mibby529

And the closet creationists come out.

"A great deal" that no one has ever been able to produce. You'll have to do better than THAT.

You don't even realize that race doesn't exist genetically.

According to the Asatru Folk Assembly and them alone.

Like creationists, you're taking a normally unclassifiable skull and putting it in a particular category.

There's a good reason that act exists. In the old days, white skeletons would go to cemeteries, but Indian skeletons would go to museums.

And I'm curious about who's buried in Arlington National Cemetery. I'm sure you would be interested in studies of remains of whoever [sic] was dug up.

Dr.GH

So would I.

"old bone worship" is just more superstitious nonsence. The Catholic Church is a leading "old bone worship" church. Just a few years ago, Catholics were reminded in a Papal letter that cremation would interfer with the reserection at the end of time. It seems the pope feels that there must be physical integrity of remains in order for God to be able to sort things out.

Sheesh

Mageth

nibby529:

I'm interested (really) in why you think the Bering Land Bridge migration theory is false. I know that core samples of the Bering Strait seafloor contain land plants and insects that indicate there was at least once a land bridge. I know there is at least some supporting evidence for the migration theory. I know that the theory was first "proposed" by a Jesuit missionary (Jose' De Acosta) in 1589, 136 years before Europeans "discovered" the Bering Strait, to explain the presence of NAs, and thus had a religious "Eurocentric" origin. I also know that this Eurocentric origin does not of itself falsify the theory.

Why do you think the theory is false? And what alternative do you support as the source of Native Americans?

Richiyaado

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Richiyaado ]</p>

ps418

I asked you once before and you didnt answer me: what do you mean when you say that the hypothesis that native americans are descendents of Eurasians is "creationism"? How is this "creationism," given that it makes no claims regarding creation events of any kind? Just because you find the idea distasteful doesnt make it creationism.

I also dont know why you think the hypothesis was inspired by Genesis, but even if it were, that certainly does not make it false or implausible a priori. And let me say one more time: the existence of an emergent Bering Strait during the last glacial maximum is based on solid geologic evidence indeed, and your assertions to the contrary are making you look a bit ill-informed. (Like when you said on another thread that the existence of a Bering land bridge requires millions of km3 of water to "just disappear," which is false.)

Where did the first inhabitants of north america come from, in your (Mibby's) view?

mibby529

Well, let's see...Physical and cultural anthropology, archeology, plate tectonics (Siberia and Alaska are on the same [west-moving] plate!) the geography of Alaska and Siberia (Five mountain ranges for these nonexistant Indians to cross. Not to mention the fact that, at best, they'd have to wade through fifty meters of water.) the fact that it was based ENTIRELY on a tortured interpretation of Genesis!!! I can go on. But of course, I'm a little dark on the issue, pun intended.

Ah, but being based solely on religion DOES falsify it. (Fallacious origin.)

YES! Boers claimed that they were in South Africa before the Africans during apartheid. Australians are now making claims about an Australo-Caucasian connection.

It's based on Genesis. I believe that's the definition of creationism.

I guess that water COULD freeze, but it would be 90% below sea level. Quite a bit of water has to freeze for sea level to drop 200 m, and geologists say sea level just dropped 150 m in the last ice age.

Argument from ignorance. Do I have to prove another option to disprove yours?

Richiyaado

Mibby,

You quoted the wrong sentence from my last post. I'm now certain it should have been the following you emphatically answered "YES!" to:

Leaving aside the overall evasiveness in your last post, I seriously wonder what you hope to gain by peddling the race-baiting flapdoodle evident in some of your remarks.

mibby529

No, just pointing out that his MO parallels previous examples of white supremacist bullshit is HARDLY race-baiting.

Lone Ranger assumed it meant a pre-Indian Aryan habitation, though the article says nothing like that. It's simply that he doesn't want to get rid of his blessed dogma, so he invents his own theory based entirely on his previous theory which is in turn based on the Bible, but everyone pretends it isn't.

RufusAtticus

In reality Mibby it's nothing like that. The hypothesis that there was an earlier migration that wasn't of the same human stock (Mongloid) is because preliminary investigation into these old skeletons reveal cranial features more similar to caucasians or the Ainu of Japan than they are to the modern indigenous Indian tribes. It doesn't have anything to do with Eurocentricism. You appear to be having an emotional reaction to the possiblity that the ancestors of Native Americans might not be the first humans to have inhabited America. That's not helping your argument.

~~RvFvS~~

The Lone Ranger

Where did I state or imply that the article referred to a "pre-Indian Aryan habitation"? Neither I nor the article said (or suggested) any such thing.

To point out that there is abundant evidence for the existence of a Bering Land Bridge, and that Native Americans appear to be descended from Eurasian stock is not racist.

Your comments are simply insulting, and I have no interest in discussing the matter further with you.

Especially since I am of American Indian descent.

-- Michael

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ]</p>