This is topic Ethiopians are black/brown skinned whites? in forum Deshret at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=001744
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
This is a interesting statement from the so called Afrocentricsmasher.

If this poster had any sense at all and has been on planet Earth for the last 30 years, he/she should know that Mankind originated in Ethiopia and dispersed to the rest of the world from that location. So it is NOT THAT Ethiopians are adapted brown skinned Whites but rather that Whites are depigmented Ethiopians. But then everyone comes from the Ethiopian people so you can describe any group of people in relations to Ethiopian people.

And it is a load of crap to say that Ethiopians are Semitic / African mixture. That is true of the Amhara and Tigre but not of the Oromo, Afar and Borana.
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^I beg your pardon, but I thought that was Zambia and the San.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
BRAINSMASHED's remarks are so stupid, they hardly deserve responses let alone entire threads dedicated to a response! [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
 
In order for Brainsmashed to rationalize his comment he needs to explain why East Africans do not have lighter skin and why they have tropical body plans.


-


An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years. - Brace (1993)
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
This is the nonsense I was talking about.

Just Imagine if someone went down the street saying "East Africans are Black Skinned Whites", People would think that person was an escapee from a Mental Ward. It's just Crazy thinking, Yet this is what the racists are left with saying because they refuse to stop thinking that Africans are inferior. Hatred of Africans will bite the Racists in the End.

Peace
 
Posted by yql718 (Member # 16646) on :
 
Pussy boy/Gyno-boy has been beat down with the facts and scholarly research on several threads. His only hope now is repetition and diversionary tactics, ducking his failures in other threads to start new ones while recycling and repeating the same nonsense. But running and dodging won't save him. He will be brought to face the facts, unpalatable as they may be.
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
yql718

Welcome to the Board. I see that your from Egypt, Let me just ask what part of Egypt are you from. It's always a Blessing to have Egyptians on the board who are not afraid of the Truth.

Peace
 
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Yqi718,sounds a bit Jamaican... [Big Grin] welocome from me also.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
LOL @ the stupid contradiction of "black-skinned whites". So where are the white-skinned blacks?? I guess in Europe, huh. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
^ White skinned Blacks? I guess that would be Orientals. They often have Negroid like features with light skin. If we are going to go be nasal index and prognathism then Orientals are close enough to Bantu in facial features in the same way that a French guy looks like a Somalian. ;-)

Albino Bantu:

-
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
^ That is not an Oriental girl but a real Albino Bantu.
 
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
^ White skinned Blacks? I guess that would be Orientals. They often have Negroid like features with light skin. If we are going to go be nasal index and prognathism then Orientals are close enough to Bantu in facial features ;-)
]
Hmmm, there's goes that subscription to the "true Negro" again huh Osirion?

quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
in the same way that a French guy looks like a Somalian.
Classic face save after you promote the "true Negro" myth huh Osirion?

Wouldn't a Frenchmen be a "white skinned black" then according to your logic?

Or is it just the Orientals, since they have those wretched "Negroid" features you hate so much and identify with "black African"?
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
This is a interesting statement from the so called Afrocentricsmasher.

If this poster had any sense at all and has been on planet Earth for the last 30 years, he/she should know that Mankind originated in Ethiopia and dispersed to the rest of the world from that location. So it is NOT THAT Ethiopians are adapted brown skinned Whites but rather that Whites are depigmented Ethiopians. But then everyone comes from the Ethiopian people so you can describe any group of people in relations to Ethiopian people.

And it is a load of crap to say that Ethiopians are Semitic / African mixture. That is true of the Amhara and Tigre but not of the Oromo, Afar and Borana.
Man didn't orginate anywhere since man was created. Why people keep sweating Ethiopians.
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
^ White skinned Blacks? I guess that would be Orientals. They often have Negroid like features with light skin. If we are going to go be nasal index and prognathism then Orientals are close enough to Bantu in facial features ;-)
]
Hmmm, there's goes that subscription to the "true Negro" again huh Osirion?

quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
in the same way that a French guy looks like a Somalian.
Classic face save after you promote the "true Negro" myth huh Osirion?

Wouldn't a Frenchmen be a "white skinned black" then according to your logic?

Or is it just the Orientals, since they have those wretched "Negroid" features you hate so much and identify with "black African"?
Thats so funny. You think I am serious don't you? True Negroes - what a JOKE!

True Black? What the hell does that mean. The point is that there's a double standard and I pointed it out. Orientals are not related to the Bantu even if they have some superficial similarities. The same is true with Somalians and the French. Have some facial features that look similar DOES NOT MEAN relatedness. That was my point and you are too THICK to recognize it.
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
This is a interesting statement from the so called Afrocentricsmasher.

If this poster had any sense at all and has been on planet Earth for the last 30 years, he/she should know that Mankind originated in Ethiopia and dispersed to the rest of the world from that location. So it is NOT THAT Ethiopians are adapted brown skinned Whites but rather that Whites are depigmented Ethiopians. But then everyone comes from the Ethiopian people so you can describe any group of people in relations to Ethiopian people.

And it is a load of crap to say that Ethiopians are Semitic / African mixture. That is true of the Amhara and Tigre but not of the Oromo, Afar and Borana.
Man didn't orginate anywhere since man was created. Why people keep sweating Ethiopians.
I suppose you believe God creates rainbows and lightning. Go back to worshipping Thor if you want but my God said he formed man not created him as is. Also, God formed him in a single location from a single point of origin.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
This is a interesting statement from the so called Afrocentricsmasher.

If this poster had any sense at all and has been on planet Earth for the last 30 years, he/she should know that Mankind originated in Ethiopia and dispersed to the rest of the world from that location. So it is NOT THAT Ethiopians are adapted brown skinned Whites but rather that Whites are depigmented Ethiopians. But then everyone comes from the Ethiopian people so you can describe any group of people in relations to Ethiopian people.

And it is a load of crap to say that Ethiopians are Semitic / African mixture. That is true of the Amhara and Tigre but not of the Oromo, Afar and Borana.
Man didn't orginate anywhere since man was created. Why people keep sweating Ethiopians.
I suppose you believe God creates rainbows and lightning. Go back to worshipping Thor if you want but my God said he formed man not created him as is. Also, God formed him in a single location from a single point of origin.
I don't get what you are saying. God formed man; He made man; He created man, so God created Man, so what the hell are you arguing? What is this single location because my bible reads the Garden of Eden is where God placed man. There is no origin of man other than man was created by God. I'm not African so I wouldn't worship Thor.
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
^ If you are going to use the KJV Bible as an argument against evolution then you will have to explain why the US Gods FORMED man in the garden rather then just simply made him appear.

Let us Form man. Form is a word that clearly indicates a process rathen than a state. Formation can be said to imply a process of iterative changes.

Besides you are a racist idiot and I don't want to waste my time talking to you.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
^ If you are going to use the KJV Bible as an argument against evolution then you will have to explain why the US Gods FORMED man in the garden rather then just simply made him appear.

Let us Form man. Form is a word that clearly indicates a process rathen than a state. Formation can be said to imply a process of iterative changes.

Besides you are a racist idiot and I don't want to waste my time talking to you.
You are nothing but a devil. The bible doesn't say that God formed man in the Garden. It clearly tells you that God made man from dust breath into his nostrils and man became a living soul and God placed man in the Garden of Eden. I don't know what you are talking about. God formed man; God made man; God created man... it all means the same. You can twist it any way you want. Man doesn't evolve, maybe he adapts but he certainly doesn't evolve.
 
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
Thats so funny. You think I am serious don't you? True Negroes - what a JOKE!

True Black? What the hell does that mean. The point is that there's a double standard and I pointed it out. Orientals are not related to the Bantu even if they have some superficial similarities. The same is true with Somalians and the French. Have some facial features that look similar DOES NOT MEAN relatedness. That was my point and you are too THICK to recognize it.
No your point was that the imaginary "white skinned blacks" that Djehuti joked about, would be Orientals, since as you say they possess said "Negroid" features, and hence you're adhering to a "true Negro". Get it?

If not then you would've said the Frenchman would also be a "white skinned black" since they resemble Somalians. No?

But of course not since to you the Frenchman doesn't possess any characteristics attributed to African "Negroids", hence your immediate reply to "white skinned blacks" were those Orientals because they have "Negroid" features.
 
Posted by Chrome-Soul (Member # 16889) on :
 
[/QUOTE] I'm not African so I wouldn't worship Thor. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Im pretty sure Thor is a European god.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
I'm not African so I wouldn't worship Thor. [/QUOTE]
Im pretty sure Thor is a European god. [/QB][/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter. Africans worship anything but the Creator, so I have no doubt that they will worship Thor.
 
Posted by Chrome-Soul (Member # 16889) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
I'm not African so I wouldn't worship Thor.
Im pretty sure Thor is a European god. [/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter. Africans worship anything but the Creator, so I have no doubt that they will worship Thor. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Are you on drugs or something? Why would africans worship a VIKING God? That doesnt even make sense? Most africans probably dont even know who Thor is.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
I'm not African so I wouldn't worship Thor.
Im pretty sure Thor is a European god.
It doesn't matter. Africans worship anything but the Creator, so I have no doubt that they will worship Thor. [/QUOTE]
Are you on drugs or something? Why would africans worship a VIKING God? That doesnt even make sense? Most africans probably dont even know who Thor is. [/QB][/QUOTE]

They would worship a viking God because they are pagans. Africans will worship anything, but the creator.
 
Posted by Chrome-Soul (Member # 16889) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
I'm not African so I wouldn't worship Thor.
Im pretty sure Thor is a European god.
It doesn't matter. Africans worship anything but the Creator, so I have no doubt that they will worship Thor.
Are you on drugs or something? Why would africans worship a VIKING God? That doesnt even make sense? Most africans probably dont even know who Thor is. [/QUOTE]

They would worship a viking God because they are pagans. Africans will worship anything, but the creator. [/QB][/QUOTE]
So you agree europeans are pagans as well then. lol this is sad. And for your information christianity is widespread in Africa.
 
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
You are nothing but a devil. The bible doesn't say that God formed man in the Garden. It clearly tells you that God made man from dust breath into his nostrils and man became a living soul and God placed man in the Garden of Eden. I don't know what you are talking about. God formed man; God made man; God created man... it all means the same. You can twist it any way you want. Man doesn't evolve, maybe he adapts but he certainly doesn't evolve.
Man didn't evolve because the Bible said so has to be one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. You have a right to your faith but it doesn't hold up in a scientific discussion.

All life on Earth evolved from single celled organisms. Look at how a human grows from a single cell into a fully developed fetus.


Evolution is simply a gradual change over a period of several generations. Sometimes genetic mutations give rise to new species. The biological evidence for speciation and human evolution is overwhelming.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
I'm not African so I wouldn't worship Thor.
Im pretty sure Thor is a European god.
It doesn't matter. Africans worship anything but the Creator, so I have no doubt that they will worship Thor.
Are you on drugs or something? Why would africans worship a VIKING God? That doesnt even make sense? Most africans probably dont even know who Thor is.
They would worship a viking God because they are pagans. Africans will worship anything, but the creator. [/QUOTE]
So you agree europeans are pagans as well then. lol this is sad. And for your information christianity is widespread in Africa. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Europeans at one time were pagans but they had enough brains to ditch the primitive pagan lifestyle. Africans are still playing catch-up.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
You are nothing but a devil. The bible doesn't say that God formed man in the Garden. It clearly tells you that God made man from dust breath into his nostrils and man became a living soul and God placed man in the Garden of Eden. I don't know what you are talking about. God formed man; God made man; God created man... it all means the same. You can twist it any way you want. Man doesn't evolve, maybe he adapts but he certainly doesn't evolve.
Man didn't evolve because the Bible said so has to be one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. You have a right to your faith but it doesn't hold up in a scientific discussion.

All life on Earth evolved from single celled organisms. Look at how a human grows from a single cell into a fully developed fetus.


Evolution is simply a gradual change over a period of several generations. Sometimes genetic mutations give rise to new species. The biological evidence for speciation and human evolution is overwhelming.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0
LOL! The bible don't say man evolve it tells the complete opposite. Cells don't make themselves and neither do humans. Genetic mutation doesn't give rise to new species. The species stays the same but the height or color may not.
 
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
LOL! The bible don't say man evolve it tells the complete opposite. Cells don't make themselves and neither do humans. Genetic mutation doesn't give rise to new species. The species stays the same but the height or color may not. [/QB]
Basically you believe in some genetic changes just not speciation because it's not compatible with the Biblical account of human origins. This is a very unscientific thought process. Do you have any evidence for divine revelation? If not why do you believe the Bible is right and the theory of evolution is wrong?

What is your response to all of the scientific evidence for human evolution?
 
Posted by yql718 (Member # 16646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
I'm not African so I wouldn't worship Thor.
Im pretty sure Thor is a European god. [/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter. Africans worship anything but the Creator, so I have no doubt that they will worship Thor. [/QB][/QUOTE]

You dumbass. It is common among numerous African peoples to worship one supreme creator, who is recognized as the Supreme source of all life.

--Encyclopedia of African Religion, Volume 1
By Molefi Kete Asante, Ama Mazama


and according to the MSN Encarta:

[i]"Generally speaking, African religions hold that there is one creator god, the maker of a dynamic universe.."[i/]
--MSN Encarta

Once again, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
Thats so funny. You think I am serious don't you? True Negroes - what a JOKE!

True Black? What the hell does that mean. The point is that there's a double standard and I pointed it out. Orientals are not related to the Bantu even if they have some superficial similarities. The same is true with Somalians and the French. Have some facial features that look similar DOES NOT MEAN relatedness. That was my point and you are too THICK to recognize it.
No your point was that the imaginary "white skinned blacks" that Djehuti joked about, would be Orientals, since as you say they possess said "Negroid" features, and hence you're adhering to a "true Negro". Get it?

If not then you would've said the Frenchman would also be a "white skinned black" since they resemble Somalians. No?

But of course not since to you the Frenchman doesn't possess any characteristics attributed to African "Negroids", hence your immediate reply to "white skinned blacks" were those Orientals because they have "Negroid" features.
You aren't getting it. The stupid Negroid classification actually overlaps people that are unrelated. It is a stupid concept. Clearly Orientals are not as closely related to Africans as are the Europeans.

There is not such thing as Negroid features. There are tropical and dietary adaptations that are clinal and nothing more.
 
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
Thats so funny. You think I am serious don't you? True Negroes - what a JOKE!

True Black? What the hell does that mean. The point is that there's a double standard and I pointed it out. Orientals are not related to the Bantu even if they have some superficial similarities. The same is true with Somalians and the French. Have some facial features that look similar DOES NOT MEAN relatedness. That was my point and you are too THICK to recognize it.
No your point was that the imaginary "white skinned blacks" that Djehuti joked about, would be Orientals, since as you say they possess said "Negroid" features, and hence you're adhering to a "true Negro". Get it?

If not then you would've said the Frenchman would also be a "white skinned black" since they resemble Somalians. No?

But of course not since to you the Frenchman doesn't possess any characteristics attributed to African "Negroids", hence your immediate reply to "white skinned blacks" were those Orientals because they have "Negroid" features.
You aren't getting it. The stupid Negroid classification actually overlaps people that are unrelated. It is a stupid concept. Clearly Orientals are not as closely related to Africans as are the Europeans.

There is not such thing as Negroid features. There are tropical and dietary adaptations that are clinal and nothing more.
Look, you know exactly what I am talking about and you know I know the "true Negroid" classification is false and outdated.

You noted that Orientals - since they possess "Negroid" features - would jokingly be "white skinned blacks" the reason you said this unwittingly about Orientals so quickly is because only this lightskinned Oriental population with "Negroid" features would be considered "white skinned blacks" to you.

If not then why would you respond with Orientals to be "white skinned blacks", and not Europeans when you know the physical features in Europe (despite pale skin) are normal in Africa?

Yes but of course it's as I noted the population that immediately came to your mind to be considered "white skinned blacks" were Orientals, and this was specifically because they possess "Negroid" features!

quote:
Osirion posts: ^ White skinned Blacks? I guess that would be Orientals. They often have Negroid like features with light skin.

 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I don't get it. Why are you guys "debating" this. . . .?

quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
You are nothing but a devil. . . . It clearly tells you that God made man from dust breath into his nostrils and man became a living soul and God placed man in the Garden of Eden. . . . Man doesn't evolve .. . ,
and he/she doesn't believe in dinosaurs.

Started looking at Religuous with Bill MAher over the weekend. Maybe Betty needs a copy.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
LOL! The bible don't say man evolve it tells the complete opposite. Cells don't make themselves and neither do humans. Genetic mutation doesn't give rise to new species. The species stays the same but the height or color may not.
Basically you believe in some genetic changes just not speciation because it's not compatible with the Biblical account of human origins. This is a very unscientific thought process. Do you have any evidence for divine revelation? If not why do you believe the Bible is right and the theory of evolution is wrong?

What is your response to all of the scientific evidence for human evolution? [/QB]
LOL! My thought process doesn't need to be scientific and neither was it meant to be and you are confusing me since I can't make out what you are trying to express. The evidence for "divine revelation" is all around you-- you call it evolution and I call it creation, you call it the big bang or the big ooze and I call it GOD. You can't prove the big bang but the creator is all around us. Since there is a physical world and a spiritual world you will meet your answers when you dropped dead and have to face the "invisible" MAN. There is no scientific evidence for human evolution. Humans don't evolve and humans don't make themselves.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by yql718:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
I'm not African so I wouldn't worship Thor.
Im pretty sure Thor is a European god.
It doesn't matter. Africans worship anything but the Creator, so I have no doubt that they will worship Thor. [/QUOTE]

You dumbass. It is common among numerous African peoples to worship one supreme creator, who is recognized as the Supreme source of all life.


Once again, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I know what I am talking about. Africans never, ever worshipped God and they have a history and a habit of worshipping many gods (that's the small 'G'). Africans made their own supreme creator whether that be the sun, moon, stars, mountains, snake, dead ancestors, wood, etc... I'm sure they have their supreme creator but it is not the one and only Creator who created life. Their one supreme creator is probably those devil wooden masks they like to carve.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
yep! What a brilliant mind. He/she is on par with Luciano
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Since there is a physical world and a spiritual world you will meet your answers when you dropped dead and have to face the "invisible" MAN.

There is no scientific evidence for human evolution. Humans don't evolve and humans don't make themselves.
That is what this site have come down to . . . argue on who's god is the greater (g)od.
@ Chromesoul: Why are arguing about there being ONE supremem god. Are you trying to mimick Christianity. ie "we are civilize because we worship one supreme god" What a mindfughk!!

If there is a (g)od what makes you think there is ONE? Jesus!!!.. . oops!

quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by yql718:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
I'm not African so I wouldn't worship Thor.
Im pretty sure Thor is a European god.
It doesn't matter. Africans worship anything but the Creator, so I have no doubt that they will worship Thor.
You dumbass. It is common among numerous African peoples to worship one supreme creator, who is recognized as the Supreme source of all life.


Once again, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. [/QUOTE]

I know what I am talking about. Africans never, ever worshipped God and they have a history and a habit of worshipping many gods (that's the small 'G'). Africans made their own supreme creator whether that be the sun, moon, stars, mountains, snake, dead ancestors, wood, etc... I'm sure they have their supreme creator but it is not the one and only Creator who created life. Their one supreme creator is probably those devil wooden masks they like to carve. [/QB][/
 
Posted by Kamillion (Member # 11484) on :
 
Why did you have to post as Betty first you...scared? Scared of the Africans are we? I would be too, but I'm not. [Wink]
 
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
LOL! The bible don't say man evolve it tells the complete opposite. Cells don't make themselves and neither do humans. Genetic mutation doesn't give rise to new species. The species stays the same but the height or color may not.
Basically you believe in some genetic changes just not speciation because it's not compatible with the Biblical account of human origins. This is a very unscientific thought process. Do you have any evidence for divine revelation? If not why do you believe the Bible is right and the theory of evolution is wrong?

What is your response to all of the scientific evidence for human evolution?
LOL! My thought process doesn't need to be scientific and neither was it meant to be and you are confusing me since I can't make out what you are trying to express. The evidence for "divine revelation" is all around you-- you call it evolution and I call it creation, you call it the big bang or the big ooze and I call it GOD. You can't prove the big bang but the creator is all around us. Since there is a physical world and a spiritual world you will meet your answers when you dropped dead and have to face the "invisible" MAN. There is no scientific evidence for human evolution. Humans don't evolve and humans don't make themselves. [/QB]
What kind of mess is this? Who is the "real God" and what "Religion" do his worshipers follow?

Before that religion existed did that God exist?
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
Look, God is a reality no matter how you want to look at it. Even if one postulates that life could start on its own, then one must also accept that a God like being would have long ago evolved and also be able to circumvent the rules of time. If so, then the odds of there being a GOD like being in the Universe with omnipotent power is actually rater high even if you want to look at it from purely a scientific point of view. Either God will come into existence in the future and be able to travel back in time and manipulate the past or God evolved in a Universe before this one and had a hand in defining the nature of our, or, or, or. The ODDS are in Favor of God as far as I can tell.

So if you are an aetheist then you really are a fool. Because an Aetheist has to be in random chance and the ODDS of a God is part of such a formula for purely chaotic Universe - which if you haven't noticed doesn't have chaotic rules but fixed rules - you know the pesky rules that don't change and therefore cannot be explained by purely random concepts of origin.
 
Posted by Chrome-Soul (Member # 16889) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
yep! What a brilliant mind. He/she is on par with Luciano
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bettyboo:
[qb] Since there is a physical world and a spiritual world you will meet your answers when you dropped dead and have to face the "invisible" MAN.

There is no scientific evidence for human evolution. Humans don't evolve and humans don't make themselves.
That is what this site have come down to . . . argue on who's god is the greater (g)od.
@ Chromesoul: Why are arguing about there being ONE supremem god. Are you trying to mimick Christianity. ie "we are civilize because we worship one supreme god" What a mindfughk!!

If there is a (g)od what makes you think there is ONE? Jesus!!!.. . oops!

Man Im not argueing for or against that. All im trying to say is that Africans dont never have and prolly never will worship a friking Viking god. I guess my point was lost in the madness of the concept of African Thor Acolytes.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
But I do agree . . .yes. . . the universe seem to have rules.

quote:
Originally posted by osirion:

HUH! HUH!

- Look, God is a reality no matter how you want to look at it.

- one must also accept that a God like being would have long ago evolved.

- able to circumvent the rules of time.

- purely a scientific point of view.


- Either God will come into existence . . ande travel back in time . . .

- - The ODDS are in Favor of God as far as I can tell.

- - So if you are an aetheist then you really are a fool.

YES! YES! YES!
Because an Aetheist has to be in random chance and - Universe - which if you haven't noticed doesn't have chaotic rules but fixed rules - you know the pesky rules that don't change and therefore cannot be explained by purely random concepts of origin.

 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by astenb:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
LOL! The bible don't say man evolve it tells the complete opposite. Cells don't make themselves and neither do humans. Genetic mutation doesn't give rise to new species. The species stays the same but the height or color may not.
Basically you believe in some genetic changes just not speciation because it's not compatible with the Biblical account of human origins. This is a very unscientific thought process. Do you have any evidence for divine revelation? If not why do you believe the Bible is right and the theory of evolution is wrong?

What is your response to all of the scientific evidence for human evolution?
LOL! My thought process doesn't need to be scientific and neither was it meant to be and you are confusing me since I can't make out what you are trying to express. The evidence for "divine revelation" is all around you-- you call it evolution and I call it creation, you call it the big bang or the big ooze and I call it GOD. You can't prove the big bang but the creator is all around us. Since there is a physical world and a spiritual world you will meet your answers when you dropped dead and have to face the "invisible" MAN. There is no scientific evidence for human evolution. Humans don't evolve and humans don't make themselves.
What kind of mess is this? Who is the "real God" and what "Religion" do his worshipers follow?

Before that religion existed did that God exist? [/QB]
It isn't mess you fvcking idiot and devil. The real God is the creator and followers of the real God aren't religious. Only people who doesn't believe in the Creator God or who have their own god(s) are religious. God existed before everything else even before science and their theory of evolution.
 
Posted by Ebony Allen (Member # 12771) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
This is a interesting statement from the so called Afrocentricsmasher.

If this poster had any sense at all and has been on planet Earth for the last 30 years, he/she should know that Mankind originated in Ethiopia and dispersed to the rest of the world from that location. So it is NOT THAT Ethiopians are adapted brown skinned Whites but rather that Whites are depigmented Ethiopians. But then everyone comes from the Ethiopian people so you can describe any group of people in relations to Ethiopian people.

And it is a load of crap to say that Ethiopians are Semitic / African mixture. That is true of the Amhara and Tigre but not of the Oromo, Afar and Borana .
Agreed. Many people out there say this about all Ethiopians when it is far from the truth. The Tigrinyas, Habeshas, and Amharas are the only ones mixed. The Oromo and Afar have absolutely 0% Arab blood and white European blood even. They had a heavy hand in the Axumite civilization along with the other three mixed tribes.
 
Posted by Ebony Allen (Member # 12771) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
I'm not African so I wouldn't worship Thor.
Im pretty sure Thor is a European god.
It doesn't matter. Africans worship anything but the Creator, so I have no doubt that they will worship Thor.
Are you on drugs or something? Why would africans worship a VIKING God? That doesnt even make sense? Most africans probably dont even know who Thor is.
They would worship a viking God because they are pagans. Africans will worship anything, but the creator.
So you agree europeans are pagans as well then. lol this is sad. And for your information christianity is widespread in Africa. [/QUOTE]
Europeans at one time were pagans but they had enough brains to ditch the primitive pagan lifestyle. Africans are still playing catch-up. [/QB][/QUOTE]


Yeah, but who gave it to them? Do you even see the history of whites in the Bible at all? I think not. Egyptians, Ethiopians, Sumerians, and others were all black nations as they were Hamites. None of the history of the Japhethites are mentioned in the Bible anywhere. If it hadn't been for us they would be pagans still.
 
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
LOL! My thought process doesn't need to be scientific and neither was it meant to be and you are confusing me since I can't make out what you are trying to express. The evidence for "divine revelation" is all around you-- you call it evolution and I call it creation, you call it the big bang or the big ooze and I call it GOD. You can't prove the big bang but the creator is all around us. Since there is a physical world and a spiritual world you will meet your answers when you dropped dead and have to face the "invisible" MAN. There is no scientific evidence for human evolution. Humans don't evolve and humans don't make themselves.
It's clear that you have a fundamentalist mindset which leads you to adhere to dogma rather than reason so having a scientific discussion with you is pointless.

I posted a video detailing all of the latest scientific evidence for human evolution. That doesn't mean that there is no God it's just a scientific theory for how our species came into existence. If you choose to deny that evidence rather than trying to refute it that's your prerogative but it reflect poorly on your debating skills.

You're confusing intelligent design with divine revelation. Intelligent design is the theory that the universe has a sentient designer ("God") rather than existing at random. Divine Revelation is the belief that God communicates to humans and reveals information to them. Text alleged to be divinely inspired such as the Bible would be an example of Divine Revelation.

Common sense dictates that if the Bible is truly divinely inspired and a reliable form of divine revelation then it should be inerrant because God is said to be a perfect being, therefore his message is the truth (if God lies his message isn't reliable). So logically we should be able to scrutinize the Bible to find out if it truly passes the test of inerrancy.

Unfortunately for Christians the Bible is full of historical inaccuracies, it contradicts science, is full of unfulfilled prophecies and contradicts itself in its moral messages and contains absurdities among other things. You can check out this webpage for more detail:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

The world is not separated into only theists and atheists. I for one am Agnostic. There are religions such as Deism that teach the belief Intelligent Design but do not believe in Divine Revelation. Deists believe in a Natural God who created the Universe but does not intervene in human affairs. They reject the Biblical God and all other Gods because they see their holy text as incompatible with nature.

I tend to believe that the complexity of the universe is a good argument for intelligent design and the existence of a God. If so evolution is simply a part of that design.

It makes alot more sense to me than God breathing life into dirt and creating woman from a rib.
 
Posted by Wayland (Member # 16060) on :
 
Sounds like you too agree on some things. If the 7 "days" of creation are conceived as 7 long cycles, some longer than others, but beginning with the "big bang" - let there be light, then there is reconciliation with various scientific facts. The Gap theory offers another mode of reconciliation. Neither of these approaches are new, they are over 2 centuries old, but thrown into sharper focus with the coming of Darwinism.
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
I tend to believe the Bible is inspired by the spirit of God that lives in some of us; which some of us are more in touch with than others due to choices made and the level of consciousness we live at. Some people have other spirits living in them - spirit being simply a mental state or attitude than can be transmitted. But inspiration is not the same as direct revelation. I can be inspired to draw a mountain but it doesn't mean I will draw it very accurately. It is just an inspiration and the vessel by which it is passed through limits the resulting product.

As for God, I think he does manipulate the time line since he/she/it is not bound by our concept of time. Such a being can simply nudge societies in certain directions at will to view the outcome similar to a programmer manipulating a simulation. Such a being can move through time in any direction. The origin of such a being is an interesting point of discussion but the odds of such a being existing is to the point of complete certainty. As such it is pointless to deny that at some point (past or future) a being evolved that could move through time and thus gain God like abilities to control the outcome of events the are unfolding in our Universe.


God is a time traveling being.
 
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
[QB] I tend to believe the Bible is inspired by the spirit of God that lives in some of us; which some of us are more in touch with than others due to choices made and the level of consciousness we live at. Some people have other spirits living in them - spirit being simply a mental state or attitude than can be transmitted. But inspiration is not the same as direct revelation. I can be inspired to draw a mountain but it doesn't mean I will draw it very accurately. It is just an inspiration and the vessel by which it is passed through limits the resulting product.
Yes, inspiration and revelation are different things but the Bible is said to be the word of God meaning that its authors are presenting the direct message of God. The prophets of the Bible are said to have their prophecies be divinely revealed to them. The authors of the Bible were inspired by that divine source to create a literary masterpiece.

quote:
As for God, I think he does manipulate the time line since he/she/it is not bound by our concept of time. Such a being can simply nudge societies in certain directions at will to view the outcome similar to a programmer manipulating a simulation. Such a being can move through time in any direction. The origin of such a being is an interesting point of discussion but the odds of such a being existing is to the point of complete certainty. As such it is pointless to deny that at some point (past or future) a being evolved that could move through time and thus gain God like abilities to control the outcome of events the are unfolding in our Universe.


God is a time traveling being.
Certainly if a God exists he must be a powerful being. If he had the ability to write the laws his powers must transcend them. Some people believe in a finite God with limitations on power. Others believe in an Omnipotent God that can do anything. I think the laws of the universe suggest that there is a lawgiver but I find it strange that an omnipotent being would hide from its creation.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ebony Allen:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
I'm not African so I wouldn't worship Thor.
Im pretty sure Thor is a European god.
It doesn't matter. Africans worship anything but the Creator, so I have no doubt that they will worship Thor.
Are you on drugs or something? Why would africans worship a VIKING God? That doesnt even make sense? Most africans probably dont even know who Thor is.
They would worship a viking God because they are pagans. Africans will worship anything, but the creator.
So you agree europeans are pagans as well then. lol this is sad. And for your information christianity is widespread in Africa.
Europeans at one time were pagans but they had enough brains to ditch the primitive pagan lifestyle. Africans are still playing catch-up. [/QUOTE]


Yeah, but who gave it to them? Do you even see the history of whites in the Bible at all? I think not. Egyptians, Ethiopians, Sumerians, and others were all black nations as they were Hamites. None of the history of the Japhethites are mentioned in the Bible anywhere. If it hadn't been for us they would be pagans still. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Your azz is in dreamland. No African gave europeans christianity. The early christians were made up of Greeks and Hebrews. There are white people all through the bible you idiot. What you don't find in the bible are Africans. All the black Africans in the bible were hamitic descendants who were the indigenous people of the Middle East and North East Africans. You don't find Central Africans, Bantus, West Africans, or Southern Africans in the bible. You don't even find East Africans in the bible with the exception of cushitic groups. The Greeks and macedonians and others are jaspheth descendants and you find them in the bible.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ebony Allen:
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
This is a interesting statement from the so called Afrocentricsmasher.

If this poster had any sense at all and has been on planet Earth for the last 30 years, he/she should know that Mankind originated in Ethiopia and dispersed to the rest of the world from that location. So it is NOT THAT Ethiopians are adapted brown skinned Whites but rather that Whites are depigmented Ethiopians. But then everyone comes from the Ethiopian people so you can describe any group of people in relations to Ethiopian people.

And it is a load of crap to say that Ethiopians are Semitic / African mixture. That is true of the Amhara and Tigre but not of the Oromo, Afar and Borana .
Agreed. Many people out there say this about all Ethiopians when it is far from the truth. The Tigrinyas, Habeshas, and Amharas are the only ones mixed. The Oromo and Afar have absolutely 0% Arab blood and white European blood even. They had a heavy hand in the Axumite civilization along with the other three mixed tribes.
Those people aren't mix. If they are mix then they are mix with African blood. The "Arab" blood in them is indigenous. Those people don't even mix with modern day white Saudis or "Arabs." Habeshas, Amharas (very few in number) and Tigrinyas don't even mix with Arabs. These people are all christians who don't live by any arab culture or speak any Arab language. Habeshas are an African people making them indigenuous to the African land. Many people speak Amharaic because it is the official language. Many people in Ethiopia who aren't Amharaic define as so because they speak the language or live by the culture. I know a few Ethiopians who aren't Amhara in ethnicity but speak the language and live the culture because they were over ruled by it and grew up in the culture and speak the language. You people keep calling these people mixed with Arab when it is the other way around. Modern day white Arabs are actually mixed with indigenous Arab tribes some of them happen to be those Ethiopian tribes you just mentioned. They aren't really "Arabs", though their genes are indigenous to the Middle East (Asia) they come from a different tribe than Arabs. If they were Arabs they would speak Arabic and live by the culture and Islamic faith which neither of them do except a few in the Ogaden region and that is because it was introduced to them.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
That's right! Argue over some Fairy tale made up BS. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
That's right! Argue over some Fairy tale made up BS. [Roll Eyes]
Not one thing I wrote is made up. You fvcking Africans always got to interject yourselves in noble civilizations. The Amhara, Habesha, and Tigriya are not ARABS. Don't you think if they were Arabs they would speak Arabic. The "arab" genes are indigenous to the Middle East (Asia) but those people are a different tribal group from indigenous Arabs and they don't even mingle with modern day "Arabs" from the Middle East. They only mingle within their own ethnicity. If those people are mix then they are mix with African not with "Arab."
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus:

Certainly if a God exists he must be a powerful being. If he had the ability to write the laws his powers must transcend them. Some people believe in a finite God with limitations on power. Others believe in an Omnipotent God that can do anything. I think the laws of the universe suggest that there is a lawgiver but I find it strange that an omnipotent being would hide from its creation.

You mean the fact that God is a spiritual being containing no mass and not subject to the laws of this Universe makes you doubt in the existence of such a being even though I specifically stated that for God to exist he must have such qualities?

God is a time traveler and therefore is not made up of matter found in this Universe. We were formed specifically for sensing forces in this Universe - primarily the electro magnetic fields that we see about us. We have a very limited ability to sense things. Most of God's creation can sense a great deal better than we can.

I suppose you want God to be something other than what he is. That is a strange request. Turn yourself into something I understand and can sense and then I will believe. I understand why such a being would go to such extremes to nudge history in a certain direction but it seems pointless to continue to do that all the time. For if such a being revealed himself to a generation, certainly the next would not believe unless that had direct sense of such a being. God would be trapped in having to always prove his existence to everyone all the time and everywhere. It would be an endless show when God's creation - the laws - should be sufficient enough.
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
osirion

Great points about God. Let me just add that God did "USE" to let himself be known by man. In the Bible God always had to reveal himself to the Israelis by prophets because the Isrealis always disobeyed gods teachings. He would allow them to be captured and when they recanted worshipping false gods, he would bring them backk to him.

Gotta love God who does not give up on us Humans, he is nothing like man.

Peace
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ebony Allen:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
I'm not African so I wouldn't worship Thor.
Im pretty sure Thor is a European god.
It doesn't matter. Africans worship anything but the Creator, so I have no doubt that they will worship Thor.
Are you on drugs or something? Why would africans worship a VIKING God? That doesnt even make sense? Most africans probably dont even know who Thor is.
They would worship a viking God because they are pagans. Africans will worship anything, but the creator.
So you agree europeans are pagans as well then. lol this is sad. And for your information christianity is widespread in Africa.
Europeans at one time were pagans but they had enough brains to ditch the primitive pagan lifestyle. Africans are still playing catch-up.
Yeah, but who gave it to them? Do you even see the history of whites in the Bible at all? I think not. Egyptians, Ethiopians, Sumerians, and others were all black nations as they were Hamites. None of the history of the Japhethites are mentioned in the Bible anywhere. If it hadn't been for us they would be pagans still. [/QUOTE]

Your azz is in dreamland. No African gave europeans christianity. The early christians were made up of Greeks and Hebrews. There are white people all through the bible you idiot. What you don't find in the bible are Africans. All the black Africans in the bible were hamitic descendants who were the indigenous people of the Middle East and North East Africans. You don't find Central Africans, Bantus, West Africans, or Southern Africans in the bible. You don't even find East Africans in the bible with the exception of cushitic groups. The Greeks and macedonians and others are jaspheth descendants and you find them in the bible. [/QB][/QUOTE]


FYI - you contradict yourself:

You said: What you don't find in the bible are Africans. All the black Africans in the bible were hamitic descendants who were the indigenous people of the Middle East and North East Africans.

In one sentence you say: you don't find in the bible Afircans. In the next you say: black Africans in the Bible were Hamitic.

Very typical of someone who cannot accept what the Bible specifically states and what genetics proves. We all have a common ancestor. If we are going to try to go by Biblical concepts of race then ALL Black Africans are Hamitic. Period.

What you said stinks of multi-regional racism. Which implies Africans have a non-Adamic ancestry. A very convenient rationalization due to racist sentiments but is entirely a fabrication and has no relevance in the Bible and is in fact not supported by any actual cutlural, linguistic or any other type of scientific evidence or religious doctrine.

Not that I accept the flood myth or the Garden of Eden but I do find it interesting that the Natufians appear to have been clearly central African people and yet lived in Canaan. In fact, this has shaken my belief in current theories of man's origins. The fact that the Natufians are actually a population group that contained people of the Niger/Congo physiognomy, supports the Biblical account of creation to a point I had never suspected.
 
Posted by Ebony Allen (Member # 12771) on :
 
The Hebrews were black, you tramp. If they weren't then how do you explain Moses being mistaken for an Egyptian all the while he had been in Egypt since he was a baby?
 
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
You mean the fact that God is a spiritual being containing no mass and not subject to the laws of this Universe makes you doubt in the existence of such a being even though I specifically stated that for God to exist he must have such qualities?

God is a time traveler and therefore is not made up of matter found in this Universe. We were formed specifically for sensing forces in this Universe - primarily the electro magnetic fields that we see about us. We have a very limited ability to sense things. Most of God's creation can sense a great deal better than we can.

I suppose you want God to be something other than what he is. That is a strange request. Turn yourself into something I understand and can sense and then I will believe. I understand why such a being would go to such extremes to nudge history in a certain direction but it seems pointless to continue to do that all the time. For if such a being revealed himself to a generation, certainly the next would not believe unless that had direct sense of such a being. God would be trapped in having to always prove his existence to everyone all the time and everywhere. It would be an endless show when God's creation - the laws - should be sufficient enough.
If God is Omnipotent he can take any form he wants which means he can have mass if he wants to, he can make himself known to the world if he wants to and according to the Bible he has done so several times yet mysteriously in the modern age evidence of his existence is nowhere to be found.

I don't think it is unreasonable for God to guide humanity by simply making himself known. Do you know how many people would become believers if they had proof of God? Instead we are taught to adhere to faith in something unproven in a world where evidence is valued.

I'm on the fence because I do find the universe to be amazing and its order suggests a creator yet life is so imperfect and without evidence an afterlife seems like wishful thinking and a comfort for the living who know that death is an inevitable fate.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ebony Allen:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chrome-Soul:
I'm not African so I wouldn't worship Thor.
Im pretty sure Thor is a European god.
It doesn't matter. Africans worship anything but the Creator, so I have no doubt that they will worship Thor.
Are you on drugs or something? Why would africans worship a VIKING God? That doesnt even make sense? Most africans probably dont even know who Thor is.
They would worship a viking God because they are pagans. Africans will worship anything, but the creator.
So you agree europeans are pagans as well then. lol this is sad. And for your information christianity is widespread in Africa.
Europeans at one time were pagans but they had enough brains to ditch the primitive pagan lifestyle. Africans are still playing catch-up.
Yeah, but who gave it to them? Do you even see the history of whites in the Bible at all? I think not. Egyptians, Ethiopians, Sumerians, and others were all black nations as they were Hamites. None of the history of the Japhethites are mentioned in the Bible anywhere. If it hadn't been for us they would be pagans still.
Your azz is in dreamland. No African gave europeans christianity. The early christians were made up of Greeks and Hebrews. There are white people all through the bible you idiot. What you don't find in the bible are Africans. All the black Africans in the bible were hamitic descendants who were the indigenous people of the Middle East and North East Africans. You don't find Central Africans, Bantus, West Africans, or Southern Africans in the bible. You don't even find East Africans in the bible with the exception of cushitic groups. The Greeks and macedonians and others are jaspheth descendants and you find them in the bible. [/QUOTE]


FYI - you contradict yourself:

You said: What you don't find in the bible are Africans. All the black Africans in the bible were hamitic descendants who were the indigenous people of the Middle East and North East Africans.

In one sentence you say: you don't find in the bible Afircans. In the next you say: black Africans in the Bible were Hamitic.

Very typical of someone who cannot accept what the Bible specifically states and what genetics proves. We all have a common ancestor. If we are going to try to go by Biblical concepts of race then ALL Black Africans are Hamitic. Period.

What you said stinks of multi-regional racism. Which implies Africans have a non-Adamic ancestry. A very convenient rationalization due to racist sentiments but is entirely a fabrication and has no relevance in the Bible and is in fact not supported by any actual cutlural, linguistic or any other type of scientific evidence or religious doctrine.

Not that I accept the flood myth or the Garden of Eden but I do find it interesting that the Natufians appear to have been clearly central African people and yet lived in Canaan. In fact, this has shaken my belief in current theories of man's origins. The fact that the Natufians are actually a population group that contained people of the Niger/Congo physiognomy, supports the Biblical account of creation to a point I had never suspected. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Shut the fvck up, I didn't contradict myself and don't twist what the fvck I said. It is your belief that Africans belong to Ham. I said that the only black people you find in the bible are Hams descendants who are the Cushitic groups of North East Africa and indigenous black groups of the Middle East even Arabs. There is no evidence in the bible that West Africans and Southern Africans and even East Africans are Ham descendants. All of Ham descendants that you read in the bible are all in North east Africa or the middle East. Who knows what family branch West Africans, Central and Southern Africans came from. They are probably Jaspheth descendants. The bible don't get into every family branch or nation; it only cites the "important ones". That is why you don't find Nordics, Africans (with the exception of North East Africans), Chinese, Native Americans, Mongols, Australian Aborigines, etc... in the bible. The black people you read in the bible are not west/central/southern Africans. You know in got damn well you people were too primitive to live that noble.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ebony Allen:
The Hebrews were black, you tramp. If they weren't then how do you explain Moses being mistaken for an Egyptian all the while he had been in Egypt since he was a baby?
Firstly, I never said Hebrews weren't black. They were black but they looked nothng like your typical African. They looked Asian more like black indigenous groups of India or more like the "cushitic" groups of Africa. They had hair that was jet black, soft, and can grow long; they had smooth soft delicate skin, and fine features. Moses wasn't mistaken for an Egyptian. Where is the evidence that moses was mistaken for an Egyptian.
 
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
 
Bettyboo,

I've had about enough of your racist insanity.

The table of nations mentioned in the Bible have nothing to do with how advanced the cultures were. The authors mentioned only the parts of the world known to them.

They don't mention Northern Europeans, other regions of Africa, East Asia, Australia or the Americas because noone had been to those regions of the world at the time. That's just common sense.
 
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
. I said that the only black people you find in the bible are Hams descendants who are the Cushitic groups of North East Africa
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
There is no evidence in the bible that West Africans and Southern Africans and even East Africans are Ham descendants.
Contradiction is Betty's new first name, this poster is loony!! Is N.east Africa not East Africa? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Moses wasn't mistaken for an Egyptian. Where is the evidence that moses was mistaken for an Egyptian.
In Exodus after fleeing Egypt Moses rescued the daughters of Jethro from some shepherds who were bullying them. They say that an Egyptian rescued them:

Exodus 2:17-19 - Some shepherds came along and drove them away, but Moses got up and came to their rescue and watered their flock. When the girls returned to Reuel their father, he asked them, "Why have you returned so early today?" They answered, "An Egyptian rescued us from the shepherds. He even drew water for us and watered the flock."


I wouldn't ascribe any racial meaning to this. According to the Bible Moses grew up in Pharaoh's court so culturally he was an Egyptian.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus:
Bettyboo,

I've had about enough of your racist insanity.

The table of nations mentioned in the Bible have nothing to do with how advanced the cultures were. The authors mentioned only the parts of the world known to them.

They don't mention Northern Europeans, other regions of Africa, East Asia, Australia or the Americas because noone had been to those regions of the world at the time. That's just common sense.
You're in dream land. All four corners of the earth was inhabited when God separated man. There was not a land or corner of the earth that wasn't inhabited. Read the bible. The bible only cite the families (nations) that are "important" or the families who make up the nations in the region(s) were the events in the bible take place.

Genesis 11:8, So the LORD scattered them ABROAD from thence (Shinar) upon the face of ALL the earth; and they left off to build the city. 11:9, Therefore is the name of it called BABEL; because the LORD there (Shinar/Babel) confound the language of ALL the earth; and from thence (BABEL) did the LORD scatter them ABROAD upon the face of ALL the earth.

Let's read what happened before; Genesis 11:4, And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, LEST WE BE SCATTERED ABROAD upon the WHOLE face of the earth.

Genesis 10:32, These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and BY THESE were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

The bible does not get into every family branch or every family generation. It only cite CERTAIN families, the more "important" ones or the people we read about in the bible in which the nations live in the region where all the events took place. So you are not going to find west/central/southern/eastern Africans in the bible because those people has nothing to do with the region or people we read about in the areas where the biblical events took place.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Moses wasn't mistaken for an Egyptian. Where is the evidence that moses was mistaken for an Egyptian.
In Exodus after fleeing Egypt Moses rescued the daughters of Jethro from some shepherds who were bullying them. They say that an Egyptian rescued them:

Exodus 2:17-19 - Some shepherds came along and drove them away, but Moses got up and came to their rescue and watered their flock. When the girls returned to Reuel their father, he asked them, "Why have you returned so early today?" They answered, "An Egyptian rescued us from the shepherds. He even drew water for us and watered the flock."


I wouldn't ascribe any racial meaning to this. According to the Bible Moses grew up in Pharaoh's court so culturally he was an Egyptian.
Thanks, but Ebony Allen said Moses was confused as an Egyptian while he was around Egyptians. Please read her post. Moses was never confused for an Egyptian. I agree with the above but lest not mistaken this for looking alike. Moses was indeed and Egyptian by nationality and culture.
 
Posted by yql718 (Member # 16646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
. I said that the only black people you find in the bible are Hams descendants who are the Cushitic groups of North East Africa
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
There is no evidence in the bible that West Africans and Southern Africans and even East Africans are Ham descendants.
Contradiction is Betty's new first name, this poster is loony!! Is N.east Africa not East Africa? [Roll Eyes]
lol... And so is the land of Punt, so often identified with Somalia. That the last I looked, is on and in the eastern side of Africa. Another descendant of Ham of course was Mizraim, which means Egypt in Hebrew. And we know that Egyptians considered Punt to be their ancestral homeland.

quote:
"It may be noted that the ancient Egyptians themselves appear to have been convinced that their place of origin was African rather than Asian. They made continued reference to the land of Punt as their homeland."
White, Jon Manchip., Ancient Egypt: Its Culture and History (Dover Publications; New Ed edition, June 1, 1970), p. 141.
 
Posted by Ebony Allen (Member # 12771) on :
 
Shut the fvck up, I didn't contradict myself and don't twist what the fvck I said. It is your belief that Africans belong to Ham. I said that the only black people you find in the bible are Hams descendants who are the Cushitic groups of North East Africa and indigenous black groups of the Middle East even Arabs. There is no evidence in the bible that West Africans and Southern Africans and even East Africans are Ham descendants. All of Ham descendants that you read in the bible are all in North east Africa or the middle East. Who knows what family branch West Africans, Central and Southern Africans came from. They are probably Jaspheth descendants. The bible don't get into every family branch or nation; it only cites the "important ones". That is why you don't find Nordics, Africans (with the exception of North East Africans), Chinese, Native Americans, Mongols, Australian Aborigines, etc... in the bible. The black people you read in the bible are not west/central/southern Africans. You know in got damn well you people were too primitive to live that noble. [/QB][/QUOTE]


How are non-East African blacks descendants of Japheth when he is described as being white, you dumbass? Don't be a fucking dummy.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by yql718:
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
. I said that the only black people you find in the bible are Hams descendants who are the Cushitic groups of North East Africa
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
There is no evidence in the bible that West Africans and Southern Africans and even East Africans are Ham descendants.
Contradiction is Betty's new first name, this poster is loony!! Is N.east Africa not East Africa? [Roll Eyes]
lol... And so is the land of Punt, so often identified with Somalia. That the last I looked, is on and in the eastern side of Africa. Another descendant of Ham of course was Mizraim, which means Egypt in Hebrew. And we know that Egyptians considered Punt to be their ancestral homeland.

quote:
"It may be noted that the ancient Egyptians themselves appear to have been convinced that their place of origin was African rather than Asian. They made continued reference to the land of Punt as their homeland."
White, Jon Manchip., Ancient Egypt: Its Culture and History (Dover Publications; New Ed edition, June 1, 1970), p. 141.
Biblical Punt is actually in Ethiopia, and its nation was also in the middle east. Let's not forgot that these people lived by nations.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ebony Allen:
Shut the fvck up, I didn't contradict myself and don't twist what the fvck I said. It is your belief that Africans belong to Ham. I said that the only black people you find in the bible are Hams descendants who are the Cushitic groups of North East Africa and indigenous black groups of the Middle East even Arabs. There is no evidence in the bible that West Africans and Southern Africans and even East Africans are Ham descendants. All of Ham descendants that you read in the bible are all in North east Africa or the middle East. Who knows what family branch West Africans, Central and Southern Africans came from. They are probably Jaspheth descendants. The bible don't get into every family branch or nation; it only cites the "important ones". That is why you don't find Nordics, Africans (with the exception of North East Africans), Chinese, Native Americans, Mongols, Australian Aborigines, etc... in the bible. The black people you read in the bible are not west/central/southern Africans. You know in got damn well you people were too primitive to live that noble.
How are non-East African blacks descendants of Japheth when he is described as being white, you dumbass? Don't be a fucking dummy. [/QB][/QUOTE]

You're a fvcking dummy. I said we don't know where the west/central/southern/east africans come from because the bible never tells you. They could have came from any of the three sons. We can't rule out Jaspheth or Shem or they could have branch off from families from all three brothers. I just know that we can't use the bible to prove that west/central/southern/eastern (noncushitic stocks) Africans come from Ham because you will not find any such thing in the bible. The bible don't speak of those type of black people. Where is Japheth described as being white. How can he be white if Noah and his sons were black? I suppose they had a black child; white child; and chinese child.
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
You know in got damn well you people were too primitive to live that noble. [/QB]
Who is you people? I am of Oromo and Jewish heritage. However, if you had any sense at all you would connect the dots with the rest of Africa from a sensible point of entry through NE Africa down the Nile and then across the Niger/Congo rivers into West Africa.

So of course if the Ethiopians are Hamitic then so must be the rest of Africa if man's origin is the fertile crescent. It is the natural course of migration.

Also, as for central Black Africans in the Bible.

Taharka's features are Black enough to be considered of the Niger/Congo family type.

-
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Moses wasn't mistaken for an Egyptian. Where is the evidence that moses was mistaken for an Egyptian.
In Exodus after fleeing Egypt Moses rescued the daughters of Jethro from some shepherds who were bullying them. They say that an Egyptian rescued them:

Exodus 2:17-19 - Some shepherds came along and drove them away, but Moses got up and came to their rescue and watered their flock. When the girls returned to Reuel their father, he asked them, "Why have you returned so early today?" They answered, "An Egyptian rescued us from the shepherds. He even drew water for us and watered the flock."


I wouldn't ascribe any racial meaning to this. According to the Bible Moses grew up in Pharaoh's court so culturally he was an Egyptian.
The Hyksos ruled Egypt prior to the Moses period so by this time Egyptian people would have been rather racially diverse.
 
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
The Hyksos ruled Egypt prior to the Moses period so by this time Egyptian people would have been rather racially diverse.
Speaking of which during which Pharaoh's reign do you believe the story of Exodus took place?
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
The Hyksos ruled Egypt prior to the Moses period so by this time Egyptian people would have been rather racially diverse.
Speaking of which during which Pharaoh's reign do you believe the story of Exodus took place?
I believe that the story of the exodus is based in part on the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt. However, I do not equate Hyksos to Israel. I think we are looking at multiple Asiatic groups entering Egypt during the Hyksos period. The result was a change to the dominant racial type of the Egyptian people, especially in Lower Egypt.

One must accept that the Tamau must have been entering Egypt since pre-dynastic times.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
You know in got damn well you people were too primitive to live that noble.
Who is you people? I am of Oromo and Jewish heritage. [/QB]
You're nothing but full of shyt and a troll.
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
You know in got damn well you people were too primitive to live that noble.
Who is you people? I am of Oromo and Jewish heritage.
You're nothing but full of shyt and a troll. [/QB]
Such wonderful language from someone who calls themselves Christian. Typical European Christianity - convenient Christianity - used when it is to your advantage and discarded at a whim when you think your flesh would have better leverage.

Fool!
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
You know in got damn well you people were too primitive to live that noble.
Who is you people? I am of Oromo and Jewish heritage.
You're nothing but full of shyt and a troll.
Such wonderful language from someone who calls themselves Christian. Typical European Christianity - convenient Christianity - used when it is to your advantage and discarded at a whim when you think your flesh would have better leverage.

Fool! [/QB]
Does this makes any sense. You're so full of shyt and that's all I'm saying.
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
^ You being a blind idiot makes all the sense in the world.
 
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
^ If you are going to use the KJV Bible as an argument against evolution then you will have to explain why the US Gods FORMED man in the garden rather then just simply made him appear.

Let us Form man. Form is a word that clearly indicates a process rathen than a state. Formation can be said to imply a process of iterative changes.

Besides you are a racist idiot and I don't want to waste my time talking to you.
Im not here to argue against evolution but the "US" that formed man in OUR image refers to the 3 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The 3 represent The Father The Most High and the Word(The Spirit that was in Christ)or the Son and the Holy Spirit who gives men understanding...They being one means they work in one accord not that they are one being like the Roman Catholic Church claims. This is why Jesus claims very often..."I Was sent by My Father" or "I come not to do my will but the will of him who sent me" The Father created two spirits before he created the Earth, Heavens and man...Two Elohim http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/430.htm powers...The Word and the Holy Spirit...

Also you are right...Man was formed in a specific place...
 
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Moses wasn't mistaken for an Egyptian. Where is the evidence that moses was mistaken for an Egyptian.
In Exodus after fleeing Egypt Moses rescued the daughters of Jethro from some shepherds who were bullying them. They say that an Egyptian rescued them:

Exodus 2:17-19 - Some shepherds came along and drove them away, but Moses got up and came to their rescue and watered their flock. When the girls returned to Reuel their father, he asked them, "Why have you returned so early today?" They answered, "An Egyptian rescued us from the shepherds. He even drew water for us and watered the flock."


I wouldn't ascribe any racial meaning to this. According to the Bible Moses grew up in Pharaoh's court so culturally he was an Egyptian.
Thanks, but Ebony Allen said Moses was confused as an Egyptian while he was around Egyptians. Please read her post. Moses was never confused for an Egyptian. I agree with the above but lest not mistaken this for looking alike. Moses was indeed and Egyptian by nationality and culture.
Actually Moses was mistaken for an Egyptian: Exodus 2:18
18 And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day? 19 And they said, An Egyptian(Moses) delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered the flock

You don't have to stop at Moses...Joseph, and many Hebrews up even until Jesus and the Apostles day were mistaken as Egyptians..
Acts 21: 38
38Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days made an uproar, and led out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?

The Hebrews are always linked in some way, shape or form to the Sons of Ham(Mizriam, Kush, Canaan, and Phut) Mainly Mizriam and Kush and Canaan...Who by all accounts were Black People. The Land of Chaldea where Abraham Came from was founded by Ethiopians...The Hebrews married Canaanite and other Hamatic(Egyptians and Ethiopian) wives...Why not Japhetic Women or be mistaken for Japhetic famlies.

The Biblical Hebrews were Brown and Black skinned people and the best representation are the current population of Egypt where a remnant is still there...

Do you even read your bible??
 
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
 
Well I do hope this God was black or brown skinned too.
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Jari-Ankhamun

Good on you for reading and teaching the Bible.

Always have to give respect to those who no the Good book like that.

Peace
 
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grumman:
Well I do hope this God was black or brown skinned too.
The Most High is a spirit...Skin color is and was irrelevent...It was White Europeans that made skin color a big deal when it comes to the Most High and worshipping him. We don't need to use race nor should the Children of Israel ever "Brag" about being a chosen race becuase the most High can take Rocks as his heritage...There is nothing Special about being a Israelite if you don't keep the commandments of Torah and use Christ as an example of laying down your life for the Father which is in Heaven.

If the European had read the Bible and not put their Philosophies on the Scriptures they would have known this. If a stranger be they Ishmael, Moab or Ammon, Egyptian, Ethiopian, or Japhet decided to follow the Laws of Torah, and Follow the God of Israel they were seen as the same a The Children of Israel...The Key is being righteous by following the laws.

With all that said the Biblical Hebrews were brown and black skinned...nothing special really. The same Hebrews fled into Africa from early times and after Pompey captured the land and after the sack of Jerusalem in 70 A.D..These same Hebrews of the Kingdom of Judah were captured and enslaved...all predicted by Torah.
The Chinese know they are Chinese

The Irish know the are Irish

The Negroes now know they are from the tribe of Judah...
 
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
 
''The Most High is a spirit...Skin color is and was irrelevent...''

So to get around this issue you use ''spirit.''

''It was White Europeans that made skin color a big deal when it comes to the Most High and worshipping him.''

Will the Chinese have anything to say about this color? Or doesn't it matter to them? Is there anything wrong with saying God is black?

In other words is there any solution in terms of color for those whom don't accept the spirit route?

''...and use Christ as an example of laying down your life for the Father which is in Heaven.''

Some evangelicals say Christ is God in heaven. If the people in that part of the world were at least brownskinned a couple of thousand years ago, including Jesus, then doesn't it follow God is brownskinned also, if Christ is God? And to get around this you will still may say a spirit is involved?
 
Posted by AswaniAswad (Member # 16742) on :
 
Amhara,Tigreans are not mixed with arabs or europeans u need to get your facts straight. The language of Tigreans,and Tigre is related to Aramaic,Hebrew,and Arabic semitic languages Ethiopia alone has more semitic languages than all of the socalled Middle east combined but Tigrinia,Tigre,and Amharic are not fully semitic languages there is a big cushitic element i am a speaker of arabic,tigre,beja,and tigrinia. EbonyAllen dont let the look of Amhara and Tigreans fool u into thinking like those European Bigots who claim them to be of arab european admixture because of a look that is not even of european or arab origin.

If u claim Amhara,Tigreans,and Tigre to be of Arab European admixture then u Must as Well include all of Northern Sudan, the socalled Nubians of Northern Sudan Southern Egypt, Beja of Egypt,Sudan,Eritrea,Somali,Dijbouti they look no different than your socalled Admixtured Amhara,Tigrean,Tigre of eritea,NOrth ethiopia.

Somali,Oromo,Afar,Saho,Bilen,and Agaw are all Cushitic languages spoken by those different groups of people Somalia,Oromo-southern ethiopia, Afar-eritrea,djbouti, Saho-eritrea, Bilen-eritrea, Agaw-northwest ethiopia. These people look no different than there Amhara,Tigrean,and Tigre brothers.
 
Posted by phenelzine (Member # 15694) on :
 
From ASHG abstracts (2009)

The distribution of sex-specific human genetic variation in Ethiopia.

Ethiopia has been proposed as a candidate location for the emergence of anatomically modern humans, and the source region for the expansion out of Africa. It is also a region of substantial cultural diversity as expressed in languages (Nilo-Saharan, Cushitic, Semitic, and Omotic language families), religions (Christians, Jews, Moslems and Animists), ethnic identities (over 80 groups) as well as many marginalised groups socially excluded on grounds of caste-like occupation, supposed origin, or both. The demographic history of Ethiopia over the past several thousand years has involved both sustained migration of Semitic speakers from the Arabian Peninsula as well as internal conquests of lands in the south. To investigate the demographic histories of ethnic groups we analysed a battery of SNPs and microsatellites on the non-recombining portion of the Y chromosome (NRY) and sequence variation in the Hypervariable Segment 1 (HVS1) of mtDNA (5756 samples from 45 ethnic groups). Commonly used summary statistics (gene diversity h, genetic distance Fst) were analysed within the context of non Ethiopian data e.g. West Africa (Igbo, Nigeria) and Europeans. We present preliminary results reporting a wide range of genetic diversity values within ethnic groups (h: NRY = 0.743 - 0.972, HVS1 = 0.962 - 0.996) and pairwise genetic distance values between groups (Fst: NRY = 0.000 - 0.294, HVS1 = 0.000 - 0.035). A clustering of Ethiopian groups was observed when using principal coordinate analyses with genetic distances, appearing midway between a West African Niger-Congo speaking group (Igbo of Nigeria) and an Indo- European speaking group (Greek Cypriots). Some south-western groups (e.g. Anuak) showed greater similarity to West-Africans while the culturally influential Amhara were more similar to Europeans.
 
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
^^What's your point? If you have one....
 
Posted by phenelzine (Member # 15694) on :
 
First of all, be polite.
Second, anybody at all familiar with population genetics should know that there are numerous studies showing that Horners in general have an Fst distance intermediate between the W Eurasian cluster and the W,S African cluster
 
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by phenelzine:
First of all, be polite.
Second, anybody at all familiar with population genetics should know that there are numerous studies showing that Horners in general have an Fst distance intermediate between the W Eurasian cluster and the W,S African cluster
So you're telling me this has nothing at all to do with the fact that Ethiopia is the point of origin for all humans, and the fact they Ethiopians carry a subset of genetic diversity found in the rest of Africa as well as non Africans?
 
Posted by phenelzine (Member # 15694) on :
 
That's exactly the reason: if the ancestral hss population originated in E Africa, then all other pops (including present day Africans) diverged from it, in different directions. IOW, an Eskimo is just as much descended from this ancestral pop as is a Yoruba. In fact, Tishkoff and others believe there was deep ancestral structure in Africa before OOA, and that "non-Africans" evolved in Africa before some of them left. Thus, if true, there would remain a "non-African" remnant in E Africa (although migrations from SW Asia also affected the area)that shows up in so many papers. See Tishkoff's latest study.
 
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
Of course non Africans were in Africa first and then migrated out, but they were still Africans while in Africa before leaving.

This is noted due to the fact that East Africans carry the ancestral lineages for all non Africans, this is why Ethiopians and Somalis appear intermediate as explained.

Of course Tishkoff is not saying the non African population became non African inside of Africa and left non African genetic diversity in East Africa, that doesn't even make sense, they were still African while in Africa hence the genetic diversity was/is African..

When the East African population migrated out of Africa never to return is when the linages that derived from then on became non African, and sorry but as Tishkoff notes this intermediate position is due to local evolution and NOT admixture with Eurasians!


Take note;

Comparative genetic studies on geographically diverse populations provide evidence of high levels of diversity in continental Africa. Sarah Tishkoff and her colleagues (1986) find an intermediate pattern of genetic variation at the CD4 locus in northeastern (actually Horn) African populations. They explain this by local evolution and not by admixture with Eurasians. In essence they are describing a gradient of differentiation. The Horn, largely at the latitude of Nigeria, contains a subset of the diversity seen in other African regions. Tishkoff and her colleagues suggest that the Horn's inhabitant's are the local descendants of those who left Africa to populate the world. -- S.O.Y. Keita


Also note;

Cavalli-Sforza: Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution. Pg 187.


..."In other words, all non-Africans carry M168. Of course, Africans carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the African subpopulation from which the migrants originated.... Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man."
 
Posted by phenelzine (Member # 15694) on :
 
Yes, there was an "African subpopulation" from which "non-Afs" descend. That sub-pop was already differentiated from other pops (plural) that were in Africa. There's a lot of confusion, I think, over the the labels "african" and "non-african" I believe that pops should be named in non-geographic terms, like cluster X or Y or Z. The deepest split in Hss is between some Africans and everybody else. Call the former X and the latter Y and I think the situation would be clearer; then populations would be described by biological cluster and geography wouldn't confuse things.

As for Cavalli-S and the 2/3 Asian, 1/3 African business, I reserve judgment, because this depends on which "Africans" he means. So at this point I have no opinion on it, though it is a very interesting statement, and I'll keep it in mind. It does appear, on its face, to contradict what Tishkoff and Wilson say.

Again, I urge you to read the Tishkoff paper. It's the most exhaustive study on Africa so far.
 
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by phenelzine:
The deepest split in Hss is between some Africans and everybody else. Call the former X and the latter Y and I think the situation would be clearer; then populations would be described by biological cluster and geography wouldn't confuse things.
You still make no sense, why? Because you're still confusing the local evolution of horn African population as some magical split from the rest of Africa that somehow makes Ethiopians, Somalis etc.. genetically closer to Eurasians than other indigenous Africans.

This simply is not true. The split or intermediary position is simply because all non Africans possess a subset of East African diversity, and East Africans possess a subset of diversity seen in other African regions, hence this intermediary position is actually not what you think it is, it's not due to admixture from Eurasians, but rather the fact that Eurasians (as all non Africans), descend from a subset of East Africans.

As explained ad nauseum.

quote:
Originally posted by phenelzine:
As for Cavalli-S and the 2/3 Asian, 1/3 African business, I reserve judgment, because this depends on which "Africans" he means. So at this point I have no opinion on it, though it is a very interesting statement, and I'll keep it in mind. It does appear, on its face, to contradict what Tishkoff and Wilson say.
Huh? Where did you come out with that one? I didn't mention Sforzas Europeans whom he notes as being 1/3rd African and 2/3rd Asian.

I provided you with a quote from Sforza where he notes that all non Africans carry M168 and that the ancestor of all non Africans was an East African man, hence the intermediary position genetically, this is very much in line with Tishkoff and every other geneticist.


quote:
Originally posted by phenelzine:
Again, I urge you to read the Tishkoff paper. It's the most exhaustive study on Africa so far.
Actually, it was been posted here a while ago and I have read it.
 
Posted by phenelzine (Member # 15694) on :
 
If E africa was the homeland of hss, then other parts of Africa had originally only a subset of E African ancestry, not the other way around. How could the place of origin have less diversity than somewhere else? All modern pops descend from a subset of ancient E Af diversity.

The E af man: another example of confusion, I believe, between biology and geography. Most Africans males, and all Eurasian males are descended from him. He lived in E Africa, but he was no more an "African" in the modern sense than he was "non-Af." You're overlooking the element of time.

As for C-S's statement, I included it because it forms a reservation in my mind about my theory above. I apologize for your thinking I attributed it to you.

As for Tishkoff's study, could you tell me where it is in the forum?
 
Posted by phenelzine (Member # 15694) on :
 
Added to above:

I said the intermediary position of Horners' was due to the pre OOA evolution in Africa of Cluster Y. Later there was admixture between them and elements of Cluster X. The Fst distance (co-efficent of co-ancestry or biological kinship) between Horner's and the Yoruba is not magical, it's biological, and involves deep population structure in Pre-OOA Africa.

From Tishkoff's latest:

"When two clusters are assumed in the STRUCTURE analysis (K = 2), individuals
can primarily be assigned to African (orange) or non-African (blue) clusters, consistent
with the PCA (Fig. 3). Individuals from Saharan and Eastern Africa show heterogeneous
ancestry, reflecting descent from populations ancestral to non-Africans and/or gene flow
from non-Africans into Africa."

"African and non-African Associated Ancestral Clusters

based on the populations showing the highest levels of ancestry for each inferred
ancestral cluster) are highly divergent."

"The Africa-wide STRUCTURE result (Fig. S13) largely recapitulates the African
PCA results. Specifically, the western and eastern African populations were
distinguishable at K=2..."
 
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by phenelzine:
If E africa was the homeland of hss, then other parts of Africa had originally only a subset of E African ancestry, not the other way around. How could the place of origin have less diversity than somewhere else?
What are you talking about? Where did I say the place of origin had less diversity?

quote:
Originally posted by phenelzine:
All modern pops descend from a subset of ancient E Af diversity.
Yes.


quote:
Originally posted by phenelzine:
The E af man: another example of confusion, I believe, between biology and geography. Most Africans males, and all Eurasian males are descended from him. He lived in E Africa, but he was no more an "African" in the modern sense than he was "non-Af." You're overlooking the element of time.
Of course he was an African biologically and geographically, M168 is/was African and still is.

The east African population that non Africans descend from is not the same population "most" Africans on the continent descend from either, as noted this would actually be some Africans particularly East Africans (Horn) who are the local descendent's of the ancestors of all non Africans who didn't leave Africa.

Glad you mentioned the element of time also since A.M.H had been evolving inside of Africa for 140kya and diversified throughout the continent within this time before a subset of East Africans even made their first successful migration out of East Africa to become ancestors of non Africans.

So for these 140kya they weren't Africans? Lol you make no sense at all.


quote:
Originally posted by phenelzine:
As for C-S's statement, I included it because it forms a reservation in my mind about my theory above. I apologize for your thinking I attributed it to you.
No prob, well in any case if you would like to address Cavalli and his noting of Europeans being 1/3rd African and 2/3rd Asian you can.

Heres an example...

The fact that Europeans are closest genetically to Africans whereas the original OOA populations I.e, Oceanians, appear furthest away genetically from Africa, so if Oceanians and Europeans are part of the same non-African OOA population structure, then Europeans should be as distant genetically from Africans, as Oceanians are correct? If this is not due to post OOA migrations into Europe from Africa, then what is it?

-


quote:
Originally posted by phenelzine:
As for Tishkoff's study, could you tell me where it is in the forum?
You can check the archives it shouldn't be too hard to find.
 
Posted by phenelzine (Member # 15694) on :
 
If M-168 is "African" then everybody on earth is African. How, then, do we distinguish between different kinds of Africans?

Graph created using Cavalli-Sforza Fst distances:

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/FSTHGDP5addedCavalliAfricansamples-.gif
 
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by phenelzine:
The Fst distance (co-efficent of co-ancestry or biological kinship) between Horner's and the Yoruba is not magical, it's biological, and involves deep population structure in Pre-OOA Africa.
Wow, you really don't get it, the fact that this is due to local evolution and not admixture from non Africans, again why?

Well because all non Africans possess a subset of East African diversity, and East Africans possess a subset of diversity seen in other African regions, hence this intermediary position is actually not what you think it is, it's not due to admixture from Eurasians, but rather the fact that Eurasians (as all non Africans), descend from a subset of East Africans.

As explained ad nauseum.

quote:
Originally posted by phenelzine:
From Tishkoff's latest:

"When two clusters are assumed in the STRUCTURE analysis (K = 2), individuals
can primarily be assigned to African (orange) or non-African (blue) clusters, consistent
with the PCA (Fig. 3). Individuals from Saharan and Eastern Africa show heterogeneous
ancestry, reflecting descent from populations ancestral to non-Africans and/or gene flow
from non-Africans into Africa."
Correct in bold.
 
Posted by phenelzine (Member # 15694) on :
 
Well, MM, we"ll just have to disagree here. We each have our theories. Anyway, thanks for the civil conversation. Till next time.

Cheers
 
Posted by AswaniAswad (Member # 16742) on :
 
Mindovermatter718Quote
You still make no sense, why? Because you're still confusing the local evolution of horn African population as some magical split from the rest of Africa that somehow makes Ethiopians, Somalis etc.. genetically closer to Eurasians than other indigenous Africans.

This simply is not true. The split or intermediary position is simply because all non Africans possess a subset of East African diversity, and East Africans possess a subset of diversity seen in other African regions, hence this intermediary position is actually not what you think it is, it's not due to admixture from Eurasians, but rather the fact that Eurasians (as all non Africans), descend from a subset of East Africans.

MindoverMatter718 thank you u make the most sense and what u said above needs no more explaining All Non africans descended from a subset of East Africans Wonderful.

Sudanese,Beja,Eritreans,Ethiopians,Somalians,and Djboutins look all the same like they related somehow
 
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by phenelzine:
If M-168 is "African" then everybody on earth is African.
Well yea lol. As all geneticists note all non Africans are simply a subset of East Africans who migrated around the world and adapted to different climatic conditions.....

"We are all African under the skin"-- Geneticist Spencer Wells

Note: Genes, culture, and human evolution: a synthesis By Linda Stone, Paul F. Lurquin, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza

-

-
 
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by phenelzine:
Well, MM, we"ll just have to disagree here. We each have our theories. Anyway, thanks for the civil conversation. Till next time.

Cheers
Well, you're the one with an opposing theory against mainstream academic scholarship, the theories I propose are in line with the genetic data and what is proposed by geneticists.
 
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AswaniAswad:
MindoverMatter718 thank you u make the most sense and what u said above needs no more explaining All Non africans descended from a subset of East Africans Wonderful.
Thank you, and you're welcome. This is essentially the point of contention.
 
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Of course non Africans were in Africa first and then migrated out, but they were still Africans while in Africa before leaving.

This is noted due to the fact that East Africans carry the ancestral lineages for all non Africans, this is why Ethiopians and Somalis appear intermediate as explained.

Of course Tishkoff is not saying the non African population became non African inside of Africa and left non African genetic diversity in East Africa, that doesn't even make sense, they were still African while in Africa hence the genetic diversity was/is African..

When the East African population migrated out of Africa never to return is when the linages that derived from then on became non African, and sorry but as Tishkoff notes this intermediate position is due to local evolution and NOT admixture with Eurasians!


Take note;

Comparative genetic studies on geographically diverse populations provide evidence of high levels of diversity in continental Africa. Sarah Tishkoff and her colleagues (1986) find an intermediate pattern of genetic variation at the CD4 locus in northeastern (actually Horn) African populations. They explain this by local evolution and not by admixture with Eurasians. In essence they are describing a gradient of differentiation. The Horn, largely at the latitude of Nigeria, contains a subset of the diversity seen in other African regions. Tishkoff and her colleagues suggest that the Horn's inhabitant's are the local descendants of those who left Africa to populate the world. -- S.O.Y. Keita


Also note;

Cavalli-Sforza: Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution. Pg 187.


..."In other words, all non-Africans carry M168. Of course, Africans carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the African subpopulation from which the migrants originated.... Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man."
Indeed, and Tishkof herself warns against simplistic admixture models..

-
 
Posted by AswaniAswad (Member # 16742) on :
 
So why do alot of posters on here claim that Ethiopians Amhara,Tigre,Tigrinia have arab european admixture and always claiming that Somalis and Oromo do not when they all look the same. I see no difference between southern egyptians all the way to Somali.

Even the chart above shows the Somalis and Ethiopians at an intermidate position it does not say Amhara,Tigre,Tigrinia or even Beja which ethiopians are they talking about even though they all look the same from Oromo 2 tigray
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Moses wasn't mistaken for an Egyptian. Where is the evidence that moses was mistaken for an Egyptian.
In Exodus after fleeing Egypt Moses rescued the daughters of Jethro from some shepherds who were bullying them. They say that an Egyptian rescued them:

Exodus 2:17-19 - Some shepherds came along and drove them away, but Moses got up and came to their rescue and watered their flock. When the girls returned to Reuel their father, he asked them, "Why have you returned so early today?" They answered, "An Egyptian rescued us from the shepherds. He even drew water for us and watered the flock."


I wouldn't ascribe any racial meaning to this. According to the Bible Moses grew up in Pharaoh's court so culturally he was an Egyptian.
Thanks, but Ebony Allen said Moses was confused as an Egyptian while he was around Egyptians. Please read her post. Moses was never confused for an Egyptian. I agree with the above but lest not mistaken this for looking alike. Moses was indeed and Egyptian by nationality and culture.
Actually Moses was mistaken for an Egyptian: Exodus 2:18
18 And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day? 19 And they said, An Egyptian(Moses) delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered the flock

You don't have to stop at Moses...Joseph, and many Hebrews up even until Jesus and the Apostles day were mistaken as Egyptians..
Acts 21: 38
38Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days made an uproar, and led out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?

The Hebrews are always linked in some way, shape or form to the Sons of Ham(Mizriam, Kush, Canaan, and Phut) Mainly Mizriam and Kush and Canaan...Who by all accounts were Black People. The Land of Chaldea where Abraham Came from was founded by Ethiopians...The Hebrews married Canaanite and other Hamatic(Egyptians and Ethiopian) wives...Why not Japhetic Women or be mistaken for Japhetic famlies.

The Biblical Hebrews were Brown and Black skinned people and the best representation are the current population of Egypt where a remnant is still there...

Do you even read your bible??
Moses or no one else who wasn't an egyptian was never confused for an egyptian. Anyone who was an viewed as an Egyptian was because of culture and nationality not because they looked a like. Stop trying to link Hebrews with Africans (Egyptians).
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AswaniAswad:
Amhara,Tigreans are not mixed with arabs or europeans u need to get your facts straight. The language of Tigreans,and Tigre is related to Aramaic,Hebrew,and Arabic semitic languages Ethiopia alone has more semitic languages than all of the socalled Middle east combined but Tigrinia,Tigre,and Amharic are not fully semitic languages there is a big cushitic element i am a speaker of arabic,tigre,beja,and tigrinia. EbonyAllen dont let the look of Amhara and Tigreans fool u into thinking like those European Bigots who claim them to be of arab european admixture because of a look that is not even of european or arab origin.

If u claim Amhara,Tigreans,and Tigre to be of Arab European admixture then u Must as Well include all of Northern Sudan, the socalled Nubians of Northern Sudan Southern Egypt, Beja of Egypt,Sudan,Eritrea,Somali,Dijbouti they look no different than your socalled Admixtured Amhara,Tigrean,Tigre of eritea,NOrth ethiopia.

Somali,Oromo,Afar,Saho,Bilen,and Agaw are all Cushitic languages spoken by those different groups of people Somalia,Oromo-southern ethiopia, Afar-eritrea,djbouti, Saho-eritrea, Bilen-eritrea, Agaw-northwest ethiopia. These people look no different than there Amhara,Tigrean,and Tigre brothers.
Everytime someone says that Ethiopians are mix it is always the very black negroes from West Africa. I think they are jealous that the Ethiopians are black with beautiful features and hair but the West Africans don't have it so they have to make the Ethiopians appear "mix" when they are not. All the Ethiopians I know are either Amhara or Tigrinia speakers and none of them claim to be "Arab" or from "Arab" ancestry. It is also the ugly black negroes with nappy hair claiming Ethiopians as "Arabs". Ethiopian culture, language, and heritage don't even have anything to do with anything Arabic. It is just jealousy. The broad face, stocky, black, ugly nappy headed Africans are mad because they don't look as good as Cushitic groups.
 


(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3