If creation is true, why are there different races?, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 2-2-2010 @ 11:36 AM by craig732

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by craig732

Well if you want to believe the bible it's because of the tower of babel. People were working together to build a tower that could reach the heavens so God confused people's languages and spread them all over the Earth. I'm not saying this is true but it's how the bible explains it.

Please read the rest of this thread before commenting!

This has already been covered. The story of the Tower of Babel specifically states languages were confused. It says nothing about people being given different appearances.

reply posted on 9-2-2010 @ 09:19 PM by mrno1

What if i was to tell you there was no evolution or creation! Humans never evolved from apes! Humans have been around since mammals have. After 12000 years no other apes have evolved, and also nothing in this world has ever evolved into a different species. And creationism/religion is here because there are 2 types of humans, ones that want to rule others and ones who dont and in turn become ruled. When the neanderthals rebelled against this, they were all murdered. Genocide at its best!

reply posted on 10-2-2010 @ 08:22 AM by amari

Talking about different races this will show that Humanoid Giants roamed the

Earth thousands or even millions of years ago. Have these secrets been hidden

from mankind and have been uncovered to show these Giants really existed

and were not from story book fables? ^Y^

www.biblebelievers.org.au...

reply posted on 10-2-2010 @ 08:48 AM by Shane

reply to post by amari

This many seem akin to the "Topic" at hand, but I wonder if this is a consideration that belongs within a Post about Giants since it is a little to do with the Races.

I understand that Giants did roam this earth, I have never doubted their existance, and I fully expect to see them on this planet again.

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

But the carnel activities of the Fallen Angels (Sons of GOD) and the daughters of man that the Fallen "took" is not a Race. It is more of an abomination in the eyes of GOD, and nothing "like" what is found within the 1st Chapter of Genesis.

Remember, GOD saw what was created/recreated thru the first 6 days of Creation/Recreation, and he saw it was GOOD, or VERY GOOD.

I trust you will get the point I am offering in regards to this.

Stunning Pictures though.

I just hope they are "Thin Skinned" or I'll need to upgrade on Caliber to an Elephant Cartridge.

reply posted on 10-2-2010 @ 08:56 AM by davesidious

reply to post by mrno1

Incorrect. Speciation has been observed in nature, and in the lab, on many occasions. Of course no new species of ape have evolved in 12,000 years, as apes are very complicated animals, who reproduce slowly. Ignorance of science doesn't immediately invalidate its claims, unfortunately for your argument.

reply to post by amari

There is no evidence of giants. None. Not a fossil, nothing.

reply posted on 11-2-2010 @ 10:24 PM by mrno1

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by mrno1

Incorrect. Speciation has been observed in nature, and in the lab, on many occasions. Of course no new species of ape have evolved in 12,000 years, as apes are very complicated animals, who reproduce slowly. Ignorance of science doesn't immediately invalidate its claims, unfortunately for your argument.

reply to post by amari

There is no evidence of giants. None. Not a fossil, nothing.

So you are calling yourself an ape right now? Because birds evolve they are still birds, so you are an ape! Ur words.

Oh yea about the giants...

YouTube Link

reply posted on 11-2-2010 @ 11:38 PM by saabacura

I believe having so many different races are a mistake that was made.
After seeing the results of different races, it is clearly a big big mistake made on Gods part.

reply posted on 12-2-2010 @ 07:36 AM by Shane

Originally posted by saabacura
I believe having so many different races are a mistake that was made.
After seeing the results of different races, it is clearly a big big mistake made on Gods part.

Nice to have you share this view, but I strongly disagree with you in respects to this.

I did touch on this in passing previously here, and maybe you overlooked the consideration being offered.

It is a simple one.

Look outside and view the Birds arriving at the Bird feeders. Are they all Starlings? (Some days it does seem like this)

Look at the Fish in the Fresh Water Lakes and Rivers. Are they all Walleye? (One could only hope!)

Look at the Salt Water Fish. Are they all Marlins?

