Remember Stevebee?

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#181  Postby Largenton » Jul 25, 2010 10:29 am

To quote him...

I have absolutely no idea how species came into existence, and I don’t promote any solution to that great and fascinating Puzzle.


My experience with religion has been pretty much summed by this quote from an unknown source: “If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you are a schizophrenic.” I am not an atheist or agnostic. I believe in an incredibly intelligent Source or Creator, but my beliefs go no further. I have no idea who, where, or what that source really is. And, that is my BELIEF, it is philosophical, and so it is not posed as an arguable or scientific position. I am fascinated with the science of evolution. From my experience debating evolution, I have come to the conclusion that evolution’s improbabilities and impossibilities are so believed, and promoted with such vigor, that it is almost impossible to have a rational discourse with those that support it. It is also obvious that the true underpinning of evolution is atheism. When evolution is being argued, the true argument is a religious one. Atheism is a religious belief just as surely as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam are religious beliefs. Atheism is completely dependent on evolution for its existence. Without evolution, atheism has no possible explanation for how we and all of nature got here, and it cannot exist as a viable worldview.


From here

So basically he does believe in an invisible magic man and that he can't explain an alternative mechanism showing how life came about. Congratulations Steve you've posed something completely pointless and which has no benefit to society, unlike the study of evolution. Furthermore you seem to be putting down the hard achievements of scientists doing active research into areas of interest. To quote Bill Hicks

Please quit yelling that. It's not funny, it's not clever; it's stupid, it's repetitive, why the fuck would you continue to yell that? I'm serious. [The same man yells something back.] "Kevin Matthews"; Okay, what does that mean now? Now what does it mean? I understand where it comes from, so do you, now what does it all mean? What is the culmination of yelling that? [The same man yells back again.] Jimmy Shorts: he's not here, he's not gonna be here. Now what? Now where are we? We're here at you interrupting me again, you fucking idiot. That's you. You see, we are here at the same point again where you, the fucking peon masses, can once again ruin anyone who tries to do anything because you don't know how to do it on your own! That's where we're fucking at! Once again the useless wastes of fucking flesh that has ruined everything good in this goddamn world! That's where we're at.


In other words, metaphorically quit yelling Freebird at us.
User avatar
Largenton
 
Posts: 84

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#182  Postby Shrunk » Jul 25, 2010 11:16 am

ADParker wrote: 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...


Dogs and wolves? You really want to go there, ADParker? You know Steve doesn't believe they're related.
"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?

#183  Postby stijndeloose » Jul 25, 2010 11:25 am

Shrunk wrote:You know Steve doesn't believe they're related.


Errr... what?! :shock:
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 39
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#184  Postby Largenton » Jul 25, 2010 11:30 am

Domestic Pigs and Wild Boars possibly? I have photographs of their skeletons but none of wolves yet...

And yes I remember that argument on RDF. Check the link.
User avatar
Largenton
 
Posts: 84

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#185  Postby theropod » Jul 25, 2010 11:52 am

Steve,

At this point I am motivated to ask a simple question, which hopefully you can answer with a simple response.

What evidence would it take to convince you that the ToE explains the biodiversity found throughout the biosphere?

If there is nothing we can do to convince you that the overwhelming evidence gathered over the past 300 years fully supports a naturalistic explanation for this biodiversity what is the point of continued conversation?

Steve, do you really want to be seen as one so inflexible in your position that NOTHING, including an Everest size mountain of hard evidence, can convince you that your views are incorrect?

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 65
Male

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

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#186  Postby Shrunk » Jul 25, 2010 11:56 am

stijndeloose wrote:
Shrunk wrote:You know Steve doesn't believe they're related.


Errr... what?! :shock:


Yup. Read the comments on page 20 of his blog. He doesn't say they are definitely not related, but he's not convinced they are, even though he is aware that they can interbreed.

It's especially funny because, as pig-ignorant as that idea is, it also refutes the claim that he has been making all along here: If he thinks that it's possible for dogs and wolves to have separate ancestral origins, yet still be capable of interbreeding, then that is exactly the process that he claims must be possible for his bizarre version of evolution to occur. With one breath he says it is impossible, then with the next says it must happen.
"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?

#187  Postby Rumraket » Jul 25, 2010 12:41 pm

I strongly suspect that Stevebee is going to employ The Dembski-approach to naturalistic evidencetm : No matter what you are presented with, ask for more. If you are provided with more, ask for still more. If you are provided all the possible evidence, ask for more.
William Dembski when asked what would convince him of naturalistic evolution answered "evidence +1[plus one]".

We have several cases of ID supporters on this site employing the exact same approach, or slight variations thereof. No matter what you come up with, they'll simply ask for more or just assert flatly that its "not enough", "not convincing", "still impropable". Or even go down a step and ask for more evidence at a lower level of microscopic detail. Both Polanyi and CharlieM has been employing this approach several times, in the case of Polanyi several times in all his threads and CharlieM seems to emply this tactic exclusively with his objectsion to the evolution of the flagellum. If you read the thread "The Bacterial Flagellum revisited", every time a possible solution to a question he poses is submitted, he asks for evidence. When the evidence is provided, he simply reverts to claiming it's either not enough or impropable in some way, or asks new questions about it "but how did that happen?". He wants a complete account of the evolutionary history down to the atomic scale for every protein. And I suspect that even if you provided it, he'd just go Dembski on you. "I need even more". Not forgetting his reflex response "but what are the odds of it happening by chance?" or "therefore it must have been designed".

There simply is no way of convincing such an individual and in all likelyhood SteveBee is dead set on that approach. In fact I'm going to put it out there now as a prediction: We will convince Stevebee of nothing. After all, the alternative is that he's wrong and has been all along... and people don't like to be wrong.
Additionally, the more ignorant or dishonest they are, the less likely it is they even accept the possibility that they are wrong. Or will understand how or why they are worng.

As GenesForLife and I myself have been saying, he's got the fundamentals wrong and need to educate himself on those first. But I don't think he even wants to do that. He propably thinks he's figured it all out completely and all he's ever going to do is reassert his position if cornered : Attack a strawman of evolution with fundamentally invalid questions, such as gaps of knowledge.

I hope you are reading this SteveBee, because you have an opportunity to impress the hell out of me and gain some respect here if you display a willingness to understand the fundamental concepts of evolution and how these function as the underlying mechanics for the evolution of novel features. Instead of you constantly asking questions that assume evolution works in the way you think it does. I have now read a large portion of your blog and there is simply too much for me to be bothered debunking and correcting. And the undertaking becomes almost insurmountable when so many of the fundamentals are misrepresented or misunderstood.
Before we can even have a discussion about evolution you need to grasp the fundamentals, and the questions and objections you post here and on your blog make it painfully obvious that you do not understand the fundamentals. (There is of course also the very real and highly propable possibility that you intentionally misrepresent them). This has been seen many times before both on this site, the old RDF forums and related sceptics and evolution sites.

One of the biggest flaws you seem to constantly commit is the portrayal of evolution purely as a mechanic of random mutation with selection acting there upon. This is only a part of evolution, and indeed the random mutation part is a quite minor one and reckognised as the mechanism with the least potential for the generation of novel genetic information, and therefore ultimately phenotypic features.
Last edited by Rumraket on Jul 25, 2010 1:04 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13144
Age: 38

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#188  Postby stijndeloose » Jul 25, 2010 12:46 pm

Shrunk wrote:
stijndeloose wrote:
Shrunk wrote:You know Steve doesn't believe they're related.


Errr... what?! :shock:


Yup. Read the comments on page 20 of his blog. He doesn't say they are definitely not related, but he's not convinced they are, even though he is aware that they can interbreed.

It's especially funny because, as pig-ignorant as that idea is, it also refutes the claim that he has been making all along here: If he thinks that it's possible for dogs and wolves to have separate ancestral origins, yet still be capable of interbreeding, then that is exactly the process that he claims must be possible for his bizarre version of evolution to occur. With one breath he says it is impossible, then with the next says it must happen.


:rolleyes: Gawd. That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. :doh:
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 39
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#189  Postby Shrunk » Jul 25, 2010 3:14 pm

stijndeloose wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
stijndeloose wrote:
Shrunk wrote:You know Steve doesn't believe they're related.


Errr... what?! :shock:


Yup. Read the comments on page 20 of his blog. He doesn't say they are definitely not related, but he's not convinced they are, even though he is aware that they can interbreed.

