What about them? Asiatic peoples. Ultimately, the extension of those who go East... and eventually all the way around back to West. There has, naturally been all kinds of mixing, blending, reblending, resorting, emmigrating, immigrating and the list goes on. For that matter, there may very well have been other variations of peoples on the Earth who have disappeared too. Sometimes you hear the hypothetical 'Blue People' which is just making a point.
True, however they did alot in 4,000(Can't remeber exactly when we 'discovered' the Americas years or so if you think about it. Though I suppose a harder one to answer would be the Aborigines.
Erasmus, that's too simplistic. Did Ham colonize africa, then later southern india, and then Australia? You can clearly see that skin color is a function of lattitude. Equatorial areas are darker than the higher lattitudes (the Americas, with their major European ancestry, skews it a bit but for the natives there it's still largely true). Melanin levels have to do with UV levels (higher in the low lattitudes) and vitamin D production (produced by UVB, which only occurs when the sun is high in the sky). Up north, where there's less light and the sun is lower in general, they need paler skin to capture enough UVB to make vitamin D. In the equatorial areas, there's plenty of sunlight all year long so they need darker skin to shield their skin from too much UV, which could cause cancer, as well as destroy folate; deficiencies of which can cause sever defects in newborns like spinal bifida and anencephaly (being born without a full brain or spinal cord) http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-01/departments/featbiology/
Yes, I agree in large part with what your saying here. It would also seem to me that when the African continent is refered to as 'The Land of Ham' (as one example) this is not just specifically refering to just Ham and his wife (as if they just moved there and thats it) but in the Patriarchal sense. It goes without saying there would have been centuries of generations mixing and moving across continents. If you ask me, Genetic research is now one of the most fascinating sciences on the go right now. The problem is that it revealing things people might not want to know about. Example: Natives in British Columbia are clearly direct relatives of Japans native northern peoples. Its not even in the sense of 'long lost cousins' either but its bang-on, directly related in a brother-to-brother proximity. But This is not correct, not politically and its something that has even involved lawsuits and all kinds of social taboo is being ruffled. If you think thats bad, consider that Genetic research is well aware that Jews and Arabs are much closer than either one would like to know. Anyways, I digress.
What kinda bullshit is this? I don't know anyone who was taught that three different types of apes evolved into three different types of humans that are our races. An evolutionist won't argue with you that we come from a common family (they just don't think it is literally noah 4000 years ago), and it doesn't disagree with evolutionary science. What does disagree with evolutionary science is that new races evolved and that the world could be completely repopulated in a mere 4000 years from one family. And hell, we aint even talking about all the other living creatures in the world!
Evolutionists no longer teach that there are three different 'types of humans' because they cant. Scientific enlightenment wont allow it anymore. The idea that the world has been repopulated by a family some 4,000 years ago is the one idea that makes sense. While there is no such thing as a 'clock', human population is a pretty consitant deal. you can do the math. Here is a chart (its big so I will link it) http://www.spiritrestoration.org/images/pophist.gif And I think these guys have one of the better pages on this topic: http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/Research%20History%20and%20Great%20Links/World_Population_since_Creation.htm
dude, that chart is bogus. 9 billion people at the flood? HA! We can hardly support 6.5 with our high tech, petroleum enhanced agriculture. There's no way there'd be enough food to feed 9 billion people with bronze-age technology/methods. That's not even factoring in infant mortality, disease, war, etc. *obviosly i'm assuming for the sake of argument the creation story.
Erasmus, how does that chart make any sense? Like Trippin said, 9 billion is not at all realistic. And why were the growth rates before the flood so much higher than after? I'm fairly sure that evolutionists never taught that races came from different species of monkeys. Even if they did, science is self-correcting, and that's the best way to go about it. Also, the blue people are not hypothetical. They were not a race, just a family bloodline with messed up hemoglobin or something. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a980724.html http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/blkysc82.html
The speculation before the Flood always seems high to me too but its not what we are looking for right now. Just asking 'how can that be' about an aside doesnt change the fact that when we 'turn back the clock' on human population it will take us back to around the estimated time of Noahs family repopulating the planet. For what its worth (and this is beside the point) you have an account of a richer and more abundant planet before the flood. This is verified through the megafauna and some of the biggest ferns you ever dreamed up we find fossilised in the sedimentary layers. So, a huge population 'antedeluvian' times is not out of the question in terms of sustaining itself. But anyways.. dont worry, because most people are initially very surprised to find out that if you use human population as a 'dating method' it takes you back about 4,000 yearsish. Thats why 'old earthers' dont use it.
Yes it is, that's what I'm talking about: it's not possible with that level of technology. The Earth simply can't grow that much food without advanced agricultural techniques. Incorrect. You assume the population always grew, but in our hunter-gatherer, ice age times, it would have been stable, with the small up and down variations of a population in equilibrium with its environment. So you can date back, but you get to a point where the population wasn't growing much if at all. Population only really started growing with the end of the ice age and then with agriculture. But it's a known fact that hunter-gatherer societies tend to be very stable. That stability would stretch back a very long time (tens of thousands of years). But to someone back-dating, it wouldn't appear because their equation doesn't take that into account, it assumes constant growth (exponential, apparently, from looking at that chart). So you get a smooth, steep curve like your pre-flood graph. But that's neither realistic or true.
not many people actually believe that the whole world got covered up with the flood, most reasonable people think that it was a huge flood in the meddteranean area. and so yea we could repopulate if the "world" to them was just the mediterannean/isreali area then obviously not many people died considering that they diddnt know that people in southern africa existed and i dont think that humans had reached the americas yet but im not sure about the last statement
This is what we call the 'Plea Bargain' among those who denied a global flood. Nowadays, the scientific enlightenment is so overwhelming the very 'best' denial that can be made is to 'plea bargain' something like: Well, Ok.. there was a huge flood and also many huge floods but at different times and not all at once. Sure, well if you need to 'save face' then I suppose thats an answer.
