Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Cassiterides

Hello

Recommended Posts

Can you tell me the dates for the Badarian Culture?

56697[/snapback]

Creationists believe such cultures were contemporary with civilization around 2000BC.

 

There are different cultures on earth, some appear primitive. Only evolutionists believe everyone originally was primitive but progressed. The creationist viewpoint is that less advanced cultures simply co-existed with those that were superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Creationists believe such cultures were contemporary with civilization around 2000BC."

 

Your evidence for this?

 

This civilisation was around before the first king you mention and after the Tasian culture, of course, it was also before the Gerzean (Naqada II) Culture.

 

All of these cultures existed between the flood and the first king. Your date for the first king is about 2,900 BCE (the latest estimate). Your date for the flood is 2348 BCE.

 

1) Provide evidence for your belief that all those cultures were contemporary.

2) Place the dates for all these into your framework.

 

It would help me understand your viewpoint better if I saw a chronology of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Creationists believe such cultures were contemporary with civilization around 2000BC."

 

Your evidence for this?

Since documentation via the historical record (i.e ancient writings) only began around this date, or slightly earlier. We can only prove something, via eyewitness testimony. Here's a powerful factual quote on this subject:

 

''It should be remembered...that real history is available for only the past few thousand years. The beginning of [known] written records... dates from about 2200BC and 3500BC. To keep things in perspective, one should remember that no one can possibly know what happened before there were people to observe and record what happened. Science means ''knowledge'' and the essence of scientific method is...observation.''

 

- Scientific Creationism, Henry Morris, 1985, p.131.

 

Particularly look at the bold part.

 

This civilisation was around before the first king you mention and after the Tasian culture, of course, it was also before the Gerzean (Naqada II) Culture.

Says who, wikipedia? :lol: This is not a genuine source.

 

Your date for the first king is about 2,900 BCE (the latest estimate).

That's not my date, that's the date mainstream historians accept. It was reduced from 5,700BC.

 

The YEC position is that Egypt was founded around 2200BC. As i showed you the chrnology is being reduced in time, it started at 5700BC now is down to 2900BC, only a gap of 700 needs to be filled to support Ussher's chronology. This will happen in the next few years. Mainstream Egytpologists are already thinking of reducing Menes to 2,600BC.

 

1) Provide evidence for your belief that all those cultures were contemporary.

Since the historical record only goes back to a specific time period. See the quote i gave you above. You can't prove anything existed before this. And the date of the start of ancient writings fully works with the Biblical framework.

 

2) Place the dates for all these into your framework.

All cultures trace back as early to 2242BC (Tower of Babel). Before this, there was only one race (i.e colour of man), one tongue and one culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not explained the dating of those cultures. The first I mentioned used flint tools.

 

Flint is a metamorphic rock, based on limestone.

 

Limestone was formed during the flood, we know that because the number of deluge fosssils found (fish with other fish in theor mouths, obviously killed quickly. Many dinosaurs found in flooded environments.

 

Rock doesn't build up quickly. It might take a few hundred years for limestone to form from the mud following the flood.

 

After it has formed, it has to be moved from the surface of the Earth, where it formed down to near the bottom of the crust to achieve the high pressures and tempertatures necessary to metamorphise the rock into flint (it couldn't be the increased temperature caused by the flood, because the limestone wasn't formed until afterwards).

 

After it has been down that far it has to move back up to the surface where humans can find it and then fashion it into tools.

 

This has to happen before we reach the first king of Egypt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not explained the dating of those cultures.  The first I mentioned used flint tools. 

 

Flint is a metamorphic rock, based on limestone.

 

Limestone was formed during the flood, we know that because the number of deluge fosssils found (fish with other fish in theor mouths, obviously killed quickly.  Many dinosaurs found in flooded environments.

 

Rock doesn't build up quickly. It might take a few hundred years for limestone to form from the mud following the flood.

 

After it has formed, it has to be moved from the surface of the Earth, where it formed down to near the bottom of the crust to achieve the high pressures and tempertatures necessary to metamorphise the rock into flint (it couldn't be the increased temperature caused by the flood, because the limestone wasn't formed until afterwards).

