On any subject like this, it is always best to start with what the bible says. The origins of man are the Middle East, where the garden of Eden is.
This is ignores what was pointed out earlier, that many genres are included in the Bibles, so we don't know where it is set, even if that's supposed to be saying that.
The second story talks about the Tigris and Euphrates, but also mentions other rivers and clearly doesn't correspond to anywhere today. It's likely that those names were used later to name local rivers, (like Bethlehem Pennsylvania isn't where Jesus was born), so they don't actually tell us anything. The first story says nothing about where people originated, and doesn't match the first story, so that's a clear sign from the Holy Spirit that the genre here is not literal.
Since the stories aren't intended as literal descriptions, we can look at the rest of God's revelation - in His creation itself. That shows clearly that we came out of Africa before 50,000 years ago (after evolving from earlier apes), as numerous people on this thread have pointed out.
The stuff about the shroud of Turin is irrelevant. The shroud of Turin is an obvious work of ark made during the middle ages, and thus only tells us what an Italian artist around 1300 AD thought Jesus might have looked like (or, being that the image looks Italian - maybe this is what the artist wanted Jesus to look like? or just a fanciful image?).
That's clear from many different pieces of evidence. One is that carbon dating of multiple samples at several independant labs all consistently show that the shroud of Turin was made around 1300 AD.
The clearest evidence is the image itself, which is shown in this thread. The face doesn't match the proportions of a real human being. The forehead is tiny, as if Jesus suffered from microcephaly, and the eyebrow positions similarly don't match how real eyebrows are.
The face is too long - as if Jesus had a stretched out head. Plus, if one drapes a cloth over a face (try it), the sides of the cloth bend down on the sides toward the ears, and one ends up with a widened face image - which is not seen.
The arms are anatomically too long - as if Jesus was a long armed freak, and even worse, one arm is significantly longer than the other arm! Plus, with a limp human lying on their back, one can't physically leave their hands covering their crotch - they fall to the side (lie on your back and try it yourself).
That hands over the crotch itself shows that this is a work of art for public (not pubic) display. After all, if a dead guy were wrapped in a shroud for burial, why would one bother to put their hands over their crotch - to keep the worms from being offended? But, if this were a work of art by an Italian artist in 1300 AD intended for public display, he probably would put the hands over the crotch. No one would pay to come and see Jesus' crotch, after all!
Not to mention the fact that this doesn't match the way people are wrapped for burial. For burial, the shroud is wrapped around the person, and no clear image would result. That doesn't work very well for an artist, as the image isn't clear. If, on the other hand, the intent from the start was to make a work of art, one can then imaging a simple folded over sheet as we see in the shroud of Turin.
On top of all that, the artist who made it confessed to painting it himself. That was mentioned in a 14th century letter to Pope Clement VII by the bishop who investigated the shroud initially.
For 600 Years, Shroud of Turin Has Been Known as a Forgery
There's more, but that's enough to make it obvious that the shroud of Turin is fake.
In Christ-
Papias
Too much Star Wars?
