Why stevebee is wrong

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5781  Postby ElDiablo » Sep 02, 2013 11:51 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
ElDiablo wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:
ElDiablo said:
I'll stick with mine. A car maker may get everything else right but the shell. With my analogy you're wrong from even the most fundamental aspect of alternator repair. If you can't get the basics right, how can you get anything else right?


Well, the discussion is primate coverings and human skin appearing at a 625:1 ratio. You example an internal electromechanical car part, and think that's a good analogy. Then you are able to declare that I'm wrong. So, good for you. Me? I think randomness can't produce a 625:1 ratio. But that's what I learned in very basic math, and what I deduce from total obviousness. You stay with yours, I'll keep mine.


As Tolman correctly points out, my example has to do with credibility. You claim to have a high level of understanding of science but what I've read of yours shows otherwise. You misrepresent science even at the most fundamental level therefore your book lacks credibility.


Oh. Eye of the beholder here, eh? I love the broad generalizations that you and your fellow skeptics pour out on all threads here at ratskep, not just on this one. You are typical. Whatever you do, don't read the book before making big decisions like these.


No, it's not about personal interpretation. You make a specific statement about the human skin that shows a fundamental error in your understanding of evolution. Considering your "enough courses in biological sciences to have a masters" you shouldn't be getting this wrong, yet you do.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3128

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

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5782  Postby mattthomas » Sep 02, 2013 12:12 pm

Give me a free copy of the book, I will read it... I give you my word that if it isn't just bollock full of logical inconsistencies, personal incredulity and claims to authority I will pay you the price directly and skip Amazons fees.
mattthomas
 
Posts: 5776
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5783  Postby CADman2300 » Sep 02, 2013 2:09 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:
tolman said:
To me, that doesn't qualify you to be an author of a book I'd care to read even if you paid me.


Well, uh, how much would I have to pay you. Everyone has a price.

I know this is kinda irrelevant but Steve would probably have to pay me at least $1500 to read his book, and even then, I'd likely find the book only useful as a doorstop or paperweight. I need the money for some new computer hardware and he'll have to pay me first before I pick up a copy.

:lol: Ah, who am I kidding? I wouldn't read the book even if he threw his entire retirement fund at me, but I'd still be more than happy to take his money.
User avatar
CADman2300
 
Posts: 485

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5784  Postby Rumraket » Sep 02, 2013 7:37 pm

CADman2300 wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:
tolman said:
To me, that doesn't qualify you to be an author of a book I'd care to read even if you paid me.


Well, uh, how much would I have to pay you. Everyone has a price.

I know this is kinda irrelevant but Steve would probably have to pay me at least $1500 to read his book, and even then, I'd likely find the book only useful as a doorstop or paperweight. I need the money for some new computer hardware and he'll have to pay me first before I pick up a copy.

:lol: Ah, who am I kidding? I wouldn't read the book even if he threw his entire retirement fund at me, but I'd still be more than happy to take his money.

:this:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13241
Age: 42

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5785  Postby tolman » Sep 02, 2013 8:15 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:
tolman said:
To me, that doesn't qualify you to be an author of a book I'd care to read even if you paid me.

Well, uh, how much would I have to pay you. Everyone has a price.

OK.
I very much doubt you'd pay what it would take to get me to read it. Let's say £30/hour (what do you reckon minimum reading time should be?), and if you actually were offering that, even though I could actually use some spare cash right now, I'd honestly feel bad about taking it unless I was going to give it away to some deserving cause.

Any comments would of course be at extra cost.
Last edited by tolman on Sep 03, 2013 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5786  Postby Ironclad » Sep 03, 2013 12:46 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
lucek said:
(you)...want us to believe that the idea of something not evolving over 3 million years sprung into your head when you read a placard in a museum de novo...


I really couldn't care less what you believe about anything lucek. You think little "wolves" evolved into 300,000 lb. whales, and that theropods evolved into hummingbirds and woodpeckers, so that's enough for me.I fully realize there is no cure for what you believe.


:rofl: Stop it, you're killin me!
For Van Youngman - see you amongst the stardust, old buddy

"If there was no such thing as science, you'd be right " - Sean Lock

"God ....an inventive destroyer" - Broks
User avatar
Ironclad
RS Donator
 
Name: Nudge-Nudge
Posts: 23973
Age: 53
Male

Country: Wink-Wink
Indonesia (id)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5787  Postby ADParker » Sep 03, 2013 1:05 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
tolman said:
To me, that doesn't qualify you to be an author of a book I'd care to read even if you paid me.


Well, uh, how much would I have to pay you. Everyone has a price.

I on the other hand would probably be willing to read it for free.
However; I have now read maybe a full 6th of the book, made available through Amazon, and therein I see nothing but the same old ignorant nonsense as found on your blog and this thread. :roll:
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 50
Male

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

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5788  Postby Meme » Sep 03, 2013 1:23 am

This is by far the best example of the Dunning–Kruger effect I've seen. If I was still at university, I'd smell a thesis in the making.
Meme
 
Name: Simon
Posts: 61

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5789  Postby CADman2300 » Sep 05, 2013 1:53 pm

With Steve's book a reality now, it looks like some people have taken notice. http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com ... e-dentist/
Steve is there also and is trying to defend his book. Unfortunately he's still using the same tactless rhetoric that he always uses. And when user: Tomato Addict proposes a word contest, Steve responds with this.
Can I enter? Here is my application:
Of the phosphomalate pathway, which they had eliminated, they write: “…IT COULD BE ARGUED, however, that the feeder P-malate COULD HAVE PLAYED SOME ROLE in earlier metabolism; and thus it IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE. It is, in fact, HIGHLY UNLIKELY that some ancient metabolic pathway involving such a compound has vanished without trace (although the original pathway has been lost, such an intermediate COULD HAVE BEEN to other purposes); however, it CANNOT BE STRICTLY DISCARDED and thus, although UNLIKELY, phosphomalate and the [alternative] Krebs cycle structure…MIGHT BE FOUND IN SOME paleospecies as a case of paleometabolism.
Source at: http://www.evillusion.net. p. 5 I sure hope I win!

It looks like Steve is still refusing to accept the reality that in science it's bad form to make statements of absolute certainty. So when a scientific paper is presented to him, all he's going to do is highlight any word or phrase that points out the uncertainty, falsely assume that to be the paper's Achilles heel, and attack it for all it's worth. It's clear that he does it because it's far easier than proving the paper wrong through physical experiment, because that would take actual effort and Steve is content to just sit at his computer and post his uninformed opinions in blogs and forums.

:think: It really makes me wonder what his college experience was really like. Maybe he had some really bad professors, or in the decades he spent up until the field museum trip he simply forgot everything he was taught about how science works.
User avatar
CADman2300
 
Posts: 485

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5790  Postby Paul » Sep 05, 2013 4:04 pm

How long before he starts counting occurrences of "we" in the comments and responses to him over there, and accuses them of g*****hink?
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 64
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5791  Postby Shrunk » Sep 05, 2013 4:11 pm

The Curmudgeon nails it:

Biokid and the dentist ask: “Why did T. rex have small arms?”

Because it wasn’t intelligently designed.


:lol:

Spoiler Alert! If you read that blog post, it reveals what IID stands for. So avoid if you wan't to maintain the suspense.
"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: 57
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5792  Postby ElDiablo » Sep 05, 2013 5:57 pm

God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3128

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

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5793  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 05, 2013 8:49 pm

I’ve taken enough college classes to be a book critic. I haven’t actually read this Dentist’s book, but after a couple thought expiriments, I’ve concluded the book is a complete waste of time.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 33
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5794  Postby lucek » Sep 09, 2013 11:05 pm

Just noted something. Steve in his blurb claims
Blume's dad was an author. He wrote The Dark Side of Power, the story of Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum, published by Simon & Schuster.
Look up The Dark Side of Power, the story of Armand Hammer and you find that it was written by Carl Blumay, but Steve claims to be Stephen T. Blume (a possiblility. many people change the spelling of their names). So A: Steve's last name is different then his father, B: one of then misspelled their name for their book credit, C; the claim is wrong they are related (possibly counts as fraud and given the text about dear daddy blume libel too). Does bring up the question if the name Stephen T. Blume is just assumed however.
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
"Nutrition is a balancing act during the day, not a one-shot deal from a single meal or food.":Sciwoman
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5795  Postby tolman » Sep 09, 2013 11:34 pm

lucek wrote:Just noted something. Steve in his blurb claims
Blume's dad was an author. He wrote The Dark Side of Power, the story of Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum, published by Simon & Schuster.
Look up The Dark Side of Power, the story of Armand Hammer and you find that it was written by Carl Blumay, but Steve claims to be Stephen T. Blume (a possiblility. many people change the spelling of their names). So A: Steve's last name is different then his father, B: one of then misspelled their name for their book credit, C; the claim is wrong they are related (possibly counts as fraud and given the text about dear daddy blume libel too). Does bring up the question if the name Stephen T. Blume is just assumed however.

Out of the tiny number of people likely to ever buy the book, are any actually likely to check his genealogy, or to care much about it?

