Life is too short.

hotshoe wrote:Life is too short.

But still we post

Aww did he spit his dummy and leave? I was just going to nominate him for some sort of Morton's Demon prize, I think his chances were good.

To keep things flowing in this thread, here's the latest from SteveBee's blog Article 1b entitled: "If I Sent You Here, This Is About What You Wrote"

ID is not true science. It raises more questions than it answers. It’s not testable nor falsifiable, and it can’t make any predictions, and it doesnt add anything other than saying its designed. Evolution is good. It’s real. It has mountains of evidence. 99% of all scientists in the world believe evolution. Many medical wonders have been produced by evolution. Yours are nothing but arguments from ignorance. Or, wait. Maybe incredulity. Or ad hominem attacks. Thank goodness we have real dedicated scientists who are trying to explain the universe and nature, instead of being lame lazy individuals who say that everything they understand its designed. Get an education. Here is a wonderful link to why evolution is wonderful: http://www.evolutioniswonderful.com

Don't try to enter the URL; the site doesn't exist.
Even if this statement is almost completely true, most of his critics prefer to type their comments with far more eloquence and point to examples that contradict his arguments rather than make an incoherent series of assertions. However, with any creationist, especially a closeted one like SteveBee, it should come as no surprise when they try, and fail, to make their critics look like babbling idiots.

CADman2300 wrote:To keep things flowing in this thread, here's the latest from SteveBee's blog Article 1b entitled: "If I Sent You Here, This Is About What You Wrote"

Snip...
Oh, I thought you might be posting something about why he is wrong, never mind I have got plenty more of that. It's a pitty that he seems intent on dismissing mathematical models as a valid way of obtaining knowledge over on the other thread rather than addressing posts that point out where he is wrong on his blog, as he, himself, previously requested here:-

stevebee92653 wrote:What almost NEVER happens is any evolutionaut coming on my site and taking any page, paragraph, or point, and saying "here is where you are wrong". Is that too much of a challenge?

So, what's the matter Steve, is someone pointing out to you exactly where you are wrong, point by point, just too much of a challenge for you?

halucigenia wrote:

CADman2300 wrote:To keep things flowing in this thread, here's the latest from SteveBee's blog Article 1b entitled: "If I Sent You Here, This Is About What You Wrote"

Snip...
Oh, I thought you might be posting something about why he is wrong, never mind I have got plenty more of that. It's a pitty that he seems intent on dismissing mathematical models as a valid way of obtaining knowledge over on the other thread rather than addressing posts that point out where he is wrong on his blog, as he, himself, previously requested here:-

stevebee92653 wrote:What almost NEVER happens is any evolutionaut coming on my site and taking any page, paragraph, or point, and saying "here is where you are wrong". Is that too much of a challenge?

So, what's the matter Steve, is someone pointing out to you exactly where you are wrong, point by point, just too much of a challenge for you?

Does he have anything on his blog about the average doubling rate of human population disproving evolution, where he uses a (flawed) mathematical model to try to prove his point, like he did in this thread?

Paul wrote: Does he have anything on his blog about the average doubling rate of human population disproving evolution, where he uses a (flawed) mathematical model to try to prove his point, like he did in this thread?

He's got two whole pages of it, right here!

Dunning and Kruger must be bursting with pride.

Back on Steve's blog is the fun little article 20 where he has a short conversation with LucidFlight.

LucidFlight says:

So, I don’t get it. Where do dogs actually come from? Like, was there a “first dog”. How was it made? Is the intelligence that made it in this universe, like, in this galaxy or something? Do you think we will ever find the real answers, Steve?

Sincerely
Lucid

Steve responds:

No, I don’t think we will ever find the answer. But there will always be people like you that will think they have found it. And, as always, ignorance is bliss.

Apparently, Steve doesn't know that dogs are directly descended from wolves and that there are records of dog domestication and breeding that go back as far as 12000 years. Yet, for some bizarre reason he thinks that his own lack of knowledge should somehow imply that there is no knowledge anywhere regarding the subject of dog domestication.

But LucidFlight still thinks that Steve has the answers:

Why don’t you think we’ll ever find the answer(s), Steve?

