It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Out of Africa or Multiregional Descent?

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
DISCLAIMER: Ultimately any comment, question, or discussion that even implies that Race so much as exists will devolve into a bunch of blubbering about "racism" and "superiority" and a bunch of other crap. My intention with this post is not to go down that road at all, to imply that any Race is "better" than any other Race, or that any of this even matters in modern society. It's just an inquisition into the genealogical history of different groups of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which is a single genetic species at this point in our history. So please check all accusations of "racism" at the door.

* * * * * * *

The "generally accepted" explanation of how modern humans look the way we look today is a story of universal descent "Out of Africa;" that modern Humans (Homo Sapien) evolved as we are now in Africa, and later migrated out of Africa to settle throughout the rest of the planet, replacing earlier migrations of archaic Humans (Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis) which had migrated out of Africa at earlier times.

There is genetic evidence for this explanation: according to studies on mitochondrial DNA, all modern Human females can trace their lineage back to a single female of our species who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago.

But there is another theory about the origin of modern Races, which says that our species has its roots various migrations out of Africa that started much earlier. According to this theory, Homo Erectus migrated to Asia, Homo Neanderthalensis to Europe, and Homo Ergastor thrived in Africa. Homo Sapiens arose through hundreds of thousands of years of interbreeding among these species, which is why all Humans today are of a single species and all races can produce viable offspring with one another.

Now, admittedly I'm not a bona-fide scientist (If I was I'd probably be writing about this in a science journal instead of on ATS). So I'm not making any assertions here, just investigating. It seems, to me, that Multiregional Descent makes more sense than a single migration out of Africa. For one, Human races seem too morphologically distinct to have originated solely from a single population group in Africa. Granted that's just a gut feeling with no scientific validity, but when we see the actual faces of the species identified in the Multiregional hypothesis, this gut feeling seems to gain some credibility. Below are a few images.

Homo Erectus (Asia):

Note the similarity with modern Asians: high fore., small non-prominent nose, high cheekbones and a "flat" facial structure.

Homo Neanderthalensis (Europe):

Again, similarity with modern Europeans: prominent nose, squared jaw.

Homo Ergastor (Africa):

And similarity with modern Africans: wide nose, prominent lips, heavy brow.

From a behavioral perspective, it seems like a Multiregional descent is more likely as well. Given that humans love trying to breed with anything that moves (and many things that don't), interbreeding among all these species would probably happen at least as often as replacement and competition, if these species all existed around the same time. Cross-species relations would probably have erased the genetic divisions pretty quickly and given rise to what we have today: various population groups which are genetically similar enough to be considered a single species, but who retain in large part the physical features of their ancestors who may not have been "the same species."

So what am I missing?




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
No one seems to care for the "Out of the Ark" theory, except for a few of us Bible-believing crazies.

One nice thing about the OOTA theory is that it supports the idea of everyone being a single race/species.
edit on 8-4-2012 by Lazarus Short because: lah-de-dah



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


The number of actual scientists who care for the "out of the ark" theory is directly proportional to the amount of actual evidence for that particular storyline. And how "nice" a theory feels has absolutely nothing to do with how true it is.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
What is interesting is that recent discoveries has determined that all humans have a 1% to 4% and possibly higher Neanderthal DNA, except for (pure) Africans.

And, far Eastern Asians have Denisovan DNA, but not Africans or Western/Northern Caucasians.

Some scholars have placed the Neanderthal/modern human mating beginning in the Middle East, and spreading to Asia/Europe but not Africa.

The question is, why did Neanderthal or Denisovan never enter Africa ?

Something kept them out. perhaps an advanced African Society existed with advanced "military" type capabilities ?
Perhaps a "pre"-Egyptian civilization.


Neanderthals, Humans Interbred—First Solid DNA Evidence

Siberian Fossils (Denisovan) Were Neanderthals’ Eastern Cousins, DNA Reveals











edit on Apr-08-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
xuechen/vex.

Great thoughts and facts.

I am tended to agree that man probably originated from different parts, consider language, which has distinctive styles, facial shapes as mentioned and the theology of life are.also distinctive. Apes are similarly distinctive to certain areas.

Why these early men avoided Africa, is another interesting question. It may have been simply that we have no way of seeing it, the connection is narrow, so maybe they could not get in? It is an area that ought to be studied and would be an interesting topic for ATS speculation.

Looking forward to the collective intelligence of ATS members coming up with ideas.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dowot
xuechen/vex.

Great thoughts and facts.

I am tended to agree that man probably originated from different parts, consider language, which has distinctive styles, facial shapes as mentioned and the theology of life are.also distinctive. Apes are similarly distinctive to certain areas.

Why these early men avoided Africa, is another interesting question. It may have been simply that we have no way of seeing it, the connection is narrow, so maybe they could not get in? It is an area that ought to be studied and would be an interesting topic for ATS speculation.

Looking forward to the collective intelligence of ATS members coming up with ideas.



Well if they somehow got "out of Africa", there must have been a way back in.

The ancient Middle East area may have had easier access to Africa than today. it was only a short distance from Africa.

Ice age and pre ice age eras (a.k.a. pre flood) had more land exposed. Much of the Red Sea was land back then.
(lots of undiscovered things under the Red Sea !)

Some people think an advanced civilization existed where the Sahara desert is.
(before it was a desert)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dowot
Why these early men avoided Africa, is another interesting question. It may have been simply that we have no way of seeing it, the connection is narrow, so maybe they could not get in? It is an area that ought to be studied and would be an interesting topic for ATS speculation.

Looking forward to the collective intelligence of ATS members coming up with ideas.



Originally posted by xuenchen
Well if they somehow got "out of Africa", there must have been a way back in.


Ask and you shall receive.



Did Early Humans Ride the Waves to Australia?

Everybody is African in origin. Barring a smattering of genes from Neanderthals and other archaic Asian forms, all our ancestors lived in the continent of Africa until 150,000 years ago. Some time after that, say the genes, one group of Africans somehow became so good at exploiting their environment that they (we!) expanded across all of Africa and began to spill out of the continent into Asia and Europe, invading new ecological niches and driving their competitors extinct.

There is plenty of dispute about what gave these people such an advantage—language, some other form of mental ingenuity, or the collective knowledge that comes from exchange and specialization—but there is also disagreement about when the exodus began. For a long time, scientists had assumed a gradual expansion of African people through Sinai into both Europe and Asia. Then, bizarrely, it became clear from both genetics and archaeology that Europe was peopled later (after 40,000 years ago) than Australia (before 50,000 years ago).

Meanwhile, the geneticists were beginning to insist that many Africans and all non-Africans shared closely related DNA sequences that originated only after about 70,000-60,000 years ago in Africa. So a new idea was born, sometimes called the "beachcomber express," in which the first ex-Africans were seashore dwellers who spread rapidly around the coast of the Indian Ocean, showing an unexpected skill at seafaring to reach Australia across a strait that was at least 40 miles wide. The fact that the long-isolated Andaman islanders have genes that diverged from other Asians about 60,000 years ago fits this notion of sudden seaside peopling.

Sea levels were 150 feet lower then, because the cold had locked up so much moisture in northern ice-caps, so not only were most Indonesian islands linked by land, but the Persian Gulf was dry and, crucially, the southern end of the Red Sea was a narrow strait. Recent work by Prof. Geoffrey Bailey and colleagues from York University in Britain has shown that the gap was often less than 2½ miles wide for up to 60 miles. People would not have needed to move through Sinai and the inhospitable Arabian desert to reach the Indian Ocean shoreline. They could raft or swim across a narrow marine canal.

The story grew more complicated last year when a team led by Hans Peter Uerpmann of the University of Tübingen in Germany described a set of stone tools found under a rock overhang in eastern Arabia, dating from 125,000 years ago. The tools were comparable to those made by east Africans around the same time. This was when Arabia was wetter than today, but the Red Sea crossing was wider.

So maybe Arabia was colonized early and there was a long pause before the Beachcomber Express set off for southeast Asia? If so, the genetics of Arabians should show convergence on an ancient ancestor of more than 125,000 years ago. They don't: Recent research suggests a common ancestor only 60,000 years ago.

Two ways out of the impasse come to mind. One is that the Arabian settlers of 125,000 years ago died out and were replaced by a new exodus from Africa. The second is that there may have been back-migration into Africa to muddy the genetic water. Complicating the issue is the volcanic eruption of Toba, in Sumatra, around 74,000 years ago, which injected so much sulfurous dust into the high atmosphere that it caused prolonged droughts that might have come close to wiping out many human populations.

Prof. Bailey reckons the answer to these riddles lies beneath the waters of the Red Sea, where ancient coastlines, teeming with undisturbed archaeology, remain to be explored.


online.wsj.com...

And this is a fairly recent article about this. There are "others" on the internet offering similar expressions of these event. Hope that offers some food for thought, and something to start this subject in the right direction.

As for myself, I do have views in respects to this subject, but there is no need to go there just yet.

Have a good day

Ciao

Shane



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Shane
 


Awsome info,
I personally feel that the question at hand is far more complicated than just a "out of africa" vs a multi- regional hypothosis.
As I see it there were the 3 main pushes out of africa, the first being homo e 2 mya, the second was the first modern humans around 120kya, and the final push something like 74kya. But each of these movements set up populations as they went, and over time each of those populations moved around and muddied up the genetic waters.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by vexati0n
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


The number of actual scientists who care for the "out of the ark" theory is directly proportional to the amount of actual evidence for that particular storyline. And how "nice" a theory feels has absolutely nothing to do with how true it is.


As to the "amount of actual evidence." you do realise don't you, that the surviving bones, stones, and other bits used to substantiate your out-of-somewhere theories is very, very small? On the other hand, the Ark of Noah has been found, and is quite substantial in size. Further, I don't care a fig how a theory feels, but I have one angle which I have not heard even the creationists speak of.

If all the animals left the Ark in the Ararat (not Mount Ararat) area, then we would expect them to go here and there, eventually spreading over the world. Near the Ark, we would expect genetic drift to be bred back into the gene pool, and unremarkable species to predominate. Only in distant, isolated spots would genetic anomalies tend to express and flourish. Thus, we do indeed, find exotic, bizarre species far from the Ark, but not usually near it. It rests the case for me.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

If all the animals left the Ark in the Ararat (not Mount Ararat) area, then we would expect them to go here and there, eventually spreading over the world. Near the Ark, we would expect genetic drift to be bred back into the gene pool, and unremarkable species to predominate. Only in distant, isolated spots would genetic anomalies tend to express and flourish. Thus, we do indeed, find exotic, bizarre species far from the Ark, but not usually near it. It rests the case for me.


You are assuming a lot when making statements like this.

Reason for the Flood? To eliminate the Spawn of the Fallen between the Daughters of Man.

Who was saved? Noah, because he and his family line to Adam was pure and not defiled. It was important to remove these entities before they polluted that family line, since it was the bloodline that will carry through to Christ.

So when the "Face" of the Earth is covered with Water, and all the mountains are covered, what do YOU envision.?

I reflect on several things.

a: The Face- of the Earth, is a part of the Earth. Much like you and me, if I wash my Face, it doesn't mean I am completely submersed in water.

b: What Mountains? Those Found in the region that Noah Lived. Where Noah Lived is subjective, but if we indeed believe it was somewhere within the confines of the Middle East, then we are not addressing much in the means of Measure. Much like myself, I am living in an area that has Mountains. These are the Blue Mountains which reach from the Georgian Bay down to the Niagara Peninsula. Really, it is an Escarpment carved out in the last Ice age and it some 400 to 500 feet in measure from the lower agricultural lands. Mountains eh?

The Middle East is much like this. I've been there. We are not discussing the Alps. We are discussing the area of Noah's Habitation.

c: Do you really believe in 4000 - 5000 years the Platypus and Kangaroo would evolve into the species they are today, when the Aboriginal Peoples of Austrailia have been eating Kangaroo for some 14000 Years

d: ...which brings us to another point. There are flood tales which echo the storyline of the Ark around the Globe, but from peoples who survived. But there are NONE to speak of found in Africa.

With this noted, I think the elaborate tale the the Church has spun this tale into so they can protect there Dogmas, Doctrines and Theologies is a fabrication and done so to control the masses. The Flood did do the Job that was intend, but there are many areas that where not effected. Did Noah, or his descendant know of these areas? No. Their reality surrounded what they knew. The tale would have been passed down from them to their offspring. They would have known very little of the events that occured in South America, or Austrailia or China. Everything they knew was covered in water.

So I do not think application of the Ark in this subject is fitting. It's part of a time frame that is way out of skew with the period of time that is being discussed, and as noted, had little effect on Africa anyways.

I trust you understand what I mean in regards to this.

Have a Good Day

Ciao

Shane



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


This is not a topic about the flood, it's a topic about science. Please take your bible nonsense somewhere else.

Thanks!



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Depends on how these skeletal remains are classified

Broken Hill (Zambia) Tropical Neandertals

Rhodesian man?

Makapan (South Africa) Tropical Neandertals
Saldanha (South Africa) Tropical Neandertals
Haua Fteah (Libya) Transition Neandertals
Sidi Abderrhaman (Morocco) Transition Neandertals
Dire Dawa (Ethiopia) Transition Neandertals


Recently there has been a move on to remove these from the Neanderthal 'position' and place them in other categories, Homo heidelbergensis being the largest contender, HH being a probably precursor to Neanderthal



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by vexati0n
 


I reflect your view this subject is "not" relating to events outlined within the Biblical Events spoke of in Genesis 6, but I wouldn't suggest the we leap to your conclusions in respect to the assistance the Scriptures may play out in this discussion.

No matter how many protest what I am saying here in ATS, I have never found where Science and the Bible do not express similar views on varying subject matter. I have even found, that Science assists in supporting events and teachings the Bible offers,

But that is not for now.

We will see where the Science ends prior to seeking alternative sources for plausible answers.

Now, the Subject is the Migration of Man.

I agree with most here, that there seemingly is duel events occuring in the conclusions made so far. There appears to be several, pre Modern Man, migrations. I wouldn't rule out "Events" of significance occured in localized areas causing the loss of some of the more Ancient Peoples. It was an eat or be eaten lifestyle, and Volcanic activities, Weather related events, and Flooding of various parts of the planet would have aided in these "lost" peoples disappearing, with others moving back into the area, once the "Conditions Reversed" and habitation was once again viable.

These where the Hunter/Gatherers or at the worst, the precursors to the Hunter/Gatherers. Game, and the "Fruits of the Earth" only feed the clan when they (these food sources) are present. The introduction of an Agricultural Lifestyle dates back to Adam, (oops, my bad
) which occured some 6000 - 10000 years ago.

I would also note, my personal view is one where we may have some inclination to expect or believe a continual expansion from Africa with nothing but evolutionary changes taking place in a non interrupted manner. We can not rule out a mass extintion of Pre Modern Man, and a new species resuming as the predominate occupiers of this planet.

This does not intend to suggest Africa and her peoples wouldn't still be a base or starting point for Modern Man to have Originate from. Afterall, mankind at some level was created (ooops, I did it again) in the Nubian Lands of a proud and colorful Peoples 100's of thousands of years ago. Why wouldn't that occur again, in the Modern Age of Man?


Ciao

Shane



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   


We can not rule out a mass extintion of Pre Modern Man, and a new species resuming as the predominate occupiers of this planet


Except for no evidence of that occuring. Or why this 'new species' would resemble, genetically and skeletally, the pre modern men and his ancestors......



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Except for no evidence of that occuring. Or why this 'new species' would resemble, genetically and skeletally, the pre modern men and his ancestors......


Just asking.

Isn't there? There are lots of examples or recent mass extinctions, covering the time frame being discussed. Saber Tooth Tiger, Wooly Mammoths, Giant Sloth and I can list more. They died out during the Period being discussed, didn't they? And not specifically because their time had ended. A Wooly Mammoth dead instantly while still eating buttercups was found frozen in Tundra. (I think that was in Siberia several years ago). It did not even have time to swallow it's last meal.

Of course, it would have been easier for answering this, if Pre Modern Man had the ability to scribe events and leave these for us to read today, but that didn't happen, so......


As for the above noted species, isn't there evidence there, that these creatures seemingly have today, ancestors of their family tree. Now the Sloth is a Tree Creature, the Saber Tooth lost it's Sabers, and the Mammoth lost his hair.

Remember, Just asking.

Because it appears some species carried forward, in distinctly altered states, but with common ancestory, following some extinction event.

Just pondering why man wouldn't likewise have this occur, since at that point of time, there was little to seperate us from our fellow Animals, a side from utilizing tools and such.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shane

Except for no evidence of that occuring. Or why this 'new species' would resemble, genetically and skeletally, the pre modern men and his ancestors......




Isn't there? There are lots of examples or recent mass extinctions,


I took your comment to mean humans, which was the subject of the discussion, lots of lines of humans have died out but obviously not all did


Of course, it would have been easier for answering this, if Pre Modern Man had the ability to scribe events and leave these for us to read today, but that didn't happen, so......


Well they did leaves some traces and they point to lots of different version of 'man' leading up to HSS and as we know now HSN and HSD were here also as was HF. What we have now are HSS, HSS+HSN, HSS+HSN+HSD, HSS+HSD and maybe somewhere HSD+HSN


As for the above noted species, isn't there evidence there, that these creatures seemingly have today, ancestors of their family tree. Now the Sloth is a Tree Creature, the Saber Tooth lost it's Sabers, and the Mammoth lost his hair.


Ah no they died out they had 'cousins' who were similar but not from the same line, elephants for example
Elephantimorpha (Proboscidea)

Elephantida Elephantidae (elephants and mammoths)

†Primelephas
Loxodonta
Elephas
†Mammuthus
†Stegodon
†Stegolophodon

†Mammutida
†Mammutidae


Sorry I didn't understand the point you were making with your next question
.

edit on 9/4/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
What is interesting is that recent discoveries has determined that all humans have a 1% to 4% and possibly higher Neanderthal DNA, except for (pure) Africans.

And, far Eastern Asians have Denisovan DNA, but not Africans or Western/Northern Caucasians.

Some scholars have placed the Neanderthal/modern human mating beginning in the Middle East, and spreading to Asia/Europe but not Africa.

The question is, why did Neanderthal or Denisovan never enter Africa ?

Something kept them out. perhaps an advanced African Society existed with advanced "military" type capabilities ?
Perhaps a "pre"-Egyptian civilization.


Neanderthals, Humans Interbred—First Solid DNA Evidence

Siberian Fossils (Denisovan) Were Neanderthals’ Eastern Cousins, DNA Reveals


edit on Apr-08-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)


Probably land mass, as all continents were once all connected and given the nature of land mass shifts, vast areas could have been unpassable.

edit on 9-4-2012 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


The land mass shifts occurs tens/hundreds of millions of years before anything remotely man like evolved

'Africa' is a an artifical political construct from a much later age. Europe, Asia and Africa are just one continent and you can travel between them fairly easily.

