interpreting history, from An interesting atheist book

From: bivalve (
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 15:23:22 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "Terrible history or just terrible lizards?"

    I suspect that evidence may often be tangential and as such, difficult to interpret with confidence. For example, I have a copy of a chapter from J. C. Ryle, 1887, The Upper Room. He admits that parenting, the topic of the chapter, is not novel, though he thinks the topic and application is neglected. He writes: "The world is old, and we have the experience of nearly six thousand years to help us." This suggests that he thought that Adam and Eve were only about 4000 BC, but seems ambiguous as to the time of creation. As I recall, fossil hominids were not too well documented as of 1887, though what we now recognize as good evidence of ancient humans had been found. Also, a scenario that makes Adam and Eve not to be physical ancestors of all physical humans would make their date irrelevant to the dating of the oldest human artifacts. Thus, what might seem at first like a YEC statement in fact appears more ambiguous. Perhaps looking for commentaries on Genesis would be !
     more productive.

        Dr. David Campbell
        Old Seashells
        University of Alabama
        Biodiversity & Systematics
        Dept. Biological Sciences
        Box 870345
        Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA

    That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 09 2003 - 15:16:49 EDT