IamJoseph,

I have found a name, but not of a person, as yet.

http://www.ancientanatolia.com/historical/neolithic.htm

"Cybele" the Mother Goddess, named seventh to eighth millenium before the current era. From Catalhoyuk, a neolithic town.

Do you really accept this as a satisfactory evidence? The reason I cannot, aside from its numerous contradictions, is it is too close to the genesis dating, it refers to a mythical figure akin to Hellenist deities [as opposed an historical figure like Abraham or Buddha], and posits one example as vindication of a general principle - with no transit grads. While it is not good to reject something to suit my preferences, but here there is nothing which is a near positive evidence - and there should be numerous and widespread examples which are positive for such a vital issue for humanity.

Neolithic Age - New Stone Age (8.000 - 5.500 BCE )

The dating is not conclusive, its margins stretching well into the 6000 circle.

It says that name 'came to be', and 'later' came to be known as cybele, which can well fall into the 6000.

What that article is saying is - it has evidence of speech, signified by a later used diety name, but not a name of a historical person; it has evidence of art, illustrations and pottery - but no name of the artist, or any member of that community in the entire space of some 2,500 years. IMHO, the first factor of a community or group, should be its leader - not a deity. Perhaps it means there was no language, which is better allocated as modern human speech, as opposed phonations and sounds - although this premise suffers even greater problems of logic.

Therefore, I look for a 'name', and also that any name must be an historically vindicated one - because this is the true mark of speech, language and modern humans as we know it. If there are proto-type life forms of humans, which did not possess speech and language, we cannot class this as modern humans. This means, for me, modern humans begin where speech and language is inherent, and the only factor seperating humans from all other life forms.

There is also a claim of 30K year drawings found in France - which borders on fantasy.

IamJoseph,

Interesting argument.

I had noticed the "later" element of the citation. The cite was a candidate because the origin point is not clear, yet seemingly long before 4,000 BCE and likely before 6,000 BCE as an entity. That said, it would have been hard before the neolithic period to record anything much, though cities cities/settlements are named, if not people. No paper,no tools capable of cutting records into stone. Even into medieval times, masons used ruin alphabets, because it is hard to cut curves,

With "Cybele" [obviously a translituration] we do have a naming protocol.

Just the same, it is an interesting exercise.

Why do doubt the antiquity of the cave paintings?

The field Museum of Natural History claims to have a list of slaves on a plaster cast, the oldest writing discovered [1966]. Ref: The Ancient World by Hillyer & Huey.

Is it your posit that Adam lived c. 4,000 BCE and all lines descended from him. Geophysical data would suggest land bridges closing c, 8,000 BCE. The were peole in the China and the New World, before 4,000 BCE.

Boazy,

Where are you? You seem to have jumped thread before finishing-up, here. Interpretation is an in-depth topic.

" it would have been hard before the neolithic period to record anything much"

Ok, but this, in a sense, alligns with genesis: basically, the 6000 date is a stand-out in the history of this planet. No means of speech proof; no tools; no kings; no wheel; etc. All we have are shady, suspicious imprints of inferences, alarmingly sparse in number [not widespread], too close to the 6000 dating - and no history per se.

This is compounded by the factor of C14 innacuracy for small margin datings, almost all pre-6000 reports being proven bogus or inconclusive. Only two decades ago, archeologists comitted the greatest blunder of all time: they declared king david and solomon as mythical figures, despite a host of evidences to the contrarary; then the Tel Dan discovery occured, and those scientists have never recovered from shame.

It all begs the question what if genesis is correct - what held paradigms fall in a heap? Much is at stake here - for starters, ToE falls, the premise of adaptation and speciation become nullified. The latter has already been admitted by major biologists, namely that the advent of speech poses a most difficult enigma for Evolution's sustaining.

"Is it your posit that Adam lived c. 4,000 BCE and all lines descended from him. Geophysical data would suggest land bridges closing c, 8,000 BCE. The were peole in the China and the New World, before 4,000 BCE. "

An opinion is insufficient, as would be any religious belief. It is the evidence at hand which says these things. So yes, until more positive proof is available, speech endowed humans are less than 6000 years old, a date which is a centroid for a host of other occurences.

People in china does not prove anything: if they were speech endowed [the only definition for modern humans], this must be numerously validated. There is the claim Australian aboriginals are 60,000 years old: I say, why is their population not 6 trillion? - why did they not invent the wheel 56,000 years ago - or go to the moon 54,000 years ago?

IamJospeph,

I have reconized the the significance of Bishop Usher's 4,004 BCE date for over a decade. Yet, so the date more in terms of civilization in the context of the first city-states rising from the garden cultures I mentioned in early posts. However, I saw/see things more in terms societal adaptiation than religiosity.

The millenia after the last Ice Age is said to have killed off large game and humans were progressively forced into agriculture, apart from lobster traps, something not evident with the Australian aborigines, whom are said to numbered between 300,000 and one million, c. 1788. These folk would have been under tight Malthusian limits.

Spencer Well's would have his genetic Adam tens of thousands years before Genesis. the national Geographic Society are taking DNA samples, expanding on his earlier work.

That said, I appreciate that a key posit, of your's, is speech. Interesting. Maybe a linguist or an anatomist could help here?

Evidence is that people were in Australia and North America before Genesis. Were God perform to allow speech to an advanced primate, it would be a more global undertaking than just Adam in the Middle East.

Agree it is challenge to find examples of speech prior 6,000 BP.

Re. 'Evidence is that people were in Australia before Genesis.'

What does 'people' mean? - if a life form w/o provable language traits, as opposed lab deconstructions of dna and fossils, then I cannot agree with it. Substantially, we do NOT see widespread evidences, nor a single, positive proof, of speech anywhere pre-6000.

Yes, there are 'imprints' of life form prototypes resembling modern man - but this does not confirm speech and language. Namely, modern man is not identified by skeletal & bio imprints - these being common to almost all life. While it is difficult to prove speech because of the absence of writings - this does not mean the other imprints qualify; instead it means there are - more than not - no proof of modern man. The sparse, alledged evidences are non-conclusive, with no warranted reason to be so.

Re. 'Were God perform to allow speech to an advanced primate, it would be a more global undertaking than just Adam in the Middle East.

Agreed, but it had to start someplace, and either spread out, or speech also developed elsewhere, being a trait inherent, as with a human baby behaving like a human any place. The stand out factor is - there are no speech imprints elsewhere, at least not backed by subsequent writings or names. That speech & writings is substantially proven only in the M/E, in a mode which cannot be disputed [e.g. manuscripts with historical content] - is an anomoly, owing to what this points to: that speech occured suddenly, by passing the evolutionary ladder: we have no evolutionary grads spanning 100s of 1000s of years.

Re. Agree it is challenge to find examples of speech.

Why is that the case, though? Why do we not see imprints of speech and writings, numerously across the planet's geo-history, with periodical grads every 200 years - because this is an inherent, common denominator for modern humans? In any case, speech & language is best evidenced by a NAME - and we have vast alledged time periods to cater to this requirement. In fact, this is indispensible.