Stephen, good grief. Do you not understand the gramatical use of the word
'and'? I noted 'engage in mortuary practices'. Secondary burial or
defleshing IS a mortuary practice. You play such silly, silly verbal games
and if this is the best that an anti-evolutionist can come up with, then no
wonder Christianity is being marginalized in modern society.
>
> Also, Glenn as usual plays on the word "human" to make his case that
> Adam was a "Homo habilis or Australopithecine":
>
> "The only way to fit the scriptural account with the scientific
observations
> is to have Adam and Eve be Homo habilis or Australopithecus" (Morton
> G.R., "A Theory for Creationists," 1996.
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/synop.htm)
>
> But Donald Johanson whom Glenn quotes below to support his case,
> admits that anthropologists have no clear set of physical criteria as to
what
> is "human":
The quote by Johanson is irrelevant because from a theological perspective,
outer looks are not important to 'humanity'.
2 Cor 10:7 Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man
trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again,
that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous
judgment.
The use of the long quote from Johanson implies that you think that outer
appearance is what makes us human. it is not. It is our spiritual nature
which is not preserved in our appearance.
Glenn's web page:
>
> "Mankind is the only being who has been known to scalp his own kind and
> the first evidence of this is from Bodo, Ethiopia from a skull dated at
> 300,000 years old. (Tattersall, 1995, p. 244)" (Morton G.R., "A Theory for
> Creationists," 1996, http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/synop.htm)
>
> says it is "anybody's guess" why the Bodo skull was defleshed:
If you don't know, scalping is also a religious/spiritual act. So, in
either case, whether it is scalping or defleshing in secondary burial, it
implies a spiritual nature. Scalps are taken to give 'spiritual strength'
to the scalper
> There is no evidence that this was necessarily "giving special treatment to
> the body or skeleton of a comrade". Scalping is practiced by Homo sapiens
> on *enemies*:
Consider the reason for scalping, if it is scalping.
"A similar rationale usually underlies the taking of scalps or heads or the
eating of an enemy's flesh. A report, like Linton's that the Marquesans
ate their dead foe because they liked the flavor of human meat, is indeed
rare. The usual. reason for these customs lies in the belief that, by
owning or ingesting part of a man, one gains his services or his talents.
The belief of some primitives that killing or eating a lion imparts the
beast's strength, stealth, stamina, lordliness, or courage typically rests
on the same conception. True, the warrior who takes a scalp may receive no
benefit from his deed until, when he dies, he has his victim as a slave in
the afterlife, but the principle appears to be the same. By owning or
controlling a part of a man's body, one gets the benefit of that man's
powers andpotentialities. In fact, among some peoples, scalps and heads can
be transferred, even sold, and the recipient of the gift or the purchase
falls heir to supernatural benefits attached to these human remains.
Likewise, it is not uncommon that such rewards go to all who eat of an
enemy's corpse, not just to the person who killed the foeman." ~ Guy
E.Swanson, The Birth of the Gods, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 1960), p. 122-123
>>Now lest anyone think that this is something that modern humans don't
>>engage in, (i.e. the defleshing of human bones) medieval monasteries are
>>filled with bones of monks, primates and saints whose bones were treated
>>EXACTLY as those of the 600,000 Bodo man. On the same page of Johanson and
>>Edgar is a discussion of one even earlier possible defleshing of bones at
>>780,000 years ago from the Gran Dolina near Atapuerca, Spain.
>
> In the case of Bodo Man, we are talking about *17* claimed cutmarks on a
> part-cranium:
>
> "There are several interesting points associated with Bodo. Some evidence
> suggests that animals were butchered at the site. Acheulian tools (see Fig.
> 17-5c) are associated with several hippopotamus skeletons, and cutmarks
> are found on the human skull (Conroy et al., 1978). White (1986)
> examined the skull and counted 17 cutmark areas. These are located in the
> interorbital area, on the supraorbital torus, cheek bones, and on the
> posterior parietals. White believes this argues "for a patterned
intentional
> defleshing of this specimen by a hominid(s) with (a) stone tool(s)" (White,
> 1986, p. 508). That is to say, Bodo was scalped, and this is the earliest
> solid evidence for deliberate defleshing (see Fig. 17-6, a and b)." (Nelson
> H. & Jurmain R., 1991, p505)<BR> <BR> Glenn concludes citing no evidence
>at all that these 17 cutmarks on the <BR> Bodo part-cranium are "EXACTLY"
>the same "as those on the "bones of <BR> monks, primates and saints" in
>"medieval monasteries".<BR> <BR> Even if they were the "exactly" the same
>(which is unlikely considering the <BR> medieval monks no doubt used steel
>knives), it does not follow that the <BR> *motives* were the same. Scalping
>a monk in a mortuary ritual in AD 1276 <BR> may look something like
>scalping General Custer in a battlefield in AD <BR> 1876, but the *motives*
>are entirely different! Assuming that the motives <BR> of a *different
>species* Homo heidelbergensis in BC 400,076 are the same <BR> as either is
>a bit too much of a long bow to draw!<BR> <BR> GM>No longer is it the
>case that modern humans or Neanderthals are the first
>>people who treated their dead specially.
>
Your quote above argues for my position, Stephen.
> The question-begging term "people" is noted! Glenn assumes what he sets
> out to prove. If Homo heidelbergensis were "people" then there would be
> no need even to produce evidence that they "treated their dead specially."
> If they were "people" we could just assume it, becuase were are "people"
> and we treat our dead specially.
>
> But in fact there is no evidence from the cuts on the Bodo part-cranium
> that the owner was a) "dead" when he was scalped; or b) that he was
> "treated...specially", ie. in the sense of a mortuary ritual. The Bodo Man
> could just as easily been scalped by his *enemies*.
So, what animal has enemies that scalp him? Only humans have 'enemies' in
the sense that you are using the term.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm