Why did only brown people emigrate to America before the Europeans?

@hippyjoe1955 were those white people the survivors from Atlantis?

@SpudMuffin I rather doubt it. indigenous people who were there when the land separated.

@hippyjoe1955 indigenous white people? Approximately 200 million years ago?

@SpudMuffin There weren't even mammals that long ago.

@NativePortlander1970 hippyjoe1955 seems to think there were.

@NativePortlander1970 Not a Mormon. I am able to read the Bible where it records the land separating. Genesis 10:25. The land separated. If that is recording the tectonic plates moving suddenly and rapidly then it would make sense that the land where people were living moved and became separated by water. The 'white people' in what is now North America were according to the people we call natives said that they eliminated all the white people. Is it simply native lore? Who knows. I just find it interesting how different peoples have different histories. I certainly am not jumping up and down stating this absolute truth. I am simply relaying what I have been told by native knowledge keepers. If want to argue I can tell you where they live and you can go argue with them.

@hippyjoe1955 The Bible does not record geological events; and its lyrical separation of land and water is only how some unknown Ancient Hebrew (or earlier, perhaps Zoroastrian) scribe imagined it.

It's the wrong way round anyway: the water cannot have condensed into oceans until the planet was sufficiently cool; but we cannot criticise the ancient author for not knowing that. While tectonic plates move at typically <30mm a year.

The diffusion of humans and their earlier hominids must have been from West to East, from Africa, across Europe and Asia; and somehow across the Bering Strait. There is thought to have been a "land bridge" caused by glacial times' low sea-level though I would have thought the Siberian - Canadian latitudes consequently deep under ice at the same time.

Perhaps instead, they did indeed cross the Strait as sea, using whatever form of rafts or boats they may have had - we'd need ask an archaeologist.

Skin colour would have changed over the tens or hundreds of thousands of years involved, as people spread and separated across the world and its different climatic provinces.

@ArishMell actually the Bible does record such things. Sadly many people don't know how to read it. The fact is that such a events are only recorded as background not as all that important. The land separated. Well yes the techtonic plates did move and according to Geologist Dr Kurt Wise they moved very quickly. He says you can still find evidence of the rapid movement in the magma. Not being a geologist I can't verify or deny what he said based on my own study.

@ArishMell One other small nit to pick. We have no evidence that the earth was ever too hot for liquid water. That is simply the Genesis account according to evolutionists/materialists. If we accept the Idea that the earth was brought into existence from the potentials of God it could have standing water on its surface from the moment it was brought into existence. The science is not nearly as settled as you would want to believe. We don't have any evidence supporting the materialist Genesis account so anything it says is simply wild speculation. So why do you think the earth is covered with water and mars is bone dry?

@hippyjoe1955 Why not just admit you want only to think of the planet's origins as the Ancient Hebrews imagined it?

I don't know what is a "materialist Genesis" account. Genesis is Genesis: a book simply stating its writer's religious belief. It stands as it is: an ancient myth first written down maybe 1000 - 2000 BCE by some unknown Hebrew priest.

What it does suggest to me is that with the rest of the Torah / Bible anthology, the writers were attempting a sort of "Year 0" approach to help fuse their tribes into what became the cohesive Jewish culture, determined to rid itself of its people's ancestral culture and faith.

So although there is not a shred of anyhting that could be called "science" in the Bible, despite what the Greeks and others were doing (though sometimes getting wrong!) in that era, the OT could be heavily political. The Hebrews were not stupid but they had other things on their minds, like survival and building a society.


By all means believe it is all God's handiwork, but don't turn Him into a mere celestial conjuror and dismiss the growing, evolving body of serious knowledge of His work, just for a Late Bronze Age, tribal myth the majority of modern theologians regard as simply a poetical metaphor. God or no God, the Universe is something far, far greater and more majestic than scriptural literalism or distorting science to fit old fables can cope with.

@ArishMell as opposed to? Materialism is materialism and is not a viable scientific option. Something does not come from nothing. Life does not come from non living. Information does not come from ignorance.

@ArishMell He's mormon, he's as antiSemitic as the catholics are, they think they're the original Jewish People and have the rights to Jewish Pristhood under the Order of Malchezedic. Read the origins of Abraham in Genesis to understand that one.

@NativePortlander1970 Neither the Mormons nor any other Christian denomination can possibly make such an arrogant claim; and I don't suppose any modern Catholics would agree with your allegation. The Mormons might claim theirs a more fundamental form of Christianity, but not from any real evidence.

The Copts think themselves the nearest to the original Christianity defined by the Nicean Creed made some 300 years after Jesus' death - and after some arguing whether Jesus really had any Divine characteristics.

I don't have a Bible but after a screenfull of assorted links, found Wikipedia explains the convoluted but vague early history of the Jews as far as can be gleaned from what survives of their own writings. No-one else recorded it at the time.

It seems Malchezedic was either a personal name or title, or perhaps both; but importantly he is named as the first priest of the Judaic religion's early, hereditary, priest-king line.

Even Jewish scholars themselves seem uncertain of just who this man was in reality, because the Abrahamic faiths have only fragments of any records, and those most likely written by the priestly caste themselves.

Some Jewish and Christian scholars over time have accorded the title Malchezedic to Jesus, or considered the two to be one being: when you start trying to understand the history of the Abrahamic, Hebrew culture, you soon find nothing is at all definite!

@ArishMell I have mormons in my paternal family, they definitely make the claim they are the originals.

@ArishMell As for wikipedia, it's very untrustworthy.

@NativePortlander1970 I trust that better than I'd trust many other sources.

The fact is that Judaism and Christianity are so old there are no genuine, complete, corroborated records of their history, but a heck of a lot of different interpretations.

@ArishMell Actually Judaism and Christainity have some of the oldest texts known to man. Compare Christian texts to any other book and you will find that the earliest texts we have are much much much closer to the events recorded than any other books of antiquity. Simple little fact. The oldest copy we have of Homer's works are at least 600 years after they were written. The oldest copy we have of the New Testament writings are within 1/2 a century from when they were written.

@hippyjoe1955 The Asian cultures are older but I don't know if they have older writings; but anyway, the surviving OT material is incomplete and only from one set of sources scattered over a few centuries.

So we can only take the writers' words for it and treat them with respect, but sensibly. There must be a lot that has disappeared.

@ArishMell we don't know that. In fact the Chinese age of the earth and the Jewish age of the earth is off by about 50 years. They also talk about a world wide flood so again....

@hippyjoe1955 The Epic of Gilgamesh says it was only regional around Mesopotamia 🙄

@NativePortlander1970 And it should be believed over the Bible why? Pretty much every culture in the world has a flood account in it. The problem with Gilgamesh is the raft would not have been sufficient.

@hippyjoe1955 We do know. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls was not an intact library of pristine manuscripts.

Neither of the Chinese and Jewish myths do anything but tell us what those people believed in their own time. Why they seem to co-incide in Earth-age guesses I don't know, but that is not a reason to assume anything mystical. Far more likely is simply co-incidentally similar ideas of their own histories' ages - or what they wanted to people to think those were. They had no way to calculate physical processes so just guessed everything in human-history terms. They also tended to use numbers like 7 and 40 in mystical, metaphorical ways as well as simple counting.

Huge floods occur in many ancient myths, but that's not surprising. Major floods are common enough for rare ones to be so devastating, perhaps wiping out entire communities, that some could have become folk-memory. Then eventually someone much later writes the stories as they heard it from their Grandmas; and no-one bothers to question the tales until centuries or millennia later.

The major marine transgressions can be discounted as the most recent, bringing sea-level to near what we see now, was far too long ago for human folk-memory let alone history, even if rapid enough at fastest to be noticeable generation-by-generation. None covered the entire land like some sort of primeval Waterworld: there is just not enough water on the planet for that! Though I rather liked that silly film's introductory animation...

My suggestion for the Biblical one would be based on an unusually large flood on the marshes between the Rivers Tigris and Euphrates. (The ones Saddam Hussein tried to drain.) Early geologists tried to make some of their observations fit around the Noah myth, but soon realised that does not work.

@hippyjoe1955 Materialism is neither scientific nor theological. It is simply a desire for physical property and riches. So tacking the adjective to the title of a Biblical book means nothing.

@ArishMell Yeah that doesn't match geology. Give Dr Kurt Wise a listen. He knows a lot more about geology than you or I do. BTW did you give Patrick Moore a listen yet?