RE: Oldest Hominid-new entry from Chad

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Sun Jul 14 2002 - 11:23:12 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: Christian? On what basis?"

    >-----Original Message-----
    Hi Dick,

      Dick Fischer wrote on Saturday, July 13, 2002 4:24 PM
    >>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.

    Glad to give it, reciprocity would be nice.

    >> >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?

    Dick, you still don't seem to understand. We are not necessarily speaking
    of hominid vs ape at the chromosomal fusion. We are talking about non-human
    vs human. A hominid is strictly defined by certain taxonomical features.
    We humans have those features (and thus we are hominids) but we also have
    spirituality, which is not going to leave much of a fossil record except in
    the form of altars made with durable material.

    Thus, to answer your question, this was not an ape(you really should know
    better) but in my scenario would be prior to the spiritualization of

    >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.

    Of course there would be true humans before the flood. What on earth do you
    think Noah was--pickled cod?!!!!

    Dick, do you read what I write? I said, clearly in my last note that this
    could be considered in the biological line but prior to the infusion of the
    spirit. What is your problem with understanding that?

    >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.

    Dick, once again, You simply fail to read what I wrote. In my last message I

    "IN my scenario not all hominids have to be spiritually human because we did
    evolve from the hominids; but all spiritual humans are hominids."

    Why don't you hypothecate on what I actually said, rather than what you want
    me to say? What difficulty do you have following this concept. If you had
    read it, you wouldn't be writing the frankly false stuff you are writing.
    Misunderstand it again and I might think you are misunderstanding on

    >>>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.
    >>Nor mine.
    >>>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.

    Then I stand corrected. You give more authority to the Akkadian scriptures
    than to the Judaic ones. Thus, I guess if I ever convert to your views, it
    is the Akkadian gods I must worship.

    >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.

    Yes, but it would seem to me that the theological implications of that
    event, would be a bit different than defined by the Judaic account. Yet any
    disagreement between Genesis and your beloved Akkadian scriptures, you
    believe the Akkadian version. To me one gives priority to that which is
    more important.


    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 14 2002 - 09:56:04 EDT