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.
Thought it might be best to bounce this off of some knowledgeable people before going that route. Thatās what Iām trying to do now.
Professional anthropologists are going to ask you the same tough questions you are dodging now so you better get some answers ready. 
Well then it would seem I need to change my wording because that does not fit how Iām using ācivilizationā.
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 Iām using the term.
Tough questions? Are we reading the same discussion? So far the only āchallengesā that have been put forth have been wholly grounded in inaccurate definitions of words or knowledge of human history. Thereās yet to have been what Iād consider a ātough questionā.
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 Reichās book:
LOL! You mean if you waved your hands and harder ducking the evidence like Jiahu youād get airborne. But by all means submit you ideas to a professional journal, let us know what they say when they get done laughing.
I will check that out as thatās right up my alley as far as interests. But from what Iāve found this book has everything to do with tracking migration patterns and how/when the Earth was populated. Forgive my ignorance, but I donāt see how this channel of research is supposed to redefine things in terms of civilization building in human history.
" An open letter āby a group of 67 scientists and researchersā including anthropologists, sociologists, historians, and others takes Reich to task for his book, under the heading āHow Not To Talk About Race And Geneticsā.[2] The group welcomes Reichās challenge to the āmisrepresentations about race and geneticsā[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
āThe 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 .ā - Cradle of civilization - Wikipedia
You should really stop bringing up Jiahu as if itās relevant here, because it isnāt. Weāre talking about ancient civilizations. Jiahu is not counted among them. Iāve yet to find a reference that speaks of this site as a ācivilizationā. Most everything Iāve read refers to it as a āsettlementā. And rightly so. This is a very different thing.
Ahhhā¦ thank you for making my point FOR me!
You write: āThe 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 didnāt 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 isnāt consistent with the evidence.ā
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 ā¦ 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 ā¦ but it doesnāt appear to be any āspecial reasonā that the Bible could point us to.
Now you can relax a littleā¦ kick backā¦ pop a cold oneā¦ and stop trying to dismiss human free will. Thanks!
Not true at all. What gives you that impression?
You of all people here should know exactly what that āspecial reasonā is. Youāve been more involved in these discussions with me than anyone else here.
Dismiss? Seriously? Free will IS the āspecial reasonā.
You are starting to dance in circles.
Do you, or do you not, assert that the pre-adamites didnāt have Free Will?
**THAT CONTENTION** is my complaint with your approach.
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 āimage of Godā and Adam and Eve are not. Because without free will they have no willful capability to behave outside of Godās will. Therefore their image is consistent with God. They bare Godās Image. Adam and Eve, however, proved capable of behaving contrary to Godās will, therefore they are not in the image of God.
Iām not dancing at all. Iāve remained consistent on these points since the beginning.
Not dancing? ā¦ AND you arenāt making any sense?
You are having a bad day ā¦ and the day seems to be going into its sixth month nowā¦
1 Like
Keep at it, George. Youāre doing great. You not understanding doesnāt mean Iām not making sense. Youāre getting there. Youāre asking more and more relevant questions. Still a bit confused, but weāll get that cleared up.
LOL! Now weāve dropped ācitiesā and are back to ācivilizationsā again. FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP! Keep the equivocation train rolling!
FAIL again. You must really like the taste of foot.
A cradle of civilization is a location where civilization is understood to have emerged. Current thinking is that there was no single ācradleā, 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 predecessorsāsuch as Ancient Greece as the predecessor of Western civilization āeven when such sites are not understood as an independent development of civilization, as well as within national rhetoric
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. āSedentaryā and ānomadicā 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
Mesoamerica
Speaking of Jiahuā¦
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 otherās 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!
Did Neanderthals and Denisovans have free will?
From your quote ā¦ āScholars have defined civilization using various criteria such as the use of writing, cities, a class-based society,ā¦ā
It specifically sites ācitiesā 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 wasnāt limited to these places. What else?
Still with Jiahu? Youāre almost as stubborn as I am.
āSome scholars have suggestedā¦ā Itās not conclusively writing it would seem. Thereās 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?
According to this claim, no.
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 āGenesis free willā fantasy.
Sorry, Jiahu is conclusive evidence you have no clue what youāre talking about. I understand it embarrasses you so you want to drop it entirely but itās here to stay. Sadly you seem to dodge all the evidence for the independent rise of civilizations you canāt explain.