And Steve would still rather pretend that there are no answers:

Because it’s way over your head. And mine. Kind of like ants trying to figure out how the house they are in was built. And your simplistic science doesn’t come close. That’s why Lucid.

LucidFlight is humbled by Steve's non-answer:

Thanks for your honest and reasonable reply, Steve. That’s all I was after.

Lucid was clearly not even trying to defend any science in his short chat but Steve still treated him like he was delusional in some way.

Steve's "way over your head" comment is probably the most damning. It's also nowhere near what I would call an "honest and reasonable reply". For one, humans are NOT "ants", and our inquisitive nature that ants lack is what enabled us to get into space and land on the moon. Will insisting that evolution will never have the answer he wants gain him any respect as a scientist, or even as a sane person? You be the judge.

CADman2300 wrote:Back on Steve's blog is the fun little article 20 where he has a short conversation with LucidFlight.

LucidFlight says:

So, I don’t get it. Where do dogs actually come from? Like, was there a “first dog”. How was it made? Is the intelligence that made it in this universe, like, in this galaxy or something? Do you think we will ever find the real answers, Steve?

Sincerely
Lucid

Steve responds:

No, I don’t think we will ever find the answer. But there will always be people like you that will think they have found it. And, as always, ignorance is bliss.

Apparently, Steve doesn't know that dogs are directly descended from wolves and that there are records of dog domestication and breeding that go back as far as 12000 years. Yet, for some bizarre reason he thinks that his own lack of knowledge should somehow imply that there is no knowledge anywhere regarding the subject of dog domestication.

That's old news with me. I'd made some offhand comment about wolves and chihuahuas sharing common ancestry, assuming he would at least understand that much, and was absolutely floored by his response. He continues to insist wolves and dogs are unrelated even while acknowledging that they can interbreed.

I went to his site and the got the impression - "there has to be design"

ElDiablo wrote:I went to his site and the got the impression - "there has to be design"

Let me guess ... THIS sort of design, perchance?

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

Cali, most of those guys were just misinterpreting The Designers instructions.

ElDiablo wrote:Cali, most of those guys were just misinterpreting The Designers instructions.

Yeah, right, so why didn't he just drop the plans for the A380 in our lap right at the fucking start?

Calilasseia wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:Cali, most of those guys were just misinterpreting The Designers instructions.

Yeah, right, so why didn't he just drop the plans for the A380 in our lap right at the fucking start?

Because we could not build it without all the support industries that a mechanism of that level of sophistication requires. Knowing one needs semiconductors or titanium forgings is one thing, producing them quite another

Personally I thought the omission of the periodic table was the serious flaw or was it the lack of information about micro organisms; no, it was the missing chapter about evolution!

Calilasseia wrote:
Yeah, right, so why didn't he just drop the plans for the A380 in our lap right at the fucking start?

So he could have a funniest bloopers reel.

ElDiablo wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:
Yeah, right, so why didn't he just drop the plans for the A380 in our lap right at the fucking start?

So he could have a funniest bloopers reel.

No. She just has a weird sense of humour.

To keep things flowing some more, on his blog is the new article 37 where he takes what he's been told previously about algorithms and totally blows it all on some nonsense about how "a man-made computer can't be used to simulate evolution because the computer is man-made" or something like that. I don't think I can summarize his new piece any other way.

A man made incubator cannot be used to grow microbes in the same way as they grow in the wild because it is man made, oh, hang on a second!

GenesForLife wrote:A man made incubator cannot be used to grow microbes in the same way as they grow in the wild because it is man made, oh, hang on a second!

Yes, just like boiling water in a pot cannot be used to demonstrate the existence of steam/water vapour in nature, because pouring the water into the pot and turning on a fire/stove is an act by an intelligent agent. Right.

Nobody knows why it rains.

Rumraket wrote:

GenesForLife wrote:A man made incubator cannot be used to grow microbes in the same way as they grow in the wild because it is man made, oh, hang on a second!

Yes, just like boiling water in a pot cannot be used to demonstrate the existence of steam/water vapour in nature, because pouring the water into the pot and turning on a fire/stove is an act by an intelligent agent. Right.

Nobody knows why it rains.

That sounds familiar, it's been asserted here or was it RDF?