>>>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":
But Stephen Christianity DOES have a clear definition. Those who engage in
religion must be human. I have cited the Golan Venus at 300 kyr and the
apparent religious altar at Bilzingsleben 400 kyr as evidence that mankind
has been theologically human for that period of time. Why is religion not
an indication of 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"?
So we should believe whatever that goes against observational data? Good
science Stephen.
>
>>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.
So you are saying that humanity rests in the shape of our bones. Do you
know that the shape of the bones of chinese and Africans are slightly
different from those of Europeans?
> 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":
One can't have a 'beginning of a 'spiritual nature'' one either has it or
he doesn't.
> 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.
This is ridiculous Stephen. The 'spirits of the deat' precisely prove my
point that scalping is a spiritual/religious idea.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm