Austin powerless,
Reacting to your comment not being PC? That is a desperate diversionary tactic. You comment was simply fanciful and contrary to known migration patterns/science,the human genome project not to mention the probability given the ice age.
You and I both know it is a logical improbability to prove rock solid a negative.

You really need to read a bit more.

Philo

Genesis was written by men who thought the earth was the centre of the universe AND flat!

It is one thing to be ignorant but it is unforgivable to remain so in light of confirmed knowledge.

Everything in the article I went to the trouble of posting for you is based on fossils, artefacts, human migration patterns and many years of consideration. What part of "The study of our human nature encompasses a variety of fields ranging from anthropology, primatology, cognitive science and psychology to paleontology, archaeology, evolutionary biology and genetics." did you not understand?

I have no difficulty in understanding why you would choose to believe in a supreme deity - the universe is awesome - beyond human cognition, it may always remain an enigma. But to deliberately ignore concrete evidence, is appalling. You are as much an embarrassment to other thinking Christians as Runner is.

Severin,
Parts of Genesis were written 5,000 years ago when man may have believed the Earth was the centre of the universe. It is unlikely you can accept anything recorded in ancient history, which happens to describe ancient culture. I assume you believe in Hamurabbi? What he had to say in his day may have shed some light on events 4,000 years ago. Most archeology of the ancient Middle Eastern past has been excavated by archeologists who are Jews, Christian or Muslim who accept the record of the Torah as history, and it is upon its text they establish their digs and their conclusions.

I noted you called me ignorant!

examinator, don't get your knickers in a twist. All I did was put forward a theory based on my own observations. As already stated, if I see solid evidence otherwise, I would drop the theory.

"Known migration patterns' are not accurate enough to dispute what I put forward, as scattered fossil evidence will not confirm exact racial/sub-species types, especially when the older the evidence, the less diverse the racial characteristics are.

Also, the human genome project would probably show no difference in both sub-species as, if we're so close genetically to primates, how much closer would we be to another human species.

What would you suggest I read for 'a bit more'?