Remember Stevebee?

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#261  Postby scruffy » Jul 28, 2010 9:20 pm

eddie.zdi wrote:I have a question about Steve that I don't think anyone has asked yet... given that he was once
an evolutionaut, and an enthusiastic one at that
can anyone dig up a single piece of evidence of his torrid past of acknowledging reality?


I was thinking this same thing when I first had a look through his site. I've stopped caring since then. Any grasp he may think he had on reality, couldn't have really been a grasp on at all. For example:

SteveBee: I picked up one of my texts on the subject, and turned to a page that showed how early primates and man have the same lower first molar configuration with five cusps. Apes have four. Supposedly this showed that man is evolutionarily related those five cusped early primates. That ONE FACT satisfied me. It convinced me that evolution was the way EVERYTHING happened. That littlest of crumbs convinced me that natural selection et al formed all of nature. Astounding. How could I possibly been so fooled? Why was I so gullible. I was!


If that truly was all he needed to see in order to be convinced of ToE, then I think that speaks more to his intelligence and critical thinking skills than anything else. :roll:

(Taken from http://evillusion.wordpress.com/why-i-say-you-are-indoctrinated/. Bold is mine.)

EDIT: Removed violation. :oops:
Last edited by scruffy on Jul 29, 2010 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
scruffy
 
Name: Jared Clark
Posts: 361
Age: 29
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#262  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 28, 2010 10:52 pm

Oh, and apropos to my earlier post about his not answering my question as to what he actually believes and thus allowing us to determine precisely the nature of his failure of acceptance of valid science, I've just posted this in the "design assertionist" thread, which explains why the "design" assertion is problematic even if Stevebee happens to think that some natural entity was his "designer", and of course stuffs it regally to supernatural magic entities. ;)
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?

#263  Postby Lazar » Jul 29, 2010 6:50 am


!
MODNOTE
Jaredennisclark your quote below constitutes a clear personal attack (see bold). You may robustly attack a post but not the person themselves. This is an advisory rather than a warning, however, further personalization of the discussion may result in moderator action.

jaredennisclark wrote:
I was thinking this same thing when I first had a look through his site. I've stopped caring since then. Any grasp he may think he had on reality, couldn't have really been a grasp on at all. He's obviously lacking something 'upstairs'.


@everyone else. Please note that Stevebee is now a member here and is thus protected by the same FUA that every other member is. Please consider this before posting.

Lazar
Image

Spinozasgalt: "And how come no one ever sigs me?"
User avatar
Lazar
 
Posts: 2280
Age: 35
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#264  Postby Largenton » Jul 29, 2010 4:32 pm

Shrunk wrote:Never mind the fact that he's tipped his hand by supporting young earth creationism, as noted above by hackenslash.


Indeed. I'm still puzzled how he refers to the radioactive decay of unstable isotopes as a biological field in his rants. The fact that it has been shown to be accurate and there are studies showing how to increase the accuracy of methods such as C14 dating.

Reimer, P.J.; et. al. (2009). "IntCal09 and Marine09 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves, 0–50,000 Years cal BP". Radiocarbon 51 (4): 1111–1150.

For anyone interested. I also seem to remember a paper in which scientists were able to apply a method which removed the contaminating carbon from the surrounding soil and focussed onto the carbon sample. However, I have forgotten any links and the name of the method.

So do I.

:waah:

Did you have to remind me?


Yes. I think its one of the worst attempts at insulting someone ever... :mrgreen:
User avatar
Largenton
 
Posts: 84

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#265  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 30, 2010 12:16 am

Oh dear, he's not trying to erect fatuous claims about 14C dating now, is he?

Just as well he's not bothering to post here any more, otherwise I'd have so much fun bitchslapping him over that.
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?

#266  Postby Largenton » Jul 30, 2010 12:16 pm

No, not just C14 but radiometrics in general. By the way, do you know anything about the method I was trying to describe in my last post?
User avatar
Largenton
 
Posts: 84

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#267  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 31, 2010 1:58 am

New to me I'm afraid. If you find the paper covering it, I'll happily accept a copy to add to the knowledge base. :)
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?

