Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
...For example, does the NOI still teach that the origin of monkeys and gorillas is the effort of Caucasians to "graft" themselves back to black by reverse breeding. [Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman in America,Chicago: The Final Call, Inc., 1965, pp. 117 and 119.]


Eek
If they had lost their knowledge of civilization at that time, then how did they know how to do that? Meanwhile, I wish the NOI would make a movie based on the Yacub story. If nothing else, I'm sure it would be interesting.
Peace....



quote:
well as with respect to the upper leadership.


Really? I have never heard of such a bias...Please elaborate..and cite your sources for such a claim.

quote:
Secondarily to this is the attempt to ascribe scientific validity/facticity with the Nation's teaching on human genesis and evolution.


As it relates to the appearance of the white phenotype, yes..The academic view has evolved and today is consistent with NOI doctrine. Both agree that there was Geographic isolation and sexual selective forces at play. The Nation Of Islam provides a historical narrative, while the scientific community does not, however, the material aspects to both explanations are very similiar.

quote:
For example, does the NOI still teach that the origin of monkeys and gorillas is the effort of Caucasians to "graft" themselves back to black by reverse breeding. [Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman in America,Chicago: The Final Call, Inc., 1965, pp. 117 and 119.] If so, this hardly coheres with science. The same holds for the notion of two-germs theory of "genetics."


I don't think that the NOI has claimed that all of our doctrine is consistent with every branch and disposition of the "scientific" community. The position of academia is ever changing..Sometimes the changes are slight, other times academic views change violently.

The NOI position is not in accordance to the view of physical anthropology when it comes to the genesis of "apes" and "monkeys"for good reason. The field of biological anthropology is extremely weak when it comes to the question of the emergence of primates or homo sapien sapiens . Paleoanthropology, and like fields of study are highly subjective, and extremely biased in the way they gather and classify findings. They assume that they have found what they are lookig for..This is not objective science since they are not considering any other possibility besides darwinism.

The Fossil record which undergirds the modern view of human evolution is extremely lacking at best.

In certain instances such as with the "closest ancestor" to human beings, the chimpanzee, there is almost no fossil record at all.. "There are thousands of fossils of hominins, but no fossil chimpanzee has yet been reported. The chimpanzee (Pan) is the closest living relative to humans"(Nature 437, 105-108 (1 September 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04008; Received 31 January 2005; Accepted 4 July 2005).

The field of anthropology has many things to reconcile when it comes to Evolutionary theory and the emergence of human beings and primates. I think you will see a vast change in position as more research is completed.

Perhaps you should reconsider using this field of research as your soapbox.

As to the two gene question? The Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught that Yakub found the recessive gene which causes whiteness? Uh geneticists call it slc24a5 Gene

Looks like Yakub was right after all...

Are you referrring to something else??



Whirling Moat
Peace....



quote:

Eek
If they had lost their knowledge of civilization at that time, then how did they know how to do that? Meanwhile, I wish the NOI would make a movie based on the Yacub story. If nothing else, I'm sure it would be interesting.







According to the NOI the whiteman was exiled in Europe for 2,000 years. they went savage after making several attempts to escape their consdition including experimentation with beastiality. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad says that we walked them across the burning sands, in a straight line. We tied them together with rope, and when one stepped out of line we used a paddle to spank them back into their right position on line...We took everything from them but the science..They eventually lost that...



Whirling Moat
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....



quote:
well as with respect to the upper leadership.


Really? I have never heard of such a bias...Please elaborate..and cite your sources for such a claim.

quote:
Secondarily to this is the attempt to ascribe scientific validity/facticity with the Nation's teaching on human genesis and evolution.


As it relates to the appearance of the white phenotype, yes..The academic view has evolved and today is consistent with NOI doctrine. Both agree that there was Geographic isolation and sexual selective forces at play. The Nation Of Islam provides a historical narrative, while the scientific community does not, however, the material aspects to both explanations are very similiar.

quote:
For example, does the NOI still teach that the origin of monkeys and gorillas is the effort of Caucasians to "graft" themselves back to black by reverse breeding. [Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman in America,Chicago: The Final Call, Inc., 1965, pp. 117 and 119.] If so, this hardly coheres with science. The same holds for the notion of two-germs theory of "genetics."


I don't think that the NOI has claimed that all of our doctrine is consistent with every branch and disposition of the "scientific" community. The position of academia is ever changing..Sometimes the changes are slight, other times academic views change violently.

The NOI position is not in accordance to the view of physical anthropology when it comes to the genesis of "apes" and "monkeys"for good reason. The field of biological anthropology is extremely weak when it comes to the question of the emergence of primates or homo sapien sapiens . Paleoanthropology, and like fields of study are highly subjective, and extremely biased in the way they gather and classify findings. They assume that they have found what they are lookig for..This is not objective science since they are not considering any other possibility besides darwinism.

The Fossil record which undergirds the modern view of human evolution is extremely lacking at best.

In certain instances such as with the "closest ancestor" to human beings, the chimpanzee, there is almost no fossil record at all.. "There are thousands of fossils of hominins, but no fossil chimpanzee has yet been reported. The chimpanzee (Pan) is the closest living relative to humans"(Nature 437, 105-108 (1 September 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04008; Received 31 January 2005; Accepted 4 July 2005).

The field of anthropology has many things to reconcile when it comes to Evolutionary theory and the emergence of human beings and primates. I think you will see a vast change in position as more research is completed.

Perhaps you should reconsider using this field of research as your soapbox.

As to the two gene question? The Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught that Yakub found the recessive gene which causes whiteness? Uh geneticists call it slc24a5 Gene

Looks like Yakub was right after all...

Are you referrring to something else??



Whirling Moat



WM... Is there a scientific basis for the "Monkeys originating from desperate and scientifically ignorant Caucasian's trying to graft themselves back into black men theory?"
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....


quote:
WM... Is there a scientific basis for the "Monkeys originating from desperate and scientifically ignorant Caucasian's trying to graft themselves back into black men theory?"

Peace,
Khalliqa


Gotcha...


Now to invite your muslim family from other boards over to watch as you fight me on this...

Muah..

L. K. Muhammad


Is that your way of saying you aint gone answer the question?

While you're at it.. please explain the Bantu phenotype bias present among the "family..."

Okay beloved??? (*rolls eyes*)
Khalliqa, here's what I don't get. If you're NOI, and Elijah Muhammad is a prophet according to NOI... then why does anyone in the NOI ever question any of these teachings? I'm not singling you out. Even the mainstream NOI seems to distance themselves from this stuff. Spiritual organizations often confuse me with this. If you belong to a spiritual system that holds a guy as a prophet, and the prophet definitely and actually said certain things, then wouldn't you just automatically believe it? Where is the wiggle room you're operating in, if u don't mind my asking?
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Khalliqa, here's what I don't get. If you're NOI, and Elijah Muhammad is a prophet according to NOI... then why does anyone in the NOI ever question any of these teachings?


The teachings are questioned in the Mosque.. directed to those who can answer the question.. Questions regarding NOI doctrine would not be asked of those who do not know or understand the teachings..
quote:
Our women of the south no longer possessed long flowing hair..however, our women created some of the most feminine and beautiful styles this world has known with their wooly hair.

______________________________________________

This sounds like it was written by a man/person that believes that only "long flowing hair" can be feminin with a second hand compliment to Black women (or other races of women that do not possess "long flowing hair" naturally).

I might remind this writer that white men and Asian men and Native American and middle Eastern men have "long flowing hair" all day long.----Oh, and a lot of tranvesdites have "long flowing hair."

The western media has brainwashed everyone else on the planet to belief that the white man's version of beauty and femininity is the only beauty or femininity, and evidently, it does not even escape the writer of that passage, where, while trying to give a compliment to Black hair/Black women's hair, still has a Freudian slip in his writing.

Nature and environment is the ONLY reason for different hair textures; hair is not even alive once it grows out of the folicle, and humans possess hair only as remnents of an environmental history from when it was necessary---for body warmth in the cold, or as a shield from the burning sun, etc.
Originally Posted by Vox:
Khalliqa, here's what I don't get. If you're NOI, and Elijah Muhammad is a prophet according to NOI... then why does anyone in the NOI ever question any of these teachings? I'm not singling you out. Even the mainstream NOI seems to distance themselves from this stuff. Spiritual organizations often confuse me with this. If you belong to a spiritual system that holds a guy as a prophet, and the prophet definitely and actually said certain things, then wouldn't you just automatically believe it? Where is the wiggle room you're operating in, if u don't mind my asking?

Vox,

 

Are you still here?  It is quite interesting reading my past thoughts.  

 

There are varying degrees of belief and acceptance within any organization.  The irrational and insulting claims contained within NOI doctrine have always bothered me.  

 

 

Makes far more sense than the load of crap about Caucasians becoming white simply by migrating to northern latitudes. If that's the case then why don't blacks become white when they move to northern latitudes or towards the poles? Our ancestors were brought here over 400 years ago. There should be very few blacks in this country now, especially in Canada! Why didn't those whites who moved to warmer, hotter places centuries ago become black? There should be very few whites in places like Arizona and Saudi Arabia!

 

I learned in my Biology of Race class that only blacks contain the DNA code for all races. In other words, only blacks can produce all races. Whites cannot produce black people. It isn't in their genetic code. The history we know is the history that was taught to us by our oppressors. Our oppressors don't know everything! And you can't expect them to tell you the truth, especially concerning us. That has been proven many times over. It makes far more sense that whites were created thousands of years ago by genetic manipulation than by just simply walking from the jungles of Africa to the mountains of Europe.

 

We need to stop believing that the way things are now was the way things have always have been. Also, we need to stop taking everything our oppressors say about the history of this world as gospel when they were not even the first people on this planet. How in the world are they supposed to know the history of a people who predated them?

Originally Posted by EarthAndSky:

Makes far more sense than the load of crap about Caucasians becoming white simply by migrating to northern latitudes. If that's the case then why don't blacks become white when they move to northern latitudes or towards the poles? Our ancestors were brought here over 400 years ago. There should be very few blacks in this country now, especially in Canada! Why didn't those whites who moved to warmer, hotter places centuries ago become black? There should be very few whites in places like Arizona and Saudi Arabia!

 

Hello Earth and Sky,

 

Evolutionary changes that are persistent and lasting have occurred over thousands/millions of years- not hundreds..  Climate influences skin color and there are gradients of skin color existing throughout Africa affected by the proximity to the equator.  Even on a personal note, my skin gets lighter during winter months.  

 

In addition, through miscegenation (more through this than anything though), genetic drift and climate, African Americans are developing lighter skin and narrower features more akin to East-Africans than West Africans.

 

While, I don't think the science regarding race variation is conclusive- I think it is better explanation than a myth.  Now, underlying the myth is the thought that someone purposefully breeded dark Africans in a way to produce white people, while possible, I do not find it plausible, because I do not know of any evidence that points to an author of genetic breeding over the course of thousands of years in Africa.  A possibility is not the same as truth. 

Last edited by Eudaimonia

 

 

Evolutionary changes that are persistent and lasting have occurred over thousands/millions of years- not hundreds..  Climate influences skin color and there are gradients of skin color existing throughout Africa affected by the proximity to the equator.  Even on a personal note, my skin gets lighter during winter months. 

 

The negation in your first sentence is unnecessary, NOI theology on the creation of the white man isn't offered as an alternative to any evolutionary process.  It speaks to a specific process that could be classified as a subset of a larger set. The theology itself speaks to genetic variations well before Yacub history begins.   Any discussion that sets up a Yacub vs. Natural evolutionary process is invalid IMHO for this reason. 

 

This subject is much more layered than many of us are prepared (or even interested in) acknowledging and as will most oversimplifications, important information is lost in the mix. 

 

 

 

While, I don't think the science regarding race variation is conclusive- I think it is better explanation than a myth.  Now, underlying the myth is the thought that someone purposefully breeded dark Africans in a way to produce white people, while possible, I do not find it plausible, because I do not know of any evidence that points to an author of genetic breeding over the course of thousands of years in Africa.  A possibility is not the same as truth.

Starting with the last sentence, I agree. However people in various disciplines approach scientific data intent on reading into the data things that are far beyond the scope of the particular model used to produce the data.  This creates its own set of issues in addition to "scientific literacy".

 

Possible and plausible.  A philosophical discussion for the ages    

The biographical history of modern scientific development is full of the implausible giving birth to new directions and insights.  To that end there are often bits a data (direct or inferred) that exist without any context for what it means, its potential impact or value...until later events take place.

 

 

least anyone think Im attempting to "protect" my religious indoctrination....that last paragraph is a description of the development of the computer and modern telecommunications.  

 

 

 

 

Last edited by Muhammad Cipher

There was a time, back a good half century +  ago, when the idea that the white man = the devil peaked with the force of revelation. Now we know that the yellow man may be the same or worse. Okay, lotta human devils out there.  My problem with the idea that the white man was made from magnets, peanut shells  or whatever is that it does not make us look intelligent. Some are under that belief but we need to sober up on that one. Sorry. It is a frankly  absurd and, most of all, implausible idea. Do not tell that one to a traditional Muslim in the ME. They will think you’re wacked. Trust that. Okay,  NOI has unified folks in an amazing way. Yes! But! 

Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:

 

 

 

The negation in your first sentence is unnecessary, NOI theology on the creation of the white man isn't offered as an alternative to any evolutionary process.  

 

 

 

 I agree. However people in various disciplines approach scientific data intent on reading into the data things that are far beyond the scope of the particular model used to produce the data.  This creates its own set of issues in addition to "scientific literacy".

 

 

 

 

 

 

The difference is that evolutionary investigation and experimentation regarding genetic variation does not require an intelligent designer named Yacub.

 

I think that there are people, including within this thread, who are attempting to utilize scientific data to buttress unfounded myths in order to legitimize said myths.

Originally Posted by Eudaimonia:
Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:

 

 

 

The negation in your first sentence is unnecessary, NOI theology on the creation of the white man isn't offered as an alternative to any evolutionary process.  

 

 

 

 I agree. However people in various disciplines approach scientific data intent on reading into the data things that are far beyond the scope of the particular model used to produce the data.  This creates its own set of issues in addition to "scientific literacy".

 

 

 

 

 

 

The difference is that evolutionary investigation and experimentation regarding genetic variation does not require an intelligent designer named Yacub.

 

I think that there are people, including within this thread, who are attempting to utilize scientific data to buttress unfounded myths in order to legitimize said myths.

The fact that an investigation itself doesn't require a "intelligent designer" (your phrase and characterization) doesn't preclude the existence of one.  On the question of founded vs. unfounded...you have to examine the types of evidence you can have on such a myth/narrative and not a model that can't tell you one way or another even under the best of conditions.

 

WM addressed this in earlier in this thread.  And this is point of contention across scientific fields.

 

 

Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:
 

The fact that an investigation itself doesn't require a "intelligent designer" (your phrase and characterization) doesn't preclude the existence of one.  On the question of founded vs. unfounded...you have to examine the types of evidence you can have on such a myth/narrative and not a model that can't tell you one way or another even under the best of conditions.

 

WM addressed this in earlier in this thread.  And this is point of contention across scientific fields.

 

 

We are not discussing whether or not an intelligent designer exists; but, the burden would be on the one making that claim if we were.

 

You are reading an explanation on the key difference between an unbiased and a biased approach to science and why the Yacub myth is not equal to scientific inquiry.  

 

Any myth taken as "true" simply because it was stated is unfounded.

 

Originally Posted by Eudaimonia:
Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:
 

The fact that an investigation itself doesn't require a "intelligent designer" (your phrase and characterization) doesn't preclude the existence of one.  On the question of founded vs. unfounded...you have to examine the types of evidence you can have on such a myth/narrative and not a model that can't tell you one way or another even under the best of conditions.

 

WM addressed this in earlier in this thread.  And this is point of contention across scientific fields.

 

 

We are not discussing whether or not an intelligent designer exists; but, the burden would be on the one making that claim if we were.

 

You are reading an explanation on the key difference between an unbiased and a biased approach to science and why the Yacub myth is not equal to scientific inquiry.  Also, try not to confuse inductive reasoning with belief.  One is open to change the other is resistant and seeks only to feed its bias.

 

Any myth taken as "true" simply because it was stated is unfounded.

 

 

We are not discussing whether or not an intelligent designer exists; but, the burden would be on the one making that claim if we were.

 

You are reading an explanation on the key difference between an unbiased and a biased approach to science and why the Yacub myth is not equal to scientific inquiry.  Also, try not to confuse inductive reasoning with belief.  One is open to change the other is resistant and seeks only to feed its bias.

 

Any myth taken as "true" simply because it was stated is unfounded.

 

Ah I was wondering when the "burden of proof" would show up. For the record..intelligent design was your language...not mine (as I noted) and I dont see it as appropriate in this particular discussion as there are already several issues being conflated.  Of course, there's also the issue on what constitutes proof with respect to a particular field.  They are not the same nor universal across disciplines...which again leads to the construction of models and what data they can yield (ie what they tell you explicitly dont)  

 

I don't plan on going back and forth on this...but the truth is that this has been addressed early in this thread.  I am very familiar with inductive reasoning and proof by induction techniques.  Of course even in areas that make heavy use of such does not make them immune bias or defensiveness on the basis of belief (conviction). 

 

 

Last edited by Muhammad Cipher

Not too long ago, no one would have believed that cloning an animal or a human being was possible. Yet, there are cloned animals roaming around. The only reason humans haven't been cloned as a practice is due to policy, not because it can't be done (it already has). The point is that what may seem far-fetched could very well have occurred.

 

Here is an article in the Washington Post about the discovery of a gene mutation responsible for white skin.

 

Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin

 

However, this study doesn't explain the light hair and light eyes that are also common to whites. Again, if by simply moving to northern latitudes can make one Caucasian (pale skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes) then why haven't we seen any blacks in northern latitudes evolving in this direction without race mixing? Also, wouldn't the converse also be true (whites moving to hotter, sunnier climes should become black)?  

 

It is one thing to become slightly lighter due to lack of sun. It is another thing to become a different race due to lack of sun. This is the reason I have trouble believing this theory. It doesn't explain the other changes nor does it explain why blacks in northern latitudes are not on their way to or already becoming Caucasian (in the absence of miscegenation). The theory is flawed. From my perspective, a geneticist performing selective breeding on a group of people (to extract the recessive genes from their DNA code) to create an entirely new people is far more plausible. If it can be done with plants, why not human beings? 

 

Here is another interesting article I found while surfing the internet. 

 

The Lost Tribe of Sabas (Shabazz): Reconciling the History, Identity, and Origin of the Ancient Moorish Tribe

 

There are references at the end of the article. Enjoy! 

 

Note: I am vitamin D and calcium deficient. The last time I looked in the mirror, I was still black. 

MC- The NOI argument is similar to the creationist one.  NOI mythology has replaced the Christian god,  as the creator or intelligent designer of races, with "Yakub."  According to the NOI, evolution of race had to occur as the result of the plan of a mad scientist with the intent to design a new race of people. Intelligent design was not inserted as a way to advance an argument on whether a designer exists.  It was mentioned because of the similarity to the creationist argument and to question its relevancy.   Hopefully you are able to make the distinction.

 

Reproductive selection over time creates genetic variants. This stands alone and does not need require a myth surrounding it to be true. Conversely, scientific truths within myths does not make the myth true. The latter is what has been attempted in this thread.

 

Earth and Sky- If I'm correct, I think your question can be summed up as: Why don't you see massive racial mutations during our lifetime or several generations? - Changes in whole populations take longer than the time you're allotting for; also they are often a complex mixed soup of miscegenation, natural selection and genetic drift. Scientists are not unanimous in their agreement on the specific causes of what we now see as "race" and are unable to predict conclusively what may occur in the future.  It may be hard to accept that the theory is not a conclusive "answer".  My statement earlier is that the approach of science to find answers has proven to be better than depending on myths.

 

 Unfortunately, the examples I've used seem to have caused confusion.  The examples were given with the intent to support the idea that human characteristics are susceptible to environmental change - even one you can see within a short time span- though that does not mean one individual slight change will occur in a whole population and be sustained within the same time frame; also that even though miscegenation is the primary cause of change we see here in america, changes in population do occur without the help of a "mad scientist."  But those are side notes and not the direct answer to your question.  Please see above.

 

 

Last edited by Eudaimonia

MC- The NOI argument is similar to the creationist one.  NOI mythology has replaced the Christian god,  as the creator or intelligent designer of races, with "Yakub."  According to the NOI, evolution of race had to occur as the result of the plan of a mad scientist with the intent to design a new race of people. Intelligent design was not inserted as a way to advance an argument on whether a designer exists.  It was mentioned because of the similarity to the creationist argument and to question its relevancy.   Hopefully you are able to make the distinction.

 

Of course I able to make a distinction both in where similarities are present and where they are not.  But this conversation (restarted on an old thread) is taking place in a context where many have no idea what NOI theology is while trying to dismiss it on the basis of what it isnt. Surely the integrity of truthfully representing a person/institutions position is worth something in a discussion such this.... or is it?

 

Apparently you cannot or are not willing approach this issue without the dismissive framing...given you understand fully that Yacub was not and is not presented as "Mad scientist".  Perhaps I am mistaken and you're not as well versed in this particular area of NOI doctrine....In either either case your bias is blocking you from even acknowledging that the subject of genetic variation is not reducible to Yacub from within the context of NOI Theology/Doctrine. 

 

Better to say you don't accept the narrative and leave it at that.

 

It may be hard to accept that the theory is not a conclusive "answer".  My statement earlier is that the approach of science to find answers has proven to be better than depending on myths.

 

Theoretical frameworks.....

 

Any examination of "truth" requires an analytical apparatus and some from of model that extends from it.  Wanting to discuss or dismiss claims without considerations of what is in or out of bounds for your model is disingenuous at best.   Again....WM addressed that.  I know the value of presenting this issues in  a "fact vs. myth" frame and making associations with other creation myths (directly or indirectly) that are dismissed from numerous perspectives for various reasons (many which i agree with). 

 

However you're not going to escape the issue concerning the choice framework for your examination. 

 

This isn't an issue confined to cultural/theological matters....neo classical economist struggle with this same issue BIG TIME and the parallels in this thread are scary!

 

 

 

Last edited by Muhammad Cipher
Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:

Surely the integrity of truthfully representing a person/institutions position is worth something in a discussion such this.... or is it?

 

Apparently you cannot or are not willing approach this issue without the dismissive framing...given you understand fully that Yacub was not and is not presented as "Mad scientist".  

 

I know the value of presenting this issues in  a "fact vs. myth" frame and making associations with other creation myths (directly or indirectly) that are dismissed from numerous perspectives for various reasons (many which i agree with). 

 

This isn't an issue confined to cultural/theological matters....neo classical economist struggle with this same issue BIG TIME and the parallels in this thread are scary!

 

 

 

 "Mad scientist", "Big head scientist", "Devil-maker" etc..  are all colloquially used terms to describe Yakub among members in the NOI.  The term "mad scientist" is not new or unusual within the NOI.  

 

If you feel there is an error in my presentation, you are welcome to point to it specifically and offer what you feel is the correct version.

 

Fact v. Myth is truly how I see an issue where one is advancing a position based off mythology v. advancing a position which begins with non-biased scientific inquiry and discovery.  At best having scientific truths within a mythology does not justify the myth.  Also, if there is truth to the myth- then why does its "truth" not stand alone as compelling evidence, except among those who are psychologically inclined to believe one man's word as sufficient?

 

If you see an error you are welcome to present what you think corrects it.

 

I am not well versed in whatever economic model you are referring to as it relates to facts and myths, so any response in that direction will likely require extensive explanation.

 

 

Last edited by Eudaimonia

Who dares to awaken me....

 

 

Rashida19 wrote: Mad scientist", "Big head scientist", "Devil-maker" etc..  are all colloquially used terms to describe Yakub among members in the NOI.  The term "mad scientist" is not new or unusual within the NOI. 

 

There are many common phrases which are used incorrectly. How does this support your use of this when you should know after so many years that this is not what is part of the formal presentation of the doctrine? Are you making mistakes on purpose?

Ms.Djehuty wrote: If you feel there is an error in my presentation, you are welcome to point to it specifically and offer what you feel is the correct version.

 

Lets sober up for a second and admit that there are many versions of history even from an academic position the same is true.  Why?  Well because history can be weaponized specifically as a propaganda tool. The proper telling of history is what justifies claims of right and so forth and such claims are often the underpinnings of war (see the establishment of the State of Israel as a prime example).  Whether Yakub is a fictional character created or an actual historical figure is something that those who are interested would review as a historical claim and proving that such history is accurate would fall on those who make the claim.  Now of course if the claim is rejected prior to the appropriate study then what can you do besides point out how unreasonable such a response is in the face of objectively seeking answers. 

 

Has the historical claim made by Elijah Muhammad ever been falsified, of course it has however one would have to be willing to do the reading in order to know whether the claim is strong or weak,and it seems that you are kinda lacking in this department...Aint that right???  Aint it??

 

Khalliqa wrote: Fact v. Myth is truly how I see an issue where one is advancing a position based off mythology v. advancing a position which begins with non-biased scientific inquiry and discovery.

Nonsense.  if you were to understand what our brother is saying we are both suggesting that there is no variance to the claims both suggest the emergence of white folks due to intentional sexual practices.  Where the two separate is along the lines of historical matters.  So there is no Mythology versus history.  You are just saying that because you are grieving the loss of the chain smoker Christopher Hitchens and you are trying to see if you can be just as angry.  

 

Now stop playing and put your head piece back on. 

 

 

Originally Posted by Whirling Moat:

 you should know after so many years that this is not what is part of the formal presentation of the doctrine? Are you making mistakes on purpose?

 

Lee...

 

Within the context of my earlier post, the term "Mad Scientist" was used to explain that defenders of both the intelligent design/creationist argument and the Yacub myth seek to utilize scientific means with an agenda to legitimize their beliefs regarding natural occurrences having an author.  In this case "race" is the topic.  In addition, my earlier posts were in response to questions and points brought up by Vox and Earth and Sky.

 

Instead, you and MC seem to want to focus on whether or not I am towing the NOI line and presenting the Yakub myth in a manner befitting your sensibilities.  The terms "Mad scientist", "big head scientist" and the like are used by average members and ministers alike and as far as I know there is no official edict that precludes use of these terms as if they are in contradiction with the official myths of the organization.

 

 Has the historical claim made by Elijah Muhammad ever been falsified, of course it has 

Okay....

Where the two separate is along the lines of historical matters. 

I disagree, please see above.  NOI mythology is not an accepted scientific fact for which I would need to precede with every subject as if it were.  This is not a historical matter.  It is myth v. science- until proven otherwise and the burden of proof would be upon those seeking legitimacy.

 

You are just saying that because you are grieving the loss of the chain smoker Christopher Hitchens and you are trying to see if you can be just as angry.

 

 Now stop playing and put your head piece back on. 

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I've never been a fan of Hitchens and a head piece does not a quality woman make; it has no part to play in my future..

 

 

 

Last edited by Eudaimonia

I don't know where the hell white people came from, but with Russia, the Ukraine and living in a country besieged by racism and hatred, I have a feeling we're going to be damn sorry we ever laid eyes upon "white" people.  By the time these "people" get through fighting with everyone, we're going to wish we were in mud huts, eating grub worms, drinking cows' blood, being left the hell alone in Africa.  By the looks of things, nobody's going to be in existence when these suckers get THOUGH!!!!!

 

 

Lee...

Oh, okay...  It like that huh?  We are breaking cover..Okay, so should I tell everyone that you are really part of the ILLUMINATI!!!  Yep folks she's a real life, flag waving Illuminati mistress in the flesh.  I bet that right now she's doing that circle thing with her fingers around her eye..

 

Within the context of my earlier post, the term "Mad Scientist" was used to explain that defenders of both the intelligent design/creationist argument and the Yacub myth seek to utilize scientific means with an agenda to legitimize their beliefs regarding natural occurrences having an author.  In this case "race" is the topic.  In addition, my earlier posts were in response to questions and points brought up by Vox and Earth and Sky.

You are a bit all over the place.  Creationism as an argument relies more on faith than science.  Certain creationist defend creationism citing inconsistencies in scientific theory however rarely will they assert that the biblical account of creation aligns with common place cosmology.  You seem to be having a hard time understanding what kind of claim the Yakub account is.  It is not a scientific claim at all.  It is a historical claim so it would not be argued by scientists it would be argued by historians who study ancient history.  Creationism is a religious claim. 

 

It is a very useful tactic to undermine religious claims by asking for empirical evidence however in so doing one makes a category mistake since religious claims do not suppose an explanation in science.  This is perhaps what makes certain religious claims untenable in an arena outside of religious conversation. The problem for religion today is that we are moving into a more secular world and proselytizing becomes especially tedious when religious rhetoric lacks rational and empirical support.  So we see religious folk seeking to buttress religious claims with scientific justifications, thats not what you see as it relates to historical claims made by the NOI.  We don't need to do this since our position does not seem to be disputed as much as you would probably like to believe. 

