God Commands Racial Segregation--forbids Mongrelization

The Bible is not a history of the world. Ur had already surpassed Sumer before Abraham was born. White peope already dominated Europe.

 

I said dark skin evolved from light. You said idaltu was black. Quote me (you can't). Idaltu (the dead end) developed in North Africa. Sapiens developed in North Africa (Ethiopia and Morocco) from Heidelbergensis. North Africans have light skin.

But let me reiterate two points I made a long time ago when you brought up this "skin color" tangent by asserting idaltu was black to divert the debate after losing it.

A) You don't know what color they were.

B) I don't care what color they were.

Thanks.

 

The Bible is the most accurate account of mankind's history. no other book on the planet comes close with such accuracy. and regardless of what book came before the Bible, the Bible tells you exactly who and where each race came from. and the Red Man(White Man) descended from Esau aka Edom. FACT.

Historical facts and records don't lie.

the Red Man is no way shape or form evolved from a Black man. he was born of his father, Esau the albino, the eldest brother of Jacob(Isreal). .

 

Anybody in this thread that believes mankind descended from Apes needs to have their head examined. and use Obamacare to foot the bill.

 

There is no indication that H. sapiens mixed with heidelbergensis. There is evidence that they mixed with neanderthalensis. Follow the routes of migration. Most would have stayed to the south of the grlaciers, thus dark-skinned Asian and Australoids.by the time that white people had become a large enough population, they were too diluted to dilute the black genes coming out of Africa. The white North Africans are the result of migration into Africa at later dates from the Middle East.

But let me reiterate two points I made a long time ago when you brought up this "skin color" tangent by asserting idaltu was black to divert the debate after losing it.[/QUOTRE]Only in your own imagination did you prove anything. You have no evidence that H. heidelbergensis/rhodesiensis in Africa were white. There would have been no survival advantage in being white in Africa. There would be in Europe.

 

This reminds me of that thread about whether the forum should ban racists. Someone made a point about the people who CAN NEVER ADMIT WHEN THEY'RE WRONG.

I say we don't need to ban them. The forum needs comic relief.

PS: Still ROTFLMAO!!!!!

 

zing!!!!

 

Of course Sapiens mixed with Heidelbergensis. They evolved from them in North Africa. Do you have any idea how evolution happens? A whole new species doesn't pop out one day and systematically replace the old one without mixing.

You have literally no idea what you are talking about. You started this tangent by asserting idaltu was black. You don't know that. You state North-African early Sapiens was a "dark skinned" Asian and Australoid. You don't know that and your logic is so bizarre I can only wonder for your mental health.

Here I can repeat myself.

A) You don't know what color they were.

B) I don't care what color they were.

OK, let's say for the sake of argument North African early sapiens was pure, jet black. So what? What is the point of this tangent?

 

Dunning–Kruger effect

 

Based on the distribution of black and white skins, it is obvious that the first H. sapiens sapiens was black. You don't start out white and disperse in two different directions with the black genes re-appearing thousands of miles and years apart. The only place where white skin appears is north of the original range of idaltu.

It means that we are all descended from black Africans.

That neanderthalensis would have been a dead-end, disappearing without issue had they not interbred with black Africans means that the idea that race-mixing is wrong is incompatible with science.

 

So the only two possible skin colors are black or white?

*facepalm*

A) You don't know what color they were.

B) I don't care what color they were.

The imaginary North African hominid with black skin we are talking about was not a Negro, so what is your point?

Heidelbergensis was not a "black African". You are just making stuff up because all you are interested in doing is promoting Negroes, not establishing the facts.

 

The same black African that did your Urgrossmutter also fathered the negro. Is that clear enough?

Heidelbergensis is clearly descended from rhodesiensis, which was black and African.

Either way, you got black Africans in your lineage.

 

"Black African" in common parlance means "Negro". A North African hominid with black skin is not a "black African" anymore than a black rhinoceros. I do not have black Africans (negroes) in my lineage.

And you failed to demonstrate that North African heidelbergensis had black skin anyway.

You are reduced to disingenuous trolling.

 

And another guy was eaten by a whale and begat pinicchio....From the book of Gipetto: Section 6- verse-1-row AA....

What a CROCK!!

 

You are still descended from the same stock as the Bantu, with a smidgen of neanderthalensis.

And you failed to demonstrate that North African heidelbergensis had white skin anyway.

You are reduced to disingenuous trolling.

 

And where did I assert heidelbergensis was white? Of course, nowhere. You have no integrity.

I imagine the North African variety was probably the same color as modern North Africans.

We're all descended from pond slime, what's your point?

 

This is a baseless assumption.

We are all also descended from an ancestor who looked more like a modern Bantu or Australoid than like an Arab or a Berber.

 

Precisely. Just as ancient Americans were the same colour as modern Americans. Also the modern Israeli's are the same colour as Biblical Israelites. This much is obvious to intelligent ppl like you and I.

 

I say "I imagine they were the same color as modern North Africans" qualifying it with "I imagine" after you brought up the question by stating "they were black."

Which one of us is making baseless assumptions? (Hint: it's not me)

Probably. What does that tell you about Bantu?

 

Imagination is something but nothing.

 

You have still not established that one of your idaltu ancestors did not sire both Europeans and Bantus, so you have proven nothing about Bantus.

 

You haven't established that any of my ancestors were idaltu. Europeans derived from North African Heidelbergensis with Neanderthal admixture (as did all Eurasians).

Bantu derived from North African Heidelbergensis with Erectus admixture.

I have proven several things about Bantu so your non-sequitur conclusion is wrong.

 

No. There is not sign that Bantu are descendeded from heidelbergensis/erectus matings. They more resemble idaltu. You lose.

 

Oh I "lose"? Your ill informed guesses constitute some kind of victory in your mind?

It seems likely that Heidelbergensis gave rise to Sapiens in North Africa (skin color unknown). There is no question that this hominid mixed with Neanderthal.

Whether the "idaltu" fossil is somewhere on that line is unknown.

And if it is, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to what I am saying.

Also it is known the Sub-Saharan Africans have a 700,000 year separated hominid in their lineage.

You tried to imply that I am descended from Negroes.

I am not.

You lose.

 

Apparently, they gave rise to idaltu. You are just stamping your feet now with no evidence. There is ZERO proof that H.sapiens spapiens arose from two localities.

That is not outside the range at which idaltu mayhave lived. We have evidence for ca 600,00 years.

You have a direct common ancestor with them, and that ancestor was obviously black.