Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mit-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!mit-vax!csdf
From: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <717@mit-vax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 04:19:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-vax.717
Posted: Tue Aug 27 04:19:15 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 23:38:52 EDT
Reply-To: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe)
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 60

In article <702@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
>>      A case in point.  I would classify the black pigment skin of the negro
>> as progressive.  As a creationist, I don't believe Noah had son's of three
>> different races.  I believe that a mutation which caused dark skin pigment
>> to occur in the human race was what some might classify as a good mutation,
>> though I too would have to agree that what we define as good and not good
>> is subjective.  Presumably, white skinned people could not survive the
>> extreme ultra-violet radiation of equatorial regions of the world (died off
>> of skin cancer, etc.) while the dark skinned people could survive just fine.
>> Thus, white skinned folks tried to avoid living in such climates.  This
>> meets both criteria above.
>
>What makes you think that dark skin came from light skin?  Why couldn't
>Adam and Eve (or Noah and family) have been black?  :-)

An interesting theory, but the "mark" that was placed on Cain when he
was banished into the world (filled with people who mysteriously
appeared) was that he was made black. This is why the mormon church did
not allow blacks in their congregations for a long time. Any creationist
can tell you that the original humans were white (and republican
christians!).

That's immaterial, really. I have a more important question for Lief.
We know that the weak sun up north encourages very light skin because
the absorption of UV helps produce vitamin E and thus white people are
healthier in extreme lattitudes than black people. Thus, the farther
north you go, the lighter the natives get.

But what about the black people living up north now and the whites
living in the equatorial regions? Shouldn't they be dieing off? What?
They have clothes to protect them? What? The blacks eat cultivated foods
up north that keep them healthy? I don't understand. Why, the first
thing Adam and Eve did was put on clothes and start farming, so why
would skin color, which is (as can be shown today) a minor factor in
environmental adaptation come out so strongly? Surely you wouldn't
suggest that human beings lived for millions of years as naked, wild
animals causing in them a need to be as specialized as possible. What a
ludicrous theory! (And don't call me Shirley).

>>I'm not asking if you agree with the creation model, but whether you
>>agree that theology teaches that life forms are degenerating?  If you
>>disagree, could you show me where I'm wrong?  You have got to admit that
>>Genesis teaches that before Noah's flood, man's life span was almost
>>1000 years.  Certainly we don't live that long now.  How can this mean
>>anything other than degeneration?

Genesis could be wrong, but I don't suppose that occurred to you. It's
funny, when a model doesn't work, science tends to look at the model and
fix it. That way, accurate models are maintained. Creationism is the
other way around: first assume the model is correct, and then alter
reality to fit it. I wish all the creationists the Grace of G-d, 'cause
they picked a tough course of action.  
-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal
	Have they not suffered enough?"

from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_