Glenn Morton wrote:
>Gee whiz, hominids in the Cambrian! What a discovery!!!! Dick, you
>obviously mis-wrote. It is half a million not half a billion!
Either I mis-wrote or mis-thought. Thanks for the benefit of the doubt.
> >His problem is now just the reverse. He has to find ways to
>>push pack the geological evidence to fit the new anthropological
>The error you (and I made) in our expectations was one of logic. IN my
>scenario not all hominids have to be spiritually human because we did evolve
>from the hominids; but all spiritual humans are hominids. And, given that I
>mark the origin of humanity at the chromosomal fusion the existence of
>earlier hominids is a requirement for my views. THere has to be a hominid
>within whose lineage the fusion occurred.
Ah, then this fossil find was from before chromosomal fusion, and
thus was an ape, not human at all. Is that your conclusion?
The flood in your scenario is a restriction, however, terminating all
mankind. All true human remains would have to be dated after the
infilling of the Mediterranean sea which has been dated to 5.5
million (with an "m") years ago. If you allow humans before your
Mediterranean "flood," which 6 million years ago is, and outside the
Mediterranean basin, which Chad is, that at least requires you to
restate what has been your method of apology.
At the very least you have to posit over 500,000 years now between
your Adam and Noah. Scripture doesn't help you there. Of course,
5.5 million years between Noah and Abraham hasn't been seen as much
of an impediment, so if you're used to a Grand Canyon in the middle
of your par four green, I suppose it won't slow you down much. But
certainly this latest hominid find puts a big kink in what has always
been a long-shot hypothesis anyway.
>>Those who have been on this list long enough know that my stance has
>>been that Adam of Genesis lived about 7,000 years ago in southern
>>Mesopotamia, and he is the father of the
>>Adamites/Semites/Israelites/Jews, not the father of all humanity as
>>has been commonly presumed. Thus early hominids, whatever the date,
>>do not threaten my case.
>>How about it Glenn, have I gained a convert, or simply agitated an
>>old adversarial friend?
>Nothing worthy of either conversion or agitation has occurred in this note.
>But, if I were to convert to your views, Dick, I would become an adherent of
>the Sumerian religion.
Sumerians were polytheistic, I'm strictly trinitarian, as were the
early Accadians apparently. It's the Accadians I find intriguing.
Historians ought to see the obvious link between them and the
Adamites/Semites. Inversely, theologians should see the same link
since Hebrew derives from Accadian.
>You always give precedent to Sumerian accounts over the Judaic
>accounts of human history.
Hey, I'm the one taking Aricept. You probably forgot this from my book:
"From the evidence we can infer that all of the flood stories, both
biblical and extra-biblical, were predicated on an event.
The event, a flood, was talked about and written about, and the
accounts were passed down through many generations. Whether
Gilgamesh ever encountered Utnapishtim is as problematic as Godzilla
meeting King Kong. Who knows? In all likelihood an imaginative
scribe concocted it. But what is conspicuous is that he drew upon
established traditions. Elements of the story were in circulation.
The biblical narrative was predicated on the same event, but
corresponding accounts were passed along separate channels. The
history of Noah's flood comes to us thanks to Moses, we believe, who
used source materials at hand. Moses, a discerning servant of God,
was the filter through which any polytheism was screened out.
Many historians believe the Hebrew version in the Bible was derived
from pagan mythology. This belief is unfounded. What should be seen
is that the Mosaic account of the flood, as well as the epic myths,
are all based upon a like event in history, a sort of "shared common
ancestry" as it were.
After comparing the Babylonian epic with the biblical account,
Any similarities with the Genesis record have to be overlaying
extraneous matter which forms the bulk of the poem; such can
best be explained as due to both versions going back to a
common primary fact.
And this is the point precisely. The ultimate source of all the
accounts is the event itself, a massive flood, that impacted the
entire region so heavily it remained a staple both of folk lore and
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 13 2002 - 21:07:17 EDT