 

After it has been down that far it has to move back up to the surface where humans can find it and then fashion it into tools.

 

This has to happen before we reach the first king of Egypt.

56709[/snapback]

You fail at understanding my posts, so this is going nowhere. You are following an evolutionist assumption that primitive culture (i.e flint tools) had to predate civilization, so you are placing it before the founding of egypt.

 

Creationists don't believe culture 'evolved' from a primitive state, only evolutionists believe that.

 

The flood predated the founding of Egypt, i already gave you the date and numerous ancient sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so explain the stone age to me.

56713[/snapback]

It never existed. :lol: It's an imaginary age invented by evolutionists.

 

Remember you guys need to invent a fictional form of history that shows all of early man as primitive leading to civilization...the stone age was invented for this purpose.

 

by the way remote tribes in Polynesia use stone tools, does that mean we currently live in the ''stone age''? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a sec, Cass. We invented the stone age?

 

I guess you are being sarcastic. You must be. No-one can actually think the neolithic period is a figment of peoples' imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a sec, Cass.  We invented the stone age?

 

I guess you are being sarcastic.  You must be.  No-one can actually think the neolithic period is a figment of peoples' imagination.

56728[/snapback]

No creationist believes in the 'Stone Age', you clearly have never read any creationist literature. You just shut your eyes and close your ears to it...anyway let me give you an entire article i wrote two years back debunking the ''Stone Age''.

 

The Imaginary Stone Age

 

The “Stone Age†is an invented age by evolutionists and Uniformitarians. It never actually existed. It has no basis in truth and cannot be substantiated by any archeological evidence. This imaginary Stone Age, according to common belief spanned from around 2.6 million years ago to as recent as 10,000 years ago.

 

Not only is the idea ridiculous, it contradicts actual findings.

 

The Imaginary Ages of Evolutionists

 

 The Stone Age - 2.6 million -11,000 years ago (including the Paleolithic, or Old Stone Age, Mesolithic or Middle-Stone Age and Neolithic or New Stone Age).

 Copper Age/Chalcolithic - 8,000-3,300BC.

 The Bronze Age - Middle-east: 3200-1200BC, India: 3000-1200BC, East Asia: 3000-500BC, Europe: 3000-600BC.

 The Iron Age - Middle-east - 1300-600BC, India: 1200-200BC, Asia: 600BC-300AD, Europe: 1200BC-400AD.

 

It should be noticed that the evolutionary model of time, is completely wrong and is based on nothing traditional/factual.

 

Before I get onto this topic of exactly when metals were truly being made, I will first just disprove that the Stone Age existed.

 

The name of the Stone Age itself is based on the idea that the primitive ancestors of modern people 2.6 million - 10,000 years ago used stone (mostly flint) for tool making. If there was once a worldwide Stone Age, then billions of such tools should have been unearthed (since flint does not disintegrate easily), but as French author and archeologist Robert Charroux correctly noted (1979, p.6):

 

“The fact is that, relatively speaking, practically none have been found: only a few hundred thousand (Stone Age) axes, not enough to justify the assumption of more than twenty inhabitants of the globe per generation.â€ÂÂ

 

Note: Charroux was certianly not a creationist, this shows many are skeptical of the evolutionist's concocted ''Stone Age'' outside of the creation science movement.

 

As Robert Charroux worked out, by simple mathematics, since the number of discovered Stone Age tools and weapons is such a low figure, only a few hundred thousand or a few million at the max, it implies the earth was only inhabited by about twenty inhabitants per generation from 2.6 million - 11,000 years ago. This is quite simply absurd. Since Charroux was born in France, he worked out the mathematics in relation to Stone Age tools unearthed in France. He detailed his discoveries in his study (1979, p.60-63) and concluded:

 

“The conclusion is obvious: the number of flint tools does not indicate the number of men who lived in France.â€ÂÂ

 

This makes perfect logical sense because since adherents of the Stone Age believe the ancestors of modern man for millions of years made flint tools, then on average, a single individual would have made around a hundred at the very minimum during his or her lifetime. This means there should be a huge amount of such Stone Age findings:

 

