RE: The death of the RTB model

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Date: Sun Feb 19 2006 - 11:29:54 EST

Hi Terry, you wrote:
 
And, frankly, I have to side with Dick Fischer and the issues raised by
Davis Young's article a few years ago-- it's hard to put a Biblical Adam
into either one of the timeframes, all evidences of pre-neolithic human
characteristics notwithstanding. That doesn't mean I necessarily endorse
Dick's solution, but putting Adam much earlier than 10,000 BC has its
own difficulties.
 
There are some obvious references to southern Mesopotamia in Genesis.
This one is hard to refute.
 
The Accadians and the Sumerians date to no earlier than 4000 BC in
southern Mesopotamia. In early Accadian writing they had a triad of
gods. Ilu was the father god, and ilu is the root of the Hebrew el and
the Islamic allah. Due to Sumerian influence ilu was corrupted over
time to Anu under influence of the Sumerian An who was their father-god.
The second in the Accadian hierarchy was Ea whom the Sumerians adopted
as Enki, meaning lord of the earth. The third Accadian god was Enlil
meaning lord of the air, breath or spirit.
 
Over the centuries the Accadians began to adopt some of the Sumerian
pantheon of 3,000 to 4,000 gods. Ishtar was the goddess of love,
Shamash was the son god, and so on until the flood or no later than
Abraham where they had become monotheistic.
 
The en prefix in Sumerian means lord or king. Thus you see in the
Sumerian king list, Enmengallana, Ensipsiana, Enmenduranki, and so
forth. Now notice that Adam's two grandsons also have the en prefix -
Enoch and Enosh, indicating that they were kings in their respective
cities. Thus when Cain named the city after his son Enoch he was
confirming that his son reigned over that city.
 
The en- prefix in the names of Adam's grandsons places Adam's immediate
family in the southern Mesopotamian environment and dates them to no
earlier than 7,000 years ago.
 
Dick Fischer
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Terry M. Gray
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 1:37 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: The death of the RTB model
 
Glenn,
 
What impact does occasional or rare interbreeding have on these models?
This may be the human evolution version of "horizontal gene transfer".
Can one interbreeding event result in loci getting fixed and confusing
the conclusion? Sure, you can rule out the view that there was total
replacement with no incorporation of genetic information from previous
populations. So, given the evidence, we may be able to rule out the null
hypothesis, but what happens to near null hypotheses?
 
Similarly, I'm reminded, with all of Rich Fausette's continued
enthusiasm for the genetic purity of the Jews, that Tamar, Rahab, Ruth,
Bathsheba, all in the lineage of Christ, were non-Jews.
 
There's an interesting discussion in Dawkin's The Ancestor's Tale about
the impact of a single, yet highly successful (in terms of progeny
produced) interbreeding event, such that even highly isolated
populations look genetically connected to the main population. I haven't
totally wrapped my mind around it yet, but it suggests that sometimes
these results can be readily obfuscated.
 
in the RTB model, how does Hugh Ross deal with other continuities
between primates, mammals, etc. that suggest common ancestry? The OOA
vs. MRH debate simply dictates the date (and perhaps location) of the
bottleneck that leads to the human speciation event. There is still such
an event whether it's 100,000 years ago or 1 million years ago. And,
frankly, I have to side with Dick Fischer and the issues raised by Davis
Young's article a few years ago-- it's hard to put a Biblical Adam into
either one of the timeframes, all evidences of pre-neolithic human
characteristics notwithstanding. That doesn't mean I necessarily endorse
Dick's solution, but putting Adam much earlier than 10,000 BC has its
own difficulties. Choose your medicine, I guess.
 
TG
 
 
Received on Sun Feb 19 11:30:09 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 19 2006 - 11:30:09 EST