Do you find BLACK WOMEN sexy or attractive?

---

shouldn't you mean "sis"???

Yeah hun, I'm a girl. LOL :sunglasses:

Yeah, you're right. This is funny.

In Response to:Number two - Not everyone believes in evolution. Tell me something obi wan - If we all evolved from apes and God made man in the image of himself does God look like an ape? I should certiainly hope to shout not.Why can't he look like an Ape (primate)? HE'S GOD HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE DEEMS RIGHT OR FEELS LIKE DOING. Now, i do not believe he is an ape. But until i get there, i'll never know...he may take many forms and he might even be something that i could not even see with my own eyes.Number two - Not everyone believes in evolution. Tell me something obi wan - If we all evolved from apes and God made man in the image of himself does God look like an ape? I should certiainly hope to shout not. And I'm assuming you believe in God as well as evolution? They both can't exist together. The Bible says, "God created MAN in His likeness" not "God made apes so that would evolve into his likeness.."Correct, it does say that God created man in his image and it also says the day that he created man, i can't remembere which one...BUT where does it say that God's time is the exact same 24 hours that our time is? why can't his days be our millions of years? theory of relativity. Speed and Time are relative to position. So why is it not possible that WE are just the end result, and still being created in his image...In Response to:Number Three - You know, I've been thinking about this so let me share this with you if we evolved from APES there wouldn't be anymore apes. The theory of evolution is that it takes millions of years and evolves around survival of the fittest. THAT means that apes would have had some condition like climate (for example) that was causing later species of apes to evolve into something different. So if we came from apes why can I go to the city zoo where I live and see several apes? And don't waste your time on The Big Bang Theory. Darwins Theory of Evolution is just that. A THEORY and it will forever remain a theory because no one can prove it or disprove it. So you should probably stop trying to teach it as a fact because it's not. By the way, if we evolved from the black race and darker skin is better suited for warmer climate etc that would actually mean you evolved from a lighter skinned race correct? Because if the lighter skinned race evolved from the black race that's actually evolution backwards and according to Darwin that doesn't happen. Evolution is designed, again, for survival of the fittest.I clarrified...Primates, not apes. Apes are along the same lines and are included in the primate category. And yes, i agree that there must have been some type of change in conditions that prompted the advancement of evolution. And no, I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE BIG BANG THEORY...and How is white evolving from darker skin backwards? And if Darwins theory is just a theory, as you so eloquently put it, then it can not be applied as law, and therefore CAN NOT BE BROKEN. ALSO Darwin did his experiments in the Galapogos Islands on Aves and Reptiles and other animals NOT HUMANS He was not an anthropologist and therefor should not be considered or quoted as such.

Good God in Heaven you are long winded.

Number One - Where did I mention time in that second statement I made? I've never said God's time and our time are the same. In fact I believe they are completely different.

Number Two: Here are some ape theories for you. Some of the later and current ones. And then there's DNA which wouldn't DNA show some type of mutation that would let us know that we evolved from an ancestor that existed between humans and apes?

(I don't remember the site I got this from but here it is)
Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.
Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw.
Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a large ape.
Neanderthal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neanderthal is just a variation of the human kind.
Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.

Human Evolution: The Current Tree
Human evolution has its currently fashionable specimens that lead from small ape-like creatures to Homo sapiens. These are examples of the most recent alleged links:

Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.
Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence. Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.
Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification.
Human Evolution: The Most Recent Find
In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a skull in Chad with "an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike features." The find was dubbed "Toumai" (the name give to children in Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as "the earliest member of the human family found so far." By October 2002, a number of scientists went on record to criticize the premature claim -- declaring that the discovery is merely the fossil of an ape.

Human Evolution: The Theory Has No Support in the Fossil Record
Human evolution is a theory in denial. With all of this fossil evidence (or lack thereof) it becomes increasingly clear to an earnest seeker that human evolution did not happen at all.

http://www.dna-double-helix.net/ Double Helix

And my last thing about your backwards theory of evolution between people of a lighter color and darker color. Evolution cannot go backwards or digress. Only forward according to Darwin. So if that's case you actually evolved from a lighter color. See darker skin, as you say, is better suited for warmer climates (I'm assuming it has something to do with sunburns). In that case, you wouldn't need to "evolve to a lighter skin color to tolerate the cold. You could just stay a darker color. So therefore a lighter color evolving to a darker color to better tolerate heat makes more sense. Your version of evolution is backwards which again, according to Darwin is impossible. Get it?

you would not 'evolve' to a lighter skin tone to compensate for the cold weather, there would be no need for it, so you would lose it because there is no need for it, like snakes and their hind leg remnants...yes snakes have tiny little nubs that were once legs, but since they found that they no longer need them, through evolution, they no longer have them but they still retain those tiny nubs.And to the rest of the information that you stated, doesn't matter, i'll let you believe what you want. i'll think the way i want.

i dont see a problem with black women

Dude, you're not hearing what I'm saying! You said that I and every other light skinned person on the face of this planet evolved from black people. You've just contradicted your OWN THEORY. What you JUST said was EXACTLY what I was trying to say earlier. YOUR theory doesn't wash.How did I get here if there was no need for black people "evolve" their color to better suit a colder climate? It's like I told you earlier. THAT is evolution backwards and according to Darwin's theory it can't GO backwards. So wouldn't it make more sense for a darker race to evolve from a lighter one? All you did above was restate what I said in my last post.

There's enough drivel about Darwin/evolution/antievolution on this thread to make a grown man cry (or a baby, for that matter). Anyway, traits typically don't disappear because they're "not needed" unless they generate some sort of cost. No one has ever claimed that melanin has either a major metabolic cost or detrimental side effects. Thus, this trait would likely never be selected against. In other words, European and Asian humans would have had no reason to "lose" pigmentation (absent some sort of chance mutation + bottlenecking). That said, who cares about the pigmentation of early humans? Does anyone really want to claim that their race looks more like cavemen than another race? It's a dubious distinction. The color of Jesus debate is even more ridiculous. If anything, the message conveyed by Jesus was inclusiveness---why would his race matter? To get back to the initial post, yes, black women can be very sexy and attractive.

A few points in answer to various people:1. I doubt that Darwin said evolution never goes backwards, but it doesn't matter anyway. "Creation Science" people tend to quote great scientists and think that will impress scientists - it doesn't. Religious arguments are often based on the principle of the authority of great men, but science doesn't work that way. Science's authority comes from experimental observations and deductive and (especially) inductive thought - if you look at scientific literature, you see references to papers, not quotes from people. Most great people have made stupid mistakes (so if you make stupid mistakes, you can still be a great person).2. "Reverse evolution" is perfectly plausible if conditions revert to earlier ones. The classic example is a species of moth in Britain that comes in light and dark forms. The Industrial Revolution made the trees blacker, and the previously common light form was replaced by the dark form. Now the trees are lighter, and the light form has reappeared.3. Dark-skinned people have an advantage in tropical latitudes, being protected from sunburn. But they have a disadvantage in latitudes near the poles, because we need some ultra-violet radiation to produce vitamin D, and the melanin cuts it out. It's therefore quite reasonable to speculate that dark-skinned original Africans evolved in Europe to pale Europeans. The fact that white people have some residual melanin supports that.4. The phrase "God created man in his own image" can be interpreted in many ways. In the next chapter of Genesis God makes man from clay - is that to be taken literally? It is always taken metaphorically.5. None of this has any relevance that I can see to a discussion of either the merits or attractiveness of different races. As far as merits go, it seems that all people are equally capable of good and bad. Not every culture is equally good, I think, but culture is not the same as race. As far as attractiveness goes, I think people tend to be affected by their upbringing, and there are also personal preferences. Some people like brown bread and some like white - what does it matter?

no..i didn't contradict my own theory, i said DARKER SKINNED PEOPLE DON'T EVOLVE INTO LIGHTER PEOPLE TO COMPENSATE FOR WEATHER, NOT THAT THEY DON'T EVOLVE PERIOD.

Ahhh, Vitamin D... in that case I eat my words (tastes like chicken) about melanin having no costs that would lead to selection against dark skin in low-sun environments.

thank you man...

maybe were all colour blind!

i actually am color deficient. but it doesn't matter, i still see women as sexy thangs, and if they're intellectually stimulating that's even better. AND was that sarcasm?

yup

Wow....we have totally gotten off-topic here....

really? u got jokes eh? well i know you must be color blind, or see in all gray cuz no matter what color the guy is you'll sleep with him, maybe even a few guys on a the same night...then come on here and complain..."what shall i do, i really fucked up"...i tried to drop the subject and get back to the regular post about women, but no...couldn't leave well enough alone.

Meh....

Definately. I know two black guys who date within all the races/cultural divides. Asian, white, black, Oriental, whatever. If a alien landed on this planet, and it was female, these two guys would probably date her.