A question to Creationists....what ethnicity were Adam & Eve?

I have a picture, just a sec, let me find it... ah, here it is

 

You'll notice we still have a dearth of Creationists even attempting the original question in the OP?



- - - Updated - - -

Oooh, Doughnut of Knowledge. Hmmmmm

 

In my thread #1,487 for the week, I'll ask:

"What race were people before there were races?"

Then I'll argue with anyone who tries to point this glaring stupidity.

 

According to evolutionary theory, if an extended Scandinavian family (out to third cousins) moved to the Kalahari and lived as the indigenous persons there lived, never mating outside their own group, how many generations would it take before their skin and pores resembled the indigenous persons.
If the answer is 20 generations or less, this question does not create an argument.
I think the correct answer is 20 generations or less.
The first person listed as "black" in the Bible was Moses' wife, about 900 years after the flood.

 

You'll never know anything until you get your hands on that time machine, will you?

 

You have no clue how much it really would help clear things up.

Such as going back to see the pyramids built, or Stonehenge, and things like that.

Maybe even find out if David and Goliath actually happend and see if there were really giants in the past.

Find out if Noah's Flood actually happened.

so many things could be cleared up with a time machine.

 

You are apparently having an inaccurate remembrance. Such major changes in pigmentation may have happened in as little as 100 generations (~2,500 years), but that estimate is not based upon a single family.

 

Illogical. The entire world was one interbreeding population prior to the Noah flood myth? Were pre-flood humans all restricted to a small geographic area? Were all animals likewise restricted in their distribution and speciation, making their fitting onto Noah's boat possible?

If only all of the evidence available to us today weren't so strongly opposed to everything the bible claims about our prehistoric past

 

You don't need a time machine to come up with decent answers to these questions. The mythical flood would have left clear, easily visible signs that would leave people in little doubt about it today.

But no, it was a story invented and recorded by flat-earthers who thought that the dome of the sky had physical gates in it that could be opened up to allow the primordial waters to come flooding in and submerge the earth that had been caused to appear out of those waters by the creation of that dome. That's how silly and primitive the Old Testament authors had been, and it's reflected in other mythologies of the time and region, including in Hebrew texts that weren't included in the canon.

 

there is no such thing as a logical religion, even when logical people make logic be their religion.

Not necessarily. Sometimes scientists, especially in archeology, will filter out things that don't fit their worldview.

Scientists are human, after all, and regardless of how much they know, they see only what they want to see.

 

How did you become such an expert regarding the psychology of scientists?

Got a time machine hidden in your pocket?

 

I read a lot.

So I know a few things.

But not everything.

 

Don't be so concerned about the quantity of your reading. Place more emphasis on the quality of your reading material instead.

 

So you're attacking me because what I said about scientists and logical people huh?

You really shouldn't dismiss things so easily, you really don't know what a person's personal experiences have been.

 

While this may be true of some individual scientists, the peer review system filters out the wrong. Once it's all been through that filter, all you're left with is unbiased information. Of course, biases will propel a scientist in certain directions (the pursuit of a cancer cure might be motivated by a loss, for example), but most will still only go where the information takes them. If they have an idea and it doesn't play out after a round of research, they move on. The goal is to get the facts, not to wallow around in some dead end. Where's the satisfaction or progress in that?

 

I'm not attacking you. If I were, then you'd know it.

I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of your denying that certain things can be known about our past without having been present in the past as an eyewitness to the events in question, all the while insisting that you know how all scientists behave. I'm guessing that you have never even held a conversation with a working scientist. Have you?

 

Except for things like Piltdown man.
The Brontosaurus.
Out of place artifacts.

And so on.

 

I often used to think it was a form of laziness, this refusal to think about (things they do OR don't think about ), but the more I learn the more I realise it's self-preservation. They know that close scrutiny would mean the end of the cuddly blankie. One of my current missions is to look into how they demonise thinking (aka, Questioning God) during indoctrination.

 

And I'm pointing out that sometimes bigotry and prejudice will influence how a person can write history and science to their own ends. Some scientists will ignore things that don't fit into their worldview as will some historians.

For example, War of NORTHERN Aggression, Iraq was a war for oil. Bush lied and people died. And so on.

And these things tend to muddy the waters a bit.

And scientists can be just as bigoted and prejudiced as anybody else. Such as the dogma I experienced when I posted that you tube video about how we can travel faster than the speed of light.

 

And does the bible explain how ethnicity came about? Because there were no other ethnicities to mix with, if you go by the bible. So, it's would be impossible, except by evolution, which creationists do not except, for their ethnicity to change.

 

The article does use Biblical verse.

Such as:

So I can see you didn't read the article.

 

A very good example of this is Mike Parker Pearson and his research at Stonehenge. he talks in his book of how he was giving South African archeologist a tour of the site, and of a sudden the visitor said "You know all theories about Stonehenge are wrong. Man did not build in stone to celebrate life.

7 years later our understanding of the site has completely changed with the discovery of the Riverside track and the proven connection between Woodhenge and Stonehenge. And the fact that other henges around the country displayed exactly the same pattern

 

And what about Piltdown man, the Brontosurus, out of place artifacts

 

Sometimes science is wrong of the facts and is resistant to change, and sometimes even their own bigotries and prejudices can affect how they see those facts.

Those are the examples.

 

And in these instances, what exactly did science get wrong. What bigotries and prejudices exactly are you talking about