"Jd" <JDay123 at BellSouth.net> wrote in message
news:3db18f67.3845007 at newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote:
>> >JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
> >>cary at afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> >>><>The progeny of a mating between two different groups of sexually
> >>><>individuals will generally exhibit characteristics of each mate. As
> >>><>number of progeny increase, there will be - under "normal" mating -
> >>><>characteristics from each mate's genetic heritage in different
> >>><I've seen negroids from Africa and they are as black as black gets
> >>><in humans. Meanwhile, American negroes are getting whiter and
> >>><whiter. While traits such as hair texture and facial features do
> >>><not seem to change much, skin color does and very noticably if you
> >>><compare them with real Africans. These are simply observations I've
> >>><made and I'm speculating that where gene(s) responsible for skin
> >>><color are concerned, the genes of white folks are dominant.
> >>><Also, over in Africa, our negroes would not be able to call
> >>><themselves African-Americans without being ridiculed. I know a guy
> >>><who goes over there frequently and he's told me that "off color type
> >>><mixed folks" over there are in a lower class than real Africans. In
> >>><fact, real Africans are puzzeled as to why American negroes call
> >>><themselves African-Americans since they 1) aren't from Africa and 2)
> >>><their parents aren't from Africa.
> >>>I'm sure much of what you say here is true, most of it in fact.
> >>>the question was: if breeding with Caucs does in fact make the
> >>>African-Americans lighter than they were: H o w d o e s t h i s
> >>>m a k e w h i t e s "s u p e r i o r"?
> >>I'm attempting to use your own argument against you i.e.
> >>"evolution". Do you not see how this notion of dominant genes
> >>fits hand in glove with ToE?
> >Dominant genes do play a part in the ToE. On the other hand,
> >"dominant" does not equal "superior". Pale skin color is "inferior"
> >for people spending a lot of time in the sun.
> >In any event, what you've described above is blending (a mixture of
> >pale and dark skin would seem naturally to lead to something in
> >between) and not a simple dominant-recessive pair.
> >>On the other hand if as the framers of the Declaration of
> >>Independence wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
> >>all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
> >>with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,
> >>and the pursuit of Happiness" is true and there is a "Creator", what
> >>difference would genes make?
> >Since the Deists believed that the "Creator" was someone who set up
> >the natural world and its laws, which have then played out ever since,
> >genes could very well be the Creator's way of doing things.
>> Then either Africa is under a curse, the genes of it's inhabitants
> are inferior, or at some point in the futer Africa will become a
> superpower. Which is it?
>> >>How could you possibly suggest (as you
> >>did in another post) that the white Christians who founded this
> >>country were racists
> >Because they were, and many still are, like you.
>> Since you don't believe in different races, how can you resolve this
> mental conflict you're having?
>> >>when in fact, evolutionists are bear more
> >>responsibilty for the notion that other races sprang from mud?
> >There is no evolutionary notion that some races "sprang from mud",
> >since there is no evolutionary notion that races even exist.
>> See what I mean? (How then, can I be a racist?)
>> >Human beings did NOT "spring from mud", EXCEPT in Genesis.
> >>It just may be that Christians everywhere have been blessed by God
> >>Himself with wonderful abilities which include common sense
> >You seem to be lacking it.
>> Mere personal attack.
>> >> and rational thinking
> >You definitely are lacking it.
>> ....and another.
>> >>and that the enemies of God have not.
> >God has no enemies. Though the nincompoop puts up a pretty good
> >effort at it.
>> Look lobob, if you keep insisting that man sprang from mud by way of
> monkeys and evolution, you're setting yourself up to be against God
> Himself. God created man in his own image and that did not involve
>> Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of
> God created he him; male and female created he them.
The reason the word "liberal" is always in quotation marks when addressing
morons like lojbab is that it's an insult to the English language to use
such a previously good word to describe the STUPIDITY of someone who would
argue that races don't exist at the same time that they argue that anyone
who challenges their STUPIDITY is a "racist".
It's become obvious that such "liberals" use this term as a mere debate
tactic because they "think" they score some kind of debate points whenever
they repeat media mantra that they can never hope to fully appreciate or
If it's got a nice ring or bite to it, then it's good enough for a
"liberal"--but attempting to get them to clarify their ambidextrous
"thinking" is like asking a tree to bark.
Jd, lojbab's argument isn't with you or the Holy Bible or God--it's with