Re: 1. Early man needed clothing; Elephant burial

Stephen Jones (
Thu, 20 Mar 97 06:05:19 +0800


On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 22:58:01 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:

SJ>Glenn believes that "the creativity of archaic hominids" was such
>1. An australopithecine/Homo habilis/homo erectus called Noah built
>a three-decker Ark 5.5 mya.

GM>Stephen You admitted that H. erectus could have built a boat and
>now you are back to criticising me for what you once admitted. tsk.

For the umpteenth time, I repeat that while have always admitted that
"H. erectus" may have used "primitive water transport", a "raft" or
even a "dugout log", I have *never*, as far as I am aware, said that
"H. erectus could have built a boat". Here are extracts from at
least *four* of my posts pointing this out:


From: "Stephen Jones" <>
To: "" <>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 96 05:44:57 +0800
Subject: Re: ORIGINS: a new successful prediction for my view 2/2


SJ>Of course it is possible that families of "archaic Homo Sapiens"
>(whose brain size averaged about 1200 cc - Hominid FAQ), may have had
>some primitive form of water transport (eg. a raft or dugout log)
>that was blown off course in a tropical storm.


From: "Stephen Jones" <>
To: "" <>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 20:11:48 +0800
Subject: Re: The last homo erectus


Yet consider that in 2 million years (5.5 million years according to
Glenn), the best that H. erectus got to was some crude tools, rafts
and rock art. Yet in 100,000 years H. sapiens has built computers,
spaceships and has "sailed" to the moon!


>GM>But now the discovery of a stone-tool industry on the Indonesian
>island of Flores, in a layer dated by palaeomagnetism to about
>700,000 years ago, has provided good evidence for open-sea voyages
>by H. erectus, so there can be no question that whoever colonized
>Australia was capable of such a journey, even 176,000 years
>ago."~Paul G. Bahn, "Further Back Down Under," Nature, Oct 17, 1996,
>p. 577-578, p. 578

Agreed. Wills suggests bamboo rafts as a likely vehicle:

>"The Australians are not seafaring peoples. Before the arrival of
>Europeans, the peoples of the northern Australian coast did make
>rafts of mangrove or driftwood, but these could not float for more
>than a few hours before becoming waterlogged These peoples lost, or
>never acquired, the technology needed to hollow out tree trunks to
>make canoes. So how did they get to Australia in the first place?
>Perhaps on bamboo rafts, which are as easy to make as bark boats but
>float for a good deal longer. There is plentiful bamboo on the
>tropical island of Timor, just to the northeast of the Australian
>mainland. And, sixty thousand years ago, soon after the start of the
>last major Ice Age, the sea level was at least 200 meters lower than
>it is now. Today, Timor is separated from Australia by 600
>kilometers of open ocean. During the Ice Age maximum, a huge
>Australian coastal plain extended almost all the way to the island.
>Migrants from Timor would have been checked only by a narrow stretch
>of water some 70-90 kilometers wide. This strait could easily have
>been crossed, by accident or design, by peoples on bamboo rafts.
>But, if there were few or no bamboos in the area when they arrived,
>it would have been a one-way voyage. After their rafts had cracked
>and split in the sun on the hot Australian shore, there was no way
>back." (Wills C., "The Runaway Brain", 1994, p144-145)




From: "Stephen Jones" <>
To: "" <>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 97 05:45:00 +0800
Subject: Re: Stephens Inconsistent boat.


Also, I have AFAIK always accepted that H. erectus may have
had some form of *water transport* while not conceding it was
a "boat":


From: "Stephen Jones" <>
To: "" <>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 97 05:58:34 +0800
Subject: Re: 1. Who is ignoring things? 2. apology (was Who is ignoring things?)


The post concerned was probably the "Stephens Inconsistent boat"
one. If that is the case, see my recent response where I have
included both messages and it can be seen that I have been consistent
in agreeing that H. erectus used "water transport", eg. a "raft" or
"dugout log", but not a "boat" (as that word is usually understood).

In the above I have consistently said that Homo erectus (or archaic
Homo sapiens) had water transport such as a "raft" or "dugout log",
but I have not said that this extended to *boats*, as the word is
usually used, ie. built by fastening wooden planks around a frame.
This would clearly be a quantum leap in technology.

If Glenn persists in this continued misrepresentation of what I say
on this "boat" topic, I will have no alternative but to regard it as

SJ>2. The Ark landed in Africa after the Flood in the Mediterranean.

GM>You missed my note in response to Bill Hamilton, saying that I
>would no longer advocate the African landing but a Turkish one.
>somehow I don't think that you will cease critisizing this point
>either even though I have altered my position.

I am glad that Glenn no longer "advocates the African landing but a
Turkish one". I certainly won't keep "criticizing this point", ie.
"the African landing". Why should I?

But I will still keep "criticizing" Glenn's 5.5 mya Mediterranean
Flood, since I believe it not only to be wrong but to have serious
adverse theological implications. Glenn still has to explain how the
Ark floated from the Mediterranean to "the mountains of Ararat
[Urartu]" (Gn 8:4). According to my Atlas, ancient Urartu is about
500 miles from the Mediterranean at its nearet point. And how could
water the Mediterranean ever fill up above sea level to enable the
Ark to float anywhere much past its present coastline?

Mt Ararat -> *
mountains of Ararat -> **
resting place of Ark ->[_] ******
****--------max. Mediterranean sea level---------***************
******* *****************

(best viewed with monospaced font)

Indeed, according to the Flood account, the water first rose (Gn
7:19-20) and then fell (Gn 8:2-3), so it was after the Flood waters
had *fallen* that the Ark "came to rest on the mountains of Ararat"
(Gn 8:4). If the Flood was the Mediterranean basin infilling, then
water would have risen until it filled the basin and then stayed at
roughly the same level. It certainly wouldn't have "dried up" (Gn
8:7) again!

SJ>3. The technology needed to build the Ark was lost for 5.2 mya but
>slowly began to be regained about 0.3 mya.
>4. Evidence of Noah's descendants for these 5.3 years was lost in the
>African jungle.

GM>As I have mentioned, there are a few fossils which have Homo-like
>affinities from 4.2 MYR ago. You seem to forget that. (see
>Brigitte Senut and Christine Tardieu, "Functional Aspects of
>Plio-Pleistocene Hominid Limb Bones: Implications for Taxonomy and
>phylogeny",in Eric Delson, editor, Ancestors: The Hard Evidence, pp

I don't "forget that" at all. As Glenn himself says, they are
"fossils which have Homo-like affinities from 4.2 MYR ago". They are
*the beginnings* of such "Homo-like affinities", mainly in the upper
arm bones. Indeed, the Fossil Hominid FAQ regards these as
"Australopithecus anamensis"

"This species was only named in August 1995. The material consists
of 9 fossils, mostly found in 1994, from Kanapoi in Kenya, and 12
fossils, mostly teeth found in 1988, from Allia Bay in Kenya (Leakey
et al.1995). Anamensis existed between 4.2 and 3.9 million years
ago, and has a mixture of primitive features in the skull, and
advanced features in the body. The teeth and jaws are very similar
to those of older fossil apes. A partial tibia (the larger of the
two lower leg bones) is strong evidence of bipedality, and a lower
humerus (the upper arm bone) is extremely humanlike. Note that
although the skull and skeletal bones are thought to be from the same
species, this is not confirmed." (Foley J., "Fossil Hominids FAQ",
April 16, 1996).

What Glenn needs is "fossils which have" *advanced "Homo-like
affinities from" ie. *5.5* "MYR ago", and ideed millions of years

SJ>So these discoveries of emerging hominid intelligence only
>hundreds of thousands of years ago cited by Glenn do not support his
>extreme Old-Adam view at all and in fact they are actually *fatal*
>to it.

GM>As I have pointed out some of this evidence goes back to at least
>2 million years.

Indeed, but "this evidence" which "goes back to at least 2 million
years" is of the *early beginnings* of art and technology. According
to Glenn's 5.5 mya Australopithecine/Homo habilis/Homo erectus theory
this technology would have to be *advanced* 3.5 million years
*before* these early beginnings!

SJ>There is of course not even a scrap of Biblical or anthropological
>evidence for these claims by Glenn.

>GM>Could this have been modern man? no. Anatomically modern people
>do not appear until 120,000 years ago

SJ>Agreed. So on Glenn's theory, Adam and Noah were not even
>"Anatomically modern people"?

GM>that is correct! Where in the Bible does it say that a man must
>look like me to be a man? Pygmys certainly don't look exactly like
>me. Some South american Indians actually have blue-colored private

Glenn needs to face reality. "Pygmys" and "South american Indians"
are *all* "Anatomically modern people". If "Adam and Noah were not
even `Anatomically modern people'" then they cannot be our
representatives (Rom 5:14; 1Cor 15:22).

GM>"Aside from these examples, there is little evidence that any of
>the other visible differences among the world's people provide any
>advantage..."~Boyce Rensberger, "Racial Odyssey," in Elvio Angeloni,
>Editor, Annual Editions Physical Anthropology
>94/95,(Sluicedock,Guilford, Conn.: The Dushkin Publishing Group,
>Inc., 1994), p.40-45, p. 43
>So I would say that there is no requirement, biblical or otherwise for
>someone to look like me to earn the title, human.

There is more to "anatomy" than "looks". These "visible differences
among the world's people" are only superficial. They are all
"Anatomically modern people". By Glenn's own admission his 5.5 mya
"Adam and Noah were not even "Anatomically modern people". IOW, the
differences between Glenn's 5.5 mya "Adam and Noah" and "Anatomically
modern people"were greater than the "visible differences among the
world's people".

SJ>If Adam was not of our species, then he cannot be our

GM>W may very well have been able to interbreed with H. erectus. In
>such a case, he could be our representative.

Apart from the fact that "H. erectus existed between 1.8 million and
300,000* years ago" (Foley J., "Fossil Hominids FAQ", April 16,
1996), there is no convincing evidence that "Anatomically modern
people" could "interbreed with H. erectus". That's why "H. erectus"
is and "Homo sapiens" are regarded as two different species.

* recent dating of skulls in Java may alter this lower limit, but it
is the higher limit (ie. "1.8 million...years ago" that rules "H.
erectus" out as Glenn's Noah.

>GM>This discovery means that other old-earth creationists who believe
>that humanity was created less than 60-100 thousand years ago must
>now explain why the making of clothing for warmth is not
>characteristic of humanity.

SJ>They have already done this but blithely Glenn ignores it (as
>usual). For example, Hugh Ross defines the essential
>"characteristic of humanity" as "awareness of God and capacity to
>form a relationship with Him":

GM>Hugh Ross says that if spiritual man is older than 60 kyr then the
>Bible is wrong.

I doubt if Ross actually said this. But in any event, I have pointed
out to Glenn that recently Ross has written that he could accept an
earlier date than "60 kyr" for "spiritual man":

"Given the gaps in some biblical genealogies, the creation of Adam
and Eve could possibly be dated as far back as 60,000 years ago, less
reasonably, even earlier." (Ross H, "The Meaning of Art and Music",
Facts & Faith, Reasons To Believe: Pasadena CA, Vol. 10, No. 4,
Fourth Quarter 1996, pp6,11)

Personally, based on the neolithic elements in Genesis 4 and the
problem of stretching the Genesis 5 genealogies too much, I am coming
to the view that Adam was probably Proto-Neolithic, ie. between
20,000 - 10,000 years ago. This means he may not be the physical
ancestor of all men living today. But nowhere does the Bible
actually say that he was.

GM>Since anatomically modern man appeared earlier than that, it must
>mean non-human humans.

Even being "anatomically modern man" was not necessarily Homo
spiritualis. In the Pre-Adamite model, "anatomically modern man" was
the final stages of the emerging image of God, but he was not
actually the finished image of God.

GM>Since there is evidence of neanderthal religion, they surely had
>an awareness of God and they didn't look like me either.

That "neanderthal" buried his dead and may have had a primitive
"religion", is not necessarily evdienece of "an awareness of God'.

SJ>"By "spirit" the Bible means awareness of God and capacity to
>form a relationship with Him. Worship is the key evidence of the
>spiritual quality of the human race, and the universality of
>worship is evidenced in altars, temples, and religious relics of
>all kinds. Burial of dead, use of tools, or even painting do not
>qualify as evidence of the spirit, for non-spirit beings such as
>bower birds, elephants, and chimpanzees engage in such activities
>to a limited extent." (Ross H., "Creation and Time" 1994, p140)
>Glenn must know that Ross believes this, but he evidently believes if
>you repeat something often enough, people will believe it is true:

GM>ROSS IS WRONG. Elephants do not bury their dead in the sense that
>Neanderthal and anatomically modern men did. Elephants 'bury' men,
>rhinoceras' and other things. They do not dig pits for their dead,
>nor do they leave grave goods, which neanderthal left. The
>following is long but worth it.

Ross says that "elephants engage in such activities TO A LIMITED
EXTENT." (emphasis mine). Ross' main point is that "Elephants" and
"neanderthal" show no evidence of "awareness of God and capacity to
form a relationship with Him". That "neanderthal and anatomically
modern men did" bury "their dead' with "grave goods" is evidence of
respect for their dead, and may even be evidence of a belief in an
after-life (this would only require intelligence and imagination),
but it is not necessarily evidence of "awareness of God and capacity
to form a relationship with Him".

Evidence of "worship" Ross gives as "altars, temples, and religious
relics". I am unsure of "religious relics" since this could apply
to just about anything. But I would add religious art and writings
if it could be shown unambiguously that they were about God in a
spiritual sense.

GM>"~Iain and Oria Douglas-Hamilton, Among the Elephants, (New York:
>Viking Press, 1975), p. 236-238

I don't know what this is supposed to prove. All this shows is that
elephants are intelligent animals. I have seen on TV an elephant
picking up the long-dead skull of one of its children and holding it
as if in memory of it. This indicates that remembering one's dead is
not evidence of an "awareness of God and capacity to form a
relationship with Him".

SJ>Glenn does not have to answer my *posts* (they are to the Group,
>not to Glenn), but on Glenn's own strict standards of honesty and
>integrity that he routinely applies to other Christian apologists,
>Glenn cannot simply ignore the Pre-Adamite *position* as though it
>doesn't exist.

GM>I haven't ignored it Stephen, I have rejected it. There is a

If Glenn has "rejected it" that's fine. But then he should
briefly mention it as one of the alternatives together with the
reasons why he has "rejected it" among those alternatives.

Come to think of it, I cannot recall Glenn ever giving his reasons
why he has "rejected" the "Pre-Adamite position". As far as I am
aware he has always simply "ignored it". Perhaps Glenn could
re-state why he "rejected it"?

God bless.


| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |