Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The race issue
IceNorfulk
Junior Member (Idle past 5880 days)
Posts: 6
Joined: 02-19-2008


Message 1 of 134 (456656)
02-19-2008 1:18 PM


Hello all, I hope this is in the right forum. I'll start off by saying that i'm on the fence. I want to belive in creationism, but this major flaw is one I'd have to push aside to take it into account. If anyone here can answer the following questions, it would be much appreciated.
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.
However, for creationism to be true, it just doesn't hold up. Essentially you're saying that the top link turned into the bottom one within only 3,000 years?
Crazy Funny Pictures
http://www.evilbeetgossip.com/...ds/2007/08/jessica_biel.jpg
How do you account for the skull differences and cranial makeup within the races? For example, a Negro and Caucasian skull -
Yahoo
How could the skull on the right turn into the skull on the left within only 3,000 years?
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.
When we look at the statues of Crete, Troy, Rome and Egypt, we see that the European people back then look no different to those today. So if no mutations happened in those 4000 years, how do you explain the cranial differences between the races happening elsewhere?
It just makes no sense that the migratory periods add up perfectly. I've heard it said "How could a black man turn into a white man within only 50,000 years?" Yet just look at the huge variety of dog breeds today -
http://www.dogbreedcollectibles.com/...yout-breed-collec.jpg
How can it be justified in any way other than evolution that every race on earth has the genetic marker of the Bushmen, but not the genetic markers of each other? How did the various races arise in less then 6,000 years, if the Bible is true?
There seems to be absolutely no logical explanation in the Bible in terms of explaining away the racial differences. The pre adamite theories have no leg to stand on whatsoever (because such people would have perished in the flood), so I won't go into them.
Thanks to anyone who can answer this. Like I said, I want to believe, but the race factor is too implausible.
Edited by IceNorfulk, : No reason given.
Edited by IceNorfulk, : No reason given.
Edited by IceNorfulk, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by bluegenes, posted 02-19-2008 3:21 PM IceNorfulk has not replied
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 02-19-2008 3:31 PM IceNorfulk has not replied
 Message 6 by CTD, posted 02-21-2008 2:42 AM IceNorfulk has not replied
 Message 7 by fallacycop, posted 02-21-2008 6:26 AM IceNorfulk has replied
 Message 10 by Granny Magda, posted 02-21-2008 12:58 PM IceNorfulk has replied
 Message 33 by extremophile, posted 12-01-2008 1:28 AM IceNorfulk has not replied
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2008 6:50 PM IceNorfulk has not replied
 Message 99 by dennis780, posted 05-11-2010 10:01 PM IceNorfulk has not replied

  
IceNorfulk
Junior Member (Idle past 5880 days)
Posts: 6
Joined: 02-19-2008


Message 8 of 134 (457014)
02-21-2008 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by fallacycop
02-21-2008 6:26 AM


quote:
Is that the only incosistency you see within creationism? Really??
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.
Now this was the world known to the ancient Hebrews. So the Northern Europeans, Southern Africans, Chinese, Amerindians and Australians are unaccounted for.
It's a favorite point of contention for me. When I was a Christian and young-earth creationist, I kept pestering the priests with the question of the races. None had a satisfactory answer. It was the first step of my initial rejection of Christianity, despite wanting to believe.
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.
Or the Tower of Babel. A flat-out denial of linguistic evolution.
Examples abound...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by fallacycop, posted 02-21-2008 6:26 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by onifre, posted 02-21-2008 1:43 PM IceNorfulk has not replied
 Message 15 by fallacycop, posted 02-21-2008 5:49 PM IceNorfulk has replied
 Message 20 by CTD, posted 02-22-2008 5:03 AM IceNorfulk has not replied
 Message 38 by Peg, posted 12-27-2008 5:35 PM IceNorfulk has not replied

  
IceNorfulk
Junior Member (Idle past 5880 days)
Posts: 6
Joined: 02-19-2008


Message 12 of 134 (457146)
02-21-2008 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Granny Magda
02-21-2008 12:58 PM


quote:
I have to say that your conception of race is widely divorced from reality. The link you describe as showing "a Negro and Caucasian skull" shows nothing of the kind.
The skull on the left is an extremely unusual skull called Pintubi-1, that originated in Australia. It is far from standard and its unusual shape is probably due to pathology.
The skull on the right, the one which you somewhat arrogantly describe as "Caucasian" could belong to any ethnic group on the planet based on the picture. It is a standard human skull. Ethnic differences in skull shape are far, far more slight than this.
I really think that you ought to do some reading up on this subject, preferably not internet based.
I can't speak for the picture of the two skulls, but they seem to be in basic alignment for the facts. For example, lining up an African male and a European male, you can see the cranial differences are quite pronounced;
http://i26.tinypic.com/2i1le3b.jpg
I just want to know how it can possibly be justified from the standpoint of creationists. If it were just melanin, it'd be easy to explain, but the differences between the races are quite pronounced. I don't see how Noah could have birthed three sons with three different genetic makeups, not only just different in the melannin content of their skin but their very physical fabric.
The racial differences seem like they can only be explained through an evolutionary model, considering the African admixture traceable in everyone on earth. Old theories in the days of slavery used to claim that the coloured races were Pre-Adamites, but these are impossible because such Pre-Adamites would have perished in the flood. Later on the main stream of thought was that Japheth birthed the Caucasian race, Ham the Negro race and Shem the Mongoloid race, but this seems in flat out denial of the facts. (For example, the descendants of Ham seem to be not the inhabitants of sub-saharan Africa but North Africa, eg Carthage, Egypt etc).
So.. Any Creationists who can offer me an answer?
Edited by IceNorfulk, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Granny Magda, posted 02-21-2008 12:58 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Granny Magda, posted 02-21-2008 4:00 PM IceNorfulk has replied

  
IceNorfulk
Junior Member (Idle past 5880 days)
Posts: 6
Joined: 02-19-2008


Message 14 of 134 (457160)
02-21-2008 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Granny Magda
02-21-2008 4:00 PM


... Magda, are you honestly trying to say that Europeans, Asians and Africans have the exact same facial features, skulls and physical structure, they just have different coloured skin?
Crazy Funny Pictures
Why don't these albino Africans look like white people?
Edited by IceNorfulk, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Granny Magda, posted 02-21-2008 4:00 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Granny Magda, posted 02-21-2008 6:32 PM IceNorfulk has not replied
 Message 18 by Zucadragon, posted 02-21-2008 6:36 PM IceNorfulk has not replied

  
IceNorfulk
Junior Member (Idle past 5880 days)
Posts: 6
Joined: 02-19-2008


Message 16 of 134 (457201)
02-21-2008 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by fallacycop
02-21-2008 5:49 PM


quote:
Exactly. Examples of inconsistecies in the bible abound. The most likely explanation is that the bible is a combination of ancient folks tales and real events that were blown out of proportion.
Which brings us back to my earlier question. Why would you want to believe that? I mean, six year old kids that believe in Santa Claus can be kinda cute, but grown ups that believe in fary tales is just plain pathetic. Why would you wannna do that??
Of all the world religions, the Bible is the most plausible. If the Bible isn't true, then I'd have to face up to the cold and harsh reality of death. I'm not strong enough for that.
That said, I could never believe in something that was an obvious lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by fallacycop, posted 02-21-2008 5:49 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Blue Jay, posted 02-21-2008 9:48 PM IceNorfulk has not replied
 Message 24 by fallacycop, posted 02-22-2008 5:12 PM IceNorfulk 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