Alright… Let’s say that creation is real (LOL).
What race were Adam & Eve and why is there different races of human? Because if they were black how did white people appear and vice-versa?
Hmm… Sounds like fundamentalists have to invent one of three things to solve this one, either God put them there later, or the devil put them there, or evolution exists (which sort of invalidates creation)?
PerfectDark
Another question for one to ponder is did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?
As I understand it, the sons of Noah were supposed to be the ancestors of the various races.
Shem’s descendants are the Semites (Jews, Arabs, Berbers, etc.)
Ham’s descendants are the Hamites (black Africans and according to some, also Asians, Australians, and Native Americans)
Japheth’s descendants are the Japhethites (Lily-white Caucasians).
I think this theory is relatively recent, maybe 200 years old, and I don’t think there’s much (or any) supporting evidence for it in the Bible.
In Genesis 9, verse 25, Noah curses Ham for having seen him drunk and naked: “a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” This verse was (as bibliophage correctly states - much later only when they had the guns and ships to pull it off) used by the Europeans to justify the enslavement of the black Africans. Although Genesis names Ham as the father of Canaan, “Canaan” could only mean sub-Saharan Africa in only the most creative of interpretations.
Does the name Canaan relate at all the Cain of Cain and Able? I’ve also heard the more racist fundies claim that dark skin is the “mark of Cain” that sets certain ethinic groups apart, and that people with dark skin are more likely to prey on one another, hence the mark of Cain. Not that I buy it, but as long as the other racial questions have been raised, why not ask?
–Tim
In the original Hebrew there is no connection between Canaan
(spelled kaf-nun-ayin-nun) and Cain (spelled kuf-yud-nun).
As far as the OP, perhaps this belongs in GD (where I won’t be headed), but at least according to some modern Orthodox Jewish thought (which certainly believes in Creation), evolution does not invalidate creation, certainly not post-creation evolution.
Not to mention that the fact that Noah planted vineyards, made wine, got plastered and lay around naked was hardly Ham’s fault. And the fact that he went around announcing “hey looky, the old man’s lying around in his birthday suit as drunk as a skunk” rather than being more circumspect about it hardly seems like an offense meriting a curse on him and his descendents.
Wrong, and that lie codemned Blacks to slavery and Jim Crow laws for hundreds of years. Cush, Ham’s other son, was the acendants of sub-Saharan Africans, not Caanan.
In answer to the OP, the Bible speaks of different kinds coming from a pair of animals (including the Noah’s Ark story). So many different kinds of humans can come from one pair, which is consistent with science.
And even if evolution was the process used to create the variety in life, it does not invalidate creation one bit, Perfect Dark. It means that evolution was a tool that the Creator used.
Well, tradition says that what Ham actually did was either rape or castration. Or, you could just take the view that it was a post-conquest justification for the Conquest of Canaan.
Also, considering that “Honor your father and mother” is one of the ten commandments, what Ham did was a pretty big breach of that.
And on top of that, there was no material gain to be had by doing it, so you couldn’t even say he gave into temptations…he just did it out of spite.
Nobody has mentioned the wonderful crackpot theory preached by Elijah Muhammad. According to him, Original Man was the Blackman. But there was an ancient mad scientist, smarter than the rest, known as Mr. Yacub. He rebelled against normal society and set up a laboratory on the island of Patmos. He found that in each Blackman there were two “germs”: a black “germ” and a brown “germ”. He conducted breeding experiments to isolate the brown “germ”. After 2,000 years he had produced a brown-skinned race. After 4,000 years he had produced a light brown-skinned race. Finally, after 6,000 years the result was the devil white man.
Try http://www.drdino.com for “proof” of Creationist "science.
I use far too many “quotation marks.”
Oh evolutionists, please evolve your arguments against those of scientific creationists and take on theistic creationists please.
Well, the theory I’ve heard is that Adam and Eve were brown, and the various races developed by natural selection, gradually as people began to spread throughout the world.
Oops, I meant that if atheists want to argue that evolution and other evidence disproves any form of creation, and there is no Divine being or group involved in the process, they will have to do much, much more than propose the theory of the excluded middle, that is, argue exclusively against literal creationists, whom I disagree as well.
Jeez. If you’re going to state ancient sources of fiction and superstition as fact, at least state them ACCURATELY. Noah only took two of each UNCLEAN animal. For every CLEAN animal, he took seven.
Genesis 7:2
Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,
7:3
and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
It sucks when us atheists know more about the bible than the people who try to defend it.
I’m not sure who you’re arguing against, here. While there are a few “devout atheists” who want to spread their “good news” that there is no god, the vast majority seem to simply wish to not have a claim for god thrust into their lives. As such, literal Creationists are the group into which they come into the most conflict. A theistic evolutionist is unlikely to insist that God be introduced to a class on biology or that the facts regarding evolution be distorted to give “equal time” to theological mythology. I note that Dr. Fidelius and myself (to name two believers of many) have never had a conflict regarding evolution with any of the many atheists on the SDMB. Similarly, while I have seen the occasional skeptic or athiest dismiss a belief in god as foolish, I have never seen any intelligent athiest attempt to “prove” that god does not exist–and I would be extremely surprised if they tried to use evolution as the basis of their argument.
I hate to say it, but it appears that you have set up a straw man to attack. This suffers from two problems: 1) a straw man is not a good technique for open discussion, 2) this is General Questions, not Great Debates. I’m not sure how your posts relate to the question of the OP.
There’s an American Indian myth about racial origins. It must be a modern one, probably from the 19th or 20th century.
When Manitou (the Great Spirit) first decided to create man, He molded him from clay and set him to bake in an oven. But this being the first time He’d ever tried it, He was a little nervous and took the man out too soon. He was still underdone. Great Spirit said, “Oh no, I goofed. I’ll let this poor white man run away.”
The second time He tried it, He went out hunting and forgot about the man baking in the oven. When He got back, He found the man was overcooked. He said, “Oops, got it wrong again. I’ll let this poor black man run away.”
The third time, He was very careful and got it exactly right, producing a man who was neither too light nor too dark: the American Indian.
Well, I cannot say that creation is real. I can quote from a creationist pamphlet that someone was kind enough :rolleyes: to send me.
Then the tower of Babel split everyone up into the groups we see today.
Not that I buy any of this, mind you.