From what I've seen, it mostly just appears to be "muh huwhite race" types (not necessarily white people, but really just anyone who categorizes race in such a way) coping that humanity didn't spawn from their preffered area. Am I correct or is there anything actually backing up their claims?
>>16855162>deny XJewish phrase. It started as a rabbinical term "deny the correctness of rabbi such-and-such" "Deny" is properly used for denying an accusation against oneself.An English term for what you want to say would be "reject" as in "reject OOA" or even "doubt"But "deny" is very poor English in this context.
>>16855162Can you show me a monkey turning into a man? Then I'll believe evolution and big bang theory
>>16855182
>>16855165I deny that you are intelligent. (And I'm a native speaker with a college degree, so I know that's good English.)
>>16855162Yes it's mostly chuds. I wouldn't say OOA is incontrovertible but it's a fairly solid theory.
>>16855302You can't deny something that isn't about youYou could deny that YOU are intelligentBut you can't deny a general statement.
>>16855162We came from the water
>>16855343Again, that is not in accordance with how English speakers actually use that word.
>>16855241This is a man devolving into a monkey, not what i asked.
>>16855349>so apparently it's going to rain later today>nah I deny thatSee? It's bullshit. If you spoke this way twenty years ago you'd sound like an ESL.It's only become pushed really hard lately in the context of impermissible rejection of some consensus. To say someone is a "denier" implies that they are wrong and immoral. The first major usage, outside "denying the holocaust", was "climate change denier".This is a very new and artificial development.
>>16855352> [N]ow ſuch a liue vngodly, vvithout a care of doing the wil of the Lord (though they profeſſe him in their mouths, yea though they beleeue and acknowledge all the Articles of the Creed, yea haue knowledge of the Scripturs) yet if they liue vngodly, they deny God, and therefore ſhal be denied, […]1604, Jeremy Corderoy, A Short Dialogve, wherein is Proved, that No Man can be Saved without Good VVorkes
>>16855162>is there anything actually backing up their claims?No. They just really really don’t want it to be true
>>16855355Anything in modern english?
>>16855363That is Modern English, 17th century is not old enough to qualify as Middle English. What we speak now is continuous with what this author spoke, and he was using "deny" in that sense even back then. Unless you mean to say the sense disappeared and reemerged? But even then it would be merely reviving an older sense native to English, not calquing from Hebrew or whatever.
>>16855162It tends to lean on the talking point of "lack of transitional fossils" and "missing links".Which is true in some cases, like we don't have fossils of the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor.There are reasonable explanations for this, such as the likelihood that the CHLCA lived in an environment similar to that of modern chimps, with acidic soil that would have dissolved bones instead of giving them a chance to fossilize.>haha, that's just a lame cope, the creature never existedWell no it's not, it would also explain the lack of other fossils from the chimp side of the split and so on. How we're also missing the fossils from ~7 million years of chimp ancestors
>>16855162Because chimps are white
>>16855162>people denyThanks for the factcheck, Blueberg Checkmarkstein.
>>16855182africa is full of intermediary hominid species. It makes senses that's where homo sapiens first appeared, those that did not leave the continent did not adapt to different extreme conditions surviving the exploration and adaptations to various different climates
>>16855162Fact of the matter is that most stories about the distant prehistoric past. It's just a convenient story based on a handful of fossils with dubious connections to modern humans. The vast majority of humans today may not even be descended from any members of the species to which the majority of fossils found belonged to. There is also no way to really prove it short of some sci-fi time travel shenanigans. >shared DNASure. Instead of 99% similar to chimps we're 99.5% similar to long dead hominid. Yet no one believes we evolved from chimps so why should I not believe that any of these dead species are just evolved from an undiscovered hominid ancestor? It would be quite sound to suppose we did not evolve from homo-erectus and that that species is just some sibbling species to the one we actually came from. >OOAHas similar problems. You only know at best some member of species existed in a specific part of the world within the date range the dating methods allow for the particular fossil. We have ZERO conclusive evidence about what it evolved to, where it came from, etc. OOA hence should be treated as nothing but a convenient story that is most likely false.
