Question about creationism

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Supposedly, Adam and Eve were white.  Or, at least, artwork has depicted them as white.  If they were truly the only two people to exist after the universe was created, how do we explain people of other races and genetic variations?  What is the creationist position regarding that?

For the record, I am not a creationist nor am I debating one; this just happened to be one of the many philosophical/scientific questions that pop into my head on a daily basis.

[John Dibble]

I skimmed one of the main creationist sites on this question:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v3/n3/origin-of-human-races

Basically, they posit that all the genes for light and dark skin existed since the beginning, that Noah and his family had enough of each such that their descendants would spread out and natural selection (the part of evolution even they don't deny) would take effect differently in different regions. Of course, they deny that any actual evolution which could result in new traits ever occurred.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

I skimmed one of the main creationist sites on this question:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v3/n3/origin-of-human-races

Basically, they posit that all the genes for light and dark skin existed since the beginning, that Noah and his family had enough of each such that their descendants would spread out and natural selection (the part of evolution even they don't deny) would take effect differently in different regions. Of course, they deny that any actual evolution which could result in new traits ever occurred.

Thanks.  How did I forget to check that site?

[Wiggle Your Yummy Moist Preggers Cake Ben Shapiro]

Supposedly, Adam and Eve were white.  Or, at least, artwork has depicted them as white.  If they were truly the only two people to exist after the universe was created, how do we explain people of other races and genetic variations?  What is the creationist position regarding that?

For the record, I am not a creationist nor am I debating one; this just happened to be one of the many philosophical/scientific questions that pop into my head on a daily basis.

But you have that "Progressive Christianity" thing in your sig. Are you not one or do you just find it funny?

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Supposedly, Adam and Eve were white.  Or, at least, artwork has depicted them as white.  If they were truly the only two people to exist after the universe was created, how do we explain people of other races and genetic variations?  What is the creationist position regarding that?

For the record, I am not a creationist nor am I debating one; this just happened to be one of the many philosophical/scientific questions that pop into my head on a daily basis.

But you have that "Progressive Christianity" thing in your sig. Are you not one or do you just find it funny?

I am a progressive Christian who accepts evolution.  I created the meme in my signature.

[DC Al Fine]

Supposedly, Adam and Eve were white.  Or, at least, artwork has depicted them as white.  If they were truly the only two people to exist after the universe was created, how do we explain people of other races and genetic variations?  What is the creationist position regarding that?

For the record, I am not a creationist nor am I debating one; this just happened to be one of the many philosophical/scientific questions that pop into my head on a daily basis.

FWIW Ken Ham says they were caramel coloured. I recall a video where he brought up an ethnic group in India that has some odd set of genetics. Apparently two dark people will make a light coloured babies or vice versa. Ham argued that those diverse genetics were present in Eden.

[Wiggle Your Yummy Moist Preggers Cake Ben Shapiro]

Supposedly, Adam and Eve were white.  Or, at least, artwork has depicted them as white.  If they were truly the only two people to exist after the universe was created, how do we explain people of other races and genetic variations?  What is the creationist position regarding that?

For the record, I am not a creationist nor am I debating one; this just happened to be one of the many philosophical/scientific questions that pop into my head on a daily basis.

But you have that "Progressive Christianity" thing in your sig. Are you not one or do you just find it funny?

I am a progressive Christian who accepts evolution.  I created the meme in my signature.

How can you believe in god but not be a creationist?

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Supposedly, Adam and Eve were white.  Or, at least, artwork has depicted them as white.  If they were truly the only two people to exist after the universe was created, how do we explain people of other races and genetic variations?  What is the creationist position regarding that?

For the record, I am not a creationist nor am I debating one; this just happened to be one of the many philosophical/scientific questions that pop into my head on a daily basis.

But you have that "Progressive Christianity" thing in your sig. Are you not one or do you just find it funny?

I am a progressive Christian who accepts evolution.  I created the meme in my signature.

How can you believe in god but not be a creationist?

Simply because I don't see accepting science as something that requires ignoring God, just as I don't see believing religion as something that requires ignoring science.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-dudley/christian-faith-requires-_b_876345.html

[Robert California]

Supposedly, Adam and Eve were white.  Or, at least, artwork has depicted them as white.  If they were truly the only two people to exist after the universe was created, how do we explain people of other races and genetic variations?  What is the creationist position regarding that?

For the record, I am not a creationist nor am I debating one; this just happened to be one of the many philosophical/scientific questions that pop into my head on a daily basis.

But you have that "Progressive Christianity" thing in your sig. Are you not one or do you just find it funny?

I am a progressive Christian who accepts evolution.  I created the meme in my signature.

How can you believe in god but not be a creationist?

Are you trolling, brother!?

[Wiggle Your Yummy Moist Preggers Cake Ben Shapiro]

If you believe in God but aren't a creationist, you essentially believe in a non-active God.

[memphis]

One longstanding explanation has been that blackness was a curse put on Ham, one of Noah's sons.

[Robert California]

If you believe in God but aren't a creationist, you essentially believe in a non-active God.

Heh. You're judging religion based on your own terms and preconception of religion, I assume.

[DC Al Fine]

If you believe in God but aren't a creationist, you essentially believe in a non-active God.

Heh. You're judging religion based on your own terms and preconception of religion, I assume.

LOL!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you believe in God but aren't a creationist, you essentially believe in a non-active God.

While creationism implies a God that was active (tho Ey may have simply set events in motion and is now generally content to watch what happens as man makes use of his free will), the converse is not true.  One can have an active God without believing Ey created the universe.

Of course, part of your confusion here may be related to the similar confusion that creationism and evolution are necessarily opposed viewpoints.  Creationism is not solely the Young Earth Creationism that in a desperate and unnecessary attempt to hold Genesis 1-11 as literal history discards all evidence and scientific theories such as evolution that would conflict with interpreting it as literal history.

[Wiggle Your Yummy Moist Preggers Cake Ben Shapiro]

I'm well aware that there are many forms of creationism. YEC, Theistic Evolution, Day-Age, Gap Theory, and other variants of intelligent design. So I ask you, both Scott and Cathcon: Do either of you believe that God had a role, great or small, in the world's creation?

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

I'm well aware that there are many forms of creationism. YEC, Theistic Evolution, Day-Age, Gap Theory, and other variants of intelligent design. So I ask you, both Scott and Cathcon: Do either of you believe that God had a role, great or small, in the world's creation?

Yes, a large role, of course.  But I don't really consider my belief in theistic evolution "creationist."

[barfbag]

Adam and Eve were Adamah and the mother of all living. They were never meant to be taken as two literal people who lived. The story comes from a J narrative likely canonized between 922-722 BCE. Genesis 36 mentions kings which lived after 848 BCE so that should narrow the window more. Even if the stories were written prior to 922 BCE, they weren't finalized until after 848 BCE.

[Robert California]

I'm well aware that there are many forms of creationism. YEC, Theistic Evolution, Day-Age, Gap Theory, and other variants of intelligent design. So I ask you, both Scott and Cathcon: Do either of you believe that God had a role, great or small, in the world's creation?

Yes, a large role, of course.  But I don't really consider my belief in theistic evolution "creationist."

Yes. Christianity doesn't require rejecting scientific theory, and one must learn to have different "lenses" of the world if they wish to be able to properly communicate with others. Through the religious lens, something may or may not have occurred and regardless of fundamental truth, that is the theology. From a scientific perspective, a vast amount of people subscribe to this whole "grandiose bang" phenomenon. According to the laws of the universe and what our betters know of them, such a thing probably happened. Now, moving back into theological mode, God is nonetheless the all powerful creator of the universe. He is that which made the laws of the world and set this entire shenanigan in motion. Now, He may be regretting this, but that's up to Him.

[Neocon Dem]

Adam and Eve were Adamah and the mother of all living. They were never meant to be taken as two literal people who lived. The story comes from a J narrative likely canonized between 922-722 BCE. Genesis 36 mentions kings which lived after 848 BCE so that should narrow the window more. Even if the stories were written prior to 922 BCE, they weren't finalized until after 848 BCE.

Wait, is this true???

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Adam and Eve were Adamah and the mother of all living. They were never meant to be taken as two literal people who lived. The story comes from a J narrative likely canonized between 922-722 BCE. Genesis 36 mentions kings which lived after 848 BCE so that should narrow the window more. Even if the stories were written prior to 922 BCE, they weren't finalized until after 848 BCE.

Wait, is this true???

I'm not sure where barfbag got the exact dates, but that might be true.  The Adam and Eve story was certainly not intended to be read as a factual depiction of events.

Keep in mind that you have to take barfbag posts with a grain of salt, though.  He has a... reputation here.

[CatoMinor]

Well one can believe in the creation of Adam and Eve and still believe in evolution. It is not written what race Adam and Eve were, but considering humanity sprouted out of Africa, its a safe bet they had dark skin. From there evolution sets in where people in the north whose skin is too get sickly of vitamin D deficiency and people in the tropics whose skin is too light get skin cancer. (This is not to say I believe that humanity happened literally days after creation. The time in those single days by our standards could be billions of years for all we know)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One could also treat Genesis 2-3 in a very metaphorical yet still non-mythical manner and have Genesis 3:21 refer to God taking the essence of Adam and Even out of the perfected bodies and garbing them in the flesh of the species known as Homo sapiens.  However, while it would resolve the incest issue for Cain and Seth, one is still left with the problem of the eradication of almost all genetic diversity by the flood.

[Mopsus]

The trouble with interpreting the Genesis creation narrative metaphorically (where "days" represent millions or billions of years) is that the order of creation is whack. Genesis has God create light on the first day and the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day (?); it has the earth be covered with water and dry land appear out of the water, even though it was the other way around; and it has birds and sea creatures created on the fifth day, followed by land animals on the sixth, even though animals appeared in the sea, on land, and in the air in that order.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Well one can believe in the creation of Adam and Eve and still believe in evolution. It is not written what race Adam and Eve were, but considering humanity sprouted out of Africa, its a safe bet they had dark skin. From there evolution sets in where people in the north whose skin is too get sickly of vitamin D deficiency and people in the tropics whose skin is too light get skin cancer. (This is not to say I believe that humanity happened literally days after creation. The time in those single days by our standards could be billions of years for all we know)

I strongly but respectfully disagree.  The Adam and Eve story implies that there were no humans except for Adam, who was created from the dust.  He gives a rib to God and from it comes Eve.  This would not be necessary if mankind already existed.  Adam would not have been alone.  Plus, assuming the Adam and Eve story really did happen, why aren't there any stories on what people did before they came to be?

Now would be a good time to mention that there were, in fact, two creation stories held by the Babylonians.  This story is significantly different from Genesis, yet it gives us insight into the contrarian Babylonian worldviews, which I think is the only thing these creation stories were intended to do.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Pigments in our skin changes when we move to arctic environments. We are all creations of God. He has no color.