Comments by "Ken ibn Anak" (@kenibnanak5554) on "Talks at Google"
channel.
-
2
-
Darwin was a product of Christian thought. He went way out on a dangerous (for his time) limb just by proposing evolution rather than creation. Rverything about his culture was about accepting the Bible as being an accurate account of Man's early history. Since there are human bones that even today are accepted as being 200,000 years old his picking of 200,000 years was safe. Our problem, even today is that the Genesis tale itself is only about 8,000 years old. Anything with an earlier date of origin for our species attacks the very base of every major Western religion and also of course the Muslim and other religions that incorporate those beliefs. Most archaeologists and secondary texts are quite happy to espouse a belief Man may have existed 200,000 years ago, but did nothing in the form of creating a civilization or making discoveries for the first 160,000 years. This of course fits no theory of human behavior. Cllearly there was much that happened we discount all evidence of. In reality when we talk about the Iron Age we should qualify if we mean the one of about 4,000 years ago, or do we mean the ancient one of 130,,000 years ago which has left only a few buried hammers, iron pipes in China, or bolts dropped onto a sandy soil which later became a rock as evidence of how far our ancestors de-evolved after the great plague of 90,000 years ago?
2