>>16855355>yet if they liue vngodly, they deny God,Notice the religious connotationTo "deny" is conflated with evil and immorality Completely inappropriate way to describe rejecting a scientific hypothesis
>>16855355>vngodly>beleeue>wil>Good VVorkesMake up your damn mind. Is it "u" or "v"? Is it "w" or "vv"?
>>16855980They were not distinct letters then, the distinction between them was purely graphical and positional.
>>16855182That's not how it works and nobody has ever claimed that
>>16855743>It would be quite sound to suppose we did not evolve from homo-erectus and that that species is just some sibbling species to the one we actually came fromYou’re so close to getting it
>>16856014Have you even seen the famous evolutionist photos?
>>16855302>with a college degreeIt's so funny you think that actually has some kind of inherent value.
>>16855182>>16855182>a monkey turning into a manthat is not what happened
>>16855182We didn't evolve linearly from monkeys, we separated from them due to an internal chromosome mutation.
>>16855165
>>16855162OOA was used to justify multiculturalism and ethnic replacement of Whites, implying that we were all Africans (subsaharans "negroes") as opposed to hominids which originated in Africa, spread to the rest of the world and produced different subspecies which are genetically very distinct, and it's not just skin color.I think out-of-Africa is true, it's the egalitarian diversity intepretation that is wrong.
People find the thought that their ancestors were black so abhorrent they desperately look for a different explanation. I don't like the thought either, but I think it's because of a negative association with modern day black people. You say the word 'Somalia' and I have a repulsion to the place too, even though geographically it's probably very nice.
It all started with an alien Ikea wardrobe
my issue with ooa theory is the non-scientific implications that stem from it, and the fact it is more political now than scientific, op's comment can serve as example of latter.there were several waves of hominids migrating from africa, each very distinct, and some decided to do a u-turn and move back.implication here is evolution only ever occurred in africa, and stopped (or slowed down dramatically) as soon as anyone stepped out of africa.or rather, only thing that ever happened outside of africa is mixing (e.g., neanderthal & cro-magnon dna traces in europeans), with evolution only ever being present in africa.there are clearly holes in the theory, and denying that is done either by really dumb people, or people intending to mislead, which is definitely not a revolutionary statement.therefore, theory itself is not based on science, and questioning the fundamentals, i.e., whether first human came from africa, is completely acceptable.for some reason, opposition to this theory is presented as only being in the form of racists, or creationists, when in fact it has critics from within its own field.thing is, it is not a hot research, there is still a lot of work to do, but noone really cares.the reason we say europeans have cro-magnon and neanderthal admixtures is because there's been research done there, other continents are still pretty much in the dark. theory is "good enough", and further research is expensive, so it's considered as "correct enough".
I cannot be convinced that humans are all the same species, nor can I be convinced that humans all descended from Adam and Eve (or rather Noah's incestuous family). That's all there is to it.
>>16855162Fossil evidence to the contrary points at the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions being where Homo and Pan split, and where H.S.sapiens split from other, early hominids.
>>16855162>implying this thread isn't bait/propaganda thread
>>16855162Who denies it and what is the alternative? Do they believe that Euro humans evolved from a Euro homo erectus, Asian humans from an Asian homo erectus etc? They look similar due to convergent evolution? Seems crazy.
>>16855352Yes. Using the word 'deny' in this context automatically implies the otherside is correct. This not how science is done, this is how jewish propaganda (the most dangerous form of propaganda) is done.
>>16855302Yeah, I am a middle school dropout with more field experience than any graduate and I say this >>16855165 also.>>16855162Because evidence suggests otherwise. There are archaic homos all over the place, indicating that the story is not so simple and, obvious efforts to devalue traditional culture into one giant orgy that we aint invited to.
>>16859513>implication here is evolution only ever occurred in africa, and stopped (or slowed down dramatically) as soon as anyone stepped out of africa.or rather, only thing that ever happened outside of africa is mixing (e.g., neanderthal & cro-magnon dna traces in europeans), with evolution only ever being present in africa.What? How is that implied?
>>16855165>>16855349>>16855352>>16855983>>16859518>>16855979Why is this reply section so full of semantics -_-
