I am also in favour of an earlier definition of 40k or 50k years ago… but why should Adam be restricted to 10k years ago? Why not 50kya?
1 Like
I mentioned it to acknowledge it … and then move on (implied dismissal).
You asked a question of what I meant; perfectly legitimate thing to ask.
Now you have the gall to interrogate me about why I even mention something … for goodness sakes… get a grip on yourself. We are having a conversation … you know what a conversation is like, right? It’s casual. It touches on lots of topics… and presumably does not impose a lot of rigor on its participants.
As the Monty Python crew once made abundantly clear:
neither they nor I were expecting this kind of a Spanish Inquisition:
I’m glad you asked that.
Two reasons:
-
I don’t think there is any warrant in Genesis for such a deep time period for Adam and Eve.
-
I think the intersection of Science and Theology would find it rather intolerable to have Adam and Eve, expert gardeners, expelled into the human population 40,000 years ago… and find not a hint of agricultural awakening in the population… and suddenly we see it some 30,000 years later.
Why would that happen? What questions are answered by putting Adam at 40,000 years that aren’t better answered if we put him between 6,000 and 8,000 years ago?
Depends on how you read Genesis… of you read the creation of humanity in Genesis 1 as a different event from the creation of Adam, then there is a gap. What’s the warrant to assuming a large Gap.
What’s the point of humans made in the image of God roaming the earth for 40k years before God sends Adam?
Similarly there can be gaps in the genealogies mentioned in Genesis.
You are assuming that evidence of agriculture lasts for longer than 10k years. Perhaps there is evidence to be uncovered that will set it back by another 10k years.
Perhaps Adam and Eve introduced agriculture in a small community which spread over the earth over a long period of time.
It’s definitely a question an earlier Adam and Eve will have to address.
And when that is uncovered… then there is a reason to adjust the “Geneal.Adam” scenarios.
Why would you adjust the scenarios to 40,000 years before there was any evidence to support that? What else is being “fixed” by moving Adam/Eve to 40,000 years if we aren’t moving the time frame to better match the physical evidence (to date) ?
You mean something like this?
So does that make Adam and Eve 30kya ?
If the findings hold, you would place Adam and Eve where having “Gardening Knowledge” appears evident. Without reading the article, can you report whether the reports findings support a rather mature understanding of agriculture? Or does it indicate some partial grasp of the principles.
Where the evidence finds the first garden… that’s the so-called “Terminus Post Quem” - - “A terminus post quem is the earliest time the event may have happened…”
Does any of this seem so peculiar to you that you are stunned?
The only advantage I can see is a longer time period for the family tree to spread to the far flung corners of the globe. If you place A&E at 50,000 years then it is possible for their genealogic family to include the founding populations that made it to North America and Australia. You could probably include other isolated populations, such as the Polynesians.
However, this certainly isn’t a requirement. As @swamidass has stated before, there’s some faith involved in the 6k scenario, and that isn’t a bad thing. As with any theology, there is always going to be some mystery involved.
Polynesia was not inhabited till 1800 BC. They are easily incorporated with a recent Adam.
2 Likes
I believe @swamidass has established that using extremely meager migration rates, simulations regularly produce 100% descent from a target pair within 2000 to 3000 years.
If God set up a shipwreck of survivors from every continent, every century, bringing an Adam offspring to the faraway shores of anywhere… 100% could be achieved more consistently and more quickly than the simulations even predict.
The Genealogical assumptions appear to be the least of our worries.
That’s part of the mystery I talked about before. It is a matter of faith that isn’t contradicted by science, so I don’t see a problem with it. I only mentioned the advantages of a 50k date before because it wouldn’t have required these types of miracles, but miracles aren’t necessarily a problem, so it is only a small advantage.
Though @gbrooks9 references miracles there is no need for miracles.
1 Like
Considering the inclination of Creationists… and the fact we are already
accommodating de novo miracles of Adam and Eve… a shipwreck here and
there is hardly a deal breaker to anyone.
But I agree with Joshua… miracles for THIS are not necessary.
40,000 is HUGELY too long to accomplish what needs to be accomplished
according to multiple simulations.
The goal appears to be to keep as much of Genesis as possible. I’m wondering if you want to keep the ages of the patriarchs, or if you want to insert a large number of missing generations. Or is there even a literal Methuselah?
3 Likes
There can be more than one deal-breaker for a Creationist considering evolution.
Certainly the BioLogos people have been quick to remind me that the average Creationist isn’t going to accept evolution “just because we give him or her Romans 5”.
And that is so true.
The premise here is that there are enough Creationists who are hoping to find a way to justify accepting evolution … even if that means they have to give up a few more things in Genesis. There are multiple ways of “pigeon-holing” creationists … one size does not fit all.
So, to summarize, the answer to my question is…?
That is not the goal. The goal is to understand how different traditions can be understood alongside mainstream science.
How do we learn about different traditions? In addition to talking with people, there are often written belief statements, confessions, articles, and otherwise that can be used to understand different points of view. More important than personal statements are when people who disagree on other things change me together to articulate their joint values.
This is one reason Methuselah will never be as important as Adam. What ever a single Creationists inisist about him, Methuselah and the ages of the patriarchs are essentially a none issue in the tradition. Adam and Eve, however, loom large.
1 Like
The goal is actually to keep as much science as a plentitude of evidence supports.
When it comes to the historicity of particular stories in Genesis… it’s a complete grab-bag of possibilities. Obviously, PeacefulScience.Org is not in the business of saying which patriarchal narratives are reliable or credible or not … other than what is necessary to support the pre-Adamite story line.
It would seem necessary, if you want to understand a tradition alongside science, to figure out how to interpret the bible. If GAE are supposed to be 6000 years ago, that has to be reconciled somehow with the biblical patriarchal chronology. Just wondering which of two possible methods you would propose.
2 Likes
If it’s a question of Biblical timeline, each denomination has its own logic for using the bible to benchmark different individuals.
Adam and Eve, however, for the sake of the Genealogical Adam Scenarios, should make some kind of sense when compared to the archaeological and anthropology of human Agricultural origins.