RE: News on fossil man

Cummins (
Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:28:04 -0600

> []On Behalf Of Glenn R. Morton

> First, lots of Christians have taken the path of least resistance to the
> anthropological issues and have identified Adam with the first member of
> our species. I say path of least resistance because it is the position
> which is least controversial. But as I have pointed out over the past 3
> years this position totally ignores the very human activities which
> earlier hominids performed. These include art, religion, the use of
> tools to make other tools, murder, long range planning, the manufacture
> of boats with which to cross the oceans etc.

Theistic Evolution is the path of least resistance. It's a kludge devoid of
a coherent framework which can be attacked. And, liberals are satisfied
that they caused someone to sell-out.

A Theistic Evolutionist picks and chooses what to believe, almost at random.
If you say Adam was the first man, was he blood related to earlier hominids?
If you say Adam wasn't the first man, you've now covered all the basis left
open by Creationists (Adam=first man, no other hominids) and Evolutionists
(no Adam).

As for those earlier hominids and their art and crafts. Most of that is
pure imagination (e.g. where does "long range planning" come from? What's
not imagination is bad theory.

> Hugh Ross who mistakenly claims that this appearance occurred no earlier
> than 60,000 years ago:

Hugh Ross is astoundingly ignorant. Every time I here him say something, I
think "Where did that come from?" Where did that 60,000 years come from?

> "Some differences, however, between the Bible and secular
> anthropology
> remain. The Bible not only would deny that the hominids were men, it
> also would deny that Adam was physically descended from these hominids.
> Even here, support from anthropology is emerging. New evidence
> indicates that the hominid species may have gone extinct before, or as a
> result of, the appearance of modern man. At the very least, 'abrupt
> transitions between [hominid]species' is widely acknowledged." ~ Hugh
> Ross, The Fingerprint of God, (Orange: Promise Publishing, 1991), p.
> 159-160.

How does Ross figure "The Bible not only would deny that hominids were men.
it also would deny that Adam was physically descended from these hominids."
The Bible would deny that the creation days were long periods of time, but
that doesn't get in Ross's way. And, while Ross is claiming that the Earth
must be old because it appears to be old, how does he get around the
argument that humans evolved from hominids because they appear to have
evolved from hominids? Where does Ross get the idea that new evidence
indicates that hominids may have become extinct before the appearance of
modern man? Probably not from all those fossils of hominids which were
believed to have existed at the same time as modern man.

> I list those documentations because I want it clearly shown that my
> theological/scientific position ANTICIPATED the following. Unlike other
> positions my position does not have to react to the latest discovery by
> immediately pooh poohing it which will be the modus operandi of many
> Christian apologists. Why Christians would rather always be reacting to
> new discoveries rather than smiling because we anticipated the results,
> I don't understand.

Considering that most new "nature" discoveries come to us through
secular/atheist interpreters, I would be most worried if my beliefs were
consistent with "the results." I smile at the discovery of new facts.
Studies of DNA passed only female-to-female and male-to-male show this DNA
to essentially be the same DNA all around the globe, or nationality. That
fact is almost synonymous with a common ancestor -- something not all
predicted or expected by Evolutionist theory. As for the age of the common
ancestor, slight variation is not at all synonymous with 100,000, or
whatever, years of age. That's where the Evolutionists interpreters get
busy making up stories.

BTW, I mentioned that Evolutionist theory doesn't product a common ancestor.
Another long-standing challenge for Evolutionists: Identify any prediction
of Evolution. To all your reasoning impaired Evolutionists, that's Darwin's
origin of species, not different colors of peppered moths. Evolution, the
nonscience, predicts nothing.

> Evolutionary biologists, who used mitochondrial
> to trace human evolution, had estimated that
> the woman from whom all others descended lived between
> 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.

Oops, now you've got to explain 195,000 years of no history. Considering
that the creation of history appears to be a function of culture, not of
technology nor intelligence (unless you want to say modern man in the past
was less intelligent than modern man in the present). About 200,000 years
of intelligent human beings running around and not one society any place in
all that time recorded any history for us to find. Tsk. Tsk.

> The second item concerns a gene which iindicates that Africans and
> non-Africans were two separate populations PRIOR TO THE ADVENT OF
> ANATOMICALLY MODERN MEN. Here is the report:

Much like Creation, that's something scientists aren't allowed to consider.
You better keep it hush hush. No doubt 30 years from now, Evolutionists
will deny that they ever even considered the possibility that African's and
non-Africans don't share common ancestry among modern men.

> This means that IF one postulates that Adam was subsequent to this
> split, then either Africans or non-Africans are NOT descendants of
> Adam. This is an awful choice full of bad theological consequences.
> The way to avoid this problem is as I have suggested, believe that Adam
> was very very ancient and that the ancient hominids were fully human, as
> were their descendants, both Africans and non-Africans. In this way an
> awful theological problem can be avoided. I would repeat my mantra of
> the past 4 years: Current Christian apologetics is totally inadequate
> and falsified by the anthropological data. It is time for Christians to
> belly up to the theological bar and deal with it.

You're last argument seems to be a total disregard for anything other than
being politically correct. My solution: There were no hominids before
Adam, no need for me to check my beliefs by the political correct measure.