Glenn Morton hypothesis: The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago

First off, Mark, It is rude to do this on another forum, one to which I am not a member and then expect me to come here to defend myself against your misunderstandings, which seem to boil down to the mistaken belief on your part that I am saying that anatomically modern humans lived 5 million years ago. hominids are definitively that old, and maybe older.You have made this erroneous, and scandalous claim that I am advocating that anatomically modern man lived five million years ago. If you would but actually read what I have written you would see how mistaken that is.I see lots of human-like activity in the past, prior to 100 kyr ago. The inventions of the archaic hominids are still being used. Since I don't want to re-type this twice on the very same day this is from my reply to you on another board.When did I ever say that it was MODERN MAN????? Where does it say in the Bible that ONLY anatomically modern man can have the image of God??? Only man looks on the outside, but God sees the inner man and it is that which is inside that determines whether or not a person is human.To tie humanity to the viseage of mankind is to make the same mistake Europeans made when they encountered Africans, Chinese and Native Americans. Many Europeans decided that these newly contacted people were not descended from Adam because they didn't look like us.So, when it comes to Neanderthals, H. erectus etc, they don't look like us either, but, their activities reveal human-like natures. Indeed, many of their inventions we still use--coal mining, anoxic chemistry, the 7-note diatonic scale, flutes and whistles, shamanism, the flued hearth, spears, bedding, tents, jewelry, boomerangs, etc. None of these things were invented by anatomically modern peoples within the past 50,000 years. (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/chron.htm for references for these inventions).So, your mistake is to beleive that I have been talking about anatomically modern people. If you would but actually read what I write rather than what you think I write, it would make discussions so much easier. In short, I dont' think Adam was an anatomically modern human.I also don't believe that Adam is anatomically modern, a fact you could have easily ascertained if you hadn't had a bias against actually reading anything I have written, either in the journals or on the internet. Adam was an archaic hominid--since the advent of H. floresiensis, with his very tiny, chimp-sized brain but who had decent technology, it is conceivable that Adam was an australopithecine (whose brains were generally bigger than that of H. floresiensis). Mark, if you don't know anything about H. floresiensis maybe you should go learn some anthro instead of insisting that without any study in areas like geology and anthropology you have a sufficient basis upon which to judge the validity of various ideas.When you say, " I don't know geology (or anthropology for that matter), but for a number of reasons, I don't buy his arguments."that is an understatement. I have repeatedly claimed that there is no place on earth where a flood could be proposed which would fit the Biblical account (last 1 year,and move an ark north into Turkey). If you put the flood in the Mesopotamian basin, there are innumerable problems. The land slopes to the south meaning that the water would flow to the south, taking the floating ark south to the Persian Gulf, not north to Turkey. You can get out of this problem by asserting that water can indeed flow uphill, but, that would seem to be factually incorrect. At the speed of water in most continental, riverine floods, the ark and all the water would be drained into the Persian gulf in a couple of weeks, so the flood couldn't last 1 year. So, unless you wish to rewrite the Bible to help God along with the idiocies you see him committing, you need to find a place where the ark can float to Turkey and last 1 year. As I also told you earlier today, on another board, all you have to do to prove this assertion false is to name the place where such a flood could occur. You haven't.

---

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm

Anglagard wrote:
"It seems a bit strange that Morton would argue that 'modern man' would exist 5 million years ago. Are you sure that he was not arguing that precursors of humans existed 5 million years ago?"This incredible mistake on the part of Mark is why I came here. I don't want people thinking I am saying such a stupid thing. Mark, you owe me an apology for claiming I am saying such nonsense and then spreading it around the internet. I have tried to explain this to you before but you ignore it.

Razd wrote:
"He's off by a few million years. See
http://www.mnh.si.edu/...ro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html
for some basic background. From the last link:"Since I have NEVER EVER CLAIMED that anatomically modern man lived 5 million years ago, I am NOT off by a few million years. This is absolutely scurrilous that Mark is misrepresenting me so. Mark, you better stop it. This is bordering on malicious for you to spread this untruth about me about the internet. I would warn you not to do it further. I take this very seriously.

Razd wrote:
"Neither did mark say "anatomically modern man" ... nor do my comments pertain to "anatomically modern man" but to the first evidence of tool use and religious artifacts.So what IS your position on this issue. Rather than complain about being misrepresented, I would think you would want to say what your position is.Enjoyps - welcome to the fray."I am in too many frays. When I look at anthropology, I see evidence which would reasonably be interpreted as evidence of religion among the archaic hominids. If one is a christian and believes that one of the things which marks us as human is our religious sense, then clearly those archaic hominids would have religion. The absolute farthest back one can push religion in any form is 600 kyr ago, but that is a lot older than Hugh Ross (Mark's hero?), believes. He says there is no evidence of religion prior to 30kyr ago. I would point out evidence cited on my page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/religion.htmTo me, this evidence says that the archaics had a religious sense and that makes them human (not anatomically modern human as Mark misunderstood).I do not beleive that looks defines who is made in the image of God. If that were the case, one might say my grand daughter, who looks much different than I (being half chinese) might not be in the image of god. Looks simply don't define humanity--behavior does.Now, as I said earlier in a previous post here, Adam could have been an australopithecine for all I care. H.floresiensis, regardless of whether or not he is a deformed H. sapiens or a descendant of A. garhi, had enough intelligence in his chimpsized brain to do many of the things we humans do--stone tools, mastery of fire, and hunting big (for them) game and all of this collectively screams intelligence.So, to answer your question, if one wishes to maintain biblical historicity, as I do one simply is forced to an older Adam than is popular among Christians.This fits with the lack of a genetic bottleneck and the evidence of very old genes in our DNA see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hegene.htm.
Some of this evidence is discussed in a recent New Scientist article, which is very late to the game as far as I am concerned, because my web page was made years ago.
Dan Jones, “The Neanderthal Within,” New Scientist, March 3, 2007, p. 31

Jar wrote:
"The Bible contains several creation stories. There is the later one found in Genesis 1 and the much earlier (and a composite of several different stories) tale found in Genesis 2. They are entirely different and mutually exclusive. If one is literally true, then the other is literally false. They even describe two entirely different God"I would interpret it differently. I would say that Gen 1 is the pre-planning of the universe and Genesis 2 is bilions of years later. see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htmIf the only thing God can inspire is a false story, why believe in God?

Thank you Mark. I appreciate the correction.

I would disagree. God didn't say, "Let there be light and it was so". God said, "Let there be light". Someone else said "And it was so." The fact is that there is no indication here that light was created instantly. Such a view is read into the passage, but it isn't in there. So, one can place a time separation quite easily into that grammatical difference.But with Genesis 2, when God creates Adam, he then brings the animals to him, and that has to be within a short time frame. So, the Genesis 1 has the possiblity of gaps and Genesis 2 doesn't.Second indication comes from Jewish views of Genesis. This is from Ramban:"In either case it would have been proper for him to write at
the beginning of the book of Genesis: 'And G-d spoke to Moses all
these words, saying,' The reason it was written anonymously
[without the above introductory phrase] is that Moses our teacher
did not write the Torah in the first person like the prophets who
did mention themselves." Ramban (Nachmanides) Commentary on the
Torah, Trans. by Dr. Charles B. Chavel, (New York: Shilo
Publishing House, 1971), p. 8"The reason for the Torah being written in this form [namely,
the third person] is that it preceded the creation of the world,
and needless to say, it preceded the birth of Moses our teacher."
Ramban (Nachmanides) Commentary on the Torah, Trans. by Dr.
Charles B. Chavel, (New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1971), p. 8Ramban cites Shabbath 88b which is part of the Babylonian Talmud.
It says:"R. Joshua b. Levi also said: When Moses ascended on high, the
ministering angels spake before the Holy One, blessed be He,
'Sovereign of the Universe! What business has one born of woman
amongst us?' 'He has come to receive the Torah,' answered He to
them. Said they to Him, 'That secret treasure, which has been
hidden by Thee for nine hundred and seventy-four generations
before the world was created." http://www.come-and-
hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_88.html#PARTbWhat we see above is that the Jews viewed the Torah as being pre-temporal, and Genesis 1:1 indicates this grammatically, according to these ancient rabbis. Not according to the Talmud and at least some of the Jewish rabbis. True, but there is a great conundrum that few want to face--the quadralemma.If God is able or willing to communicate reality to us, then he is GodIf God is unable but willing to communicate reality to us, then he is impotent.If God is able but unwilling to communicate reality to us, then he is evilIf God is both unable and unwilling to communicate reality to us, then he is not God.There are no other positions to lay out for the 2 verbs, able and willing. This is a variation on the Epicurian argument for atheism and it explains why God must transmit historicity to us. If he doesn't, then either we can't depend upon him because he is impotent, we cant trust him because he isn't righteous, or we can't worship him because he isn't god. L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics is also a creation of Man and certainly we don't think it is a great Map.A question, what does inspiriation mean, when it can't have any impact upon the message? What does inspiriation mean when the message is not true? If there is no reality in the Biblical account but one holds at the same time that it is inspired, then it makes the Bible inspired fiction--which Gone with the Wind might be, but we don't worship that.My contention is that to treat the Bible as you are doing, makes it neither worth reading, nor the God described therein worth worshipping. We will agree that what is claimed to be the straight forward reading is observationally false and makes the Bible false as grandpa's teeth. But declaring the Bible to be factually false by fiat, also makes the Bible false. I prefer the interpretation I have developed because God can inspire real history, which is really there in the account, but ignored by both old earth christian and YEC. Evolution can be found in Genesis 1--so can the expansion of the universe. I will. There does need to be a third way, neither YEC nor allegorical/accommodational which maintains some reality to the Scriptural account. That is in part what the Pathway Papers are about. I have lots of friends who prefer to disbelieve the stories in the Bible. What I can never figure out is why they don't just conclude that the Bible is false and move on. What benefit is there in believing that a theological road map is false, but should be followed anyway? Agreed, but the Bible doesn't teach a worldwide flood. This comes from the Hebrew. Which is why I move the flood way back in time and have it a local/ regional affair so that the animals might not show such bottleneck and the bottleneck experienced by humans is so long ago that most of the effects are gone. Not true. Hominids crossed bodies of water to get to Flores. The currents would have been such that they would have been taken perpendicular to the line connecting the islands if they didn't have some sailing skill. That is what drift wood or rafts would do. Consider this from 840,000 years ago."Even at times of low sea level, when Sumatra, Java and
Bali were connected to mainland Southeast Asia, at least two
sea crossings were required to reach Flores. The first of
these deep-water barriers, between the islands of Bali and
Lombok, is about 25 km wide and constitutes a major
biogeographical boundary, the Wallace Line. Prior to human
intervention, only animals capable of crossing substantial
water barriers by swimming, flying or rafting on flotsam
were able to establish populations on Flores (e.g.
elephants, rats). In fact, the impoverished nature of the
fauna on the island in the Early and Middle Pleistocene
rules out the possibility of temporary landbridges from
continental Southeast Asia. The presence of hominids on
Flores in the Early Pleistocene therefore provides the
oldest inferred date for human maritime technology anywhere
in the world. Elsewhere, dates for such capabilities are
much more recent. These findings indicate that the
intelligence and technological capabilities of H. erectus
may have been seriously underestimated. An accumulating
body of evidence from elsewhere supports this conclusion
(e.g. Thieme 1997).
"The complex logistic organization needed for people to
build water-craft capable of transporting a biologically and
socially viable group across significant water barriers,
also implies that people had language. Previously the
organizational and linguistic capacity required for sea
voyaging was thought to be the prerogative of modern humans
and to have only appeared in the late Pleistocene. It now
seems that humans had this capacity 840,000 years ago." M.
J. Morwood et al, "Archaeological and Palaeontological
Research in Central Flores, East Indonesia: results of
Fieldwork 1997-1998," Antiquity, 73(1999):273-286, p.
285,286 If there is no real truth in the story, how do we know that the lessons should be listened to? If there is no reality in Scripture, then I would see no reason to give my life to the ideas contained in it.

b-b wrote: Well, one can plan a building, a book, or anything in any order one wants. So, if it is preplanning, then the chronological mis-order we see in Gen 1, loses its problematical nature.Secondly, It is merely assumption that everything was created instantly. The grammar wouldn't actually indicated it. As I said in my reply to Jar, God didn't say "Let there be light and it was so." He said, "Let there be light". Moses wrote the "and it was so". Moses was a long time after the light was created, so all we really know is that somewhere between the God speaking and Moses writing, light was formed. But the Bible simply doesn't say WHEN it was created. And that gives us freedom then to interpret the Bible in a straightforward manner without being forced to a 6-literal day creation.

To Adminemooseus. Thanks for the kind welcome. I like the red spotted coat you wear. I just figured out some of the dbcodes, and will learn others if I stick around. As I said, I have far too many frays in which I find myself.

I am surprised that the chimp-sized brains of H. floresiensis could do what they do, so, this would not be entirely out of the question, but the dimensions of the boat, as we understand it would be smaller. H. floresiensis, did manufacture spears and stone points. They mastered fire, and their ancestors, as I pointed out in an earlier post, had to have mastered sailing or they wouldn't be in Flores in the first place.Interestingly, comparative anatomical work places H. floresiensis closer to one of the Australopithecines than with any other hominid."LB1 clusters with A. garhi rather than with H. ergaster in the postcranial analyses. If Morwood and colleagues' (2005) estimate for the LB1 radius is correct, and our analyses are not affected by any scaling issues, then we propose that the radius/ femur proportions of LB1 show greater similarity to A. garhi than to H. ergaster." Debbie Argue, Denise Donlon, Colin Groves, Richard Wright, "Homo Floresiensis: Microcephalic, pygmoid, Australopithecus, or Homo?" Journal of Human Evolution, 51(2006):360-374, p. 371If this is true, then when Morwood and colleagues talkd about sailing to Flores, it would have to be Australopithecines, which is something most people are not ready to accept, but that would be the conclusion from the evidence.I will quote this again:"Even at times of low sea level, when Sumatra, Java and
Bali were connected to mainland Southeast Asia, at least two
sea crossings were required to reach Flores. The first of
these deep-water barriers, between the islands of Bali and
Lombok, is about 25 km wide and constitutes a major
biogeographical boundary, the Wallace Line. Prior to human
intervention, only animals capable of crossing substantial
water barriers by swimming, flying or rafting on flotsam
were able to establish populations on Flores (e.g.
elephants, rats). In fact, the impoverished nature of the
fauna on the island in the Early and Middle Pleistocene
rules out the possibility of temporary landbridges from
continental Southeast Asia. The presence of hominids on
Flores in the Early Pleistocene therefore provides the
oldest inferred date for human maritime technology anywhere
in the world. Elsewhere, dates for such capabilities are
much more recent. These findings indicate that the
intelligence and technological capabilities of H. erectus
may have been seriously underestimated. An accumulating
body of evidence from elsewhere supports this conclusion
(e.g. Thieme 1997)."
"The complex logistic organization needed for people to
build water-craft capable of transporting a biologically and
socially viable group across significant water barriers,
also implies that people had language. Previously the
organizational and linguistic capacity required for sea
voyaging was thought to be the prerogative of modern humans
and to have only appeared in the late Pleistocene. It now
seems that humans had this capacity 840,000 years ago." M.
J. Morwood et al, "Archaeological and Palaeontological
Research in Central Flores, East Indonesia: results of
Fieldwork 1997-1998," Antiquity, 73(1999):273-286, p.
285,286But, if one asks, do I have evidence that they built an ark that long ago, no. I don't.One issue with the flood that people don't think about very often. We act as if technology and a technological society would spring up again immediately. Here is something I wrote long ago, but is still valid for this issue.Technology requires people, lots of people. I find oil for your cars,
you all do other things indirectly for me. I specialize in my
technology, you in yours. The farmer grows food for both of us. If we were reduced to only a few people then our technological knowledge
would die. Consider the effects of such a population bottleneck. Do you or 8 of your best friends know how to grow cotton, build a spindle and a loom to make cloth? You need a plow to grow cotton, so lets make an iron plow. Do you know what iron ore looks like? Do you know where to look? Do you know where to look for coal? Do you know how to mine it? With dynamite? Ok, do you know how to make dynamite? Can you build a wagon and haul it? If you can't make dynamite build wagons, tame horses, and haul the stuff, to where the coal is (or vice versa) how do you make anything with iron? Assuming that you can do this, can you make iron? Do you know how to construct a kiln? Do you know what you need for iron manufacture besides coal, ore and a kiln? Without it you will fail. If you can't make iron, you can't make an iron plow.So you want to make a wooden plow. Fine. How do you cut the tree? Do you know how to make stone tools? And while you are trying to re-establish an agricultural society, what do you eat TODAY? Who gathers food while you wait on the crop to mature. Do you know how to keep pests from eating your crop before you eat it? A farmer spends most of his time shooing the bugs off his crop. But you need to eat NOW. So do you know how to make a bow and arrow? How to aim it? How to stalk prey? Do you know how to balance a spear so the point will strike first? Do you know what vegetables are poisonous? Do you know how to remove the toxins? Consider this, yams are poisonous unless cooked. Cycads can kill if not soaked in water for a long time and I believe acorns can make you quite sick also unless you soak them. Do you know how to start a fire without a match? (you need sticks which have been modified.)Now, given a more primitive preflood society, they could have
maintained a hunting capability but not an agricultural one. What all this points to is that given a society who had only 8 survivors, they would lose all their technical knowledge and could not pass it on to their kids. It would take a long, long time before their children re-invented the technology. What I envision about the 'primitive' time of human evolution is that it is the re-development of technology. An example: the Tasmanians were isolated for 8,000 years from all other humans. They numbered 4,000 people and over time, even with 4000 people they were not able to maintain their technology. 7000 years ago they made bone and stone tools and were not different from the mainland aborigines, but about 3500 years ago, they ceased making bone tools. And in spite of excellent fishing around the island, they lost the ability to fish. Their huts were reduced to about what Neanderthals built. Josephine Flood, "The Archeology of the Dreamtime, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 173-178If you were among only a few survivors of a catastrophe, you and your
children would be quickly reduced to naked savagery.My point is that assuming the flood occured when I say it did, the gap everybody has pounded me over, the gap from 2.0 - 5.5 million years would be understandable as a result of the loss of technology.If one wants an anthropologically universal flood (kills all us humans save Noah and co.), where is the period of technology loss? I would say it is all of the hominid fossil record.

