Noah's Ark Discovery?

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Dude.

I'm a girl. Not a dude.

You keep adding things to the study that the study never addressed or claimed.

No. I'm discussing the entire study.

And then you say I cannot read.

You can only read that which you wish to read.
You fail to read the entire study in context.

I quoted the study.
They came from haplogroups matching Indo european

The study on those particular mummies says IMMIGRANTS INTO EGYPT briefly had the power in a part of Egypt .. not even all of Egypt. It doesn't say Egypt was totally wiped out and then repopulated by people from the Middle East, which is what your opinion piece tried to claim. In fact, the study goes on to say that, after immigration from the near/Middle East and Mediterranean, there was immigration in from AFRICA. DIFFERENT DNA ... showing that not all the DNA coming in was from the near/Middle East. Proving yet again there was no world wide flood wiping out everyone except 8 people floating on a boat.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Noah was a king in Sumer.

Noah would have been king of NOBODY. There wouldn't have been anyone to rule over.

The NOAH story comes from earlier stories out of Sumer. Stolen by the Hebrews. Names changed. Story changed to fit the Hebrew religion. There was no NOAH.

Babel. They all had to use the paleo pictographs to form their tongues.
Shem was the closest to the original.

Word salad. That makes absolutely no sense.

If you are trying to talk about languages ... the Egyptian language was the same before, during and after the 2400bc alleged flood period. Any offspring of Noah would not have known the language ... yet you want us to think they suddenly started speaking and writing a dead language and adopting their culture and gods. MAKES NO SENSE.

They deified themselves.
Ham being Ra.
Osiris being Nimrod.

The Egyptian god RA PREDATES the 2400BC flood time period. So no.
Your imaginary fellow 'Ham' could not have been RA.

Noahs offspring created Egyptian culture.
You are talking in circles.

No. The Egyptian culture, gods, language all existed before, during and after 2400BC. UNCHANGED. Noahs offspring did NOT create Egyptian culture nor the Egyptian language. Easily proven.

Ham hated Noah.
He screwed his mother, Noahs wife and bore Cush.
Canaan did the same. He screwed Noahs wife.

Maybe. Maybe not. Scholars disagree. They were all imaginary and didn't really exist so it really doesn't matter anyways.

Bwahaha
And you call me stupid.

One more thing to add to the Egyptian gods.
Isis is Athena.
She is Naamah, Noahs wife who had sex with her son Ham and left Noah with Ham

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Dude.

I'm a girl. Not a dude.

You keep adding things to the study that the study never addressed or claimed.

No. I'm discussing the entire study.

And then you say I cannot read.

You can only read that which you wish to read.
You fail to read the entire study in context.

I quoted the study.
They came from haplogroups matching Indo european

The study on those particular mummies says IMMIGRANTS INTO EGYPT briefly had the power in a part of Egypt .. not even all of Egypt. It doesn't say Egypt was totally wiped out and then repopulated by people from the Middle East, which is what your opinion piece tried to claim. In fact, the study goes on to say that, after immigration from the near/Middle East and Mediterranean, there was immigration in from AFRICA. DIFFERENT DNA ... showing that not all the DNA coming in was from the near/Middle East. Proving yet again there was no world wide flood wiping out everyone except 8 people floating on a boat.

They did dna sampling of the mummies.
The results matched the haplogroups of Indo Europeans.
The Anotolia region where Noah's ark was said to have settled

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Bwahaha
And you call me stupid.

I would .. but the rules here say Ii can't.

You failed to address the facts presented. You are making up a load of crap.

- The Egyptian god RA PREDATES 2400BC. So your imaginary fellow 'Ham' could not be the Egyptian god Ra.

- The Egyptian culture, gods, language all existed before, during and after 2400BC. UNCHANGED. Noahs offspring did NOT create Egyptian culture nor the Egyptian language. Easily proven.

- The NOAH story comes from earlier stories out of Sumer. Stolen by the Hebrews. Names changed. Story changed to fit the Hebrew religion. There was no NOAH.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
They did dna sampling of the mummies.
The results matched the haplogroups of Indo Europeans.
The Anotolia region where Noah's ark was said to have settled

And as I said - The study on those particular mummies says IMMIGRANTS INTO EGYPT briefly had the power in a part of Egypt .. not even all of Egypt. It doesn't say Egypt was totally wiped out and then repopulated by people from the Middle East, which is what your opinion piece tried to claim. In fact, the study goes on to say that, after immigration from the near/Middle East and Mediterranean, there was immigration in from AFRICA. DIFFERENT DNA ... showing that not all the DNA coming in was from the near/Middle East. Proving yet again there was no world wide flood wiping out everyone except 8 people floating on a boat.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Bwahaha
And you call me stupid.

I would .. but the rules here say Ii can't.

You failed to address the facts presented. You are making up a load of crap.

- The Egyptian god RA PREDATES 2400BC. So your imaginary fellow 'Ham' could not be the Egyptian god Ra.

- The Egyptian culture, gods, language all existed before, during and after 2400BC. UNCHANGED. Noahs offspring did NOT create Egyptian culture nor the Egyptian language. Easily proven.


- The NOAH story comes from earlier stories out of Sumer. Stolen by the Hebrews. Names changed. Story changed to fit the Hebrew religion. There was no NOAH.

It should be obvious to you by now.
Your Egyptian timelines are wrong.
Everything you are trying to shoehorn into studies that never addressed what you claim is confirmation bias.
That is why you hang your hat on them.
And then call people stupid for not believing your opinion as the only narrative.
Modern anthropology and the dna haplogroups show your opinion is outdated and wrong.
And you simply have no skillets to adjust.
So you lash out in angry appeals that you be believed for your opinion is all that matters.
The study you and I are addressing of the oldest mummies clearly state they match up with Indo European Aryan people

Btwy, Cush started Africa, Mizraim started Egypt.
They are brothers.
Which explains later migration.
Later migration fromm Africa.
Later

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
It should be obvious to you by now.
Your Egyptian timelines are wrong.

No, they aren't. YOUR STORY is what is wrong.

The study you and I are addressing of the oldest mummies clearly state they match up with Indo European Aryan people

Again ... that was a limited study on a small group of leadership in one area. It showed IMMIGRATION into an established Egyptian population because mummies from REST OF EGYPT show different from that study. There is NOTHING about that study that verifies a wipe out of Egypt and a repopulation of Noahs offspring. Nothing.

Problems with the study shown here

In 2022, archaeologist Danielle Candelora stated that there were several limitations with the 2017 Scheunemann et al. study such as “new (untested) sampling methods, small sample size and problematic comparative data”.[14]

In 2023, Stiebling and Helft acknowledged that the 2017 study had performed the largest study on ancient Egyptians but noted that the findings still derived from a small sample of mummies from one site in Middle Egypt dating to the New Kingdom and later periods. They also stated that this study could not represent earlier populations or Egyptians from Upper Egypt who were geographically closer to Sub-Saharan populations.[15]

In 2023, Christopher Ehret argued that the conclusions of the 2017 study were based on insufficiently small sample sizes, and that the authors had a biased interpretation of the genetic data.[16] Ehret also criticised the Schuenemann article for asserting that there was “no sub-Saharan genetic component” in the Egyptian population and cited previous genetic analysis which had already identified the Horn of Africa as a source of a significant population component that spread into Egypt.[17]

You fail to address these facts ... just a blanket statement 'they are wrong' ... they are not wrong!

- The Egyptian god RA PREDATES 2400BC. So your imaginary fellow 'Ham' could not be the Egyptian god Ra.

- The Egyptian culture, gods, language all existed before, during and after 2400BC. UNCHANGED. Noahs offspring did NOT create Egyptian culture nor the Egyptian language. Easily proven.

- The NOAH story comes from earlier stories out of Sumer. Stolen by the Hebrews. Names changed. Story changed to fit the Hebrew religion. There was no NOAH.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

The thing is Egypt was already populated and thriving, so there is that.

Hence my ambivalence to entertain your assessment of the matter.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Btwy, Cush started Africa, Mizraim started Egypt.
They are brothers.

The 'stupid' has reached it's peak.
I'm not going to bother addressing any of this anymore.
Can't fix 'stupid'.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

The thing is Egypt was already populated and thriving, so there is that.

Hence my ambivalence to entertain your assessment of the matter.

I guess that is a thing.
I do not believe that is what modern anthropology is saying and certainly not what this study on the most ancient mummies is claiming.
But yes, it is a thing.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
It should be obvious to you by now.
Your Egyptian timelines are wrong.

No, they aren't. YOUR STORY is what is wrong.

The study you and I are addressing of the oldest mummies clearly state they match up with Indo European Aryan people

Again ... that was a limited study on a small group of leadership in one area. It showed IMMIGRATION into an established Egyptian population because mummies from REST OF EGYPT show different from that study. There is NOTHING about that study that verifies a wipe out of Egypt and a repopulation of Noahs offspring. Nothing.

Problems with the study shown here

In 2022, archaeologist Danielle Candelora stated that there were several limitations with the 2017 Scheunemann et al. study such as “new (untested) sampling methods, small sample size and problematic comparative data”.[14]

In 2023, Stiebling and Helft acknowledged that the 2017 study had performed the largest study on ancient Egyptians but noted that the findings still derived from a small sample of mummies from one site in Middle Egypt dating to the New Kingdom and later periods. They also stated that this study could not represent earlier populations or Egyptians from Upper Egypt who were geographically closer to Sub-Saharan populations.[15]

In 2023, Christopher Ehret argued that the conclusions of the 2017 study were based on insufficiently small sample sizes, and that the authors had a biased interpretation of the genetic data.[16] Ehret also criticised the Schuenemann article for asserting that there was “no sub-Saharan genetic component” in the Egyptian population and cited previous genetic analysis which had already identified the Horn of Africa as a source of a significant population component that spread into Egypt.[17]

You fail to address these facts ... just a blanket statement 'they are wrong' ... they are not wrong!

- The Egyptian god RA PREDATES 2400BC. So your imaginary fellow 'Ham' could not be the Egyptian god Ra.

- The Egyptian culture, gods, language all existed before, during and after 2400BC. UNCHANGED. Noahs offspring did NOT create Egyptian culture nor the Egyptian language. Easily proven.

- The NOAH story comes from earlier stories out of Sumer. Stolen by the Hebrews. Names changed. Story changed to fit the Hebrew religion. There was no NOAH.

Who was, historically, Lord of Errat that Enmerkar corresponded with in cuneiform script embedded in rock that we can read today?
Is enmerkar Nimrod?

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Sorry, what is the study on ancient mummies claiming?

Link, please?

originally posted by: andy06shake
Link, please?

He tried to link to an opinion piece that this proves Noahs offspring populated an empty Egypt. The ORIGINAL science story came from this -

Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods

and it says nothing about Egypt being wiped out and having to be repopulated by middle easterners.

It's a small study of some mummies in a certain part of Egypt. I posted information showing other studies from other parts of Egypt have different results.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Sorry, what is the study on ancient mummies claiming?

Link, please?

Go ahead and read the links both Flersfan and I posted.
It claims the oldest mummies in Egypt have dna matching Indo European haplogroups showing identity with near east, Levant and anatolia

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

As far as I'm aware there is no ""widely accepted scientific evidence"" supporting the claim that the oldest mummies in Egypt have DNA matching Indo-European haplogroups.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Ta.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: andy06shake
Link, please?

He tried to link to an opinion piece that this proves Noahs offspring populated an empty Egypt. The ORIGINAL science story came from this -

Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods

and it says nothing about Egypt being wiped out and having to be repopulated by middle easterners.

It's a small study of some mummies in a certain part of Egypt. I posted information showing other studies from other parts of Egypt have different results.

From the link Flyersfan has continued to draw from and was in the original link I provided

We find that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic Anatolian and European populations (Fig. 5a,b). When comparing this pattern with modern Egyptians, we find that the ancient Egyptians are more closely related to all modern and ancient European populations that we tested (Fig. 5b), likely due to the additional African component in the modern population observed above. By computing f3-statistics38, we determined whether modern Egyptians could be modelled as a mixture of ancient Egyptian and other populations. Our results point towards sub-Saharan African populations as the missing component

We find that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic Anatolian and European populations (Fig. 5a,b). When comparing this pattern with modern Egyptians, we find that the ancient Egyptians are more closely related to all modern and ancient European populations that we tested (Fig. 5b), likely due to the additional African component in the modern population observed above. By computing f3-statistics38, we determined whether modern Egyptians could be modelled as a mixture of ancient Egyptian and other populations. Our results point towards sub-Saharan African populations as the missing component

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Sorry, what is the study on ancient mummies claiming?

Link, please?

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

So what comes next.

I suppose Jesus was a white fellow also with blue eyes and long flowing locks of hair, just like in all the pictures?

The study proves little im afraid and is not exactly what we would call ""widely accepted scientific evidence"" by any manner or means.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

So what comes next.

I suppose Jesus was a white fellow also with blue eyes and long flowing locks of hair, just like in all the pictures?

The study proves little im afraid and is not exactly what we would call ""widely accepted scientific evidence"" by any manner or means.

Lol
It is widely accepted by science today that men can be women.
What does widely accepted science mean?
Even the study in question first started with identifying male and female.
I guess by your "widely accepted science", this study is already debunked because they could identify by mtdna and the y chromosome being present or not.
I guess we have to wait for more paleo pictographs determine their preferred pronouns before we can validate more.

Oh, and there are no pics or renditions of Mashiach.
Unlike Mohammed where we know he was redheaded and pale white according to their scriptures.