XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian   
   From: none@none.non   
      
   On Sep 13, 2025, Samuel Spade wrote   
   (Message-ID:<64kcckddt1a89o3eqr9ru08c5cssmato7f@4ax.com>):   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Go back and read what you wrote, no history book is fact. It is a historical   
   record which may or not be proven to be a reality, or factual. I did not   
   declare it to be fact. But a peer reviewed book which encompasses many   
   things. The problem here is that you cannot have a discussion without shade.   
   You cannot think about this type of a conversation without prejudice, and   
   that is especially noted when you have not read the entire Bible, even for   
   pleasure. You are unfamiliar with it, its authors, it concepts as you do not   
   know anything about it directly.   
      
   As an aside, I just finished reading an article here;   
   https://getpocket.com/explore/item/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind   
   Titled: Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind   
      
   What I found so interesting was all of his educational experience combined   
   with research and he came up with an understanding I had realized icy the 7th   
   grade.Yet he missed the deep realities of it, but came close. I don’t know   
   it you can read it and understand it, but it curiosity gets the better of it,   
   take a read.   
      
   >   
   > > 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.   
      
   That was pure ignorant troll speak.   
   >   
   >   
   > > > 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.   
      
   More troll speak. I’m really not into your troll games,   
   >   
   >   
   > > 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.   
      
   More troll speak. Never said that.   
   >   
   >   
   > That's lollable, Bob. Does that ploy actually work sometimes?   
      
   What a hoot.   
   >   
   >   
   > > 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)