It's especially funny because, as pig-ignorant as that idea is, it also refutes the claim that he has been making all along here: If he thinks that it's possible for dogs and wolves to have separate ancestral origins, yet still be capable of interbreeding, then that is exactly the process that he claims must be possible for his bizarre version of evolution to occur. With one breath he says it is impossible, then with the next says it must happen.


:rolleyes: Gawd. That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. :doh:


:whine: You hurt my feelings.

Oh, wait. I see what you meant.
"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?

#190  Postby stijndeloose » Jul 25, 2010 6:20 pm

Shrunk wrote: :whine: You hurt my feelings.

Oh, wait. I see what you meant.


:lol:
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 39
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#191  Postby stevebee92653 » Jul 25, 2010 6:52 pm

Cali
The only person who is bitchslapped is you cali. You did it to yourself when you forfeited your skepticism and reason to some teacher when you were younger. You became locked in and fully wired so there is no turning back to objectivity for you. You can’t recover your skepticism. It’s long gone. You think that anything written in a peer reviewed paper is infallible, and 100% true, and that has become your weapon, along with the huge amount of noise you make. You can’t look at these papers and see how they don’t answer the questions I pose. You throw them at me and demand acceptance, and celebrate your great victory. Discussion is out. The only real evolution here is that papers written ABOUT and supporting evolution become the evidence FOR evolution in your mind. Well, not mine. Sorry.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

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

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#192  Postby robinhood » Jul 25, 2010 6:59 pm

wow, that was a dictionary definition of a dodge. What is it about scientifically peer reviewed papers that scare you? Are you just jealous that you can't produce any scientifically verifiable material of your own? Peer reviewed literature is the corner stone of scientific advancement. It does not mean that the content in the paper is infallible BUT if it has passed the proper scientific hoops it certainly adds credibility to the theory. No creationist has ever even TRIED to subject a paper to scientific review because they know about the intellectual bichslap from actual scientists that would ensue. I think this video would be helpful for you to watch

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6aU7zakKBs[/youtube]
You can't reason with the religious. Otherwise there would be no religious people- Dr. House
User avatar
robinhood
 
Name: shawn (not vfx/pcs)
Posts: 329
Age: 27
Male

Country: U.S.A
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#193  Postby Rumraket » Jul 25, 2010 7:13 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Cali
The only person who is bitchslapped is you cali. You did it to yourself when you forfeited your skepticism and reason to some teacher when you were younger. You became locked in and fully wired so there is no turning back to objectivity for you. You can’t recover your skepticism. It’s long gone. You think that anything written in a peer reviewed paper is infallible, and 100% true, and that has become your weapon, along with the huge amount of noise you make. You can’t look at these papers and see how they don’t answer the questions I pose. You throw them at me and demand acceptance, and celebrate your great victory. Discussion is out. The only real evolution here is that papers written ABOUT and supporting evolution become the evidence FOR evolution in your mind. Well, not mine. Sorry.

What part of peer reviewed papers are written on repeatable, testable, experimental predictions of evolutionary theory, and observations done under the experiements factually support evolution, do you not understand?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13144
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#194  Postby Varangian » Jul 25, 2010 7:24 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Cali
The only person who is bitchslapped is you cali. You did it to yourself when you forfeited your skepticism and reason to some teacher when you were younger. You became locked in and fully wired so there is no turning back to objectivity for you. You can’t recover your skepticism. It’s long gone. You think that anything written in a peer reviewed paper is infallible, and 100% true, and that has become your weapon, along with the huge amount of noise you make. You can’t look at these papers and see how they don’t answer the questions I pose. You throw them at me and demand acceptance, and celebrate your great victory. Discussion is out. The only real evolution here is that papers written ABOUT and supporting evolution become the evidence FOR evolution in your mind. Well, not mine. Sorry.


Image
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?

#195  Postby stevebee92653 » Jul 25, 2010 7:27 pm

theropod wrote:Steve,

At this point I am motivated to ask a simple question, which hopefully you can answer with a simple response.

What evidence would it take to convince you that the ToE explains the biodiversity found throughout the biosphere?

If there is nothing we can do to convince you that the overwhelming evidence gathered over the past 300 years fully supports a naturalistic explanation for this biodiversity what is the point of continued conversation?

Steve, do you really want to be seen as one so inflexible in your position that NOTHING, including an Everest size mountain of hard evidence, can convince you that your views are incorrect?

RS


How about for a start:
The vid on this thread has a great one, and one that has been avoided like the plague: That a bio-system that formed in a single species was capable of spreading to other speices and how that took place. Or, did thousands of species all form all the same bio-system at about the same time? Not a plausible or possible scenario, of course. CA is not an answer but will be yours.
That natural selection was capable of inventing incredible bio-systems from a uni-celled earth. I know you evos don't like the notion of invention, but bio systems were inventions far more than any invention at the US Patent Office. There was no model or design or prior art for natural selection et al to go by. So how did that take place?
How did the designing and assembling of those systems take place in the species that the inventions formed in?
Being a dentist, this one has really bothered me: That mutaions can form and transfer information to odontolbasts, and ameloblasts so they will "know" when to turn on and turn off the knitting of enamel and dentin which will leave those incredible little sculptures that are our teeth. Since there are millions of odontoblasts and ameloblasts, each one must stop at a different point in time. Are NS and RM capable and powerful enough to originate and relay this information to the cells?
There are so many question on my blog. Feel free to visit and challenge me.
I'm sure these questions will be made great light of by your amigos. That is the typical response. The difficulty for you is that five years ago I would have been arguing with you. Until this science crashed for me. Badly. So I know where you are coming from much more than you would think.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

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

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#196  Postby DaveD » Jul 25, 2010 7:40 pm

How about this for a start: stop using the word invention when talking about evolution. This presupposes an inventor, and exposes the religious agenda you so strenuously denied.
Image
User avatar
DaveD
 
Name: Dave Davis
Posts: 3022
Age: 62
Male

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

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#197  Postby Rumraket » Jul 25, 2010 7:41 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:
theropod wrote:Steve,

At this point I am motivated to ask a simple question, which hopefully you can answer with a simple response.

What evidence would it take to convince you that the ToE explains the biodiversity found throughout the biosphere?

If there is nothing we can do to convince you that the overwhelming evidence gathered over the past 300 years fully supports a naturalistic explanation for this biodiversity what is the point of continued conversation?

Steve, do you really want to be seen as one so inflexible in your position that NOTHING, including an Everest size mountain of hard evidence, can convince you that your views are incorrect?

RS


How about for a start:
The vid on this thread has a great one, and one that has been avoided like the plague: That a bio-system that formed in a single species was capable of spreading to other speices and how that took place. Or, did thousands of species all form all the same bio-system at about the same time? Not a plausible or possible scenario, of course. CA is not an answer but will be yours.
That natural selection was capable of inventing incredible bio-systems from a uni-celled earth. I know you evos don't like the notion of invention, but bio systems were inventions far more than any invention at the US Patent Office. There was no model or design or prior art for natural selection et al to go by. So how did that take place?
How did the designing and assembling of those systems take place in the species that the inventions formed in?
Being a dentist, this one has really bothered me: That mutaions can form and transfer information to odontolbasts, and ameloblasts so they will "know" when to turn on and turn off the knitting of enamel and dentin which will leave those incredible little sculptures that are our teeth. Since there are millions of odontoblasts and ameloblasts, each one must stop at a different point in time. Are NS and RM capable and powerful enough to originate and relay this information to the cells?
There are so many question on my blog. Feel free to visit and challenge me.
I'm sure these questions will be made great light of by your amigos. That is the typical response. The difficulty for you is that five years ago I would have been arguing with you. Until this science crashed for me. Badly. So I know where you are coming from much more than you would think.

The way you ask your question demonstrates beyond any shadow of doubt that you have no fucking idea how evolution works. The question you ask here above betrays a vast and fundamental lack of understanding the basic concepts of evolutionary theory. Even fundamental bacterial and cellular biology seems totally lost on you. In addition to the previously mentioned questions regarding evolutionary molecular mechanics : the basics of inheritance with modification I now also must ask if you grasp the concepts of intracellular communication? Metabolic pathways, hormones.. basics of developmental biology? Your ignorance seems vast.

How about you started aswering some of the many questions I have posed to you already? You wouldn't want to be seen as dodging them, would you?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13144
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#198  Postby stevebee92653 » Jul 25, 2010 7:45 pm

Rumraket wrote: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.


Cali didn't answer my questions, but y'all will of course say he did, as you did. I think the questioner has the right to satisfaction, not the cali team members or cali himself. But in this "science" the answerers grade themselves.What fun.
How could you possibly think bacteria that modify their diet is a good example of "good" mutations that demonstrate the invention, design, and assembly of complex bio-systems such as lung/heart/blood/vessel systems? That is unthinkable. You accept too easily. I don't. Why would you yourself not question that. You can think. And your demenaing of my thinking and education is a good strategy for you as you can't respond to the questions I pose. So you go to the "you don't understand" card. Good going. Also listing genetic changes is good. They have never been observed inventing and assembling complex bio-systems or even simple ones, but, again good strategy. Your only strategy.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

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

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#199  Postby stevebee92653 » Jul 25, 2010 7:47 pm

Rumraket wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:
theropod wrote:Steve,

At this point I am motivated to ask a simple question, which hopefully you can answer with a simple response.

What evidence would it take to convince you that the ToE explains the biodiversity found throughout the biosphere?

If there is nothing we can do to convince you that the overwhelming evidence gathered over the past 300 years fully supports a naturalistic explanation for this biodiversity what is the point of continued conversation?

Steve, do you really want to be seen as one so inflexible in your position that NOTHING, including an Everest size mountain of hard evidence, can convince you that your views are incorrect?

RS


How about for a start:
The vid on this thread has a great one, and one that has been avoided like the plague: That a bio-system that formed in a single species was capable of spreading to other speices and how that took place. Or, did thousands of species all form all the same bio-system at about the same time? Not a plausible or possible scenario, of course. CA is not an answer but will be yours.
That natural selection was capable of inventing incredible bio-systems from a uni-celled earth. I know you evos don't like the notion of invention, but bio systems were inventions far more than any invention at the US Patent Office. There was no model or design or prior art for natural selection et al to go by. So how did that take place?
How did the designing and assembling of those systems take place in the species that the inventions formed in?
Being a dentist, this one has really bothered me: That mutaions can form and transfer information to odontolbasts, and ameloblasts so they will "know" when to turn on and turn off the knitting of enamel and dentin which will leave those incredible little sculptures that are our teeth. Since there are millions of odontoblasts and ameloblasts, each one must stop at a different point in time. Are NS and RM capable and powerful enough to originate and relay this information to the cells?
There are so many question on my blog. Feel free to visit and challenge me.
I'm sure these questions will be made great light of by your amigos. That is the typical response. The difficulty for you is that five years ago I would have been arguing with you. Until this science crashed for me. Badly. So I know where you are coming from much more than you would think.

The way you ask your question demonstrates beyond any shadow of doubt that you have no fucking idea how evolution works. The question you ask here above betrays a vast and fundamental lack of understanding the basic concepts of evolutionary theory. Even fundamental bacterial and cellular biology seems totally lost on you. In addition to the previously mentioned questions regarding evolutionary molecular mechanics : the basics of inheritance with modification I now also must ask if you grasp the concepts of intracellular communication? Metabolic pathways, hormones.. basics of developmental biology? Your ignorance seems vast.

How about you started aswering some of the many questions I have posed to you already? You wouldn't want to be seen as dodging them, would you?


Ah, just the answer I expected. "You don't understand" The questions are really pretty straight forward. That's all you got. I guess so.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

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

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#200  Postby Blitzkrebs » Jul 25, 2010 7:48 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Cali
The only person who is bitchslapped is you cali. You did it to yourself when you forfeited your skepticism and reason to some teacher when you were younger.


Oh please.

Are you honestly suggesting we aren't justified in learning from professionals who are better educated and actually qualified to teach relevant subject material? The world might as well stop spinning.

stevebee92653 wrote:You became locked in and fully wired so there is no turning back to objectivity for you. You can’t recover your skepticism. It’s long gone.


Have you any evidence to back this bullshit claim up at all? Posts in Cali's long history which suggest refusal to change his opinions in the face of overwhemling evidence? He's done exactly the opposite in at least one recent case when susu pointed out several errors of his in a discussion of transitional fossils.

stevebee92653 wrote:You think that anything written in a peer reviewed paper is infallible, and 100% true, and that has become your weapon, along with the huge amount of noise you make. You can’t look at these papers and see how they don’t answer the questions I pose.


Where the fuck has anybody here said that those papers are 100% infallible? We merely recognize out of due modesty that there are people who are better qualified than us to examine certain subjects, which should be pretty fucking obvious to even a child. The crows are falling off of their roosts laughing at your shitty looking strawman.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest