Why stevebee is wrong

Scar · **#5821** by **Scar** » Sep 23, 2013 7:03 pm

tolman wrote:Could easily have been a 'fan' given an early copy.

Not particularly relevant anyway, since even if you knew they existed, someone who has only posted one review would be pretty suspect even for a non-contentious product where the producer had some record for producing quality stuff.
When it comes to an area like Creationism and ID which is populated with ignoramuses, delusionals and liars, much more caution regarding reviews would be in order.
I wouldn't put it past some people to have sock-puppet negative strawman reviews which some other reviewer can then tear apart to show how horrible those evils scientists are.

Don't give him ideas.

stevebee92653 · **#5822** by **stevebee92653** » Sep 24, 2013 1:33 am

lucek wrote:OK so update on the 5/5 review. The person who made it claims that they are in fact real and part of a Denmark family band that plays at churches. I sent an Email off to the band to find the truth of this and if the case may be warn them that their name has been stolen but given the nature of the band I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this is legit person.

Wow. Another bit of super-sleuthing by lucek! You are really good at this stuff lucek. I bet you'll find all sorts of information on me when you get hold of my sock puppet in Denmark. I can't wait to see what you find out! :lol:

My favorite was when you or one of your fellow ratskeppers determined that maybe Carl Blumay wasn't my dad! That was a good one! And when you found that the spoof U of TA Arlington was a spoof! Oh, there are so many others....
Out of curiosity, do you people ever DISCUSS science? Just wondering, because all I see on every thread here is your incessant demeaning of people who ask questions. Lucek, maybe if you spent your time super-sleuthing about how blood vessels evolved, and those nine air sac lungs in birds, you would find life AND science much more fun and interesting.

Thomas Eshuis · **#5823** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Sep 24, 2013 7:32 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
lucek wrote:OK so update on the 5/5 review. The person who made it claims that they are in fact real and part of a Denmark family band that plays at churches. I sent an Email off to the band to find the truth of this and if the case may be warn them that their name has been stolen but given the nature of the band I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this is legit person.

Wow. Another bit of super-sleuthing by lucek! You are really good at this stuff lucek. I bet you'll find all sorts of information on me when you get hold of my sock puppet in Denmark. I can't wait to see what you find out! My favorite was when you or one of your fellow ratskeppers determined that maybe Carl Blumay wasn't my dad! That was a good one! And when you found that the spoof U of TA Arlington was a spoof! Oh, there are so many others....
Out of curiosity, do you people ever DISCUSS science? Just wondering, because all I see on every thread here is your incessant demeaning of people who ask questions. Lucek, maybe if you spent your time super-sleuthing about how blood vessels evolved, and those nine air sac lungs in birds, you would find life AND science much more fun and interesting.

The science has long since been discussed in this thread, only for you to blindly dismiss anything that refutes your claims.
Your pathetic and incorrect claims of persecution notwithstanding.
A persons academic credentials are very much relevant when they claim to have published. If said person lies about his personal credentials and even his/her name, why should we trust anything else they say?

tolman · **#5824** by **tolman** » Sep 24, 2013 9:01 am

stevebee92653 wrote:Out of curiosity, do you people ever DISCUSS science? Just wondering, because all I see on every thread here...

Plenty of science in the science section, for anyone with a basic comprehension of English.

Research is fun.
Maybe you should try it sometime.

stevebee92653 · **#5825** by **stevebee92653** » Sep 24, 2013 4:37 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
A persons academic credentials are very much relevant when they claim to have published. If said person lies about his personal
credentials and even his/her name, why should we trust anything else they say?

Why is it that all people who question evolution are liars? You think are on autopilot. The "liar" card is played on every thread on this site with every person that asks questions about evolution by nearly every evolutionaut. I ask you about science and your response is to demean me personally. I find that so interesting and, really, astounding.

Why should "we" trust? Sorry, Thomas, but again you prove yourself to be a groupthinker. Try thinking on your own sometime. It's much more fun. Again, I couldn't imagine writing "we" when I'm sitting alone at my computer. I think, I don't "we-think". You? You "we-think". Your use of "we" should make you take pause, if only for a moment. But it won't and you won't.

stevebee92653 · **#5826** by **stevebee92653** » Sep 24, 2013 4:40 pm

tolman wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:Out of curiosity, do you people ever DISCUSS science? Just wondering, because all I see on every thread here...

Plenty of science in the science section, for anyone with a basic comprehension of English.

Research is fun.
Maybe you should try it sometime.

Ah, I got it. All threads are for personal demeaning except the science section. Thanks! I'll go there and find out how blood vessels and bird lung sacs evolved in random step by step fashion. I'm sure they have the answers.

Cito di Pense · **#5827** by **Cito di Pense** » Sep 24, 2013 4:45 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Ah, I got it. All threads are for personal demeaning except the science section. Thanks! I'll go there and find out how blood vessels and bird lung sacs evolved in random step by step fashion. I'm sure they have the answers.

But that's not all, Steve. Once somebody explained lungs to you, there'd always be kidneys. I mean, why would you ask about the lungs, and neglect the kidneys. People can live a long time with failing lungs; with failing kidneys, it's curtains pretty fast. It's a shell game with you guys. You want the whole shebang. You should just ask for the explanation of the whole shebang: Goddidit. What an explanation!

stevebee92653 wrote:I ask you about science and your response is to demean me personally.

You're not asking about science. You think that's what it's supposed to look like, but you're asking for the whole shebang. That's why we consider you dishonest. It's not demeaning to call dishonesty by its name.

lucek · **#5828** by **lucek** » Sep 24, 2013 5:07 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Ah, I got it. All threads are for personal demeaning except the science section. Thanks! I'll go there and find out how blood vessels and bird lung sacs evolved in random step by step fashion. I'm sure they have the answers.

Absolutely. We have fossils of dinosaurs that show evidence of air sacks. It's pretty simple to see the transition and the benefit for what basically works out to a second windpipe in a large animal. Now before you start your old chestnut again no. Air sacks didn't evolve then the blood vessels that surround them. The most likely coarse is a growth off the lung expanded down the neck overtime. At every stage increasing lung capacity and ease of breathing with an elongate neck but also bringing blood vessels with it.

But it's a hard puzzle to find the exact origin as it appears that airsack or to be more accurate their predecessors were present in Ornithodirans IE after crocks split off but before Pterosaurs as members of Pterosauria appear to have similar features.

Shrunk · **#5829** by **Shrunk** » Sep 24, 2013 5:09 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:It's a shell game with you guys.

It is a bit demeaning and belittling to lump Steve in with "you guys". Granted, most of what he has to say is standard creationist boilerplate. But some of his arguments, like his "population paradox" or his "varying values of zero", are quite unique and special indeed. There's almost a special type of genius required to achieve wrongness of such magnitude.

tolman · **#5830** by **tolman** » Sep 24, 2013 5:37 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Why is it that all people who question evolution are liars?

They aren't.
People ask questions about evolution all the time, including people learning about it in good faith.

Even when people ask dumb questions, that can certainly be down to a lack of prior education or a lack of comprehension of prior information, as well as less forgivable reasons.

The trouble when it comes to creationists and fellow-travellers is that many of them ask questions which have already been answered in front of them while pretending there are no answers, or ask questions based on deliberate misrepresentations of what biologists actually think. they ask questions not because they want answers, but because they are happy to ignore any answers they get and pretend that they don't exist.
That kind of behaviour is pure intellectual dishonesty.

Even if someone is confused about what biologists think, if they ask a question which depends on such confusion and they are then told by one or more people that their understanding is simply wrong and they later ask the same question again without trying to follow up on the allegation that they were factually wrong, in the absence of other evidence that they were actually mentally challenged, the only rational conclusion would seem to be that they were a willing liar.

tolman · **#5831** by **tolman** » Sep 24, 2013 5:44 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Ah, I got it. All threads are for personal demeaning except the science section.

Well, there are all kinds of sections with numerous normal discussions.

