You can't show that the brains were the same either.
I didn't make any claims about brains, ancient or otherwise, that require I show anything. The point that stands is that you claim things about brains without any evidence or reason to do so. You offer no evidence or reason to discuss your claims.
But I can show they said things like "the way goes over the flames under which the gods create." Far more ludicrous things than this came out of ancient brains. It's almost like they didn't think like us.
You have a translation of something that isn't 40,000 years old to my knowledge. It appears to be taken out of temporal and cultural context and from a putative translation of unknown validity. You don't bother to provide any provenance or citation for anyone to check it out for themselves.
If this is a valid translation of some written work of the last 5,000 years, I wouldn't expect it would reflect modern thinking, but I have no reason to conclude it supports anything you've claimed regarding your unevidenced "ancient language" of only a couple thousand words from 40,000 years ago.
It is meaningless as evidence to show us anything in support of your claims.
And exactly what supernatural or esoteric beliefs do you have?
It doesn't matter in this context. I didn't make your claims. I don't have the burden of proof to support them. Obviously you can't, even when you do hold that burden and duty.
And the irony being I'm the only one to have beliefs about the nature of religion, consciousness
You are not. Lots of people have beliefs about lots of things including religion and consciousness. What you have, and fail to do anything with, is the burden to validate and support your claims.
Something not known or in evidence. Per usual. You certainly can have beliefs about it. But you have never substantiated those beliefs as more than what I consider to be nothing more than science, fan fiction.
and how the fossil recoird supports sudden change in species.
Except it doesn't.
You claim Darwin was wrong and all his assumptions are false, yet you refuse to name one of those assumptions or demonstrate a false state. At the same time, you seem to accept punctuated equilibrium that is a modification of the theory originally proposed by Darwin. It is a contradictory position without reason or explanation.
Not only that, but it indicates to me that you don't even understand punctuated equilibrium and that the observed changes seen in the fossil record followed by longer periods of stasis are not examples of sudden change. Suddenness of the change observed in the fossils is not indicated by the evidence. Thus, your claim can be rejected without further consideration. Since you don't bother to offer support for anything you claim, there isn't anything to discuss.
Punctuated equilibrium proposes that change is relatively quick,
relatively, followed by extended periods of very little change, but not, no change. And the quick change isn't synonymous with sudden as that word is understood, but is seen to occur variably over periods up to half a million years. The fossil record does indicate that this occurs with some groups, but is not universal and the evidence of species like coelacanth support that it occurs where there is strict environmental stability for extensive periods of time.
Further, I would point out that your claim to accept punctuated equilibrium must be based on the acceptance of speciation. Another strange and contradictory condition given you claim not to believe species are real.
I can't see anything for us to discuss as long as you just make claims and then run off without bothering to support. You can continue to post what is clear in my mind is your belief system, but I have no interest in discussing what I find is a rather convoluted and seemingly illusory, syncretic belief system mixing science, religion and wild beliefs about things not in evidence.
