Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:

Human origins

1 - 1011 - 12
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: Geez Che Sent: 5/16/2020 10:08:26 PM

So I am not a fan of the linear path of evolution that is so favoured the dominant "White" anthropologists.

Many cultures believe in the multiregional origin of modern humans including the Aboriginals of Australia, the Indians, the Native Americans and the Chinese.

It is my view that the idea of a single origin in Africa is perpetuated to bolster the idea that Africans are the least evolved.

It suggests that reproduction was fundamentally racist from the word go, something I dispute.

It so happens that fossils are best preserved in Africa, which makes finding the oldest human remains more likely there. This leads to confirmation bias.

However I'd like to point out some evidence to support my view.

"Researchers have discovered some 50 footprints at Trachilos in Crete that are nearly 6m-years-old. It looks like they may be from a hominin a member of the human species after separation from the chimpanzee lineage. But, as the authors point out themselves, the findings are highly controversial suggesting human ancestors may have existed in Crete at the same time as they evolved in Africa."

Article in the

The article goes down the familiar "Out of Africa" line instead of embracing the much more likely multiple origins theory.

"Whites" have a history of arguing that their version of racism has always existed to try and project away their culpability.

Racial competition has always existed, but it has taken different forms and racism, which I see as racial bullying, reached it's peak under the "White" slave trade.

Thank you.

Messenger: Geez Che Sent: 5/18/2020 6:24:41 PM

So I wanted to add that the so called "Out of Africa" theory is basically a rehashing of the Judeo-Christian creation myth and not scientific in any way.

Myths serve a purpose, there are meta-physical realities to them, but there are no physical realities to them.

Other cultures have completely different and equally valid creation myths.

Creation is a fact, but the theory of evolution is a means of explaining history, which is also a creation.

The past does not exist, only the present.

Science explains the past based on evidence. Myths explain the past based on metaphor.

The "Out of Africa" theory is completely non-scientific in its treatment of genetics, as if a single mutation gives rise to a whole species.

Evolution does not work that way.

Thank you.

Messenger: Kiwiman Sent: 5/20/2020 1:41:37 PM

All the different types of dogs, sizes and colours of dogs all began with wolves and selective breeding. Maybe african wild dogs and dingo's mixed too. And yet, if one looks at the variety its hard to see that their ancestors were the same type.

Many animals were huge, beavers as big as bears, massive birds with 4 meter wing span. I could breed with say as asian or african woman and it would be hard to see my genes [or theirs] in the children.

I am no expert, but understand that many truths are not easily seen.

History of Dinosaurs

Dinosaurs used to be called Dragons. The word "dinosauria" was coined by Dr Richard Owen, a famous British creationist scientist, around 1841. It means "terrible lizard", for this is what the huge bones made him think of. They are mentioned many times in ancient historical documents, including the Bible. There are actual documented human encounters these amazing creatures (see bottom of page). Now its an agreed upon fact that dinosaurs are reptiles. Did you know reptiles never stop growing? So then, a dinosaur is simply a very old reptile, but of species which are extinct today (dinosaurs had posture that was fully erect, similar to that in mammals. Most other reptiles have limbs in a sprawling position). OK, but why don't reptiles live as long today? To answer that, we must turn to the Bible for answers.

Messenger: Geez Che Sent: 5/21/2020 1:49:44 AM

Give thanks for the response Kiwiman,

There really is wisdom in the old paradox "which came first, the chicken or the egg",

We live in our own universe which we create through interacting with others which we don't perceive,

The moment we perceive it, it is our own,

Just as with the existence of God, we cannot logically prove the existence of other universes, but just as with the existence of God, we know it to be true, it is necessary for repetition, something we cannot prove ever takes place,

Likewise, we cannot prove God exists, because we cannot prove creation occurs,

Both repetition and creation are the domains of science, experimentation and observation,

To return to the point of evolution, dogs are not all descended from one wolf, humans are not all descended from one man or woman, except locally,

In the bee species, bees are locally all descended from a queen, but globally they are not, in chimpanzee society, chimps are locally all descended from the dominant male, but locally they are not, in human society, humans are locally all descended from the mother and father, but globally they are not,

The "Out of Africa" theory is a nonsense created to concur with the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden,

It has some merit, as the Bible does, but it is not scientific,

I also don't think it is useful to me or anyone else and should be discarded,

Thank you.

Messenger: Kiwiman Sent: 5/21/2020 3:07:15 AM

I sense this is an area of expertise for you Geez Che, one which much reasoning has occurred in the past.

And I'm sure you have your own theories.

I dont usually say, but believe Jah is an intergalaktic being of immense power, with a 3d bio printer type thingy, who can create lifeforms.

Humans and earth are the result of some models he wanted to field test. Those that perform the best will be chosen. For what I'm not sure, to reside in heaven by his side? Maybe

The way heaven is presented is one of a military like structure and heirachy. Who knows this place?

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 5/27/2020 12:02:33 AM

all animals of the same species have a common ancestor. If they didn't you could tell by their DNA. We know evolution is true because we can also see the same errors in DNA traced back through our history. If you came from a completely differen't line of humans then you wouldn't have those DNA errors.

