While deep in thought today this dawned on me out of nowhere.

If adam and eve were the beginning of mankind, then what race where they? If they were white, how did blacks, asians, indians, hispanics etc etc come to be?

As far as i know the bible says nothing about it, and if we all did come from adam and eve then we must have evolved into other races. Therefore then bible itself proves evolution.



Christians are so silly.

[This message has been edited by Quageschi (edited 03-12-2007).]

I think it says somewhere in the bible that God turned some people black for their sins.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

I think it says somewhere in the bible that God turned some people black for their sins.

Thats the Mormon bullshit bible. I think thats pretty funny though.

At any rate, scientists cant seem to find any significant differences in the DNA between supposed races. This would give some support to the theory that after civilization finally spread after Babel, that races formed on their own due to nature.

quote:Christians are so silly.

Funny, you are the one claiming evidence where there is none.

most christians these days accept evolution as fact, they just believe god created evolution

quote:Originally posted by mustache rider:

most christians these days accept evolution as fact, they just believe god created evolution

There are plenty of Christians out there who will defend creationism to the death.

Of course, though, anyone who actually believes in creationism is an absolute fool of the highest caliber and should be ridiculed and laughed at for their brainless beliefs.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

At any rate, scientists cant seem to find any significant differences in the DNA between supposed races. This would give some support to the theory that after civilization finally spread after Babel, that races formed on their own due to nature.

thats because there isn't. the mutations were simple, people became white because (one reason) in the european climate they could not produce enough vitamin d. it has only been 60'000 years since people left africa, not really a huge amount of time for substantial evolution. considering inter-breeding and i think youll find the differences in races are really only skin deep.

anyway. they mapped the genome. they know the genes that control the colour of the skin. they are quite clearly different from race to race. they know the differences between races, it just isn't really that exciting.

it lends support to nothing.

Are you an idiot? Do you make your donkeys push your cart around, or do they pull?

^Argon are you sure that's the generally accepted belief by creationists, because many that have postsed on totse (like Digital Savior) come up with some crap like "no new information can be produced by evolution" which would be inconsistant with that belief you have proposed. In other words, I think according to them Adam and Eve would have to contain all the genetic information for all the races... Which is impossible, but then again we are talking about creationist beliefs here.

How so? Each of us possess some capacity of benign mutations within our DNA. Microevolution is a far more established theory than macroevolution, easpecially since we have and can observe it.

Indeed "no new information can be produced by evolution" (which I'm not completely onboard with, its a logarithmic graph of intelligence versus information gatering and logical inertia), because no new nformation has been generated.

Its not inconsistent with anything. How is it impossible? Using your logic, you would think it impossible for black parents to have white babies, or white parents to have black babies, but it has happened within the last few years.

Also, lets be honest and note that people of different races are separated by more then just their skin color. Their features are very distinct as well, of course there are some exceptions to this, but for the most part thats how it is.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Funny, you are the one claiming evidence where there is none.

No evidence of what? Other races existing?

Granted the difference may be no more then micro-evolution, but it is evolution none the less.

By silly christians I meant silly creationists.



[This message has been edited by Quageschi (edited 03-12-2007).]

I've never entered the depths of "MGCBTSOOYG" before, but I entered this forum because it was in Hot Topics. ArgonPlasma2000 is, in my opinion, completely right in his beliefs. Microevolution, an observable, explainable, and reproducable event in nature, has the capacity to perform such subtle changes as we see between different races. Frankly, the slight differences that are observed in members of different races, i.e. the level of melatonin present in the skin, nose shape, eye shape, etc. are so imperceptible at times that I don't believe they would have taken a liong time at all to develop. Factors such as climate and physical surroundings could have initiated thse evolutionary changes, and I, as an evangelical Christian, have no problem accepting this.

BTW, the whole "some people became black because of their sins" thing is gleaned from the Mormon cult's extra-Biblical book, "The Book of Mormon." And its an absolute crock of horse shit.

Also, to a previous poster, "most" Christians do not subscribe to the "inspired Evolution" theory of origin. That is a relativel small minority of the Christian faith. And, in my experience, it is typically the more uninformed and gullible types of individuals that actually believe and attempt to spread that ridiculous pseudo-science/religion hybrid.

