Talk:Australian Aborigines

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)

How the aborigines arrived

I was interested to see the latest edit, about how Aborigines arrived in Australia. It's an interesting and valid point, but I have some concerns with the way it's written.

There's two main views on things like this: the evolutionary view and the creationary (biblical) view. I comment below on various statements from the edit, including how they fit (or not) each view:

• "The only realistic case is that they came over the sea from Indonesia...": I'd question whether it's the only realistic view, as long as you are including PNG in that. The route with the shortest individual water crossings is probably via PNG.
• "...however, this would mean that they had vastly superior boat building skills compared to the rest of the world at that time...": What time? From a creationary view, we are talking about a very few thousand years ago. From an evolutionary view we are talking 40,000 to 60,000 years ago. From a creationary view, the claim that they must have had better skills that "the rest of the world" is probably incorrect. From a creationary view, they were descended from Noah, who'd built a huge ocean-going vessel.
• "...(as strong boats would be needed to ferry whole families across the rough sea around Australia).": I believe I'm right in saying that people can easily cross from PNG to Australia (Cape Yorke Peninsula) via various smaller islands via canoe. I don't know about the other water crossings that would be involved (to get to PNG).
• "Also, it would appear that, once they reached Australia, they immediately forgot their theoretical boat building skills and never went far out to sea again.": Perhaps not "immediately", but otherwise that is entirely feasible. Forgetting skills that you don't use is quite common. Although the statement would be correct, as a debating point in the context of how they got here, I think it's largely irrelevant. Keep in mind also that for some there was a further crossing to Tasmania, and that is less feasible in a canoe.

Philip J. Rayment 19:39, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Re your your last point, Philip, (And HNY to you) they walked to Tasmania. As far as coming across Torres Strait - people island hop across there regularly in small craft, so it's more than possible. Also, if you look at a map showing water depth you will see that, apart from the Timor Trough there is shallow water between northern Australia and the Indonesian islands and PNG. Sea levels have been a lot lower than they are now. There were land bridges all over the place. AlanE 21:42, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Happy New Year to you too! Yes, a lot of land bridges existed where they no longer do, but I was under the impression that the depth of Bass Strait would have precluded there being a land bridge there at the time. But that again raises the question of when: In the creationary view the sea levels were much lower during the ice age, which lasted several hundred years after the flood, but Aborigines may not have come to Australia until after the sea levels rose. I don't know what the sea levels were supposed to be when the Aborigines arrived in the evolutionary scenario. Philip J. Rayment 23:05, 2 January 2009 (EST)

I am looking at a map of Australia as it would have been at the height of the last Ice Age. (I won't go into the times...When I "joined" CP, I decided not to get into that discussion.) Mainland Australia was joined to PNG (with a lake where the Gulf of Carpentaria is) and to Tassie (with another lake between the present King and Flinders Islands.) In fact I have two maps...neither are in scholarly works but are published under scholarly supervision. Somewhere in the recesses of my brain there is a 100 to 120 metre drop in sea levels during the last Ice Age. (I know that doesn't apply in your creational model.) I have yet another map that has a depth reading of 56 metres in the middle of Bass Strait. (Where the lake would have been).AlanE 00:07, 3 January 2009 (EST)

It's hard to avoid "that discussion", given that what we believe about origins underpins so much of our thinking.

But to the topic... Thanks for the information. I suspect that the creationary view of the Ice Age would have the same lower sea levels, which would mean that one could walk to Tasmania at the time. Which still leaves the question of whether the Aborigines arrived that early.

Philip J. Rayment 01:32, 3 January 2009 (EST)

The claim that the Aborigines came from Indonesia, Indeed does invalidate the idea that the earth is 6,000 or so years old, since every reference or research to this fact or theory ( depending on you predisposition towards science ) places the migration at approximately 50,000 years ago, therefor this article is inconsistent with other article on this site ( http://www.migrationheritage.nsw.gov.au/objects-through-time/essays/50000-years-before-present/ )... etc. just Google..