XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian   
   From: sam@spade.invalid   
      
   None  wrote:   
   > On Sep 13, 2025, Samuel Spade wrote   
   > (Message-ID:):   
   >   
   > > None   wrote:   
   > > > On Sep 12, 2025, Samuel Spade wrote   
   > > > (Message-ID:<415ackd3pmqn6hhtfgtifth1hqhrfn5ogg@4ax.com>):   
   > > >   
   > > > > None   wrote:   
   > > > > > On Sep 12, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote   
   > > > > > (Message-ID:<10a2dt4$3cj$1@dont-email.me>):   
   > > > >   
   > > > > (snip)   
   > > > >   
   > > > > > > That the origins of all human beings can be traced back to Africa,   
   which   
   > > > > > > is where the first modern humans arose.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > That is a total rewrite of Human history, migratory patterns, etc,   
   even   
   > > > > > DNA   
   > > > > > disproves that thinking. And so does the DNA and genomes of chimps   
   and   
   > > > > > humans.   
   > > > >   
   > > > > You are confusing Bible mythology with human history. The Bible is not   
   > > > > a history book.   
   > > >   
   > > > Your assumptions does not truth make. Assumptions of this sort are based   
   on   
   > > > ignorance whether willful or or simple lack of knowledge.   
   > >   
   > > You didn't know there's a huge body of recorded knowledge that's not   
   > > based on the bible at all? Much of it is personal eyewitness info from   
   > > persons of known identity, unlike the bible. That's not assumptions, Mr.   
   > > Assumer.   
   >   
   > The subject you were replying about was the Bible which you called a   
   > mythology out of sheer ignorance.   
      
   No, the subject was human origins.  You tried to pass of biblical   
   mythology as historic fact, which it isn't.   
      
      
   > Then you wandered off, shifting the goal posts with yet more assumptions.   
      
   You don't understand the expression "shifting the goal posts".   
      
      
   > > And that body of knowledge has few points of agreement with the bible.   
   >   
   > Why would it? You really need to go to school and learn about history, and   
   > historians.   
      
      
   Thank you for admitting the bible doesn't coincide with known history.   
   That's exactly what I was trying to convince you of.   
      
      
   > > Guess what that means?   
   > >   
   > > Assume your way out of that.   
   >   
   > R U Kidding me? You are using a bag so wet with water than one more drop of   
   > water would rupture the whole thing.   
      
      
   Funny that you can't contradict anything factual.  I guess bluster is   
   all you have.   
      
      
   > There is your ignorance speaking once again. The genome controversy is   
   > irrefutable since the debate first started in this century and has totally   
   > fallen apart by 2017. I recently read a paper on the subject and the   
   > variances, which included the whole picture. Wish I had saved it just of this   
   > occasion.   
      
   There you go again.... you once had absolute proof that you're right and   
   everyone is wrong, but you can't be troubled to find it again.   
      
   That's lollable, Bob.  Does that ploy actually work sometimes?   
      
      
   > As Bob drawled, Monkey see, Monkey do, that doesn’t mean everyone can tell   
   > the difference between a chimp and some humans, ;) Play it, Sam.   
      
   Do you drawl, Bob?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)