Talk:Australian Aborigines

From Conservapedia

6000 years

"However, others contend that the universe is only 6,000 years old, so this conclusion is often considered to be mistaken." As an indigenous Australian, this is an insult to both my religious beliefs and my culture. As an educated man with as good an understanding of science, the bible, and creationism as any other layperson, this is an insult to my intelligence. I'd like to request an edit on exactly the same grounds that Young Earth Creationists on this site routinely request edits of articles that offend their religious sensibilities. 203.166.0.220 07:09, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Could you please explain just how it insults you and how you would like it changed? I know of nothing in Aboriginal culture (as distinct from uniformitarian science) which conflicts with this statement. On the contrary, Aboriginal stories speak of Aborigines being created, whereas uniformitarian/evolutionary science has taught that Aborigines are not as evolved as Europeans. Philip J. Rayment 07:38, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I never claim to know why other people think what they do. I can, however, understand that aboriginal people have pride in the claim that they can trace a civilised heritage back 40 - 50 or more 1,000s of years which is based in an ancient dreamtime. It is obvious that the Young Earth vs Old Earth groups will never agree on anything which claims a longer time frame that the Young Earth group will accept so it seems that an article which expresses both points of view is better than one which refuses to acknowledge either. Especially on a site like this one. The insult to the religious beliefs is that the Young Earth theory is based on the certainty that the history of the world as presented in the Jewish scriptures is the only accpetable and correct history of the world - therefore, as a for granted point of view, the aboriginal religion is wrong - the creation stories of the aboriginal people come from a tradition which is much older than the Semetic one. I can only think of some very backward racists who would claim that one race of humanity is more or less "evolved" than another race. Evolutionary theory tends to look at species rather than variations within a species and I think that there would be very few evolutionists who would claim that one race is lesser than another due to evolution. Anyway, that's me for now. Have a good night/morning y'all. --Bilby 10:11, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

The problem with that explanation is that it is based on a view or set of views that are themselves disputed. I don't doubt that you are unaware of the dispute, due to the opposing (biblical) view getting very little airtime, but following are areas that I dispute.

The "ancient dreamtime" is not the basis for the belief that they've been here for 40,000+ years; that's come from a secular ideology (i.e. from radiometric dating).

The Bible is not exclusively the "Jewish scriptures". The early parts (Genesis) refers to events that predate the existence of the Jews, and was probably based on historical records that predate the Jews.

The claim that the creation stories of the Aboriginal people predate the Semitic ones is begging the question. I'm making two points here: One, that this is only the case if the biblical account is wrong, and two, that there is nothing in Aboriginal culture that claims this. Aboriginal culture/dreamtime stories, relate how things came about, but don't relate how long ago these events occurred.

As creationist, I claim that many of the Aboriginal stories are distorted accounts of the biblical stories, because they are both recalling the same actual events. Some of the Aboriginal stories have some remarkably similar points to the biblical accounts of creation, the flood, and etc. This is not surprising if they are accounts of the same events, but it is surprising if they are not.

As such, the young-Earth view is not contradicting Aboriginal religion. If anything the old-Earth view is, because it proposes that Aborigines (along with the rest of humanity) evolved from (something resembling) pond scum, whereas the Aboriginal stories generally have the Aborigines being created!

I believe that Darwin himself considered Aborigines as only a little more evolved than the apes, and evolutionary thinking along this line led to Aborigines being shot to become specimens of the missing link in museums. It wasn't just a few "very backward racists", it was the general consensus a century or so ago.

Philip J. Rayment 22:43, 12 June 2007 (EDT)