[_ Old Earth _] Rapid evolution of human races after the Great Flood

[Deep Thought]

Here's another stumper for the Creationists.

After the Great Flood, only Noah and his family survived. How did this small group of people give rise to all the human races (think about it, Inuit, Australian Aboriginals, Pygmys, Chinese, Native Americans etc) we currently see today in such a short space of time?

Don't forget the the use of black slaves is documented in text and painting by the ancient Egyptians around 1500BC or even earlier.

 

[Heidi]

Here's another stumper for the Creationists.

After the Great Flood, only Noah and his family survived. How did this small group of people give rise to all the human races (think about it, Inuit, Australian Aboriginals, Pygmys, Chinese, Native Americans etc) we currently see today in such a short space of time?

Don't forget the the use of black slaves is documented in text and painting by the ancient Egyptians around 1500BC or even earlier.

Genesis explains that. In fact, it gives a detailed account of Noah's sons and where they lived. Noah's son, Japheth's descendants were scattered all over the world. That means that when they mated, they didn't inbreed like the sons of Ham did who stayed around Africa. So their descendants are much more diverse in looks and genes. Ham's sons on the other hand, kept inbreeding which re-enforces traits, not diversifies them. Genesis also explains the many siblings and wives that their descendants had which would make people multiply very quickly.

And by the way, man has never evolved because he's still the same today s he ever was. The word "evolution" was coined to try to explain how a wild beast could turn into humans who have many more abilities than wild animals do. It's as false as it is embarrassing. :roll:

 

[Dunzo]

Here's another stumper for the Creationists.

After the Great Flood, only Noah and his family survived. How did this small group of people give rise to all the human races (think about it, Inuit, Australian Aboriginals, Pygmys, Chinese, Native Americans etc) we currently see today in such a short space of time?

Don't forget the the use of black slaves is documented in text and painting by the ancient Egyptians around 1500BC or even earlier.

Genesis explains that. In fact, it gives a detailed account of Noah's sons and where they lived. Noah's son, Japheth's descendants were scattered all over the world.

Not really. Looks to me like they were all around south-eastern Europe.

That means that when they mated, they didn't inbreed like the sons of Ham did who stayed around Africa.

Who did they mate with? Everybody else is dead.

So their descendants are much more diverse in looks and genes. Ham's sons on the other hand, kept inbreeding which re-enforces traits, not diversifies them. Genesis also explains the many siblings and wives that their descendants had which would make people multiply very quickly.

This still doesn't explain the huge diversification between races.

And by the way, man has never evolved because he's still the same today s he ever was.

As soon as I saw "because" I was ready for an explanation as to why men have never evolved, but all I got was the "men have never evolved" part again worded differently. Men have never evolved because men have never evolved? 'Fraid you've got a bit more explaining to do, Heidi.

The word "evolution" was coined to try to explain how a wild beast could turn into humans who have many more abilities than wild animals do. It's as false as it is embarrassing. :roll:

I agree, it's not false or embarrassing at all.

 

[Orion]

I believe that at least one of the pyramids at Giza was built about the time of the flood as well.

 

[John]

The Gene poll was deeper alowing for 2 whites to have a black kid.

also Australian Aboriginals, Pygmys, Chinese, Native Americans are all still human, in every respect, thats simply adaptation...not evolution :P

 

[Heidi]

Here's another stumper for the Creationists.

After the Great Flood, only Noah and his family survived. How did this small group of people give rise to all the human races (think about it, Inuit, Australian Aboriginals, Pygmys, Chinese, Native Americans etc) we currently see today in such a short space of time?

Don't forget the the use of black slaves is documented in text and painting by the ancient Egyptians around 1500BC or even earlier.

Genesis explains that. In fact, it gives a detailed account of Noah's sons and where they lived. Noah's son, Japheth's descendants were scattered all over the world.

Not really. Looks to me like they were all around south-eastern Europe.

That means that when they mated, they didn't inbreed like the sons of Ham did who stayed around Africa.

Who did they mate with? Everybody else is dead.

[quote:7e8ab]So their descendants are much more diverse in looks and genes. Ham's sons on the other hand, kept inbreeding which re-enforces traits, not diversifies them. Genesis also explains the many siblings and wives that their descendants had which would make people multiply very quickly.

This still doesn't explain the huge diversification between races.

And by the way, man has never evolved because he's still the same today s he ever was.

As soon as I saw "because" I was ready for an explanation as to why men have never evolved, but all I got was the "men have never evolved" part again worded differently. Men have never evolved because men have never evolved? 'Fraid you've got a bit more explaining to do, Heidi.

The word "evolution" was coined to try to explain how a wild beast could turn into humans who have many more abilities than wild animals do. It's as false as it is embarrassing. :roll:

I agree, it's not false or embarrassing at all.[/quote:7e8ab]

Sorry. Sometimes when I delete a word, the whole sentence deletes and I overlook it. :

Man never evolves because he has the same traits he always had. He also is as greedy, arrogant, and selfish as he's always been. The "knowledge' that man has today has come from the accumulation of previous minds in previous centuries. So man isn't born any smarter. He simply uses the knowledge that has accumulated from other minds over the centuries.

