Page 4 of 14 « First<23456>Last »
Topic Options
#40997 - 07/29/10 05:12 AM Re: I was just wondering ... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

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.


Because any given species is going to be an immediate competitor with its closest relatives. Recently diverged species, because they are closely related, have similar habitats, similar diets, similar predators, etc. They are competitors for the same resources and territory. Usually what happens is that one species stakes out one domain or "niche," and the other picks another one. Evolution is usually an increase in specialization over time, where more and more new, specialized species develop even more specific means of survival.

Humans, on the other hand, ended up being the ultimate generalists. Whatever genetic trigger made us superior to our cousins was a BIG one, one that made us a very unique species. Our ability to adapt is unsurpassed. We can live on almost any diet, live in almost any region on the planet, adapt our environments drastically to survive changes (light during nighttime, warmth during winter, etc) and develop innovations and symbiotic relationships with other species that were unprecedented.

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.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41012 - 07/29/10 11:26 AM Re: Think, or Thwim [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
These are the exact same arguments used by the Young Earth Creationists. And just when I thought my opinion of you couldn't get any lower.

If you want to to discredit evolution it is very simple; all you must do is find one fossil that is out of place in the fossil record. Even the tiniest fossil of the smallest, most insignificant creature in the wrong place would do quite nicely. Interesting that no one has found any fossils in the wrong place, they have all been right where they should be.

I'm surprised you didn't try to say that Darwin doubted his theories in his end days and accepted Jeebus on his death bed. You Christians love to use that false argument to try and gain converts.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41024 - 07/29/10 01:40 PM Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2512
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
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.

[Extract from]M.A.A., "Black Magic", The Crystal Tablet of Set:

... Consider the vast intellectual gap between mankind and every other species on the planet. One has only to walk into a major library to sense the breadth of this gap. Much is made about the relatively high intelligence of chimpanzees, dolphins, etc.; yet the most intelligent of their number cannot remotely compare with even the most primitive examples of homo sapiens. Moreover, say physiologists, even the most exalted levels of human intelligence and knowledge have been attained with only 10-20% of the reasoning potential of the human cerebrum. How and why did humanity acquire this freakishly high intelligence potential?

While anthropologists can chart the stages of prehistoric human evolution to the limits of available data, they remain unable to explain why the entire phenomenon should have occurred at all. The best they can do, in textbook after textbook, is to say that “man developed high intelligence because he needed it to survive”. According to this theory, proto-men were lacking in speed, strength, fighting teeth & claws, and other physical attributes necessary for survival. Mutants with greater intelligence tended to survive through cunning, sustaining their descendants, while less-intelligent groups died out. This process, repeated over some five million years, resulted in homo sapiens, the prototype of Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, and Modern Man.

The escape clause in this theory is the time factor: Five million years is plenty of time for almost anything to evolve into almost anything else. Besides, the anthropologist will say, the entire primate development process can be traced to origins some fifty millions of years ago. Hence the condition of Modern Man isn’t as startling as it would be had it happened “overnight”.

All well and good, but there are at least two problems with this proposition. One is that proto-man was just one of many animal species fighting for survival over the millennia. 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”. This is inconsistent, and it will be recalled that the hallmark of the objective universe - and deistic proof of God - is its consistency. By the law of averages - which applies to natural selection as much as to anything else - there should have been at least some species other than man evolving in intelligence at least partway to the human level. There is none.

The second problem arises through application of one of the bastion theories of Darwinian natural selection. It is that nature always takes the easiest way out - that selection favors the less-complicated adaptation over a more complex alternative. When a time of famine favors species able to reach higher for herbal food, longer-necked giraffes survive. We do not see short-necked giraffes with wings. A more-or-less easy physical modification must first accidentally occur in a species; thereafter selection takes place against those who do not possess the characteristic. That is the way evolution actually works. (RL #17E)

But there is no explanation for human brain evolution in the laws of natural selection. The biophysical factors of a sophisticated brain are far too intricate. A proto-man trying to adapt to hostile environments through brain modification would have died out long before such external stress as he could bring to bear on his brain would have any effect upon that organ [if indeed they would have any physiological effect at all]. In the case of proto-man, natural selection would occur in favor of almost anything else besides the brain. He would become stronger, hairier, tougher, meaner, and faster. According to natural selection, you and I should be gorillas.

But we are not gorillas. Indeed, as our intelligence has made life progressively easier for us, we have become weaker and more vulnerable physically. We are healthier and more long-lived only because our intelligence has enabled us to produce medicines to stave off diseases, and dietary standards to maximize our health and growth potential. We have controlled environments to fend off the elements, and have developed weapons to fend off other creatures. Take away our abnormal intelligence and mankind would die out or be killed off within a few generations. Because of our brain, then, the natural evolution of the rest of our body [which would normally operate in favor of an unaided tougher, more disease-free physiology] has actually operated in reverse. Once more this is inconsistent.