Of all the things to challenge a creationist with, why choose racial differences? Why not mitochondrial DNA or human chromosome #2 or the evolution of the middle ear in sea mammals?

Not that any of it matters. Creationism is the epitome of pseudoscience. Science makes observations, and declares conclusions based on those obervations, then tests those conclusions and makes further observations to either verify or disprove the conclusions.

Creationism starts of with a conclusion (Genesis) and cherry picks observations to support its "conclusion", without any serious testing, and remains blissfully ignorant of all evidence that would challenge or disprove said "conclusion". It's fucking ass-backwards thinking. I almost don't even bother with creationists anymore, because they can't even display a basic fucking understanding of how science works. The only ones I'm really willing to spend much time on are those who have the guts to read a thorough pro-evolution book so they at least know what the fuck they are trying to argue against.

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 03-12-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Of all the things to challenge a creationist with, why choose racial differences? Why not mitochondrial DNA or human chromosome #2 or the evolution of the middle ear in sea mammals?

Not that any of it matters. Creationism is the epitome of pseudoscience. Science makes observations, and declares conclusions based on those obervations, then tests those conclusions and makes further observations to either verify or disprove the conclusions.

Creationism starts of with a conclusion (Genesis) and cherry picks observations to support its "conclusion", without any serious testing, and remains blissfully ignorant of all evidence that would challenge or disprove said "conclusion". It's fucking ass-backwards thinking. I almost don't even bother with creationists anymore, because they can't even display a basic fucking understanding of how science works. The only ones I'm really willing to spend much time on are those who have the guts to read a thorough pro-evolution book so they at least know what the fuck they are trying to argue against.





Frankly, I'm highly offended by your bigoted and confrontational language and personal attacks on Christians. I have no doubt that I would absolutely rip you to shreds during an honest to goodness debate, with no name calling or foul language allowed. Unfortuantely, many anti-Creationists feel that they must resort to personal attacks on Christians' intelligence and mental capabilities. Just to let you know, Nicolaus Copernicus, Linus Pauling, Max Planck, Gregor Mendel, and Georges Lemaitre were all Christians. Several are Catholic, and the rest are Protestant.

Since you may not be aware of who all of these influential men were, let me explain. The men on this list pioneered the study of human genetics, proved that the universe is expanding, proposed the theory of "quanta," and expanded the world's understanding of chemistry by leaps and bounds. Now explain to me again how idiotic and Midieval Christians are?

To the OP: Adam and Eve were most likely Semitic, i.e. dark brown skin, curly black hair, etc. Now, before people start posting about how Semitism is a race that has eveolved recently, I'm just using that term to describe likely physical characterisitcs they probably would have had, due to the climate where they were first created.

Also, I ask any atheist who mocks a Christian's faith, and supports the theory of evolution, to explain to me where the "building blocks of life," known as amino acids, and their supposed precursor, a sort of "chemical soup," came from? Thin air? But wait, where did the air come from? Where did reality itself come from? You have no answer, unless you accept that some entity outside of human comprehension was at work here.

quote:Originally posted by leadspace:



Frankly, I'm highly offended by your bigoted and confrontational language and personal attacks on Christians.

Where did I use the word "Christian" in my post? Oh! That's right! I didn't. And so what if I call creationists dumb? They believe the world is 6,000 years old. If people believed that the sun revolved around the earth, and wouldn't believe any evidence to the contrary, that would make them a dumbass as well. Why should we be any more easy on creationists?

quote:I have no doubt that I would absolutely rip you to shreds during an honest to goodness debate, with no name calling or foul language allowed.

He...hehe...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Srsly? I already said I try not to waste my time "debating" with creationists (ie. they ignore everything I say and blather some tripe fed to them in Sunday school that was debunked 20 years ago), but for the entertainment of others here, bring it on.

quote:Unfortuantely, many anti-Creationists feel that they must resort to personal attacks on Christians' intelligence and mental capabilities.

I said creationists don't have a basic understanding of science. That isn't to say they aren't incapable of aquiring it, they just need to learn how. And quit whining, stupid. Personal attacks are used because you ignore logic and evidence. They're the only way of even getting you to comprehend what we are saying.

quote:Just to let you know, Nicolaus Copernicus, Linus Pauling, Max Planck, Gregor Mendel, and Georges Lemaitre were all Christians. Several are Catholic, and the rest are Protestant.

Ok. They were Christians. Were they young earth creationists? The two aren't one-in-the-same, you know. And FYI, the Catholic church has openly endorsed evolution as the method by which God created earth, and denounced ID as pseudoscience. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Since you may not be aware of who all of these influential men were, let me explain. The men on this list pioneered the study of human genetics, proved that the universe is expanding, proposed the theory of "quanta," and expanded the world's understanding of chemistry by leaps and bounds. Now explain to me again how idiotic and Midieval Christians are?[/B]

Not all Christians are medieval. My family is full of Christians. I, myself, was a Christian for 15 years (until the age of 20). This isn't an argument against the entirety of Christianity it's an argument against creationism. Get that through your skull.

quote:Originally posted by leadspace:

To the OP: Adam and Eve were most likely Semitic, i.e. dark brown skin, curly black hair, etc. Now, before people start posting about how Semitism is a race that has eveolved recently, I'm just using that term to describe likely physical characterisitcs they probably would have had, due to the climate where they were first created.

Really? Gee, eh, I don't see where it describes the climate of Eden in Genesis. Let's see we got fruit trees, and uh, rivers, and flowers probably, and uh, snake. Hmmm...trees, rivers, and snakes...yeah the only possible race they could've been is Jewish. Definitely not black or asian or indian or any other race that lives in areas where there are fruit trees and rivers and snakes...definitely Jewish. /Sarcasm

quote:Also, I ask any atheist who mocks a Christian's faith, and supports the theory of evolution, to explain to me where the "building blocks of life," known as amino acids, and their supposed precursor, a sort of "chemical soup," came from? Thin air? But wait, where did the air come from? Where did reality itself come from? You have no answer, unless you accept that some entity outside of human comprehension was at work here.

Eh, the first life would have risen out of self-replicating macromolecules through abiogenesis (an entirely different theory than evolution). And where did reality come from? God? Where did god come from? And what's wrong with not having an answer? Isn't it better to admit you don't know something than to make up some bullshit answer just to appease your curiousity?

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

How so? Each of us possess some capacity of benign mutations within our DNA. Microevolution is a far more established theory than macroevolution, easpecially since we have and can observe it.

I suppose it depends on how you differentiate between mirco and macro. Usually the only differention is time...the genetic mechanisms are still the same.

quote:Indeed "no new information can be produced by evolution" (which I'm not completely onboard with, its a logarithmic graph of intelligence versus information gatering and logical inertia), because no new nformation has been generated.

I'm not sure I follow you, but new information is generated all the time and has been observed countless times. Many mechanisms are well known.

quote:Its not inconsistent with anything. How is it impossible? Using your logic, you would think it impossible for black parents to have white babies, or white parents to have black babies, but it has happened within the last few years.

White parents had a black baby? I am unaware of this (was a paternity test given). How would you explain this phenomenon without the process of new information being created? How would you explain how all the diversity among humans that we observe today came from Adam and Eve and no mechanism for new biological information to be created?

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

White parents had a black baby? I am unaware of this (was a paternity test given).

Yes, it was on Maury(if i recall corectly)

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

Yes, it was on Maury(if i recall corectly)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ONLY ON MAURY! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Links? You have me curious...

What you are all forgetting is that young age creationists believe that the earth is about 6000 years old. Ask any scientist, that time is not enough for significant micro evolution to occur. Not to mention the fact that humans populate relatively slowly and (please don't use the "god's help" excuse) with primitive conditions the mortality rate for infants was very high. What that means is that in 6 thousand years, starting with absolutely zero technology humans could not have populated the earth in the fashion that they have now.

quote:Originally posted by leadspace:

Microevolution, an observable, explainable, and reproducable event in nature, has the capacity to perform such subtle changes as we see between different races. Factors such as climate and physical surroundings could have initiated thse evolutionary changes, and I, as an evangelical Christian, have no problem accepting this.



There is absolutly no difference in micro and macro evolution. Here's a fact for you, in evolutionary biology studies those two words are NEVER used. Micro and macro is a made up term by creationist dumbfucks. The only difference is time. There is not a single suggestion of a jump from species-species in evolution, not 1.

quote:Originally posted by leadspace:



I have no doubt that I would absolutely rip you to shreds during an honest to goodness debate, with no name calling or foul language allowed.



Ya from your "how to be a creationist pocketbook right"? To bad a quik google search could show me every argument you will bring forward in a VERY short list. And cracking open a biology text book could give me 1000's of facts that you wouldnt know what to say about.

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 03-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

Ya from your "how to be a creationist pocketbook right"? To bad a quik google search could show me every argument you will bring forward in a VERY short list. And cracking open a biology text book could give me 1000's of facts that you wouldnt know what to say about.



I loled at this statement.

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

What you are all forgetting is that young age creationists believe that the earth is about 6000 years old. Ask any scientist, that time is not enough for significant micro evolution to occur. Not to mention the fact that humans populate relatively slowly and (please don't use the "god's help" excuse) with primitive conditions the mortality rate for infants was very high. What that means is that in 6 thousand years, starting with absolutely zero technology humans could not have populated the earth in the fashion that they have now.

This statement is not true i just wish i could find the link.

I believe evolution is true, but I must say this: there is a difference between micro and macro evolution. Macroevolution leads to speciation. Then again macroevolution HAS occurred on our notice, we just ignore it. Consider this - a chihuahua and a saint Bernard (look the pictures) are considered to be the same species of dogs. However they have important prezygotic barriers that prevents them from mating. A chihuahua and a saint bernard could NOT produce an offspring simply because the physical differences make it impossible in the natural environment. Bam! Speciation.

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

I believe evolution is true, but I must say this: there is a difference between micro and macro evolution. Macroevolution leads to speciation. Then again macroevolution HAS occurred on our notice, we just ignore it. Consider this - a chihuahua and a saint Bernard (look the pictures) are considered to be the same species of dogs. However they have important prezygotic barriers that prevents them from mating. A chihuahua and a saint bernard could NOT produce an offspring simply because the physical differences make it impossible in the natural environment. Bam! Speciation.

Yes, and there is still no difference between the two(micro,macro). When we look at animals we call it a sub-species untill we decide its different enough to be called its own species. Simple as that.

Well there is a somewhat ambiguous border when we call them species. Generally a rule of thumb is that when they can create fertile offspring in a natural environment, they are different species.

While were on this topic someone read this http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

and give me a summary because i have to pee and do a couple of other things right now.

God created everything for his "special reason" with his "special powers"

By misinterpreting minor errors, flaws and inconsistencies with evolution and evidence the "evidence" for creationism (even though it is really only attempting to disprove evolution. Disproving evolution is NOT proving creationism) is CREATED.

BTW who is Antony Flew? http://www.bible.ca/tracks/

[This message has been edited by SAMMY249 (edited 03-13-2007).]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartI.html

1. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

2. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Im sorry did I http://blinded.ytmnd.com/

Anotony flew is some atheist I've never heard of who now believes in god. (like that makes a difference anyways). Most likely because he's getting closer to death and needs some sort of comfort.

Congradulations sammy, your stubling on the creationists pocketbook's. Theres hundreds of sites that bring up the EXACT same arguments. Even know scientists have tried explaining the answers to them time after time. And the answers are just as easy to find on google aswell.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

And the answers are just as easy to find on google aswell.

*Looks at watch and begins to wait*..........

BTW I dont you even read all of my firse link.

[This message has been edited by SAMMY249 (edited 03-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

1. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

2. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

1. first life was asexual

2. sexual reproduction evolution is still a mystery. The advantages are very clear compared to asexual though.

I've read every argument for creationism, ID, young earth and there all the same and retarded. And the explinations are all available. Brought forward by actuall scientists.

What the fuck are you doing? You are just pasting links? seriously.

Answer to Questions http://tinyurl.com/2f62wv



[This message has been edited by Lamabot (edited 03-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

1. first life was asexual

2. sexual reproduction evolution is still a mystery. The advantages are very clear compared to asexual though.

I've read every argument for creationism, ID, young earth and there all the same and retarded. And the explinations are all available. Brought forward by actuall scientists.

And yet you only chose those answers and half assly aswered the first question and couldnt answer the second.

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

What the fuck are you doing? You are just pasting links? seriously.

Answer to Questions http://tinyurl.com/2f62wv



I gave you specific links that you more than likely didnt even enirely read and you dare post this bull shit,plz.

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

And yet you only chose those answers and half assly aswered the first question and couldnt answer the second.

Because we have yet to find the answer dumbshit. Just because we dont know it doesnt warrent the answer that god did it.

How many grams of fiber did you eat on march 12, 1998?

How did hydrogen learn to react with oxygen to form water?

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

How many grams of fiber did you eat on march 12, 1998?

How did hydrogen learn to react with oxygen to form water?

The Lawd knows! Praise Jeebus!

^^^^I see what you did thar^^^^^^

Again your diverting your and my attention to that specific question and do not even mention anything else.Last time i checked there were more than just things dealing with sex.

[This message has been edited by SAMMY249 (edited 03-13-2007).]

^ And I see what you're doing here. You're asking scientific questions that are difficult for lay people to answer, and when someone doesn't have the answer, you're going to claim, "Aha, God did it". If I'm wrong, tell us what the point of asking these questions are.

Maybe you'd like to answer a question since you like asking them. How does a very complex god that can do seemingly anything always exist?

quote:Originally posted by xray:

^ And I see what you're doing here. You're asking scientific questions that are difficult for lay people to answer, and when someone doesn't have the answer, you're going to claim, "Aha, God did it". If I'm wrong, tell us what the point of asking these questions are.

Maybe you'd like to answer a question since you like asking them. How does a very complex god that can do seemingly anything always exist?

The first link i posted didnt ask questions which is why i keep claiming none of you have read it it disputes the "facts of evolution" and then gives proof to the aspects of creation.

In response to your question:You answered it stupid he can do ANYTHING!!!!!!

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

Well there is a somewhat ambiguous border when we call them species. Generally a rule of thumb is that when they can create fertile offspring in a natural environment, they are different species.

Yes, the whole species concept itself is not solid. Especially in microbes.

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

The first link i posted didnt ask questions which is why i keep claiming none of you have read it it disputes the "facts of evolution" and then gives proof to the aspects of creation.

In response to your question:You answered it stupid he can do ANYTHING!!!!!!

Yes, and if your not asking the questions to explain why those statements are fucking retarded then you dont even want to learn so just shut the fuck up and giz on some jesus pictures already. Everything that ses demonstrates there lack of knowledge and understanding of each subject.

From radiometric dating, the effect running water has on rocks, lack of keeping up with fossil record, the evolution of complex basic cells, etc.

"Modern human skeletons have been found with dinosaur skeletons"

Thats all you need to read on that website.

Give me a specific and concise creationist claim and I will refute it

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

Everything that ses demonstrates there lack of knowledge and understanding of each subject.

From radiometric dating, the effect running water has on rocks, lack of keeping up with fossil record, the evolution of complex basic cells, etc.

"Modern human skeletons have been found with dinosaur skeletons"

Thats all you need to read on that website.

Ya i forgot your the scientist that went to college. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

Give me a specific and concise creationist claim and I will refute it

Still waiting

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartI.html

Wondering why no one's taking this seriously or even bothering to refute it? It's making silly, unbased claims. Nothing to back it up.

Handy Hint - Next time post something with references. Gushing praise from creationists does not count.



EDIT - I still didn't get any more info on black babies with white parents...



[This message has been edited by flatplat (edited 03-14-2007).]

Creationism is silly, poor little christians, its ok though your make belive god will save you.

But all seriously come on you arn't really that stupid to belive that everything just appeared 6000 years ago.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Of all the things to challenge a creationist with, why choose racial differences? Why not mitochondrial DNA or human chromosome #2 or the evolution of the middle ear in sea mammals?

Not that any of it matters. Creationism is the epitome of pseudoscience. Science makes observations, and declares conclusions based on those obervations, then tests those conclusions and makes further observations to either verify or disprove the conclusions.

Creationism starts of with a conclusion (Genesis) and cherry picks observations to support its "conclusion", without any serious testing, and remains blissfully ignorant of all evidence that would challenge or disprove said "conclusion". It's fucking ass-backwards thinking. I almost don't even bother with creationists anymore, because they can't even display a basic fucking understanding of how science works. The only ones I'm really willing to spend much time on are those who have the guts to read a thorough pro-evolution book so they at least know what the fuck they are trying to argue against.

didnt read the responses but ill give you these read genises adam and eve werent the first humans they were just the ones allowed in the garden in the hebrew manuscripts there is the article adam and ahadam adam is man and ahadam is a man but anyway the tower of babel would be where the races were devided

quote:Originally posted by midvalley:

didnt read the responses but ill give you these read genises adam and eve werent the first humans they were just the ones allowed in the garden in the hebrew manuscripts there is the article adam and ahadam adam is man and ahadam is a man but anyway the tower of babel would be where the races were devided

Not to mention the whole Cain went "east of Eden" thingie...

Because many white-european looking people have a black ancestor not too far back. When the right genes line up, you get a blacky-poo.

Not to mention it only took 20,000 years for black africans to adapt into white eurpeans due to the harsh northern climate.

If you go back far enough we are all africans.

Sons of Noah.

quote:Originally posted by Quageschi:

While deep in thought today this dawned on me out of nowhere.

If adam and eve were the beginning of mankind, then what race where they? If they were white, how did blacks, asians, indians, hispanics etc etc come to be?

As far as i know the bible says nothing about it, and if we all did come from adam and eve then we must have evolved into other races. Therefore then bible itself proves evolution.



Christians are so silly.



Congrats on finnaly reaching the thought capacity of an infant! good job im serious proud of ya!

but hey its called Bable and they wernt white they were of a greekish color!

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

Ya i forgot your the scientist that went to college. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

doesnt change anything! you realize it took uneducated people to figure things out in the first place right! your discounting actual physical evidence which is something a REAL scientist wouldnt do! they ask q's you accept anything someone tells you as long as it sounds good to you, you are the biased one and apparently no smater than him so you have no right to make fun of his intelligence! (esspecialy when your that stupid) let me ask you this question? did you go to Harvard???

What I always liked about Adam and Eve were.. if that really was how it happened, then how in all get-up did they reproduce to populate the planet?

Genetics would infer that there would be very serious consequences if two people tried to spawn a planet of people.

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

doesnt change anything! you realize it took uneducated people to figure things out in the first place right! your discounting actual physical evidence which is something a REAL scientist wouldnt do! they ask q's you accept anything someone tells you as long as it sounds good to you, you are the biased one and apparently no smater than him so you have no right to make fun of his intelligence! (esspecialy when your that stupid) let me ask you this question? did you go to Harvard??? [/B]

quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:

doesnt change anything! you realize it took uneducated people to figure things out in the first place right! your discounting actual physical evidence which is something a REAL scientist wouldnt do! they ask q's you accept anything someone tells you as long as it sounds good to you, you are the biased one and apparently no smater than him so you have no right to make fun of his intelligence! (esspecialy when your that stupid) let me ask you this question? did you go to Harvard???

Retard fight!

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Retard fight!

ugh well if it was a retard fight it should be SO easy to defend your position and shove it back in my face!?! so cmon lets hear it?

Theres no need in posting this stuff anymore no matter how much i give you you flame me for it and call it bias bullshit,so have a nice day.

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

Theres no need in posting this stuff anymore no matter how much i give you you flame me for it and call it bias bullshit,so have a nice day.

Bias? Yes! Bullshit? No!

I gave you the challenge. Give me a concise creationist claim that is based on "fact" that supports creationism and I will refute it. You've failed to do so.

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

Bias? Yes! Bullshit? No!

I gave you the challenge. Give me a concise creationist claim that is based on "fact" that supports creationism and I will refute it. You've failed to do so.

