Posted: Aug 09, 2010 10:00 pm
by Rumraket
stevebee92653 wrote:For eddie and the gang: on indoctrination
(6) You refer me to another site, book, or video, made by someone who you worship and who you think knows all of the answers. They don't.

Nobody here thinks anyone knows all the answers, so you can stop pretending we do.
Science is all about attempting to explain the unknown. The origin of biodiversity on earth was an unknown, it's not any more. Evolution quite adequately explains how we all evolved from singe celled organisms, and your constant misrepresentation of evolutionary postulates do nothing to change this fact.

stevebee92653 wrote:And if you believe they are somehow super-intelligent and know all, far more than you do, you are indoctrinated.

Once again, you are just making shit up and misrepresenting the situation. We don't have personal superhereos who's every word we just gulp up like we were religious. Both among the members here, and indeed in the overall scientific community there is disagreement about many details. But whether or not life evolved by darwinian means isn't one of them.

Life evolved. Get over it.

stevebee92653 wrote:You have fallen, just like I did. If you think their stuff is so great, learn it and discuss the information with me yourself.

Fallen where, for what? I understand evolutionary postulates quite well, in fact so well, that I can consistently spot your ludicrous misrepresentations, all of which you have failed to answer for or correct in this thread.

There are 2 things I want to say on that note.

1. Your case is entirely emotional, you have no scientific evidence to support your postulates that evolution is somehow unfounded or impossible. None. Zip.
All you ever do, is read some small part of the extant litterature, and then proceed to attack it on no basis whatsoever other than personal feeling and personal incredulity. "It's too impropable". "I don't see how X could lead to Y" etc. etc.

2. You erect the "vast global science conspiracy" canard when you say things like "If you think their stuff is so great,.."
Here's a hint : There is no "their". There are only facts. Facts that don't go away just because you don't like them. You are essentially arguing that the millions of scientists all over the world who support evolution are all somehow indoctrinated. That's an INSANE postulate and we can only laugh at the level of idiocy one must suffer from to claim it.

stevebee92653 wrote:I have read mountains of pro-evolution peer reviewed papers, pro-evolution books.

I know you have Steve, I know you have because that is the only way you can so consistently lie and misrepresent evolutionary science in the way you do.

Almost every single question you ask on your blog is wrong in the way you ask it. You always ask a question by intentionally claiming that evolution says X, then how come Y? But I think you know in reality that evolution doesn't actually claim X, and that therefore asking how come Y? is a wrong question.

This is a special fallacy of argumentation, called poisoning the well.

This is exactly what you do on your blog, consistently in response to every paper or book you review. You intentionally lie about evolutionary claims in your questions, making the answers seem incredible or impossible. We have already dealt with your stupid, obfuscating questions and misrepresentations earlier in this thread, but you conveniently ducked out with an acute case of martyr-syndrome at the time.

stevebee92653 wrote:I have viewed many pro-evolution shows on Discovery, PBS, and the Science Channel. I have viewed many of he "big" pro-evolution YouTube vids (CDK007, potholer54, on and on).

Congratulations. You know, Steve... I think you even understood them. But as explained before, you intentionally misrepresent them when asking your questions.

stevebee92653 wrote: Many of these items are reviewed, posted and playable, and reprinted on this blog.

Your blog is a worthless puddle of oozing swine-cum. A giant, chaotic soup of intentional misrepresentations of real science and the hard work done by real scientists.

stevebee92653 wrote: So please, don't rely on the thinking of others. Don't refer me to a Google "look up", or a YouTube video, or a book or paper that requires no effort on your part.

What an incredibly fucking stupid thing to say.
You are actually fucking bitching that we refer you to real work done by real scientists? Why am I not surprised.

I hope everyone can see the difference between you and us. We are the one referring to OBSERVATIONAL REALITY, you are the one arguing out of your ass, doing no research of your own.
We have experimentally derived empirical data to refer to. All you can do is claim that you "need more". Your case is entirely based on your own personal emotional need to get some arbitrary need for evidence satisfied.

stevebee92653 wrote: If you do you have caved in to your indoctrination.

Ahh I see... what an excellent approach to argument : When the opposing side refers to real experiments done in the real world, call it indoctrination.
R O F L.

Pathetic Stevie... Pathetic.

stevebee92653 wrote:on population
To repeat again: The starting population is fixed at two by me FOR SIMPLICITY's sake because that is the minimum number needed, one m AND f. Make it more if you like, but 2 is the minimum of course. A larger number than 2 makes things worse; the average time for doublings will INCREASE quickly from 4671 years. The total time span for the existence of homo sapiens is fixed and given as 200,000 years; fixed by evolution science and the fossil record.

Please refer to this supposed "evolution science" and "fossil record" data that supports your assertion. We can't just take your word for it. We want proper citations please.

I can't be bothered dealing with the rest of that vortex of vacuum-brain you attempt to portray as "evidence" before you back your shit up with research.

And yes, your "indoctrination" canard or "global science conspiracy" fantasist claim is only going to get laughed at.