Intelligent design (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, November 14, 2011, 17:07 (4758 days ago) @ Abel

dhw: "You talk of my “thinly-veiled derision”. This is a term I would never associate with myself. Perhaps you are confusing my posts with someone else’s."

ABEL: Perhaps it is I, but since you asked for examples I will provide a few.

"Abel, I’m struggling to find any coherence in your history of Planets X and Earth. (3 Nov 11 15:21)" This is not derisive but true, and I’ve consistently pointed out what I consider to be the inconsistencies.

"Once upon a time [a nice story-telling formula] in the realms of dark matter – the nature of which is unknown to all humans except yourself". Again, this is not derisive but true. Can you name me one other human source that claims to know the nature of dark matter? I don’t think it’s derisive if I point out the sheer scale of what we’re being asked to accept.

– the first basic forms of life spontaneously but inevitably assembled themselves on low-entropy Planet X." (5 Nov 11 15:54) Derisive? You’ve stated categorically that this is what happened: abiogenesis followed by evolution.

"After lots of humans, they then created Adam and Eve (any relation?) You chose this name, and subsequent posts do suggest a strong connection (10 Nov.: “God fulfilled his promise [death] and they [Adam & Eve] named that promise Abel). (NB the Bible is a collection of myths, but thanks to your special gifts you know which sections are true.)" (5 Nov 11 15:54)
ABEL: 28 October at 01.35: “I have a gift when it comes to spotting the truth.”

dhw: "Sorry about all the parentheses, please correct any mistakes, and once more forgive my obtuseness."*** (5 Nov 11 15:54)

ABEL: *** I know that on the surface this seems innocent enough, but it was not. It was delivered just after I had written a response to a series of questions that you had posed. The responses that I gave you were rendered obtuse by their poor formatting and they contained lots of parenthesis.

What I wrote here was completely genuine. Why else would I ask for corrections? Why do you take an apology for derision?

dhw: "Would you please therefore identify what significant distortions you are referring to."
ABEL: Once again, since you have asked I will post a few.

DHW: "They found out somehow that we humans were messing things up, so they sent aliens to teach us a lesson, but they got corrupted too." 1* (9 Nov 11 16:55) 1)*
ABEL: I never said that heaven sent the aliens to teach us a lesson anywhere in my writings.

On 02 November at 23.04, you explained how the first set of aliens were corrupted by the drive for survival and by pride. “To resolve this a second generation of soldier was made to teach.” These were the “Watchers”, and they “grew tired of trying to teach fools.”

Abel: Though there was a little ambiguity in what I said [about Indians and the cure for cancer] because of my use of the pronoun "they", using that pronoun to mean anything other than the aliens is illogical.

I have already apologized (Nov 10 at 18.18) for this misunderstanding caused by your ambiguity.

Dhw: "Are you, then, the real Messiah sent by the gods, as opposed to the puppet the aliens wanted to install?" (9 Nov 11 16:55) 3*

How can a question be a distortion? You might be the real Messiah, unwilling to act as their puppet Messiah.

ABEL: 3*) I said I would not lie and say I was the Messiah.

This was in your later post of 10 November at 10.43, in response to more questions.

As regards the Bible, my OT reference was to your post of 26 October. The fact that you have now applied the “myth” tag to the NT as well clarifies your position – and of course I’m in complete agreement.

I do not wish to disguise my true feelings about your posts. I’m extremely sceptical about your extraordinary claims, but I’m also sceptical about religious and atheistic beliefs generally. My attempts to make sense of your opinions and claims are based on rational analysis of your writings, which are the only material I have, and what you call distortion is an effort and often a request (in the form of questions)to obtain clarification. Derision does not and never has played any role. I hope this (colourful) post will help to clear the air between us.

Meanwhile, your latest revelation once again has me confused:
(10 Nov. at 02.43): The spirit telepaths threatened to destroy the world if you didn’t pretend to be the Messiah. You agreed to speak on their behalf. You wrote: “Even then, I knew one of you would believe that I was the Antichrist and kill me. I knew they would, but that was the choice I made.”

I don’t know why you say “one of you” (unless you believe we correspondents are aliens out to get you), but that is not the real source of my confusion. You now say “The aliens that are here are Satan’s reinforcements, they are not heaven’s.”

If these aliens want to kill you because they think you are the Antichrist, doesn’t that put them on heaven’s side and not Satan’s?