Creationists Will Destroy ATS

undo is female. gads these smilies are cute.

reepicheep said it best:

"you have no imagination."

abstract thought, doth flee from you with marked rapidity.
but i sense you're a kind hearted soul on a mission to
teach by example the foolheartiness of arguing the
indefensible (which oddly enough, seems to actually be
the entire point of jphish's discussion with you. odd that
you seem to be both arguing and not arguing that point.
ohmygosh,
YOU are schroedinger's cat! now that's pretty darn cool.)



[edit on 13-6-2008 by undo]

posting cause um, it didn't page over again. *grumbles* lookie up there. ^

[edit on 13-6-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
"you have no imagination."

Opinions and verisimilitude are amongst you, are they not?

The barmecidal of your textual effusions and inculcatory quotations prove none the more of what they had before. 0%. Insufficient and incomplete.

Do I have an imagination? Yes, it is directly a result of my 5 senses. I can not imagine the unknowable, and if you say that you can then you are fully deluded. The unknowable has no image and no knowledge of which to be known, only a single concept represented through a varying number of symbolic representations that describes what it eternally is not and can never be.

YOU are schroedinger's cat! now that's pretty darn cool.)

No, I am not Shroedinger's cat. Saying something is one thing, proving it is another. There is no proof that I am shroedinger's cat. I am in fact a Human being for starters. Shroedinger's cat never existed.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I refuse to even talk to him after he said he could create a new life form.

Some refer to it as synthetic biology, or synthetic life forms. In fact, there is much moral debate running on about it in the scientific world at this moment.

Synthetic DNA on the brink of creating new life forms

And that article is over 6 months old.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


Maybe you are in the day room at Bellevue right now for all we know...

Delusion:

a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual

Perfect description of you dude. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

see JPhishs' post of your quotes! Here

reply to post by Bigwhammy


No, sir. In fact the quotes posted by JPhish are not only not explained, they are nothing more than visual propaganda. And of course you fell for it, you're a sheeple. I'd like you to take those quotes that he posted and explain why they show me to be delusional. You simply can't.

Moving on: My post above this shows the creation of new life forms, there are many news articles about it. If, for instance after reading this information you still deny the fact that "new life forms" can be created, then you sir are truly delusional and schizophrenic.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I refuse to even talk to him after he said he could create a new life form.

Some refer to it as synthetic biology, or synthetic life forms. In fact, there is much moral debate running on about it in the scientific world at this moment.

Synthetic DNA on the brink of creating new life forms

And that article is over 6 months old.

Those aren't new life forms. we were talking about a dog anyway.

Nice attempt to cover yourself. You basically claim you are GOD dude, you think you are perfect... have no bias - never admit when you are wrong - everyone else is delusional. You can crate life. You are the universe- You're really an ill human being. I feel sorry for you. It's like picking on cripples to talk to you.

I am done with this conversation - I only stepped in because you are abusing others as usual.



[edit on 6/13/2008 by Bigwhammy]

It's okay, LastOut. I can't see you but I know you exist. So everything's gonna be okay, that is, unless you'd like to argue that you don't exist. I'd have to disagree with that position because I don't want you to not exist. Existing is good.

Also consider that your very real and - obvious to everyone but yourself- delusion is by its very nature - a delusion of your own POWER. That makes it impossible to demonstrate it to you. DUH - if you were capable of seeing it you would not be delusional. You need a professional.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Nice attempt to cover yourself. You basically claim you are GOD dude, you think you are perfect... have no bias - never admit when you are wrong - everyone else is delusional. You can crate life. You are the universe- You're really an ill human being. I feel sorry for you. It's like picking on cripples to talk to you.

I disprove God, how can I think that I am God when I don't believe in such an entity Are you following the past 6 pages on this thread? When I am wrong, I admit it. It rarely happens, so? You make it that way for me, you don't do research and you don't read articles that I post for you to read.

I am done with this conversation - I only stepped in because you are abusing others as usual.

Prove and show where the abuse has taken place.

As I said, you're delusional. Go back and read the definition.

