Since Carol forwarded a private e-mail to this list, I don't particularly
feel required to answer, especially since I am not on the list at this time.
I will only make a general comment. Yes, DAvid, you are correct, my view has
its problems. All do. One can make it myth with only the most tenuous basis
in fact and incur problems of inspiration. One can make the flood a
mesopotamian flood and have it violate the laws of physics by having an ark
float uphill against the water flow which I find to be the silliest
implication of the Mesopotamian flood. One can place it in the Black Sea
where the rise in water level mean that over a 1 year period, people had to
move the equivalent distance of 3 houses down the block to avoid being
drowned (hardly something that seems like the basis for the flood story. It
should have been the long march story). One can place the flood in the
Caspian where there are no mountains and the and ignore the claim that there
were mountains. Which is also a criticism of all other locales except mine.
The Black Sea rose about 1 foot per day over 400 days--400 feet--yeah that
is covering the tall mountains. Do I hear an AMEN!?
Or, one can look at history as God creating man, giving him civilization,
and then destroying it forcing mankind into a several million year long dark
age. In our 21st century arrogance we think that if we and our dearest 8
friends were all that was left on earth we would instantly recreate
civilization. We wouldn't! If we were lucky, we would escape starvation.
Our children would be naked savages and all would have to be re-invented.
That is what I believe to be the ONLY way to fit anthropology, geology and
other items into a Biblical framework. All other choices are already false
in my opinion. Does mine have problems sure, like every human endeavor! But
unless you believe that the account in Genesis has absolutely NO
relationship with what actually would happen in a Mesopotamian flood, there
is no way that the flood could be Mesopotamian. Boats on water don't float
UPHILL!!! On this I would bet the farm!
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
>From: David F Siemens [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 6:27 PM
>Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
>Subject: Re: Glenn Morton's Letters
>Glenn Morton wrote, as forwarded by Carol Ann Hill, on 19 March 2001 in
>"Sheep and goats, whose role would become essential in the peopling of
>middle Mediterranean area, were domesticated in the Near East. The sheep
>is, at first, a victim of a selective hunting process, for example, at
>Chemi at the foot of the Zagros, where a possible domestication as early
>9000 B. C. is postulated. " ~ Jean Guilaine, "The First Farmers of the
>World," in Jean Guilaine, editor, Prehistory: The World of Early Man,
>York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 82
>Sheep herding was very widespread prior to the time that you say that
>is really the father. Also, you ignore the statement that Jabal is the
>father of those who live in tents. Mankind has been living in tents for
>over 400,000 years and maybe as long ago as 1.6 million years. If so, in
>what sense can Jabal be the father of tent-livers? Several examples:
>You also make the statement that betrays your lack of study in
>when you write:
>"And could prehistoric humans--barely out of the Stone Age--have
>a boat the size of the ark? With what--stone tools? Boy, do you need to
>study ancient boatmaking. First off, the stone age Hawaiians, who NEVER
>the stone age because they had NO metals at all, built ocean going
>that were actually larger than the iron-tool-built boats of Captain Cook.
>"The boats used by Polynesians when James Cook encountered them were
>of craftsmanship. The Polynesians manufactured multi-hulled, multi-plank
>boats, propelled by paddles and sails and they were extremely fast.
>Tahitian canoes were 65 feet long, longer than many power cruisers. One
>canoe that Captain Cook saw was longer than his own ship. Polynesian
>were all made with stone-age tools." G. R. Morton Adam, Apes and
>Anthropology, DMD publishing 1997, p. 139 reference: John R.
>and Boating" The Software Toolworks Encyclopedia, 1992 Ed. version 1.5.
>Text Copyright Grolier Inc. 1992
>The earliest planed and polished piece of wood is dated between
>years (a time of Homo erectus) who obviously had skill with woodworking.
>Belitszky et al, "A Middle Pleistocene Wooden Plank with man?made
>Journal of Human Evolution, 1991, 20:349?353.)
>There is microscopic wear evidence on stone tools of woodworking going
>1.6 million years. Homo erectus manufactured a javelin balanced just like
>modern olympic javelin and he did it with stone tools. What is the
>with building a boat with stone tools, which many primitive cultures
>do today_-ocean going vessels made of wood!
>* * * * * * * * * *
>These statements leave me with several questions. Jabal was a descendant
>of Cain (Genesis 4:20). If the domestication of sheep was about 9000
>years ago, and the use of tents perhaps 1.6 million years ago, did
>Cainites survive the Flood? The distinction between clean and unclean
>animals was observed by Noah (7:2). This surely requires domestication.
>Why did it have to be rediscovered some 5 million years later?
>Tubal-Cain was a half brother of Jabal. He worked with brass or copper
>(bronze ?) and iron (4:22). Since the Bronze Age began less than 6000
>years ago and the Iron age about 3000 years ago, did the brothers span a
>wide period after the Flood? Alternatively, why suggest that Noah built
>with stone tools? Though stone tools can be used for sophisticated
>projects, it takes a lot longer than using metal tools. A saw in
>competent hands will produce a relatively smooth dimensioned plank fairly
>quickly, while splitting a trunk and smoothing the irregular slabs with
>stone scrapers will be slow work. As with herding, why was so valuable a
>technology lost? Can it be that the interpretation of the biblical
>chronology is in error? Further, how does a 0.8-1.6 million year old
>technology demonstrate a more sophisticated one 4 million years earlier?
>You are obviously right that a vessel of whatever size cannot sail
>upstream and land in the mountains. But it seems to me that your
>alternative has its own problems.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 23 2001 - 14:10:07 EST