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

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 ?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

What's wrong with your stance? Well, I have personally explained to you why the way you're using 'theory' in this context is wrong. The theory of evolution is up there with cell theory and germ theory in biology.

there is nothing wrong with my stance on the acceptance of both... are you to judge now my personal belief on this too ? what... can I not coexist with the atheistic evolutionist ?

Evolution is just a small footnote, it does not even begin to address the bigger questions and mysteries that are still out there, I guess some just stop at all they can handle, where some keep on seeking knowledge...

Atheist's are just mean people I tell ya !

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


I'm here to announce the "I've had it with madness" challenge, whereby you can challenge me to a debate. We'll have a debate on more or less any topic you want in whatever format is suitable for the debate forum.

Any takers?

Sounds like fun.

In say... five steps, how would you go about engaging in world peace? What five methods would you employ to create a safer, more unified world. How would you deal with the various conflicts?

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
But just in case you are not, let me remind you of how I put you in your place...easily out debated you I might add.

That wasn't a debate. That was you making statements and insinuating that they somehow disproved evolutionary theory, and then the rest of us telling you how pointless your statements were and how they were pretty irrelevant.

Not to mention that you actually changed at least one of your statements. How consistent and honest.

edit on 30-1-2011 by PieKeeper because: (no reason given)

It shoudn't have been a debate - but because mims would not readily admit to the three statements truths - it ended up to be a very short debate. In the end, he did in fact admit to their truths - and the debate was over.

Now, for your second misguided point, I never changed one of my statements. Mims tried changing the meaning of the statement by saying we weren't talking about man creating life - when in fact we were. It was a blatant attempt of changing the meaning of my point when he realized he was losing the discussion.

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

BTW - I was not "insinuating that they somehow disproved evolutionary theory". Where did you fantasize that from? If you actually read the previous posts in this very thread or from the thread you are referring to, you will see my point of making those statements.

If you need me to re-state it again for the fourth time I will. But I'm hoping you have evolved to the point of comprehension.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


You know what, I wasn't going to post today, but seeing as this isn't going to take me more than 5 minutes out of my insanely busy day...


Your points were all irrelevant to the subjects of abiogenesis and evolution. I would be no more correct in saying "We've never created God in a lab" is an argument against intelligent design.

Your posts all relied on a non sequitur argument as you could derive nothing meaningful about abiogenesis or evolution from them. Just because you have true premises doesn't mean you have a true conclusion. Example:

Black holes have never been created by humans -> Therefore they don't exist.

And now to bugger off from ATS for the rest of the day.

You keep throwing around the germ theory like it's a fact.

It is obviosuly out of your field of study.

You really should not keep making comparisions between the germ theory and the theory of evolution. It hurts the theory of evolution.

As if they are both facts beyond question. Because I 100% guarantee, for a fact, that there are legions of doctors, entire cultures, around the world who more than take issue with the germ theory. From Dr. T.C. Fry to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

I'm not saying the deniars in the germ theory are correct. But I am saying that the theory itself is hardly regarded as 100% factual in all of it's aspects.

Don't have a conniption, it's just my opinion - but It seems to me that evolution is more accepted as a fact in biology than the germ theory is in medicine.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

You know what, I wasn't going to post today, but seeing as this isn't going to take me more than 5 minutes out of my insanely busy day...


Your points were all irrelevant to the subjects of abiogenesis and evolution. I would be no more correct in saying "We've never created God in a lab" is an argument against intelligent design.

Your posts all relied on a non sequitur argument as you could derive nothing meaningful about abiogenesis or evolution from them. Just because you have true premises doesn't mean you have a true conclusion. Example:

Black holes have never been created by humans -> Therefore they don't exist.

And now to bugger off from ATS for the rest of the day.

The point of man made abiognesis was to make it clear that it had not created life. So when you and yours throw the word around you can no longer imply that it had.

Also, without man made abiogenesis, it takes out one of the legs propping up the theory of evolution. Given that the theory of evolution is based on inherited traits.

It begs the question, no, that would be, it demands the question of where or how did the first generation come in to being - for which science does not have an answer.

So some here could derive something meaningful from my pointing out that abiognesis has not created life.

Now your bad example about black holes being a fact - wow - don't even get me started. But it sure does show how you throw around unproven theories as facts. Putting some more doubt on your other theories. You should stick with the theory of evolution and leave the others out of it. You actually make some good points in that theory.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

just about 95% of the humans on the planet believe in some form of a God in one way or another, on the other hand that nearly 95% seriously think the remaining minority suffer from some form of delusion.

And in ancient times the majority believed the world to be flat. It should be obvious why majority opinion isn't a good measure of whether something is correct or not

That's why scientists use scientific method, it's OBJECTIVE...

Don't get fooled into accepting his correlation between deism and the denial of evolution.

I grew up in an indigent family, and lived in many different communities. Most people back then would call themselves believers of one kind or another, but creationism was unheard of. Religious leaders of all varieties accepted that science was finding answers to physical existence, and where science and the bible were at loggerheads, then the bible stories were legends.

In recent years a few American-style sects have come out here and convinced some idiots to deny evolution, but such denial is still a rarity outside America.

So even if half of all Americans believe in creationism, that's about half the world's creationists in total.
it doesn't take much math from there to deduce creationists make up ~ 5% of the world's population.

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.

Look everybody. It's a fact that the phenomenon of evolution exists. This is undeniable. Theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the phenomenon. There's no debate what so ever whether evolution exists or not. It exists. It's a fact.

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"

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Look everybody. It's a fact that the phenomenon of evolution exists. This is undeniable. Theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the phenomenon. There's no debate what so ever whether evolution exists or not. It exists. It's a fact.

Quite right... the atheistic evolutionist in this section are looking for only one thing which is to find a denier of the theory. I tell them to write Kent Hovind a letter...

Evolution fails to answer the "why am I here" question and hardly even addresses it, it is just a footnote at best and a little clue to add to the all encompassing "why" of it all.

reply to post by Kailassa


and to add Kaila, I realize now I may not be such a good debater... but I am learning as I go, I like to watch this particular debate coming up so I may learn from it, for I do like to think and learn and observe alot, it makes me who I am and part of the human race.

my mind does not stop in one particular place, I have to understand multiple view points on many given subjects, I like to know others reasoning behind their train of thought.

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?

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Evolution fails to answer the "why am I here" question and hardly even addresses it, it is just a footnote at best and a little clue to add to the all encompassing "why" of it all.

I'm assuming you're asking in terms of purpose or meaning, rather than "Why were humans the result of millions of years of evolution?" Evolutionary Theory was never meant to answer "why am I here" in terms of purpose or meaning, it only explains the process of evolution, which is why it is called the Theory of Evolution and not the Theory of Why Am I Here. It's not supposed to answer that question, it was never meant to, and it can't because that's not what it's for. The expectation that Evolutionary Theory is supposed to answer "why am I hear" in this context is completely unrealistic.

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Evolution fails to answer the "why am I here" question and hardly even addresses it, it is just a footnote at best and a little clue to add to the all encompassing "why" of it all.

I'm assuming you're asking in terms of purpose or meaning, rather than "Why were humans the result of millions of years of evolution?" Evolutionary Theory was never meant to answer "why am I here" in terms of purpose or meaning, it only explains the process of evolution, which is why it is called the Theory of Evolution and not the Theory of Why Am I Here. It's not supposed to answer that question, it was never meant to, and it can't because that's not what it's for.

wow I just don't know what o say to that... tell that to the Atheists over in the Religion and Theology section

The expectation that Evolutionary Theory is supposed to answer "why am I hear" in this context is completely unrealistic.

thank you... I must point out to you that there are devout atheists who would rather use the theory of evolution as a tool, seemingly trying to erase the "why of it all" question with the theory of evolution as the answer.

Evolution is cool man, it's just boring as hell if you ask me.

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.

If you want to debate me, take a spot in line right behind SkyFloating, and I'll debate with you.

As I told you before: come up with a topic, come up with a time, and don't back out.

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.

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.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Its boring that nature without any supernatural contrivances can stimulate such genetic diversity as to produce traits ranging from the macabre canabalism of a praying mantis to the composing of Rachmaninoff's Concerto no 3, all as a consequence of sex, parasites, and gene replication?

I suppose its more exciting to just say "god did it."

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

Because I 100% guarantee, for a fact, that there are legions of doctors, entire cultures, around the world who more than take issue with the germ theory. From Dr. T.C. Fry to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

T. C. Fry was never a doctor. His formal education finished when he was eight years old and he never practised any form of medicine.

Please show evidence the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons takes issue with germ theory.

Or how about evidence of a whole culture which currently takes issue with germ theory?

I'm not saying the deniars in the germ theory are correct. But I am saying that the theory itself is hardly regarded as 100% factual in all of it's aspects.

Bacteria have been observed mutating. Colonies of bacteria and viruses have been observed evolving.
The development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria is such a serious issue these days, thanks to the liberal use of antibiotics in raising livestock and doctors zealously over-prescribing, that no intelligent, educated person will deny the ability of bacteria to evolve. Even creationists admit to it; they just get around the "evolution" word by calling it adaptation instead.

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.