It has been 50 years since scientists first created DNA in a test tube, stitching ordinary chemical ingredients together to make life's most extraordinary molecule. Until recently, however, even the most sophisticated laboratories could make only small snippets of DNA -- an extra gene or two to be inserted into corn plants, for example, to help the plants ward off insects or tolerate drought.

Now researchers are poised to cross a dramatic barrier: the creation of life forms driven by completely artificial DNA.

Scientists in Maryland have already built the world's first entirely handcrafted chromosome -- a large looping strand of DNA made from scratch in a laboratory, containing all the instructions a microbe needs to live and reproduce.

Emphasis added by myself. I figured you'd just pass it up again and start whiningly yapping about how ignorant you are.

You failed to even read the article and are already making assumptions about what it says based on your ignorance.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Also consider that your very real and - obvious to everyone but yourself- delusion is by its very nature - a delusion of your own POWER.

Excuse me, just what are you saying? Again, any proof? My power is certainly not a delusion, until you can prove it is. All you do is set yourself up for failure everytime you debate with me because you try to make it a battle, I don't lose battles, however, I love debating facts and progressive ideas.

That makes it impossible to demonstrate it to you. DUH - if you were capable of seeing it you would not be delusional. You need a professional.

Did you just make any sense?

[edit on 13-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

i think whammy was finishing the thought i started in my post, that i know you exist even though i can't see you.

LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

FINAL POST : thanks for proving it once and for all.

Here's the proof. You claimed you could create an animal NOW. Literally you said "I can create an animal"


that article says things like "poised too" not that they have created life - its a pipe dream . A whole team of experts working years has assembled one single chromosome. WHO are YOU supposed to be you can do better than all of them huh?

You claimed you could do it now and not a chromosome an entire new species of animal no less. That is text book "delusons of grandeur"

Noun 1. delusions of grandeur - a delusion (common in paranoia) that you are much greater and more powerful and influential than you really are
delusion, psychotic belief - (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
megalomania - a psychological state characterized by delusions of grandeur

It makes sense to sane people dude. People that are delusional by definition cant see their own delusion remember that later when it come to a head one day - we tried to tell you.



Say anything you want I'm not reading this anymore. You've drug me down to your level enough. BYE

[edit on 6/13/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
FINAL POST : thanks for proving it once and for all.

I'm about to show you how you've proven that you are delusional and schizophrenic, or at least a very poor debater with a short memory and a wild imagination having nothing to do with facts.

Here's the proof. You claimed you could create an animal NOW. Literally you said "I can create an animal"

Actually, here's what I said:

Originally posted by LastOurfiniteVoiceEternal
We're all human and we're all sentient and able to create technology.

The universe creates life through evolution. The universe IS alive. I, in turn, being a sentient being am able to harness and understand the ways of the universe, and in effect understand how to create life. You can also do these things. It is not limited to myself.

We were having a discussion about my dog inheriting my moral values and somehow he wanted to turn me into God and make me defend the fact that I created my dog's teeth and breed, (You just tried to turn me into God again here)

Yes, I can create life, I plan on having a few children myself.

If you are capable of following a conversation or going back to read our posts, you would recognize that I stated that my dog has the morality that I endow it with, at which point you grotesquely twisted this into me biologically structuring my dog. Read on.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Yes, sir. Dogs have the morality that I endow them with.

My dog is a direct result of me and what I have taught it or failed to teach it.

My dog has as much morality as I do and is as much of an effect of its environment as I am.

We were discussing my dog's morality.

Originally posted by LastOurfiniteVoiceEternal

Darwin is a fool. Every animal including Humans rely solely on instinctual survival techniques within and sometimes without a society and civilization of entities and its structure. My dog has as much morality as I do and is as much of an effect of its environment as I am.
You replied with:

You started off with using an excerpt from Darwin, I contested this excerpt.

Originally posted by BigWhammy

Ok, You designed his teeth to bite through meat? You engineered his bones so he could run well?

You then assumingly question me about and jumped to the conclusion that since I teach my dog how to behave that I designed its tetth and engineered its bones.

Originally posted by LastOurfiniteVoiceEternal

You're having trouble following the convo again. We were talking about morality. Not my dog's biological evolution.

I replied with the same content as above, as I also am doing now.

Originally posted by LastOurfiniteVoiceEternal

Sure, I could create an animal. It's scientifically feasible. Catch up man, it's the 21st century. The evolution of the planet Earth and the species of dog along with other un-named and currently unknown events caused my dog to be the way that it is.

I then made this statement. Which is true. Synthetic DNA. I COULD create an animal and it is scientifically feasible. As for my dog's biology, the last sentence explains that I currently do not know how to create a dog.

that article says things like "poised too" not that they have created life - its a pipe dream. A whole team of experts working years has assembled one single chromosome. WHO are YOU supposed to be you can do better than all of them huh?

I don't recall saying that I could do better then all of them. Is this your schizophrenia?

You claimed you could do it now and not a chromosome an entire new species of animal no less. That is text book "delusons of grandeur"

No where did I say "now". Delusion anyone? You can't just make stuff up and then use it as an argument when I can go back and copy all of my texts and reveal it to you that you are wrong. You're making this very simple for me.

It makes sense to sane people dude. People that are delusional by definition cant see their own delusion

remember that later when it come to a head one day - we tried to tell you.

Tried to tell me what I didn't say, yeah, I'll never forget that Sure seems like you don't see your own delusion... over... and over... and over.. and over... again. So, I guess it's true.

Say anything you want I'm not reading this anymore. You've drug me down to your level enough. BYE

Where you going? You dug yourself a hole, got buried and left? Typical.

Here's our discussion for anyone that wants to read it and his false claims.

Starting on page 11 is where it all starts to take place.

Page 11: Why are Athiests...Athiest?

Maybe you should read it too, so you can freshen up.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

I do what I can to avoid any post regarding creationism vs evolution or religion vs atheism, the reason is that both sides of the issue will never come to an agreement, so it's something that can thread on indefinitely. Just a waste of time, really.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Fisking whammy

Well done. The sort of poor intellectual argument you were exposed to is part of the problem that astyanax is highlighting here.

The saying goes something like - the lies are halfway round the world by time truth has got it flip-flops on.

Problem is, only some of us even bother to keep flip-flops in our 'deny ignorance' backpacks. Kudos

[edit on 13-6-2008 by melatonin]

Sloppy, sloppy

Originally posted by undo

Schroedinger's Cat.
In the experiment, the investigator (read scientist), must have faith that the cat is indeed in the box, BECAUSE, if he opens the box and observes the cat, it dies and the experiment is a failure and nothing has been proven. so for the experiment to work and the science proven, faith in the cat's existence must be maintained without seeing it.

Undo, undo!

Wherever did you get this idea?

Opening the box will not affect the cat one way or the other. The mechanism that kills the cat has nothing to do with whether the box is opened or kept closed.

You open the box to discover whether the cat is dead or not.

Besides, what the experiment illustrates does not depend on whether or not the cat lives or dies.

You have got this all wrong.

Before the observer opens the box, the cat's fate is tied to the wave function of the atom, which is itself in a superposition of decayed and undecayed states. Thus, said Schroedinger, the cat must itself be in a superposition of dead and alive states before the observer opens the box, ``observes'' the cat, and ``collapses'' it's wave function.

Originally posted by laiguana
I do what I can to avoid any post regarding creationism vs evolution or religion vs atheism, the reason is that both sides of the issue will never come to an agreement, so it's something that can thread on indefinitely. Just a waste of time, really.

Well, it's pulling me out of my BTS points hole.

Just trying to look on the bright side here.

reply to post by Astyanax


So you're telling me that everything she conveyed about Shrodinger's Cat wasn't even accurate? No way! Go figure...

Anyway, I still kicked a field goal through every goal post that she moved and disproved every argument that she attempted to construct.

*Sigh* There's always a positive side to this though.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Nah, you see, that's the thing, people focus on the cat.

If you open the box at exactly the half-life moment, for example, the probability of the cat being alive or dead is exactly fifty-fifty. But of course the only truly half-dead cats are metaphorical ones, so when you open the box Tabitha either leaps out looking for a catnip mouse...

...or has gone to her eternal reward.

That's the point. The 'collapse of the probability wave function.' Opening the box will result in the cat either being alive or dead to the guy who opened the box. To the cat, it's a different story.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Astyanax]