Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 904,092 Year: 973/14,231 Month: 973/1,514 Week: 6/234 Day: 6/36 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The race issue
IceNorfulk
Junior Member (Idle past 5365 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

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12870
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 134 (456675)
02-19-2008 2:28 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1963 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 3 of 134 (456691)
02-19-2008 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IceNorfulk
02-19-2008 1:18 PM


IceNorfulk writes:
Like I said, I want to believe, but the race factor is too implausible.
We tend to notice the visible differences between groups of humans easily, probably because our brains are geared to focus intensively on our own species. However, your doubts could just as well have been caused by the differences between groups in other species, which is often more radical.
Take the African and Asian lions, for example, or Tigers (including the Siberian) or the leopards (including the Snow Leopard) and can you see each species descending from a pair that was on the ark 4300 years ago?
Geneticists would laugh at the idea, so you are right to have doubts about creationism.
Then add the complication that lions, tigers and leopards can all produce (usually sterile) offspring in captivity, and it looks as though the evolutionist's explanation, that they all descend from a common ancestral species, might have a lot going for it.
In humans, I think I'm right in saying, the diversity has come about since we went through a "bottle-neck" of about 5 to 7,000 people about 75,000 years ago, and it's very insignificant, as that's yesterday in evolutionary terms.
Welcome to EvC.

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

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 134 (456694)
02-19-2008 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IceNorfulk
02-19-2008 1:18 PM


This makes perfect sense, since the Bushmen in native Africa have the genetic markers of everyone in the world.
I'm not sure that this is true. It might be, but I haven't heard about it before.
Now, genetics certainly provides evidence for a long history for the human species. The population in Africa is very, very genetically diverse, while populations outside of Africa are much more genetically homogenous, just as we would expect if Homo sapiens lived in Africa for much of its history, and then a very few small groups moved out of Africa and eventually colonizing the rest of the world.
-
The migratory lines are clear.
Indeed! And important genetic markers are fantastic evidence for this!

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

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

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2436 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 5 of 134 (456930)
02-20-2008 6:45 PM


I believe I can sum it up like this..."creationism is wrong". I hope that helped.

All great truths begin as blasphemies

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 5355 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

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 7 of 134 (456986)
02-21-2008 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by IceNorfulk
02-19-2008 1:18 PM


I want to believe,
Why?
but the race factor is too implausible.
Is that the only incosistency you see within creationism? Really??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IceNorfulk, posted 02-19-2008 1:18 PM IceNorfulk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by IceNorfulk, posted 02-21-2008 10:58 AM fallacycop has replied

  
IceNorfulk
Junior Member (Idle past 5365 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

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 320 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 9 of 134 (457053)
02-21-2008 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by CTD
02-21-2008 2:42 AM


Hi CTD,
"Race" is a term that cannot be defined.
Agreed. Genetic differences between ethnic groups are extremely minor and diffuse. Biologists do not recognise the concept of "race" as it is applied here.
There are different peoples in the world and they descended from one man and one woman.
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.".
I expect Shem, Ham, and Japheth had wives.
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.
I hope that you realise that the theory that the races derived from the sons of Noah is a theory that was most popular when it was used to justify racism and slavery. Black people were identified, on the basis of the spurious association between blackness and sin, as the Sons of Ham and thus subject to the "curse of Ham". This states that "And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." (Gen 9:25). 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?
I strongly suggest that you either drop this racist piece of crap argument like the weighty turd that it is, or else back it up with some kind of credible evidence (hint - you won't find any).
have any of these people taken into account the reduction and concentration of the population which occurred at the flood?
Why should anyone take childish fairy tales into account?
One also needs to bear in mind that the people stayed fairly close together until their languages were confounded at the tower of Babel.
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.
Over time, familial traits have emerged to give the different peoples their own looks.
The most easily dispelled evolutionary myth is that Africa made its inhabitants evolve dark skin while Europe made its inhabitants evolve light skin.
Do you not see a slight contradiction there?

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by CTD, posted 02-21-2008 2:42 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by CTD, posted 02-22-2008 6:14 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 02-22-2008 11:00 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 320 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 10 of 134 (457060)
02-21-2008 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IceNorfulk
02-19-2008 1:18 PM


Hi IceNorfulk,
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.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IceNorfulk, posted 02-19-2008 1:18 PM IceNorfulk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by IceNorfulk, posted 02-21-2008 3:31 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2436 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 11 of 134 (457094)
02-21-2008 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by IceNorfulk
02-21-2008 10:58 AM


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.
I don't understand where you're coming from...do you believe the accounts in the bible to be real or not?
You seem to be contradicting yourself or you seem to be in an inner fight with scripture and archeology. You make all the right points for believe the bible to be false so whats your question on the races? Don't follow the bible, problem solved. Theres a great book call "The Evolution of Skin" check it out it should provide you with the answers.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

All great truths begin as blasphemies

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

  
IceNorfulk
Junior Member (Idle past 5365 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

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 320 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 13 of 134 (457158)
02-21-2008 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by IceNorfulk
02-21-2008 3:31 PM


Oh for Pete's sake!
That picture proves nothing. It doesn't even provide two bare skulls, side-by-side for comparison. All you have demonstrated is that two individual humans had different shaped heads. You could just as easily show the faces of two white people with different shaped heads. I'm sorry to say that you have proved nothing except your own ignorance. The differences between "races" are far from pronounced, rather they are slight and diffuse.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by IceNorfulk, posted 02-21-2008 3:31 PM IceNorfulk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by IceNorfulk, posted 02-21-2008 4:03 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
IceNorfulk
Junior Member (Idle past 5365 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

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 15 of 134 (457191)
02-21-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by IceNorfulk
02-21-2008 10:58 AM


Examples abound...
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??
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box. Originally there was a "\" at the beginning "qs", which I removed. Add a "/" to the closing "qs".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by IceNorfulk, posted 02-21-2008 10:58 AM IceNorfulk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by IceNorfulk, posted 02-21-2008 6:09 PM fallacycop has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023