Can creationism explain this?

[CVBrassil]

For reference, this isn't me claiming that I have found a hole or anything, there are plenty of holes in the creationist argument as it is This is just something I have been thinking about.

Likely, a creationist will believe in the 6,000 years old thing and Adam and Eve. So they believe in 2 original humans who are ancestors of everyone. I am assuming Adam and Eve were of the same race in the account that creationists mention, and likely middle eastern.

So if this is true, then how could we possibly have gotten all other races in such a short time? Now I am by no means a genius on how long it takes for skin color and other attributes to change, but I doubt that in such a short time period 2 people of the same race could have created so many other distinct (at least with physical characteristics) races. Asians, Caucasians, Africans, Native Americans, and all the other groups.

Just a thought.

 

[borrofburi]

It's the tower of babel. First things went to hell, then noah floated around for a while, then they built a large nation and tried to built a tower to the heavens, and god struck them down and gave them different colored skin and made them speak different languages.

At least, that's how I assumed they thought it work. I know it's accurate insofar as languages, I always figured that either skin color was in the story it was simply assumed to come with different languages.

 

[bruhaha2]

Another really good question to creationist who believe in the whole 6000 year thing is: Why do the historical records of ancient Egypt and modern China date much further back than 6000 years?

I'm pretty sure they would have to say Satan... HAHA, it is truly laughable.

 

[Wolf-n-Beast]

try not to figure out the logic of creationist stupidity. just know they're wrong

 

[DontHurtTheIntersect]

Ah, I love the Tower of Babel story. How is it exactly, that after God gave everyone a different language, everyone just gave up? I find it impossible to imagine that those guys couldn't pick up a pencil and draw a picture of what they wanted.

 

[P3t4rd]

It's the tower of babel. First things went to hell, then noah floated around for a while, then they built a large nation and tried to built a tower to the heavens, and god struck them down and gave them different colored skin and made them speak different languages.

I guess that means it was just Noah and his decendants that built the tower of babel, to make that many people an aweful lot of inbreeding must have gone on. Also if god didn't want us to have a tower that could reach heaven, he must have moved heaven before we built planes, hot air baloons and space transportation, maybe he didn't know how to move heaven back then and had to do with making different races and languages, but hes omniscient so that doesn't work but.... Eventually everything reaches ridiculous levels of explaining things away.

 

[d0ndude69]

Bristlecone pines thousands of years old... so the '6000' year old rest of the world was created around them?

 

[P3t4rd]

Bristlecone pines thousands of years old... so the '6000' year old rest of the world was created around them?

No god created those just to trick scientists... end sarcasm

 

[Josan]

Ah, I love the Tower of Babel story. How is it exactly, that after God gave everyone a different language, everyone just gave up? I find it impossible to imagine that those guys couldn't pick up a pencil and draw a picture of what they wanted.

Well, God did probably tortured and killed tons of people and did lots of crazy stuff to them, he isn't exactly the smartest or nicest of guys - and the story doesn't exactly go into detail, the whole tower of babel story is like 4 sentences long.

...well, that is all asuming the bible and the story is true - which it isn't... or is it? *scary music*

 

[e2iPi]

Unfortunately, creationism can explain anything. Regardless of the illogic or physical impossibilities involved, they invariably retreat to "goddidit" and "we can't know the ways of god or question his motives."
Once they get to this point, there is really nothing that can be said. In their mind, they have just won the debate with the most profound statement of the evening.

-1

 

[Josan]

Actually, that is a great way to show how close-minded creationists actually often are. If you get in a debate with them, ask them "Is there any evidence that would make you change your mind?". And the best part is most of them will proudly answer "no".

 

[borrofburi]

I suppose at this point I should make it very clear: I'm playing devil's advocate.

I guess that means it was just Noah and his decendants that built the tower of babel, to make that many people an aweful lot of inbreeding must have gone on.

Well that's because back then genetics were purer, they hadn't been riddled with mutations and radiation holes. God made man pure originally, that's why Adam could live 900 years, but we have been becoming less pure, which is why we only live to be like 90.

Also if god didn't want us to have a tower that could reach heaven, he must have moved heaven before we built planes, hot air baloons and space transportation, maybe he didn't know how to move heaven back then and had to do with making different races and languages, but hes omniscient so that doesn't work but....

It's not about the tower itself actually reaching heaven, it's about the motives behind those who were building it: they wanted to obtain heaven without worshiping god. The whole reason the story is included in the bible is to show you that blasphemy isn't a word, it's a state of mind, it's man saying "I will do this god-like thing without GOD". We built airplanes and hot air balloons, but we didn't do it to purposefully reach heaven without god, we did it in the right state of mind, so god did not strike us down.

 

[DarwinsOtherTheory]

The title of the thread is wrong, it should read "can creationism explain anything?"

 

[P3t4rd]

Well that's because back then genetics were purer, they hadn't been riddled with mutations and radiation holes. God made man pure originally, that's why Adam could live 900 years,

Devil's advocate would seem like an odd phrase, but i know what you mean.
In response, life expectancy has fluctuated in the last 6000 years, showing a lack of a relationship between purity and life span, in britain life expectancy has been increasing fairly steadily the last 100 years. Also natural selection would suggest genes of people who live long enough to raise children would prevail (not that attempting to raise children is advisable past 60). I would ask you to define purity as i don't see how our gene pool could become contaminated. Also mutation is what makes a species stronger. I'll have to think more on the tower of babel and blasphemy.

 

[e2iPi]

The title of the thread is wrong, it should read "can creationism explain anything?"

Of course it can, and does.

Now if you're going to go and be fussy about correct explanations.......

 

[Marcus]

On a slight aside, "life expectancy" statistics are vastly skewed by high infant mortality rates. There seems to be a perception that in times (or even modern places) where the average lifespan is in the forties that someone in their fifties would somehow be viewed as (or even, in cases of extreme misconception, be physically comparable to) a person in their nineties in our society. That simply ain't so. Looking at the life expectancy of only people who survive beyond early childhood shows that the differences, whilst still present, are far less pronounced.

 

[borrofburi]

Devil's advocate would seem like an odd phrase, but i know what you mean.

Haha, I only noticed that after you pointed it out.

In response, life expectancy has fluctuated in the last 6000 years, showing a lack of a relationship between purity and life span, in britain life expectancy has been increasing fairly steadily the last 100 years.

Well, the full "theory" (I use that in the loosest manner possible) is god made man pure (and man would live forever), then came "the fall", and adam and all his descendents were cursed to die. Over time we lost a lot of our purity and this resulted in eventually what is a rather stable equilibrium of what, around 60 years of life (either way, generally under 100 years)? This has only changed now because our technology is improving our non-god non-pure "after the fall" lifespans.

Also natural selection would suggest genes of people who live long enough to raise children would prevail (not that attempting to raise children is advisable past 60).

You're kidding right? You're saying a creationist is wrong because evolution disagrees? This is a poor way to approach this "debate" (and I use *that* term in the loosest manner possible). What would be vastly more effective is to establish good scientific evidence that the maximum life span has been less than 100 years for the past 6 thousand to ten thousand years. Then you'll have a debate about whether that "scientific evidence" can be rejected, and then things will go some route I can't easily foresee.

I would ask you to define purity as i don't see how our gene pool could become contaminated. Also mutation is what makes a species stronger. I'll have to think more on the tower of babel and blasphemy.

You can't define "purity", it's like information. Our gene pool became "contaminated" because of the fall, we went from living forever with god, to not living very long without god. Hmm actually, it might not even be a purity thing, it might have to do with "being close to god": we as a species started really close to god, and moved further away until we reached an equilibrium.

Also mutations are almost always damaging for the poor individuals.... Ok, I couldn't actually finish that one (I couldn't stomach it, it required what was effectively intellectual dishonesty, not for the creationist mind you, because they really don't understand, but I knew better and didn't want to waste your time), I'll just say: you have to make the distinction between the aggregate whole of mutations being beneficial for the whole species versus the individual mutations being damaging for the individuals.

 

[P3t4rd]

What would be vastly more effective is to establish good scientific evidence that the maximum life span has been less than 100 years for the past 6 thousand to ten thousand years. Then you'll have a debate about whether that "scientific evidence" can be rejected, and then things will go some route I can't easily foresee.

Thanks for the advice .
And as for the idea of purity it's not really possible to go further with the argument that closeness to god has an effect on life span and strength of the human genes without refuting god, impossible to do with an indoctrinated creationist.

 

[FCAAP_Dan]

last creationist I asked said each of noah's sns had a different skin tone. they didn't explain why or how.

 

[borrofburi]

Thanks for the advice .

Oh, I remembered where the conversation should go after that: back to whatever got us started on this tangent about lifespans. In this case, it goes back to Noah/Adam and the large amounts of inbreeding that would have had to occur, and "the genetics were purer then" has no supporting evidence (the lifespans were essentially meant to be evidence), and that further it's not "impure genetics" that cause a problem with inbreeding, it's that detrimental mutations compound with inbreeding, so even if the genetics were perfectly pure, inbreeding would still be a problem. Therefore, the idea that "inbreeding" wasn't a problem because of "pure genetics" is ridiculous.

Unfortunately, I think that's entirely irrelevant to creationist/fundamentalists, because if you ask "why didn't the inbreeding cause problems like it always does"? There answers can be many, the most difficult of which is "god wanted their children to survive, so he helped the genetics out a bit to prevent the standard inbreeding problems".

Basically, I don't think "many races" or "inbreeding" are the ways to attack Noah/Adam, primarily because there is a *good* reason for "God" to have stepped in and changed things. I think the ways to go about it depend slightly on whether or not this person is a young earther, the more difficult being if they've renounced "young earth" and yet hold to Noah/Adam as fact. Either way, the best way to argue with "global flood" is primarily through geology, and with some very specific biological arguments (fresh water vs salt water (Noah would have needed an aquarium)). You can't really use the fossil record to discount the flood story, though it can be used against young earthers.