The dawn of civilization

[T0 Th3 M4X]

At work.

If you magically apply a date to something, it's a guess.  It's not grounded in reality.

What 'Magic'?

Or are you now seeking to change the label on something objective such as to dismiss things?

Anthopology and archeology both are the science of studying humanities (And our related, extinct, cousin species) history.

I admit to finding your insistence on the 'Written word' as the only metric to use strange.

That is a tu quoque fallacy.  Any "Written word" has nothing to do with his claim.  He either has something that objectively provides a date, or there's no reason to assume it as being objective. 

As far as your objection on its own, I never dated anything in such a way, so I don't see why I would need to justify it.

---

There's different research.  I know there is one theory that involves something like three photons working together but still separate as to achieve a higher speed.  But I'm gonna shuddup there, because I don't know the rest.

---

Who assumed 6000 years?  Also, do you have the 100,000 year old calendar?

It's (6,000) in the OP, trollish one. Shouldn't you be saying your prayers ? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion

I didn't assert the OP.  Why would I be responsible for its claims?  I'm responsible for what I assert.

That is unless I assert someone else's assertions as being my own assertions, but I didn't assert such an assertion.