Group
On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:42:34 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[continued from thread: `Why Christianity is being marginalized in modern society]
>SJ>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":
GM>The quote by Johanson is irrelevant
It was in fact *Glenn* who quoted from this self-same "Johanson" to support
his case that Bodo man was "human." Yet when I quote Johanson's own view
of what is "human" Glenn says it is "irrelevant"!
GM>because from a theological perspective, outer looks are not
>important to 'humanity'.
But Glenn's *whole argument* is, based on an attempt to "fit the scriptural
account with the scientific observations". Since when are "scientific
observations"concerned with "a theological perspective" and not with "outer
looks"?
And in any event, Glenn cites no theologian's "perspective" and just ignores
the ones from Erickson that I cited:
"What is man?...whatever it is that sets man apart from the rest of the
creation, he alone is capable of having a conscious personal relationship
with the Creator and of responding to him....Man is distinguished by the presence
and use of complex symbolism or, more specifically, of language.... it is language
which makes possible the type of relationship with God which would be
experienced by a being created in the image of God....." " (Erickson M.J., "
Christian Theology," 1985, pp472,484-485)
GM>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.
These are all to do with *Homo sapiens* and so are irrelevant to hominids
like Bodo man, who may not even be ancestral to Homo sapiens.
GM>The use of the long quote from Johanson implies that you think that
>outer appearance is what makes us human.
No. I was to point out that this self-same "Johanson" whom Glenn quoted
to support his claim that Bodo Man was "human", did not even have a
scientific definition of what is "human".
"In fact, how did one even define a human? ...We do not have, even
today, an agreed-on definition of humankind, a clear set of specifications
that will enable any anthropologist in the world to say quickly and with
confidence, `This one is a human; that one isn't.'" (Johanson D.C. & Edey
M.A., "Lucy The Beginnings of Humankind," 1982, pp103-104)
GM>it is not. It is our spiritual nature which is not preserved in our
>appearance.
Glenn has presented *no* evidence whatsover that Bodo Man had a
"spiritual nature" in the sense of being able to have a personal relationship
with God. Bodo man might have had the *beginnings* of a "spiritual
nature" and therefore *may* have represented the *beginnings* of
humanity, but he was not *fully* "human":
"In the absence of an agreed functional definition to tell us what is human
and what is not, everyone has to make up his or her own mind; what is
certain, however, is that even the latest Acheuleans WERE FAR FROM
FULLY HUMAN AS WE ARE TODAY." (Tattersall I., "The Fossil Trail:
How We Know What We Think We Know about Human Evolution",
Oxford University Press: New York, 1995, pp242-243. My emphasis.)
"At some deep level, BEING FULLY HUMAN IS PREDICATED UPON
BEING LINGUATE." (Walker A., & Shipman P., "The Wisdom of Bones:
In Search of Human Origins," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, 1996,
p238. My emphasis.)
SJ>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)
>SJ>says it is "anybody's guess" why the Bodo skull was defleshed:
GM>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
Thanks to Glenn for `enlightening' me, but I *do* "know" that "scalping"
*can be* (but is not always or even mostly) "a religious/spiritual act" among
*Homo sapiens*. But even among Homo sapiens it can just be a trophy of
war to prove that one has killed one of the enemy:
"The importance of scalping varied. For Southeastern Indians it was
necessary to take scalps to become a warrior and to placate the spirits of
the dead. Most Northeastern Indians valued captives more than scalps.
Among Plains Indians SCALPS WERE TAKEN FOR WAR HONOURS,
although such practices as touching a live enemy accrued more honour to a
warrior. Scalps were usually taken from dead enemies, although some
Plains Indians preferred a live victim. The operation was not necessarily
fatal, and some victims were released alive. The scalp was sometimes
offered as a ritual sacrifice or preserved and carried by women in a
triumphal scalp dance, later to be retained as a pendant by the warrior, used
as tribal medicine, or discarded." ("Scalping," Encyclopaedia Britannica,
Benton, Chicago, 15th edition, 1984, Vol. viii, p942. My emphasis.)
