OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 27, 2014, 03:06:20 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: When and how were all of the races created?  (Read 5307 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Truth_or_Bust
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 63



« on: January 19, 2006, 10:21:54 AM »

Greetings!

Please suffer a few most-likely uninformed questions from this catechuman.  I have been trying to figure this out just using the Bible and I thought I would ask these questions here before I visit my priest on Sunday.

A) If Adam was the first man then when and how were all of the different races created in the Bible?
 
B) What race was Adam?

C)  Is there any Orthodox scholar who asserts that the creation story is not literal but rather a parable (or something to that effect)?

Thanks in advance for any comments on these items.

God Bless,
T
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2006, 12:01:54 PM »

I'm sorry, but we're not all omniscient here.

But to try, I think they came from the descendants of Noah....his sons came out with different looking charactaristics and they evolved from them.  I'll let others expound on this if they want.
Logged
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2006, 12:23:38 PM »

Perhaps before the flood, there were even more races than there are now!   Shocked 
For as long as I can remember thinking about it, I've always assumed that Noah and his wife had the genes for all the charachteristics that we have today, but when their children spread out, they were pretty much stuck with only a few charachteristics.  It's the same with animals.  If you were to take one type of squarrel, divide the group in half, place them in isolated locations where they could survive, eventually you'd have two different looking groups of squarrels.
Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Kapitanios Michalis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Posts: 29


« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2006, 01:07:52 PM »

I am not sure how "Orthodox" my answer is, but at an OCF meeting a few years ago, I remember this question being posed to Abouna Mikhail, and he stated that at the occurrance of the Tower of Babylon, in addition to the mixing of language, there was a physiological change as well. 

Perhaps Cleveland could shed some light on this subject, as he is familiar with Abouna Mikhail.  By the way, I hope no one reads in my post that I am questioning Father Mikhail's legitimacy as a priest.  I have a lot of respect for him.  I am not sure whether this is a Coptic understaning, or universally accepted as Orthodox.  On my own, I have not been able to find the answer to this question.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,530



« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2006, 01:23:11 PM »

Quote
A) If Adam was the first man then when and how were all of the different races created in the Bible?

Think of it this way, for a God who could create a billion billion stars, a universe to boggle the mind, and the wonderful human body, is it really too far a stretch to say that he added a bit of flavoring in the form of race to Adam's genetic makeup?ÂÂ  I would agree with what others have said, though, I have heard that the actual manifestation of races (as we see them today) came through Noah's sons after the flood (Gen. 10, especially v. 32, where it mentions populating the nations/earth, which might also mean that they were of different races as well)
 
Quote
B) What race was Adam?

White!  ÃƒÆ’‚ No, just kidding. Smiley  Pan-racial maybe? That is to say, something so pure and integrated that he was all races simultaneously?

Quote
C)ÂÂ  Is there any Orthodox scholar who asserts that the creation story is not literal but rather a parable (or something to that effect)?

Yes, there is probably some difference of opinion on the matter.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2006, 01:24:50 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Joe: 'Is it creepy for a 35 year old guy to date a 19 year old girl?'
Desiree: 'Not if she's the one to push for the relationship, babe.'
Joe: 'But...'
Desiree: 'You'll shut up if you're smart.'
Joe: 'Ok.'
Ntinos
Σαλός
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2006, 04:54:31 PM »

Well does this really matter? Can't we leave some things to our imagination? Do we really need to know all about how God created the world?

Logged

Truth_or_Bust
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 63



« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2006, 10:24:46 PM »

Well does this really matter? Can't we leave some things to our imagination? Do we really need to know all about how God created the world?



Well, if the mankind story in the Bible is to be taken literally - like a page out of history book - then the above questions are valid for the sake of understanding.  If, however, the mankind story is not literal, then I would agree with your statement.  I have no problem with a non-literal understanding of the story in as much as it would render the question irrelevant.  That's why I added the question about the existence of Orthodox scholars who hold that "non literal" position.  If there are some Orthodox scholars who hold that position, could somebody please point me in that direction?  I'd like to look into that perspective.

God Bless,
T
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,530



« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2006, 11:23:22 PM »

Bp. Alexander of South America (ROCOR) of blessed memory had some non-literal* articles on his site; The Six Dawns (Part 1) (Part 2) by Alexander Kalomiros might also be of some interest (Fr. Seraphim Rose responds to some of Kalomiros' thoughts here).


