Calling Ronald Wetherington’s Bluffs About Human Evolution (Texas Board of Ed. Testimony)

Discovery Institute ^ | April 9, 2009 | Casey Luskin

[GodGunsGuts]

Texas Hold ’Em Part III: Calling Ronald Wetherington’s Bluffs About Human Evolution in His January Texas State Board of Education Testimony

As a final installment in my “Texas Hold ‘Em” series calling the bluffs of Texas evolutionists, I’d like to highlight one section from Discovery Institute’s rebuttal to Ronald Wetherington’s Testimony before the Texas State Board of Education (TSBOE). Wetherington, who is a professor of anthropology at SMU, testified extensively to the TSBOE about human evolution, his area of expertise. Wetherington stated regarding human origins that we have “arguably the most complete sequence of fossil succession of any mammal in the world. No gaps. No lack of transitional fossils. … So when people talk about the lack of transitional fossils or gaps in the fossil record, it absolutely is not true.” But a close look at the evidence, as reported in the mainstream scientific literature, shows that it is Wetherington’s talk that is “not true.” As a preliminary example, a 2004 book by leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated that "The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap” and therefore we are in a situation “[n]ot having any fossils that can serve as missing links." To read the full statement calling Wetherington’s bluff, go to the section of Discovery’s response to Wetherington on his “Misrepresentations of the Evidence for Human Evolutionary Origins.”

F. Misrepresentations of the Evidence for Human Evolutionary Origins

Prof. Wetherington asserted that when it comes to human evolution, we have “arguably the most complete sequence of fossil succession of any mammal in the world. No gaps. No lack of transitional fossils. … So when people talk about the lack of transitional fossils or gaps in the fossil record, it absolutely is not true.” Though this is supposed to be Wetherington’s area of expertise, again we see him dramatically overstating the evidence as well as failing to acknowledge counter-opinions by experts within his own field.

Wetherington mentioned by name only three allegedly transitional fossil species. However, the quality of these alleged “transitional fossils” leaves much to be desired and their status as human ancestors is in fact disputed by some paleontological data.

The first fossil mentioned by Wetherington was Sahelanthropus tchadensis. But this fossil (also called the “Toumai skull”) is known only from one skull and some jaw fragments, and one leading researcher said “I tend towards thinking this is the skull of a female gorilla.”⁴⁵ Wetherington bluffed when he told the TSBOE that we know this fossil qualifies as a transitional form leading to humans. Indeed, leading paleoanthropologists have warned in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) that tooth and and skull bones alone are insufficient to properly classify or understand a hominid species:

Rather, our results show that the type of craniodental characters that have hitherto been used in hominin phylogenetics are probably not reliable for reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships of higher primate species and genera, including those among the hominins.⁴⁶

Another bluff from Wetherington came when he claimed that “Every fossil we find reinforces the sequence that we had previously supposed to exist rather than suggesting something different.” But in fact this Toumai skull, first published in 2002, provides an excellent counterexample to his wildly false assertion. Commenting on the Toumai skull in the journal Nature, leading paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood began an article by observing, “A single fossil can fundamentally change the way we reconstruct the tree of life. He goes on to state:

If we accept these as sufficient evidence to classify S. tchadensis as a hominid at the base, or stem, of the modern human clade, then it plays havoc with the tidy model of human origins. Quite simply, a hominid of this age should only just be beginning to show signs of being a hominid. It certainly should not have the face of a hominid less than one-third of its geological age. Also, if it is accepted as a stem hominid, under the tidy model the principle of parsimony dictates that all creatures with more primitive faces (and that is a very long list) would, perforce, have to be excluded from the ancestry of modern humans.⁴⁷

In other words, if we accept the Toumai skull as the stem ancestor of humans, as Professor Wetherington does, then many other alleged hominid species—including the other species mentioned by Wetherington that are discussed below—could not be counted as ancestors of humans.

Professor Wetherington stated that it “is not true” that there are gaps in the fossil record for the origin “for our own species, rather than for some others,” but paleoanthropological expert Wood states that fossils like this show “compelling evidence that our own origins are as complex and as difficult to trace as those of any other group of organisms.”⁴⁸ Indeed, Harvard zoologist Richard Lewontin wrote in 1995 that

When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.⁴⁹

Again, it is clear that Wetherington is bluffing to claim there are “no gaps” in the fossil evidence for human evolution. If the Toumai skull represents a transitional fossil which allegedly plugs a “gap” and doesn’t “play havoc” with the proclaimed human evolutionary tree, then the evidence for human evolution must be quite weak indeed.

Wetherington next mentioned Ardipithecus as an alleged transitional form leading to humans—but this fossil too has highly fragmented remains, and has been called a hominid primarily on the basis of some of its teeth.⁵⁰ Its extremely fragmented remains prevent paleoanthropologists from determining much about this species, including questions such as whether it walked upright.⁵¹ Paleoanthropologist Tim White has called the record of early hominids from this period, “a black hole in the fossil record,”⁵² and the few fossils that are known are based upon limited remains wherein it is not possible to make firm conclusions about these fossils.⁵³

Despite the questions about Ardipithecus, Wetherington claimed that it “became Australopithecus afarensis 4 million years ago.” He based this claim (presumably) upon a paper by Tim White in 2006, but this paper starts by admitting that “The origin of Australopithecus, the genus widely interpreted as ancestral to Homo, is a central problem in human evolutionary studies. Australopithecus species differ markedly from extant African apes and candidate ancestral hominids such as Ardipithecus, Orrorin and Sahelanthropus.”⁵⁴ And the evidence that allegedly made one species intermediate was its “masticatory robusticity" (in other words, its ability to chew harder stuff). This does not make for an impressive evolutionary scheme, and again this claim is based entirely upon reconstructed tooth fragments which, as noted, have been highly criticized by leading paleontologists as a form of data on which to base claims of hominid Phylogenetic relationships.⁵⁵

And what about Australopithecus? Australopithecus literally means “Southern Ape,” and despite Wetherington’s claim that there is “no lack of transitional fossils,” there is a stark lack of intermediates between the ape-like australopithecines and the genus Homo. Indeed, in 2004 in his book What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline, the leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated: "The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative."⁵⁶

Contrary to Wetherington’s claims that the basic evolutionary hypothesis about the human lineage is never being altered, a 1999 article in Science by leaders in paleoanthropology found that Homo habilis should be classified as an australopithecine,⁵⁷ and an article titled “African fossils paint messy picture of human evolution” reported that how new fossil finds prevented Homo habilis from being part of our family tree:

The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature. In 2000 Leakey found an old H. erectus complete skull within walking distance of an upper jaw of the H. habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis, researchers said.⁵⁸

With habilis removed from our direct ancestry, what exactly is the direct ancestor of Homo linking back to the australopithecines? Two paleoanthropologists wrote in Nature in 2005 that we don’t know the direct ancestor of our genus Homo:

[An early form of Homo] marks such a radical departure from previous forms of Homo (such as H. habilis) in its height, reduced sexual dimorphism, long limbs and modern body proportions that it is hard at present to identify its immediate ancestry in east Africa. Not for nothing has it been described as a hominin “without an ancestor, without a clear past.”⁵⁹

Likewise, an article in the Journal of Human Evolution stated:

The anatomy of the earliest H. sapiens sample indicates significant modifications of the ancestral genome and is not simply an extension of evolutionary trends in an earlier australopithecine lineage throughout the Pliocene. In fact, its combination of features never appears earlier...⁶⁰

These authors said the origin of Homo required “a genetic revolution” where “no australopithecine species is obviously transitional.” One commentator said this shows a “big bang theory” of human origins because “[t]he first members of early Homo sapiens are really quite distinct from their australopithecine predecessors and contemporaries.”⁶¹

Contrary to this data, Wetherington asserted in his testimony that the origin of our species represents “a gradualistic evolutionary change,” despite the fact that there are clear gaps in the record. Indeed, one paper in the Journal of Human Evolution found that the origin of key features of our genus Homo was anything but gradual: “It appears from the hominid fossil record of pelvic bones that two periods of stasis exist and are separated by a period of very rapid evolution corresponding to the emergence of the genus Homo.”⁶²

In contrast to these tentative admissions from paleoanthropologists, Wetherington makes firm and dogmatic statements that dramatically overstate the fossil evidence for human origins. Compare Wetherington’s dogmatic assertions to the following comment by an editor of Nature: “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations.”⁶³ Clearly Wetherington misrepresented the completeness of the evidence for human evolution, and there are indeed many gaps in the record of human origins.

References Cited:
[45.] Quoting Dr. Brigitte Senut, also stating “One of Dr Senut's colleagues, Dr Martin Pickford, who was in London this week, is also reported to have told peers that he thought the new Chadian skull was from a ‘proto-gorilla’. “ See “Skull find sparks controversy” (July 12, 2002) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2125244.stm

[46.] Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, "How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses?," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97(9):5003–5006 (April 25, 2009).

[47.] Bernard Wood, “Hominid revelations from Chad,” Nature, Vol. 418:133-135 (July 11, 2002) at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/418133a.html (emphasis added).

[48.] Bernard Wood, “Hominid revelations from Chad,” Nature, Vol. 418:133-135 (July 11, 2002) at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/418133a.html (emphasis added).

[49.] Richard C. Lewontin, Human Diversity, p. 163 (Scientific American Library: New York NY, 1995).

[50.] Y. Haaile-Selassie, “Late Miocene hominids from the Middle Awash, Ethiopia,” Nature, Vol. 412:178-181 (July 12, 2001).

[51.] See Figure 2, Bernard Wood, “Hominid revelations from Chad,” Nature, Vol. 418:133-135 (July 11, 2002) at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/418133a.html

[52.] A. Gibbons, “In Search of the First Hominids,” Science, 295:1214-1219 (February 15, 2002).

[53.] See Figure 2, Bernard Wood, “Hominid revelations from Chad,” Nature, Vol. 418:133-135 (July 11, 2002) at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/418133a.html

[54.] Tim D. White et al., “Asa Issie, Aramis and the origin of Australopithecus,” Nature, Vol. 440:883-889 (April 13, 2006).

[55.] Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, "How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses?," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97(9):5003–5006 (April 25, 2009).

[56.] Ernst Mayr, What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline, pg. 198 (Cambridge University Press, 2004).

[57.] Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, "The Human Genus," Science, Vol. 284:65-71 (April 2, 1999).

[58.] Associated Press, “African fossils paint messy picture of human evolution; who was our ancestor's ancestor?,” International Herald Tribune, at http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/08/america/NA-GEN-US-Human-Evolution.php

[59.] Robin Dennell & Wil Roebroeks, “An Asian perspective on early human dispersal from Africa,” Nature, Vol. 438:1099-1104 (Dec. 22/29, 2005) (internal citations removed) (emphasis added).

[60.] Hawks, J., Hunley, K., Sang-Hee, L., Wolpoff, M., “Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Evolution,” Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution, 17(1):2-22 (January, 2000).

[61.] “New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution,” (January 10, 2000) at http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2000/Jan00/r011000b.html

[62.] F. Marchal, “A New Morphometric Analysis of the Hominid Pelvic Bone,” Journal of Human Evolution, Vol. 38:347-365 (2000).

[63.] H. Gee, “Return to the planet of the apes,” Nature, Vol. 412:131-132 (July 12, 2001).

[freedumb2003]

>>If you feel that way, then you contradict the Word of God in Genesis. If you are an atheist or believe in a different God, then I understand. If you are a Christian, then I do not understand.

I am very much a Christian and I contradict nothing. As I said upthread, the RCC also believes this. I won't put words in your mouth — what do you make of their position?

>>If these are facts as you say, then you received them from something other than the Bible. The Bible says that God formed man from the dust of the ground and gave him life through His own breath and not from evolving man from an animal. Call Human Evolutionists false or call the Bible a lie. Make your choice, the two are not, and never will be, compatible.

The Bible was designed to speak to the theological needs of Man, not as a science text. Unless you have read it in its original language, you really can't make the assertion (I am sorry, my friend, it does not even rise to a contention) that it was ever meant to be literal. Even then you cannot ken the reasoning behind it, nor can you speak to its purpose.

The Bible is alliteration, not denotation. Science leads where the facts lead. God provides the basis for those facts. He would not mislead us.

I am sure you are a very good person, but you are neither theologian nor scientist. Just a (I assume) nice guy with some opinions.

But, to assist in the thread I leave these question (so there can be no misunderstanding):

1. Is the RCC wrong in its interpretation of the Bible and all RCCs are not Christian since they follow that?

2. Have you read the Bible in all its original languages? If so, can you list those languages and where they are used?

3. Please explain why the Bible in Genesis I and Genesis II conflict? The conflict is clear and yet suggest that a literal interpretation is problematic.

4. OOps — are you a theologian or a scientist? Maybe I was making assumptions too quickly. If so, I can ask a few question more deeply in each area. If I was wrong, please accept my apology in advance.

Thanks and I hope you have a lovely and blessed evening.

btw: I made it to my workplace city, and the plane was only an hour late. I am pleased we can have this discussion.

[valkyry1]

What you provided was an opinion, an editorial, not a definition. And I did not ask for it, I said go ahead with it if that is what you felt a need to do.

[freedumb2003]

What you provided was an opinion, an editorial, not a definition. And I did not ask for it, I said go ahead with it if that is what you felt a need to do.

If you have a different definition of science that is accepted by the science community, please post it so we can compare and determine where our divergence may be.

As a note, You were the one who said "science is just a word." That is sort of the ultimate begging the question. If science is whatever anyone says it is then it has no meaning and this thread has no meaning either.

And if that is the case, that is fine, but it undermines all your posts and threads concerning science. I won't bring your quotes back, but it will be hard not to bring your argument back (which would really bother me). Thanks in advance.

Note: Wiki doesn't count. ;)

[Jaime2099]

After reading your post I now see clearly how you feel. You see the Bible how you see it and not literally. That explains a great deal to me.

Peter was a fisherman. Would he be qualified to speak of theology in your opinion? If you feel this way about the Bible, then that is your choice. If I wanted to believe Human Evolution, I would take that stance as well.

[valkyry1]

I do not take you as a spokesman for science or the 'science community', nor do you come off as one. Thats an understatement btw.

It seems you rely a great deal on distortion, twisting what a person has said (creating strawmen) and putting words in their mouth in an apparent attempt to throw the person off balance/topic and/or make whatever points it is you want to make.

In a reply to your initial post to me wherein you said said 'science teaches many things' "I said Which science are you talking about. Men teach things. Science is a word" meaning many different fields can be described as science or having elements of science, not that 'science is just a word'

And you never answered my question on How do you reconcile your love of evolutionism with the truth of Bible

[freedumb2003]

>>After reading your post I now see clearly how you feel. You see the Bible how you see it and not literally. That explains a great deal to me.<<

I am pleased you understand.

>>Peter was a fisherman. Would he be qualified to speak of theology in your opinion? If you feel this way about the Bible, then that is your choice. If I wanted to believe Human Evolution, I would take that stance as well.<<

Well, you have staked out a position that suggests you are either a theologian, since you say that your understanding of the Bible provides a dichotomous interpretation; or a scientist since you say the scientific interpretation is in conflict with the Bible — or both.

Peter was one of Jesus’ chosen and schooled at His knee — He made it clear what He wanted to be said and it dealt with men’s souls, not their understanding of the physical universe. Nowhere in the Gospel of Peter does it say one word about Evolution or science in General. Theology is the study of religion, as is Science the study of the physical world.

It is a bit ironic that you choose Peter, who found the RCC, as your forensic gladiator. It is the church he founded that agrees with me (or me, it, I suppose).

But this is getting to be interesting — thanks for continuing to be open to discussion.

[Bryan24]

I don’t know about you, but I don’t look like an ape.....

[freedumb2003]

>>I do not take you as a spokesman for science or the ‘science community’, nor do you come off as one. Thats an understatement btw.<<

If i have mis-stated the perspective of the scientific community, please tell me where. I always strive to be accurate in my scientific declarations.

>>It seems you rely a great deal on distortion, twisting what a person has said (creating strawmen) and putting words in their mouth in an apparent attempt to throw the person off balance/topic and/or make whatever points it is you want to make.<<

I again invite you to note where I have specifically engaged in such conduct. If my paraphrasing is innacurate, then my bad — please note where I have done so.

>>In a reply to your initial post to me wherein you said said ‘science teaches many things’ “I said Which science are you talking about. Men teach things. Science is a word” meaning many different fields can be described as science or having elements of science, not that ‘science is just a word’<<

OK — please provide a workable definition of science. I have asked it before and I ask it now. Once we agree on what we are speaking we can determine how Evolution does or does not fit. As a reasonable person, you must admit this is a proper way to resolve our different understandings.

>>And you never answered my question on How do you reconcile your love of evolutionism with the truth of Bible

I have no “love” for Evolution, any more than I have “love” for astronomy. I do, however “understand” evolution and understand how my wonderful God used the evolutionary process to create modern Man. My God, who gave us his Son (whose Resurrection we just celebrated), can do awesome things. The greatest is a Universe that is consistent in how it operates, including how it created humans.

I don’t like to cross-reference too much (as I said, I get lost myself), but please look at my last few posts to J2099 to see how I conclude that the Bible and science are both correct and not in conflict.

Thank you for your continued interest in this topic.

If there is a delay in my subsequent response to any post you may make, it is because God evolved into us this “sleep” requirement and, although I could fight it off in my college days, He clearly demands us old dudes to answer it :)

[freedumb2003]

>>I don’t know about you, but I don’t look like an ape.....

You never say my BIL ;)

[Jaime2099]

"scientific interpretation is in conflict with the Bible — or both."

False Human Evolution science is in conflict with the literal Bible, not science itself is not in conflict with Bible. Apparently, you are of the persuasion that the Bible can say whatever you want it to say. That is neither scientific, nor theological. It is arrogance and ignorance.

"Peter was one of Jesus’ chosen and schooled at His knee — He made it clear what He wanted to be said and it dealt with men’s souls, not their understanding of the physical universe. Nowhere in the Gospel of Peter does it say one word about Evolution or science in General. Theology is the study of religion, as is Science the study of the physical world."

After that answer there is no doubt you would ask Peter for his academic credentials when speaking of theology. I asked if he were qualified to speak of theology, not science. The Bible never mentions evolution in any way in the entire Book, thank you for pointing that out as well.

"It is a bit ironic that you choose Peter, who found the RCC, as your forensic gladiator. It is the church he founded that agrees with me (or me, it, I suppose)."

You seem to be obsessed with Catholics for some reason. I don't care if the whole world agrees with you, you disagree with the Bible and therefor I disagree with you. You pretend like the Bible is not literal, but it is literal. You'll find out just how literal it is one day I promise you that.

[freedumb2003]

False Human Evolution science is in conflict with the literal Bible, not science itself is not in conflict with Bible. Apparently, you are of the persuasion that the Bible can say whatever you want it to say. That is neither scientific, nor theological. It is arrogance and ignorance.

I ask again, which of these areas makes you an expert? The Bible clearly says what it says -- I have read it in its original languages. The concept of a "day" for example has many meanings across the multiple Biblical languages. have you reconciled these linguistic differences? If you have, I look forward to your scholarship, since so many before you have had great debates on this issue alone. Your perspective will be welcome.

"Peter was one of Jesus’ chosen and schooled at His knee — He made it clear what He wanted to be said and it dealt with men’s souls, not their understanding of the physical universe. Nowhere in the Gospel of Peter does it say one word about Evolution or science in General. Theology is the study of religion, as is Science the study of the physical world."

After that answer there is no doubt you would ask Peter for his academic credentials when speaking of theology. I asked if he were qualified to speak of theology, not science. The Bible never mentions evolution in any way in the entire Book, thank you for pointing that out as well.

No, since Jesus was very clear that Peter was to be a fisherman of souls. I would never presume to ask His chosen about theology, although a thoughtful debate would be a delight. Maybe I misunderstood your question?

"It is a bit ironic that you choose Peter, who found the RCC, as your forensic gladiator. It is the church he founded that agrees with me (or me, it, I suppose)."

You seem to be obsessed with Catholics for some reason. I don't care if the whole world agrees with you, you disagree with the Bible and therefor I disagree with you. You pretend like the Bible is not literal, but it is literal. You'll find out just how literal it is one day I promise you that.

I just want to point out that billions of people, many who are well-versed and experts in theology, science and both disagree with you on your personal lay interpretation. It is easiest to quote the RCC, since it is easily identifiable and quite succinct. To say that Evolution gainsays the Bible is to gainsay hundreds of years of theological scholarship developed by thousands, or maybe millions, of adherents.

God and I have a great relationship. He sent His Son to die for me and for that I am thankful daily. He created a fabulous Universe, which exposes itself day by day to those who choose to look. Its rules are consistent, if difficult to discern, much less understand.

I am sorry you choose to close your eyes to God's wonders, my brother in Christ. But, in the final analysis, that is indeed your option.

But I ask only you not blindfold others.

[Jaime2099]

There really is no need for a long drawn out debate, the foundations of what we are speaking of are clear as glass.

You feel that the literal interpretation of the Bible is a lie and a mistranslation. I feel it is the accurate and truthful account of creation recorded and presented to us by God so that we may know and not be deceived by people like Human Evolutionists.

In order to keep your beliefs, you must rewrite the Bible. In order to keep mine, I leave the Bible as it is. Looking at those two sentences, I like my choice better.

[freedumb2003]

There really is no need for a long drawn out debate, the foundations of what we are speaking of are clear as glass.

Yes, you have your lay opinions, I have my knowledge-based ones. I mean these as no harm to you my friend. It is simply fact. You feel that the literal interpretation of the Bible is a lie and a mistranslation.

I never said the Bible is a lie. You are now guilty of doing what you accused me of earlier(which I successfully countered) -- putting words in my mouth.

I feel it is the accurate and truthful account of creation recorded and presented to us by God so that we may know and not be deceived by people like Human Evolutionists.

But does your scholarship support your position? It is, indeed a truthful theological account of the relationship between God and Man.

In order to keep your beliefs, you must rewrite the Bible.

I need only read it in its source language and interpret it according to the language used to pen it.

In order to keep mine, I leave the Bible as it is.

I asked before -- you read and interpreted the Bible in its original language? That is "as it is." Anything beyond that (such as the King James version, as lovely as it is) is just you reading the interpretation of the interpreters.

Looking at those two sentences, I like my choice better.

But, my Friend, you again present a false dichotomy. Your English language Bible is 4 or maybe 5 times removed from the original language. Apparently simple words, such as "day" need to be viewed not only linguistically but anthropologically.

If you think I am being silly, look at the simple word "gay" -- if you read a missive in 1920: "he was a gay man" and read a missive in 1990: "he was a gay man" you know these would be quite different.

If you were reading these sentences in 3009, would you know the difference?

I learned enough Hebrew and Aramaic to slog through Genesis (I and II and am still waiting for you to explain the inconsistencies) -- not easy and I don't even have the subtleties (or not subtleties worked out yet).

I guess I am waiting for more than "'cause I said." You clearly have though a lot about this. I invite you to provide a bit of scholarship to explain your conclusions.

[Jaime2099]

My opinions are from the literal translation of the Bible by people 1 million times more qualified to translate it than you or I. If you think you are smarter and more adept at translation than them, then kid yourself all you want.

My reasons are not "because I said", they are because the Bible said it. Your beliefs are based on a translation of the Bible that isn't even accepted, if it were, it would have been placed in the Bible. Your arguments for your own beliefs are built on sand foundations and a whole lot of guessing.

[freedumb2003]

My opinions are from the literal translation of the Bible by people 1 million times more qualified to translate it than you or I. If you think you are smarter and more adept at translation than them, then kid yourself all you want.

So you HAVE resolved the "Yom" issue! Great! What is the resolution? You can refer to any one of the million people more qualified than me and break it down. This has been quite a linguistic and theological quandary. Please proceed to tell us -- I, for one, would be relieved to see it finally put to rest.

My reasons are not "because I said", they are because the Bible said it. Your beliefs are based on a translation of the Bible that isn't even accepted, if it were, it would have been placed in the Bible.

My friend, I am trying to parse that statement. You are saying that the translation of the Bible from its original language(s) is not accepted but that a translation different than the one you understand would have been put there -- in the Bible's original language, which would then be translated into something you don't accept? My friend, please run that by me again.

Your arguments for your own beliefs are built on sand foundations and a whole lot of guessing.

Well, Aramaic and Hebrew (and some Greek and a bit of Latin) were the foundation languages of the Bible. In modern times, the Scientific Model is the foundation "lingua franca" for understanding all items of science and technology. Perhaps, while you explain why the Bible should be interpreted differently than its original language (and explain the hundreds of years of debate on those interpretations), you can also explain why millions of scientist who do things like invent computers and stuff are basing their work on "sand."

If you have this all worked out, I think that is great. You can put to bed so many debates crossing hundreds of years in a single post.

Good night my friend -- may God lighten your dreams for this evening and give you the fortitude to perform the tasks you have taken upon yourself.

[freedumb2003]

*doh* I am getting so old that I have these Senior Moments where I forget stuff...

I would also appreciate your reconciliation between Genesis I and Genesis II — I guess you can use whatever translation is easiest (I never cared for the colloquial English “Good News” version since I am a bit of a KJ affectionado, translation warts and all). But the differences are there in pretty much every translation (although, hint hint, interpretation of the base languages is required to perform even the slightest reconciliation).

Your scholarship, in matters of linguistics, theology and science will be very much appreciated on this thread. It is about time we had someone who can address all three here. I can dabble, but really, you have made it clear your understanding is immeasurably superior to mine (or, I guess millions? I didn’t quite get that part either — another senior moment).

Good night and God bless. May you wake up on the morrow refreshed, renewed and invigorated — and I hope you wish the same for me — I need it :)