >her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark. for the waters were
on
> >the face of the WHOLE EARTH....." the NIV reads "...all the surface of
the
> >earth..." Now how can you say the reference in II Peter could refer to
> >anything less than that? That, by the way, is also in Strong's
> >Concordance. "Whole" is 3605, "earth" is 776 in the Hebrew lexicon.
> >
>
> First off, are you really suggesting that the dove flew around the entire
> planet earth and thus knew that it couldn't find a place to land? How
long
> would such a flight take a dove. Lets see. Doves fly at around 35-40
mph
> and the earth has a 25,000 mile circumference (all approximate numbers).
It
> would take a bird about a month to encircle the planet in one direction.
> But even then he couldn't KNOW that there was no land perpendicular to
his
> former flight path and would then need to fly off in other directions.
>
> Obviously this is entirely ridiculous so the proper translation is 'whole
> land' not 'whole earth'.
>
>
> >When Jesus was referring to the prophets whose blood had been shed '
> >...from the beginning of the world...' (Luke 11:50) one has no trouble
> >understanding what Jesus meant. HE was not defining narrow boundaries,
was
> >HE? The context dictates the meaning, and applies just as well to the
> >reference in II Peter. The context, based on other areas of the Bible,
> >dictates the meaning. Peter meant "the whole world", nothing less.
> >
>
> The word translated as 'beginning' is 2602. katabole, kat-ab-ol-ay'; from
> G2598; a deposition, i.e. founding; fig. conception:--conceive,
foundation.
>
> This may very well be a Calvinistic statement that the martyrs were
planned
> into the fabric of the universe.
>
> >GM>>>>And as to men being wrong, what happened to the theologians who
> >determined
> >> from the Scripture that the sun revolved around the earth?<<<
> >
> >Do not disagree, but the leading thinkers of the time were also making
> >pronouncements that the geocentric theory was correct. In fact, because
of
> >that, theologians came around to trying Galileo. the point I am making,
to
> >which your comment actually is irrelevant, is that man generically has
been
> >wrong so many times in the past. What is to keep him from making
> >pronouncements now that might be wrong at some future time.
Macroevolution
> >is coming increasingly under attack by its own academia.
>
> This simply isn't true. Macroevolutin is well regarded by almost all
> academics. Can you cite a single, non-christian academic that says that
> evolution did not occur? Denton is a Christian, Behe is a Christian.
>
> There are so many
> >other historical examples of error. Nebraska Man, Piltdown man, the
> >recapitulation theory, Neanderthal man, to name just a few. I
understand
> >that these examples were later found to be fraudulent by other
scientists,
> >but at the time they were considered the last, most up-to-date word on
the
> >subject. As I am sure you are aware, Nebraska Man was used by Clarence
> >Darrow to browbeat WJ Bryan in the Scopes Trial. It was later
discovered
> >to be a tooth of an extinct pig.
>
> I am aware of these errors. But let me ask you: who was it that proved
> what the error was? It wasn't young-earth Christians who were studying
the
> pig tooth, it wasn't the young-earthers who performed the fluorine test
on
> the jaw and skull of Piltdown. And in the case of Piltdown, there was
much
> controversy even from the first. Weidenreich publically and Gorjanovic
> stated that they thought it was a fraud.
>
> "Weidenreich, in fact, knew Piltdown was a fraud; he was one of the few
> paleoanthropologists aware of it and willing to say so
> (Gorjanovic-Kramberger, as we noted in Chapter 5, suspected the same but
> would only publish his misgivings in Croatian)."~Milford Wolpoff and
> Rachael Caspari, Race and Human Evolution, (New York: Simon and Schuster,
> 1997), p. 203
>
> "Weidenreich simply expressed his disbelief that the pieces used in the
> Piltdown reconstruction were from a single specimen, or even a single
> species. He (quite correctly) asserted, from his study of the anatomy,
> that the skull was that of a modern human and the jaw was of an
oragnutan.
> he didn't know what to make of the canine and did not seem willing to
> entertain the possibility that it was simply manufactured to look as it
> did, as part of a fraud. But he was virtually alone in his opinion that
> the fragments didn't go together, and more than a decade later his
> conclusions were not yet accepted.
>
> 'I am only wondering why, if a human vault, a simian mandible, and an
> anonymous 'canine' were combined into a new form, the other animal bones
> and teeth found in the same spot were not added to the ...
combination?...I
> do not believe in miracles...the sooner the chimaera...is erased from the
> list of human fossils, the better for science."~Franz Weidenreich, "The
> Skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis: A comparative study of a primitive
> hominid skull," Palaeontologia Sinica, new Series D, Number 10 (wole
series
> No. 127), p. 220, cited by Milford Wolpoff and Rachael Caspari, Race and
> Human Evolution, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), p. 204
>
> Neanderthal was not a fraud and is with us today. There are various
views
> of his humanity but Neanderthal is very real.
>
> glenn
>
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> & lots of creation/evolution information
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm