Does everyone agree that we evolved from Africa?

It is unfortunate when ppl fabricate alledged contradictions. Not a single reference or nothing. (Hopefully you did this unintentionally like I used to do)
The list is almost endless. The number of uninformed people is almost endless too, Which brings me back to what Jeremiah wrote about seeking and finding truth, only those who do so will find it. And this is why there is no truth in your statements like this.
And yes, i hear ya, it does get tiring trying to unwind peoples minds. (This site included)
Here:
https://biblehub.com/genesis/7-2.htm
right from the start, the Scripture verse is clear two of some and seven of others. There was no initial two of each kind verse like you were claiming.

But this is how it goes, whether it be statements like this, or statements that the ark did not float, or that It could not hold the necessary animals in the world..,,It must be so because you and others simply said so? Does not work like that.
Here:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/could-noahs-ark-float-theory-yes-180950385/
This article is about four physics graduates who did the math and concluded the ark was more than capable 😎

Hope this helps some.

Set, here is a little more info on the subject:
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/feedback-was-noahs-ark-seaworthy-or-is-that-impossible/

‘For example, it was naval architects at the world-class ship research center KRISO (renamed MOERI in 2005) in Korea who studied Noah’s Ark in 1992 and declared the biblical specifications sound (see this summary for more information). The head of the study (Dr. S. W. Hong, an evolutionist) went on to run the place.’

JEEEZ what a waste of our damn money that could have been used to help in the fight to find cures for Fundamentalist idiocy. According to the paper, Hong did a math model (I do testimony trashing models in my own field) so Im not impressed by the use of math xpansions.
I imagine Hong had a contract that circuitously led back to Ham's "ARK NCOUNTER " theme park in Ohio.
That too is a kinda dumass proposition. As an amusement park, OK, no problem. but passing it off as science is hilarious.

The park starts with the proposition that fossils all over the world testify to the fact that most parts were covered with sea water. Yes but not at one time see?. Fossils on Himalayan peaks like Mt Everest only show fossils on one side of the peak. The other side is high and dry metamorphic and anatectic rocks (no fossils) WHY IZZAT if the whole place was covered with sea. Its like that all over the world. The Flood "deposits" in the grand canyon are overlain in many spots by dune deposits of ages much older than the rest of the canyon upper layers.
Also, many areas in the upper sediments are RIVER AND LAKE deposits, and very lazy rivers with ample banks and deltas. hardly a raging sea.
The evidence you seek dosnt agree with your worldviews.If youre too stubborn to believe my transmittal of data, I can give you several resources to examine or you can visit the Canyon or read the geology of the Himalayan Plateau . You seem to accept literature written only by Creationists (again its an observation youve stuck with pretty soundly).

That is a pack of lies.

Your boy Hong must have been paid off by someone--wooden ships of lesser dimensions than that idiot "ark" of yours, went to the bottom every year, in much less severe conditions that implied by a world-girdling ocean covering mountains to a depth of "seven cubits." In time of war, when large navies kept station in all weather, thousands of crew lost their lives every year, simply from severe conditions, and not the actions of the enemy.

You've trotted out scripture, but I checked that before I posted. You must have your own special bobble. You've trotted out some bulabout mountains, which FM shot down, and which doesn't take into account that were there no mountains, your would-girdling ocean would have been even more dangerous, being so shallow. You just pile more bullshit on the previous bullshit.

The question is not whether it could float, but whether it could float with that load and for six months. Your Smithsonian magazine article does not address that. Really, it's disgusting that you're peddling religious bullshit, and expect to have it respected. I don't care what kind of idiocy you want to believe, but don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.

From a link embedded in the Smithsonian article: Noah's Ark: Sea Trials
Why it's impossible for a wooden vessel the size of Noah's Ark to be seaworthy[/i]

Try to get that through your skull--the question is not whether or not it could float, but whether or not it would be seaworthy. It would not have been seaworthy in ordinary ocean conditions, never mind a planet-girdling ocean.

Hmmmm, Something seems awfully fishy about your last post.

Knowing that life from nonlife is impossible, (and illogical) and knowing that life cannot evolve from bacteria to a frog To a person, it seems there is plenty of misinterpretation going on when some people are examining either the fossils, As well as the rock layers, (which layers can be interpreted to be the same age)

I guess he must’ve been paid off. Everything is a big conspiracy. 🤷‍♂️

obviously you have a higher opinion about your intellect. You "know" nothing, it appars.All the stratigraphy and evidence from Pittman and Ryan has been peer reviewed by REAL SCIENTISTS. Denying it as you do is just trying to hold back the sunrise.
How do you think we find minerals or petrolum??? just by throwing darts and start drilling till we hit it?? We do surves that clerly follow the temporal/environmental stratigraphy. Our hit rate for oil is in the 90+% now (the only things in the way now are tight stratigraphy where we have to increase budgets to do hydraulic pressure fracturing (fracking-)

Nice try, a mre assertion without any basis. Thats what Ive grown to expect from most of the "C/ID" crowds

Oh can it. I took that from your link, buddy.

Throw'n darts, just seems like a bridge too far, you know what I mean? And blindfolded too!

Sry, was debating whether to respond to this post after yourself and FM started going down conspiracy road.

But here a few corrections yourself and the skeptoid link/article require:

1. The first point of the article makes is about the needed material to build an ark. It incorrectly Refers to modern-day Iraq, and the resources available there instead of a pre-flood climate On an area of the earth we just do not know where the ark was built. (This says a lot already about the amount of bias and lack of readers here the person writing the article put in.)

2. It points out (as you did as well) Large wooden vessels like the Wyoming at about 300 feet was/is the maximum for ALL wooden vessels.
However, The 300 feet maximum can be extended if different planking methods were used, as well as the sails removed. (This is why ships like the Wyoming maxed out around 300 feet, whereas the ark was 450 feet, yet, like the Wyoming, still seaworthy👍)
SeeThe links I provided for more details.

3. It begins to compare the titanic, which was a massive ship doubling the Length of the ark, And rightly so being built of steel. Again, comparing apples to oranges. Terrible.

To sum it up, The ark was built just like a modern cargo vessel, a 6:1 ratio for seaworthiness. It was just that a cargo boat which did the job.

P.s. When farmer man makes reference to things like transitional fossil evidence, or so-called evidence which suggests the entire earth was not covered by water, without a single reference, don’t just take his word for it. And remember, most scientists are notorious for Misinterpreting the data. Do not just embrace what tickles your ears is my advice.

If you don't know where the so-called ark was built, how do you know it wasn't the area of present day Iraq, and how do you know there were sufficient resources? I am sure as hell not going to some bible-thumper web site for the propagandistic bullshit they will peddle on this subject. If your "ark" had no sails, it would have been doomed in a planet-girdling ocean. Neither you nor the apologetic bible-thumper web sites on which you rely know a damned thing about sailing ships. A ship which cannot run before the wind is doomed in a storm.

It is truly hilarious to see you attempt to defend that bullshit story about Noah and his fantasy boat. You have not convincingly dealt with the putative age of Noah and his wife, sons and daughters-in-law. You have not addressed the subject of how much fodder would have been needed for a voyage of that duration. In short, you have cherry-picked the points which you think you can support (and you fail) and we're supposed to just ignore the other, impossible bullshit.

I don't care if you believe a load of old crap, but don't pretend to me that you know anything about wooden ships and their performance in a storm. You obviously don't.

And how do you know there was not sufficient resources? It seems that the scientific evidence which supports the pre-flood conditions on earth which supported giant mammals, giant reptiles, giant vegetation etc. Were much much more favourable for resources than a darn desert.
It is interesting to observe how are yourself and others clings such ideas.

