Pim
On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:27:30 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>SJ>Also, Glenn as usual plays on the word "human" to make his case that
>Adam was a "Homo habilis or Australopithecine":>>
>GM>"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) >
>SJ>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":
PM>Not really important. So Adam was perhaps 'human' or perhaps not
>according to physical criteria selected. That one cannot define where
>humanness begins is interesting but irrelevant for this discussion.
Thanks. That is *exactly* my point! I may quote your words back to Glenn
in future!
PM>You are appealing too much to personal statements about an issue
>you have found to be yet unresolved. But its impact on whether or not
>Adam was Homo Habilis or not is not affected by the outcome of this
>discussion. It would merely redefine what Adam really was. But that as
>well is irrelevant.
It might be "irrelevant" for *you* "what Adam really was" but it is not
"irrelevant" for *me*!
Indeed, if it is "irrelevant" "what Adam really was", why does Glenn keep
trying to prove that you think that Glenn keeps trying to prove that "Adam
and Eve" were "Homo habilis or Australopithecus"?
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
Pim
On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:27:30 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>SJ>Also, Glenn as usual plays on the word "human" to make his case that
>Adam was a "Homo habilis or Australopithecine":>>
>GM>"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) >
>SJ>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":
PM>Not really important. So Adam was perhaps 'human' or perhaps not
>according to physical criteria selected. That one cannot define where
>humanness begins is interesting but irrelevant for this discussion.
Thanks. That is *exactly* my point! I may quote your words back to Glenn
in future!
PM>You are appealing too much to personal statements about an issue
>you have found to be yet unresolved. But its impact on whether or not
>Adam was Homo Habilis or not is not affected by the outcome of this
>discussion. It would merely redefine what Adam really was. But that as
>well is irrelevant.
It might be "irrelevant" for *you* "what Adam really was" but it is not
"irrelevant" for *me*!
Indeed, if it is "irrelevant" "what Adam really was", why does Glenn keep
trying to prove that you think that Glenn keeps trying to prove that "Adam
and Eve" were "Homo habilis or Australopithecus"?
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=_=_=_--