Why stevebee is wrong

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#81  Postby Shrunk » Oct 19, 2010 12:30 am

stevebee92653 wrote:We should see the steps of evolution. Of course we would not observe the entire process of anything morphing into anything else. But we would see the steps. They should be prevalent. Of the trillions of fish, we should see some evolving legs today, just like they did millions of years ago.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaogWgXtVe8[/youtube]


If we could venture back in time, we should be able to see those cup-shaped proto-eyes touted by evolution. Think we would? I would bet not.


Image
"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

Ads by Google


Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#82  Postby Rumraket » Oct 19, 2010 6:18 am

SteveBee wrote:We should see the steps of evolution. Of course we would not observe the entire process of anything morphing into anything else. But we would see the steps. They should be prevalent. Of the trillions of fish, we should see some evolving legs today, just like they did millions of years ago. But we don't. If we could venture back in time, we should be able to see those cup-shaped proto-eyes touted by evolution. Think we would? I would bet not.

No, we should not expect to see fish evolving legs today, not even in very small steps. When the fish originally started crawling out of the sea, THERE WAS NOTHING OTHER THAN PLANTS WAITING FOR THEM. There was an entire ecological niche waiting for them, that made it a huge benefit for them to evolve into land animals.

Today, there are so many fucking predators waiting at the surface of the ocean, we should NOT expect fish to evolve legs. Any fish getting close to the surface of the ocean, near land will be eaten, mostly by birds. In addition, the available food sources on land are also competed for by land herbivores.

The mudskippers above are a very rare exception that have happened to find a geographical area where the selective pressures waiting for them in the air and on land are not as strong. The mudskippers might even very well be "stuck" at their current level of development, because going further inland for longer periods might result in heavier predation or other competitive pressures, thus putting a natural barrier on their landdwelling development.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13144
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#83  Postby Rumraket » Oct 19, 2010 6:25 am

SteveBee wrote:Right. I am smart enough to realize that I am not smart enough.

Yes but if that was all you were saying, I could respect that. I'm not smart enough to critize String Theorists, so I don't. You are arguing agains millions of scientists the world over, telling them all they aren't smart enough, in addition to claiming they are part of a grand conspiracy theory.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13144
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#84  Postby Rumraket » Oct 19, 2010 6:29 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
Occam's Laser wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:C'mon Cadman. You are trying way tooooo hard to find fault. My whole history as given is 100% factual.

Except that uncomfortable part back when you were pretending your name was Steven B. Lyndon, and that you had one or more patents issued under that name, despite the U.S. Patent Office not actually having any patents issued to a Steven B. Lyndon. After a few months of questioning, you finally 'fessed up that wasn't your name at all. So, yeah. I guess your whole history is 100% factual, except for the couple of instances where you had to admit you made some of it up. I pretty much stopped reading anything you had to say after the point where you couldn't even be honest with your own name.


Occam's Laser: I congratulate you. You are using your best strategy. Get off of the argument on science, and go back to claiming I don't have patents, and write under a pen name. You stopped reading? Then why are you here? What a laugh. I would continue ragging on my patents and pen name if I were you. See how many pages you can go with that tact. It's such fascinating reading. I'm sure everyone here loves it.

You can laugh all you want but your deeds, being everything between intentionally misrepresenting valid science, to lying about your own personal details and credentials, and your past history, pretty much establish you as a pathological liar from which nothing that comes can be trusted as factual.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13144
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#85  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Oct 19, 2010 6:32 am

Using a pseudonym is by no means the same thing as portraying yourself at two different people in an effort to remove yourself from past shenanigans. Using a pseudonym doesn't involve lying about credentials or professional standing or even employment.
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

#86  Postby dean » Oct 19, 2010 1:23 pm

:popcorn: If stevebee fails in the forest and there's no one there to hear him, is he still wrong?
"A man said to the Universe, 'Sir, I exist'. "Yes, said the Universe, but that has not created within me a sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane

"You must get more atomic into thoughts of people." -- Robert Byers
User avatar
dean
RS Donator
 
Posts: 504
Age: 65

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#87  Postby Occam's Laser » Oct 19, 2010 2:13 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Using a pseudonym is by no means the same thing as portraying yourself at two different people in an effort to remove yourself from past shenanigans. Using a pseudonym doesn't involve lying about credentials or professional standing or even employment.

Of course not. For example, I actually have seven patents issued under my own name, but I have never claimed I had patents issued under the name Occam's Laser. stevebee92653 actually did make the claim on his website that "My name is Steven B. Lyndon," (instead of "I write anonymously under the pseudonym Steven B. Lyndon") and that he had a patent or two issued. I work for IBM, and hold the title IBM Master Inventor, so I'm generally interested in the patent work of others, when I found that no patents were actually issued to the real-world name Steve claimed for himself. Initially, he tried to bury it with a handwaved dismissal, as he was reluctant to give up his pen name or risk having people discover the connection between the chosen last name and a professor he had previously worked with or who had influenced him.

But there's no question that authority claimed under a pseudonym is no authority at all, especially where claims are made that cannot be verified without the actual identity. Without that authentication, one could say "According to world-famous authority J. Fartlington Poopnagle, an renowned expert in this field, my position is right. Poopnagle is writing under a pseudonym." Thus, we cannot go on the pure argument from authority alone. Should stevebee have decided to push his luck and claim to have won a Nobel Peace Prize while still writing under his pseudonym, it could be determined much more readily that he was lying. Using a pseudonym, on a low level, one could steal the identity of someone else, and attempt to usurp the qualifications of someone else. In the absence of an actual identity, the level of expertise can only be measured by the arguments themselves, which from what I've seen are pretty well demolished.

Again, my only objection is that if a person can't be honest about something as basic as what his name was, in the first sentence of his web site, the rest of his crap isn't worth paying attention to - as several other people have demonstrated by refuting pretty much every one of his arguments.
User avatar
Occam's Laser
 
Posts: 628
Age: 62
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#88  Postby trubble76 » Oct 19, 2010 2:23 pm

Occam's Laser wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Using a pseudonym is by no means the same thing as portraying yourself at two different people in an effort to remove yourself from past shenanigans. Using a pseudonym doesn't involve lying about credentials or professional standing or even employment.

Of course not. For example, I actually have seven patents issued under my own name, but I have never claimed I had patents issued under the name Occam's Laser. stevebee92653 actually did make the claim on his website that "My name is Steven B. Lyndon," (instead of "I write anonymously under the pseudonym Steven B. Lyndon") and that he had a patent or two issued. I work for IBM, and hold the title IBM Master Inventor, so I'm generally interested in the patent work of others, when I found that no patents were actually issued to the real-world name Steve claimed for himself. Initially, he tried to bury it with a handwaved dismissal, as he was reluctant to give up his pen name or risk having people discover the connection between the chosen last name and a professor he had previously worked with or who had influenced him.

But there's no question that authority claimed under a pseudonym is no authority at all, especially where claims are made that cannot be verified without the actual identity. Without that authentication, one could say "According to world-famous authority J. Fartlington Poopnagle, an renowned expert in this field, my position is right. Poopnagle is writing under a pseudonym." Thus, we cannot go on the pure argument from authority alone. Should stevebee have decided to push his luck and claim to have won a Nobel Peace Prize while still writing under his pseudonym, it could be determined much more readily that he was lying. Using a pseudonym, on a low level, one could steal the identity of someone else, and attempt to usurp the qualifications of someone else. In the absence of an actual identity, the level of expertise can only be measured by the arguments themselves, which from what I've seen are pretty well demolished.

Again, my only objection is that if a person can't be honest about something as basic as what his name was, in the first sentence of his web site, the rest of his crap isn't worth paying attention to - as several other people have demonstrated by refuting pretty much every one of his arguments.


Creationism = dishonesty

Simples.
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

#89  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Oct 19, 2010 3:42 pm

What stevebee has done though does go way beyond simply using a pseudonym.
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

#90  Postby stevebee92653 » Oct 19, 2010 4:59 pm

Occam's Laser wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:
Occam's Laser wrote:
Except that uncomfortable part back when you were pretending your name was Steven B. Lyndon, and that you had one or more patents issued under that name, despite the U.S. Patent Office not actually having any patents issued to a Steven B. Lyndon. After a few months of questioning, you finally 'fessed up that wasn't your name at all. So, yeah. I guess your whole history is 100% factual, except for the couple of instances where you had to admit you made some of it up. I pretty much stopped reading anything you had to say after the point where you couldn't even be honest with your own name.


Occam's Laser: I congratulate you. You are using your best strategy.

You're trying to be sarcastic, aren't you? How cute.

Get off of the argument on science, and go back to claiming I don't have patents, and write under a pen name.

Not at all. Re-read the claim you made above, which I have put in bold italic font. "My whole history as given is 100% factual." (Except, it isn't.) The argument isn't about science at all; it's about whether you're truthful about "your whole history." You admit you were writing under a pen name, which is a concession that you were being dishonest about your actual name. Doesn't that dishonesty count in your claim of "100% honesty?" It reduces to nothing more than "I always tell the truth, except when I'm lying." That's why we're making fun of you. I don't believe I've ever claimed you don't have patents, except for the time when you were misrepresenting your own name in a matter where it was simple to check that the name you claimed didn't actually have any patents issued (using Google Patents).

You stopped reading?

Sure. If you can't be honest about something as basic as your own name, in the first sentence on your web site home page, you've impeached your own credibility in just about any other subject matter. I really don't give a rat's ass what you're pushing; my point is, you've lost your "benefit of the doubt" by your previous dishonesty.

Then why are you here?

To remind you that "your whole history" is somewhat less than your estimate of "100% honest" - an established fact which you seem to have lost track of.

What a laugh.

Most people don't find their exposed lack of credibility and integrity laughable, but I guess it takes all kinds to make a world. It's really nothing to be proud of, or amused by.

I would continue ragging on my patents and pen name if I were you.

Well, I certainly will, as long as I have your permission and you continue to, let's say, overstate your own honesty.

See how many pages you can go with that tact. It's such fascinating reading.

You really got stung on that one, didn't you? I don't blame you for having your feelings hurt. Obviously, you put a lot of time and trouble developing your web site, and an atheist/skeptic (me) pointed out a grave error or personality flaw in the absolute first sentence of your home page - so plainly deceptive that you eventually were shamed into changing it.

I'm sure everyone here loves it.

What would anyone else's reaction, positive or negative, have to do with your lack of personal integrity? As it turns out here, around these parts, that kind of deception doesn't go over too well.


If you had copies of my patents in hand, you would simply change the ragging to some other topic not related to science. So my patents matter not a lick. Your comments and ragging are a big waste of time. Particularly for someone who says they don't care at all. Obviously you do. A lot. So, why are you here? You don't like challenges to your beliefs. And mine are too tough for you to answer. Feelings hurt? What a laugh.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

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

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#91  Postby stevebee92653 » Oct 19, 2010 5:09 pm

Rumraket wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:
Occam's Laser wrote:
Except that uncomfortable part back when you were pretending your name was Steven B. Lyndon, and that you had one or more patents issued under that name, despite the U.S. Patent Office not actually having any patents issued to a Steven B. Lyndon. After a few months of questioning, you finally 'fessed up that wasn't your name at all. So, yeah. I guess your whole history is 100% factual, except for the couple of instances where you had to admit you made some of it up. I pretty much stopped reading anything you had to say after the point where you couldn't even be honest with your own name.


Occam's Laser: I congratulate you. You are using your best strategy. Get off of the argument on science, and go back to claiming I don't have patents, and write under a pen name. You stopped reading? Then why are you here? What a laugh. I would continue ragging on my patents and pen name if I were you. See how many pages you can go with that tact. It's such fascinating reading. I'm sure everyone here loves it.

You can laugh all you want but your deeds, being everything between intentionally misrepresenting valid science, to lying about your own personal details and credentials, and your past history, pretty much establish you as a pathological liar from which nothing that comes can be trusted as factual.


Rummie fails at science, so on to the personal attack. Calling me a pathological liar is nothing but a sad admission of failure on your part. And ditto the other members that have nothing to say about science, but can do the personal rag thing. Any grammar school kid can to that. It requires no thought or problem solving ability. The discussion is science. Your failed at that, and this comment is nothing but an admission of that failure. You are out of line on this site. I'm just trying to help you out here. If you get screened by the committee, you have broken the rules.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

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

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#92  Postby stevebee92653 » Oct 19, 2010 5:18 pm

Rumraket wrote:
SteveBee wrote:We should see the steps of evolution. Of course we would not observe the entire process of anything morphing into anything else. But we would see the steps. They should be prevalent. Of the trillions of fish, we should see some evolving legs today, just like they did millions of years ago. But we don't. If we could venture back in time, we should be able to see those cup-shaped proto-eyes touted by evolution. Think we would? I would bet not.

No, we should not expect to see fish evolving legs today, not even in very small steps. When the fish originally started crawling out of the sea, THERE WAS NOTHING OTHER THAN PLANTS WAITING FOR THEM. There was an entire ecological niche waiting for them, that made it a huge benefit for them to evolve into land animals.

Today, there are so many fucking predators waiting at the surface of the ocean, we should NOT expect fish to evolve legs. Any fish getting close to the surface of the ocean, near land will be eaten, mostly by birds. In addition, the available food sources on land are also competed for by land herbivores.

The mudskippers above are a very rare exception that have happened to find a geographical area where the selective pressures waiting for them in the air and on land are not as strong. The mudskippers might even very well be "stuck" at their current level of development, because going further inland for longer periods might result in heavier predation or other competitive pressures, thus putting a natural barrier on their landdwelling development.


No we should not expect to see fish evolving legs today so they could come on land. No we should not expect to see new evolutionary experiments with new types of organs and bio-systems. No we should not expect to see unicelled animal species in the process of forming new multi's. No we should not expect to see small species in the midst of evolving wings and feathers for future flying. No we should not expect to see mid-steps of any evolution today. It all happened millions of years ago when we couldn't see it. Then it stopped.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

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

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#93  Postby Shrunk » Oct 19, 2010 5:19 pm

stevebee92653 wrote: You don't like challenges to your beliefs. And mine are too tough for you to answer.


You seem to have ignored how at least one of your "challenges" was answered here. Now why might that be, I wonder?
"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

#94  Postby stevebee92653 » Oct 19, 2010 5:21 pm

Shrunk wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote: You don't like challenges to your beliefs. And mine are too tough for you to answer.


You seem to have ignored how at least one of your "challenges" was answered here. Now why might that be, I wonder?


Oh? Which one?
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

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

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#95  Postby Rumraket » Oct 19, 2010 5:24 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote: You don't like challenges to your beliefs. And mine are too tough for you to answer.


You seem to have ignored how at least one of your "challenges" was answered here. Now why might that be, I wonder?


Oh? Which one?

Maybe you should read the post before answering? Just a suggestion.
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

#96  Postby Shrunk » Oct 19, 2010 5:25 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote: You don't like challenges to your beliefs. And mine are too tough for you to answer.


You seem to have ignored how at least one of your "challenges" was answered here. Now why might that be, I wonder?


Oh? Which one?


See, Steve, when there's a word that's a pretty blue colour like this, you click on it with the cute little arrow (called a "cursor") that moves around on the screen, and it takes you to another page, which happens to be the one to which I was referring. Shouldn't be hard.
"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

#97  Postby Rumraket » Oct 19, 2010 5:26 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
SteveBee wrote:We should see the steps of evolution. Of course we would not observe the entire process of anything morphing into anything else. But we would see the steps. They should be prevalent. Of the trillions of fish, we should see some evolving legs today, just like they did millions of years ago. But we don't. If we could venture back in time, we should be able to see those cup-shaped proto-eyes touted by evolution. Think we would? I would bet not.

No, we should not expect to see fish evolving legs today, not even in very small steps. When the fish originally started crawling out of the sea, THERE WAS NOTHING OTHER THAN PLANTS WAITING FOR THEM. There was an entire ecological niche waiting for them, that made it a huge benefit for them to evolve into land animals.

Today, there are so many fucking predators waiting at the surface of the ocean, we should NOT expect fish to evolve legs. Any fish getting close to the surface of the ocean, near land will be eaten, mostly by birds. In addition, the available food sources on land are also competed for by land herbivores.

The mudskippers above are a very rare exception that have happened to find a geographical area where the selective pressures waiting for them in the air and on land are not as strong. The mudskippers might even very well be "stuck" at their current level of development, because going further inland for longer periods might result in heavier predation or other competitive pressures, thus putting a natural barrier on their landdwelling development.


No we should not expect to see fish evolving legs today so they could come on land. No we should not expect to see new evolutionary experiments with new types of organs and bio-systems. No we should not expect to see unicelled animal species in the process of forming new multi's. No we should not expect to see small species in the midst of evolving wings and feathers for future flying. No we should not expect to see mid-steps of any evolution today. It all happened millions of years ago when we couldn't see it. Then it stopped.

Any particular reason why you just straight up ignored the REASONING for why we should not expect to see fish evolve legs today? Maybe because you don't have an actual answer for the REASONING behind it?
What is it about ECOLOGICAL NICHE you find so hard to grasp? I'd be happy to educate you about it. It's propably imperative for further discussion that I do so because you seem completely unable to understand how it answers your intentionally dishonest demand of evolutionary postulates.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13144
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#98  Postby Shrunk » Oct 19, 2010 5:30 pm

Rumraket wrote:Any particular reason why you just straight up ignored the REASONING for why we should not expect to see fish evolve legs today? Maybe because you don't have an actual answer for the REASONING behind it?
What is it about ECOLOGICAL NICHE you find so hard to grasp? I'd be happy to educate you about it. It's propably imperative for further discussion that I do so because you seem completely unable to understand how it answers your intentionally dishonest demand of evolutionary postulates.


Steve also seems to be repeating the hoary creationist canard that we should find evidence of useless, half-formed structures as "transitional forms" on the way to the final structures. Not realizing that this would disprove evolution.
"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

#99  Postby DaveD » Oct 19, 2010 5:40 pm

stevebee92653 wrote: So my patents matter not a lick.

Why did you mention them in the first place then? They seemed to matter a great deal when you wanted to use them to prop up an appeal to authority (however lame that appeal was.)
Image
User avatar
DaveD
 
Name: Dave Davis
Posts: 3022
Age: 62
Male

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

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#100  Postby Blitzkrebs » Oct 19, 2010 6:10 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Rummie fails at science, so on to the personal attack. Calling me a pathological liar is nothing but a sad admission of failure on your part. And ditto the other members that have nothing to say about science, but can do the personal rag thing. Any grammar school kid can to that. It requires no thought or problem solving ability. The discussion is science. Your failed at that, and this comment is nothing but an admission of that failure. You are out of line on this site. I'm just trying to help you out here. If you get screened by the committee, you have broken the rules.


NO, calling you out for unethical behavior is not some sad admission of failure. It's the moral thing to do, because when people engage you they have the right to know whether or not they can trust the information/credentials you feed them. Drop the personal attack kitsch, because it is complete bullshit.
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 2 guests