The Flood "Removed" not "Killed" Everyone?


I consider 500,000 years ago that civilization on Earth was millions of stone tool making humans of various species living in small groups. At the time is was the most advanced civilization on Earth and had different culture across those groups. This is the view of many fields of science.

(Jeremy Christian) #142

Thought it might be best to bounce this off of some knowledgeable people before going that route. That’s what I’m trying to do now.

(Timothy Horton) #143

Professional anthropologists are going to ask you the same tough questions you are dodging now so you better get some answers ready. :slightly_smiling_face:

(Jeremy Christian) #144

Well then it would seem I need to change my wording because that does not fit how I’m using “civilization”.

cradle of civilization - The cradle of civilization . Mesopotamia, the area between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers (in modern day Iraq), is often referred to as the cradle of civilization because it is the first place where complex urban centers grew. - The cradle of civilization (article) | Khan Academy

^ This is consistent with how I’m using the term.

(Jeremy Christian) #145

Tough questions? Are we reading the same discussion? So far the only “challenges” that have been put forth have been wholly grounded in inaccurate definitions of words or knowledge of human history. There’s yet to have been what I’d consider a “tough question”.


The cradle of civilization is a very out dated and is very inaccurate. Many fields of science have found out a lot about past civilization and human history. I would start with David Reich’s book:

(Timothy Horton) #147

LOL! You mean if you waved your hands and harder ducking the evidence like Jiahu you’d get airborne. But by all means submit you ideas to a professional journal, let us know what they say when they get done laughing. :slightly_smiling_face:

(Jeremy Christian) #148

I will check that out as that’s right up my alley as far as interests. But from what I’ve found this book has everything to do with tracking migration patterns and how/when the Earth was populated. Forgive my ignorance, but I don’t see how this channel of research is supposed to redefine things in terms of civilization building in human history.

" An open letter “by a group of 67 scientists and researchers” including anthropologists, sociologists, historians, and others takes Reich to task for his book, under the heading “How Not To Talk About Race And Genetics”.[2] The group welcomes Reich’s challenge to the “misrepresentations about race and genetics”[2] made by the science writer Nicholas Wade and the molecular biologist James Watson, but warns that his skill with genomics "should not be confused with a mastery of the cultural, political, and biological meanings of human groups." - Who We Are and How We Got Here - Wikipedia

“The civilizations that emerged around these rivers are among the earliest known non-nomadic agrarian societies. It is because of this that the Fertile Crescent region, and Mesopotamia in particular, are often referred to as the cradle of civilization .” - Cradle of civilization - Wikipedia

(Jeremy Christian) #149

You should really stop bringing up Jiahu as if it’s relevant here, because it isn’t. We’re talking about ancient civilizations. Jiahu is not counted among them. I’ve yet to find a reference that speaks of this site as a “civilization”. Most everything I’ve read refers to it as a “settlement”. And rightly so. This is a very different thing.

(George) #150


Ahhh… thank you for making my point FOR me!

You write: “The problem with that is that farming was being adopted all across the European and Asian continent, yet the sudden advancements seen in places like Sumer didn’t happen in any of those other places. There are numerous highly populated farming cultures that formed that never advanced the way Sumer did. So the idea that farming/agriculture is the cause isn’t consistent with the evidence.”

You are trying very hard to dismiss the value of the pre-adamites, even though Genesis 1 says even the pre-adamites are image bearers of God. The two things we know about Adam/Eve after the Fall is that they are familiar with tilling the ground and they have a moral conscience.

On such differences, others have attempted to build an entire metaphysical scenario … but you are in the unfortunate position of having disposed of the significance of farming as a pivot point in civilization. You point out that farming had made it to a lot of places, but Sumer, long after becoming agriculturally competent, suddenly leap great steps in civilization.

And so, Jeremy, we are forced to conclude that there was nothing special about Adam and Eve (other than their agricultural skills, to the extent they may have had any) that you can point to. Sumer takes their leap for some special reason … but it doesn’t appear to be any “special reason” that the Bible could point us to.

Now you can relax a little… kick back… pop a cold one… and stop trying to dismiss human free will. Thanks!

(Jeremy Christian) #151

Not true at all. What gives you that impression?

You of all people here should know exactly what that “special reason” is. You’ve been more involved in these discussions with me than anyone else here.

Dismiss? Seriously? Free will IS the “special reason”.

(George) #152


You are starting to dance in circles.

Do you, or do you not, assert that the pre-adamites didn’t have Free Will?
**THAT CONTENTION** is my complaint with your approach.

(Jeremy Christian) #153

Yes, I DO assert that pre-adamites did not have free will. Which is why it can be said that they were made in the “image of God” and Adam and Eve are not. Because without free will they have no willful capability to behave outside of God’s will. Therefore their image is consistent with God. They bare God’s Image. Adam and Eve, however, proved capable of behaving contrary to God’s will, therefore they are not in the image of God.

