Why stevebee is wrong

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#21  Postby Animavore » Oct 17, 2010 6:23 pm

I don't like the "popcorn" smiley.

Can we not have a smiley of a sailor whittling a osprey out of a block of beech wood while smoking a Peterson pipe?
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42965
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#22  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Oct 17, 2010 6:35 pm

Oh, halucigenia. You've certainly opened a can of worms with this one. Bless your heart.

I'm going to sit back and enjoy the chucklefest this will become.
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: a certain type of girl
Posts: 12933
Age: 31
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#23  Postby Doubtdispelled » Oct 17, 2010 6:36 pm

Image
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

― Mark Twain
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11821

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#24  Postby stevebee92653 » Oct 17, 2010 6:36 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
trubble76 wrote:He is not interested in the facts, he knows the facts, he has been told very often. He is interested in casting doubt on evolution because his religious beliefs tell him that evolution must be wrong. In order to change his position, one must change his religious beliefs. This is clearly an unlikely thing, all we can hope for is that one day he might realise that christianity does not require evolution to be false, and indeed the largest of the christian sects already accept this fact. Unfortunately for him, his sect is a particularly backward one that places theology over empiracism, dogma over demonstrable evidence.
He cannot be helped, because he doesn't want to be helped. All we can do is to keep explaining why he's wrong in the hopes that maybe someone in the cheap seats will start to question it themselves.


In fairness (I always seem to be saying that in SteveB threads), I don't believe he's ever said anything about his religious beliefs. The closest he's come is in advocating some vague new agey-sounding idea about an underlying intelligent force behind the universe.

It seems obvious to me that he's simply hiding his religious beliefs in order to try and avoid the argument against religious presupposition. Isn't it funny how so many of his methods and arguments are total and complete copies of intelligent design creationism? Of all the theories in science one could pick to attack, he picks evolution(and abiogenesis), materialism (in regards to physical brain minds) and a naturalistic bigbang. This simply SCREAMS standard ID/creationism to me. If you notice on his blog, he has arguments, videos and articles against these three theories in science.
They are the standard subjects for creotards, and steve has picked them of all the possibilites.



If evolution(and abiogenesis) was right it would mean god didn't create Adam and Eve. So the whole myth of paradise and human origins must be wrong. Therefore creotards have a problem with evolution.

If the mind is the product of a materialist, physical brain, it means there is no soul. If there is no soul, there is no afterlife. Therefore creotards have a problem with neuroscience and a physical mind.

If a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe is right, that means god didn't create the universe. If god didn't create the universe, it casts doubt on the whole of abrahamic religions etc. etc. Therefore creotards have a problem with naturalistic origins of the universe.

The conclusion is obvious. SteveBee is religious but simply wants to avoid that argument by pretending he is not.


You are light years away from being correct. Nice try.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

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

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#25  Postby Rumraket » Oct 17, 2010 6:42 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:
CADman2300 wrote:If this thread is all about him, I'm surprised he hasn't dropped in yet to defend himself. As far as his religion is concerned, on his blog is an article simply entitled "More About Me" where he goes into some detail about his religious background.
I was raised in a very Christian family. My grandfather was a Methodist minister. My dad should have been. He and my mom were very devout. We frequently had Bible study and “devotions” at night after dinner. (Ugh) Of course we attended church every Sunday. Until I was an early teen, I believed that God created everything in seven days; that Adam and Eve were the first two humans on earth, and that Noah and his family surely collected all of the animals two by two, and made an ark which saved the animals and Noah’s family from a great flood. All other life on earth was killed. In my early years I was very much a Biblical creationist. But as my thinking became more mature and independent, I began having lots of trouble with the whole idea. Outwardly I did a good job of acting. I have always been a skeptic. I was afraid to think too negatively as I was told that hell would be my reward if I didn’t believe. So I pretty much went along.

Personally, I find this part of his story to be a bit on the contrived side. Pretend to be a former YEC and it will somehow automatically grant you credibility.

But when he talks about his time as an evo-believer, things start to get pretty hairy as this paragraph states.
When I went to college my dad told me to watch out for those “evolutionists” that will teach that we came from monkeys. (At that time he didn’t realize that he and I were not on the same page. I was still a good actor.) On my first day at USC……there he was; that evil guy my dad warned me about. But I loved what he said. For me, that was it. I was fascinated. I had finally found out how we got here! It made complete sense. I was a fascinated believer, supporter, and studier, (and pro-arguer) ever since……until a few years ago when I was in the Field Museum in Chicago. I started getting those same damn “uh-ohs” that I had with Adam and Eve. It’s really a strange feeling when something that you so strongly believe starts to crash. And, this was my second time around!

I think it's safe to assume that his past as a evolutionist is completely fabricated. He doesn't point to what those "uh-ohs" were in the entire article nor does he state anywhere in the entire blog where he went to college. He's claimed in other articles that he was an "evolutionaut" for several decades but it leaves me wondering what the hell he was doing in that time. It's simply ludicrous that when he comes out, he immediately starts to accuse evolution of being a religion and a junk science.


C'mon Cadman. You are trying way tooooo hard to find fault. My whole history as given is 100% factual. And certainly you should have no reason not to go with it.

Nonsense. We have every reason not to go with it. The fact that in every concievable sense you are a perfect match on an Intelligent Design Creationist, even down to apparently seeking out atheist forums to make your claims. Tell me SteveBee, how many theist forums have you been defending your views on, and can you link us to these debates?


But your problem is it really doesn't matter. My stuff finds fault with your belief system, and you are all so sensitive about it.

We don't have a belief-system, SteveBee.

You need to find where I am wrong in my evolution challenges.

We have, but you just ignore it or move the goalposts. Another one of those inescapable ID/creationism tactics so often seen on these forums.

My history is just a footnote to those challenges that I openly and freely give you to attack.

Noone cares about this fabrication you call your "history".

What if I said I was Jewish all my life. Or Theist. Or Atheist but don't go for evolution?

I wouldn't care.

Attack my stuff. But why waste your time attacking my biography. My gawd.You are grasping at straws.

As I wrote above, in every relevant sense, you completely mimick an ID-creationist. Heck, you even highlight the word "design" in blue, bold and capital letters on your blog, when quoting peer reviewed science papers. As if the use of the word was supposed to tell us something between the lines. You'll be happy to know it does tell me something, in fact, it tells me exactly what you want it to tell the reader : You want them to think that evolution only makes sense if it's guided by an intelligent designer.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13144
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#26  Postby trubble76 » Oct 17, 2010 6:44 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Shrunk wrote:

In fairness (I always seem to be saying that in SteveB threads), I don't believe he's ever said anything about his religious beliefs. The closest he's come is in advocating some vague new agey-sounding idea about an underlying intelligent force behind the universe.

It seems obvious to me that he's simply hiding his religious beliefs in order to try and avoid the argument against religious presupposition. Isn't it funny how so many of his methods and arguments are total and complete copies of intelligent design creationism? Of all the theories in science one could pick to attack, he picks evolution(and abiogenesis), materialism (in regards to physical brain minds) and a naturalistic bigbang. This simply SCREAMS standard ID/creationism to me. If you notice on his blog, he has arguments, videos and articles against these three theories in science.
They are the standard subjects for creotards, and steve has picked them of all the possibilites.



If evolution(and abiogenesis) was right it would mean god didn't create Adam and Eve. So the whole myth of paradise and human origins must be wrong. Therefore creotards have a problem with evolution.

If the mind is the product of a materialist, physical brain, it means there is no soul. If there is no soul, there is no afterlife. Therefore creotards have a problem with neuroscience and a physical mind.

If a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe is right, that means god didn't create the universe. If god didn't create the universe, it casts doubt on the whole of abrahamic religions etc. etc. Therefore creotards have a problem with naturalistic origins of the universe.

The conclusion is obvious. SteveBee is religious but simply wants to avoid that argument by pretending he is not.


You are light years away from being correct. Nice try.


Sherlock Holmes wrote:How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 42
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#27  Postby Rumraket » Oct 17, 2010 6:48 pm

SteveBee wrote:You are light years away from being correct. Nice try.

Your methods are more transparent than intergalactic space is to neutriono radiation.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13144
Age: 38

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#28  Postby stevebee92653 » Oct 17, 2010 6:52 pm

halucigenia wrote:Oh, WTF, I have been threatening this for a while, so, since he is active on the forum at the moment, here goes, not that I think that he will listen but it might attract his attention, and the attention of others of his ilk.

