The "I've had it with madness" Challenge!

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

oh we can debate the numbers again till we (or atleast you) are blue in the face...
cumon already I just want to see this debate happen, why wait a week ?

You were promising to Debate Madness yourself.
Whyever did you not take up his offer to a formal, adjudicated debate within the forum constructed for that specific purpose?

I'm sure the opportunity is still open if you want to make good your word.

oh I made good my word, MIMS backed out...

I posted the evidence of this and a snippet from a conversation from a moderator and was banned for telling and showing the truth (with dates and times I might add) there is no debating MIMS, you are simply wrong and he is right "I pray for the children"

It's interesting to see you prove you are prepared to post bare-faced lies.

I followed the thread where you bragged about your willingness to debate Madness and them squirmed like a frightened worm, evading all attempts to arrange a debate with you.

What do you hope to gain by your lies, personal insults, ignorance of logic, denial of science, and trite prayer "for the children?"

Was the latter an attempt to salve you conscience after lying about Madness?

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Now, for your second misguided point, I never changed one of my statements.

So please do not accuse me of being dishonest when in fact you are being totally dishonest right now.

Alright, so this didn't happen then:

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
FACT #1: Abiogenesis or biopoesis has never created life.

Later changed to:

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
FACT#1 Scientists have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis.

What were you saying again?

Sorry that I have to quote myself (too long ago to edit now), but after reading over the transition between your two versions of the statement, I discovered that your change was actually a larger offense than I initially thought. Here we go:

This is what TheWill had to say in regard to your first version of statement #1.

Originally posted by TheWill
If you had written:

"FACT#1 Scientists have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis"

Then you would have had a fact. All the evidence that you have suggested would support this statement.

Instead of admitting that you were indeed wrong in the wording of your statement, you ridiculed TheWill (as you have every other member) and claimed that you were actually right all along (omitting the instances of ridicule):

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
-omitted-
Thanks for finally admitting I was right.
-omitted-
From now on, I will word the statement exactly as you have written it. Just to avoid this type of confusion in the future.
-omitted-
I'm pretty sure you knew that too, but that's fine. I'll accept your admission that science has not created life.

The two versions of your statement are completely different, but instead of acknowledging this, you turn it into a sort of joke and play it off by ridiculing TheWill. Through the rest of the thread you repeatedly present this statement as if it was your position all along, and in the end you claim victory. In reality, it was TheWill who takes credit for your first statement, not you.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Thank you.

Thank you for admitting that my first fact is indeed correct. It took you forever to admit it. But I'm glad to see you're man enough to admit it when you are wrong.

Refresher course, here's my first fact:

FACT#1 Scientists have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis.

This is dishonest and inconsistent.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Kailassa
If you believe the old Hygienist ideas promoted by Fry are a counter to germ theory, you're mistaken. Any doctor knows that healthy people are less vulnerable to pathogens and unhealthy people are more vulnerable.

Look Kailassa, I'm sure your pretty ok in some areas. But trust me, you have zero knowledge in this area.

Let me set you 100% competely straight.

I own T. C. Fry and Dr. Shelton's original books.

Which were given to me by my grandfather who knew them and had gotten them directly from them.

I've studied and read them my entire life. Along with hundreds, if not thousands of other books on the subject.

You have no idea of what you are talking about, other than what you have read on the internet.

Let me say it so even you can understand it: You are 100% wrong.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

And another ridiculous post to reply to:

Man made abiogenesis is out of the scope of discussion. We're talking about natural abiogenesis and natural evolution. Natural, as in a process that occurs without human intervention. And abiogenesis would have taken place billions of years prior to the existence of humanity.

Another thing, evolution is not founded upon abiogenesis in any way. I just have to point that out because there's a whole thread that's based around that false assumption and nobody has found a way to make a logical connection. Inherited traits would exist whether the cause of life was artificial, natural, or supernatural.

As for germ theory and black holes not being considered fact...they are. We got the whole 'germ theory' thing ages ago and black holes were confirmed either in or a bit before my lifetime. Hawking even made a famous bet in which he lost (he bet against the existence of black holes) and had to pay up with a year's subscription to Hustler.

So you really want to go there again? About abiogensis? Do you? Because I will copy and paste the entire other thread here if you want me to.

Your ignorance is showing regarding black holes and the germ theory. But keep on exposing yourself. It's really funny to look at.

And it really weakens your stance on the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Now, for your second misguided point, I never changed one of my statements.

So please do not accuse me of being dishonest when in fact you are being totally dishonest right now.

Alright, so this didn't happen then:

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
FACT #1: Abiogenesis or biopoesis has never created life.

Later changed to:

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
FACT#1 Scientists have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis.

What were you saying again?

Sorry that I have to quote myself (too long ago to edit now), but after reading over the transition between your two versions of the statement, I discovered that your change was actually a larger offense than I initially thought. Here we go:

This is what TheWill had to say in regard to your first version of statement #1.

Originally posted by TheWill
If you had written:

"FACT#1 Scientists have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis"

Then you would have had a fact. All the evidence that you have suggested would support this statement.

Instead of admitting that you were indeed wrong in the wording of your statement, you ridiculed TheWill (as you have every other member) and claimed that you were actually right all along (omitting the instances of ridicule):

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
-omitted-
Thanks for finally admitting I was right.
-omitted-
From now on, I will word the statement exactly as you have written it. Just to avoid this type of confusion in the future.
-omitted-
I'm pretty sure you knew that too, but that's fine. I'll accept your admission that science has not created life.

The two versions of your statement are completely different, but instead of acknowledging this, you turn it into a sort of joke and play it off by ridiculing TheWill. Through the rest of the thread you repeatedly present this statement as if it was your position all along, and in the end you claim victory. In reality, it was TheWill who takes credit for your first statement, not you.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Thank you.

Thank you for admitting that my first fact is indeed correct. It took you forever to admit it. But I'm glad to see you're man enough to admit it when you are wrong.

Refresher course, here's my first fact:

FACT#1 Scientists have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis.

This is dishonest and inconsistent.

This member can say I'm being dishonest and I get my response pulled?

Nice.

This place is too much.

A man can't even defend himself here.

Wow.

pie called me dishonest. I proved he was lying. But I am definitely not calling him a liar and the king of it. I would never do that again. Because he is definitely an honest, truthful person.

Here's my three facts in their entirety - let me quote myself:

"FACT #1: Abiogenesis or biopoesis has never created life.

FACT #2: The theory of evolution does not try and explain how life began.

FACT# 3: No science at all has ever created life."

Everyone on that thread knew what we were discussing. I will repost the entire thread here if you would like.

Does this clear it up for you pie?

In the future please don't try and misquote me again ok?

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


You own T.C.Fry's books and have studied them all your life, yet you referred to him as Dr T.C.Fry?
Obviously either you don't know him so well or you were intentionally attempting to deceive.

Your presumptuous attempt at "argument from authority" is a load of crap. I've studied the hygienists myself, and had no need of the internet to know about T.C.Fry. The poor man died in extremely poor health, manifesting the symptoms of self-induced kwashiorkor, a deficiency disease rarely seen outside third world countries.

Hygienism no more disproves the existence, role and evolution of bacteria than it disproves the black holes you seem so keen on questioning. If you want to disprove this, feel free to go ahead, but no more, "I've read lots of books and know more than you," crap. That's not argument; that's evasion.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
pie called me dishonest. I proved he was lying. But I am definitely not calling him a liar and the king of it. I would never do that again. Because he is definitely an honest, truthful person.

You proved nothing, you rambled and insulted me as always (I had the pleasure of seeing the entire post before it was removed). I have shown exactly what I have claimed.

Also, we aren't incapable of detecting sarcasm.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Here's my three facts in their entirety - let me quote myself:

"FACT #1: Abiogenesis or biopoesis has never created life.

You've now reverted back to the original format of the first statement, shown not to be a "fact" by TheWill and as a result changed, as I've illustrated in my previous post. This is not the statement that you present in your later postings in the thread of interest.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
In the future please don't try and misquote me again ok?

All of my quotes are direct quotations. I have explained any deviations from the original quotes that were necessary (like the omission of insults.)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Not devoting more than a few minutes to this obvious lie.

Dammit, Cosmic, we've been over this. I wanted to debate you, you're the one that refused. You were banned for violating the T&C because you posted the contents of a u2u, which is something you're just not supposed to do.

which lie... the one you are still perpetuating ? I offered you debate and the topic of your choosing, how long did it take you to reply ? I will tell you and everyone here the truth yet again... the truth which I sacrificed my freedom to post here for, I posted the truths to a lie then the whole topic which you made in the rant section disappeared.

And you are right currently, I have no need to debate you any longer... there are plenty of posters beating the dead horse for me

Honesty is not always rewarded but I just had to post the truth, I know you understand

Through the Wormhole: Is There a Creator ?
Narrated by Morgan Freeman on the Science Channel



There are no absolutes. Science has already proven this.

Lots of finite thinking though, which is the opposite of wisdom.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Dammit, why must I waste more time while I'm busy! (oh, the reason we're waiting a week is because I end my exam period in a week)

I've yet to see anyone who accepts the fact of evolution state that we can derive a meaning of life from it. Please provide evidence of anyone in the religion forum stating that.

oh yes the master word twister hard at work... I only stated it was being used as a tool by certain Atheists to discredit Theist and Creationism in general.

remember my topic about "Crusading in the name of Darwin" in which I stated bluntly that the theory of Evolution was being used as a weapon by a certain group professing themselves as Atheists...

reply to post by Regenmacher


cool, thanks poster... this video looks and sounds very interesting.

I never seen it before ! which surprises me

reply to post by Regenmacher


I've seen the episode, it has nothing to do with biological Evolution and focuses primarily on philosophical speculation on the subject of a Creator for the entire Universe. Even if the Universe had a Creator it wouldn't change what we know about Evolution.

Science has proved there are no absolutes? So the Earth isn't absolutely revolving around the sun? I'm sorry but there are some things we do know about the Universe, merely because you think we can't be absolutely certain is no reason to stop looking for answers and finding the most reliable method available to us.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
So you really want to go there again? About abiogensis? Do you? Because I will copy and paste the entire other thread here if you want me to.

So you can repeat the same non-sequitur arguments that you changed mid-thread? I'm sorry, but how do you get from "abiogenesis has never been duplicated by scientists" to "abiogenesis never happened"? Where is the logical flink?

Your ignorance is showing regarding black holes and the germ theory.

No, I'm quite knowledgeable on both...well, for a lay person.

But keep on exposing yourself. It's really funny to look at.

No, I'm not exposing any ignorance...what's sort of funny is how you're throwing out unsupported accusations.

And it really weakens your stance on the theory of evolution.

Incorrect. Not just incorrect, illogical. I could be wrong about everything else as a matter of fact and you could still not claim that it weakens my stance of evolution.

If you want to get in on this, please just have a formal debate with me. After Sky and I are finished, and possibly after Cosmic as well if he truly wishes to debate me, I will debate you.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Prove it.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Not devoting more than a few minutes to this obvious lie.

Dammit, Cosmic, we've been over this. I wanted to debate you, you're the one that refused. You were banned for violating the T&C because you posted the contents of a u2u, which is something you're just not supposed to do.

which lie... the one you are still perpetuating ? I offered you debate and the topic of your choosing, how long did it take you to reply ?

You mean how long did it take me to go out of my way in a busy period of time and respond to a post on ATS? I'm sorry, but I didn't even long on to ATS between when you posted and when I replied. My life doesn't revolve around ATS and if it did it would still not revolve around your requests.

I will tell you and everyone here the truth yet again... the truth which I sacrificed my freedom to post here for, I posted the truths to a lie then the whole topic which you made in the rant section disappeared.

Martyr complex much? The topic disappeared at the behest of the mods, not of my own choosing. Trust me, I would have preferred it stayed.

If I truly backed out of the debate why am I still offering you a debate? Why am I going to debate a super mod starting at the end of the week?

And you are right currently, I have no need to debate you any longer... there are plenty of posters beating the dead horse for me

I've yet to be stumped or debunked by a user yet...though I may be. Who knows? Sky might present compelling arguments.

Honesty is not always rewarded but I just had to post the truth, I know you understand

I'm sorry, but you lie.

As I've stated repeatedly and publicly, I will debate you on the subjects we have discussed. I also repeatedly accepted your challenges publicly, got into contact with a moderator to help facilitate a debate, and was entirely prepared to go ahead.

You, on the other hand, backed out privately, and then accused me of stalking you for my polite requests that we salvage the debate.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Hey, you reverted back to the original form! I'm sorry, but can you prove that abiogenesis has never created life?

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Dammit, why must I waste more time while I'm busy! (oh, the reason we're waiting a week is because I end my exam period in a week)

I've yet to see anyone who accepts the fact of evolution state that we can derive a meaning of life from it. Please provide evidence of anyone in the religion forum stating that.

oh yes the master word twister hard at work...

Ad hominem attack.

I only stated it was being used as a tool by certain Atheists to discredit Theist and Creationism in general.

Creationism is self discrediting. Theism and evolution are compatible. I've stated the latter too many times for me to count.

remember my topic about "Crusading in the name of Darwin" in which I stated bluntly that the theory of Evolution was being used as a weapon by a certain group professing themselves as Atheists...

...and never backed it up with any facts. You can state things bluntly all you want, but I'm adding that as the 20th entry on my 'lists of questions that Cosmic.Artifact has not yet answered"

Question 20: Where is the evidence of Evolution being used as a weapon?

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Through the Wormhole: Is There a Creator ?
Narrated by Morgan Freeman on the Science Channel

you know I really appreciated you posting this, I have watched most of the series last night, although I have to say I liked episode 2 about the "black-holes" much better... episode 1 had some good points to make yes because there are so many different theories.

I would like to point out a couple of things I have noticed about the first 3 parts of episode 1. First off I noticed that the surfer-physicist said that all things in the known universe can be explained using mathematics, what I would like to see is the "math" behind love and hate or fear/security, sadness/joy, ect, I would really love to see the math that makes that all work.

secondly I noticed the part with the god-helmet the scientist was stimulating the right hemisphere... this is only the latest attempt to suppress left-handedness

another thing I noticed which was kinda weird by my train of though was near the end of the the third part of episode 1 where the computer programmer commented how "our future selves becoming gods" and he found it quite spiritual... that was just freaky to me, heh!

none the less it is a good series, I am going to hunt it down to add to my collection of documentaries and watch a little more of it tonight.

thanks again...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
mathematical models on human/animal emotions, behavior, and states of being do exist, and they have existed for almost 100 years now once R.A. Fisher put some of his ideas down on paper.

Within the last 40 years or so the official models are all variants of what is called "reciprocal altruism" which typically come in 4 subtypes:

Assertion of dominance
Kin Selection
I scratch your back, you scratch mine
Advertising of good genes (promoting your ability to fight of parasites)

I suggest you read Maynard-Smith, Trivers, Hamilton, WIlliams, Haldane, amongst others, and of course Fisher