Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,121 Year: 5,378/9,624 Month: 403/323 Week: 43/204 Day: 19/24 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The race issue
CTD
Member (Idle past 5978 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 6 of 134 (456972)
02-21-2008 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by IceNorfulk
02-19-2008 1:18 PM


quote:
How do you explain the difference between the races? The evolutionary stance is that we began in Africa, migrating out and evolving over the course of 50,000 years. This makes perfect sense, since the Bushmen in native Africa have the genetic markers of everyone in the world. The migratory lines are clear. Considering the massive difference in dog breeds within 10,000 years, it makes sense the races would mutate to what they are now over a period of 50,000 years.
"Race" is a term that cannot be defined. There are different peoples in the world and they descended from one man and one woman.
quote:
I've heard people say that the sons of Noah - Japeth, Shem and Ham - stand for the white, yellow and black races. But why would Noah give birth to three different races? That's genetically impossible, unless he had three different wives. I've heard it said that Noah had the genes in him to give birth to three different races - however, how then do you explain that everyone has the DNA of the Bushmen, yet those in the far east don't have the DNA of those in the west, for example? Nothing connects white to yellow except the genes of the Bushmen.
I expect Shem, Ham, and Japheth had wives.
Regarding your links now, have any of these people taken into account the reduction and concentration of the population which occurred at the flood? If they assume another model from the get-go, it isn't surprising that their results reflect these assumptions.
One also needs to bear in mind that the people stayed fairly close together until their languages were confounded at the tower of Babel. Even after the dispersal (we know not the extent, but assume God accomplished His goal) some of them clustered back and built at least the four cities of Nimrod's empire.
If you think ancient migration patterns are clear, I suggest you look a little more closely at the linguistic links.
I consider it a mistake to think of the human race having been composed of purely static units. Seafaring is as old as history, and there have been plenty of nomads and traders also. Hermit kingdoms like Korea are the exception. And in the old days, war often resulted in enslavement. There was plenty of opportunity for mixing, although the majority of the people may well have stayed put during peacetime.
Over time, familial traits have emerged to give the different peoples their own looks. While there'd be some exceptions, I do not doubt that the Europeans you mention would have much trouble spotting foreigners. I know in Japan they can readily spot a Chinaman or a Korean. I suppose the Gauls, Romans, Italians, and Greeks had this capacity also.
And head size? Heads come in plenty of different sizes even among fairly close kinsmen. Maybe I should google George Lopez. If he's got brothers and sisters, I'll bet they demonstrate this point. I know Tom Edison's head was also exceptionally large, so that'd be a backup. But George cracks me up, & the whole Edison - Tesla thing... Well, I know which kind of thoughts I prefer floating around in my own head.
But hey, at least you're hep to migration. The most easily dispelled evolutionary myth is that Africa made its inhabitants evolve dark skin while Europe made its inhabitants evolve light skin. Who's going to wait around 50,000 years in an uncomfortable environment waiting for their skin to change? Even plant populations migrate faster than that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IceNorfulk, posted 02-19-2008 1:18 PM IceNorfulk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Granny Magda, posted 02-21-2008 12:48 PM CTD has replied

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 5978 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 20 of 134 (457272)
02-22-2008 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by IceNorfulk
02-21-2008 10:58 AM


quote:
If nobody can answer this issue of the races, then other inconsistencies form themselves. The table of nations seems to imply that Japheth was the father of all Mediterranean Europeans. Among his sons is Javan, which means Greece. Ham was the father of the Egyptians and Kushites (Sudanese) - all North Africans. Shem was the father of the people of the Near East.
A great book for anyone interested in the table of nations is "After the Flood". It's not worldwide in scope, but it's very good. The author researched to find out the histories of different peoples according to their own writings, rather than traditional sources.
In former times Celts traced their ancestry to Magog. Norse & some Germanic peoples traced their ancestry to Gog. There's more, but that should give you the picture.
quote:
The Bible has lots of things like that. Take the name for the Mediterranean Sea, for example: hayyam haggadol, meaning "the Great Sea". Surely the creator of this planet would know better than that?
Or the Global Flood. The reason the flood is "global" is that it seemed to engulf the whole known world. It was "worldwide" in the sense of that day, and local according to our knowledge of things.
Or the "two great lights", the Sun and Moon. The creator would know that neither is very great (compared to other stars, which in the Bible end as little pinpricks stuck into the firmament), and only one is a light. Another strike against the divine inspiration of the Bible.
You have a unique take on divine inspiration. You contend that it's mandatory for God to prevent the ancient Hebrews from giving the Mediterranean Sea a name of which you disapprove.
You're just mangling everything with the next argument. The sun and moon are indeed great lights. They provide many times more light to us than all the stars put together. But I guess I'm not being strict enough to suit you. I gather I'm supposed to take a narrow definition of "greatness" that can only apply to actual physical size, and then compare it to the "official" present-day estimates of the stars.
Not that you're interested, but some plasma cosmology models being developed posit Earth initially orbiting Saturn which would have been active as a small sun/star.
When reading a text, the most productive course is to try to figure out what the author means to say. I must say I find it unusual for one who wants to believe something to endeavour to construct misinterpretations. You wouldn't by chance be a federal judge, would you?
In his later years, Mark Twain compiled a "great" list of lies about the bible and worked it into a book. Might look it up if you're into that sort of thing. Plagiarizing him could make one quite popular at EvC in very little time. And don't worry - he didn't originate much, if any of the list himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by IceNorfulk, posted 02-21-2008 10:58 AM IceNorfulk has not replied

