You criticize me for using science and bible together. but you've made your strongest argument for Cain being marked with black skin as to explain where (some) other skin colors come from.
So we will never know what color adam was? Ok, then don't follow up with: Cain could have been changed skin color to explain where different skin colors come from.
My assumptions are in response to yours. I take your or Mormonism racist conclusions and apply them consistently/
See the thing you hate is that
Any argument made for "white" can equally be made for "black"
Cain was marked with black skin?
Cain was marked with white skin then.
And why not?
I'd rather say that Cain was marked with a mark on his skin... but you argued away back for Cain being changed to a black person.
And so I found all the physical evidence and Biblical evidence. And it just so happens that the direct information supports my argument.
So what do you do? You go and find even more rediculous analogies, or you try to focus on one part of what I say, or you try to paraphrase the context out.
And if that doesn't work...
You insist that God "did" do this thing, because your reasoning is that God "Could" do it.
Well that's nearly as bad as using Pangea to make a case...
So no, it's not even that i am "hypocritically" racist. It's that I've succeded in this point:
If you want to make the mark of Cain "skin color changing his entire body and founding a new race"...
Then you can RULE OUT the black race, because of the evidence I present. They grew crops, even in the Bible, and the Bible doesn't make one relationship to their dark skin and the mark of Cain.
Now you are left with.. as long as you insist that it may be, or might be, or could be, or must be skin color...
what? "brown" people? That doesn't make sense.
So rule them out.
Do you still want to say Cain was marked by changing his skin color?
Well buddy you can see where this goes...
And so does the Mormon church.
I went in no direction. I questioned sentences and individual words in the Bible to understand context, in between the line meanings and actual meanings.
I have stated by using just the Bible we will never know what colour Adam was. I have stated that many times.
On the other hand, you don't ask questions, you spend time making racist accusations.
You have referenced from 'outside' Biblical sources to say by way of opinion that Adam was black and you have no Biblical evidence.
You maintain inspite of no Biblical evidence Adam was black. That's racism at it's finest by your logic where you accuse others of racism that have arrived at their opinion from 'outside' Biblical sources yet you do the same exact thing and say it isn't racism if you do it.