Looking for an opinion

[trofimus]

Let me correct you here. Most scientists hold to evolutionary views (not theistic evolutionary views) because they believe nature evolved. They substitute the one true God of the Bible for the god of chance.

Why do you think so?
Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline

BTW, the leader of Human Genom Project is a theistic evolutionst and the founder of biologos.org

 

[DP]

Yes it had to do with division....plus the people that inhabited the land that has a hotter climate have brown skin.
The melanin in our skin becomes darker with the sun as you know... and then as the generations went on the brown skin was in their genetics.

That's actually evolution theory and is false. There have been Caucasian peoples living in areas near the equator for thousands of years and they have not become changed to a Black race. Likewise in the Arctic regions, there's been Eskimos with darker pigment skin for centuries living in that climate, and it hasn't changed their race either.

 

[Zmouth]

So generations of people that have lived in hot climates have adapted darker skin while people in colder climates have paler skin.

Is that why Eskimos are so light skinned?

 

[Zmouth]

That's actually evolution theory and is false. There have been Caucasian peoples living in areas near the equator for thousands of years and they have not become changed to a Black race. Likewise in the Arctic regions, there's been Eskimos with darker pigment skin for centuries living in that climate, and it hasn't changed their race either.

Good answer.

 

[DP]

SkepticalCynic,

As an atheist your question is understandable for it has been asked as a means to refute original Adam & Eve as found in Genesis. What fascinated me was the responses to your question from christians that seemed to embrace an acceptance of evolutionary thought.

Regarding your question - i would refer you to this link:

Blond Baby from Black Parents a Genetic Mystery | The Institute for Creation Research

Most simplistically, SkepticalCynic, the possibility of any parent giving birth to any child who does not reflect their immediate lineage is always there.

A chihuahua can breed with a great dane and produce fecund offspring.
Not a pretty sight I'll grant you but since the origin of all dogs was from a ~kind~ they have that ability.

Might I suggest, SkepticalCynic, a basic refresher on genetics. A good one can be found here:

Basic Principles of Genetics: Mendel's Genetics

Be Well

cavil

There is such a thing in medical science called 'fraternal twins', two children born at the same time from two different sacs from two different fathers. Look it up.

That is how two twin children can be twins yet with different features, even of a different race, because of different fathers. It means the woman was playing the field.

But evolutionists like to jump on stories like that and try to turn them into supposed proof of how the races could come about through evolutionary means.

 

[Zmouth]

There is such a thing in medical science called 'fraternal twins', two children born at the same time from two different sacs from two different fathers. Look it up.

That is how two twin children can be twins yet with different features, even of a different race, because of different fathers. It means the woman was playing the field.

But evolutionists like to jump on stories like that and try to turn them into supposed proof of how the races could come about through evolutionary means.

However, the theology of creationism (that mankind on earth originated from a single set of progenitors) is the hypothesis of evolution.

Blond Baby from Black Parents a Genetic Mystery | The Institute for Creation Research

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 2 Cor 4:3

 

[DP]

I'm a creationist; I believe what God showed in His Word about His creation, and that includes His showing in the Hebrew of Gen.1:26-27 about the creation of the races of 'mankind' (aadam) in general, which were placed outside His Garden as hunter-gatherers, and... the man Adam (eth'ha'aadam - this man Adam) He formed in His Garden to till the soil.

The Harvard school of archaeology are evolutionists. They would call me a Diffusionist, because... I maintain that God spread the peoples to the four corners of the earth, which is how groups like the American Indian got to the Americas, having crossed the land bridge across the Behring Straights into areas like today's northern Canada, and eventually migrating South, including into Central and South America. Part of that proof is within their cultural history, but also exists with archaeological evidence left over the centuries of their migrations.

The Harvard school on the other hand, which follows evolution theory, wants us to believe that peoples developed separately on each continent alone, like different tadpoles in separate ponds of water, within isolation from each other.

Archaeologists like Dr. Barry Fell revealed the evidence for Diffusion in the Americas with research he put in his book called America B.C. He showed how the ancient Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians, and even Egyptians once traveled to the Americas based on archaeological evidence. He's not popular of course because his evidence goes directly against the Harvard school of archaeology where just so happens was where he was trained. Fell was a linguist stationed on a Pacific island during WWII as a sky watcher for Japanese aircraft. He discovered Libyian script carvings in a cave on the Pacific island which led to his study of archaeology.

 

[DP]

However, the theology of creationism (that mankind on earth originated from a single set of progenitors) is the hypothesis of evolution.

So true.

The problem is with men's traditions. Most theologians do not realize they are preaching evolution when they say all the races originated from Noah's three sons after the flood.

All peoples indeed are of "one blood", meaning of the human race by God's design, but we are not all created of the same race. Yet each of the Root races were indeed 'created' by God in the beginning per Gen.1:26-27, and when God had finished His creation He said it was very good. With this there is no conundrum formed by one race because of wrongly supposing to be superior than another race. That's a problem with today's evolution based theology about the races, it creates a conundrum, because if all the races came from Noah's sons, then which race was Noah, and why, and wouldn't that make the other races that sprang from Noah inferior?

With understanding that God created all the root races on His 6th Day, like Gen.1:26-27 suggests in the Hebrew, then there is no conundrum, since it means God created the races how He wanted in the beginning, and said it was very good. That shows how no one race can assume they are superior to another.

It's I've said before, and according to how God made His creation, as He shows us here with verses like this...

Deut 23:2
2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
KJV

The idea of the illegitimate child there is actually about a child of mixed race, the reason because God is showing the purging of the bloodline through ten generations. What does that reveal about one's seed and how God created us? It shows that if one's bloodline is left alone to not mix again, the mixed blood will eventually become purged out. This would mean a child of mixed race that continues to only marry in one line afterwards, will eventually purge out the other race, which is showing a going-back to how God created the races, which is totally against evolution theory.