Skip to main content

Peace....


EP, actually the NOI theory for the evolution of the caucasian matches the findings of modern anthropology, and paleontology.

I have not taken the time to read this entire thread, so excuse me if you already have provided your understanding of the NOI teaching on this subject, but..What do you think the NOI believes in relation to this subject?


Kai
Yes, I did. It merely regurgitated more scientifically ignorant nonsense.
All the African Scholars regurgitate scientifically ignorant nonsense. Unbelieveable and your not brainwashed, please!!

If I accept tested evidence handed forth by a scientist who happens to be white I must automatically disagree with a Black scientist, no matter how legitimate his arguments

So you dont believe Dr Diops Tested Evidence of the African Origins of CIvilization. Or his work in Ice People VS Sun People?But the Europeans findings has evidence you believe over those of your own people , who has just as many if not more credentials as these Europeans you believe in?

Much like you and your NOI cult buddies, when presented with actual facts that contradict their "facts" and show the research to be shaky and illigitimate, they resort to name calling or hiding. You want me to accept your mythology over "da WHITE MAN'S" science, then give me some empirical evidence. Put up or shut up.

Ive shown you several links to extensive studies along with the Studies of many African Scholars who have dont extensive work on the matter. You choose to believe the evidence of European scholars over those of your own. The same slave mentallity , if the white man says its a fact it must be. But if the Black man with the same credentials presents his evidence, it scientifically igornant. Unbelieveable

For the record , what scientist or Scholars have done work that you feel presents harden scientific evidence,? What scholarship do you draw a upon as proper Science. Who are these people?


Evolution is a "crackpot theory"? If it is, it happens to be backed up with some damn good hard physical evidence. As opposed to.......where's the scientific evidence for the NOI 'theory' that Black people came from a mothership, and the earth is 6.6 trillion years old, and North America will burn for 400 years

I never said the NOI was scientific theory, I clearly showed the works other othe Africans who have the credentials in the area, but you still reject them.

No one. I wouldn't say all, but I would say most humans came originally from Africans. Many humans, especially in South Asia and the Pacific Islands, evolved from Australoid peoples who originated from Australia (Aboriginees) independently of Africa. About 25% of humanity evolved from them.

But aside from that, you are right that our race is the original race on the planet from what we know.

How can our race be the original race if another race evolved independent of the African? Isnt that a contradiction]

believe man evolved from Congoids (I don't use the term "Negroid" because it's racist and inaccurate) and Australoids. And possibly Mongoloids as well because Central Asians and East Asians contributed a large part of humanity and there is evidence of old bones in India and Mongolia almost as old as the ones in Kenya.

Dont know you there is a lot research done on the Druids the oldest people in India ,and in fact they migrated there from Africa>



Basically all you are saying is, you believe the European Scientific evidence over all the Brothers and sistas I presented who has done extensive work on the matter. Then you try to justify your beliefs by sprewing some scientific babble. But in actuality you havent present any evidence that proves what you believe. Who exactly do you believe is correct in this matter? What Scientif evidence, and who are the authors you use to prove your theory is right ,and brother Diop and Dr. Clarke, and Dr. Williams is wrong, Dr Francis Cress Welsing, has a Phd , but here information is looked at as
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
Yes, I did. It merely regurgitated more scientifically ignorant nonsense.
All the African Scholars regurgitate scientifically ignorant nonsense. Unbelieveable and your not brainwashed, please!!


What "African scholars" are you referring to? From what I've seen, most African scholars accept the Evolution Theory and believe in the Out of Africa Theory.

quote:
I never said the NOI was scientific theory, I clearly showed the works other othe Africans who have the credentials in the area, but you still reject them.


I wouldn't reject them if they had credentials in Biology or Anthropology. Or if their theories were accepted after peer-review journals turned up good feedback on their methods and evidence.

quote:
How can our race be the original race if another race evolved independent of the African? Isnt that a contradiction?


No, I mean "original" as in "the first". But the Australoid 'race' evolved independently of Africa thousands of years later. The first African Cro-Magnons were discovered in Africa and found to be between 650,000-400,000 years old. Australian Cro-Magnons were discovered and found to be about 320,000 years old. Most of humanity is the result of Congoid peoples in Africa changing in different climates as well as Australoids changing and then mixing with descendents of Congoids.

quote:
Dont know you there is a lot research done on the Druids the oldest people in India ,and in fact they migrated there from Africa?


Druids? You mean the Dravidians? Yes, I've heard that and I agree with it somewhat. Some of the Andamanese people and Sri Lankan Dravidians likely did migrate from East African thousands upon thousands of years ago. But many Dravidians are closer to Australoids genetically and may have evolved from Australian Aboriginees who migrated to India thousands of years ago.


Brother Zakar, I highly respect you and find you one of the most refreshing, honest and solid brothers on this board. Smile But I honestly don't see the need to defend NOI mythology about our origin. Personally, I think they detract from the authenticity of our cause and make us seem like looney charlatans to people already inclined to try to defame Black Liberation in any way they can.
I never tried to defend the NOI;s theory, im just saying there are lots of scientific evidence out there by all types of people that says all types of different things. Im not a scientist, i just try to apply common sense to things. I beleive all people evolved from one group, the original man. But as far the theory of evolution no one has proven it to be true. its only a Darwin theory. It seems to me if we evolved there would be some in between subhumans somewhere in existance. I believe man was manifested from thought. To me the only thing that cant be created or destroyed is energy and the highest form of energy to me is thought. There are things i find out about myself that cant be explained by more mortal scientific methods, somethings are beyond matter and the material world and moves into the spiritual. I mean what is science but mans attempt to explain things he doesnt understand?

Anyway it boils down to everyone has their beliefs and they will gravitate to whatever makes sense to them.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:

Mostly the NOI theories.


okay. so that indicates that there are some things being advanced about evolution here that are not backed up by scientific evidence.

quote:
At least the alternative (Evolutionary Theory) has 170 years of empirical backing behind it. The NOI "theory" is not a theory by the scientific definition of "Theory", it's a speculation. Big difference.


well, whatever the NOI teaching is - it is what it is. i tend to believe that if those of you with "advanced degrees" set out to disprove NOI teaching on this issue, in the end, you would end up proving it. *smile*

elijah muhammad taught what he taught for over 40 years and he didn't teach what he taught in order to argue with the intellectuals or scholars. and in those 40 years he consistently offered anybody $10,000 from his brother's vest coat pocket if they could disprove one word of what he taught. no one - black or white scientist, skeptic or critic ever took him up on that offer.

"the white man" never came forward and said 'we're not the devil and we can prove that we're not.' i imagine that if some of you can disprove the NOI's creation theory that the offer still stands. why don't you take it to min. farrakhan, show him that you've disproved what the NOI teaches and put that $10,000 in your wallet or purse?

i don't know what the spiritual beliefs of everyone here are but do those of you who are advocates of evolution claim to be atheist? if not, what are your spiritual beliefs?

scriptural history shows that whenever "god" came to a people, gave a message to a messenger, he never selected one who was educated from the oppressive or unrighteous people that he had come to judge. therefore, scriptural history shows that all of those who were selected as messengers of god were rejected by their own people, the ones their message was aimed for.

elijah muhammad only went to the 4th grade in school so he was never educated in this "system" ... this white man's educational system of things. yet over time, in his estimation, he was selected to bring a message which he said came from god.

scriptural history is replayed in that he is also rejected in his time as messengers in the past were rejected by the people who could not accept the "new" teaching that was brought. even tho said to have come directly from god.

so anyway - i'm just curious, are you christian? atheist? agnostic? what is your spiritual foundation?
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Saracen:
Peace....


EP, actually the NOI theory for the evolution of the Caucasian matches the findings of modern anthropology, and paleontology.

I have not taken the time to read this entire thread, so excuse me if you already have provided your understanding of the NOI teaching on this subject, but..What do you think the NOI believes in relation to this subject?


Kai

Kai,
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. See Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman in America,Chicago: The Final Call, Inc., 1965, pp. 117 and 119.
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
okay. so that indicates that there are some things being advanced about evolution here that are not backed up by scientific evidence.


Such as?

quote:
well, whatever the NOI teaching is - it is what it is. i tend to believe that if those of you with "advanced degrees" set out to disprove NOI teaching on this issue, in the end, you would end up proving it. *smile*

elijah muhammad taught what he taught for over 40 years and he didn't teach what he taught in order to argue with the intellectuals or scholars. and in those 40 years he consistently offered anybody $10,000 from his brother's vest coat pocket if they could disprove one word of what he taught. no one - black or white scientist, skeptic or critic ever took him up on that offer.


If that's true, I have a feeling it's because no one took it seriously. I could say that there are screaming blue ants on Neptune and offer $50,000 to anyone who can disprove me.

1) That's hard to take seriously
2) It's hard to disprove an unfalsifiable (by our current technology) claim

quote:
"the white man" never came forward and said 'we're not the devil and we can prove that we're not.'


Why would he? I don't have to prove to any racist that "I'm not a nigger". How can you prove or disprove someone being the Devil?

quote:
i imagine that if some of you can disprove the NOI's creation theory that the offer still stands. why don't you take it to min. farrakhan, show him that you've disproved what the NOI teaches and put that $10,000 in your wallet or purse?


All I would have to do is pull up an article from TalkOrigins to disprove that 'theory'.

quote:
i don't know what the spiritual beliefs of everyone here are but do those of you who are advocates of evolution claim to be atheist? if not, what are your spiritual beliefs?


No, I'm not an atheist.

quote:
scriptural history shows that whenever "god" came to a people, gave a message to a messenger, he never selected one who was educated from the oppressive or unrighteous people that he had come to judge. therefore, scriptural history shows that all of those who were selected as messengers of god were rejected by their own people, the ones their message was aimed for.

elijah muhammad only went to the 4th grade in school so he was never educated in this "system" ... this white man's educational system of things. yet over time, in his estimation, he was selected to bring a message which he said came from god.

scriptural history is replayed in that he is also rejected in his time as messengers in the past were rejected by the people who could not accept the "new" teaching that was brought. even tho said to have come directly from god.

so anyway - i'm just curious, are you christian? atheist? agnostic? what is your spiritual foundation?


I'm not a Christian, I'm not an atheist and I'm not agnostic.

I'm a non-theist (neither a theist or an atheist). I'm a non-theistic pantheistic/metatheistic monist/holist. I have strong leanings towards Hindu, Buddhist, Daoist and Ifa philosophies.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 1milehi:
[QUOTE]scriptural history shows that whenever "god" came to a people, gave a message to a messenger, he never selected one who was educated from the oppressive or unrighteous people that he had come to judge.



Really?????

How do you explain Moses being an adoptee of Pharoah's family? And certainly educated by the "oppressor"? (Hebrew version)

The Buddha was a prince.

?????
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
Such as?


that would be for you to identify. my question to you was asked to find out if you were referring to NOI teaching or also the theories that you and others were putting forth in this thread. you said you were "mostly" referring to NOI teaching. so i said that indicates you also were saying that the remainder of what you were referring to was not NOI teaching. that would be for you to identify, wouldn't you say? what are some of the things that made you say that you were not "completely and solely" referring to NOI teaching?

quote:
If that's true, I have a feeling it's because no one took it seriously. I could say that there are screaming blue ants on Neptune and offer $50,000 to anyone who can disprove me.

1) That's hard to take seriously
2) It's hard to disprove an unfalsifiable (by our current technology) claim


well, it's convenient to say that no one took it seriously - but considering the mentality of some/many black people yesterday and today, and the fact that so many play the lottery and gamble - looking for easy, quick dollars - it's safe to conclude that if anybody had what it took to disprove anything - even just one word - that elijah muhammad taught, they would have jumped on that offer for an easy $10,000.

so along with the possibility that you raised, that no one took the offer seriously, there is also the possibility that no one had the knowledge, ability or understanding to disprove anything elijah muhammad taught.


quote:
Why would he? I don't have to prove to any racist that "I'm not a nigger". How can you prove or disprove someone being the Devil?


well, the point is that white people cannot deny the claim because they, and anybody else, can see that whereever they are on the planet, they have caused trouble, mischief and bloodshedding. they are not natives anywhere on the planet, so where did they come from? NOI teachings say "devil" is anything grafted from the original not a being with a pitchfork and red suit. can white people disprove that they were grafted and are a "made" people, not like others who were not "made"? it's just an interesting observation that over the decades, no group of white people has risen up to say that what the NOI teaches about them is wrong or untrue. you will find them screaming reverse racism, anti semitism, hate group, racists, etc., etc. but that's all just loud noise to divert attention away from the fact that they can't deny or disprove anything that the NOI teaches about them.

quote:
All I would have to do is pull up an article from TalkOrigins to disprove that 'theory'.


well - what's stopping you? i'm sure $10,000 spare change in your pocket would be a nice thing for ya.

quote:
I'm not a Christian, I'm not an atheist and I'm not agnostic.

I'm a non-theist (neither a theist or an atheist). I'm a non-theistic pantheistic/metatheistic monist/holist. I have strong leanings towards Hindu, Buddhist, Daoist and Ifa philosophies.


okay. thanks.

so how do you view the history of black people and what happened as far as the "fall", the tranatlantic slave trade, and tribes of our people being dispersed all over the earth as slaves, servants and the oppressed? in your view, is there any spiritual connection in all of that? is it coincidence that the bible speaks of a people to be enslaved for 400 years and blacks in america are the only ones in known history who come close to fulfilling that scriptural prophecy? i know you're not into scripture but do you find that to be coincidence, a fluke, inconsequential?
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
that would be for you to identify. my question to you was asked to find out if you were referring to NOI teaching or also the theories that you and others were putting forth in this thread. you said you were "mostly" referring to NOI teaching. so i said that indicates you also were saying that the remainder of what you were referring to was not NOI teaching. that would be for you to identify, wouldn't you say? what are some of the things that made you say that you were not "completely and solely" referring to NOI teaching?


Well, one thing I don't agree with mainstream science on is materialism. I lean more towards Quantum Science than Atomistic Reductionist Materialism which much of the scientific community still espouses. Even though Quantum Science is gaining popularity.

I view materialism as an unfalsifiable premise just like metaphysical idealism. Materialism can't account for all phenomena in our universe, it can't account for all the energy and mass in the universe, and it can't explain certain types of energy and inter-dimensional anomalies such as black holes.

quote:
well, it's convenient to say that no one took it seriously - but considering the mentality of some/many black people yesterday and today, and the fact that so many play the lottery and gamble - looking for easy, quick dollars - it's safe to conclude that if anybody had what it took to disprove anything - even just one word - that elijah muhammad taught, they would have jumped on that offer for an easy $10,000.

so along with the possibility that you raised, that no one took the offer seriously, there is also the possibility that no one had the knowledge, ability or understanding to disprove anything elijah muhammad taught.


Why doesn't he go ask some scientists, specifically biologists or anthropologists, to disprove him? Why ask ordinary lay people or intellectuals who don't have a background in science or those fields of science?

I'm sure your everday average Joe (myself included) don't have the skills, equipment or expertise to be able to disprove him. He would need to ask a biologist or evolutionist.


quote:
well, the point is that white people cannot deny the claim because they, and anybody else, can see that whereever they are on the planet, they have caused trouble, mischief and bloodshedding.


Every group of people has caused bloodshed, trouble and mischief. White people just caused it on the largest scale. Not because they are "more evil" than other humans, they just had more war technology to help them. We Africans might have done the same thing if we had the same amount of war technology and the same access to global resources from sailing.

They're not evil, they're just acting out negative human urges on a mass scale because they can.

quote:
they are not natives anywhere on the planet, so where did they come from?


Africa and Central Asia. The original Natives of Europe were Neanderthals who were most likely White in appearance due to the environment. In the Neolithic Era, White Cro-Magnons replaced White Neanderthals as the natives of Europe.

quote:
NOI teachings say "devil" is anything grafted from the original not a being with a pitchfork and red suit. can white people disprove that they were grafted and are a "made" people, not like others who were not "made"? it's just an interesting observation that over the decades, no group of white people has risen up to say that what the NOI teaches about them is wrong or untrue. you will find them screaming reverse racism, anti semitism, hate group, racists, etc., etc. but that's all just loud noise to divert attention away from the fact that they can't deny or disprove anything that the NOI teaches about them.


That's the point, White people are not "grafted" (you mean selectively breeded, not grafted). They are a natural evolutionary group of people just like Black people. Their nature is no different than anyone else's. The differences come from cultural differences.

quote:
well - what's stopping you? i'm sure $10,000 spare change in your pocket would be a nice thing for ya.


Who should I send it to?

quote:
okay. thanks.

so how do you view the history of black people and what happened as far as the "fall", the tranatlantic slave trade, and tribes of our people being dispersed all over the earth as slaves, servants and the oppressed?


The "Fall"? Do you mean the Adamic Fall? If that's what you mean, I view it as a Kemetic/Babylonian/Sumerian story adopted by the Hebrews and Arabs. I view it as an allegory of Man's original state of concsiousness undivided from "God"/"Nature"/Whatever devolving into an animalistic consciousness.

As for the Slave trade, oppression, genocide, I view it the same way anyone else does. Man destroying Man.

quote:
in your view, is there any spiritual connection in all of that? is it coincidence that the bible speaks of a people to be enslaved for 400 years and blacks in america are the only ones in known history who come close to fulfilling that scriptural prophecy? i know you're not into scripture but do you find that to be coincidence, a fluke, inconsequential?


I believe that is shows that Mankind has a primitive consciousness and an unenlightened mind which is why we resort to killing and enslaving another. Spiritually, I view it as proof positive of the dangers of attachment, egoism, and materialism (not in the metaphysical sense, in the sense of obsessing over material goods and pleasures).
Peace....



quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by Saracen:
Peace....


EP, actually the NOI theory for the evolution of the Caucasian matches the findings of modern anthropology, and paleontology.

I have not taken the time to read this entire thread, so excuse me if you already have provided your understanding of the NOI teaching on this subject, but..What do you think the NOI believes in relation to this subject?


Kai

Kai,
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. See Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman in America,Chicago: The Final Call, Inc., 1965, pp. 117 and 119.


Yes.

Let it be made very clear that there is no substantial evidence which would suggest otherwise.

The evidence, if viewed objectivley supports the man to ape theory just as much as it supports the ape to man theory. The theory could be described as a brand of devolution.

I am sure that most have learned that the transitional fossil record for the evolution of Australopithecus to Homo sapien is terribly lacking. The real evidence is supportive in both directions.


How do we resolve this? We have the option of introducing history into the discussion which helps to clear up quite a few things....



Kai
To this point I have avoided entering into this discussion. This "I reject your theories and you can't disprove mine" back and forth discussion leads me to ask the question, what difference does it make?

I would argue that those pitting the mythology/theories of one group versus those of another are missing the larger point of religion/spirituality.

If one group gains solace in believing _______ and that belief system allows them to treat other humans beings, both within and outside of that group with respect and honor; then believe it, and more importantly, live it, or don't believe it and live out the tenents of your belief system.

Just my irreverent and irrelevant opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
Really?????

How do you explain Moses being an adoptee of Pharoah's family? And certainly educated by the "oppressor"? (Hebrew version)


well, unless i'm missing something in the biblical text, i didn't see anywhere that mentioned his educational background. in exodus, you have him being born, being placed in the water as a baby and then picked up by someone in pharaoh's house. afterwards, his real mother and sister manage to work a deal where the baby moses is allowed to live with his real family and all the bible says (in exodus) is that when he was "older" he was taken back into pharaoh's household.

where do you find anything about his educational status in order that we could come to the conclusion that he was one of the egyptian scholars of that day?

quote:
The Buddha was a prince.


i can't say i consider the buddha as one of the messengers of god but ............ okay.

?????[/QUOTE]
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:

Well, one thing I don't agree with mainstream science on is materialism. I lean more towards Quantum Science than Atomistic Reductionist Materialism which much of the scientific community still espouses. Even though Quantum Science is gaining popularity.

I view materialism as an unfalsifiable premise just like metaphysical idealism. Materialism can't account for all phenomena in our universe, it can't account for all the energy and mass in the universe, and it can't explain certain types of energy and inter-dimensional anomalies such as black holes.


okay. a bit over my head but .... okay. on another note, i was serious earlier with that question i asked about evolution. it may be a silly question to some of you but i'm really looking for an answer.

is the root of the evolutionary theory still the concept that all life began from an amoeba like mass which eventually developed into higher and higher life forms until a human being came out of it?

do you believe that concept/theory reflects the true start of all life?

quote:
Why doesn't he go ask some scientists, specifically biologists or anthropologists, to disprove him? Why ask ordinary lay people or intellectuals who don't have a background in science or those fields of science?


his offer was not limited. he offered anybody... scholar or drug dealer, evolutionary scientist or mechanic ... the $10,000. and the challenge is not to go out looking for someone to challenge, it's to people who say the teachings are not true. if someone says the teachings are not true - it's really on them to show evidence of that, isn't it?

elijah muhammad didn't operate on the defensive. he spoke and folks reacted to what he spoke. he didn't go out deliberately looking for skeptics to challenge and offer money to.

quote:
I'm sure your everday average Joe (myself included) don't have the skills, equipment or expertise to be able to disprove him. He would need to ask a biologist or evolutionist.


well, again, IMO, he wasn't looking for people to challenge just for the heck of it. he was presenting a challenge to those who, due to their own disbelief, took lightly what he taught, ridiculed it and called it foolishness.

plus, it's surprising to read you saying that average folks don't have the skills or equipment to disprove the teachings. as much as uppity was calling the teachings baloney, malarkey and hilarious - it would seem any simpleton should be able to dismantle anything fitting that description. do you think the teachings are above that level that uppity put them on? your words seem to indicate that the teachings are not that foolish after all if you really think averages folks don't have the ability to disprove them.

quote:
Every group of people has caused bloodshed, trouble and mischief. White people just caused it on the largest scale. Not because they are "more evil" than other humans, they just had more war technology to help them. We Africans might have done the same thing if we had the same amount of war technology and the same access to global resources from sailing.

They're not evil, they're just acting out negative human urges on a mass scale because they can.


well, i disagree. do you agree that white people are dying out, so to speak? some of their scientists say they've only been here approximately 6000-some years. why are their numbers decreasing when the darker people on the planet continue to increase in their populations? at this rate, it appears there is coming a day when there won't be anymore "white" people on the planet. if we're all the same, why is that?

and just a note about scriptural prophecy which foretold that "satan," i.e. the devil, would have 6000 years to labor and do all his [their] work and then be put to rest the next thousand years. so again, is it just coincidence, a fluke that white people, or "the devil" are dying out after only approximately 6000 ruling on the planet?

quote:
Africa and Central Asia. The original Natives of Europe were Neanderthals who were most likely White in appearance due to the environment. In the Neolithic Era, White Cro-Magnons replaced White Neanderthals as the natives of Europe.


hmmm ....

quote:
That's the point, White people are not "grafted" (you mean selectively breeded, not grafted). They are a natural evolutionary group of people just like Black people. Their nature is no different than anyone else's. The differences come from cultural differences.


well, i disagree but ...... okay.

quote:
Who should I send it to?


you should be able to find the address on noi.org but i certainly hope you plan to send more than an article written by somebody else. how is that YOU disproving anything? you might as well have the person who wrote the article send in their "proof" in their own words.

an article is not going to disprove anything - a lengthy explanation of facts would seem to be needed and you just admitted above that you don't have the skills, expertise or equipment to disprove the teaching. so what would you be sending? then when/if you were called in to debate your points, would you be able to do it?

you might want to think twice .... or up to 5 times ... before accepting the challenge. ;-)
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR: So you dont believe Dr Diops Tested Evidence of the African Origins of CIvilization. Or his work in Ice People VS Sun People?But the Europeans findings has evidence you believe over those of your own people , who has just as many if not more credentials as these Europeans you believe in?


I admire Mr. Diop for his anthropological contributions, especially in regards to the Black presence in Egypt. That being said, his work in regard to "sun people" and "ice people" is a load of crap. His analysis of Egyption remains have legitimacy, but there is absolutely non for his outlandish ideas of the superiority of the "sun people" over the "ice people". The information I rely on come from peer reviewed results, using empirical evidence and the scientific method, and has acceptance in the WORLD scientific community. Some of the results are from Europeans, others are from Asians, and some Africans are thrown in the mix. Once again, evidence exists independently of the presenter. If a white man told me that the sun was really just an orange in space, it would be just as wrong if a Black man told me so. Because it's just wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
Ive shown you several links to extensive studies along with the Studies of many African Scholars who have dont extensive work on the matter.


No, you've shown me several links to pro-NOI pages which contain the rantings and speculations of afrocentrists. I specified wat real evidence was--objective, empirical, testable. Until you send me some links to research and thesis papers published in peer-reviewed science journals, you haven't given me any actual evidence. Anyne can say a bunch of BS and have other people agree.

quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
For the record , what scientist or Scholars have done work that you feel presents harden scientific evidence,? What scholarship do you draw a upon as proper Science. Who are these people?


These are just a tiny fraction of the scientists that present hardened evidence (ALL scientists are required to do so) for human evolution:

  • Mark Stoneking
  • Christopher B. Ruff
  • Mark L. Weiss
  • Richard Potts
  • Jonathan Marks
  • J. N. Spuhler
  • Fred H. Smith
  • Stephen J. Gould

    These aren't names I randomly pulled from the internet, but scientists and authors of peer reviewed papers that I have read and analyzed for work on various term papers and projects. I have GIGABYTES of research for this stuff.

    A sampling of scientific journals from which I base my scholarship:

    American Journal of Physical Anthropology
    Journal of Experimental Zoology
    American Journal of Human Biology
    Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews

    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    I never said the NOI was scientific theory, I clearly showed the works other othe Africans who have the credentials in the area, but you still reject them.


    First, NOI mythology is not scientific theory then it's pointless to compare it to work that is. Case closed.
    Even so, you did a good job of insinuating as such. I reject them because they had no concrete evidence--or at least you haven't presented any for their case. Their opinions and untested observations are not the same as carefully designed and reviewed experiemnets using concrete evidence and materials.

    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    Basically all you are saying is, you believe the European Scientific evidence over all the Brothers and sistas I presented who has done extensive work on the matter. Then you try to justify your beliefs by sprewing some scientific babble. But in actuality you havent present any evidence that proves what you believe. Who exactly do you believe is correct in this matter? What Scientif evidence, and who are the authors you use to prove your theory is right ,and brother Diop and Dr. Clarke, and Dr. Williams is wrong, Dr Francis Cress Welsing, has a Phd , but here information is looked at as


    No, what I'm saying is that when presented with empirical evidence, I will weigh the results, and if found sufficient, accept said evidence. However, should more information become available, I have no problem re-analyzing said evidence and either continue to accept or discard my acceptance based on the new data. The race of the person conducting the experiemen or presenting the evidence is irrelevant.

    OK, you want evidence, I'm going to list some journal articles for you. They are mostly recent, and what I list are the ones I have personally read:

    Multiple dispersals and modern human origins
    Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews
    Volume 3, Issue 2, Date: 1994, Pages: 48-60
    Marta Mirazon Lahr, Robert Foley


    Environmental hypotheses of hominin evolution
    American Journal of Physical Anthropology
    Volume 107, Issue S27, Date: 1998, Pages: 93-136
    Richard Potts

    Towards a theory of modern human origins: Geography, demography, and diversity in recent human evolution
    American Journal of Physical Anthropology
    Volume 107, Issue S27, Date: 1998, Pages: 137-176
    Marta Mirazón Lahr, Robert A. Foley

    The changing face of genus Homo
    Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews
    Volume 8, Issue 6, Date: 1999, Pages: 195-207
    Bernard Wood, Mark Collard

    The human colonisation of Europe: where are we?
    Journal of Quaternary Science
    Volume 21, Issue 5, Date: July 2006, Pages: 425-435
    Wil Roebroeks

    Modern human origins
    American Journal of Physical Anthropology
    Volume 32, Issue S10, Date: 1989, Pages: 35-68
    Fred H. Smith, Anthony B. Falsetti, Steven M. Donnelly

    DNA and recent human evolution
    Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews
    Volume 2, Issue 2, Date: 1993, Pages: 60-73
    Mark Stoneking

    Morphological adaptation to climate in modern and fossil hominids
    American Journal of Physical Anthropology
    Volume 37, Issue S19, Date: 1994, Pages: 65-107
    Christopher B. Ruff

    I downloaded an awful lot of this stuff ontom my computer in pdf files. I wouldn't mind shuffling through my external HDD and sending you some papers, if you want.
  • quote:
    Originally posted by 1milehi:
    elijah muhammad taught what he taught for over 40 years and he didn't teach what he taught in order to argue with the intellectuals or scholars. and in those 40 years he consistently offered anybody $10,000 from his brother's vest coat pocket if they could disprove one word of what he taught. no one - black or white scientist, skeptic or critic ever took him up on that offer.


    Uh, if you mean "disprove" as in "show me evidence that Yakub did not create white people by grafting them ffrom Black people over the process of 600 years a few millenia ago", then that has already been proven. Actually, I've already done so, by giving you research showing white Caucasoids inhabited Europe thousands of years before your crazy scientist was supposed to have created them. Where's my money?

    If you mean "disprove" as in "disprove my opinion that you're a white devil", then that's basically a strawman, because your opnion is your own. At any rate, their "proof" is structured with such criteria as to be impossible to prove, because they are asking one to disprove a negative. can you conlclusively and empirical prove that invisible pink unicorns exist? That's the vein of Farakhan's question.

    quote:
    Originally posted by 1milehi:
    i don't know what the spiritual beliefs of everyone here are but do those of you who are advocates of evolution claim to be atheist? if not, what are your spiritual beliefs?


    I am an atheists (I don't "claim" to be, I merely am), but acceptance of evolution doesn't equate with atheism. Most Christians in the United States are able to reconcile science with their religious beliefs.
    quote:
    some of their scientists say they've only been here approximately 6000-some years. why are their numbers decreasing when the darker people on the planet continue to increase in their populations? at this rate, it appears there is coming a day when there won't be anymore "white" people on the planet. if we're all the same, why is that?


    I can think of two reasons for this, neither of which religion or superiority. First, race mixing. In the words of Public Enemy: Black man+Black woman=Black baby; white man+white woman=white baby; Black man [or woman]+white woman [or man]=Black baby. The second reason has to do with the materialism that E.P. spoke of. White folks are having fewer babies for economic reasons: the fewer mouths to feed the more $$$ for toys [or, creature comforts]. Whereas, Black, brown, yellow and red folk having been near the bottom of the economic scale, have askewed reducing birthrate as a model for economic uplifting.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    is the root of the evolutionary theory still the concept that all life began from an amoeba like mass which eventually developed into higher and higher life forms until a human being came out of it?


    That was NEVER the root of evolutionary biology, and is yet another falsehood that people ignorant of the field buy into. Evolution is not concerned with WHERE, WHEN, or HOW life began, but what happened once it got here. Abiogenis (and maybe cosmology) is the field of unraveling the beginnings of life. If life began from an amoebe, Allah, or Raelians, it makes no difference to the field of evolution because evolutionary processes work the same. That being said, many biology textbooks include a cursory abiogenical or cosmological explanation as a means of giving, what is regarded in terms of science, as a general overview. Yet I want to make it very clear that origins of life are a whole other field and as of yet, don't effect the process of evolution.

    FYI, the root of evolutionary biology is that:
  • organisms exist
  • these organisms reproduce in some manner
  • organisms will reproduce at different rates
  • varitaion exists with organisms
  • these variations are heritable
  • Actually ... No.

    I can research the numbers but I'm pretty certain infertility affects Blacks at a similar rate as whites. However, whites that undergo these treatments have the wealth [and desire to expend that wealth] on infertility treatments.

    Further, I am certain [based on economics] that far fewer white folk seek fertility treatments, than opt to restrict familial size for selfish reasons.
    quote:
    Originally posted by UppityNegress:

    Uh, if you mean "disprove" as in "show me evidence that Yakub did not create white people by grafting them ffrom Black people over the process of 600 years a few millenia ago", then that has already been proven. Actually, I've already done so, by giving you research showing white Caucasoids inhabited Europe thousands of years before your crazy scientist was supposed to have created them. Where's my money?


    i don't know. you have to follow the process and see if you get it. but like i told EP, you might want to come with your own explanation and wording instead of sending in somebody else's. what if the response is that other white scientists agree with the timeline and that whites have only been around approximately 6000 years? what will that do for the theory you've chosen to accept?

    quote:
    If you mean "disprove" as in "disprove my opinion that you're a white devil", then that's basically a strawman, because your opnion is your own. At any rate, their "proof" is structured with such criteria as to be impossible to prove, because they are asking one to disprove a negative. can you conlclusively and empirical prove that invisible pink unicorns exist?


    why don't we start with something you skipped above. you stated that pigs were not grafted. you also said pigs were "clean." can you prove it? if you can't, you're in the same boat you say elijah muhammad is in.


    quote:
    That's the vein of Farakhan's question.


    what question are you referring to? i didn't mention anything about min. farrakhan having a question and i don't believe anybody else did either.

    quote:

    I am an atheists (I don't "claim" to be, I merely am), but acceptance of evolution doesn't equate with atheism. Most Christians in the United States are able to reconcile science with their religious beliefs.


    okay. thanks.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    okay kweli. but don't you think it's odd the number of white women who are having to resort to fertility treatments in order to have children .... and then they end up having a litter, like animals, instead of one or two?

    doesn't that indicate that something is off kilter with many white's ability to reproduce naturally?


    The reason white women are more likely to undergo infertility treatment is because they are more likely to have the disposable income to do so. IF treatments are extremey expensive, starting at around $10,000 PER TRY. That means for every time a doctor runs a circute of harmone injections, gamete analysis to check for defects, artificial incubation of the zygotes, and insertion of them into the womb of the woman, they pay 10k--at least. If it fails the first time, too bad, try again and hand the docs another 10 grand.

    My goodness, Zakar, your racist ignorance and reconstruction of science is almost as bad as that of the stormfront idiots.
    Last edited {1}
    uppity, why are you mixing my comments up? i am not zakar and the last 2 things you have quoted have been from me and not zakar.

    ummm - do you need to lay off the pork? you know they say it makes you sluggish, mentally and other ways, and takes away 1/3 of your beauty appearance, right?
    :-)

    and i disagree on the fertility thing. regardless of the cost of fertility treatments, why would black and hispanic/mexican women need them when they are reproducing quite well naturally? they're not seeking treatments because they don't need them.
    quote:
    Originally posted by 1milehi:
    why don't we start with something you skipped above. you stated that pigs were not grafted. you also said pigs were "clean." can you prove it?


    I most certainly can! I have to leave now, because I have plans for the evening. Anyways, I'll be back tomorrow with ample evidence of the evolution of the pig and more info filled with (dum dum da da!) SCIENCE! Just to make things easier, let's make sure we're on the same page. Please list cleary and concisely the following:

  • Who grafted the pig?
  • When was it grafted?
  • Where was it grafted?

    Note: when I said "pigs are actualy qute clean animals", I was referring to the stereotype that pigs thrive in filth and will eat filth. I used to care for pigs in the agricultural sector of my high school, and I will personal tell you (as will any zoologist or vet) that pigs are actually quite tidy. They're amazingly smart, too. This is what I mean by clean. If you find the pig unclean in a religious sense, then that is an opinion that can't be falsified.
  • quote:
    Originally posted by 1milehi:
    okay. a bit over my head but .... okay. on another note, i was serious earlier with that question i asked about evolution. it may be a silly question to some of you but i'm really looking for an answer.

    is the root of the evolutionary theory still the concept that all life began from an amoeba like mass which eventually developed into higher and higher life forms until a human being came out of it?


    No, Evolutionary Theory doesn't really try assume where the matter came from to develop higher life forms. That's in the realm of philsophy. Evolutionary Theory assumes that multicellular organisms came about as a result of unicellular organisms grouping together and being exposed to more complex chemicals.

    quote:
    do you believe that concept/theory reflects the true start of all life?


    Materially, yes. Non-materially is a different matter.

    quote:
    his offer was not limited. he offered anybody... scholar or drug dealer, evolutionary scientist or mechanic ... the $10,000. and the challenge is not to go out looking for someone to challenge, it's to people who say the teachings are not true. if someone says the teachings are not true - it's really on them to show evidence of that, isn't it?

    elijah muhammad didn't operate on the defensive. he spoke and folks reacted to what he spoke. he didn't go out deliberately looking for skeptics to challenge and offer money to.

    he wasn't looking for people to challenge just for the heck of it. he was presenting a challenge to those who, due to their own disbelief, took lightly what he taught, ridiculed it and called it foolishness.

    plus, it's surprising to read you saying that average folks don't have the skills or equipment to disprove the teachings. as much as uppity was calling the teachings baloney, malarkey and hilarious - it would seem any simpleton should be able to dismantle anything fitting that description. do you think the teachings are above that level that uppity put them on? your words seem to indicate that the teachings are not that foolish after all if you really think averages folks don't have the ability to disprove them.


    Well, any outrageous claim takes a bit of elaborate debunking to refute. Many people could disprove it theoretically, but actually DISPROVING it PHYSICALLY is a different thing.

    quote:
    well, i disagree. do you agree that white people are dying out, so to speak? some of their scientists say they've only been here approximately 6000-some years.


    They're not "dying out" so to speak, just becoming more of a minority due to their population decline based on their living standards.

    Who says they're only 6000 years old? The only ones who say that are WHITE Christian Young Earth Creationists. These people aren't scientists, they are religionists posing their beliefs as "science".

    quote:
    why are their numbers decreasing when the darker people on the planet continue to increase in their populations? at this rate, it appears there is coming a day when there won't be anymore "white" people on the planet. if we're all the same, why is that?


    They have a high number of middle class people. A large middle class population = birth rate decline due to smaller families. Large families are a product of feudal and agrarian societies. Industrial societies causes having larger families to become very expensive.

    quote:
    and just a note about scriptural prophecy which foretold that "satan," i.e. the devil, would have 6000 years to labor and do all his [their] work and then be put to rest the next thousand years. so again, is it just coincidence, a fluke that white people, or "the devil" are dying out after only approximately 6000 ruling on the planet?


    Where did this prophecy come from?

    But anyway, Whites have been around for far longer than 6000 years. They've been around for at least 200,000 years. Blacks have been around for 600,000 years.

    Personally, I think White people aren't smart enough to be the Devil because their plans keep getting foiled and they keep losing power. Plus, they can be overthrown. They are not immortal and their power is derived from ruling over other people. If we stopped fueling their capitalist system and took control of our resources and labor products, and their power over others will crumble. Without capitalism, they are nothing.

    quote:
    you should be able to find the address on noi.org but i certainly hope you plan to send more than an article written by somebody else. how is that YOU disproving anything? you might as well have the person who wrote the article send in their "proof" in their own words.

    an article is not going to disprove anything - a lengthy explanation of facts would seem to be needed and you just admitted above that you don't have the skills, expertise or equipment to disprove the teaching. so what would you be sending? then when/if you were called in to debate your points, would you be able to do it?

    you might want to think twice .... or up to 5 times ... before accepting the challenge. ;-)


    Have you heard of a fellow named "Dr. Kent Hovind"? He claimed that the earth was only 6000 years old. He offered $10,000 to anyone who could disprove him. Talkorigins, which is a scientific website composed by scientists, took up the offer and debunked him.

    He has yet to fork over the money. He claimed that they were "wrong" even though he could offer no convincing rebuttal.
    quote:
    Originally posted by UppityNegress:
    [
    I most certainly can! I have to leave now, because I have plans for the evening. Anyways, I'll be back tomorrow with ample evidence of the evolution of the pig and more info filled with (dum dum da da!) SCIENCE! Just to make things easier, let's make sure we're on the same page. Please list cleary and concisely the following:

  • Who grafted the pig?
  • When was it grafted?
  • Where was it grafted?


  • all answers to the above are: "i don't know." just as i'm sure you don't know when the first pig appeared on the planet, how it came to be, etc. so again, you're in the same boat that you claim others are in.

    after having read elijah muhammad's words that the pig was grafted, you came in saying the pig was not grafted. i asked you how you knew that? you say what elijah muhammad taught was false and therefore the burden of proving that is on you.

    all i'm saying is that if you can't present proof of that which you claim is false, your position is no different from what you say elijah muhammad's is. you coming in saying "pigs were not grafted" should be given the same weight as someone saying they were. see what i'm saying? if you have no proof that pigs were not grafted, the best you can say is that you don't believe the claim that they were. no amount of you ridiculing that which you don't believe is equivalent to disproving it.

    now, we'll see what proof you have on this tomorrow.

    quote:
    Note: when I said "pigs are actualy qute clean animals", I was referring to the stereotype that pigs thrive in filth and will eat filth. I used to care for pigs in the agricultural sector of my high school, and I will personal tell you (as will any zoologist or vet) that pigs are actually quite tidy. They're amazingly smart, too. This is what I mean by clean. If you find the pig unclean in a religious sense, then that is an opinion that can't be falsified.


    well, i don't find it logical to conclude that a thing that is full of worms - and destructive worms at that - is "clean." so i have to disagree with you on that.

    also, your pig experience is not the same as that which others have had:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060626110035AA5z928

    Honey, let me tell you - I grew up on a farm where we raised pigs. (Hogs). They love mud, s**t in the mud, wallow in it and poop some more. They are nasty and sloppy when t hey eat and they smell - because they pee and poop in the mud in which they wallow. Where do you come from?
    quote:
    Originally posted by UppityNegress:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Saracen:
    The evidence is nonexistence for the emergence of whites in Europe during the Ice age.


    Not true; several nearly complete skeletons dating from the Ice Age and before have been found in Europe. Many of these skeletons were actually corpses well preserved in bogs. Forensic reconstruction (the kind of reconstruction they do for the skeletons of unidentified murder victims) have shown them to be exactly like modern Europeans. DNA tests from marrow in still-intact bones have confirmed that many modern European populations are identical to the skeletons found from as far as 12k years ago. Check out the research of David Miles. This is also pretty nifty:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1334512.stm


    quote:
    Originally posted by Saracen:
    Anthropologists studied in this field readily admit that Europe was uninhabitable during the Ice age.


    Outdated; may I point you to John F. Hoffecker, who has done extensive research on Ice Age settlements in the Eastern steppes of Europe.


    I will post a more detailed response to this later when I have more time, however, Uppitty Negress, what I wish to point out is that the emergence of white skin theory, as it is presently espoused by the academic world, has always included a requisite geographic isolation component.

    The glaciation in Europe is suppose to be the reason for such geographic isolation...Land barriers made of Ice...

    Now..If we are now speaking of human occupation of this area durig such a time period, it would have to demonstrated how...Where was the plant life? What animals did these hunter gatherers eat if there was no vegetation to support large herbivores?

    If we are speaking of an Ice Age in the literal sense, we could be speaking of a time when the environment was not really all that hostile, however, if this is the focus then we will lose our geographic isolation component, unless there was an isolation which was caused by social forces, and not geographic...

    Also as it relates to your assertion that 12,000 white skinnned Europeans have been unearthed, I simply ask you to post the evidence which would suggest white skin...

    The European is very close (phenotypically) to other native Indo Aryan populations, I think that we should narrow the focus onto classical "white people"...Not just any people of Indo Aryan lineage.



    Kai
    quote:
    Originally posted by UppityNegress:
    And for the record, I've had long, heated discussion with those Stormfront fucktards regarding the "Bell Curve" and other pieces of Bad Science.

    off

    I'm very happy that you did this UN. I've spent many hours reading threads on Stormfront. The depth of their blindness and selective research never ceases to amaze me. I never once posted there. It became clear early on that people will believe exactly what they want to, regardless of any facts or evidence to the contrary. Constant references to crap like "The Bell Curve" and "The Color of Crime" would have me laughing myself silly. I just wanted to give you props for challenging their nonsense. Not for their sakes (some people are beyond reason), but for the sake of other people like me who may read it.

    Back to the topic...

    Empirical evidence is empirical evidence. A scientifically proven fact is a scientifically proven fact. It doesn't become untrue simply because it came from the mouth of a White man. If a White man says the sky is blue, and I look up and see for myself that the sky is blue... then the sky is friggin' blue. If a White man says that 2 + 2 = 4, and I do the math and see that 2 + 2 does indeed equal 4... then 2 + 2 is friggin' 4.

