Quote:
Originally Posted by afterburn 549
What I do know is -science and archeology seem to be at odds with any common sense unless one ha an emotional agenda to prove something unprovable.
To me, the facts seem to rail in the face of postulating the evidence of early man.
If man was walking around 10000 to 15000 years ago he should have been smart enough to write something down.
This is a great chasm to deal with "why the earliest writings do not go back no more than 4 to 6000 years ago.
Then, claim in the next breath they (we) have been here a much longer period of time.
This makes no logical cognitive accumulative connection.'It seems to be an assertion rather than a stated theory with no basis.
|
My Great Uncle was an archaeologist, he noted that mankind appeared to have the same base level of intelligence through out human history.
The problem I personally see, is that Darwinism became popular around the same time we started making significant inroads into digging up our pasts. Our base, or start, in archaeology is rooted in a heavy bias driving conclusions off belief rather than fact.
Conclusions based on Darwinist believers of over a hundred years ago in the field of archaeology do not appear to have been re-evaluated, even when we no longer accept those same conclusions as they relate to other conclusions by Darwinist; such as white's being a higher order of evolution than blacks.