mibby529

Well, simply put, if all man came from Iraq, then the Jesuits assumed "They had to get here somehow." And even then the Columbus myth was strong: They assumed Indians had to come over by land, b/c Europeans could only come over by sea in the 1490s.

Now, the scientific arguments AGAINST it:

Physical anthropology. The common way to compromise the obvious height difference is by looking at Navajos, Hopis, and Apaches, as if they're the only Indians. Hell, most Indians farther north (Remember, if even the Hopis crossed the Bering Strait, they'd have to have intermarried with other Indians along the way to Chaco Canyon.) are 6'+, and have decided that "Some days it's a good day to die. Other days it's a good day to play basketball."

Archaeology: Why are cities found in South America 40,000 years ago, long before BSC claims Indians came from somewhere else? Now they're coming up with idiotic claims of pre-Indian Aryan civilizations. (Can it get any more racist?)

Cultural anthropology: A common apologia is that 2% of Eskimos are in Siberia. Actually, the Inupiaq have traded with the Siberians for centuries.

Astronomy: Astronomers now agree that the earth also rotates north/south, albeit very slowly. And guess what else? 12,000 years ago, in Alaska and Siberia, the sun would've been about ten degrees north of "directly overhead," so Siberia was more like Hawaii...Well, Hawaii in an ice age. LOL

Plate tectonics: Siberia and Alaska are on the same plate, which has been moving west for quite some time. So how could it be in Asia?

Geography: Simply put, crossing five mountain ranges? Even if "Siberia in an ice age" would be a good enough reason, which it wasn't, as I've already mentioned, you wouldn't want to cross five mountain ranges in ANY location in an ice age.

Any time I bring this up, some fundie tells me "Do you have a better theory?" as if the null hypothesis isn't legit.