#268  Postby hackenslash » Jul 31, 2010 6:04 am

Only thing I can find is this abstract by K.M. Goh from 1977:

REMOVAL OF CONTAMINANTS TO IMPROVE THE RELIABILITY OF RADIOCARBON DATES OF PEATS
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21402
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#269  Postby Largenton » Jul 31, 2010 8:46 am

Bit more recent.

I had it from an article in the Guardian..

Found it, the ultra-filtration technique.

Only useful for bones...

However, I'm struggling to find the paper. I did find one of the people carrying out this technique, Tom Higham.
User avatar
Largenton
 
Posts: 84

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#270  Postby Occam's Laser » Aug 01, 2010 3:49 am

stevebee92653 wrote:Occam’s Laser: Half the people on RD found my patents. While you were ragging there about my patents, they were writing that they had found them . Right hand doesn’t know what the left…….You are STILL ragging that I don’t have them here? You are way behind your compadres. If you want to see my stuff in action: http://dentalxraydeveloper.com/ I’m sure you could give a shit, and you won’t want to appear wrong, so I can imagine your response. I am on the vid, so get out your darts.

You are very confused. That stems from the time you were claiming your patents under your pseudonym, "Dr. Steven B. Lyndon," which you asserted was your actual real name on RDF as well as on your own website. When no patents were found that were issued to "Dr. Steven B. Lyndon," after much encouragement and prompting, you eventually did change the wording on your website to indicate your name wasn't actually "Dr. Steven B. Lyndon." You lost a metric shit-ton of credibility for using yourself as the basis for an Argument from Authority logical fallacy, when you weren't even using your own actual real name. When claiming you have had multiple patents issued, it generally helps to use a name which is actually connected to multiple patents.
User avatar
Occam's Laser
 
Posts: 628
Age: 62
Male

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#271  Postby Latimeria » Aug 01, 2010 6:13 am

He still has a video posted on his site that claims false authority, under a similar name. The final frame of the video on his abiogenesis page reads:

Video by
Dr. Anders Lyndon
U of TA Arlington
Dept. of Biology
" [This space is for rent to "which ever version of POOF creates the largest cloud of obnoxious smoke following the POOF."[1] "- God
Works Cited:
[1] - theropod. Parsimony of the Miraculous. RatSkep Peanut Gallery Press, 2011.
User avatar
Latimeria
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1083
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#272  Postby Made of Stars » Aug 02, 2010 1:19 pm

U of TA?

University of Tits & Ass? That would explain a few things, but just raise other questions... :scratch:
Made of Stars, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and zenpencils

“Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars” - Serbian proverb
User avatar
Made of Stars
RS Donator
 
Name: Call me Coco
Posts: 9815
Age: 51
Male

Country: Girt by sea
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#273  Postby Blitzkrebs » Aug 02, 2010 1:37 pm

So, let me get this straight. Not only has Stevebee faked his own name, he's laid unsubstantiated claims to being a successful inventor, a dentist, and now a professor at a university. He's denied the blatantly obvious by claiming that he's not a YEC or even religious.

He actually expects us to trust him?
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

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#274  Postby CADman2300 » Aug 03, 2010 4:16 pm

Hoo-boy.
Stevebee thought it would be fun to update his blog article about "indoctrination" by listing traits that he thinks are the signs of someone who's not "indoctrinated".
A person that is not indoctrinated:

(1) Would recognize that an intelligent person might look at the evidence shown by natural history and come up with a reasonable and rational conclusion that doesn’t match theirs.

This is exactly how much of scientific observation is supposed to work but he's resorting to the creationaut tactic of accusing biologists of not living up to it and just cherry-picking what they agree with.

(2) Would be able to intelligently and calmly discuss the good and the bad evidence for evolution. “This is why I think evolution might be wrong, but I still choose evolution as the best idea we have so far”, would show an open mind and a non-indoctrinated person.

He fails to realize that most of arguments against evolution are based on painfully poor understandings of what it is and how it functions.

(3) Would recognize that this is an incredibly fascinating subject, and would recognize that they could learn by open discourse with other people who are also interested in this subject, no matter what their view. Even religious creationists have a lot of very interesting facts and opinions on this subject, once the religio-Biblical part is subtracted.

"religious creationists" are the ones who use flawed arguments with no factual support in the first place so why should their opinions be counted? Hmm . . .

(4) Makes an honest effort at answering challenges I pose without resorting to dogma that has been memorized from some class or book. And if the answer is challenged, it can be discussed openly and honestly.

He's been told repeatedly that challenges based on poor reasoning are simply not worth a hill of beans. Does he ever fix them or respond in a calm and rational manner? I think most of you know the answer by now.

(5) Doesn’t need to refer me to a paper, video, or book. Is familiar enough with the information to relay it himself.

Smart people know their own limits while fools think they know everything and then try to use their inflated self-worth as grounds to reject the arguments from people who are obviously more qualified. Stevebee never acknowledges this factor in any of his rebuttals and just resorts to his usual string of childish name-calling.

(6) I pose an astounding fact that takes a good deal of thinking to try to fit that fact into the origin of species and nature. Your response is to really think out and discuss the fact and above all show a desire to really dig down and understand our beginnings rather than be insulted that the fact is not good for your belief system: evolution.

I think it's safe to assume that this guy doesn't even know what facts really are. A fact is a simple, or complex, unit of information that is verifiable and true beyond dispute and baseless assumptions that he posts on his blog simply cannot qualify as that.
User avatar
CADman2300
 
Posts: 485

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#275  Postby tytalus » Aug 03, 2010 4:58 pm

Made of Stars wrote:U of TA?

University of Tits & Ass? That would explain a few things, but just raise other questions... :scratch:

At the risk of keeping this thread alive unnecessarily, that sounds like a great university.
Futurama wrote: Bender: Dying sucks butt. How do you living beings cope with mortality?
Leela: Violent outbursts.
Amy: General slutiness.
Fry: Thanks to denial, I'm immortal.
User avatar
tytalus
 
Posts: 1228
Age: 47
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#276  Postby CADman2300 » Aug 07, 2010 12:41 pm

While going through response messages that Stevie's Indoctrination article received, a user by the title of Henrik Jensen posted a long-winded explanation of where science really stands in the most polite manner he could muster.
What does Stevebee do? He responds with his usual blast of inanity and shows everyone his inability to grasp where his detractors are coming from.

(1) I should say “convinced” when I mean “indoctrinated”? I DO mean indoctrinated and that description sticks. Convinced people don’t communicate like indoctrinates, and I describe why very clearly.
(2) When I say “trite” I am describing very overused and tired arguments, which are typical of evolutionauts. And you. Saying I don’t “understand” evolution is absurd. Evo is not complex, and I was a fan for many years, and very well read on the subject. So that argument is TRITE as well as WRONG as can be. Can’t you be more original? Communicate from your head instead of using worn out over used defenses? Instead of actually thinking on your own and challenging my blog, you say “stevebee doesn’t understand evolution”. If you can’t see the absurdity, you should not comment.
(3) Overwhelming evidence? Sorry, but a horrible distortion. You have been fooled, and this blog is FULL of reasons why. You choose not to read any of it and STILL comment here, and to resort to the same boring stuff your evo-peers say. Which results in the same boring response from me. Try actually thinking on your own. You can’t, and won’t, which makes you an indoctrinate.
(4) You and “they” can’t come close to a plausible explanation of how the eye and vision were invented, designed, assembled, AKA evolved. Again they have fooled you.
(5) Your second to last paragraph shows how you have no idea what is on my blog, why you are indoctrinated and arguing from dogma. Read page 7 of this blog. You have no idea what my point and position is. Showing common ancestry is only one millionth of what evolution needs to prove to make it plausible. It needs to prove that an entity with zero intelligence can invent, design, assemble, and support incredible bio-systems. And since you have zero evidence that that is the case, your belief crashes horribly.


If reading this made you feel nauseous, there's no shame in throwing up.
User avatar
CADman2300
 
Posts: 485

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#277  Postby Rumraket » Aug 07, 2010 12:54 pm

CADman2300 wrote:While going through response messages that Stevie's Indoctrination article received, a user by the title of Henrik Jensen posted a long-winded explanation of where science really stands in the most polite manner he could muster.
What does Stevebee do? He responds with his usual blast of inanity and shows everyone his inability to grasp where his detractors are coming from.

(1) I should say “convinced” when I mean “indoctrinated”? I DO mean indoctrinated and that description sticks. Convinced people don’t communicate like indoctrinates, and I describe why very clearly.
(2) When I say “trite” I am describing very overused and tired arguments, which are typical of evolutionauts. And you. Saying I don’t “understand” evolution is absurd. Evo is not complex, and I was a fan for many years, and very well read on the subject. So that argument is TRITE as well as WRONG as can be. Can’t you be more original? Communicate from your head instead of using worn out over used defenses? Instead of actually thinking on your own and challenging my blog, you say “stevebee doesn’t understand evolution”. If you can’t see the absurdity, you should not comment.
(3) Overwhelming evidence? Sorry, but a horrible distortion. You have been fooled, and this blog is FULL of reasons why. You choose not to read any of it and STILL comment here, and to resort to the same boring stuff your evo-peers say. Which results in the same boring response from me. Try actually thinking on your own. You can’t, and won’t, which makes you an indoctrinate.
(4) You and “they” can’t come close to a plausible explanation of how the eye and vision were invented, designed, assembled, AKA evolved. Again they have fooled you.
(5) Your second to last paragraph shows how you have no idea what is on my blog, why you are indoctrinated and arguing from dogma. Read page 7 of this blog. You have no idea what my point and position is. Showing common ancestry is only one millionth of what evolution needs to prove to make it plausible. It needs to prove that an entity with zero intelligence can invent, design, assemble, and support incredible bio-systems. And since you have zero evidence that that is the case, your belief crashes horribly.


If reading this made you feel nauseous, there's no shame in throwing up.

As I have said before, it's my impression that SteveBee actually fully grasps evolution... because that would be the only way he could so consistently misrepresent it the way he does. This simply changes his nature from the commonly assumed "stupid and undeducated" to "dishonest and decietful". The latter case being worse in my opinion.
In any case, he never bothered retuning to this thread to defend his views when the heat was turned up, and elected instead to victimize himself and retreat to asserting that in order to prove him wrong, we'd have to address every single insane and dishonest misrepresentation of evolution, he has on his blog.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13145
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#278  Postby PhiloKGB » Aug 07, 2010 2:34 pm

"Bio-system" is now my least favorite word. In fact, if Steve would like a demonstration of how bio-systems are introduced to organisms, I'd be happy to write it on a 2 x 4 and shove it up his ass.
PhiloKGB
 
Posts: 679

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#279  Postby eddie.zdi » Aug 07, 2010 6:30 pm

I'm sick and tired of creationists bringing up the fucking eye. Given that hawks have eyes above us on the evolutionary scale and slugs have eyes below us, if someone would like to go through all the stages of eye development I'm fairly certain that you'll find most of them on the earth today.
"Science is the lawman of ignorance" - Me 1984 - ????
User avatar
eddie.zdi
 
Name: Daniel Edwards
Posts: 178

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

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#280  Postby ADParker » Aug 08, 2010 1:35 am

CADman2300 wrote:While going through response messages that Stevie's Indoctrination article received, a user by the title of Henrik Jensen posted a long-winded explanation of where science really stands in the most polite manner he could muster.
<Snip>
If reading this made you feel nauseous, there's no shame in throwing up.

To get the full nauseating effect, you should read Henrik Jensen's initial (and responding) post(s.) He was most polite and respectful, making this (all too typical) response from stevebee92653's all the more vile.

A big part of that is due, of course, to his conspiracy theory assumption, that each and every 'Evolutionaut' that happens along MUST a part of some global conspiracy and/or has been indoctrinated into buying into said conspiracy. And thus that he can just automatically dismiss anyone that disagrees with him as an indoctrinated fool, and respond to them in kind. :nono:

EDIT:
Henrik Jensen's made another comment on the page "4b: Ten Impossibilities of Evolution (con’t)" which resulted in a classic response as well.

Essentially it went like this:
Henrik Jensen's: "Here is why this particular question/demand is the wrong question to ask..."
stevebee92653: "Well you have to answer it or evolution is a fantasy!"
:roll: :lol:
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

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest