True human race?

Homecloned: I see several, even the two Drs have mentioned the Bible in their post but i haven't heard of anyone mentioning Darwins theory. Enlighten us on this one. There in might be a clue to our answer of race. Did he deal in issues of race and was it theory or did he base it on fact? Appriciate the input.
Small Block

Small Block said:

Homecloned: I see several, even the two Drs have mentioned the Bible in their post but i haven't heard of anyone mentioning Darwins theory. Enlighten us on this one. There in might be a clue to our answer of race. Did he deal in issues of race and was it theory or did he base it on fact? Appriciate the input.
Small Block

Click to expand...

If one looks into the writings of Darwin, especially "Descent of Man", one will find Darwin was an overt racist, even so far as to espouse the elimination of the lower races, whom he preferred to call sub-species. He asserted that all humans came from a single set of ancestors, but many sub-species resulted. "Those naturalists, on the other hand, who admit the principle of evolution, and this is now admitted by the majority of rising men, will feel no doubt that all the races of man are descended from a single primitive stock; whether or not they may think fit to designate the races as distinct species, for the sake of expressing their amount of difference." Descent of Man, Ch 7.
Incidentally, he viewed his theories in direct opposition to the Biblical teaching of creation. See select, referenced quotes here http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/evolution/Darwin's Racism.html

This point of view, however, can lead to as host of evils. To wit, the whole concept of races, sub-species, etc. can be used to justify a range of social activites, such as abortion, forced sterilization, and slavery. Hence the rise of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned parenthood. Consider this quote, from a NY TImes interview date 7 July 2009, by retiring justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all Hitler adhered to a Darwinian view of the "evolution" of man from low to high, and wanted to speed it along by forcecully culling the lower race, and you can guess who he viewed as the lowest of all races...

With all of that said, there is no "pure race" or "original race". For we all came from Adam and Eve, thus, we are all descendants of the same parents. A significant culling of the population occured at the flood, with only Noah and his wife, his 3 sons and there wives surviving. From them came us all. Life continued with a single, universal language until the Tower of Babel, when God confused the languages, and then men scattered across the earth. If only 2 couples went to some remote corner of the world, there descendant would all have features that looked like the original 4, within some bondaries of variation. From this comes the variations of man. However, we are but one species, as evidenced by our ability to interbreed, DNA similarities, etc.


Evolution teaches man is gradually getting better and smarter over time, whereas the Bible teaches the opposite, in that Adam was the pinnacle, and the gene pool is getting more shallow with each suceeding generation.

wedgie said:

Lone Yankee is exactly right. No matter where you go, most people want exactly the same thing. Three squares a day, a roof over your head, clothes on your back, and a better life for your children than you had. The other stuff is just garbage to make someone feel superion. Dr. King was a great man with a beautiful dream.

Click to expand...

Until he caved into Jesse Jackson and the black panthers and was shouting "black power" with the rest of the bandwagon.

I beleive Jackson had King assasinated, but that is another topic.

Small Block said:

Homecloned: I see several, even the two Drs have mentioned the Bible in their post but i haven't heard of anyone mentioning Darwins theory. Enlighten us on this one. There in might be a clue to our answer of race. Did he deal in issues of race and was it theory or did he base it on fact? Appriciate the input.
Small Block

Click to expand...

Look up Ernst Haeckel (and his effect on Hitler). That web site has a lot of articles.
As far as civilizations being over 6000 years old, every one that was actually there, raise your hands. (That's a joke, with a double meaning, you old men)

Jimmy Ray: Good input but your comments in your second to the last sentence triggers a question. "No pure race"? Perhaps not now but originally the first man, Adam, was as pure in race as there ever will be seems to me. The mention on no "Original Race". Wouldn't the first of anything built by the guy with the concept be an original whether it was a painting a car or a plane or a man? I wonder what race Adam was? Obviously Adam being the first human, if he was, and it seems that many here agree to that issue, was the first pure race,BUT, again what was that race. Now to retrace our steps in past posts. Some have said that God made man in his likeness. From what i have read, no man has seen God simply because the brilliance of light around him is so great that no man can look upon him so with all the artists renditions of what God or even Jesus, for that matter, looks like can only be speculation. We know who the pure race was but i cant and i'm sure no one else can tell us what race that was. There has been some really great input by everyone. Jimmmy, you also made the comment that Adam was the pinacle of a race but has gone down hill from there but with the theory of evolution man gets better. With that said the downfall of Adam and Eve was when she ate the apple. The race didn't change, did it?, or was it just their morals. Race is in our genes and our DNA but sin is not. What ever race one is will not change do to the morals and choices we make in life. I disagree that the race went down hill from there but i would agree that their society might have gone downhill due to the choices they made. The race that you and i are, which may be different, will never change. The race of our decendants in years to come may change but our race is what it is. For instance, if mine or your children married a Korean or a Mexican or a Vietnam and their kids did the same, eventually we would have decendants of another race but you and i are what we are. Their race would never be pure but the majority of their blood would be of another race. There was one tree in the garden that they were not to eat of.
Small Block

We all come from apes and were their slaves for a number of years.Wait I think that was a movie never mind.

Interesting thoughts, however, I would challenge two things:

1. All humans descended from the same parents, thus, their gene pool was rich enough to provide for all of the variation (which some call races) we see today. It was not until Moses that prohibitions against marrying within the immediate family were established. Cain and Seth, then, would have been required to marry sisters, and their offspring married siblings and cousins. The gene pool at that point was rich enough to support such behavior without negative consequences. Incidentally, there is no such thing as "race" in zoological classifications. It is a arbitrary concept used to explain differences people groups, which the Bible calls "tribes". An interesting parallel is the Canine. Great danes, peckinese, and Daschaund all all dogs, just different breeds, forcibly created by man through selective breeding. If left to themselves, they will all breed into muts. Correspondingly, with the integration of the world, mass travel, changing social stabdards, etc, it is likely that the so called races will get harder to differentiate because of interbreeding.

2. Actually, sin is in our flesh, since our flesh is corruptible, and cannot inherit the Kingdom. 1 Cor 15 provides a great explanation of this. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, it is possible that the fruit, once ingested caused a mutation in the DNA, which led to death. Once this passed through their body, and got into the ground and then the plants, the corruption passed to all living things. While this theory is conjecture, scripture is plain that all creation is corrupted, and is waiting for the redemption (Rom 8:22)

LMAO GTS. Hang in there buddy. I'm learning too.

Jimmy: Good thought.
#1)In zoological i think "Race" is termed as "Species" such as monkeys are monkeys like man is man but in monkeys there are different species and in man there are different races, Can monkeys of a different species mate with one another and have offspring? Maybe in a test tube? Did you mean Cain and Able? I guess your right. They would have had to marry or mate with their sisters. Hummm!
#2) "All creation is corrupt"? Not sure i follow you there. How can a tree be corrupt? Are you refering to a person with a mind able to reason? There again, how can a frog or a cow be corrupt?
Small Block

Small Block said:

LMAO GTS. Hang in there buddy. I'm learning too.

Jimmy: Good thought.
#1)In zoological i think "Race" is termed as "Species" such as monkeys are monkeys like man is man but in monkeys there are different species and in man there are different races, Can monkeys of a different species mate with one another and have offspring? Maybe in a test tube? Did you mean Cain and Able? I guess your right. They would have had to marry or mate with their sisters. Hummm!
#2) "All creation is corrupt"? Not sure i follow you there. How can a tree be corrupt? Are you refering to a person with a mind able to reason? There again, how can a frog or a cow be corrupt?
Small Block

Click to expand...

1. On e of the biggest problems with species is, how do identify a new one, or how do we differentiate between them? One of the principles is that they don't cross-breed, e.g. Cheetahs and Leopards. There are a variety of proposed mechanisms for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation). However, humans will interbreed at will, so that rules against different species or races.

2. Evidence that all creation is corrupt is the death of all things, as well as diseases that infect all living things. This is a result of the fall. Another evidence is animal predation. Orginally, all animals were vegitarian, and will be again when Jesus makes the new heavens and new earth.

See Isaiah 65, especially verse 25
"The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent's food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,"
says the LORD."

Interesting reading. :happy1:

So Jimmy, Have we defined the pure race as that of Adam and Eve but still don't know what race that is? So you're saying that had Eve not ate the fruit that satan offered her a tree would have lived forever? When God first created Adam and Eve they wore no clothes until Eve ate the fruit and then they became aware of their nakedness and were cast from the garden of Eve? If she hadn't screwed up we would have had ever bearing corn and tomatoe plants? WOW !! Thank you Eve....no lets go with Flip Wilson as Gearldine and say " The devil made me do it" This has been good guys and i thank you all for your participation but sad that all we not able to contribute due to what ever reason that may have presented itself. Thanks Mods.
Small Block

Small Block said:

So Jimmy, Have we defined the pure race as that of Adam and Eve but still don't know what race that is? So you're saying that had Eve not ate the fruit that satan offered her a tree would have lived forever? When God first created Adam and Eve they wore no clothes until Eve ate the fruit and then they became aware of their nakedness and were cast from the garden of Eve? If she hadn't screwed up we would have had ever bearing corn and tomatoe plants? WOW !! Thank you Eve....no lets go with Flip Wilson as Gearldine and say " The devil made me do it" This has been good guys and i thank you all for your participation but sad that all we not able to contribute due to what ever reason that may have presented itself. Thanks Mods.
Small Block

Click to expand...

All said and done, Adam and Eve were the first members of the Human race, for there is only one. I think your trying to determine if the looked caucasion or asian or african or... Nobody knows.

While it's fun to blame Eve, consider this: It is quite possible that Adam observed the whole conversation between Eve and the Serpent, and said not a word! Also, Eve was deceived, but Adam knew exactly what he was doing! And Romans is plain, death came into the world by one man, Adam, not Eve!

All of this and we still dont know what the original race was. But some things were accomplished...???
Jimmy, with you last comment about Adam probably watching on, it has led me to an obvious conclusion. A man is to be the head of the house and rule with love and like wise, you show me a woman that wants to wear the pants in the house, i'll show you a miserable woman.
Small Block

Small Block that might be the miracle in it all, were not supposed to know, or question, just believe....?

Listen, at age 70, I have trouble figuring out why Ma MoPar would fail to straighten out the lifter/interface angle when they had the chance (when they changed the block for the small block Magnum configuration in 1992), much less determining what happend thousands of years ago...

Give us old guys a break, okay?????:read2:

I would love to go back in time just to get a glimpse of Job's daughters.

For those of you familiar with this, you will know what I'm talking about.

first civilization was sumer..which was in the fertile cresant ( between the tigris and euphrates rivers) the sumarians were the first with a book of laws that constituted as civilized (hammurabi's code)

cudaspaz said:

I would love to go back in time just to get a glimpse of Job's daughters.

For those of you familiar with this, you will know what I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

I think you mean Lot's daughters...

I caught that too but let it go...you gotta pick your battles

Jimmy Ray, you're on this buddy. Hence the days of Sodom and Gamora. Is this the origin of the word.....I forget how many times Lot ask God to spare that city in he could only find just a few good men. Never happened. That city was destroyed and when Lot and his family were instructed to leave they were not to look back...But...Lots wife did and she was turned into a pillar of salt. Too much sexual corruption in that city so it was done away with.
Small Block

From my 100 year old Webster's Dictionary:

The root word for civilization stems from the Latin word CIVILIS, which means citizen. The word "civilization" is described as "a state of social culture characterized by relative progress in the arts, science, and statecraft."

This seems a very human construct and identifies progress as part of the meaning, of course seen as relative. Therefore, virtually any social confabulation of more than one human being could be described as a civilization with "statecraft" being the common thread; i.e. an individual can create art and study science, but there is no statecraft in a civilization of one. Thus, all civilizations are relative and can, therefore, be more aptly described as being more "advanced" (progress) than others.

By studying ancient accounts of life in the ancient world, written by Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, etc., we discover that there was a state of progress observed in the world of humans. This "evolution" of civilization was also studied more recently by Margaret Mead and Robert Ardrey (African Genesis), among many in their research of primitive peoples in Africa, New Guinea, and Peloponnesia. It seems that human civilization has developed over time via some major transformations. First was the family/clan. This group then grew to a tribe made up of clans. Some civilizations have remained in this state until discovered by modern wesetrn explorers. Some clans merged with others for various reasons, i.e. trade, security, etc., some of which were migratory and some of which settled in a particular land when agriculture was developed. Common languages emerged from these social constructs, as did trade and knowledge. As interaction between various tribes grew, so expanded the collective amount of human knowledge. Technological advances spread rapidly between tribes that traded with eachother. Those that became iconoclast remained "primitive." Sub-Saharan Africa never developed the wheel, nor did the Indians of the Americas.

Interestingly, however, is that the common denominator of civilized advancement seems to be trade amongst people. Trade made in the best interest of all trading partners (i.e. free enterprise). Therefore, the whole concept of communism/socialism seems to be a forced throwback to the pre-historic social constructs of the family/clan.

The Greek civilization brought to the world the concept of democracy. The Roman civilization brought the governmental form of the representative republic. However, it should be noted that most ciivilizations did not "steal" culture from other civilizations, but rather absorbed what was new and different. Conquest was only a minor part of this happenstance.

Whaddya think?

2shelbys said:

There are several ruins of advanced cities that date back even farther. Well over 6,000 years. There is one, the name of which escapes me, where the building methods were so precise that they make the work of the Egyptians look like sand castles. There is another in the Bolivian Andes called Tiahuanacu. Scientists are still debating it's age but most opinions are in the range of 12,000 - 15,000 years ago. It was once a thriving seaport but the nearest water is now 15 miles away and it is over 12,000 feet above sea level. There are also recently-discovered ruins in various undersea locations that range from 7,000 - 9,500 years old. There are also researchers who point to evidence of an even older culture which existed on Antarctica. Who knows how many others are yet to be discovered or have disappeared forever.

Click to expand...

you refering to anything of the book "fingerprints of the Gods"? lots of interesting info

Good input there Fishbreath. You bring much to the table. Quite positive back in the primative day they probably never used the term "Technological" how ever i'm sure that they had some sort of term describing the advancements in their time for such things as methods of creating arrow heads, metals for swords and many other issues and ideas that made life easier for those that wanted to become more advanced. But is there anything in that book your reading that would lend any idea as to the race of Adam and Eve. You know, i've always labeled myself as one of the last great thinkers of our time and i see that i'm not alone but face it guys, we will never be given credit for what we are able to develope, resolve or manipulate but, like me, i'm sure it feels good for ya. I guess we can call us a "Superior Portion of a Race". Aint' this fun...oops... Superior would have said "Isn't"
Small Block

Current DNA evidence suggests that all civilization started from a group in Southern Africa around 60000 years ago. Fishbreath makes a very good point about cultures absorbing what was new and different from cultures. This is both true for culture and religion. The Romans for example absorbed Greek and Egyptian Gods among others into their own pantheon of Deities. Early Christians, in an effort to reign in and later subjugate Pagans on pain of death, marked religious dates that corresponded to Pagan celebrations. Churches were built on Pagans ritual sites etc. In some of the older churches, Pan or the Green Man sculptures can still be seen. There are many many similarities to all religions and belief systems due to this process and so it would be very difficult without DNA matching to find, if there ever was, a true human race.
One quite interesting, off topic, thing is that I always assumed that the serpent was the Satan, however, Satan only first appears in the Book of Job by name and Lucifer with whom it (for some reason) connected only appears once in the Bible and is known as "the morning star".
There seems to be a lot of appropriation. Personally I think: No eating the apple, no Mopar!

I found it! Actually Lucifer is a direct reference to the King of Babylon and has nothing to do with Satan. How interesting that Lucifer is lumped in with Satan which is taking the passage of Isaiah 14:12-15 out of context.