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

Here is a link to this page:

We don't come from evolution but we come from Creation

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 77
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: jessep86 Sent: 12/2/2022 3:18:21 PM


The ploblem is with manipulation of nature. GMOs, gain of funtion research and wuhan lab leaks. Bio starts with simple observation.

Ahjahmel- Dr. Jeckle. St. Croix Reggae

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 12/2/2022 3:35:15 PM

I think GA pointed this out earlier but it bears repeating because all of us are called by H.I.M to education and at no time did either he or Marcus Garvey make an exception. Some of us are talking about theories without understanding that a scientific theory is different from a regular theory.

A scientific theory is a structured explanation to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world that often incorporates a scientific hypothesis and scientific laws. The scientific definition of a theory contrasts with the definition most people use in casual language.

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Emerson College in Boston. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."


Science is often scoffed at by believers because it makes no attempt to pass off even the best explanations as if proven. The big bang cannot be proven any more than the story of creation and yet there is tons more evidence to support it than one of many creation myths. While science is HONEST about what it cannot prove, religion is not because it relies upon belief. Therefore religion attacks science simply because it wants people to believe a man-made story regardless of evidence. So most people who believe utilize, as evidence, the credibility of the bible. But here's the problem. That is circular logic because what people are saying is "I don't need evidence to believe the bible because it came from God". Why do you assume that it did? Because someone with an agenda told you they talked to God. You have ZERO evidence to prove this. And so your belief that the bible came from God is based on your belief in God (1) and your belief man spoke to God (2). Both of these cannot be scientifically tested. Both of these depend on humans being credible because it was a human who told you about God in the first place.

And they believed in gods based on superstition. They didn't have any other explanations. And so they assumed and created a story that they could be comfortable with. Human beings are uncomfortable not knowing. No one told the first human believer. The first believer had no holy book to base some kind of credibility on. But they told a story about what they thought happened. You can't prove this person any more trustworthy than Hitler or Mao. It should be obvious that such behavior isn't special and is rather derived from a set of circumstances. That's why Moses said you could beat your slaves.

But because you agree with the ancient believers you fail to notice how your own bias got involved. If the ancient writer was from a different tribe... somewhere else in Africa and he talks about different gods involved in creation you dont believe him. Why not? It is because you don't fear his gods. You don't fear his gods because he hasn't conquered you and has no power. We assume the biblical narrative is true because so many people believe it. This is a logical fallacy based on how many people accept it as true. But everyone accepting it as true isn't demanding proof. Why? Because it is enough for them that so many others believe it. It's "viral".

And so yes, the religion of Moses was powerful because it forced itself onto an entire nation. They were not allowed to disagree and they were punished for having any other belief. When other nations adopted this, whether conquered or not, they adopted part of the intolerance of other views, making it an echo chamber for ONE narrative. And so this is why you don't talk about other African creation myths; only this one. But again, it is NOT because it has demonstrated itself to be true. It is because it has demonstrated itself to be powerful because it was used to oppress by powerful people.

You talk about oppression like it's a bad thing and I agree that it is bad. But you give a pass to Moses because you share his beliefs. And there too did the Nazis share the belief of Adolf Hitler. But if you are against oppression you must be against it in ALL forms. ALL. You can't say Moses wasn't oppressive and ignore the fact that many were slaughtered in the story of Exodus. And if the Israelites didn't tolerate disbelief or other gods then why should Christians? Who do you think they learned their behavior from?

So I'm saying that if you want to use the logic of X is bad because people who believed X oppressed others... Then you need to shift where you yourself are in that equation.

The logic of X (belief or idea) is bad because Y (people) oppressed Z (others)

If you are Z then your bias works against X. If you are Y then your bias supports X. Do you see?

He that hath an ear, let him hear.

Often I hear people talk about savagely about whites as if they (being a small minority of those who could) are the only ones who have savagely oppressed others or committed genocide. But this is not true and this is only our recent memory speaking. If you go raid Canaan and you're spying out the land and launching a surprise attack against its people, how are you any different from the Europeans invading the lands of the native Americans? And the justification used was exactly the same. Manifest destiny. The idea that God gives the land to those who are or represent his "chosen people". But it's always the victors and aggressors who turn out to be the chosen people because no other historical narrative would survive. Think about it. What if the Canaanites were the true chosen people and were in communication with the true God? Would the Israelites tell you about it? Would they say they were wrong? Would they say they slaughtered "God's people"? Of course not. It's no different from Europeans not wanting to teach their own history (the parts where they enslaved and oppressed millions of Africans because a Catholic priest suggested we were cursed).

If you choose a narrative based on being on the same side as the "protagonists" of the narrative, you're doing the same thing. Because the ONLY difference is who gets to tell their own story. When black people don't get to tell the story, whose story is it? The bible does NOT represent the whole story. It represents the incredible bias of a people who were led to believe that their leader was chosen by God to judge and execute (oppress) them if they disagreed.

So you can't really have a free mind without escaping the weight and gravity of the bias of being the oppressor. The oppressor ALWAYS think they are righteous and justified.

Messenger: jessep86 Sent: 12/3/2022 3:49:28 PM

Did you know 25% of all scientific nobel prizes were won by Jews? Moses would be proud.

Neurotheology is a interesting study of the relationship between science and religion.

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 12/7/2022 5:13:40 PM

jessep: Did you know 25% of all scientific nobel prizes were won by Jews? Moses would be proud.

I'm trying to find the relevance. You appear to saying you don't trust science because of the people involved but you are negating the scientific method itself.

Let's put it this way. How many ways are there to change a flat tire? You know how to change your own flat, I'm sure. But let's say A Jew, a Nazi, and a BLM protester walk into a bar. Just kidding. Let's say they all get a flat tire. They all know how to change that flat just like you do. There is a method for changing a flat tire that is fairly obvious that most people could figure out. How the Jew changes his tire is not going to be any different from how the Nazi does it. And whoever does it faster or slower has no relevance and doesn't mean that another person from the same group would be fast or slower. Why? Because who they are has no relevant bearing on them changing a flat tire.

But secondly... they're not changing YOUR flat tire and therefore it isn't an issue of trust. When someone gets into a scientific field... they are not your servant, nor are they doing it for you. It's not about trust. The scientific field is competitive because they want to make a name for themselves by their contributions to science. They're not trying to fix you or taking your race into account when looking for a cure of some disease. They don't need to care about you in order to do their jobs.

I am a computer scientist. I am a web developer for a manufacturing company. I don't have to care about our customers in order to do my job. My job reflects on me, not them. My professional reputation is a good one because I built it through my own actions and decisions. Our customers have no idea I'm black. And my race has nothing to do with how I do my job. So who cares if they like me or not? They just need to pay my company so that my company can pay me.

These scientists... they aren't doing science for you. They're doing it for themselves. They didn't go to school for you. They went for themselves. The knowledge they gain they are not using for you, but for themselves. Therefore, each one is personally invested to find the answers they, as individuals, are seeking. The idea that they would do something different or in a bad way just because you don't like the GROUP they belong to... its not only wrong but mimics the racism that black people suffer from. We are also scientists and doctors. And we also sometimes have to prove ourselves in spite of people's prejudices. So why should we judge people, in their professional capacity, based on their belonging to a group we don't like? That's not cool. I didn't get into computers to be respected or liked by some other group. I couldn't care less what people who don't like my race think about me as a web developer because of it. They do not define me and neither does my race. My race has nothing to do with how good or bad I am at anything I do. I suspect it is the same for you. And I suspect it is the same for everyone.

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 12/7/2022 5:16:35 PM

jessep: Neurotheology is a interesting study of the relationship between science and religion.

I wouldn't put it that way. Instead, I would say it is a scientific (relating to process/methods) study of religion on the human brain. And yes, it is very interesting.

Messenger: RasTafarIWork Sent: 12/12/2022 2:28:15 PM

Messenger: Black Christ in Flesh Sent: 12/13/2022 11:27:48 AM

InI don't arise from them chimpanzee

Messenger: jessep86 Sent: 12/14/2022 1:35:14 AM

Ras is from Zion

HIM gone forward to prepare a place for I

No hiding place from the Father of Creation

From where one comes they belong to.

Africa I belong cries the African, all revere their fatherland/mother land.

Some may belong with monkies, but I say thay is propaganda.

I belong with the Father in Zionland

Messenger: RasTafarIWork Sent: 12/15/2022 12:07:17 PM

Who Create The Universe "sadhguru explain"

Messenger: Evison Matafale Skræling Sent: 12/15/2022 12:45:21 PM

Good reasoning.

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 77

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I