I take your point Boaz, but I do think you are stretching the cap a little in order to make it fit. The "dribblings" and "pseudo-intellectual posturings" were actually referring to Aslan's contributions, and are descriptions that I firmly believe would stand scrutiny under the trade descriptions act. But you see that as insulting to him as a person... well, maybe. I see it as playing the ball, not the man, but it has to be conceded that you may have the germ of right on your side on this occasion.

One further thought, since you are obviously in learning mode. (Wasn't that poetry by Marx a hoot! He certainly chose the more appropriate career path, I think). Hypocracy has a very different meaning from the one I believe you may have intended.

Hypocracy: a system of government that publicly characterises its policies or actions in a manner contradictory to the actual purposes and/or effects of those policies or actions. (from Gr. hypo-: to pretend, put on a show + Gr. -cracy: strength, to govern)

Hope this helps.

Pericles,

Your cited definition is very interesting. Herein, I understand that Krushchev once referred to Mao as a "Margarine Marxist".

Aslan,

Other research pressures have kept me away from revisiting the 6,000 year Earth proposition. Could be a few weeks. Travelling <c, ;-) .

In the interim, why is this dating matter "so" important to you guys? You have already said you are not a literalist. Relatedly, doe it really matter if Earth is not the "physical" centre opn the Creation? It seems to form a constitution of thought, rather than a competing position.

O.

Philo,

I said in an earlier post to you "Maybe, this could push us back 12-15,000 BP years. Before then would have been familial-based nomadic systems going back tens of thousands of years. Some suspect that if a typical human from 50,000 years ago were to live today that person would have our intellence level. Sorry, I can't give you a source as my anthopology books are in storage."

Reagarding, the later I can now give you a source and I quote;

"Brain mutation: A genetic brain mutation roughly 50,000 years ago had the lucky effect of rewiring the brain such that it was caple of symbolic thought" -- Scientific American June 2005. Reseacher Richard G. Klien.

Offline for two weeks.

Oliver,
I prefer not to use the term mutation as it refers to a deformity within the genome or a loss of genetic material, from the normal. The human genome would indicate the introduction of new genetic material not before available. I, in this case prefer to use the term creation, as it refers to new material. From my limited experience in genetics where we deliberately knocked out some genes in plants with radioactive isotopes; to create deformities from which we chose plants that had characteristics for which we were looking.

Hello Philo,

Just back from Oz. I would need to check the technical meaning of the word "mutation" myself. If memory serves, other refer to progressive and regressive evolution. I tend to agree that "mutation" is not a very nice sounding word.

As know doubt you have read Chimps share 98 point something (?) of our human genetic make-up. Herein, I take you take it that the extra octanes given to s primate base species, is a divine creative act? In this frame, I do prefer proposition to a Merlin-like God or Creative Power.

Cheers.

O.

Oliver,
Good to see you back. I havent seen you on threads I've been posting on in recent days.

I have, as you can see, virtually left this thread. With work and grandparenting activities find I am burning the candle at both ends. Need time to refresh and think.

Basically I believe in design, not random accidental mutations. If man was the last of species to emerge then it would tend to indicate he is an advance on any previous life forms. The addition of information in the gene in my view came by design, not by accident.
See you.