It sucks, doesn’t it?
1 Like
You have said truly my optics are bad.I am a geophysicist with 47 years of experience as a professional, but I started this search in College. I am now on hospice with little time left so, please don’t confuse time desperation with bad attitude. I will be gone in about 4 months probably. They are not the same, but you are right that they may look the same.
Now, you may already not be interested in my views any longer given you already don’t think the Bible has to be historically true. I have never brought someone back from that position. and all I ask of the board here is to just give you my option, then you can decide. but they don’t every do that
Shouldn’t a timeline be determined by the data not by how we ‘struggle with it?’
Yes, I see the struggle you are having, but ask yourself, if I could provide evidence of the curse going back 2.4-2.8 myr ago would that make a difference?
"To, what is the birth pattern in Homo erectus? It is human. Shipman and Walker( 30 ) point out that the adult Homo erectus cranial capacity was 950 cc. If they followed the ape-like pattern of doubling their brain size after birth, they would need to be born with a brain size of around 400 cc. Following the discovery of a nearly complete Homo erectus skeleton, the approximate size the erectus birth canal is known. A head with a 400 cc brain is 10 cm too big to fit through the birth canal. Estimates place the maximum fetal brain size able to fit through the erectus birth canal at just 231 cc( 31) . Homo erectus had a human pattern of birth and must have endured similar pain in childbirth .
A study of Homo rudolfensis which lived eight hundred thousand years earlier than the 1.6-million-year-old Homo erectus studied by Walker and Shipman above, also had a human birth pattern of trebling its brain size from birth to adulthood. Homo rudolfensis stood about 5 foot 8 inches tall and was quite human in form below the neck( 32) . Steven M. Stanley showed that the birth canal of a Homo rudolfensis would only be able to pass a fetal head of about 210 cc. The adult of this species had brain sizes in the range of 760 to 900 cc. This data would strongly imply that pain in childbirth of the type experienced by human mothers extends back at least 2.4 million years to the initial appearance of Homo rudolfensis.( 33)
references:
30.Shipman, P. and A. Walker, 1989. “The Costs of Becoming a Predator,” Journal of Human Evolution, 18, 373-392, p. 388-389
31. Alan Walker, and Pat Shipman, 1996, The Wisdom of the Bones, (New York: Alfred Knopf), p. 226-227
32. Stanley, Steven M., 1998, Children of the Ice Age, (New York: W. H. Freeman), p. 164
33. Stanley, Steven M., 1998, Children of the Ice Age, (New York: W. H. Freeman), p. 160-163
Religious worship goes back way beyond 200,000. The Neanderthals built an 176,000 year old alter at Bruniquel where they sacrificed a bear. Most anthropologists say it was a religion.
Earliest image bearers were not modern humans living at 200,000 years ago
*The cave of Bruniquel in southern France has just produced fascinating new evidence. Several hundred metres in from the cave entrance, a stone structure has been discovered. It is quadrilineal, measures four by five metres and has been constructed from pieces of stalagmite and stalactite. A burnt fragment of a bear bone found in it was radiocarbon analysed, yielding a ‘date’ of greater than 47 600 years BP. This suggests that the structure is the work of Neanderthals. It is located in complete darkness, which proves that the people who ventured so deep into the large cave system had reliable lighting and had the confidence to explore such depths. Bruniquel is one of several French caves that became closed subsequent to their Pleistocene use, but were artificially opened this century."
"This appears to have been the ritual sacrifice of a bear. It is also the first proof that man went deep into caves long before they painted the walls . Balter, Michael, 1996, “Cave Structure Boosts Neandertal Image”, Science, 271, p. 449
In 2016 this site was redated to 176,000, years old. Jacques Jaubert, et al, “Early Neanderthal Constructions Deep in Bruniquel Cave in Southwestern France”, Nature volume 534, pages 111-114. p111 Thus we have a very old Neanderthal worship site–Neanderthals and humans split about 850,000 years ago. Did both ancestors of Humans and Neanderthals worship? If they did, they had to be image bearers.
An erectine site looks like an altar made for Indiana Jones.
And from Bilzingsleben, a 425,000 year old German Homo erectus site:
“ At Bilzingsleben each hut opened to the south had a hearth in front of the door" 19
Why facing south? To keep the cold north winds out of the hut.
[GRM note:I am throwing this in because it shows H. erectus had religion!]
There is an even earlier altar, which is not controversial, found at Bilzingsleben, Germany. An entire Homo erectus village was excavated at this site which dates to 425,000 years old. The excavators, Dietrich and Ursula Mania have found a 27-foot-diameter paved area that they say was used for “special cultural activities” 20 . Gore writes:
" But Mania’s most intriguing find lies under a protective shed. As he opens the door sunlight illuminates a cluster of smooth stones and pieces of bone that he believes were arranged by humans to pave a 27-foot-wide circle. "‘They intentionally paved this area for cultural activities,’ says Mania. 'We found here a large anvil of quartzite set between the horns of a huge bison, near it were fractured human skulls. ’" 21
I would contend that the symbolism here, if found in a modern village, would be enough to cause one to turn and flee for his life. Such an arrangement of objects would immediately be interpreted as evidence of religion, and a hostile religion at that. Bilzingsleben dates to around 425,000 years,
19. D. Mania and U. Mania, “Latest Finds of Skull Remains of Homo erectus from Bilzingsleben (Thuringia)” Naturwissenschaften, 81(1994)123-127, p. 127__20._ Mania D., and U. Mania and E. Vlcek, 1994. Latest Finds of Skull Remains of Homo erectus from Bilzingsleben (Thuringia), Naturwissenschaften, 81(1994), p. 123-127, p. 124
If you won’t look at my data because you don’t like my ‘optics’ then I have nothing for you and feel sorry for you. Data is what drives science, not how it is delivered. You will get only a bit better science here. They are all way behind what scientists think. Most here think H. heidelbergensis is the common ancestor of man and Neanderthal. Anthropologists have given that idea up over the last year. They still think that the curse came in the Neolithic–but why curse them with a problem they already had? All neolithics had pain in childbirth, so what was the big deal about being cursed with it? That same big brain problem accounts for the problems in Adam’s curse. in otherwords, once curse, 2 effects. As the brain got bigger, it required more cooling.
" It was beautiful. For the past two million years, the increase in frequencies of emissary foramina kept exact pace with the sharp increase in brain size in Homo. Clearly, the brain and the veins had evolved rapidly and together. I saw that Cabanac’s letter was right and that I had unwittingly charted the evolution of a radiator for the brain in my earlier work on emissary foramina. As Anwander had said about my car, the engine can only be as big as the radiator can cool. Apparently, the same is true for heat-sensitive brains."( 7) Dean Falk, 1992 Braindance,(New York: Henry Holt and Co.) p. 159
All these references are from my book but you can get the info for free if you look at my blog. My guess is that you are already too far gone from believing that the Bible should contain history to care about what I say here, and thus are no longer struggling. Good luck Brother. Sorry I was too late with too bad a set of ‘optics’.
Look me up on the internet and you will find that I agree with your statements,and was once a terror to the YECs. My first paper was 1979 when I attacked the vapor canopy theory of Henry Morris, and eventually brought it down. Then I left YEC and had anchor. I nearly became an atheist, even calling my preacher son to tell him that I was about to chuck it all in. In 2010 I left all this area until I found an amazing set of geologic maps done in a conference on the Eastern Mediterranean. The conference was an Amer. Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists. I used to belong to them before I retired as Dir of Exploration for China. I know my geology, but it is probably bad optics to say so.
In Christ Glenn R. Morton
I’m not speaking on behalf of any Biologos “board” here, but as a moderator and therefore someone who at least has voluntary association with this forum, let me just respond that it isn’t our job to share your opinion with everyone. You’re doing just fine with that all on your own - and we aren’t stopping you, right? You’ve shared a wealth of good data, and that is much appreciated. Your interpretations of that data are fair game for you to share as well - and fair game for others to accept or reject.
Your demand that historical truth remains the only type of truth that counts - or at least as a prerequisite before any other types of truth are allowed is problematic to many here to say the least. Nobody here is rejecting all historical truth or the importance of at least some historical truth. What they are rejecting is your enshrining of historicity in unrivaled hegemony over everything else.
8 Likes
I’m sorry about your condition, truly.
I’m going to ask you not to assume my position because I point out logical fallacies (such as circumstantial ad hominem, or appeal to Authority). I’m going to also ask that you don’t assume that I’m close-minded in my approach because I point these things out. I’m merely pointing out how it looks when you come blazing into a topic degrading others approach and boasting about your level of education and/or knowledge on a topic.
One thing you are correct about is that I do not have the education level that you have, nor do I have the experience that you have. What you are incorrect about is where I land on the Dunning-Kruger scale. I am by no means sure of my knowledge in what actually happened in history.
I would also like to point out that I have responded more to you than anyone else at this point, and if I didn’t care about your position I wouldn’t waste my time.
I believe that you have found some very interesting data/information. There’s no question about that. Where I’m struggling is, from the outside looking in, based on the limited information that I have, it seems that you are cramming that interesting information into a narrative (or your hypothesis) instead of allowing the data to stand on its own. I could be very wrong about that, though. Much, if not all, of what you have said could be explained by a number of other hypotheses… other than a biblical narrative. Just because something is historical doesn’t mean the people who wrote about their knowledge of it had any inspiration from a divine being. It is possible that it was divinely inspired, but it’s not proof.
I’m also aware that I’m never going to have unarguable evidence of God’s existence, and that much will have to be taken on faith; but, admittedly, this is a difficult position for me right now.
I hope I explained my position without sounding angry. I’m not. I merely want this conversation to be about the evidence and not stoop to demeaning others positions, or character.
4 Likes
I understand that, but I would and HAVE done the same for others holding your position or one very close to it. I consider letting people see he whole planaply of options important when one is struggling. Telling one only one option is well, limiting. I guess we disagree on that.
You are correct here Mervin, because there is an assymmetry in the way we treat truth here. We never try to say that some failed scientific theory had deep philosophical meaning to it. For decades we were told that General relativity had no cosmological constant. That such an idea was totally false. Then, when we find out we were wrong and it does have a cosmological constant, we don’t go around talking about how General relativity without the constant was so meaningful philosophically. We believe evolution is historically true, but we don’t talk about how deeply meaningful the pre-evolutionary views were in a philosophical way. We simply say they are wrong and move to evolution.
It seems to me that symmetry should be the rule of the road. If dead historical ideas about the bible are to be spoken of as deeply meaningful, then we should also speak about dead historical ideas of science in the same way–as deeply meaningful and not part of the hegemony of history over everything else. I know, I will lose on that view,and have for years and years. And it is ONLY in the Christian religion that we apply this double standard to our theories.
When a scientific theory is ahistorical, we state that it is wrong and throw it in the dustbin of history.
But when we conclude that parts of the Bible are wrong, we don’t throw it into the dustbin of history, we proclaim it true by reason of philosophy! OK, I’m out of this debate with my tail between my legs.
First I didn’t say a thing about your educational level or degrees. at least not knowingly. I would never do that knowingly. Pointing out facts about when pain in childbirth happened is not making some negative statement about your education degree or level. I have pointed out that fact here many times to all this board in the same way I said it to you. I have pointed out many times that religion goes way further back in time than is believed here. That says nothing about their education level or degrees. We all are unknowledgeable about something that someone else knows better. My editor of the book is now constantly pointing out my deficiencies in grammar, not be ridicule or making me feel bad, but just by say, 'you know, you shouldn’t use acomma here." I am sorry again and apologize again if that kind of statement makes you feel badly. But know this, I don’t care if you have a grade school education, you are welcome here to learn as much as you want to.You know something Jeremy, I probably don’t have the education level you think I have. Education is learning and doesn’t require a degree, so long as a person understands the issues in whatever field one gets interested in. Just keep studying. Believe it or not, some of the greatest scientists in the world had no education–Faraday, Well look over this list. It should inspire you I hope.
https://jamesaconrad.com/TK/famous-scientists-who-never-had-a-science-degree.html
I never took a geology course, but my job made me read more geology than most Ph. D’ geologists and at the end of my career, they were working for me. I applaud people who try to do it on their own.
Again, I will apologize for assuming a position (something I am criticized here for often) but one can only draw inferences from what a person says, and those inferences lead to a particular idea of another’s position. I honestly don’t know how to avoid that sometimes because, well, it seems to be the way our language works.
I will leave this discussion, wounded but at least not digging my hole deeper. But I am not exactly sure where the hole is.
2 Likes
Well … to be fair and to quibble just a bit, I do recall mentioning your option among the panoply of options out there … probably more than once, though I won’t go searching just to prove anything. So - no - I’m not (nor I expect is anyone else here) trying to keep your views away from the table of things for people to see. If somebody asks me what I think, though, I’ll do the same as you and probably just tell them. If somebody asks for a range of responses to some question, yours would be one of them I would mention.
1 Like
Just know that I am looking into your viewpoint. I think it is very important to have as much information as possible when making such a huge decision. I meant nothing I said as an insult or a rebuke, but merely to point out how it’s so hard to get people to understand the spirit in what you are saying via written text. I hope it helps in the future.
One thing I’ve learned, though I’m rarely successful at applying, is finding common ground, first, goes a long way to change the outcome of a conversation (or to change someone’s mind).
Hope all goes well. Keep me updated on the status of your book. I’d like a copy.
3 Likes
No need to retreat. I’m happy to hear your stuff and consider it, as well as staying engaged. Your charge that the Bible is treated differently than science is an interesting question to consider, and deserves more treatment than I will give it here and now in this initial small reaction. And that quick response is: I think there are problems lurking whenever theology and science are compared, with science being the one held up as the ostensible highest standard to which all other pursuit of truth should be compared.
But even that unfinished objection left aside, there is science that is no longer true but that is still usefully taught in classes. We just mentioned “Newtonian physics” in another thread - I still spend a lot of necessary time on that with my highschool students even though it is now known to be not true. And on the other side, there are plenty of so-called “biblical truths” through history that we have now (rightly) placed into dustbins … stuff used to justify various atrocities or genocides, stuff used unnecessarily for tools of oppression or exclusion. And we wouldn’t (typically) say “the Bible failed” - though some are less shy about putting it that way (Enns & Co.). We would say that our understandings of what God teaches us through these written testimonies is growing and being influenced by the Spirit still today. So there is no use your pretending that our convictions about what the Bible is teaching us are just getting a free pass.
1 Like
Then I stand corrected and appreciate that much.
: ) aye Jeremy. Which makes faith more relevant. Most relevant. And how to express it avoiding conflict.
Pardon? Not sure I understood.
Jeremy I will post it both on the index to my blog and here when it is published. I hope 2 weeks and it will be out for a very reasonable price but not free. No one reads free!
One of the interesting things about my current position is that my argumentative personality will soon be out of the way. To paraphrase Nicodemus, if this is from God, it can’t be stopped and if it isn’t it will die on its own. Thus, I am, of necessity having to give this project to God whether I like that or not–trust issue. lol.
I am not sensitive about my coming death. I think too many Christians leave this world without acting like they actually believe what they have been spouting all these years.If we trust god, then we should enjoy this last time on earth and not whinge about what is happening to us. I will tell yall a joke from this mornings mens’ bible group. when I got on the zoom meeting, one guy said “Glenn!” you look so good this morning!" I thanked him and his purshed, “What are you doing to look that good?” I replied, "It’s called Hospice, but I don’t recommend their program! Everyone laughed.
I am going to enjoy this life until I am laid out flat on my back and stone cold. My death will not be worse than what our Lord suffered, so, I should be very grateful for that. Yall take care.
And thanks Mervin for acknowledging that there possibly is a dual standard. I think in 30 years of debating these issues you are the very first to acknowledge that it is an issue, even if you don’t have time for that question right now. Yall have a good day.
5 Likes
Sorry Jeremy! I’ll edit this but had to say that first.
@gbob, @Mervin_Bitikofer has definitely mentioned you twice to my recollection in such a situation, with new folks–and knowing him, likely more.
Thanks for your interaction. We do appreciate your thoughts. Thank you for listening to ours.
Best wishes.
Thanks. Randy
1 Like
Jeremy, that dishonesty is their utter weakness and it too was why I left YEC. I know of an older now deceased yec leader who didn’t care if the data was as he claimed. If he could make it look good for creation he would do it.
I kept noting leaders who got degrees from degree mills, one of them was a very good friend of mine. One guy, still runs around saying he has a Ph. D in geology when what he has is a petroleum engineering Ph. D. His dissertation and thesis each have one valid geologic book referenced, as if that was a requirement of daddy.
This guy also claimed to have worked in the oil industry while on stage with me. I asked what company he worked for and he withdrew the claim on stage but said it later elswhere on radio. Truth is very important. God is Truth and when we decide that God doesn’t tell the truth, we are not doing christianity any favors at all.
1 Like
Well, I was wrong (didn’t require Mervin to prove it cause I trust Mervin). When one is wrong, and we all are occasionally or often, it is our Christian duty to admit it and change our belief about that. I was wrong now dementedly so and I thank you and Mervin for setting me straight.
In the context of Jeremy’s note about him being tired of the dishonesty, this is all that the YEC leaders have to do and they will be lead to the truth–maybe a truth they don’t like, but liking truth is not the standard for what is actually true.
2 Likes
Thanks. I hope you take my post as an encouragement, not otherwise-- though I agree that we don’t have to mention others’ points of view. You do add much to the conversation. By the way, a geologist helped me tons in accepting old earth by teaching me with kindness and patience, despite my YEC protests (which may have appeared unintentionally annoying and uncivilized when he was trying to teach), in my first year of college.
I do take it as you meant it. When I left YEC I swore to myself I would never be dishonest. I knew I would be wrong often, but when faced with irrefutable data would turn on a dime. Unfortunately the YEC leaders think that if they admit they are wrong on anything they lose credibility. I have had some people on both sides treat me that way, as my admissions of error are a hammer to use to get people to ignore what I say. On the other hand, I feel better knowing I am not tied to a false position.
In the case of contradictory data, where one dataset says one thing and another says the opposite, there is a problem of who is correct. Only a 3rd data set could clear the issue it. That isn’t an issue of dishonesty but of which data set the guy believes. A couple of diametrically opposed datasets have occasionally caused me such issue, and on one, I eventually had to give up what I was saying–the data set I depended on was wrong. That one hurt, but I still gave up on it because it was wrong. But in no wise, am I perfect on this kind of issue any more than anyone else. Challenge a position that is very close to a guy’s heart, yours or mine, and we will squirm like a worm being put on a hook. The closer to the center of our beliefs the more we will squirm
2 Likes
Hi Jeremy. I guess 1 Clement, 42, written 95 AD (or earlier) would be the first extra-biblical mention of Christ’s resurrection. And its at least contemporary with the book of Revelation written by John about the same year.
You might also find the logic of this episode of the Alpha Course helpful: https://player.vimeo.com/video/184825484
2 Likes