The race issue

Adam and Eve were black. I know what your thinking, WHAT. lol.You see, if creation is true, and genetic information is complex, and can only be lost, not gained (which has been physically observed since the 1940`s, when scientists started looking more at genes and coding), then information can only be lost. Bear with me here, I do have a point.The simple fact is that Melanin, the protien responsable for the color of your skin, is what makes black people black, chinese people yellow, and white people white. White people have the lowest levels of melanin, and black have the most.Now lets jump to Noahs kids. They do NOT represent the different races of today. When the population of humans increased on earth, they all looked the same. They were all black. They spoke the same languages, etc. The biblical account of the tower of Babel is where things get interesting. God wanted to confuse the people of earth, so he spread them all over the world, and confused their language. It was more than likely (just my theory), that geographical locations of people would change differently than others, but each group should change to some extent the same.This means that the people in china would change over time, but not the same as those in africa, or South America, etc. So, if I am right, each geographical group should change in physical appearance, but differently than others, and some may not change at all, or so small that it wouldn`t be physically apparent.I could be off my rocker, but if the Bible is to be taken as historically correct, then this is one possibility for the different races on the earth.One thing is for certain, before various modes of transportation were available to man (and woman, not being sexist), there was clearly grouping of different races on the earth. Whites being in certain areas, blacks in certain areas, and yellow in others. Now this could support my theory, or it could just mean that people who looked alike naturally felt comfortable in these areas, and chose not to leave.Interested in other ideas as well though. This is simply a theory.Dennis.

Who said anything about a PhD, degree, or even an advanced school qualification? If you can read, you have no excuse. If you have the ability to use a forum on the internet on which you are able to criticise carbon dating, then you are equally capable of actually learning something about the subject first, to prevent drawing mockery upon yourself... Who said anything about a PhD, degree, or even an advanced school qualification? If you can read, you have no excuse. If you have the ability to use a forum on the internet on which you are able to criticise carbon dating, then you are equally capable of actually learning something about the subject first, to prevent drawing mockery upon yourself...Umm, this isn`t exactly the carbon dating thread, but it`s well known that carbon dating isn`t accurate for more than 50,000 years at a maximum. However, carbon dating is more than inaccurate in many cases under this maximum, due to the levels of carbon during the fossilization process is never known, and the carbon levels worldwide are never constant. In fact, there is almost no carbon at all in the north and south poles. This is also a problem with most new parent-daughter dating methods.You can`t know how much time has passed if you don`t know how much sand was in the hourglass when it started.

"He was talking about the whole "only a loss of information" thing. If white people did have less melanin and that was a reduction in information then Adam and Eve would have been black because they woulda had so much more melanin."This is exactly the only point I was trying to get across. If creation is true, then God is the source of all information, so information could only be lost over time. Though mutations can occur, it would be the result of pre-existing information.Adam and eve would have been black.I hope everyone did not read too much into my generalization. I was more interested in making the point that useful information cannot be gained over time. Sorry.Dennis.

"Pure nonsense. There is just as much carbon 14 at the north and south poles as anywhere else -- it's in the atmosphere!And C14 dating is not a parent-daughter dating method."I'm refering to the NEWER forms of Parent-Daughter dating, poopdink. Such as K-Ar, Ar-Ar, etc.Carbon levels are constantly changing, since the van allen belt is constantly changing (the belt that traps radiation around the earth...but you knew that right?).And since most all animals get their source of carbon from plants, any area where plants to not exist, would not take carbon from the atomsphere, giving any animals in these areas false readings. This is also true with marine life, and should be called into question as well.

"Yes, I do know that. That problem was identified by de Vries (1958). His work led to the calibration curves we use today."Levels of C-14 can be greatly effected by any condition.

quote:

---

"1. The theory assumes that carbon-14 is in equilibrium in the atmosphere -- that it is being broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced. However, calculations made to test this assumption suggest that carbon-14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating. If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old..."

​

2. ... It is also true that cosmic rays would have been deflected away from the earth most effectively by the earth's magnetic field if, as we have argued, this was much stronger in the past. With fewer cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere, there would have been less production of carbon-14 then than now."

---

Bone of Contention: Is Evolution True (Sylvia Baker, 1986)

quote:

---

"roughly half of the dates produced by this method are rejected by archeologists as being either too far off or impossible."

---

"Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" (Robert E. Lee) Anthropological Journal of Canada Vol. 19, #3, 1981The Carbon 'timescale' was only known for about 16,000 years. This means, that after that period, data was extrapolated. But recent discoveries in the polar ice cores tell us that the data is not accurate:

quote:

---

"Marking time with carbon 14 requires an accurate record of atmospheric radiocarbon through time. Archaeologists, for example, use the radiocarbon time scale to date artifacts, but dates were only accurate as far back as 16,000 years. The information contained in the stalagmite effectively triples the calibration period.

​

University of Arizona physicist J. Warren Beck and his colleagues also discovered that atmospheric carbon 14 levels soared dramatically between 45,000 and 33,000 years ago. Beck says even more interesting was a dramatic spike in radiocarbon levels during a millennium that began 44,300 years ago, nearly twice as high as the "bomb pulse" produced during nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s and 60s.

---

Agen338 : Olympus Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Hari Ini Di IndonesiaAnd speaking of the magnetic field, at a decay rate of 5% every 100 years, 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today. Evolutionists claim the last pole reversal was around 750,000 years ago (which is obviously untrue). But the earth would have been too hot at 10,000.

quote:

---

"A decade ago, Prvot and Coe (and colleagues) reported in three papers the evidence they had found of extremely rapid changes of the Earth’s magnetic field recorded in lava flows at Steens Mountain in southern Oregon (USA).3,4,5 Scientists regard Steens Mountain as the best record of a magnetic reversal because the volcano spewed out 56 separate flows during that episode, each of these rock layers providing time-lapse snapshots of the reversal. Within one particular flow, Prvot and Coe discovered that rock toward the top showed a different magnetic orientation than did rock lower down. They interpreted this to mean that the field shifted about 3 a day during the few days it took the single layer to cool.6 Such a rate of change is about 500 times faster than that seen in direct measurements of the field today, so,

​

most geomagnetists dismissed the claim by applying the principle of least astonishment‘it was easier to believe that these lava flows did not accurately record the changes in the earth’s magnetic field than to believe that there was something fundamentally wrong with the conventional wisdom of the day’"

---

Journal of Creation, August 1995