Story Three: Recent Sole-Genealogical Progenitor Adam


(Jeremy Christian) #145

I don’t understand what this means. Don’t guess I’ve run across the mission statement yet?

(Jeremy Christian) #146

Okay, I did a little digging. Turns out I’m familiar with some of Dr. Ross’s work from way back. It’s a trip to see he’s involved. It seems he and I have been on a very similar mission for a very long time.

A few years back my grandmother started giving me a lot of the stuff she had collected over the years, being a rather enthusiastic bible study teacher for her church for much of her life.

One of the things among these piles of notebooks and such was a small 15 page booklet written by Dr. Hugh Ross that he published in 1979 called Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective. I have no idea where she got it. When my grandmother had given it to me it was about a year after I published my take on creation (1/12). I found Dr. Ross’s take to be very similar to mine in a lot of places. Almost word for word the same in many places. Though I had no prior knowledge of his take, I got a near identical interpretation of those very same texts. So strikingly similar I kept the booklet all these years. Including the overlapping waves of creation I’ve been explaining in reference to birds that you dismissed as “dead wrong”.

Based on this …
“RTB, also, already acknowledges that there were people outside the garden with whom Adam’s offspring eventually interbreed. Maybe this was not bestiality, but what God intended in the first place. So, in the coming year, let us consider together a Genealogical Adam and the current RTB model.”

… it would seem @swamidass’ goals are very much in line with what I’m presenting. It’s taking a little time to make it understood and clear, but it’ll get there. I think all involved will be interested once it’s seen.

Basically I’ve identified a behavioral change in humanity that will draw a much more distinct line that I’m confident will prove useful in helping steer genetic investigation.

(George) #147


It means you are much more interested in finding supporters for your interpretation of Free Will than you are in finding Creationists interested in the modern body of Science.

I find your parochial fixation on Free Will to be irrelevant to @swamidass’ work on Geneal.Adam.

(Guy Coe) #148

And I don’t. You seem to be making the case that a forensically identifiable change in human behavior occurred at just the time when you expect Adam arrived; am I correct? How have you identified this, presumably, dramatic shift forensically?

(Jeremy Christian) #149

Yes, that is correct. After building a framework from Genesis using the timeline and described events as a template and locating a period in that region that lined up with that framework, I identified the 5.9 kiloyear event, a dramatic climate change in that region, as the Babel event from the story. This event happened right where and when the framework predicted and had an impact much like what’s described, namely the mass dispersion of the population there.

It seemed all the cultures I researched in this timeframe and location were consistently egalitarian, except the civilizations that had come about (Sumer/Egypt/Indus Valley). They were all male-dominant and class stratified unlike any of the other cultures in the area. In fact, a shift from egalitarian to class stratification was identified in the first phase of Sumerian culture, the Ubaid.

When reading about the 5.9 kiloyear event I ran across the mention of a book by Steve Taylor that was about the fall. This climate change was also identified in that book as significant.

One of the most daunting tasks I had before me in validating/falsifying this framework was testing the behavior change it predicted. I was going to have to cross-research numerous cultures in that timeframe and that location to see if a pattern could be identified. Fortunately, Taylor’s book made numerous references to an investigation that had already done exactly that.

Taylor’s book leaned heavily on James DeMeo’s book, Saharasia. Both Taylor and DeMeo believed this behavior change was caused by shifts in climate that transformed the Sahara back into desert in that region. The theory is that the hardships this caused coaxed a psychological change out of humans that they associated with Wilhelm Reich’s concept of “armouring”.

So, basically DeMeo had identified this behavior change, and had mapped it’s progression throughout the region and the world, but didn’t of course associate it with Adam and Eve as I had. And Taylor’s book, while it made the association with the fall, spoke of this behavior change as the inspiration behind the various fall myths.,204,203,200_QL70&dpSrc=srch

I recommend everyone here read Taylor’s book ‘The Fall’. It illustrates really well how this behavior change seemed to be the catalyst that brought about the rise of the modern human world. The behavior change was very much like what was predicted, and it began right where/when predicted, and spread from there.

(Jeremy Christian) #150

I’m not looking for support. I’m looking to have this hypothesis tested by my peers.

But finding resolution to the divisive conflict, and establishing the importance of science and the knowledge it provides in light of God and the bible, has always been a primary motivator.

I think you’ll find over time that what I’m talking about is very much relevant. You just don’t see it yet. You will.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) split this topic #151

A post was split to a new topic: James DeMoe’s Sahararsia Hypothesis

(George) #152


Ive been a calvinist. Ive argued both sides. There is virtually no one who thinks a person’s salvation depends on whether neanderthals have Free Will.

Your topic is a egregious luxury for a group like this.

(Jeremy Christian) #153

Well, this group is actually in a position where true understanding can really make a difference, so this matters. You’re seeing this as an egregious luxury just means you don’t see it yet. Not only is this relevant, it’s central.

(George) #154


Okay… i have my bag of popcorn. Have at it. What are you pitching?

(Jeremy Christian) #155

I think the best approach is to first have out this disagreement on theological determinism. That needs to be fixed. In fixing that I think the rest of it will come into focus.

(George) #156

J, i havent gone anywhere.

Go ahead and fix it.

(Jeremy Christian) #157

Answer my question about Abraham and we can get started. I need you to state, for the record, your view/stance on this.

(George) #158

J, i dont have an answer.

(Jeremy Christian) #159

I seriously doubt that.

(George) #160

My answer is that you take Genesis way too literally. There. Thats my answer.

And now it is 1 am and you’ve wasted a full evening ducking and evading producing your own response.

If you waste my night again, just being a smarty pants, ill have grounds to request to @swamidass that you be put in temporary suspension or that he let me take over your moderation.

Its your call.

(Jeremy Christian) #161

Sounds like it’s @swamidass’s call.

Too literally? Well, my literal interpretation is demonstrably parallel to actual history. So I’d say you don’t take it literally enough.

There’s no way I’m going to be able to not be a smarty pants. So, you might as well go ahead and pull that trigger.

It was good conversing with you.

(system) automatically bumped #162

(system) automatically bumped #163

(system) automatically bumped #164