Human Migration: A Brief History

June 5, 2007

Using archaeology, fossil studies, climatology, mtDNA, and Y chromosome evidence, Stephen Oppenheimer and the folks at the Bradshaw Foundation created this amazing visual aid of the history of human migration over the past 160,000 years.

We’ll add this to the list of things we’ll never see in the Creation Museum. You know, in addition to real science, raising IQ levels, and mohawks.

[tags]atheist, atheism, archaeology, fossil, climatology, mtDNA, Y chromosome, Stephen Oppenheimer, Bradshaw Foundation, Creation Museum[/tags]

June 5, 2007

Video Inside the Creation Museum

June 5, 2007 You Know You're An Atheist When...

""Discuss" as a sign-off seems to only ever be shorthand for "the grown-ups have spoken, ..."

Joan D'Ork (Gonzoline)

Richard Dawkins is Still Denying the ..."

"It sounds fake, like he was trying to pump up the crowd to get them ..."

Jezebel'sOlderSister

“Prophet” Has Laughing Fit, Then Calls ..."

""Young gayling"... 😁"

Andy Horsuroddinon

“Prophet” Has Laughing Fit, Then Calls ..."

"'And you will know them by their guns'"

Boreal

“Prophet” Has Laughing Fit, Then Calls ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

globalizati

That was cool. I look forward to going back through and looking at the resources they used to create the map. I wonder if the maddening slowness of the map is some sort of intentional history lesson?

Have you read Luigi Cavalli-Sforza’s The Great Human Diasporas?
Maria

that’s really neat Hermant. thanks for putting it up 🙂
HappyNat

Way cool stuff. Thanks.
Anatoly

Simply amazing.
diana

It is excellent but I object strongly to the following:

1. The title “Journey of Mankind” – should have been “Journey of Humankind.”

2. The representative picture on the intro–male, of course. Why not a man and a woman?

3. Reference to Neanderthals as “neanderthal man.” Presumably to avoid the problem of referring to them as “human”? (Why not just Neanderthals then?)

These are not quibbles. I’m tired of seeing women marginalized. Man is not the measure of all things. Sexism is not scientific. Sadly, it seems even atheists can be sexists.
cautious

Sadly, it seems even atheists can be sexists.

Why assume that the people who made the movie are atheists?

…or that, by linking to this movie, that Hemant is passively supporting the marginalization of women?
diana

“Why assume that the people who made the movie are atheists?”

I’m not.

“…or that, by linking to this movie, that Hemant is passively supporting the marginalization of women? ”

I didn’t.

I pointed out that this particular thing, whatever else its merits, was sexist.

You are implying all sorts of things I didn’t say.
Karen

Way coool – love it! Thanks for that link.

Now, the next time we have a discussion about the “Out of Africa” theory… we have a great resource! 🙂
Maria

just curious, who did actually make the website?
cautious

diana,

I pointed out that this particular thing, whatever else its merits, was sexist.

Right, and then you said the part that I raised issue with,

Sadly, it seems even atheists can be sexists.

…I threw out two guesses on why you wrote this: that you thought the presentation’s makers were atheists, or that Hemant was sexist. Since neither of those were true, was your comment a non sequitur? If so, I’ll end this paragraph with one too: Sadly, it seems even atheists can be puppy-kickers.

I too think it is disturbing when anthropology or other studies of prehistoric peoples are male-centric. Unless a fossil is of a male (which sometimes can be told from cranial morphology), then its stupid to call something “Neanderthal man”. I don’t think of this as active sexism, i.e., I don’t think that referring to “ancient man” keeps women out of anthropology. I seems to me to be more pervasive, passive sexism, wherein human accomplishments (such as migration) are just assumed to be done by males.
diana

Cautious: You are simply not dealing with the issue. So I won’t engage.

This presentation is good, but employs sexist terminology. I pointed that out. I

Sorry you took offense. That says more about you than about the rightness or wrongness of what I said. Life’s too short to deal with assholes. You are an asshole. So I won’t deal with you.

Cheers.
cautious

diana, it’s simple. You, in an otherwise totally valid and intelligent post, made an apparently throwaway statement about atheists being sexists. I, not being a sexist atheist, was confused about this and wanted to know how you reached this conclusion. You refused / refuse to accept that you made that statement, and instead claim I am the one not dealing with an issue. Textbook case of projection.

Let me throw out a hypothetical example. If I came into a discussion board, made a nice progressive intelligent statement (like, say, the Catholic Church hates women and here are 30 reasons why), and then ended my post with “Catholic priests all worship the Devil”, what would happen?

Wouldn’t at least one person there wonder why I accused priests of being satanic? Should I get a free pass for my stupid statement at the end because the rest of my post was valid?

I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, but I personally think that saying something questionable at the end of an otherwise valid speech is worthy of questioning. I’m sorry that your taking offense at my questioning occurred, and I hope that your deeming of me as an asshole has helped you work through your anger at the sexism you see in atheists.

I’m also sorry that you did not take the opportunity to notice that the reason I was offended was because you called atheists sexists. It didn’t seem that difficult of a concept to grasp, but you completely decided to ignore it, while pretending as if I didn’t get your point. I don’t understand the point of posting on a forum and then purposely ignoring feedback. Maybe I’m just an asshole like that.