Re: The death of the RTB model

From: Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon Feb 20 2006 - 15:42:27 EST

--- glennmorton@entouch.net wrote:

>And, I would also ask. Once you move the origin of humanity back 100,000 years
from the biblical times >(which also would require a non-neolithic
technological setting) what is the real issue of going ahead >and moving it
back 5 million? Both settings were hunter-gatherer not farming. So, the
criticism of my >views that I violate the neolithic setting of the Scripture is
also valid of ANY view which has Adam and >Eve back 100 kyr ago. Indeed, it is
valid of any view in which A&E are even 20Kyr ago and earlier. So, >some of
that neolithic criticism aimed at my position is a distinction without a
difference.

I presume you want Adam placed 5MYA to ensure that he is the ancestor of all
humans. But that requires one to play fast an loose with the genealogies. Is
that any better than Dick's solution placing Adam 7000 YA and declaring him the
_federal_ head of the human race? I realize you're trying to devise a history
that is both true and will satisfy the conservative Christians you grew up
with, but tell me truthfully: how have they received your history in
"Foundation, Fall and Flood"? I'm not trying to be critical. Like you I'd give
my right arm (hypocritical caveat here: I'm left handed) to have a history that
was scientifically defensible and acceptable to the conservative Christians I
worship with.

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Mon Feb 20 15:43:23 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 20 2006 - 15:43:24 EST