In fact, man is more deluded than ever before because he believes that wild animals can breed human descendants when it's as impossible as humans breeding zebras as descendants. : So evolution is embarrassing to people who don't like to look foolish. But I can see why some people who don't mind looking foolish aren't embarrassed by it. ;-) And since humans are closer to annihilating themselves than ever before, that shows that man is in a state of decay, not evolving. ;-)

 

[Orion]

Heidi, would you not hijack this thread with the same words you're saying on other threads, please? This thread is about all the human races that, if you believe in a literal global flood, ~4,400 years ago, would have arisen from a few families.

 

[John]

Man was much healthier than he is nowback then, the gene pool, less corrupted by subsequent harmful mutations and other defects; and the environment on earth, was much more favorable to good health and long life, as can be seen by the recorded pre-flood longevities, the Gene pool was deeper, its not a problem at all to have all the races we see today.

Even if they Evolved (Adapted) they are still human, nothing knew was added to the human gene code, the information was already there.

This thread is pointless.

 

[Dunzo]

Are you going to address the rest of my points or so very hypocritically ignore them?

Man never evolves because he has the same traits he always had.

Sure. Evidence to support this?

He also is as greedy, arrogant, and selfish as he's always been. The "knowledge' that man has today has come from the accumulation of previous minds in previous centuries. So man isn't born any smarter. He simply uses the knowledge that has accumulated from other minds over the centuries.

What has the collective personality of mankind got to do with anything? Selfishness is a trait that does lead to increased chances of survival, though.

In fact, man is more deluded than ever before because he believes that wild animals can breed human descendants when it's as impossible as humans breeding zebras as descendants. : So evolution is embarrassing to people who don't like to look foolish. But I can see why some people who don't mind looking foolish aren't embarrassed by it. ;-) And since humans are closer to annihilating themselves than ever before, that shows that man is in a state of decay, not evolving. ;-)

You seem to imply that evolution is a one-way process - that species can only evolve "upwards". This is, of course, incorrect. A species can become less complex if the environment calls for it. The only reason mankind is closer to "annihilation" is because of the epic scientific advancements made in recent years. If anything, this shows that man is developing bigger and better brains.

 

[John]

Math says the probability of evolution being true is like 1 to the 340G power ( G = Google, Google = 1 with a million zeros after it)

degrading or de-evolution has a proibity rate of 1 out of 2, at this rate nothing should be alive.

 

[Dunzo]

Math says the probability of evolution being true is like 1 to the 340G power ( G = Google, Google = 1 with a million zeros after it)

degrading or de-evolution has a proibity rate of 1 out of 2, at this rate nothing should be alive.

Hahahaha, what a nonsensical claim? Got a reliable source for this?
It's "googol", by the way ;), and is 1 followed by 100 zeroes.

 

[Heidi]

Math says the probability of evolution being true is like 1 to the 340G power ( G = Google, Google = 1 with a million zeros after it)

degrading or de-evolution has a proibity rate of 1 out of 2, at this rate nothing should be alive.

Hahahaha, what a nonsensical claim? Got a reliable source for this?
It's "googol", by the way ;), and is 1 followed by 100 zeroes.

All one needs is common sense to see the odds. ;-) The odds of thousands of apes all passing along the exact same mutations to their offspring all over the world are unfathomable enough to be impossible. And considering that apes are still around today and aren't turning into humans, then evolution contradicts reality as well. But science fiction writers always hang onto the impossible as the human imagination always does, particularly when it tries to deny the existence of God. ;-)

 

[John]

So i made a math and a spelling mistake, the odds are still too great against evolution versus de-evolution.

 

[jwu]

So i made a math and a spelling mistake, the odds are still too great against evolution versus de-evolution.

So where is this math from? If i recall correctly, you used it to argue against a straw man version of abiogenesis. That has little to do with evolution...

 

[Jayls5]

Math says the probability of evolution being true is like 1 to the 340G power ( G = Google, Google = 1 with a million zeros after it)

degrading or de-evolution has a proibity rate of 1 out of 2, at this rate nothing should be alive.

Hahahaha, what a nonsensical claim? Got a reliable source for this?
It's "googol", by the way ;), and is 1 followed by 100 zeroes.

All one needs is common sense to see the odds. ;-) The odds of thousands of apes all passing along the exact same mutations to their offspring all over the world are unfathomable enough to be impossible. And considering that apes are still around today and aren't turning into humans, then evolution contradicts reality as well. But science fiction writers always hang onto the impossible as the human imagination always does, particularly when it tries to deny the existence of God. ;-)

Heidi comes to the rescue with another strawman. I'm sure you've been told this before and you either forgot it or omitted it: Evolution doesn't say modern apes are our descendants.

 

[Orion]

How did this topic get changed to another stupid evolution vs. creationism debate!!! :x

I wish people would stick to the TOPIC of this post!

 

[John]

then please tell me where all these images originate from

 

[jwu]

That's just an artistic expression.

The actual fossils that it's more or less based on are these:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... inids2.jpg

 

[John]

That's just an artistic expression.

The actual fossils that it's more or less based on are these:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... inids2.jpg

They all look human.

 

[Heidi]

That's just an artistic expression.

The actual fossils that it's more or less based on are these:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... inids2.jpg

They all look human.

Yup. And in fact if one places a blond wig on the skulls they find, gives them blue eyes and creamy skin, then they would look just like humans. So all their fossils "prove" is the imagination of the people looking at them.