Much depends on whether a thread has someone putting forward ideas or arguments which invite ridicule due to their idiotic nature.

[edit]
And the claim that 'all threads are for personal demeaning except the science section' is itself wrong to the point of being dishonest, since it is an inaccurate claim made by someone who has already had previous inaccurate claims of the same nature challenged, but who has either seen fit not to try and see if they are correct before making more sweeping statements, or who makes sweeping statements despite knowing that they are false. Even the former behaviour at best suggests very limited respect for the truth.

But you seem to be no stranger to making statements which are wrong to the point of dishonesty and then running away from even trying to defend them.
Which many people would tend to think of as behaviour typical of a 'certain kind of person'.

stevebee92653 · **#5832** by **stevebee92653** » Sep 24, 2013 6:26 pm

Cito di Pense said:
You're not asking about science. You think that's what it's supposed to look like, but you're asking for the whole shebang. That's why we consider you dishonest. It's not demeaning to call dishonesty by its name.

"WE consider you?" 8-)

No, actually I asked about the steps to the evolution of tubes like blood vessels, and bird lung air sacs. Not what animals they appeared in, but how would closed systems like these evolve in small steps. I realize my inquisitiveness make me a liar here, but that's the way it is. Ask and you are dishonest. The whole shebang would be nice too. But one question at a time is fine with me. I really wonder why the cyber-group you exist in here isn't curious.

Thomas Eshuis · **#5833** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Sep 24, 2013 6:37 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:
Cito di Pense said:
You're not asking about science. You think that's what it's supposed to look like, but you're asking for the whole shebang. That's why we consider you dishonest. It's not demeaning to call dishonesty by its name.

[color=#0040FF]"WE consider you?" No, actually I asked about the steps to the evolution of tubes like blood vessels, and bird lung air sacs.

And you got answers. Neither your incapacity to understand nor your willingness to accept those answers will change that fact.
Even if you hadn't gotten those answers, it still wouldn't have mattered since your personal incredulity and ignorance aren't rational grounds to refute the ToE.

stevebee92653 wrote:Not what animals they appeared in, but how would closed systems like these evolve in small steps. I realize my inquisitiveness make me a liar here, but that's the way it is.

No, your lies about your name and credentials are what earned you justified accusations of lying.
Now you're lying once again by claiming the bolded.

stevebee92653 wrote:Ask and you are dishonest.

Nope, not telling the truth about your name and credentials means your dishonest.
Compounding that with lying why you're being accused of lying won't make things better.

stevebee92653 wrote:The whole shebang would be nice too. But one question at a time is fine with me. I really wonder why the cyber-group you exist in here isn't curious.

You're really in no position to criticise since you've amply demonstrated that you haven't the faintest notion about the basics of the ToE, let alone the specific things you've asked question about.
First educate yourself before you start demanding it of others.

lucek · **#5834** by **lucek** » Sep 24, 2013 6:42 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:"WE consider you?" No, actually I asked about the steps to the evolution of tubes like blood vessels, and bird lung air sacs. Not what animals they appeared in, but how would closed systems like these evolve in small steps. I realize my inquisitiveness make me a liar here, but that's the way it is. Ask and you are dishonest. The whole shebang would be nice too. But one question at a time is fine with me. I really wonder why the cyber-group you exist in here isn't curious.

Well given you just got an answer yes it is kinda dishonest to ignore it and keep going on about how it's unanswered.

lucek wrote:The most likely coarse is a growth off the lung expanded down the neck overtime. At every stage increasing lung capacity and ease of breathing with an elongate neck but also bringing blood vessels with it.

The discussion of what animals air sacks appear in is an interesting one however as pterosaurs and dinosaurs air sacks have some very different anatomical features that lends to the thinking on how they evolved. For example the subcutaneous air sac system in pterosaurs appears to be more structural then what is commonly thought of as air sacks.

stevebee92653 · **#5835** by **stevebee92653** » Sep 24, 2013 7:27 pm

tolman said:
Even if someone is confused about what biologists think, if they ask a question which depends on such confusion and they are then told by one or more people that their understanding is simply wrong and they later ask the same question again without trying to follow up on the allegation that they were factually wrong, in the absence of other evidence that they were actually mentally challenged, the only rational conclusion would seem to be that they were a willing liar.

See, tolman, lucek thought he answered my question above, but he didn't. I deem his answer to not be an answer at all, which makes me a "willing liar" here. Is that how it works?

lucek · **#5836** by **lucek** » Sep 24, 2013 7:46 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:See, tolman, lucek thought he answered my question above, but he didn't. I deem his answer to not be an answer at all, which makes me a "willing liar" here. Is that how it works?

No but claiming I said you were a liar ironically would make you one. What I said was that ignoring an answer is dishonest and it is.

For note you didn't say that you didn't find the answer given good enough. You claimed that a secondary part of my post didn't constitute an answer.

stevebee92653 wrote:"WE consider you?" No, actually I asked about the steps to the evolution of tubes like blood vessels, and bird lung air sacs. Not what animals they appeared in, but how would closed systems like these evolve in small steps. I realize my inquisitiveness make me a liar here, but that's the way it is. Ask and you are dishonest. The whole shebang would be nice too. But one question at a time is fine with me. I really wonder why the cyber-group you exist in here isn't curious.

My bold.

As pointed out before I did in fact give a step by step evolutionary process BTW.

Edit:Thinking about it you could have just misinterpreted what I wrote. I assume common English turns of phrases will be understood but in case you didn't, the word yes at the beginning of a sentence can mean kinda or in a way. I thought this was clear from context(I went on to clarify my point by the end of the sentence in question) but I realize that just because someone is a published author with a few sheepskins doesn't mean that'll always read context clues.

tolman · **#5837** by **tolman** » Sep 24, 2013 8:13 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:See, tolman, lucek thought he answered my question above, but he didn't. I deem his answer to not be an answer at all, which makes me a "willing liar" here. Is that how it works?

Oh, if you want to take names to yourself, I think you could find better reasons than that without looking very far.

Such as the behaviour I was talking about a few posts ago.

Thomas Eshuis · **#5838** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Sep 24, 2013 8:43 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:
tolman said:
Even if someone is confused about what biologists think, if they ask a question which depends on such confusion and they are then told by one or more people that their understanding is simply wrong and they later ask the same question again without trying to follow up on the allegation that they were factually wrong, in the absence of other evidence that they were actually mentally challenged, the only rational conclusion would seem to be that they were a willing liar.

See, tolman, lucek thought he answered my question above, but he didn't. I deem his answer to not be an answer at all, which makes me a "willing liar" here. Is that how it works?

No. You sticking your fingers in your ears and crying 'does not!' isn't how it works.
You were given an answer. Neither your dislike of the answer nor your incredulity or incomprehension will change that you were given an answer.
So it is a lie to claim your questions haven't been answered.

Oldskeptic · **#5839** by **Oldskeptic** » Sep 24, 2013 9:00 pm

If I remember right many of these questions began more as statements as to the impossibility of things like bird wings, lungs, eyes... to evolve. When possible explanations were presented where Steve challenged that their were no possible explanations he dismissed them because of words like 'may' and 'might'. Words that I would expect to be used it papers offering evidence for an unproven yet rational hypothesis.

When Steve claimed that it was impossible for evolution/natural selection to explain bird nests I among other gave him plausible and possible explanations, but that wasn't good enough. And Steve seems to think that there being more than one possible explanation for something somehow supports his claim that there is no possible explanation.

tolman · **#5840** by **tolman** » Sep 24, 2013 10:14 pm

Oldskeptic wrote:When Steve claimed that it was impossible for evolution/natural selection to explain bird nests I among other gave him plausible and possible explanations, but that wasn't good enough. And Steve seems to think that there being more than one possible explanation for something somehow supports his claim that there is no possible explanation.

So the correct math sequence in that context is 'zero', 'one', 'another kind of zero'?

Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Who is online