The race issue

quote:

---

When the assyrian kings library was discovered, they found around 10,000 tablets...they collected up all they could and took them to the british museum. Its from these tablets that we have information about ancient Assyria and its kings and their way of life etc.

​

the following quote is found on page 48 in smiths book. Smith being one of the interpreters of the tablets.

​

Chaldean Account of Genesis Page 48 writes:

​

They say that the first inhabitants of the earth,
glorying in their own strength and size and despising
the gods, undertook to raise a tower whose top should
reach the sky, in the place in which Babylon now
stands; but when it approached the heaven the
winds assisted the gods, and overthrew the work
upon its contrivers, and its ruins are said to be
still at Babylon ; and the gods introduced a diversity
of tongues among men, who till that time had all
spoken the same language ; and a war arose between
Cronos and Titan. The place in which they built
the tower is now called Babylon on account of the
confusion of tongues, for confusion is by the He
brews called Babel. Euseb. Prcep. Evan. lib. ix. ;
Syncel. Chron. xliv. ; Euseb. Chron. xiii.

---

That quote does NOT come from the Assyrian tablets. The sources are even listed at the end ! (Eusebius and Syncellus). You misrepresent Smith yet again.

quote:

---

what do you class as agriculture? the aboriginals were hunter gatherers...they ate a wide variety of foods and the bush provided more then they needed.

---

We're all adults, with, I presume, dictionaries. I'm using the regular definition of agriculture.As it happens, you're lecturing the wrong person on the subject of foraging vs agriculture. I both grow my own food and forage for wild food. Guess what; foraging is much, much less efficient and I'm doing it in a far more forgiving landscape than ancient Australia. Why do you think the agricultural revolution took place at all if foraging was so effective? Trust me, if you want to put food on the table, agriculture is far more effective.The website you cite does nothing to prove your unsubstantiated claim about an excess of resources. It does say this though; You're scepticism about the antiquity of Indigenous Australian culture is simply irrelevant. The archaeological evidence is out there. If you have a problem with, say, the dating methods used to date Mungo Man (just as one example), pull up a thread and we'll have it out. Until then, you're pissing into the wind. Human activity in Australia (and America and many other places) is way older than 5000 years ago. Case closed.

quote:

---

When the assyrian kings library was discovered, they found around 10,000 tablets...

---

And not a single one of them says what you claim it does. Why not just admit with good grace that you were wrong? Trying to wriggle out of it like this is unbecoming.

quote:

---

the following quote is found on page 48 in smiths book.

---

So what? Apart from the fact that you have got the attribution wrong (again), what are we supposed to glean from this? That the Assyrians had a Babel myth too? What if they did? Does that make the story true? No.Your problem is that no matter how many sources you find discussing a Babel-style myth story, you are still left with an insurmountable problem; the evidence is incompatible with the myth. Human cultural plurality is older than the time-scale you need, therefore, no Babel.We have the archaeology. You lose. Sorry.Mutate and Survive.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

i dont come here with the intention of lecturing people magda if what you say is true, then you would think that the aboriginals who live in the remote areas today would have learnt that lesson and implemented agricultural methods while 40,000 or even 60,000 years might the a view held by many, it is not the view held by allif they really did come from from south east asia, then that puts their migration at 2,000 BCE because this is the time that Asians from china began their southward migration, settling in taiwan then further to the pacific islands around 1500 BCE...then Papua New Guinea in 1300 BCE

i have no need to misrepresent anyone

i must say that there is a lot of arrogance and insult hurling that goes on in these debatesit would be nice if people could remain civil but it seems they can't and when that happens i feel the debate gets spoiled and i tend not to take some of those comments seriouslyhence why my level of interaction wanes.

quote:

---

i dont come here with the intention of lecturing people magda

---

Okay. Sorry if I offended you, it's just that I have some practical experience of both foraging and farming. You clearly don't.

quote:

---

if what you say is true, then you would think that the aboriginals who live in the remote areas today would have learnt that lesson and implemented agricultural methods

---

Firstly, there is no reason why this should necessarily be the case. There are many hunter/gatherer cultures around the world. However long they have existed, be it 150 000 years or just 5000, they have not developed agriculture.Also worth noting is that agriculture is actually quite difficult in Australia. The land is very, very old and somewhat short on nutrients. Primitive agriculture would not provide much of a survival advantage for this reason. Indeed, you are no doubt aware that even sophisticated agricultural methods have been difficult in your country, with problems like salination.Anyway, what "you would think" is irrelevant. What matters is evidence and we have plenty of evidence for the antiquity of Indigenous Australian culture.