Thank you for the kind words. I will do my best to defend my self. Yes, because so far I don't see an argument. What I see is a statement of fact--the very obvious fact that people beleive different things. If you are arguing that because people believe different things, I am therefore automatically wrong, that seems to be an excellent example of the logical fallacy called non-sequitur--(fancy word for 'it doesn't follow').Secondly, All these different interpretations of the Bible are just that, interpretations. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they are interpretations. When I map an area looking for oil, I usually have a different interpretation of the geology than my colleaques in other companies. Your argument basically says that because my colleagues map the area differently than I, I am automatically wrong. Sorry, that is illogical. Of course my quadralemma is an argument for atheism. Are we not to pay attention to arguments directed against Christianity itself when trying to interpret the Bible? Now, you may choose to believe that God can't communicate anything of real knowledge to humanity. Fine. That is your perogative, but if you believe in such an impotent God, why on earth do you worship Him? (assuming of course that you do). Please explain to me what logic drives you to see false stories and decide that the God who inspired them is worthy of worship. (If you ignore this question as many do, I will ask it again). Yes, I do believe that the Bible is God's main communication to mankind. I am not, after all, a Buddhist. But as an aside, have you read the Dhammapada? I have. I always love it when people, who think that God can't communicate anything certain about reality, are so quick to relate their certainty about what God would or wouldn't do. It seems deliciously cheezy to claim that you KNOW that God wouldn't do a particular act while at the same time you are arguing that God can't or won't communicate reality. So I ask. Did God communicate this verity to you? In what form did you receive this particular revelation? And if you believe it is from the same God whom you charge with the inability to communicate reality, why on earth do you believe what He says? (please answer each of these questions and don't ignore them. Most people I ask this of, simply refuse to even address the means by which they know the truth of their assertion of what God would do). Have you actually READ, the Qur'aan? I have. There is actually very little historical narrative there. and it is boring. Secondly, Are you aware that Islam accepts the Torah's creaton story? When you realize this, then your question becomes one which shows you don't know a lot about Islam. Three religions accept this creation story--Islam, Judaism and Christianity. So the answer to your question is rather simple. The Qur'aan accepts the Torah which is what tells us about the creation and the flood. Actually I didn't say God couldn't exist and tolerate any particular thing. I dont' know where you got that idea. God could conceivably be a Klingon war God. My answer to the Epicurian original argument is not what most Christians like. I take Isaiah 45:6,7 seriously.'I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.'The word which is translated evil is ra ah, which BDB says is "evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity " and Stongs says is "bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally)."Now, because of this verse, I don't believe in the Santa-God most people want to believe in, the Kindly God who only passes out A's to all us chillins' and who never says a cross word. This kindly old grandfather Santa-God is not who I think God is.You might say, oh how cruel of me to believe God gives people cancer, well, as a cancer patient, I have no problem with that concept. God never promised me an 80 year life with no difficulty, so god never broke a promise to me. Indeed, people who get angry at God when bad things come usually have the Santa-god concept and then blame God for failing to deliver on a promise God never made! I would suggest when presenting an argument which is supposed to rip up my views, that you actually know my views. The above paragraph is arguing from the assumption (admittedly statistically probable) that any random Christian is going to hold to the Santa God concept. I dont', so your argument fails to connect with its target.I do hope you enjoy my defense of your 'ripping' my ideas apart.

Since I am new here, could you do it and tell me where to go? Sorry about breaking the rules.

Thanks for the kind words.

Long ago, Christians generally took the Flood account as a historical event. Francis Bacon, in 1620 wrote:“So as marvel you not at the thin population of America, nor at the rudeness and ignorance of the people; for you must account your inhabitants of America as a young people; younger a thousand years, at the least, than the rest of the world; for that there was so much time between the universal flood and their particular inundation.” Francis Bacon, New Atlantis, in Jerry Weinberger, ed., Francis Bacon, New Atlantis and The Great Instauration,” (Arlington Heights, Ill: Harlan Davidson Inc., 1989), p. 54It was only when geology showed that the data couldn't be accounted for within the concept of a global flood that ahistorical interpretations arose in earnest. Matthew Poole and Bishop Stillingfleet in the late 1600s were advocating non-global floods."Bishop Stillingfleet justly observes, 'The flood was universal as to mankind; but from thence follows no necessity at all of asserting the universality of it as to the globe of the earth, unless it be sufficiently proved that the whole earth was peopled before the flood, which I despair of ever seeing proved.' Orignes Sacra, B. III. C.iv.Paragraph 3. Rev. Bourchier Wrey Savile, M.A., Revelation and Science in Respect to Bunsen's Biblical Researches, The Evidences of Christianity, and The Mosaic Cosmogony, (London: Longman, Green Longman, and Roberts, 1862), p. 179 Well, let's look at how one determines truth or falsity. When I judge a map I judge it against oil well data obtained AFTER the map was made. If there is a concordance between the map's predictions and the well's data, then the map was true, if not, then the map was false. This illustrates that in normal life the definition of truth is via a theory's concordance with the observed facts. We can agree that the geologic data does not concord with the concept of a global flood (see articles at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geology.htm). That makes that interpretation, the one that says there was a global flood, false. There is no other basis other than disconcordance between observational geology and the INTERPRETATION of Scripture, upon which you can claim that the Global Flood concept is false. What makes an interpretation true is that the theory explains the observed facts.But lets move into the ahistorical/ascientific interpretations of the flood story. If I say, 'the flood story isn't true', what I mean by that is that it does not concord with observed facts. And if that is my starting point, then the conclusion is, the story is worthless, not that the story has deep spiritual meaning.If I say that geoids are deposited by a gigantic green slug, and no one has seen such a critter, then one may rightfully dismiss that theory as nutso. But, if this is taught by a religion which says that geoids are deposited by gigantic green slugs, I see no justification for claiming that the story teaches good theology and is thus to be praised and listened to.So, Flood theories should be judged based upon their concordance to observational data, not by any other criteria. Judge my views on that, not upon the idea that everyone has a different idea. The theory of the great green slug is not equivalent to the flooding of the Mediterranean (even if that isn't Noah's flood). The former doesn't concord to observation; the latter does. Then he falls into the unwilling part of the quadralemma and the appropriate conclusion is drawn. If he is able, but unwilling, then He is evil. But if He has communicated to a tiny percentage, then he would not be evil. And indeed, that is what the Christian believes. Jesus came to the Jews, a very tiny percentage of humanity. Thus, he did communicate and he isn't evil (so long as you believe he told them the truth).A note to those who think the quadralemma doesn't belong here, the question is whether or not the Bible should be read as conveying any real information is fundamental to whether or not the geology should concord or not concord to the Scriptural account.I had written: Dr. Adequate responds: Then I stand corrected. I presume then that you think most of the Flood account is bunk and it offers no saving grace or redeeming social value--like the slug story. Correct or incorrect? What God has not done, is communicate a story about a global flood--the Hebrew words really don't support the popular view. But that doesn't mean that another interpretation might concord to the geologic data and thus God sent a message which we misunderstood. So, all you can really say in relation to your claim re: the Flood, is that God did communicate the observationally false global flood. Why must we expect every piece of modern science to be in the Bible. That is a totally different expectation than the expectation that when God says a flood happened, it really happened, i.e. that God told the truth when he inspired the account. In the former case, God must write a science book; in the later, he only has to tell the truth on those things he actually addresses. He doesn't address mathematics(not even in the famous pi case--there is a clue that explains why the circumference is 3, which is mathematically correct--hint, the bowl isn't a circle). I find the above irrelevant. We are talking not about sky colors but whether or not God, in inspiring the Bible said anything concrete about reality or history. If the Bible taught that the sky was Pink with purple polkadots, we would have every reason to reject the bible because such a description doesn't match reality. But, since the Bible is silent on the color of the sky, your comment is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand.I have no doubt that what follows will make you made, but I am merely following the logic which follows from your statements. I find your argument to be contradictory and incoherent.For the refreshing of memories, you had asserted: I had asked: "Did God communicate this verity to you?"You replied I do thank you for answering this. You are the first who has evern answered this sequence of questions. You will soon see why no one answers them.So, this is an admission that when you said that God wouldn't enlighten us on academic matters, you really didn't know whether or not he would. Do you often say things that God will or wont do, about which you have no real knowledge? Do you make these things up?I had asked,"In what form did you receive this particular revelation?"You replied: So, do you include observation as equivalent to revelation from God? It would seem to me that when our senses fail us and we observe some illusion, that that would make God revealing falsehood (assuming one equated observation and revelation).I had asked: "And if you believe it is from the same God whom you charge with the inability to communicate reality, why on earth do you believe what He says?"You replied: Well, this seems inconsistent with the answer to b where you seemed to claim that observation was equivalent to revelation (my question was about revelation, not about observation). If you don't believe that you got this through a revelation, then you should have said, not applicable to question b.And I would say, that if you didn't get the knowledge that God wouldn't enlighten us on academic matters via revelation, then I would conclude that you made up your assertion about God because there is no other way to have gotten the information except by having God tell you what he would and wouldn't do. Thus, in spite of your assertion, you really don't know whether or not God would communicate any reality as you claimed he wouldn't. I actually don't recall the Qur'aan saying that. I just did an electronic search on Book and Musa and can't find such a statement. I find statements like this often. I will tell you, I won a debate on what the Qur'aan said about Jesus with one of my wife's relatives who was so big in the Palestinian movement that when he died, Yassar Arafat's personal secretary came to deliver the eulogy. I am fairly familiar with the Arabic culture having married into a Lebanese family. There are Shi'ites in the extended family. But, that being said, I don't know everything so if you can teach me on this, I would be delighted to learn. Not at all. I am arguing that once one chooses a partciluar option, one is then forced to have certain beleifs about God. God could leave us in the dark, but that position has implications to God's nature--to his character. Similarly God can most assuredly exist and enjoy tormenting us little people. That is most assuredly an option. Such would be an evil god, but hey, there is no absolute law that says a God can't be evil. Christians just happen to generally believe in a loving God. Christians also have the strange idea that God inspired a communication of the true path of salvation. If we can't trust God's communication, how can we trust that he has given us the real path of salvation? (I really would like an answer to this one.) The quadralemma about evil (the epicurian version) and the quadralemma about knowledge (my version) are two separate issues and are not intertwined in the manner you are trying to do. God can be evil but communicate true knowledge. God can be good, and not communicate. To try to combine them, there would be 16 options, not just four options. Why would justice be involved in curing my cancer? It is not an injustice of God for me to have it, even if He gave it to me. We all die. And from my perspective you argument has gone off the deepend by trying to connect cancer with God's ability or willingness to communicate truth. If God doesn't communicate truth, then our salvation is worthless, period. If God wants me to have cancer, it has no impact whatsoever on his communication. This again is an utter nonsequitur. It would be a pale immitation of Epicurus, that is what if. The fact that you ask this question shows that you didn't understand what I said in relation to the Epicurian argument.I don't reject the argument because I don't like the conclusion, I accept the argument because God is cited by Isaiah as being the author of the evil. That has implications for God's nature and it is why I reject the Santa God. Thank you, but life is what life is. You will one day get your turn on the merry-go-round. and I will be sorry for that. All that being said, I don't want anyone feeling sorry for me (and I am glad you haven't pulled your rhetorical punches) because I have had an incredible life, 100+ publications, travel to 26 countries, including Tibet, finding just shy of a billion barrels of oil, having had some ideas worthy of patent attempts, and having eaten my way through the alphabet including scorpion, sea slug, haggis, seahorses, silkworm pupae and other assorted delicacies. But most importantly, I have a great relationship with my 3 sons.

---

The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm

I missed Razd's response. Of Neanderthals. I would absolutely disagree that Neanderthals have no input to modern human lineages. It is true only that they seem to have no mtDNA input, but that does not rule out nuclear DNA input which much recent evidence seems to support. Consider this:“For the past few years Bruce Lahn, a geneticist at the University of Chicago, has been studying genes potentially involved in human cognition, in particular one called microcephalin. Mutations in microcephalin cause the condition microcephaly, characterised by a small head and various neurological symptoms.”
“Like many genes involved with brain development, microcephalin has evolved rapidly in humans. In previous studies, Lahn showed that one variant of microcephalin appeared about 40,000 years ago and has since swept through the population, propelled by the power of natural selection. The new variant is found in 70 per cent of living people. "We don't yet know exactly what this variant does or why it is being selected for - it could be something to do with cognition," says Lahn.”
“The obvious interpretation is that the new version arose 40,000 years ago via a chance mutation in the microcephalin gene. Lahn thinks otherwise. In a paper published last year, he looked at a haplotype within microcephalin. On the basis of sequence differences between the old and new versions of the gene, he concluded that the two are so different that they must have diverged at least 1 million years ago (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 18178).”
“This combination of deep ancestry on one level and shallow ancestry on another suggests that something very unusual might have happened. It is as if the new version of microcephalin split off from our evolutionary lineage a million years ago, then jumped back in 40,000 years ago. According to Lahn, that is exactly what happened. By far the most likely explanation, he says, is that the newer version of the gene evolved in a separate species of human - probably Neanderthals - and then entered our lineage through interbreeding.” Dan Jones, “The Neanderthal Within,” New Scientist, March 3, 2007, p. 31Then there is the Melanocortin-1 gene, which produces red hair. It is not found in Africa, where, according to one school of anthropological thought, 100% of our ancestors came from. Guess where this gene is found--only in the former territory of the Neanderthals. Guess when it arose. About 80-100,000 years ago, prior to the time when any anatomically modern men were in Europe, yet this gene is now widespread in Europeans--indeed, I have(actually had for mine is now grey) a red beard meaning I have the gene.Here is what another guy says:“In order to relate MC1R polymorphism to the demographic history of humans, we then estimated the ages of MC1R alleles assuming a coalescent model. African and non-African data suggest times to the most recent common ancestor of approximately one million years. The functionally significant Arg151Cys and Arg160Trp alleles we estimate at ages of around 80,000 years and for the Arg142His and Asp294His alleles 30,000 years, with standard deviations about half of these expectations. Such ages are compatible with the geographic patterns of alleles we have observed, and are testable in further studies of Mc1R diversity.” Jonathan L. Rees, "The Melanocortin 1 Receptor (MC1R): More Than Just Red Hair," Pigment Cell Research, 13(2000):135-140, p. 138And an old newspaper account said this:"Studies have revealed that carriers of the gene are five times more sensitive to ultraviolet light than others and therefore far more likely to contract skin cancer. Given that the gene is so much older than the earliest anthropological records of Stone Age Homo Sapiens, who were responsible for the spectacular cave paintings produced around 30,000 years ago, Harding believes that MC1R must have originated in the Neanderthals.
"The gene is certainly older than 50,000 years and it could be as old as 100,000 years," she said. "An explanation is that it comes from the Neanderthals-the other people that were here before modern man came out of Africa."
Harding believes that the prevalence of the ginger gene in so many of today's population provides evidence that early Homo sapiens bred with the Neanderthals and that many of today's humans are descended from unions between the two species. So does that mean it is possible that Scottish redheads are directly descended from the
Neanderthals? "It seems to be the logical conclusion to what I am saying," said Harding. "But I don't know if people are going to like me for saying that." The Scotsman Publications Ltd.
Source: SCOTLAND ON SUNDAY 15/04/2001
AULIS Online. Apollo Moon Landings, Conspiracy theories, Faked Photos and Space Exploration. Aulis publishers (I don't know if this is still out there on the net). I have read lots on Chimps but don't see any chimps building altars yet, nor burying their dead. When I do, then I might have more sympathy with King's suggestion. As to H. habilis being 'human' in the sense that he had behaviors which were similar to ours, I would have to say he did. Only humans, so far, manufacture chipped stone tools. But some australopithecines were making stone tools even earlier.I don't think I am making an argument for religion based upon common ancestor. That seems to be your position, not mine. I am arguing it based upon EVIDENCE, what is found in the record. Bilzingsleben is an archaeological site dating 425,000 years. That can take me back to 600,000 years past that, I don't have evidence, but as you said, somethings don't fossilize.