Who or what created your Intellegent designer?

The naturalistic worldview does not explain satisfactorly

- the origin of the universe aka

why is there something, rather than nothing ?

the universe had a beginning
everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
since the universe had a beginning, it had a cause.

- the fine-tuning of the universe.

there are up to date over 120 finetune constants known to man.
how can these be explained, unless a ID finely tuned them to life ?
the vastness of the universe is entailed to our existence.
If it would not the that large, we could not exist.
the solar - moon - earth system is finely tuned to life

- life on earth

abiogenesis is not possible - its evidence that a naturalistic explanation can be discarded
the complexity of the cell is evidence of a creator

DNA is not merely a pattern. Its a code, a language, and a information storage mechanism
all information has as origin a mind
therefore, DNA was created by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my argument. All you need is one.

Einstein’s Gulf:

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

Therefore, God was not created , but always was.

So your side can claim “Always was,” which basically means unexplainable, but our side cannot make the same claim regarding that which caused the Big Bang?

As far as I’m concerned if you can say “no beginning and no end,” regarding a creator, then so can we regarding the beginning of time and the cause of the Big Bang.

If you understood how evolution works you'd know that the universe is not "fine tuned" for life but that life changes at random untill it is "fined tuned" to its suroundings.

Sure maybe life needs a bit of a lucky start but that's why there's life here and not on pluto.

And what is it that makes you say it is not possible? You make a claim with no evidence to back it up. Scientits have been able to make new living cells from putting electricity through amino acids for quite a while now.

Again you make a clain with absolutely no evidence. Why is it not a partern? There's plenty of good material out there that explain in detail exactly how and why dna changes and what makes it end up into "code." There's no mystery to the process.

Most animals communicate with different sounds. Humans communicate with sounds. Horses communicate with ear positions. At what point is it a "language" ? When they start correcting eachother's grammar?

You greatly misunderstand what he was trying to say.

the cause of the universe is by definition the creator. This leads to agnostic theism. Therefore, you would need to explain, which God you suggest,was the creator, and why.

It was the God "Set." He created the universe with a grand force of spiritual thought matter, because after always being, he was bored. He created a Big Bang from nothing only to find that the whole process was watched as it unfolded by another God Alah. Set's actions made Allah very angry.
Allah being the stronger of the two sent Set into eternal, darkness, from which Set decided to rise out of in 1975 and to reveal himself only to those who were searching for him.

More information can be found on my new E-book called, from nothing to Set, to Allah, a.k.a "And here we are."

blah blah christian pseudo-science propeganda blog copy pasta

all these elements must be right :

the axial tilt of the Earth
the rotational period of the Earth
the Earth's crust thickness
Earth's gravity and interaction with the moon
CO2 and ozone levels in the atmosphere
oxygen/nitrogen ratio in the atmosphere
the mass and size of the Earth
and about a 70 more special factors

really ? a link to back this up ?

So what evidence do you have this story to be true ?

i mean, why could your story be like this ?
....blah blah blah spaghetti and meatballs...blah blah....

[quote=Eljon] blah blah christian pseudo-science propeganda blog copy pasta

Yes the universe is very rare to come to existance as it is. A god is an increadibly more unlikely happening.

"It explains everything" dosn't count as evidence. Science (or LOGIC) is the practice of making conclusions based on evidence.

Well the first from entirely man made dna that's self replicating was this year
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/

The first artifical cell was in 1957
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Chang
The wiki is a bit skimpy but I don't really have the time to look up a better article at the moment.

I don't want to be late for work so I don't have time to the rest right now.
To Be Continued.

Because IT IS WRITTEN!!


In my E-book that is, which was inspired by the cosmic force who’s name must not be spoken.
Therefore it is so.



Because it’s not a “story,” it is a cosmic reality.

Once you’ve read my E-book, you will understand fully.
I will send you a link to my E-book as soon as it is available.

By the way my E-book is free.

It’s a really good E-book also.

Thanks.

Oh did I mention that I didn’t write the E-book that I’m referring to, but instead the E-book that I’ve written was telecommunicated to me by the “force which must not be called by name.” (Nor should any kind of physical likeness of this force ever be presented in art or the like.).

Satan was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, 109 because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, 110 he speaks according to his own nature, 111 because he is a liar and the father of lies.

"112..ignore everything from 1-111, it is all falasy. Believe only 112, for it is the only truth."

-Telecommunicated from the force that must not be called by name to Asmedious 24 July 2010-

Luckily for us, there isn't any good reason to believe any of it is true.

Well, each one drafts its own conclusion based on what science has discovered. I have presented some scientific facts, which make it VERY rational and reasonable to believe, God exists.

The world is not flat yet the bible says it is and that it never moves from its foundations.

In the end no one cares about your "god" or your interpretation of it in regards to your twisted views on science.

There is no bearded white man in the sky or some dead guy that was born of a rape committed by an angel.

Morgan

Certainly not in THIS thread.

...and maibe be able to...

thats up to you to decide. If you however do not agree with the presented arguments, you might give a reason for that position, and maibe be able to present a better explanation for the scientific facts which i presented. Might wanna try with chance ?

So, if you don't believe in the Christian God, then who is behind your ideas?

Allah?

Eljon was deleted from the board.

He can't respond to anymore questions, taunts, or common sense.

The OP was a perfect example of "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
[...]

Suffice to say that Wendy Wright is intransigent to the point of ridicule in denying that the evidence is there before her eyes.

...but where are my manners? I've completely neglected the universal constants that ensure that our universe, and life, exists! Those are undeniably proof that a divine creator tweaked the settings on his Bake-a-Universe kit, surely?

Nope.


Now, I'm aware that this is a lot of reading to digest for the discerning xtian, but now and for all time I insist that creationists of all shapes and sizes read this post before shooting off their mouth in my vicinity. Seriously. If they read this and have further proof that the scientific approach is somehow wrong, they can present their superior evidence. Go on.

Something about conventional evolution theory which bothers me [but not enough to keep me awake at night, like why the Earth's axis is out of whack and how I can nudge it back to where it should be] is: Where are all the "intermediates"?

The same can be said of other animal species, of course. I can see the fossil remains of this or that "generic" little mammal, but how exactly did it go in a giraffe direction in one way and a skunk direction in some other way? Where are the intermediates, and why? If it's a function of climate, land environment, etc., why wouldn't all the mammal-derivatives there evolved into the same thing? Today's birds supposedly evolved from flying dinosaurs; where are the intermediates, and why should a pterodactyl have decided that being a hummingbird or peacock was a better idea?

Today's birds supposedly evolved from flying dinosaurs; where are the intermediates, and why should a pterodactyl have decided that being a hummingbird or peacock was a better idea?

Questions like these generally resulted in the prof throwing chalk at me in Biology classes, or just changing the subject.

[...]
I glanced at my boss who didn’t break step and said oh simple it is tuned to the frequency of my mind and for the next 30 minutes amazed these three YALE students to no end.
[...]
The moral of this story is stupid questions get stupid answers or at best they get ignored or shrugged off. Projecting an animal have a decision in its own evolution is like projecting that a simple machine has decisive powers.

The moral of this story is stupid questions get stupid answers or at best they get ignored or shrugged off. Projecting an animal have a decision in its own evolution is like projecting that a simple machine has decisive powers.

Everything which distinguishes man from the animals depends upon his ability to volatilize perceptual metaphors in a schema, and thus to dissolve an image into a concept. For something is possible in the realm of these schemata which could never be achieved with the vivid first impressions: the construction of a pyramidal order according to castes and degrees, the creation of a new world of laws, privileges, subordinations, and clearly marked boundaries - a new world, one which now confronts that other vivid world of first impressions as more solid, more universal, better known, and more human than the immediately perceived world, and thus as the regulative and imperative world.

Nevertheless I am still bothered by the absence of not just a given single "ladder" of evolution, but for that matter branches of that ladder/those ladders. I would expect to see some proto- or near-people around, as well as perhaps a Flash Gordon's Mongo assortment of lionmen, hawkmen, fishmen (as old Blacky LaGoon), et al. Instead it's just us.

