[Bahadur]

glock glockler:

I might be opening myself up to a big kick here, but is it possible that the South Pacific aborigines might have been descended from a "white" tribe or migration that ended far away from home?

That is highly unlikely. The South Pacific aborgines do not share common identifying genetic features with Europeans. Remember what I wrote about tortured explanations when Europeans first encountered blonde aborigines? We must get over it, but blonde hair is NOT exclusive to Europeans, though admittedly it is much more common among them.

There is speculation that the Ainu in Japan and the Tocharians (I think) in China were a result from migrations of white people.

That is, again, speculation without much, if any, evidence.

Also, if there could be such broad migrations, is it possible that there could have been migrations by Europeans to America, or Egyptians for that matter, or has there been no connections found with the pyramids in South America?

While possible, there is no extant evidence of such migrations before the Viking incursions to northern Americas. As for the pyramid, that is a structure independently developed in several parts of the globe by unrelated peoples (as some written languages were, for example). There is NO relationship discovered between Egyptian pyramids and American ones. One would think that, for example, if the two were related, writings found on both would be structurally related or even similar. Simply not so.

CaptainHoek:

No, we don't know that for a fact. Those are the generally accepted theories, but theories, even corrrect ones, are not facts.

Ah, no. At one time, what we today call laws of physics (facts) were mere theories. We now know that they are true. Otherwise, we wouldn't be flying around in metal vehicles.

What I wrote earlier stands - it is a FACT that there were three main avenues of migration to the Americas from Asia: the connected land bridge (at one time), then the Bering Sea and the Pacific oceanic route.

MatthewM:

There are only two currently valid theories:
1) God created lots of stuff a long time ago.
2) We have no clue.

Either one is fine with me and just as valid. Atheist or Arrogant Scientists won't accept either one. It would kill off so many jobs and titles.

"Only two valid theories"? I see. So the laws of physics (that led to the invention of unimaginable power like nuclear power) are merely "invalid theories," eh?

We are currently in the same place as 100yrs ago. The scientific community knows the current theories are a joke, but won't give in until something else comes along.

ps: Mankind 5000 years ago were just as smart as we are today. They just didn't have all the inventions and works yet discovered and written down that we have now. They were no better or worse, just lacking in good books...

I don't even know where to start. Where would such "good books" come from without continuing discovery based on experimentation and scientific inquiry? Blind trust in God? We tried that for about 1,000 years and that led to what historians used to call "the Dark Ages."

Any "scientists" who claim they know much about long ago are liars or deceiving themselves in their arrogance.

I think you should speak for yourself though "arrogance" is not the word I'd use for you. But feel free to subject yourself to the surgical and dental methods of 100 years ago if you think that we are "currently in the same place as 100yrs ago."