Sumerians show why a natural interpretation of evolution is false

a reply to: pthena

The slander this man has received exemplifies how the scientific mainstream bullies the truth out of the limelight.

Here is the carbon-dating data for his sample:



He publicized this and told everyone they were dinosaur bone samples. The lab eventually saw it on youtube and rescinded their results for no reason except that it defied their dogma:



This is the opposite of how science should work. It wasn't just Miller who carbon-dated dinosaur samples. If you watched the video I posted on the prior page, it shows many samples have been tested and they are all less than 40,000 years old. The old paradigm is dying I don't know why people want to stick with the sinking ship - evolutionary theory is the most existentially dreadful idea to ever hit mass appeal. We are not accidents. We are not mutated monkeys. This is good news.

originally posted by: Spider879
There is no possible way that those figurines are faked right???
I mean scientists , are all willing not to announce the biggest, game changer / paradigm shift in history, because??..

They refuse to believe it. Just like you now are refusing to believe despite the evidence being shown right in front of you. One fake figurine? Maybe. But there are so many examples it is beyond a reasonable doubt:



Granby Idol North America








North American Anasazi, Modern Day Utah


White Canyon, North America


Mesopotamian Cylinder Seal

DP

a reply to: neoholographic

Exactly, there's a lot of nonsense in this thread but nothing being said refutes the main point.

There's no evidence of civilizations evolving to become a modern civilization like the Sumerians.

Did you even click the link to Neolithic_Revolution?

Area of the fertile crescent, c. 7500 BCE, with main archaeological sites of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period. The area of Mesopotamia proper did not have settlements until later.

You can read this in Enki and Ninhursaja

[(Possible insertion point for additional lines in a ms. from Urim

49A-49P. "May the land of Tukric hand over to you gold from Harali, lapis lazuli and ....... May the land of Meluha load precious desirable cornelian, mec wood of Magan and the best abba wood into large ships for you. May the land of Marhaci yield you precious stones, topazes. May the land of Magan offer you strong, powerful copper, dolerite, u stone and cumin stone. May the Sea-land offer you its own ebony wood, ...... of a king. May the 'Tent'-lands offer you fine multicoloured wools. May the land of Elam hand over to you choice wools, its tribute. May the manor of Urim, the royal throne dais, the city ......, load up into large ships for you sesame, august raiment, and fine cloth. May the wide sea yield you its wealth."

49Q-49V. The city's dwellings are good dwellings. Dilmun's dwellings are good dwellings. Its grains are little grains, its dates are big dates, its harvests are triple ......, its wood is ...... wood.

]

Dilmun was the real Garden of Eden. Enki brought the water from the aquafer as springs to water the arid riverless land. It was destined to be a great emporium (market place). All these goods from other lands(existing cultures) would flow into and out of there.

There is an important lesson in the story, about the emergence of new plants, which Enki didn't even recognize. Uttu (the spider, weaver, the Great Lady) was the conduit of the semen of Enki, from whence Ninhursag caused these plants to grow from Enki Himself.

There is a great revelation here with regards to varieties of food (what we sometimes call a balanced diet).

When I had a fiancé: She had an amazing skill at subsisting on beer alone. She tried to teach me this skill, but I couldn't quite give up coffee, omelets, and the occasional tuna sandwich. What I gradually came to realize is that a variety of food leads to clearer and more imaginative thinking than does beer alone.

Some have said that Uttu grew wings and flew away, maybe so people can't see the weaving. But Ninhursag, as a goddess of fertility, brought forth new plants around the World; coffee on the horn of Africa, Maize in the central highlands of Mexico, potatoes in Northwestern South America, apples in the mountains of Central Asia in southern Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and a lot more localized varieties of plants good for food.

Well balanced diet helps the mind. So we can thank Ninhursag for the smarts.

originally posted by: cooperton
The old paradigm is dying I don't know why people want to stick with the sinking ship - evolutionary theory is the most existentially dreadful idea to ever hit mass appeal. We are not accidents. We are not mutated monkeys. This is good news.

The old paradigm is creationism.
If anything the old paradigm is rising if what you say is true...