quote:

---

while 40,000 or even 60,000 years might the a view held by many, it is not the view held by all

---

So are you going to provide a non-Creationist source that supports a 5000 year history for human activity in Australia?

quote:

---

if they really did come from from south east asia, then that puts their migration at 2,000 BCE because this is the time that Asians from china began their southward migration, settling in taiwan then further to the pacific islands around 1500 BCE...then Papua New Guinea in 1300 BCE

---

Huh? What nonsense. The evidence is clear. People arrived in Australia long before that. Besides, weren't you claiming that the migration took place in 3000 BCE? You've changed your tune.If you want to claim a more recent date for human settlement of Ausralia, how do you explain away the clear evidence against your position? What do you make of Mungo Man?Oh, one more point. IceNorfulk started this thread talking about race being traced back to Noah's sons. CTD seemed very sure that this was correct. Now you seem to be linking race to Babel. That is the kind of contradiction that I find interesting, especially since both you and CTD probably consider yourselves to be Biblical literalists.Just a thought.Mutate and Survive.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

i have no need to misrepresent anyone

---

Which does not change the fact that you have repeatedly misrepresented Smith.Are you now prepared to be honest and admit that your "archaeological evidence" was nothing more than a highly speculative translation of a myth or legend ?

so, in a few short years, whites were able to successfully implement agriculture in such a harsh climatebut Aboriginals (who were the ones who taught the whites about this harsh land) could not do this in 40,000 years???thats laughable.the australian bush produces plenty of food. The aboriginals know this, they know where to find it and they know how to cook it...they did it in the past and they still do itare you saying that the aboriginals are older then the cultures from which they came are they???

Hi Peg, I note that you chose to ignore this; Since you haven't bothered, I'm going to go ahead and assume that the answer is no.

quote:

---

so, in a few short years, whites were able to successfully implement agriculture in such a harsh climate

​

but Aboriginals (who were the ones who taught the whites about this harsh land) could not do this in 40,000 years???

​

thats laughable.

---

Laugh it up as much as you like, that is what happened, give or take a few difficulties, mostly based on irrigation.You are once again displaying a complete ignorance of the history of agriculture (as well as that of your own country). The white settlers did not have to start from scratch, as should be painfully obvious. They had thousands of years of accumulated agricultural know-how to fall back on. Their only problems came from applying this vast wealth of practical knowledge to their new environment.They also had something that the natives did not; super-crops. I'll explain.These, as you are doubtless aware, are carrots. This is also a carrot. It doesn't look quite so tasty does it?The second picture is of Daucus carota, the wild carrot. It is the ancestor of all cultivated carrots. The difference? Centuries of selective breeding, the process of painstakingly choosing only the fattest, juiciest, sweetest and most tender carrots over successive generations. That is what gives us the colour varieties seen above, along with hundreds of varieties chosen for long roots, short roots, cold hardiness, drought hardiness, etc. Modern carrots (and by the same process, most domestic fruits and vegetables) are nutritionally superior to their wild forebears in every way. They also come with the huge advantage, common to all forms of agriculture, that you can grow them in your garden, instead of having to go looking for them.The indigenous Australians had no such advantages.Your comments are equivalent to the statement; "In just one century, Western engineers went from the primitive planes used by the Wright Brothers to the Harrier jump jet. Why didn't indigenous Australians manage to do the same in 40, 000 years?"The glaringly obvious answer is that aviation engineers were working from an existing base of engineering/physics knowledge that the Australians lacked. The same applies to the agriculture of early white settlers in Australia. They could achieve more because they were standing upon the shoulders of giants.

quote:

---

the australian bush produces plenty of food. The aboriginals know this, they know where to find it and they know how to cook it...they did it in the past and they still do it

---

Plenty for a population of about 350, 000 clearly. You have not provided a shred of evidence that there was plenty for a more sizeable population, reaching into the millions.Another thing you have failed to do is make any effort whatsoever to engage with the archaeological evidence. You can't just ignore it and hope that it will go away. Mungo Man alone is enough to prove human presence in Australia 40, 000 years ago and he is not alone; there are many sites that pre-date your fanciful version of events. It is not enough that you provide a few cherry-picked pieces of "evidence" that can be shoehorned into your imaginative Bible narrative. You must explain all the evidence, not just what suits you.If you unable to provide an explanation for all of these sites, you have no argument.

quote:

---

are you saying that the aboriginals are older then the cultures from which they came are they???

---

I wouldn't say that no. But then, I try to write in grammatically correct English, so the confused mess above would be unthinkable to me. A single question mark at the end of a sentence is usually considered sufficient.Clearly, humans, as a species, are older than any version of indigenous Australian culture. This has no bearing on the fact that human settlement in Australia and much of the rest of the world is far to ancient to be related to Babel. We have the archaeology. We win. Sorry.Mutate and Survive.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Good response there Granny.I would just add the likely Jared Diamond take on the whole situation.First what potential crops are indigenous to Australia that would have become wheat, corn, potatoes, barley, rice, cotton, and so on?Second what animals indigenous to Australia could have been tamed and used as sources of meat, milk, transportation, clothing, or labor?If a civilization has little or no necessary resources to start with, it has little chance of transitioning from a hunter gatherer to an agricultural society on its own.Edited by anglagard, : add cotton and clothing

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

i havnt changed my tune. migration has been in progress since around that time and continues today. According to one book i have, migration from mainland china to the south east asia region began at that time... im not the expert but some people claim to be and i have to take their word for it.About Mungo man, as you said, my opinion doesnt matter. But to be fair i dont hold the view that carbon dating is accurate, so instantly i would question the age they place on him.About his DNA, i have no ideas...i wouldnt even like to speculate on that one. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Hmm. Do you not see the contradiction between those two statements?This is the very crux of your problem. You have decided to listen to one set of exerts because you like the sound of their conclusions and you think that they can be reconciled with the Bible.When it comes to carbon dating however, you have decided to ignore the experts. You disagree with them, not because you have any understanding of their work, but because you don't like the implications of their conclusions. In short, you don't like carbon dating because it contradicts the Bible's young Earth.This way of approaching a topic is guaranteed to lead you astray. You need to approach these issues with an open mind, looking at as much of the evidence as possible before coming to a conclusion, not starting with the Bible (or any other authority) and discounting what does not agree with that.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Thanks anglagard,Firstly, by the time they were settling Australia, Europeans had access to foods from all over the rest of the world. Your list covers three continents. The Australians had only what was indigenous and the few species they brought with them.As far as I know, there are no animals native to Australia that could have been domesticated as beasts of burden. I'm sure that plenty could have been domesticated for meat and skins, but the barrier would surely be producing enough fodder to make the process more efficient than hunting.I have no doubt that theoretically, the plants of Australia would be just as amenable to selective breeding as those from anywhere else. It just never happened.I can't pretend to any kind of expertise on the subject, but I would imagine that the main obstacle came not from the plant or animal resources, but from the land itself.Australia does not have much in the way of tremendously promising agricultural land. Irrigation, salination and low soil fertility would, I suspect, have been the major stumbling blocks. Where these problems were less severe (such as in the verdant North), there would have been an abundance of game anyway and no particular drive for changing lifestyle.Then, there is the point that Peg seems to be missing; it doesn't matter why the indigenous Australians failed to agriculturalise. It only matters (in the context of this thread) that they did not, thus limiting their potential population. I agree that it is interesting to speculate as to why, but ultimately, there is no reason why a culture should inevitably progress toward agriculture. It is not necessarily everyone's idea of progress.

quote:

---

If a civilization has little or no necessary resources to start with, it has little chance of transitioning from a hunter gatherer to an agricultural society on its own.

---

Indeed, if the environment is better suited to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle, primitive agriculture may be a dangerous mistake rather than an advantage.Mutate and SurviveAbE; There is a fascinating article about the traditional diet of native Australians, Australian Aborigines--
Living Off the Fat of the Land by Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD, available here. Amazing stuff and a truly remarkable people.Edited by Granny Magda, : As noted.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

no, i dont like carbon dating because it is based on the assumption that the levels of C14 were the same in the the prehsitoric earth, as it is today
and there are many factors which can cause variances in the current levelsAlso, my problem isnt with a young earth because the bible does NOT indicate a young earth and i do not believe in the young earth theory. It indicates young HUMANS. Young humans with a written history that only goes back approximately 5000 years.

Peg, I cannot believe your audacity in accusing others of arrogance. Here you are again making a definite statement as if you are some authority on the subject, that is so utterly false it shows you know nothing. THIS is arrogance.Once again, I suggest you learn something about a subject before setting yourself up as knowledgable. Or at very least, write 'I have read that carbon dating is based upon the assumption...' That way it is clear to us that it is the writer of what you read who is the liar/idiot, and not you...Now, go cure your ignorance and read about carbon dating here, and focus especially on the sub-section marked calibration. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.