But as my quote from Tattersall *on the very same page* that Glenn uses
for support re Bodo Man's humanity on his web page, Tattersall himself
says of Bodo Man "Whether this scalping indicates...ritual behavior is
anybody's guess." (Tattersall I., "The Fossil Trail," 1995, p244)
>SJ>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*:
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Group
On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:42:34 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[continued from thread: `Why Christianity is being marginalized in modern society]
>SJ>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":
GM>The quote by Johanson is irrelevant
It was in fact *Glenn* who quoted from this self-same "Johanson" to support
his case that Bodo man was "human." Yet when I quote Johanson's own view
of what is "human" Glenn says it is "irrelevant"!
GM>because from a theological perspective, outer looks are not
>important to 'humanity'.
But Glenn's *whole argument* is, based on an attempt to "fit the scriptural
account with the scientific observations". Since when are "scientific
observations"concerned with "a theological perspective" and not with "outer
looks"?
And in any event, Glenn cites no theologian's "perspective" and just ignores
the ones from Erickson that I cited:
"What is man?...whatever it is that sets man apart from the rest of the
creation, he alone is capable of having a conscious personal relationship
with the Creator and of responding to him....Man is distinguished by the presence
and use of complex symbolism or, more specifically, of language.... it is language
which makes possible the type of relationship with God which would be
experienced by a being created in the image of God....." " (Erickson M.J., "
Christian Theology," 1985, pp472,484-485)
GM>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.
These are all to do with *Homo sapiens* and so are irrelevant to hominids
like Bodo man, who may not even be ancestral to Homo sapiens.
GM>The use of the long quote from Johanson implies that you think that
>outer appearance is what makes us human.
No. I was to point out that this self-same "Johanson" whom Glenn quoted
to support his claim that Bodo Man was "human", did not even have a
scientific definition of what is "human".
"In fact, how did one even define a human? ...We do not have, even
today, an agreed-on definition of humankind, a clear set of specifications
that will enable any anthropologist in the world to say quickly and with
confidence, `This one is a human; that one isn't.'" (Johanson D.C. & Edey
M.A., "Lucy The Beginnings of Humankind," 1982, pp103-104)
GM>it is not. It is our spiritual nature which is not preserved in our
>appearance.
Glenn has presented *no* evidence whatsover that Bodo Man had a
"spiritual nature" in the sense of being able to have a personal relationship
with God. Bodo man might have had the *beginnings* of a "spiritual
nature" and therefore *may* have represented the *beginnings* of
humanity, but he was not *fully* "human":
"In the absence of an agreed functional definition to tell us what is human
and what is not, everyone has to make up his or her own mind; what is
certain, however, is that even the latest Acheuleans WERE FAR FROM
FULLY HUMAN AS WE ARE TODAY." (Tattersall I., "The Fossil Trail:
How We Know What We Think We Know about Human Evolution",
Oxford University Press: New York, 1995, pp242-243. My emphasis.)
"At some deep level, BEING FULLY HUMAN IS PREDICATED UPON
BEING LINGUATE." (Walker A., & Shipman P., "The Wisdom of Bones:
In Search of Human Origins," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, 1996,
p238. My emphasis.)
SJ>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)
>SJ>says it is "anybody's guess" why the Bodo skull was defleshed:
GM>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
Thanks to Glenn for `enlightening' me, but I *do* "know" that "scalping"
*can be* (but is not always or even mostly) "a religious/spiritual act" among
*Homo sapiens*. But even among Homo sapiens it can just be a trophy of
war to prove that one has killed one of the enemy:
"The importance of scalping varied. For Southeastern Indians it was
necessary to take scalps to become a warrior and to placate the spirits of
the dead. Most Northeastern Indians valued captives more than scalps.
Among Plains Indians SCALPS WERE TAKEN FOR WAR HONOURS,
although such practices as touching a live enemy accrued more honour to a
warrior. Scalps were usually taken from dead enemies, although some
Plains Indians preferred a live victim. The operation was not necessarily
fatal, and some victims were released alive. The scalp was sometimes
offered as a ritual sacrifice or preserved and carried by women in a
triumphal scalp dance, later to be retained as a pendant by the warrior, used
as tribal medicine, or discarded." ("Scalping," Encyclopaedia Britannica,
Benton, Chicago, 15th edition, 1984, Vol. viii, p942. My emphasis.)
But as my quote from Tattersall *on the very same page* that Glenn uses
for support re Bodo Man's humanity on his web page, Tattersall himself
says of Bodo Man "Whether this scalping indicates...ritual behavior is
anybody's guess." (Tattersall I., "The Fossil Trail," 1995, p244)
>SJ>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*:
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
----------------------------------------------------------------------_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_--