• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Polygenist Creation Models

Status
Not open for further replies.

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
36
✟19,524.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Papias said:
It's an important part of having an open mind to be accepting of people changing their minds. I've changed my mind on many topics, and when one never changes one's mind, I begin to suspect dogmatism and clinging to error.

I'd prefer it if Research2 were more open-minded about the issue of race rather than the age of the Earth.

-------

Research2 said:
They are mentioned, more importantly Jesus sent his apostles to these exact regions (for example Simon the Zealot to England).

Oh rubbish - find this quote.

Research2 said:
The gospel was only to be taken only to the House of Israel (see Matthew 10: 6; 15: 24). This is in your Bible...look these verses up and stop ignoring them, do you rip them out?

Equally I could ask if you rip out the quotes which say 'all nations'. When Jesus was referring to the house of Israel he said 'the House of Israel'. Then he said 'all nations' he was referring to those outside of Israel.

Research2 said:
notedstrangeperson said:
people living in regions with less sunlight tend to have light skin because it aids production of vitamin D.
You mean like the dark brown skinned eskimos?

This same tired line of reasoning is getting very irritating because I and others have answered it many times before. Skin colour is a reaction to sunlight - Africa has strong sunlight and Negroes are dark-skinned because it protects them against skin cancer. Europe has less sunlight and Caucasians have light skin because it aids in the production of vitamin C. The top of the Arctic circle has permanent sunlight for much of the year and no sunlight at all for many months. As such their skin is dark enough to protect them from the sun but light enough to help absord vitamin D - which is why they are not as light nor as dark as Negroes or Caucasians.

You act like the Berbers and Inuits are your two trump cards against evolution ... :|

Research2 said:
The Laws of Thermodynamics were founded hundreds of years ago, but still exist, unchanged.

Some scientific theories last, while others are debunked. The people themselves do not determine whether it is true or not (hence your list of polygenist scientists does not add weight to your argument), the evidence does.

Speaking of which ...
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
36
✟19,524.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Research2 said:
A i said in the earlier thread this mongogenist argument was debunked over 200 years ago by the polygenists.

You have yet to provide any actual evidence for polygenism. No, adding quotes from people who lived more than a century ago does not count. In order for polygenism to be proved true you would have to:

a) Explain why racial interbreeding is so common, and why mixed-raced people have no more fertility problems than non-mixed people. Polygenism, like most forms of Creationism, leaves out taxonomy. If humans were created seperately this means the different races are not in fact related at all. According to Creationism chimpanzees and humans were created seperatly and are not related. This, in theory, explains why the two cannot breed. Why are humans and chimps unable to reproduce together but the different races are not?

b) Answer my question on racial identity: what exactly are these 'fixed' features you talk about? And if they are not a reaction to environment and natural selection, what are they for?

c) Answer more theological questions. If Caucasians are the only race with souls (or at least the only race Christianity is concerned about), how 'white' does a person have to be in order to be a Christian? Does a pure-blooded Celt have a 100% possibility of going to heaven while a mulatto only has a 50% possibility?

d) Provide biological evidence (preferably DNA) that the races only inherited their features at a certain period in history. This will be especially difficult, as it will have to explain why people of the same race living today have so much genetic variation. Why are some Negroes darker than others? Why are some Caucasians red-haired and others are not? Why do some Mongolics have flatter faces than others?

Sorry I'm repeating myself so much but I get the feeling you're not really reading other user's posts. I've already told you I am not a 'race-denier', and that there are difference between certain types of hybrids. Sub-species hybrids (such as the offspring of an Asiatic lion and Barbary lion) generally have no fertility problems while cross-species hybrids (such as a liger, the offspring of a lion and a tiger) tend to be sterile.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Research2

Find my research threads in Unorthodox Theology
Mar 22, 2011
226
1
England
✟362.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Oh rubbish - find this quote.

- Israel were to dwell in 'Isles' or 'Islands' (Isaiah 24: 15; 41: 1; 42: 4; 12; 49: 1; 51: 5; 60: 9; Jeremiah 31: 10). Modern Israelites are therefore to be an insular race, or an Island nation.

- These 'Isles' or 'Islands' were to dwell at the 'ends of the earth' 'uttermost parts of the earth' or 'farthest north', including most notably the Israelite tribes Ephraim and Manasseh (Deuteronomy 33: 17; Isaiah 41: 9; 43: 6; Jeremiah 3: 12; 18; 23: 8).

- Ephraim = England, Manasseh = Isle of Man. Isaiah 24: 14- 16 also mentions Iceland.

- In Hebrew "afsei-aretz" and "katsvot haaretz", mean the geographical extremities - ''the ends of the earth'' (stated to be in the far north in the Book of Jeremiah), which during the 8th - 6th century BC was known in Israelite geography as Britain and Scandinavia (there are even extant Rabbinical texts which make this same equation, so this tradition was prevalant amongst the Jews as well).

- Furthermore Israel was to dwell specifically far north-west in a sea, from Palestine (Isaiah 24: 14; 59: 19).

- The Israelites in their Isles in the north-west at the ''ends of the earth'' were also to have a cold, wet climate with a lack of sunlight (Isaiah 49: 10).

- All these marks of identity prove Britain are Israel. In the words of Edward Hine - ''The identity is obvious. The British Isles are to the north-west from Palestine - they are ''afar off'', sit in the (north) western sea and constitute most emphatically a ''north country''

Equally I could ask if you rip out the quotes which say 'all nations'. When Jesus was referring to the house of Israel he said 'the House of Israel'. Then he said 'all nations' he was referring to those outside of Israel.

You have to read the prophecies in Genesis regarding the descendants of Abraham who were promised to be nations (plural) see Genesis 17: 4; 6; 18: 18, furthermore God specifically told Jacob that through him would come "a nation and a company of nations" (Genesis 35: 11).

Africa has strong sunlight and Negroes are dark-skinned because it protects them against skin cancer.

And the native Libyan Berbers are pale skinned with fair hair.

Climate has no influence on the permanence of fixed features. If climate produced the features, then the Libyans should be dark, but they aren't. They have lived in Algeria and other parts of North Africa for thousands of years but are fair skinned, many with blondes and red hair. The indigenous Egyptians were also predominately, pale white skinned with fair hair.

You act like the Berbers and Inuits are your two trump cards against evolution ... :|

Yes, these points have debunked evolution.

Even in the thead all the evolutionists admitted that ''it was a problem'' or ''hole'' in their theory.

The people themselves do not determine whether it is true or not (hence your list of polygenist scientists does not add weight to your argument), the evidence does.

And there is no evidence for evolution or monogenism.
 
Upvote 0

Research2

Find my research threads in Unorthodox Theology
Mar 22, 2011
226
1
England
✟362.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
You have yet to provide any actual evidence for polygenism.

I've got lots of evidence, the basics have only been listed. I'm in the process of listing many sources.

If humans were created seperately this means the different races are not in fact related at all.

We aren't related, for example we look, think etc completely differently, and on top of that have different language, culture and spiritual qualities.

Monogenism only started with Darwinism, its only around 150 years old in theory. In contrast polygenism is the original belief of all ancient peoples.

Evolution without monogenism completely crumbles.

According to Creationism chimpanzees and humans were created seperatly and are not related. This, in theory, explains why the two cannot breed. Why are humans and chimps unable to reproduce together but the different races are not?

Various sub-species can breed together. As i said, this argument for monogenism is not valid in disproving polygenism.

We can conclude all races are one genus, but that they are sub-species, or many distinct fixed kinds within.

Answer my question on racial identity: what exactly are these 'fixed' features you talk about? And if they are not a reaction to environment and natural selection, what are they for?

Fixed features: skin tone, hair (texture, colour), eye colour etc.

They are the features our creator gave us to seperate us, but only the Adamic race was made in the image and likeness of God.

Since Adam was only of one physical image or phenotype, its impossible to say everyone on Earth was made in the image of God.

c) Answer more theological questions. If Caucasians are the only race with souls (or at least the only race Christianity is concerned about), how 'white' does a person have to be in order to be a Christian? Does a pure-blooded Celt have a 100% possibility of going to heaven while a mulatto only has a 50% possibility?

The other races have different religions. Indians - Hinduism and Buddhism, East Asians - Shinto and other indigenous beliefs, Native Americans have their own mythology and spiritual beliefs.

And the answer to your second question is found in Deuternomy 23: 2.

d) Provide biological evidence (preferably DNA) that the races only inherited their features at a certain period in history. This will be especially difficult, as it will have to explain why people of the same race living today have so much genetic variation. Why are some Negroes darker than others? Why are some Caucasians red-haired and others are not? Why do some Mongolics have flatter faces than others?

Only Caucasians have genetic diversity (blonde, red, brown, auburn hair) and (blue, green, gray, hazel eyes). All other races are black haired and dark eyed.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
36
✟19,524.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Research2 said:
- Israel were to dwell in 'Isles' or 'Islands' (Isaiah 24: 15; 41: 1; 42: 4; 12; 49: 1; 51: 5; 60: 9; Jeremiah 31: 10). Modern Israelites are therefore to be an insular race, or an Island nation.

- These 'Isles' or 'Islands' were to dwell at the 'ends of the earth' 'uttermost parts of the earth' or 'farthest north', including most notably the Israelite tribes Ephraim and Manasseh (Deuteronomy 33: 17; Isaiah 41: 9; 43: 6; Jeremiah 3: 12; 18; 23: 8).

- Ephraim = England, Manasseh = Isle of Man. Isaiah 24: 14- 16 also mentions Iceland.

- In Hebrew "afsei-aretz" and "katsvot haaretz", mean the geographical extremities - ''the ends of the earth'' (stated to be in the far north in the Book of Jeremiah), which during the 8th - 6th century BC was known in Israelite geography as Britain and Scandinavia (there are even extant Rabbinical texts which make this same equation, so this tradition was prevalant amongst the Jews as well).

