Why do some ignore the obvious truth about skin color?

[Tcg]

.

This seems like a good time to present the truth revealed in this excellent video by Forest Valkai.



Why do some ignore the obvious truth about skin color presented here?


Tcg

[armchairscholar]

Why do you believe it is the truth?

Even you would have to admit that it is a better explanation than having to believe in a global flood, while also having to believe that Noah got so drunk that one of his sons was able to sexually assault him, while then also having to believe that everyone on the planet was white at the time, while then having to believe that because of the sex between Noah and one of his sons is what caused his decedents skin to darken, which they then just so happened to then go south where dark skin just so happens to be beneficial.

UV distribution on the planet correlates with skin color and better explains skin color when compared to an explanation that a son sexually assaulting his father.

I wasn't aware that anyone really thought that skin color was due to Noah. That's an argument I've never heard outside of LDS circles

[Clownboat]

Excerpt below from the article "Are You The Car Or The Driver?"


What if we started identifying each other by the car that we drive rather than acknowledging ourselves as the driver? And what if, over the passage of time, that practice became so widely accepted that we actually ceased to remember what it meant to be a driver, apart from the car?

Sound impossible?

Well, as they say, the truth is often stranger (to most) than fiction (Isa. 30:10).

The following verses describe the creation of humans, and the placement of spiritual-Beings (Souls) inside of them.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His [Own] image, in the Image of God created He him; male and female created He them (the human bodies – our “cars/vessels”).

Genesis 2:7 And the “I AM” God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man (the car) became alive and was given a soul [spirit Being – the “drivers”] (becoming a human+Being; a car+Driver).

Satan, which is Hebrew and means “the Opposer”, has spent 6000+ years programming us to see things his way (upside down and backwards) instead of God’s Way (which is The Right Way/Truth). So it should really come as no surprise that so many choose to look at the gender or skin color of their human-animal body from a worldly/satanic perspective rather than a heavenly/spiritual one.

Hopefully the analogy that follows will help simplify the reality of our situation; that we are in fact spiritual Beings (which have no gender or skin color) who are temporarily imprisoned inside these human-animal bodies (which intentionally do have a gender and skin color for both physical and spiritual purposes), to learn how to control them.

You claimed that humans were created. You have failed to show that you speak the truth. I hear your preaching at us. Here we are to debate, not preach though.

[Clownboat]

Marke: Assuming that humans were not created is an unscientific conclusion based on theory not irrefutably supported by scientific data.

I will not be deceived! Human biology is a process that is fairly well understood. You could learn about it if you wanted to.

The study of the origins of humans involves several scientific disciplines, including physical and evolutionary anthropology, paleontology, and genetics; the field is also known by the terms anthropogeny, anthropogenesis, and anthropogony[8][9]—with the latter two sometimes used to refer to the related subject of hominization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

What is Human Biology?
Human biology is the study of all aspects of the human organism including evolution, genetics, ecology, anatomy and physiology, development, anthropology, and nutrition, among others.

A deep understanding of human biology is helpful for those studying medicine, entering healthcare as physicians, physical therapists, pharmacists, dentists, optometrists, or conducting research.
https://www.mtu.edu/biological/undergra ... logy/what/

If you actually believe that humans were created, please supply your best piece of evidence for all of us to consider. You should try to do better than making claims that are so easily refuted though.

Those debating on this site should realize that declaring their opinions as facts does not prove their opinions are facts

Trying to slay us with irony perhaps?

[marke]

Marke: Assuming that humans were not created is an unscientific conclusion based on theory not irrefutably supported by scientific data.

I will not be deceived! Human biology is a process that is fairly well understood. You could learn about it if you wanted to.

The study of the origins of humans involves several scientific disciplines, including physical and evolutionary anthropology, paleontology, and genetics; the field is also known by the terms anthropogeny, anthropogenesis, and anthropogony[8][9]—with the latter two sometimes used to refer to the related subject of hominization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

What is Human Biology?
Human biology is the study of all aspects of the human organism including evolution, genetics, ecology, anatomy and physiology, development, anthropology, and nutrition, among others.

A deep understanding of human biology is helpful for those studying medicine, entering healthcare as physicians, physical therapists, pharmacists, dentists, optometrists, or conducting research.
https://www.mtu.edu/biological/undergra ... logy/what/

If you actually believe that humans were created, please supply your best piece of evidence for all of us to consider. You should try to do better than making claims that are so easily refuted though.

Marke: How does one prove God created Adam and Eve? Nobody can prove that but it remains true that neither can any prove God did not create Adam and Eve or prove evolution did create humans without God.

AI Overview
Learn more
No, science has not definitively proven that life arose solely from natural processes without the involvement of a divine entity like God. While the scientific community has developed strong theories about the origins of life, such as abiogenesis, a detailed, experimentally verifiable explanation for how life emerged from non-living matter remains elusive.

Those debating on this site should realize that declaring their opinions as facts does not prove their opinions are facts

Trying to slay us with irony perhaps?

[Clownboat]

How does one prove God created Adam and Eve?

Archaeological or genetic evidence would be a good place to start if such a claim is true.

Do note though, that false things cannot be shown to be true. Faith is required in order to believe that false things are true. Since you are claiming that a God created the first humans, I would like to see your thought process (since evidence isn't available).
If your thought process is that you read it in some religious promotional material, I will be unimpressed and will find your reasoning to be deficient. Like you do for all other competing religious creation stories.

[marke]

How does one prove God created Adam and Eve?

Archaeological or genetic evidence would be a good place to start if such a claim is true.



Marke: You are aware that there is no archaeological or irrefutable genetic evidence to support evolutionist assumptions of human and mice conmmon ancestry?

AI Overview
Learn more
While there's no direct archaeological evidence proving a common ancestor between humans and mice in the way fossil evidence supports human evolution, there is archaeological evidence that supports the coevolution and close relationship between humans and house mice. This evidence reveals how mice have adapted to and even benefitted from human settlements and activities, highlighting their co-evolutionary history.




Do note though, that false things cannot be shown to be true. Faith is required in order to believe that false things are true. Since you are claiming that a God created the first humans, I would like to see your thought process (since evidence isn't available).
If your thought process is that you read it in some religious promotional material, I will be unimpressed and will find your reasoning to be deficient. Like you do for all other competing religious creation stories.

I believe in God by faith. Some believe in evolution by faith. I see similarities between the blind acceptance of unprovable beliefs for both.

[Clownboat]

Marke: You are aware that there is no archaeological or irrefutable genetic evidence to support evolutionist assumptions of human and mice conmmon ancestry?

Let's grant this for the sake of debate. Evolution is still a fact so I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

Do note though, that false things cannot be shown to be true. Faith is required in order to believe that false things are true.

I believe in God by faith.

Aaaaaaand we are done here....

Some believe in evolution by faith.

Your attempt at leveling the playing field is noted, but evolution is still a fact.
I think you know this to be the case too, otherwise you would challenge me to show that I speak the truth.

I see similarities between the blind acceptance of unprovable beliefs for both.

Your confusion is noted. Evolution is still a fact though. Care to challenge me on that claim? I double dog dare you!

[marke]

Marke: You are aware that there is no archaeological or irrefutable genetic evidence to support evolutionist assumptions of human and mice conmmon ancestry?

Let's grant this for the sake of debate. Evolution is still a fact so I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

Marke: Faith in debatable evolutionist theories does not make evolutionist theories irrefutable facts.

Do note though, that false things cannot be shown to be true. Faith is required in order to believe that false things are true.

I believe in God by faith.

Aaaaaaand we are done here....

Some believe in evolution by faith.

Your attempt at leveling the playing field is noted, but evolution is still a fact.
I think you know this to be the case too, otherwise you would challenge me to show that I speak the truth.

I see similarities between the blind acceptance of unprovable beliefs for both.

Your confusion is noted. Evolution is still a fact though. Care to challenge me on that claim? I double dog dare you!

[marke]

Marke: You are aware that there is no archaeological or irrefutable genetic evidence to support evolutionist assumptions of human and mice conmmon ancestry?

Let's grant this for the sake of debate. Evolution is still a fact so I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

Marke: How long has evolution been a fact? Since the beginning of creation? How does one go about proving such a massive claim? Has it always been true that all life evolved from a single-celled original life form, which was a foundational evolutionist belief for decades? Are some evolutionist theories still unsettled and debatable?

We may as well admit that evolution is an evolving theory in which it is not uncommon for old ideas to be debunked by new findings.

[Clownboat]

Marke: Faith in debatable evolutionist theories does not make evolutionist theories irrefutable facts.

Marke, I never said it did. In fact, I abhor using faith in my life because faith is a mechanism that is required in order to believe that something false is in fact true. Therefore, faith should be avoided if the goal is to arrive at truths.

What I did claim is that evolution is a fact, because evolution is a fact. You choose not to challenge me on this, because you know it is a true claim. Instead you lay faith at my feet as if you and I are using the same reasoning when we are not.

You have faith beliefs and I have factual beliefs about this topic.