Question for the theist

[FreeTony]

but scientific evidence shows that its the complete opposite. i dont care what the person says, its how they can prove it.

Christians strive to protect their beliefs. The belief is more important than the evidence. Any supporting evidence is held onto, and any countering evidence is ignored.

This is not unique to religious people.

[John V]

ok then, explain evolution.

Here's a pretty good primer:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intr...ology.html

and it seems like you do, do you?

Huh?

[Angrboda]

How do you account for the different races in humanity if your god created only 1 pair of humans in the beginning? wouldnt that require some evolution even if you dont agree with the theory completely?

There is only one race the human race. The differences in shapes, sizes, skin color, etc. that people often regard to race are a result of genetic variation within the human species.

Genetic variations within a species are what races are.

race2 /reɪs/ Show Spelled [reys] Show IPA
noun

---

1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology .
a. (no longer in technical use) any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.

---

Just because the word is problematic doesn't make it meaningless. In science, the term 'race' also applies to regional variations of other species besides humans.

This is all well and good, however it is the consensus opinion that the scientific term 'race' has no valid scientific definition when applied to humans. Since this is a question about evolution, the scientific definition is the one which is relevant. Bringing up colloquial definitions of the word 'race' is equivocation in this context.

[xr34p3rx]

ok then, explain evolution.

Here's a pretty good primer:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intr...ology.html

and it seems like you do, do you?

Huh?

OK well if you have read the entire article, perhaps you understand or just know but don't agree? and your second quote I was referring to creationists, that you agree and give them credit

[Rampant.A.I.]

such as? most creationist models deny evolution completely

Hardly. It's a common misunderstanding that creationists all think that each species was a unique creation. The general view is that the first creatures were created with built-in variability which allowed for a certain amount of evolution. For instance, there may have been one animal that developed into deer, antelope, gazelles, or whatever. Each species has less genetic information than the original - that's the main difference. Creationists accept that loss of genetic information can cause morphological change and even speciation.

Some creationists absorb what science they can't deny, and still claim they have the "true story".

In about a hundred years, when education about what evolution actually states, and the evidence for it becomes too widespread, they'll just adopt the Catholic viewpoint, accept evolution completely, and announce that evolution shows the mechanism of God's wonderful creation.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

How do you account for the different races in humanity if your god created only 1 pair of humans in the beginning? wouldnt that require some evolution even if you dont agree with the theory completely?

saying god made it that way doesnt count, that is an assertion and you have to back it up anyway.

Didn't you get the update?

Genesis 9:18-20 (MSG) = "The sons of Noah who came out of the ship were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah; from these three the whole Earth was populated."

[professor]

To the OP's question, there was sufficient genetic variation left in Noah's sons (from Adam and Eve) and their wives to account for what we call "Races" today.
I might note that after all this time - there is much less variation possible now- unless the races mix back again.

[xr34p3rx]

How do you account for the different races in humanity if your god created only 1 pair of humans in the beginning? wouldnt that require some evolution even if you dont agree with the theory completely?

saying god made it that way doesnt count, that is an assertion and you have to back it up anyway.

Didn't you get the update?

Genesis 9:18-20 (MSG) = "The sons of Noah who came out of the ship were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah; from these three the whole Earth was populated."

race NOT population

---

To the OP's question, there was sufficient genetic variation left in Noah's sons (from Adam and Eve) and their wives to account for what we call "Races" today.
I might note that after all this time - there is much less variation possible now- unless the races mix back again.

yes but I'm asking if it were to require some type of evolution. and change in race is technically evolution

[John V]

OK well if you have read the entire article, perhaps you understand or just know but don't agree?

I've read the entire article more than once. I agree with parts of it and disagree with parts.

and your second quote I was referring to creationists, that you agree and give them credit

No, I agree with some things creationists say and disagree with some.

I don't think origins is a study that lends itself well to scientific study, i.e. I don't buy either side. They take the same observable facts and try to hammer them into their existing framework. Sometimes it's a good fit, sometimes not so much.

Further, I can't really say I agree OR disagree with science, as I don't subscribe to peer-reviewed journals.

[professor]

XR, if people gravitate toward people of their same skin tone and features (which seems to be the case often) and have children. Are those choices evolution?
If so then, yes, the descendants of Noah's kids and wives evolved.
Although I see no linkage with what Darwin proposed and those choices.