Mike's ego trip

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.

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

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

(To synergetic cohorts; Read Charles's poist - he deserves the title. If his only contributionis are worthless attacks that is.)Shraff, I answered your post the other day.

Jar, this was also wrongful. Why didn't you tell him off? Don't abuse your powers.

I feel the need to explain a few things to the synergetic mob hunting for freash witch meat.I've been called an ass-hat and an idiot many times at EvC. I never moaned about it. 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.

Jar, his post was an attack. It's time you didn't cover it up for him. It didn't deal with any contents in my post. If you can't take a bit of action back at you then what does that say about you guys?Okay - sorry Charles, your post is ass-hattery. Is that better? Does it not meet you criteria?Infact - justify why my post is a load of "bollocks".Did you even understand it Jar? I doubt it.If you think I'm going to sit here and swallow every piece of crap that comes my way without hitting back, then think again. This is your show - so you can deal with it.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-25-2005 09:47 AM

The explanation is in the rest of my posts in that thread. Of which no one attending this topic has probably read, or understood according to the falsification parameters.Has an animal created a natural morphologically endowed trait it has NOT got?No one has provided the answer. No one can because it doesn't make a conclusion that they want it to make. The conclusion is that the reality is, that only humans can artificially create a morphologically endowed trait they have not got. THAT is why my post is good - because of it's logic. Nothing super - just a bit of worthy postage.

Shraff, maybe you haven't noticed how many posts I responded to in that thread.The evo doesn't have to answer to anyone. It's 1 on the crowd for the creo, and the crowd on the 1 for the evo. So surely you can see that I cannot respond to every whim in the evo machine?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.

That's your strawman version of my argument.My position is [A]. That only humans have artificially created morphological traits they haven't got(physical attributes).. And THAT is how we are uniquely different. I argue our ability.Your position is [B] - as quoted above.Refuting argument [B] doesn't refute argument [A].I have told you many times what my argument means. It is nothing to do with technology making us different. To continue to strawman when I have clarified my specific position (message #23) precedingly in this very thread is to be dishonest. If a dozen or or more people read your posts and all don't nominate you for POTM, then perhaps you should consider it is the content of your posts.If a dozen or more people are nazi murderers and you aren not, then does that make them right and you wrong?If Einstein's theories were ignored, does that make him wrong and a group of synergetic cohorts correct?Infact, you are arguing quantitively here, which is a big no no remember.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-25-2005 11:20 AM

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.

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

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.