It isn't.

a reply to: cooperton

a reply to: cooperton

I'm fully able to accept that angels, demons, and deities exist, but I am not willing to discard scientific inquiry because somebody makes a claim that "poof" is how things happened.

None of this was a "poof". It took a long time.

What people that worship God as the sole origination of man fail to recognize is that generations upon generations of man made the changes and advancements.

"Poof" is a dumb unscientific expression that is religious dogma and no matter how many indoctrinated Christians get pissed at me for saying it, which is actually religious persecution that Christians like to cry about, I won't say I agree with stupid dogma. "Poof" is literally what Christians want people to believe and here we have a Christian saying poof is a bad explaination.

I have a healthy tolerance for the idea that we don't know half of the reality of the universe and I believe there may be entities that would be gods to us. I don't abandon reason to get to that conclusion.

a reply to: cooperton

The slander this man has received exemplifies how the scientific mainstream bullies the truth out of the limelight.

Have you considered the possibility that the name Hugh Miller may just be a pseudonym borrowed from this guy? Hugh_Miller

So I checked the Institute For Creation Research (ICR) webpage for Fresh Fossils.
There are many articles linked from this page. Nothing by anyone named Miller.

I did find an article by BRIAN THOMAS, PH.D. about the same T.Rex soft tissue discovered by Mary Schweitzer.
Thomas article: Here
What Mary Schweitzer thinks of creationists using her work Here

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

evolutionary theory is the most existentially dreadful idea to ever hit mass appeal. We are not accidents. We are not mutated monkeys.

It's only an existentially dreadful idea if your existence is bound to some notion that Homo Sapiens are gods or demi-gods rather than natural Earth people like coyotes and mountain lions.

originally posted by: neoholographic
...
Homo Sapians that are very close to us have been around for 200,000 years. Some say it may go back to 400,000 years.

Biblical chronology indicates that a period of about 6,000 years has passed since the creation of humans. Why, then, does one often read about far longer periods of time since acknowledged human types of fossils appeared?

Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that “dates determined by radioactive decay may be off​—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” It said: “Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”(1)

For example, the radiocarbon “clock.” This method of radiocarbon dating was developed over a period of two decades by scientists all over the world. It was widely acclaimed for accurate dating of artifacts from man’s ancient history. But then a conference of the world’s experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser degree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before.⁠(2)

Keep in mind that truly reliable evidence of man’s activity on earth is given, not in millions of years, but in thousands. For example, in The Fate of the Earth we read: “Only six or seven thousand years ago . . . civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world.”(3) The Last Two Million Years states: “In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000 BC.” It also says: “Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records.”(4) The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bible’s chronology for human life on earth.

In this regard, note what Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating, stated in Science: “The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages​—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 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.”⁠(5)

When reviewing a book on evolution, English author Malcolm Muggeridge commented on the lack of evidence for evolution. He noted that wild speculations flourished nevertheless. Then he said: “The Genesis account seems, by comparison, sober enough and at least has the merit of being validly related to what we know about human beings and their behavior.” He said that the unfounded claims of millions of years for man’s evolution “and wild leaps from skull to skull, cannot but strike anyone not caught up in the [evolutionary] myth as pure fantasy.” Muggeridge concluded: “Posterity will surely be amazed, and I hope vastly amused, that such slipshod and unconvincing theorizing should have so easily captivated twentieth-century minds and been so widely and recklessly applied.”⁠(6)

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”(7)

After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.”⁠(8) New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”⁠(9)

8 Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.”(10) Science magazine adds: “The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.”(11)

However, have not scientists found the necessary “links” between apelike animals and man? Not according to the evidence. Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.”⁠(12) Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.”⁠(13)

Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: “Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion.”(14)

Thus we can better understand the observation of respected anatomist Solly Zuckerman who wrote in the Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh: “The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more.”⁠(15) He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary.

As a result, the “family tree” often drawn of man’s claimed evolution from lower animals changes constantly. For example, Richard Leakey stated that a more recent fossil discovery “leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.”⁠(16) And a newspaper report regarding that discovery declared: “Every single book on anthropology, every article on the evolution of man, every drawing of man’s family tree will have to be junked. They are apparently wrong.”⁠(17)

• 1. Popular Science, “How Old Is It?” by Robert Gannon, November 1979, p. 81.
  
• 2. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “Radiocarbon Dating Wrong,” January 18, 1976, p. C8.
  
• 3. The Fate of the Earth, by Jonathan Schell, 1982, p. 181.
  
• 4. The Last Two Million Years, by The Reader’s Digest Association, 1974, pp. 9, 29.
  
• 5. Science, “Radiocarbon Dating,” by W. F. Libby, March 3, 1961, p. 624.
  
• 6. Esquire, book review by Malcolm Muggeridge of The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski, July 1974, p. 53.
  
• 7. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Fifty Years of Studies on Human Evolution,” by Sherwood Washburn, May 1982, pp. 37, 41.
  
• 8. Spectator, The University of Iowa, April 1973, p. 4.
  
• 9. New Scientist, “Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?” by John Reader, March 26, 1981, p. 802.
  
• 10. Origins, by Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, 1977, p. 55.
  
• 11. Science, “The Politics of Paleoanthropology,” by Constance Holden, August 14, 1981, p. 737.
  
• 12. Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February 1982, p. 91.
  
• 13. Newsweek, “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” by Jerry Adler and John Carey, November 3, 1980, p. 95.
  
• 14. Science 81, “Human Evolution: Smooth or Jumpy?” September 1981, p. 7.
  
• 15. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, “Myths and Methods in Anatomy,” by Solly Zuckerman, January 1966, p. 90.
  
• 16. National Geographic, “Skull 1470,” by Richard E. Leakey, June 1973, p. 819.
  
• 17. The Boston Globe, “He’s Shaking Mankind’s Family Tree,” by Joel N. Shurkin, December 4, 1973, p. 1.
  

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: pthena

The slander this man has received exemplifies how the scientific mainstream bullies the truth out of the limelight.

Here is the carbon-dating data for his sample:

He publicized this and told everyone they were dinosaur bone samples. The lab eventually saw it on youtube and rescinded their results for no reason except that it defied their dogma:

This is the opposite of how science should work. It wasn't just Miller who carbon-dated dinosaur samples. If you watched the video I posted on the prior page, it shows many samples have been tested and they are all less than 40,000 years old. The old paradigm is dying I don't know why people want to stick with the sinking ship - evolutionary theory is the most existentially dreadful idea to ever hit mass appeal. We are not accidents. We are not mutated monkeys. This is good news.

You cannot carbon date dinosaur bones as they do not contain organic material. Either they were not dinosaur bones or they were not carbon dated. Simples.

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: neoholographic
Humans were never primarily cave-dwelling. Neither were our ancestors. That's just an antiquated idea that took hold because that's where the oldest best-preserved drawings are. The overly vast majority of drawings were made outside of caves and have weathered away. Early archeologists only found drawings (and bones) in caves at first, that became the theory. The truth is we were never 'cave men'.

This is also a continuation on my previous comment where I used the term “ape-men”.

Were There “Cavemen”? (Awake!—1981)

So great has been the influence of books, magazines, museum displays and even comic strips that people usually think of “apemen” and “missing links” whenever anyone mentions “cavemen.” Do you? These terms have almost become synonyms for some creature of the past in an “evolutionary chain”​—“primitive man”—​on the way from ancient primate to man as he is today. Is this “chain” real? Were there “cavemen” in the evolutionary sense? Has modern science proved these ideas to be true?

The average person assumes it has all been worked out by science, that we do have a proved unbroken chain of development of man, so that a person imagines apelike men of the ancient past living in caves, and even being contemporary with dinosaurs. Why? Well, due to pictures they have seen that have led them to think scientists have found whole creatures, just as illustrated​—hairy, stooped over and all!

Examination of the evidence, however, shows there is a difference between what scientists really know and what they think might have been. For example, in a famous museum of natural history is found a display of primates supposedly leading to man and showing also a “family tree of primates.” But it has an important explanation that says: “In the absence of some fossils of both known age and known affinities, some branches and forks are only reasonable guesses.” Guesses are not facts. The connections and ages are not proved.

It is true that scientists have found caves with heaps of ashes from fires, along with traces of food and other signs of human habitation. But that evidence does not tell us that all ancient men lived in caves [whereislogic: as SouthernForkway26 somewhat hinted at], or that any who did, really form a link in a chain back to some type of “primitive man.” There are people today who are cave dwellers, such as the Tasaday of Mindanao in the Philippines. While some might consider the Tasaday to be primitive due to a simple life-style, they are not hairy, lumbering, apelike creatures at all.

But have not scientists found skulls and bones of “ape-men,” proving that such creatures lived here at one time? First of all, it must be said that this type of fossil evidence is not plentiful. A few bones do not make a chain. Second, it is the way men interpret or explain what they find that poses problems. Interpreting scanty evidence is tricky. “As always, the fossil evidence is open to several interpretations,” said one evolutionist. Another admitted about fossils: “The study of human evolution is a game, rather than a science in the usual sense.” On ages of these fossils, still another said: “Anyone who feels that we already have the problem solved is surely deluding himself.” Scientists disagree among themselves about what they have found. They make reconstructions of what they discover, interpret it; then later they reinterpret the evidence and change their ideas. To illustrate:

JAVA MAN ...

PILTDOWN MAN ...

NEANDERTHAL MAN ...

AUSTRALOPITHECINES ...

“HOMO ERECTUS” is a case that shows a person has to be careful not to accept all he sees in illustrations of missing links. One textbook asks: “Were they hairy?” It answers: “Probably not​—at least no more so than many people living now.” But on an earlier page the same book shows one as a hairy monster like the above illustration. Is that honest?

The facts are clear that there is not the claimed evidence of a chain linking man to primates. There were not “cavemen” in that sense. Not only are links missing​—the chain itself does not really exist. What has been presented as evidence has, in some cases, been faked, changed, even reconstructed to fit a preconceived idea. In other cases, it has been interpreted, reinterpreted, misinterpreted and misapplied.

Man, however, is just what the Bible shows him to be​—unique, a special creation. (Gen. 1:26, 27; 2:20) Not only is his brain far advanced in comparison with brains of animals, but so is his body. Even some evolutionists say admiringly: “The most arresting thing about the human body is that it is unique. There is nothing like it in the world.”

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

The old paradigm is creationism.
If anything the old paradigm is rising if what you say is true...

It isn't.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
I am not willing to discard scientific inquiry

The new paradigm is intelligent design. We are intelligent creatures, and therefor it is remarkably more likely that we came from something intelligent rather than something unintelligent. Especially given the fact we have no observable example of a population of organisms ever evolving, despite trying to do so for countless generations in a lab setting undergoing artificial selection. Evolutionary theory is the next santa claus. A fat man cannot fit through a thin chimney and fly around a raindeer carriage giving gifts to the whole world - nor can 100,000,000,000 neurons organize themselves into an organic supercomputer with 1 trillion supporting cells to generate consciousness, emotions, and the ability to rationalize through mechanisms of random chance.

originally posted by: pthena

What Mary Schweitzer thinks of creationists using her work Here

Of course she verbalizes that opinion. Otherwise she would have gotten fired like Hugh Miller did. You can't express anti-evolutionary views without having your job and reputation threatened in academia. That is why this mutant monkey mess of a theory still remains. It is not due to empirical observation - which the dinosaur bones show with certainty that the theoretical timeline of evolution cannot be true - instead the theory perpetuates solely off blind belief and a strong bias that refuses to reconsider the current paradigm.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

You cannot carbon date dinosaur bones as they do not contain organic material. Either they were not dinosaur bones or they were not carbon dated. Simples.

But there is substantial amounts of carbon found in the soft tissue that was discovered in many dinosaur bones. This cues us right away that these dinosaur remains are much younger than we were led to believe. Surely enough, after carbon-dating these samples, they all came back with significant amounts of radioactive carbon, indicating they are definitely not millions of years old.

a reply to: whereislogic

Man, however, is just what the Bible shows him to be​—unique, a special creation. (Gen. 1:26, 27; 2:20) Not only is his brain far advanced in comparison with brains of animals, but so is his body.

This seems to be what it comes down to.
Whether or not Homo Sapien is a special creation.

Most religions and philosophies seem to build upon that premise, as a priori.

originally posted by: whereislogic


The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”(7)

You might want to read that article before using it as a challenge against evolution.
Article: Google Books; Bulletin of Atomic Scientists May 1982

It's quite the interesting report, but most of the data is very dated. What needs to be looked at and remembered while reading the article though, is that it is an argument for teaching Evolution in schools, and not an article about the end-all be-all for the discussion about human evolution. Given that if you only scan the final conclusions of the report you miss out on the core reasons why evolution should be taught in schools.

If this is the way you wish to frame the argument about how long humans have been around, you should remember that writing as been around longer than the bible says the Earth has been around, or are you going to use the argument that "gods time runs differently than human time".

a reply to: Guyfriday

The oldest writings we have are less than 5,500 years old. It actually matches up with the Biblical narrative perfectly.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Guyfriday

The oldest writings we have are less than 5,500 years old. It actually matches up with the Biblical narrative perfectly.

The Tărtăria clay tablets date to around 5300BCE that's 7300 years ago. Writings that are 5500 years old date back to 3500BCE, so nope writing predate the bible. Even then you have the issue of proto writing that was an unregular system of communication that are dated before that.

The weird thing is that when I first posted this, it wasn't doubled up. So when did that happen?

a reply to: neoholographic

Modern civilization just happened. It just popped up out of nowhere.

Did it happen out of nowhere?

It was fast but took millenia to fully occur. There were some important environmental things happening around the time Neolithic revoltion. Most notably the end of the last ice age, less notably, earth axial tilt.

So to counter your theory, I'll pose my own that explains a possible reason the earliest civilizations formed, including Mesopotamia.

It is accepted that when the Neolithic revolution began there was a green Sahara and green Arabian Desert. (9000 BCE). The highest concentration of people was centered in this savanna region from africa to The Indian subcontinent.

Then it dried up slowly until everyone just sorta stayed when they reached water. The Nile for some and The Euphrates/Tigris for others. By 4000 BCE the last remaining pools of water were gone and these areas with the only arable land remained.

Having already the concepts of plant/animal domestication for thousands of years (5000) the rest was the invention of commerce and social decorum. Civilization was born around narrow stretches adjoining fresh water. Trade, regulation, legal codes, are all completely plausible as organic concepts and a testament to homo sapien problem solving ability. Corrupted by greed, sure, but ultimately the first appearance of a Nash Equalibrium.

There were no more isolated clans, now there were communities needing to coexist and share limited resources.

Just my thought on how completely necessity based and circumstantial the birth of civilization was.

originally posted by: Guyfriday


The Tărtăria clay tablets date to around 5300BCE that's 7300 years ago. Writings that are 5500 years old date back to 3500BCE, so nope writing predate the bible. Even then you have the issue of proto writing that was an unregular system of communication that are dated before that.

Brief research shows there is no actual proof for such a claim.

"The dating of the tablets is difficult as they cannot be carbon-dated and the stratigraphy is uncertain"

You cant just make stuff up. You have to follow evidence if you want to be true to the definition of science.

originally posted by: neoholographic
I have shown in other threads why a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. This is just one more reason why.

There's no evidence that modern civilization evolved. Homo Sapians that are very close to us have been around for 200,000 years. Some say it may go back to 400,000 years.

Modern civilization just happened. It just popped up out of nowhere.

We went from hunter gatherers to doing astrology, advanced mathematics, literature, political laws and more. Where's the evidence that shows than any of this evolved over time?

They went from living in caves and huts to building pyramid structures and great buildings. Here's more about the Sumerians.

Why are you mixing evolution with civilization advancement? lol It is not even close in relationship...

But anyhow....

So 20,000 years ago man started to cultivate farming and animals from a hunter gather model. 6000 years ago language was first used as a way to save and transfer information past small groups. So that is like 14,000 years of advancement after farming was started...

I can't say things happened over night... Once humans stopped spending all their waking hours to eat they found more time to do other things... Is that hard to believe?