<<I did put some evidence on the table. Maybe you didn't read it.>>
I not only read it, I understood it, which is more than I can say for your
view of the current issue! For example, you say:
<<I agree that I can not prove this point because there is no recording of the
original beliefs of the Neanderthal, but this is at least two more pieces of
evidence for my contention than you have put forward for yours.>>
Pieces of evidence for what? Some sort of "culture" 80,000 years ago? Fine!
But that is what Judge Ito would call "totally irrelevant" to how an event 5.5
million years ago was "passed down" to cultures all over the world.
You have offered nothing on this, and of course you can't. You can push back
"culture" and we can argue about what arranging carcasses really means.
But the issue is the virtual universality of the flood story,
cross-culturally. A major problem for the Morton dating of the flood.
Even though you can't prove either, which hypothesis are you currently
favoring: oral tradition, or special revelation to other cultures? (Note: The
latter may make you a closet Mormon, so be careful).
Jim