The Biblical Flood Caused An Ice Age

[bilby]

However I'm afraid you've . . . well, "missed the boat" on the matter of why kangaroos weren't invited to Noah's party.

You see, Yahweh wasn't quite as Omnimax as he pretended to be and was completely unaware of the existence of Down-Under Land! Don't take this personally, Mr. B, but I'm afraid Australia was the creation of the Devil, Beelzebub himself.

Has anybody told Ken Ham?

 

[Swammerdami]

Noah's families situations would be considered incestuous by modern American standards, but the peoples of the ancient world did not regard cousin marriages as incest.

Many "primitive" people practiced some form of exogamy.

I thought the topic was interesting. (MUCH more interesting than the historicity of Lot's wives.) I was pleased to learn that "people of the ancient world did not regard cousin marriages as incest", but chose to mention two apparent exceptions to the rule: the Iroquois Nations, and DNA studies of families from 30,000 BC. (Google can find many more exceptions.)

Did early humans, or some vertebrates more generally, understand paternity? IIUC, the Iroquois banned marrying some of the same maternal clan, but not paternal.

Given thread topic, as shown in the title, my comment may have NOTHING to do with any Ice or Flood or even the Bible.
Let's Report the post to Moderation staff if this is a problem.

Many "primitive" people practiced some form of exogamy.

Dude, the ancient near east is only linked to the Iroquois by your imagination.

Perhaps it's my autism or lack of self-confidence, but I almost sense a whiff of anger in this sentence. Why? Why do I have a "tortured colonialist imagination"? Where did I connect the Iroquois to the Middle East? (Though all H. sapiens are close relatives. And Why does this matter anyway?)

I suppose Politesse's comment is directed at my mentions somehow being off-topic. Still, "Dude ... tortured colonialist" seems a bit stern.