* This is assuming that a "non-literal" view would be something other than a young earth, literal 6 days of creation, view.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2006, 11:25:08 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Joe: 'Is it creepy for a 35 year old guy to date a 19 year old girl?'
Desiree: 'Not if she's the one to push for the relationship, babe.'
Joe: 'But...'
Desiree: 'You'll shut up if you're smart.'
Joe: 'Ok.'
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2006, 12:38:50 AM »

Richard Swinburne, the Orthodox philosopher of religion, suggests in his 1990 work Responsibility and Atonement (published by Oxford University Press) that evolution is entirely reconciable with traditional Christian teachings on the Fall, making a non-literal reading possible.
Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2006, 12:45:07 AM »

I am not sure how "Orthodox" my answer is, but at an OCF meeting a few years ago, I remember this question being posed to Abouna Mikhail, and he stated that at the occurrance of the Tower of Babylon, in addition to the mixing of language, there was a physiological change as well.ÂÂ  

Perhaps Cleveland could shed some light on this subject, as he is familiar with Abouna Mikhail.ÂÂ  By the way, I hope no one reads in my post that I am questioning Father Mikhail's legitimacy as a priest.ÂÂ  I have a lot of respect for him.ÂÂ  I am not sure whether this is a Coptic understaning, or universally accepted as Orthodox.ÂÂ  On my own, I have not been able to find the answer to this question.

Did not the Nubians who were a race of color of the upper Nile predate the tower of Babylon?

JoeS
Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2006, 12:49:03 AM »

Did not the Nubians who were a race of color of the upper Nile predate the tower of Babylon?

JoeS

What about the Darwins law of adaptation?  Maybe humans who inhabited regions that were constantly very hot and sunny develop a darker skin and those of northern regions because of the snow and cold weather develop almond shaped eyes to deflect the reflection of the snow.  Ahhhh, Im not sure of any of this but its a thought.  BWDIK.

JoeS
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,940


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2006, 01:37:27 AM »

yo homies...

Adam was black, you heard!

(actually that's what Black Christians believe, along with Jesus.  I consider that quite comical).

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Truth_or_Bust
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 63



« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2006, 11:48:26 AM »

Bp. Alexander of South America (ROCOR) of blessed memory had some non-literal* articles on his site; The Six Dawns (Part 1) (Part 2) by Alexander Kalomiros might also be of some interest (Fr. Seraphim Rose responds to some of Kalomiros' thoughts here).


* This is assuming that a "non-literal" view would be something other than a young earth, literal 6 days of creation, view.

Thanks guys for all your responses.  This is a fascinating topic and these are great bits of info.  I will begin to read the links today.  A non-literal approach has always appealed to me but coming from a protestant background it is considered heresy to not take the Bible literally. 

Thanks again!

God Bless,
T
Logged
choirfiend
ManIsChristian=iRnotgrEek.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 903

Rachael weeping for her children, for they are not


« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2006, 12:04:40 PM »

Many/most Orthodox theologians don't hold that the Genesis accounts of creation are meant to be understood literally. The proper context and meaning to be found in Genesis (AKA what the account actually MEANS) is a vast area for you to explore. You should be able to find plenty enough on the topic.
Logged

Qui cantat, bis orat
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2006, 01:33:36 PM »

Thanks guys for all your responses.ÂÂ  This is a fascinating topic and these are great bits of info.ÂÂ  I will begin to read the links today.ÂÂ  A non-literal approach has always appealed to me but coming from a protestant background it is considered heresy to not take the Bible literally.ÂÂ  

Thanks again!

God Bless,
T
Except for when Jesus tells us to eat his flesh and to drink his blood for our salvation- he wasn't being literal there...   Cheesy
Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2006, 05:10:12 AM »

What about the Darwins law of adaptation?  Maybe humans who inhabited regions that were constantly very hot and sunny develop a darker skin and those of northern regions because of the snow and cold weather develop almond shaped eyes to deflect the reflection of the snow.  Ahhhh, Im not sure of any of this but its a thought.  BWDIK.

I think that may have played a process in further changing Noah's descendants. Combined with initial differences, its enough to explain what we have today.

B) What race was Adam?

If we look at the three main categories today, we have Caucasoids, Mongoloids, and Negroids. I assume Adam may have looked fairly Middle Eastern, as that is a place where each of the three categories of humans are fairly well mixed into one.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2006, 02:47:33 PM »

Quote
Many/most Orthodox theologians don't hold that the Genesis accounts of creation are meant to be understood literally.

That is a fairly broad statement.  A good number of Theologians within the Church think just the opposite - so you can hardly say "most" in your statement....
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2006, 07:47:38 AM »

"Race" is actually a social concept, not a scientific one. With the mapping of the human genome it has been discovered that genetically speaking there is only one human race.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2006, 12:08:23 PM »

"Race" is actually a social concept, not a scientific one. With the mapping of the human genome it has been discovered that genetically speaking there is only one human race.
I got this off wikipedia:
Every human being shares more than 99.9 per cent of their DNA with everybody else, and the tiny variations that remain differ more within ethnic groups than between them, a major review of the evidence says.

This is exactly what some scientists were saying when they were trying to demonstrate how close we were related to chimpanzees.  The fact that races have 99.9% of the same genes does not mean that remaing 0.1% does not result in significant differences.  If race was entirely a social construct then how do you explain stories like this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10944284/
Your claim is more political then it is scientific.
Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,530



« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2006, 05:00:17 PM »

While I would agree that most of the perceived racial differences are just sub-cultural, that is not always the case. For example, when I was in College I read in a Pscyhology textbook that it had been demonstrated in scientific studies that some Native American groups generally have a better sense of balance than whites or hispanics.
Logged

Joe: 'Is it creepy for a 35 year old guy to date a 19 year old girl?'
Desiree: 'Not if she's the one to push for the relationship, babe.'
Joe: 'But...'
Desiree: 'You'll shut up if you're smart.'
Joe: 'Ok.'
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2006, 05:25:16 PM »

Your claim is more political then it is scientific.
It's not my claim.
It is the claim of Dr. J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corporation which mapped the human genome, and other experts.
http://www.augsburg.edu/education/edc210/race-myth.html
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2006, 06:10:49 PM »

It's not my claim.
It is the claim of Dr. J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corporation which mapped the human genome, and other experts.
http://www.augsburg.edu/education/edc210/race-myth.html

The claim is still political, which should be apparent from some of the arguments made, in the article I read:

Quote
"There's no scientific evidence to support substantial differences between groups," [Dr. Eric Lander] said, "and the tremendous burden of proof goes to anyone who wants to assert those differences."

First off, this is inconsonant with logical reasoning, ultimately the burden of proof is upon anyone who wants to make a statement, whether that statement is that 'substantial [racial] differences' (whatever 'substantial' means) do or do not exist. Someone concerned about honest dialogue would be willing to offer evidence and engage the issue, not simply try to duck the question by shifting the burden of proof. Second there is evidence for racial differences in the form of not only brain size, skin colour, or bone structure differences (though I guess from the article we should imply that these are not 'substantial' in the opinion of those being interviewed) but also in adiction tendencies, heard disease, and various other medical conditions (but maybe this isn't 'substantial' either, who knows). While humans may only differ by .1% it should also be noted that Chimpanzees share 99.4% of our genome with us. If .6% genetic difference difference is enough to create a distinction in not only species but genus (though there has been some debate as to whether Chimps should be in the same genus as humans, though certainly not species), surely there can be enough variation in .1% of genetic material to justify a differentiation by race, which is a subgroup of a species.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2006, 06:14:51 PM »

To address the original question, there are many great articles on the evolution of humans in general and sub-groups of humans in particular in countless textbooks and scholarly journals, to say nothing of popular literature. Unfortunately I lack both the time and competence to fully describe the process of biological evolution on this forum. However, it should be noted that this is ultimately a scientific question, and like in the heliocentric vs. geocentric or flat earth vs. round earth debate, it is unnecessary to rely upon literally interpreted biblical accounts, especially in light of the fact that Philo of Alexandria was interpreting the creation account in an allegorical manner even before Christ.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2006, 06:43:13 PM »

it should also be noted that Chimpanzees share 99.4% of our genome with us. If .6% genetic difference difference is enough to create a distinction in not only species but genus (though there has been some debate as to whether Chimps should be in the same genus as humans, though certainly not species), surely there can be enough variation in .1% of genetic material to justify a differentiation by race, which is a subgroup of a species.

Actually, some scientists do contend that chimpanzees should be considered the same species or a subspecies of human.  Others argue that they should at the very least be part of the genus Homo.  It seems that others appear happy with the status quo.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2006, 06:52:02 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Meekle
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 316

Meekle of Rohan, Dunadan Bard of the Riddermark


WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2006, 07:17:42 PM »

Actually, some scientists do contend that chimpanzees should be considered the same species or a subspecies of human.  Others argue that they should at the very least be part of the genus Homo.  It seems that others appear happy with the status quo.

If we came after them, wouldn't we be a sub species of chimps, and not vice-versa?
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,940


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2006, 07:21:51 PM »

I agree with GiC.  It is shown that the more distant in relation humans are, the more variation the gene pool becomes and thus the healthier offspring become.  People even usually comment that the best looking children are "interbred".

One can also see the same thing with dogs.  Dogs are "stupider" when they are pure bred according to some research.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Truth_or_Bust
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 63



« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2006, 07:56:47 PM »

Bp. Alexander of South America (ROCOR) of blessed memory had some non-literal* articles on his site; The Six Dawns (Part 1) (Part 2) by Alexander Kalomiros might also be of some interest (Fr. Seraphim Rose responds to some of Kalomiros' thoughts here).


* This is assuming that a "non-literal" view would be something other than a young earth, literal 6 days of creation, view.

Wow.  I just read both the Six Dawn essays.  Amazing.  This statement from the essay is quite an eye opener and completely opposite of what Protestant theology teaches:

"Adam is neither the biological nor the historical forefather of mankind, but the first-made ontologically, not only of mankind, but of all creation. He is the root of the universe we see and know today. He is the man chosen by God to recapitulate in his person all of creation as God had formed it so it could survive the angel Satan's assault and its consequences. "
Logged
Meekle
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 316

Meekle of Rohan, Dunadan Bard of the Riddermark


WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2006, 08:08:42 PM »

"Adam is neither the biological nor the historical forefather of mankind, but the first-made ontologically, not only of mankind, but of all creation. He is the root of the universe we see and know today. He is the man chosen by God to recapitulate in his person all of creation as God had formed it so it could survive the angel Satan's assault and its consequences. "

What does that mean in English?  Shocked
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2006, 08:17:33 PM »

Actually, some scientists do contend that chimpanzees should be considered the same species or a subspecies of human.ÂÂ  Others argue that they should at the very least be part of the genus Homo.ÂÂ  It seems that others appear happy with the status quo.

I haven't seen an argument that chimps should be classified as the same species as human, though I have read arguments for why they should be of the same genus...would you happen to have a link to an argument along these lines? If so it would be most appreciated, thanks.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 23, 2006, 08:25:21 PM »

The answer to your question depends on whether one accepts the Out of Africa or the multi-regional hypothesis.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #30 on: January 23, 2006, 08:32:27 PM »

If we came after them, wouldn't we be a sub species of chimps, and not vice-versa?

We didn't come from them, we both came from similar ancestors, most estimates I've read say that chimps and humans had a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. And no, they wouldn't be regarded a sub-species of human, but rather humans, chimps, and probably bonobos as well would be regarded as seperate species under the genus of 'homo' ...or if the were to be regarded the same species as Pravoslavbob sugested some scientists are arguing then we would be all sub-species under a general species name. But in short they are either a sister species/sub-species as we have common ancestors but both species have evolved beyond that point.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #31 on: January 23, 2006, 09:59:14 PM »

Agreed.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #32 on: January 24, 2006, 12:56:11 AM »

Agreed.

If man came from apes, why are there still apes?
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #33 on: January 24, 2006, 01:32:35 AM »

If man came from apes, why are there still apes?

Because evolution stops for each creature at a place where it is best for survival in a given environment, not at what we would think of as "best", ie humans.  Chimpanzees are much better at exploiting the ecological niche of forest edges and tree tops than we are, so they dominate there.  Also, did you truly read GIC's post and consider it?  We didn't evolve "from" chimps or other extant apes.  There was a common ancestor 6 million years ago.  One branch went one way and ended up being well adapted in one niche and another went the other way and did well in another niche. 

There are lots of primitive or less advanced things about the human organism that have not evolved further because they were not needed to help us dominate or do well in our particular niches.  Consider our eyes.  Really, human eyes are not that efficient compared to those of many other animals, but they serve the purpose they need to for us, and so they haven't changed in a long time.  Sometimes, organisms even become more primitive in order to better exploit the ecological niche that they live in.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2006, 01:34:19 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 24, 2006, 05:27:52 AM »

There was a common ancestor 6 million years ago.

What is our common ancestor, then?
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #35 on: January 24, 2006, 09:52:45 AM »

What is our common ancestor, then?

The closest hominid species that we know of to our common ancestor, and perhaps one of our common ancestors, is the recently discovered (2002) Sahelanthropus tchadensis:

This species was named in July 2002 from fossils discovered in Chad in Central Africa (Brunet et al. 2002, Wood 2002). It is the oldest known hominid or near-hominid species, dated at between 6 and 7 million years old. This species is known from a nearly complete cranium nicknamed Toumai, and a number of fragmentary lower jaws and teeth. The skull has a very small brain size of approximately 350 cc. It is not known whether it was bipedal. S. tchadensis has many primitive apelike features, such as the small brainsize, along with others, such as the brow ridges and small canine teeth, which are characteristic of later hominids. This mixture, along with the fact that it comes from around the time when the hominids are thought to have diverged from chimpanzees, suggests it is close to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
SiviSokol
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: SOC
Posts: 135


Tamburica u mom srcu


« Reply #36 on: January 24, 2006, 09:56:07 AM »

Most recently, there was a fossil find in Spain that some hypothesize might be a common ancestor to humans, chimps, orangutans, and gorrillas. ÂÂ  Tentatively dated to around 13 MYA, Pierolapithecus Catalunicus seems to predate the Chimp/Human split by some 6-7 million years. ÂÂ There are several fossil species that are dated proximal to the this split, and there is quite a bit of argument whether they actually are common ancestors to both, or are forerunners of Australopithecines and/or Homo or phylogenetic dead ends. ÂÂ Ardipithecus Ramidus is dated to 4.4 MYA, Orrorin Tugensis is appx 6 MYA, and the newly discovered Sahelanthropus Tchadensis 6-7 MYA. ÂÂ They are all very ape-like, and evidence of bipedalism is scant.

You can read more below:
http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Aramidus.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#tugenensis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus_tchadensis
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,940


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 24, 2006, 10:51:40 AM »

Hey,

Now that we're on the subject I have two questions:

1.  Did an Adam and an Eve exist, or did they represent a couple of human beings that existed?
2.  Did male come before female?  How can we interpret the "ribs" issue of Eve out of Adam?

I found this interesting website on ribs, and wondering if someone can comment on it:

http://www.bible-quotes-science-info.com/art/human-evolution-timeline.htm

Comments?

God bless.

Mina
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #38 on: January 24, 2006, 12:20:11 PM »

Hey,

Now that we're on the subject I have two questions:

1.ÂÂ  Did an Adam and an Eve exist, or did they represent a couple of human beings that existed?

Considering the meanings of the words, Adam essentially meaning 'human' and Eve essentially meaning the 'living one' it seems quite plausable to state that they were possibly even regarded as allegorical stories when they were written, intending to give a general overview of the creation of mankind rather than trying to trace an indivudual life.

Quote
2.ÂÂ  Did male come before female?ÂÂ  How can we interpret the "ribs" issue of Eve out of Adam?

Our old testament professor actually had some exegesis on this subject, Genesis being one of his favourite books of the Bible. The word Adam refers to humanity in general and before the creation of Eve would have embodied both masculinity and femininity, namely all of humanity. Ultimately masculinity and femininity are dependent on each other for their meaning and definition, i.e. masculinity cannot exist without femininity and vice-versa. Thus, Adam was not actually male until the creation of Eve as female, as one could not exist without the other and as prior to the creation of Eve Adam would have embodied both male and female. Unfortunately I am not the hebrew scholar that our Old Testament Professor is, so I cannot provide you with the detailed reasoning (plus, are hebrew fonts even supported by this site?), but it does make sense from both an etymological and philosophical standpoint.

Quote
I found this interesting website on ribs, and wondering if someone can comment on it:

http://www.bible-quotes-science-info.com/art/human-evolution-timeline.htm

Comments?

Sounds to me like he's stretching it, despriately trying to save the inerrancy of scripture, even going to the extent of claiming that the original authors of the scriptures understood chromosomes, but didn't write it because no one else would understand. A more reasonable explination would simply be to admit that the authors of the scriptures lacked the scientific understanding we enjoy today, not only on this issue but also on issues such as a round earth, heliocentricism, and disease.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 24, 2006, 04:22:25 PM »

If man came from apes, why are there still apes?

If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?  Huh
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #40 on: January 24, 2006, 05:55:08 PM »

The closest hominid species that we know of to our common ancestor, and perhaps one of our common ancestors, is the recently discovered (2002) Sahelanthropus tchadensis:

This species was named in July 2002 from fossils discovered in Chad in Central Africa (Brunet et al. 2002, Wood 2002). It is the oldest known hominid or near-hominid species, dated at between 6 and 7 million years old. This species is known from a nearly complete cranium nicknamed Toumai, and a number of fragmentary lower jaws and teeth. The skull has a very small brain size of approximately 350 cc. It is not known whether it was bipedal. S. tchadensis has many primitive apelike features, such as the small brainsize, along with others, such as the brow ridges and small canine teeth, which are characteristic of later hominids. This mixture, along with the fact that it comes from around the time when the hominids are thought to have diverged from chimpanzees, suggests it is close to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.

So where is the common ancestor today?
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #41 on: January 24, 2006, 06:17:19 PM »

So where is the common ancestor today?

Extinct...or perhaps more accurately it evolved with its offspring eventually becoming either chimps or humans depending on enviromental factors, while those offspring that did not evolve to better adapt to their enviroment were at a disadvantage for resources and survival in general, and hence died out...natural selection.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #42 on: January 24, 2006, 06:20:17 PM »

So where is the common ancestor today?

Even though you are evidently a complete sceptic and will not even remotely entertain a belief in evolution (or so the rhetorical nature of your question would suggest) I will offer this answer.

MANY species have become extinct since life first appeared on earth.  This is because, at some point, they cease to be able to compete successfully in their ecological niches, or they are driven to extinction by an ecological (and/or geological) catastrophe. 

Really, the basic premise of evolution simply cannot be in doubt.  The specific ways in which it happened cannot always be exactly determined, but literal creationists just show themselves to have their heads in the sand or worse: they display massive ignorance when they deny any form of evolution outright.  If you want to appear to be an anti-intellectual zealot who is incapable of independent thought, then I would encourage you to walk on this path.  I also hasten to add that, ironically, many philosophers and members of the scientific community show themselves to be incapable of opening to different lines of thought or to the "supra-rational" (as opposed to what they would call the "irrational") when they deny categorically that God has brought about changes in the cosmos that amounts to "creation".  I believe in creation and evolution.  I find it difficult, however, to justify certain things concerning the Fall and how ecology and evolution work.  It's an interesting puzzle, but it may remain a mystery to us....
« Last Edit: January 24, 2006, 06:23:09 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #43 on: January 24, 2006, 06:24:49 PM »

Extinct...or perhaps more accurately it evolved with its offspring eventually becoming either chimps or humans depending on enviromental factors, while those offspring that did not evolve to better adapt to their enviroment were at a disadvantage for resources and survival in general, and hence died out...natural selection.

Yes, this supplements my comments.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #44 on: January 24, 2006, 06:31:58 PM »

Extinct...or perhaps more accurately it evolved with its offspring eventually becoming either chimps or humans depending on enviromental factors, while those offspring that did not evolve to better adapt to their enviroment were at a disadvantage for resources and survival in general, and hence died out...natural selection.

If chimps or humans are different, it seems to be that they changed to adapt to a new environment, right? That means that they would be living in two different envoronments, and hence little/no competition. Makes no sense.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 24, 2006, 06:39:58 PM »

Even though you are evidently a complete sceptic and will not even remotely entertain a belief in evolution (or so the rhetorical nature of your question would suggest) I will offer this answer.

MANY species have become extinct since life first appeared on earth.  This is because, at some point, they cease to be able to compete successfully in their ecological niches, or they are driven to extinction by an ecological (and/or geological) catastrophe. 

Really, the basic premise of evolution simply cannot be in doubt.  The specific ways in which it happened cannot always be exactly determined, but literal creationists just show themselves to have their heads in the sand or worse: they display massive ignorance when they deny any form of evolution outright.  If you want to appear to be an anti-intellectual zealot who is incapable of independent thought, then I would encourage you to walk on this path.  I also hasten to add that, ironically, many philosophers and members of the scientific community show themselves to be incapable of opening to different lines of thought or to the "supra-rational" (as opposed to what they would call the "irrational") when they deny categorically that God has brought about changes in the cosmos that amounts to "creation".  I believe in creation and evolution.  I find it difficult, however, to justify certain things concerning the Fall and how ecology and evolution work.  It's an interesting puzzle, but it may remain a mystery to us....

What caused the human/chimp ancestor to become extint? It probably wasn't a disease, as we know that chimps and humans can share them, combined with the fact that we were theoretically closer in genetics then. I already addressed the environment option at some small level.

As for the unwarranted ad hominem attack, I do not reject all forms of evolution. I simply reject anything that, as you hinted at, twists the theology of the Fall. Here, however, I am simply wondering what the justification is. Having studied theistic evolution at some level, the "big picture" seems solid, but I want to know now if the small details add up.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #46 on: January 24, 2006, 06:41:26 PM »

If chimps or humans are different, it seems to be that they changed to adapt to a new environment, right? That means that they would be living in two different environments, and hence little/no competition. Makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense to those who realize that ecosystems are a lot more complex than a car or a toaster.  When you fix something on a car, you can rejoice that you've found the problem:  " ah ha!  It's the fuel injection system!"  Ecosystems are infinitely more complex than this.  We are only beginning to understand how terrestrial ecosystems work, and we know next to nothing yet about how marine ecosystems function.......Seal hunters in Newfoundland are often heard to say that seals are the problem when it comes to no codfish being available in the ocean.  "The seals are eating all the fish."   This is the "oh, I get it!  It's the carburetor" mentality at work.  The real answer is one that we really don't know and can't yet fathom, if you will excuse the pun.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2006, 06:45:32 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 24, 2006, 06:46:19 PM »

It makes perfect sense to those who realize that ecosystems are a lot more complex than a car or a toaster.  When you fix something on a car, you can rejoice that you've found the problem:  " ah ha!  It's the fuel injection system!"  Ecosystems are infinitely more complex than this.  We are only beginning to understand how terrestrial ecosystems work, and we know next to nothing yet about how marine ecosystems function.

It doesn't matter how the ecosystems work, though. It's completely irrelevant here. All that matters for the "competition" discussion is whether or not chimps/humans changed from their ancestor because of a change in the ecosystem. If so, they could exist in different areas and competition doesn't play a huge role, if not, then what caused them to "evolve?"
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #48 on: January 24, 2006, 06:47:43 PM »

As for the unwarranted ad hominem attack, I do not reject all forms of evolution. I simply reject anything that, as you hinted at, twists the theology of the Fall. Here, however, I am simply wondering what the justification is. Having studied theistic evolution at some level, the "big picture" seems solid, but I want to know now if the small details add up.

Sorry, my bad.  It looked like that to me. 

James
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #49 on: January 24, 2006, 06:55:48 PM »

It doesn't matter how the ecosystems work, though. It's completely irrelevant here. All that matters for the "competition" discussion is whether or not chimps/humans changed from their ancestor because of a change in the ecosystem. If so, they could exist in different areas and competition doesn't play a huge role, if not, then what caused them to "evolve?"

It sure does matter how ecosystems work.  It's absolutely central.  I've tried to explain it, and I'm sorry if you don't get it. 
Also , competition certainly does play a role, just perhaps not competition between chimps, the common ancestor, and humans,, since each species fills a different niche:  eg: one lives in trees, another on the savanah and caves, another elsewhere .  Secondly, you are assuming that evolution is somehow causal in nature.  Genetic mutations are happening randomly (although we know that God is in control)  all the time.  Most of the time, they result in things that just don't work, and the abberant individuals die.  If a mutation does work well for an individual as it goes about its life,, however, that  means that the organism with this "successful" mutation can survive to reproduce.  The mutation is then passed on down the genetic line, and evolutionary changes result over a LONG period of time.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2006, 07:02:19 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #50 on: January 24, 2006, 07:05:59 PM »

What caused the human/chimp ancestor to become extint? It probably wasn't a disease, as we know that chimps and humans can share them, combined with the fact that we were theoretically closer in genetics then. I already addressed the environment option at some small level.

It could be disease or any number of environmental changes.  The ancestor, the chimp, and the human would/may all have occupied different ecological niches, so your disease hypothesis does not follow at all.  (They probably lived nowhere near each other.)
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #51 on: January 24, 2006, 07:13:37 PM »

It sure does matter how ecosystems work.  It's absolutely central.  I've tried to explain it, and I'm sorry if you don't get it. 
Also , competition certainly does play a role, just perhaps not competition between chimps, the common ancestor, and humans,, since each species fills a different niche:  eg: one lives in trees, another on the savanah and caves, another elsewhere .  Secondly, you are assuming that evolution is somehow causal in nature.  Genetic mutations are happening randomly (although we know that God is in control)  all the time.  Most of the time, they result in things that just don't work, and the abberant individuals die.  If a mutation does work well for an individual as it goes about its life,, however, that  means that the organism with this "successful" mutation can survive to reproduce.  The mutation is then passed on down the genetic line, and evolutionary changes result over a LONG period of time.

I understand what you say about the complexity of ecosystems, but I still fail to see how it applies here. It doesn't matter what ecosystem the ancestor lived in, the humans/chimps would have evolved to fit a different role.

I also see how competition could affect things, but again, with the humans/chimps being different, mere movement would solve the problem. Since they are evolving differently, the same area would not support them both equally well, paving the way for one to move to another place.

Finally, the fact that it takes such a long time for a change only further reinforces how the mutated creatures must seperate to survive. If they stay in the same gene pool, there is a good chance that the mutation maybe lost, especially if it is a recessive trait.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #52 on: January 24, 2006, 07:16:24 PM »

It could be disease or any number of environmental changes.  The ancestor, the chimp, and the human would/may all have occupied different ecological niches, so your disease hypothesis does not follow at all.  (They probably lived nowhere near each other.)

That is what I was hinting at: they would not be in the same areas. This further reincforces the fact that competition of any kind likely had very little influence. Also, as I just posted, they'd have to split up to survive. That leads to an important question: what makes the mutated one(s) leave?
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #53 on: January 24, 2006, 07:26:38 PM »

That is what I was hinting at: they would not be in the same areas. This further reincforces the fact that competition of any kind likely had very little influence. Also, as I just posted, they'd have to split up to survive. That leads to an important question: what makes the mutated one(s) leave?

You'll have to forgive me if I don't continue to answer all of your posts.  I simply don't have the time, and I'm not trying to be rude.  All I can say is that the mutations happen over such a long period of time (ie millons of years) that the changes are very gradual.  It's not like:"oh gee, I've developed the ability to walk upright.  Guess I'd better move off to some caves."
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #54 on: January 24, 2006, 07:28:32 PM »

If they stay in the same gene pool, there is a good chance that the mutation maybe lost, especially if it is a recessive trait.

From what we can understand, this is exactly what happens to most mutations.  Evolution takes millions of years.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
jlerms
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 826


O sweet Jesus, cleanse my soul.


« Reply #55 on: January 24, 2006, 11:02:16 PM »

Sorry to jump in to the conversation so late, but I had a question about something GiC wrote.
Quote
Considering the meanings of the words, Adam essentially meaning 'human' and Eve essentially meaning the 'living one' it seems quite plausable to state that they were possibly even regarded as allegorical stories when they were written, intending to give a general overview of the creation of mankind rather than trying to trace an indivudual life.

 I am by no means a sola scriptura advocate, however I am wondering why in the book of Genesis a specific family tree is listed which has the "individuals" Adam and Eve as the first parents?  What do the holy Fathers say about this?  I assume these names were not made up.  Do they teach at Holy Cross seminary that Adam and Eve is an allegorical story?