Look at the any of the Spieces on this planet and eliminate all but one from the picture. It would be quite a boring place.

Only Maple trees. All the grasses are Oats. The Rocks are Limestone only. I am sure you are getting the point.

It is likewise with MAN, recreated on the 6th Day.

Diversity is the building block that is structured in the "Creation" spoken of in Genesis 1:1.

So why would GOD, not make MAN in the same manner? We are created in the Image of GOD and the Angels. We are not created in the Image of GOD alone.

And again, inorder to ensure it is clear, at the end of the Sixth Day, GOD says what? Oh $#!+, that was a FN mistake?

No, of course this is not what is said. GOD said it was Very Good.

So to return to my opening comment, "Nice to have you share this view, but I strongly disagree with you in respects to this."

Now, I would like to press you on this view you have offered and suggested.

How is it YOU, deem the Races to be a Failure?
How is it you feel there is something promblematic with the Races?
What are these "results" you have found and why haven't you shared these for the consideration of others?

I do ask and trust a reply will be forthcoming in regards to these question.

Until then

Ciao

Shane

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Shane]

reply posted on 15-2-2011 @ 03:14 PM by madnessinmysoul

Thread Bump

reply to post by AshleyD

This statement, which I'll quote since it's a page back, is telling:

Originally posted by AshleyD
We do believe in micro so it is compatible. One original couple (either Adam/Eve or Noah/wife) and then things went on from there.

"Micro"? What's the barrier between "micro" and "macro" evolution? And where did you get this distinction from in the first place? Where is the line drawn between "micro" and "macro" evolution? Is speciation "micro" evolution? Or does it have to be a change in genus?

Or does a fish have to turn into a tetrapod in front of you for the distinction to be made?

Secondly, why is there no evidence that all of humanity comes from two original individuals or two individuals who survived a cataclysm? There should be an insane amount of genetic evidence for this. Hell, we have genetic evidence of cheetah population reduction 10,000 years ago, but none showing that humanity was reduced to two people who lived and mated with each other.

Sure, we all have mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosomal Adam...but they lived a few thousand years apart.

reply posted on 15-2-2011 @ 03:16 PM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by mrno1

Of course we're still apes. We are member of the Homindae family, which includes all of the great apes.

And there's absolutely no evidence of giants.

reply posted on 18-2-2011 @ 09:13 AM by Blue_Jay33

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Of course we're still apes.

Speak for yourself, not the entire human race.

As to the topic, the different races are a genetic diversity embedded at creation and amplified by regional adaptation. Previous posters saying the disbursement at the tower of Babel are also correct, this accelerated the whole process.

Recessive genetics, for example a family can go 10 generations with only brown eyes but then suddenly somebody has blue eyes.

edit on 18-2-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-2-2011 @ 09:21 AM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Of course we're still apes.

Speak for yourself, not the entire human race.

No, I'll speak for the entirety of humanity here.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

(emphasis added)

That's the classification for humanity. In bold is the 'ape' family. Hell, this classification existed prior to Darwin, as Linnaeus put it in his classification system in 1758.

This information is readily available.

If we're not apes, what are we?

As to the topic, the different races are a genetic diversity embedded at creation and amplified by regional adaptation.

Genetic evidence please. The time scale and initial gene pool you are talking about doesn't allow for the amount of genetic diversity currently found in humanity.

And by 'regional adaptation' do you mean evolution?

Previous posters saying the disbursement at the tower of Babel are also correct, this accelerated the whole process.

How? Where is the genetic evidence?

Recessive genetics, for example a family can go 10 generations with only brown eyes but then suddenly somebody has blue eyes.

That's an incredibly simplified version of genetics. More than one gene determines eye color. True, darker colored eyes have genes with dominant traits, but those genes are all subject to mutation.

What's amusing to me is that the idea you're proposing actually requires not just evolution, but incredibly accelerated evolution, for it to make any sort of sense.

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^