Upon him was the curse of Ham. Many other incorrect accounts concerning the races have been hypothesized, but only one account is true. In order to understand this great, evil, mysterious abyss of hatred and bigotry into which millions of lives and hearts have been cast, it is necessary to start from the beginning.
God made the first man — Adam — from the dust of the earth. The name Adam actually means "red dirt" or "ruddy. And as science is even now discovering, man was made out of clay. Josephus recorded of Adam: " That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. To him and to those who have wondered of the same, the Hebrew definition of the word "black," used in the verses noted, means "jetty" and "swarthy:".
In warm climates, the complexion of men is universally swarthy or black. Black; as the swarthy African. Another fact to consider is that shortly after the worldwide flood in the days of Noah and the enormous climate changes that ensued, a certain event took place that quickly exacerbated the problem of various genetic differences. Up until that time, men lived together in the same geographical area and everyone spoke the same language.
Why Is The Black Man Black and White Man White?
After Babel, the Hebrew-speaking people languages cited have evolved from ancient languages and are used for example purposes only could not understand the Italian. The Italian could not understand the German, and so on. They separated according to the language they understood and migrated to different geographical locations. This is the beginning of the nationalities as we know them. This, incorporating a concept known as genetic drift, is also the reason for so many peculiar genetic traits. For example, it is the reason the Chinese have slanted eyes.
The group of people who began speaking Chinese at the Tower of Babel could only understand one another. They migrated to one geographical location with its particular climate, and generation after generation married among themselves, and had their own particular gene pool. Their particular dominant genes emerged and were passed down from generation to generation.
As a result you have a nationality trait of slanted eyes. All the above information will play a part in why the black, red, yellow and white populations are the color they are.
// Why Is The Black Man Black and White Man White? - horngacanenpy.tk
Skin color, for instance, is a minor adaptation to climate — black in Africa for protection from the sun, white in Europe to absorb ultraviolet radiation that helps produce vitamin D. It takes only a few thousand years of evolution for skin color to change. Rather, it depicts microevolution, a term believed to have been coined by evolutionist Theo Dobzhansky. Whereas macroevolution teaches all things evolved from a common ancestor — a concept for which there is no evidence—microevolution means small changes within species over time that produces no new genetic information , but basically shuffles existing genes.
Scientists who fully endorse Creation have no problem with microevolution with the exception of the confusion the term creates. It is understood that God created the genetic code with the ability to produce interesting variations within a baramin or kind. Previous studies of human skin color have shown a strong relationship between skin color and distance from the equator, which has been interpreted as a link between skin color, latitude, and the intensity of ultraviolet radiation.
The underlying assumptions are that UV radiation is greatest at the equator and that it diminishes with increasing latitude to the same extent in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The standard analysis of human skin color is based on these assumptions, such that skin color is assumed to be darkest at the equator, and the decrease of skin color with latitude is assumed to be the same in both hemispheres. A nonlinear piecewise regression model was developed to test these assumptions and applied to mean skin reflectance data from male samples and 65 female samples from across the Old World.
Among males, skin reflectance increases roughly 8. Among females, the corresponding numbers are 8. These results indicate that human skin color is darker in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern Hemisphere at equivalent latitude. Recent research shows that UV radiation is higher in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern Hemisphere at similar latitude. Could it be sun as God records? Most anthropologists now believe that differences in UV irradiation account for the variety of skin color.
Jablonski and her husband, George Chaplin, a geographic information systems specialist, have formulated the first comprehensive theory of skin color. Their findings, published in a recent issue of the Journal of Human Evolution, show a strong, somewhat predictable correlation between skin color and the strength of sunlight across the globe. But they also show a deeper, more surprising process at work: Skin color, they say, is largely a matter of vitamins.
As far back as the s, the biochemist W. The vitamin helps the body absorb calcium and deposit it in bones, an essential function, particularly in fast-growing embryos.
The need for vitamin D during pregnancy may explain why women around the globe tend to have lighter skin than men. Unlike folate, vitamin D depends on ultraviolet light for its production in the body.
Loomis believed that people who live in the north, where daylight is weakest, evolved fair skin to help absorb more ultraviolet light and that people in the tropics evolved dark skin to block the light, keeping the body from overdosing on vitamin D, which can be toxic at high concentrations. The next step was to find some hard data correlating skin color to light levels. To their delight, there was an unmistakable correlation: The weaker the ultraviolet light, the fairer the skin. Jablonski went on to show that people living above 50 degrees latitude have the highest risk of vitamin D deficiency.
Humans have spent most of their history moving around. People far from the equator have developed fair skin to drink in the sun and produce adequate amounts of vitamin D during the long winter months. Jablonski hopes that her research will alert people to the importance of vitamin D and folate in their diet. Believe that you can fly but only when you're unconscious and no one is there to witness it. Believe that you can command the tides of Titan. Believe that invisible garden pixies are actually responsible for elongating grass at night. The number of fanciful propositions you would be forced to accept by that reasoning is nigh infinite.
And if you only apply that reasoning to something like "faith", then you're committing the special pleading fallacy in addition to the burden shift you've already done. Faith is the excuse one is left with when he or she runs out of good reasons to believe something. You can say the same things about Unicorns.
In essence, such metaphysical proofs of god have arisen to provide an impermiable barrier to rational thought. You can still shoot them down pretty easily. Can you test for the existence of flying spaghetti monsters? Faith doesn't conform to rationality or irrationality for that matter. It exists outside of it. I'm not saying you should have to, just that it is difficult.
Nor do I seek to test for the existence of God. Even if the proof is only experiential evidence extrapolated outwards it can be defined as a rational thought. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow. I have faith in this because I have a limited understanding of celestial mechanics and a plethora of previous experience it rose yesterday and the day before, so it will happen again. This may not lead to a true answer but it is a rational thought process. Believing something "just because" is not a rational thought process. I don't believe in God "just because", I don't know anyone who does.
Of the people you know who believe in God, have any of them ever told you it's "just because"? Harold, they all do in the end, because there is no other reason to do so. It feels true is 'just because'. Technically speaking you cannot prove a positive either, unless you're discussing mathematics - and even then there are very few examples Pythagoras' theorem is one. The point is that we use inductive or deductive reasoning to determine the truth of empirical statements - like the one that says there is a god - and by both these measures it is proven to the same standards we use for the most important issues in our public and personal lives that god does not exist.
Religion is clearly made up by people.
There is no doubt, you can prove this to a reasonable standard but it's not necessary because it's so bloody obvious. That doesn't mean there isn't a Creator just that nothing in the holy books of any religion provides any rational basis for believing there is, or any insight into what, if anything, that being wants of us.
Jesus and Johnny Cash: Lazarus, Sue, and You
Arguing this wth religous believers however gets you nowhere, ever - I guarantee that no believer on this discussion or any other has ever gone away saying, "yes, I never considered these valid points you make, you're right - religion makes no sense at all" The problem with arguing with these people using reason is this - reason didn't put those thoughts in their head so reason isn't going to get them out not my words but I can't recall where I read them so can't credit the author. So where's the absolute scientific proof that there is no God.
Where is the adequate explanation of where it all came from and why it exists if theres no Godl?