Evolutionists often refer to prehistoric (this or that). Then they go into all sorts of "details" of how everything was (supposed to be). I mean we get hairy, monkey like humanoids (in full colour, and animated no less)from nothing more than jawbones. Or CGI of all sorts of dinosaurs, what they looked like et-al, from fossils. If it's "pre" historic, how can we know? It's only human imagination after all. (somones best guess)ye?
Agree with her. Not each and every scientist speak about prehistoric times based on imagination. We have so many technologies and scientific methods that help us collect data and derive proper inference about life and environment in those days.
I agree with both of you.Prehistoric is before the starting of writing or having some reliable evidence of something.If this is the case then we have to depend on fossil, carbon dating etc.-that much only I know.
IIRC, "history" refers to documented information. "Prehistory" is used to differentiate everything that was PRIOR to human record. So if you're looking at anything that existed or happened before people (generally or within that specific region) developed a method of writing about it, then it's obviously "before history."
There is plenty of evidence on Earth and in the stars. I do not know the exact definition but I would say it would be the ages before written history.
If the Earth was very old there would be no oil or diamonds. Also if there wasn't life on Earth before humans there would also be no oil because the organic matter wouldn't have had enough time to create it.
I put a Hubble picture in one of my hubs of galaxies hundreds of millions of light years away. That picture itself and the science behind is evidence of the age of the universe.