|
Post by Sarge on Oct 3, 2020 3:27:54 GMT
You'd have to ask Cody, but I think he meant written history where the time of the writing could be dated to earlier than 4000 BC, not history talking about events before 4000BC. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I interpreted it. I can see that distinction, but if we accept that there is no written history before 4000BC then what can any history relating to purported human events and individuals before then rely on for veracity? Writings are a tool, not the definitive record of history, not even the best record of history in all cases. A written record is one person's interpretation of events and it may be written faithfully, to appease a ruler, or may be propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Oct 4, 2020 12:03:24 GMT
I find it odd how Evolutionists claim man has been evolving for millions of years and as modern humans we’ve been around for about 200,000 years. Yet there is no recorded history stretching further than 6000 years which coincidentally enough is how long many Christians believe the bible dates as the beginning of mankind. We have no writings, no battles, no wars, no countries, no carved stones, no nothing. If human evolution is true then surely it would be traceable far beyond 4000bc. That's like asking why did the ancient Egyptians not build airports.
|
|
|
Post by simianscrote on Oct 8, 2020 18:32:22 GMT
No, 200,000 years ago Archaic Homo Sapiens were prevalent, Heidelbergensis, Neanderthalensis, etc, were intermingling with modern Sapiens. See type sites like Swanscombe Man. You ignorant twat. Evasion noted. it was answered half a page ago, but you are too busy kneeling and puckering up
|
|