Texas Public School Bible Classes Teach Races Come from Noah’s Sons, B

[betsy]

We are all descendants of people who evolved in Africa and left about 60,000 years ago. Any description from holy books about how people evolved (eg. blacks evolving from someone other than the same ancestors we evolved from) is simply mythical nonsense.

Anyone who believes that we are not one species, regardless of biological traits, is a complete imbicile.

Edit: this chart might be out of date. There is evidence that North America was populated much sooner than the diagram claims. (25,000 years ago)

If you hadn't noticed, I was simply correcting what these folks are discussing about - that particular subject from the Bible.

Whether you agree with our belief or not is really irrelevant!

Edited January 30, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Fair enough... Lots of conjecture and speculation that changes whenever new discoveries are made.

Science!!

Just for the record: at last, someone - The Squid - publicly admits it!

Edited January 30, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Science isn't sure of the timeline,

Which supports the argument being thrown by Creationists: something's not right with your carbon-dating, guys! ha-ha-ha!

[The_Squid]

Just for the record: at last, someone - The Squid - publicly admits it!

They find fossils and put together a timeline, of course it involves conjecture.... The fact that humans originated in Africa is not in dispute. All evidence points to it. Did we leave 200,000 years ago? What route did we take? Who went where and why? Paleoanthropologists examine the evidence and make educated guesses. That's not hard to understnad, nor does it put science in any disrepute and it certainly doesn't point to God. Apparently, He didn't even give a shit about us (or didnt realize tha we existed) for hundreds of thousands of years! Lol.

[The_Squid]

Which supports the argument being thrown by Creationists: something's not right with your carbon-dating, guys! ha-ha-ha!

What an ignorant, uneducated, laughable statement.

[Smallc]

Were you expecting different?

[betsy]

They find fossils and put together a timeline, of course it involves conjecture.... The fact that humans originated in Africa is not in dispute. All evidence points to it. Did we leave 200,000 years ago? What route did we take? Who went where and why? Paleoanthropologists examine the evidence and make educated guesses. That's not hard to understnad, nor does it put science in any disrepute and it certainly doesn't point to God. Apparently, He didn't even give a shit about us (or didnt realize tha we existed) for hundreds of thousands of years! Lol.

Lol. Darwinist evolution is mostly conjectures!

[The_Squid]

Lol. Darwinist evolution is mostly conjectures!

You sound ridiculous....

[Sleipnir]

Just because you think so doesn't mean it is so. Believe what you want to believe.

What are you on about?

[WIP]

We are all descendants of people who evolved in Africa and left about 60,000 years ago. Any description from holy books about how people evolved (eg. blacks evolving from someone other than the same ancestors we evolved from) is simply mythical nonsense.

Anyone who believes that we are not one species, regardless of biological traits, is a complete imbicile.

Edit: this chart might be out of date. There is evidence that North America was populated much sooner than the diagram claims. (25,000 years ago)

Well, I wouldn't mind a clarification of what it means to be "one" species. Because recent genomic and Y-chromosome DNA research indicates that some populations have fairly large contributions (up to 5%) DNA from our cousins - the Neanderthals, as well as up to the same % from a subspecies of Neanderthal called the Denosovans, which no one even knew existed until about a year ago, when DNA analysis of a bone and tooth found in a Siberian cave showed that they belonged to a third modern human sub-species, distinct from us and Neanderthals. So, now we know that all non-African populations have some Neanderthal DNA, while populations that migrated through central and southeastern Asia have a mixture with the Denosovan line . The natives of Papua, New Guinea have 5% Denosovan DNA. These findings complicate the migration picture that was already looking somewhat convoluted. It is more likely that that there have been many migrations, rather than one or two; and mixing with two human sub-species really complicates the picture even further.

And, needless to say, a strict, literal interpretation of Genesis cannot account for the dates of these migrations or even the existence of two human subspecies that were distinct from Homo Sapiens. The new findings on the Neanderthals and this new enigmatic Denosovans, and DNA evidence that the migration out of Africa into Central Asia, which led to Indo-European, Chinese and Native American populations separated about 40,000 years ago, doesn't fit the narrative that the sons of a man named Noah - who lived 4000 years ago, gave rise to all of the races we know today. So much for Shem, Japheth and Ham! The real history of the human race is a lot more compelling than the crazy white supremacist theory that the Texas school boards are going to force onto their children.

