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:<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.   
      
   I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  Other than "you're biased   
   and I'm not", you are vague and rambling.   
      
   Is there something concrete that you're disagreeing with?   
      
   > 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.   
      
   "Math is real but matter is not."  A vague philosophical essay.  And...?   
      
      
   > > 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.   
      
   "Troll" meaning you've long ago run out of apologisms.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)