This thread is to meet Stevebee’s challenge that no one can tell him simply “Where you are wrong” as asserted in the thread “remember stevebee”

I intend to take single assertions from Stevebee’s blog initially, but not exclusively, from the page “Trees organs and biosystems” and do precisely that - to show him where he is wrong on specific assertions.

I feel that it will be more conducive to rational discourse to discuss these on the Ratskept forum than on Stevebee’s blog but if required will post there too.
I would request that each post that is aimed against Stevebee's assertions contain at least once the text "you are wrong" and to give the reasons why.

So on with the first one:-

Stevebee wrote:If evolution was real, of the trillions of trillions of single celled species, wouldn’t we see thousands of newly forming tiny multi-celled species today? Right now?
No, the evolution from single to multi cell organisms happened at a time when there were no multi celled organisms filling up the niches that multi celled organisms now inhabit. It was a novel innovation then which gave a specific advantage that allowed the novel organisms to spread freely in a relatively uncompetitive environment. This novel innovation and the environment in which it could spread rapidly are extremely unlikely to occur again. This is an example of the loose rule that evolution is never likely to repeat in exactly the same way as it has done in the past. However, it’s not an impossibility for single celled organisms to evolve into multi celled organisms today*. You are wrong to assert this because the reality of evolution happening is not refuted by the assertion that we do not see new multi celled organisms evolving today.

Basically the argument is the same as “if we evolved from monkeys then why do we not see monkeys evolving into humans today”. The rebuttal is also the same i.e. that no one who actually understands what the theory of evolution proposes would expect this to have to happen before evolution could be considered to be a factual occurrence.

*For example some slime moulds are single celled organisms which live most of their lives as single celled organisms in the soil. However, they congregate together for sex (they also have several hundreds of distinct genders) to form a multicellular ‘organism’ in which some cells serve the function of a locomotive slug like body, other cells become a stalk to hold up other cells which become a ‘fruiting body’ to produce spores that propagate the organism producing new single celled protist like individuals.
It is not inconceivable that the evolution of single to multi celled organisms could follow this path today and a species of slime mould change from becoming mainly single celled for most of it’s life cycle to becoming multi celled for the majority of it’s life cycle (just like us).


Thanks for the thread. It's always fun to find out "why I am wrong". Your explanation of the missing early AND extant multi-celled species is just another of the thousands of excuses that you have to come up with in order to keep evolution patent. It goes with the fact that there is no plausible explanation for the invention and assembly of bio-systems, the completely missing evolution within species in the fossil record (punctuated equilibrium), the fact that newly formed bio-systems couldn't spread between species because of common ancestry, and on and on. Excuse after excuse. How many can you yourself tolerate? Is there an actual threshold where you say, "There are simply too many excuses, and now I am beginning to doubt?" Well, that's what happened to me. Too many excuses and explanations, and my threshold was reached.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

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

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#29  Postby Rumraket » Oct 17, 2010 6:58 pm

It's like the word common ancestry means something else to you Steve. Tell me, can you please explain to me what you understand by common ancestry? It might be important for us to settle on this if rational debate is to commence.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13144
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#30  Postby stevebee92653 » Oct 17, 2010 7:09 pm

Rumraket wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:
CADman2300 wrote:If this thread is all about him, I'm surprised he hasn't dropped in yet to defend himself. As far as his religion is concerned, on his blog is an article simply entitled "More About Me" where he goes into some detail about his religious background.

Personally, I find this part of his story to be a bit on the contrived side. Pretend to be a former YEC and it will somehow automatically grant you credibility.

But when he talks about his time as an evo-believer, things start to get pretty hairy as this paragraph states.

I think it's safe to assume that his past as a evolutionist is completely fabricated. He doesn't point to what those "uh-ohs" were in the entire article nor does he state anywhere in the entire blog where he went to college. He's claimed in other articles that he was an "evolutionaut" for several decades but it leaves me wondering what the hell he was doing in that time. It's simply ludicrous that when he comes out, he immediately starts to accuse evolution of being a religion and a junk science.


C'mon Cadman. You are trying way tooooo hard to find fault. My whole history as given is 100% factual. And certainly you should have no reason not to go with it.

Nonsense. We have every reason not to go with it. The fact that in every concievable sense you are a perfect match on an Intelligent Design Creationist, even down to apparently seeking out atheist forums to make your claims. Tell me SteveBee, how many theist forums have you been defending your views on, and can you link us to these debates?


But your problem is it really doesn't matter. My stuff finds fault with your belief system, and you are all so sensitive about it.

We don't have a belief-system, SteveBee.

You need to find where I am wrong in my evolution challenges.

We have, but you just ignore it or move the goalposts. Another one of those inescapable ID/creationism tactics so often seen on these forums.

My history is just a footnote to those challenges that I openly and freely give you to attack.

Noone cares about this fabrication you call your "history".

What if I said I was Jewish all my life. Or Theist. Or Atheist but don't go for evolution?

I wouldn't care.

Attack my stuff. But why waste your time attacking my biography. My gawd.You are grasping at straws.

As I wrote above, in every relevant sense, you completely mimick an ID-creationist. Heck, you even highlight the word "design" in blue, bold and capital letters on your blog, when quoting peer reviewed science papers. As if the use of the word was supposed to tell us something between the lines. You'll be happy to know it does tell me something, in fact, it tells me exactly what you want it to tell the reader : You want them to think that evolution only makes sense if it's guided by an intelligent designer.


You shouldn’t care. As I said, it’s nothing more than a footnote to this discussion. Your buddies here obviously do care; CARE enough to write multiple comments on it.

I highlight the word “design” because it is used so OFTEN in those holy peer reviewed papers you so revere. If there was no design, why would these dedicated scientists use the word so often? It's almost as if they can't stay away from that word. Don’t you find that a bit strange? And, no, evolution doesn’t make sense even WITH an intelligent designer. It’s just flat out wrong, and doesn’t match the evidence.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

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

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#31  Postby Shrunk » Oct 17, 2010 7:10 pm

Rumraket wrote:It's like the word common ancestry means something else to you Steve. Tell me, can you please explain to me what you understand by common ancestry? It might be important for us to settle on this if rational debate is to commence.


He understands common ancestry. He can even draw phylogenetic trees that illustrate it. But then he goes and says, "See? That proves evillusion is a lie!" It's like someone dropping a a rock then claiming he's disproven gravity.
"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: Why stevebee is wrong

#32  Postby Paul » Oct 17, 2010 7:13 pm

I find it hard to take seriously anyone who uses the word "invent" so often when trying to rubbish evolution

stevebee92653 wrote: Want REAL WORLD? NOTHING has NEVER been observed initiating inventing and assembling anything, nor in the steps of doing so, by any human who ever lived on the face of the earth. Not now, not ever. THAT is REAL WORLD.

stevebee92653 wrote:If these organisms “survive quite happily” then why did species go to the unimaginable lengths to invent, design, assemble, sustain bio-systems and organs through evolutionary processes?

stevebee92653 wrote: so they could invent, assemble, and figure out the dynamics of bio-systems?


Anyone who has truly studied evolution, whether they accept it or not, knows that at no point does anyone who accepts evolution assert that any species invented any adaptations.

It's wrong and it seems to me like a wilful misrepresentation of evolution, rather that rational discourse.
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 61
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#33  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Oct 17, 2010 7:15 pm

Wow, now adaptation is supposedly a conscious decision.
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: a certain type of girl
Posts: 12933
Age: 31
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#34  Postby Rumraket » Oct 17, 2010 7:23 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Rumraket wrote:It's like the word common ancestry means something else to you Steve. Tell me, can you please explain to me what you understand by common ancestry? It might be important for us to settle on this if rational debate is to commence.


He understands common ancestry. He can even draw phylogenetic trees that illustrate it. But then he goes and says, "See? That proves evillusion is a lie!" It's like someone dropping a a rock then claiming he's disproven gravity.

That's exactly what I mean. It's so weird and absurd at the same time.. almost surreal. It's like his world is upside-down?

The fact that the evolutionary postulate, common ancestry, explains the spreading of coevolving biosystems, disproves common ancestry explaining the spreading of coevolving biosystems, thus disproving evolution.

???

Wtf man.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13144
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#35  Postby CADman2300 » Oct 17, 2010 7:34 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:I highlight the word “design” because it is used so OFTEN in those holy peer reviewed papers you so revere.

We REFER to them but we don't "revere" them. Nobody is forcing us to do that.

If there was no design, why would these dedicated scientists use the word so often? It's almost as if they can't stay away from that word.

The word is being used in a purely metaphorical or figurative context. Why you mess that up is anyone's guess.

Don’t you find that a bit strange?

No, but you do.

And, no, evolution doesn’t make sense even WITH an intelligent designer. It’s just flat out wrong, and doesn’t match the evidence.

:yawn2: And exactly what "evidence" are you looking at? Are you looking at the same DNA as the rest of us? The same homology? The same morphology? The same fossil sequential order in the geological strata? The same vestiges and/or atavisms? These are ALL important, you can't just ignore any one of them.
User avatar
CADman2300
 
Posts: 485

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#36  Postby theropod » Oct 17, 2010 8:10 pm

Anyone notice there are no alternatives ever put forward by SteveB? All he has is an attack on evolution.

What is your alternative to the ToE, Steve?

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: Why stevebee is wrong

#37  Postby Rumraket » Oct 17, 2010 8:36 pm

I can answer that, this alternative is conveniently hidden.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13144
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#38  Postby halucigenia » Oct 17, 2010 8:38 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Thanks for the thread. It's always fun to find out "why I am wrong". Your explanation of the missing early AND extant multi-celled species is just another of the thousands of excuses that you have to come up with in order to keep evolution patent.
Is that all you have to say in response to my telling why you are wrong? Why not just come out and tell us why you think that your "Why are monkeys not still evolving into humans" argument actually has any value in refuting evolution. I have shown you why it does not, namely that the theory of evolution does not depend on what you claim should be happening i.e. it does depend on whether we see single celled organisms turning into multi celled organisms today or not. Even if evolution had somehow magically stopped happening today we would still have sufficient evidence from other sources like the fossil record and genetics etc. to show that it was true.

I am specifically taking one assertion at a time so I will not let myself get dragged into your other assertions in your first reply to my explanation of why you are wrong on this particular assertion. However, it is noted that you seem to be depreciating this particular assertion by asserting that "it goes with the fact that..." as, although you just keep repeating these various assertions over and over again, they are not necessarily linked in any way apart from the fact that they depend on totally misunderstanding and misinterpreting what the theory of evolution actually does propose.

Oh, and just so you know, Punctuated Equilibrium is actually an evolutionary explanation for the patterns that we see in the fossil record and in no way equates to anything that is missing from the fossil record. But that would be another why you are wrong moment for another post.
User avatar
halucigenia
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1224

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#39  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Oct 17, 2010 8:43 pm

theropod wrote:Anyone notice there are no alternatives ever put forward by SteveB? All he has is an attack on evolution.

What is your alternative to the ToE, Steve?

RS


MAGIC!
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: a certain type of girl
Posts: 12933
Age: 31
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#40  Postby stevebee92653 » Oct 17, 2010 10:22 pm

halucigenia wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:Thanks for the thread. It's always fun to find out "why I am wrong". Your explanation of the missing early AND extant multi-celled species is just another of the thousands of excuses that you have to come up with in order to keep evolution patent.
Is that all you have to say in response to my telling why you are wrong? Why not just come out and tell us why you think that your "Why are monkeys not still evolving into humans" argument actually has any value in refuting evolution. I have shown you why it does not, namely that the theory of evolution does not depend on what you claim should be happening i.e. it does depend on whether we see single celled organisms turning into multi celled organisms today or not. Even if evolution had somehow magically stopped happening today we would still have sufficient evidence from other sources like the fossil record and genetics etc. to show that it was true.

I am specifically taking one assertion at a time so I will not let myself get dragged into your other assertions in your first reply to my explanation of why you are wrong on this particular assertion. However, it is noted that you seem to be depreciating this particular assertion by asserting that "it goes with the fact that..." as, although you just keep repeating these various assertions over and over again, they are not necessarily linked in any way apart from the fact that they depend on totally misunderstanding and misinterpreting what the theory of evolution actually does propose.

Oh, and just so you know, Punctuated Equilibrium is actually an evolutionary explanation for the patterns that we see in the fossil record and in no way equates to anything that is missing from the fossil record. But that would be another why you are wrong moment for another post.


My gawd. How did you get into monkeys? You must be thinking of some other conversation. I have NEVER been in any monkey discussion. Maybe you need to reload. Any way you cut it, that is very different from not seeing multi's evolving from uni's. And if you like your excuse, fine. Eye of the beholder. Me? I don't see the evolution, that should be present, in any venue. You apparently don't either but you accept all excuses. Like punctuated equilibrium.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

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

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests