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).

Shrunk wrote:

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.

"Others of his ilk"? Surely not!

You never know who the lurkers are.

One of the problems with SteveBee is that he never asks a flat, honest question like "How did X evolve and what is the evidence for it?"

He almost always presents a false dilemma or poisons the well, before asking his question. Like "Evolution can only happen if X makes Y function together with Z, and this is impossible. So how did it evolve?". And when you demonstrate to him that he asked the question in the wrong way, he will simply pick a standard answer from his list, usually "you are indoctrinated".

You see, the problem with SteveBee is that he has no interest in the actual theory of evolution, or the evidence for it, he only desires to get rid of it. To do that, he must make it seem unreasonable or impossible in some way, that is why he so consistently misrepresents it. Steve actually knows how evolution works and what it's postulates are, so he uses this knowledge to ask questions with ludicrous demands and misrepresentations that evolutionary theory would never actually posit happened in the past. This way, when someone might try and actually answer his demands, we must first deconstruct his incorrect postulate, and re-educate the reader with how evolution actually works, before answering what would have been a valid question.
It's a lot of work to do, and this is by his intention.

Rumraket wrote:It's a lot of work to do, and this is by his intention.

But if we cut through the crap and actually tell him why he is wrong... Is that not worth trying?

halucigenia wrote:

Rumraket wrote:It's a lot of work to do, and this is by his intention.

But if we cut through the crap and actually tell him why he is wrong... Is that not worth trying?

That depends on what you want to achieve. If you think you can convince SteveBee, then no it's not worth it. He's dead-set on his worldview. If merely to show that we can show how or why he's wrong, to a 3rd person, then sure.

OK, so no response to the first assertion that has been shown to be wrong then. And stevebee is still using it over on the other thread here:-

stevebee92653 wrote:It should be viewable just from taking a nature walk. "Why, here is a worm that is in the midst of sprouting legs. In another ten thousand years it will be a walker! Oh, and there is a.........."

Asserting that since a specific thing that evolution never proposes should happen in the first place, i.e. modern species evolving along the same lines that they have done in the past does not happen then evolution is proved false (however, worms evolving legs is even more absurd than asserting modern single celled organisms should be seen evolving multicellularity) . Nice try but it's the same piss poor argument.

Anyway on we go to other assertions.

Steeveebee on his blog wrote: Each organ had to have been initiated and invented independently.

which he also takes up on the currently active thread where he states:

stevebee92653 wrote: Which means they [All bio-systems] could not evolve independently.

So, here's another of Stevebees assertions where we can show him where he is wrong.
As stevebee himself admits on his blog “[species] began to form complex organs and biological systems made up of multiple organs that worked in conjunction with each other.” These organs and biological system that work in conjunction with each other also evolved [began to form] to work in conjunction with each other not independently. Some organs and biological systems evolved in parallel while other organs and biological systems evolved to function along with other pre-existing organs and biological systems. There are many scenarios that would have been possible without the requirement for each organ to have been initiated and invented independently. For example the lung began to form as an extension of the gut as fish began to gulp air to enable them to survive in oxygen depleted waters. This rudimentary lung, as it evolved from the gut, was already co-dependent with the heart and respiratory system (gills in fish before lungs evolved) so it did not have to evolve independently from these other systems.You are wrong because this is not a requirement for each organ to have to have been initiated and invented independently according to the theory of evolution.

edit, it seems quite impossible to use the quote tags without the forum inserting an automatic link. I will resort to adding "on his blog" to quotes that come from stevebee's blog. I find it strange that the quote in the OP did not do this but quotes in subsequent posts do. Can someone tell me how to fix this?

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.

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.

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.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a crocodile.....

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.

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.

To help you out: Sorry. I am not a Christian. Not religious at all in fact.

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. 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. You need to find where I am wrong in my evolution challenges. My history is just a footnote to those challenges that I openly and freely give you to attack. What if I said I was Jewish all my life. Or Theist. Or Atheist but don't go for evolution? Attack my stuff. But why waste your time attacking my biography. My gawd.You are grasping at straws.