john crawford said:
And when Abraham visited North Africa, he found people already there. Were they not African Caucasians?
And was not Abraham himself an Asian Caucasian?
Upvote
0
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.
john crawford said:Many Asians and Caucasians have migrated to Africa and taken up residence there during the past 4-500 years. Abraham visited North Africa but prior to the the Babylonian diaspora, I can't think of any Asians who visited or migrated to Africa.
Written history. Many Indians and Europeans migrated to Africa during the past 4-500 years, and according to the Bible, the descendents of Ham only migrated to North Africa after the fall of Babylon and before Abraham's visit to Egypt. The Hebrew descendents of Abraham sojourned 400 years in Egyptian captivity so many of their descendents may be said to have had African ancestors also but there is no historical evidence that Noah or the Asian and Caucasian descendents of his son Japheth, ever visited Africa or had ancestors in Africa before the Greek and Roman territorial conquests in Egypt and Carthage.The Lady Kate said:What's your hypothesis based on?
A good scientific reason to reject theories of human evolution is that there is no observable, testable or demonstrable scientific evidence to support it. Rather is there much observable evidence of historic fraud in neo-Darwinist racial attempts to associate human fossils and origins with common ancestors of non-human African apes.Dannager said:I accept evolution as both scientific theory (it has a working theory model that meets all requirements of being a scientific theory that has not been falsified) and proven fact (change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next has been observed countless times in controlled conditions). There is currently no reason to reject evolution on a scientific basis, as no evidence to the contrary has yet arisen.
Of course, but one may also reject evolutionary theory on the basis of the intrinsic racial bigotry and prejudice inherent in all theories, scenarios and models describing the progressive speciation and "evolution" of non-human apes into several different human 'species' in or out of Africa.One can reject evolution on a theological basis, but to do so simply because it does not agree with one's preconceptions strikes me as premature.
Now that you mention and suggest it, some of the Egyptians whom Abraham met certainly could be considered Africans of Caucasian descent and Asian origin.gluadys said:And when Abraham visited North Africa, he found people already there. Were they not African Caucasians?
Yes, he was a Semitic descendent of Caucasian Asians who originally migrated to and settled in Ur of the Chaldees where the present Euphrates and Tigris rivers are now located in Iraq.And was not Abraham himself an Asian Caucasian?
john crawford said:Now that you mention and suggest it, some of the Egyptians whom Abraham met certainly could be considered Africans of Caucasian descent and Asian origin.
Yes, he was a Semitic descendent of Caucasian Asians who originally migrated to and settled in Ur of the Chaldees where the present Euphrates and Tigris rivers are now located in Iraq.
david_x said:So if evolution is accepted as a scientific theory, were does God fit into it?
Or, do you believe God in the beginning then evolution, or somthin else?
david_x said:Yeah, so what kinda ideals do you have on that, like God just started the process or he made things just as they are?
We know that things have not been just as they are so I guess you could say that I think God started the process but that doesn't quite put it into words.
david_x said:I personally find it near impossible to believe an undirected process like evolution could be responsible for such an amazing eco-system.
david_x said:So if evolution is accepted as a scientific theory, were does God fit into it?
Or, do you believe God in the beginning then evolution, or somthin else?
Yeah, so what kinda ideals do you have on that, like God just started the process or he made things just as they are?
I personally find it near impossible to believe an undirected process like evolution could be responsible for such an amazing eco-system.
pastorkevin73 said:To believe in evolution is to reject Genesis 1, thus calling God a liar.
The Lady Kate said:1. There's no way to accept both?
2. Genesis 1 is "rejected" if it's not read as literal history?
3. God wrote Genesis 1 personally?
S Walch said:If you reject it as literal history, does this mean you just decide to pick and choose which parts of the bible (that were written in a historical style) are meant to be read literally and what aren't?
God inspired Moses to write it. If it's not true, then god is really very much the deceiver.
S Walch said:Nope, not in the slightest
If you reject it as literal history, does this mean you just decide to pick and choose which parts of the bible (that were written in a historical style) are meant to be read literally and what aren't?
God inspired Moses to write it. If it's not true, then god is really very much the deceiver.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?