How does Religion account for Race?
LionTeaser
there they spread out throughout the world, and now we find black
races, oriental races and nordic races...
C'mon give me a break, somewhere along the line there's been EVOLUTION
or else we would all look something like this...
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2778425/2/istockphoto_2778425-hairy-man.jpg
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUNGLE LORE
"Not all monkeys look the same, but they are all monkeys"
Devils Advocaat
> Adam and Eve were created, we assume looking Middle Eastern, and from
> there they spread out throughout the world, and now we find black
> races, oriental races and nordic races...
>
> C'mon give me a break, somewhere along the line there's been EVOLUTION
> or else we would all look something like this...
>
>
I suspect if "we" all looked like that the species would have gone
extinct a long, long time ago. :P
Boikat
> Adam and Eve were created, we assume looking Middle Eastern, and from
> there they spread out throughout the world, and now we find black
> races, oriental races and nordic races...
>
> C'mon give me a break, somewhere along the line there's been EVOLUTION
> or else we would all look something like this...
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently, Noah's wife slept around, and so did the wives of Noah's
sons. Before Ye Olde Floode non-event, of course.
Boikat
Desertphile
<nolionn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Subject: How does Religion account for Race?
Evolution does not "account" anything. Perhaps you mean
evolutionary theory.
As for "race," every species is a "race."
> Adam and Eve were created, we assume
"We?" It's a myth, stupid.
> looking Middle Eastern, and from there they spread out
> throughout the world, and now we find black races
There is no such thing as "black races" when one is talking about
humans.
> oriental races
There is no such thing as "oriental races" when one is talking
about humans.
> and nordic races...
There is no such thing as "nordic races" when one is talking about
humans.
There: your question has been answered.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Mark Evans
> Adam and Eve were created, we assume looking Middle Eastern, and from
> there they spread out throughout the world, and now we find black
> races, oriental races and nordic races...
>
> C'mon give me a break, somewhere along the line there's been EVOLUTION
> or else we would all look something like this...
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> JUNGLE LORE
>
> "Not all monkeys look the same, but they are all monkeys"
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
Which creation in the OT are you refering to? In one of the accounts
they are seemingly both male and female.
BTW, "race" is a somewhat vague social construct, not a biological
one.
Mark Evans
LionTeaser
> On 16 Dec, 16:46, LionTeaser <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Adam and Eve were created, we assume looking Middle Eastern, and from
> > there they spread out throughout the world, and now we find black
> > races, oriental races and nordic races...
>
> > C'mon give me a break, somewhere along the line there's been EVOLUTION
> > or else we would all look something like this...
>
> >http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2778425/2/istockpho...
>
> I suspect if "we" all looked like that the species would have gone
> extinct a long, long time ago. :P
>
>
>
That's how I picture Adam. He was startled to be in Paradise and his
hair was unshaven and uncut for a long time.
LionTeaser
On Dec 16, 2:37 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A bigger brain came from the use of tools, and the computer will give
> > us a brain bigger than we can handle.
>
> Giving you and George the benefit of the doubt here, you both are
> describing Lamarckian evolution which is, suffice it to say, false.
>
> Exercising to give you big muscles will not pass on that trait to your
> children.
>
> You are confusing cause and effect. It is not the use of tools, or
> thinking thoughts that gave us big brains, it is big (and complex)
> brains that allowed for the use of tools and bigger thoughts.
>
> The bigger brains came through evolution and selective pressure. The
> genes for bigger heads allowed for bigger brains. Those born with
> bigger brains had a survival advantage over others, allowing those
> with bigger brains to occupy more and more of the population.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You assume that BIGGER IS BETTER... Well, not in the case of the
banana. ;)
In hot climates it didn't make a difference, but the folks with the
bigger bananas in nordic places lost it in frosbite. This refers to
the banana at rest not in action.
And I don't think it's true either in the case of brains, more
"energized" perhaps...
(I quote)
3-Why is a 'bigger' brain better?
:: A ::
True that 'bigger' brains require more feeding - though we're not
looking at 'bigger' as such - here
- we have ... after all - limitations on our brain size.
Instead - more energetically charged - or 'firing' more - would be a
better description -
of course -
the consequences of a mind capable of highly abstract thought - as
opposed to the neurotransmission of the animal kingdom -
eating a uncooked potato (for instance)
which would struggle to satisfy - even the greatest of potato
worshippers.
:-)
4-Why should we want a brain which fires more?
:: A ::
physics
Moving fields within moving fields.
Electrical flow and energetically alive.
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=471618&postcount=16
LionTeaser
understand...
'Different biologists have made different assignments and the number
of �races� assigned by anthropologists and geneticists has varied from
3 to 30.'
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/
The problem arises when you start saying that one is better than the
other.
Stephen
So, you've got *yet another* nym?
LionTeaser aka LionWhisperer aka (per DIG) Comandante Banana aka
Comandante aka "His Highness Comandante Banana, King Of The Apes I &
Chief of Quixotic [bullshit]"...etc
--
Iain
> BTW, "race" is a somewhat vague social construct, not a biological
> one.
Granted, the races are roughly clept, but the basis for the physical
differences is genetic.
The reason why the social idea of race takes on a vague form is
because science chooses to remain silent about it, and so armchair
science, folk-wisdom and pseudoscience fill the hole in our knowledge.
If science were frank on the subject of race, then even if it
concluded that one race has fewer desirable characteristics than
another, it would probably innoculate us against the worst excesses of
race hate.
Women, for example, though acknolwedged to have different behavioral
traits from men, and sometimes thought inferior, have seldom been
socially niggerized.
--Iain
Michael
> there they spread out throughout the world, and now we find black
> races, oriental races and nordic races...
>
> C'mon give me a break, somewhere along the line there's been EVOLUTION
> or else we would all look something like this...
As I understand it, the Earth was of one languange and people.
People without authority tried to build a temple and imitate the
original
order, and GOD scattered them, confounded their languanges, and giving
rise
to different races.
There is more to it than that, but that is good foundation to begin to
understand. That is, if you were being sincere, about wanting to
really
know how religion accounts for different races, which I doubt.
hersheyh
> there they spread out throughout the world, and now we find black
> races, oriental races and nordic races...
>
> C'mon give me a break, somewhere along the line there's been EVOLUTION
> or else we would all look something like this...
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> JUNGLE LORE
>
> "Not all monkeys look the same, but they are all monkeys"
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
When I was a wee lad and racial segregation was the norm and black
inferiority was both 'natural' and 'obvious' in the Land of the Free,
the white fundamentalist preachers and creationists (but I repeat
myself), who read the Bible literally and heard the Word of God
directly from the source, used the story of Ham to explain the
existence of a group or race of inferior people who were destined (and
cursed by God himself) to be "servant of servants."
I think fundamentalists and creationists tend not to read the Bible so
literally now (at least on this point), or at least don't mention this
particular Biblical Truth in public anymore. But there are still
people alive who do remember.
http://www.afrostyly.com/english/afro/diverse/curse_of_ham.htm
All-seeing-I
What does the exact scientific data say? Are there any evidence that
point to a weaker race due to genetic mutations and drift? Sickle-Cell
and a Host of other Race Specific Disease come to mind. What does
science say?
Has scientific discovery and the reporting of it's findings been
marginalized for the sake of political correctness in a century when
man should be moving forward in truth?
Is so, scientists around the world should indeed be pissed about that.
All-seeing-I
> Adam and Eve were created, we assume looking Middle Eastern, and from
> there they spread out throughout the world, and now we find black
> races, oriental races and nordic races...
That assumption could be wrong unless a middle eastern person can be
considered "ruddy" or "showing blood in the face". Which is what the
name "Adam" translates to no matter whose translation one uses.
(Strongs, etc etc)
Noah's three sons are generally considered by biblical sollars to each
be the fathers of the three races. An example would be Ham who
setteled Etheopia; He was black, and so forth. So, Japheth is the
father of the Caucasian race, Shem of the Mongoloid race, and Ham of
the Negroid race. As time passed and the different races mixed further
variations were produced.
Jewish tradition makes the connection of Rome to Esau. Therefore the
Latin nations would be much younger than the Germanic ones, who are
traditionally linked to Ashkenaz, a grandson of Jepheth.
Tracking the languages, family trees and their movements indicate that
Noah's family in fact repopulated a large portion of that geographical
in all directions. Which, of course, Gos told them to do.
Since there is no real data on this from the andeluvien adamic era,
one can assume a flood did happen as described based on the tracing
Noah's family and the fact much of the adamic knowledge is lost. IOW
man did not learn to wright, he re-learned to wright.
Of course, there are other evidences for the flood besides the tracing
of Noah's generations in which the die hard sci-ency types deny.
Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of Noah's
generations through time.
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> Women, for example, though acknolwedged to have different behavioral
>> traits from men, and sometimes thought inferior, have seldom been
>> socially niggerized.
>>
>> --Iain
>
> What does the exact scientific data say? Are there any evidence that
> point to a weaker race due to genetic mutations and drift?
"Races" of humans are largely political constructs, rather than actual
biological groupings. There are several local variations in human
populations, but there are no hard and fast "races".
> Sickle-Cell
> and a Host of other Race Specific Disease come to mind. What does
> science say?
Sickle Cell trait, while producing health problems in the population, also
offers an advantage in areas where Malaria is common. Having one copy of
the gene provides some protection from the Malaria parasite. Having two
copies of the gene is often fatal. In areas where Malaria kills faster than
Sickle Cell crisis, the Sickle Cell trait has a selectional advantage.
While some genetic diseases are more common in one "race", they aren't any
that are "race specific".
>
> Has scientific discovery and the reporting of it's findings been
> marginalized for the sake of political correctness in a century when
> man should be moving forward in truth?
No, the discovery of the trait has not been marginalized, or not reported.
>
> Is so, scientists around the world should indeed be pissed about that.
No, because it's not a real issue to science.
DJT
hersheyh
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:46:38 -0800 (PST), LionTeaser
>
> > Subject: How does Religion account for Race?
>
> Evolution does not "account" anything. Perhaps you mean
> evolutionary theory.
>
> As for "race," every species is a "race."
Well, no. 'Race', as used in biology, is a group *within* a species
with localized differences in phenotype. That is, to use the terms
correctly, it is a group that varies (show variation) and divergence
from other groups *within* the same species. But, for it to be a
'race' (as opposed to subspecies), there must still be considerable
gene flow between the populations and no, or few barriers to such
flow. A 'subspecies' is a little further along on the path to
speciation, and exhibits some marked degree of restricted gene flow.
That is, 'race' is a name given to a particular step in a continuum of
differentiation and divergence.
Human 'races' tend to be organized differently depending on the
phenotypes one uses as 'racial' criteria (to the extent that what are
popularly called human 'races' are only weak candidates for the
term). There is no doubt that these differences are rather shallow
wrt gene flow restriction. Most human 'racial' differences (and
especially those used in popular 'racial' classifications) are really
cline-like changes (gradients) of frequency differences rather than
qualitative group distinctions. And none seem to successfully affect
gene flow between races, despite many attempts in law, religion, and
culture to maintain what is laughably and oxymoronically called
'racial purity'.
> > Adam and Eve were created, we assume
>
> "We?" It's a myth, stupid.
>
> > looking Middle Eastern, and from there they spread out
> > throughout the world, and now we find black races
>
> There is no such thing as "black races" when one is talking about
> humans.
>
> > oriental races
>
> There is no such thing as "oriental races" when one is talking
> about humans.
>
> > and nordic races...
>
> There is no such thing as "nordic races" when one is talking about
> humans.
>
> There: your question has been answered.
>
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 16, 10:46 am, LionTeaser <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Adam and Eve were created, we assume looking Middle Eastern, and from
>> there they spread out throughout the world, and now we find black
>> races, oriental races and nordic races...
>
> That assumption could be wrong unless a middle eastern person can be
> considered "ruddy" or "showing blood in the face". Which is what the
> name "Adam" translates to no matter whose translation one uses.
> (Strongs, etc etc)
According to Genesis, he was called "Adam" because he was formed from the
ground. The idea of "Ruddy" or "showing blood in the face" seems to be
from a deconstruction of the name into it's elements in Hebrew. Apparently
the same words that mean "ground", or "dirt" are related to to the Hebrew
for "red".
>
> Noah's three sons are generally considered by biblical sollars to each
> be the fathers of the three races. An example would be Ham who
> setteled Etheopia; He was black, and so forth. So, Japheth is the
> father of the Caucasian race, Shem of the Mongoloid race, and Ham of
> the Negroid race. As time passed and the different races mixed further
> variations were produced.
Most modern Bible scholars dismiss the idea that all modern populations are
descended from the sons of Noah. Furthermore the idea of "three races" has
no biological support. All humans are the same "race". There are many
local variations in human population, but the genetic variation beween the
supposed "races" is miniscule at best. The supposed "curse of Ham" has been
used by racists throughout history to excuse the enslaving of Africans.
>
> Jewish tradition makes the connection of Rome to Esau. Therefore the
> Latin nations would be much younger than the Germanic ones, who are
> traditionally linked to Ashkenaz, a grandson of Jepheth.
There's no biological, or ethnological evidence to support this.
>
> Tracking the languages, family trees and their movements indicate that
> Noah's family in fact repopulated a large portion of that geographical
> in all directions. Which, of course, Gos told them to do.
Linguistic, and anthropological studies do not support this claim. All
living populations of human are derived from African stock, not from the
Middle East, and population studies show waves of migration out of Africa
around 70 thousand years ago.
>
> Since there is no real data on this from the andeluvien adamic era,
There was no such "era". No flood, no "antedeluvian" period.
> one can assume a flood did happen as described based on the tracing
> Noah's family and the fact much of the adamic knowledge is lost.
There's also the problem of no sign of a global flood in geology. There
was no "adamic knowledge" to be lost or found.
> IOW
> man did not learn to wright, he re-learned to wright.
Assuming you mean "write", writing developed in several different places,
including China, Middle East, and MesoAmerica.
>
> Of course, there are other evidences for the flood besides the tracing
> of Noah's generations in which the die hard sci-ency types deny.
No, there isn't any evidence of a global flood. There isn't anything to
deny.
>
> Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
> textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of Noah's
> generations through time.
"Texual evidence" is worthless in this case, and there is no evidence of any
"migration patterns" of a myhical family.
DJT
All-seeing-I
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 8:47 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >> Women, for example, though acknolwedged to have different behavioral
> >> traits from men, and sometimes thought inferior, have seldom been
> >> socially niggerized.
>
> >> --Iain
>
> > What does the exact scientific data say? Are there any evidence that
> > point to a weaker race due to genetic mutations and drift?
>
> "Races" of humans are largely political constructs, rather than actual
> biological groupings. �There are several local variations in human
> populations, but there are no hard and fast "races".
>
> > Sickle-Cell
> > and a Host of other Race Specific Disease come to mind. What does
> > science say?
>
> Sickle Cell trait, while producing health problems in the population, also
> offers an advantage in areas where Malaria is common. � Having one copy of
> the gene provides some protection from the Malaria parasite. � Having two
> copies of the gene is often fatal. �In areas where Malaria kills faster than
> Sickle Cell crisis, the Sickle Cell trait has a selectional advantage.
There is something I did not know about SC. Does science understand
how this trait was aquired?
>
> While some genetic diseases are more common in one "race", they aren't any
> that are "race specific".
So SC is found in other races then?
> > Has scientific discovery and the reporting of it's findings been
> > marginalized for the sake of political correctness in a century when
> > man should be moving forward in truth?
>
> No, the discovery of the trait has not been marginalized, or not reported.
It is not just that specific trait which was under discussion. You cut
out what we were discussing and therefore changed the entire tone of
the post..
Iain said: "If science were frank on the subject of race, then even if
it
concluded that one race has fewer desirable characteristics than
another, it would probably inoculate us against the worst excesses of
race hate."
I then inquired about any race specific disease to see if there was
anything suggesting one or more races were under selection for
distinction right now.
So. Is there anything to suggest that one or more races may be under
selection for extinction right now?
In addition, Ian said "If science were frank on the subject of race"
eluding that science cannot be "frank" on the subject.
If that is true, then political correctness has run amok and is
dragging the discovery of truth with it. That should be a concern to
every dedicated scientist.
hersheyh
> On Dec 17, 8:47�am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 6:48�pm, Mark Evans <markevans1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > BTW, "race" is a somewhat vague social construct, not a biological
> > > one.
>
> > Granted, the races are roughly clept, but the basis for the physical
> > differences is genetic.
>
> > The reason why the social idea of race takes on a vague form is
> > because science chooses to remain silent about it, and so armchair
> > science, folk-wisdom and pseudoscience fill the hole in our knowledge.
>
> > If science were frank on the subject of race, then even if it
> > concluded that one race has fewer desirable characteristics than
> > another, it would probably innoculate us against the worst excesses of
> > race hate.
>
> > Women, for example, though acknolwedged to have different behavioral
> > traits from men, and sometimes thought inferior, have seldom been
> > socially niggerized.
>
> > --Iain
>
> What does the exact scientific data say?
That most of what are called 'races' in human societies are political
or sociological constructs rather than qualitatively distinct
biological groups. That whenever two groups in a particular area
appear distinct, it is usually because the intermediate phenotypes are
not present. In the absence (and to some extent even in the presence
-- but that is usually related to power differences where men from
groups that have power exploit women who don't) of social or religious
or political constraints against interbreeding, interbreeding will
(and always has) happen.
> Are there any evidence that
> point to a weaker race due to genetic mutations and drift?
Differences due to drift (which requires selective neutrality)
*cannot* produce a weaker race. You do know what neutrality means,
don't you? Selection for local conditions cannot produce a 'weaker'
race, but only one better adapted to local conditions.
> Sickle-Cell
> and a Host of other Race Specific Disease come to mind. What does
> science say?
That sickle-cell trait is selectively advantageous in environments
where malaria is a major selective factor in childhood deaths.
Malaria has been a major selective factor, but so has tuberculosis and
some other diseases in the northern part of the modern human range.
> Has scientific discovery and the reporting of it's findings been
> marginalized for the sake of political correctness in a century when
> man should be moving forward in truth?
>
> Is so, scientists around the world should indeed be pissed about that.
Quite the contrary. The relationship between a number of genetic
'diseases' and selection for resistance to malaria, in particular,
were products of neo-Darwinist ideas in the 1930s.
I AM
> Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
> textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of Noah's
> generations through time.
The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
world that
in the past there was indeed a flood event in human history.
The amount of that evidence is, pardon the pun, a flood of evidence.
haiku jones
How would that differ from the idea that all cultures around
the world, at one time or another in their various histories
and locations, experienced massive but local floods.
I mean, these myths don't come with timestamps.
Haiku Jones
Boikat
> On Dec 17, 1:15�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
> > textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of Noah's
> > generations through time.
>
> The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
That lived on flood planes or coastal reagons prone to flooding.
> ...that
> in the past there was indeed a flood event in human history.
Please show that they were of the same event, occuring at the same
time, and not simply accounts of local floods at various times through
history.
>
> The amount of that evidence is, pardon the pun, a flood of evidence.
So, where's the geological evidence? Where is the "flood layer"? Why
is the Sahara Desert still there?
TIA. Looking forward to some actual verifiable and testable answers.
Boikat
I AM
Or they were unaware of others and thought it only applied to them.
Remember, when the stories over time and transmission *gasp* change.
You can see this in recent history with the legend of santa and the
story
of quetzlcoatl ...
I AM
> On Dec 17, 1:27�pm, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 17, 1:15�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
> > > textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of Noah's
> > > generations through time.
>
> > The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
> > world ...
>
> That lived on flood planes or coastal reagons prone to flooding.
>
> > ...that
> > in the past there was indeed a flood event in human history.
>
> Please show that they were of the same event, occuring at the same
> time, and not simply accounts of local floods at various times through
> history.
>
>
>
> > The amount of that evidence is, pardon the pun, a flood of evidence.
>
GOD removed it.
To delineate between the faithful and the unbelieving.
The evidence coming in from every culture on Earth from around the
world
is overwhelming evidence that it did indeed occur.
Sorry 'bout your luck ...
Boikat
That didn't really answer the question. Besides, if the stories
*gasp* changed over time, how do you know that the flood was not
originally just a local flood to begin with (assuming, without
grounds, that the flood stories are actually an accont of the same
flood in all cultures with *A* flood myth)?
Boikat
Dana Tweedy
Yes, the trait is a mutation of the gene for hemoglobin A. In sickle cell
persons, they have a form called hemoglobin S.
>
>>
>> While some genetic diseases are more common in one "race", they
>> aren't any that are "race specific"
>
> So SC is found in other races then?
Remember, "race" is a largely political concept, not a biological one.
Sickle cell trait is predominately found in African populations, but also
can be found in Greek, Spanish, Italian, as well as many Middle Eastern
populations. It's even been identified in American Indian populations.
For more info, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_trait
>
>>> Has scientific discovery and the reporting of it's findings been
>>> marginalized for the sake of political correctness in a century when
>>> man should be moving forward in truth?
>>
>> No, the discovery of the trait has not been marginalized, or not
>> reported.
>
> It is not just that specific trait which was under discussion. You cut
> out what we were discussing and therefore changed the entire tone of
> the post..
I was addressing the claims you made above. There are no "weaker races",
and sickle cell trait is not a weakness, it's an evolutionary adapation.
>
> Iain said: "If science were frank on the subject of race, then even if
> it
> concluded that one race has fewer desirable characteristics than
> another, it would probably inoculate us against the worst excesses of
> race hate."
And I pointed out that there are no "weaker races". Race in humans is not
a biological concept, but a political one. Racism has no scientific basis.
>
> I then inquired about any race specific disease to see if there was
> anything suggesting one or more races were under selection for
> distinction right now.
All human populations are under selection. There's no way to avoid natural
selection. None of the human racial classifications are more likely to go
extinct anytime soon.
>
> So. Is there anything to suggest that one or more races may be under
> selection for extinction right now?
Again, "race" is not a biological distinction in humans. All human
populations interbreed freely, so there isn't enough genetic isolation to
cause subspecific changes. There are some populations which are more
isolated than others, and some populations could potentially go extinct, but
they aren't "races".
>
> In addition, Ian said "If science were frank on the subject of race"
> eluding that science cannot be "frank" on the subject.
Again, the word "elude" means "escape from", I suspect you mean "allude",
which means referring to. Science itself is "frank" on the subject of
races, but the idea of race serves some political purposes, so it still is
used.
>
> If that is true, then political correctness has run amok and is
> dragging the discovery of truth with it. That should be a concern to
> every dedicated scientist.
Every dedicated scientist who's studied the biology of humans knows there
are no real racial distinctions. The variations within the human
population are entirely superficial.
DJT
haiku jones
That's quite true. Consider how the true story of the Deluge --
how Djunban, grieving for his sister Mandjia, whom he
had accidentally killed, performed the rain ceremony
incorrectly and thus flooded the earth -- consider how
this one true account became distorted in its re-tellings
by the Yoruba, the Batak, the Celts, and the Hebrews,
among many others.
Haiku Jones
I AM
How do you know it wasn't global?
haiku jones
And I myself can add to that evidence!! I have personally
seen not one but TWO massive floods -- one in Ohio
and one in Arizona.
Just more evidence that these were part of the Global Deluge.
Haiku Jones
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 17, 2:42 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 1:27 pm, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 17, 1:15 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
>>>> textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of
>>>> Noah's generations through time.
>>
>>> The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
>>> world ...
>>
>> That lived on flood planes or coastal reagons prone to flooding.
>>
>>> ...that
>>> in the past there was indeed a flood event in human history.
>>
>> Please show that they were of the same event, occuring at the same
>> time, and not simply accounts of local floods at various times
>> through history.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The amount of that evidence is, pardon the pun, a flood of evidence.
>>
>> So, where's the geological evidence?
>
> GOD removed it.
> To delineate between the faithful and the unbelieving.
So, God is being deliberately deceptive, for some odd reason?
> The evidence coming in from every culture on Earth from around the
> world
> is overwhelming evidence that it did indeed occur.
> Sorry 'bout your luck ...
So, why didn't God remove that evidence too?
DJT
hersheyh
> On Dec 17, 2:42�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 1:27�pm, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 17, 1:15�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > > The amount of that evidence is, pardon the pun, a flood of evidence.
>
> > So, where's the geological evidence? �
>
> GOD removed it.
That pretty much sums up the flood of evidence for a single world-wide
Flood in the recent past.
Boikat
Lack of evidence that there was any global flood, not to mention
several problems with the physical effects of such a flood.
And the "God removed the evidence" excuse doesn't (pardon te pun)
wash.
Boikat
Boikat
> On Dec 17, 2:42�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 1:27�pm, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 17, 1:15�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
> > > > textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of Noah's
> > > > generations through time.
>
> > > The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
> > > world ...
>
> > That lived on flood planes or coastal reagons prone to flooding.
>
> > > ...that
> > > in the past there was indeed a flood event in human history.
>
> > Please show that they were of the same event, occuring at the same
> > time, and not simply accounts of local floods at various times through
> > history.
>
> > > The amount of that evidence is, pardon the pun, a flood of evidence.
>
> > So, where's the geological evidence? �
>
> GOD removed it.
Why?
(Loki suspected, but I'll play along)
> To delineate between the faithful and the unbelieving.
Or maybe there was no flood, but he created the myth to see who would
be gullible enough to believe anything. After all, wasn't a large
part of the OT dictated to Moses by God?
> The evidence coming in from every culture on Earth from around the
> world is overwhelming evidence that it did indeed occur.
Not really. That "evidence" only shows that many cultures (which
mostly got their start on flood plaines, lake shores, or costal
regions) experienced floods. That sort of thing still happens today
and no global flooding is involved.
> Sorry 'bout your luck �
Who is this, really?
Boikat
I AM
One thing that apparently fell out of your massively puny brain
when you typed that idiotic nonsense onto usenet - the flood occurred
way
before your time, see, imbecile?
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 17, 1:15 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
>> textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of Noah's
>> generations through time.
>
> The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
> world that
> in the past there was indeed a flood event in human history.
There is certainly evidence that human cultures have been exposed to
flooding, as it's a very common occurance. If one considers that most, if
not all civilizations grew up around rivers, it's to be expected that
cultures would have faced flooding at one time or another.
The idea that there was a single global flood, however is entirely without
support.
DJT
I AM
The idea that the Earth was once covered in water, however, is a
scientific fact
in earth's history.
But you have to exercise your scientific brain for a moment
to understand it.
See, at about 0 degrees, on a scientific scale of temperature, water
has an amazing property, imbecile.
It turns into ice ...
RAM
Chez Watt in the truthiness of "knowledge is lost" category.
haiku jones
My point exactly. Now you get it.
Haiku Jones
I AM
So you admit your point is idiotic.
Boikat
> On Dec 17, 3:07�pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I AM wrote:
> > > On Dec 17, 1:15 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
> > >> textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of Noah's
> > >> generations through time.
>
> > > The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
> > > world that
> > > in the past there was indeed a flood event in human history.
>
> > There is certainly evidence that human cultures have been exposed to
> > flooding, as it's a very common occurance. � If one considers that most, if
> > not all civilizations grew up around rivers, it's to be expected that
> > cultures would have faced flooding at one time or another.
>
> > The idea that there was a single global flood, however is entirely without
> > support.
>
> The idea that the Earth was once covered in water, however, is a
> scientific fact
> in earth's history.
Not really.
> But you have to exercise your scientific brain for a moment
> to understand it.
This ought to be good, since I suspect Loki...
> See, at about 0 degrees, on a scientific scale of temperature, water
> has an amazing property, imbecile.
"Imbecile"? Well, if you're not a Loki, then you might just be an
idiot.
> It turns into ice
Covered in "ice" does not count as a "flood". Look up the definition
of "flood".
Boikat
Kleuskes & Moos
Nope... His point was very valid. Various myths about a flood probably
do not have the same origin.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 16, 10:46�am, LionTeaser <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Adam and Eve were created, we assume looking Middle Eastern, and from
>> there they spread out throughout the world, and now we find black
>> races, oriental races and nordic races...
>
>That assumption could be wrong unless a middle eastern person can be
>considered "ruddy" or "showing blood in the face". Which is what the
>name "Adam" translates to no matter whose translation one uses.
>(Strongs, etc etc)
>
You are conflating two of the meanings of the word in Hebrew.
It means either ruddy, or mankind, or one of several other
definitions.
It is like confusing lead the metal with lead the verb.
Gen. 2. 7 explains that the man was called Adam because he was formed
from the ground (adamah), not because he was a redneck (adman).
heekster
wrote:
Yet, incredibly, you've failed pathetically to provide even an iota of
this soi disant flood of evidence.
No surprise there.
heekster
wrote:
>On Dec 17, 2:42�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 1:27�pm, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 17, 1:15�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
>> > > textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of Noah's
>> > > generations through time.
>>
>> > The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
>> > world ...
>>
>> That lived on flood planes or coastal reagons prone to flooding.
>>
>> > ...that
>> > in the past there was indeed a flood event in human history.
>>
>> Please show that they were of the same event, occuring at the same
>> time, and not simply accounts of local floods at various times through
>> history.
>>
>>
>>
>> > The amount of that evidence is, pardon the pun, a flood of evidence.
>>
>> So, where's the geological evidence? �
>
>GOD removed it.
So it is your claim that GOD, of whichever variety, is a deceiver.
>To delineate between the faithful and the unbelieving.
God would have no need to do so. It would already KNOW.
>The evidence coming in from every culture on Earth from around the
>world
>is overwhelming evidence that it did indeed occur.
I don't see any evidence at all, just some poorly thought out,
unsubstantiated posts on t.o., by some loser with an ego the size of
the Louisiana Purchase, and a Planck length penis.
>Sorry 'bout your luck ...
Sorry about your abject lack of detectable mental activity.
So show the evidence.
Now.
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 17, 3:07 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> I AM wrote:
>>> On Dec 17, 1:15 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
>>>> textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of
>>>> Noah's generations through time.
>>
>>> The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
>>> world that
>>> in the past there was indeed a flood event in human history.
>>
>> There is certainly evidence that human cultures have been exposed to
>> flooding, as it's a very common occurance. If one considers that
>> most, if not all civilizations grew up around rivers, it's to be
>> expected that cultures would have faced flooding at one time or
>> another.
>>
>> The idea that there was a single global flood, however is entirely
>> without support.
>
> The idea that the Earth was once covered in water, however, is a
> scientific fact
> in earth's history.
Parts of the Earth have been covered in water, but never the entire Earth at
one time.
> But you have to exercise your scientific brain for a moment
> to understand it.
I understand it quite well. There have been localized floods throughout
human history. There has never been a single global flood.
> See, at about 0 degrees, on a scientific scale of temperature, water
> has an amazing property, imbecile.
On one scale, it becomes ice at 32 deg. On a different scale, it freezes
at 273.16 degrees.
What does this have to do with the myth of a global flood?
> It turns into ice ...
And an ice is not a flood. There's never been a time in human history
when the entire Earth was covered in ice. There were a few times when
there was a "Snowball Earth", but that was hundreds of millions of years
before humans.
DJT
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 17, 12:39�pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> > On Dec 17, 8:47 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Women, for example, though acknolwedged to have different behavioral
>> >> traits from men, and sometimes thought inferior, have seldom been
>> >> socially niggerized.
>>
>> >> --Iain
>>
>> > What does the exact scientific data say? Are there any evidence that
>> > point to a weaker race due to genetic mutations and drift?
>>
>> "Races" of humans are largely political constructs, rather than actual
>> biological groupings. �There are several local variations in human
>> populations, but there are no hard and fast "races".
>>
>> > Sickle-Cell
>> > and a Host of other Race Specific Disease come to mind. What does
>> > science say?
>>
>> Sickle Cell trait, while producing health problems in the population, also
>> offers an advantage in areas where Malaria is common. � Having one copy of
>> the gene provides some protection from the Malaria parasite. � Having two
>> copies of the gene is often fatal. �In areas where Malaria kills faster than
>> Sickle Cell crisis, the Sickle Cell trait has a selectional advantage.
>
>There is something I did not know about SC. Does science understand
>how this trait was aquired?
Yes. It is a genetic mutation, a gene called HbS.
Now, this mutation causes SSD in a person only if both parents carry
the defective gene. In and of itself the mutation is a detrimental one
- until you vector in malaria.
Researchers found that the sickle cell gene is especially prevalent in
areas of Africa hard-hit by malaria.
In some regions, as much as 40 percent of the population carries at
least one HbS gene. It turns out that, in these areas, HbS carriers
have been naturally selected, because the trait confers some
resistance to malaria. Their red blood cells, containing some abnormal
hemoglobin, tend to sickle when they are infected by the malaria
parasite. Those infected cells flow through the spleen, which culls
them out because of their sickle shape -- and the parasite is
eliminated along with them.
For parents who each carry the sickle cell trait, the chance that
their child will also have the trait -- and be immune to malaria -- is
50 percent. There is a 25 percent chance that the child will have
neither sickle cell anemia nor the trait which enables immunity to
malaria. Finally, the chances that their child will have two copies of
the gene, and therefore sickle cell anemia, is also 25 percent. This
situation is a stark example of genetic compromise, or an evolutionary
"trade-off."
>
>>
>> While some genetic diseases are more common in one "race", they aren't any
>> that are "race specific".
>
>So SC is found in other races then?
Race is not a factor, your genes are.
>
>> > Has scientific discovery and the reporting of it's findings been
>> > marginalized for the sake of political correctness in a century when
>> > man should be moving forward in truth?
>>
>> No, the discovery of the trait has not been marginalized, or not reported.
>
>It is not just that specific trait which was under discussion. You cut
>out what we were discussing and therefore changed the entire tone of
>the post..
No he didn't.
>
>Iain said: "If science were frank on the subject of race, then even if
>it
>concluded that one race has fewer desirable characteristics than
>another, it would probably inoculate us against the worst excesses of
>race hate."
>
>I then inquired about any race specific disease to see if there was
>anything suggesting one or more races were under selection for
>distinction right now.
We are a sufficiently homogenous species that race does not come into
it.
>
>So. Is there anything to suggest that one or more races may be under
>selection for extinction right now?
Race is NOT a factor.
>
>In addition, Ian said "If science were frank on the subject of race"
>eluding that science cannot be "frank" on the subject.
But it is.
>
>If that is true, then political correctness has run amok and is
>dragging the discovery of truth with it. That should be a concern to
>every dedicated scientist.
What would you know about truth?
>
>
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Kleuskes & Moos
> I AM wrote:
<snip>
>
> > The idea that the Earth was once covered in water, however, is a
> > scientific fact
> > in earth's history.
>
> Parts of the Earth have been covered in water, but never the entire Earth at
> one time.
>
> > But you have to exercise your scientific brain for a moment
> > to understand it.
>
> I understand it quite well. There have been localized floods throughout
> human history. There has never been a single global flood.
>
> > See, at about 0 degrees, on a scientific scale of temperature, water
> > has an amazing property, imbecile.
>
> On one scale, it becomes ice at 32 deg. On a different scale, it freezes
> at 273.16 degrees.
Only if the water is fresh... Given the fact that we're talking global
floods here, the water would be salty and the temperature would be
distincly lower. How much exectly depends on the salt-concentration.
I remember that much from high-school chemistry...
> What does this have to do with the myth of a global flood?
Zilch...
<snip>
Ye Old One
Geology.
History.
Genetics.
And that is just three reasons. Do you want more?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by RAM
<ramat...@gmail.com>:
I'd like to take a Flyer on that...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
All-seeing-I
> persons, they have a form called hemoglobin S.
>
>
>
> >> While some genetic diseases are more common in one "race", they
> >> aren't any that are "race specific"
>
> > So SC is found in other races then?
>
> Remember, "race" is a largely political concept, not a biological one.
> Sickle cell trait is predominately found in African populations, but also
> populations. � It's even been identified in American Indian populations.
> For more info, see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_trait
>
>
>
> >>> Has scientific discovery and the reporting of it's findings been
> >>> marginalized for the sake of political correctness in a century when
> >>> man should be moving forward in truth?
>
> >> No, the discovery of the trait has not been marginalized, or not
> >> reported.
>
> > It is not just that specific trait which was under discussion. You cut
> > out what we were discussing and therefore changed the entire tone of
> > the post..
>
> and sickle cell trait is not a weakness, it's an evolutionary adapation.
>
>
>
> > Iain said: "If science were frank on the subject of race, then even if
> > it
> > concluded that one race has fewer desirable characteristics than
> > another, it would probably inoculate us against the worst excesses of
> > race hate."
>
> a biological concept, but a political one. � Racism has no scientific basis.
>
>
>
> > I then inquired about any race specific disease to see if there was
> > anything suggesting one or more races were under selection for
> > distinction right now.
>
> selection. � None of the human racial classifications are more likely to go
> extinct anytime soon.
>
>
>
> > So. Is there anything to suggest that one or more races may be under
> > selection for extinction right now?
>
> populations interbreed freely, so there isn't enough genetic isolation to
> isolated than others, and some populations could potentially go extinct, but
> they aren't "races".
>
>
>
> > In addition, Ian said "If science were frank on the subject of race"
> > eluding that science cannot be "frank" on the subject.
>
> which means referring to. � �Science itself is "frank" on the subject of
> races, but the idea of race serves some political purposes, so it still is
> used.
>
>
>
> > If that is true, then political correctness has run amok and is
> > dragging the discovery of truth with it. That should be a concern to
> > every dedicated scientist.
>
> Every dedicated scientist who's studied the biology of humans knows there
> population are entirely superficial.
[]
OK. Your point abundently clear. There is no such thing as a real
division of the races as far as science is concerned. Which is a good
thing in my opinion. It is also biblical if schollars are correct and
each of Noah's sons represent three races.
Moving on, there are many places on earth where malaria is a real
problem.
According to the CDC "In areas of Africa with high malaria
transmission, an estimated 990,000 people died of malaria in 1995 �
over 2700 deaths per day, or 2 deaths per minute."
Sickle Cell hardly describes a beneficial mutation for species
survival and protection from malaria as you claim since so many deaths
result from the disease.
And when both parents are carriers the result is almost a certain
death for any of their offspring. So death wields it's sickle in both
directions in this case. (no pun intended)
Are there other theories for origin of Sickle Cell ?
reference:
http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/facts.htm
All-seeing-I
There is evidence. But you sciency types do not want to accept it.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 16, 10:46�am, LionTeaser <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Adam and Eve were created, we assume looking Middle Eastern, and from
>> there they spread out throughout the world, and now we find black
>> races, oriental races and nordic races...
>
>That assumption could be wrong unless a middle eastern person can be
>considered "ruddy" or "showing blood in the face". Which is what the
>name "Adam" translates to no matter whose translation one uses.
>(Strongs, etc etc)
>
>Noah's three sons are generally considered by biblical sollars to each
What is a "sollar"?
>be the fathers of the three races. An example would be Ham who
>setteled Etheopia; He was black, and so forth.
It's bullshit.
> So, Japheth is the
>father of the Caucasian race, Shem of the Mongoloid race, and Ham of
>the Negroid race.
Being an Essene, I suppose you hadn't noticed that it takes two to
tango. Also, your inherent racism shines through. There is but one
race, the human race, only the Mesopotamian superstions propagate this
horseshit about races. Your fairy tale falls apart, under the
slightest scrutiny.
>As time passed and the different races mixed further
>variations were produced.
>
>Jewish tradition makes the connection of Rome to Esau. Therefore the
>Latin nations would be much younger than the Germanic ones, who are
>traditionally linked to Ashkenaz, a grandson of Jepheth.
>
More bullshit.
>Tracking the languages, family trees and their movements indicate that
>Noah's family in fact repopulated a large portion of that geographical
>in all directions. Which, of course, Gos told them to do.
>
Who is Gos?
>Since there is no real data on this from the andeluvien
No such word.
> adamic era,
When is this so-called "adamic era" supposed to have occurred?
>one can assume a flood did happen as described based on the tracing
>Noah's family and the fact much of the adamic knowledge is lost.
No, one cannot assume any such imbecility.
> IOW
>man did not learn to wright, he re-learned to wright.
>
You really should learn to *write", after all, your not making wagon
wheels.
>Of course, there are other evidences for the flood besides the tracing
>of Noah's generations in which the die hard sci-ency types deny.
>
No, there is no evidence at all. Except in your delusions.
>Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
>textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of Noah's
>generations through time.
This is a non sequitur bullshit statement of the highest order. It
has absolutely no truth associated with it, whatsoever.
hersheyh
> persons, they have a form called hemoglobin S.
>
>
>
> >> While some genetic diseases are more common in one "race", they
> >> aren't any that are "race specific"
>
> > So SC is found in other races then?
>
> Remember, "race" is a largely political concept, not a biological one.
> Sickle cell trait is predominately found in African populations, but also
> populations. � It's even been identified in American Indian populations.
> For more info, see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_trait
>
>
>
> >>> Has scientific discovery and the reporting of it's findings been
> >>> marginalized for the sake of political correctness in a century when
> >>> man should be moving forward in truth?
>
> >> No, the discovery of the trait has not been marginalized, or not
> >> reported.
>
> > It is not just that specific trait which was under discussion. You cut
> > out what we were discussing and therefore changed the entire tone of
> > the post..
>
> and sickle cell trait is not a weakness, it's an evolutionary adapation.
>
>
>
> > Iain said: "If science were frank on the subject of race, then even if
> > it
> > concluded that one race has fewer desirable characteristics than
> > another, it would probably inoculate us against the worst excesses of
> > race hate."
>
> a biological concept, but a political one. � Racism has no scientific basis.
>
>
>
> > I then inquired about any race specific disease to see if there was
> > anything suggesting one or more races were under selection for
> > distinction right now.
>
> selection. � None of the human racial classifications are more likely to go
> extinct anytime soon.
>
>
>
> > So. Is there anything to suggest that one or more races may be under
> > selection for extinction right now?
>
> populations interbreed freely, so there isn't enough genetic isolation to
> isolated than others, and some populations could potentially go extinct, but
> they aren't "races".
>
>
>
> > In addition, Ian said "If science were frank on the subject of race"
> > eluding that science cannot be "frank" on the subject.
>
> which means referring to. � �Science itself is "frank" on the subject of
> races, but the idea of race serves some political purposes, so it still is
> used.
>
>
>
> > If that is true, then political correctness has run amok and is
> > dragging the discovery of truth with it. That should be a concern to
> > every dedicated scientist.
>
> Every dedicated scientist who's studied the biology of humans knows there
> population are entirely superficial.
I would not say that every dedicated scientist who has studied the
biology of humans knows that there are no real racial distinctions.
That would be ignoring the fact that scientists are just as human as
Christians, and just as capable of hidden bias. Prior to WWII, there
were a number of dedicated scientists (as well as distinguished
churchmen) who were racists (against blacks and Jews, but more
generally, any non-Aryan, including the Irish and Italian Catholics).
Evidence for this can be found in our immigration laws from that time
(and into the present). IQ testing was done (in English) as a
'scientific' mechanism to exclude those 'unfit' for American
citizenship. There are echoes of this in the current immigration
debates.
Even earlier, in the last half of the 19th century, there were many
serious scientists who considered blacks to be subhuman, including,
but not limited to, the last great creationist who was a serious
biological scientist -- Louis Agassiz. They came up with many flawed
(we now know) ideas to justify the idea. Blacks were neotenous (more
fetal like) until it was realized that the key features of modern
humanity are neotenous feaures. Then blacks suddenly became humans
who retained their primitive non-neotenous state.
I, for one, am more than willing to recognize that scientists are not
perfect wrt racism. If we don't learn from history by rewriting it to
make an entire group look good we would be no better than those
creationists who keep ignoring the real history of the Southern
Baptist Church, for example. Or Father Coughlin. Or the links
between fundamentalist white churches and the klan.
The real convincer that human races were rather ephemeral for most
serious scientists (some involved in the IQ debate are exceptions)
came from the ability to see and sequence large chunks of human
genomes and recognize that there were no human populations isolated
enough to even be considered different races if you look at the
optically invisible traits rather than the ones that are literally
only skin deep. And that even then, there was bias based on not
recognizing clines but only the extremes.
BTW, fundamentalists have a harder time in dropping racial
explanations than scientists do because scientists are used to being
convinced to change their minds by new empirical evidence.
Fundamentalists don't allow for new empirical evidence to affect
them. So they either have to reinterpret the text or (as in the case
of Ham implying the inferiority of blacks) start ignoring that part.
>
> DJT
>
>
>
> >>> Is so, scientists around the world should indeed be pissed about
> >>> that.
>
> >> No, because it's not a real issue to science.
>
> >> DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 17, 1:59 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
snip
>> Every dedicated scientist who's studied the biology of humans knows
>> there are no real racial distinctions. The variations within the
>> human
>> population are entirely superficial.
>
> []
>
> OK. Your point abundently clear. There is no such thing as a real
> division of the races as far as science is concerned. Which is a good
> thing in my opinion. It is also biblical if schollars are correct and
> each of Noah's sons represent three races.
Noah was a fictional character, and so were his "sons". There's no
biological basis for the belief in "three races".
>
> Moving on, there are many places on earth where malaria is a real
> problem.
Science, however has developed treatments for malaria.
>
> According to the CDC "In areas of Africa with high malaria
> transmission, an estimated 990,000 people died of malaria in 1995 �
> over 2700 deaths per day, or 2 deaths per minute."
>
> Sickle Cell hardly describes a beneficial mutation for species
> survival and protection from malaria as you claim since so many deaths
> result from the disease.
It's a benefical mutation if you live long enough to reproduce. The number
of deaths from malaria doesn't quite tell the story. Those with Sickle Cell
trait are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
>
> And when both parents are carriers the result is almost a certain
> death for any of their offspring. So death wields it's sickle in both
> directions in this case. (no pun intended)
Correct. Evolution doesn't plan ahead, and even non optimal solutions like
Sickle Cell trait are favored, as long as they provide some benefit.
>
> Are there other theories for origin of Sickle Cell ?
No, it's known to be a mutation in the Hemoglobin. .
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> And the "God removed the evidence" excuse doesn't (pardon te pun)
>> wash.
>>
>> Boikat-
>
> There is evidence. But you sciency types do not want to accept it.
If "sciency types" don't want to accept it, it's not evidence.
DJT
Paul J Gans
>On Dec 16, 10:46 am, LionTeaser <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Adam and Eve were created, we assume looking Middle Eastern, and from
>> there they spread out throughout the world, and now we find black
>> races, oriental races and nordic races...
>That assumption could be wrong unless a middle eastern person can be
>considered "ruddy" or "showing blood in the face". Which is what the
>name "Adam" translates to no matter whose translation one uses.
>(Strongs, etc etc)
>Noah's three sons are generally considered by biblical sollars to each
>be the fathers of the three races.
It would be useless to ask you for the names of these biblical
scholars, so I won't. But you are welcome to volunteer.
Most biblical scholars, with the exception of *some* "scholars"
attached to fundamentalist religious groups, consider the entire
flood story, Noah, and his sons, to be just-so stories designed
to teach moral lessons, but which are not history.
By the way, don't bother to try to puzzle out that last sentence.
It is slightly complex and beyond your grade level. It is aimed
at adults.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
john wilkins
Nominated for the very clear explanation of sickle cell malarial
resistance
el cid
> Moving on, there are many places on earth where malaria is a real
> problem.
>
> According to the CDC "In areas of Africa with high malaria
> transmission, an estimated 990,000 people died of malaria in 1995 �
> over 2700 deaths per day, or 2 deaths per minute."
>
> Sickle Cell hardly describes a beneficial mutation for species
> survival and protection from malaria as you claim since so many deaths
> result from the disease.
>
> And when both parents are carriers the result is almost a certain
> death for any of their offspring. So death wields it's sickle in both
> directions in this case. (no pun intended)
>
> Are there other theories for origin of Sickle Cell ?
>
> reference:http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/facts.htm
Presumably you are asking about the origins of the sickle
cell mutation. It's actually misguided to worry much
about the origins of the mutation as the truth is that
the mutation occurs again and again and again.
Now most people with the sickle cell allele have it
due to inheritance from one of their parents, and
via one of the grandparents back many generations
so I don't mean that the mutation occurs so frequently
that most who express it generated it. What I do mean
is that it's a mutation that one reasonably expects
to have occurred many times over in human populations
where malaria is endemic.
Hemoglobin turns out to be a very well studied protein
with an incredibly comprehensive set of data behind
the many many different mutations that show up in
human populations.
http://globin.bx.psu.edu/cgi-bin/hbvar/query_vars3
This link provides an excellent starting point
for someone to browse through some of the known
mutations.
One reason that Hb mutations are so well understood
is that there have been large systematic efforts to
sample blood from newborns and test their blood for
abnormal Hb variants. The blood is collected, some
minor purification of Hb is done (you don't need to
work hard here because Hb is so abundant that you
can easily get to where Hb is in huge moral excess
to other proteins). Then you digest the Hb with
one or more proteases and analyze the peptides by
simple chromatography. A change in sequence in any
peptide will change the time the peptide elutes
and then you can determine the sequence of that
peptide.
This has allowed for the detection of new alleles
that were not present in either parent.
One should also consider the wealth of data on
various thalassemias which are alternative
Hb irregularities found in locals where malaria
is endemic. A similar theme arises where a
compromise in normal function in heterozygotes
turns in to hybrid vigor when infected with malaria,
with likely serious adverse effects is homozygous
mutant forms.
But in the mix of understanding the myriad
adaptations for malaria, the unifying principle
seems to be that multiple crude accidents have
provided working compromise solutions which
allow survival but remain far from what would
be considered an optimal design.
Michael
> I AM wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 3:07 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> >> I AM wrote:
> >>> On Dec 17, 1:15 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
> >>>> textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of
> >>>> Noah's generations through time.
>
> >>> The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
> >>> world that
> >>> in the past there was indeed a flood event in human history.
>
> >> There is certainly evidence that human cultures have been exposed to
> >> flooding, as it's a very common occurance. If one considers that
> >> most, if not all civilizations grew up around rivers, it's to be
> >> expected that cultures would have faced flooding at one time or
> >> another.
>
> >> The idea that there was a single global flood, however is entirely
> >> without support.
>
> > The idea that the Earth was once covered in water, however, is a
> > scientific fact
> > in earth's history.
>
> Parts of the Earth have been covered in water, but never the entire Earth at
> one time.
The parts not covered in ice were *gasp* covered in water.
> > It turns into ice ...
>
> And an ice is not a flood. � �There's never been a time in human history
> when the entire Earth was covered in ice. � There were a few times when
> there was a "Snowball Earth", but that was hundreds of millions of years
> before humans.
I see your problem.
See, on your dating scale, the flood occurred when the continents
were one land ...
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 17, 5:54�pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> I AM wrote:
>> > On Dec 17, 3:07 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> >> I AM wrote:
>> >>> On Dec 17, 1:15 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
>> >>>> textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of
>> >>>> Noah's generations through time.
>>
>> >>> The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
>> >>> world that
>> >>> in the past there was indeed a flood event in human history.
>>
>> >> There is certainly evidence that human cultures have been exposed to
>> >> flooding, as it's a very common occurance. If one considers that
>> >> most, if not all civilizations grew up around rivers, it's to be
>> >> expected that cultures would have faced flooding at one time or
>> >> another.
>>
>> >> The idea that there was a single global flood, however is entirely
>> >> without support.
>>
>> > The idea that the Earth was once covered in water, however, is a
>> > scientific fact
>> > in earth's history.
>>
>> Parts of the Earth have been covered in water, but never the entire Earth at
>> one time.
>
>The parts not covered in ice were *gasp* covered in water.
Nope, not even close.
>> > It turns into ice ...
>>
>> And an ice is not a flood. � �There's never been a time in human history
>> when the entire Earth was covered in ice. � There were a few times when
>> there was a "Snowball Earth", but that was hundreds of millions of years
>> before humans.
>
>I see your problem.
>See, on your dating scale, the flood occurred when the continents
>were one land ...
Everyone knows that Noah's Flood never happened.
Michael
Your dating of pangea, which is when you claim the continents were
together, which
is when the flood occurred, was how long ago?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Pangaea formed about 250 million years ago.
It began the first phase of its break-up in the Early-Middle Jurassic
(about 175 Million years ago), when Pangaea began to rift from the
Tethys Ocean in the east and the Pacific in the west, ultimately
giving rise to the supercontinents Gondwana and Laurasia..
Dick C.
8d3a02...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 16, 6:48�pm, Mark Evans <markevans1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> BTW, "race" is a somewhat vague social construct, not a biological
>> one.
>
> Granted, the races are roughly clept, but the basis for the physical
> differences is genetic.
>
> The reason why the social idea of race takes on a vague form is
> because science chooses to remain silent about it, and so armchair
> science, folk-wisdom and pseudoscience fill the hole in our knowledge.
Actually, there is no hole in our knowledge regarding races. It is
just that bigots don't like what science has to say on the matter
so they try to pretend that science can support their bigotries
but scientists prefer not to.
>
> If science were frank on the subject of race, then even if it
> concluded that one race has fewer desirable characteristics than
> another, it would probably innoculate us against the worst excesses of
> race hate.
Actually, science is frank on the matter, it is religion, some aspects
of society, and individuals pushing radical racism on society.
>
> Women, for example, though acknolwedged to have different behavioral
> traits from men, and sometimes thought inferior, have seldom been
> socially niggerized.
>
> --Iain
>
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
hersheyh
> On Dec 17, 7:18�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
I wonder what an immoral excess would look like?
> The blood is collected, some
> minor purification of Hb is done (you don't need to
> work hard here because Hb is so abundant that you
> can easily get to where Hb is in huge moral excess
> to other proteins).
[snip]
Ye Old One
Thank you John, I'm glad you liked it. However, I really don't think
it good enough for a POTM nomination.
--
Bob.
Kermit
> On Dec 17, 2:42�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 1:27�pm, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 17, 1:15�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
> > > > textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of Noah's
> > > > generations through time.
>
> > > The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
>
> > That lived on flood planes or coastal reagons prone to flooding.
>
> > > ...that
>
> > time, and not simply accounts of local floods at various times through
>
> > > The amount of that evidence is, pardon the pun, a flood of evidence.
>
>
> GOD removed it.
Ah. So God intends to eternally torture people who believe in physical
evidence. Uh-huh.
Why would he remove all the evidence - was he embarrassed?
> To delineate between the faithful and the unbelieving.
To punish those who are reasonable, and reward those who were
righteous enough to be born into the right religion. Eternal damnation
for those born in Calcutta, or Tehran, or Beijing!
> The evidence coming in from every culture on Earth from around the
> world
> is overwhelming evidence that it did indeed occur.
What evidence? You've been asked, and said that God miraculously
removed the evidence.
> Sorry 'bout your luck �...
My luck is fine. Sorry about your mind :(
Kermit
Kermit
> I AM wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 2:42 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Dec 17, 1:27 pm, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 17, 1:15 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
> >>>> textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of
> >>>> Noah's generations through time.
>
> >>> The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
> >>> world ...
>
> >> That lived on flood planes or coastal reagons prone to flooding.
>
> >>> ...that
> >>> in the past there was indeed a flood event in human history.
>
> >> Please show that they were of the same event, occuring at the same
> >> time, and not simply accounts of local floods at various times
> >> through history.
>
> >>> The amount of that evidence is, pardon the pun, a flood of evidence.
>
> >> So, where's the geological evidence?
>
> > GOD removed it.
>
>
> > The evidence coming in from every culture on Earth from around the
> > world
> > is overwhelming evidence that it did indeed occur.
>
>
> DJT
He did. He miraculously removed the memory of the Flood from the
Egyptian culture. See - it's proof!
Kermit
el cid
From what I recall when trying to purify the PDGF-receptor
from human plasma, I thought albumin was present in
immoral excess, often leading me to consume immoral
excesses of beer after work and, well that's as far
as I think the story should go in a family newsgroup.
hersheyh
The population frequency of HbS alleles with the *trait* in a
population where 40% of breeding adults carry the allele (I am
assuming that homozygosity for HbS is effectively lethal in the sense
of reproductive success) is 20% (carriers have 1 HbS allele and 1 HbA
allele; the non-carriers have 2 HbA alleles).
Simple Hardy-Weinberg (p^2 + 2pq +q^2) would lead you to expect, in
the next generation at birth, that 4% (0.2 X 0.2) of that generation
will be homozygous for HbS and will die of the anemia, 32% [2 X(0.2 X
0.8)] will be carriers and will be more likely to survive malaria to
reproduce than the 64% born homozygous HbA (0.8 X 0.8). By the time
of reproduction, the 4% homozygotes for HbS will be dead, and the
relative percentages of the carriers will have changed (because of the
greater resistance of the carriers to malaria) to the 40% carriers/60%
HbA homozygotes that we started with. This assumes that the selective
pressure of malaria is relatively constant in the two generations.
In this specific very strongly malarial environment the selective
advantage of heterozygosity must be enough to overcome the loss of HbS
alleles due to the death of the homozygotes. The 'relative fitness'
of each phenotype can now be calculated. The most fit phenotype has
the genotype HbA/HbS and the most fit phenotype is given a fitness of
1 (the other fitness values are relative to this). The fitness of HbS/
HbS is 0 (lethal). So, at mating we have 40 HbA/HbS, 60 HbA/HbA, and
0 HbS/HbS out of 100 mating individuals. At birth, we have 32 HbA/
HbS, 64 HbA/HbA, and 4 HbS/HbS out of 100 births. So, relative to the
frequency of each genotype at birth, we have 0/4 HbS/HbS, 60/64
=0.9375 HbA/HbA, and 40/32 = 1.25 HbA/HbS. This is the un-normalized
effect of the fitness of each genotype. Setting HbA/HbS at 1.0, the
relative fitness of HbS/HbS is 0/1.25 = 0, of HbA/HbS is 1.25/1.25 =
1.0, and HbA/HbA is 0.9375/1.25 = 0.75.
This is a very strong selective advantage for the heterozygote. But,
of course, this only holds in a local environment with a lot of
malaria.
Michael
> On Dec 17, 11:47 am, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 2:42 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 17, 1:27 pm, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 17, 1:15 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
> > > > > textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of Noah's
> > > > > generations through time.
>
> > > > The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
> > > > world ...
>
> > > That lived on flood planes or coastal reagons prone to flooding.
>
> > > > ...that
> > > > in the past there was indeed a flood event in human history.
>
> > > Please show that they were of the same event, occuring at the same
> > > time, and not simply accounts of local floods at various times through
> > > history.
>
> > > > The amount of that evidence is, pardon the pun, a flood of evidence.
>
> > > So, where's the geological evidence?
>
> > GOD removed it.
>
> Ah. So God intends to eternally torture people who believe in physical
> evidence. Uh-huh.
You are unfamiliar with LDS theology.
Eternal punishment. Eternal is one of GODs names.
Eternal punishment doesn't refer to the length of the punishment, it
is synonymous with GODs punishment.
>
> Why would he remove all the evidence - was he embarrassed?
To keep with one of the eternal rules allowing free agency, so you
aren't
forced. When you go to heaven, no one can claim they were forced.
>
> > To delineate between the faithful and the unbelieving.
>
> To punish those who are reasonable, and reward those who were
> righteous enough to be born into the right religion. Eternal damnation
> for those born in Calcutta, or Tehran, or Beijing!
Those in areas that haven't heard the gospel will have opportunity
in the spirit world.
>
> > The evidence coming in from every culture on Earth from around the
> > world
> > is overwhelming evidence that it did indeed occur.
>
> What evidence? You've been asked, and said that God miraculously
> removed the evidence.
Not the oral evidence.
Michael
If you are refering to the exodus not being in Egyptian history, the
group
of ruling people from that time were foreign rulers, and when they
were removed
from power, all history of what happened under their rule was erased
by the Egyptians.
Woland
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:15:40 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 16, 10:46�am, LionTeaser <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Adam and Eve were created, we assume looking Middle Eastern, and from
> >> there they spread out throughout the world, and now we find black
> >> races, oriental races and nordic races...
>
> >That assumption could be wrong unless a middle eastern person can be
> >considered "ruddy" or "showing blood in the face". Which is what the
> >name "Adam" translates to no matter whose translation one uses.
> >(Strongs, etc etc)
>
> It means either ruddy, or mankind, or one of several other
> definitions.
>
> It is like confusing lead the metal with lead the verb.
>
> Gen. 2. 7 explains that the man was called Adam because he was formed
> from the ground (adamah), not because he was a redneck (adman).
See also Adapa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapa
Mike Lyle
> On Dec 16, 6:48 pm, Mark Evans <markevans1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> BTW, "race" is a somewhat vague social construct, not a biological
>> one.
>
> Granted, the races are roughly clept, but the basis for the physical
> differences is genetic.
>
> The reason why the social idea of race takes on a vague form is
> because science chooses to remain silent about it, and so armchair
> science, folk-wisdom and pseudoscience fill the hole in our knowledge.
>
> concluded that one race has fewer desirable characteristics than
> race hate.
>
> Women, for example, though acknolwedged to have different behavioral
> traits from men, and sometimes thought inferior, have seldom been
> socially niggerized.
>
very firmly "socially niggerized". In several countries black men got
the vote before women of any complexion. Hey, even at a trivial level,
it's only recently that we've even let them marry our sisters...
--
Mike.
Steven L.
news:ecc5ce39-5e0d-4ed6...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 16, 11:46�am, LionTeaser <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Adam and Eve were created, we assume looking Middle Eastern, and from
> > there they spread out throughout the world, and now we find black
> > races, oriental races and nordic races...
> >
> > C'mon give me a break, somewhere along the line there's been EVOLUTION
> > or else we would all look something like this...
> >
> > http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2778425/2/istockpho...
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > JUNGLE LORE
> >
> > "Not all monkeys look the same, but they are all monkeys"
> >
> > http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
>
> When I was a wee lad and racial segregation was the norm and black
> inferiority was both 'natural' and 'obvious' in the Land of the Free,
> the white fundamentalist preachers and creationists (but I repeat
> myself), who read the Bible literally and heard the Word of God
> directly from the source, used the story of Ham to explain the
> existence of a group or race of inferior people who were destined (and
> cursed by God himself) to be "servant of servants."
>
> I think fundamentalists and creationists tend not to read the Bible so
> literally now (at least on this point), or at least don't mention this
> particular Biblical Truth in public anymore. But there are still
> people alive who do remember.
> http://www.afrostyly.com/english/afro/diverse/curse_of_ham.htm
I remember.
I was told that story when I was a very young child--that black people
are the descendants of Ham.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
SkyEyes
> You are unfamiliar with LDS theology.
Which is *only slightly* less silly than scientology.
> Eternal punishment. Eternal is one of GODs names.
Stop right there. Do you have any objective, verifiable evidence that
*any* god actually exists? If so, *please* post it here. (Otherwise,
I'm afraid that my reaction to your assertions is "Horsepucky!")
Thank you.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Kermit
> On Dec 18, 11:06 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 11:47 am, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 17, 2:42 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 17, 1:27 pm, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 17, 1:15 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
> > > > > > textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of Noah's
> > > > > > generations through time.
>
> > > > > The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
> > > > > world ...
>
> > > > That lived on flood planes or coastal reagons prone to flooding.
>
> > > > > ...that
> > > > > in the past there was indeed a flood event in human history.
>
> > > > Please show that they were of the same event, occuring at the same
> > > > time, and not simply accounts of local floods at various times through
> > > > history.
>
> > > > > The amount of that evidence is, pardon the pun, a flood of evidence.
>
> > > > So, where's the geological evidence?
>
> > > GOD removed it.
>
> > Ah. So God intends to eternally torture people who believe in physical
> > evidence. Uh-huh.
>
> You are unfamiliar with LDS theology.
Yes, thank the gods.
> Eternal punishment. Eternal is one of GODs names.
That wouldn't surprise me, but so what?
> Eternal punishment doesn't refer to the length of the punishment, it
> is synonymous with GODs punishment.
Tsk. My preacher granddaddy never had a kind word to say about
Mormons. Or Papists. Or hippies. Wasn't too fond of the Presbyterians,
either.
>
>
>
> > Why would he remove all the evidence - was he embarrassed?
>
> To keep with one of the eternal rules allowing free agency, so you
> aren't
> forced. When you go to heaven, no one can claim they were forced.
So... he wiped out all life on Earth because he was mad, then
performed dozens of major miracles to cover it up? Really, what would
the point be?
>
>
>
> > > To delineate between the faithful and the unbelieving.
>
> > To punish those who are reasonable, and reward those who were
> > righteous enough to be born into the right religion. Eternal damnation
> > for those born in Calcutta, or Tehran, or Beijing!
>
> Those in areas that haven't heard the gospel will have opportunity
> in the spirit world.
A kinder doctrine than the Southern Baptist church I was raised in,
yes. But, alas, with no more persuasive arguments.
>
>
>
> > > The evidence coming in from every culture on Earth from around the
> > > world
> > > is overwhelming evidence that it did indeed occur.
>
> > What evidence? You've been asked, and said that God miraculously
> > removed the evidence.
>
> Not the oral evidence.
Ah. Would this be the same oral evidence that all the religions have,
only different?
I would not accuse the creator of the universe a trickster, myself. I
assume the world is pretty much as we see it.
LDS, huh? So, why did God hide all the evidence that the American
aborigines are the lost tribes of Israel? Why did he miraculously hide
the archaeological, historical, linguistic, cultural, and genetic
evidence? Is that also to protect us from feeling forced? Well, it
works. I not only don't feel forced, I don't feel inclined in the
slightest.
Kermit
Boikat
> On Dec 17, 2:10�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 2:01�pm, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 17, 2:53�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 17, 1:43�pm, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 17, 2:35�pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 17, 12:27�pm, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 17, 1:15�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
> > > > > > > > textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of Noah's
> > > > > > > > generations through time.
>
> > > > > > > The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
> > > > > > > in the past there was indeed a flood event in human history.
>
>
> > > > > > the world, at one time or another in their various histories
> > > > > > and locations, experienced massive but local floods.
>
> > > > > Or they were unaware of others and thought it only applied to them.
> > > > > Remember, when the stories over time and transmission *gasp* change.
> > > > > You can see this in recent history with the legend of santa and the
> > > > > story
> > > > > of quetzlcoatl ...-
>
> > > > That didn't really answer the question. �Besides, if the stories
> > > > *gasp* changed over time, how do you know that the flood was not
> > > > originally just a local flood to begin with (assuming, without
> > > > grounds, that the flood stories are actually an accont of the same
> > > > flood in all cultures with *A* flood myth)?
>
> > > How do you know it wasn't global?-
>
> > Lack of evidence that there was any global flood, not to mention
> > several problems with the physical effects of such a flood.
>
> > And the "God removed the evidence" excuse doesn't (pardon te pun)
> > wash.
>
> > Boikat-
>
> There is evidence. But you sciency types do not want to accept it
Probably because any evidence you could scrape up has already been
refuted by the "sciency types" that you dispise. I know you like to
repeat lies, -misinformation from creationists sites-, in the hopes
that they will become "fact", but the real facts are that there is no
evidence to support a single, global flood, at any time.
Of course, the other option is that you don't have any evidence, and
you know it.
Boikat
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> Parts of the Earth have been covered in water, but never the entire
>> Earth at one time.
>
> The parts not covered in ice were *gasp* covered in water.
There's no evidence that this actually happened.
>
>>> It turns into ice ...
>>
>> And an ice is not a flood. There's never been a time in human history
>> when the entire Earth was covered in ice. There were a few times when
>> there was a "Snowball Earth", but that was hundreds of millions of
>> years before humans.
>
> I see your problem.
Yes, it's that the evidence doesn't support your claim.
> See, on your dating scale, the flood occurred when the continents
> were one land ...
There's no evidence to support that claim.
DJT
Michael
> On Dec 18, 10:59 am, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You are unfamiliar with LDS theology.
>
> Which is *only slightly* less silly than scientology.
>
> > Eternal punishment. Eternal is one of GODs names.
>
Let me stop you right there and clarify something for you.
You don't count for shit, imbecile.
> Do you have any objective, verifiable evidence that
> *any* god actually exists? �
Yes. GOD has made bare his arm in the eyes of all the nations.
There are literally thousands of things he has done during this case.
Everybody knows it. The way they are running the case substantially
prejudices me
in formulated arguments to counter your atheism which is dead as a
doornail.
BTW, it is against the rules to have one side prejudiced in a case.
Illegal.
> If so, *please* post it here. �
You see why you can't run a case like this on usenet?
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 16, 11:46�am, LionTeaser <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Adam and Eve were created, we assume looking Middle Eastern, and from
>> there they spread out throughout the world, and now we find black
>> races, oriental races and nordic races...
>>
>> C'mon give me a break, somewhere along the line there's been EVOLUTION
>> or else we would all look something like this...
>
>As I understand it, the Earth was of one languange and people.
That's a just-so story. It has been demonstrated to be less reliable
than the average Kipling just-so story.
>People without authority tried to build a temple and imitate the original
>order, and GOD scattered them, confounded their languanges, and giving rise
>to different races.
No, that was languages. The story is still in error.
>There is more to it than that, but that is good foundation to begin to
>understand. That is, if you were being sincere, about wanting to really
>know how religion accounts for different races, which I doubt.
Religious stories that are wrong and encourage bigotry should be ignored
or condemned.
Michael
> On Dec 17, 1:27�pm, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 17, 1:15�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
> > > textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of Noah's
> > > generations through time.
>
> > The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
>
> That lived on flood planes or coastal reagons prone to flooding.
>
> > ...that
>
> time, and not simply accounts of local floods at various times through
> history.
With the large number of flood stories, obviously imbecile not all of
them
were of the same global deluge, some were of local floods, idiot!
But many were of the global flood.
Now, had I known this was going to be your response, I would have
preempted
you from presenting it, by addressing it in my original post. See, in
a debate, you
usual know what the other side will counter with and you modify your
approach; this would
have saved us a lot of time, wasted time arguing with your stupidity
that you think is intelligent.
Now you see why running the case this way substantially prejudices me,
and wastes time
when I am trying to bring a swift end to the illegal surveillnace on
me and
you run my case illegally!
If you want to respond with, which stories are about a worldwide
deluge and which ones a global flood, google
is thataway, use you head if you got one, as so far, all I can see is
robotarded arguments and stupid lying people on
the other side who waste time arguing about mentally retarded things
because they themselves
are mentally retarded,
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 18, 6:53�pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 10:59 am, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > You are unfamiliar with LDS theology.
>>
>> Which is *only slightly* less silly than scientology.
>>
>> > Eternal punishment. Eternal is one of GODs names.
>>
>> Stop right there. �
>
>Let me stop you right there and clarify something for you.
>You don't count for shit, imbecile.
What have you done to persuade me that your opinion is informed?
>> Do you have any objective, verifiable evidence that
>> *any* god actually exists? �
>
>Yes. GOD has made bare his arm in the eyes of all the nations.
Nope. There is no evidence at all that GOD or any other god exists or
has done anything. Merely asserting that God exists does not mean He
does.
>There are literally thousands of things he has done during this case.
No. God does nothing at all.
>Everybody knows it. The way they are running the case substantially
>prejudices me in formulated arguments to counter your atheism which is dead as a
>doornail. BTW, it is against the rules to have one side prejudiced in a case.
What case? If a legal case relied on whether God exists, it would have
to fail.
>Illegal.
Really? Please explain.
>> If so, *please* post it here. �
>
>You see why you can't run a case like this on usenet?
So far you have offered nothing at all to support your claims.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 17, 2:42�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 1:27�pm, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 17, 1:15�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Probability that the flood happened is relatively high based on
>> > > textual evidences, family trees and the migration patterns of Noah's
>> > > generations through time.
>>
>> > The evidence is overwhelming coming in from all cultures around the
>> > world ...
>>
>> That lived on flood planes or coastal reagons prone to flooding.
>>
>> > ...that
>> > in the past there was indeed a flood event in human history.
>>
>> Please show that they were of the same event, occuring at the same
>> time, and not simply accounts of local floods at various times through
>> history.
>
>
>With the large number of flood stories, obviously imbecile not all of them
>were of the same global deluge, some were of local floods, idiot!
>But many were of the global flood.
It does not matter. The facts are clear. Noah's Flood did not happen.
The stories are of zero value in determining whether it happened because
the physical evidence shows that it did not.
>Now, had I known this was going to be your response, I would have preempted
>you from presenting it, by addressing it in my original post. See, in a debate, you
>usual know what the other side will counter with and you modify your approach; this would
>have saved us a lot of time, wasted time arguing with your stupidity
>that you think is intelligent.
In a debate, the so-called literalists of the Bible would be called on
their misrepresentation of science.
>Now you see why running the case this way substantially prejudices me, and wastes time
>when I am trying to bring a swift end to the illegal surveillnace on me and
>you run my case illegally!
You appear to be quite paranoid.
>If you want to respond with, which stories are about a worldwide
>deluge and which ones a global flood, google
>is thataway, use you head if you got one, as so far, all I can see is
>robotarded arguments and stupid lying people on
>the other side who waste time arguing about mentally retarded things
>because they themselves
>are mentally retarded,
The fact remains. Noah's Flood did not happen. It is certain that it did
not happen.
Louann Miller
510147...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>> Do you have any objective, verifiable evidence that
>> *any* god actually exists? �
>
> Yes. GOD has made bare his arm in the eyes of all the nations.
> There are literally thousands of things he has done during this case.
Name three. Be specific.
Michael
> >You see why you can't run a case like this on usenet?
>
> So far you have offered nothing at all to support your claims.
Because of the way you are illegally running my case.
Michael
> Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:2c55ea31-a17f-4fc7-8181-
>
> >> Do you have any objective, verifiable evidence that
> >> *any* god actually exists? �
>
> > Yes. GOD has made bare his arm in the eyes of all the nations.
> > There are literally thousands of things he has done during this case.
>
> Name three. Be specific.
Why? so you can one and argue about it?
GOD has ton thousands of things in this case you fucking stupid cunt.
Now you take them collectively together, you don't waste time arguing
about
one, dumbfucking retard.
Then youd emand GOD does one more so you can argue about it, and still
don't do what he wants.
You people are the stupidest fucking retards that have ever lived on
planet earth ever in human history.
GOD returns and you argue about it endlessly while pouring cough syrup
on
your corn flakes.
Your stupid ignorant selves are killing off people all over, and if
you are allowed to continue, you
will suceed in killing off everyone.
Who could support the extinction of all life on earth?
If you are against turning off the camera, then that is what you
support.
You should be ashamed.
You are criminally stupid.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 21, 9:45�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
I'm not running your case.
All I am doing is pointing out that you are making claims that you
cannot back up. Don't blame me for your failings.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 21, 9:52�am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:2c55ea31-a17f-4fc7-8181-
>> 510147e91...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> Do you have any objective, verifiable evidence that
>> >> *any* god actually exists? �
>>
>> > Yes. GOD has made bare his arm in the eyes of all the nations.
>> > There are literally thousands of things he has done during this case.
>>
>> Name three. Be specific.
>
>Why? so you can one and argue about it?
>
>GOD has ton thousands of things in this case you fucking stupid cunt.
So, you cannot come up with one. I did not expect you to.
>Now you take them collectively together, you don't waste time arguing
>about one, dumbfucking retard.
You seem very angry about having your mistake brought to your attention.
>Then youd emand GOD does one more so you can argue about it, and still
>don't do what he wants.
You were asked to provide an example. You refused to. You had none.
>You people are the stupidest fucking retards that have ever lived on
>planet earth ever in human history.
Not as foolish or ignorant as you.
>GOD returns and you argue about it endlessly while pouring cough syrup
>on your corn flakes.
My, my, you have a problem.
>Your stupid ignorant selves are killing off people all over, and if
>you are allowed to continue, you will suceed in killing off everyone.
Whatever are you saying?
>Who could support the extinction of all life on earth?
There's this story in an old book that is highly unreliable that talks
about a god that tried to kill almost everything on earth, but the story
is silly and known not to have happened.
>If you are against turning off the camera, then that is what you
>support.
>
>You should be ashamed.
>
>You are criminally stupid.
Do you always write random sentences in your posts?
Michael
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:53:23 -0800 (PST), Michael <yos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >On Dec 21, 9:45�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >> >You see why you can't run a case like this on usenet?
>
> >> So far you have offered nothing at all to support your claims.
>
> >Because of the way you are illegally running my case.
>
> I'm not running your case.
Right, some original trial court allowed the govt to get away with
running a prejudiced case.
>
> All I am doing is pointing out that you are making claims that you
> cannot back up.
I have backed them all up, in the way this case is run, run with
robotussin red cough syrup fantasy land case.
Dan Listermann
"Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:92c65a06-2c0a-4cb9...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
How far do you expect to get behaving this way?
.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Behaving?
Dum dum, it is just typing.
Burkhard
Great Dane/Tapestry/Paris Hilton, is that you?
Louann Miller
2206ba...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> Name three. Be specific.
>
> Why? so you can one and argue about it?
Sorry, did you not read the sign on the door when you came in? This group
is FOR arguing. If you can't stand the heat, etc.
> GOD has ton thousands of things in this case you fucking stupid cunt.
"And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love..."
Buh-bye.
Dan Listermann
.
I AM
> Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:92c65a06-2c0a-4cb9-b6d1-
>
>
>
> >> Name three. Be specific.
>
> > Why? so you can one and argue about it?
>
> Sorry, did you not read the sign on the door when you came in? This group
> is FOR arguing.
In the court room, it must be fair. If one side is prejudiced (not
fair) that is
against the rules, the law, and illegal.
By blindfolding me so I can't see what has transpired, and denying
access to
the things that have occurred, and the debate in the only place it
counts in my case, the courtroom
where I can't see it, has substantially and severely prejudiced me in
my own civil lawsuit case.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Reality does not consider fantasy to be a fair alternative.
I AM
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:32:15 -0800 (PST), I AM <yost...@hotmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
And reality is that GOD has done many many things during this case, no
matter
how much robotussin you sprinkle on your food ...
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
You forgot to provide references to the evidence for your claim.
Again.
Ray Martinez
> On Dec 16, 11:46�am, LionTeaser <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Adam and Eve were created, we assume looking Middle Eastern, and from
> > there they spread out throughout the world, and now we find black
> > races, oriental races and nordic races...
>
> > C'mon give me a break, somewhere along the line there's been EVOLUTION
> > or else we would all look something like this...
>
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > JUNGLE LORE
>
> > "Not all monkeys look the same, but they are all monkeys"
>
> >http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
>
> When I was a wee lad and racial segregation was the norm and black
> inferiority was both 'natural' and 'obvious' in the Land of the Free,
> the white fundamentalist preachers and �creationists (but I repeat
> myself), who read the Bible literally and heard the Word of God
> directly from the source, used the story of Ham to explain the
> existence of a group or race of inferior people who were destined (and
> cursed by God himself) to be "servant of servants."
>
The Bible says no such thing.
According to Charles Darwin (co-founder of natural selection)
evolution produced other races to serve the superior English race.
Darwin's bulldog, T.H. Huxley, said Negro races were inferior, unable
to compete intellectually with small jawed rivals (white men).
Darwin's son, Leonard, who grew up on his father's knee, addressed a
eugenics conference in London (early 20th century) and said white
superiority goals of the movement were dear to his father's heart. In
1930, R. A. Fisher published "The Genetical Theory Of Natural
Selection." The latter chapters are a racist tract, arguing the
validity of eugenics based on the evidence of natural selection.
Fisher's educational title was adjunct "Professor of Eugenics" (white
superiority). Richard Dawkins (another Englishman) called Fisher the
greatest scientist since Darwin. In the early 1940s, while Darwinists
were busy with their biological synthesis, which resulted in the
official coronation of natural selection as the primary cause of
evolution, the Nazi's were in field, selecting their enemies for
extinction. And not too long ago famed Darwinian microbiologist, James
Watson (another Englishman), said blacks are inferior to whites. Of
course the only surprising thing about the Watson incident is that he
got caught. We can rightly conclude that all of his scientific
colleagues knew of his racism, he being just one of the boys. Finally,
all Darwinists proudly believe that human evolution began in Africa;
Africans are but modified tree dwelling knuckle dragging apes (which
explains why Darwinists think Africans intellectually inferior); and
Darwinists, of course, reject the Bible to be scientifically and
historically correct.
What's the master point?
When God and the Bible is rejected to explain mankind and life, you
end up relying on preexisting gutter racism (white superiority) to
explain the same.
I thank God that I am not a evolutionist, but a species immutabilist,
Creatorist.
Ray
SNIP....
I AM
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:08:02 -0800 (PST), I AM <yost...@hotmail.com>
Do you honestly think you can argue a case on usenet, where my side
has to type things that in the very
way you are running the case you know very well I don't have access to
and am denied access to?
Now does that seem fair to you? No. That means I am prejudiced in my
case which
is illegal ...