There you go. [Edit: whoops! As I was writing that, I see that John Harshman did the same. Didn’t mean to be repetitious.]
Exactly. And batshittery is still batshittery, whether there’s a thousand-foot deposit of guano in an ancient chasm or just one bat roosting outside the window.
It seems this is precisely the sort of synthesis that the GAE shows is very unlikely…
Yes, I would think so, if what we are talking about is something passed by inheritance. Whether that’s what he means is unclear.
No, I have reason to believe it is not passed through inheritance. Based on observations of the Plains Indians of north America in response to their co-existence with Europeans. It would seem this psychological shift can be coaxed out of pre-Adam humans through interaction. Contact.
Contact spreads faster than ancestry, which would mean that all those north American Indians were not Pre-Adam…
You have a major scientific problem with your theory…
Where was there contact previously?
The whole point of the GAE is to explain how there was contact. Have you had a chance to read the book yet?
I have not. Just now finding out there is a book.
Are you serious? 
That’s some serious blinders you have there. I really think you need to start by reading that book…cause your understanding of ancestry just doesn’t match what we know from science.
I’ve got the kindle edition now. I don’t think this book was out last time I was here.
Okay, as far as what’s relevant to contact with the north American Indians I found this under the section ‘Geographic Isolation is not Genealogical’ …
“Evidence, however, suggests continuous immigration in boats along a costal route and another route through the Aleutian Islands.”
- citing ‘Postglacial Viability and Colonization in North America’s Ice-Free Corridor’ by Mikkel W. Pedersen
I downloaded a PDF of Pedersen’s article. It seems to primarily be about a viable migration corridor that opened up between retreating ice sheets. I didn’t find anything about continuous immigration in boats along coastal routes or through the Aleutian Islands.
What I did read about the corridor seems to predate the initial appearance of Adam (6000BC) or anyone who may have had contact before the interaction with Europeans and north American Indians(1500CE). So the contact would had to have happened within that window (6000BC-1500CE).
Continuous immigration through the Aleutian Islands could be a possibility.
I did not present all the evidence on that one. There is evidence of cultural exchange from Asia. America was not likely fully isolated. There is also evidence of genetic exchange.
I’m familiar. If you recall the back and forth I had a while back regarding the Olmec/Mayan/Inca/Aztec cultures and discussions about the validity of evidence of Chinese symbols in Olmec writing and cave paintings/figurines that show possible Shang Dynasty era Chinese influence suggesting pre-Columbian contact.
The tell-tale indicators that I generally key in on are the behavioral characteristics and how/when they change. A hierarchical dynamic develops that wasn’t there before where they become less egalitarian and social status and power becomes the dynamic. South American native cultures transformed pre-Columbus. But the Plains Indians transformed after, when the European colonists came into the picture.
This remains consistent with the framework I’ve laid out.
Social stratification is just more inherent with the complexity and scale of cities and specialization. That seems a stretch to link with free will.
I don’t understand the fixation in free will…a term that doesn’t even appear in Genesis…
This can be demonstrated to be false. Here’s a few examples of long standing large/complex cultures with specialization and still remained egalitarian throughout…
Exceptionally large settlements developed in Catal Huyuk (7,500 to 5,700 BC) in Turkey and the Lepenski Vir settlement (dating back to 7,000 BC) located in the central portion of the Balkan peninsula. The Lepenski Vir culture gave way to the Vinča-Turdaș culture (5,000-4,500 BC), which at one point had populations estimated at 2,500 or more in some of the larger sites.
No, it is not called “free will”, but it is more than mentioned. It’s the central theme of the story right from the beginning. The choice made in the garden, a choice demonstrated as being a divergence from God’s will, is the reason for everything that followed through the rest of the story.
God’s will in this sense plays the role of ‘determinism’, where the laws of the natural world are the only determining factors in the actions and events that play out. Free will gives agency to the individual.
You are going back and forth between two separate definitions of “free will”: the usual one (which you use in that comment) and your private definition, in which you deny that “indigenous people” possess it. It would seem to any observer that “indigenous people” make the same sort of choices as “we” do. So this alleged transformation of behavior would not seem to involve free will by the usual meaning, and your private definition can’t be equated with the usual one.
The 2 definitions I’m associating together as the same basic concept …
Creation in Gen1 illustrates that the laws of the natural world are set by God. The actions and behaviors of everything in existence is determined by God’s word/command. He sets the natural law.
Adam in Gen2 is the first of all of creation to diverge from God’s will. This is the first appearance of free will in the context of both above definitions.
Sorry, but no. What if previous people had the choice to diverge from God’s will but decided not to? What if all the “indigenous” people in the present day also have that choice but decide not to? If your claim is that free will is manifest only in defying God, then why would God create a being with free will? Why would that be considered a good thing? You contradict yourself frequently.