I'm just fuckin wit yall

[Victor]

Yo, I just been readin through this discussion a bit. I got a few questions that I couldn't find answers to while skimming through the posts:

1. What is "THE FALL"? Where did the theory originate and what groups believe in it?

2. How is the theory of evolution racist?

3. The Aztecs believed that Quetzalcoatl bled his penis into a bowl to perform penance with the other Gods in order to create Man and Woman (http://books.google.com/books?id=_BjTK82pdYEC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=quetzalcoatl+bled+penis&source=bl&ots=HAtmlb-7Od&sig=Diojr6v73HZON5djb-rxblhr0gw&hl=en&ei=UDxjTKfhK4Wclgec542WCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=quetzalcoatl%20bled%20penis&f=false).
And the Mayans claimed that the Gods created humans, eventually, out of Maize (http://www.criscenzo.com/jaguarsun/popolvuh.html)

How does this coincide with "THE FALL" or ET origins?

[RMX]

Hotep Victor,

I will make an attempt to answer some of your questions but please bear with me as I will answer in random order to your posted queries. But before doing so I must ask this one question of you?   Did you actually read the book in the link you posted or did you you just do a quick search and posted your findings in order to add to this smogasborg of a thread?  

I admit, I have not read the book in the first link you posted but found this one particular section very informative.  With that said, I direct you page 184 of the posted link, specifically the section under, Notes on Quetzalcoatl.  

You asked...

1. What is "THE FALL"? Where did the theory originate and what groups believe in it?

While I myself never did cite the story of "The Fall" nor do I claim to know exactly what that story is per se, I overstood (in principle) what point Drizzle was attempting to convey.

The story of, "The Fall" can be found in many cultures and in many different forms.   The Bible version (probably the most known of them all and probably the most distorted and detrimental of them all) has the Adam and Eve story and their fall from God's favor.  The Yoruba of West Africa speak of the orisa Obatala and his grave errors and harm to mankind due to his drunkeness, and in this instance page 184 of your posted link clearly speaks of the story of Quetzalcoatl  which "may also be read as the fall from innocence."  (p.184, emphasis mine)

How does this coincide with "THE FALL" or ET origins?

Quetzalcoatl is described as the "Feathered Serpent, god, and priest."  (p.182) This suggests that he was serpent like, (reptillian=alien=ET?) and was feathered suggesting flight (coming from the heavens/space).   "God" suggests divine on one hand and "priest"suggests human on the other hand because priest do not pray to themselves as mere humans but rather they pray to dieties, gods etc.   Quetzalcoatl was all of these, something that other cultures taught and professed in one form or another.  (ie, Sumerians, Kemetic, Dogon, Yoruba, etc.)    

2. How is the theory of evolution racist?

Drizzle has already demonstrated why this is the case.  I wonder why others have not touched and elaborated on this further.  


Typing this up has taken much too long for me.   But I hope it sheds a bit of light for you.  



 

[marcos]

Quetzalcoatl is described as the "Feathered Serpent, god, and priest."  (p.182) This suggests that he was serpent like, (reptillian=alien=ET?)

I thought that was hollywood's version of aliens, little green men.

So wait, are you saying that humans descend, not from apes who they share up to 96% DNA with, but from scaly reptiles? Do you have any scientific proof of this? Do you have any scientific proof of anything supernatural?

[Victor]

I actually got that book for a class I took a few years ago. I haven't read it in it's entirety (it's mad long) but I always come back to it. It's a great collection of "myths", poetry, and other religious writings from preColombian civilizations as well as some writings from when their land was being stolen. I would definitely recommend it.

As for the fall...I took it as a literal fall. Makes more sense now. Actually in the Mayan creation story this is mentioned here:

Now Heart-of-Sky plans the creatures of the forest
-birds, deer, jaguars and snakes.
And each is given his home.
"You the deer, sleep here along the rivers.
You the birds, your nests are in the trees.
Multiply and scatter," he tells them.

Then Heart-of-Sky says to the animals,
"Speak, pray to us."
But the creatures can only squawk.
The creatures only howl.
They do not speak like humans.
They do not praise Heart-of-Sky
And so the animals are humbled.
They will serve those who will worship Heart-of-Sky.

And Heart-of-Sky tries again.
Tries to make a giver of respect.
Tries to make a giver of praise.



Here is the new creation,
made of mud and earth.
It doesn't look very good.
It keeps crumbing and softening.
It looks lopsided and twisted.
It only speaks nonsense.
It cannot multiply.
So Heart-of-Sky lets it dissolved away.

Now Heart-of-Sky plans again.
Our Grandfather and Our Grandmother are summoned.
They are the most wise spirits.
"Determine if we should carve people from wood,"
commands Heart-of-Sky.

They run their hands over the kernels of corn.
They run their hands over the coral seeds.
"What can we make that will speak and pray?
asks Our Grandfather.
What can we make that will nurture and provide?"
asks Our Grandmother.
They count the days,
the lots of four,
seeking an answer for Heart-of-Sky.

Now they give the answer,
"It is good to make your people with wood.
They will speak your name.
They will walk about and multiply."
"So it is," replies Heart-of-Sky.

And as the words are spoken, it is done.
The doll-people are made
with faces carved from wood.
But they have no blood, no sweat.
They have nothing in their minds.
They have no respect for Heart-of-Sky.
They are just walking about,
But they accomplish nothing.

"This is not what I had in mind,"
says Heart-of-Sky.
And so it is decided to destroy
these wooden people.

Hurricane makes a great rain.
It rains all day and rains all night.
There is a terrible flood
and the earth is blackened.
The creatures of the forest
come into the homes of the doll-people.

"You have chased us from our homes
so now we will take yours,"
they growl.
And their dogs and turkeys cry out,
"You have abused us
so now we shall eat you!"
Even their pots and grinding stones speak,
"We will burn you and pound on you
just as you have done to us!"

The wooden people scatter into the forest.
Their faces are crushed,
and they are turned into monkeys.
And this is why monkeys look like humans.
They are what is left of what came before,
an experiment in human design.

http://www.criscenzo.com/jaguarsun/popolvuh.html

I actually went to a Mayan art exibit recently at a museum close by. The exibit was terrible and very exploitative of the culture (not really so shocking), but the art was incredible. I think that the idea of how the gods, humans, and nature all being one was expressed even more powerfully artistically than in words. There was one sculpture of a turtle which had the face of a god with its mouth open. Inside the mouth was a human head. Also, "The Mayans believed water was the primordial element and envisioned their world as “turtle island” floating atop the sea, its curved shell representing their fields and forests" (http://www.heraldnews.com/entertainment/arts/x1664789303/Exhibit-reinterprets-Maya-art-and-civilization). The link used there is actually an article talking about the exibit I went to.

Anyways, I have never really been able to get into metaphysics or any dogmatic religious system, but I've always been blown away with how beautifully the Mayans conceived and understood the universe. I definitely think they were on point with the idea of the interconnectedness of the "cosmos".

Thanks for takin the time to reply, b

As for evolution being a racist theory: I can see how social Darwinism can be seen as blatantly racist. I also wouldn't be surprised if the original theory was tainted with racism, as much of the "intellectuals" of the era were trying to find scientific evidence to justify a hierarchy of the races (i.e. the civilized, the savages, and the barbarians). Regardless I still think that it's a credible theory and the closest we have to the truth. Not that it should just be accepted as absolutely true just because we haven't been able to come up with a better explaination.
I'll look harder for Drizzle's post

[RMX]

I thought that was hollywood's version of aliens, little green men.

So wait, are you saying that humans descend, not from apes who they share up to 96% DNA with, but from scaly reptiles? Do you have any scientific proof of this? Do you have any scientific proof of anything supernatural?

Yawn.   You should consult your ancestors for guidance. 

[fLow]

So wait, are you saying that humans descend, not from apes who they share up to 96% DNA with, but from scaly reptiles?

/discussion.

[RMX]

So, you and RMX are sayin that the egyptians, aztecs, mayans and all other ancient civilizations had help with their structures, cuz black and brown folk can't be skilled architects, civil engineers, mathematicians, and astronomers unless they're spiritually enlightened by some higher supernatural celestial beings. And you're saying we're the conditioned ones? lul

Marcos you posted the above prior to this post...so my question is this:  If you are so concerned how black and brown folks are perceived, why won't you contest the veracity of evolution with the same intensity?  Because according to evolution you are:

Quote--
Darwin spoke of the "gorilla" and the "Negro" [sic] as occupying evolutionary positions between the "Baboon" and the "civilized races of man" ("Caucasian"); viz: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla.

Also Marcos you never did reply to my intial reply to your post above and how it is your ancestors who said they come from such places and origins, not me or Drizzle making this up because it sounds "nicer."  

You guys can sure be pathetic at times, especially you Flow.  I will refrain from calling you out but believe me I am so tempted it almost hurts not to.  

[fLow]

The discussion is over for you right now. marcos posed a very simple question and you have nothing to answer it with except referring to Charles Darwin who might have notably founded evolution but whose character that has nothing to do with the science of today. Let's put things in perspective here; we're attempting to take seriously a debate about whether we descended from apes or reptiles from another planet. I was just playing Soul Calibur IV and when I came up against Lizardman I saw no resembelence. None. But like marcos said, we share a very high percentage of DNA with apes. You haven't answered for this. You didn't answer before when I asked about our relationship with them. You are full of misdirection.

Person: We probably came from apes. Here is a reason.
You: Wouldn't you rather we came from ET?

Person: Evolution is real. Here is a reason.
You: Charles Darwin is racist. Here is a reason.

Get to the point.

[Drizzle]

we're attempting to take seriously a debate about whether we descended from apes or reptiles from another planet.

What about the habitual bipedal of humans and celestial beings depicted vs. the facultative bipedalism of chimps (they usually walk on all 4s and can't walk on two feet for long distances)? Not to mention original man is black, but apes have pale skin. You still haven't found me the black skin man on that evolution chart...

ET's don't have to be reptilian... Quetzalcoatl (name means brightly colored feathered serpent) is described as feathery with bright colors, not scaly, but Quetzalcoatl is also Tehuti depicted as an Ibis in Egypt...


Most cultures say the beings from the heavens look like us also and depict them as bipedal. Don't take serpent so literally, look at the Naga and the various depections of them. But the actual Naga that still exist today are Afro-Asiatic peoples.

Cultural Depiction


Actual Naga


Known for their wisdom, it was them that brought the Nagari script to India. They are always depicted as serpents or half snake beings in Asian culture, but they aren't "reptilian" in reality. Recognize when talking about things like Quetzalcoatl, this is the same way...

So maybe, just maybe some of us are ET in origin, and maybe others come from apes! The missing link being a gene splicing between the celestial beings and the chimps, huh? That's actually what the Sumerians say.

[fLow]

What about the habitual bipedal of humans and celestial beings depicted vs. the facultative bipedalism of chimps (they usually walk on all 4s and can't walk on two feet for long distances)? Not to mention original man is black, but apes have pale skin. You still haven't found me the black skin man on that evolution chart...

I read that post but never got back to it.

Bipedalism. Man walks on 2 feet for long distances but how habitual is it really? What if it became socially encourage. Babies start out crawling. But the most encouraging indication for me that we are not 'designed' flawlessly to walk on two feet is the shape of the spine and very common spinal injuries that pop up in neuroscience a lot:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinal_disc_herniation

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_doesn't_explain_erect_human_vertebral_column

So maybe, just maybe some of us are ET in origin, and maybe others come from apes! The missing link being a gene splicing between the celestial beings and the chimps, huh? That's actually what the Sumerians say.

Isn't it possible that these bipedal beings 'from the heavens' are in fact humans like you and I, that dress really extravagantly that are put on a pedestal in society (http://www.love-egypt.com/human-gods.html), just like the 8 yr old surgeon in India I mentioned. This is what seems likely to me based on modern and ancient history. Monsters etc. have long been used to maintain power through fear.

As for missing link, it's not something I would bother to seek out. Because I understand genetics and biodiversity as continuous, not grouped. If I did get you a missing link, you would logically need another one that connects that to the next thing, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Missing_links

About the first humans being black:  This is not a given fact. What we do know is that black skin would have been selected for survival so it's likely humans were darker.

http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/colour.html

This is an answer that contains some facts.

[ineed<3]

What about the habitual bipedal of humans and celestial beings depicted vs. the facultative bipedalism of chimps (they usually walk on all 4s and can't walk on two feet for long distances)? Not to mention original man is black, but apes have pale skin. You still haven't found me the black skin man on that evolution chart...

maybe it is the fact that apes have fur which protects them from the sun and prevents exposure to the sun. and as the hair has been reduced, the skin was exposed more. i doubt it's the same as getting a sun tan, but look at a person with light colour skin, if they have long hair and it is shaven, it's always a paler and (editted)lighter shade. having black skin could just be a long term developement to cope with the sun's exposure. another bit of guessing is that people from hot countries have darker skin, and cooler countries have lighter skin, so less exposure to the sun's radiation may lead to skintone becoming lighter. this is just hypothesising though, i've got nothing to back it up

[Drizzle]

That's true that much of the Netjer in later dynasties of Egypt were real people in Pre-Dynastic Egypt. An example is Heru. Heru really just means elect when you go to the mouth of the Nile, Ityopia, there was a whole group of men called the bird people, the Heruyan... The elect of God in Pre-dynastic Egypt who for a period of time ruled with benevolence. So there was (and still is) more than one Heru!

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2m8IY5hWuQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2m8IY5hWuQ</a>


I however would not rule out that beings actually descended from the skies, because (the info RMX posted shows this), the Dogon creation story is the same as Ta Mure's with a few slight differences, and they definitely have accounts of ET's from the Dog Star's solar system in their oral traditions.

Ineeds, I don't think its possible for white to create black like that. You can't get dominant phenotype from a naturally recessive phenotype. Lets say it was possible... you know how long that would take? The hairless whites would have fried up before that happened man.

All colors come from original man. It is the aboriginal phenotype that could move to every place on the planet.

[ineed<3]

Lets say it was possible... you know how long that would take? The hairless whites would have fried up before that happened man.

am i right in thinking you are saying the hair loss would be sudden? the transition from having a full body of hair to hardly any hair would be gradual, and the skin tone in turn would change as gradually.

[Drizzle]

I just wanted to say they would be fried lol. I don't think its possible though, just having fun with your suggestion. If two white people have a tan, their kid will be white still, knawmean? Two black people can make a white child, but two white people cannot make a black child unless they have black in their recent ancestry, and that is because black is that dominant. The original phenotype is the potent one.

LOL I remember in middle school, this white kid was saying black people looked like gorillas. I told him, if you shave a gorilla, its skin is white, so what does that say about white people? Not to mention whites have more body hair. LMBAO And he knew it was true, he couldn't say shit.

Also how come no apes have tightly curled hair? Their hair is all straight. If original man had straight hair, then how come the prominent African phenotypes of hair are so dominant?

[ineed<3]

Two black people can make a white child

nowai GTFO!

[fLow]

nowai GTFO!

Look on the front page of the Sun like 3 weeks ago. 2 negroes holding a white baby.

[ineed<3]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3060907/Black-parents-give-birth-to-white-baby.html

that is weird

[ineed<3]

i came across this joke which i found pretty funny;

"Black couple have white baby"

I can't believe it, just when I moved to a nice neighbourhood away from all the theft and gun crime, they've gone and invented the stealth nigger.

[fLow]

lolz

[RMX]

The discussion is over for you right now. marcos posed a very simple question and you have nothing to answer it with except referring to Charles Darwin who might have notably founded evolution but whose character that has nothing to do with the science of today. Let's put things in perspective here; we're attempting to take seriously a debate about whether we descended from apes or reptiles from another planet.

Yeah let's put things in perspective here for real.   This so-called discussion isn't just about a debate with the premise you mentioned above(evolution v. ETs)-- it is bigger than that.  None of you touched on the information I posted about ancient cultures knowing what they did and the creation stories that they have passed down in various forms.  This isn't just about a debate about evolution or ET's but rather a mindset and perspective on how to view this world (and oursleves) that we find ourselves in.   To accept evolution (Darwinism) as "real" is to bascially say that all of our ancestors were wrong and/or delusional in what they taught.  However, when examing the information that they taught not much of it is wrong.   For example, the location and description of Sirius B and/or the rendition of our solar system just to cite a couple of points.   It is evident that their practical application of science, math, and the arts far exceeded any expectations that the racist, white supremacist can give them credit for and the only way to really combat or denigrate those hard facts is to create a theory (that some how becomes ideology and dogma) of evolution which again attacks our ancestors a places them closer to primates (savages) than they (the racist white supramacist, so-called whitey)

But enough of trying to put me on the defensive.  Why don't YOU (or Ineeds) address what I posted instead of hanging this whole discussion on one question from a person (marcos) who has harldy contributed and/or just responds to what he chooses to?  Let's get real and to the point.  
 

I was just playing Soul Calibur IV and when I came up against Lizardman I saw no resembelence. None. But like marcos said, we share a very high percentage of DNA with apes. You haven't answered for this. You didn't answer before when I asked about our relationship with them. You are full of misdirection.

You wouldn't know what to look for even if there was a resemblence there.   Your myopic worldview and dogmatic approach to life has hindered your abilty to broaden your horizons and mind.  This of course is one of the goals of the racist-- to kill the spirit and imagination of people of color so as to never question what your MASTER has taught.   And apparently whitey is your master because you accept (with little resistance) and take his account over all others despite the fact that previous accounts have great amounts of validity to them.  

Person: We probably came from apes. Here is a reason.
You: Wouldn't you rather we came from ET?

Person: Evolution is real. Here is a reason.
You: Charles Darwin is racist. Here is a reason.

Weak and NOT accurate. 

Get to the point.

I did get to the point, you just wont accept it or even consider it a bit.