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 5978 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 21 of 134 (457277)
02-22-2008 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Granny Magda
02-21-2008 12:48 PM


quote:
Not agreed. This is a painfully obvious falsehood. No population could be based on such a small group. If it had been, we would, at the very least, find genetic evidence for this. We don't. This is a science thread. If you want to pursue this line of argument, I suggest that you find some kind of evidence, beyond "The Bible says so."
Like maybe
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/06/070620154911.htm
quote:
I expect that they must have, if they existed, which I suspect they did not. Even if they did exist, it seems a bit of a stretch to assume that one wife looked African, one looked European and the other looked Asian. They would all have come from the same area, and individual variation simply does not go that far.
Which area must these three women have come from? Why is their origin restricted? And beyond "the present is the key to the past", what restricts their potential to produce genetically diverse offspring?
quote:
Canaan is Ham's son btw. Handy justification if you happen to be a white racist slave owner. Your actions are now officially sanctioned by God and those black buggers are just getting what they deserve, right?
Wrong. And it's no secret that this is wrong. Anyone using such "justification" was probably about as disingenuous as any evolutionist here.
quote:
Why should anyone take childish fairy tales into account?
It seems like an O.T. question, but when childish fairy tales are promoted as scientifically established fact to the vast majority of the population, IMO it's kind of hard to ignore.
quote:
Uh-huh. I take it that you are going to provide us with the evidence for this one as well, rather than just coming in here and making bare assertions.
You may take it that I'll consider it after you provide evidence for Ham's wife, Shem's wife, and Japheth's wife coming from the same area and lacking diversity.
quote:
Do you not see a slight contradiction there?
No. I see how one could misconstrue what I said to create the impression of a contradiction if one were so inclined. And I notice that you have company.
Any scenario intended to provide "racial purity" is going to require perfect isolation. This is practically impossible, and has not happened for the reasons I stated.
The similarities that are clearly visible are due to the fact that most people stay put and tend to marry someone nearby. You can't even create a plausible scenario where this isn't the case over time. Mixing must occur, but it has to be sporadic. The majority of marriages have always been between spouses that were locally available.
That's enough. Next one to pretend not to understand can just go on pretending.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Granny Magda, posted 02-21-2008 12:48 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Granny Magda, posted 02-22-2008 11:14 AM CTD has replied

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 5978 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 25 of 134 (457341)
02-22-2008 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Granny Magda
02-22-2008 11:14 AM


Re: Still no Evidence
The post I respond to contains more than one misrepresentation.
quote:
You deny the curse, but stick to the bit about Ham's sons giving rise to black people. The whole reason this bizarre story originated was because of the curse element and the association of blackness with sin. It is merely a just-so-story, and a racist one at that. Why do you cling to it when you realise how offensive it is?
I never denied the curse, nor do I desire to do so.
quote:
Your sheep article is very interesting and the study in question certainly produced some surprising results, but it isn't the evidence I asked for.
But previously, in the post I responded to you said
quote:
No population could be based on such a small group.
quote:
Why on Earth would I do that? I don't believe that any of them ever existed. So far as I am concerned they're all fictional characters. I can only explore the internal logic of the tale, which seems lacking to me.
Why indeed! You claim the wives of Noah's sons couldn't be diverse, but we have seen zero evidence to support this claim. You pretend it's a big deal if I don't submit evidence to support every last thing I say, but you exempt yourself from any such requirement. I decline to play your game. I've seen it before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Granny Magda, posted 02-22-2008 11:14 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Granny Magda, posted 02-22-2008 11:37 PM CTD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024