Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thegdin · 05-12-2004, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

He also saved their wives (Noah + 3 sons + 4 wives = 8 people). That the grandchildren of Noah would have had to "repopulate" with each other is of course another point...

thats always a hard one for someone who believes the noah story and the adam and eve story to be true. they either have to admit that incest took place or admit that adam and eve arent the fountain that sprung all human life on earth. or maybe noah wasnt the only person with the foresight to see that the earths water supply was about to multiply ten fold. temporarily that is. can you say metaphor?

Peez · 05-12-2004, 12:27 PM

Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), had this to say about the "race" allegedly descended from Ham, in The Beginning of the World (1991), as quoted by Evolution and White Supremacism:

Quote:

The descendants of Ham were marked especially for secular service to mankind. Indeed they were to be 'servants of servants,' that is 'servants extraordinary!' Although only Canaan is mentioned specifically (possibly because the branch of Ham's family through Canaan would later come into most direct contact with Israel), the whole family of Ham is in view. The prophecy is worldwide in scope and, since Shem and Japheth are covered, all Ham's descendants must be also. These include all nations which are neither Semitic nor Japhetic. Thus, all of the earth's 'colored' races,--yellow, red, brown, and black-- essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including the American Indians--are possibly Hamitic in origin and included within the scope of the Canaanitic prophecy, as well as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, and Phoenicians of antiquity...

Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.

(Emphasis mine)

Peez

Peez · 05-12-2004, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Sven:
He also saved their wives (Noah + 3 sons + 4 wives = 8 people). That the grandchildren of Noah would have had to "repopulate" with each other is of course another point...
thegdin:
thats always a hard one for someone who believes the noah story and the adam and eve story to be true. they either have to admit that incest took place or admit that adam and eve arent the fountain that sprung all human life on earth. or maybe noah wasnt the only person with the foresight to see that the earths water supply was about to multiply ten fold. temporarily that is. can you say metaphor?

For sure. Even ignoring the problems with Adam and Eve (that is a maximum of four different alleles {genes} at each locus {very loosely, for each trait}, only one "Y" chromosome, who the heck did Cain and his brother have sex with?

...etc.) about two thousand years earlier, only one "Y" chromosome is alleged to have survived the Flood, and no more than 10 alleles at each locus (assuming that each and every individual allegedly aboard the Arc was as genetically different as possible from the others). This is a tiny gene pool, an invitation to inbreeding problems, and of course the Bible frowns on incest:

Quote:

Leviticus 20:12
'If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

Leviticus 20:17
'If there is a man who takes his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness; he bears his guilt.

Leviticus 20:19
'You shall also not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for such a one has made naked his blood relative; they will bear their guilt.

Leviticus 20:20
'If there is a man who lies with his uncle's wife he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they will bear their sin. They will die childless.

Where is Riff Raff when you need him?

Peez

thegdin · 05-12-2004, 02:07 PM

i went to IRCs website.no discussion forums. imagine that.

Sven · 05-13-2004, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peez

Leviticus 20:17
'If there is a man who takes his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness

So in the dark, when you can not see the nakedness, it's allowed!?

telerion · 05-13-2004, 12:34 PM

More about that cartoon above.

Let's say each of the three sons and their wife or wives (harem?) spread far away from one another and propagated their own individual races.

1) Did each son mate only with women with similar traits. Looking at the cartoon we have an Middle Eastern guy, a caucasian guy, and an African guy. Did the caucasian guy have only caucasian wives? (This may be likely given Christianity's bad track record when it comes to sponsoring interracial relationships.)

And even granting that they did only mate with morphologically similar women . . .

2) If the gene pool was so randomly mixed in Noah's time that his immediate offspring could look so different from one another, wouldn't Noah's sons and wives have given birth to some stochastic chain of multifeatured offspring? Shouldn't this have continued for a very long time?

How is it that these people think the gene pool was mixed enough from Adam to Noah to produce a wide variety of races (and to avoid the dangers of inbreeding), but that his each of his sons was only capable of producing similarly-colored offspring?

SEF · 05-13-2004, 01:35 PM

Stating the obvious: the cartoon is just a silly cartoon and its source is hardly a reliable or credible "expert" witness any more than his own source is - however much he might protest that it is!

Note that the genetic (and fossil and general evolutionary) evidence indicates that humans did start (and re-start) with a restricted gene pool. Plus the visible differences between races, which racists make so much of (and which are even used by the human part-hardwired and part-trained visual identification system), are really rather trivial at the genetic level. So the silly part of the cartoon in that respect is in trying to make all the not-quite-speciation (since all races are really still fully interbreedable humans) occur in one generation rather than after each population became isolated.

