I assume this subject belongs in the Science forum rather than History, because ascertaining the facts and developing hypotheses are based on geological and archaelogical finds, rather than on written or etched records.
Anyway, the populating of the Americas presents a problem for Biblical literalism. If the flood of Noah (supposing it is a literal event) took place approximately 2359 b.c., then obviously the ancestors of native Americans did not arrive before then. Yet there have been finds of human bones along with spearheads and bones which do not fit any creature existing now, such as mammoths, and other animals not known to exist in the Americas until imported by Europeans or others, such as camels and horses. Dating methods for many of these finds indicate human activity as far back as 11,500 b.c. Some recent finds indicate even further back in time and these may not have been ancestors of the 'Native Americans' we know; but that is not the focus of this topic.
So how and when natives-- or other peoples before the 'natives'-- got here and dispersed all over 2 continents is clearly at odds with a literal reading of the Noahic flood, and so is the existence of of many animals and their remains in America, since Noah got "every" kind of animal. If there is not evolution, then mammoths and mastodons, as well as Indian and Asian elephants, for an example, must have been on the ark, and they somehow got to America. And unless the Bering 'land bridge' was not submerged, as it is now, any animals going to or from America would have had to swim or fly. But even if Asia and America were connected, that doesn't explain the different mammals in Australia and how they all must have swum there. If you say the mammoths, saber-toothed cats, et al, lived in America before the flood, then where did they go afterword? [Noah failed in the plan if he didn't keep them alive to multiply again.] Their fossilized remains do not indicate life in Eurasia any more recently than in the Americas.
Finally, what are some of our attitudes about opposition to research about these subjects? Christians opposed research by Galileo and burned Bruno and others at the stake for speculating on things they had already made their minds up about. Today, Indian groups have successfully stopped research, for instance, on the "Kennewick man," a skeletal remain found in Washington believed to be about 9000 years old with features closer to Europeans than to Indian people. A tribe claimed the remains to 'rebury' according to federal laws regading indigenous people and control over such remains. Research might give clues about other migrations to America of other people-- something the Indians do not want, or else they may lose their claim to being the first Americans. And almost all Indian tribes have their own "creation" stories about coming up from below the earth, or down from the sky, to inhabit "their own" land. Thus many reject even any relation to other Mongoloid people with whom they share facial features. Can Christians see some of our past, or even present, attitudes in such opposition to tradition and lore?
Anyway, the populating of the Americas presents a problem for Biblical literalism. If the flood of Noah (supposing it is a literal event) took place approximately 2359 b.c., then obviously the ancestors of native Americans did not arrive before then. Yet there have been finds of human bones along with spearheads and bones which do not fit any creature existing now, such as mammoths, and other animals not known to exist in the Americas until imported by Europeans or others, such as camels and horses. Dating methods for many of these finds indicate human activity as far back as 11,500 b.c. Some recent finds indicate even further back in time and these may not have been ancestors of the 'Native Americans' we know; but that is not the focus of this topic.
So how and when natives-- or other peoples before the 'natives'-- got here and dispersed all over 2 continents is clearly at odds with a literal reading of the Noahic flood, and so is the existence of of many animals and their remains in America, since Noah got "every" kind of animal. If there is not evolution, then mammoths and mastodons, as well as Indian and Asian elephants, for an example, must have been on the ark, and they somehow got to America. And unless the Bering 'land bridge' was not submerged, as it is now, any animals going to or from America would have had to swim or fly. But even if Asia and America were connected, that doesn't explain the different mammals in Australia and how they all must have swum there. If you say the mammoths, saber-toothed cats, et al, lived in America before the flood, then where did they go afterword? [Noah failed in the plan if he didn't keep them alive to multiply again.] Their fossilized remains do not indicate life in Eurasia any more recently than in the Americas.
Finally, what are some of our attitudes about opposition to research about these subjects? Christians opposed research by Galileo and burned Bruno and others at the stake for speculating on things they had already made their minds up about. Today, Indian groups have successfully stopped research, for instance, on the "Kennewick man," a skeletal remain found in Washington believed to be about 9000 years old with features closer to Europeans than to Indian people. A tribe claimed the remains to 'rebury' according to federal laws regading indigenous people and control over such remains. Research might give clues about other migrations to America of other people-- something the Indians do not want, or else they may lose their claim to being the first Americans. And almost all Indian tribes have their own "creation" stories about coming up from below the earth, or down from the sky, to inhabit "their own" land. Thus many reject even any relation to other Mongoloid people with whom they share facial features. Can Christians see some of our past, or even present, attitudes in such opposition to tradition and lore?