“100 x world populationâ€ÂÂ

 

No-one will ever know the world population of people or what evolutionists call ancestral “Hominids†2.6 million or 11,000 years ago, though it can be suggested sensibly a figure from several million to the minimum of around 200,000. Though of course from 2.6 million - 11,000 years ago the world population would have changed. By going with the minimum estimate of 200,000 of a world population, at only one specific point in time, then the sum should be:

 

“100 x 200,000â€ÂÂ

 

The answer is 20,000,000 (20 million), yet this number actually exceeds already actual findings, and this figure only represents one generation of the 2.8 million to 11,000 year ago period. If the 2.8 million figure (how long the Stone Age supposedly lasted) is divided by about 60 (representing a life span of about 60 = 1 generation) the answer is 46,666 generations. The correct sum should thus be 100 x 46,666 x 200,000. That is 100 Stone Age tools x 46,666 generations (covering 2.8 million years) x the world population figure.

 

The answer is: 933320000000 Stone Age findings should have been unearthed!

 

Of course this figure is completely ridiculous and as Robert Charroux pointed out it would be silly to presume billions and billions of Stone Age tools still remain buried and undiscovered in the ground. It can be concluded then, that the Stone Age is a pure invention by evolutionists, and has no basis in fact, simple maths and logic refutes it.

 

There are two questions that however remain unanswered.

 

1. Firstly, what was used as tools instead of flint by man several thousands of years ago.

2. Secondly how are the small amount of findings of flint tools explained, even though as established there were only a few hundred thousand ever made, meaning there would have only been under a few hundred used across the earth during one generation.

 

Answers:

 

1. People originally used non-stone tools and weapons but they have since disintegrated. This obviously relates to well known physics and the property of metals, which although are superior during their short existence - rust and disintegrate unlike flint. Iron rusts, silver, copper tarnish and eventually corrode, even gold can tarnish. And of course violent cataclysms would have completely destroyed such metals.

 

2. The people, who used flint weapons in the past, were extreme minorities and outcasts. These people only existed in the hundreds and were isolated tribes. Minorities on earth today still exist such as primitive tribes in New Guinea which still use stone tools. Stone and flint mines, which archaeologists have discovered, which are thousands of years old, were not used for the production of weapons and tools, but for the construction of homes, other buildings and monuments.

 

So it is vitally important to understand that both advanced civilizations and more backward cave cultures lived at the same time.* We thus have no reason to conclude that the less advanced peoples were ancestors of the more advanced ones.

 

*For example we have the testimony of Diodorus Siculus, who wrote of people living along the shores of the Red Sea in caves with stone weaponry, while at the same time classical Greece Rome flourished.

 

The Age of metals

 

The Bible of course teachs us that metals were in existance before the flood, during antideluvian times. Tubal-Cain is credited with having been the founder of brass and iron (Genesis 4: 22). What is apparent is that man appeared intelligent, as a builder and smelter, not having progressed from a lower level. A recent article i stumbled across perfectly explains all this in more depth, proving that archeology is no friend to evolution.

 

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/evolution.html

 

Iron objects were also in Europe long before the 6th century BC. Evolutionists of course feel to need to 'primitivise' our ancestors, especially those from Northern Europe. However Iron objects and Iron bars were unearthed from Wayland’s Smithy, a chambered tomb in Oxfordshire, England and dated 2000BC (as documented in Antiquity Journal, 1921). Here then, it is apparent evolutionists need to revise their dates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The conclusion is obvious: the number of flint tools does not indicate the number of men who lived in France.â€ÂÂ

 

This makes perfect logical sense because since adherents of the Stone Age believe the ancestors of modern man for millions of years made flint tools, then on average, a single individual would have made around a hundred at the very minimum during his or her lifetime. This means there should be a huge amount of such Stone Age findings:

 

Of course this figure is completely ridiculous and as Robert Charroux pointed out it would be silly to presume billions and billions of Stone Age tools still remain buried and undiscovered in the ground. It can be concluded then, that the Stone Age is a pure invention by evolutionists, and has no basis in fact, simple maths and logic refutes it.

 

There are two questions that however remain unanswered.

 

1. Firstly, what was used as tools instead of flint by man several thousands of years ago.

2. Secondly how are the small amount of findings of flint tools explained, even though as established there were only a few hundred thousand ever made, meaning there would have only been under a few hundred used across the earth during one generation.

 

Answers:

 

1. People originally used non-stone tools and weapons but they have since disintegrated. This obviously relates to well known physics and the property of metals, which although are superior during their short existence - rust and disintegrate unlike flint. Iron rusts, silver, copper tarnish and eventually corrode, even gold can tarnish. And of course violent cataclysms would have completely destroyed such metals.

 

2. The people, who used flint weapons in the past, were extreme minorities and outcasts. These people only existed in the hundreds and were isolated tribes. Minorities on earth today still exist such as primitive tribes in New Guinea which still use stone tools.  Stone and flint mines, which archaeologists have discovered, which are thousands of years old, were not used for the production of weapons and tools, but for the construction of homes, other buildings and monuments.

56732[/snapback]

You left out one of the most obvious reasons that could explain why more stone tools are not found. Did you ever buy a used car? I have friend who owns a rifle that was once owned by his father, that had been his grandfather's, and had actually been purchased by his great grandfather. He still uses it to hunt. Making weapons is labor (labour) intensive. Why make a new stone axe or arrowhead when you can use one that already exists? If someone was smart enough to make a tool, they would be smart enough to escape additional work.

 

You don't need to create a mine to find the chert necessary to make weapons. It commonly outcrops on the surface. One only needs to quarry stone when it is needed to make buildings, etc. How many weapons and tools could be made from a single block of building stone? Quite a large number. It would also be easier to work stone into tools when it was already broken up in smaller pieces by natural processes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cass, I've just noticed something. All your ideas are based on peoples' opinions of the evidence rather than the evidence.

 

Rather than looking into what the evidence is, you take one person that talks about one aspect, show that person is wrong (by your own workings out) and by doing so think you have dealt with all the evidence.

 

That approach is known as strawman arguing.

 

Archaeology has shown that underneath the first civilisation with written "documents" in Egypt there were other people lliving there.

 

Looking at where they are found, continous occupation has been shown, plus flint tools.

 

There are distinctive styles of these groups of people, showing a change over time. (NOTE: I am not saying how much time).

 

Near the bottom of these groups are some using flint tools.

 

Menes lived in 2200BCE.

 

Creationists believe such cultures were contemporary with civilization around 2000BC.

The archaeology shows that they lived before Menes. Empirical evidence!

 

The flood happened in 2348 BCE

 

Let us assume that the flint tool using people lived in 2,000BCE.

 

That means in 348 years, limestone has to form, go to the bottom of the crust, get subject to heat and pressure for some time and then travel back up to the surface.

 

You have yet to provide, even within your own paradigm any evidence that Menes lived in 2,200 BCE.

 

How long does limestone take to form from extremely wet mud?

 

Limestone is compressed mud which over time The limestone deposits are kilometres deep, which means the mud must have been much deeper than that.

 

How fast does limestone take to form from that much soggy mud?

 

Manetho (and Herodotus) recorded that some of the pyramids were constructed from 2184 – 2181BC during the reign of Nitocris, perfectly fitting Ussher's chronology. The YEC view is that the pyramids were all built at the same date around this period after the flood

This gets funnier all the time. I hadn't spotted this.

 

My thought was that there was a development of pyramids as they moived from the highly eroded mud, stepped pyramids to the limestone and marble (another metamorphic rock, but must have formed under different conditions to the flint), and each was for the burial of a pharoah.

 

Obviously one pharoah just said "I need about 138 pyramids so that my descendants do not need to build them. Of course, they will still have to write documents detailing their construction so that Imhotep can be given a great positon in a couple of centuries, otherwise how will the film "The Mummy" get made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cass, I've just noticed something.  All your ideas are based on peoples' opinions of the evidence rather than the evidence.

 

Rather than looking into what the evidence is, you take one person that talks about one aspect, show that person is wrong (by your own workings out) and by doing so think you have dealt with all the evidence.

The idea of the ''stone age'' is a modern concept invented by evolutionists. You would need to explain why thousands of years since documented history a mention of this age, or the concept behind it does not appear. This really is not a topic you should start to discuss unless you have an education or degree in history or archeology, otherwise we will just be arguing back and forth.

 

Archaeology has shown that underneath the first civilisation with written "documents" in Egypt there were other people lliving there.

No that's an evolutionist assumption.

 

Looking at where they are found, continous occupation has been shown, plus flint tools.

Evolutionist assumption, again. :P

 

The archaeology shows that they lived before Menes.  Empirical evidence!

What evidence?

 

You have yet to provide, even within your own paradigm any evidence that Menes lived in 2,200 BCE.

I've referenced numerous classical sources, for example Flavius Josephus who recorded ''all the kings of Egypt from Menes ... until Solomon, where the interval was more than one thousand three hundred years, were called Pharaohs'' (Ant, VIII. 6. 2).

 

That means 971 - 931 BC + 1300 years = 2270BC-2240BC for Menes.

 

I also quoted the 12th century Byzantine Chronicle by Constantinus Manasses as stating that the Egyptian state lasted for 1,663 years before Cambyses II conquered Egypt for Persia. This took place in 526 BC. A backward extrapolation yields 2188 BC for the first year of Egypt.

 

These date place the founding of egypt around 2200BC.

 

How long does limestone take to form from extremely wet mud? 

 

Limestone is compressed mud which over time The limestone deposits are kilometres deep, which means the mud must have been much deeper than that.

 

How fast does limestone take to form from that much soggy mud?

All evolutionist assumption, the same as the assumption you guys have on ice cores which creationists have already debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of the ''stone age'' is a modern concept invented by evolutionists. You would need to explain why thousands of years since documented history a mention of this age, or the concept behind it does not appear. This really is not a topic you should start to discuss unless you have an education or degree in history or archeology, otherwise we will just be arguing back and forth.

It's a convenient modern label for the time before documented history when stone tools were more prevalent. In the neolithic, of course, metals were being used, but in a much simpler way.

 

Before that there we have the mesolithic where their stone use was not as advanced and their use of metals was more restricted.

 

You seem to place a lot of faith in ancient sources. Whilst these have their place, their knowledge was in some ways more restricted than ours today.

 

Also the stuff about limestone etc - just sayiung it's an evolutionist assumption means you are dismissing it without looking at the evidence. This is no way to conduct a debate.

 

If you think limestone is made some other way, tell me how. If thje evolutionists are wrong, tell me how.

 

I'm here to learn and have learned somne things from this thread, but if you just throw around baseless asserrtions then no discussion can happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not explained the dating of those cultures.  The first I mentioned used flint tools. 

 

Flint is a metamorphic rock, based on limestone.

 

Limestone was formed during the flood, we know that because the number of deluge fosssils found (fish with other fish in theor mouths, obviously killed quickly.  Many dinosaurs found in flooded environments.

 

Rock doesn't build up quickly. It might take a few hundred years for limestone to form from the mud following the flood.

 

After it has formed, it has to be moved from the surface of the Earth, where it formed down to near the bottom of the crust to achieve the high pressures and tempertatures necessary to metamorphise the rock into flint (it couldn't be the increased temperature caused by the flood, because the limestone wasn't formed until afterwards).

 

After it has been down that far it has to move back up to the surface where humans can find it and then fashion it into tools.

 

This has to happen before we reach the first king of Egypt.

56709[/snapback]

I don't think you would find many petrologists who would consider flint to be a metamorphic rock, or a rock based upon limestone. It is chemically quite different than limstone being essentially quartz (silicon dioxide) that is cryptocrystalline. It is true to say that it is found in association with limestones.

 

It is considered a sedimentary rock that forms through chemical means (re-crystallization of the silica). This would probably take place fairly close to the surface rather than deep in the crust, with relatively low temperatures and pressures likely to be present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll check that Geode (sorry, I'm a sceptic  :rolleyes: )

56838[/snapback]

Okay, I checked. Guess what? The person with a Phd in geology knows more about rocks than I do.

 

How ironic is that. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I checked.  Guess what?  The person with a Phd in geology knows more about rocks than I do.

 

How ironic is that. ;)

56842[/snapback]

Did you check with somebody who earned a Phd? Geode is a humble geologist with only a MSc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It mentions C14 dating, which creationists think is discredited. I don't have a problem with it, personally, and I wouldn't normally post an item about C14 dating on a creationist forum (due to the chance of threads going off topic incereasing with every mention) but as it was put on the BBC website yesterday and it was directly related to this subject I thought people might be interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It mentions C14 dating, which creationists think is discredited.  I don't have a problem with it, personally, and I wouldn't normally post an item about C14 dating on a creationist forum (due to the chance of threads going off topic incereasing with every mention) but as it was put on the BBC website yesterday and it was directly related to this subject  I thought people might be interested.

56913[/snapback]

Oh. It might seem strange but I have no problem with age dating. There is an explanation for it. One that is a little involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It mentions C14 dating, which creationists think is discredited.  I don't have a problem with it, personally, and I wouldn't normally post an item about C14 dating on a creationist forum (due to the chance of threads going off topic incereasing with every mention) but as it was put on the BBC website yesterday and it was directly related to this subject  I thought people might be interested.

56913[/snapback]

"Frederick Johnson, coworker with Dr. Libby [in the development of, and research into, radiocarbon dating], cites the general correspondence [agreement] of radiocarbon dates to the known ages of various samples taken from tombs, temples, or palaces out of the historical past. Well-authenticated dates are known only back as far as 1600 B.C. in Egyptian history, according to John G. Read (J.G. Read, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 29, No. 1, 1970). Thus, the meaning of dates by C-14 prior to 1600 B.C. is still as yet controversial."â€â€ÂH.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 85.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Frederick Johnson, coworker with Dr. Libby [in the development of, and research into, radiocarbon dating], cites the general correspondence [agreement] of radiocarbon dates to the known ages of various samples taken from tombs, temples, or palaces out of the historical past. Well-authenticated dates are known only back as far as 1600 B.C. in Egyptian history, according to John G. Read (J.G. Read, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 29, No. 1, 1970). Thus, the meaning of dates by C-14 prior to 1600 B.C. is still as yet controversial."â€â€ÂH.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 85.

57134[/snapback]

Sometimes in science a decade can see quite a bit of improvement in techniques. This is the claim made here. Your source from 40 years ago had possibly been superceded, at least according to the report just released that Phil linked. In it one can read:

 

Radiocarbon dating of ancient Egyptian objects is nothing new.

 

But this time, the scientists say, they were able to use a very precise statistical technique to actually verify the Egyptian history.

 

"The very first dating done with radiocarbon was dating Egyptian material of known dates, to check that [the method] worked," said Andrew Shortland from Cranfield University in the UK.

 

"Now, for the very first time, [we] managed to get radiocarbon techniques so good, that we can do it completely the opposite way around. We can say, from using radiocarbon, whether the Egyptian history is correct or not.

 

"Previously radiocarbon hasn't had a voice on this because the errors had been so great. Now radiocarbon is able to distinguish between different ideas of reconstructing the history."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes in science a decade can see quite a bit of improvement in techniques. This is the claim made here. Your source from 40 years ago had possibly been superceded, at least according to the report just released that Phil linked. In it one can read:

57153[/snapback]

No exact dates are provided. Secondly, mainstream egyptologists and archeologists date Menes to 2900BC.

 

The oldest civilizations Egypt, Sumeria, Babylon, Greece, China are only a few thousand years old.

 

According to evolutionists man has been on earth for millions or hundred's of thousands of years, why is it then civilization is only a few thousand years old?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern humans have been around for about 135,000 years, not millions. Obviously that is still a long time.

 

The first cities arose about 8,000 BCE according to archaeology. Why no sooner? The Ice age finished about 10,000 BCE. That means there is a 2,000 year gap between the end of the ice age and the earliest cities.

 

Large communities may have existed before that, though.

 

Menes - 2,900 BCE. Flood - 2,300BCE. There is a problem there anyway. Plus there were people living in Egypt before Menes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms