I have no idea what you mean by “convincing” since this isn’t something that anyone can show using data or argument. It is simply a fact that two humans called A&E can be alive and mix with others of their species. This is a basic premise of the whole GAE discussion. When you write stuff like that, you give the impression that you don’t know what the GAE is about.
I assume from this weird word salad that you think that there is something in the GAE proposal that suggests A&E mating with “the other hominids” in which those hominids are not biologically considered human. Fortunately this is not related to the GAE, because if it were, the GAE would be scientifically laughable.
George, you seem confused. You don’t seem to understand the important question of defining “human” and you seem committed to interpreting this in a biological/anthropological sense. I think you are pretty far from understanding the GAE, and your understanding is sadly out of proportion with your posting volume and your use of bold and all caps.
Seems like your critique could be applied to anyone who discusses how science relates with Adam and Eve, include Rob Carter, John Sanford, Dennis Venema, etc…
To consider scientific questions about Adam and Eve some correspondence between them and scientific concepts has to be hypothesized or inferred.
Okay, but in your case I don’t understand what you’ve actually proposed that would be different from any other theistic evolutionist like Francis Collins. Perhaps I was wrong to ever think that you did have some kind of new proposition?
I think that since both “biblical words” and “evolutionary beliefs” are things that exist in your mind and not mine, this is a question I can’t answer for you.
You deny the existence of words from the bible and you also deny the existence of beliefs having to do with evolution. Nothing more needs to be really said, I guess.
Just because GAE is a flexible scenario doesn’t mean we have to INSIST that GAE scenarios represent the full range of possibilities.
GAE scenarios make the most sense if they put Adam and Eve in the closest proximity in the timeline to when archaeology tells us humans achieved an important land mark in agriculture
.
versus
.
when the Bible seems to say when Adam and Eve would have appeared (i.e., about 6000 years ago).
@PDPrice erroneously suggested that GAE implies that Adam & Eve are the original humans in the GAE scenarios. He is wrong; this is not what GAE implies.
You write:
I think you are going overboard here. The people who keep trying to bring in the issue of other sub-species of humans are playing a spoiler role (either intentionally or unintentionally). The best stance puts Pre-Adamites as the form of hominid clearly within the most recent time frames of Homo sapien - - and indistinguishable from Adam and Eve.
Still making the same basic mistake, even when repeatedly informed, of interpreting “human” in a way the GAE does not. In the GAE scenario, A&E are the original textual humans. They aren’t the original biological humans. Two different things.
Of course he’s ignoring me so he’ll never see this.
You write “two humans called A&E CAN be alive and mix with others of their species” [emphasis on the word “can” is mine].
I am interested in reaching Young Earth Creationists who feel awkward about how to fit evolutionary evidence into the picture. The members of this audience are NOT LIKELY to be moved by GAE scenarios that place Adam and Eve 200,000 years ago. The audiences I am most interested in are those that want to fit fossil evidence while the family of Adam and Eve are dove-tailed to fit the usual 6000 year time frame (or thereabouts).
These other scenarios you seem to want me to respect and endorse are, in my view, unlikely and not particularly popular choices for the audiences that I think GAE best suits.
I can’t for the life of me figure out how this is related to anything in this conversation. The main motivation for the GAE, it seems to me, is precisely to show that a genealogical A&E could have existed very recently.
Your comments all give the impression that you are having a conversation by yourself. You don’t seem to understand anything I write. I’m afraid that @John_Harshman has correctly identified the problem: you either can’t or won’t understand the concepts of “human” that are being discussed. I’ll accept the blame and head for the exit. Please don’t follow me.
… I am inclined to think that they are trying to involve these other primate branches to foil follow-up conversations involving theology or to confuse the question of what makes a human.
I didn’t realize that there was any confusion for you or for @John_Harshman. I have ALWAYS opposed anyone trying to involve these other OLDER branches of human-like primates. It serves no important Biblical purpose to introduce such a topic (no matter how much it might remind the reader of angels mating with human females).
I agree, but you need to take that up with @swamidass. I merely point out that @gbrooks9’s idea of the argument is wrong. Your idea of the argument is also wrong, but in a different way. In the main hypothesis of the GAE, Adam and Eve are created de novo as per Genesis 2, while the people outside the garden, all just as biologically human as A&E and all Homo sapiens, are an evolved population as in the mainstream scientific position. If you want to disagree, at least disagree with the actual claim.
It becomes confused because GAE makes this distinction between biological humans and “textual humans”, said to be just the portion of the population the bible is interested in, all of whom are descendants of Adam. By the time the bible becomes interested in the entire human population, when Paul and others start including the gentiles, everyone is plausibly such a descendant.
For those interested in the topic, this posting is where @swamidass makes the distinction regarding “textual humans”. It may not be the best way to describe the distinction. But up until today, I thought it would be fine.