Just because we haven't found flying pink unicorns doesn't mean they don't exist

One of the keystones of the Temple of Set is the uniqueness and startling difference between human intelligence/consciousness and that of all other planetary life forms. This "Gift of Set", as we refer to it, also does not seem to be a "laddered" phenomenon - though because of its very [non]nature establishing a "breakpoint" would be elusive.

The platypus has a duck-like mouth and a large, flat tail-- but we don't see any close evolutionary cohorts who share these traits, as they are all extinct. It is as anomalous and unique as human consciousness, and, for all naturalistic purposes, helps them survive just as well. Does this mean that some "isolate principle" consciously guided the evolution of the platypus to have these features?

It may seem like a lame example, but think about it in the long run. Birds fly. Fish swim. Humans think. It's not that cosmically amazing.

Consciousness is a wee bit overrated.

Well, my "examples" here were [I thought obviously] humorous & oversimplified, and I do appreciate the thoughtful, extensive responses. Nevertheless I am still bothered by the absence of not just a given single "ladder" of evolution, but for that matter branches of that ladder/those ladders. I would expect to see some proto- or near-people around, as well as perhaps a Flash Gordon's Mongo assortment of lionmen, hawkmen, fishmen (as old Blacky LaGoon), et al. Instead it's just us.

Our closest hominid cousins just couldn't compete. Homo sapiens were better than them at everything, and instead of them cornering one niche and us cornering another, we spread like wildfire and wiped out everything in our path. We were like a Walmart supercenter swallowing up all the mom and pop shops, one by one. We were bigger, better, and more powerful.

The theory about different races being different levels of evolution is somewhat related to the multiregional hypothesis of hominid evolution. There were primal hominids on every continent and, had we all developed at equal paces, there would be near-humans running around today. But the Homo sapiens from Africa had a gift that gave him a dramatic leg up on other hominids; the gift of idea sex. As is mentioned in the video, it was something Neanderthals (and animals) just didn't have.

There are a great many genuine curiosities of antiquity which suggest that mankind’s advanced intelligence made its presence known long before the recorded civilizations of Egypt, Sumer, China, etc.

yet the most intelligent of their number cannot remotely compare with even the most primitive examples of homo sapiens.

If the human brain were presumed to be the product of natural selection, why should it possess intelligence greater than that required to raise man to stone-age culture? More than than, why should it possess the capacity to be ten times smarter than it is today?

If his brain could evolve through processes of natural selection, then why did the brains of other creatures not similarly evolve - at least a little? The fact is that the brains of other creatures have remained practically the same size while man’s has “evolved”.

Would you mind pointing to a source, book, etc that might detail this information?

Did you seriously just quote yourself in an attempt to back up your previous statements?

How about a showing of the bibliography to where you got your information in the first place? I would respect that a lot more than this.

The gap in intelligence between the great apes is certainly not as wide as you make it out to be.

... dolphins have 0,87 · 10^14 synapses in their cortex while humans have 1,3 · 10^14, which is about 67% of human synapses. That's hardly an in-traversable gap that requires magical intervention to explain.

'Where are the transitory forms?' is a question asked exclusively by those that do not understand evolutionary mechanics.

As for having the capacity to be ten times smarter, I call BS. The old canard that we 'only use ten percent of our brain' has been long debunked. Humans use 100% of their brain.

We should only expect to see something get 'smarter' if the smarter ones are outperforming the less intelligent ones in a way that helps them survive. Dolphins development of communication, and great apes use of tools are good examples of how for them, smarter is better. And for the record, modern day dolphins have larger brains than their pre-historic counterparts.

And I swear I saw the old creationist argument..well if man came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

I completely understand now why you are so superstitious. This thread has been an eye opener, but at the same time totally unsurprising.

Having read several of your own posts here, I think you may have a point.

That's a meaningless statistic if it doesn't translate into identifiable human levels of intelligence & consciousness. And even granting it, 67% is still a vast difference.

I understand them quite well, but they do not vaporize the remains of progressive stages as they go. I also understand that this is a very annoying question for you, but trying to throw turds at it is still not a substitute for answering it.

Once again you have my deepest sympathy for bumping up against your 100%.

As for apes using tools, well, you do seem to have managed a keyboard.

No, you didn't.

Assumption: Modern humans evolved from "lower" apes. OK, there are plenty of substantially-lower apes around - gorillas, chimps, orangutans, etc. - which have survived just fine to the present. So where are the ape-races between them and ourselves? If the lower ones didn't die out along the way, that's all the more reason for intermediate ones to still be around too. Evolutionarily there should be a whole "ladder" of primates cluttering up the planet, not just distant-extremes.

When you learn to ask politely and respectfully, sure

Of course, when your superstitions are challenged and you are presented with science, you are reduced to insults and non sequiters. Par for the course ...

An insult in lieu of an argument does not a case make.

Another insult in lieu of an argument.

Again you ignored the point and instead chose the low road.

Sure looks like the same argument to me.

I'm really starting to think that YOU think that just because you are Michael A. Aquino that you are special ...

I would expect to see some proto- or near-people around, as well as perhaps a Flash Gordon's Mongo assortment of lionmen, hawkmen, fishmen (as old Blacky LaGoon), et al. Instead it's just us.

Up to the early 20th-century it was in vogue to attribute the various races to evolutionary stages, but that went out with WW2.

One of the keystones of the Temple of Set is the uniqueness and startling difference between human intelligence/consciousness and that of all other planetary life forms.

Since I notice you say Anton used to say quite a bit let me point out to you that evolution is around you. We are here the Satanist is the evolution of humanity isn’t that what Anton used to say? I’m damn sure I saw that in that little black book of his.

The lesser beings surround us.

Sadly as this might have held some truths.

I must point out being a child of the 60’s that I too remember how big of a deal king tuts exhibit coming to America was in the 70’s. I also find it interesting that your temple found set right around this same time.

Now I’m not here to just insult you or to try to change your ways, I’m also not here just to play pile on tag team bullshit that happens so often.

You do know things happened in science and the world in general that changed the world knowledge of humanity since you spoke last with Anton or started writing your book? We do use all of our brains, a use for the appendix has been found, 2061 was written in 1987 and was followed by 3001 written in 1997.

Clarke apparently didn’t think your input on his book (if this happened anywhere but your own head) of enough importance to mention your ideas in either writing…

Lionmen, hawkmen, fishmen oh my! I think you watch too much TV.

PS I refrained from littering my post with little smileys...

In regards to somebody stating they were confused because they could not find or read about the discovery of a "missing link" - perhaps none exist in Real Life in the first place to be discovered?

They possess a reasonably-large cranial capacity and the most state-of-the-art brain that random mutation has been able to provide. Additionally they live in a somewhat friendly ecological niche. Possessing few natural enemies in the treetops of the most plentiful rain forests, they would have some chance to grow and develop before things started getting tough.

Dr. Barrett is presently a distinguished Professor of Anthropology at Stanford University.

Crows as Clever as Great Apes, Study Says
James Owen in London
for National Geographic News
December 9, 2004

Anyone who has watched crows, jays, ravens and other members of the corvid family will know they're anything but "birdbrained."

For instance, jays will sit on ant nests, allowing the angry insects to douse them with formic acid, a natural pesticide which helps rid the birds of parasites. Urban-living carrion crows have learned to use road traffic for cracking tough nuts. They do this at traffic light crossings, waiting patiently with human pedestrians for a red light before retrieving their prize.

Yet corvids may be even cleverer than we think. A new study suggests their cognitive abilities are a match for primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas. Furthermore, crows may provide clues to understanding human intelligence.

Published tomorrow in the journal Science, the study is co-authored by Nathan Emery and Nicola Clayton, from the departments of animal behavior and experimental psychology at Cambridge University, England.

They say that, while having very different brain structures, both crows and primates use a combination of mental tools, including imagination and the anticipation of possible future events, to solve similar problems. They base their argument on existing studies.

Emery and Clayton write, "These studies have found that some corvids are not only superior in intelligence to birds of other avian species (perhaps with the exception of some parrots), but also rival many nonhuman primates."

Increasingly, scientists agree that it isn't physical need that makes animal smart, but social necessity. Group living tends to be a complicated business, so for individuals to prosper they need to understand exactly what's going on. So highly social creatures like dolphins, chimps, and humans tend to be large-brained and intelligent.

Large Brains

The study notes that crows are also social and have unusually large brains for their size. "It is relatively the same size as the chimpanzee brain," the authors said.

They say that crows and apes both think about their social and physical surroundings in complex ways, using tool use as an example.

Like apes, many birds employ tools to gather food, but it isn't clear whether chimps or crows appreciate how these tools work. It may be that they simply discover their usefulness by accident. However, studies of New Caledonian crows, from the South Pacific, suggest otherwise.

New Caledonian crows manufacture two very different types of tool for finding prey. Hooks crafted from twigs are used to poke grubs from holes in trees, while they also cut up stiff leaves with their beaks, carefully sculpting them into sharp instruments for probing leaf detritus for insects and other invertebrates.

A New Caledonian crow in captivity learned how to bend a piece of straight wire into a hook to probe for food.

Such sophisticated tool manufacture and use is unique in non-human wild animals, according to Jackie Chappell, a UK-based zoologist who has studied the birds.

Emery and Clayton compare the crow's handiwork to minor human technological innovations. And because different New Caledonian crow populations make these tools to slightly different designs, some scientists take this as evidence of some form of culture, as has been suggested in chimpanzees.

Other corvids may use memories of past experiences to plan ahead.

In the case of Western scrub jays, a previous study by Emery and Clayton suggests jays with past experience of pilfering food caches collected by other jays can then use this knowledge to protect their own caches.

Lab experiments showed that if a habitual thief was observed while burying its own cache, it would later go back and move it when no other bird was looking. Meanwhile, "innocent" jays did not exhibit the same cunning.

Imagination?

The researchers also argue that such behavior suggests Western scrub jays are able to second guess another's intentions, or, to put it another way, get into another bird's mind. In which case, this could be evidence for imagination.

Emery and Clayton write, "Western scrub jays may present a case for imagination because the jays needed to have remembered the previous relevant social context, used their own experience of having been a thief to predict the behavior of a pilferer, and determined the safest course of action to protect the caches from pilferage."

Studies to assess similar cognitive abilities in apes have been inconclusive, according to John Pearce, professor of psychology at Cardiff University in Wales.

"[The Western scrub jay study] is some of the best evidence going that one animal can understand what another is thinking," he added.

Pearce believes we can gain insights into the basic mechanisms of human intelligence through the study of animals. He says language is generally considered to be one of the major divisions between human and animal intelligence, which makes Western scrub jays especially noteworthy.

He said, "What's so interesting is that while Western scrub jays may not have language, the research shows they've got many of the intellectual abilities that humans have. This suggests that many of our intellectual abilities which we think we need language for perhaps we don't in fact need language for. That then makes us try to understand these abilities in a different way."

If we're as smart as we think we are, perhaps we need to keep an even closer eye on those clever old crows.

most Satanists ( except spiritual satanists ) are atheists.
That means, they do not believe in Gods, and satans existence.
Can this worldview withstand scrutiny faced and based on the scientific knowledge, we have today ?
i can say confidently, not.
A close examination of the scientific facts evidence that a
naturalistic worldview is irrational.

I will present below a view arguments, which lead to this conclusion :

The naturalistic worldview does not explain satisfactorly

- the origin of the universe aka

why is there something, rather than nothing ?

the universe had a beginning
everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
since the universe had a beginning, it had a cause.

- the fine-tuning of the universe.

there are up to date over 120 finetune constants known to man.
how can these be explained, unless a ID finely tuned them to life ?
the vastness of the universe is entailed to our existence.
If it would not the that large, we could not exist.
the solar - moon - earth system is finely tuned to life

- life on earth

abiogenesis is not possible - its evidence that a naturalistic explanation can be discarded
the complexity of the cell is evidence of a creator

DNA is not merely a pattern. Its a code, a language, and a information storage mechanism
all information has as origin a mind
therefore, DNA was created by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my argument. All you need is one.

Einstein’s Gulf:

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

I think there is more research and evidence out there ...

...The only ones that find, or should I say, manufacture inconsistencies(either with this specific or any other facet of evolutionary science) seem to be the ones that feel threatened by it... The reason nobody in the know bats an eye to any of these 'objections' is that they aren't valid... But no..lets discount the entire combined knowledge and combined work of the worlds greatest minds because 'set came to aquino in a vision and told him differently'... If you believe any of this I have a bridge for sale in brooklyn. Cheap!

I posted for the sake of clarifying what Dr. Aquino was arguing because people were attacking arguments he didn't make and positions he didn't hold, and that's a waste of time.

You don't refute Christianity by attacking the Koran and you don't refute the Prometheus Theory by attacking creationism or its arguments.

The fact that you can't seem to wrap your mind around either Dr. Aquino's position or my own tells me it's a skill you're sorely lacking.

A god is a god is a god.
It's all the same.
If you think Set, Jesus's Dad, Tiamat, or Odin gave you intelligence and made humans their special pet project it's all the same. You end up on your knees worshiping an idea that was created by some drunken idiot who was afraid of the darkness ...

So this thread, as indeed various others in 600C, has once again lost the integrity of its reasoning to a chest-thumping pledge of allegiance to Atheism. Any argument which strays from the gospel of absolute randomness & accident in the human phenomenon commits the blasphemy of "THEISM!" and must be denounced to & by the Thought Police. This "THEISM!" has thus, and not a little ironically, become the 600C's "Devil".

[...]

Well, like Plato, I can enter the cave and unchain those facing the Darkness; but I cannot force anyone to turn around and face, much less enter the Light. Within the limits of the 600C Forum, I merely assert that it is possible, and is your option.

If at the end of it all, I find myself in some gods presence, I will punch him for being a dick/absentee landlord. If at the end of it all, I am just dust in the wind, may I blind my enemies.


Morgan

Well Well Well, It seems our little cotton-candy Satanist might have some fire in her after all!

I have to admit I am pleasantly surprised.

His initial claim was a lack of transitory forms is damaging to evolutionary theory… He further claimed we should expect to see a complete fossil record if evolution was true…

…well frankly I find your posts to be long on words and short on substance, so I haven't been reading them.

A god is a god is a god.
It's all the same.
If you think Set, Jesus's Dad, Tiamat, or Odin gave you intelligence and made humans their special pet project it's all the same. You end up on your knees worshiping an idea that was created by some drunken idiot who was afraid of the darkness.

Get it? Its all the same.
Its a big fucking leap of faith for a given situation that one knows nothing about.

I think you need to get more. There are a lot of Xitians that understand how evolution/mutation works. They just don't give a shit, meaning they don't care. They can see it, read it, look at it, but it doesn't mean anything because in their unmoving dumb sheep heart's God (Jesus's Dad) created everything in 7 days.

I would refrain from attacking and being nasty to Dan, your last comment was unbecoming and totally unnecessary to the discussion.

This isn't the MCOS, we aren't nice and fucking hand holding hippies.

That’s all well and good if Dan Dread & company wanted to smugly think to themselves how silly Aquino’s position is. But when someone actively challenges the advocate of a particular claim with a rebuttal, they need to make an actual argument

But when someone actively challenges the advocate of a particular claim with a rebuttal, they need to make an actual argument. An argument is a collective series of statements meant to establish a proposition. “All gods are imaginary!” isn’t an argument; it’s a verbal middle finger.

Xio shut up and stop defending Aquino. How can you breathe so far up his ass?

Maybe I just hold female supposed Satanist to a higher standard.

No, not an excuse. I just call it like I see it. You still need to get a better grip on things Vanessa.

Morgan

<< Acts 2 >>

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Well, no, it isn't quite.

You believe your Set is a separate, superior consciousness, with super-human powers. He's dictated a scripture to you, that use as the basis of your teachings.

From a non-Setian point of view, how is this materially different than, say, Moses?

(and yes, I've read the ebook )

Why should the intelligence & consciousness level of humanity be so substantially greater than that of any other species on this planet?

There is no case for what we are instead of this: a being completely at odds with all other planetary species and their indeed-natural evolutionary paths.

Looky here, this all started out as a very basic question: Why should the intelligence & consciousness level of humanity be so substantially greater than that of any other species on this planet?

And as a corollary: Why should the normal forces of evolution, which function on the basis of simple/minimal natural selection, have taken such a complex route? Why not simply bodily health & strength instead?

if Set is a neteru/principle/idea then why would he need to be worshiped?

... The Satanist thought to approach Satan through ritual. Now let the Setian shun all recitation, for the text of another is an affront to the Self. Speak rather to me as to a friend, gently and without fear, and I shall hear as a friend. Do not bend your knee nor drop your eye, for such things were not done in my house at PaMat-et. But speak to me at night, for the sky then becomes an entrance and not a barrier. And those who call me the Prince of Darkness do me no dishonor.

The Setian need conjure neither curse nor kindness from me, for by the magic of my great pentagram I shall see with his eyes. And then the strength that is mine shall be the strength of the Setian, and against the Will of Set no creature of the Universe may stand. And I think not of those who think not of me ...

If he is an idea created by humans, how is he also a godform?

Or is it more like a HGA that comes down and inspires you once you possibly reach "enlightenment" ala Crowley?

Plus a new one, if Set is a principle how could a principle influence evolution?

Why should the intelligence & consciousness level of humanity be so substantially greater than that of any other species on this planet? [And as a corollary: Why should the normal forces of evolution, which function on the basis of simple/minimal natural selection, have taken such a complex route? Why not simply bodily health & strength instead?]

The answer is that the genetic difference is minimal but the impact is massive. The divergence between men and apes hinges on a relatively tiny mutation in a gene called FOXP2. The protein made by human FOXP2 differs from the chimpanzee protein by just two amino acids. This teensy, weensy difference had a domino effect on many other genes. This protein, because of its altered structure, now activates 61 genes in humans that are inactive in apes, and deactivates 55 genes in humans that are active in apes. So what appears to be a particularly "complex" route from man to ape is actually the result of a tiny genetic mutation.

The impact of all these alterations was essentially a trade-off between strength and dexterity.

A relatively tiny chimp can bench-press a ton

These genes served, in part, to cause the brain to inhibit human strength.

But the neural inhibitions on our muscles gave us an incredible degree of fine motor control. The effect on our mouths and vocal chords means humans can enunciate a number of difference phonemes while the best a chimp can do is howl. The effect on our hands means that humans can write, carve, draw, tie knots, light a fire, and type where the best a chimp can do is peel a banana.

After that, intelligence evolved largely as a compliment to dexterity.

Being a genius is useless if you can't manifest any of your great ideas. Dolphins may have massive brains that enable them to communicate quite complexly with one another, but until they evolve opposable thumbs they aren't going to be building any underwater empires.

But the overall, central issue remains not one of effect or application, but of origin. And Darwinian evolution simply doesn't fit Cindy's slipper there, despite logical slights-of-hand to make it seem that it does.

Yes, understood, but still missing here are the "why" and the "how":

(1) Why did this particular mutation occur, since there were no external, natural-environmental forces causing it?

(2) How did such an intricate and multifaceted mutation (e.g. FOXP2 changing at all, and when it did, in such a way as to domino=down 55 genes & domino-up another 61). If this is what was required for our unique and high level of intelligence & consciousness, the odds against this being a purely accidental/random event would be prohibitive.

I'm not so sure about that claim, as humans can beefcake themselves up pretty well [and not necessarily through exercise-planning & diet-controlling, just a demanding outdoor lifestyle]. The orangutans at the S.F. Zoo, on the other hand, are perfectly happy to goof off all the time, as do the gorillas.

Somehow I have a hard time believing this, though I do know that chimps are stronger than most people assume from their size.

This doesn't make sense to me either. It follows that a highly-intelligent human would be able to conceive other ways than brute strength to accomplish tasks, and thus would not need to maximize his muscles to survive, but that's not the same thing as genes causing automatic weakening.

I have seen this kind of Procrustean logic all too often in evolution-debtates, e.g. we needed this, so we got it/we didn't need this so we lost it, and evolution simply doesn't work bass-ackwards that way. This slinks in the direction of Lamarckism, which, while beloved by Anton LaVey, doesn't, I think, stand serious scientific test.

Once again you're talking effect, not cause.

A practical connection can be shown, but not an evolutionary one. If a person is born stupid, teaching him to do some things with his hands may make the most of such brainpower as he has, but I have not yet seen where it will have a genetic impact on the brain.

Take yourself with your present intelligence & consciousness and imagine yourself in a dolphin's body; you could do a very great deal.

Mutations are essentially random. They are not caused by environmental forces. Environmental forces are what select for or against certain traits that are the result of said mutations.

If you think an alteration of two amino acids is so drastic as to point to divine (diabolical?) intervention, I guess you're free to believe that.

You're talking about muscle mass, which is a result of nurture, not nature. I'm talking about the neural inhibitions of muscles. Apples and oranges.

Perhaps a wee bit hyperbolic, but you get my point.

It just means that any mutation that causes an increase in intelligence would be advantageous to a dexterous creature, but they wouldn't be to a creature that wasn't.

Once mutations occur that happen to increase intelligence, they would be selected for in a creature to whom they were advantageous, but not in a creature to whom they are not advantageous.

I was just explaining why dolphins don't have our current cognitive capacity and you're acting like I claimed that they do?

Your whole argument seems to hinge on the assumption that mutations occur with some prime directive; that genes mutate themselves to suit their environment.

...extreme mutations sufficient to instantly create such a vast difference in a species are statistically impossible. Natural mutations are relatively minor, incidental, and sufficiently consistent with their species not to turn it immediately into something else.

Some water fleas sport a spiny helmet that deters predators; others, with identical DNA sequences, have bare heads. What differs between the two is not their genes but their mothers' experiences. If mom had a run-in with predators, her offspring have helmets, an effect one wag called "bite the mother, fight the daughter." If mom lived her life unthreatened, her offspring have no helmets. Same DNA, different traits. Somehow, the experience of the mother, not only her DNA sequences, has been transmitted to her offspring.

Correct except that extreme mutations sufficient to instantly create such a vast difference in a species are statistically impossible. Natural mutations are relatively minor, incidental, and sufficiently consistent with their species not to turn it immediately into something else. You cited your complex "dominos" of a single genetic mutation turning a previous species of primate into highly-intelligent, self-aware, opposing-thumb, talking, etc. mankind. The probability of all this happening simultaneously from one "key" gene accident, is nonexistent.

If you think that a random alteration of two amino acids is capable of producing all the above mutations simultaneously [which would be necessary for the survival of the mutated being you claim], you're just as free to believe that.

Actually we were both talking about the muscular strength of various primate species, which you asserted was so substantially different as to constitute a key part of modern humanity's reliance upon intellect [instead].

Once mutations occur that happen to increase intelligence, they would be selected for in a creature to whom they were advantageous, but not in a creature to whom they are not advantageous.

We should only expect to see something get 'smarter' if the smarter ones are outperforming the less intelligent ones in a way that helps them survive.

No, I was pointing out the absurdity of your contention that dolphins' physical bodies prevent them from possessing human levels of intelligence and consciousness.

(1) Why did this particular mutation occur, since there were no external, natural-environmental forces causing it? Darwinian evolutionary theory requires external selection in favor of immediately [as in being chased by saberteeth] advantageous differences, not long/slow capacities such as higher mental faculties.

(2) How did such an intricate and multifaceted mutation (e.g. FOXP2 changing at all, and when it did, in such a way as to domino=down 55 genes & domino-up another 61). If this is what was required for our unique and high level of intelligence & consciousness, the odds against this being a purely accidental/random event would be prohibitive.