Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

mike the wiz

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    4,357
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    329

mike the wiz last won the day on March 21

mike the wiz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,210 Excellent

2 Followers

About mike the wiz

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    mikey mischief.

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    36
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    Christian
  • What is your Worldview?
    Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    England

Recent Profile Visitors

2,635 profile views
  1. mike the wiz

    Morality Under God Or Atheism

    I believe this is wrong. It follows that we can use reductio-ad-absurdum to prove logically we are more than animals. It is also logically ABSURD to believe the atheist claim is EQUAL. It would be equal if humans were just the same as animals so let's do a TEST. The very fact we ask it proves we are more than animals, and the very fact we can write the question down on computers proves we are more than animals. "IF we are just animals, then we can be compared to any other animal and you will basically see the same things." (reductio) EXAMPLES: 1. We take a cat species. We compare it to all four legged organisms, and basically we just observe the SAME animal activities. There are some different behaviours but it's all the same, "animal survival" type thing. Basically we can take any other species of cat and compare it to other cats and ultimately you see the same results. 2. We take an ape. We compare it to all other arboreal organisms, monkeys and apes. It basically behaves as the same apes, basically we see some minor differences but it's just animal survival. If we instead of the chimp take an orangutan, we will still basically see the same result if we replace any species of ape with our test subject. This simply can't be done with a human, you couldn't replace a chimp with an oranguatan and then replace that with a human because you wouldn't get the same result with humans. The differences in terms of music, maths, art, science, logic, spirituality, written language, aren't really comparable, but with the chimp you can compare anything it does with the orangutan. CONCLUSION: Deductive reason shows that humans clearly are not on the same level. There is something fundamentally different, we are sentient personas. No other animal is a sentient persona, you couldn't replace us with another ape and get the same results but you get the same results for all apes. You get the same results for all cats, all dogs, all bears, etc, etc....... Technically you could argue, "this may simply be what you get with an incredibly advanced animal", but the term, "advanced" would just be an epithet, because according to evolution everything is advanced, there is no reason to believe only one species would be advanced to such an extremely different level on all levels unless we are made in God's image. The bible says we would be basically in charge of the planet, that was a prediction for the human kind, which is true, and it is not true of any animals. There isn't even a close runner up.
  2. mike the wiz

    Morality Under God Or Atheism

    With a dog that won't take a steak, it doesn't do that for moral reasons comparable to humans anyway which would be an example of inferring anthropomorphism based on denying the antecedent. Like when my animal-obsessed sister thought a duck was hugging a human being but I noted it was actually taking the position which offered the most relaxation of it's muscles in all likelihood. So attributing the actions of animals because of rudimentary similarities, to humans is naive. Also formally speaking your example would be this; - If a dog will just take food off a plate it's because it doesn't have human understanding/morality. (my argument, which is a truism, IMHO) - A dog didn't just take food off of a plate therefore it does have human understanding/morality. (FALLACIOUS) So you IMPLY the denial of the antecedent as having veracity. That's wrong because while animal-actions do show why they are not humans, actions that SEEM similar to human actions don't allow for the conclusion that it's because they're equivalent to humans. Conclusion: There is no comparison where on the whole an animal can NOT be shown to be on the same level as a human. It's not the individual things as such in isolation but all of them together; spirituality, music, art, science, logic, mathematics, a persona, language. (disclaimer; for example I am not saying with, "language", that animals can't communicate, but comparing their communication with written language would be again fallacious because the example is not truly equal in sophistication and counts as a fallacy of false equivalence.) It goes without saying humans stand out as different in THE LEVEL we are at, because we are the only ones on that level.
  3. mike the wiz

    Morality Under God Or Atheism

    I believe this is a deliberate breaking of rule 13 and nothing more than an attempt to "carry on" the fighting when the dust has long settled. You saw what I said to Perpetual Student, that you were one I mentioned that was "mature" enough to take your slap on the wrist and modify behaviour within rules and carry on. I included you in that because of my dumb, "be the bigger person" attitude, and I was willing to leave that whole situation alone at that point since people had went on with discussing the tread. But now you have carried this on like a dog with a bone even though it is now long dead. Nobody "shot down" my, "criticism" of you the person obeyed my private request of him. YOU DID personally attack people which is why several people reported your posts. . Even after no official warnings against you which was basically UNFAIR LENIENCY in your favour, because you are a long-term member, and even after me walking away from this by not even continuing to argue despite your fallacy of false equivalence with the personal attack on me of, "hypocrite", you still push and push and push and push and push for a fight. You now have an official warning for PERSISTING, in an UNPROVOKED way, to push for a fight with the moderators. TIME TO FINALLY JUST LET GO OF IT AND GO BACK TO JUST DEBATING THE TOPICS WITHIN THE RULES. No more comments on my actions as moderator, break rule 13 again and I take it to Fred.
  4. But it wouldn't be right if What-If didn't have some alternative theory of his own. The two dates giving 9/11 depending upon which way around you do it are 9 of November or 11th of September. Isn't that simply 1 in 365/2 = 1 in 182.5 Hardly comes across as a lottery win. I call it a mild coincidence. (people see 666 all the time, but they don't tend to notice 333, 444, 555, 777, etc..) But it could have been an easy way for the terrorists to simply know their target date given 911 would be called on that day because of their act, I suppose.
  5. mike the wiz

    Morality Under God Or Atheism

    Because God is righteous, they're good because God's nature is good and right, always. By definition. I think you're complicating it though. We innately know because we are made in God's image, why something is right and good. So then that we have the knowledge implies they exist. Everyone passed my earlier test, even people in prison would pass my test. But why is that if morality is not there? Let's think, humans know things animals don't, and morality is one of them, yet people say, "it's relative", but we wouldn't say maths or logic or science is relative. I favour this implication; If God did not exist, we wouldn't be aware of morality like this (everyone knowing my test answers) But we do know it, therefore God does exist. It's something that fits with being made in God's image. The knowledge of good and evil (moral/immorality), existed with God before anything immoral every happened. So then if God does not exist we would expect to be the same as all the other animals. A dog won't stop to ask permission to take a steak off your plate. Nor will a cat. Neither are they on a laptop. Sure, they don't have fingers but there is no capacity within them either to ever understand these things. Well, they come from God's perfect nature but the point in my post was to DISSUADE those potential atheistic-style comebacks with a ho, ho, don't you know, Horatio, wash and go. (You should know by now the toad seldom misunderstands)
  6. mike the wiz

    Morality Under God Or Atheism

    Amen. However I would ADD friend, that we don't do it for the reward. But because it pleases God, as we have His spirit and so righteous acts are naturally pleasing to those who share in the "new nature". It's the fruit of the spirit isn't it KB? Whereby those natural things from God flow from the heart in those who truly believe; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc....the love of God being the chief of the fruits IMHO. I say this because it seems easy to anticipate that Goku would counter by saying, "but if you're doing it for a reward, we do things because they are right, not for a reward". That is a popular atheist comeback because of their ignorance about our motives when we refer to "rewards". But I think you refer more to the wisdom of reaping what you sew. Sewing to the flesh reaps a mess, sewing to the spirit leads to peace and blessing. Not that the natural and true morality that comes from God is done for a reward because so many times in tithes and offerings for example I have given when I have little and it almost makes me sigh to go the extra mile, and I done it not thinking I would be rewarded but very quickly God gave me back much more. That's happened so many times now that only idiots or fools would believe it coincidence. I'm sure you could say the same KB. And of course we do the right thing merely BECAUSE it is right and good. (the blue highlight is me anticipating and blocking Goku's chess moves.)
  7. mike the wiz

    Morality Under God Or Atheism

    The following are disallowed Ruke 13.Complaining about board moderation. You have also just attacked the person yet again right after a moderator asked you to stop doing it by FALSELY asserting what my motives are. I believe this is a deliberate attempt to go against my request. You now have 2 official warnings, strike 3 and you're out. (So now the readers/members know that if your next post is not a post that is to do with the topic but again is something about the person or me, then you have deliberately chosen to disobey despite two warnings.) In other words, it's totally within your own power as to whether you are banned, since you have the option to obey and simply discuss the topic like everyone else is. It should be noted, IndyDave, Wibble, Goku and Blitzking have all been warned but were mature enough to comply, and no action was taken against them.
  8. It's epistemic humility to not answer a question if you're worried you don't know enough about the issue so that if you prematurely agree, without knowing the person has simplified the issue, then you've just accused/judged someone based on faulty premises. Like the bible says, at first it seems the person you hear is right............until you hear the other side of the issue. (paraphrase) You may be right, but unless I know all of the information I know that I have failed enough riddles because I jumped to a conclusion BECAUSE I didn't consider all the data. I am even MORE cautious if it involves seemingly judging someone over serious issues and we both know that although it's hypothetical, it's really to ask me to judge Piasan. Strictly hypothetically I would agree it seems if those reasons you give are true, the person doesn't care. However unless the actual person is going to come out and address that issue the fact they may have reasons that don't agree with your portrayal of the issue and the fact their reasons may possibly be sound objections means I withhold judgement because I haven't heard their side of the story. As for, "filibuster" I am not sure I understood your point. Are you saying I am saying something negative about another country or are you saying I am obfuscating the issue or did you mean something else?
  9. mike the wiz

    Morality Under God Or Atheism

    Moderator Comment: No more of this please. (You have been issued a warning you only seem to come to these forums to troll Christians, as your last few posts in the last day or so have been aimed AT THEM or their motives with no actual discussion content in your posts.) Please start discussing the topics not the person/s.
  10. mike the wiz

    Morality Under God Or Atheism

    Yes it would be better if Goku could have worded that differently. Sometimes, "Yahweh" can be regarded as the name of God, I am not totally sure if it is the unutterable name but obviously the Lord is precious to those who believe in Him. I appreciate the humour part, "big kahuna" was funny but, "hits the gym harder than most" really tickled me, because how can God hit the gym? I admit the humour was very funny grade A mischief from Goku and I know Goku was really mocking the reasoning of, "might=correct", so I don't think he intended to mock the Lord by saying it but it would be better if you could phrase it hypothetically, Goku. Sometimes it can be easy to forget that although we don't wear hats on our heads as Christians or turbans or any outward sign, we can be overlooked and disrespected more. Goodness knows how much the politicans kiss the arse of Muslims for example, and walk on egg shells around them. Yet people even use the name, "Jesus Christ" as a curse, and if you complain they'd probably just get aggressive with you and start cursing you out. But if someone wearing a turban came into your house or whatever, would anyone say, "Allah's beard" or anything like that? No, but they'd walk on eggshells.
  11. That's a better way of doing it Dave, by making it hypothetical so good job on that. WOW, on that highlighted part though.(serious stuff) The only thing I can really say is I am too ignorant about how politics works in the USA. This is this is why I stay out of politics, because unless I can vote for Jesus Christ as president it would seem pretty well formed babies are going to die either way. It's the worlds way or His way, I have to dichotomize the two therefore both the democrat and the republican would stand for the world unless they fully stand for Jesus Christ. So it sort of seems like a matter of, "the lesser evil" by voting for the option to not go with the democrat. The world wants what the world wants, and the flesh wants what it wants and because it is OUTSIDE of God's will it will get what it wants. The world will carry on in sin. But also I would have to ask; why do people vote for democrats? I have no idea, but then I don't have much of an idea about republicans either. I see it this way; the world is the flesh's mess, let them answer for it/sort it out. The last time I voted was for Tony Blair in the late 1990s, then he went to war and I felt guilty for voting for him as I am not convinced the Iraq war was just. From then on I wised up and realised I would only vote for Jesus Christ. I like the saying, "Christ, not man, is king." (Just my personal beliefs/opinions. I ramble on but basically I don't really have a qualified opinion perhaps BK can answer on that one) Piasan, explain yourself young man!
  12. mike the wiz

    My I.D Syllogism

    Yes but you've brought, "science" into it to allude to a false dichotomy that you stand for science and I don't. Ironically it is actually proper science that has shown abiogenesis cannot be anything other than false. There are chicken and egg scenarios in the cell that cannot be reduced. There is no, "science" to which you can appeal, but instead you appeal to the future fallacy and call the lack of any facts, "science" by saying, "science cannot do that mike!" Do what? Tell us that there is no science to abiogenesis so instead we should wait for the, "problem" to be solved? No, I think I will go with what the science facts actually show; 1. Biogenesis. 2. As much evidence primordial form exist as there is for spaghetti monsters. 3. No evidence there was any primordial swamp. 4. The blatant intelligent design proven in organisms by the science of anatomy, biology and chemistry. THAT is the science for all those things can be scientifically shown, and abiogenesis can't, so just declaring your side "science", when you have no science, seems to me like your side is simply believing there is science to something there isn't. That's how DUMB scientists are these days, that they actually represent the belief position AGAINST the scientific facts. And my argument was not to look at the absence of evidence for abiogenesis then declare, "God did it", that would be to put your own SPIN on it, nor did I request scientists use that argument. Our arguments for why God did do it are based on actual evidence from intelligent design, the evidence we know is proven to be expected from designers, so we don't argue from any gap. So the actual conclusion you were looking for was, "NOT abiogenesis". Meaning abiogenesis is false. THAT is my argument, I did not say I would infer from that absence, "God did it", I would infer abiogenesis is false. My arguments for why God did do it are not provable but would be evidence-based arguments from design. No but we can infer intelligent designers. The same with life, we can infer a designer. To make my case that God is the designer is obviously a separate argument but in informal discussions (which is what our discussion has pretty much been), obviously I will mention God. You use the words, "solution" and "problem" in regards to abiogenesis, like science has failed to uncover something. But if science has failed to uncover it, I am afraid "it" never existed because science has failed to uncover it. An absence of reasoning doesn't solve riddles, "What If", but what it can do is send you going around in circles. Those terms are LOADED epithets. There cannot be a "solution" to a "problem" which does not exist. For example I could replace the word, "abiogenesis" in your posts, with, "mechanical spaghetti monsters" and declare that, "science has failed to solve the problem of spaghetti monsters, it is science's fault as to why it can't solve the problem for us and allow us to finally shed light on their existence." THAT'S LITERALLY ALL YOU HAVE; A belief there is a thing called, "abiogenesis". There is good reason to think that the emergence of spaghetti monsters did not just involve an automatic arrival on the scene but a gradual emergence from a primordial setting. See, anyone can produce a "science-like" assertion. There was no, "emergence" of life on earth according to evolution and you have to believe evolution is true in order to grant the assumption. CONCLUSION: All you are doing is using certain loaded words. You basically TREAT these things as true by referring to them as though they are. Like with uncle Bob. Of course I have no uncle Bob but if I just talk like he exists that might fool stupid people into believing he does. Do you think you'll fool me? Conclusion: You still partake of this obtuse thinking that you can come to a creationist discussion forum and talk like we also take the evolutionary worldview for granted. You forget we take NONE OF IT as anything more than a story by atheists. Saying things to me like this assertion about the "emergence" of life is almost spoken as though you think you will get it past me. Seriously? Sorry friend but it's all philosophical evolutionary gibberish to me because you've been suckered in.(evolspeak is a popular name for it)
  13. It seems fairly innocuous in that generally on forums there is a banter of this type, it's when it grows and tempers get very hot that it tends to step up a notch I'd say. But it's interesting to see how quickly this thread has exploded. Reading it since my re-opener, it is almost like a crescendo-of-bitterness between you all that slowly ramps up as the posts go by. I know this is a very hot issue of course. Fred has also been messaging me and is aware of the issues. Best to keep it on simmer. As moderator I am also accountable to him so he has been advising me on my conduct. So bare in mind it isn't about me because I am also obeying Fred. Thanks.
  14. mike the wiz

    My I.D Syllogism

    Double standards? No you misunderstand. If there is evidence something is reasonably false and no evidence it is true, realistically we can falsify the notion. Yes, you can forever go with the technicality that we, "don't surely, absolutely know", but we don't surely, absolutely know that monkeys trained by men, built the pyramids. We don't absolutely surely know that there isn't a levitating mashed potato behind a rock somewhere in this universe. I am asking the intellectual question; "does that technicality really withhold falsification reasonably speaking? Does that technicality actually give me any reason to believe something reasonably false may be true?" I don't think it does. There is no way you could get something like a cell and there is no reason in nature for certain things to happen. (law of non-contradiction). Is it a matter of probability if I look on a trillion planets for where rock may have built a cathedral? No, because we innately know even if there are big numbers the real reason why some things don't happen is because they just contradict the nature of reality. Is there somewhere a chassis randomly built from naturally occurring metal with one thousand threaded holes all 4 X 20mm machined correctly for the bolts that are also fitted? Is that really a matter of numbers, would you really say, "given enough worlds and enough time it may happen". I don't think it is a matter of probability, I think it's simply that some things don't happen. As surely as Pamela Anderson will never knock on my door demanding to jump my bones the most intelligently designed things to ever exist will not arise because a pond farted.
  15. mike the wiz

    Morality Under God Or Atheism

    I deleted my post because since I've "stepped away" from the thread and am not reading the context as much as I therefore should it would be best not to comment or I may provoke, "angry Goku" and misapply something to him. Since I don't want to read through and catch up I'll step out now. (But yes, you slightly misunderstood by what I said about watching relative groups fight that their view is absolutely the correct one. The point is the power of their conviction stands as no basis for their, "moral" code, because being outraged and red in the face only affords someone an argument from outrage fallacy. But that is totally different for a Christian because the morality we expound is NOT coming from our emotions but from the word of God, and the God that makes not mistakes and is always morally right.)
×

Important Information

Our Terms