The conclusion goes beyond just the background of a lone preacher. I also did explicitly specify that part is not unquestionable, so I’m not sure why the analysis is being mocked as if it were declared finalized. Many alternatives may be argued, though none would seem equally precise/unbiased.

Note I said recorded history, not actual history. I’m well aware the Earth goes back much longer and that the young earth hypothesis is false.

I’m not sure where the parts about the pre-Xia dynasties of China or the Australians always being in Australia come from, unless the latter is a jab at something many may have picked up about me (in which case this is another testament to the demeanors I receive from others).