There is a corollary to the second problem. It is that natural selection, when it does occur, does not overcompensate. If conditions allow all giraffes with four-foot necks to survive, there is no reason for the species to evolve in the direction of forty-foot necks. 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 human high intelligence is a violation of objective universal law, how did it occur? There are two possible explanations: accident or deliberate cause. If accidental cause is assumed, then the accident would have had to be both a major violation of the law and one which sustained itself over several millennia. And if there were one such accident, the laws of probability would necessitate others in lesser degrees [and greater numbers]. In all of the many manifestations of life and evolution with which we are familiar, we know of no other such accidents. Natural law’s grip on everything else besides ourselves appears total and inescapable. We are left with the second explanation: deliberate cause.

During the Age of Satan (1966-1975 CE) a certain “racial memory” of some prehistoric change to the natural course of human evolution seemed to be asserting itself. The most spectacular and explicit example was the film 2001: A Space Odyssey, Arthur C. Clarke’s variation on the theme of his earlier novel Childhood’s End. (RL #17A) In 2001 proto-man’s intelligence was artificially boosted by a rectangular monolith. In Childhood’s End the same operation was performed by an extraterrestrial creature looking precisely like the traditional Devil. Presumably the spectacle of a tribe of man-apes thronging around Satan would have been a bit too shocking for audiences; hence the use of the more abstract monolith in the film. Intriguingly the monolithic Satan-symbol provoked no adverse criticism from viewers, religious or otherwise. Once the religious myths are removed, the “fall” of man is seen as his rise.

Such a 2001-style tinkering with human intellectual evolution would have had to occur at the genetic level, and presumably [so as to be sustained by normal reproduction] over an extended period of time. So we are looking at a subtle process, not a sudden, dramatic event [as in Adam & Eve’s apple-munching or Prometheus’ fire-giving]. We do not have sufficient knowledge of genetics or of the brain’s physiology to estimate how such tinkering might have taken place. That it did in fact take place is indicated only - but inescapably - by the presence of the fait accompli.

The “ancient astronaut” theories of van Däniken et al. may be dispensed with peremptorily. The human body displays an organic constitution completely compatible with those of other Earthly species, and alien astronauts could not have taught anything to a proto-man whose intelligence had not already developed to a high level. 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. But, despite torturous efforts to interpret toys or Meso-American murals as “spaceships”, evidence of alien astronauts on Earth remains conspicuous for its absence. [There is always the possibility that a passing spaceship paused here for a picnic-lunch, and that humanity evolved from garbage left behind.]

Mankind’s inability to detect the author of our “high intelligence experiment” should not be considered as evidence that he does not exist, but simply that he has not been located. Nor, one may add, has mankind been actively looking for him. Instead it has been off first on the wild-goose chase of religious-creationism, then on the wild-goose chase of natural selection (as applied to the brain). Nevertheless he exists; the conclusive evidence exists. To quote Walt Kelly’s Pogo: “Us is it.” ...
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41032 - 07/29/10 03:01 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
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.


Sorry for the sidebar...

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

Thanks!
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#41034 - 07/29/10 03:12 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
Did you seriously just quote yourself in an attempt to back up your previous statements?

Wow.

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.

I know that Satanists are supposed to regard themselves as God, but quoting your own "bible" (-esque articles/books/etc) is a bit much for my tastes.

Top
#41047 - 07/29/10 05:00 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: ceruleansteel]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
In my extensive experience debating and discussing matters of religion over the years I have noticed that ones level of superstitious belief..or rather..how far those beliefs veer from known reality..is directly inverse to their understanding of how science works, and what is scientifically known already. This is a solid example.

 Originally Posted By: MAA
yet the most intelligent of their number cannot remotely compare with even the most primitive examples of homo sapiens.

If that is the crux of your argument, it falls completely flat. The gap in intelligence between the great apes is certainly not as wide as you make it out to be. The average human IQ is about 100. There have been mountain gorillas that have been tested through specially engineered tests with results in the high 80s or even better. Here is one such example.

http://www.iqtestnow.com/mag/koko.html

Here is another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_%28gorilla%29

Or how about dolphins? According to the Encyclopedia of Marine Animals, 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.


Another example of a critical misunderstanding of science, this time how evolution works, is the matter of 'transitory forms'. Where are they? Why..they are everywhere. Everything is a transitory form. Some things survive, others go extinct, but regardless genetics always have anomalies when they are passed down. There is no such thing as a perfect genetic copy. Sometimes these genetic anomalies result in mutations. Sometimes these mutations are beneficial to survival, other times they are a hindrance, but mostly they are neither.If a mutation is beneficial, ie it helps the organism survive, the odds are slightly increased that it will live long enough to breed. The same goes for the harmful mutations, only in reverse. Filter this through vast amounts of time and the beneficial mutations will tend to outlast the harmful ones, and we see organisms that are well suited to their environmental niche. The ones that weren't didn't make it.

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

 Quote:

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?

Survivability. Before all the safety nets of society allowed for stupidity to flourish, being able to out-think our prey was critical;we certainly don't have the physical tools to hunt. The lessers got eaten by predators or starved, the smarter ones were able to breed. Again, filter this through a lot of time, and you have smart apes..ie..us.

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.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

 Quote:

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”.

More critical misunderstandings of what evolution is, how it works, and what one should expect to see based on said theory.

Again, it's a matter of survivability. Evolution doesn't have an agenda. Take the shark for instance; mutations that might cause a shark to gain a slight edge in intelligence wouldn't cause it to outbreed its competitors, as it is already physically suited for it's niche. The sharks brain is not key to passing down it's genetic material, as it was with primitive humans, so there is no reason for sharks with mutations of this sort to out-breed those without them.

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? Seriously, this one is a classic. Again, we are all apes. we share a proto-ancestor and split from there into different niches. people are not 'more evolved' than gorillas or chimps, just differently evolved.

I completely understand now why you are so superstitious. This thread has been an eye opener, but at the same time totally unsurprising. \:\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41057 - 07/29/10 09:47 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Fnord]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2512
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
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.

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

Download my Temple of Set, and see Category #5 of the Temple's Reading List at Appendix #14.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41058 - 07/29/10 09:52 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: ceruleansteel]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2512
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
Did you seriously just quote yourself in an attempt to back up your previous statements?

Why not, if a previous writing contains more detailed/pertinent information?

 Quote:
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.

When you learn to ask politely and respectfully, sure.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41059 - 07/29/10 10:42 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2512
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
The gap in intelligence between the great apes is certainly not as wide as you make it out to be.

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

 Quote:
... 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.

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.

It does bring to mind my disappointment in Arthur Clarke's 2010, in which I expected his extrapolation of a "next level of human evolution", e.g. the "star child" into which Dave Bowen morphed at the conclusion of 2001. Instead all we got was USA/USSR space sex followed by the creation of a second Sun for our solar system [talk about a setback for global warming].

At the beginning of 2010 Dr. Heywood Floyd and his wife were shown experimenting with dolphins. I said to Arthur that he had missed a great opportunity here: He should have had his Monolith, pissed off at the way humanity had misused its "touch", come back to Earth and "touch" the dolphins, suddenly raising their species to equal [or perhaps more] levels of intelligence. Then the end of 2010 would see two master-species on the planet - one commanding the land, the other the seas. He liked the idea, but unfortunately croaked in 2008, so we'll never know if he would have written 2020 accordingly.

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

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.

 Quote:
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.

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

 Quote:
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.

I will be more impressed when the dolphins develop a community strategy to evade tuna nets, and when sharks without topfins evolve fast enough to survive their ongoing massacre for soup. As for apes using tools, well, you do seem to have managed a keyboard.

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

No, you didn't.

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

Good; have a banana with my compliments.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41062 - 07/29/10 11:34 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
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.

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

An insult in lieu of an argument does not a case make.I realize the fact that the human IQ level isn't all that far off from other great apes is highly problematic to your superstitious worldview, but ignoring it won't make it go away.

 Quote:

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.

Not a big enough difference to warrant 'divine intervention' as you would have us believe. How exactly are we more conscious than other animals anyway? That's silly.

 Quote:

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.

This isn't really a valid objection either. It takes very specialized conditions for remains to fossilize. There is no reason we should expect to see a fossilized record of everything that has ever lived on earth. More misunderstandings of science on your part old bean.

 Quote:

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

Another insult in lieu of an argument. Have I hit a soft spot Mike? You made the claim that we have the potential to be ten times smarter than we are. The ten percent of your brain myth is long debunked. As humans use their entire brain, how exactly are we able to be ten times smarter? What 1970s new age handbook are you getting your information from?


 Quote:

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

Again you ignored the point and instead chose the low road. Typical creationist argument tactics 101. Your objection about the relative brain sizes of other animals was decimated, and that's the meat and potatoes.

 Quote:

No, you didn't.

Oh?
 Originally Posted By: MAA

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.


Sure looks like the same argument to me. As for why every type of ape that has ever lived is not still around (as if THAT is a coherent objection) again demonstrates a critical misunderstanding of how natural selection works. If two things are specialized for the same niche, and the resources of that niche are finite, you will see one of those two things die out. there are only so many possible niches,
so of course many species are going to end up extinct. This is high school level science here.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41064 - 07/30/10 01:09 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
I'm really starting to think that YOU think that just because you are Michael A. Aquino that you are special...and I understand that it's probably in poor taste that I talk shit to you in public, but damn. You're just some guy to me, no more special than any other name on this board (but definitely less special than some).

I don't give a crap how many names you can drop or how many articles you wrote for your own organization, you still have to back up your claims with facts and references. And apparently you missed the memo from debate class (or the chiseled freakin' tablet...whatever), but quoting yourself does not count as proving your point. All that proves is that you said it before.

I'm starting to wonder if ANYTHING you say does not originate from your very own ass.

 Quote:
When you learn to ask politely and respectfully, sure


Aside from the fact that I read a reply like this and only think "cop out", what the fuck makes you think that I owe you any respect? Who the hell are you to me? NO ONE. One thing I can tell you is that talking to me like I am a child wont gain you any respect in the future. You have nothing to back up your claims, fine. Be man enough to admit it. Don't try to turn the shit around on me.

You're just a freakin' spin doctor, talking out of your ass. Between that and all your retarded-assed emoticons it's a wonder anyone takes you seriously at all. You must be one hell of a marketing genius. You do, however, have more than enough ego to go around. I can't think offhand of anything I've read from you that wasn't either some poorly-disguised commercial for the ToS or just you rambling on about something you wrote ten thousand years ago.


Edited by ceruleansteel (07/30/10 01:12 AM)
Edit Reason: wasn't as finished as I thought I was when I hit "submit"

Top
#41067 - 07/30/10 01:34 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2512
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
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 ...

Actually I was enjoying a light-hearted leg-pull, but it seems my wit was wasted, shucks. [That's "non sequitur", incidentally, but you still need to work on the concept a bit.]

 Originally Posted By: D.D.
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
Having read several of your own posts here, I think you may have a point.

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

An insult? I was just agreeing with you.

 Originally Posted By: D.D.
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
Once again you have my deepest sympathy for bumping up against your 100%.

Another insult in lieu of an argument.

No insult; once again I was just agreeing with you about your 100%. Anton used to talk in terms of lightbulbs: There are 40-watt, 60-watt, 100-watt, and occasionally 3-way people as well. Each has its proper socket & current, and deserves respect correspondingly.

 Originally Posted By: D.D.
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
As for apes using tools, well, you do seem to have managed a keyboard.

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

Well O.K., you do need a little more practice with "non sequitur".

 Originally Posted By: D.D.
Sure looks like the same argument to me.

By 40-watt light I suppose that's quite possible. Don't worry about it; be happy.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41069 - 07/30/10 01:51 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: ceruleansteel]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2512
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
I'm really starting to think that YOU think that just because you are Michael A. Aquino that you are special ...

Not really; Mom nicknamed me "Archy" after the cockroach in Don Marquis' archy and mehitabel, and that's been a sort of tough climb over the years, you know.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41070 - 07/30/10 01:54 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Oh give me a break. I'm sorry you are incapable of defending your positions and instead have to resort to hollow rhetorical bullshit. Do you really think people should just take your word for things because you are some sort of has been minor celebrity?

I for one see you for what you are - No different than any other preacher or man of god out there. There is nothing special about you, and I would match my 'wattage' against yours any day of the week.

Now why don't you go read a science textbook and learn something?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41124 - 07/30/10 11:41 PM I was just wondering what this thread was about... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
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.

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.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Up to the early 20th-century it was in vogue to attribute the various races to evolutionary stages, but that went out with WW2.

Sadly as this might have held some truths.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
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.

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…

In the electric universe theory the earth could have changed quite a bit in humanity’s lifetime. But alas so many theories so many thoughts so little time in this lifetime.

Easier to explain it all away with fantasy it is also much less scary. Gods can be persuaded while cosmic energy is nothing but raw unbridled power.

Why did I post oh yes childish this little back n forth. Dan trying to tell the pope he is really a Jew and you simply telling him he’s ignorant in so many witty ways.

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

Oh well Carry on

~T~

PS I refrained from littering my post with little smileys...
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
Page 4 of 14 « First<23456>Last »


Moderator:  SkaffenAmtiskaw, fakepropht, TV is God, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.033 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.