Populating the Americas

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Well, you know how you can't take it literally. It didn't really mean the whole world.

Flood is like that, too.

Either I'm going to take your word or God's Word literally for the evidence. According to the Genesis account, the flood was a planetary deluge, not merely a "Mesopotamian" one.

Are you trying to tempt me to believe in something other than God's Word?

Are you trying to convert me to your religious beliefs?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Alcott:
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.

Your opinions and beliefs about both science and history are obviously based more on geological and archaelogical finds than on the the "written and etched records" of the Bible.

Evolutionary science is just another method and account of creation.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Actually, about 10-12000 years ago the ice age was ending and this caused lots of floods. [/QB]

How do you know? What evidence are your claims based on?

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
Your opinions and beliefs about both science and history are obviously based more on geological and archaelogical finds than on the the "written and etched records" of the Bible.

So are yours, if you think the flood took place 6,000 years ago.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Actually, about 10-12000 years ago the ice age was ending and this caused lots of floods.

How do you know? What evidence are your claims based on? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Check out this link:

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1192.htm

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

Check out this link:

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1192.htm [/QB]

I asked you how you knew and what evidence your claims were based on.

Website links aren't evidence.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Alcott:

So are yours, if you think the flood took place 6,000 years ago.

I think the flood took place 8000 years ago and that the scattering of the nations took place 6000 years ago. That would give the Egyptians enough time in which to start building pyramids about 5000 years ago. After all, Cheops was erected about 4500 years ago and they must have had some time to practice before erecting that ediface.

 

[Alcott]

You are supporting my statement if you think the flood took place further back than 4600 years ago, by interpolating the biblical chronology of events. You are interjecting greater time than scripture allows in the chronology by saying "...was erected about 4500 years ago and they must have had some time to practice..."

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Alcott:
You are supporting my statement if you think the flood took place further back than 4600 years ago, by interpolating the biblical chronology of events. You are interjecting greater time than scripture allows in the chronology by saying "...was erected about 4500 years ago and they must have had some time to practice..."

Either Morris and Whitcomb of "Genesis Flood" fame or USA Today are to blame for my "interpolations" of the Biblical chronology of events. The Bible doesn't mention Cheops by name but does date the arrival of Jacob's descendents in Egypt about 1800 BC, long after the destruction of the Tower of Babel and the erection of the great pyramid of Cheops.

 

[Alcott]

Getting back to the original subject, if mankind has an origin at a certain locale in the world-- and both biblicists and scientists/evolutionists do believe this-- then the Native Ameicans did not arise here, as so many of their still-believed legends insist.

There is a web site, http://www.nativecircle.com/mlmBSmyth.html that refutes the Beringia theory that they arrived here from northwest Siberia to Alaska by land exposed by the ice accumulations resulting in lower sea levels. The writer culminates his argument by saying, "The Native people of this Turtle continent did
not 'migrate' to this land.... we have always been here.........." He always italicizes "theory" and he explains, "A theory is defined as:
'an offered opinion which may not positively be true.'" That does 'ring a bell' as to strict creationists' description of "theory" in regard to evolution.

There may not be a specific point I am trying to show with all this, but there is a parallel between the native insistence that "we have always been here," and literalists' contention that man has always been as he is. One just makes limitations of geography and migration and one doesn't, while neither can present a scientifically convincing argument, so both just cast off "theories" as "an offered opinion that may not be true."

The Bering Strait theory may indeed be questionable, with little or no evidence of culture found there which indicates a relationship between the oldest cultural arifacts found in the American continents. But the other 2 theories of migration from Asia are migrating southward by coast instead of via the supposed "ice-free corridor;" and/or of sailing across the South Pacific. Evidence would be expected to be lacking for the west coast theory, since if it is correct any finds would likely be submerged in perhaps 300 feet of the ocean. But the recent find at Monte Verde, in Chile, indicating a 'pre-Clovis' culture, may be related to a South Pacific crossing. This is feasible, since Asians did cross the Pacific to the many populated islands, obviously without knowing just where they were going. It could have been easier to cross the South Atlantic from Africa, which later sailing ships often did in 3 weeks or less. Thus, the modern Native argument that the land is theirs, that they were the first, and denial that any other peoples could have come to refute their 'first' claim.

Nevertheless, biblical literalism suggests there were more miracles going on among the physical, migratory, technological changes with far more people than can be accounted for by natural and cultural change. We are talking tens of thousands of years, not just thousands, as scripture literally allows for.