I I did see something about Flores on the Discovery Channel(my window on
paleo stuff). In light of ALL the evidence, is that good science? And I will
let you have the last on Genesis.
From: Glenn Morton [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:10 AM
To: Shuan Rose; george murphy
Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
Subject: RE: Black Sea Flood
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
>Behalf Of Shuan Rose
>Glory to Ugaboogah!!
I think this is the point at which I ask for your money! :-)
I hesitate to reply for fear of getting another round on this going, but you
>Seriously, although I come late to what is well-worn ground, I want to put
>in my tuppence:
>Glenn, why is what you are saying that much different from the literalist
>who insists on a walking, talking snake in a literal garden? HE could say
>the same: if the Bible says there was a talking snake and there wasn't, the
>Bible is false. We are really talking about different forms of literature
>here, and there is no reason to believe that EVERYTHING (Jonah and
>Balaam's ass, Esther, the Prodigal Son) is literally true.OTOH, there is an
>irreducible minimum . If somewhere in Palestine, a tomb is located with a
>skeleton with a crown with KING OF THE JEWS written on it, then the game is
>up. I think we would have to say that Christianity is false.
On the other hand we seem to find nothing wrong with a guy who raised
Lazarus from the dead after 3 days, changed water to wine, walked on water,
fed 5000 with a tiny bit of food, and who himself walked into locked rooms.
Why on earth are these latter stories more believable than the ones you
mention? And if we apply a single standard to both OT and NT, then why
don't we claim that the NT is a different sort of literature? And why do we
have to find the body for the game to be up? We all know that dead people
don't rise--name one of your acquaintances who has died and then after 3
days started walking and talking again.
To me, we have a double standard-one for those silly unbelievable OT stories
and one for those really believable NT stories. It seems to me that if we
can believe a God who can perform the NT stories, what is the problem with
believing that that same God can actually perform the OT stories? Did God
suddenly learn how to do miracles sometime between 400 BC and 4BC?
>Beyond the IM,
>I'm prepared to be open-minded.
>Speaking of observational Data, Glenn, I observe that there are parallels
>between Genesis 1-11 and various Near Eastern myths.
I don't have a problem with that. There are parallels. But, if the
statement, "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth', is
false, literally false, then we are worshippiing the wrong God. Either there
isn't one, or we need to find the true God. And since that statement above
is in that literature which everyone finds otherwise so unbelievable why
should we believe that simple statement?
I argue in
>that the stories in Genesis 1-11 were originally written to correct
>misunderstandings of YAHWEH based on NE mythology. But I haven't observed
>any evidence that Australopithecus or early Homo had a moral
>sense, or could
>build a boat and herd animals into it, or worshiped the one true God.
Well there is evidence that they had to have built a boat because H. erectus
is found on the island of Flores, Indonesia 780,000 years ago. Flores, even
at lowest sea levels, was separated from the Asian mainland by 8 different
straits of water.
"Even at times of low sea level, when Sumatra, Java and
Bali were connected to mainland Southeast Asia, at least two
sea crossings were required to reach Flores. The first of
these deep-water barriers, between the islands of Bali and
Lombok, is about 25 km wide and constitutes a major
biogeographical boundary, the Wallace Line. Prior to human
intervention, only animals capable of crossing substantial
water barriers by swimming, flying or rafting on flotsam
were able to establish populations on Flores (e.g.
elephants, rats). In fact, the impoverished nature of the
fauna on the island in the Early and Middle Pleistocene
rules out the possibility of temporary landbridges from
"There is a maximum in species diversity during this faunal
stage, indicating full exchange with the Asian mainland. This
period of maximum faunal exhange can be correlated with the onset
of 0.8 Ma of a period of highly fluctuating but on average lower
sea-levels as compared to the Early Pleistocene. Around the same
time the overseas arrival of the artefact-maker seems to have
taken place on Flores. However, a land-connection between Flores
and Java at this time is unlikely, considering the faunal
evidence. The existence of a former land-bridge connection
between Flores and the Sunda Shelf is also not supported by the
present-day bathymetry. Bringing the sea-level 200 m lower than
it is today would not result in full land-connections between
continental Southeast Asia. The presence of hominids on
Flores in the Early Pleistocene therefore provides the
oldest inferred date for human maritime technology anywhere
in the world. Elsewhere, dates for such capabilities are
much more recent. These findings indicate that the
intelligence and technological capabilities of H. erectus
may have been seriously underestimated. An accumulating
body of evidence from elsewhere supports this conclusion
(e.g. Thieme 1997).
"The complex logistic organization needed for people to
build water-craft capable of transporting a biologically and
socially viable group across significant water barriers,
also implies that people had language. Previously the
organizational and linguistic capacity required for sea
voyaging was thought to be the prerogative of modern humans
and to have only appeared in the late Pleistocene. It now
seems that humans had this capacity 840,000 years ago." M.
J. Morwood et al, "Archaeological and Palaeontological
Research in Central Flores, East Indonesia: results of
Fieldwork 1997-1998," Antiquity, 73(1999):273-286, p.
Bali and Lombok and between Sumbawa and Flores. In addition,
Flores is presently subject to strong uplift as evidenced by
raised coastal terraces." ~ P.Y. Sondaar, et al., "Middle
Pleistocene faunal turnover and Colonization of Flores(Indonesia)
by Homo erectus," Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences.
Paris 319:1255-1262, p. 1261
"Both Lombok and Flores could have been reached only by crossing
the open sea, which, most arcaeologists would agree, demanded
considerable linguistic capability." ~ Robert G. Bednarik, "Sea
Faring Homo Erectus" The Artefact, 18(1995): 92-92, p. 91
People constantly underestimate what early man was capable of accomplishing.
By the way, there is a polished wooden plank (woodwork) from the same time
but different place. It is S. Belitszky et al, "A Middle Pleistoce
Wooden Plank with man-made Polish," Journal of Human Evolution,
So did he have the ability to build a boat and put animals on it? Yes.
You can have the last word on all but the anthropological data. I really
don't wish to get another round on how to interpret early Genesis going
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 15:49:49 EDT