Re: Dating Adam

Glenn Morton (
Wed, 29 May 1996 21:01:54

>Glenn wrote:
>> It would appear to me that the standard Christian explanations of
> when and
>> where the image of God first appears in the fossil record is simply
>What is the "standard Chr. explanation of when and where..."

There are actually 2 widespread views. 1)Adam was formed 6000 years ago.
This is the YEC view. Probably 50% of the U.S. Christians hold this view.
2) The one that Terry is advocating which is similar to Hugh Ross' view.
Adam was formed between 50,000 -100,000 years ago.Ross claims that there
is no evidence of human spirituality prior to this 24,000 years ago (Hugh
Ross, The Fingerprint of God, (Orange: Promise Publishing, 1991),
p. 159-160). But since there is one object of worship prior to these
times (the Golan Venus), it seems to me that we must at the verly least
move back to that time (330,000 years ago) for the appearance of Adam.

>What is the "image of God" in this sentence? How does it appear "in
> the fossil record?"

It appears as an object of worship or magic. The Venus figurines are
believed to represent one of 2 types of object. A goddess of worship or
a fertility symbol. If the maker understands that there are powers other
than him, which these objects clearly seem to indicate, then he must have
some awareness of God. Awareness of God is one of the differences between
us an the animals. i.e., part of the Image of God.

>Sometimes I'm missing your points, Glenn. Perhaps it is my dullness,
> but also your verbosity contributes. Most of us are vaguely familiar
with the science news; you don't need to offer long quotes (maybe just
references). I just don't have time to read long paragraphs here, and I
don't think that is necessary for you to make your points. We are a
generally receptive audience.

I will reduce quoting the authorities for a while and do as you suggest.
But then I fear, the debate degenerates into one man's opinion against
another with little substance. Also, in my experience, most people don't
go look up references especially if it is something that they don't want
to agree with!

An example of why I think quotation is important is that the authorities
in the field can speak. Concerning the Eve hypothesis that Terry was
taking me to task over, statements like the following are important.

"The debate over modern human origins has focused lately on the question
of replacement because of implications in the genetic evidence of the Eve
hypothesis, a stunning theory that sprouted, blossomed, and withered like
a summer wildflower within the last several years." Johanson, Johanson,
and Edgar, _Ancestors_ 1994, p. 244


Foundation,Fall and Flood