Of Course religious individuals ( Who embrace evolutionism ) like yourself and the Author of that article you refer close your minds to any such possibility.
Just as how the evidence supports the ark being more than just able to float, but being seaworthy.
Also how yourself and other religious extremists go above and beyond to ignore the mountain of evidence which supports intelligent design altogether.

As the saying goes, ‘do not throw your pearls to pigs, for they will just trample them under their feet.’
I really hope this is not the case with yourself and others, but one thing is obvious, it is. That you were no/are not searching for truth.

There are nearly countless books and websites which expand on some of the questions you brought up regarding the age of Noah, food supplies etc.

Just trying to point you in the right direction. Because One thing is for sure, if you have embraced evolutionism, You’re thinking needs correcting. This can only really happen if YOU search for answers, instead of me trying to force-feed them.
All the best, talk to you soon

Your command of the English language is very poor. I haven't said there were insufficient resources. I was pointing out that you had said that it is not known where this alleged ark was built, so therefore you cannot say whether or not there were sufficient resources. Don't try to back out of your mis-statements by straw man allegations about what I "cling."

There is no scientific evidence for this bullshit flood story, so don't try to put lipstick on that pig and call it a glamor girl. In fact, all of this flood bullshit is lifted wholesale from the Epic of Gilgamesh. The account in your bobble is a confused version in which the Hebrew authors attempt to make a putative ancestor of themselves the hero of the story--but they were really bad writers. The ignorance which is all too commonly found among christians is glaring through in your apparently straight-faced and credulous acceptance of the flood story as a real event, known to and accepted by scientists. It is not--and there is zero evidence for such an event.

That pearls before swine reference would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic. The cheap shot about "religious individuals" won't work because I don't give a rat's ass what you believe, nor how many fools are similarly deluded. Bullshit like this never comes up in my daily life and I don't go around preaching anything. I leave that to the true religious nut bags.

You've brought no evidence in for that hilarious claim about a 600 year old geezer and his geezer wife and his geezer sons and daughters-in-law. Vague references to "nearly countless books and websites" are meaningless--you're peddling lies. Your phony concern for me because I don't buy your religiously-inspired bullshit is unconvincing.

I find it interesting that people like yourselves to raise evolutionism as you’re really just position always make the comment there is zero evidence for intelligent design, and that no one ever brings anything to the table.
Much like this topic of flood evidence.
This scene statement is repeated by other religious denominations when their doctrine is challenged. Interesting.

😡AutoCorrect.
*** I find it interesting that people who embrace evolutionism as their religious position **

We have all kinds of clowns here, conspiracy nutz, Floodists, Theistic evolutionites, nd just plain Know-nothing deniers.

While there is fossil evidence for all the above stuff IT NEVER HAPPENED ALL AT THE SAME TIME> Do you even understand how stratigrphy allows up to understnd when life's fossils were deposited?

Im jut amazed that folks cant grab on and undesrtand these relatively simple concepts.
We used to teach kids in HS earth sciences about the "Soda container stratigraphy" as an analogy to how we can tell omething about time using the fossil record.

Elephants and dinosaurs NEVER lived at the same times, neither did trilobites and monkeys. AND, most importantly, Ive shared many many times the literature base from which sedimentology and stratigraphy gathers its workings. This is kid stuff .Saying that Ive nver presented evidence is a goddam lie .Ive presented scads of books and papers as evidence to every concept Ive discussed. If your too damned lazy or too damned dumb tored or understand these references, dont start the"He doesnt present any evidence" BULLSHIT, Thats all on your side(along with several other ignorers of facts)

I do not embrace "evolutionism," either as ideology or as religion. I know it is difficult for you to imagine, but there are people who do not need to adhere to a world-view endorsed by others in order to feel comfortable in this world. It seems that your world-view is so simple-minded that you can only see those who don't embrace that as professing some other dogma. I accept the theory of evolution as the most plausible explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, that's all. If someone comes along with a better, more plausible explanation, for which they can provide evidence, I'll be OK with that. Bronze age fairy tales and ipse dixit appeals to scriptural authority don't get it.