I read with great interest your discussion before about
Noah's ark and Adam and Eve. You got round the insest
question but how, if all mankind started from just one
couple, did black white and Asian people devel
[There are 7 posts - the latest was added on Wed 26 May, 11:22]
Use the form at the end of this page to add your own post.
Topics
| Thorn Tree
| Home
according to the Scriptures, eight people comprising four
couples survived the Great Flood appox. 4,300 years ago as
described in Biblical chronology. So you see that it was
Noah's family who repopulated the earth comprising 'four'
couples not one couple.
I think my question will be kind of similar to caz's
question, caz you are hinting toward an evolution question
right(your talking about different races)? If so my
question will tie in with yours.
Amigo, I believe in some kind of change in mankind over the
centuries but not evolution, what is the difference between
change or adaptation and evolution(is evolution possible)?
Evolution refers to the ongoing accumulation of adaptation
and divergence of different species, genii, families,
orders etc. An adaptation describes a particular trait that
is suited to a particular situation. The mechanism for
evolution, at least in Darwinian theory, is natural
selection, which takes place at a generation level. The
principle of natural selection is that if, among a
population, there are individuals with inherited advantages
over other individuals, these individuals will leave more
offspring. The offspring will inherit the advantage and
from generation to generation the advantage will
accumulate. This can eventually give rise to new species.
In my view, you can't believe in simple change in mankind,
without believing in the fact that changes accumulate over
time resulting in evolution. You can't look at say a fossil
of early humans and say 'Oh humans have changed over time
but they haven't evolved'. It doesn't make sense.
The difference between change and evolution is that changes
within the created kind don't need the addition on new
genetic information. Upward evolution would, and this
cannot happen. There is no known way for new information to
be introduced.
The question of a person's skin color has nothing to do with
anything besides the nearness or remoteness to the equator
of a person's ancestors. So to make judgments based on a
person's skin color is absurd. Peace.
Do you propose that Noah and his wife had a mixed race
marriage 4,300 years ago and that accounts for the skeletal
differences in races as well as skin coloration that we see
today? What about Egyptian genealogical charts defining
epochs of kings that seem to stretch back further than 4,500
years and are tied into historical benchmarks that have been
proven through archeological corroboration? I am not
referring to sedimentation records and carbon dating but to
recorded history of various cultures.
The lineage time table that you use from the Bible is open
to much interpretation and the accounting of years could be
off by factors of ten.Don't forget that the pentateuch
writings were oral tradition for eons before they were
actually transcribed. Stories pick up the personalies of the
tellers over great periods of time.
Um "no known way for new iformation to be introduced"? What
about mutation (the basis of evolution). Mutation is not a
theory Amigo, it is a fact. It can be demonstrated in the
laboratory and the natural world. Sorry.
'
'
'
'
'
--------------------------