Paul wrote:Maybe he wants us to concentrate on the style of his arguments rather than their (lack of) substance?

Quite possible, if you can't answer direct questions one defence mechanism is to rubbish and obfuscate. But let's see what Steve has to say about his behaviour. He may have been brought up in a culture that does not sanction rude behaviour or he may not perceive it as such.

I have some limited experience of Japanese culture and normal 'Western' behaviour makes them cringe with embarrassment at our lack of manners. One example is that one should never, ever force an interlocutor to admit that they are wrong publicly. It's the 'loss of face' issue. You must never force a person to have to say 'no' during a negotiation. So what one considers good manners is very culturally sensitive, Steve may be completely unaware of how he comes over. I don't know and when lacking knowledge it's usually a good idea to investigate rather than assume. Hence the question to Steve, why do you behave the way you do?

Rumraket wrote:

I don't fully agree with this. Darwin went through a phase between realising that species were not created by 'god' before he figured out natural selection.

But Steve is not just saying "we don't really/fully know the answer yet". He's claiming we aren't smart enough to know. That would only be possible to claim if you knew, A) How smart we are, and B) The actual answer to the problem (Or at the least some general idea about it, because then you'd be able to gauge how smart you would need to be to solve it).

Does Steve mean 'we' as in all of humanity (so he would be included in the group) or 'we' as in the collective membership of the forum other than himself? I must confess I had read it as the latter but it may be the former. Hopefully he will clarify his thought in due course.

CJ wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

I don't fully agree with this. Darwin went through a phase between realising that species were not created by 'god' before he figured out natural selection.

But Steve is not just saying "we don't really/fully know the answer yet". He's claiming we aren't smart enough to know. That would only be possible to claim if you knew, A) How smart we are, and B) The actual answer to the problem (Or at the least some general idea about it, because then you'd be able to gauge how smart you would need to be to solve it).

Does Steve mean 'we' as in all of humanity (so he would be included in the group) or 'we' as in the collective membership of the forum other than himself? I must confess I had read it as the latter but it may be the former. Hopefully he will clarify his thought in due course.

He means all of us, including himself.

SteveBee wrote:Are you asking for the real source of the designs of nature? You aren't smart enough to know the answer to your question. Neither am I. This is not a put down, in case this comment is screened. That is a fact for the entire human race. No person who ever lived has the ability to figure it out. Yet. Just as we are not close to figuring out the source and reasons for the Big Bang and the designs of the universe and it's building blocks and forces.
Many groups of people, mainly the religious, and evolutionauts, have fooled themselves into thinking they do have the answer.

Somehow, Steve still thinks he's smart enough to stand on the sidelines and declare this.

Rumraket wrote:

CJ wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
But Steve is not just saying "we don't really/fully know the answer yet". He's claiming we aren't smart enough to know. That would only be possible to claim if you knew, A) How smart we are, and B) The actual answer to the problem (Or at the least some general idea about it, because then you'd be able to gauge how smart you would need to be to solve it).

Does Steve mean 'we' as in all of humanity (so he would be included in the group) or 'we' as in the collective membership of the forum other than himself? I must confess I had read it as the latter but it may be the former. Hopefully he will clarify his thought in due course.

He means all of us, including himself.

SteveBee wrote:Are you asking for the real source of the designs of nature? You aren't smart enough to know the answer to your question. Neither am I. This is not a put down, in case this comment is screened. That is a fact for the entire human race. No person who ever lived has the ability to figure it out. Yet. Just as we are not close to figuring out the source and reasons for the Big Bang and the designs of the universe and it's building blocks and forces.
Many groups of people, mainly the religious, and evolutionauts, have fooled themselves into thinking they do have the answer.

Somehow, Steve still thinks he's smart enough to stand on the sidelines and declare this.

Thank you for the clarification. As long as he's acknowledging his own ignorance that's fine. I just happen to disagree with him then. As long as he's saying it's only his opinion he's entitled to that. Why is everybody getting so upset about somebody expressing their own opinion that they can't understand how the world works and for some reason is of the opinion that nobody else can either? He can't back up his assertion with evidence so it can be treated as effectively worthless.

Where is Uncle Orph? He usually has a better brand of popcorn to hand around.

Wrong timezone I think, DD.

Try some of mine - it's eucalyptus and koala flavoured:

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 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.

OC thank you for reminding me of this. I can now ignore Steve as his credibility as an interlocutor is non-existant.

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.

More problematic was the video in which he claimed to be a professor of biology.

Shrunk wrote:More problematic was the video in which he claimed to be a professor of biology.

Which video was that? I don't know if I've seen it or not.

CADman2300 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:More problematic was the video in which he claimed to be a professor of biology.

Which video was that? I don't know if I've seen it or not.

It's still up:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV2-l5jnwtU[/youtube]

Go to the end, where it's credited to "Anders Lyndon, Biology Dept U of TA Arlington."

Now I see it, and the only way to really stomach that video is to scrape through it and read the text. It's basically just one big ad hominem against Dawkins followed by Darwin getting quote mined. His explanation of evolution itself being a con-job also leaves a lot to be desired.
When you scroll through the comments about the video he can get pretty vicious while trying to defend it. People point him to facts and he dismisses them even when so many are internet accessible.

CADman2300 wrote:Now I see it, and the only way to really stomach that video is to scrape through it and read the text. It's basically just one big ad hominem against Dawkins followed by Darwin getting quote mined. His explanation of evolution itself being a con-job also leaves a lot to be desired.
When you scroll through the comments about the video he can get pretty vicious while trying to defend it. People point him to facts and he dismisses them even when so many are internet accessible.

So basically he's employing the standard creationist method of argumentation : Lies and bullshit, ad hominems and quotemines. Not to forget the hilarious proposition that the entirety of the worlds scientists involved in biological science being the perpetrators of a grand conspiracy.

Double post.

CJ wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

I don't fully agree with this. Darwin went through a phase between realising that species were not created by 'god' before he figured out natural selection.

But Steve is not just saying "we don't really/fully know the answer yet". He's claiming we aren't smart enough to know. That would only be possible to claim if you knew, A) How smart we are, and B) The actual answer to the problem (Or at the least some general idea about it, because then you'd be able to gauge how smart you would need to be to solve it).

Does Steve mean 'we' as in all of humanity (so he would be included in the group) or 'we' as in the collective membership of the forum other than himself? I must confess I had read it as the latter but it may be the former. Hopefully he will clarify his thought in due course.

"We", meaning the entire human race from the beginning of its existence. I hpoe that includes me. Probably there would be some here who would argue that point.

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.

halucigenia wrote:

stevebee92653 wrote:My gawd. How did you get into monkeys? You must be thinking of some other conversation. I have NEVER been in any monkey discussion. Maybe you need to reload. Any way you cut it, that is very different from not seeing multi's evolving from uni's. And if you like your excuse, fine. Eye of the beholder. Me? I don't see the evolution, that should be present, in any venue. You apparently don't either but you accept all excuses. Like punctuated equilibrium.

Sorry, but as I explained in my first post, the argument that we never currently see humans evolving from monkeys is the same argument as that of we never see multi celled organisms evolving from single celled organisms. I know you never actually argued about monkeys but it's the same absurd assertion.

The assertion is that evolution is refuted by not being able to observe directly in our lifetimes an historical occurrence that is proposed by evolutionary theory, like single cells to multi cells or monkeys to mankind or whatever. Those of us that actually understand what the theory of evolution proposes would not expect to be able to see such events within the span of the whole of the time that we have been studying evolutionary theory itself never mind within the span of a single human lifetime. We might, as I suggested in my first post, if we were very lucky, see some organism like slime moulds change their life cycle from one of mostly single celled to one of mostly multi celled but it would not be something that the theory would predict would have to happen.

I don't see how I can be any more plain in my demonstration of how you are wrong with this particular assertion but it's time to put up or shut up on this one.

Now, will you please either retract your assertion and agree that you were wrong or explain how the theory of evolution is dependent on the observation of single celled organisms evolving into multi celled organisms before our very eyes.

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.

Rumraket wrote:

CJ wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
But Steve is not just saying "we don't really/fully know the answer yet". He's claiming we aren't smart enough to know. That would only be possible to claim if you knew, A) How smart we are, and B) The actual answer to the problem (Or at the least some general idea about it, because then you'd be able to gauge how smart you would need to be to solve it).

Does Steve mean 'we' as in all of humanity (so he would be included in the group) or 'we' as in the collective membership of the forum other than himself? I must confess I had read it as the latter but it may be the former. Hopefully he will clarify his thought in due course.

He means all of us, including himself.

SteveBee wrote:Are you asking for the real source of the designs of nature? You aren't smart enough to know the answer to your question. Neither am I. This is not a put down, in case this comment is screened. That is a fact for the entire human race. No person who ever lived has the ability to figure it out. Yet. Just as we are not close to figuring out the source and reasons for the Big Bang and the designs of the universe and it's building blocks and forces.
Many groups of people, mainly the religious, and evolutionauts, have fooled themselves into thinking they do have the answer.

Somehow, Steve still thinks he's smart enough to stand on the sidelines and declare this.

Right. I am smart enough to realize that I am not smart enough.

CJ wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Are you asking for the real source of the designs of nature? You aren't smart enough to know the answer to your question. Neither am I. This is not a put down, in case this comment is screened. That is a fact for the entire human race. No person who ever lived has the ability to figure it out. Yet. Just as we are not close to figuring out the source and reasons for the Big Bang and the designs of the universe and it's building blocks and forces.
Many groups of people, mainly the religious, and evolutionauts, have fooled themselves into thinking they do have the answer.

Steve, you do realize that for you to claim we are not smart enough to know the answer, you would have to know the answer, right? But since you say we don't know the answer, how the fuck can you then claim we aren't smart enought to figure it out?

Haha, man that is so dumb.

I don't fully agree with this. Darwin went through a phase between realising that species were not created by 'god' before he figured out natural selection. We know there are flaws in the standard model as there still is no resolution of quantum gravity. One can understand that superstition is not the underlying force in nature but still not be able to fully explain an alternative, its how we learn. Realising something is wrong is one possible first step to discovering what is right. It is also possible to discover a better explanation of observed reality and to add understanding, Einstein would be an example of that. His ideas augmented Newton's thinking rather than replacing them.

Steve's attitude is however arrogant as he is making assertions he cannot possible back up, he has no idea of how smart or otherwise the people are who post here. However we can determine some things about Steve from the nature of his posts here, that is his behaviour here is a very rude and bad mannered. Why is this? I don't know. Steve, why do you behave in such a mean spirited and nasty manner here?

Please quote me anything I said with "a mean and nasty manner". Sorry, I don't see it.

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.

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.