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

There,pick one and go crazy.

What part of concise don't you understand. I need a concise statement i.e.

Remains of humans found with dinosaurs...etc

I don't want you to paste a giant link filled with crap without yourself understanding the link's contents

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

What part of concise don't you understand. I need a concise statement i.e.

Remains of humans found with dinosaurs...etc

I don't want you to paste a giant link filled with crap without yourself understanding the link's contents

I understand the link fully.i gave you a perfect oppurtunity to pick the easiest argument there and you piseed it away so..... http://youlose.ytmnd.com/

You've supported my point. You have no argument, just pasted links off the internet

Sammy, I went through this with you once before and blew your ridiculous ideas of why carbon dating is inaccurate out of the water. At one point you said something like, "I'm not talking about radiometric dating, I'm talking about carbon dating" proving that you don't even understand what the hell you're arguing against. As Lamabot suggests, pick one argument you'd like to debate and do so in your own words and I'll join Lamabot in tearing apart your creationist nonsense once again.

This question struck me, so I asked my bio teacher and she says that over thousands of generations, people would have adapted to their environments. Hence black people from places like Africa and Australia, where it is SUNNY all the time. And Europeans just got really white because of the colder, darker climate up north.

Apparently we can all be traced back to 7 or 8 tribes of primitive humans in Africa somewhere, which means we're all a wee bit black inside. (Now I can talk ghettostyles with confidence[ http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)]) Perhaps this was the first race or whatever that God created (If he did; not taking sides), and from there they moved up into the middle east...

Apparently in a few thousand generations or so, most people in Australia, even the white chums, will be slowly turning black because of the exposure to sunlight, as their European whiteness adapts to the higher levels of light.

Interesting stuff, I think...

Adam and Eve were both black, thus satisfying both Biblical and evolutionary standpoints.

It would also explain why they couldn't help themselves from stealing what didn't belong to them.

^^Lulz at that

quote:Originally posted by Mojo Savage:

This question struck me, so I asked my bio teacher and she says that over thousands of generations, people would have adapted to their environments. Hence black people from places like Africa and Australia, where it is SUNNY all the time. And Europeans just got really white because of the colder, darker climate up north.

Apparently we can all be traced back to 7 or 8 tribes of primitive humans in Africa somewhere, which means we're all a wee bit black inside. (Now I can talk ghettostyles with confidence[ http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)]) Perhaps this was the first race or whatever that God created (If he did; not taking sides), and from there they moved up into the middle east...

Apparently in a few thousand generations or so, most people in Australia, even the white chums, will be slowly turning black because of the exposure to sunlight, as their European whiteness adapts to the higher levels of light.

Interesting stuff, I think...

That's complete bullshit...you don't just 'adapt' into having black skin its mutations and selection.

quote:Originally posted by Slave of the Beast:

Adam and Eve were both black, thus satisfying both Biblical and evolutionary standpoints.

It would also explain why they couldn't help themselves from stealing what didn't belong to them.

damn niggras...

Race accounts for less than 6% of the genetic differences among humans. Also, there are in reality no clear boundaries between races, as it's a spectrum.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Race accounts for less than 6% of the genetic differences among humans. Also, there are in reality no clear boundaries between races, as it's a spectrum.

far less then 6%..humans are like 99% genetically the same as apes

To address the original issue, there ARE references to other peoples and races throughout the book of Genesis. The most obvious being the city of Nod, and an unnamed race of giants. In fact, I don't think there's anything in there that says Adam and Eve were the only people God created, just that they were the first.

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

Bias? Yes! Bullshit? No!

I gave you the challenge. Give me a concise creationist claim that is based on "fact" that supports creationism and I will refute it. You've failed to do so.

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html[/URL]

There,pick one and go crazy.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/crebuttals.html

WEBSITE WAR!

The point we're making is:

There is no point in simply posting a link. It's unhelpful, a waste of time and removes YOUR responsibility to actually attempt to form an argument. Now, come on! I'm sure you can read that yourself and muster one single fact which proves creationism.

Otherwise you're not giving us anything to refute, and we win by default.

Cretin.