So My Views Aren't Right?

[insane]

The problem with the Genesis days being hundreds of thousands or millions of years is the fact that Adam was created on the sixth day, God rested on the seventh day, and the story of Adam continues on after the seventh day. So Adam lived through a complete Genesis day. If you say a day means hundreds of thousands of years then Adam lived to be hundred of thousands of years and if you say day means millions of years then Adam lived to be millions of years. Now, if you believe that a person could live to be millions of years, then fine believe it. But you can't blame a non-believer for not believing it.

 

 

 

The Bible never states the seventh day ending. Thus, if the sixth day was the creation of man, then the sixth day would have ended as soon as man was created, or, evolved let's say. We could currently still be in the seventh day - or time period. Thus if we use time periods - the evolution into what we could call a "human", might have not ended, but hit a certain milestone at the end of the sixth day. If everything else after up until and including now, has been and is the seventh day still, it could make sense.

 

 

 

It sounds complicated but is really quite simple, and it may work.

[pianofrieak2]

 

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

 

 

 

This would imply Adam was not intended to live forever.

 

 

 

Insane, i am getting from that verse that his immortality ended when he ate from the tree.

 

 

 

And Piano, before you insult me, please show me your college degrees in theology. Find better ways to demean people you disagree with.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, barihawk, please forgive me. That comment was really harsh, and it should've gone unsaid. It was 1am and I was pretty tired, so I'm sorry for saying that. It's not an excuse, but at least you know what I was feeling at the time.

 

 

 

 

 

But for all those into theology, in a perfect utopia without sin and sin natures, why would one NOT live forever? It seems weird that you wouldn't but then again, the tree of eternal life doesn't make sense either.

 

 

 

What do you make of it?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

For one thing, if you're going to refute my article, at least address its points. You say we can get a "decent approximation" but my article refutes its usefulness.

 

 

 

Your last paragraph is also irrelevant. Everyone here is arguing macroevolution. No one disagrees with small changes in the genetic code over time. It's macroevolution that everyone has a problem with. Don't do the straw-man fallacy.

 

 

 

I thought I didn't have to since when we argue about the age of the Earth we don't use carbon dating, the article doesn't argue against the methods used to find the age of the Earth. However just for you I've gone through the article and refuted the points.

 

 

 

The amount of Carbon-14 in an organism is proportional to the amount of Carbon-14 on Earth (since the carbon used to make organisms comes from the Earth), so if we can find out how much carbon is in the earth we know what proportion of it should be in a organism. However this isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a problem since we can find out the amount of carbon in the Earth at a specific point in time.

 

 

 

One way which we can do this (There might be more but I havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really researched into it) is to take samples of glacial ice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core for more information). An ice core is made up by bands of ice that accumulate over time, in each band we can measure how much Carbon-14 is frozen thus telling us how carbon-14 concentration changes over time. It doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t matter if caron-14 concentration changes over time (like say a canopy cloud covering the Earth preventing solar radiation entering the atmosphere) since any changes will be recorded in the ice core.

 

 

 

The article argues that Carbon-14 dating for things older then 60000 years. This is true and IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not going to deny that, however as you know there are different isotopes with different half-lives. Therefore we use an isotope that has a longer half-life instead of carbon-14, thus we can get dates >60000 years. If an article specifies that carbon dating is used in a case where the age is >60000 years itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s most likely that the person writing the article doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand that there are other dating methods. If they did use carbon dating, well the age is obviously going to be wrong and the person who used carbon dating is a clown.

 

 

 

The article claims that background radiation is a problem; however carbon dating tests the concentrations of carbon-14 and stable carbon (radiation doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make it harder to count atoms). The author assumes the test is done by counting the number of carbon-14 atoms that decay in a certain amount of time (which would be affected by background radiation). The part which states that neutrinos emitting rocks (or any other type of radiation) affect radioactivity is a flat out lie. If neutrinos do affect radioactivity (which they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t), any neutrinos that are emitted by the rock would be insignificant to the amount of neutrinos that our sun produces. Our sun is an extremely powerful emitter of neutrinos ~40 billion pass through us every second, any that are produced by rocks would be insignificant compared to the sun.

 

 

 

The final argument states that it incorrectly guesses the ages of living clams and ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâoldÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ parchment. Much like how you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t use Carbon dating to date really old things (>60000 years) you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t use carbon dating to date really young things. You need to wait a few half-lives in order for the amount of carbon to change a lot. There is an optimal range in which we should use carbon dating; too old and there isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t enough carbon-14, too young and there hasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t been enough decays. Personally I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know what that range is (I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t use carbon dating), but from what I know about nuclear decay I would guess that 10000-40000/50000 would be a decent range. If you have any more questions on radioactivity feel free to ask.

 

 

 

My ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâstraw man fallacyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ is not a fallacy at all. Micro and Macro evolution are arbitrary distinctions and have no basis in nature. If you have heard on the news lately about astronomers arguing over the definition of a planet and whether Pluto is a planet or not, is an example of an arbitrary distinction. Planets are not in any way different from asteroids of moons, the big difference is size and as we know there are some asteroids that are planet size. Much in the same way Micro and Macro evolution describe the same thing, the difference is also the size, micro evolution is a few changes and macro is many changes.

 

 

 

Using another example, the numbers 1 and 1000 are very different; one is small and one is large, however you still can count to 1000; the small size of 1 doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t affect your ability to count to 1000. Evolution works in the same way; we have a single change to your DNA. If it is a good change then it is likely to go to 100% prevalence, if it is bad it will likely go to 0% and if it is neutral it can go either way (most single changes are neutral). These single changes alone will not affect us in any way; the problem is when you get 1000 changes and how these changes whole sections of DNA. If a section of DNA is altered radically from its original form it may produce a noticeable difference at this point, this difference will either be killed off or passed on. Repeat the process and eventually there will be enough noticeable differences until you can call something a new species.

 

 

 

I hope that cleared up any issues you have with my previous post.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Interesting thing I learned today. The first theory of evolution was recorded by a pre-Socratic named Anaximander. His theory was that we had to come from something else, because humans can't live on their own (they have to be nurtured at birth) and other animals are more self-sustaining. So we'd have to come from other animals so that we could be nurtured. The pre-Socratics, like all Greeks, did believe in the idea of creation ex nihilo, so that impacted his theorizing as well.

 

 

 

Kind of cool/interesting I thought. A very good point from someone who lived almost 3000 years ago.

[Astralinre]

Interesting thing I learned today. The first theory of evolution was recorded by a pre-Socratic named Anaximander. His theory was that we had to come from something else, because humans can't live on their own (they have to be nurtured at birth) and other animals are more self-sustaining. So we'd have to come from other animals so that we could be nurtured. The pre-Socratics, like all Greeks, did believe in the idea of creation ex nihilo, so that impacted his theorizing as well.

 

 

 

Kind of cool/interesting I thought. A very good point from someone who lived almost 3000 years ago.

 

 

 

Ah, good ol' Anaximander. He was in the school of Thales, you know, the guy who discovered the comet? Moderns don't give ancients near the credit they deserve; most philosophies that exist today existed in the ancient world. And that Anaxi was pretty smart. So much so that he always overshadowed his younger brother, Sal.

 

 

 

Salamander? Get it? Hahahaahaha!

 

 

 

What? Why are you all looking at me that way?

[Guest GhostRanger]

Interesting thing I learned today. The first theory of evolution was recorded by a pre-Socratic named Anaximander. His theory was that we had to come from something else, because humans can't live on their own (they have to be nurtured at birth) and other animals are more self-sustaining. So we'd have to come from other animals so that we could be nurtured. The pre-Socratics, like all Greeks, did believe in the idea of creation ex nihilo, so that impacted his theorizing as well.

 

 

 

Kind of cool/interesting I thought. A very good point from someone who lived almost 3000 years ago.

 

 

 

Ah, good ol' Anaximander. He was in the school of Thales, you know, the guy who discovered the comet? Moderns don't give ancients near the credit they deserve; most philosophies that exist today existed in the ancient world. And that Anaxi was pretty smart. So much so that he always overshadowed his younger brother, Sal.

 

 

 

Salamander? Get it? Hahahaahaha!

 

 

 

What? Why are you all looking at me that way?

 

 

 

Heh. Heh. Heh.

 

 

 

Discovered the coment, predicted eclipses and solstices - Thales was the man for his time! And besides, we all know the truth: everything is made of water. Too bad modern science has regressed over 3000 years.

[Astralinre]

Interesting thing I learned today. The first theory of evolution was recorded by a pre-Socratic named Anaximander. His theory was that we had to come from something else, because humans can't live on their own (they have to be nurtured at birth) and other animals are more self-sustaining. So we'd have to come from other animals so that we could be nurtured. The pre-Socratics, like all Greeks, did believe in the idea of creation ex nihilo, so that impacted his theorizing as well.

 

 

 

Kind of cool/interesting I thought. A very good point from someone who lived almost 3000 years ago.

 

 

 

Ah, good ol' Anaximander. He was in the school of Thales, you know, the guy who discovered the comet? Moderns don't give ancients near the credit they deserve; most philosophies that exist today existed in the ancient world. And that Anaxi was pretty smart. So much so that he always overshadowed his younger brother, Sal.

 

 

 

Salamander? Get it? Hahahaahaha!

 

 

 

What? Why are you all looking at me that way?

 

 

 

Heh. Heh. Heh.

 

 

 

Discovered the coment, predicted eclipses and solstices - Thales was the man for his time! And besides, we all know the truth: everything is made of water. Too bad modern science has regressed over 3000 years.

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? Anaximones blew that idea out of the water when he proposed that air is the universal! Water is the universal? Please, that idea just blows! :P

[logic-is-overrated]

The problem with the Genesis days being hundreds of thousands or millions of years is the fact that Adam was created on the sixth day, God rested on the seventh day, and the story of Adam continues on after the seventh day. So Adam lived through a complete Genesis day. If you say a day means hundreds of thousands of years then Adam lived to be hundred of thousands of years and if you say day means millions of years then Adam lived to be millions of years. Now, if you believe that a person could live to be millions of years, then fine believe it. But you can't blame a non-believer for not believing it.

 

 

 

The Bible never states the seventh day ending. Thus, if the sixth day was the creation of man, then the sixth day would have ended as soon as man was created, or, evolved let's say. We could currently still be in the seventh day - or time period. Thus if we use time periods - the evolution into what we could call a "human", might have not ended, but hit a certain milestone at the end of the sixth day. If everything else after up until and including now, has been and is the seventh day still, it could make sense.

 

 

 

It sounds complicated but is really quite simple, and it may work.

 

The KJV of Genesis 2:

 

1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

 

 

 

2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

 

 

 

3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

 

The NIV of Genesis 2:

 

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

 

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

If this is still the seventh day then God is still resting. What exactly does it mean then by God resting? The seventh day is spoken about in past tense. It says God rested on the seventh day because he had finished his work. Note again, its spoken about in past tense.

 

 

 

I have a hard time believing that vegetation and fruit trees were around for millions of years before there was a sun and I have an ever harder time seeing how the Genesis creation story could be interpreted in the way you mentioned.

[Astralinre]

Well, I'm not Insane, but I'll try to answer.

 

 

 

I'm no Hebrew scholar, but I also took 'rested' to mean that He ceased creating. So in that sense, it could still be the seventh day, since God is still not creating.

 

 

 

However, I'm of the opinion that God created the earth in a literal 7 days. I believe that He created the earth with age, which explains why scientists measure it was being so old. Why not? He created trees, not seeds. He created a man, not a baby. Why wouldn't he create the earth already "grown up," so to speak? It explains how light can reach us from millions of lightyears away - the universe was created with age.

 

 

 

The one problem I see with this theory is the age of fossils. I can understand God creating the earth with age, but why would He create it with fossils in it? I honestly don't know enough about fossils to see if they fit my view.

[thedepressedsquirrel]

 

The one problem I see with this theory is the age of fossils. I can understand God creating the earth with age, but why would He create it with fossils in it? I honestly don't know enough about fossils to see if they fit my view.

 

 

 

Maybe fossils aren't real and god injected fake age into them just like he did with everything else in our world.

[Adam007]

 

The one problem I see with this theory is the age of fossils. I can understand God creating the earth with age, but why would He create it with fossils in it? I honestly don't know enough about fossils to see if they fit my view.

 

 

 

Maybe fossils aren't real and god injected fake age into them just like he did with everything else in our world.

 

Yup, he planted all of those there just to test our faith. Tricky ol guy up there.

 

(Anyone see that one standup skit about that?)

 

 

 

Edit: The link to that video is here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk

 

Careful though, it's got plenty of swearing and all that stuff.

[Astralinre]

 

The one problem I see with this theory is the age of fossils. I can understand God creating the earth with age, but why would He create it with fossils in it? I honestly don't know enough about fossils to see if they fit my view.

 

 

 

Maybe fossils aren't real and god injected fake age into them just like he did with everything else in our world.

 

 

 

The sarcasm was uncalled for. I already said that it was the flaw in my explanation.

 

 

 

Of course, now that I think of it, perhaps there's another way of explaining it. Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." It never says how much time passes between that event and the first day of creation. Perhaps it's possible that the earth is billions of years old, and there was a seven day creation.

[Oy_the_Great]

Is there a way how Catholic people can prove something scientific without using the Bible? A scientist doesn't say "Einstein said so, so it's true" either.

 

 

 

I don't want to offend anyone, but I hate it when people come with lame quotes from a book to prove something. That's hardly proof at all. It's obvious you use knowledge, most likely gathered by being taught so, but using one book to prove everything, I just cannot understand that.

 

If the Bible is absolute, why can't the Curan be perfect either? Or my book of business finance I'm having next to me? They're all written by intelligent people, who gave the subject much taught, but a vision of one person or even a group of people will always be subjective.

[Astralinre]

Is there a way how Catholic people can prove something scientific without using the Bible? A scientist doesn't say "Einstein said so, so it's true" either.

 

 

 

I don't want to offend anyone, but I hate it when people come with lame quotes from a book to prove something. That's hardly proof at all. It's obvious you use knowledge, most likely gathered by being taught so, but using one book to prove everything, I just cannot understand that.

 

If the Bible is absolute, why can't the Curan be perfect either? Or my book of business finance I'm having next to me? They're all written by intelligent people, who gave the subject much taught, but a vision of one person or even a group of people will always be subjective.

 

 

 

It all comes down to epistemology. How do we know what we know? Some believe that the ultimate source of knowledge is their own reason and observation, the standard by which things must be measured. I believe in reason and observation, but that the Word of God is the standard by which my reason must be measured. To you, it may be lame to quote a book. To me, it's perfectly reasonable. It's not lame for someone to explain something using a book he considers to be entirely true.

 

 

 

Why can't the Koran be perfect either? The only answer I have for that is faith. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Muslims believe the same thing about the Koran. Either one of us is right, or none of us is right. Since the Bible is the foundation of my knowledge, and it's always been a strong foundation for me, what reason do I have to replace it?

 

 

 

And you're right, the view of a person or group of people will always be subjective. But if one of those texts truly is the word of God, then it would be the only objective literary work in history.

 

 

 

Oh, and just to clarify in case the word was address to me, I'm not a Catholic. Technically, I'm a Southern Baptist and a Reformed Presbyterian in my theology, but I prefer to just call myself a follower of Christ.

[Evilperson]

Exactly Oy.

 

 

 

Just because most people in the United States as well as other First World countries believe in some form of Christianity DOESN'T mean the bible is fact. Those books you have to even need to be written by intelligent people. I mean as long as its written it COULD be true...so believe EVERYTHING you read! Just because mass amounts of people believe in something doesn't make it true and doesn't count for anything. If i can quote The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. . . .:Wow! That was the most amazing thing you will ever see in 100 life times! Too bad it won't count for ANYTHING!

 

 

 

Anyways, please someone inform me about the Babel Tower stories or something. I was waiting for someone to post something about that. I am curious of how the Christians explain the differant races and languages etc etc.[/i]

[Astralinre]

Tower of Babel? Basically, the people came together, all speaking one language, started building cities and monuments, and became prideful because of their achievements. They thought they could rival God by building a tower that reached to the heavens. God then confused their languages, so that they could no longer work on the tower, thus curbing their pride. The people who spoke the same languages gathered together and moved off in their own little groups. Though the Bible doesn't say it, many scholars believe that God also created the different races at this point.

[Evilperson]

Ofcourse, I should've known that God magically changed it! #-o

 

 

 

Has anyone wondered why none of these huge monumental events that happen instantly and change thousands of large important things have happened in say the past 2000 plus years?

[Oy_the_Great]

Akthough I find it a tad bit hilarious that many intelligent people take the Bible to the letter, the explanation you gave me Astra, satisfies my question.

 

If there would be a word of God, and it would be formulated exactely like he wants it to be formulated, it would be the sole objective thing in history.

 

But I don't believe in a God that interferes with our lives that much.

 

I do hope there is a God that watches us, and whenever we do something good, small as it may be, he can be happy about it. But I doubt that even if this unrealistic thought would be true, he'll reward us for it, or punish people for their deeds.

 

Not in this life, but perhaps in the afterlife, should that dream be true. Why else would I have so much bad luck in times I need a sparkle of hope? I haven't done any truly aweful things. The worst thing I've done in my life is most likely be in a fight with my dad when I was 16. It was verbally at first, but then he got so angry he beat me up pretty bad. I didn't want to hit him back, because I repect my parents, but also because I kinda knew I was the one who caused all that trouble.

 

But that's something pretty common, a fight is a fight. I wonder when my luck will start.

 

 

 

 

 

edit: LOL Adam, I sure hope you're kidding.

[thedepressedsquirrel]

Tower of Babel? Basically, the people came together, all speaking one language, started building cities and monuments, and became prideful because of their achievements. They thought they could rival God by building a tower that reached to the heavens. God then confused their languages, so that they could no longer work on the tower, thus curbing their pride. The people who spoke the same languages gathered together and moved off in their own little groups. Though the Bible doesn't say it, many scholars believe that God also created the different races at this point.

 

 

 

I've always loved this picture:

 

http://www.abcgallery.com/B/bruegel/bruegel50.html

 

 

 

It's one of the things that I hope will be turned into a movie some day.

[bjbj1991]

I think they need to rewrite the 4 apoctloptic horsemen portion of the story.

 

 

 

Lets have a UFO invasion!

 

 

All believers will pronounce the sacrid words "Beam me up Scotty!"

[insane]

I'm a little disappointed that certain members have taken to petty jokes and insults. Not only is it pointless and rude, it partially invalidates their previous arguments and reasoning.

 

 

 

Can I ask, as a member of these forums (not a moderator, or a Christian) that we respect other's viewpoints and not resort to childish action to get our views across?

 

 

 

Unless our views are actually childish - if that is the case, then keep acting like such.

[Barihawk]

Tower of Babel? Basically, the people came together, all speaking one language, started building cities and monuments, and became prideful because of their achievements. They thought they could rival God by building a tower that reached to the heavens. God then confused their languages, so that they could no longer work on the tower, thus curbing their pride. The people who spoke the same languages gathered together and moved off in their own little groups. Though the Bible doesn't say it, many scholars believe that God also created the different races at this point.

 

 

 

The Bible does not say it. However, microevolution does account for the different races. Note how a white person who lives in the Carribean for 30 or so years looks much darker than he did before he moved there. Imagine now an entire group of people living as nomads in a desert. They will no doubt become darker over time, correct?

 

 

 

All differences in ethnicities result from geographic location. There are no different "races", we are all of the same race. We only spread out across the world with different tongues after the Babel incedent.

 

 

 

Note: microevolution =/= Evolution in the sense of natural selection. In fact, it generally flies in the face of it.

[thedepressedsquirrel]

 

 

 

The Bible does not say it. However, microevolution does account for the different races. Note how a white person who lives in the Carribean for 30 or so years looks much darker than he did before he moved there. Imagine now an entire group of people living as nomads in a desert. They will no doubt become darker over time, correct?

 

 

 

All differences in ethnicities result from geographic location. There are no different "races", we are all of the same race. We only spread out across the world with different tongues after the Babel incedent.

 

 

 

Note: microevolution =/= Evolution in the sense of natural selection. In fact, it generally flies in the face of it.

 

 

 

Actually that is called Lamarckism ("what happens to the parent is inherited by the child"), which is different from evolution and wrong.

 

 

 

Different skin colors happened because levels of a certain vitamin vary depending on the intensity of the sun in the place where you live. This condition of having too little/too much of the vitamins caused certain skin colors to become more advantageous (protection against skin cancer and other stuff). Natural selection happens and gradually everyone in the population has that skin color.

[Adam007]

Tower of Babel? Basically, the people came together, all speaking one language, started building cities and monuments, and became prideful because of their achievements. They thought they could rival God by building a tower that reached to the heavens. God then confused their languages, so that they could no longer work on the tower, thus curbing their pride. The people who spoke the same languages gathered together and moved off in their own little groups. Though the Bible doesn't say it, many scholars believe that God also created the different races at this point.

 

 

 

The Bible does not say it. However, microevolution does account for the different races. Note how a white person who lives in the Carribean for 30 or so years looks much darker than he did before he moved there. Imagine now an entire group of people living as nomads in a desert. They will no doubt become darker over time, correct?

 

 

 

All differences in ethnicities result from geographic location. There are no different "races", we are all of the same race. We only spread out across the world with different tongues after the Babel incedent.

 

 

 

Note: microevolution =/= Evolution in the sense of natural selection. In fact, it generally flies in the face of it.

 

I'm pretty sure there's more to a race than the amount of sun level they get. Culture aside, different races in general have different facial makeups and different builds. I mean are you trying to say that if you put a Chinese baby and an African American baby on an island in the Caribbean they'd look the same after 10 years?

 

Just wearing regular clothes people I haven't met before have been able to tell that I'm Jewish, which a lot of people don't consider to even be a race. Obviously a religion isn't a race, but culturally Jews do tend to have kids together so you do get a type of race.

 

I really do think there are different races within the encompassing species. While one can't specifically define a type of race, they do exist. Eventually they might not if we keep up our global assimilation, but as of now they do.

[pianofrieak2]

 

 

 

The Bible does not say it. However, microevolution does account for the different races. Note how a white person who lives in the Carribean for 30 or so years looks much darker than he did before he moved there. Imagine now an entire group of people living as nomads in a desert. They will no doubt become darker over time, correct?

 

 

 

All differences in ethnicities result from geographic location. There are no different "races", we are all of the same race. We only spread out across the world with different tongues after the Babel incedent.

 

 

 

Note: microevolution =/= Evolution in the sense of natural selection. In fact, it generally flies in the face of it.

 

 

 

Actually that is called Lamarckism ("what happens to the parent is inherited by the child"), which is different from evolution and wrong.

 

 

 

Different skin colors happened because levels of a certain vitamin vary depending on the intensity of the sun in the place where you live. This condition of having too little/too much of the vitamins caused certain skin colors to become more advantageous (protection against skin cancer and other stuff). Natural selection happens and gradually everyone in the population has that skin color.

 

 

 

I think it has to do with the skin color, but for the facial changes and different body builds, it might have to do with the food they eat, their culture and what they value as a society, etc. For instance, meat-eaters will have different teeth as compared to vegans over course of hundreds of years.

 

 

 

I think...

 

 

 

That's what I would argue for in the case of microevolution anyway.