Re: Re: How to interpret Adam (was: Re: Kerkut)

From: jack syme <>
Date: Tue Feb 24 2004 - 07:24:30 EST

I too thank you for that detailed information.

I asked for a definition of what is meant by " genuinely human". And yes,I suspect this definition of what it means to be "human" is not verifiable, it is likely a philosophcal/religious construct. But this does not make the concept invalid, it just puts it beyond the realm of science. And, this is an important question, it has implications for current medical ethical debates such as abortion and decisions at the end of life. I remember a few years ago there was some debate about whether or not the condition persistent vegetative state, could be considered equivalent to being dead, along the lines of the concept of brain death. My argument at the time was that this involved a concept of "loss of personhood" and was therefore not testable, so could not be seen like brain death, which is testable.

But, this discussion involves what it means to be human, or "created in God's image". I am not sure when Peter Ruest said geninely human he meant just biologically human, or something else. "Something else" would admittedly not be verifiable. But the situation is this as I see it. There were bilogical humans all over the world as far back as 60 thousand years ago according to this information. But, it is my understanding that Adam and Eve, were true historical figures, given New Testament accounts referring to them. And, therefore the first "genuine humans" whatever that means.

So, is it possible that Adam and Eve existed further back than is commonly accepted? I guess that is possible, the biblical evidence seems to contradict this. Is it possible that all homo sapiens were wiped out in a worldwide flood, except for Noah and his descendants, and that all people now are descendant of Adam and Eve? This would seem to fit the biblical evidence, and seems to make the most sense to me, but it appears that there is scientific evidence that contradicts that as well.

Honestly, I do not know what the answer is. But, to claim that Adam and Eve cannot be historical contradicts pretty clear biblical evidence to the contrary, so I do not accept that answer either.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: D. F. Siemens, Jr.
  Cc: ; ; ;
  Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:08 PM
  Subject: Re: Re: How to interpret Adam (was: Re: Kerkut)

  On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:13:03 -0600 "Glenn Morton" <> writes:
    The Australians were in place over 60,000 years ago. see
    Australia's oldest human remains: age of the Lake Mungo 3

    Alan Thorne, Rainer Gr?n, Graham Mortimer, Nigel A. Spooner,
    John J. Simpson, Malcolm McCulloch, Lois Taylor, Darren

    We have carried out a comprehensive ESR and U-series dating
    study on the Lake Mungo 3 (LM3) human skeleton. The isotopic
    Th/U and Pa/U ratios indicate
    that some minor uranium mobilization may have occurred in
    the past. Taking such effects into account, the best age
    estimate for the human skeleton is obtained
    through the combination of U-series and ESR analyses
    yielding 62,000+/-6000 years. This age is in close agreement
    with OSL age estimates on the sediment into
    which the skeleton was buried of 61,000+/-2000 years.
    Furthermore, we obtained a U-series age of 81,000+/-21,000
    years for the calcitic matrix that was precipitated on the bones after burial. All age results are
    considerably older than the previously assumed age of LM3
    and demonstrate the necessity for directly
    dating hominid remains. We conclude that the Lake Mungo 3
    burial documents the earliest known human presence on the
    Australian continent. The age implies that
    people who were skeletally within the range of the present
    Australian indigenous population colonized the continent
    during or before oxygen isotope stage 4
    (57,000-71,000 years). Copyright 1999 Academic Press

    Journal of Human Evolution, v 36, n 6, June, 1999, p591-612

    The idea which Drsyme is advocating is ad hoc. It is a spiritual difference which can not be detected. That smacks of "I can believe what I want with no one able to contradict me" type of methodology.

    Except that science most assuredly CAN falsify the concept that we are all descended from a single pair created 7000 years ago. There simply is too much genetic variability in the human population for it all to have arisen in the past few thousand years. For some genetic systems which require 5 million years to explain the variations within the human family, see

    Thanks, Glenn, for the information. I was going by memory and trying to be conservative. The age of the earliest American inhabitants has also been placed ca 18 Ky, but 12 is generally accepted. Either date plays hob with a 7 Ky age for the origin of "real" humans, and the genomic should be devastating--but will not be to the "true believers."
Received on Tue Feb 24 07:24:46 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 24 2004 - 07:24:47 EST