Definitions of Humanity are rather irrelevant




You know this, and I know this. So?

If you are struggling creationist, hoping to find a way of reconciling evolution with their faith, he/she are obviously at a different starting place than you and I.

Since these folks have started with Adam from Genesis, we can provide a reasonable (and scientific!) context in which to insert Adam: with the “earliest farmers of the fertile crescent”.

Your criticisms that agriculture is too arbitrary is simply too bizarre to take seriously.

I am saying that from a scientific point of view, it is arbitrary. I have consistently said that they only way agriculture makes sense as a marker for humanity is from a theological point of view. I think we agree more than you are letting on.

1 Like


And so you start poorly, from the perspective of our target audience. GAE is theological… and so we take Adam, God’s gardener, and provide a perfectly harmonious link with what science says about “the earliest farmers” in the Fertile Crescent.

Why do you think it is surprising that I catch you making the same inappropriate criticisms over and over?

That is false. What we are trying to define is what science can and can’t say. That is the entire purpose of GAE, in my view. Science can’t say that human is defined by agriculture. That is defined by theology. Again, we agree more than you are letting on.

It isn’t inappropriate.

1 Like


Along with the epistemological limits of science, GAE is ALSO helping Christians reconcile their faith with Evolution.

There is zero reason to reject Adam’s purported role in the rise of agriculture in the Middle East. Choosing the rise of agriculture is not arbitrary choice because the Christian faith already associates Adam with farming, and farming only.

Other Genesis texts suggest other Adam descendants had other expertise. But Adam is our priority.

1 Like

I would agree. Consistent with GAE, science is silent on who started agriculture.

All I am saying is that it helps to be more specific. From a theological point of view, it is not arbitrary.

1 Like

Purported by whom? Certainly not the bible. As far as Genesis goes, Adam is the founder of agriculture only if you further assume that he’s the only person in the world and therefore the first by definition. Given GAE, there’s no support in Genesis for the claim that he was the first farmer.


I dont believe any converting YEC would agree with that opinion.

Why not? Can you find biblical support? Can you find anything that wouldn’t equally be an objection to GAE?

And simultaneously in South East Asia with rice.

Oh brother - -
Because Evangelicals don’t think like John Harshman thinks.

1 Like

I would go with 3.3 million year old stone tools:


As I’ve alluded to in posts above, other regions could have developed agriculture on their own.
But it wouldn’t be surprising that other regions developed it later than in the Fertile Crescent …

OR… (and this is important @Patrick)

… I don’t think anyone should be surprised that Adam did not provide the origination for a rice farming culture!

And that put you at 12,000 years ago and GAE may not be the first as in Asia there may have been rice cultivation going on prior.


I think you are starting the clock at the first signs of agriculture. Sources put a more accomplished agriculture more recently than 10,000 years ago:

"Agriculture appeared first in Southwest Asia about 2,000 years later, around 10,000–9,000 years ago. The region was the centre of domestication for three cereals (einkorn wheat, emmer wheat and barley), four legumes (lentil, pea, bitter vetch and chickpea), and flax. Domestication was a slow process that unfolded across multiple regions, and was preceded by centuries if not millennia of pre-domestication cultivation.[38]

Footnote 38:
Brown, T. A.; Jones, M. K.; Powell, W.; Allaby, R. G. (2009). “The complex origins of domesticated crops in the Fertile Crescent” (PDF). Trends in Ecology & Evolution . 24 (2): 103–9. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.09.008. PMID 19100651.

The source journal article (from 2008) is here at this link:

The complex origins of domesticated crops in the Fertile Crescent
by Terence A. Brown1
, Martin K. Jones2
, Wayne Powell3 and Robin G. Allaby4
1 Faculty of Life Sciences, Manchester Interdisciplinary Biocentre, University of Manchester, Manchester M1 7DN, UK
2 Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK
3 Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth SY23 3DA, UK
4 University of Warwick, Wellesbourne, Warwickshire CV35 9EF, UK

I note in passing that you often confuse YECs with Evangelicals with Christians and who knows what else. I note not in passing that you seem unable to address the point.


First evidence of farming in the Mideast at 23,000 years ago.

Yes. And yet, is that when Adam’s influence would have been felt? Or would
he introduce revisions and more excellent farming?

You don’t have to convince me… I’m a unitarian universalist. The matter is what
exactly will sound most convincing to the Creationists who turn to GAE for a better

Adam’s influence has never been felt because Adam is just a character in a fictional story.