 

Instead, you and MC seem to want to focus on whether or not I am towing the NOI line and presenting the Yakub myth in a matter befitting your sensibilities.  The terms "Mad scientist", "big head scientist" and the like are used by average members and ministers alike and as far as I know there is no official edict that precludes use of these terms as if they are in contradiction with the official myths of the organization.

 

If you are going to criticize my "mythology" at least get it right. I think thats what you are being told. I think we are expressing our views here for the sake of clarifying misconceptions and to lazily dribble out colloquial terms which muddy up the discussion is just inexcusable on your part.  This thing is serious and when brown very nice ladies start throwing people off with diatribes well like i said it doesn't help? 

 

I disagree, please see above.  NOI mythology is not an accepted scientific fact for which I would need to precede with every subject as if it were.  This is not a historical matter.  It is myth v. science- until proven otherwise and the burden of proof would be upon those seeking legitimacy.

NOI claims like what?  That the black man is the original man...seems consistent, that white came from black people ..check..That eating pork is  just wrong...CHECK, That eating one meal a day is beneficial ..check.  These are all claims which would fit into science.  The deportation of the moon from the Earth...check, the speed of light..check, the weight of the earth...check.  

 

Yakub, the Motherplane, the 24 scientists, Whiteman being the devil. The island of Pelan, Even toes for appropriate mates, Shabazz, et al are all historical claims...Not scientific ones. 

 

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I've never been a fan of Hitchens and a head piece does not a quality woman make; it has no part to play in my future..

 

Really...I think you will do exactly what you must in order to survive..Just hope it doesn't come to that.  Hope...thats what you can do...

 

 

 

Last edited by Whirling Moat

Hmm, lively debate we have going on here but let's keep it nice. 

 

Carrying on...

 

In addition to new plants, human beings have also created new types of dogs and cats via selective breeding. The following is an excerpt from the PBS series, Dogs That Changed the World.

 

'...according to genetics, all dogs evolved from the savage and wild wolf — in a transformation that occurred just 15,000 years ago.'

 

'Most of these breeds exploded onto the scene over the past 150 years, spurred by the Victorian-era passion for the “dog fancy” — the selective breeding of dogs to enhance particular characteristics. By tinkering with its genetics, humans made the dog the most varied animal species on the planet — and also created a host of hereditary health problems.'

 

Again, if this can be done to plants and animals, why not human beings? The creation of different types of dog (cat) breeds is no different than what the NOI says that the scientist, Yakub, did but with human beings! According to NOI teachings, it took 600 years of selective breeding (and tinkering with genetics) to create the first Caucasian.

 

To expect white historians and scientists to look closely into what the NOI has proclaimed to sincerely check its validity is to be naive. We are living in the world of white supremacy. The entire system is built on the premise that whites are superior to everyone else. Acknowledging or even seriously considering the possibility that a group of people (whom they despise) is responsible for their very existence would destroy the entire system of white supremacy. It is much safer and more pleasant to hold onto the Swiss cheese theory that whites became white by simply migrating to northern latitudes. 

 

Here is a fact sheet on Vitamin D from the NIH. You can skip to the section on 'Groups at Risk of Vitamin D Inadequacy.' 

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factshee...-HealthProfessional/

 

Finally, I found this article via an internet search. I believe it answers some of the questions raised in this thread.

 

National Geographic Proves Teaching on Mr. Yakub

 IMHO, of course, there is only one true religion: unconditional love and mercy for everyone.  Scientology alien spaceship religions make sense when you’re under the group spell. Otherwise, not. Same goes for all cult theories, Hale-Bopp, Reptile gods in te White House, etc. It makes sense only to the entranced in-group.   We need to come back to sanity.  Love always makes sense even in times of confusion, no?  Earth is a mental institution and the mind is a kind of demon. Mind always destroys the message and the messengers with organized religion salesmanship. . The just person weeps and rages in the wilderness. Mercy, rain down.  There is only one true religion and one God over all peoples.  All organized religions disagree . . . with God. 

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×