> This is an argument I haven't heard before. I assume by "historical"
> evidence you mean written history. Do you really think that Homo sapiens
> is so smart that we must have invented writing within the first few years
> of our existence (whether created or evolved)? This seems equivalent to
> arguing that man can't be much older than the printing press, or the steam
> engine, or the theory of quantum mechanics.
What do the modern myth-makers claim about how long homo sapiens have been
What, a 100,000 years? What kind of physical head trauma did you suffer
caused enough damage for you to be able to think that a "few years" is
years? And, if 95,000 years is a "few years" how many years is 5,000? A
"year or two"? Were you born yesterday?
> Why do creationists disagree about whether Homo erectus was human?
How old do the modern myth-makers say homo erectus is? Approaching a
couple million years? Is it your assertion that he was smart enough to
manufacture tools, but too stupid to learn even crude writing, couldn't
draw a picture of a constellation?
BTW, as for the disagreement you refer to, who says it's human, who says
it's not? Part of the answer could be that a number of different fossils
identified as homo erectus.