Freethought & Rationalism Archive

phlebas · 03-20-2002, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Hey, if it gets real bad, the Mod may lock this thread and require Thiaoouba to respond to demeaning posts and obscenity, but maybe that is only reserved for those that begin to show up the evolutionist argument.

It's tempting to get this thread out of here, now that Thiaoouba has started pushing his book again, signifying that anything useful he had to contribute is over.

But I thought that God of yours disapproved of lies? You know full well that I didn't close your threads, I simply moved them to a different forum. You know this because we have given you multiple links to them in case you wanted to continue participating.

Do you want those links again? We can dig them up for you.

But claiming to your UNC buddies that I was simply closing your threads because I can't bear to read your brilliant critiques of evolution is a lie -- and both of us know it.

In your mind, I have no doubt that it releases you from any obligation to respond intelligently to the questions put to you. It gives you the chance to play some sort of martyr, and railing against perceived injustice is much easier and probably more emotionally fulfilling than having your beloved myths attacked.

Ironically, you are still welcome to post here (even with *gasp!* criticisms of evolution) if you would simply participate in discussions instead of making asserions and not backing them up. Answering some of those questions would be a good start.

Continuing your campaign of misquote and misdirection will yield similar results as before, though.

I suppose this is where you repeat the claim that you were trying to do answer everyone but then the mean ol' evolutionists turned rude, and that nasty moderator suppressed your devastating ideas. This is demonstrably untrue, and the threads still exist to prove it.

Automaton · 03-20-2002, 04:53 AM

Thiaoouba: We're not idiots. We won't be programmed by your cultist pseudologic. Find some other sheep to herd.

Writer@Large · 03-20-2002, 05:19 AM

Thiaoouba, you're peddling the same sites, the same ideas, the same links you've been trying to push here on and off for a year, now. You posted a link to the same e-book <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=40&t=000186" target="_blank">for the first time in January 2001</a>, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=40&t=000538" target="_blank">inundated us with quotes from "the Thiaoouba Prophecy" a month later</a>,and have tossed the same links out several times since then. Anytime anyone calls you on your ideas, your arguments boil down to "read this e-book," "read this website," or "ask Dr. Chalko." Your "leader" believes that hyper-intelligent aliens want us to be Excellent to each other, that auras are good science, and that multicolored t-shirts holdd some bizarre pseudoscientific quality to make us feel good.

If ever you come to these boards with something new, something different, somethig that doesn't boul down to "read this cult manual," I'll cut you some slack. But the fact that you immediately jumped at the chance to once again plug that stupid book shows me that your act hasn't changed a bit. Same shit, different day.

And a tip: if Dr. Chalko ever offers it, don't drink the Kool-Aid.

--W@L

[Fixed links.]

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Writer@Large ]

MrDarwin · 03-20-2002, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
That's just a bald-faced lie, but I am not surprised you made it.

Hey Randman, speaking of bald-faced lies, I wonder if you might want to take a look at this discussion, which you never responded to:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000421" target="_blank">Randman, "walking whales," and dishonest creationists</a>

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]

Jonesy · 03-20-2002, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Writer@Large:
Thiaoouba, you're peddling the same sites, the same ideas, the same links you've been trying to push here on and off for a year, now. You posted a link to the same e-book <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=40&t=000186" target="_blank">for the first time in January 2001</a>, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=40&t=000538" target="_blank">inundated us with quotes from "the Thiaoouba Prophecy" a month later</a>,and have tossed the same links out several times since then. Anytime anyone calls you on your ideas, your arguments boil down to "read this e-book," "read this website," or "ask Dr. Chalko." Your "leader" believes that hyper-intelligent aliens want us to be Excellent to each other, that auras are good science, and that multicolored t-shirts holdd some bizarre pseudoscientific quality to make us feel good.

If ever you come to these boards with something new, something different, somethig that doesn't boul down to "read this cult manual," I'll cut you some slack. But the fact that you immediately jumped at the chance to once again plug that stupid book shows me that your act hasn't changed a bit. Same shit, different day.

And a tip: if Dr. Chalko ever offers it, don't drink the Kool-Aid.

--W@L

[Fixed links.]

