Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#61  Postby Bolero » Aug 26, 2010 10:59 pm

Ooh, I've missed about a page and a half of collective heads beating against the wall. What a shame.

stevebee: It's really unclear to me what you actually think/believe. You claim to be in favour of something you term "good science", but I see no evidence of what this is. Is it a methodology, or a set of principles, or a holy book? Your video is just a set of empty accusations. What exactly is it you're trying to achieve here?
"You live with apes, man: it's hard to be clean." Marilyn Manson
User avatar
Bolero
 
Posts: 1534
Age: 41
Female

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#62  Postby CADman2300 » Aug 27, 2010 2:30 am

Bolero wrote:Ooh, I've missed about a page and a half of collective heads beating against the wall. What a shame.

stevebee: It's really unclear to me what you actually think/believe. You claim to be in favour of something you term "good science", but I see no evidence of what this is. Is it a methodology, or a set of principles, or a holy book? Your video is just a set of empty accusations. What exactly is it you're trying to achieve here?

I don't think he's really trying to achieve anything. He's failed an infinite number of times to convince anyone on this forum that he even knows what he's talking about, much less why he thinks allele frequency change over successive generations somehow qualifies as bad science.
His constant refusal to change his debate style seems to be the only thing about him that's consistent and it limits him quite a bit. The good folks here point out all his fallacies and he never addresses a single one of them. It's every bit as frustrating as when Richard Dawkins had his interview with Wendy Wright.
User avatar
CADman2300
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 485

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#63  Postby mark1961 » Aug 27, 2010 5:07 am

He's probably quite good verbally. However reading his words takes away their thunderous music. It allows the reader to go away, make a cup of tea and come up with a whole host of "why didn't I say thats" which you can't do when you're face to face. What concerns me is he seems to lack some very basic critical thinking skills. If he does acquire them (which is an easy process) it might make him more formidable or it might "backfire" and actually make him think about what he writes.
User avatar
mark1961
 
Posts: 957
Age: 57
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#64  Postby GenesForLife » Aug 27, 2010 5:40 am

Cali, even if I've already done some research and have some conference paper presentations and a recent paper to PLoS which they wanted me to back up with an in-vivo study (to back my in-silico sequence analysis and oligonucleotide design work) before they'd recommend publication, I'm not tenured yet, reason being I'm only 21 and a fresh graduate. :)

I will be undertaking postgraduate studies in Cancer Biology at UCL starting this September subject to visa clearance, though.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#65  Postby natselrox » Aug 27, 2010 5:42 am

GenesForLife wrote:Cali, even if I've already done some research and have some conference paper presentations and a recent paper to PLoS which they wanted me to back up with an in-vivo study (to back my in-silico sequence analysis and oligonucleotide design work) before they'd recommend publication, I'm not tenured yet, reason being I'm only 21 and a fresh graduate. :)

I will be undertaking postgraduate studies in Cancer Biology at UCL starting this September subject to visa clearance, though.


You're awesome, mate! Carry on the good work!

:thumbup:
When in perplexity, read on.

"A system that values obedience over curiosity isn’t education and it definitely isn’t science"
User avatar
natselrox
 
Posts: 10037
Age: 107
Male

India (in)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#66  Postby halucigenia » Aug 27, 2010 6:41 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:the the organs we see in modern day living organisms developed incrementally from simpler antecedent versions.

This is nothing but dogma, and has never been observed. It’s made up stuff.
argumentum ad ignorantiam - because it's never been observed it must be false eh? Never mind that all the evidence points towards this - common ancestry (and I know that you say this does not cut it but you have never explained why) as being the correct explanation.
Also please note my use of nested quotes - it makes reading the posts much easier.
User avatar
halucigenia
 
Posts: 1224

Print view this post

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#67  Postby redwhine » Aug 27, 2010 10:06 am

stevebee92653 wrote: >snip<

If these organisms “survive quite happily” then why did species go to the unimaginable lengths to invent, design, assemble, sustain bio-systems and organs through evolutionary processes?

Design plays no part in the evolutionary process. :crazy: :nono:

stevebee92653 wrote: Also, why didn’t your “simpler” species living today evolve a full set of organs in the 500 million year time span they had to do it?

Some did, and became more "complex" species. Do you know anything at all about the theory of evolution?

stevebee92653 wrote: Oh, I forgot. They were happy...

Anthropomorphisation. It's not clever. It's not relevant. It's not applicable.

stevebee92653 wrote: ...and didn’t NEED to. Right?

RIGHT!

You got something right! :dance:
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 7815
Age: 66
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#68  Postby redwhine » Aug 27, 2010 10:13 am

stevebee92653 wrote: GenesForLife: You are just relaying dogma. Sounds real pretty. Something as simplistic as selected mutations could not have formed all of nature. On the “simplicity” thing you are right.

You got something else right. Careful; it might become a habit.

'All of nature' includes mountains and valleys. They weren't formed by selected (...nor random...) mutations. They were formed due to differential erosion caused by forces 'of nature'.
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 7815
Age: 66
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#69  Postby Shrunk » Aug 27, 2010 10:54 am

stevebee92653 wrote: [1] WE have evidence that characteristics are inherited. This is established fact.
(Who is WE?)


I would assume "we" included you. Or are you doubting the theory of genetics, now, as well?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#70  Postby Animavore » Aug 27, 2010 11:08 am

Comic gold.

:popcorn:
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42806
Age: 40
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#71  Postby Shrunk » Aug 27, 2010 3:19 pm

halucigenia wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:the the organs we see in modern day living organisms developed incrementally from simpler antecedent versions.

This is nothing but dogma, and has never been observed. It’s made up stuff.
argumentum ad ignorantiam - because it's never been observed it must be false eh? Never mind that all the evidence points towards this - common ancestry (and I know that you say this does not cut it but you have never explained why) as being the correct explanation.


According to Steve, the theory of plate tectonics must also be a "lie", since no one has observed the process of a single "supercontinent" breaking up into the present smaller continents.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#72  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 27, 2010 3:38 pm

Oh no, not the retarded "you haven't seen it, therefore it never happened" creationist bullshit, which is one of the most retarded pieces of bullshit in the creationist cesspit of bullshit.

:picard:

We don't need to see something in order to know that it happened. All that we need is for the event in question to leave sufficiently persistent physical evidence behind it.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22002
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#73  Postby Rumraket » Aug 27, 2010 4:10 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Oh no, not the retarded "you haven't seen it, therefore it never happened" creationist bullshit, which is one of the most retarded pieces of bullshit in the creationist cesspit of bullshit.

:picard:

We don't need to see something in order to know that it happened. All that we need is for the event in question to leave sufficiently persistent physical evidence behind it.

He's not just arguing against evolution when he pushes that horseshit, he's arguing against the entirety of the forensic sciences and many other related scientific fields like geology etc.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13139
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#74  Postby halucigenia » Aug 27, 2010 4:59 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Oh no, not the retarded "you haven't seen it, therefore it never happened" creationist bullshit, which is one of the most retarded pieces of bullshit in the creationist cesspit of bullshit.

:picard:

We don't need to see something in order to know that it happened. All that we need is for the event in question to leave sufficiently persistent physical evidence behind it.

Quite, why is it that every time I hear this type of argument I hear a childlike chanting voice in my head repeating the phrase "how do you know, you weren't there"
User avatar
halucigenia
 
Posts: 1224

Print view this post

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#75  Postby stevebee92653 » Aug 27, 2010 8:36 pm

I am sure you guys can rag on me just fine without my presence.
You win on sheer volume. Cali's thousands of peer reviewed papers, and his evolving goldfish did the trick.
I have officially been debunked, as the thread name implies.
Funny that none of you were able to address the original vid on ISP.
I understand fully though. It's not answerable, so you HAVE TO rag on and on as a good cover-up. It's NOT your fault. Don't blame yourselves! It's the fault of your fake science, and that is what you need to blame. So, carry on, study hard. Keep up the good work.
Adios
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#76  Postby DaveD » Aug 27, 2010 8:40 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:
Adios

Au revoir, surely. :whistle:
Image
User avatar
DaveD
 
Name: Dave Davis
Posts: 3022
Age: 61
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#77  Postby Religion? » Aug 27, 2010 8:57 pm

genesforlife

"Secondly, a gratuitous level of imperviousness to evidence and a wall of incredulity as thick as pigshit needs chipping away in the same way a hypodermic needle is required for introducing medicines into and through the skin. "

I was reduced to tears by this comment. I've just recovered, but thanks for that brilliant analogy.
Last edited by Religion? on Aug 27, 2010 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To most Christians, the bible is like a software license. Nobody actually reads it, they just scroll to the bottom and click 'I agree'.

"Forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today." - Lawrence Krauss
User avatar
Religion?
 
Posts: 283
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#78  Postby Religion? » Aug 27, 2010 9:11 pm

Oh and well done (genesforlife) putting together a brilliant argument for someone so young in their years. You're well under half my age and I wish I had your intelligence and turn of phrase. You'll do well. Good luck on the placement.
To most Christians, the bible is like a software license. Nobody actually reads it, they just scroll to the bottom and click 'I agree'.

"Forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today." - Lawrence Krauss
User avatar
Religion?
 
Posts: 283
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#79  Postby Rumraket » Aug 27, 2010 10:12 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:I am sure you guys can rag on me just fine without my presence.

What a fatuous comment. Are we supposed to respond only when you have the "Online" tag showing?

stevebee92653 wrote:You win on sheer volume.

No, we win entirely on the basis that observational reality supports our position.

stevebee92653 wrote:Cali's thousands of peer reviewed papers, and his evolving goldfish did the trick.
I have officially been debunked, as the thread name implies.

One of a very few true statements coming from you.

stevebee92653 wrote:Funny that none of you were able to address the original vid on ISP.

Funny that you are intentionally, dishonestly ignorant of the fact that the entirety of all the bullshit you have ever peddled has been rigorously refuted in multiple places on the internet. One needs only look through the various comments on that pile of shit you call your blog for evidence of this.

stevebee92653 wrote:I understand fully though. It's not answerable,

It's not answerable? Not even are you falsely and dishonestly claiming we don't have an answer for your utterly faecid questions, you are now claiming that no answers even exist or are possible. How's that for supposedly being "skeptic"?

stevebee92653 wrote:so you HAVE TO rag on and on as a good cover-up.

Martyr syndrome : Check.

stevebee92653 wrote:It's NOT your fault. Don't blame yourselves! It's the fault of your fake science, and that is what you need to blame.

Oh look, it's the "wrong/fake/broken science"-creationist canard again.

Yes, that fake science which has and still is continously producing advancements in technology and medicine at scales unimaginable to bronze-age goatherding nomads. Strange how that works, isn't it?

Strange how something supposedly build on falsehoods(in the minds of the supernaturalists), so consistently yields extremely useful real-world results and advancements in our understanding of every aspect of nature. I'm sorry but I have never heard of any other example in the history of humanity where endeavours undertaken on false premises so consistently produced useful results.

stevebee92653 wrote:So, carry on, study hard.

You should take your own advice sometime.

stevebee92653 wrote:Keep up the good work.

Thanks, we will.

stevebee92653 wrote:Adios

Farvel.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13139
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video

#80  Postby mark1961 » Aug 28, 2010 5:18 am

stevebee92653 wrote:I am sure you guys can rag on me just fine without my presence.
You win on sheer volume. Cali's thousands of peer reviewed papers, and his evolving goldfish did the trick.
I have officially been debunked, as the thread name implies.
Funny that none of you were able to address the original vid on ISP.
I understand fully though. It's not answerable, so you HAVE TO rag on and on as a good cover-up. It's NOT your fault. Don't blame yourselves! It's the fault of your fake science, and that is what you need to blame. So, carry on, study hard. Keep up the good work.
Adios


Does the format or timing of an argument actually change it's meaning. Not as such but as I said before this method gives people time to think about what's said and listen to other's responses as well. Which is the real reason why you failed.

TTFN :)
User avatar
mark1961
 
Posts: 957
Age: 57
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest