Why stevebee is wrong

stevebee92653 · **#5761** by **stevebee92653** » Sep 02, 2013 12:58 am

lucek wrote:Side note. Steve you used to take pride in your status as an inventor. What do you think about the industry finding a better option then your device? I mean sure they had the idea for the better, more efficient, less dangerous, quicker, more accurate, and less error prone system first but by golly you sure had an idea.

Well, thanks for the compliment, lucek. I guess. If that's what it is. I was just a few years too late, but that's life. Eh?

stevebee92653 · **#5762** by **stevebee92653** » Sep 02, 2013 1:09 am

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.

lucek · **#5763** by **lucek** » Sep 02, 2013 1:22 am

stevebee92653 wrote: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.

Well congrats on failing math then too.

tolman · **#5764** by **tolman** » Sep 02, 2013 1:28 am

stevebee92653 wrote:There are almost 70 pages posted on Amazon now.

Well, there only seem to be 32 obviously accessible in the preview.

And only 11 of those 32 are actually meaningful, rather than cover, references, etc.

But I guess that's the kind of accuracy we've come to expect.

tolman · **#5765** by **tolman** » Sep 02, 2013 1:30 am

ElDiablo wrote: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, as expected, Steve, as well as being wrong, 'misunderstood' (presumably deliberately as usual), the point of the analogy, which was, as anyone could see, to do with the non-credibility of an author who starts out by talking shite on a subject they both claim to have significant academic education in, and to have thought a lot about.

But 'deliberate misunderstanding' does appear to be about all he does.

tolman · **#5766** by **tolman** » Sep 02, 2013 1:52 am

stevebee92653 wrote:Me? I think randomness can't produce a 625:1 ratio.

This mathematical wisdom is brought to you by the guy who claims there are multiple different types of 'zero'.

Even if that was part of a hopeless attempt to pretend that small numbers he didn't want to exist could be made entirely nonexistent by clumsy handwaving and a sprinkling of finely-ground bullshit, it was pretty funny, as well as pathetic.

Still, I suppose it's a good thing Steve didn't decide to become a nuclear physicist.

I'm fairly sure that 'pretending that small numbers are zero if it seems to make things easier if they are' isn't one of the core skills for that career, and it might even prove to be a bit of a hindrance when someone's trying to work out the timings and control settings for restarting a power station reactor.

ElDiablo · **#5767** by **ElDiablo** » Sep 02, 2013 2:18 am

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.

stevebee92653 · **#5768** by **stevebee92653** » Sep 02, 2013 3:17 am

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.

stevebee92653 · **#5769** by **stevebee92653** » Sep 02, 2013 3:21 am

tolman wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:Me? I think randomness can't produce a 625:1 ratio.

This mathematical wisdom is brought to you by the guy who claims there are multiple different types of 'zero'.

Even if that was part of a hopeless attempt to pretend that small numbers he didn't want to exist could be made entirely nonexistent by clumsy handwaving and a sprinkling of finely-ground bullshit, it was pretty funny, as well as pathetic.

Still, I suppose it's a good thing Steve didn't decide to become a nuclear physicist.

I'm fairly sure that 'pretending that small numbers are zero if it seems to make things easier if they are' isn't one of the core skills for that career, and it might even prove to be a bit of a hindrance when someone's trying to work out the timings and control settings for restarting a power station reactor.

If you are going to quote me, do it correctly. If this were reversed, my buddies would be screaming "quote mine" and I would be reported and warned. I never said there was different values of zero. This would get the MODs after you if you weren't on the "right" side. But you are safe. Your first sentence renders the rest of your comment a complete waste of time.

stevebee92653 · **#5770** by **stevebee92653** » Sep 02, 2013 3:29 am

tolman wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:There are almost 70 pages posted on Amazon now.

Well, there only seem to be 32 obviously accessible in the preview.

And only 11 of those 32 are actually meaningful, rather than cover, references, etc.

But I guess that's the kind of accuracy we've come to expect.

No, sorry tolman. It goes to page 70. There are a few missing pages, decided by Amazon. Not me, in case you want to try to rag on the missing pages. You may need to log in to Amazon to get the full 70. Amazing how you are able to make immense negatives out of absolutely nothing; mountain out of molehill time. :grin:

I'm trying to help you rag on me and my thinking, and you have no appreciation. You should thank me for the free shot instead of being so grumpy. Just think. It's free too? I give it away, and you still complain. I guess I'm just not appreciated here. :confused:

stevebee92653 · **#5771** by **stevebee92653** » Sep 02, 2013 3:30 am

lucek wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote: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.

Well congrats on failing math then too.

Thanks!

CADman2300 · **#5772** by **CADman2300** » Sep 02, 2013 3:33 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,

Again with the "little "wolves"" straw-man. No sane paleontologist or whale expert thinks or even said that in the first place. And since you're not presenting proper credentials, your words are utterly futile against their evidence.

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.

Aves is simply a subset of theropoda, therefor hummingbirds and woodpeckers ARE STILL theropods. Deal with it.

stevebee92653 · **#5773** by **stevebee92653** » Sep 02, 2013 3:47 am

theropod said:
It seems everything Steve writes is a bald faced lie.

Well, not everything. And not necessarily bald faced.

theropod said:
Oh, BTW, Steve, Hummingbirds are theropod dinosaurs.

Well, that's enough for me. I'll just believe you on this one. Maybe if I say it to myself enough times, I can REALLY believe it. Did you have to do that? Or did you believe immediately?

theropod said:
Let's see. Isn't there at least one carbon fiber bodied production car? Well, yes there is.

I know the Chevy Corvette has ALWAYS been a fiber glass bodied car since inception.
Do you ever get tired of having your stupid assertions exposed, or do you see these as even more opportunities to fabricate more lies?

I was discussing how human type skin appears on only 1 of 625 primate species, remember? Before you post stuff like this, you better make sure it supports your argument. This one supports mine. The fact that one or two major car characteristics, in this case car body materials, out of hundreds of models isn't produced by randomness. It's produced by intelligent decision makers and engineers. Think these out a bit better before you over commit.

CADman2300 · **#5774** by **CADman2300** » Sep 02, 2013 4:31 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
theropod said:
Let's see. Isn't there at least one carbon fiber bodied production car? Well, yes there is.

I know the Chevy Corvette has ALWAYS been a fiber glass bodied car since inception.
Do you ever get tired of having your stupid assertions exposed, or do you see these as even more opportunities to fabricate more lies?

I was discussing how human type skin appears on only 1 of 625 primate species, remember? Before you post stuff like this, you better make sure it supports your argument. This one supports mine. The fact that one or two major car characteristics, in this case car body materials, out of hundreds of models isn't produced by randomness. It's produced by intelligent decision makers and engineers. Think these out a bit better before you over commit.

Still choking on analogies? Why am I not surprised? Human skin is still not that different from that of Chimpanzees. We(as in the entire human race) still have the same number of hair follicles per square inch as any other great ape species. It's not like we(same as last time) needed thicker hair in the sweltering heat of central Africa. By the time humans began to migrate out of the continent 66,000 years ago, clothing had already made thicker hair super-redundant and obsolete anyway, so your demand for "re-evolved fur" is utterly stupid and pointless.
I know this has been explained to you many times already so I don't care how much you hate it. It's trite because it's true. Learn to live with it.

ADParker · **#5775** by **ADParker** » Sep 02, 2013 4:52 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
ElDiablo wrote:
I read through a bit of it. I had to stop when you talk about the human skin and that evolution should have designed a better skin for extreme climates. I stopped in the way I would have stopped reading a car mechanics book if it advised leaving the engine running while replacing an alternator belt.

{Snip}
Your analogy doesn't hold up. Might want to think that one through again. How about 625 car makers making cars, but one of them used cardboard as a body cover instead of metal, like all of the other 625 carmakers use. What do you think?

Way to complete misunderstand the analogy! :lol:

In case you still don't get it:
His point was that he stopped reading the available parts of your book at the point where it said something so clearly erroneous that it became abundantly clear that there is no point in continuing... Just like when reading any other book that says something clearly foolishly wrong... Such as an instruction to make sure that the electricity is turned on when rewiring your home!

ADParker · **#5776** by **ADParker** » Sep 02, 2013 4:55 am

theropod wrote:Funny isn't it? Steve claims to be, or has been in the past, a practicing dentist. Doesn't one need far more education than a Masters degree, in the USA, to attain that status? I mean, just to get the license to practice, one must provide evidence of scholastic achievement. It seems everything Steve writes is a bald faced lie.

His claim is actually that in the course of obtaining his dentist qualifications; the papers that he took would add up to enough to count as a masters degree in biology.
Total bullshit of course, as the requirements for dental school are not at the "masters" level, it's not enough to just do "so many" papers to amount to a Masters degree equivalent, they have to be at a sufficient level of difficulty as well. :roll:

And still it wouldn't mean that he knows a damn about evolutionary biology.

CADman2300 · **#5777** by **CADman2300** » Sep 02, 2013 5:25 am

I guess it's safe to take back what I said earlier about his book not being real. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p1782124 He was dead serious the whole time, but that doesn't mean I'm ever going to get around to reading it. My pseudoscience detector goes off whenever the person's work is self-published. http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com ... e-dentist/ And not endorsed by any real reputable scientists. Steve could just flat-out lie and say that Dawkins read and loved it, but then comes the extreme chance of getting sued for fraud.

tolman · **#5778** by **tolman** » Sep 02, 2013 11:14 am

stevebee92653 wrote:No, sorry tolman. It goes to page 70. There are a few missing pages, decided by Amazon. Not me, in case you want to try to rag on the missing pages. You may need to log in to Amazon to get the full 70.

If I log in to amazon.com, I can see a whole 42 pages, of which 20 are actual content.
If I try to get to the book via amazon UK, there's no contents preview at all.

Maybe some internet regional thing?

tolman · **#5779** by **tolman** » Sep 02, 2013 11:40 am

stevebee92653 wrote:If you are going to quote me, do it correctly. If this were reversed, my buddies would be screaming "quote mine" and I would be reported and warned. I never said there was different values of zero. This would get the MODs after you if you weren't on the "right" side. But you are safe. Your first sentence renders the rest of your comment a complete waste of time.

You have buddies?

You said that:

stevebee92653 wrote:Yes, zero probabilities can have different values.

Which anyone could see is a claim that there are different types of zero, some of which are more zero than others.

stevebee92653 wrote:There are FUCKING levels of FUCKING ZERO chance even though the probabilities of both are exactly the same.

Seemingly saying that though the probabilities are the same (two things are impossible), there are different levels of zero chance, which necessitates different levels of zero.

Now, it did seem that you were mudling up 'mathematics' and 'speculating about what probabilities might have been in some arbitrary alternate scenarios', which is a misuse of mathematics in general and and probability in particular when talking about an actual situation.
Probability is a one-dimensional thing - there are no extra dimensions to deal with things like 'situations which aren't the case but which Steve might like to imagine'.

But when that was pointed out, you seemed to run away rather than addressing it, at which I suspect no-one was in the least surprised.

But then that wasn't long after you wrote bare-faced lies like:

stevebee92653 wrote:There is no such thing as mutations that form any type of healthy organ tissue.

While trying to pretend that existing liver cells are perfect and incapable of any positive (or neutral) mutation.
Classic fuckwitted creationist lying bollocks.

And was only shortly after you asked people to speculate on evolutionary issues, and then dismissed their replies as speculation, which seems like someone who knows they lack the capacity to write responses which don't look stupid or dishonest.
Hardly a qualification for an author, except maybe of knowing pseudoscience like yours.

I'm sure you remember that time - it was near when you got a warning for trolling for your chronic deliberate misuse of the quote function to make your posts more annoying to read and harder to track back to actual sources.

theropod · **#5780** by **theropod** » Sep 02, 2013 11:45 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
theropod said:
It seems everything Steve writes is a bald faced lie.

Well, not everything. And not necessarily bald faced.

theropod said:
Oh, BTW, Steve, Hummingbirds are theropod dinosaurs.

Well, that's enough for me. I'll just believe you on this one. Maybe if I say it to myself enough times, I can REALLY believe it. Did you have to do that? Or did you believe immediately?

No, Steve, I didn't just start "believing" this fact. I actually examined the issue, and associated evidence, and accepted observational reality.

I invite you, again, to attempt to rebut the evidence with something besides your opinion. What you "believe", or what I "believe" doesn't matter when there is empirical evidence, which is devoid of opinion, and said evidence establishes that all birds are the evolutionary product of small theropod dinosaurs.

RS

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