- Furthermore Israel was to dwell specifically far north-west in a sea, from Palestine (Isaiah 24: 14; 59: 19).

- The Israelites in their Isles in the north-west at the ''ends of the earth'' were also to have a cold, wet climate with a lack of sunlight (Isaiah 49: 10).

- All these marks of identity prove Britain are Israel. In the words of Edward Hine - ''The identity is obvious. The British Isles are to the north-west from Palestine - they are ''afar off'', sit in the (north) western sea and constitute most emphatically a ''north country''

Goodness you have to connect a lot of tenuous links. This is on par with your argument on Adam's ability to blush.

  • England does not lie towards 'the end of the Earth'. There are several countries much further north than the UK. Edward Hine also lived in the 19th century - at least try to find a more recent source who is not influenced by racial supremacy.
  • The closest islands to the north-west of Israel are Cyprus and Crete in the Mediterranean sea (which the earlier Bible writers probably did know about). You'd have to take a rather large leap all the way across Europe to reach Britain.
  • Both Manasseh and Ephraim were people, not places. They were the sons of Moses. I'm not sure why you mentioned them.
  • I'm not quite sure why you've suggested that Isaiah 49:10 speaks of England either. It says:
They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them.

The entire chapter does not seem to be referring to any specific country at all, nor does Isaiah 24:14-16.

Research2 said:
Climate has no influence on the permanence of fixed features. If climate produced the features, then the Libyans should be dark, but they aren't. They have lived in Algeria and other parts of North Africa for thousands of years but are fair skinned, many with blondes and red hair. The indigenous Egyptians were also predominately, pale white skinned with fair hair.

Lots of people have show repeatedly shown how certain racial features, particularly skin colour, are related to environment. They provided links for you. You're saying the same untrue statements over and over again to reassure yourself, not because you're genuinely interested in debate or because you have any biological evidence to back up your claims. Nobody is going to take your arguments seriously if you keep doing this.

I wish you would add sources along with these odd claims. The Egyptians, pale skinned and fair-haired? More nonsense. They depicted themselves as brown-skinned and dark haired, and had a mixture of Arabic and Negro ancestry. And before you put words in my mouth, no - the ancient Egyptians were not 'pure' Negroes.

Research2 said:
And there is no evidence for evolution or monogenism.

I wonder how you are able to type without removing your fingers from your ears. There is a wealth of evidence supporting both macro- and microevolution.

We've asked you to provide evidence - preferably biological evidence - of polygenism. Stop dodging the questions, otherwise we'll have to assume you have no answers at all.
 
Upvote 0

Research2

Find my research threads in Unorthodox Theology
Mar 22, 2011
226
1
England
✟362.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
England does not lie towards 'the end of the Earth'. There are several countries much further north than the UK.

Remember to read the Bible in its ancient context, regarding ancient geography the northern most Island in classical antiquity was Thule (Ultima Thule) and the Cassiterides which are both connected to Britain, the ancient Hebrews (and Phoenicians) had similar names for them.

The ancients had no knowledge of certain lands beyond a certain point, hence the ancient Greeks and Romans coined them terra incognita - ''unknown lands''.

The 'ends of the earth' in the last chapters of Deuteronomy, the Book of Isaiah and Jeremiah all refer to Britain or Scandinavia.

Even up to the times of Beothius (524 AD), Britain was considered to be at the 'ends of the world'.

Both Manasseh and Ephraim were people, not places. They were the sons of Moses. I'm not sure why you mentioned them.

They were the sons of Joseph, and were counted amongst the 'lost' tribes of Israel. Ephraim are who the ethnic-English descend from, this topic though is not relevant to polygenism, i only raised this to show that the apostles only entered territories where the Israelites were settled.

I'm not quite sure why you've suggested that Isaiah 49:10 speaks of England either. It says:

''Neither shall heat nor sun smite them'' - meaning their territory would be cold and not hot i.e Northern Europe.

The entire chapter does not seem to be referring to any specific country at all, nor does Isaiah 24:14-16.

Isaiah 24: 14-16 -

''They shall lift up their voice, they shall sing for the majesty of the LORD, they shall cry aloud from the sea. Wherefore glorify ye the LORD in the fires, [even] the name of the LORD God of Israel in the isles of the sea.From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, [even] glory to the righteous. But I said, My leanness, my leanness, woe unto me! the treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously; yea, the treacherous dealers have dealt very treacherously.''

- ''cry aloud from the sea''/'isles of the sea'' are geographic references to an Isle or Island (this is plain clear).

- ''uttermost part of the earth'' - another geographic reference. So the Isle and sea would be to the far north.

- ''fires'' - A reference to Iceland.

Throughout ancient history, Iceland has been called the ''Island of fires'', or ''Isle of flames'' because of its volcanoes. Still today a volcanic Island off the coast of Iceland is called Surtsey, named after the Jotun (giant) of fire or flames in Norse mythology. Also Iceland sits at the ''uttermost part of the earth'' known to the ancients.

