Polygenist Creation Models

[Research1]

Thread to talk about polygenist creationism.

I'm going to add stuff here over time.

 

[Research2]

Forgot password to my other account, so I’m just using this for now. I’ve been busy for the past few weeks, but I’ll post here some research or information on polygenist creationism which perfectly fits the Bible.

First of all a basic intro to polygenism, and how I came to believe in it through the evidence.

Polygenism (poly = many + gen(s) = race/kind).

Polygenism creationism is simply the belief that God created many different kinds or races of people separately and that they are from different lineages.

How Polygenism fits the context of Genesis –

*The authors of Genesis had a limited geographic and ethnological knowledge and inhabited a fairly isolated area (within small tribes) in Mesopotamia and therefore had zero or very little knowledge or encounters with foreign peoples, or other races. Therefore Genesis only details the history of one race (Gen. 5:1 - ‘‘these are the generations of Adam’’) meaning not all the different races currently on Earth.

* That Adam and the other early antediluvian patriarchs were not single men or individuals, but were appellations for nations (or tribes) which included many hundred or possibly several thousands of members.

- These two points are supported by the Ancient Near Eastern context of Genesis, and much support by archaeology and ancient history.

- The latter point also resolves the problem of incest in the Bible.

In contrast those Christians who believe that everyone on Earth (including all races) came from Adam and Eve, have to believe in incest, despite the fact incest is anti-scriptural and furthermore immoral. Polygenism however is in accordance with scripture on this issue since it teaches that God created many pairs of Adam’s and Eve’s as nations, houses or tribes, who included many members, hundreds or thousands.

How science supports polygenist creationism (a few key points) -

* Since recorded history, unmixed races have been proven to be fixed in type.

- Archaeologists who study ancient artwork (busts, sculptures, paintings) have proven that in all areas on the Earth, the races which currently habit those places (unless mongrelised through foreign admixture) have not changed since they depicted themselves in artwork thousands of years ago. The Chinese for example have not changed in physical appearance as far back as their recorded history and art goes, nor has any other race – unless they have as mentioned mixed with other racial types.

* Since unmixed races have not changed since their beginning, it is clear the climate cannot alter the permanence of type which was fixed during creation.

Consider the following points:

- Europeans colonised the Americas from the 16th – 18th centuries, but never transformed their phenotype into the Native American after living there for over 400 years.

- Native Libyans (particularly the Kaybles of Algeria) are born with fair skins and blonde or red hair, yet they live close to the equator in a incredibly hot climate, adjacent to Sub-Saharan Africans who are the polar opposite in skin hue and hair texture.

- The Eskimos and various other Mongoloid-Siberian peoples have been living in the far cold north for thousands of years, but their skin remains a darkish brown tint and have dark black hair. Northern Europeans, who have been living in similar conditions also for thousands of years, are again the opposite in physical appearance, having fair skin, and many with fair hair, as well as light blue, gray or green eyes.

- Hair texture is impossible to naturally evolve or change, but instead is fixed in type.

- Basic observation has proven unmixed races are fixed in phenotype. Climate cannot transform a Negro into a Caucasian, or vice-versa.

* Nature has proven that there are specific ecosystems and habitants that only certain animals can live in. A polar bear, will not transform, evolve or mutate if put in a hot desert, nor would a desert animal if placed in a cold snowy climate. Instead nature has proven degradation not evolution, when an animal is removed from its own environment or origin point and placed in another. We can conclude the same about the different races, as each is naturally comfortable in his own locale or source of origin amongst his or her own kind – as history itself confirms.

- More information will follow with many sources, when I get the time.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I should know better than to get involved again.

The authors of Genesis had a limited geographic and ethnological knowledge and inhabited a fairly isolated area (within small tribes) in Mesopotamia and therefore had zero or very little knowledge or encounters with foreign peoples, or other races.
...


In contrast those Christians who believe that everyone on Earth (including all races) came from Adam and Eve, have to believe in incest, despite the fact incest is anti-scriptural and furthermore immoral.

• While the authors might of had little geographical knowledge (how little?) the Bible is inspired by God - who, as creator of the world, had knowledge of all countries.

• Different races descending from Adam or the house of Adam lessens the problem of incest, as the production of different races suggest genetic diversity.

Since unmixed races have not changed since their beginning, it is clear the climate cannot alter the permanence of type which was fixed during creation.
...
The Eskimos and various other Mongoloid-Siberian peoples have been living in the far cold north for thousands of years, but their skin remains a darkish brown tint and have dark black hair. Northern Europeans, who have been living in similar conditions also for thousands of years, are again the opposite in physical appearance, having fair skin, and many with fair hair, as well as light blue, gray or green eyes.
...


Basic observation has proven unmixed races are fixed in phenotype. Climate cannot transform a Negro into a Caucasian, or vice-versa.

• 'Hyper- / Hypodescent' shows that the races are closely related enough to breed regualrly with each others and that racial features and identity can be altered within a few generations. This does not fit in with th idea that racial features are fixed and incapable of change.

• Living in similar environments does not mean evolving exactly the same traits - these are determined by ancestry. For example, red and blond hair originated in Europe (not Scandinavia) and provide no advantage to living in colder climates.

• It takes centuries, if not millenia of natural selection to create and entirely new race. This is partly because the 'correct' mutations are difficult to predict (since mutations are random) and because natural selection is a blind process. If these two problems are removed an organism can can change it's form quickly. The German Shepherd, for example, was created as recently as 1899 and only adopted it's modern form during WWII.

Nature has proven that there are specific ecosystems and habitants that only certain animals can live in. A polar bear, will not transform, evolve or mutate if put in a hot desert, nor would a desert animal if placed in a cold snowy climate. Instead nature has proven degradation not evolution, when an animal is removed from its own environment or origin point and placed in another. We can conclude the same about the different races, as each is naturally comfortable in his own locale or source of origin amongst his or her own kind – as history itself confirms.

• The idea of people suddenly changing from one race to another is about as likely as a pure-bred German Shepherd changing into a poodle. It does not happen. Nevertheless this is not proof that German shepherds and poodles are unrelated. The same applies to race.

• People are uncomfortable among others who are different not because we are incompatable but because we are unfamiliar with each other. This might explain why some studies have show we judge people more by their accents rather than their appearance.

• Judging by the level of warfare, being among your own race does not prevent conflict. The British for example have fought wars with the Spanish, the Germans, the Italians, the French and Americans. Within our own nation we have had a major civil war and even the Celts spent more time battling each other than the Romans.

 

[Research2]

While the authors might of had little geographical knowledge (how little?) the Bible is inspired by God - who, as creator of the world, had knowledge of all countries.

The Bible though was only written for the Adamic race, as told in Gen. 5: 1, ''these are the generations of Adam'', the word translated 'generations' is toledoth which means ''origins'', ''genealogical registration'' or ''histories'', and there is an unbroken physical genealogical link in the New Testament which connects Adam to Jesus - who is called the ''last'' or ''second'' Adam (1 Cor. 15: 45; 47). Starting from Genesis, it is outlined that the Bible is only a book for the Adamite, those that descended from Adam.

Now it is entirely possible that the non-Adamic races are found mentioned in scripture at a later time, when the early Adamites (Mesopotamians) expanded and increased their geographical knowledge. We find Adam's name found on Sumerian clay tablets as 'Adapa', i'll show info on this later and how the Bible connects to the Sumerian King's List. There are 10 antideluvian patriarchs and precisely 10 kings listed on variants of the Sumerian King's List (in the Weld Blundell collection). Furthermore the British explorer L. A Waddell found Enoch's city found described on ancient Babylonian tablets.*

*In his work The Makers of Civilization, Waddell translated E-Anna(k) directly as "Enoch''.

The Adamic race thus has its origins in the Indo-Sumerian or related ancient Mesopotamian peoples.

Different races descending from Adam or the house of Adam lessens the problem of incest, as the production of different races suggest genetic diversity.

- The non-Adamic races did not sprung from the Adamites.

- Polygenism is against incest, since it teaches God created many hundreds or thousands of different males and females.

''Mankind cannot have originated in single individuals, but must have been created in that numerical harmony which is characteristic of each species. Men must have originated in nations, as the bees have originated in swarms'' - Louis Agassiz

'Hyper- / Hypodescent' shows that the races are closely related enough to breed regualrly with each others and that racial features and identity can be altered within a few generations.This does not fit in with th idea that racial features are fixed and incapable of change.

Physical features are fixed when umixed. The physical features you are born with - are permament and do not change, this is evidence for polygenism which teaches that each races was created seperately and therefore we are fixed and cannot evolve or change our features.

Living in similar environments does not mean evolving exactly the same traits - these are determined by ancestry. For example, red and blond hair originated in Europe (not Scandinavia) and provide no advantage to living in colder climates.

Red and blonde hair originated in the middle-east. You can still go to parts of Afganistan, Iraq etc and meet the various minority surviving indigenous non-Arabic tribes (often considered to be 'Aryan') - many who have blonde and red hair. Northern Europe during the last glacial period was not populated.

It takes centuries, if not millenia of natural selection to create and entirely new race.

And this is a faith statement, which all evolutionists have... this is not observable or testable (empirical) therefore it falls outside of science.

We have a historical and ethnological record going back to around 3000 BC, or even slightly before and this has proven races have not changed for 5,000 + years. So there is no evidence they ever will, again more evidence for a fixed permanence of types favoring polygenism.

The idea of people suddenly changing from one race to another is about as likely as a pure-bred German Shepherd changing into a poodle. It does not happen. Nevertheless this is not proof that German shepherds and poodles are unrelated. The same applies to race.

It doesn't happen? Yet this is what you evolutionists believe... you claim dark skinned people suddenly morphed into pale skinned with fair hair while migrating into Europe. Pure crackpottery... i'm interested in science and the facts, not fairytales. That is why i have always rejected evolution, i also reject Young Earth Creationism and nonsense like the global flood on the same basis. Real science demands observation, testing, rationality in the physical world and common sense.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Starting from Genesis, it is outlined that the Bible is only a book for the Adamite, those that descended from Adam.

While the Bible may outline the family history of Adam (or the house of Adam) there is no indication that the Bible was written specifically for 'Adamites'.

There are also archaeological clues that people knew of different races before certain events in the Bible were written - the Book of the Gates (Egyptian wall painting depicting the various stages in the afterlife) shows people of four different races. These were painted before Moses lead the Hebrews out of Egypt, let alone before the event was written about.

The non-Adamic races did not sprung from the Adamites.
Polygenism is against incest, since it teaches God created many hundreds or thousands of different males and females.

Polygenism is not supported by the Bible. Show me the quotes which support this idea.

And this is a faith statement, which all evolutionists have... this is not observable or testable (empirical) therefore it falls outside of science.

Strangely enough atheists use this same tactic - I can't see or test God, therefore he does not exist.

Red and blonde hair originated in the middle-east. You can still go to parts of Afganistan, Iraq etc and meet the various minority surviving indigenous non-Arabic tribes (often considered to be 'Aryan') - many who have blonde and red hair. Northern Europe during the last glacial period was not populated.

Which as I said shows that red and blond hair are a result of ancestry and not an adaptation to a cold climate. Also, please provide a source which indicates red and blond hair originated in the Middle East.

Physical features are fixed when umixed. The physical features you are born with - are permament and do not change, this is evidence for polygenism which teaches that each races was created seperately and therefore we are fixed and cannot evovle or change our features.
...
you claim dark skinned people suddenly morphed into pale skinned with fair hair while migrating into Europe. Pure crackpottery... i'm interested in science and the facts, not fairytales. That is why i have always rejected evolution, i also reject Young Earth Creationism and nonsense like the global flood on the same basis.

Your understanding of basic biology is extremely poor. I could be wrong but you seem to be using 'The Essentialist Concept' - judging race by features i.e. Negroes have dark skin and broad noses, Caucasians have pale skin and straight noses, Indians are brown and have large hooked noses.

This is an inaccurate way of judging race simply because different people fit into different races depending on what you are looking at. If we judge by skin colour for example, Japanese and English people could be the same race, African and low-caste Indians could be the same race. Obviously this isn't true.

Having more and more categories doesn't help either. We could say "Negroes are dark-skinned, have brown eyes, broad noses and short curly black hair". But there are many Negroes who are not particularly dark, have light-coloured eyes, narrow noses or have no hair at all. This is why this particular concept is almost never used by anthropologists any more.

Incidently I remember when you came to CF in February you were a YEC. Now it's 'nonsense'? You changed your position pretty quickly.

 

[Research2]

While the Bible may outline the family history of Adam (or the house of Adam) there is no indication that the Bible was written specifically for 'Adamites'.

- Mesopotamia was only inhabited by one race when Genesis was written. In regards to archeological findings, the Bible fits the ANE context.

- There were no eskimos, australian aborigines, sub-saharan africans, polynesians etc in Mesopotamia when Genesis was written.

There are also archaeological clues that people knew of different races before certain events in the Bible were written - the Book of the Gates (Egyptian wall painting depicting the various stages in the afterlife) shows people of four different races. These were painted before Moses lead the Hebrews out of Egypt, let alone before the event was written about.

- The Book of Gates, does not predate Genesis. I assume by this that you believe in the 'Documentary Hypothesis' which completely reduces the age of Genesis, however if you look up the competing 'Wiseman Hypothesis' you can find the archeological and historical evidence that Genesis was written thousands of years earlier, when cuneiform scripts first emerged (3500 BC) and proto-writing even earlier (7000 - 4000 BC). I wrote a paper on this several months ago, there is good evidence that Genesis in written fragment goes back to a great age.

- Agricultural, animal domestication etc entered Egypt from Mesopotamia. I have peer-reviewed scientific papers which reference this, basically Egypt was inhabited first by people from the Middle-East.

- The Book of Gates, is evidence for polygenism since it lists four primeval races, who are still identifiable today, and have the same phenotype - proving how features are fixed. The Book of Gates for example depicts the Libyan (Temehu), who look identical to their modern descendants.

Polygenism is not supported by the Bible. Show me the quotes which support this idea.

The entire Bible is evidence, since it only deals with one race. Think for a moment...use common sense. So you believe the authors of Genesis knew of Australian aborigines or eskimos? Do you think the apostles knew of the Easter Islanders? You have to look at the Bible from a common sense perspective. There are far too many cranks about.

Strangely enough atheists use this same tactic - I can't see or test God, therefore he does not exist.

God dwells outside of time, matter and space - therefore its impossible to scientifically prove or disprove His existence. However macroevolution has never been observed, yet claims to be scientific...the concept of God never claimed to be science, its faith or religion.

Which as I said shows that red and blond hair are a result of ancestry and not an adaptation to a cold climate. Also, please provide a source which indicates red and blond hair originated in the Middle East.

- The Adamic race was created in Mesopotamia, as is the setting of Genesis.

This is why this particular concept is almost never used by anthropologists any more.

Meet a forensic scientist...

Races and racial classification is a proven fact. The only people who deny this are modern liberals, who are not interested in science, but instead their own political agenda of race-denialism.

Incidently I remember when you came to CF in February you were a YEC. Now it's 'nonsense'? You changed your position pretty quickly.

I've never been a Young Earth Creationist. Perhaps you are confusing the age of the earth, with the date Adam was created.

The Adamic race is only around 10,000 years old, while the earth and universe billions.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The Book of Gates, does not predate Genesis. I assume by this that you believe in the 'Documentary Hypothesis' which completely reduces the age of Genesis, however if you look up the competing 'Wiseman Hypothesis' you can find the archeological and historical evidence that Genesis was written thousands of years earlier, when cuneiform scripts first emerged (3500 BC) and proto-writing even earlier (7000 - 4000 BC).

I'm not familiar with either of these hypotheses. The Book of the Gate dates back to roughly 1300 - 1100 B.C., and the various books of the OT date from the creation to the exodus of the hebrews by Moses. My point was to refute your idea that the writers of the Bible did not know of other races, which judging by the age of the book is untrue.

Mesopotamia was only inhabited by one race when Genesis was written. In regards to archeological findings, the Bible fits the ANE context. There were no eskimos, australian aborigines, sub-saharan africans, polynesians etc in Mesopotamia when Genesis was written.

I don't see why the Bible is linked to this specific civilisation, either by events (the Hebrews were lead out of Egypt, not Mesopotamia) or by writing (the Bible was written over several generations and was not officially put together until 6th century BC). Genesis itself is very vague over the location of Eden itself.

Even if your idea is right, there were no Scandinavians in Mesopotamia, not Celts, no Gauls, no Romans etc. That's alot of Caucasians who have been left out.

Agricultural, animal domestication etc entered Egypt from Mesopotamia. I have peer-reviewed scientific papers which reference this, basically Egypt was inhabited first by people from the Middle-East.

The Adamic race was created in Mesopotamia, as is the setting of Genesis.

Again, sources please.

I wrote a paper on this several months ago, there is good evidence that Genesis in written fragment goes back to a great age.

Now that I will certainly need a source for.

The entire Bible is evidence, since it only deals with one race. Think for a moment...use common sense. So you believe the authors of Genesis knew of Australian aborigines or eskimos? Do you think the apostles knew of the Easter Islanders? You have to look at the Bible from a common sense perspective. There are far too many cranks about.

Did you ignore my original post? What the writers knew personally is not relevant, the Bible is inspired by the word of God - who created all the countries.

Meet a forensic scientist...

Races and racial classification is a proven fact. The only people who deny this are modern liberals, who are not interested in science, but instead their own political agenda of race-denialism.

I'm not criticising the concept of race itself, I'm criticising the 'essentialist method'. Most anthropologists use the clinical model (based on genetics) rather than basing race on appearance. Evolution does not turn an single organism from one species to another. This is a process which happens over many generations, bit by bit. Unlike species, the changing of race can be observed within a single family.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

[Splitting up long post]

A quick review, feel free to correct me if I've made any mistakes about your opinion:

1. You're arguing that the races were created separately. There is no evidence from either the Bible or from science that this is right.

Your assumption that 'Adamites' are Caucasian comes not from the Bible itself but from bits and pieces you've collected elsewhere. The Bible was written in Mesopotamia (it wasn't), the Mesopotamians were Caucasian (the were more likely to be the ancestors of modern 'whiter' Caucasians, such as Scandinavians and Britons), and Mesopotamians did not know of the existance of other races (the Bible mentions several places outside Mesopotamia, who themselves knew of other races). I'm not sure why there's so much focus on this particular civilisation.

2. The ability to breed is a good indicator of relatedness. Basic biology shows that the more distantly related two species are, the less capable they are of breeding. Two breeds of dog can easily breed with each other, as can different sub-species. Two seperate breeds (say, a lion and a tiger) can breed but this is unusual and the offspring are often sterile. There is only one account of animals of separate genus (an indian and an african elephant) breeding with one another and the calf did not survive.
Judging by how common mixed-race people are and the fact they have no more sterility problems than the general population, this suggests all the races are very closely related.

3. Race-changing is observable because it can be seen within a single family, one generation may be a different race to another generation. Sometimes even members of the same generation can be different races. Genetics also observes the origins of race through DNA - both of these count as empirical scientific evidence.

4. Judging race through appearance is very unreliable (for reasons I've mentioned already.) The 'Essentialist Concept' (also known as the Typological Model) is rarely used by modern anthropologists. It is especially unreliable when we think that races were 'assigned' certain features.

To use an example I've used before: all panthers by definition are black. There is no such thing as a non-black panther. Certain animals are also solid black, such as labradors. Does this mean labradors are directly related to panthers? No, of course not. Black fur is simply a features jaguars have more often than other animals. The same applies to race - most people with blond hair are Caucasians, but this does not mean all people with blond hair are directly related to Caucasians, nor does it mean all Caucasians have blond hair (most of them are brunette). Blond hair is just a feature white people have more often than non-whites.

To drive the point home, judging race by appearance is unreliable.

 

[Research2]

I'm not familiar with either of these hypotheses. The Book of the Gate dates back to roughly 1300 - 1100 B.C., and the various books of the OT date from the creation to the exodus of the hebrews by Moses. My point was to refute your idea that the writers of the Bible did not know of other races, which judging by the age of the book is untrue.

Genesis predates 1100 BC, as do many other books of the Old Testament. The only time races came in contact with each other was in the 2nd millenium BC, there is evidence in Minoan frescos of this (as proven by Arthur Evans unearthings at Knossos), and different racial types also appear in Mesopotamia around this same period (as proven by Archibald Sayce, Leonard Woolley etc). Prior to this period however, all tribes, nations, races were fully isolated and segregated. Hence the authors of Genesis had a very limited geographical and ethnographical knowledge, the Adamic race at that time was confined to a pretty small area, but later migrated into Europe, Asia Minor, the Tarim Basin, and North Africa.

I don't see why the Bible is linked to this specific civilisation, either by events (the Hebrews were lead out of Egypt, not Mesopotamia) or by writing (the Bible was written over several generations and was not officially put together until 6th century BC).

- The Tigris and Euphrates are mentioned in Genesis 2: 14.
- Abraham was born in Ur of the Chaldees in Mesopotamia.
- Erech (Uruk) is mentioned in Genesis 10: 10, as are other ancient key Mesopotamian cities.
-The Tower of Babel is historically connected to ancient Babylonia.
- The Biblical Shinar of Genesis = Sumer (you can look up the etymology links online).
etc...

The Book of Genesis places Adam and his early descendants all within Mesopotamia. This is basic Biblical knowledge.

Genesis itself is very vague over the location of Eden itself.

The Tigris and Euphrates are linked to Eden in Genesis, Eden therefore sat in Mesopotamia, or at least the geographical middle-eastern region.

Even if your idea is right, there were no Scandinavians in Mesopotamia, not Celts, no Gauls, no Romans etc. That's alot of Caucasians who have been left out.

The Scandinavians, Celts, Gauls, Romans etc are all Adamic (Caucasian). In fact Sumerian/Babylonian myth and legend and other links are found in Norse and Celtic mythology, as are language links and much more. This topic is too vast to get into here.

Again, sources please.

New Scientist Oct 29, 1987, p. 55: ''Why Africa ignored its own animals''

- This covers why Africa never witnessed animal or plant domestication of its own, but that it spread into Africa from the middle-east. I'm sure there is more recent sources on the same topic in science journals.

Now that I will certainly need a source for.

P. J. Wiseman, (1936), New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis

Did you ignore my original post? What the writers knew personally is not relevant, the Bible is inspired by the word of God - who created all the countries.

The Adamites had no knowledge of other races in Genesis.

Think i'm wrong? Then show me the polynesians, eskimos, australian aborigines, easter islanders, mexicans, sub-saharan africans in Genesis...

Until then, you have lost and are arguing against common sense.

Unlike species, the changing of race can be observed within a single family.

This has never been observed.

 

[Research2]

[Splitting up long post]

A quick review, feel free to correct me if I've made any mistakes about your opinion:

1. You're arguing that the races were created separately. There is no evidence from either the Bible or from science that this is right.

Polygenism is supported by science and the Bible.

I've already listed the key points (yet as i said i will be adding to this thread many scientific evidences, and i've not yet started listing or citing from these many sources), the reason you reject them is because you have cranky views, for starters you reject racial taxonomy. Not much more can be said, and i'm not wasting anymore time with cranks. Feel free to come back to this thread in a few weeks, or a month or so when i get the time to list the scientific sources which prove polygenism, until then, this debate is not productive. You are like debating a flat-earther...you reject all evidence which contradicts your personal viewpoint, which appears to be rooted in some kind of liberal/left wing race denialism.

I personally know forensic scientists and anthropologists, and your assertion that racial taxonomy by physical appearance is not a science means they should be out of a job... but that quite clearly isn't the case.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I wrote a paper on this several months ago, there is good evidence that Genesis in written fragment goes back to a great age.

Now that I will certainly need a source for.

P. J. Wiseman, (1936), New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis

I was asking for the paper you personally wrote, which I doubt dates back to 1936.

The Tigris and Euphrates are mentioned in Genesis 2: 14.
- Abraham was born in Ur of the Chaldees in Mesopotamia.
- Erech (Uruk) is mentioned in Genesis 10: 10, as are other ancient key Mesopotamian cities.
-The Tower of Babel is historically connected to ancient Babylonia.
- The Biblical Shinar of Genesis = Sumer (you can look up the etymology links online).
etc...

The Book of Genesis places Adam and his early descendants all within Mesopotamia. This is basic Biblical knowledge.

Admittedly I don't know enough about certain Biblical locations to argue against you. I'll do a little bit of searching and try to get back to you.

The Scandinavians, Celts, Gauls, Romans etc are all Adamic (Caucasian). In fact Sumerian/Babylonian myth and legend and other links are found in Norse and Celtic mythology, as are language links and much more. This topic is too vast to get into here.

No, I'll have to ask for sources here too. And above all, you have yet to prove Adam was a Caucasian.

The Adamites had no knowledge of other races in Genesis.

Think i'm wrong? Then show me the polynesians, eskimos, australian aborigines, easter islanders, mexicans, sub-saharan africans in Genesis...

Until then, you have lost and are arguing against common sense.

Are you even bothering to read my posts? I wrote "What the writers knew personally is not relevant, the Bible is inspired by the word of God - who created all the countries."

It does not matter what the Mesopotamian's knew. The Bible (which has several authors) is the written word of God - a God who has knowledge of all that exits, all races, all nations, all people. What you seem to be arguing is that the Bible is not the work of God, but rather a collection of fables written by one specific civilisation. If this is the case then their stories are no more valid or revelant than Native American or Chinese myths and legends.

Please stop repeating this "the Adamites had no knowledge of other races" chant. It's historically and biologically inaccurate, and rather irritating.

Unlike species, the changing of race can be observed within a single family.

This has never been observed.

Now you are being ridiculous. I'm willing to admit I know less about Mesopotamia and Sumer than you - however your grasp of simple biology is embarrassing. Are you honestly saying you cannot fathom the idea of race mixing? To use a very simply example:

Great-Grandparents Generation:A Negro (100%) has a child with a Caucasian (100% white). This child is 50% black and 50% white (a mulatto)
Grandparents Generation: This mulatto also has a child with a Caucasian. Their child is now 25% black and 75% white (a quadroon)
Parents Generation: The quadroon also has a child with a Caucasian. Their child is now 12.5% black and 87.5% white (a octoroon)
Current Generation: This octoroon also has child with a Caucasian. This child is now 6.25% black and 93.75% white (a quintroon)
​

Within a mere five generations (Negro to quintroon) a family has switched from black to white. Michael Levin, no stranger to controversy, states:

Most people can be clearly identified as belonging to one race or another, meaning that most people can trace at least 75% of their ancestors to the same geographic region associated with a major racial group. However ... anyone with fewer than 75% of their ancestors originating from the same broad geographic region should be considered multiracial.​

If we are to follow his example then the 'quadroon' is actually Caucasian rather than mixed race. While an individual can never change his race, populations (even a very small populations) can.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Polygenism is supported by science and the Bible.

Few respected anthropologist believe that the races are actually different species, and those that do claim we are decended from different lines of hominids. You're arguing that all the races were created separately and as such are completely unrelated. No form of science supports that idea.

On a side-note, I do not reject the notion of race itself, but I prefer to trace it through genetics rather than appearance. And I consider myself a conservative, not a liberal.

Not much more can be said, and i'm not wasting anymore time with cranks. Feel free to come back to this thread in a few weeks, or a month or so when i get the time to list the scientific sources which prove polygenism, until then, this debate is not productive. You are like debating a flat-earther...you reject all evidence which contradicts your personal viewpoint, which appears to be rooted in some kind of liberal/left wing race denialism.

Crank, crackpot - charming ... Have you heard the phrase "The pot calling the kettle black"?

 

[Research2]

Admittedly I don't know enough about certain Biblical locations to argue against you. I'll do a little bit of searching and try to get back to you.

The Book of Genesis takes place in Mesopotamia.

Furthermore most early Biblical names are of Sumerian origin. For example Lamech derived from lamga which in Sumerian means 'priest'.

No, I'll have to ask for sources here too. And above all, you have yet to prove Adam was a Caucasian.

The Mesopotamians were Caucasoid - as i already proved by referencing scientific sources and anthropological studies in the other thread.

- Since Genesis takes place in Mesopotamia - we know the identity of Adam and his descendants.

It does not matter what the Mesopotamian's knew. The Bible (which has several authors) is the written word of God - a God who has knowledge of all that exits, all races, all nations, all people. What you seem to be arguing is that the Bible is not the work of God, but rather a collection of fables written by one specific civilisation. If this is the case then their stories are no more valid or revelant than Native American or Chinese myths and legends.

The Bible was written for the Adamic race only, therefore non-Adamic peoples are not included.

Once again, i ask - if you disagree and like mainstream Christians believe Christianity is a universal religion, show me the eskimos, easter islanders, sub-saharan africans, polynesians, australian aborigines etc in scripture.

Remember you appear to be defending monogenism and universalism here, so if that is the case show me in scripture where all the above races are mentioned. If Christianity is a 'universal' religion, for everyone, show me where all these races are mentioned in scripture.

Please stop repeating this "the Adamites had no knowledge of other races" chant. It's historically and biologically inaccurate, and rather irritating.

See 1 above.

Where are the eskimos, easter islanders and australian aborigines in scripture?

Now you are being ridiculous. I'm willing to admit I know less about Mesopotamia and Sumer than you - however your grasp of simple biology is embarrassing. Are you honestly saying you cannot fathom the idea of race mixing?

My posts clearly pointed out that unmixed races do not change.

Physical features are not the result of mutations or evolution, we do not observe races change their physical appearance, instead we observe a fixed permamence which can never be altered - all evidence for a fixed polygenist creation of the different races.

 

[Research2]

Few respected anthropologist believe that the races are actually different species, and those that do claim we are decended from different lines of hominids. You're arguing that all the races were created separately and as such are completely unrelated. No form of science supports that idea.

Prominent polygenist creationists -

Louis Agassiz, Samuel Morton, Charles Pickering, Josiah Clark Nott, George Gliddon, Robert Knox, Samuel Kneeland, Charles Hamilton Smith.

All these men were top scientists.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

(I haven't had the time to look up more information Mesopotamia and Sumer just yet. You probably haven't had the time to look up your sources yet either, but I don't mind waiting.)

Furthermore most early Biblical names are of Sumerian origin. For example Lamech derived from lamga which in Sumerian means 'priest'.

Much of the Bible is written in Hebrew, ancient Greek and Aramaic, so we can't link it to once specific language. The Mesopotamians were not the sole writers of the Bible. Once again, if they were then this would mean the Bible is nothing more than their own stories rather than the word of God.

The Bible was written for the Adamic race only, therefore non-Adamic peoples are not included. Once again, i ask - if you disagree and like mainstream Christians believe Christianity is a universal religion, show me the eskimos, easter islanders, sub-saharan africans, polynesians, australian aborigines etc in scripture.

Remember you appear to be defending monogenism and universalism here, so if that is the case show me in scripture where all the above races are mentioned. If Christianity is a 'universal' religion, for everyone, show me where all these races are mentioned in scripture.

Repeating yourself doesn't make it true, you're sounding like a broken record. Frankly, why should it matter that inuits, aboriginals, africans etc. were not mentioned? Neither were Celts, Picts, Scandinavians, or most European people. Even if they are members of the so-called 'Adamic' race, neither they nor their countries are directly mentioned either.

Towards the end of his time on Earth, Jesus claimed to spread his message to "all nations". Why would he specifically say "Send the good news to the Americans, Australia and China" considering - as you insist - that the people living at the time did not know about such countries? Christians are told to preach to all nations, not just the ones they knew of:

Matthew 28:19-20: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Luke 24:46-47: And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Matthew 25:31-33: When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Mark 13:9-11: But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them. And the gospel must first be published among all nations. But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
​

My posts clearly pointed out that unmixed races do not change.

Physical features are not the result of mutations or evolution, we do not observe races change their physical appearance, instead we observe a fixed permamence which can never be altered - all evidence for a fixed polygenist creation of the different races.

Sorry to be so brusk but your posts don't mean anything. Physical features are the result of natural selection as they provide an evolutionary advantage - people living in regions with a lot of sunlight tend to have dark skin to protect them against skin cancers, people living in regions with less sunlight tend to have light skin because it aids production of vitamin D.

As I have pointed out - over and over - interbreeding is also an indication of relatedness. If the different races were not related, breeding would either be rare and dysfunctional or would not happen at all. Polygenism does not explain why mixed-raced people are so common. As such saying racial features can 'never be altered' is nonsense.

I should also add that there is a great deal of variation between races. Northern Mongolics have more pronounced racial features than southern ones. Travel away from the east and towards the south (towards Australiasia) and you will notice that skin hues gradually become darker and darker. Compare for example, an Indonesian to a Japanese. Your idea that racial features are 'fixed' does not pan out - whether we are talking about mixed-raced people or single-raced people. Not all Caucasians have blond hair, nor is blond hair exclusive to Caucasian. Therefore blond hair cannot be considered a racial feature, let alone a fixed one. The same can be said about skin colour, nose shape and certain disorders.

Prominent polygenist creationists -

Louis Agassiz, Samuel Morton, Charles Pickering, Josiah Clark Nott, George Gliddon, Robert Knox, Samuel Kneeland, Charles Hamilton Smith.

All of these men date from the 18th - 19th centuries. This is like claiming the geocentric model (the sun revolved around the Earth) is a valid science by quoting Claudius Ptolemy, a man who lived between 90 - 165 AD. Their science is very out of date.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

This is more of a personal note rather than an argument:

You will not be able to understand basic inheritance until you abandon the idea that the races were 'assigned' specific traits. There is no evidence either from religion or science that this is true.

Earlier I used the example of the panther and the labrador. Some features are more common in some than others - blond and red hair are not Caucasian features, they are features Caucasians tend to have more frequently than other races. The same goes for dark skin in Negroes and hooked noses in North Indias. Certain polymorphisms and disorders are more common in certain races than in others, but simply having them is not an indicator of race. Sickle cell trait is quite common in Negroes for example. If it were somehow possible to remove the gene(s) which cause this and implant them into a native American, would be suddenly become black? Obviously not, he'd be a native American with sickle cell trait.

For the sake of clarity, 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?

 

[Papias]

NSP wrote:

Incidently I remember when you came to CF in February you were a YEC. Now it's 'nonsense'? You changed your position pretty quickly.

R2 responded to this, but I did want to say that even if true, that's fine. 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.


R2 wrote:

i'm not wasting anymore time with cranks.

Many of your statements about race don't fit with modern research. I recommend learning about the mainstream science view of the origin of races before speaking more. For instance, the fact that mutations and natural selection has led to the various races is accepted based on the evidence. Not only do they understand the genetic differences, but they have found the specific mutations that caused some of the changes in skin color. A good place to start is with this overview by modern, mainstream scientists: http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf



It's also worth mentioning that I'm an example of a family changing race as NSP described. My great great great great grandmother was pure Ojibwe Indian, and unless told, no one seeing me would suspect that I'm anything but pure caucasian.

There aren't distinct races, a simple map of indigenous skin color shows that (below). You may notice that this practically perfectly matches sun exposure (latitude) if first corrected for forest shading cover.

Papias

 

[marlowe007]

Prominent polygenist creationists -

Louis Agassiz, Samuel Morton, Charles Pickering, Josiah Clark Nott, George Gliddon, Robert Knox, Samuel Kneeland, Charles Hamilton Smith.

All these men were top scientists.

Agassiz, sure, he was a polygenist, but he at least maintained that all races were endowed with a soul, something which you seem to deny.

Knox was a polygenist, but the fella wasn't even a theist, much less a creationist. He seems to have adhered to Lamarckian evolution.

Nott, funnily enough, came around to accepting common descent after reading Darwin.

Can you say cherry-picking?

 

[Mallon]

Prominent polygenist creationists -

Louis Agassiz, Samuel Morton, Charles Pickering, Josiah Clark Nott, George Gliddon, Robert Knox, Samuel Kneeland, Charles Hamilton Smith.

All these men were top scientists.

They also all lived over 100 years ago and did not have the benefit of modern science like genetics.

 

[Research2]

Much of the Bible is written in Hebrew, ancient Greek and Aramaic, so we can't link it to once specific language. The Mesopotamians were not the sole writers of the Bible. Once again, if they were then this would mean the Bible is nothing more than their own stories rather than the word of God.

- Moses wrote in Hebrew, however he didn't write the Bible, he just compiled and redacted it. Genesis was written in a Mesopotamian script, if you read P. J Wiseman's book i already cited, he listed the evidences.

Neither were Celts, Picts, Scandinavians, or most European people. Even if they are members of the so-called 'Adamic' race, neither they nor their countries are directly mentioned either.

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

- However the apostles were not sent to the eskimos in alaska or the aborigines in australia...

- 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?

Towards the end of his time on Earth, Jesus claimed to spread his message to "all nations". Why would he specifically say "Send the good news to the Americans, Australia and China" considering - as you insist - that the people living at the time did not know about such countries? Christians are told to preach to all nations, not just the ones they knew of

The ''all nations'' are the nations of Matthew 10: 6 and 15: 24...

Read the Bible in its order...

Sorry to be so brusk but your posts don't mean anything. Physical features are the result of natural selection as they provide an evolutionary advantage -

Nor do yours, since evolution is a fairytale.

people living in regions with a lot of sunlight tend to have dark skin to protect them against skin cancers

You mean like the native Kabyles of Algeria who have pale white skin and blonde hair?

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?

As I have pointed out - over and over - interbreeding is also an indication of relatedness. If the different races were not related, breeding would either be rare and dysfunctional or would not happen at all. Polygenism does not explain why mixed-raced people are so common. As such saying racial features can 'never be altered' is nonsense.

- Hybridity.

- Different sub-species can procreate.

A i said in the earlier thread this mongogenist argument was debunked over 200 years ago by the polygenists.

Your idea that racial features are 'fixed' does not pan out - whether we are talking about mixed-raced people or single-raced people.

Tell that to a physical anthropologist. Amazing how you reject science for your own cranky race-denialism. But whatever floats your boat...

All of these men date from the 18th - 19th centuries. This is like claiming the geocentric model (the sun revolved around the Earth) is a valid science by quoting Claudius Ptolemy, a man who lived between 90 - 165 AD. Their science is very out of date.

- The Laws of Thermodynamics were founded hundreds of years ago, but still exist, unchanged.

- Kepler's laws were founded in 1609, 402 years ago - and still exist unchanged.

- Boyle's law was founded in 1662, and is still a scientific law.

- Don't also forget that Archimedes of Syracuse's fluid ''principle'' is still considered a scientific law today but lived around 2,300 years ago.

The only people who claim what you do are evolutionists i.e that men if they lived later would suddenly all be believer's in darwin's fairytale, and that science replaces old science...yet as proven above this is false. Science founded thousands or hundreds of years ago, are still scientific laws, nothing has changed.