Howdy Psycho.
The debate raging on egyptsearch is whether ancient Egyptians were black people and referred to themselves as such. They are vehemently against Egyptology as presented to the public by Hawass and others. Most of those guys show their scholarly evidence to support their contentions. Their argument seems to be very persuasive. Anyway the argument isn't mine. It's a non-issue with me. By the way, has Peter V addressed any of this black Egypt controversy? Speaking of which I saw Easterwood's (who I don't know) comments over on that site few weeks ago as a new member and her premise was ancient Egypt was mixed. The forum members wouldn't entertain anything she said because their presented evidence says it wasnt possible.
Rebecca wrote:
''For some odd reason, many people have been resistant to the idea of Africa as the cradle of life, and yet, it makes perfect sense to me.''Given the psychological position of a vast number of humans I don't think it an odd reason to deny it at all even though genetics places humans there in the 'beginning.' That's what I meant by unattended explanations earlier.
''. . . some of the creatures migrated to the north and east and other hues of humans were born.''Are you referring to an Out of Africa population movement to a higher latitude as
the answer for northern Europeans' skin color... even though you said ''other hues of humans were born''? But if you meant the other hues were actually born then you have an explanation from whence those being born mated with?
My basic problem with this is, some very educated and learned individuals will say that northern
latitudes definitely is the deciding factor in Europeans' skin color; hair color and eye color is a red herring I was told.
Not a very neat dodge I said.
I questioned this position from a couple of scientists on the site and immediately took heat because they said the science involved translated into a *categorical affirmation of fact* (my use of term). I said it ain't no such thing. Well the one let loose with the name-calling and said I didn't know how to read the 'facts'. And of course I said his facts haven't been demonstrated to be 'facts' unless he believed in a smoke and mirrors explanation. Correlation isn't hard evidence from where I stand.
''We are still evolving.''Pretty confident statement considering we will never be around to see this continuation.
''I would hate to think that this still quite greedy and warlike human we still are is the end result of what we were meant to be.''...and this can be construed to mean your religiosity can tell you there has to be a better explanation in terms ''of what we were meant to be''?
If your evolution viewpoint tells you we are still evolving and my presumed interpretation of your 'meant to be' is from a religious perspective then Christians and others are right when they say man will be a much better species when God returns to corrrect humanity's wayward disposition? Then God/ID and evolution work hand-in-hand?
If life is cyclical from an evolution-only standpoint then I find it odd that evolution has seen fit to equip most humans with an unrelenting image of a creator or two.
