Even if that “tower of babel” story is true, people had to leave the towers vicinity and go to america. By foot. Is there any explanation that tells us how middle eastern nomads traveled thousands of kilometers, filling the eastern wastelands, breeding offspring better stuited to the disease and climate of china, mongolia, russia, and the siberia, and then going across the bering straits, then going through canada, united states, mexico, south america and chile?
And then, after all those thousands of years spent on traveling, they managed to develop thier social/political groups from bands into tribes, and then from clans into chiefdoms, and from chiefdoms into states and into empires? And develop farming, astrology, massive transportation infrastructures - and build pyramids? And ALL of that in just 5270 years?
Much less time than that. Ask a friendly neighbourhood Mormon for the scenario.
Serious answer: Other than the Mormons, I’m not aware of any official doctrine. Surely open to lots of private interpretations. And maybe some fringe denominations have specific beliefs about it.
Silly answer: Maybe they rode the dinosaurs?
Since the people who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old also believe that the dinosaur fossils were placed here as one of God’s mysteries, I would suspect that they also believe that all human races were created at the same time in situ. Were that the case, it wouldn’t be all that difficult to jump to them being able to create all that they did in 5,000 years. Native American cultures have their own creation myths, however, and they don’t include a specific timeline, to my knowledge.
Problem is that the tower of babel was located in the middle east. And technology and knowlage werent passed from people like today. If some mesopotanian village practiced agriculture, the village nearby could very well be sustained on wild grains or hunting.
And if you have a farm, or a smithy, or a carpentry, you dont go on adventures into the wild unknown. The people who leave thier homeland into unknown territories are the outcasts, the jobless young(or landless young in that time. It took much land to sustain a hunter gatherer lifestyle) or the miserable adults who could not compete with the local residents. Neither of these people are crafted masons or beuraucrats, and even if they were nuclear scientists - after like 40 years of nomadic life thier knowlage would vanish and thier offsrping would not know any of it(even if some crazy farmer decided to go nomad style, he wouldnt teach his son how to build a terrace when theyre in the wilderness).
The people that reached america had to invent farming by themselfes or learn it from thier neighbours. Since the bering straits made constant contact difficult and the siberian tundras wouldnt be fit for farming, they also lacked any farming neighbours to encourage them(indians) to switch to agrarian lifestyle.
The time scale isn’t all that far off compared to the rest of Young Earth Creationism. The Americas are now thought to have been colonized between about 15,000 and 20,000 years. The earliest beginnings of agriculture might have been 9,000 and 10,000 years ago. The major American civilizations themselves fit comfortably within the Biblical time frame. The earliest Mesoamerican civilization, the Olmecs, began about 3,500 years ago. One of the earliest in South America, Caral, may date to about 4,600 years ago.
Compared to fitting 4 billion years of Earth history into 6000, compressing the New World timeline by fourfold doesn’t seem to me to be that much of a challenge to YEC.
The problem is you’re coming at this from the viewpoint of science and applying logic, common sense, and what we actually know from archaeology to the problem. These are not the tools used by Young Earth Creationism to formulate explanations.
Native Americans are the least of it. Let’s see a creationist explain how all the marsupials (except for the opossum) ended up in Australia.
The Biblical myth of creation simply isn’t compatible with what we now know to be true about the planet.
Some of the young-earth creationists with whom I have verbally jousted with over the years have said that in the days following the Noachian Flood, the world was divided and the various peoples were separated from each other by some extraordinarily accelerated version of tectonic plate movement.
But, some of these same people suggested that koalas made it from Anatolia to Australia on mats of floating vegetation.
Theres only an amount of science and common sense you can ignore. Arent we talking in the internet, through computers? What were doing is communication which is the pinnacle of science. If someone wants to defy science then they should ride to my country on a donkey while holding up a sign - not saying that in the internet.
The same way they explain away any problems with YEC and Noah’s Ark. Handwave it away, saying “Goddidit!”
Well we are not short in the supply of moronic fanatics, but i couldnt care less about them. Like, seriously, didnt some cunny christian/jew/muslim tried to make up some crappy explanation for the origins of native americans? What about that “Creationalist” crap? Do they got anything about native americans? Is refuting the validity of the bible really that easy? I didnt even try lol.
You might be interested in the “Book of Mormon”. It describes two separate migrations of people from the Middle East to the Americas. Now, I understand that some Mormons have responded to the lack of DNA evidence supporting the story by saying that the people described in the BoM were not the only people in the Americas and that the current Native Americans are, by and large, not descended from them, but I don’t know if that is official doctrine here. Any Mormons Dopers here?
I don’t know that it is official doctrine to say “they all died,” but it’s definitely official to say “they probably all died.” Basically, the Book of Mormon says that the Middle Easterners split off into two groups, one of which largely joined the “natives” and one of which largely didn’t. The one that didn’t dies off eventually, while the ultimate genetic fate of those that joined is left largely unexplored.
The fact that there are Young Earth Creationists at all argues otherwise.
[Moderating]
Since the OP seems more interested in arguing about religion than a factual answer to the question, let’s move this over to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
There are no boats in the bible? Seems like there was one story about a rather large one.
And the great pueblos of the Anasazi came about between about 800 and 1600 AD, which is very recent, although the people themselves are thought to have arisen somewhere after 7,000 BCE (Early Basketmaker Era).
Youve misinterpreted me. I JUST want to know if theres an explanation. My reply was to the arguement that “no logic so no explanations” answer, not to a particular religious answer, which i didnt get.
Believe me - i have NO WISH to debate on RELIGION on THE INTERNET. Might as well watch the grass grow if i have that much time to waste.
Heck, are there any native American faiths that have an explanation for Afro-Eurasians?
Supposedly the South American natives welcomed the first wave of white boys coming ashore as gods because they had legends and myths about their own gods coming back someday on the backs of giant birds or somesuch (and the sails on caravels could reasonably be mistaken for wings). At least that’s what I recall from childhood Discovery-like mags, maybe an actual historian can elucidate.
Of course, one figures the notion was quickly scrapped when said white boys started acting like, well, white men on foreign soil :).