I always said the best part of being a Fundie / Creationist is you get to make up the most ridiculous unsupported BS as you go. You haven’t disappointed even a little. 
Ridiculous? Maybe. Unsupported? The full claim in its entirety, true. You’ll find nobody. I thought that might change when I found this community, but I was wrong. It is encouraging to see a community that’s open to the idea that Adam wasn’t the first human. But we obviously still have a very long way to go past that agreed on point. Which I find disheartening.
But each individual piece that makes up the collective claim, yes, it’s all supported.
When this all first started coming together for me it took me years to speak to anyone else about it. I was certain it was complete nonsense and I would just end up looking foolish when I finally told someone when they’d inevitably poke holes in and sink it immediately. So I went on my mission to disprove it by finding something to justify dropping it in the “ridiculous” bin and moving on. Still haven’t found it. You haven’t either. Now I’m attempting to help you understand how you’re completely misreading the data and reaching wrong conclusions.
Just because you see a date attached to a culture that dates back to before Sumer doesn’t mean they were a civilization from that date forward. Those dates are often going all the way back to the earliest point of occupation. Maybe try reading past the date.
Munich? Not surprising… it sounds like all the blond children are going to war!
I find this version to be much more euphonius!
Compare Kate Price’s version:
with the WAR version (if Allen’s link doesn’t work for, it provides the link back in
YouTube where it WILL play for you!):’
Background on this piece:
“Sumer Is Icumen In” is a traditional English medieval round, and possibly the oldest such example of counterpoint in existence."
“The title might be translated as “Summer has come in” or “Summer has arrived”. The round is sometimes known as the Re[a]ding rota because the manuscript comes from Reading Abbey though it may not have been written there.”
“It is the oldest piece of six-part polyphonic music (Albright, 1994). Its composer is anonymous, possibly W. de Wycombe, and it is estimated to date from around 1260. The manuscript is now at the British Library.”
“The language is Middle English, more exactly Wessex dialect.”
Middle English lyrics:
Sumer is icumen in, Lhude sing cuccu!
Groweþ sed and bloweþ med And springþ þe wde nu, Sing cuccu!
Awe bleteþ after lomb, Lhouþ after calue cu. Bulluc sterteþ,
bucke uerteþ,
Murie sing cuccu! Cuccu, cuccu, wel singes þu cuccu; Ne swik þu nauer nu.
Pes: Sing cuccu nu. Sing cuccu. Sing cuccu. Sing cuccu nu!
Modern English lyrics:
Summer has arrived, Loudly sing, Cuckoo!
The seed grows and the meadow blooms And the wood springs anew, Sing, Cuckoo!
The ewe bleats after the lamb The cow lows after the calf. The bullock stirs,
the stag farts,
Merrily sing, Cuckoo! Cuckoo, cuckoo, well you sing, cuckoo; Don’t ever you stop now,
Sing cuckoo now. Sing, Cuckoo. Sing Cuckoo. Sing cuckoo now!
@AllenWitmerMiller, many thanks to you … without your marvelous memory, I would have missed out on ALL of this splendor… and on the Stag! (aka: Bucke).
Ahem…
All true, yesiree Bob. It its entirety no less. All supported. All true.
Well look at that! You were right about one thing after all.
Your turn. Show me what isn’t true. But you’re going to have to do better than you have.
Çatalhöyük
“The complex settlement was described by Mellaart as the earliest city in the world. However, it is more properly described as a large village rather than a true town, city, or civilization.”
“The people of Çatalhöyük” appear to have lived relatively egalitarian lives with no apparent social classes, as no houses with distinctive features (belonging to kings or priests, for example) have been found so far. The most recent investigations also reveal little social distinction based on gender, with both men and women receiving equivalent nutrition and apparently having relatively equal social status. "
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Catal_Huyuk
Peiligang culture/Jiahu
“Archaeologists think that the Peiligang culture was egalitarian, with little political organization.”
“Dr. Robert Eno of Indiana University wrote: “ In the seventh millennium B.C., a widespread culture flourished in pockets throughout the Yellow River Valley. The people in these scattered villages practiced agriculture and animal husbandry, and may have been ancestral to two important later cultures, known as the Yangshao and Longshan cultures.”
Here’s some low hanging fruit: You claim native North Americans didn’t have guns because they had no free will. Yet you also claim the native Central Americans had free will for thousands of years to build cities and civilizations because some fantasy person from China sneaked over to Central America and spilled the beans on free will.
Where are the guns developed by the Inca and the Maya civilizations?
Hey, that’s pretty good.
Unlike the Inca and Mayans, the budding civilizations the Europeans came from came from an environment where there were multiple civilizations all on top of each other. They were much more militarized.
The Central American natives didn’t have that kind of environment that inspired a standing military.
And you accuse me of ignoring evidence. Remember ? …
“cultural similarities between Indians of the Pacific north-west and dynastic Chinese culture (such as artwork, clothing, drums and diet) and linguistic similarities.”
“This explains the presence of what appear to be Chinese symbols in Olmec written records, and strong similarities in art, architecture, religion and astronomical knowledge.” Steve Taylor, The Fall
You certainly pulled that right from your nether regions. The Mayans in particular were known for the constant warfare between their city-states.
I’ll just note that you’re changing your story 180 deg. Now it wasn’t lack of free will which prevented the invention of guns, it was a lack of need. That’s wrong too but it’s funny to watch you squirm for any excuse. 
Where is your evidence some unknown Chinese traveler taught the Olmecs “free will”?
I’m getting bored with watching you embarrass yourself further with every post. if you want to know the real reasons why some civilizations developed certain technologies and others didn’t read “Guns, Germs, and Steel” by Jared Diamond. It won the Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction.
BIG HINT: It has nothing to do with “free will” and everything to do with the world’s distribution of natural resources.
1 Like
What about Kahokia?
It looks like they were Egalitarian too … Fresh look at burials, mass graves, tells a new story of Cahokia | ScienceDaily
I have enjoyed this exchange. Would you mind if i asked you, Jeremy, if you subscribe to the Latter Day Saints teachings?
I do not
Actually having anything to do with distribution of natural resources has everything to do with free will.
" The Sumerians possessed a recognizably "modern" lust for material goods and wealth, which was completely alien to the non-possessiveness of hunter-gatherer peoples."
Another pulled right from your butt claim without one iota of support. 
But please, do continue. I’d love to hear how “free will” determines what geographic locations have abundant natural resources like metal ore and lumber, and benign climate conditions.
Don’t mind if I do. It doesn’t matter how these resources are distributed. It’s the will of the individual. That want. Personal possession and property is a fairly new human trait. It was not a motivating factor before free will.
Cool! So if I want a gold mine in my back yard all I have to do is will it? If the U.S, wants more fossil fuel oil reserves they should just abandon fracking and will really hard for new deposits to form?
May I send your claim to FSTDT?
How did you get that out of what I said?
It was the loopy answer you gave to my question about how “free will” affects which geographic areas have abundant natural resources for people to avail themselves of and which geographic areas have little in the way of resources.
Im sorry to interject into a discussion, but am just fascinated by the thoughts coming forth.
All the stuff about free will etc. If im understanding you correctly, you seem to say that Adam and Eve were not made in the image of God and that they GAINED free will after the fall. Am i understanding you correctly?