Only One Race: The Human Race

Only One Race: The Human Race

Thomas Allen

The notion that only one race, i.e., the human race, exists is globalist propaganda — be it from the Catholic Church of years gone by, which many gullible or ignorant Protestants still believe, or today’s globalist elite. It meshes seamlessly into their nightmare of a one-world state with its one-world government and one-world religion. To achieve this globalist goal, humanity must be homogenized into a monochromatic, mongrel man with as little individual distinction as possible. 

Proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” which is also known as the “unity of man doctrine,” are, in essence, calling Martin Luther King a liar. King’s agenda was based on the existence of multiple human races. Fervently, he advocated giving Negroes special privileges. If the Negro race does not exist, it cannot receive special privileges. The existence of the Negro race with special privileges necessitated the existence of other races. (For more on King, go to https://tcallenco.weebly.com/social-issues.html.)

Adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” assert that all the races (or people groups, as many prefer) came into being following the Tower of Babel dispersal.  Only two actions could have caused the formation of the human races: the miraculous or the natural. The miraculous requires God to create the races. Although Acts 17:26b supports the miraculous approach, they reject it. The natural requires Darwinian principles, i.e., evolution, although they reject evolution.  (See “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” and “Analysis of ‘How did all the different “races” arise (from Noah’s family?’” by Thomas Allen.) Curiously, these adherents deny the existence of the various human races while describing how they came to be and acknowledging that various races or people groups have recognizable features.

Most likely, adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” reject the miraculous approach because it interferes with their unity of man doctrine. If God created the human races, then obviously, He would want them preserved. Consequently, they would have to support policies that protected them: segregation and separation. However, their unity of man doctrine requires, even demands, integration, miscegenation, and amalgamation: policies that destroy them. Thus, they promote the demise of the races that God created.

Often, proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” like to ask people who reject their doctrine of the unity of man, “Is there a superior race?” or similar questions. (If races do not exist, a superior race cannot exist.) They seem to expect as a response, “Yes, the White or Aryan race,” or words to that effect. They do not expect or accept any person, especially a White, to identify the superiority of another race.

For example, in general, Negroes are superior to Whites as boxers. They have the innate advantage of thicker skulls and, therefore, can better withstand blows to the head. Also, they have longer arms and can, thus, hit a White target before a White gets close enough to hit them.

Another example is that Blacks in general are superior to other races at playing basketball. The dominance of Black players in the National Basketball Association proves this superiority. Approximately 72 percent of NBA players are Black. Likewise, since this example conflicts with their doctrine of the unity of man, they also reject it.

One more example that the proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” reject is the superiority of Blacks over Whites in surviving and reproducing in the lower latitudes. Because their pigmented skin prevents ultraviolet light from destroying vitamin B-12, which is necessary for reproduction, Blacks are superior to Whites in surviving and reproducing in low latitudes. Nevertheless, these proponents must likewise find this example unacceptable because it also conflicts with their doctrine of the unity of man.

Adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” are also proponents of the races-are-social-construct school. To any extent that distinguishable features of various people groups (races) exist, they are social constructs. They certainly are not biological.

As shown above, adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” reject everything, including all facts, that contradict or interfere with their doctrine of the unity of man. 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Do Human Races Exist: Appendices

Do Human Races Exist: Appendices

Thomas Allen

Appendix 1. Discussion with RN1 in comments to an article in “We Love Trump Report.” 

RN1: Mayor Wu should NOT be apologizing for having the emails sent to ALL Council Members! She should be apologizing for NOT intending to invite the whites in the FIRST PLACE! Plain. And. Simple. PERIOD!

Me to American Patriot: Nonwhites segregating themselves from Whites is the only thing that will save the suicidal White race. Since most Whites are racial nihilists, they are determined to sacrifice themselves on the altar of humanity. Since most people of other races are racial supremacists or racial separationists, they seek to protect, preserve, and promote their race — something White stopped doing decades ago.

RN1 to Me: But we’re all the same race. The human race!

Me to RN1: You prove my point. Are you so stupid that you cannot distinguish between a Korean and a Zulu? If you are correct, then why do we have all these laws and policies that prohibit discriminating against nonexisting nonwhites while encouraging discrimination against nonexisting Whites? Why do we have all these laws and policies that give nonwhites benefits and privileges that are denied nonexisting Whites? Even the great archconservative Martin Luther King could identify the races of humans and wanted Negroes (his word) to have special benefits and privileges. Apparently, these nonexisting Whites can distinguish the race of man that God created. Even toddlers and dogs know that races of humans exist. Only stupid racial nihilists like you are unable to identify a person’s race, which is an insult to that person because his race is an essential part of his identity. Racial nihilists do prove one thing: They prove that nonwhites are more intelligent than Whites where race is concerned. Furthermore, following your logic, there are no differences between men and women because both are of human race. Thus, you must be a proponent of transgenderism since you have proven the proponents of transgenderism correct.

RN1 to Me: What in the world are you even saying? You don’t make much sense. We are ALL of the HUMAN race! With that said, there are different ETHNICITIES within our same race! And there are only TWO genders (male and female)! It's VERY simple to understand! Where did I not make sense to you?

Appendix 2. Discussion with RN2 in comments to an article in The New American.

Original Commenter: Feminize [sic] the males and masculinize [sic] the women; there is such a mass desire to get rid of all God’s creations and some Christians have had enough. 

IMHO messing with God’s formulations is not only dangerous it is downright cruel. The children are the victims; mRNA, drug enhancement vaccines, drugs to trans, drugs for depression, sex edu. at age 4, etc. Sex isn’t in the organs it’s in the mind that controls the organs and the natural hormones. Mess with the minds and hormones of children and you have a mess. Their minds and bodies are not ready for sex or hormones as infants and toddlers......but it's being forced on them; cruelty.

God Help US

Me to Original Commenter: Don’t forget the genociding of the races that God created and that has been pushed since the 1960s.

RN2 to Me: The races that God created? From what I read, God created man kind, both male and female. “Race” is a divisive goo to you evolutionist invented classification. We are all being genocided — black, white, male, female, homosexual, straight, American, European, etc... I know you don’t believe we came from monkeys who came from pond scum, which came from an explosion of nothing.

Me to RN2: If you are correct, evolution is proven. Like begets unlike. Each kind after a different kind. End of story. By the way, Adam invented classification when he named the animals. Consequently, according to your reasoning, Adam must have been an evolutionist. Moreover, since I wrote that God created the races, that precludes me from being an evolutionist. However, the scenario that you describe and seem to support requires you to be an evolutionist.

RN2 to Me: No, not if I'm correct. If scripture is correct, after God created animals, He created man in His image — a clear distinction and separation between animals and man kind. If scripture is correct, then each animal brings forth creatures after their kind. That being the case, and considering the clear distinction between animals and man, it stands to reason that man also brings forth his kind as supported and evidenced by our own eyes and experience. Dogs can only bring forth dogs, cats can only bring forth cats, man can only bring forth man. No animal has or can evolve into another kind of animal, nor has or can any animal evolve into man. There is no evidence that one kind became another. I've not read any scripture that indicates that God created races or different “kinds” of man, just man. Differences in skin color, is not a result of evolution. There are no races. Not if I’m correct. If scripture is correct, God created Adam, and God created Eve. Adam and Eve brought forth their kind in His image. Evolution is NOT proven.

Me to RN2: If God did not do it, what causes the difference in skin color? Since races do not exist, then you must be unable to tell the difference between an East Asian and a Sub-Saharan African. If races do not exist, why do Republicans work so hard to get the Black vote? If races do not exist, why do Blacks have so many benefits and privileges denied Whites, and Whites are discriminated against? If races do not exist, how can one identify a person’s race with a high degree of accuracy from his blood? https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2015/12/of-one-blood.html. If races do not exist, how can one identify a person's race with a high degree of accuracy from his skeleton? https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2016/05/skeleton-differences-of-human-races.html. If races do not exist, why do groups differ greatly in nonphysical traits? https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2022/02/nonphysical-racial-differences.html. Only one kind of man is created in God’s image: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2016/06/what-race-was-adam.html.

RN2 to Me: What makes you think I can not distinguish between an East Asian and a Sub-Saharan African? I have eyes that work the same as all man kind (with the exception of defect, of course), just as the people of those regions do and can see the differences in Anglo-Americans. How are your political prejudices a scientific determinant of so called ‘race?’ How are benefits and privileges a scientific determinant of so called ‘race?’ All of these are a result of the fall of man kind. God did not cause the fall. He therefore did not cause the variations you call ‘race,’ and certainly not man’s prejudices. “If races do not exist, how can one identify a person's race...” <== This is a logic trap within your question. It is circular and can't be answered.

This article based on scripture and science will answer your questions about skin color, facial features, blood characteristics, bone structure, etc. It is certainly too long to paste here.

“How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?” https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p040/c04018/chapter18.pdf.

Me to RN2: If you can distinguish between East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans, you have identified two distinct races. I have glanced at the article you referenced and will review it in more detail when time permits. It seems like a covert evolutionist article claiming to be a creation document by doing the impossible with genetics. If all mankind descended from Noah and his family, then evolution is proven. A tribe or nation (nationality) has a common ancestral origin, which makes them monoracial (of the same people group) and are not hybrids. Moreover, skin color is a minor racial characteristic. An albino East Asian can be easily distinguished from an albino Sub-Saharan African, although they have the same skin color. The authors of the paper prefer “people group” to “race”; I prefer species, which is a much more accurate term. Here are two articles that show that most fundamental Christians are covert evolutionists: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/05/fundamental-christians-and-evolution.html and https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2019/11/christians-and-creationism.html. Moreover, if races do not exist, why does God prohibit mongrels, mixed breeds, or multiracial people in his assembly https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2017/05/commentary-on-deuteronomy-232.html. However, I doubt that you will read or even look at this article and the previous ones that I linked. In closing, I quote Jeremiah, who declared the immutability of the races (species) of man when he said, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). The implication is no. Thus, Jeremiah testifies that fundamental Christians err when they maintain that all the species of man descended from Adam and Eve or from Noah through his sons and their wives.

RN2 to Me: No, I have not identified two distinct races. I have identified two groups of people, each with common characteristics resulting from many generations of environmental adaptations and mutations, not different creations of God. All are descended from one. Not evolution (one kind becoming another). Not separate creations. Descendants. “And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; ‘Species,’ the term you prefer over ‘people groups,’ nations and tribes, is a 14th Century invention by evolutionists. It cannot more accurately describe that which existed thousands of years before it.

God does not prohibit ‘mongrels’ from His assembly. “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” A better question would have been, “Why did God make the prohibitions of Deut. 23?” Not because they were a different creation. Not because they evolved from animals. Not because they were a different ‘species.’ Not because of the color of their skin. He prohibited them because they were pagans, worshipers of false Gods, workers of evil. He prohibited them so Israel would not be destroyed. He prohibited them for the same reason he prohibited Israelites from marrying foreign nationals from cultures of evil. Even then, God allowed some that were converted.

Why doubt that I read the articles you linked when you could simply ask? Because you did not read the article I linked? Because you cannot convert me and initiate me into the evolutionist cult? Yes, I read them, and they don’t hide their Aryan “master race” scripture twisting ideologies. They make false claims such as, “They imply, if not outright claim, that the blood of the races of humans is identical. Thus, races cannot be distinguished by blood.” No, they don’t. They do not imply or claim there are ‘races,’ rather nations and tribal groups. They do not imply or claim the blood of people groups are identical. This is explained in the article I linked that you did not read. They do not imply or claim that ethnicity groups cannot be distinguished by blood (also explained).

You “closed” by partially quoting Jeremiah who did NOT declare “the immutability of the races (or species — a term loved by Darwin and invented thousands of years after God spoke to Jeremiah). The full quote is “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.” This in no way indicates that skin can not change over time and through generations. In fact, we know that skin can change with environmental factors, and can actually change quite abruptly with conditions doctors call “vitiligo.” What the Lord is saying is that the evil people of Judah have ignored God’s words for so long and are so accustomed to doing evil, that changing their hearts is as likely as the heavily pigmented Ethiopian changing his own skin or a leopard changing its spots — so unlikely He will destroy them.

So, now I will close by saying, you and I have a different belief system. Neither you nor I will change our hearts. Evolution is pseudo-science. There are no races, and the only master is the Messiah.

Me to RN2: As interesting as it is, I must close this discussion. After decades of studying this issue, I am convinced that I am correct, and you are not going to change my mind. Moreover, I am not going to correct your errors. Anyway, I congratulate you for not resorting to name-calling, as many commenters do when they cannot counter an argument. By the way, you believe that I am an evolutionist; I am more of a creationists than you are since I credit God with creating the races of humans (which your article calls people groups), and you resort to evolutionary methods. Further, I do not believe in a master race.

RN2 to Me: I thought you had already closed. “In closing, I quote Jeremiah,...” Perhaps, you meant only to close your prior comment. If so, fair enough.

I am not sure why you insist on making projections toward me. First, you doubted I would read your links, when in fact I already had. Second, you state as fact that I believe you are an evolutionist — ignoring my very first comment. I do NOT believe you are an evolutionist. You said you are not. I know you are not. I believe TC Allen is manipulating words to convolute what is obvious to “creationists,” just as you believe the author and contributors of Chapter 18 of Creation Answers Book 8th Edition is (not to be confused with “The Creation Answer Book,” by creation and biblical apologist Hank Hanegraaff).

“Only one kind of man is created in God’s image” is indicative of a master kind, or ‘race’ and ‘species’ as you prefer. TC Allen states that whites [only] are created in God’s image and have dominion over the earth, which would include the other supposed ‘races’ and ‘species’ of man. If these beliefs are not a belief in a master ‘race,’ I do not know what is.

“After decades of studying this issue, I am convinced that I am correct, and you are not going to change my mind.” Sound like Jeremiah 13:23? Keep an open mind, Me. Everyone can be deceived. Even the apostles and others who literally walked the earth with Messiah have been deceived. Don’t place all of your trust in TC Allen’s writings. I don’t place all of mine in the people at Creation Ministries International.

God bless and keep you. I’m out. The final word is yours.

Part 1: Main Article.

More social articles.

Do Human Races Exist? –Main Article

Do Human Races Exist?

Thomas Allen

Do human races exist? I discussed this issue in comments to two different articles. First, I discussed it with RN1 in comments to an article in “We Love Trump Report”: “Boston Mayor Defends Sending Out Invitations For Segregated Holiday Party” by Russell Bartlett at https://wltreport.com/2023/12/14/boston-mayor-defends-sending-invitations-segregated-holiday-party/. Second, I discussed it with RN2 in comments to an article in The New American: “Burundi’s President Calls for Public Execution of Homosexuals”  by Angeline Tan January 2, 2024, at https://thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/burundis-president-calls-for-public-execution-of-homosexuals/#comment-6359761180. I have changed the pseudonyms of the commenters to protect the guilty. The discussions are in the appendices.

If human races do not exist, how can racial discrimination occur? How can a nonexistent race discriminate against a nonexistent race? Further, if races do not exist, then White supremacy and White privileges cannot exist because the White race does not exist. Yet, progressives and liberals who are the most adamant in the notion that races do not exist are the most vociferous at decrying White supremacy and White privilege.

Most progressives and liberals claim that the various human races are social constructs and do not exist genetically. Many conservatives, such as RN1 and RN2, act as though they agree with them. Conservatives do so by asserting that only one race, the human race, exists; races are merely artificial constructs created by evolutionists. Most proponents of the racial social construct theory are racial nihilists, who believe that human races do not exist or if they do, they are irrelevant. 

According to the racial social construct theory, genetics does not determine a person’s race; societies’ arbitrary choice and selection determine it. Consequently, if races are social constructs, then merely abolishing the White racial construct can abolish White privileges and White supremacy.

The best answer that racial nihilists, like RN1 and RN2,  can give to the question of racial discrimination is that the races exist as social constructs, and, therefore, they and their names are fluid and can change at a whim. (In a limited sense, this is true of everything in nature. The names of everything in the universe can and do change from one culture to another and from one era to another. However, the substance or essence of the thing whose name is changed remains the same.) However, contrary to their belief, the genetics of the races is fixed and cannot change — unless the theory of evolution is correct.

Moreover, many White conservatives, like RN1 and RN2, pride themselves on denying the existence of races or at least not noticing a person’s race. They declare that only one race exists: the human race. Are these conservatives ignorant, stupid, liars, or self-deceivers? Even the nonwhites whom these conservatives seem to be trying to placate openly admit the existence of genetic races. These conservatives are racial nihilists who are practicing the new morality of sacrificing their own race, the White race (a.k.a. Aryan, Adamite, or Homo albus), on the altar of humanity. (See "Old Morality – New Morality” by Thomas Allen.)

Although racial nihilists, most of whom are Whites, claim that human races do not exist, nearly all nonwhites claim that they do exist. Thus, nonwhites show more intelligence and honesty concerning race than do White racial nihilists. (See “Views on Race” by Thomas Allen.)

People who assert that only one race exists are calling Moses and God liars. God  through Moses declares in Deuteronomy 23:2, “No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh.” (See “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2” by Thomas Allen.) If only one race exists, mongrels cannot exist. Since, according to the Bible, mongrels exist, then more than one race must exist.

Also, Jeremiah writes, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). (See "Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race" by Thomas Allen.) The implication is that a leopard cannot change its spots. God created the leopard the way it is; genetics fixes its appearance, character, temperament, etc. Likewise, the Ethiopian cannot change his skin. That is, when God created the Melanochroi and the other races, he genetically fixed their physical appearances and genetically influenced their intelligence, character, temperament, etc. Therefore, the racial characteristics of the human races are fixed and cannot change. They are immutable because God fixed them when he created the races. (Although both RN1 and RN2 give God the credit for creating man, they do not give Him credit for creating the various human races. Instead, they resort to Darwinism, although they deny that they are doing so.)

Nearly all race deniers like RN1 and RN2 confuse race, which is genetic, with ethnicity, which is cultural. Almost everyone can distinguish between a Norwegian and a Swede, who are Aryans (Whites) of the Nordic racial type, on the one hand, and a Zulu and a Tswana, who are Negroes (Blacks) of the Bantu racial type, on the other hand. Anyone who claims that he cannot tell the difference is either brain-dead or a liar. However, almost no one can distinguish between Norwegians and Swedes based on physical appearance. Likewise, almost no one can distinguish between Zulus and Tswana based on physical appearance. Norwegians and Swedes are ethnicities of the Aryan race, and Zulus and Tswana are ethnicities of the Negro race. Thus, races and ethnicities are not the same. Ethnicities are subdivisions of a race and are based on culture. (See “Some Comments on Race and Ethnicity” by Thomas Allen for further explanation of the differences between race and ethnicity.) 

Furthermore, a person’s race can be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his skeleton (see “Skeleton Differences of Human Races” by Thomas Allen). Moreover, a person’s race can also be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen). Also, races differ significantly in nonphysical characteristics (see "Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen).

Human races are as genetically fixed as are human sexes. (Nevertheless, human races [species] can crossbreed and produce hybrids, as can some species of Canis [the dog, wolf, coyote, and jackal] and Bos [the gaur and the gayal, the American bison and the yak, the American bison and the wisent, the American bison and the domestic cattle, and the wisent and domestic cattle].) Although RN1 and RN2 recognize some of the genetic differences between the races, they reject the existence of the human races.

Moreover, RN1 and RN2 and people like them claim that human races do not exist because the Bible does not specifically use “race” in the biological sense. If they are consistent, they would argue that fungi and bacteria do not exist because the Bible does not mention them. Yet, these people accept the existence of fungi and bacteria. Many things exist that the Bible does not mention. Because the Bible does not mention “race” does not mean that human races do not exist.

Both RN1 and RN2 are racial nihilists and consider themselves conservatives. While denying that human races exist, they claim that they can distinguish between the human races.

RN2 displaces far more intelligence than does RN1. RN1 can only repeat catchphrases that he has heard or been taught. He believes that only one race, the human race, exists. He shows little understanding of why he believes that human races do not exist other than he has been told that they do not exist. 

At least, RN2 can explain why he believes that human races do not exist. Although he is wrong, he can offer a plausible argument for his belief.

RN1 criticizes Mayor Wu of Boston for not inviting Whites to her party. Then, he has the audacity to declare that “we’re all the same race. The Human race.” If we are all of the same race, then her party could not have been racially segregated, as RN1 and the article assert. How could she apologize to Whites if Whites do not exist? Likewise, like most people of his kind, RN1 confuses race, which is genetic, with ethnicity, which is cultural.

RN2 rejects the notion that God created the human races. According to him, Darwinian principles, such as mutation, natural selection, and adaptation, explain the origin of the various human races. Although he denies that he is an evolutionist, he uses evolutionist principles. Furthermore, he claims that evolutionists created biological classification. Yet, the first known classifier was Adam, who named the animals. Moreover, modern-day biological classification preceded Darwin’s theory of evolution by about a century. 

Although RN2 states that the principle of “each after its kind” is correct, he implies that it does not apply to humans. If true, we should see East Asians producing Negroes regularly. Despite asserting that human races do not exist, he claims that he can distinguish between East Asians and Negroes.

Like many Christian “creationists” who use evolutionary principles to explain the origins of human races, RN2 prefers using “people groups” instead of “race.” Many evolutionists prefer “geographical populations” instead of “race.” 

Moreover, he errs when he states that “species” is a term that evolutionists invented in the fourteenth century. Since the theory of evolution came into being in the nineteenth century, evolutionists could not have invented a term that came into being four hundred years earlier.

Also, when RN2 asserts that God does not prohibit mongrels in His assembly, he errs. As quoted above, Deuteronomy 23:2 clearly states that God does not allow mongrels in His assembly. RN2 claims that this verse means that pagans are not allowed in God’s assembly. Thus, he translates the Hebrew word for “mongrel” as “pagan.” He is the only person whom I have encountered who gives such a translation. Most others erroneously translate the Hebrew word for “mongrel” as a person of “illegitimate birth,” “illicit birth,” “illegitimate or unlawful marriage,” “forbidden marriage,” “born out of wedlock,” or a similar phrase.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2: Appendices.

More social issues articles.

Was Paul an Evolutionist?

Was Paul an Evolutionist?

Thomas Allen

    If creationists who claim that Adam and Eve are the parents of all the various kinds (races, species) of humans are correct, then Paul is an evolutionist, a Darwinist. In 1 Corinthians 15:39, he writes, “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.” These so-called creationists interpret “one flesh of men” to mean that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah and his family.
    First, let us see what some commentators have to say about this verse. In A Commentary on the Holy Bible (1939), J.R. Dummelow, editor, writes, “There are many different forms of animal life; so there may be of human life.” Thus, because many different species of animals exist, so may several species of men exist.
    Everett Harrison, editor, suggests in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1962) that this verse and those following indicate that a believer’s race will be identifiable in his resurrected body. Moreover, based on Harrison’s comment on this verse, one could support Paul being either an evolutionist or a creationist. He comments, “In the light of the theory of evolution, this is an interesting statement [,i.e., ‘All flesh is not the same flesh’].” Paul could be suggesting that each flesh (kind, species) initially came into being independently of all other flesh. This is creationism and is most likely what Paul intended. Conversely, he could be suggesting that all flesh came from one flesh, which is evolution, Darwinism.
    In One Volume New Testament Commentary, C.B.S. writes, “There are different varieties and forms of bodily life.” Thus, he implies that different forms (kinds, species) of men exist. Likewise, Beet writes, “. . . the immense variety, and variety of kinds, of living bodies.” Consequently, there are several kinds of humans.
    With the possible exception of Harrison, these commentators in their commentary on this verse neither support nor reject evolution or creationism. They merely note that a large number of kinds of animals exist. So, by implication, several kinds of humans exist.
    If all human kinds have one common pair of parents, then, according to Paul, all beasts have one common pair of parents. Therefore, all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are descendants of one pair of parents. How does a frog turn into a mouse if an evolutionary process is not involved? Likewise, the same is true of birds and fishes; they are descendant from a common pair of parent birds or parent fishes.
    Creationists cannot have it both ways. If different kinds (fleshes) of beasts have different initial parents, then different kinds (fleshes) of humans have different initial parents. If “one flesh of men” means that all humans have a common initial pair of parents, then “another flesh of beasts” means that all beasts have a common initial pair of parents. That is, all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are descended from the same initial parents. Likewise, so are the various kinds of birds and fishes descended from the same initial parents respectively. Evolution means different kinds descending from common initial parents. Thus, if all kinds of human descended from Adam and Eve, evolution is proven.
    Monogenism, which is what the Church has traditionally taught, supports evolution, Darwinism. According to monogenism, all human kinds (races, species) descended from a common pair of parents, Adam and Eve. Polygenism supports creationism. According to polygenism, each human kind descended from a different, unique pair of parents. Thus, if creationism is true, Adam and Eve are the parents of only one human kind. If (theistic) evolution is true, then Adam and Eve are the parents of all human kinds.
    Biblical creationism is described as “after its kind.” Polygenists claim that each flesh (kind) of beast and each flesh (kind) of man has its own initial pair of parents (flesh) and, thus, is after its flesh (kind). Therefore, creationism is polygenism.
    On the other hand, monogenists claim that all flesh (kind) of beasts comes from the same initial flesh (kind) and all flesh (kind) of men comes from the same initial flesh (kind). Therefore, monogenism is evolution, i.e., Darwinism. If the monogenistic claim that all human kinds descended from Adam and Eve is correct, evolution is proven.
    In The Disaster Darwinism Brought to Humanity, Harun Yahya, a Muslim,  argues that Darwinism is responsible for Social Darwinism, communism, fascism, Nazism, Marxism (from which come fascism and Nazism), two world wars, and many other evils of the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century. It is also responsible for colonialism, imperialism (Islamic imperialism existed long before Christian imperialism or Darwin’s birth), the prohibition against interracial marriages (although interracial breeding is a form of genocide), segregation (although segregation preserves the integrity of the races whereas integration genocides them), and eugenics. Moreover, although capitalism has been retreating since World War I, Darwinism is responsible for the advancement of capitalism (because of the stereotypical criticism of capitalism: individualism, competition, and profit-making and because it is void of charity and cooperation, or as Marx asserts, because capitalism is a vital, energetic, productive engine, yet it is egoistic, individualist, and rights-obsessed, which makes it morally evil.) Nevertheless, Yahya acknowledges that these evils existed before Darwin, but Darwin gave them a scientific veneer to justify them and make them more acceptable. If Darwinism is guilty of these evils, then the Church is just as guilty, if not more so, than Darwin. With its monogenistic teachings, it was preaching Darwinism centuries before Darwin was born. Likewise, Islam with its monogenistic doctrine is also guilty.
    When Paul writes, “there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts,” etc., does he mean that all human kinds have a common initial pair of parents and all beast kinds have a common initial pair of parents? If so, he is a monogenist and an evolutionist. However, if he means that each human kind has a different initial pair of parents and each beast kind has a different initial pair of parents, then he is a polygenist and is not an evolutionist.
    Of course, the argument depends on what is a “kind.” Is a kind a class, order, family, species, or subspecies? Some creationist evolutionists, to use an oxymoron, start with the family; that is, they identify a kind as a family. For example, all species of the cat family are decedents of an initial pair of felines, i.e., a feline kind. Obviously, evolution is involved if all species of cats are descended from a common ancestor. If these creationist evolutionists are correct, then evolution, Darwinism, is proven. The disagreement between creationist evolutionists and secular evolutionists is the starting point and the time required for one species or kind to evolve into another. What secular evolutionists claim that takes millions of years to achieve, creationist evolutionists claim that it takes only a few generations. If kind is not equivalent to a species, or even a subspecies (many of which used to be a species in their own right), then Darwinism becomes necessary, and evolution is proven.
    Does only one human kind exist or do several kinds or species of humans exist? If taxonomists had followed the techniques used to identify species of animals for identifying species of humans, they would have identified several species of humans (and some did identify several human species). However, because of centuries of Catholic monogenic indoctrination that all human kinds descended from Adam and Eve, all human kinds were lumped into one species. (Now, political correctness has replaced Catholic indoctrination. However, with the disdain and hatred of the White race, even by Whites, one wonders why the White race is not classified as a different human species or even a different genus to prevent it from contaminating and degrading the other human races.)
    Today, the primary technique used to identify a species is the ability to produce fertile offspring. As a result, many former species have been lumped together as one species. Because of using this criterion as the almost sole criterion for identifying a species, many former species of the genus Canis have been lumped together. However, taxonomists are not consistent is using the criterion of fertile offspring. Obviously, it is not used for extinct species. Moreover, have entomologists tried interbreeding all species of ants to see if they are really distinct species or mere subspecies of the same species? The ability to produce fertile offspring should be only one of several criteria used to determine a species — and then used more for exclusion than inclusion.
    (For a more detail discussion of polygenism verses monogenism and the classification of human kinds into several species, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis and Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man, both by Thomas Allen.)
    Is Paul an evolutionist? “Flesh of beasts” parallels “flesh of men.” Therefore, Paul must have meant the same thing by both phrases. Thus, if Paul means that all kinds of men descended from a common ancestor, then he would have meant that all kinds of beasts descended from a common ancestor. Consequently, he is an evolutionist. However, if by “flesh of” he does not mean descent from a common ancestor, then he does not mean that all human kinds and all beast kinds descended from a common ancestor, i.e., each human kind, race, species, and each beast kind, species, and many subspecies have a different initial ancestor.  Thus, he is not an evolutionist but is a creationist.
    Dr. Pye Smith, who was a Christian philosopher and a proponent of all human kinds descending from a common pair of parents, wrote,

If the two first inhabitants of Eden were the progenitors, not of all human beings, but only of the race whence sprang the Hebrew family, still it would remain the fact, that all were formed by the immediate power of God, and all these circumstances, stated or implied in the Scriptures, would remain the same as to moral and practical purposes. Adam would be a “figure of Him that is to come,” the Saviour of mankind; just as Melchizedek, or Moses, or Aaron, or David: the spiritual lesson would be the same. The sinful character of all the tribes of men, and the individuals composing them, would remain determined by the most abundant and painfully demonstrated proofs, in the history of all times and nations. The way and manner in which moral corruption has thus infected all men, under their several heads of primeval ancestry, would be an inscrutable mystery, which it is now, but the need of divine mercy, and the duty to seek it, would be the same; the same necessity would exist of a Saviour, a redemption, and a renovation of the internal character by efficacious grace. That the Saviour was, in his human nature, a descendant of Adam, would not militate against his being a proper Redeemer for all races of mankind, any more than his being a descendant of Abraham, Judah, and David, at all diminishes his perfection to save us “sinners of the Gentiles.” (Geology and Scripture, p. 357, Bohn's ed. 1854.)

    Thus, just as Melchizedek, Moses, Aaron, and David were figures of the Christ, who would come as the Savior of humanity, so was Adam. Adam did not have to be the ancestor of all man kinds for them to be saved.  Thus, each kind of human having a different initial pair of parents does not diminish the salvific work of Christ — unless the Israelite-identity folks are correct. (If descent from Adam is necessary for salvation, then descent from Abraham through Jacob is also necessary as the Israelite-identity folks claim. According to Israelite-identity folks, only Israelites, descendants of Jacob, can be saved. Therefore, whether all are descendants of Adam is irrelevant. Only descend from Jacob matters. Without a reliable genealogy, how does one know that he is a descendant, much less a pure descendant with no admixture of non-Israelite Adamites, Aryans, of Jacob? [Non-Israelite Aryans and Israelites are biologically the same.] Most Aryans, like Negroes, Turanians, Melanochroi, Khoisans, and Indo-Australians, cannot be saved because they are not descendants of Jacob, or at least not pure descendants.)
      Either God created each kind, race, species, of men or they evolved from a common ancestry, which is evolution, Darwinism. If the races did not evolve and God did create them, then all good Christians (and presumably good Muslims) should oppose everything that leads to their demise or destruction, including interracial mating. Otherwise, if God did not create them independently, then Darwinism and all the evils that Yahya attaches to it, including genocide, should not matter.
    If God created each race of men independently, then genocide matters. However, if the races of men evolved, then genocide per se does not matter as genocide leads to the survival of the fittest. Unfortunately, most Americans are evolutionists and do not oppose genocide per se. However, they do oppose some forms of genocide while finding other forms acceptable — only the type of genocide may matter. At least 98 to 99 percent of Americans do agree on one thing — be they liberal or conservative, progressive or libertarian, left-wing or right-wing, communist or laissez-faire capitalist, Republican or Democrat, pro-Trump or anti-Trump, pro-Clinton/Obama or anti-Clinton/Obama, globalist or nationalist, Christian or atheist, Jew or Muslim, religious or nonreligious, White or Black, or Yellow or Brown. They all agree that one form of genocide is perfectly acceptable. This form of genocide is interracial mating: breeding the races out of existence. Thus, this proves that most Americans, even most Christians who claim to be creationists, are Darwinists. (Most Americans object vigorously to the genocide of the North American Indians by disease, starvation, and mass killing. However, few Americans show any concern about breeding the North American Indian out of existence. This form of genocide has been much more effective than other forms.)
    Since a key law of evolution is survival of the fittest, no evolutionist should have any objection to genocide whatever its form. Genocide is nothing more than the application of the law of the survival of the fittest.
    Would Paul have condoned or condemned genocide in the form of interracial mating? If he were a creationist, he would surely have condemned it.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

The Soul

The Soul

Thomas Allen

Is the human soul immortal or mortal? Does the soul continue to exist consciously after the body dies? Or, does it die when the body dies?

There are two views of the nature of man. One is the dualistic view, which is the popular Christian view and the pagan view. The other is the holistic view, which is the Hebrew and Biblical view.

Greek, Egyptian, and other pagan philosophers claim that the soul is immortal and continuous a conscious existence after the body dies. According to the pagan Greeks, the soul is trapped in a material body. When the body dies, the soul is liberated and continuous a conscious existence elsewhere because the soul is immortal and, therefore, indestructible. Consequently, a person cannot really die; he merely transitions to another form. Death is merely the separation of the soul and the body.

The Hebrews claim that the soul is mortal and dies with the body — that is, its conscious existence ends with the death of the body. Since the soul animates the body, it dies (ceases to have consciousness) when the body dies; it not a distinct substance. When the body dies, the soul ceases its function of the animating life-principle of the body, and, therefore, it also dies. Furthermore, according to the Hebrews, the soul and body are an indissoluble unit. Moreover, man does not have a soul; he is a soul.

While the pagans teach a dualistic nature of man (the soul is immortal and the body is mortal), the Hebrews in the Old Testament teach a holistic view (both the soul and body are mortal). The pagan view asserts that the body, which is mortal, and the soul, which is immortal, are two different substances that coexist within one human being. Nevertheless, they are two characteristics of the same person. Thus, human nature consists of two entities (a body and a soul) that function independently — the dualistic view of man.

Contrasting with the pagan idea is the Hebrew. The Hebrew idea is that of an animated body, and the soul animates the body. When one dies, the other also dies. Both the body and the soul are mortal. Consequently, human nature is an indissoluble unity where the body and soul are different aspects of the same person — the holistic view of man.

For the Hebrews of the Old Testament and the early Christians of the New Testament, immortality is a gift from God given at the resurrection. Immortality is not an innate human possession as the pagans and orthodox Christians teach.

Tertullian and Origen introduce the Greek notion of an immoral soul into Christianity. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas expounded this pagan dualistic view of human nature. Consequently, the pagan dualistic concept of man became the orthodox Christian doctrine.

During the Reformation, Calvin, Luther, and most other Protestant leaders maintained that the soul was immortal. According to Calvin and Augustine, when the body dies, the souls of believers enjoy blessings in heaven while the souls of unbelievers suffer torments in hell. (However, the Anabaptists preached the Hebrew holistic concept of the soul, i.e., the soul is mortal and ceases conscious existence when the body dies.)

Adherents of the pagan dualistic nature of man believe that death is the separation of the immortal soul from the mortal body. At the resurrection, the immortal soul is reunited with the body. Today, most Christians believe in this dualistic doctrine.

Conversely, adherents of the Hebrew holistic nature of man believe the soul like the body is mortal and, therefore, dies with the body. At the resurrection, the whole person, body and soul, is resurrected.

What Is the Soul?

What is the soul? The soul is the life-giving force; it is man’s consciousness and awareness. Consequently, the soul is that part of a being that interprets the outside world through the senses. It interprets what one sees, hears, tastes, smells, and feels. Therefore, the soul and not the brain is what sees, hears, tastes, smells, and feels. It is what perceives and evaluates. (Further, the soul is what gives all living creatures their life, consciousness, and awareness.  Consequently, all animals, plants, fungi, protists, and monerans have souls.)

Moreover, the soul is the seat of one’s emotions, personality, intellect, and memory. As such, it is what makes a human being human. It is that part of a person that believes, decides, reasons, judges, rejoices, sorrows, loves, hates, doubts, and the like. Furthermore, from the soul come man’s moral and religious attributes.

The soul is the mind as opposed to the brain. (Some theologians claim that the spirit of man is the mind instead of the soul. [See the last paragraph for a discussion on the spirit of man.]) Through the soul does a person perceive and understand the material world. However, the soul does not reside in the brain and has no corporal nature. On the contrary, the soul is distinct from and independent of the brain.

Although signals received from the senses are analyzed in the brain, the soul is what understands and gives this information meaning and significance. The brain merely serves as a vehicle delivering information to the soul. The soul observes and interprets the information formed in the brain.

The existence of the soul refutes materialism, and, therefore, it repudiates Darwinism and evolution. Materialists believe that the movement of chemicals in the brain controls a person’s thoughts, emotions, and actions. Blind, unconscious atoms and electrical signals cannot be the source of awareness, perception, thought, beliefs, emotions, and the like.

Some theologians distinguish between the soul of man and the spirit of man. For these theologians, the soul of man is identified with the secular exercise of an individual. The spirit of man is that part of human nature that allies with God. Also, some identify the spirit of man as what makes man a rational being. However, many treat the soul and the spirit as two names for the same entity. This article does not distinguish between the two.

Reference

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. Popular Beliefs: Are They Biblical? Berrien Springs Michigan: Biblical Perspectives, 2008.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1944.

Douglas, J.D. et al., editors. The New Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Jacobus, Melanchthon W., Edward E. Norse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. A New Standard Bible Dictionary. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Martin, William C. The Layman’s Bible Encyclopedia. Nashville, Tennessee: The Southwest Company, 1964.

Tenney, Merrill C., editor. The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967.

Yahya, Harun (Adnan Oktar). Darwin’s Dilemma the Soul. First English edition. Editor Tam Mossman. Translator Carl Nino Rossini. Istanbul, Turkey: Global Publishing, 2008.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

 

Biblical Inerrancy

Biblical Inerrancy

Thomas Allen

While some people claim that the Bible contains errors, others claim that it is error-free. Although “liberal” clergymen argue that the Bible contains errors, “conservative” clergymen argue that it does not contain any errors. This article discusses the inerrancy view of the conservative clergymen, who range from extreme literalists to adherents of broad inerrancy.

The original autographs, original manuscripts of each book of the Bible, are without error. Nevertheless, copies of the autographs have errors. However, textual critics have mostly eliminated these errors and have reconstructed the text such that it approximates the original with a high degree of accuracy.

Many proponents of the inerrancy of the Bible tend to be extreme literalists. They believe that wherever the Bible mentions history, science, geography, mathematics, etc., it is absolutely correct and without error. However, most do not go as far as considering Jesus running around heaven as a lamb as he is described in Revelation. They consider such a description as a figure of speech, a metaphor.

Yet, most extreme literalists condemn adherents of broad inerrancy for resorting to figures of speech to explain away confusing, apparently contradictory, or apparently illogical passages. (A figure of speech is an expression in which words are used in a nonliteral sense, such as simile, metaphor, personification, allegory, and  hyperbole. Figures of speech fill poetry and apocalypse.) They tend to pooh-pooh figure-of-speech arguments. Nevertheless, most of the extreme literalists resort to the figure-of-speech argument to explain away Biblical conflicts with current science — although a literal understanding of the Bible does not conflict with the science of the day that the original autograph was written. For example, in 1 Kings 7:23, the Bible states that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is three instead of 3.14 . . . . (Here, the Bible uses round numbers instead of exact numbers.) Another example is that the Bible describes the earth as geocentric, flat, immovable, and supported by columns. (Here, the Bible is using poetic language to describe the earth from the viewpoint of a person standing on the earth.) However, these explanations are in the realm of broad inerrancy and not in the realm of extreme literalist inerrancy.

Another disagreement that extreme literalists have with adherents of broad inerrancy is the writing-style explanation that adherents of broad inerrancy use. Extreme literalists claim that the writers of the Bible used the same writing style that today’s great nonfiction writers use. They wrote with exactness, precision, and accuracy instead of the way that good novelists often write — who at times sacrifice accuracy and precision with poignancy to better express a truth. According to the extreme literalists, none were like the great novelists who mix fiction with facts to express a truth clearer and better than facts alone would have expressed it. Instead, they were all like good reporters who only reported the facts with no hyperbole, no interpretation, no opinions, and minimum figures of speech.

Nevertheless, most extreme literalists do recognize parables as nonfactual stories used to express a truth. However, if a parable uses a person's name, it ceases being a nonfactual story and becomes a statement of fact — as though Jesus was incapable of varying his parables.

Also, extreme literalists object to placing words in the mouths of people who did not actually say those words, as ancient writers often did. Moreover, they seem to believe that when several writers are writing about the same event, all of them saw that event from the same perspective, which was seldom the case.

Although the original autographs are without errors, copies and translations are not. Translators have to choose among various texts, such as Textus Receptus, Westcott & Hort, Majority Text, Masoretic text, and Septuagint.

For example, some translators use the Greek text for John 6:47 that contains “on me”: “. . .  He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” Others use the Greek text that lacks “on me”: “. . . He that believeth hath eternal life.” (The former is from the King James Version, and the latter is from the American Standard Version.) Thus, the first identifies where one’s faith has to be applied to have everlasting life. According to the second, any faith guarantees everlasting life.

Another example that the choice of the Greek text affects meaning is Acts 17:26. Most translations like the King James use the Greek text that contains the word “blood”: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men. . . .” However, a few translations like the American Standard use the Greek text that omits the word “blood”: “and he made of one every nation of men. . . .” While the first supports the doctrine of the unity of man and therefore evolution, the latter does not. (For another example how a choice text can give a different impression, see “Did Jesus Lie?" by Thomas Allen.)

Moreover, when translating from Hebrew or Greek to English, translators often have a choice of words. For example, in Chapter 1 of Genesis, the Hebrew word that is commonly translated as “day” may also be translated as “age,” as Ferrar Fenton translates it. Having Genesis 1 referring to seven days gives a completely different impression than referring to seven ages.

Another example is Genesis 7:19-24. Since the King James Version describes the Noachian Flood covering the earth, most people interpret this to mean that the Flood covered the entire planet. However, the Hebrew word that the King James and other versions translate as “earth” other translations translate as “land,” “country,” or “ground.” The latter translations give the impression that the Flood was not global.

Matthew 24:3 is another example. The Greek word that the King James translates as “world” most modern translations translate as “age”: Instead of the world ending, the age ends.

In Matthew 2:11, the Greek word that the King James and other translations translate as “worshiped” some translators translate as “paid homage,” which gives a different impression. (For another example how the choice of a word can change the meaning of a text, see “Commentary on John 3:36" by Thomas Allen.)

Ferrar Fenton’s Trinitarian bias shows itself in his translation of John 1:14: “And the WORD became incarnate, and encamped among us — and we gazed upon His majesty, such majesty as that of a Father's only Son — full of beneficence and truth.” As far as I know, he is the only translator that uses “incarnate.” All other translations are similar to the King James: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

An example of deliberate mistranslation is the New King James Version’s translation of Chapter 10 of Ezra. It mistranslates this chapter to thwart its use as a proof text that God prohibits miscegenation. In Chapter 10 of Ezra, the Hebrew word that nearly all other versions translate as “foreign” (the King James uses “stranger”), the New King James translates as “pagan.” According to the New King James, the men sent their wives away because of religion: The woman worshiped false gods instead of or in addition to Yahweh. However, the man stayed even if they worshiped false gods. According to the other versions, the men sent the women away because of their race and regardless of their religion. Their race was the issue and not their religion. (In Chapter 10, the Hebrew word translated as “foreigner” refers to people of another race — see “Stranger in the Old Testament” by Thomas Allen). Consequently, the New King James creates a hypocritical double standard. Female idolists are sent away, but male idolists are not. Many of the men were practicing a false religion or else they would not have married women of a different race, because Yahweh prohibits interracial marriages (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen). Thus, the two different translations give entirely different impressions. For one, the separation is because of religion; for the other, it is because of race.

The Bible is error-free. However, people’s understanding is flawed, and the biases of the translators have only added to this problem. Besides, God must receive a good deal of joy watching people argue and even kill each other about what His word means, or else He would have had it written and translated with much greater clarity.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Fundamental Christians and Evolution

Fundamental Christians and Evolution

Thomas Allen

Fundamental Christians attack evolution, Darwinism, as a false science. Then, with a few exceptions, these same fundamental Christians resort to Darwinism to explain the origins of the species (races) of man.

With rare exceptions, fundamental Christians are Darwinists, evolutionists. All have the various races descending from Adam and Eve. Since nearly all fundamental Christians believe that the Noachian Flood was global and killed all mankind except Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives, they believe that the species of man descended from Noah through his sons and their wives.

Consequently, like the Christian evolutionists, they ignore the biblical principle of according to its kind or after its kind, i.e., like begets like —at least so far as humans are concerned. Many believe in the fixity of every species except the human species. They reject Jeremiah’s teaching and believe that an Ethiopian can change his skin. Jeremiah declared the immutability of the races (species) of man when he said, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). The implication is no. Thus, Jeremiah testifies that fundamental Christians err when they maintain that all the species of man descended from Adam and Eve or from Noah through his sons and their wives.

According to the typical fundamental Christian, all the species of man descended from Noah’s sons and their wives. Nearly all of them hold that Noah’s sons were of the same race as Noah and his wife. Most seem to agree that Noah, his wife, and his sons were Aryans (Whites); nevertheless, whatever their race is, it is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

However, some fundamental Christians teach that Noah’s sons’ wives were of different races than their husbands. Many believe that Shem’s wife was an Aryan  (Homo albus) and Japheth’s wife was probably Aryan, although a few believe that she was a Turanian (Homo luridus). Most of this school contend that Ham’s wife was a Negro (Homo niger). Since the great sin that brought about the Noachian Flood was miscegenation (v. People of the Flood by Thomas Coley Allen, 2008), that Noah’s sons’ wives were of different races than their husbands is highly unlikely. However, if Noah’s daughters-in-law were of different races, then their races had to evolve sometime between Adam and Noah.

Most fundamental Christians believe that Noah, his wife, and his sons and their wives were of the same race. The typical fundamental Christian believes that the Aryan and probably Turanian came from Japheth. From Shem came the Hebrews, who are Aryans, and the true Arabs, who are Melanochroi (Homo brunus). The Negro came from Ham. Fundamental Christians are fuzzy about the origin of the Melanochroi — probably because nearly all of them fail to recognize this species. Usually, they lump the Melanochroi of Africa with the Negro. They lump the Melanochroi of the Middle East with either Shem, i.e. the Aryans, or the Negro of Africa. About the Melanochroi of India, nearly all of them are silent. As for the Khoisan (Homo khoisanii) and Indo-Australian (Homo australis) species, they usually lump them with the Negro.

Thus, fundamental Christians have a multitude of evolutionary occurrences. If Noah’s family are Negroes, then Ham’s family has bred true, if the Khoisans, Indo-Australians, and Melanochroi usually lumped with the Negro are ignored. Japheth’s descendants evolved into two species: the Aryan and the Turanian. Shem’s descendants also evolved into two species: the Aryan and Melanochroi.

However, if Noah’s family are Aryans, some of the descendants of Shem and Japheth have bred true; others have not. Ham’s descendants have not bred true; they have evolved into the Negro and probably the Khoisan and the Indo-Australian. Some of Japheth’s descendants have bred true as Aryans while others evolved into Turanians. Likewise, some of Shem’s descendants have bred true as Aryans while others evolved into Melanochroi. Why some of Japheth’s and Shem’s descendants remained Aryans and others evolved into other species is not explained.

If the fundamental Christians are correct about the origins of the species (races) of man, only a few generations are needed for one species to evolve into another species. If they are correct, why have no new species of man evolved in the last few centuries? Sufficient time has passed for new species to appear in the last thousand years, but they have not. Why have they not? Fundamental Christians do not explain. If the fundamental Christians are correct, new species (races) should be appearing frequently. (Racial crossing results in racial mongrels, hybrids, and not in new races.)

While fundamental Christians deplore evolution, they resort to it when it is needed to support their doctrine — although most would deny using evolutionary principles. Some may haggle over details, such as, they believe in microevolution, but reject macroevolution. (The difference between the two is the starting point and the time required for one species to change into another species. Microevolution usually starts at the family or genus level and requires only a few generations for one species to change into another species. Macroevolution starts with the first single-cell living entity and requires many generations for one species to change into another species. Both deny the immutability of a species, i.e., according to its kind or after its kind — like begets like. Consequently, they call Jeremiah a liar.) Thus, the fundamental Christian’s disagreement with the orthodox evolutionist is not one of principle, but the starting point and the time involved for a species to change to another species.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

A Response to “What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?”

 A Response to “What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?”

 Thomas Allen

    The following is a response to “What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?” by Ken Ham and Terry Mortenson, which appeared in Grace in Focus, September and October 2015, pages 17-23. The authors argue that the first chapter of Genesis should be understood literally. The Earth was created in six 24-hour days. It was created somewhere between 6000 and 12000 years ago. Also, the Noahic Flood was universal; it covered the whole planet. This Flood occurred around 2500 B.C. (My comments were neither replied to nor acknowledged.)
    If the description in Genesis 1 is literally true, then to be consistent everywhere else that the Bible describes the Earth or Universe must be literally true. Thus, we have a geocentric Earth where the Earth is flat, sitting on pillars, and where the sun, planets, and stars revolve around a fixed, stationary Earth.
    Based upon the following verse the Earth rested immovably at the center of the Universe. Because it was founded and fixed upon pillars, bases, and pedestals, the Earth could not possibly move. Moreover, the sun moves around the Earth instead of the Earth moving around the sun.
    1. Psalm 104:5 (“He founded the earth upon its bases, that it should not be moved for ever.”—alternative translation.)
    2. Psalm 24:2 (“For he hath founded it [the world] upon the seas, And established [or, fixed] it upon the floods [or, streams].”)
    3. Psalm 136:6 (“To him that spread forth the earth above the water. . . .”)
    4. Ecclesiastes 1:4, 5 (“One generation goeth, and another generation cometh; but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasten to its place where it ariseth.”)
    5. Psalm 19:5, 6 (“. . . [the Sun] rejoiceth as a strong man to run his course. His [the Sun’s] going forth is from the end of the heavens, And his circuit unto the ends of it [or, to their uttermost parts]. . . .”)
    6. Psalm 148:4 (“Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, And ye waters that are above the heavens.”)
    7. Psalm 104:2, 3 (. . . Who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain; Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the water. . . .”)
    Many Biblical passages describe the Earth as flat, supported by pillars, surrounded by water, and covered by a solid dome. A literal interpretation would lead one to believe that either the Bible is false, and therefore, not inspired, or the facts of science are false.
    The following verses depict the Earth as round and flat and supported on pillars:
    1. Job 9:6 (“That shaketh the earth out of its place, And the pillars thereof tremble.”)
    2. 1 Samuel 2:8 (“. . . For the pillars of the earth are Jehovah’s, And he hath set the world upon them.”)
    3. Psalm 104:5 (“Who laid the foundation of the earth [or, He founded the earth upon its bases], that it should not be moved for ever.”)
    The following verses depict the earth as covered by a solid dome of the firmament supported by mountain pillars:
    1. Job 26:11 (“The pillars of heaven tremble And are astonished at his rebuke.”)
    2. Job 37:18 (“Canst thou with him spread out the sky, Which is strong as a molten mirror?”)
    The following verses depict the earth as surrounded by water:
    1. Genesis 1:6, 7 (“And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.”)
    2. Genesis 7:11 (“. . . were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven opened.”)
    3. Genesis 8:2 (“the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped. . . .”)
    4. Psalm 24:2 (“For he hath founded it [the Earth] upon the seas, And established it upon the floods.”)
    5. Psalm 148:4 (“Praise him . . . ye waters that are above the heavens.)
    The following verse depicts the Sun, Moon, and stars as fixed or moving across the firmament:
    1. Psalm 19:4, 6 (“Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, . . . His going forth is from the end of the heavens, and his circuit unto the ends of it; and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.”)
    As these passages show the theory that the Earth is flat, supported by pillars, surrounded by water, and covered by a solid dome is easily supported by Scripture. The Bible supports this theory as well as, if not better than, the theory of creation in six 24-hour days, a universal flood, or Adam or Noah as the father of all races of men.
    Moreover, with rare exceptions, every six-day, and most other, creationists, whom I have encountered resort to evolution to explain the origins of the human races. These creationists do not call it evolution, but the description that they give is an evolutionary description, Darwinism. Most prefer the obfuscation of declaring that the races developed from another race instead of the more honest evolved from another race. Either God created the races, or they evolved. These creationists prefer evolution to giving God credit for the origins of the human races. The only real difference between creationist evolution and traditional evolution is that creationist evolution is accelerated (occurring over a few generations) while traditional evolution is gradual.
    Why did God have Noah bring onto the ark dinosaurs, giant mammals, and all other species that became extinct shortly after the Flood?
    Ham and Martinson write that God cannot lie. Yet He created a universe and earth that appear to be much older than a few thousand years. For example, according to universal-flood-six-day creationists, all fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks resulted from the Flood. If so, God has deceived (lied to) us with the apparent age of the Earth being much more than a few thousand years. There are igneous inclusions between fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks that are so massive that more than 100,000 years is required for them to cool.
    Moreover, God does not keep the promise that Jesus makes in Matthew 7:7: “Ask, and it shall be given you. . . .” Therefore, whatever one asks for, he should receive if God and the Bible mean what they say. Yet, cemeteries are full of unanswered prayers. Thus, theologians have developed all sorts of excuses for unanswered prayers, although Jesus tells us that we would receive whatever we ask for — there should be no unanswered prayers. When these excuses are applied to prayers for peace, they make God look like a bloodthirsty warmonger, and prayers for peace look like hypocrites who secretly lust for war. Thus, God is the God of war and not the God of peace as the Bible declares. Furthermore, excuses for unanswered prayers mean that one believes that the Bible should not be taken literally and that God does not mean what He says. Moreover, the truthfulness of the promise that Jesus makes in Matthews 7:7 can be tested in minutes. More often than not, this promise turns out to be a false promise — a lie! Or is the Bible written the way that a good shyster lawyer writes a contract: Grandiose promises made up front are voided by the fine print later. (If I am wrong, prove me wrong.) I suspect this unfilled promise has turned more people off from Christianity than the disputes between science and creation. (V. “Why Elijah Defeated the Baal Priests” for my commentary on prayer.)

More religious articles.

Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth -- Part 2

Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth -- Part 2

Thomas Allen

    Strata.[10] Moreover, the orderliness of the sedimentary strata testifies against a violent global flood. The strata are not homogeneous. They consist of successive layers that differ widely in their contents and character. They are not a jumbled confusion. Land animals are not found in the same strata as fishes. Neither are extinct species found with present species. They lie methodically, each in its own successive sedimentary deposition. If the fossil record was caused by a global flood, one would expect to encounter a jumble of animals: Land animals mixed with fishes; freshwater creatures mixed with saltwater creatures. The orderliness of the fossil record does not support a global flood.
    The thickness of the sedimentary strata ranges up to 10 miles or more. They give the appearance of gradual accumulation over a long time. Each stratum contains organic remains that differ from the previous strata.
    Grand Canyon.[11] The Grand Canyon argues against the young-earth-global-flood theory. According to this theory all the layers above the crystalline basement, the Vishnu Schist, formed as a result of the Flood. This theory also contends that each layer formed rapidly and was followed rapidly by another layer. By explaining the formation of a single layer, many young-earth creationists assume that they have explained the deposit of all the layers.
    According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, the Tapeats Sandstone is the first layer of the Grand Canyon deposited by the Flood. This sandstone shows ripple marks. Thus, the water causing the ripples must have been less than 5.5 feet per second (3.75 miles per hour). According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, the minimum velocity of the flood waters was 131 feet per second (89 miles per hour). Therefore, the Noachian Flood could not have formed the Tapeats Sandstone.
    Just above the Tapeats Sandstone is the Bright Angel Shale. This layer consists of alternating layers of sandstone and sandy limestone. According to conventional geology, a fluctuating dispositional environment with changing current speeds is needed for this type of formation. It results from the low water currents of a changing shoreline. According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, flood waters grew deeper at the beginning of the Flood; therefore, at this point of the Flood, fluctuating shorelines would not have occurred. Thus, the Noachian Flood could not have formed the Bright Angel Shale.
    The Temple Butte Limestone also presents a problem for the young-earth-global-flood theory. The eastern part of the limestone is composed of freshwater limestone. It contains fossil remains that belong only to freshwater fish. If the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct, freshwater should not have existed at this point of the Flood.
    Moreover, the young-earth-global-flooding theory cannot account for the Redwall Limestone. Limestone needs calm waters to form. The global-flood theory calls for turbulent flood waters. Also, this layer is up to 535 feet thick, which suggests an extremely long period of calm water.
    The Hermit Shale resulted from a swampy environment. It is soft and easily eroded. The young-earth-global-flood theory fails to predict a swamp on top of 2000 feet of sediment in the middle of the Flood. Above the Hermit Shale is another 2000 plus feet of sediment.
    Most of the other formations in the Grand Canyon also present problems for the young-earth-global-flood theory. Many of these formations suggest a shoreline environment of advancing and retreating water. They do not suggest steadily increasing water depths as the young-earth-global-flooding theory predicts.
    Moreover, the fossil record in some of these formations contradicts the global-flood theory. Fossils of land animals are found in layers where they should not occur if the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct. (The Coconino Sandstone, Toroweap Formation, and Kaibab Limestone are discussed above.)
    If a single flood event had formed the Grand Canyon, one would expect to find the upper layers made of fine material and the lower layers made of coarse material. Yet layers of coarse material lie on top of layers of fine material.
    Also, the Grand Canyon contains layers of limestone. Limestone strata have never been found in flood deposits of any magnitude.
    Moreover, as the first deposited laid by the Flood, fossils of mammals and dinosaurs would be expected to be found in this sandstone. They are not. If the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct, then fossils of dinosaurs, mammals, and other land animals and plants should occur near the beginning of the Flood and be found in the lower layers. They are not. They occur above 2000 feet. Furthermore, fossils of dinosaurs and mammals have not been found in the Grand Canyon, although fossils of reptiles and plants have.
    Igneous Petrology.[12] Igneous petrology also argues against a global flood. Igneous petrology is the branch of geology that deals with the development, emplacement, and crystallization of molten rock material, magma, within or on the surface of the Earth.
    Many examples of magma intruding between layers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock and crystallizing into igneous rock can be cited. According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, all or nearly all fossil-bearing sedimentary rock was formed during the Flood. Thus, these intrusions occurred during or after the Flood. The massive granitic batholiths of California, Idaho, and British Columbia illustrate the fallacy of the young-earth-global-flood theory. These magma intrusions were so massive that they required hundreds of thousands or even a million years to cool. Such rocks rule out a global flood of a few thousand years of age. They also argue against a young earth of no more than 12,000 years old.
    Volcanoes.[13] The remains of many volcanoes argue against a global flood several thousand years ago. Volcanoes exist that are older than the Flood. They show no evidence of being subjected to a highly erosive flood a few thousand years ago.
    In Southern France, cones of ancient volcanoes remain. These cones are composed of loose, light material. They show no signs of ever being exposed to rushing or even moderate flood waters.
    Fossilized Record.[14] Dinosaur tracks have been found in lacustrine deposits. If the Flood accounts for the fossil-bearing sedimentary rock, how could dinosaurs have left their footprints? Were they walking around in the water so torrent that it could move blocks of material weighing thousands of tons? Why were not these tracks washed away by the highly turbulent flood waters?
    For example, dinosaur tracks have been found in the Kayenta Formation in Zion National Park, Utah. They were left in sand and silt deposited in slow-moving, intermittent stream beds. These tracks were not left by dinosaurs in the middle of the Noachian Flood.
    Likewise, fossil tracks of scorpions, millipedes, isopods, and spiders have been found in the sedimentary rock of the Grand Canyon. Young-earth-global-flood proponents claim that the Noachian Flood made all or nearly all fossil-bearing sedimentary sandstone deposits. However, studies have shown that many of these footprints could only have been made on dry sand.
    Furthermore, fossilized flowering plants argue against the young-earth-global-flood theory. The Cedar Mountain Formation in Utah contains fossilized flowering plants. This formation rests on top of more than 10,000 feet of sediment laid down by the Flood according to the young-earth-global-flood theory. How could such plants have survived so long in a turbulent global flood? How could they survive so much sediment? Why do fossils of flowering plants not appear in the Grand Canyon, where deposits predate the Cedar Mountain Formation? This formation also contains fossils of dinosaurs. According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, the Cedar Mountain Formation formed toward the end of the Flood.
    Moreover, the young-earth-global-flood theory predicts that both plant spores and pollen should be dispersed throughout the geological strata. They are not. They are found in distinct layers in succession. Pollen only appears in the upper, younger, layers of rock. Pollen from nonflowering plants, like pines, appears before pollen from flowering plants, like oaks. Only spores of ferns, mosses, and similar plants appear in the lower, older, layers of rock. Thus, the lower strata contain only spores. The higher strata contain spores and pollen from both flowering and nonflowering (gymnosperm) plants. In between, the strata contain spores and gymnosperm pollen. Furthermore, spores of many extinct plants appear only in the lower layers of the fossil record. If the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct, they should also be found in the higher levels. Spores of similar size and shapes as those of these extinct species are found in the upper layers.
    Young earth creationists claim that the Noachian Flood created most, if not all, of the fossil record. The  Karoo Supergroup in South Africa is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrates. The fossilized animals range in size from a small lizard to a cow with an average size being about the size of a fox. If all these animals were alive at once, an average of 21 of them would inhabit every acre of land on earth. If the Karoo Supergroup contains 1 percent of the fossilized land vertebrates, then at least 2100 living vertebrates must have inhabited each acre on earth on the eve of the Flood.
    Moreover, the quantity of shellfish on earth just before the Flood would have conservatively covered the earth to a depth of at least one to five feet. Chalk is mostly made of fossilized shellfish. High quantities of shellfish fossils are also found in many limestones. Chalk, limestone, and similar rock account for about 20 percent of the sedimentary rock.
    Also, fossils arrange themselves in well-defined zones. They are sorted by type instead of size and density as the global flood theory predicts. That is, trilobites, both small and large, are found in one layer. Nautiloids and ammonoids are found in another layer. Their shells have buoyancy chambers, which makes them very light. However, they are never found in the upper layers of the strata as the global-flood theory would predict. Conversely, turtles, which are large and dense, are found only in the middle and upper layers; they are never found in the lower layers as the global-flood theory predicts.
    Another argument against the young-earth-global-flood theory is fossilized charcoal or fusain. They could not have been formed during the Flood because fire cannot burn under water.
    Yellowstone Fossil Forests.[15] A stratum in Yellowstone Park disproves the global flood theory. The stratum at Specimen Ridge contains 27 successive forests destroyed by lava and ash. Enough time was needed for each forest to mature and then be covered by lava and ash. Time was needed for the lava and ash to weather into soil before the next forest could grow. Moreover, the deposit containing these trees is 3400 feet thick. At least 20,000 years are needed for these events to occur. At most only one of these forests could have been destroyed during the Flood. Even this is doubtful. Trees uprooted by a flood are usually stripped of their roots and buried on their sides. The trees in these fossilized forests stand upright and have complete root systems. Furthermore, these forests are set on top of several thousand feet of fossil-bearing rock.
    Ice Core.[16] Ice cores argue against the young-earth-global-flood theory. By counting annual layers, scientists have dated ice cores from Greenland to be more than 40,000 years old. If a global flood occurred a few thousand years ago, one would expect to find signs of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, and other evidence of a catastrophic global flood. Such evidence is not found.
    The young-earth-global-flood theory fails to provide a satisfactory answer for fossil coral reefs, evaporite deposits, lacustrine deposits, fossilized eolian deserts, chalk beds, conglomerates, ancient volcanoes, igneous intrusions, and the fossil record. These geological facts are difficult for the advocates of a global flood to explain away. Other geological facts are impossible to explain away. These geological facts also argue against a young earth, and many of them could not have taken place within the time allocated by the young earth theory.
    The above discussion is not intended to preclude catastrophic events that have global effects. Ample evidence exists that shows the occurrence of such catastrophic events. Many, perhaps most, large fossil deposits may have resulted from such catastrophes. Catastrophes may also explain many geological anomalies. Such an event probably occurred around 3200 B.C. although it was not a global flood like the one described by the young earth creationists. The geological record shows that such a flood could not have occurred so recently. Moreover, much of this evidence shows that the earth must be much older than 12,000 years.
    A major problem that many young-earth creationists seem to have is difficulty in distinguishing geology from biology. They seem to believe that if the earth is more than 10,000 or 12,000 years old, evolution is proven. (Ironically, when describing the origin of human races, many creationists resort to Darwinism. Also, many young-earth creationists support the “created-kind” theory. That is, for example, God created a cat kind from which all members of the cat family, Felidae, evolved. Unlike conventional evolutionists, who believe that many generations are required for one kind to become another kind, these creationists believe that only a few generations are needed. Thus the primary disagreement between the two is not one of the basic principles so much as it is about starting point and the time required for a new species to evolve.) Evolution can be disproved biologically independent of geology.
    If the reader wants more detailed discussions of the above geological evidence against a young earth and a global flood a few thousand years ago, he should consult the references in the endnotes.

Endnotes
10. Smith, pp. 211-212.

11. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 2,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy2.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Senter.

12. Hayward. Isaak. David A. Young, Creation and the Flood: An Alternative to Flood Geology and Theistic Evolution (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1977), pp. 177-185.

 13. Smith, p. 265.

14. Burky. Hayward. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 1,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Rebuttals – Creation Magazine, The Coconino Sands (Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood),” Jan. 24, 2003, http://www.oldearth.org/coconino.htm, Dec. 18, 2014. Senter. Smith, pp. 211-212. Weber. Young, Christianity, p. 88.

15. Hayward. Weber. Greg Neyman, “Yellowstone Petrified Forests,” March 6, 2003, www.answersincreation.org/yellowstone.htm.

16. Isaak.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1.

More religious articles.