    People are not colorblind... but truth is!
    Peace.....



    quote:
    Empirical evidence is empirical evidence. A scientifically proven fact is a scientifically proven fact. It doesn't become untrue simply because it came from the mouth of a White man. If a White man says the sky is blue, and I look up and see for myself that the sky is blue... then the sky is friggin' blue. If a White man says that 2 + 2 = 4, and I do the math and see that 2 + 2 does indeed equal 4... then 2 + 2 is friggin' 4.


    Yes...Empirical evidence is a great way to help feed the process of knowing..However, I think that we must have a healthy dose of rationalism with our empiricism. We cannot just take physical evidence and call it like we see it...This was Isaac Newton's greatest mistakes, and it was also the greeatest calamity of Albert Einstein.

    The data must be interpreted in a way whichs creates predictive power...Oncve you gather facts..do an experiment, repeat the trial and if the result generated is relatively the smae each time, then you have something close to a fact..

    As it relates to white people, we are being led to believe that white skin is more advantageous in colder climates, however, look at the evidence...find any cold region on the earth today, and I guarantee you that the oldest people there are darker people. Look at the Innuit, and the Early inhabitants of America.

    This represents physical evidence not matching the theory...


    Kai
    quote:
    Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
    No, Evolutionary Theory doesn't really try assume where the matter came from to develop higher life forms. That's in the realm of philsophy. Evolutionary Theory assumes that multicellular organisms came about as a result of unicellular organisms grouping together and being exposed to more complex chemicals.


    okay.

    quote:
    They're not "dying out" so to speak, just becoming more of a minority due to their population decline based on their living standards.

    Who says they're only 6000 years old? The only ones who say that are WHITE Christian Young Earth Creationists. These people aren't scientists, they are religionists posing their beliefs as "science".


    well, do you agree that some centuries down the line there will no longer be any "white" people on the planet? if so, it would seem they are becoming extinct or are literally dying out.

    quote:
    Where did this prophecy come from?


    the bible. in revelation

    quote:
    But anyway, Whites have been around for far longer than 6000 years. They've been around for at least 200,000 years. Blacks have been around for 600,000 years.


    600,000 years?! what do you think of the fossils that have been found in africa that are dated into the millions of years? you don't think they were black human beings?

    quote:
    Personally, I think White people aren't smart enough to be the Devil because their plans keep getting foiled and they keep losing power. Plus, they can be overthrown. They are not immortal and their power is derived from ruling over other people. If we stopped fueling their capitalist system and took control of our resources and labor products, and their power over others will crumble. Without capitalism, they are nothing.


    well, for a people to rise from being cave dwellers to running the world - you gotta give them credit for not just being "smart" but calculating and mathematical, to a degree. we can't deny that. they keep losing power because their time is up .... according to scriptural prophecy and NOI theology, the devil's time was limited before they were even created. they were only made to have influence on the planet for a certain amount of time and now the time is up. that's why the decline.

    as far as them being overthrown - yes they can be but i tend to think it would take a lot more than defueling their capitalist system. we blacks can't even unite amongst ourselves so if that's what is necessary to overthrow - we won't be seeing that anytime soon... unless the overthrow comes from another kind of power, which i tend to think it will.

    quote:
    Have you heard of a fellow named "Dr. Kent Hovind"? He claimed that the earth was only 6000 years old. He offered $10,000 to anyone who could disprove him. Talkorigins, which is a scientific website composed by scientists, took up the offer and debunked him.

    He has yet to fork over the money. He claimed that they were "wrong" even though he could offer no convincing rebuttal.


    no, haven't heard of him but he has nothing to do with the NOI situation unless of course, talkoroigins scientists have debunked what the NOI teaches. have they?
    quote:
    Originally posted by Saracen:
    As it relates to white people, we are being led to believe that white skin is more advantageous in colder climates, however, look at the evidence...find any cold region on the earth today, and I guarantee you that the oldest people there are darker people. Look at the Innuit, and the Early inhabitants of America.

    This represents physical evidence not matching the theory...

    Ok, for the sake of argument, let's assume that what you say is true... that the oldest people living today in the coldest regions of the world are darker people. There are countless other factors involved in determining relative life span. All other factors would have to be considered in order to determine how much of a role skin pigmentation plays in the end result, if any at all.

    However, the argument that White skin is more suited to colder climates is based on the function of skin itself. All human beings need sunlight to survive. Our skin obsorbs sunlight to generate nutrients that our bodies need (the most prodominant being Vitamin D). All human beings need approximately the same amount of sunlight, but the availability of sunlight is different in various regions of the world. Melanin is designed to regulate the obsorbtion of sunlight. The more sunlight is available, the more melanin is required to regulate it's obsorbtion.

    In the short term, that's why people tan. You're body will generate more melanin if you spend more time in the sun. In the very long term (many thousands of years) darker or lighter skin will become a genetic trait passed down through generations.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Black Viking:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Saracen:
    As it relates to white people, we are being led to believe that white skin is more advantageous in colder climates, however, look at the evidence...find any cold region on the earth today, and I guarantee you that the oldest people there are darker people. Look at the Innuit, and the Early inhabitants of America.

    This represents physical evidence not matching the theory...

    Ok, for the sake of argument, let's assume that what you say is true... that the oldest people living today in the coldest regions of the world are darker people. There are countless other factors involved in determining relative life span. All other factors would have to be considered in order to determine how much of a role skin pigmentation plays in the end result, if any at all.

    However, the argument that White skin is more suited to colder climates is based on the function of skin itself. All human beings need sunlight to survive. Our skin obsorbs sunlight to generate nutrients that our bodies need (the most prodominant being Vitamin D). All human beings need approximately the same amount of sunlight, but the availability of sunlight is different in various regions of the world. Melanin is designed to regulate the obsorbtion of sunlight. The more sunlight is available, the more melanin is required to regulate it's obsorbtion.

    In the short term, that's why people tan. You're body will generate more melanin if you spend more time in the sun. In the very long term (many thousands of years) darker or lighter skin will become a genetic trait passed down through generations.


    I am very familiar with the arguments you present. Most argue that white skin became a gnetic advantage in colder climates due to the lower levels of sun exposure in cold damp climates. As it is told, black skin absorbs a certain amount of sunlight naturally, and then melanin blockers prohibit any further absorption. In the dark, damp climates of Europe, lighter skin mutations became an advantage since it allowed for more vitamin synthesis by sunlight exposure...The genetic trait carried until the skin became white, thus absorbing enough sunlight to prevent diseases such as rickets.

    Sounds great....But the theory is flawed..

    I want you to imagine a people living in an isolated Tundra of ice...If there is limited vegetation, there will definitely not be anilmals which live off of vegetation...Now...What do these people eat???

    Go look at the research, and you will find that within the theory itself there exists a major problem...The Ice age europeans primarily ate fish....They were fisherman...heres the kicker...In the absence of adequate sun exposure, Vitamin D deficiency can be cured by diet...The number one source of Vitamin D in food...Is Fatty fish.

    Even if the Early Africoid Grimaldi, or the other supposed wanderers, ventured into the region, settledf, and were then trapped by sheets of Ice, they would have to have lived off something...Fish...and if they lived off of fish, they would not have become vitamin D deficient. Now oncve again brother...Look to the Innuit..They love ice fishing...Ain't life grand?



    Kai
    quote:
    Originally posted by 1milehi:
    well, do you agree that some centuries down the line there will no longer be any "white" people on the planet? if so, it would seem they are becoming extinct or are literally dying out.


    No, I just think there will be less of them. There will most likely never die out unless there is a race war or a genocide against them. If as many Black people become middle class as there are middle class White people, our population will go down too (the Black middle class is experiencing growth shrinkage).

    quote:
    the bible. in revelation


    Can you quote it? I don't remember reading that prophecy.

    quote:
    600,000 years?! what do you think of the fossils that have been found in africa that are dated into the millions of years? you don't think they were black human beings?


    600,000 years is how long Black HUMANS have been around. 850,000 years at the most, but that's if you consider Homo habilis to be human (which I guess you can). Prior to that, all the humanoid fossils were of Proto-Humans such as Homo erectus. If these things were "Black", they were not quite human.

    quote:
    well, for a people to rise from being cave dwellers to running the world - you gotta give them credit for not just being "smart" but calculating and mathematical, to a degree. we can't deny that.


    They didn't gain that knowledge on their own, they garnered it from exploration of other continents like Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Europe was a backwater continent prior to the 1400's. It was still a backwater continent until 1650. It was like the backwater bamma shack out in the woods in the Deep South of the world. Europe became powerful because the Europeans began sailing out of desperation (they wanted to catch up with the outside world). Their desperation became greed as they took technology and knowledge from non-White civilizations, innovated on it, and then turned people against each other. They conquered the world by dividing people and then attacking them while they were weak. Then after conquering them, they would absorb their military power and keep becoming more powerful, like a Snowball Effect.

    Anyother civilization, such as Nubia for instance, could have done the same if they desired to. Europe became so bad because they were once very poor. You know what they say, "Depose a king and give a pauper absolute power, within a day he will be a tyrant."

    quote:
    they keep losing power because their time is up .... according to scriptural prophecy and NOI theology, the devil's time was limited before they were even created. they were only made to have influence on the planet for a certain amount of time and now the time is up. that's why the decline.


    They're losing because everything that they've done has doomed them. I told you, they're no smarter than any other person. The criminal mind sets its own traps. Every civilization they've conquered, every person they oppress, everything they profit from off of other people is causing their downfall. Their system has created a noose around their own necks. Now with the end of the Old Colonialism, they have one foot in the grave.

    quote:
    as far as them being overthrown - yes they can be but i tend to think it would take a lot more than defueling their capitalist system. we blacks can't even unite amongst ourselves so if that's what is necessary to overthrow - we won't be seeing that anytime soon... unless the overthrow comes from another kind of power, which i tend to think it will.


    We've overthrown their Jim Crow system before, we can unite to do it again, and on a larger scale. As they continue to rape and plunder Africa, our brothers and sisters are going to become more and more desperate. They're going to side with us some time. We have access to power here that could help them out. And today we have more technology.

    quote:
    no, haven't heard of him but he has nothing to do with the NOI situation unless of course, talkoroigins scientists have debunked what the NOI teaches. have they?


    He doesn't have anything to do with NOI teachings, but he also proposed that humans are only 6000 years old (he meant all humans). Talkorigins debunked him. I have a feeling they could do the same to the NOI theory of Whites being created 6000 years ago.
    quote:
    Originally posted by 1milehi:
    uppity, why are you mixing my comments up? i am not zakar and the last 2 things you have quoted have been from me and not zakar.


    My bad! I'll be sure to go back and edit my post appropriately.

    quote:
    Originally posted by 1milehi:
    quote:
    Just to make things easier, let's make sure we're on the same page. Please list cleary and concisely the following:

  • Who grafted the pig?
  • When was it grafted?
  • Where was it grafted?


  • all answers to the above are: "i don't know." just as i'm sure you don't know when the first pig appeared on the planet, how it came to be, etc. so again, you're in the same boat that you claim others are in.

    after having read elijah muhammad's words that the pig was grafted, you came in saying the pig was not grafted. i asked you how you knew that? you say what elijah muhammad taught was false and therefore the burden of proving that is on you.



    So, what you're saying is that you don't know when, where, how, or who grafted a pig? Despite this, you are 100% certain that it happened and demand that *I* present evidence when you admit that you can't even do so for your own claims? I take it you weren't in your high school/college's forensics team, because this line of reasoning doesn't hold water for a real debate. By all rights, I don't even have to entertain this question because my statements in this regard have the weight of the scientific community behind it; your claims are based solely on the teachings of the NOI, and have no concrete proof: in this case, the evidence actually rests on you. All the same, I'll play your game and present evidence for reality. HOWEVER, in order to do that, you need to give me some clearly defined explanations and boundaries. For example, you haven't told me which "pigs". When I say pigs, I'm refering to the whole genus Sus; this include the pigs on all continents, tamed and wild--can I assume you are referring to only the ones humans normally raise and eat? Furthermore, if you don't give me a timeline of the supposed grafting success of the pig, then any evidence I present to you is subject to you merely hiding behind arguments like "it doesn't matter if a perfectly preserved fossil of the modern Eurasian pig was found 14,000 years ago, because I never said they *weren't* grafted before then"....and on and on and on. Your refusal/inability to answer these question illustrates not only the dearth of evidence you actually have for such innane claims, but allows you to dishonestly retreat behind excuses of me not answering the question correctly, or thoroughly, or presenting relevant information etc....

    So, I will happily answer your questions, but to do so I need to know:

    clearly define this technique of "grafting"

  • when was the pig grafted; doesn't have to be an exact date, but not some ridiculous range like "between creation and now"
  • where was the pig first grafted
  • from wich animal(s) was if grafted
  • who grafted it
  • how long did it take to complete this grafting process
  • how did the grafter decide that current Eurasian pigs reached the end stage of grafting?
  • what concrete evidence do you have that any of this happened?
  • What evidence would you accept to as adequate refutation of this theory
    *
  • If you answered "none" for the [revious question, why are you even bothering to debate me, since by your own admission there is not amount of verifiable evidence that could be provided to alter you current belief?

    These questions are neccessary components to evaluate your pig grafting claim. If you can't answer these, then don't you think it's a bit unreasonable and illogical to demand that I present proof against the answers?


    quote:
    Originally posted by 1milehi:
    you coming in saying "pigs were not grafted" should be given the same weight as someone saying they were.


    No, because spectacular claims require spectacular proof. If I told you that I saw a man walking down the street in orange trousers, are you likely to disbelieve me? Probably not, because a man wlaking down the street is a provable common occurence, and as fashion-dead as they may be, orange trousers do exist. Now, if I told you that this same man spun around on his heels three time, jumped in the air 20 feet, and then flew through the clouds, swooped back down and the disappeared 20 feet away from me, would you believe me? Probably not, because observable evidence defies an explanation of a human leaping more than 8 ft. into the sky, flying, and disappeaing into thin air.

    So no, not all claims deserve equal weight.

    But then I can just turn the question around on you: white supremecists insists that Blacks aren't even human. They say this because they can. Usuing your logic, their claims have as much validity as yours.

    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    HOUSE NEGRO!!!


    laugh lol ZAKAR, forever the predicatable one Smile


    quote:
    Originally posted by 1milehi:
    one more thing uppity, it's only relevant to the discussion because we got on the pig but - do you eat pork?


    Yes, but not often. I like Christmas hams and thinly sliced deli hams for my sandwiches. My low pork intake isn't due to any religious or philosophical reasons, or family influence (they loves them summa that white meat), but because that's the only time I like the taste. And because I know ZAKAR will probably point to this as some kind of "proof" for whatever, I'd like to note that I absolutely hate the taste of liver and in general don't each meat outside of grilled chicken or steak.
  • Add Reply

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