I don't know why you have a problem with the Out of Africa theory. Keep in mind that we didn't start with 7 continents. Even today... the middle east used to be considered Africa but as people expand to other territories and seek to establish independent homes, they then redraw the map and even the history of that map. People simply expanded and broke off much like the landmasses themselves broke off. A single area can only hold so many people and provide so many resources before it would get dried up. This is why many animals migrate. Humans migrate too.

I also believe that at some point in history, a common ancestor to all races was still different shades of brown. Look at the San tribe. You can see European facial features, including eyes and noses in Africa. But when these first split off they weren't necessarily "white". I think for that, the bible might actually shed some light, in an anecdotal way. Because it tells us how people with white skin were treated. This "leprosy" was considered clean when it had fully spread to the whole body. But prior to that these people were ostracised and forced out. If they went south they would more likely encounter other groups of Africans so it makes more sense that they went north. After awhile, in their own camps, their DNA adapted to the "leprosy" and their melanin simply changed in its composition and was passed on in their DNA.

Despite this, our DNA is over 99% identical.

But when people spread out to different places they have to adapt to changes in the environment which also produce different foods. This could make animals grow to different sizes. This happens to dogs just like it happens to humans. Over time, the organism adapts or it dies. That's what evolution is about. And that process doesn't simply produce different types of 1 species of dog, but dogs, cats, bears, etc. They all had a common ancestor. And if they all had a common mamalian ancestor then it is even easier to consider that humans did too.

But when you look at different people, what do you see? Do you see how different we are? Or do you see how similar we are? In fact, it is our genetic similarities that allow us to exchange blood, organs, and reproduce with each other. Without common ancestry this wouldn't be possible.

Messenger: Geez Che Sent: 5/27/2020 1:31:29 AM

The Out of Africa theory is a theory and one which I happen to think doesn't add up. However, I haven't got a problem with it per se other than the fact that it seems to me to come from a specific cultural creation myth, when in fact there are many others. I actually do think it comes from nineteenth century white theories of race rather than real science. However, kind as kiwiman was to say I appear an expert, I am not, so I guess I'll leave it there. What I will say is that nobody knows how life began, it is by no means given that there was a single origin. Certainly from a scientific point of view there was no first human, evolution doesn't work that way, it is not a single leap that causes a new species but an amalgamation of many changes between collections of animals that gradually diverge. This is why I think the story we are always told is bad science and has a lot more to do with shoring up ideas of one race as being greater evolved than another than anything to do with genetics. The apes from which people are supposed to have evolved apparently had white skin covered in hair. Black skin can therefore be seen as a greater evolution over the previous apes. Personally, I think the whole idea of priority is problematic. To my mind, there were probably black and white skinned people from the beginning. In the end history is all made up and the evidence changes with each new find. Thank you.

Messenger: Kiwiman Sent: 5/27/2020 2:47:00 AM

I agrees that white evolutionists have hogged the microphone of the last 150 years to help support the denial of Jah.

This creates an belief system in which most people now think we are just animals and animal nature is celebrated. Alls fair in love and war as they say. The courts and society approve of this thinking.
Psychopathy is not listed as a disorder in the DSM, but people who are sensitive and empathetic have mental illness.

Years back I read Von Daniken's work and agree with is findings that aliens/angels and divine/galaktik interventions are somehow woven into the origins of man. Some types of humans are possibly children of different classes of alien/angel. I like this model the best.

Then there is Noah's flood, all the worlds peoples have flood myths. But that is not to say only the ark survived. Maybe in the Andes, Himalayas and Killamanjaro other humans and animals survived too.

In the past the earths axis was tilted different and antarctica was not ice and just this week they found a wooly mammoth graveyard in Mexico.
In biblical times the middle east was probably a rain forest climate

Nothing is really written in stone, regarding the history of the earth and man. Not yet!

But I fully agree with Che's thrust of this thread, that the out of africa theory is convenient to white supremacy thinking.

Messenger: Kiwiman Sent: 5/27/2020 3:53:57 AM

As forced slavery was banned this type of evolutionary thinking emerged, say as a new kind of psychological slavery. Cotton still needed to be picked, and cheap labor is always wanted more.

Even now, many people still think they are the chosen ones and better than others.

The people at the top of this hierarchy pay a dear price for this arrogance, comparing themselves amongst themselves.

Their children are cursed and the effects on the offspring is the way Jah deals with humans who do this to others.

Time heals all wounds in those that continue to live.

The english royals needed brunette and next marriage african genes as their lineage was nearing its end and the seed was no longer viable.

This is a glaring example of evolutionary superiority gone wrong.

It is narcissistic and psychopathic by definition.

Messenger: SunofMan Sent: 5/27/2020 5:50:34 AM

Psychopathy, is referred to as antisocial personality disorder in the DSM; one of the cluster B personality disorders. Sensitivity as related to empathy are qualities embodied by many, whether healthy and stable or not. Continue.

1 - 1011 - 12

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I