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Writer@Large ]

Answer yes or no: have you read the book "Thiaoouba Prophecy"? A simple answer will do. Unless you've read it, how can you make comments on the quality of this book?

Writer@Large · 03-20-2002, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thiaoouba:
Answer yes or no: have you read the book "Thiaoouba Prophecy"? A simple answer will do. Unless you've read it, how can you make comments on the quality of this book?

Yes.

Weren't expecting that, I suppose. But yes, I have perused the book, as I have indicated to you already in the past. I e-mailed the cult (under an assumed name, and a freemail account--no way I'm giving them my real name or e-mail address), got the required username and password, and looked through the Thiaoouba Prophecy. And I was unimpressed. It read like a bad sci-fi novel re-written by a new-age crystal healer--and, considering it was originally published as "Abduction to the 9th Planet," I suppose it's entirely possible that *is* all it is. ["Next Summer, see STAR WARS EPISODE 3: ABDUCTION TO THE 9TH PLANET!"] Under that title, it's mentioned on a lot of UFO cult and UFO pseudoscience sites as "proof of man's contact with aliens" (for example <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~tannlund/ets.htm" target="_blank">here</a>).

A few choice tidbits, for the rest of the folks:

The Origin of the Chakra Shirt:

Quote:

The reptile became a comet and carried the statues off - to Easter Island. Next, they were greeting me, wearing strange hats. One of the statues, resembling Thao, caught me by the shoulder and said, ‘Michel, Michel... wake up.’ Thao was shaking me and gently smiling.

‘My goodness!’ I said, opening my eyes, ‘I was dreaming you were an Easter Island statue and that you caught hold of me by the shoulder...’

‘I am an Easter Island statue, and I did take you by the shoulder.’

‘Anyway, I’m not dreaming now, am I?’

‘No, but your dream was really quite strange, for on Easter Island, there is a statue which was sculptured a very long time ago to immortalise me and which was given my name.’

‘What are you telling me now?’

‘The simple truth, Michel, but we will explain all that to you in good time. For now, we will try on these clothes I’ve brought for you.’

Thao handed me a richly-coloured robe which quite delighted me and, after a warm and perfumed bath, I dressed in the garment. A feeling of euphoria, which was totally unexpected, overwhelmed me. I mentioned it to Thao, who was waiting with a glass of milk and a little manna for me.

[From Chapter 6: "The Seven Masters and the Aura"]

The aliens themselves, which echo very common "Nordic alien" imagery in some of the weirder UFO lore:

Quote:

Since my arrival on Thiaoouba, I had not yet had occasion to meet so great a number of these people. Glancing around the circle, I could appreciate a calmness and reserve about them, as well as the great beauty in their faces that I’d grown to expect. There was a strong resemblance between them, as if they were all brothers and sisters; and yet, isn’t that our first impression when we encounter a group of blacks or Asians together? In fact, the same physical variety in facial features existed among these people, as exists within races on Earth.

In height, they varied from 280 to 300 centimetres, their bodies being so well-proportioned, they were a pleasure to behold - neither too muscular nor too puny, and without deformity of any kind. Their hips were somewhat larger than you would expect in a man, but then I’d been told that some of them gave birth to children.

All possessed magnificent heads of hair - most of a golden-blond colour, others platinum-blond or coppery-blond and occasionally, a bright chestnut colour. There were also some, like Thao and Biastra, with a fine down of hair on the upper lip, but, apart from this, these people had absolutely no other body hair. (This is not, of course, an observation that I made at the time but one which I made later, when I had occasion to see from quite near, a group of naked sunbathers.) Their skin-type reminded me of Arab women who protect themselves from the sun - it was certainly not the pale skin typical of blondes with such light eyes. So light, indeed, were the mauve and blue eyes around me, that I might have wondered if they were blind, had I been on Earth.

When I speak now, of their long legs and rounded thighs - they reminded me of our female long-distance runners, as well as their beautifully proportioned breasts, firm and shapely in every case, the reader will understand my error in believing Thao to be a female giant when first we met. It occurred to me that women on Earth would be most envious of the breasts of these people - and men would be most delighted by them...

I have already commented on the beauty of Thao’s face, and others in this crowd had similar ‘classic’ features; still others I would describe as ‘charming’ or ‘alluring’. Each face, though slightly different in shape and features, seemed to have been designed by an artist.

From Chapter 7: "The Continent of Mu and Easter Island"

The awakening of "our hero's" psychic powers:

Quote:

Thao explained that, because my psychic powers were not sufficiently developed and refined, and, in order to participate in an important and very special experience, I would be obliged to take a special elixir. It was a matter of ‘delving’ into the psychosphere, of the planet Earth at the time of the disappearance of Mu, that is, 14 500 years ago, she explained.
[From Chapter 8: "Delving into the Psychosphere."]

You're right, Thiaoouba. The book *does* speak for itself. Unfortunately, it isn't saying what you think it's saying.

This is the sort of thing that drove me out of UFOlogy in the first place ... <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

--W@L

Queen of Swords · 03-20-2002, 08:03 AM

That book sounds like a load of crap. Worse than Linda Goodman's Love Signs.

Oolon Colluphid · 03-20-2002, 08:21 AM

Queen, I've just sent his new thread to the Bay of Fundy. Enjoy the snack!

Oolon

Mageth · 03-20-2002, 08:27 AM

Cult leader's manual, chapter 3, "Indoctrination of new members" (page 54, paragraph 3):

"Careful and persistent brainwashing of new members should include the implantation through frequent repetition of the phrases "This is not a cult," "I am not a cult member," and "My leader is not a cult leader.""

randman · 03-20-2002, 09:06 AM

Regardless of who Thiaoouba is, his comments were immediately treated with derison, as I think is pretty normal of some posters here.
On the charge of one trick pony, that is bogus. I though did want to finish the fossil issue before moving on. Maybe a comment here can help.
I am accussed of demanding an impossibly high standard of transitional, and yet at the same time, I am then accussed of ignoring examples of where that standard is met.
Both charges cannot be true.
Moreover, I quoted several men, not Gould, and the quotes are not taken out of context since they are factual quotes. Let's look at this from a political example. Supposse the democrats had been arguing that we can't have tax cuts due to a deficit, then they say we can't have tax cuts since we have a surplus and don't want it to be smaller. Now, a Republican comes along and states look, we have a huge surplus, as Joe Sen. Democrat has stated and quotes the democrat, so let's cut taxes.
Is the Republican taking the dem's words out of context? No. Both are acknowledging the same fact of a surplus, but one is arguing this fact is a reason not to cut taxes, and another is arguing it is a reason to cut taxes.
Of course, you can get Gould to talk about "transitional" fossils, despite his claiming that you don't see the species to speices transitions, or however one wants to express it, but "transitional" under what definition?
It can be shown as one here admitted to that the evolutionist term for transitional has nothing to do with whether the species actually left any descendants at all.
Even if there is no speciation, and no descendants, the species is still called transitional based on the time it was suppossed to live in and similarities to other creatures.
It is assumed that even if this species represents a branch on the bush that died out that there are others around that did not.
Really, the whole thing is so bogus that it is painful to even think of how such wordsmithing is passed off as science. The real data is the transitions are not shown, that species appear remarkably the same as one would predict if God had created them via special creation.
As far as a definition of kind, it is the original type of creature made as evidenced by things like ability to cross-breed either now or in the past, and the theory is that speciation is thus limited by the genetic code of the parent kind to a certain range which is roughly defined as that type of creature. A finch will thus stay a finch.
The fact tigers and lions, for instance, can breed is evidence of a parent kind that originated both species.
Moreover, I think to denigrate the term "kind" as displayed here is not actually science, but merely the typical semantic propoganda ploy evolutionists employ to try and win their arguments,and this in itself is evidence of the utter weakness of their argument. The guy who developed the beginning of classification of species and genus, etc,..did so with the idea of "kind" in mind. While it may be worthwhile to debate the particulars of kind, just as debating something like PE versus gradualism on the evolutionist side, the idea itself is pretty clear, and those trying to denigrate the mere idea show their utter ignorance and hositility to any rational and normal discussion of the matter.

03-20-2002, 05:19 AM	#43
Writer@Large Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 7,198	Thiaoouba, you're peddling the same sites, the same ideas, the same links you've been trying to push here on and off for a year, now. You posted a link to the same e-book <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=40&t=000186" target="_blank">for the first time in January 2001</a>, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=40&t=000538" target="_blank">inundated us with quotes from "the Thiaoouba Prophecy" a month later</a>,and have tossed the same links out several times since then. Anytime anyone calls you on your ideas, your arguments boil down to "read this e-book," "read this website," or "ask Dr. Chalko." Your "leader" believes that hyper-intelligent aliens want us to be Excellent to each other, that auras are good science, and that multicolored t-shirts holdd some bizarre pseudoscientific quality to make us feel good. If ever you come to these boards with something new, something different, somethig that doesn't boul down to "read this cult manual," I'll cut you some slack. But the fact that you immediately jumped at the chance to once again plug that stupid book shows me that your act hasn't changed a bit. Same shit, different day. And a tip: if Dr. Chalko ever offers it, don't drink the Kool-Aid. --W@L [Fixed links.] [ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Writer@Large ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-20-2002, 04:53 AM	#42
Automaton Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 717	Thiaoouba: We're not idiots. We won't be programmed by your cultist pseudologic. Find some other sheep to herd.

03-20-2002, 08:03 AM	#47
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	That book sounds like a load of crap. Worse than Linda Goodman's Love Signs.

03-20-2002, 08:21 AM	#48
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Queen, I've just sent his new thread to the Bay of Fundy. Enjoy the snack! Oolon

03-20-2002, 08:27 AM	#49
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Cult leader's manual, chapter 3, "Indoctrination of new members" (page 54, paragraph 3): "Careful and persistent brainwashing of new members should include the implantation through frequent repetition of the phrases "This is not a cult," "I am not a cult member," and "My leader is not a cult leader.""

03-20-2002, 09:06 AM	#50
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Regardless of who Thiaoouba is, his comments were immediately treated with derison, as I think is pretty normal of some posters here. On the charge of one trick pony, that is bogus. I though did want to finish the fossil issue before moving on. Maybe a comment here can help. I am accussed of demanding an impossibly high standard of transitional, and yet at the same time, I am then accussed of ignoring examples of where that standard is met. Both charges cannot be true. Moreover, I quoted several men, not Gould, and the quotes are not taken out of context since they are factual quotes. Let's look at this from a political example. Supposse the democrats had been arguing that we can't have tax cuts due to a deficit, then they say we can't have tax cuts since we have a surplus and don't want it to be smaller. Now, a Republican comes along and states look, we have a huge surplus, as Joe Sen. Democrat has stated and quotes the democrat, so let's cut taxes. Is the Republican taking the dem's words out of context? No. Both are acknowledging the same fact of a surplus, but one is arguing this fact is a reason not to cut taxes, and another is arguing it is a reason to cut taxes. Of course, you can get Gould to talk about "transitional" fossils, despite his claiming that you don't see the species to speices transitions, or however one wants to express it, but "transitional" under what definition? It can be shown as one here admitted to that the evolutionist term for transitional has nothing to do with whether the species actually left any descendants at all. Even if there is no speciation, and no descendants, the species is still called transitional based on the time it was suppossed to live in and similarities to other creatures. It is assumed that even if this species represents a branch on the bush that died out that there are others around that did not. Really, the whole thing is so bogus that it is painful to even think of how such wordsmithing is passed off as science. The real data is the transitions are not shown, that species appear remarkably the same as one would predict if God had created them via special creation. As far as a definition of kind, it is the original type of creature made as evidenced by things like ability to cross-breed either now or in the past, and the theory is that speciation is thus limited by the genetic code of the parent kind to a certain range which is roughly defined as that type of creature. A finch will thus stay a finch. The fact tigers and lions, for instance, can breed is evidence of a parent kind that originated both species. Moreover, I think to denigrate the term "kind" as displayed here is not actually science, but merely the typical semantic propoganda ploy evolutionists employ to try and win their arguments,and this in itself is evidence of the utter weakness of their argument. The guy who developed the beginning of classification of species and genus, etc,..did so with the idea of "kind" in mind. While it may be worthwhile to debate the particulars of kind, just as debating something like PE versus gradualism on the evolutionist side, the idea itself is pretty clear, and those trying to denigrate the mere idea show their utter ignorance and hositility to any rational and normal discussion of the matter.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.