Lots of people have show repeatedly shown how certain racial features, particularly skin colour, are related to environment. They provided links for you. You're saying the same untrue statements over and over again to reassure yourself, not because you're genuinely interested in debate or because you have any biological evidence to back up your claims. Nobody is going to take your arguments seriously if you keep doing this.

So why are the native Libyans pale? You've avoided this two or three times in this thread, and in the other about five times...

I wish you would add sources along with these odd claims.

Ok...

Kabyles (indigenous Berbers) -

''The Kabyles of the hills between Algiers and Bougie, and the Shawia of the Aures Mountains are very similar to one another and may be taken as typical Berbers. They are distinctly white-skinned, even when sunburned. Usually they have black hair and brown or hazel eyes, some have yellow hair and blue eyes. In the royal necropolis of Thebes of about 1300 B.C., certain Libyans are depicted as having a white skin, blue eyes and fair beards. Blonds are represented on Egyptian monuments from 1700 B.C. and were noted by the Greeks in the fourth century B.C. In the east the blonds have quite died out, but there are patches of this race in the west of North Africa. This fair race still remain an unsolved problem''

- Alfred Cort Haddon, The Races of Man and Their Distribution (1924), University Press, 1924, p.36

Note how Haddon (an evolutionist) admitted it remains an 'unsolved problem' and 80 or so years on and evolutionists still can't provide an answer...

More quotes -

''Part of my time had been passed of what is called "La Grande Kabylie", that portion of the province of Algiers which is inhabited by he Kabyles, the most direct descendants of the Ancient Libyans. They are strange people these Kabyles, both in customs and physical aspects. Native of Africa time out of mind, many of them present the purest type of the blonde races, blue or gray eyes, tawny beard, fair complexion, curly light or reddish hair, muscular in build and often tall in stature''

- Daniel Garrison Brinton, The Ethnologic affinities of the Ancient Etruscans, Proceedings, American Philosophical Society, vol. 26, 1889, p.504

''The Berbers, among whom even today one finds light skins and blue eyes, do not go back to the Vandal invasions of the fifth century A.D., but to the prehistoric Atlantic Nordic human wave. The Kabyle huntsmen, for example, are to no small degree still wholly Nordic (thus the blond Berbers in the region of Constantine form 10 % of the population; at Djebel Sheshor they are even more numerous).

- Alfred Rosenberg, The Myth of the Twentieth Century (1930), Hrp, 2004, p.6

''Of the Berbers there is much good to be said. Whether in the olive-clad mountains of Kabylia or the terraced valleys of their Aurasian fastnesses, they are white men, and in general act like white men.''

- Melville William Hilton-Simpson, Among the Hill Folk of Algeria (1921), Read Books, 2007, p.4

The Egyptians, pale skinned and fair-haired? More nonsense.

Science is against you (again)...

''After having achieved this immense work, an important scientific conclusion remains to be drawn: the anthropological study and the microscopic analysis of hair, carried out by four laboratories: Judiciary Medecine (Professor Ceccaldi), Société L'Oréal, Atomic Energy Commission, and Institut Textile de France showed that Ramses II was a 'leucoderm', that is a fair-skinned man, near to the Prehistoric and Antiquity Mediterraneans, or briefly, of the Berbers of Africa.''

- Christiane Desroches Noblecourt, La Momie de Ramsès II: Contribution Scientifique à l'Égyptologie, Paris, Rech. sur les Civilisations, 1985, p. 383

Dr. Joann Fletcher, a consultant to the British Bioanthropology Foundation, has proved that Seti I (the father of Ramesses II), had red hair. [Parks (2000).]

It has also been demonstrated that the mummy of Pharaoh Siptah (a great-grandson of Ramesses II), has red hair. [Partridge (1994) 169.]

An anthropological description of Ramesses' mummy, which was written by the Biblical historian Archibald Sayce:

"The Nineteenth Dynasty to which Ramses II, the oppressor of the Israelites, belonged, is distinguished by its marked dolichocephalism of long-headedness. His mummy shows an index of 74, while the face is an oval with an index of 103. The nose is prominent, but leptorrhine and aquiline, and the jaws are orthognathous. The chin is broad, the neck long, like the fingers and nails. The great king seems to have had red hair." [Sayce (1925) 136.]

''The predynastic Egyptians, that is to say, that stratum of them which was indigenous to North Africa, belonged to a white or light-skinned race with fair hair, who in many particulars resembled the Libyans, who in later historical times lived very near the western bank of the Nile."

- E. A. W. Budge, Egypt in the Neolithic and Archaic Periods (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Trübner, 1902), p. 49.

When English archaeologist Howard Carter excavated the tomb of Tutankhamen in 1922, he discovered in the Treasury a small wooden sarcophagus. Within it lay a memento of Tutankhamen's beloved grandmother, Queen Tiye: "a curl of her auburn hair."

- C. Desroches-Noblecourt, Tutankhamen: Life and Death of a Pharaoh (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972), p. 65.]

