Spirituality
03 Dec 09
08 Dec 09
Originally posted by menace71Adams three sons would have been genetically very similar, any variation between them would be insignificant compared to the amount of variation that we see today. There would be more variation amongst their wives, but even so, it just doesn't add up. Skin color for example. Are you saying that one of Noahs sons was black and another white? If not, then clearly that variation arose later. The same applies to almost all the differences between the various races / groups of people. What would make more sense is three large groups of people being separated for a long period. That would not in any way be considered evidence that those three groups descended from three of Noahs sons. But you haven't yet provided any evidence for your three groups claim in the first place.
Why not? Sorry once again not trying to be dense but Why not 3 distinct groups?
Manny
08 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobierobbie Carobbie wrote:
oh your back, after Zapansy exercised his humongous ego i thought that you had thrown in the towel, never the less I empathise with you, however, please dont tell me what i know and what i dont know, this is my own theory and i have run it past a lecturer in sociology at Glasgow university, Emma Stewart, who thinks that it is viable, oh she just happ ...[text shortened]... sociology at a university? perhaps you even know the difference between you bum and your elbow?
"This fact is verified in scripture and by science, for Noah himself had three sons, and what we get when we study sociology, is three distinct branches of the human family, Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid, as one would expect."
You use the word 'science' without understanding that it's not science at all. You don't belive in science, you disregard science when it doesn't satisfy your silly little hypothesis of yours, but use it as a mantra whenever you think you want to enforce your litlle hsilly hypothesis of yours.
Your hypothesis, that you claims science back you up, is that Noah got three children, Sem, Ham, and Yafet. (Gen 6:10) Right? Okay, I would gladly see the pregnancy of old Noah. Mary was far later pregnant without any man touched her. Here Noa became pregnant without any woman touching him. (You wrote it yourself: "Noah himself had three sons"😉 Quite a miracle, is it not? But miracles are not science, so we have a quite a religious phenomena here.
I suppose, despite the word of god, that it wasn't Noah who had three sons, but his wife. The bible is not true on this point. Nor is it prticluar scientific. But alright, we get further...
You say that Sem, Ham, and Yafet was the origin of the three races of the Earth as we see them today? Right? Science? Please tell me the underlying science in this. Tell me any evidence that this is actually possible? No? You cannot? Yet you claim that science backs you up? Inventing lies as they're needed, eh?
So Noah has one Caucasian son, one Negroid son, and one Mongoloid son. All these varieties from Noa? Or more likely (despite your own words) his wife? Or did he have three different wives, Caucasian wife, one Negroid wife, and one Mongoloid wife, producing one race of each? And if so, the races were there already, so they the three races don't stem from the sons of Noa at all. This is according to science, in one way or another. Pleawse explain how this can be!
Of course you cannot. Why? Because it is not science. Not at all. Not more than in your creational brain of yours.
Does science tell you what race Noah belongs to? Does any science tell the names of the four wifes? Does science tell which race each of the sons had? 'No' to all questions. Why? Because science has nothing to do with this. It's simply not science.
So when you refer to science, then I must append "In your dreams it is!"
So don't tell me that you know abou tscience, don't even attempt to do it, because you know nothing about it. The only source you have is the bible and its description of the myth, nothing but a religious myth. And you know what? Science and religion cannot mix...
These words is directed to all other christians who frequent the Spiritual Forum:
I think robbie are making a fool of himself. If it stops with this, I don't mind. But what he's doing is also to make a fool of every christian. When he say that This (or That) is science, then he diminutives the whole core of the christian religion. A religion doesn't need to have proofs of its phenomena. Only for the ones weak in faith need proofs. Robbie needs it. Do every christian need it? No, I hope not.
If you think in the same track as our mutual friend robbie, and you don't object, then I cannot draw any other conclusion that you agree to his ideas. If you do, then I have to rethink of the christian religion, and every christian is full of foolish ideas as those who posesses robbie.
Speak up! Tell me that the christian religion is far more worth than robbies silly claims!
08 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasi think he means that noah had 3 sons, all of the master white race. then the bad kid saw him naked thus god cursed him to become black (as his soul) and forever be serving the other sons(which was used as an excuse to the wonderful practice of slavery, fun). doesn't say if he became instantly black or if he turned gray first
robbie Carobbie wrote:
"This fact is verified in scripture and by science, for Noah himself had three sons, and what we get when we study sociology, is three distinct branches of the human family, Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid, as one would expect."
You use the word 'science' without understanding that it's not science at all. You don't belive in ...[text shortened]... that the christian religion is far more worth than robbies silly claims!
so noah has 3 sons. each has a wife. all three leave their father and go their separate way. on a side note, it is very logical that should the world gets destroyed and rather than enjoy the company of your brothers and parents you say fuk it and go live alone.
back to the matter at hand, each of the sons go their seperate way and start a family. so brothers and sisters again have incestous children who in turn have incestous children. no genetic diseases are mentioned.
nothing could be more logical than this.
08 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasbtw, i can't find anywhere in the bible where it says that japheth is the ancestor of mongoloids, ham is the ancestor of blacks and shem the ancestor of europeans, aryians, the white race or whatever.
robbie Carobbie wrote:
"This fact is verified in scripture and by science, for Noah himself had three sons, and what we get when we study sociology, is three distinct branches of the human family, Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid, as one would expect."
You use the word 'science' without understanding that it's not science at all. You don't belive in ...[text shortened]... that the christian religion is far more worth than robbies silly claims!
08 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou're creating a straw man Robbie.
unsubstantiated waffle? pluuueeeeze! the FACT of the matter remains, humans are divided into three major categories, Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid, based on characteristics. for example the native Americans, Inuit, the Lapps of Norway and northern Sweden, running all across the Arctic tundra, right across the Russian Urals into Siberia, Mongoli ...[text shortened]... mented and recorded in Gods word the Bible! Evidence you say, take a look around you dear Noob!
Show me the DNA evidence that corroborates your story, if you can't, then it's nothing more than a story!!
08 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf this is the religious faith of robbie, then may it be so.
btw, i can't find anywhere in the bible where it says that japheth is the ancestor of mongoloids, ham is the ancestor of blacks and shem the ancestor of europeans, aryians, the white race or whatever.
But when he says he has scientific evidence that it's really so, then I object strongly.
I just say that robbie doesn't know what science is. He likes science when he can use it to prove his silly ideas, he dislikes science when it disproves his silly ideas. He just cannot decide if he likes science all the way, or not at all.
Can I by your words see that you want to join robbie in his ideas, or can I see that you dislike his ideas? I say that robbie makes fools out of honest christians, do you agree? Or do you stay neutral in which case you show robbie that he continue with his mockery of good christians?
08 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75So you keep saying, but like most ideas of yours in this thread you are still to actually produce any evidence.
Have you not been following the other post? The mountains we not near the height they were now as all mountain ranges have ocean fossils on them as the were once under water?. The evidence is there but it seems no one wants to see it. Maybe you can't!!
08 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasi just proven that not even the bible backs the carrobie up.
If this is the religious faith of robbie, then may it be so.
But when he says he has scientific evidence that it's really so, then I object strongly.
I just say that robbie doesn't know what science is. He likes science when he can use it to prove his silly ideas, he dislikes science when it disproves his silly ideas. He just cannot decide if he likes ...[text shortened]... ay neutral in which case you show robbie that he continue with his mockery of good christians?
why do you assume i would join him?
I just say that robbie doesn't know what science is. He likes science when he can use it to prove his silly ideas, he dislikes science when it disproves his silly ideas
what he uses to "prove" his ideas is anything but science
08 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou have no idea how glad I am that robbie has christian opponents.
i just proven that not even the bible backs the carrobie up.
why do you assume i would join him?
[b]I just say that robbie doesn't know what science is. He likes science when he can use it to prove his silly ideas, he dislikes science when it disproves his silly ideas
what he uses to "prove" his ideas is anything but science[/b]
I don't mind him being christian. But I do mind when he uses science in a way that, in his faith, strengthens his silly ideas.
08 Dec 09
3 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnaslol, when my theory is published and i become famous you shall wish that you had not opposed us creationists ! it is backed up by sociological evidence, which i provided extensive details of. the problems that you noobs seems to be having trouble with the fact that Noahs sons had wifes, different wives, leading to diversity, you do know that in order for procreation to occur, you need a male and a female.
You have no idea how glad I am that robbie has christian opponents.
I don't mind him being christian. But I do mind when he uses science in a way that, in his faith, strengthens his silly ideas.
it is both scriptural and scientific because sociology backs up my claim, perhaps you can fill your posts with a plethora of personal likes and dislikes, unsubstantiated assertions, but this is soundly fixed on sociological studies, details of which i have already given.
As for Noobsters claim of DNA mapping, there cannot be any validity to the assertions that humans have lived for hundreds of thousands of years, for there is NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE to back up his assertions, thus what was begun with Darwin making unsubstantiated assertions has continued to this day, with you Noobs being the disciples of his unsubstantiated dogmas! read it and weep Fabby!
if i chose to make a fool of myself, what's it to you?, are you a jester policeman, hunting down and incarcerating, every type of joker , jester and harlequin that you come across? give it up and look at your own back yard, plenty of leaves need sweeping up there, plenty of egotism for you to throw over the fence at Zapansy, as for me i have consistently stated on these very forums,
that its just a ragged clown behind,
i wouldn't pay it any mind,
its just a shadow you see
that hes chasing
,
if you cannot through your tambourine in time, without hitting people over the head with it, then give it up and play the trumpet slow with the tingling of the triangle in between!!
08 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI thought about posting links but I just typed in "Can Humans be classified into three groups?" Tons of stuff came up. It appears that 3 groups were common. By the way I don't really care about race anyway we are all human and that is what matters more. 🙂
Can you give a reference to support that? If the majority of people do that, then why have I never heard it before? Where is this silent majority hiding?
I just thought is curious that we can be grouped into 3 groups of peoples is all.
Manny
08 Dec 09
Originally posted by menace71its masterful, post the links Manny and i shall give you half shares and all the credibility for jointly discovering the theory!
I thought about posting links but I just typed in "Can Humans be classified into three groups?" Tons of stuff came up. It appears that 3 groups were common. By the way I don't really care about race anyway we are all human and that is what matters more. 🙂
I just thought is curious that we can be grouped into 3 groups of peoples is all.
Manny
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
08 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieActually human remains (skulls) have been found in Ethiopia that are around 200,000 years old. Prior to that the oldest human remains were 40,000 years old.
lol, when my theory is published and i become famous you shall wish that you had not opposed us creationists ! it is backed up by sociological evidence, which i provided extensive details of. the problems that you noobs seems to be having trouble with the fact that Noahs sons had wifes, different wives, leading to diversity, you do know that in orde ...[text shortened]... h it, then give it up and play the trumpet slow with the tingling of the triangle in between!!
Satan trying to confuse us again?