Re: More Homo erectus religion and other things

Karen G. Jensen (
Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:36:18 -0600

Hi, Glenn,

Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:03:48 -0600 you wrote:

> I do not believe in the gap view at
>all and think it is totally unworkable.

Right. The gap theory is unworkable, for one thing because it is a mistake
to place the whole fossil record before Creation Week. Jeremiah 4:23-26,
which is often used to support the gap view, clearly refers to the future.

I am choosing option 1. I am
>changing the chronology. Don't think that just because Adam and Eve were
>created millions of years ago, one must therefore believe in a gap theory.

If you try to fit them into Genesis 1&2, which requires placing the fossil
record below them into Genesis 1 also, and if that fossil record represents
evolution through millions of years, it requires a "day-age" or "gap" view of
Creation week, or something I may not have heard yet, and very limited
geological impact of the Flood. Do you reject "day age"?

>I might point out that there is a very smooth sequence of transitional forms
>between H. erectus and H. sapiens. It is very difficult to determine to
>which class the fossils between 400 kyr and 100 kyr belong.

A number of researchers simply call H. erectus an anotomically diverse
group of H. sapiens.

>>Some of the evidences of spiritual practices (such as the specially paved
>>area for, well, it looked like canabalism...) point to behavior that is not
>>christ-like. Is it possible that some of these folks were doing some
>>inappropriate cross-breeding also -- not a nice topic at all -- such as
>>that alluded to in Genesis 6? (The human heart was not changed at the
>As you say the human heart has not changed. But they must be human to have
>a human heart. Also, lots of things that modern humans do is not
>christ-like. That does not mean that modern men are cross-breeding with
>apes at all. Nor should non-christlike behavior in the past imply