To paraphrase:
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence of any fields of maize or potatoes can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
Since language is an aggregate phenomena, the definition of âthe firstâ has to be more loose than something involving technology, like agriculture.
The one thing we know is that French didnt originate in the Swiss alps, or in the hills of Portugal.
Conversely, I am not suggesting that science can tell who the first farmer is/was. But YECs have a vivid idea of who the first farmer is ⌠and all the various Evangelical schools need to do is decide which pattern of origin is more important to their overall beliefs.
No doubt there will be disagreements between âschoolsâ of GAE on the matter of the rise of agriculture. But I doubt that any dispute in that area will take them to a date for Adam/Eve significantly before 10,000 years ago.
In mathematics there has to be a first, except when there isnât. In some mathematical systems, such as the natural numbers, there has to be a first.
Likewise, in discrete logic there has to be a first.
What does that have to do with anything? Reality isnât logic. Reality does not come with neat compartments.
Now THAT was a funny posting, @T_aquaticus!!!
If you want, look for our earlier discussions where you criticized GAE for being terrible science, and I had to correct you and others on the matter:
GAE is a metaphysical (or theological) discussion that includes real science!
Ask John H.
He spent quite a bit of time saying Biblical motion of the first farmer was meaningless. How can someone well-seasoned on this list come to that conclusion ⌠unless he really thinks the GAE scenarios are meaningless? ⌠and that he loiters on the forum with only the hope of âspoilingâ another discussion.
@Roy,
This is not my position. Go fish.
And I agree with your criticism. Your point?
As we have seen, you bristle when asked for evidence. That pushes us out of the realm of science. The positive statements within GAE are entirely theological, and the only scientific relevance it has is that it isnât contradicted by evidence. How you are defining humanity and the timing of GAE have nothing to do with science, as shown by your reluctance to even entertain the idea of providing evidence for specific claims.
1 Like
I am not opposed to evidence. But in this case, I do not have enough details to even choose a hunch!
The thrust of my thread is to point out that except for one narrow possibility (that there is evidence for multiple regions of simultaneous development of high quality agriculture, or even moderate quality), it doesnât matter what the specifics of the evidence are!: Adam and Eve was a farming family, and they can be easily placed where the evidence best suggests, or where there is the least contrary evidence.
Your objection, which appears to be based on stubbornness (rather than based on any evidence of your own), is that if I say âimagine that all blue boxes are bigger than red onesâ, you seem to be saying my argument is flawed because I havenât produced the blue and red boxes!
And this sentence is one Iâm sure that @swamidass will enthusiastically reject!
Adam and Eve are not connected to any other technology⌠just agriculture. There is no more relevant factor for examining the scientific findings of the rise of âFarming Manâ.
You reject this line of reasoning because you want to throw garbage into the discussion like Neanderthals, and who knows what other âfliesâ in the ointment you can garner.
The more you argue, Mr. T, the more convinced I am that you are no friend of GAE, or of Professor Joshua. You strike at the fundamental structure of GAE at every chance you get.
===================================================================
Note:
Do you mean my criticism of you? Or do you mean my âcriticismâ of GAE? Because my comment about GAE is not intended as a criticism ⌠but as a DESCRIPTION: It will always be theological, because it intentionally accommodates the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. But it is a theological discussion that includes science, because the point of GAE is to reconcile Evolutionary science with a viable Christian metaphysics.
The people you are referring to include Ken Ham/AIG and their YEC supporters.
To clarify, they donât suggest deep time, but that Noah and the survivors produced Neanderthals, Denisovans, etc.
That is just plain wackyâŚ
1 Like
The evidence for the beginnings of agriculture come from the changes in the genomes of plants from wild to domesticated. And from the fossil and archaeological records. Agriculture happened roughly simultaneously in three different places with different crops.
-
I didnât say it was your position. Go fish yourself.
-
Your posts, especially #28, are consistent with it being your position.
- Gen 2.16 and Gen 3.17-23 clearly state that Adam ate fruit while in the garden, and only tilled the ground to grow and eat âthe herb of the fieldâ after he was ejected from Eden.
You are the one that has failed âIntroduction Comprehension to Genesisâ.
I think it would be far from easy to place Adam and Eve in a rice-filled Chinese paddy-field, should the evidence suggest it.
In fact, I think it would be far from easy to place Adam and Eve anywhere, since biblical compatibility would require the earliest traces of agriculture not to be from Adamâs tilling, but from Noahâs viniculture.
If youâd said âimagine there was a first family to practice agricultureâ, that would be relevant. But you actually said âthe general evidence that there was a first family to practice agricultureâ, so it isnât.
1 Like
Thatâs fine. I donât expect omniscience. 
You were hinting at the possibility of communication between Asia and the Americas that may have influenced the emergence of agriculture in the Americas. I was simply pointing out that I would need to see some evidence before I could accept such a proposal. I donât think it is out of bounds to ask for evidence dealing with corporeal and physical happenings in our universe. At the very same time, I am able to leave faith based beliefs in the realm of faith.
Your prelinary statement would be more credible if you provided a quote!
This was a quote from your linked article that pretty much âslam dunksâ MY point!:
âThe earliest farmers lived in the Fertile Crescent, a region in the Middle East âŚâ
The author then makes a list. But it is difficult to say whether it is a list of the extent of the Fertile Crescent⌠ORâŚ
a list of the extent of what he means by âearliest farmersâ!
"⌠including modern-day Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Israel, Palestine, southeastern Turkey and western Iran. "
I have no idea what you are attempting to say here! You arent trying to say Adam was only growing oregano and thyme, are you?
I dont think you can be any more obtuse, or more cryptic, than in this posting.
How can we productively deal with the actual evidence when i cant even get you on the same page about the logic of the evidence ⌠when at last we start examining it?
[1] GAE already assumes that the Adam kindred inevitably communicates with all the continents. Or did you somehow forget that?
[2] The arrival of an Adam kinship line is not the same as the arrival of agriculture. So we need to be flexibly minded as we track agriculture. Agriculture could very well have emerged in other regions, prior to the Adam kinship lineage arriving.
[3] @Patrick has already effortlessly provided raw evidence that the âfirst farmersâ lived in the Fertile crescent. So if agriculture emerged in other regions, it would be logical to conclude that these other points of origin did NOT come before the fertile crescent!
You seem to be confusing logic with âyou must agree with meâ.
That communication can happen through Asians that are non-agriculturalists who have no knowledge of what is happening the Fertile Crescent.
I would agree. If communication had occurred through an Arctic route I would expect agriculture to have emerged along those routes, but instead there seems to be a patchwork of agriculture on the continent that doesnât fit such a route.
It would seem to me that humans were intellectually capable of agriculture far before it emerged in the Fertile Crescent. What they needed was the right place, right time, and right background knowledge. In fact, this is the recipe for how human technology has continued to emerge since then. Itâs not as if we needed a supernaturally created human to come up with airplanes or the internet. If we took someone from 20,000 years ago and raised them in modern society they would probably be no different than you or I.