I mean no offense,   Juliana
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #56 on: January 25, 2006, 12:07:57 AM »

I am by no means a sola scriptura advocate, however I am wondering why in the book of Genesis a specific family tree is listed which has the "individuals" Adam and Eve as the first parents?ÂÂ  What do the holy Fathers say about this?ÂÂ  I assume these names were not made up.ÂÂ  Do they teach at Holy Cross seminary that Adam and Eve is an allegorical story?

Were they made up? Maybe or maybe not, there are any numbers of possibilities, Christianity is far from the only religion to have genealogies of questionable significance of either humans or gods. As far as what they teach at holy cross, there's no uniform dogma on these issues, your answer would probably depend on what professor you're asking.

Quote
I mean no offense,  ÃƒÆ’‚ Juliana

None taken,  but if you want to offend me, feel free...I've surely offended a few on here, and more than one person has tried to offend me...LOL Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
QuoVadis
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 138


« Reply #57 on: January 25, 2006, 02:11:20 AM »

Greetings!

Please suffer a few most-likely uninformed questions from this catechuman.ÂÂ  I have been trying to figure this out just using the Bible and I thought I would ask these questions here before I visit my priest on Sunday.

A) If Adam was the first man then when and how were all of the different races created in the Bible?
 

You know, I'm just reading through the Bible myself, and also have "The Law of God" by Archpriest Seraphim Slobodskoy opened beside me, and by chance was only reading through the account of Noah this morning.  Talking about the different races, it says in "The Law of God" in Chapter 10 and 11: "All that Noah foretold his sons was fullfilled precisely.  The offspring of Shem are called Semites, to whom there belong firstly the Hebrew people, with whom faith in the true God was preserved.  The offspring of Japheth are called Japhethites, to whom there belong the people that populated Europe and Asia, who accepted faith in the true God from the Hebrews.  The offspring of Ham are called Hamites.  The Canaanite tribes which originally inhabited Palestine, and were later subjugated by the offspring of Shem and Japheth, belong to them ... (and after the Tower of Babylon) ... the offspring of Japheth went to the west and settled in Europe.  The offspring of Shem remained in Asia.  The offspring of Ham went to Africa, but part of them also remained in Asia ... scattering across the earth, people began to forget their ancestry and began to make up seperate, independent peoples and nations with their own customs and language. ... the Lord saw that people learned more evil from one another than good, and for this reason He brought about the confusion of the languages and divided people into seperate nations and gave each nation a seperate goal and purpose in life."

Just thought all that reading was interesting.
Logged

"Without sorrows there is no salvation. On the other hand, the Kingdom of God awaits those who have patiently endured. And all the glory of the world is nothing in comparison." - St Seraphim of Sarov
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #58 on: January 25, 2006, 02:31:15 AM »

Quote
Talking about the different races, it says in "The Law of God" in Chapter 10 and 11:

But... but... where do the Australoid, Pygmy, and Khoisan peoples fit in? They're about as distinct from Bantu-type Africans and from each other as it's possible to get.

i.e. if someone's saying that Maasai, !Kung, and Twa are all the same race, they're smoking crack.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2006, 02:32:28 AM by yBeayf » Logged
Meekle
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 316

Meekle of Rohan, Dunadan Bard of the Riddermark


WWW
« Reply #59 on: January 25, 2006, 03:44:40 PM »

But... but... where do the Australoid, Pygmy, and Khoisan peoples fit in? They're about as distinct from Bantu-type Africans and from each other as it's possible to get.

i.e. if someone's saying that Maasai, !Kung, and Twa are all the same race, they're smoking crack.

You mean they aren't all human?

If we call ethnic groups "races," do we then call the human race an ethnic group?  Huh
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #60 on: January 25, 2006, 04:08:17 PM »

You mean they aren't all human?

If we call ethnic groups "races," do we then call the human race an ethnic group?ÂÂ  Huh

Becau the 'human race' is classified as a species, 'races' are subgroups of our species.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #61 on: January 25, 2006, 05:53:22 PM »

Quote
You mean they aren't all human?

Of course they're all human. It's just that if the concept of race does in fact have any meaning, then they're their own races just as much as Caucasians (including North Africans, Middle-Easterners, and people from the Indian subcontinent (excluding the Negritos, who are related to the Aborigines)), Bantu-type blacks, and Asians.
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #62 on: January 26, 2006, 08:33:52 PM »

So where is the common ancestor today?

It is one of the thousands and thousands of extinct species.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,404


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #63 on: October 30, 2010, 11:13:33 AM »

There was a common ancestor 6 million years ago.

What is our common ancestor, then?
An ape species that no longer exists.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #64 on: October 30, 2010, 11:29:41 AM »

Modern human races starting to form less than 200 kya after populations began to migrate out of Africa.

Isolation of populations in different environments results in varying adaptions among those populations.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 11:30:51 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.197 seconds with 93 queries.