Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mike's ego trip
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 1 of 82 (188126)
02-24-2005 11:33 AM


If you have had a look at the POTM thread today you might have noticed that 'Mike the Wiz' has nominated one of his own posts. He claims that this is because no-one on the evolution side will nominate a post from the opposite point of view so he has to do it himself when he 'objectively' evaluates the quality of his own posts.
Putting aside the question of why none of the other creationists on the site, few though they are, would have been able to nominate his posts, if it was really so good, why does Mike think that this post was so good?
The post in question was number 60 in the 'Animal intelligence and Evolution/Creation' thread.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by AdminJar to get link to point to the message itself instead of the thread.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-24-2005 10:39 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by ohnhai, posted 02-24-2005 11:58 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 4 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-24-2005 1:35 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5161 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 2 of 82 (188135)
02-24-2005 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wounded King
02-24-2005 11:33 AM


Because God made him do it, and thus as it was inspired by god surely it has to be the best post ever?
This message has been edited by ohnhai, 24 February 2005 16:59 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wounded King, posted 02-24-2005 11:33 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 3 of 82 (188140)
02-24-2005 12:43 PM


I think that like the other posts of the month, I have the right to nominate. I didn't see a rule saying I can't nominate myself so I did.
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. Hereby I am glad about my nomination and am grateful somebody nominated me.
Thus if you break through the ideological barriers you've built around yourselves, you'll see that my post is a piece of logical brilliance, if only for a moment, pertaining to registered anti-matter baramins. If one takes upon himself the true nature of the post in objective unideological terms, then one need not wait for his combatant to say how good this was when one can register his piece of furniture in one's own household knowing that the chair is as comfortable when one sits on it as when another one does.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 02-24-2005 1:53 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 6 by Wounded King, posted 02-24-2005 5:32 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 4 of 82 (188151)
02-24-2005 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wounded King
02-24-2005 11:33 AM


irrefutable Mike
The title of this thread is appropriate, considering that Mike began calling himself "Irrefutable Mike" in the thread containing his "award-winning" post.
Mike definitely fixated on "post 60", even while the discussion was still active. I'm not quite sure why, since it was partly repetition of earlier comments he had made. The points he presented in post 60 were refuted before and after he posted them based on evidence or logic.
Mike's response: obviously we hadn't read or understood "post 60". It couldn't be that his argument was flawed, since he had already crowned himself "Irrefutable Mike".
Perhaps Mike needs to realize that even if his argument was pure genius and irrefutable, if his post does not intelligibly pass on that information, then it is obviously not POTM-worthy.
He also argues that non-evos do not get nominated for POTM; a simply perusal of the POTM threads, this month included, shows that argument to be refuted as well...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wounded King, posted 02-24-2005 11:33 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 5 of 82 (188158)
02-24-2005 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mike the wiz
02-24-2005 12:43 PM


Not to discourage any attempts at humor, but your post has a strong undertone of seriousness that's worth addressing.
The dearth of nominations for Post of the Month by Creationists is one that Creationists should be striving to remedy. Such posts should possess certain significant and important qualities (e.g., cogency, insight, clarity, novelty of approach, etc.) that are so obviously and overtly present that even those who aren't the author himself can recognize them. Such posts often make one say, "I wish I'd said that," and if the next thought is "Oh, I did say that," then perhaps a Post of the Month nomination shouldn't be considered.
The fundamental goal is to persuade, and you can't persuade if you have no evidence. And you'll really have trouble if you're unable to hide the religious origins of your ideas. So much of Creationism boils down to, "Evolution is wrong, biology is wrong, geology is wrong, radiometric dating is wrong, cosmology is wrong." And so forth. It's as if Creationists believe that all scientists not working on new TV's or computers or fabric softeners are total nitwits.
Creationists compound the problems inherent in such a myopic approach by refusing to offer any theories of their own that are consistent with the evidence. They instead simply become more detailed in what they won't accept. For example, radiometric dating is wrong, but at a more detailed level physicists are wrong about decay rates, mathematicians are wrong about the analyses, geologists can't properly collect samples, and all the correlations are a coincidence. Almost the whole of Creationism consists of "This is wrong, that is wrong, it's all wrong." Their great failure is not that they cannot support these positions with evidence, though of course they can't, but that at no point do they ever get around to arguing, "It happened like this, and here's the evidence that makes the case."
So if you're frustrated about the lack of Posts of the Month for the Creationist side, realize that it's inherent in the Creationist position. Without evidence you can't persuade, and unpersuasive posts are unlikely to get nominated.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 02-24-2005 12:43 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 6 of 82 (188216)
02-24-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mike the wiz
02-24-2005 12:43 PM


Are you related to Stanley Unwin by any chance?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 02-24-2005 12:43 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 7 of 82 (188262)
02-24-2005 7:35 PM


What amazes me about you Pinky, is how much you insist that I am "refuted" or that "he was refuted", or that my position was "falsified".
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.
Neverhteless, I personally offer an objective comment - that people should read the thread for themselves, or try and understand message #60. And I hereby hope they can conclude for themselves, without me appealing to them.
Percy, this wasn't a particularly evo versus creo thread in all honesty. It was about accepting the blatant reality that humans are a bit different from animals. Even a "bit" please, pretty please? Canst thou budge the ideological fly in one's ointment, and riddeth the ridicule and conundrum of cosmologically constant fallacious poppycock.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 19:37 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by IrishRockhound, posted 02-25-2005 7:33 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 02-25-2005 7:53 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 10 by CK, posted 02-25-2005 8:17 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 27 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-25-2005 11:04 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4435 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 8 of 82 (188408)
02-25-2005 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mike the wiz
02-24-2005 7:35 PM


Very well, you asked
Ok, I'll bite. Here's the post itself, plus my comments.
Tusko, thanks for your input, I like you already. (I remember your name but I don't think we've had many exchanges).
.
quote:
I agree, but isn't it also true to say that for 99% of the existence of the human race, these things were utterly unreachable by humans too? Its easy to forget that for that human societies that use agriculture and undergo industrialisation are not necessarily representative of the majority of human societies that have existed (and still exist)
That's true and I concede it. I've been thinking about this from a logical perspective, for some time and I think that there's something not in the equation at the moment, and that is ability.
We have to take the human species as a whole, and all the other species as a whole, with visualizing the fourth dimension of time as well. This is because abilities humans have in the present would still represent abilities in the past, but without any technological advancement, these abilities would still exist - they just wouldn't show.
This doesn't seem to mean anything. What abilities? How do you know this? You're not being specific or in any way detailed enough to describe your position.
Also, the quality of any differences can still be recognised because we know that life, and all species must take time to develop. (Think about this a bit)
So the question becomes, if we are judging between species, then shouldn't we ask what that species is capable of?
What differences? This variable has appeared literally from nowhere; what does it have to do with the development of life? Are you referring to the differences in biology, behaviour, habitat? What do you mean by quality? You're again being too vague - I have no idea what you're actually discussing.
Final thought;
We are, best described, as a WHOLE - as uniquely different from other animals.
Other organisms may well have unique differences - but we are uniquely different unlike any other organism, because other organisms are not - as a whole, uniquely different and also, their abilities have been shown to not be of equivalent value/quality to that of homo sapiens. To explain what I mean; A hammer head shark may well have a unique difference from other sharks, and all other none-sharks. The former it's hammer-head, the latter - it's a shark. And this can be said about all species.
I'm afraid I had trouble reading this. You are saying that organisms have unique differences, but are not uniquely different. This, as far as I am aware, is a contradiction. Again, the variable described only as 'differences' is introduced - and I still don't entirely know what you mean by it. Your explanation doesn't in fact explain anything.
But humans are uniquely different from all other organisms in a way that other animals aren't.
Example; Animals might be unique in what they can do. But we are unique in what we can't do. I think this fundamental difference is a big example of how we are uniquely different. If a shark cannot fly - then that's the end of that. If a rat can only run fast, then that's the end of that. But when it comes to what we can't do, then we have an ability to defy our very natural limits, and do it anyway. Example, if we can't fly - we make planes. If we can't go fast, we build vehicles.
This at least I can understand. You appear to be saying, in an odd and confused way, that humans are special because we can make objects - which, if I recall correctly, is essentially the idea that humans are special because we can make tools to make other tools.
(Aside: that idea is not mine, but I can't remember where I learned of it. As far as I know, it is the notion that humans developed into the advanced state we are today because, not only can we make tools to solve a particular problem, but we can also make tools to make more advanced tools. Apes can make tools - like using a branch to knock down bananas - but they don't use a sharpened stone to cut off a branch to start with. We can, like inventing a screwdriver to help make a car engine.
Of course, I would also say that the development of advanced communication played a huge part too, as it allowed complex ideas to be transmitted, and most importantly, allowed them to persist between generations.)
This is our invisible ability, and it is evidenced through the fourth dimension of time, because it is not tangeable. It is essentialy, our ability to think/design like no other organism, and THEN put it into the practicle, and mold the shapes in our heads, from the world around us. This is the clincher for me. Our minds can overcome our nature. Is that a qualititive difference? If not - then nothing will ever qualify for this illusive title.
Example; All homo sapiens can be taught to use advanced technology, and all homo sapiens, and/or 99%, have
the ability to do so, even if 99% haven't the means.
I shown this with the painter's analogy. Another example is time limitation, or not having the means to show your ability for lack of material/time.
Example; The first homo sapien could be as great as Leanardo Davinci, but his ability is rendered moot at that time in history, for lack of means/time and essentially knowledge, which is not an ability but rather an accumulation of gained information.
Einstein would have been just as brilliant thousands and thousands of years ago. His abilities might not have shown back then though, through lack of means. Our abilities don't change, but the times do. Time doesn't mean we don't have unique qualitative ability.
This is simply meandering, stream-of-thought musings that in essence repeat what you're already said. None of it is properly explained.
Mike, a POTM should be coherent, well-formed and concise. If someone reads one of your posts and doesn't grasp what you're trying to say because you haven't explained yourself sufficiently, then it does not deserve a POTM nomination.
Neverhteless, I personally offer an objective comment - that people should read the thread for themselves, or try and understand message #60. And I hereby hope they can conclude for themselves, without me appealing to them.
I have tried and failed. Though I am not normally cruel, I feel I must be in this case.
Mike, I've read a lot of your posts. I had you on my list of posters-to-watch-out-for, because you generally had something interesting or insightful to say. But recently I have noticed too many snide comments and back-handed insults directed at evolutionists from you; in fact, it appears to have started when you posted your "I'm still a creationist" thread. You've changed from being a rational, pleasant YEC whose posts I enjoyed reading to being irrational, abrasive and sometimes downright rude.
For all I know, it's an entirely new person using your ID. Frankly I don't care. All I know is that this ridiculous act of arrogance - of nominating one of your own posts for POTM - is the final straw; I am now convinced that your posts are not worth reading anymore. The Mike the Wiz that I once respected seems to be gone.
I am sorry.
The Rockhound

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 02-24-2005 7:35 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 9:22 AM IrishRockhound has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 9 of 82 (188413)
02-25-2005 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mike the wiz
02-24-2005 7:35 PM


Hi Mike,
Because your Message 60 appears in [forum=-6], it is difficult to justify criticizing it from the standpoint of logic, evidence and consistency with other data. But you offer no substantive rationale for your beliefs, you just describe them. I have no argument with what you choose to believe, but if your goal was to persuade others then you've provided nothing in either science or Bible to support them.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 02-24-2005 7:35 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 10 of 82 (188422)
02-25-2005 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mike the wiz
02-24-2005 7:35 PM


I read it and thought you were talking a load of bollocks - so yes I judged for myself.
I'll echo some of the previous comments, your posts seem to have changed in tone and direction. It's like you realised that your worldview was a busted flush but decided to stick it out anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 02-24-2005 7:35 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 11 of 82 (188439)
02-25-2005 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by IrishRockhound
02-25-2005 7:33 AM


Charles Knight is an ass hat
This at least I can understand. You appear to be saying, in an odd and confused way, that humans are special because we can make objects
No, I wasn't confused. Also, I'm not saying that. Read the whole thread.
Mike, a POTM should be coherent, well-formed and concise. If someone reads one of your posts and doesn't grasp what you're trying to say because you haven't explained yourself sufficiently, then it does not deserve a POTM nomination.
It made sense to me. I nominated it because I could understand it. I also thought is was coherent, well-formed and concise.
Since we are discussing why I nominated my post, and since I find my post worthy, then any other comments pertaining to actually refuting my post, are simply off-topic.
Mike, I've read a lot of your posts. I had you on my list of posters-to-watch-out-for, because you generally had something interesting or insightful to say. But recently I have noticed too many snide comments and back-handed insults directed at evolutionists from you; in fact, it appears to have started when you posted your "I'm still a creationist" thread. You've changed from being a rational, pleasant YEC whose posts I enjoyed reading to being irrational, abrasive and sometimes downright rude.
For all I know, it's an entirely new person using your ID. Frankly I don't care. All I know is that this ridiculous act of arrogance - of nominating one of your own posts for POTM - is the final straw; I am now convinced that your posts are not worth reading anymore. The Mike the Wiz that I once respected seems to be gone.
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.
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.
We've had judging Buz, now we're on to mike.
Though I am not normally cruel, I feel I must be in this case
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.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-25-2005 09:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by IrishRockhound, posted 02-25-2005 7:33 AM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2005 9:29 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 13 by Wounded King, posted 02-25-2005 9:31 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 14 by nator, posted 02-25-2005 9:31 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 15 by AdminJar, posted 02-25-2005 9:34 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 29 by ohnhai, posted 02-25-2005 11:28 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 37 by IrishRockhound, posted 02-26-2005 12:15 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 12 of 82 (188446)
02-25-2005 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
02-25-2005 9:22 AM


Re: Charles Knight is an ass hat
Mike, mate, you're British you should know that an Ass is a donkey. It acceptable for these ex-colonial degenerates to get it on, but we must hold ourselves to higher standards.
(Although the image of Charlie as a "donkey hat" is quite amusing)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 9:22 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 13 of 82 (188448)
02-25-2005 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
02-25-2005 9:22 AM


Re: Charles Knight is an ass hat
We don't normally discuss nominations for posts of the month.
People don't normally vote for themselves.
If I've been arrogant or rude, please quote me
I'd imagine that calling someone an 'ass hat' was bordering on rude.
the character of irrefutable brilliance in which I embody.
You're just taking the mick now, aren't you?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 9:22 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 14 of 82 (188449)
02-25-2005 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
02-25-2005 9:22 AM


Re: Charles Knight is an ass hat
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.
Mike, how is it that you know that NDE's are taking place during or after brain death?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 9:22 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 9:35 AM nator has replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 82 (188450)
02-25-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
02-25-2005 9:22 AM


Re: Charles Knight subtitle
The subtitle in your post was unwarranted and uncalled for. It had nothing to do with the subject of your post and was simply a personal attack on another poster.
Mike, it's time to quit acting like so puerile.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 9:22 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 9:37 AM AdminJar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024