On Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:51:49 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>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.
>SJ>Thanks. That is *exactly* my point! I may quote your words back to
>Glenn in future!
PM>I am glad that we agree that semantics are irrelevant. Adam could
have been Homo Habilis or Australopithecine.
No. That anthropology on "physical criteria" "cannot define where
humanness begins" does not mean that "Adam could have been Homo
Habilis or Australopithecine." Anthropology has no concept of "Adam."
"Adam" is a *Biblical* term. And from the Biblical description of "Adam"
he as Homo sapiens.
>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.
>SJ>It might be "irrelevant" for *you* "what Adam really was" but it is not
>"irrelevant" for *me*!
PM>Good for you but quite irrelevant.
No. "quite irrelevant" *to you*, not to me.
>SJ>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"?
PM>Or could have been ? And why is it so relevant to you ? After all is it
>not your faith that has determined who Adam and Eve really were ?
>Evidence of hypotheses should not really matter to you ?
Please answer my question first.
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------