It doesn't seem that writing is that much of an inherited trade, though I guess a parent having written a book might help inspire a child to do the same, whether or not the child actually has the skill and knowledge and self-awareness to do so successfully.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5796  Postby stevebee92653 » Sep 10, 2013 2:37 am

lucek wrote:Just noted something. Steve in his blurb claims
Blume's dad was an author. He wrote The Dark Side of Power, the story of Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum, published by Simon & Schuster.
Look up The Dark Side of Power, the story of Armand Hammer and you find that it was written by Carl Blumay, but Steve claims to be Stephen T. Blume (a possiblility. many people change the spelling of their names). So A: Steve's last name is different then his father, B: one of then misspelled their name for their book credit, C; the claim is wrong they are related (possibly counts as fraud and given the text about dear daddy blume libel too). Does bring up the question if the name Stephen T. Blume is just assumed however.


What an amazing super sleuth you are Lucek. Very impressive. See if you can sleuth this one out a little more. There is a little puzzle here to solve, and if you or any other ratskepper can solve it, they will get 10 kudos from me! :ask:
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

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

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5797  Postby Made of Stars » Sep 10, 2013 9:45 am

The e in Blume is accented.
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: 9835
Age: 54
Male

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

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5798  Postby Paul Almond » Sep 10, 2013 11:28 am

tolman wrote:
lucek wrote:Just noted something. Steve in his blurb claims
Blume's dad was an author. He wrote The Dark Side of Power, the story of Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum, published by Simon & Schuster.
Look up The Dark Side of Power, the story of Armand Hammer and you find that it was written by Carl Blumay, but Steve claims to be Stephen T. Blume (a possiblility. many people change the spelling of their names). So A: Steve's last name is different then his father, B: one of then misspelled their name for their book credit, C; the claim is wrong they are related (possibly counts as fraud and given the text about dear daddy blume libel too). Does bring up the question if the name Stephen T. Blume is just assumed however.

Out of the tiny number of people likely to ever buy the book, are any actually likely to check his genealogy, or to care much about it?

It doesn't seem that writing is that much of an inherited trade, though I guess a parent having written a book might help inspire a child to do the same, whether or not the child actually has the skill and knowledge and self-awareness to do so successfully.

In the case of Carl Blumay and "The Dark Side of Power", the writing career seems to have been an afterthought. The book makes a case that Armand Hammer, who owned Occidental Petroleum, behaved unethically - that he was a monster. However, Carl Blumay was not a writer who just happened to have become interested in this story. Prior to writing the book, he was Armand Hammer's PR manager for 25 years. Rather than describing him as an "author" it might be more accurate to describe him as "a PR manager who did the dirty work for his boss for 25 years, and managed a sophisticated operation - with staff working under him - devoted to portraying an unethical man as ethical, who for his own reasons decided to get revenge after his boss died and wrote a book about how evil his former boss was while avoiding his own responsibilty for his own significant efforts in helping him do it for 25 years".
If I ever start making posts like "On the banning and partial banning of words!" then I view my life as less than worthless and I hope that my friends here would have a collection to pay for ninjas to be sent to my home to kill me*. (*=humanely)
User avatar
Paul Almond
 
Name: Paul Almond
Posts: 1541
Male

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

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5799  Postby tolman » Sep 10, 2013 11:34 am

stevebee92653 wrote:What an amazing super sleuth you are Lucek. Very impressive. See if you can sleuth this one out a little more. There is a little puzzle here to solve, and if you or any other ratskepper can solve it, they will get 10 kudos from me! :ask:

As I said, I doubt many people care that much about this.

Personally, if I wrote a book and had to resort in the marketing to telling people what my mum or dad had done if it was of no obvious relevance to the book itself, I hope I'd see that as padding even if entirely true.

But I guess it depends what kind of audience one is aiming for, and it's quite possible that the kind of people who might buy your book may well be impressed by that kind of thing.
I dare say that you have spent rather more time talking with people daft or ignorant enough to buy into your half-baked ideas than I have, and so you know your market to some extent.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5800  Postby Shrunk » Sep 10, 2013 12:50 pm

Steve has a very odd understanding of how the publishing business works, judging by his comment on the Sensuous Curmudgeon:

Regarding the big deal made out of my vanity publishing, the only way to get a first book published is if vanity publishers are used; unless the writer is famous, which I am not, fortunately. When you people who rag on vanity publishing write a book and get it published by Simon and Schuster, then make a big deal. Otherwise you might want to shut it on that one.


That's right, Steve. Every single published author, other than the ones who are already famous, has to first go thru the vanity press before getting his book published by a real publisher. Every single one. :lol:
"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: 57
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest