Honour

The ones who gave the neanderthals a bad name through their speculations were the very same ones who devised the theories about the 'origins of man' so, the first part of your response is one I actually agree with.

Some of the misunderstanding of what I have tried to say on this subject is based on the assumption that I am trying to use this subject to claim some superiority for Africans. Others have just deliberately misinterpreted what I am saying to serve their own agendas. In actual fact, I have never believed that humans are the supreme objects of creation on Earth. The evidence I see leads me to think that humans may be the least advanced form of life on Earth. The things that are held up as indicators of human advancement are actually signs of weakness.

A thing like the ability to make tools: we make tools because we NEED tools in order to survive. We are more dependent on the resources of the Earth than any other form of life and dependence - as we know from having being children - is what comes from being immature.

The power the so-called strong claim to have is only the power to destroy. They cannot recreate the smallest part of the things they use up. Yet, there are schools of thought that proclaim humans to be the crowning achievement of nature.

This is self-deception.

And out of this lack of self-awareness come the attempts to categorise and define everything. Even things that were not witnessed by any. So, in place of direct experience (or even credible comparisons with things that have been SEEN to occur), fact and speculation become mixed up and labelled as fact.

This being so, regardless of how emphatically the mighty label ‘science’ is pinned on certain products of the mind, what we are dealing with in most cases is no different from what people of old referred to as matters of faith. And faith itself starts when one makes a choice. When one is presented with an idea and is then left with the choice of believing or disbelieving. Or, when one is presented with a set of related but contradictory explanations of a phenomenon and is then left with the choice of which (explanation) to accept.

Things that exist in the world of ideas exist in a different form from things that exist in the material world. An idea could start out as a small effect on the mind (on impulses) then it’s power might seem fade, only for it to re-appear as a larger and more effective force. So, when we are dealing with ideas, we must look beyond how it affects us NOW and try to see how it might affect us (or others) after we have travelled further down the road. We must evaluate scenarios where the variables in the environment are not what they are at the present time. It is only after we do this that we are able to come close to overstanding the potential of what we are presently contemplating.

What is called 'modern science' is in reality an incomplete discipline. There are always certain aspects left out because there can be no CURRENT use found for them. Yet, because these things are linked to what is being CURRENTLY utilised, even though they have been put aside, they will still have an effect. This is as true in the world of ideas as it is in the world of material objects.

I trained as an engineer and so, one of the views I take of science is that which requires a working end product before success can be claimed. I also know that not everything that works is actually beneficial in the long run.

Every single thing that is manufactured started out as an idea, a theory and usually, the ones who are the first to lay these theories out are not as concerned about the material uses their ideas can be put to as they are about getting it right. They are often more concerned about laying things out in a way that makes sense and, it is usually others, more material minded, who then come along and apply these theories onto material things.

In one of my earlier posts on this thread, I took the "whites are de-pigmented Africans who were cast-out of the Garden" theory and extended it to a logical limit. It was good to see that most of the ones who responded to that particular post saw the ridiculous situation that could develop as a consequence of presenting the non-African as one who was deliberately 'cast-away'. Yet, this is a hypothesis that would have never come to life had it not being for the whole 'out of Africa' theory. And, all we are dealing with here is an idea. It is an idea I have contemplated and found no use for. Discarding it will take nothing from me but accepting it might.

The idea of the 'cast-away' can be directly related to the idea of the 'promised land'. The product of those two things has manifested in what is now called Israel, and it is this same thing that keeps showing up and bringing to life ones like mormons or boers. One way or another, if the guiding philosophy behind those two communities is examined, we will find one similar root-idea. The one that was born from the marriage of the 'cast-away' and 'promised land' concepts.

I am looking at this as an African and I am looking at the long-term prospect so, I lend my support to an idea that seeks to destroy the ROOTS of this thing before it can overwhelm my environment once more. I say that the only human out of Africa is the African. There are no non-African Africans. There have never been (and never will be) any.

The certainty of with which I hold on to that idea is a valuable tool to me and until I SEE something other than speculation, regardless of how detailed it is, I will not let what I believe go.

I do not expect everybody to agree with me, in fact, I expect some to dismiss what I say as nothing more than unfounded speculation. To these, I can say with full confidence that if what I say can be described as unfounded (or without basis), then can what you say. You hold on to what you believe because it profits your spirit to do so. I see no profit to myself in holding on to those same beliefs. And anyway, truth needs no defenders. No man or woman living has the power to create truth. Truth stands by itself eternal regardless of what you or I believe. And truth is always a whole. Nothing left out. Where we start dealing with what has aspects that are unknown, then no one can say with rightness that they are dealing with the ONE whole truth. In such circumstances, all we have is our power to choose and the strength of our FAITH in what we chose.

What I would object to is the dressing up of this process (choice and faith in choice) as irrefutable science. Science implies indisputable fact. And, for as long as one can say "we are still learning about x and y", then you are not dealing yet with indisputable facts. So, until the book is closed on the study of the origins of Life, we are all free to make what serves us best (IN THE TIMES WE LIVE IN) with what we have - as long as we are not taking from others what belongs to them.

So, if I am to be proven to have spoken unjustly when I said "the only human to come out of Africa is the African", it needs to be SHOWN beyond doubt (and without speculation) that I have taken something from non-Africans that belonged to them.

If that cannot be done, then I will keep this tool.