Remember Stevebee?

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#161  Postby Rumraket » Jul 24, 2010 4:14 pm

Then you make a lot of noise to cover the failure of your answers. You will never answer A. There isn't an answer.

Image
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13146
Age: 38

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#162  Postby stevebee92653 » Jul 24, 2010 6:23 pm

ADParker wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:
Pathetic?

Correct.

stevebee92653 wrote:How so? Y'ALL not only copy my vid over here,

"Y'ALL"?
Wasn't it you who so loved to take little digs if anyone of us talked about what "we" thought? Now you choose to blame all of us for something (perfectly legitimate) that just one person did? :roll:

stevebee92653 wrote:you copy stuff from my blog and bring it over here without permission.

No I didn't.
And it's fair use anyway.

stevebee92653 wrote:Do you block those that do?

No I don't.
1. It's not my forum, now is it?
2. There is no reason.

I see that you have selected another ridiculous little bone to gnaw at, rather than taking up any real issues.

stevebee92653 wrote:I actually could really care less.

It doesn't read like that at all. :lol:

stevebee92653 wrote:But your continual ragging on the original "copier" is laughable. Or, should I say, "pathetic".

I think you should say "imaginary", as in it is all in your own head.

And I never mentioned the guy, until you brought it up again.

stevebee92653 wrote: You are worried about his secret password, but not about spreading my personal information.

Not any more, his password is now defunct, as is the forum.
And what "personal information" stevebee92653? snippets of the stuff you have posted all over the internet? Come off it, this is just childish and you know it.

stevebee92653 wrote: I have posed qustions for you, and to get even a half of a semblence of an answer through all of the fog is not worth the effort.

What questions are you referring too?

stevebee92653 wrote:The problem with the spread of bio-systems is so easy to see, but you blind yourselves to it.

What are those problems stevebee92653? Not that I am expecting much from someone who so clearly demonstrates their ignorance of the science involved.

stevebee92653 wrote:Can't even one of your see the problem?

You mean based on your silly little "spoof"? Yes, of course, and it is an all too common problem; yet another wilfully ignorant apologist ranting and raving against something they do not understand.

stevebee92653 wrote: Why queston any more since 100% of you think 100% of the evidence proves 100% that evolution is the 100% answer to 100% of everything. And 100% ('scuse me, 99%) of all scientists think evolution is the 100% answer as well.

I have no idea what you are on about. Do you?


The challenge: the spread of bio systems from species to species. So clearly stated in my vid posted here. Should be a fairly straight forward and easy answer. It's certainly a huge subject, and evolution science should have the answer down pat, and long ago. This should be a piece of cake for you. You should be able to embrrass me and force me to take down my vid.

Your response: What are those problems Not that I am expecting much from someone who so clearly demonstrates their ignorance of the science involved.
Yes, of course, and it is an all too common problem; yet another wilfully ignorant apologist ranting and raving against something they do not understand. I have no idea what you are on about. Do you?
What questions are you referring too?
I see that you have selected another ridiculous little bone to gnaw at, rather than taking up any real issues.

The "real issue" is the spread of bio-systems from species to species. Ya know, the point in my TIC Inc. vid glued here on the first entry. Repeated often by me here. And completely ignored. With good reason.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

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

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#163  Postby stevebee92653 » Jul 24, 2010 6:37 pm

eddie.zdi wrote:Thank you Steve, but I hate to point out that you seem to accept that evolutionary biologists do attempt to disprove ToE, but they draw different conclusions this is in direct contradiction to what you said about no-one on this site attempt to disprove evolution. I gather that a few members do indeed engage in that type of work. I also hate to point out that if every other observer looks at something and draws one conclusion and you draw another there is a strong possibility that rather than a conspiracy, it's much more likely that you are wrong. Now seeing as the overwhelming of the educated, and non-indoctinated (i.e. those not being bullied into a worldview by fear of terrifying overlord) majority disagree with you, you have to entertain the possibilty that you are wrong. I also hold the view that I might be wrong and if some if the entire scientific community said that I was I would have to agree... hence the reason I stopped work on The Doomsday Device.


Science should never be done by majority vote and groupthink. If it was, we wouldn't have a Theory of Relativity, et al.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

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

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#164  Postby Rumraket » Jul 24, 2010 7:06 pm

Steve, you have yet to come up with anything even remotely close to falsifying evolution. All you have done is to assert into thin air, with no evidential support, that you are unable to understand how feature X could originate and evolve.
But Steve, the fact that you fail to muster the nessecery mental effort required to understand the evolutionary concepts is not sufficient reason to reject evolutionary theory.
You simply have nothing to offer, nothing of value. You can not refer to any facts that falsify evolution, no research, no laboratory experients, no real-word data. All you have are personal doubts and your ridiculous strawmen of evolutionary mechanics.

Additionally, I'd like to ask you if you understand the concept of an argument from ignorance? Because you constantly commit the fallacy. Constantly. Both here and on your blog, all you do is ask strawmen questions where you first paint a caricature picture of the theory of evolution whereafter you attack your strawman with gaps of knowledge, as if gaps in themselves were sufficient reason to reject the theory of evolution.
Furthermore, many of the supposed gaps you proclaim really aren't gaps at all, like the exampe of the origin and evolution of teeth quesion, answered in detail by Cali, so perfectly demonstrates.

I also notice you have failed to answer the question I asked in my previous post so I will take the liberty of quoting it here again for you :
creationism/remember-stevebee-t9281-100.html
Rumraket wrote:
OOPS. AS IS USUALLY THE CASE, YOU HAVE SUBSTITUTED MY CHALLENGE WITH SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SO YOU CAN ANSWER AND SATISFY YOURSELF. DOESN'T SATISFY ME, THE POSER OF THE CHALLENGE. NOT REMOTELY CLOSE. THEN YOU THROW IN EPITHETS AND RAG ON ME AS A WAY OF SUPPORTING EMPHAITCALLY YOUR NON-ANSWER. TRY READING THIS AGAIN. IT'S NOT TOO TOUGH.

Steve... please calm down with your entire-post capslock. It doesn't get your message across anymore efficiently at all and in fact it's tiresome reading something in all-caps.

Anyway, regarding your question:
"Non-occurring because mutations forming just the right healthy useful tissues in just the right amount, just the correct shape, just the correct location, and shutting off at just the correct time, have never been demonstrated." IF THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF EXAMPLES, YOU SHOULD AT LEAST CITE A COUPLE? HOW ABOUT NYLON EATING BACTERIA?

First of all, what's this thing about Nylon eating bacteria? You have a problem with that case somehow?

Second, it's a bit saddening to me when you ask the questions you do because it shows you're either completely oblivious to evolution or willfully dishonest.

Your question is a strawman claim. Evolution does not postulate that mutations suddenly spring into existence with all the bells and whistles for forming new and highly specialised complex tissues. Therefore claiming it has never been demonstrated is, while factually correct, completely irrelevant and unrelated to actual evolutionary postulates.
What you have just done is make a caricature of evolution and then attacked it with claims of it never having been demonstrated. This means you haven't actually attacked evolution at all, only your own useless strawman of it.

The problem with you erecting a claim like this and then coming here demanding answers is that we effectively have to re-educate you on basic evolutionary principles. And this is being mindful of the very real possiblity that you aren't interested in learning how evolution actually works, but only here to propagandise for a doctrine.

I can't be bothered giving you a full course in basic molecular evolutionary mechanisms, but I think I'll say this much : Evoluion works by modifying what is already there. Tissues don't magically spring into existence by some random, insanely potentiating miraculous accumulation of mutations. No, already existing tissues get modified over time, usually after geneduplication events or geneshufflings.
You know what this means, Stevebee?.. gene-duplications and geneshufflings, and how they are different from random point mutations? Do you understand the concept of genetic interactions making complex tissues, and gene duplications and shufflings providing a basis for the evolution of novel features on already existing tissue genes? Are you aware that geneshufflings and geneduplications and to a lesser extend frameshiftmutations are the most potentiating mechanisms in the evolution of novel features? If you don't understand how, please go read up on the subjects. I have given you several keywords to google. And no, the Templeton Foundation, Discovery Institute, Michael Behe, William Dembski or Ass-ertions-in-genesis are not authorities on evolutionary mechanics... actual evolutionary biologists are. Read real scientific litterature, not religios propaganda. The wikipedia articles are a good starting point.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13146
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#165  Postby stevebee92653 » Jul 24, 2010 7:17 pm

Cali
Thanks for all the hard work. Waste of your time. We did that already, and I analysed your papers on my blog. As I said, find out what the argument is with your opponent before going on full attack mode. Your "invisible magic man" is just an "Invisible magic strawman", used by you to make you look good in front of your peers here. Ditto your "Creationist" thing. I am not religious, and don't believe in a "magic man". Sorry. You might want to reload.
Re: "The authors of the Koussoulakou et al paper above don't seem puzzled about this. They admit that there are areas needing further research."
And they are not puzzled? "Furthere research" means they don't have the answer and they are "puzzled". Further, because people state something in a paper does not, in any way make those statements fact. They don't know. Believe it if you want, which you obviously want.

Cali, you make tons of noise, use demeaning dialogue, and overwhelm with your huge answers so you can cover your flaws and celebrate a great victory. Your flaws are far bigger than your huge answers.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

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

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#166  Postby Rumraket » Jul 24, 2010 7:33 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Cali
Thanks for all the hard work. Waste of your time. We did that already, and I analysed your papers on my blog. As I said, find out what the argument is with your opponent before going on full attack mode. Your "invisible magic man" is just an "Invisible magic strawman", used by you to make you look good in front of your peers here. Ditto your "Creationist" thing. I am not religious, and don't believe in a "magic man". Sorry. You might want to reload.
Re: "The authors of the Koussoulakou et al paper above don't seem puzzled about this. They admit that there are areas needing further research."
And they are not puzzled? "Furthere research" means they don't have the answer and they are "puzzled". Further, because people state something in a paper does not, in any way make those statements fact. They don't know. Believe it if you want, which you obviously want.

Cali, you make tons of noise, use demeaning dialogue, and overwhelm with your huge answers so you can cover your flaws and celebrate a great victory. Your flaws are far bigger than your huge answers.

Another post with nothing of substance. Tell me Steve, can you refer to anything other than arguments from ignorance?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13146
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#167  Postby Blitzkrebs » Jul 24, 2010 7:51 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Cali
Thanks for all the hard work. Waste of your time.


I think we agree for different reasons. :angel:
ikster7579 wrote:Being rational is just an excuse for not wanting to have faith.
User avatar
Blitzkrebs
 
Name: Roy
Posts: 392
Age: 30
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#168  Postby Varangian » Jul 24, 2010 9:06 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Cali, you make tons of noise, use demeaning dialogue, and overwhelm with your huge answers so you can cover your flaws and celebrate a great victory. Your flaws are far bigger than your huge answers.


Image

"Mr. Dunning? My name is Mr. Kruger."
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7293
Age: 54
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#169  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 24, 2010 9:24 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Cali
Thanks for all the hard work. Waste of your time.


It may have been wasted on you, but it wasn't wasted on people who paid attention in science class.

stevebee92653 wrote:We did that already, and I analysed your papers on my blog.


Your "analysis" consisting of nothing more than rectally extracted blind assertions that this paper has nothing to do with evolution. Despite the fact that the authors spend time explicitly discussing this in their paper. Congratulations upon demonstrating once again how ideological blinkers result in the wearer being blind to reality.

stevebee92653 wrote:As I said, find out what the argument is with your opponent before going on full attack mode. Your "invisible magic man" is just an "Invisible magic strawman", used by you to make you look good in front of your peers here. Ditto your "Creationist" thing. I am not religious, and don't believe in a "magic man". Sorry. You might want to reload.


You think that a magic "intelligence" is needed to produce the biosphere and its contents. Now if you happen not to subscribe to 3,000 year old mythology, what do you subscribe to with respect to this? How about providing some positive answers to this question? Precisely what form does this "magic intelligence" you think is needed take? If you happen not to subscribe to the view that a supernatural entity is required, then the only alternative is a natural entity, which merely pushes the problem back one step, as Richard Dawkins has succinctly noted, because we then have to ask how that natural entity came into being. Ultimately, you are left with two choices: blind assertions about an invisible magic man, of the sort that religionists all over the world erect, or testable natural processes, and you keep dismissing one empirically verified testable natural process because you've decided for ideological reasons that it can't do the job, ignoring of course the vast amount of scientific evidence to the effect that it can do the job, of which the papers I've bitchslapped you is only a tiny part. So, if you don't subscribe to the view that a supernatural entity is needed, then you're left with testable natural processes, and since you continually reject the one evidentially supported testable natural process that the world's most eminent scientists all accept, the onus is on you to tell us what alternative you have in mind. Care to tell us what that alternative is, what empirical verification you have to support this process, and what testable mechanisms underpin this process? Because without these, you have nothing.

Oh, and I'm reminded of the old quote about things that walk like a member of the Family Anatidae, swim like a member of the Family Anatidae, and quack like a member of the Family Anatidae being bona fide members thereof. Given that you erect all of the tiresome (and frequently, duplicitous) assertions and discoursive elisions to be found in the creationist playbook, until you answer the questions posed above, we have no reason to conclude that you are NOT a creationist, given that you espouse the same ideas about the biosphere, and engage in the same condescending dismissal of valid scientific evidence when that evidence fails to genuflect before your presuppositions. So, given that I and several others here have gone to the trouble of providing substance in response to your rectally extracted blind assertions and cheap ad hominems, how about you putting up or shutting up, to borrow the familiar colloquialism?

stevebee92653 wrote:Re: "The authors of the Koussoulakou et al paper above don't seem puzzled about this. They admit that there are areas needing further research."
And they are not puzzled? "Furthere research" means they don't have the answer and they are "puzzled".


Congratulations on trying to quote mine the paper, and my post. Admitting that there are further areas for research doesn't mean that they are completely ignorant. Instead, they are aware what questions need to be answered, and have probably embarked upon the empirical research to answer at least some of those questions since the publication of that paper. This is what scientists do for a living, in case you hadn't received the memo. Given that they already possess a relevant repository of knowledge courtesy of the empirical work they have discussed in that paper, and can also draw upon the knowledge obtained by the authors of the papers they cite in their references (including reference 106, which explicitly discusses the methods for cultivating teeth in tissue culture and growing them from scratch therein), they almost certainly have more insight into the way forward toward answering the outstanding questions than you will ever show signs of possessing. Your response has been throughout to parrot the blind assertion "these people have no answer", when it is manifestly obvious to anyone with a minimum of ten functioning brain cells reading those papers that they do have answers, and lots of them, whilst peppering your assertion-laden posts liberally with snark of a particularly infantile variety. So if you wish to taken slightly more seriously than you are being at the moment, I suggest you start providing some substance to match what has been presented to you to date, assuming of course that you are capable of this. I have yet to see evidence that you are capable, given the aforementioned nature of the content of your posts.

stevebee92653 wrote:Further, because people state something in a paper does not, in any way make those statements fact. They don't know. Believe it if you want, which you obviously want.


What part of "here are the experiments, here are the results", do you not understand?

When scientists are able to manipulate experimentally in the laboratory the development of teeth, are able to grow teeth from scratch in tissue culture, and are able to point to a vast swathe of experimental results illuminating the underlying genetics controlling tooth development, I suggest that they know a hell of a lot more than you give them credit for. Speaking of which, have YOU performed any actual empirical research with respect to this? Have YOU any published papers in the field illuminating this area of knowledge? Or are your snide, condescending dismissals nothing more than a case of intellectual penis envy, because these people have been able to achieve more than you will ever be able to hope to?

stevebee92653 wrote:Cali, you make tons of noise, use demeaning dialogue


Projection on a grand scale. Your posts are nothing BUT "tons of noise" and "demeaning dialogue". On the other hand, I have presented valid scientific research that illuminates our understanding of the requisite processes. Over at RDF I bitchslapped you with something like 11 scientific papers on tooth morphogenesis, that you were unaware of the existence of before I carpet bombed you with them. Indeed, you had never even heard of people such as John Sutherland or Despina Koussoulakou before I presented the papers, people who are performing cutting edge research in their laboratories whilst you are standing on the sidelines throwing snarky discoursive marshmallows at their work.

stevebee92653 wrote:and overwhelm with your huge answers so you can cover your flaws and celebrate a great victory.


Translation: "I can't be bothered understanding the actual hard science, so I'll sit back and erect more vacuous rectally extracted blind assertions about it, and continue throwing cheap ad hominems into the ring".

stevebee92653 wrote:Your flaws are far bigger than your huge answers.


:lol: :rofl: :dielaughing:

Your posts are nothing BUT flaws. You manifestly don't understand elementary facts about evolution that some of us here mastered in primary school, you manifestly know nothing of the actual hard empirical research being conducted in your own purported specialist field, and you have nothing but rectally extracted blind assertions, bluster and ad hominems to offer. How many scientific papers have you presented thus far in the various pretences at discourse you've launched into? Oh, that's right, ZERO. Because that's the sum total of your substantive knowledge with respect to the real research. If you had any substantive knowledge with respect to this, you would have presented relevant scientific papers backing your assertions, but since there are none, all you're left with is petulant foot stomping, temper tantrums and playground abuse.

Come back when you have some substance to offer in your posts instead of hot air and snark.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

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

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#170  Postby Shrunk » Jul 25, 2010 1:08 am

stevebee92653 wrote: The challenge: the spread of bio systems from species to species. So clearly stated in my vid posted here. Should be a fairly straight forward and easy answer. It's certainly a huge subject, and evolution science should have the answer down pat, and long ago. This should be a piece of cake for you. You should be able to embrrass me and force me to take down my vid.


It should be a piece of cake, and is. It is a childishly simple "challenge", yet only you seem unable to solve it. As a result you are being embarassed, repeatedly, but fail to realize it. It comes back to that statement of yours I quoted here. You remain unable to understand that the question you keep posing about the "spread of bio systems" is the equivalent of asking "How is it possible for all my grandchildren to be born with complete 'biosystems' of hearts, lungs, eyes, livers, etc? These 'biosystems' would have to spread from grandchild to grandchild. How did they?"

I'm only belabouring this point for the benefit of other members who may be incredulous that someone could be unable to grasp such a simple concept. These members, as a result, may mistakenly believe that your error is regarding something more advanced or complex. It's not. It's really this simple, but I know you haven't the faintest idea what I'm talking about and it seems nothing I or anyone else will say will be able to correct your misunderstanding.
"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: Remember Stevebee?

#171  Postby ADParker » Jul 25, 2010 1:21 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
The challenge: the spread of bio systems from species to species. So clearly stated in my vid posted here. Should be a fairly straight forward and easy answer. It's certainly a huge subject, and evolution science should have the answer down pat, and long ago. This should be a piece of cake for you. You should be able to embrrass me and force me to take down my vid.

It's not a challenge in your video, you are making claims that the spread of certain features and traits (primarily organs and biological systems in your video) require the mating between distinct species. This is simply wrong.

The answer is indeed "fairly straight forward", and that answer is the basics of the theory of evolution itself. The passing on of traits (through that of genes of course) to successive generations, who themselves vary (mutate) further. Simply the change in allele frequency over time.

No, a human eye is not built up piece by piece over time, like some kitset model, but rather the structures involved vary from generation to generation, and the more viable variations live on to pass on those "successful" traits/features etc. to the subsequent generations. There can be, and often are, a number of different variations that may succeed in being passed on. Although at the point of the variation (the point of mutation from the parents) those variants will be OF THE SAME SPECIES (just as a couple can have a child who grows a bit taller than either of them, yet still be human,) over more and more generations it may come to pass that the two lines of variation may diverge enough that those descendants are different species to one another, as well as to their common ancestor.

No, they don't have to as you say, have just the right mutation, followed by just the right sequence of 'good' mutations' without the bad ones to undermine it. That involves you making the mistake of looking only at a single linear path (of parent to child to child...) looking back from a particular "result" (like the human eye) as if it was a directed planned path all along.
There are many mutations/variations in every generation (I have told you before for instance that it has been found that humans are conceived with an average of 128 mutations each, and develop a further 30 through their lifetimes) some few are deleterious and lead immediately or over a short number of generations to the end of the line (no more offspring in those directions.) the vast multitude of mutations/variations however are neutral or beneficial/good. Why lump these two together? Because those are the ones most likely to be passed on, and both can have a significant impact of the paths of the resulting generations.
For "Good" mutations this is obvious, of course.
"Neutral" ones however, not so obvious, but just as real. What they represent is that although there may be a whole bunch of practically identical organisms in a given species/genepool/group/herd...in fact, probably all of them have slightly differing genetic codes. Which while showing no difference "on the surface" (no differently shaped/sized hearts/eyes etc.) they can lead to different, even dramatically different, outcomes (variations) when they are themselves passed on and undergo further mutations.
...

{Sigh} This is all basic evolutionary biology stevebee92653, and that's the crux of the problem; you just don't get it, and show definite signs that you don't want to get it. Your so called "challenges" to evillusion are just that, a challenge to an illusion, one of your own making.
You may think you are saying "Here is a problem that evolutionary theory needs to explain" but in truth you are demonstrating how little you understand what the theory of evolution actually is. And no, not the more complex details either, but the basic concept itself. :nono:

stevebee92653 wrote:
The "real issue" is the spread of bio-systems from species to species. Ya know, the point in my TIC Inc. vid glued here on the first entry. Repeated often by me here. And completely ignored. With good reason.

Yes, with good reason. It's a display of a grossly distorted view of evolution.

The spread of "bio-systems" from species to species: Simply put. Organisms have offspring that vary (but are still of the same species) which then go on to produce offspring of their own, which also vary. Each and every generation produces variants of it's own species. But looking at the bigger picture, those variations build up such that a given generation differs so much from it's ancestors (a given number of generations back for example) to be best classified as a different species. Also their "cousins", those varying offspring that when through variations as well, but in different directions, also 'become' different species.
Even though at no time does one species give birth directly to another, nor does one species breed with another (that defies what "species" means!) the small changes lead to speciation between 'distant' relations.

More 'localised' demonstrations of this phenomenon are not hard to find. The Dog is a famous one (due to human driven rapid variation.) the building up of differing traits/features has led to a vast array of clearly distinct "types." All evidence (esp. genetic evidence) clearly showing all from a common wolf stock (that is; the common ancestor of all breeds of dog, from chihuahua to the Great Dane, as well as dingos and modern wolves, was a wolf.)
Image
But note the distinctive lines of variation from that common stock. For example some lines got smaller and smaller, others larger, short/long haired, short/long eared slender and fast/stocky and strong...
Then there are human families. Ever notice how some groups of a family (say the family/offspring of your great Uncle or something) may all share certain "family traits" that the rest of the wider family does not have (red hair, shorter stockier builds, manual dexterity, acute/poor eyesight)? Ever stop to think that over many generations, especially if they keep separate, that they could diverse even further still? Such as can be seen at a somewhat wider scale, with some distinctive "family traits and features" common in different 'races' around the world. The Japanese tend to share a number of commonalities, which they do not share with Scandinavians, who themselves share common traits unique to their "group" also...All due to variations from a common ancestral form our of Africa (who are different again you will notice) whose paths of variation differed in geologically separated groups...

Basic basic stuff stevebee92653.
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 47
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#172  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Jul 25, 2010 1:46 am

I'm just an onlooker in this thread and not familiar with this whole story, but Steve mentioned before he is "not religious". Can someone (maybe him), tell me what his religious views are then? This whole debate (if it can be called that :\ ) would make a lot more sense if i knew :D
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 26
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#173  Postby hotshoe » Jul 25, 2010 2:27 am

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:I'm just an onlooker in this thread and not familiar with this whole story, but Steve mentioned before he is "not religious". Can someone (maybe him), tell me what his religious views are then? This whole debate (if it can be called that :\ ) would make a lot more sense if i knew :D

Nope, it wouldn't make any more sense, sorry. Stevebee has stated that he doesn't believe in evolution, and he also stated he's not a creationist. Well, does that make any sense ? No, it doesn't. We're here - we have to have arrived here, one way or the other. Either we got here via evolution (more or less in accord with the standard theory of evolution, maybe with a few puzzles remaining to be solved) or we had to have been designed/created (more or less in accord with a typical "mighty god" explanation). Stevebee doesn't believe it has to be one or the other, and he doesn't have a third alternative, either. He doesn't have the answer and he admits he doesn't; he doesn't seem to want an answer; he apparently just wants to be known around the internet for his sarcastic jibes against scientists and "evilutionauts".

Great way to win friends and influence people !

In some ways I sympathize with people who are creationists - they're wrong, but at least they can be excused on the grounds of believing what they were told by their religious leaders. Stevebee, though :roll:
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#174  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Jul 25, 2010 2:57 am

hotshoe wrote:
Ihavenofingerprints wrote:I'm just an onlooker in this thread and not familiar with this whole story, but Steve mentioned before he is "not religious". Can someone (maybe him), tell me what his religious views are then? This whole debate (if it can be called that :\ ) would make a lot more sense if i knew :D

Nope, it wouldn't make any more sense, sorry. Stevebee has stated that he doesn't believe in evolution, and he also stated he's not a creationist. Well, does that make any sense ? No, it doesn't. We're here - we have to have arrived here, one way or the other. Either we got here via evolution (more or less in accord with the standard theory of evolution, maybe with a few puzzles remaining to be solved) or we had to have been designed/created (more or less in accord with a typical "mighty god" explanation). Stevebee doesn't believe it has to be one or the other, and he doesn't have a third alternative, either. He doesn't have the answer and he admits he doesn't; he doesn't seem to want an answer; he apparently just wants to be known around the internet for his sarcastic jibes against scientists and "evilutionauts".

Great way to win friends and influence people !

In some ways I sympathize with people who are creationists - they're wrong, but at least they can be excused on the grounds of believing what they were told by their religious leaders. Stevebee, though :roll:


Thanks for clearing it up. At least i can read these posts now not guessing what the hell he is defending other than his evolution claims.
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 26
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#175  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 25, 2010 3:31 am

I'd like to see some evidence that he even understands the basics of what evolutionary theory is actually based upon, and what its postulates actually are. Thus far, I see no evidence from his frankly lamentable posts that he does, and this is knowledge of this is as parlous as his knowledge of research being conducted in his own alleged field.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#176  Postby ADParker » Jul 25, 2010 4:46 am

Calilasseia wrote:Thus far, I see no evidence from his frankly lamentable posts that he does, and this is knowledge of this is as parlous as his knowledge of research being conducted in his own alleged field.

I would go further and say that we HAVE seen evidence that he does not. More than a failure to display understanding, but an actual display of a lack of understanding. ;)

So how about it stevebee92653, care to explain to us, without resorts to negative commentary (for starters, we can tackle them afterwards), just what you think the theory of evolution suggests/claims? In general terms will do.

For example, do you really think that the ToE suggests that different species can and do interbreed?
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 47
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#177  Postby scruffy » Jul 25, 2010 5:19 am

Rumraket wrote:
Then you make a lot of noise to cover the failure of your answers. You will never answer A. There isn't an answer.

Image


I'm going to save this image. It gave me a good laugh. :lol:
User avatar
scruffy
 
Name: Jared Clark
Posts: 361
Age: 29
Male

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

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#178  Postby scruffy » Jul 25, 2010 5:58 am

Shrunk wrote:It should be a piece of cake, and is. It is a childishly simple "challenge", yet only you seem unable to solve it. As a result you are being embarassed, repeatedly, but fail to realize it. It comes back to that statement of yours I quoted here. You remain unable to understand that the question you keep posing about the "spread of bio systems" is the equivalent of asking "How is it possible for all my grandchildren to be born with complete 'biosystems' of hearts, lungs, eyes, livers, etc? These 'biosystems' would have to spread from grandchild to grandchild. How did they?"


I've been observing this 'debate' and I see it as a nice little learning opportunity. What I've picked up is that Stevebee sees the evolution of complex 'bio-systems' as being a part of some infinite regress.

stevebee92653 wrote:Shrunk, use your head and figure it out. It’s just so tiring explaining over and over why this one fact is a D. evolution killer, when it’s simple common sense. Those hundreds of thousands of species that existed at the time of eye formation would all have to have been common ancestors for future generations, all with their own “branches”. And, for all of the species that have all of the nearly identical organs that they have today, they would all have had to evolve eyes, and kidneys, and livers, and multi-chambered hearts, and hearing systems, ………..and, all independently. Not one species would “know” what another was evolving. But they did it without a blueprint, in identical fashion. Now, for just a minute, get rid of your preconceived indoctrinated notions, and try to imagine and figure out how all of that could have evolved from random then selected genetic changes. Think. Pretend like some teacher is just now teaching you this stuff, and you are skeptical. You don’t accept it yet. Drop the evolution filter, and just think for yourself. And, if you can’t, any further discussion is really senseless.


It's almost as if he can't imagine a 'tree of life' in his mind, with his complex bio-systems slowly coming to fruition through common ancestry and descent with modification.
Life didn't just 'appear' out of nowhere and then start evolving. If it did, and then you might have a valid objection. Until then..
:picard:
User avatar
scruffy
 
Name: Jared Clark
Posts: 361
Age: 29
Male

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

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#179  Postby Varangian » Jul 25, 2010 6:57 am

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:I'm just an onlooker in this thread and not familiar with this whole story, but Steve mentioned before he is "not religious". Can someone (maybe him), tell me what his religious views are then? This whole debate (if it can be called that :\ ) would make a lot more sense if i knew :D


He must believe in stevelution, which is basically "we're here, and damned if I know how, but all those scientists agreeing must be a sign that they are wrong".
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7293
Age: 54
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#180  Postby GenesForLife » Jul 25, 2010 7:08 am

I'd suggest that Steve read The Regulatory Genome and Mol Bio 101 before spouting canards left, right and center.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
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