>You PRESUME the genealogies to be incomplete. I don't and St. Luke
>doesn't. Got any saints on your side?
Yeah, St. Luke. Luke 3:35-36: "...the son of shelah, the son of Cainan,
the son of Arpaxad, the son of Shem,..."
Compared to Genesis 11:11-12
"And after he became the father of Arphaxad,Shem lived 500 years and had
other sons and daughters, and when Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became
the father of Shelah."
Considering that Cainan is in the earliest manuscript of Luke and is not
in Genesis, this would prove that the Genesis genealogies are either
incomplete or Luke added a guy who wasn't there. From this alone there is
at least a 50/50 chance that the genealogies in Genesis are incomplete.
Why would you say that Luke doesn't assume incomplete genealogies. If he
wrote what is in our Bible, then he had to believe that the Genesis
genealogy was incomplete.
>Glenn, If your method of apology depends on talking Australopithicines
>doesn't that tell you something about the validity of your approach?
>And not just talking, farming and raising livestock (Gen. 4:2), living
>in tents (Gen. 4:20), playing harps and organs (Gen. 4:21), and making
>useful objects out of brass and iron (Gen. 4:22), and having a sister
>named Naamah (Gen. 4:22), which translated means "not an ape." ;^)
Let's get this clear. I have several times stated that I prefer that Adam
be a Homo habilis or erectus. I am hoping that one of these beings will
be found much earlier than the 2.4 million years for the habilis now.
Both of these creatures contain in their skulls evidence for speech--the
same evidence for speech found on the inside of your skull. They both had
Broca's area. I fail to see how it is possible for a being to speak and
not be spiritual! They engaged in bvery HUMAN activities as I have
outlined several times. This includes fire, making complex stone tools,
building tents, cutting trees, tanning hides. But if the evidence I want
is not found, then I am willing to consider Australopithecus as a
possibility. Here is why.
The foot of Australopithecus is nearly identical to yours! He walked
fully upright like you.
"Tuttle has convincingly argued that the Laetoli footprints are
virtually indistinguishable from those made by small Homo sapiens who are
not used to wearing shoes."-Dean Falk, Braindance 1992, p. 88
His post-cranial skeleton is quite similar. (In the Laetoli
footprints,3.7 million years old, one playfully steps in the adults
footprints--I have seen human children do this) They made stone tools
(Donald Johanson and James Shreeve, Lucy's Child, (New
York: William Morrow and Co., Inc., 1989), p. 88), like you are capable of
making. There is evidence that they used skins to carry bones digging
tools around (Donald C. Johanson, Lenora Johanson, and Blake Edgar,
Ancestors, (New York: Villard Books, 1994), p. 163-165)
Considering that there are modern people with much smaller brains who are
capable of fully modern thought, you can't say they weren't capable of
thought on these grounds. (see ~Roger Lewin, "Is Your Brain Really
Necessary," Science, Dec. 12,1980, p. 1232-1234.)
In the spirit of good debate,
Foundation,Fall and Flood