As noted before the pre-Neanderthals were in Africa but either died or moved out or more probably just haven't been found - yet



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 

The land mass shifts occurs tens/hundreds of millions of years before anything remotely man like evolved
'Africa' is a an artifical political construct from a much later age. Europe, Asia and Africa are just one continent and you can travel between them fairly easily.
As noted before the pre-Neanderthals were in Africa but either died or moved out or more probably just haven't been found - yet


There was an ice age around then that altered the geographical features and general land mass, earthquakes, mountains being formed, flooded areas etc. Ice ages shape geology. But that said, the presumptions of early humans or proto humans is just a presumption based on little archaeological evidence and seeing as there are inevitable billions of other 'as yet unfound' significant archaeological 'finds' it is advisable to be cautious to even consider plotting the possible paths of species / sub species / hominids etc as there is very little evidence to suggest any real facts.
www.valdostamuseum.org...
"... The idea that modern humans originated in Africa, with populations subsequently spreading outwards from there, has continued to gain support lately. But much of that support has come from analyses of genetic variation in people today1, and from fossil and archaeological discoveries dated to within the past 120,000 years2,3 &emdash; after our species evolved. Hard evidence for the inferred African origin of modern humans has remained somewhat elusive, with relevant material being fragmentary, morphologically ambiguous or uncertainly dated. ...
... the most securely dated and complete early fossils that unequivocally share an anatomical pattern with today's H. sapiens are actually from Israel, rather than Africa. These are the partial skeletons from Skhul and Qafzeh, dating from around 115,000 years ago. Their presence in the Levant is usually explained by a range expansion from ancestral African populations, such as those sampled at Omo Kibish [ Ethiopia ] or Jebel Irhoud [ Morocco ] ... around 125,000 years ago. ..
The fact that most of the oldest hominid fossils have been found around the Great Rift Valley lakes of Africa cannot make us decisively conclude that man originated in Africa. Perhaps older hominid fossils exist elsewhere in the world waiting to be discovered. Or, if they ever existed, these fossils have not been preserved by nature and are lost to science.

majorityrights.com...
Fossils are more readily found in the African Rift valleys due to the layers of sediments and protective volcanic ash that help preserve them. Key records of human ancestry have been found along the Awash and Omo Rivers of Ethiopia, at Lake Turkana in Kenya, and Olduvai Gorge and Laetoli in Tanzania. At Hadar, in Ethiopia, river erosion exposed the site where Lucy, one of the earliest known hominid, walked between three and four million years ago. Great Rift geology in this Afar region of Ethiopia is ideal for creating fossils. It is a low area that collects sediments necessary to bury and preserve bones. There is also volcanic ash that allows scientists to date the sediments. Faulting along the rift helps by bringing old bones back to the surface where they can be found. But just because the oldest hominid fossils have been found in regions, where ideal conditions exist for their preservation, it cannot be concluded that man originated in Africa.

Evolution is a slow process. It took hundreds of millions of years for apes to evolve. It took another fifteen million years for the ape to become ape-man. Two million years passed before the ape-man could stand upright and become Homo erectus. Homo sapiens emerged 200,000 years ago. According to the ‘Out of Africa’ theory, man moved out of Africa 60,000 years ago. When he moved out, he must have had Negroid features. Are we to believe that in only 40,000 – 50,000 years the Negroid race evolved into Caucasian and Mongoloid races with vastly different physical characteristics?

The proponents of the ‘Out of Africa’ theory are increasingly seeking support of genetics. According to their hypothesis, all 7 billion people alive today have inherited the same Mitochondrial DNA from one woman who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago; and all men today have inherited their Y-chromosomes from a man who lived 60,000 years ago, probably in Africa. Genetics, as a science, is still in its infancy and the theories and conclusions of geneticists and molecular biologists are, as much as that of other scientists, still vulnerable to revisions, rifts and reversals.
edit on 9-4-2012 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Shane
 


As ever, it is a matter of what books we have read, what authorities we trust and believe in, what theories we subscribe to. I am secure in a worldwide flood theory, and you prefer a local flood theory. We will each find and cite sufficient proof for ourselves, but not for the other. Yes, I think I will do what the OP requests, and leave him and whoever else to a discussion of "science" built on an insignificantly small sample and lots of conjecture.




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join