So to answer your "How is it that these people think...": (a) they don't think most of the time; (b) they are so ignorant they have no genuine knowledge on which to base any thinking which they might reluctantly be persuaded to do. Unfortunately (a) is fairly common in humans and (b) is the joint fault of the education system and the religions which are permitted to interfere with it.

hungry_student · 05-15-2004, 08:44 AM

My personal theory is that the first humans were of a somewhat dark, Middle Eastern complexion, from which micro-evolution has taken care of the rest.

I know these evidences are bordering on idiotic, but just for clarification's sake:

Evidence to support this theory is that all humans can interbreed, a characteristic of microevolution. Different geographical locations are/were specific to different races (i.e. Africa - blacks, Asia - asians, Europe - whites, etc), implying that these geographical barriers of space, coupled with varying physical conditions caused different strains on the gene pool, causing the populations of humans to evolve differently, into the races we see today.

In my opinion, there is no need for a miracle on this one.

-Matt

Kingreaper · 05-15-2004, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungry_student

My personal theory is that the first humans were of a somewhat dark, Middle Eastern complexion, from which micro-evolution has taken care of the rest.

I know these evidences are bordering on idiotic, but just for clarification's sake:

Evidence to support this theory is that all humans can interbreed, a characteristic of microevolution. Different geographical locations are/were specific to different races (i.e. Africa - blacks, Asia - asians, Europe - whites, etc), implying that these geographical barriers of space, coupled with varying physical conditions caused different strains on the gene pool, causing the populations of humans to evolve differently, into the races we see today.

In my opinion, there is no need for a miracle on this one.

-Matt

you do if you want to ft it into 4000 years

hungry_student · 05-15-2004, 09:55 AM

what about 10,000 - 50,000?

I don't think it would take much longer than that for the differences we see in races to arrise.

05-13-2004, 12:34 PM	#16
telerion Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: USA Posts: 498	Only took one biology course in college More about that cartoon above. Let's say each of the three sons and their wife or wives (harem?) spread far away from one another and propagated their own individual races. 1) Did each son mate only with women with similar traits. Looking at the cartoon we have an Middle Eastern guy, a caucasian guy, and an African guy. Did the caucasian guy have only caucasian wives? (This may be likely given Christianity's bad track record when it comes to sponsoring interracial relationships.) And even granting that they did only mate with morphologically similar women . . . 2) If the gene pool was so randomly mixed in Noah's time that his immediate offspring could look so different from one another, wouldn't Noah's sons and wives have given birth to some stochastic chain of multifeatured offspring? Shouldn't this have continued for a very long time? How is it that these people think the gene pool was mixed enough from Adam to Noah to produce a wide variety of races (and to avoid the dangers of inbreeding), but that his each of his sons was only capable of producing similarly-colored offspring?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-12-2004, 02:07 PM	#14
thegdin Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: orlando,fl Posts: 1,240	i went to IRCs website.no discussion forums. imagine that.

05-13-2004, 01:35 PM	#17
SEF Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: UK Posts: 2,179	Stating the obvious: the cartoon is just a silly cartoon and its source is hardly a reliable or credible "expert" witness any more than his own source is - however much he might protest that it is! Note that the genetic (and fossil and general evolutionary) evidence indicates that humans did start (and re-start) with a restricted gene pool. Plus the visible differences between races, which racists make so much of (and which are even used by the human part-hardwired and part-trained visual identification system), are really rather trivial at the genetic level. So the silly part of the cartoon in that respect is in trying to make all the not-quite-speciation (since all races are really still fully interbreedable humans) occur in one generation rather than after each population became isolated. So to answer your "How is it that these people think...": (a) they don't think most of the time; (b) they are so ignorant they have no genuine knowledge on which to base any thinking which they might reluctantly be persuaded to do. Unfortunately (a) is fairly common in humans and (b) is the joint fault of the education system and the religions which are permitted to interfere with it.

05-15-2004, 08:44 AM	#18
hungry_student Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: san diego Posts: 41	My personal theory is that the first humans were of a somewhat dark, Middle Eastern complexion, from which micro-evolution has taken care of the rest. I know these evidences are bordering on idiotic, but just for clarification's sake: Evidence to support this theory is that all humans can interbreed, a characteristic of microevolution. Different geographical locations are/were specific to different races (i.e. Africa - blacks, Asia - asians, Europe - whites, etc), implying that these geographical barriers of space, coupled with varying physical conditions caused different strains on the gene pool, causing the populations of humans to evolve differently, into the races we see today. In my opinion, there is no need for a miracle on this one. -Matt

05-15-2004, 09:55 AM	#20
hungry_student Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: san diego Posts: 41	what about 10,000 - 50,000? I don't think it would take much longer than that for the differences we see in races to arrise.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.