Queen Tiye (18th Dynasty), was the daughter of Thuya, a Priestess of the God Amun. Thuya's mummy, which was found in 1905, has long, red-blonde hair. Examinations of Tiye's mummy proved that she bore a striking resemblance to her mother.

- B. Adams, Egyptian Mummies (Aylesbury: Shire Publications, 1988), p. 39.]

A painting of the mother of Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (18th Dynasty), reveals that she had blonde hair, blue eyes and a rosy complexion.
- W. Sieglin, Die blonden Haare der indogermanischen Völker des Altertums (Munich: J. F. Lehmanns Verlag, 1935), p. 132.[/font]

American Egyptologist Donald P. Ryan excavated tomb KV 60, in the Valley of the Kings, during the course of 1989. Inside, he found the mummy of a royal female, which he believes to be the long-lost remains of the great Queen Hatshepsut (18th Dynasty). Ryan describes the mummy as follows:

''The mummy was mostly unwrapped and on its back. Strands of reddish-blond hair lay on the floor beneath the bald head." [Ibid., p. 87.][/font]

Red-Haired Ramesses -

''...identical percentages of fully depigmented and pigmented hairs, the overall colour being a light fair red with some tendency towards yellow.''

- Balout, L., C. Roubet & C. Desroches-Noblecourt [eds.] (1985) La Momie de Ramsès II: Contribution Scientifique à l'Égyptologie (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations).
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
36
✟19,524.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Research2 said:
The ancients had no knowledge of certain lands beyond a certain point, hence the ancient Greeks and Romans coined them terra incognita - ''unknown lands''.

The 'ends of the earth' in the last chapters of Deuteronomy, the Book of Isaiah and Jeremiah all refer to Britain or Scandinavia.

Even up to the times of Beothius (524 AD), Britain was considered to be at the 'ends of the world'.

This appears to be your argument:
The writers of the Bible - the Mesopotamians - had no knowledge of lands outside the Middle East. Therefore Africans, Indians, Aboriginals, Mongolics and Native Americans were never meat to be Christians. The exception to this rule is northernmost Europe, whose inhabitants were intended to be Christian, despite the fact they knew nothing about Europe or it's people either. This does not make any sense.

Research2 said:
''Neither shall heat nor sun smite them'' - meaning their territory would be cold and not hot i.e Northern Europe.
...
''cry aloud from the sea''/'isles of the sea'' are geographic references to an Isle or Island (this is plain clear).

- ''uttermost part of the earth'' - another geographic reference. So the Isle and sea would be to the far north.

- ''fires'' - A reference to Iceland.

This is you evidence? Goodness you're really grasping at straws ...

You yourself have provided a map of the regions of the world the early writers of the Bible knew (the writers of the OT). Northern Europe, indeed all of Europe, was not included in this. Presuming the quotes from Isaiah are not metaphors, yes they are referring to islands. As I pointed out there are several islands in the Mediterranaen, notably Crete and Cyprus. This region of the world has a lot of volcanic activity as do most of the lands north of Israel. The entire chapter of Isaiah 49 is describing how God will save his people, not a specific country.

Bad biology, bad history, bad theology and now bad geography ...

Research2 said:
Libyans are depicted as having a white skin, blue eyes and fair beards.

You said that native Egyptians were fair-skinned and blond but you are providing quotes about Berbers and Libyans. To state the obvious, Libyans are not Egyptians. They Egyptians categoried them as a different race.

Considering Egypt was a multicultural empire during it's heyday, it's not surprising that the various Pharaohs had different features. Cleopatra was actually a Greek. What you were asking what race the original (pre-dynasty) Egyptians were. They were not pure 'black' or 'white' or 'asian', they were a group of their own - a group who painted themselves having dark brown skin. Once again, this was an argument to try to prove that racial features are not a result of environment.

So what are they for? I've asked you to answer my questions about this and you've remained frustratingly silent, so I'll have to assume there is no biological basis for polygenism. Your argument is bunk.

-----

You may have heard of this news story a while back "Black Couple has White Baby". Now obviously this baby is not 'white' (Caucasian) nor is she albino. Albinos aren't unusal among black populations anyway. She does however bear a striking resemblence to the Berbers.

One possibile reason behind their light skin is that they have a pigment mutation inherited from their black ancestors - in fact pigment mutations are unusually common among Negros. Another perhaps more likely reason is that they are Europeans who down came to Africa. Most Berbers live in Morocco which is situated very close to the bottom of Spain.

I hope you don't mind a more personal question - why do you think this single group of people somehow disprove evolution when practially every other racial group supports it?

EDIT: Berbers do seem to have their genetic origins in Europe.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Research2

Find my research threads in Unorthodox Theology
Mar 22, 2011
226
1
England
✟362.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
You have yet to answer why the indigenous Libyans, Egyptians etc were/are pale white yet live(d) in a hot environment. You avoid this point everytime. Clearly climate has no effect, it can not changed the fixed physical features. And this is evidence for polygenism.

And yes the Berbers share a common root with indigenous Europeans.

However the point you overlooked is that Berbers have been living in North Africa for thousands of years but the climate has never changed their physical appearance. Again - proving a fixed permanence.

Lastly, i don't just use these examples. The truth is every different group proves polygenism. Here's another example: Europeans colonised the Americas several hundreds of years ago, and their modern descendants still resemble them. The European-American has never witnessed a change in physical appearance, he/she is not turning into a Native American in appearance, despite the fact having living in the same environment now for hundreds of years. There are better examples of others for thousands of years, so we have recorded observed/observable examples of groups never altering. Yet evolutionists believe they did alter or evolve their features... :doh:The evidence is against evolution here.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
You have yet to answer why the indigenous Libyans, Egyptians etc were/are pale white yet live(d) in a hot environment. You avoid this point everytime. Clearly climate has no effect, it can not changed the fixed physical features. And this is evidence for polygenism.

And yes the Berbers share a common root with indigenous Europeans.

However the point you overlooked is that Berbers have been living in North Africa for thousands of years but the climate has never changed their physical appearance. Again - proving a fixed permanence.

Lastly, i don't just use these examples. The truth is every different group proves polygenism. Here's another example: Europeans colonised the Americas several hundreds of years ago, and their modern descendants still resemble them. The European-American has never witnessed a change in physical appearance, he/she is not turning into a Native American in appearance, despite the fact having living in the same environment now for hundreds of years. There are better examples of others for thousands of years, so we have recorded observed/observable examples of groups never altering. Yet evolutionists believe they did alter or evolve their features... :doh:The evidence is against evolution here.
Actually, that's a very good question for creationists.

Creationists believe that Africans settled Africa at most four thousand years ago (after the Flood), and that their pigmentation is an adaptation to the African climate. Furthermore, conventional creationists :p also believe that recognizably black Africans appear in the Bible, so that this adaptation was essentially complete by at least the time when the Bible was canonized. Therefore, the process of populational adaptation to different climates can take at most two thousand years.

But Caucasians have been in North America for five hundred years now. Why haven't they become more noticeably like the Native Americans?
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
36
✟19,524.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
research2 said:
You have yet to answer why the indigenous Libyans, Egyptians etc were/are pale white yet live(d) in a hot environment. You avoid this point everytime. Clearly climate has no effect, it can not changed the fixed physical features. And this is evidence for polygenism.

And yes the Berbers share a common root with indigenous Europeans.

However the point you overlooked is that Berbers have been living in North Africa for thousands of years but the climate has never changed their physical appearance. Again - proving a fixed permanence.

They're pale-skinned because they have been living in North Africa for a far shorter time than their ancestors lived in Europe. Native Africans have been living in Africa itself far longer than they have, they've had more time to adapt.
The second reason is the chart Papias provided - north Africans in general are noticeably lighter than their southern neighbours. Similarly Spaniards tend to be darker than most Europeans.
Another important reason is simply that people tend to marry within their own group.

Different ancestry compared to other Africans, different region compared to other Africans and staying within their own racial group explains their different appearance.

I wish you'd answer my question on what purpose racial features have if they are not related to environment.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Research2

Find my research threads in Unorthodox Theology
Mar 22, 2011
226
1
England
✟362.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
They're pale-skinned because they have been living in North Africa for a far shorter time than their ancestors lived in Europe. Native Africans have been living in Africa itself far longer than they have, they've had more time to adapt.
The second reason is the chart Papias provided - north Africans in general are noticeably lighter than their southern neighbours. Similarly Spaniards tend to be darker than most Europeans.
Another important reason is simply that people tend to marry within their own group.

Different ancestry compared to other Africans, different region compared to other Africans and staying within their own racial group explains their different appearance.

Berbers have been living in North Africa for thousands of years. Its not just two or three thousands, but many more. Yet in all that time they have not changed in the slightest, the climate has had no affect.

You have yet to provide an actual example/evidence for your belief climate produced the physical variations - when in contrast observation and science has proven the opposite, that races have a fixed permanence that can never change.

I wish you'd answer my question on what purpose racial features have if they are not related to environment.

You would never uunderstand since you aren't a creationist. To you, everything is just randomly created by accidentalism (evolution), pretty which is the same all Atheists think. Evolution and Atheism are closely related since they both reject the idea of a designer.
 
Upvote 0

Research2

Find my research threads in Unorthodox Theology
Mar 22, 2011
226
1
England
✟362.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Actually, that's a very good question for creationists.

Creationists believe that Africans settled Africa at most four thousand years ago (after the Flood), and that their pigmentation is an adaptation to the African climate. Furthermore, conventional creationists :p also believe that recognizably black Africans appear in the Bible, so that this adaptation was essentially complete by at least the time when the Bible was canonized. Therefore, the process of populational adaptation to different climates can take at most two thousand years.

But Caucasians have been in North America for five hundred years now. Why haven't they become more noticeably like the Native Americans?

Yes, Young Earth Creationists have as cranky views as evolutionists. Nothing new there.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
The second reason is the chart Papias provided - north Africans in general are noticeably lighter than their southern neighbours. Similarly Spaniards tend to be darker than most Europeans.

Maybe that happens because, when southern Africans try to stay up north, they are genetically incapable of adapting to the weather and then get outcompeted by the northern Africans. A polygenist model incorporating the fixity of races is perfectly capable of explaining these so-called evilutionist observations!

Remember, there is no evidence that can disprove Research2's views - it's his interpretation against yours.

Another important reason is simply that people tend to marry within their own group.

Again, how does that undermine Research2's views? If anything, they only strengthen it, by giving us yet another mechanism that actually enforces the fixity of races.

After all, miscegenation is heavily discouraged in Mosaic Law. The traditional discouragement of mixed marriages serves as a further safeguard to ensure that races do not transgress their genetic boundaries. Of course, marriage between Caucasians is okay; but how is God to decide whether a mulatto gets to be a Christian or not? Maybe that explains why Barack Obama is a Muslim!

Research2, I've got a question for you. You say that the authors of the Bible only knew ancient geography as far as Europe and the Middle East (and, conveniently, ancient Britain as well). If you were right, then every single geographical location in the Bible would have to lie in that region.

And if that were so, isn't it true that there would be no possible Biblical quote that could change your views?
 
Upvote 0

Research2

Find my research threads in Unorthodox Theology
Mar 22, 2011
226
1
England
✟362.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Research2, I've got a question for you. You say that the authors of the Bible only knew ancient geography as far as Europe and the Middle East (and, conveniently, ancient Britain as well). If you were right, then every single geographical location in the Bible would have to lie in that region.

Only a small segment of south-eastern europe was known to the authors of Genesis. However during the later books of the Old Testament, there was a wider knowledge of geography. However this geography never covered Japan, Polynesia, Sub-Sahara Africa, Easter Island, the Americas etc. The ancient Hebrews had no knowledge of these places, nor even did the authors of the New Testament. Japan, China, India, Polynesia etc are not in the New Testament either. The inhabitants of those areas, were never meant to be Christian, the Bible is not for them.

And if that were so, isn't it true that there would be no possible Biblical quote that could change your views?

As i asked notedstrangeperson find me Easter Island, Japan, Sub-Sahara Africa etc in scripture, then i will admit i am wrong. Good luck finding those by the way...
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
36
✟19,524.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Shernren said:
A polygenist model incorporating the fixity of races is perfectly capable of explaining these so-called evilutionist observations!

Remember, there is no evidence that can disprove Research2's views - it's his interpretation against yours.

Et tu Shernren? Polygenism only works from a Creationist point of view, even multiregional theory argues that the different races are descended from different lines of hominids. There is no evidence for Creationism, and as such there is no evidence for polygenism.

Or ... were you being sarcastic? Really, I can't tell. :blush:

Research2 said:
The inhabitants of those areas, were never meant to be Christian, the Bible is not for them.

To dig up an argument I've used before: the Bible is the inspired word of God - God created all the lands and all the people, therefore he knew of them. This is why Jesus said Christians should preach to 'all nations'.
If the Bible is not the word of God and is merely a collection of stories from Mesopotamia, then why should we pay any attention to it? They would be no more important than myths from any other ancient civilisation.

Research2 said:
As i asked notedstrangeperson find me Easter Island, Japan, Sub-Sahara Africa etc in scripture, then i will admit i am wrong. Good luck finding those by the way...

I explained why such people wouldn't be there: the people living in the Middle East at the time did not know about them (although - to hammer the point home - God knew of them). Similarly I asked you to provide any quotes which suggested the people of the Bible knew of places like England or western Europe. You responded with a convoluted and tenuous example from Isaiah, which you somehow seemed to think were referring to the UK.

Research2 said:
You would never understand since you aren't a creationist. To you, everything is just randomly created by accidentalism (evolution), pretty which is the same all Atheists think. Evolution and Atheism are closely related since they both reject the idea of a designer.

A designer perhaps not. But a creator? Yes. In fact this position lies at the very heart of Creationism - William Paley used this very argument in his book Natural Theology with his analogy of the watch.
The tiger has it's stripes to help it blend into the grass, herbivores have teeth which grind down plant matter, seals have a thick layer of blubber which help them cope with the cold. Animals have features which increase their chance of survival, both creationists and evolutionists believe this. The main difference is that creationists say these animals and their features where made directly by God ('creatio ex-nihilo') while evolutionists say these features came about as a result of natural selection ('creatio ex materia'). Basically most of our features have some kind of purpose. You're the only creationists I've met who's argued the opposite.

What I'm asking is if our racial features - especially skin colour - have no function why did God make them?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Research2

Find my research threads in Unorthodox Theology
Mar 22, 2011
226
1
England
✟362.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
This is just going round in circles...

- The ''all nations'' were only where the House of Israel were, we know this because Jesus sent his 12 apostles only to where the Israelites were settled. Now, simply read the Epistle of James etc to see where the apostles went to. None went to Easter Island, Japan, Sub-Sahara Africa... they only traveled into the Medes, Asia Minor and Europe.

- Go read the Epistle of James and rest of the New Testament, its clearly stated where the apostles traveled.

- The Bible was written for the Adamic race only. Now you can disagree with this, but show your evidences. You think Christianity is a universal religion? Then show me the japanese, easter islanders, sub-saharan africans, australian aborigines etc in scripture.

- You still have not explained why the Libyans are fair skinned, despite living in a hot environment for thousands of years. Clearly climate has no effect on them.

- And to answer your last question, read Genesis 1: 26; 27. The Adamic race was made in the image and likeness of God.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
36
✟19,524.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Research2 said:
The ''all nations'' were only where the House of Israel were, we know this because Jesus sent his 12 apostles only to where the Israelites were settled.

When Jesus referred to the house of Israel he said the 'House of Israel'. When he was referring to all nations he said 'all nations'. I don't know why you have such a difficult time understanding this.

Research2 said:
The Bible was written for the Adamic race only. Now you can disagree with this, but show your evidences. You think Christianity is a universal religion? Then show me the japanese, easter islanders, sub-saharan africans, australian aborigines etc in scripture.

Further evidence you don't read other user's posts ... how would these people know what a Japanese or Aboriginal person was? I've already given my answer for your question.

Research2 said:
And to answer your last question, read Genesis 1: 26; 27. The Adamic race was made in the image and likeness of God.

So God literally has fair skin, blond hair and - just a a guess - blue eyes? God literally looks like a Caucasian?

----------

There's a reason this thread is going in circles. I'm afraid this criticism is directed at you - Research2 - personally.

You are a white supremacist, first and foremost. You look for 'evidence' which supports this claim, regardless of whether it is true or even makes sense, and interprate it in the narrowest way possible. In order to do this you have to completely ignore basic biological, geographical, historical and theological facts. The only scientists and philosophers who share you view are men who are long dead and did not have the knowledge we have today.

There are a lot of very different Christians - some are creationists, others evolutionists, some liberal, some conservative, pro-life and pro-choice, in favour of capital punishment and against it etc. but they are Christians above all. You on the other hand seem to be a white supremacist who is using Christianity to support your views on race. Since your arrival you've brought up 'Adamites' in almost every single thread you answer, and debated nothing else.

But the strangest thing is even other white supremacists would not agree with you. They use (or rather misuse) evolution to support their claims. Many of them have abandoned Christianity altogether in favour of 'Odinism', a neo-pagan religion, because Christianity is the descendant of Judaism.

I'm sorry about slurring you but this simply isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of morality. The idea that only Caucasians can achieve salvation is not just incorrect, it's anti-Christian.
 
Upvote 0

Research2

Find my research threads in Unorthodox Theology
Mar 22, 2011
226
1
England
✟362.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
When Jesus referred to the house of Israel he said the 'House of Israel'. When he was referring to all nations he said 'all nations'. I don't know why you have such a difficult time understanding this.

Read the New Testament, to see where the apostles went to.

So God literally has fair skin, blond hair and - just a a guess - blue eyes? God literally looks like a Caucasian?

God is spirit (Genesis 1: 2; 1 Samuel 11: 6; John 4: 24) however Genesis 3: 8 states God was walking (literally like a man) through the Garden of Eden, so evidently in physical form He resembles an Adamite, hence Adam was made in the image and likeness of God Himself (Genesis 1: 27).

- Rest of your post is a smear, which shows you have lost. I also see you failed to answer about 4 or 5 questions i have repeatedly asked.

- Where is the evidence Christianity is a universal religion?
- Where are the eskimos, polynesians, japanese etc in scripture?
- Why are the Libyans fair skinned, despite the fact living in a hot environment for thousands of years?
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Et tu Shernren? Polygenism only works from a Creationist point of view, even multiregional theory argues that the different races are descended from different lines of hominids. There is no evidence for Creationism, and as such there is no evidence for polygenism.

Or ... were you being sarcastic? Really, I can't tell.
blush.gif

Dangit, Poe strikes again! (I think.) Would I really mean anything I say with the word "evilutionist" in it? :p

But Research2's point is correct albeit in a twisted way. Today there are at least 20 haplogroups with genetically-distinct Y chromosomal lineages. These groups all had to diverge from a single Y chromosome (unless Noah's wife was unfaithful ;) ) within the span of about two thousand years.

If such a remarkable evolutionary remodeling of the human genome is possible then it should certainly be happening today. But it isn't.

As i asked notedstrangeperson find me Easter Island, Japan, Sub-Sahara Africa etc in scripture, then i will admit i am wrong. Good luck finding those by the way...

But then again, you have shown yourself capable of interpreting just about any geographical reference in the Bible to a particular place in southwest Europe.

Can I ask you for an example of a phrase or description which you would accept as being unambiguously referring to a place outside southwest Europe? Otherwise, I think it would be fair for us to say that your views are not falsifiable, with all the usual entailments.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.