spanner365

Oddly enough, man has accomplished more in the last 6,000 years than he did in the previous million years. This would be true in light of the fact that we have not one shred of evidence that man did anything in that previous one million years!

"In the last six thousand years, man has advanced far more rapidly than he did in the million or more years of his prehistoric existence."— *Louise Eisman and *Charles Tanzer, Biology and Human Progress (1958), p. 509.

The developer of radiocarbon dating was astounded to learn that there are no records of mankind prior to 3000 B.C. (His teachers had not mentioned it in college.)

"The research in the development of the [radiocarbon] dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historic and the prehistoric epochs, respectively. Arnold [a coworker] and I had our first shock when our advisors informed us that history extended back only for 5,000 years . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, the earliest historical date that has been established with any degree of certainty is about the time of the 1st Dynasty in Egypt."— *Willard Libby, Science, March 3, 1961, p. 624.

Prior to a certain point several thousand years ago, there was no trace of man having ever existed. After that point, civilization, writing, language, agriculture, domestication, and all the rest—suddenly exploded into intense activity!

"No more surprising fact has been discovered by recent excavation, than the suddenness with which civilization appeared in the world. This discovery is the very opposite to that anticipated. It was expected that the more ancient the period, the more primitive would excavators find it to be, until traces of civilization ceased altogether and aboriginal man appeared. Neither in Babylonia nor Egypt, the lands of the oldest known habitations of man, has this been the case." P.J. Wiseman, New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis (1949), p. 28.

Dates going back to 3000 to 4000 B.C. are estimated as the longest possible dates. But "well-authenticated" dates from Egypt, which scientists consider to have been history's oldest civilization, only go back to 1600 B.C.

"Well authenticated dates are known only back as far as about 1600 B.C. in Egyptian history, according to John G. Read."—*Journal of Near Eastern Studies, (1970), Vol. 1, p. 29.


The various radiodating techniques could be so inaccurate that mankind has only been on earth a few thousand years.

"Dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.. Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."—*Robert Gannon, "How Old Is It?" Popular Science, November 1979, p. 81.

We have no records indicating human civilization going back beyond a few thousand years.

"Only six or seven thousand years ago. . civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world."—*Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth (1982), p. 181.

There are no written records before about 3000 B.C.

"In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000 BC . . Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records."—*Reader's Digest, The Last Two Million Years (1984), pp. 9, 29.

Almost as soon as there was civilization, there were towns and cities, and the oldest were in Mesopotamia.

"In most civilizations urbanization began early. There is little doubt that this was the case for the oldest civilization and the earliest cities: those of ancient Mesopotamia." —*Robert M. Adams, "The Origin of Cities," Scientific American, Vol. 203, September 1960, p. 154.

The earliest king lists only go back to shortly before 3000 B.C.

"The Egyptian king lists go back to the First Dynasty of Egypt, a little before 3000 B.C. Before that, there were no written records anywhere. " —*Colin Renfrew, Before Civilization (1983), p. 25.

CX

This is perhaps true, but misleading. There is considerable archaeological evidence of sedentary human civilizations representing a relatively advanced social organization as far back as 5000 BCE in the mesopotamian basin. The earliest Sumerian civilizations seem to emerge in that time frame. Additionally there is considerable archaeological evidence for nomadic hunter-gatherer societies well before that. I think, though evolution is not my primary area, current robust and well supported theories of human development suggest that H. Sapiens Sapiens emerged in roughly its present form some 30,000 years ago. The absence of written documentation points only to the development of literacy and sedentary social organization wherein record keeping of any kind would be expected to occur. It is not evidence of the emergence of our species. Basically the whole argument is apologetic nonsense based on a wrong-headed attempt to reconcile a prescientific cosmogny with what is known with respect to origins in a modern scientific framework.

spanner365

Is there any link on the net that I can use to check into this evidence?




Pretty bold claim from someone who admits evolution is not his strongpoint don't you think?

CX

Not that I'm aware of. I have a number of texts in my library surveying the issue. I'd be happy to direct you to those if you're inclined to go to your local library or get them from Amazon.

That's not what I said. I said it wasn't my primary area. My focus is on biblical text criticism and papyrology. That being said I think my grasp of evolution is sufficient, for a layman, to draw conclusions. Secondly, my analysis of modern attempts to harmonize scientific understandings of origins with those portrayed in the genesis narrative rely much less on my understanding of evolution and much more of my understanding of mythic literature in antiquity and specifically the development of the Xian text legacy.

Gooch's dad

spanner365, it's already well known that language arose around 3000 BCE, in Sumeria (and around the same time in China). So the lack of written records before then isn't all that surprising.

Civilization in Sumeria goes back another 6000 years or so, and the first large city in that area, Catal Huyuk, dates to roughly 7500 BCE

As for older evidence of civilization, the aborigines of Australia left artifacts that have been solidly dated to 40,000 years by carbon dating. That's in direct conflict with your claim that mankind has only been around for a few thousand years.

For a good reference discussing the Austronesian migrations, have a look at Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, who gives extensive archeological references for his claims.

Toto

The OP was cut and pasted from a creationist site here

show_no_mercy

Humanity can only exist when we start writing things down?

spanner365

That would be great. Thanks.

CX

It would appear that the central thesis of this particular argument is that the only evidence for human civilization is the written record and that record begins at a time consistent with the Biblical description of creatio (interpreted literally). Alas this is woefully incorrect. Literacy is a relatively late development in the history of humanity. Most of what we know about the development of human civilization (and human beings as species) comes from the archaeological record. The fact of the matter is, most of what we know about the history of the Levant also comes from the archaeological records rather than textual sources.

CX

Try these for a start:

The Babylonians

Ancient Mesopotamia

Mesopotamia

Those are good places to start, though there are volumes more information on ANE history available.