'Coloured' teacher on fraud charge for saying he was 'African'

lexity

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
1,251
Isn't it called creationist myth? My history knowledge doesn't extend that far so l stand corrected if wrong.
Yes it's one of 3 creation theories I know. There must be more than these 3, but ... and please this is a deliberate simplification, so try not to over-react:

1) God i.e. the creator of all, created the world and man in, literally, 7 days,
2) Mankind evolved, un-interupted, despite the unresolved anomalies, which still perplex scholars.
3) Mankind is a hybrid species, created as a worker-race, according to accounts recorded on clay tablets, uncovered in the middle-east. This would essentially make our creators 'missing', and it would make us (human beings) the link between the primitive local species and our 'gods', as per the book of Genesis.

I'm not 100% convinced of any of these, but if I had to go with one, I'd say #3.
 

jack_spratt

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
3,493
Encouraging to see we have our best minds working out the kinks in the new religion’s racial caste system.
 

Forum Reader

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
488
Yes it's one of 3 creation theories I know. There must be more than these 3, but ... and please this is a deliberate simplification, so try not to over-react:

1) God i.e. the creator of all, created the world and man in, literally, 7 days,
2) Mankind evolved, un-interupted, despite the unresolved anomalies, which still perplex scholars.
3) Mankind is a hybrid species, created as a worker-race, according to accounts recorded on clay tablets, uncovered in the middle-east. This would essentially make our creators 'missing', and it would make us (human beings) the link between the primitive local species and our 'gods', as per the book of Genesis.

I'm not 100% convinced of any of these, but if I had to go with one, I'd say #3.
Does 1 and 3 not have unresolved anomalies and perplex scholars?
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
17,203
Yes it's one of 3 creation theories I know. There must be more than these 3, but ... and please this is a deliberate simplification, so try not to over-react:

1) God i.e. the creator of all, created the world and man in, literally, 7 days,
2) Mankind evolved, un-interupted, despite the unresolved anomalies, which still perplex scholars.
3) Mankind is a hybrid species, created as a worker-race, according to accounts recorded on clay tablets, uncovered in the middle-east. This would essentially make our creators 'missing', and it would make us (human beings) the link between the primitive local species and our 'gods', as per the book of Genesis.

I'm not 100% convinced of any of these, but if I had to go with one, I'd say #3.
3 just pushes the problem back further. Even if we are a created species, who created us and how did they evolve? Where did they come from?

PS read Graham Hancock's books on the subject of the flood. Very, very interesting. He can be a bit out there some times, but then a lot of the evidence that he brings up is just so... amazing, that you wonder why people don't discuss it more.
 

lexity

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
1,251
3 just pushes the problem back further. Even if we are a created species, who created us and how did they evolve? Where did they come from?

PS read Graham Hancock's books on the subject of the flood. Very, very interesting. He can be a bit out there some times, but then a lot of the evidence that he brings up is just so... amazing, that you wonder why people don't discuss it more.
Spot on.

People are not used to sharing ideas anymore. If you don't come across as being 100% sure, and can't accordingly back up what you say, you are obviously on crack. There seems to be no more room for speculation.

3 does push it out/leave the question of ultimate origins un-addressed. But it does address the origins of the human species, which is what 2 - at least Darwin - tries to address. I don't think Darwin argued for evolution per se. At least not in his book. I think he mentions it in passing, in his book, but that's about all. Those who came after him have taken it further than Darwin himself was prepared to.

I read Fingerprints of the Gods, back in the nineties. An excellent read. I would recommend it.

Graham may be a little 'out there' but not enough, afaic. Well, apart from the hallucinogenics, which he seems a little dependent on. I think he says a lot of very good stuff. But I think he's of the #2 persuasion. I see he has acquired the endorsement of a young intelligent graduate, who has never done hallucinogenics. Cause Graham has long suffered, due to this aspect of his work. But again, the young man seems to champion the state over the individual. So this would seem to contradict Graham's emphasis on individual/adult responsibility.

Smith, Sitchen, Pye, Dalley, Clarke. These guys/girls form the more interesting line of authors, asking the more pertinent questions, for me. (George Smith was the original (modern era) translator of the Sumerian clay tablets.)

But, hey, as long as this is strictly a battle of ideas... knock yourself out, I say.

Safe to say all of humankind is 'African', at least for 2 & 3. ('South/Southern African', for 3). For 1, we are all Iraqi :laugh:

p.s. Actually, 3 doesn't contradict the Bible, regarding the Garden of Eden, but it says the worker race was relocated to 'the Eden', where the ability to reproduce was introduced into their genetics. Before this, in the Abzu, they were sterile, like all mules/hybrid species are.
 
Last edited:

Excalibur

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
3,775
I'm a 33 year old white male, have never called myself a European nor wanted to. So stop with this stupid argument that all white people fought to be called European and bow want to be called African.

I love my country, but it looks like some would want the patriotism forced out of white people.
No they didn't have to fight to be called European.
 
Top