No, Drich, what he means is we know that civilization was up and functioning more than 4000 years prior to that point, and there were millions of people in the fourth millenium BCE.
We know through Mitochondrial DNA scanning techniques that there are 29 (I think) separate matrilineal lines that have mutated since the woman who (since mtDNA is not passed to offspring by the father) is the source of all modern mtDNA would have had to have lived over 80,000 years ago. They dubbed her "Mitochondrial Eve", but she wasn't the only woman alive, then; she's just the one whose mtDNA made it through the process of elimination, and sub-versions of her mtDNA are how they now track how humanity spread out since then. There's also a way to track the part of the Y-chromosome in men, which is of course not passed to daughters and so gets eliminated the same way, and we can trace all our Y-chromosomes (by the same process of elimination and rediversification by mutation) to a guy who lived roughly 150,000 years ago, whom we have dubbed "Chromosomal Adam". Note that Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve lived roughly as far apart from one another in time as Eve is from us.
We have examples of humans making stone tools, found in layers going back millions of years (recent finds suggest even some of the Australopithecus tribes may have used crude tools), and we have traced the migration of modern-type humans out of Africa into what is now Israel as early as 150,000 years ago, and certainly by 80,000 years ago.
The idea of there being only two individuals living 6000 years ago is contraindicated by a mountain of evidence to the contrary, of which those examples are just a fraction.
We know through Mitochondrial DNA scanning techniques that there are 29 (I think) separate matrilineal lines that have mutated since the woman who (since mtDNA is not passed to offspring by the father) is the source of all modern mtDNA would have had to have lived over 80,000 years ago. They dubbed her "Mitochondrial Eve", but she wasn't the only woman alive, then; she's just the one whose mtDNA made it through the process of elimination, and sub-versions of her mtDNA are how they now track how humanity spread out since then. There's also a way to track the part of the Y-chromosome in men, which is of course not passed to daughters and so gets eliminated the same way, and we can trace all our Y-chromosomes (by the same process of elimination and rediversification by mutation) to a guy who lived roughly 150,000 years ago, whom we have dubbed "Chromosomal Adam". Note that Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve lived roughly as far apart from one another in time as Eve is from us.
We have examples of humans making stone tools, found in layers going back millions of years (recent finds suggest even some of the Australopithecus tribes may have used crude tools), and we have traced the migration of modern-type humans out of Africa into what is now Israel as early as 150,000 years ago, and certainly by 80,000 years ago.
The idea of there being only two individuals living 6000 years ago is contraindicated by a mountain of evidence to the contrary, of which those examples are just a fraction.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