Edited January 30, 2013 by WIP

[betsy]

Well, I wouldn't mind a clarification of what it means to be "one" species. Because recent genomic and Y-chromosome DNA research indicates that some populations have fairly large contributions (up to 5%) DNA from our cousins - the Neanderthals, as well as up to the same % from a subspecies of Neanderthal called the Denosovans, which no one even knew existed until about a year ago, when DNA analysis of a bone and tooth found in a Siberian cave showed that they belonged to a third modern human sub-species, distinct from us and Neanderthals. So, now we know that all non-African populations have some Neanderthal DNA, while populations that migrated through central and southeastern Asia have a mixture with the Denosovan line . The natives of Papua, New Guinea have 5% Denosovan DNA. These findings complicate the migration picture that was already looking somewhat convoluted. It is more likely that that there have been many migrations, rather than one or two; and mixing with two human sub-species really complicates the picture even further.

And, needless to say, a strict, literal interpretation of Genesis cannot account for the dates of these migrations or even the existence of two human subspecies that were distinct from Homo Sapiens. The new findings on the Neanderthals and this new enigmatic Denosovans, and DNA evidence that the migration out of Africa into Central Asia, which led to Indo-European, Chinese and Native American populations separated about 40,000 years ago, doesn't fit the narrative that the sons of a man named Noah - who lived 4000 years ago, gave rise to all of the races we know today. So much for Shem, Japheth and Ham! The real history of the human race is a lot more compelling than the crazy white supremacist theory that the Texas school boards are going to force onto their children.

That was in 2011. A year later......that SPECULATION of interbreeding got shot down.....only to be replaced by another speculation.

13 August 2012 Last updated at 15:43 ET

Neanderthal breeding idea doubted

By Jonathan Ball BBC News

Similarities between the DNA of modern people and Neanderthals are more likely to have arisen from shared ancestry than interbreeding, a study reports.

That is according to research carried out at the University of Cambridge and published this week in PNAS journal.

Previously, it had been suggested that shared parts of the genomes of these two populations were the result of interbreeding.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-19250778

See what advance technology does. Now, it doesn't take long to shoot down one speculation after another.....

You guys should've learned by now. Brag about it when it's already a done deal. Put that champagne back in storage.

Edited January 30, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Guys,you've got to face it. Words like "possibly," "maybe," "could be," "more likely,"...and my favorite, "whatever caused it," are the staple of darwinists' vocabulary.

Edited January 30, 2013 by betsy

[g_bambino]

They find fossils and put together a timeline, of course it involves conjecture.... The fact that humans originated in Africa is not in dispute. All evidence points to it. Did we leave 200,000 years ago? What route did we take? Who went where and why? Paleoanthropologists examine the evidence and make educated guesses.

betsy expects pre-set and inarguable answers to everything, like those the Bible provides..... Except, um, where the Bible is just metaphorical. Yes, that's it; it's all the parts of the Bible proven true by science that are inarguable truths.... Except, um, science is stupid. Oh, dear.

[g_bambino]

Which supports the argument being thrown by Creationists

The fact that anthropologists and archaeologists are still investigating the way the ancestors of all humans spread around the world is a support for the claim the Earth is 6,000 years old? Explain, please. (Though, no doubt that request will be as ignored as the last one i made.)

[Canuckistani]

Guys,you've got to face it. Words like "possibly," "maybe," "could be," "more likely,"...and my favorite, "whatever caused it," are the staple of darwinists' vocabulary.

Thank the Lawd for that. It's when you hear "certainly" "for sure" "the truth" "God said" etc that it's time to get worried. Pride cometh before a fall and all.

[GostHacked]

Just for the record: at last, someone - The Squid - publicly admits it!

I don't see the issue. The Squid makes it clear that science is an evolving process. Science has to change in view of new evidence (in science evidence is testable and repeatable with the same results) Science does have theories that are simply just that , theories. Science and scientists admit that. So if you think this is a 'gotcha' moment, you are wrong.

Guys,you've got to face it. Words like "possibly," "maybe," "could be," "more likely,"...and my favorite, "whatever caused it," are the staple of darwinists' vocabulary.

Also it's 'possible' that god did it all.

'Maybe' god did it all.

'Could be' that god did it.

Only a fool would believe something unprovable without question.

[betsy]

Pride cometh before a fall and all.

For sure.

That's also in the Bible.

Proverbs 16

¹⁸ Pride goes before destruction,

a haughty spirit before a fall.

Edited January 30, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

The fact that anthropologists and archaeologists are still investigating the way the ancestors of all humans spread around the world is a support for the claim the Earth is 6,000 years old? Explain, please. (Though, no doubt that request will be as ignored as the last one i made.)

Hello? How many times does it need to be explained that, "the earth is 6,000 years old," is not believed by most creationists?

Ha-ha-ha. Covering our ears and yelling, "la-la-la I don't hear youuuu," are we?

You're hanging tightly to that "rebuttal," like it's the last floating device that'll ever come your way, don't you? We know too, who clings tightly to keep their heads above the surface, don't we.....it's just too hard to let go. Whatever.

Hold on for dear life....because with advance technology, it's gonna be a rough ride for atheists. So I guess your state of denial is understandable.

Btw, just so to be clear that you understand what creationist means. Creationist is someone who believes that the world was created by a transcendant being (Christians believe it's created by God)...... as opposed to believing in evolution.

Edited January 30, 2013 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Hello? How many times does it need to be explained that "the earth is 6,000 years old" is not believed by a lot of creationist? Ha-ha-ha. Covering our ears and yelling, "la-la-la I don't hear youuuu," are we?

Those not willing to listen will hear nothing but their own thoughts.

You're hanging tightly to that "rebuttal," like it's the last floating device that'll ever come your way, don't you? We know too, who clings tightly to keep their heads above the surface, don't we.....it's just too hard to let go. Whatever. Hold on for dear life. I guess it's understandable.

Yes hang on to the bible for dear life, it might save you one day.

How many bibles were lost in the great flood?

[betsy]

Btw to be fair I'll tell you, this is a test.

FACT: NO ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY HAS REFUTED THE HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE.

[Smallc]

Fact: that's utterly untrue.

[g_bambino]

Hello? How many times does it need to be explained that, "the earth is 6,000 years old," is not believed by most creationists?

Ha-ha-ha. Covering our ears and yelling, "la-la-la I don't hear youuuu," are we?

I love how you had to go back to edit your post to add that 25 point font. Obviously you realise on some level that the hollowness of your arguments needs to be disguised behind loudness and schoolyard taunts. So unsophisticated.

Anyway, I take your point about Creationists being divided on the age of the Earth; there are Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists. (So much for religion's ability to give us the undoubted truth.) So, allow me to seek clarity from you: What "argument" did you mean, exactly, when you said Creationist argument is supported by the fact that anthropologists and archaeologists are still investigating the way the ancestors of all humans spread around the world? Do you mean it supports the argument that an intelligent entity created the universe? And, if so, how?

[ed.: sp., +]

Edited January 30, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

FACT: NO ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY HAS REFUTED THE HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE.

Whatever parts of the Bible that are historical have been proven to be historical through scientific discovery and study. But, you reject scientific discovery and study, ergo, by your own logic, no part of the Bible has been proven to be historically accurate.

[GostHacked]

Btw to be fair I'll tell you, this is a test.

FACT: NO ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY HAS REFUTED THE HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE.

This is about as accurate as saying Nostradamus quatrains foretell the future exactly. it's all generalities. I can make the bible fit any thing you say as long as you are open to the correct interpretation of it. And that is just that, a simple interpretation.

[betsy]

Thank the Lawd for that. It's when you hear "certainly" "for sure" "the truth" "God said" etc that it's time to get worried. Pride cometh before a fall and all.

Romans 1

²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

²¹ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

So far, I see science lending more and more support for the Bible.....and more desperate scrambling from darwinists to plug up holes on the leaky bucket that they sit on. Dawkins seems to be the first casualty - made to look like a fool....and a coward.