Mike's ego trip

quote:

---

Didn't I answer the question though? If became alive when the experience ended, after being clinically dead, then logically they must have been brain dead for somewhat of the experience.

---

1) You have not shown any evidence that any of the people who experience NDE's actually are BRAIN dead, as opposed to clinically dead.As in, have any of these people been hooked up to an EEG or had an MRI to demonstrate a lack of any and all brain activity? If someone's heart has stopped beating and their breathing has stopped, they will not be moving, but this does not mean that all brain activity has stopped.You can't tell just by looking at them.2) You still have absolutely no evidence, so therefore no reason to conlude, that the NDE happened at any specific time. That's my question; How do you know WHEN the NDE experience happened?That is a claim that needs evidence to support it, and right now you have none.3) NDE's have been induced in an experimental context. Read more here:near-death experience (NDE) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

quote:

---

The evo doesn't have to answer to anyone.

---

Of course we do. We answer to the evidence and to the rules of logic and rational inquiry, just like everybody else.

quote:

---

It's 1 on the crowd for the creo, and the crowd on the 1 for the evo.

---

Yup, sure is. Too bad for you, isn't it? Sorry that your claims are being examined so well. Perhaps you'd rather we just ignore you?

quote:

---

So surely you can see that I cannot respond to every whim in the evo machine?

---

Look, asking you to support your position with evidence is not a "whim". It's the rules of debate here, remember?If you make a claim, expect it to get examined nine ways to Sunday, and expect any weaknesses, like lack of empirical support, to be exposed. That's what we do here.

ADDENDUMDue to the nature of the forum, it is expected that demand for creationists is high and creationists are few. I have answered all of the posts I can within reasonable expectations.I apologize for calling Charles an ass-hat but his post was highly offensive and un-provoked, which is why I said it. Due to mis-understanding and misconstruement of my intentions, and also because of people interpreting humor as personal attacks I shall withdraw my participation in the forum. I could only be understood with a new alias at this stage, without being attacked personally.I'm sure many are glad to see me leave because they think I should have turned evo at this stage.

No it was not "unwarrented attacked" - you asked people to judge the material submitted for post of the month themselves. I did feel that it was a load of bollocks - just a mishmash of your wishlist.Look at what I posted just afterwards - it quite clear that it was not a personal attack on you. I'm not sure what changing to a different alias will do if you posts continue to go down the road that they going at present. Moreover it wouldn't change the basic of your claim one iota.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 26 February 2005 05:11 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 26 February 2005 05:18 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 26 February 2005 10:43 AM

quote:

---

Due to the nature of the forum, it is expected that demand for creationists is high and creationists are few.

---

I agree that creationists who are able to follow our rules of debate are few, and the demand for such creationists here is high.

quote:

---

I have answered all of the posts I can within reasonable expectations.

---

Not according to the general rules of good, effective debate nor the forum guidelines....not that you've done really poorly, but I must concur with others that you have seemed very agitated and out of sorts lately. Upset, and frankly, rather whiny about being asked to back up your claims.I have always treated your posts the same. You make a factual claim, I ask you to back it up with evidence.Is there anything wrong, mike? Is there any difficulty in your life that is making you behave this way?

quote:

---

I apologize for calling Charles an ass-hat

---

I would ordinarily praise you at this point. However, your apology has a qualifier...

quote:

---

but his post was highly offensive and un-provoked, which is why I said it.

---

...which simply negates the apology because you just rationalized the insult as justified in the first place.Sorry, you can't have it both ways.Oh, and I do not agree that his post was highly offensive. He called your IDEAS a bunch of bollocks, NOT YOU.

quote:

---

Due to mis-understanding and misconstruement of my intentions, and also because of people interpreting humor as personal attacks I shall withdraw my participation in the forum. I could only be understood with a new alias at this stage, without being attacked personally.

---

So, you're a martyr now?Gee, and here I thought Contracycle was our main drama queen. Who would have think the tiara rightfully belongs to mike the wiz?Don't you think you're overreacting just a teeny bit?

quote:

---

I'm sure many are glad to see me leave because they think I should have turned evo at this stage.

---

This is just your martyr complex talking again.

Shraff, I'm very happy in my life. That is why I don't want to waste my time at EvC. I left for a month and I thought "wow, how peaceful, why on earth am I going back". Nobody will follow what I say or listen to my ideas. Jar said a stream of consciousness, that's correct. I'm going to dissect post #60 and I don't think it is "bollocks". Since I would never be so rude as to say this about anyone's work, I thought it most inapropriate for Charles to say this. And you know that I never attack the person Shraff, or even use bad language.If people can't see how voting for one's self is funny then I'm calling the humor police.Here is what my post means; This is how I am looking at this - that our species, looked at in the fourth dimension (from beginning to present) - what a human can do. It doesn't matter if a human didn't invent flight a thousand years ago, as what does matter is that he would have been able to invent flight a thousand years ago, because the human is ABLE and has proved that he has the ability to create flight. It's neither here nor there when technology is looked at. Think about it. It's reality that humans have the ability to artificially produce things. This isn't "bollocks" it's FACT. Charles doesn't know what I'm even talking about,. (no offense - he just doesn't).If you don't believe me, here is who own the word "artificial";MADE BY HUMANS; produced rather than natural.
Brought about or caused by sociopolitical or other human-generated forces or influences: set up artificial barriers against women and minorities; an artificial economic boom.
Made in imitation of something natural <--[My WHOLE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THIS FACT]; simulated: artificial teeth.
Not genuine or natural: an artificial smile.Is this "bollocks" or reality? I ask anyone in hope that anyone can think about this WITH ME. This is why I coined uniquely different. Organisms have unique differences because the term implies ( a group[logic] that all have unique traits such as a hammer shark, BUT THEY ALL HAVE TRAITS.uniquely different is a term that implies different [from all] - and no others in or out of a group.A unique trait - all animals have, including humans. (I CONCEDED THAT PINK SASQUATCH). But to be uniquely different is to have NO OTHER species share what makes you unique.(I think in many ways I'm like Brad. I hope everyone understood this but I have no ability to articulate it any better than I have. This is NOT my fault!). This means, that to experiment, one must;Find an organism that does NOT have a morphological trait (an ability rendered from physical make-up, such as breathing under water or flying, a necessity of physical make-up). - [I can't articulate it any further, I promise].EXAMPLE; Let us take a trait like flight. Now let us jot down what organisms can NOT fly. Now askHas the organism produced(remember the definition for artificial?) -- has the organism PRODUCED flight (which is a natural and physical ability)? .Now tick whether the millions of organisms have produced an ability to fly despite not having the natural endowment of flight. Now - how many species have the ability to (--> quote from message #60 = Animals might be unique in what they can do. But we are unique in what we can't do.).Now here is where I admitt not being as knowledgeable as other at EvC. I don't know whether it is just humans. But I think that if you start with a trait that is known as a physical ability produced from physical make-up of an organism, and check your list, humans indeed will produce these abilites from nature.Is this "bollocks". Well, I don't think it is if one puts thought into it, I think it is ATLEASTa thoughtful post.For an even more in-depth statement, read message #78Okay. I will admitt that I am not able to produce my thoughts in writing, and I must in some way have a bit of Brad ine me. I don't mean this in a belittling way but I have to explain myself a LOT and I am assuming you are understanding me because you are all intelligent people but I am not lying when I say that the post doesn't just contain "bollocks", it involved atleast four hours of thinking wasted on people who have NOT thought mcuh about this!This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-26-2005 11:23 AM

Hi Mike - it sounds as though you are getting very frustrated at the moment. I hate it when it feels as though people aren't understanding what I say, and so I think I can relate a little to how you are feeling. Also, I really hope that you aren't considering leaving, because I think it makes the forum more interesting to have you here. I have to admit, however, that I don't get what you are saying either.I'm now going to talk a bit about why I find it problematic, but this could just be a load of rubbish that doesn't help. This is a strictly personal take on the situation.I think there is a fundamental logical problem. It seems to me that that you can't make the claim that you are making, i.e. that humans are unique, unless you decide to ignore things that have yet to occur. By this I mean that if you are claiming that humans have, since they first strode the savannah, always been unique because they would once invent the atom bomb, you can't rule out the possibility, however absurd it sounds, that crows won't do the same in the future. Or perhaps humanity will in the future wipe out all life on the planet. That would certainly make us unique, but I don't think in a good way.
Basically what I'm saying is that although it is totally natural, it seems arbitrary that you are deciding to stop and look for the coolest animal that's around at this particular moment in time. It sure seems like us, but it wasn't us 50 million years ago, and it won't be us 50 million years hence.This isn't really the main objection though. The main objection is that you haven't explained clearly enough for me why a beaver's dam is some crappy result of instinct and a human one is unique, different, special. Sure, ours is made out of really clever concrete and steel, and there were blueprints and engineers and spilt cups of coffee and heated discussions, but ultimately they're both just walls in a river. Clearly beavers couldn't make a hard hat or hold a polystyrene cup if they wanted too, but its a comparable endeavour, surely? Humans display very complex behaviours, but as far as I'm concerned, these are ultimately to achieve similar goals to the apparently simpler behaviours of our animal chums.I think the fact that we have such a structured language is probably the main difference that causes out dams to be so much cooler. But apes seem to make a fair fist of language, so we aren't totally unique in this respect, except in the qualitative way.This message has been edited by Tusko, 02-26-2005 11:58 AM

quote:

---

No, I wasn't confused. Also, I'm not saying that. Read the whole thread.

---

You said "that people should read the thread for themselves, or try and understand message #60". I did just that.Why should I have to read the entire thread to understand one post? It's called Post of the Month, not Thread of the Month. If I have to read an entire thread to understand a single post, then I very much do not think it deserves a POTM nomination.

quote:

---

It made sense to me. I nominated it because I could understand it. I also thought is was coherent, well-formed and concise.

---

Nevertheless, several posters here have stated that they entirely disagree, myself included, after reading and analysing it. Seeing as POTM nominations normally come from other posters... Can you understand why it would seem like arrogance that you nominated it yourself?

quote:

---

Wow - what a big and huge gargantua of add hominem poppycock delirium. If I've been arrogant or rude, please quote me. I really don't know what caused this huge off-topic attack on the character of irrefutable brilliance in which I embody.

---

Of course. Far be it for me not to back up my claims... from this very thread:"The post is not special but is a good effort of original thinking, rather than the same old deposition of dull sediments disposed in category add absurdum upon evo flatter and patter boundaries."
- An insult to the numerous high-quality posts by evolutionists, and evolutionists themselves."Infact none of those things mean a thing if you say them out loud. Although they might mean something to fellow-evolutionists. But isn't that the problem? All the evo has to say is that "I refuted him" and it's pretty likely that that's all your friend will need to hear."
- Another snide insult directed at evolutionists."Charles Knight is an ass hat."
- No comment needed."Why is it Jar jumps through atheist hoops everytime one gets out of one's pram? If Jar can only be an evo's gimp then he shouldn't be an admin."
- A personal insult directed at Jar, a poster who I respect as an intelligent and rational poster, and an excellent admin.

quote:

---

Infact, why was this topic allowed through? We don't normally discuss nominations for posts of the month. You're just all jealous because somebody voted for me.

---

Mike, don't paraphrase. YOU voted for yourself. Whether in jest or not, it's still the height of arrogance.

quote:

---

We've had judging Buz, now we're on to mike.

---

Did you read my posts in that thread? I genuinely wanted to help Buz, because quite frankly I find his contributions to be far more worthy than yours. Perhaps I did judge him, but I did so with the best of intentions; I would be very sorry to see him leave EvCForum - unlike you.

quote:

---

You should know that logically, those other cases don't effect this case. Those other cases also don't justify the present case.

​

I don't normally kill people but in this case I must.

​

Being deliberately cruel isn't justified.

---

Yes it is. You have been cruel in your insults - and I intended to respond in kind. If you wish people to avoid being deliberately cruel, perhaps you should look to your own actions first.The Rockhound

Hey Mike - I've paraphrased your statement a bit to make it more general (it was focused on flight); hopefully it maintains your intent: Mike, you have been shown by multiple examples that animals have done what you describe. You haven't clarified why any of the examples given in the original thread don't fit your above criteria:- Chimps use hammer and anvil stones to open nuts that they cannot open with their natural morphology.
- Apes and some birds use sticks to collect insects that their natural morphology does not allow them to collect.
- Some birds collect ornaments to attract mates that their natural morphology is not sufficient to attract.
- Field ants keep aphids as livestock to produce food they cannot produce with their natural morphology.
- Beavers build dams to create shelter and feeding grounds that they would not have access to based on natural morphology.
- Countless animals build hives/burrows/colonies/etc to provide environmental shelter not granted by their natural morphology.Perhaps you could directly specify the difference (rather than using ambiguous terms like "invisible ability", citing lay dictionary definitions, or simply giving examples of human technology such as flight).I think this would go a long way to resolving the misunderstanding.

Hi IRH. As Mikes friend and your friend, I want to thank you for those wounds of a friend, as wise King Solomon put it, on behalf of me over there and yes, on behalf of Mike here. Those wounds of a friend, says the King are better than the kisses of an enemy. How true. You're a great counselor! I see Mikes post as a statement about how he as a creationist regards POM, more than a selfish post on his behalf, perse or as a jest. I've been in town about 2 years and got my first POM in January. Yah, it required a two year wait, but to get it from her majesty, the queen, herself made it well worth the wait. 1. Being creos are outnumbered many fold by evos, it would be right and logical that there should be quite a larger proportion of evo POMs than creo POMs.2. I and my fellow creos, especially ID types, being relatively few, can't possibly even read, let alone post in many threads, whereas there's plenty of evos in aggregate to cover for all the board for recognition of good posts.3. If I and my fellow creos were to be as careful to support one another as good bud Mike has been for me when I've needed him in other ways, I/we might've noticed POM quality posts of our people so as to have given recognition when it was due. Possibly I/we have been remiss in keeping track of one another's stuff so as to notice POM quality posts for recognition. So what I'm saying, maybe this would be a better approach to the POM problem. Having said the above, I'm not suggesting that we should, as creos go on a search, quote mining for POM material so as to stack the deck on our behalf.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Mike, there is a spider that cannot normally breathe under water. If you would push it under water, it would drown. So it does not have "the morphological trait" of being able to breathe under water.Yet, this spider spends most of its time under water. It even catches its prey there. How does it do this? It has built a diving bell which it fills with air it takes down from the surface. It has produced an artificial means of living under water.For some examples, click here (scroll down a bit), here, and here.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 26 February 2005 22:25 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Good bud, I know you need to do what God leads you to do, but I hope you'll not log out so as to sever relationships here. My approach was to go elsewhere to spend my effort and time but not to absolve my contact here. I went to Tweb and posted one post. In the mean time I was so embroiled here in the thread about my behavior that we pretty much got things haggled over to the point that I feel like I can continue on so long as fairness and balance can be recognized on behalf of all. Imo, the controversy surfaced some problems which needed debated and addressed, not only on the part of admin and others, but on the part of myself. We've, imo all benefited by the controversy. I see your action in POM, not as something I'd be comfortable with doing, but nevertheless, something that has surfaced a problem with POM that could stand some discussion as is being done.Pray a lot about it as I have on my behalf and as I will also do on your behalf. I do pray for you and others as you come to mind. If you need to take a break, fine, but please let the folks here leave the light on for you for when you want to resume posting either regularly or on occasion. By all means don't do reckless or irrational stuff so as to get justly suspended. If you get suspended, let it not be of your own doing, good bud. I regard you as a dear friend and brother. May God guide you, bless you and yours, and continue to make you as much of a blessing to others as you have to me!

You're the first to have falsified my statement according to the parameters I stated. I am assuming everyone else was being wilfully obtuse or you're just the first one to understand me.I do take this as a falsification pertaining to breathing under water.Now my argument becomes somewhat quantative, in that I still think humans posess an overwhelming ability to overcome multiple natural traits it has not got. Is this reasonable?I'd also need to understand more about the abomination that goes under water like that, and how it makes this bubble. E.g. If it just rides the waves waiting for a bubble Thanks.PS. Buz made a few good points. I can't believe Buz only got a POTM that late after being a prolific and thoughtful poster for a long time here!

Hi Buz.Thankyou so much for those kind an encouraging comments from your inner most baba. If I go away it won't be forever and your comments are not lost on me. It's quite strange to see the difference in your posts and the groups posts. They seem so very condemning because I nominated myself like this. I suppose I think they're quite petty for that, or that they worship themselves a bit too much, and their friends.I am especially dissapointed in Jar taking sides with Charles despite apparently being an admin, and also Shraff dissapoints me a bit too aswell as Rockhound.Thanks for yur prayers and goodliness, and God bless.

Buz my friend. I must refute myself, and you.Maybe you didn't notice this, HereNobody's fault - just one of those things. It's not too late to be happy for the nomination.

Buz, this was an admirable, thoughtful post.Very well done.