I’m not dancing at all. I’ve remained consistent on these points since the beginning.

(George) #154

Not dancing? … AND you aren’t making any sense?

You are having a bad day … and the day seems to be going into its sixth month now…

(Jeremy Christian) #155

Keep at it, George. You’re doing great. You not understanding doesn’t mean I’m not making sense. You’re getting there. You’re asking more and more relevant questions. Still a bit confused, but we’ll get that cleared up.

(Timothy Horton) #156

LOL! Now we’ve dropped “cities” and are back to “civilizations” again. FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP! Keep the equivocation train rolling!

FAIL again. You must really like the taste of foot. :slightly_smiling_face:

Cradle Of Civilization

A cradle of civilization is a location where civilization is understood to have emerged. Current thinking is that there was no single “cradle”, but several civilizations that developed independently, with the Fertile Crescent (Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia), Ancient India and Ancient China understood to be the earliest. The extent to which there was significant influence between the early civilizations of the Near East and those of East Asia is disputed. Scholars accept that the civilizations of Mesoamerica, mainly in modern Mexico, and Norte Chico, in the north-central coastal region of Peru, emerged independently from those in Eurasia.

Scholars have defined civilization using various criteria such as the use of writing, cities, a class-based society, agriculture, animal husbandry, public buildings, metallurgy, and monumental architecture. The term cradle of civilization has frequently been applied to a variety of cultures and areas, in particular the Ancient Near Eastern Chalcolithic (Ubaid period) and Fertile Crescent, Ancient India and Ancient China. It has also been applied to ancient Anatolia, the Levant and Iranian plateau, and used to refer to culture predecessors—such as Ancient Greece as the predecessor of Western civilization —even when such sites are not understood as an independent development of civilization, as well as within national rhetoric

Single or Multiple Cradles?

A traditional theory of the spread of civilization is that it began in the Fertile Crescent and spread out from there by influence. Scholars more generally now believe that civilizations arose independently at several locations in both hemispheres. They have observed that sociocultural developments occurred along different time frames. “Sedentary” and “nomadic” communities continued to interact considerably; they were not strictly divided among widely different cultural groups. The concept of a cradle of civilization has a focus where the inhabitants came to build cities, to create writing systems, to experiment in techniques for making pottery and using metals, to domesticate animals, and to develop complex social structures involving class systems.

Current scholarship generally identifies five sites where civilization emerged independently:

the Fertile Crescent
the Indo-Gangetic Plain
the North China Plain
the Central Andes

Speaking of Jiahu…

Ancient China

Drawing on archaeology, geology and anthropology, modern scholars do not see the origins of the Chinese civilization or history as a linear story but rather the history of the interactions of different and distinct cultures and ethnic groups that influenced each other’s development. The two specific cultural regions that developed Chinese civilization was the Yellow River civilization and the Yangtze civilization. Early evidence for Chinese millet agriculture is dated to around 7000 BC, with the earliest evidence of cultivated rice found at Chengtoushan near the Yangtze River, dated to 6500 BC. Chengtoushan may also be the site of the first walled city in China. By the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution, the Yellow River valley began to establish itself as a center of the Peiligang culture which flourished from 7000 to 5000 BC, with evidence of agriculture, constructed buildings, pottery, and burial of the dead. With agriculture came increased population, the ability to store and redistribute crops, and the potential to support specialist craftsmen and administrators. Its most prominent site is Jiahu. Some scholars have suggested that the Jiahu symbols (6600 BC) are the earliest form of proto-writing in China.

Oops again for you! :slightly_smiling_face:


Did Neanderthals and Denisovans have free will?

(Jeremy Christian) #158

From your quote … “Scholars have defined civilization using various criteria such as the use of writing, cities, a class-based society,…”

It specifically sites “cities” as criteria for defining civilization. Not flip flopping. Still on point.

So, back to this again. Same thing. For hundreds of thousands of years, nothing. Then, all at once it would seem it happens in multiple places. What happened? What changed? Farming? That wasn’t limited to these places. What else?

Still with Jiahu? You’re almost as stubborn as I am.

“Some scholars have suggested…” It’s not conclusively writing it would seem. There’s still debate. Any cities? No. Class-based society? No. Any of the criteria sited above that defines a civilization? Suggested to maybe have writing. Not close enough. Sorry. Can we drop Jiahu now?

(Jeremy Christian) #159

According to this claim, no.

(Timothy Horton) #160

Humans shifted from nomadic hunter gatherers and began living in permanent settlements which grew ever larger and more complex over time. It happened independently in many locations and did not require your “Genesis free will” fantasy.

Sorry, Jiahu is conclusive evidence you have no clue what you’re talking about. I understand it embarrasses you so you want to drop it entirely but it’s here to stay. Sadly you seem to dodge all the evidence for the independent rise of civilizations you can’t explain. :slightly_smiling_face: