1. About this Site-My Statement
I
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Galileo Galilei
A brief “about me”: In undergraduate studies in college I majored in biological sciences. I attended dental school, and graduated in 1967. For most of the time since, I was an avid fan of Charles Darwin and evolution. Obviously, not now. I make YouTube videos, many of which are on this site, under the pseudonym stevebee92653, on the subject of evolution. I spent over thirteen years engineering products for the dental profession. Most of that time I was also working as a full time dentist, so for quite a long time I was working over 100 hours a week. I am now retired. I own four current patents, and have several patent applications on other products. I am an avid tennis player and golfer, and as you can tell from this blog, I enjoy writing. Particularly about this fascinating subject: that of our origins. I write under Stephen B. Lyndon DDS. I am not a ” Biblical, or “young earth” Creationist” in any way. I am married with two children and two grand-children. I thoroughly enjoy objective science, particularly astronomy and sciences dealing with the origin of species.
In 2004 I visited my son who was attending medical school in Chicago. But a visit to the Field Museum there activated my natural skepticism. Seeds of doubt about Darwin’s ideas were planted in my brain as I looked at those beautiful fossils. I hadn’t been to a museum of natural history for over twenty years. I expected to see a huge number of new fossils and new information that would prove evolution far beyond the level I had seen at my last visit. In reality there was no advancement. Nothing more interesting than there was twenty years ago. I was disappointed to say the least. My visit brought up a lot of questions about evolution sciences that weren’t there before. I wondered why those tiny arms on their magnificent T. Rex fossil didn’t evolve a lick in millions of years. Wouldn’t a T. Rex with bigger arms be a better grappler? I began pondering if Darwin was really right. The more I thought about what I saw, the more questions arose. I actually battled those questions in my mind. I tried to ignore them. I wanted to believe the current scientific model for the origin of animal species and mankind was right. But, in my mind, Darwin crashed; badly. When I returned home I began doing a great deal of research. And the more I did, the worse it got for Charles. My evolution bubble popped. I realized that evolution was not how things formed; not even close. I began this blog to keep track of all of the interesting information I had found. As I researched and wrote, I became more and more convinced that Charles was wrong. The purpose of this blog evolved. It began as a log of my findings, and became solely a challenge to the veracity of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Why? Because, if a highly accepted science is incorrect, true objective science cannot advance until the incorrect science is eliminated as a possibility. I would really love to see science find some sort of acceptable answer to the Puzzle, and with evolution blocking the road, it cannot. What I have found with my study is that the “science” of evolution is devoted to proving Darwin was right. It is not in any way an objective science looking for answers. Information and testing is bent to prove the theory. The theory cannot be modified, even though supporters say it can be and is. There is simply no where to go from random mutations and natural selection.
Evolution’s bedrock is “natural selection”: the biggest euphemism in science, where there should be no euphemisms. The term is far easier to swallow than the reality. Natural selection is the process whereby one organism is able to kill and consume another organism due to some mutational advantage the predator has over the prey. The advantages are formed by non-occurring good mutations. Non-occurring because mutations forming healthy useful tissues have never been demonstrated. Remember, evolution happens in incredibly tiny steps; steps so tiny, they are invisible. A secondary process is sexual selection, the choosing of a mate for the purpose of procreating. Environmental survival is also in the mix. But, by far the most pervasive foundation for evolution is the killing and consuming of one type of organism with no super minuscule advantage by another with a super minuscule advantage, and the repeat of this process over eons. Are these processes capable of inventing, assembling, and improving complex bio-electromechanical devices? Evolutionauts will argue to the death that they are, without the slightest bit of evidence to show they are. Natural selection should be changed to “selectively killing, consuming, and sexual choosing”, (SKCSC) so those who are taught this fake science will at least know what it is really about. “Natural selection” sounds so mystical. It is treated almost as if it is itself some sort of god form; a creator. It isn’t.
Evolution needs to show that the foundation of evolution isn’t a fantasy: that mutations can, do, did, and will form healthy, histologically correct, necessary, utilitarian tissue. And that it can, do, did, and will place that tissue in just the right location, in just the correct shape, in just the correct amount, and that tissue will be “selected for”by being advantageous to the individual so it can continue on to become more utilitarian and more complex. And that these advantages, many 1/500,000 of the finished product, prevent the individual from being consumed by another species that doesn’t have that tissue. And because of that tissue mutation, that species will be able to consume other species that don’t have that tissue. And these events have to be performed over and over again, trillions of times, perfectly, for nature to be the way it is. The size, strength, and speed of the species that have evolved the new tissue, and that of predators of that species, must also be erased as a factor. Tissue mutation alone must trump all other features. Of course, it’s easy to see how vision, claws, and teeth would help protect a prey and advance the abilities of predator. But would a liver? Would a pancreas?A gall bladder. How do these organs fit into the picture of protecting prey and aiding predators? How about 1/500,000 of a liver, pancreas, or gall bladder?
Nowhere in the natural world do we see any species gaining genetic information that was not possessed by its ancestors. Evolution is all about the natural gaining of genetic information. Evolution has never been able to display an increase in genetic information from generation to generation, but evolutionauts carry on and pretend like they can. (sources: Wallace Johnson on Evolution & Gerard Keane) Evolution needs to show that this increase commonly occurs. Many evolutionauts say this hasn’t been proven or found YET. But that means evolution should not be considered a science YET until this found and proven.
A major foundation of evolution is “peer reviewed” papers. These papers usually entail articles written by evolution biologists on subjects that no one who ever lived or lives on the face of the earth has the answer to; such as the evolution of teeth. How were teeth “invented”? How did things go from “no teeth” to “teeth”? Why did that happen at all? And how did mutations form the complex dental designs we have today as humans? How do the cells that form teeth (ameloblasts and odontoblasts, et al) “know” just where they should be so they could do their job? How did they know just exactly when to start and stop their knitting of enamel and dentin so the teeth could form just the correct anatomy? How did the upper teeth evolve to exactly match the lower teeth like perfect puzzle pieces, specially when different gene pathways formed upper teeth and lower teeth? This is an elephant, not a monkey, on the back of evolution that cannot be ignored or removed. And, of course, it isn’t ignored by bio-evolution’s writers. One writer, of course, there had to be a first, wrote a paper on how he thought teeth evolved. “Teeth came from fish, who had simpler dentition. Then they evolved into more complex…….” Of course the stories are made up, then “peer reviewed” by other evo-biologists. More papers are written. Species are cited. “These early fish……” Paper piles on top of paper, it is told and retold so many times, the story becomes truth. A whole mountain of papers are built, one on top of the other. On Google, there are over 1300 references to “peer reviewed papers describing the evolution of the dentition. And, now these are cited as evidence. Papers written about the evidence actually become the evidence. So, if anyone asks, how did 
teeth evolve, they are referred to the piles of “peer reviewed” papers on the subject. And this house of cards is the “evidence”. And if you speak up, you are challenging “science” and thousands of wonderful “peer reviewed” papers.
A great example of “peer reviewed papers” failing science are the ones touting man-made global warming. A huge pile of these papers were “peer reveiwed”, and accepted as real science. Until Russian hackers, in November of 2009, broke into a British set of computers owned by global warming scientists. Hackers have stolen the correspondence between University staff members and made it public on the Internet. Researchers have been discussing the ways to forge data in order to correspond with the idea of global warming.
The real data surprisingly shows the decrease of Earth’s average annual temperatures. The University of East Anglia confirms the theft, but refuses to give any comments on the correspondence.One renown paper used the rings of trees in a forest in Siberia to prove without a shadow of a doubt that man-made global warming was real stuff. Then came the hackers, who found that in that Siberian forest, three “selected” trees were used to display world wide global warming, a fact not mentioned in the “peer reviewed” paper. Other scientists wrote that they would destroy any information that went against global warming if they were forced to give it out under the Freedom of Information Act in Great Britian. Good old peer reveiewed papers. Not a guarantee of real science. Sorry evolutionatus.
So, these major foundations of evolution are not foundations at all. The invisible mutations and the house of cards that is the “peer reviewed” papers make evolution a house ready to collapse. It may never, but it is teetering. The reason it doesn’t collapse is the strong beliefs of the bio-scientists and rabid evolutionauts that support it. THAT is the foundation for this “science”. If you read this blog with an objective eye, you won’t be able to help but find that evolution is not the answer, unless you have been successfully programmed. But most of all, for me, it’s rather fun to debunk a science that is so self aggrandizing, highly promoted, and pushed into the science classrooms of unwary school kids by legal groups such as teacher’s unions and the ACLU. And, what I really enjoy the most about writing this blog is that I have found such fascination in a science, biology, that I studied as a chore when I was in school. I didn’t appreciate at all what was right in front of me. Now I love every minute of digging through books and websites and rediscovering what I took for granted years ago. If you are one of those who are absolutely certain there is no intelligent design in nature, take a look at the picture at left. It is a carbon atom, the building block for all of life on earth. Can you actually look at this picture and say you see no invention and design? Does this atom display “apparent design” as evolutionauts call design? Or is it an example of real actual incredible invention and design. Me, I will take the second choice. Invention and design are so obvious. If you told me you see none, I could not believe you. And if the building blocks of life show such invention and design, then life and nature were invented and designed as well.
Humans, and all animal species, are incredibly engineered machines; thousands of times more complex and better engineered than any man made device on the planet. Not only do our electromechanical devices show design, but they are inventions, as there was absolutely no “prior art” models for nature to go by. We have servo-motors (muscles) that pull on rods (ligaments) that in turn move ball and socket joints (hip, mandible). We have an incredibly complex and efficient pump (heart), a pair of digital cameras that produce three dimensional images (eyes), miniature microphones (ears); and on and on. The greatest engineering group cannot come close to synthesizing the simplest of our organs. The one thing that makes us different from an incredibly engineered robot is LIFE; that we are alive. Life separates us from robots. And, life is the one thing that separates evolutionists from being able to see intelligence in the universe. NOT religion, but intelligence; there is a big difference here. If we were functioning and not “alive”, and were constructed of plastic and metal, and an “evolutionist” could observe us, he would have to admit that we are the result of an intelligence beyond imagination. The amazing thing is that evolutionists have absolutely no idea how life formed. They are completely unable to duplicate life in the laboratory. Yet they are absolutely certain that there was no intelligence that brought about life and the origin of species. See pg. 33 for a video on this subject.
This is how I see the battle between creationists, and evolutionists: we are toddlers in the scheme of the universe. Imagine us as two year olds who are trying to figure out the engineering and assembly of a 747. One group of toddlers thinks some great mysterious being suddenly and magically made them. The other group thinks 747’s simply evolved into existence, but doesn’t know how the raw materials got here. They argue that some sort of mysterious selection process was responsible for putting the parts together. A huge battle rages. Toys fly. In actuality, neither group or individual toddler has anywhere near the ability to figure out how 747’s were created. So what they have is a tempest in a toddler teapot. Toddlers simply lack the required cognitive skills. We as adults have the same problem trying to figure out the Puzzle. In actuality, toddlers may be much more able to figure out the 747 than we adult humans are at understanding how life, nature, and, species originated.
The idea that random mutations and natural selection were the sole formative forces for the assembly of all of nature is an embarrassment to nature. Modern biological sciences have traveled light years beyond that simplistic idea. It is amazing how once an idea sticks, it remains stuck. And evolution is stuck. Evolution needs to show that the foundation of evolution isn’t a fantasy: that mutations form healthy, histologically correct, necessary, utilitarian tissue, and can place that tissue in just the right location, in just the correct shape, in just the correct amount, and that tissue will be selected by being advantageous to the individual so it can continue on, and so that the individual won’t be consumed by another species that doesn’t have that tissue. The way things look, there are absolutely no positive mutations that can be cited. Evolution cites bacteria that can eat nylon, moths that change from white to black, and a few other dubious examples. As it stands, 100% of mutations, or near that figure form either neutral or horribly disfiguring errors. Disfiguring mutations are large and obvious, unlike any “good” ones cited by ev-illusionists. Natural selection is a force that removes those mutations out of a population, and in that way , keeps the population strong. Those mutations are prevented from being carried on to the next generation by natural selection. But the idea that selected mutations can form and cause the design of incredibly complex electromechanical organs and bio-devices is no more than wishful fantasy.
The age of the universe holds a very interesting conundrum for the formation of nature in general, and human beings specifically, as humans are the only conscious observers on earth, and the only species capable of recording and contemplating what we observe. I made a video on just this subject if you are interested:
Just a Note for Evolution Fans that May Read this Blog: The earth and solar system, by all good scientific evidence, appear to be 4.5 billion years old. Accurate biological time-lines given by biologists could and should be very accurate. Unfortunately, many are not. Species are placed on clade charts in completely incorrect chronological order so that it will look like evolution produced a gradual morphing of one species into the next. The dates of the appearance of the species is rarely included. Evidence of this is in my “Evolution of Birds and Flight: It’s Impossible (part 1)” video, on this site and at YouTube. There seems to have been some minor evolution that has taken (takes) place. I have absolutely no idea how species came into existence, and I don’t promote any solution to that great and fascinating Puzzle. This blog is only interested in scientific and objective discourse. Origins of species is an incredible subject, but it is also a useless science. No cures for disease or mechanical marvels will be produced by it even though that is unblushingly claimed by evolutionauts. In reality, few people spend much time thinking about our origins. I am one of the few who do. I find it immensely fascinating, thought provoking, and fun. I am bothered that evolution is taught in schools as if it is a lock, that pseudo-intellectual evolutionists treat those that are not believers condescendingly, that if a person is a non-believer in the TOE most evolutionists think that person must believe in Adam and Eve, and that evidence is bent to make TOE look like real science. That is why I am writing this log. I am starting with this note so that any evolutionauts that may read this blog will know where I am coming from, and if they comment, hopefully will keep this in mind.
Please don’t waste your time trying to box me in as a Biblical creationist. I am not. It is quite obvious that if the Genesis record of creation were true, all species would appear at the same geologic level. A seven day Creation would be very apparent in all fossil digs. But that is not even close to the case. My experience with religion has been pretty much summed by this quote from an unknown source: “If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you are a schizophrenic.” I am not an atheist or agnostic. I believe in an incredibly intelligent Source or Creator, but my beliefs go no further. I have no idea who, where, or what that source really is. And, that is my BELIEF, it is philosophical, and so it is not posed as an arguable or scientific position. I am fascinated with the science of evolution. From my experience debating evolution, I have come to the conclusion that evolution’s improbabilities and impossibilities are so believed, and promoted with such vigor, that it is almost impossible to have a rational discourse with those that support it. It is also obvious that the true underpinning of evolution is atheism. When evolution is being argued, the true argument is a religious one. Atheism is a religious belief just as surely as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam are religious beliefs. Atheism is completely dependent on evolution for its existence. Without evolution, atheism has no possible explanation for how we and all of nature got here, and it cannot exist as a viable worldview.
If evolution can come up with real instead of imaginary evidence, I will be the first to step up and be a full supporter like I was a few years ago. As it is, most evolution evidence is greatly exacerbated by imagination. A great deal of evidence that is touted by ev-illusionists has nothing to do with evolution. Most evidence simply backs up the fact that there is a great biological and natural design connection between all living things. Evidence given by evolutionists should be carefully evaluated by objective peers to determine whether that evidence really backs up what is being promoted. Of course the trick is to find objective observers. In this science, I really don’t think I have found one. What I do think is that nature is unbelievably intelligent. There is no scientific evidence for the source of that intelligence. One thing I know for sure: I am intelligent enough to know that there is not now nor has there ever been a living person on the planet earth, including myself Albert Einstein, and Charles Darwin, smart enough to figure out the Puzzle.
I believe that evolution can account for possibly up to 5% of the status of nature today, while it is credited with 100%. Actually, evolution has huge flaws, huge gaps, and tiny evidence in favor, which makes for an impossible rift among the interested like you and me, if you are reading this site. And that 95% is not formed by evolution is my OPINION, and what I deduce from my observations of the evidence, nothing else. Evolution science is kind of like the state of astronomy. 90% of the universe is dark matter, and we have no idea what dark matter is, so we make explanations. But we know it’s there, just like we know eyes and hearts are here, but how the heck did they form? I guarantee you it wasn’t from selected mutations. On the really great side, we are so lucky to live at a time when we know so much, and have the ability to search, debate, and communicate. Imagine describing a black hole to someone in the 1850’s. It would be hilarious.
Rules and Suggestions for Comments on this Site:
Rule #1: Please keep your comments within the scope of this blog. If you are an evolutionaut, please do not waste your time and mine trying to attack me personally. My name, background, family, parents, children, et al, have nothing to do with my argument that Darwinian evolution is not a valid theory, and it doesn’t explain the incredibly complex inventions designed and formed by nature. If you want to attack my education, you can do it in the blog. If I do not have the education that I claim, it will come out there. Find mistakes in my thinking. Show me where I am wrong. If you are an evolutionaut, and you cannot validly challenge my thinking, be honest and admit that you lost. If you do find mistakes or errors in my thinking, I will make changes in my writing. That you can then use as a victory trophy. No one has come close to getting that trophy yet.
Rule#2: Please refrain from using epithets or calling people names on this blog. It doesn’t add to the discussion. I would prefer intelligent respectful discussion, just like I prefer intelligent design. I don’t mind a little flavoring, and I am not a candy-ass as far as words go, but I have found that the old four letter “Deadwood” style language damages good thought and communication. If I think you are over the top, I will remove the comment, and send it back to you so you can edit and re-enter. I won’t delete or block unless the comment is extremely horrible, no matter what side of the coin you are on. (11/13/09)
Rule #3: I don’t want to debate about Biblical Creationism, a young earth, if there is a God, invisible guys in the sky, any religious beliefs, or angels or fairies. Please stick to objective science. If you do challenge my writing, please place your comment below the page you are challenging, and note the paragraph you are referring to.
I promote independent thinking. I have seen and read most pro-evolution sites, and many anti-evolution sites, and I pretty much know what they say. So, please do your own thinking and challenging, and refrain from forwarding links. Don’t waste your time giving me broad generalizations in hopes that you can show me how evolution “really” works. I know the theory. Your best challenge for me is to specifically pick any of my points and, using your intellect and education, let me know where you think I am wrong. I have been called every name imaginable, so you may dispense with that. For some reason , evolutionauts think this ploy is a good way to debate. And, if you read my debates section and comments, you will see that virtually every debater, and negative commenter has used that ploy. It’s getting to the point that I think evolutionauts demean like dogs bark. Neither one can be stopped. It only makes you look bad, and is deleterious to your debate position.
If you have a couple of minutes, here is a video I constructed featuring the top 21 shibboleths that I have received. Please try to stay away from these, and be original. Thanks!
<!–[if !supportLists]–><!–[endif]–>
Please us the lower left arrow so you won’t be shipped to YouTube.
So if you want to waste your time repeating these or similar phrases you will look foolish and you would give me reason to edit you off the site.
And Lastly…………………….
The pages of this blog are placed in chronological order, and are composed of my thoughts and experiences with ev-illusionists as they come, so no need to read in any particular order.
If you would like to further search this blog, the page index may be at the bottom rather than at the side column depending on the power of your internet connection.
<!-
real-scientist said,
February 20, 2008 at 1:20 am
I am familiar with “computer evolution” programs, but unfortunately they are useful only as a pseudo-proof of a pseudo-science. They are not helpful outside of the world of evolution at all.
Sadly, this is not the case. I have a lot of experience in this field.
Genetic algorithm research is a rich field in computer science. Genetic optimization strategies have been used with much success for optimizing database queries. Genetic algorithms have been used to solve NP-Complete problems. I have written such an algorithm to solve several optimization problems related to packing shipping trucks in fulfillment / logistics.
stevebee92653 said,
February 20, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I’m sure you have found some excellent uses for your computer. But putting a program together and running it through cycles that artificially form squiggles that look like insects as Dawkins has done is useless. Computers don’t mimic nature very well.
You are back; you must miss the debate.
real-scientist said,
February 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I was responding specifically to your point that they are not helpful outside of the world of evolution.
This is not the case. Genetic algorithms are very useful. They’ve certainly made me money.
stevebee92653 said,
February 20, 2008 at 10:46 pm
I’m glad you are. I can’t find what you are referring to. Your side (evolution) won in Florida. I’m sure you heard. You should be proud. Except they have to call it “The Scientific Theory of Evolution.” KarenR wanted to “debate”, but she went away when we were discussing. Maybe too busy.
Marie Devine said,
April 18, 2008 at 4:40 pm
A good website, I commented on Helium.com. Looks like a lot of writing. I have heard that in Darwin’ s book he actually said that he did not believe it meant that we were not created but that we evolved after or something similar. Have you seen that?
My website point is, “God has solutions for world problems we created by ignoring His wisdom.” And “The goal in life is not employment; the goal is retirement in a garden paradise with edible landscaping and useful pets for fresh foods and healthy bodies. That solves world problems of pollution, global warming, energy crisis, disease, wars, immigration, social security, poverty, equality, all with one simple change of our goals.”. These are quick solutions that we must sign on to because it is a complete change of directions. We will need to take a step of faith toward that which has been proven. Prosper this message.. that is what the net is for.
http://www.divine-way.com
Http://www.myspace.com/marie_devine@divine_way
God bless you.
Mike Batchelor said,
April 28, 2008 at 7:59 pm
You say, in the opening paragraph, “The purpose of this blog is not to propose any answer as to how we (earthly species) appeared. The main purpose is to question and challenge the veracity of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and to promote independent thought in any endeavor or study.”
The next paragraph then says “Humans, and all animal species, are incredibly engineered machines…” which is an answer to the question of origins, which you specifically said you weren’t going to get into. To say something is “engineered” implies there is an engineer.
Then you say “The greatest engineering group cannot come close to synthesizing the simplest of our organs.”
Well, whales don’t give birth to space shuttles, either. So I guess it’s a draw.
Lastly, you said “If evolution can come up with real instead of imaginary evidence, I will be the first to step up and be a full supporter like I was a few years ago.” Bullshit. Your mind is closed, and that statement shows it. There is plenty of evidence, you just don’t accept it for ideological reasons, not scientific reasons.
stevebee92653 said,
April 28, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I say things are incredibly engineered, but I don’t propose the source of the engineering. because that source cannot be scientifically determined. Whales birthing space shuttles? Sorry, I don’t get the comparison. Try something else.
Sorry, but my mind is very open, unlike yours. I did a major mind change, and I would do it again if I could see differing evidence. The evidence goes against evolution and Darwin’s theory. Believers like you act like like the evidence goes in favor, and completely ignore the negative evidence and impossibilities,
Mike Batchelor said,
April 29, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Organs don’t look engineered at all. We have tons of examples of engineered items and none of them resemble life forms, organs, or any biological entity. Organs don’t look engineered. Life doesn’t look engineered. 747s look engineered.
stevebee92653 said,
April 29, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Eyes don’t look engineered? Four chambered hearts don’t look engineered? You are looking through your hugely filtered evolution fog.
According to your Pope, Richard Dawkins:
“Echo-sounding by bats is just one of the thousands of examples that I could have chosen to make the point about good design. Animals give the appearance of having been designed by a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer………..” “Bats are like miniature spy planes, bristling with sophisticated instrumentation. ” The Blind Watchmaker (p. 24)
Even your Pope disagrees with you. You are mentally blinded by your belief.
Serdan said,
May 8, 2008 at 10:09 pm
“Eyes don’t look engineered?”
Only to the ignorant. To everyone else it looks evolved.
If the human eye is an example of design, then the designer must have been drunk and I want my money back.
cor said,
May 9, 2008 at 7:05 pm
WOW another Lying for jeebus IDiot rehashing irreducible complexity.
One has to wonder how we are supposed to take someone remotely seriously when all the “alleged” evidence they present has been refuted OVER and OVER and OVER again and the only people who continue to use just ignorance are either delusional or are praying on the delusional.
stevebee92653 said,
May 9, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Another highly intelligent evo believer who touts that all challenges have been answered OVER and OVER and OVER without ever saying what the “refutes” are. Cor, if you want to look intelligent, pick any point in the blog and show where it’s wrong. And who or what is jeebus?
stevebee92653 said,
May 9, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Serdan: since eyes look almost exactly like a camera with an auto-iris and auto-focus, with two units to yield depth perception; and are attached to 130,000,000 miniature wires which are connected to a computer called the visual cortex which decodes a code we don’t comprehend; and since it took mankind hundreds of thousands of years to develop something that looks similar, I guess you are right. I would get your money back. But be careful what you wish for.
Serdan said,
May 10, 2008 at 6:13 am
Steve, this website is one big argument from personal incredulity (you should look that one up). There is nothing to reply to. We can only educate you, but you won’t listen, so what would you have us do?
I got your other post in my e-mail and have replied through that medium.
stevebee92653 said,
May 10, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Serdan:
One of my favorite responses: “argument from personal incredulity” Why? Because no intelligence or effort is required. The phrase was made up by Dawkins I believe, and is used ad infinitum by ev’s.
“We can only educate you” is top ten and means “WE” are smarter than “YOU”. Just imagine the education in current evolution science that I gleaned by putting together this blog. In reality, there is tons in my blog to reply to, and feel free to target any of my points, instead of throwing out broad TRITE generalizations. I really will change anything that is scientifically incorrect, or can be challenged successfully by fact rather than belief. My entries are based on fact not a belief system.
stevebee92653 said,
May 10, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Serdan’s comment:
Oh yes, it’s a nifty organ. No argument there. My point was that it is actually very badly designed.
E.g. why do we have a blind spot? Read a book or something.
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0375424474/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210399039&sr=8-1
That you cannot comprehend the idea of complexity arising out of simplicity is a failure on your part, and has nothing to do with evolution. It’s baffling really. I can write a program in less than an hour which demonstrates the mechanisms. Not necessarily evolution (before you go on a rant), but simply the way in which complexity can arise from simplicity. You cannot ignore this, nor can you ignore that organisms evolve all the time.
Have fun in your delusion.
Sincerely,
Anders Kronby Kehlet
stevebee92653 said,
May 10, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Anders Kronby Kehlet
I must congratulate you on writing two responses without calling me inane
names. That is a first for evolutionists. You say you can write a program
that will produce complexity from simplicity. I assume that you must then
be intelligent? The intelligent originator of the program? Your statement
then would prove intelligence put together the universe and nature? Try
putting together a program with no originator. I’ll lay odds and put up a
million pounds it’s impossible. You say to have fun in my delusion when you
send me your own, and you disprove your own belief system with your example.
It’s baffling really.
You say you have a blind spot. I bet you can’t see it, and if you weren’t
told you had it you would have no idea it was there. If you can see it, you
are a rarity. You are the epitome of looking a gift horse in the mouth. I
mean a gift miracle.
“Oh yes, it’s a nifty organ.” just doesn’t quite cut it for the description
of a complex color vision system. But evillusionists have to look at eyes
in a simplistic fashion so they can convince themselves that eyes can
evolve. Anders, eyes are a lot more than a “nifty organ”.
Steve
Serdan said,
May 12, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“One of my favorite responses: “argument from personal incredulity” Why? Because no intelligence or effort is required. The phrase was made up by Dawkins I believe, and is used ad infinitum by ev’s.”
I think I spotted a few obvious fallacies that fall into that category. Want me to point them out to you? And no, it wasn’t made up by Dawkins. I told you to look it up, didn’t I?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_personal_incredulity
““We can only educate you” is top ten and means “WE” are smarter than “YOU”.”
No, it means that I have a greater understanding of this particular subject. Judging from the site I would guess that you are very much capable of understanding evolution (i.e. you are “intelligent”, which is different from “smart”. Look it up). You just don’t want to. I would also guess that you have a greater understanding than me on many other subjects. If I thought you were too dumb to understand evolution I wouldn’t have made that statement, since it then obviously wouldn’t be possible to educate you.
Please drop the generalisations. Not everyone with an understanding of evolution is an arrogant bastard.
“In reality, there is tons in my blog to reply to, and feel free to target any of my points, instead of throwing out broad TRITE generalizations.”
I have some spare time today, so I’ll see if there’s anything obvious that I am capable of explaining to you.
Serdan said,
May 12, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Steve,
“Try putting together a program with no originator.”
A computer application has an intelligent originator by definition. The same is not necessarily true of life, which is why you fail.
Your reasoning seems to go something like this:
A is necessary for B
B is analogous to C
Therefore A is necessary for C
Can you see why that doesn’t work? By that reasoning I could prove all kinds of crazy shit.
By the way, I could write an app that evolved other apps, but you probably wouldn’t accept that and it would miss the point.
“You say you have a blind spot.”
Are you really denying that we have a blind spot? ô_o
By the way, it is literally a blind spot. It shouldn’t be a problem for you to set up an experiment to verify that.
“But evillusionists have to look at eyes in a simplistic fashion so they can convince themselves that eyes can evolve.”
No, not really.
“Anders, eyes are a lot more than a “nifty organ”.”
Give me a break. You’re the one trying to reduce all lifeforms to some old machines designed by whatever. By comparison evolution is the much more aweinspiring option.
Sincerely,
Anders Kronby Kehlet
Serdan said,
May 12, 2008 at 6:40 pm
“I have some spare time today, so I’ll see if there’s anything obvious that I am capable of explaining to you.”
I’ve changed my mind. I shouldn’t have to do your homework for you.
However, I’ll point out a “mistake” you made in your article on the eye. At the top you put a three minute educational video and then pointed out that it wasn’t a complete explanation. Well, I’ll be darned!
Instead you should find a published paper on the evolution of the eye.
Seems fair, no?
Serdan said,
May 12, 2008 at 7:05 pm
A short comment on the analogy of computer simulations.
If I write a program that simulates evolution, I won’t:
1. Design the process.
2. Design any potential “end product”.
3. Design any of the intermediates.
What I do is that I set up the parameters necessary for the process to take place. Everything else is a result of those conditions.
So when arguing against the simulation analogy you have to skip immediately to the finetuning argument. You got pretty close to that:
“Your statement then would prove intelligence put together the universe and nature?”
but the intelligent designer didn’t necessarily have to put anything together as such. All it had to do was to create the initial matter and put the necessary parameters in place, which brings us to the finetuning argument, which is completely irrelevant when discussing evolution and whether species could have evolved without intervention.
stevebee92653 said,
May 13, 2008 at 3:30 am
Thanks for the heads up on API. I read that it was Dawkins’ phrase. But,
either way, I don’t argue that if A was wrong then B is proved. I argue
that if A is wrong, then mankind doesn’t currently have the ability to
figure it out. Evolution destroys any chance for mankind to solve any part
of the Puzzle.
Serdan: You say I am capable of understanding evolution but I “just don’t
want to”?
Sorry, our brains are capable of reasoning, believing, and deducing using
evidence that is present for us to use. Wanting to believe something,
versus actually believing, is really not an option for any person. I don’t
believe I will live forever if I believe in Jesus, or that random mutations
and natural selection are capable of forming eyes and hearts. To me they
are about equal in absurdity.
Re “smarter”: You may be an instructor of some kind, and be far more
knowledgeable than I about the millions of details of written evolution.
But the big obstacles are obvious, and are an A-bomb to all of those
details. And that is what I write about.
Re broad generalizations: Take a look at the discussions that I have had
with some seemingly very schooled and knowledgeable evolutionists. Of the
twenty or so evolutionists, name calling and demeaning is the rule, not the
exception. Which makes evolutionists look pretty bad.
Serdan: “A computer application has an intelligent originator by definition.
The same is not necessarily true of life, which is why you fail.”
You have absolutely no idea what is true with the origination of life, and
neither do I. But we both know that, for humans, it is not possible to
synthesize life or even come remotely close. So you cannot say “I fail”.
We would both fail equally at trying to explain the origination of life.
Serdan: “A is necessary for B
B is analogous to C
Therefore A is necessary for C
I have absolutely no idea where you think this fits in to my writing. Sorry.
An example?
Serdan: “By the way, I could write an app that evolved other apps, but you
probably wouldn’t accept that and it would miss the point.”
As soon as you inject yourself (intelligence) in the mix, your point is
moot. According to Dawkins’, the odds of one hemoglobin molecule forming in
a vat of H-C-N-O is 1:1×10 192th. To give you an idea of these odds, there
are 1:1×10 72nd atoms in the universe. Dawkins wrote a program showing that
he could greatly reduce those odds to forty steps, supposedly manageable, by
digitally selecting each correct connection. Again, he injected
intelligence, and stretched natural selection into the formation of
chemicals. Do you accept this as good evidence that hemoglobin could
evolve? Sorry, I don’t. Not close. He probably got the odds down to
1:1×10 40th, And by adding the thousands of other biochemicals necessary
for life, which would require hugely expanding the odds against, again by
multiplying the odds for each additional biochemical, the odds against
wouldn’t even be proportional to hundreds (thousands? millions?) of times
the number of atoms in the universe.
“Are you really denying that we have a blind spot?”
I KNOW there is a blind spot. I asked if you could see it. If you have
normal vision, you can’t. A complex vision system is miraculous beyond
imagination, and evolutionists try to find flaws to prove it could have
evolved. It’s like taking a space shuttle and trying to prove that it
evolved because some of the seats aren’t comfortable.
“Instead you should find a published paper on the evolution of the eye.”
Obviously you haven’t read my blog; or much of it anyway.
Is the paper from the University of Minnesota biology department acceptable
for you?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php
I read their paper thoroughly, then had an ongoing discussion with about ten
of their instructors, which is on my page 26C and their site. As would be
usual, I gave them very specific challenges, and they answered by demeaning
the questioner and the question; with the usual horribly trite ev-speak.
It’s pretty obvious that you have read very little information on my site,
so it’s difficult to carry on any kind of reasonable conversation with you.
You repeatedly come up with your stock answers to non-believers. You
mention no points or challenges that I have made. So this discussion is
really disappointing for me. I really would like to find an evolutionist
who is well read and able to take on my challenges with knowledge and
intelligence. Why? Because it’s such an incredible subject, and it can be
a fun and thoughtful discussion. And if any of my points are incorrect, I
do update and make corrections. If you read my discussions, you would see
that I haven’t found an evolutionist yet who has reasonable challenges to
mine.
Micahklaz said,
October 9, 2009 at 9:16 pm
This isn’t exactly relevant, but this site is awesome. Serdan is making no relevant points and you are destroying his weak arguments. The problem is, anyone who bothers looking up these sites is usually pretty fanatical and you can’t beat them in a debate because they refuse to accept defeat.
Serdan said,
May 13, 2008 at 9:49 am
Sorry, Steve. I’ve misjudged you. You remind me of a muslim colleague of mine. He would accept that evolution occurs in nature, but doubted that it could lead to speciation. He was not a typical creationist and offered no alternative explanation. He just questioned what he knew of evolution.
Judging from your site it would seem that you take the same stance.
I’m curious to know where you draw the line between micro and macro. You mention changes in colour, size and habits as examples of micro. You also aknowledge changes in form (Darwin’s finches), so where do you draw the line? Hypothetically, is it not possible for a rodent to evolve wings and fly? We already have the intermediate glider, you know.
Sincerely,
Anders Kronby Kehlet
Serdan said,
May 13, 2008 at 9:53 am
I’m going to read up on the other stuff you mentioned now.
Serdan said,
May 13, 2008 at 10:47 am
By the way, if I wrote a program that simulated evolution to such a degree that something like eyes could evolve, would you accept that?
Just a few comments to your previous post:
“You have absolutely no idea what is true with the origination of life, and
neither do I. But we both know that, for humans, it is not possible to
synthesize life or even come remotely close. So you cannot say “I fail”.
We would both fail equally at trying to explain the origination of life.”
Actually, a full genome has been synthesized, so I would say we are getting pretty close.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7203186.stm
“I have absolutely no idea where you think this fits in to my writing. Sorry.
An example?”
This:
“You say you can write a program that will produce complexity from simplicity. I assume that you must then be intelligent? The intelligent originator of the program? Your statement then would prove intelligence put together the universe and nature?”
That an originator is needed for a simulation does not mean that the same is true of reality.
“As soon as you inject yourself (intelligence) in the mix, your point is
moot.”
I know. That’s what I wrote. It misses the point.
“I KNOW there is a blind spot. I asked if you could see it.”
Yes, I can. As I pointed out it is easy to verify. The brain will fill in the blind spot with information gathered from the immediate surroundings, so if you take a white piece of paper and put a small dot on it and position it correctly in front of your eyes the dot will disappear. We did this experiment in primary school. I’m surprised you haven’t heard of it.
“Obviously you haven’t read my blog; or much of it anyway.”
True.
Serdan said,
May 13, 2008 at 12:05 pm
“But, either way, I don’t argue that if A was wrong then B is proved. I argue
that if A is wrong, then mankind doesn’t currently have the ability to
figure it out.”
Gotcha. It’s tedious to debate with creationists, so I appreciate that.
“Evolution destroys any chance for mankind to solve any part
of the Puzzle.”
I disagree with this, of course, since I think that evolution is the solution. Though, it brings up an important question: How would you go about solving the puzzle? Any suggestions?
“Sorry, our brains are capable of reasoning, believing, and deducing using
evidence that is present for us to use. Wanting to believe something,
versus actually believing, is really not an option for any person.”
I disagree with this too. Humans have proven to be very good at deceiving themselves. You can choose to see evidence where there is none. All that is required is that you suspend disbelief long enough to construct an internally consistent worldview.
“Re broad generalizations: Take a look at the discussions that I have had
with some seemingly very schooled and knowledgeable evolutionists. Of the
twenty or so evolutionists, name calling and demeaning is the rule, not the
exception. Which makes evolutionists look pretty bad.”
And all the nutty religious creationists make anti-evolutionists look pretty bad. Condemning the people at Myers’ blog for something you are doing yourself is pretty hypocritical.
stevebee92653 said,
May 13, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Anders
Pre conceived notions are difficult to deal with. That’s why I tried to make it very clear that I am not religious. I am very fascinated with the subject of our origins and always have been since I was a kid. I love the subject, and get very frustrated trying to figure it out. I REALLY was a very convinced evolution believer. It is very difficult to convince ev’s that that is the case, due to the fact that most ev’s are convinced that there are only two possible beliefs, A and B.
How would you go about solving the puzzle? Any suggestions?
Philosophically, I really liked the book “The Symbiotic Universe” by Greenberg. His thinking is that the universe needs a conscious observer (man) to exist, and man needs the universe. Which kind of says the universe itself is the “intelligence” and the “creator”. But he concludes that there is no intelligence involved with our appearance, which is a conundrum. If the universe needs and causes the appearance of observers, it must be itself intelligent. But that’s as close as I can come to any satisfactory answer in my mind.
Anders: Humans have proven to be very good at deceiving themselves. You can choose to see evidence where there is none. All that is required is that you suspend disbelief long enough to construct an internally consistent worldview.
Here we agree. If I told you I would give you a million pounds if you would believe that 2+2=9, no matter how hard you tried or lied, you couldn’t really believe, and you wouldn’t get the money. That usually gets me out of religious discussions.
But, I also think the same with evolution. To believe it you have to accept the unbelievable. There are so many things that evolution can’t come close to explaining, which is of course what my blog is about. I read “The Blind Watchmaker” and my conclusion was that deep down inside, Dawkins himself really doubts himself. I wrote a review on the book if you have a minute, and you will see why I think that.
Re: Meyers blog: I can only say that if a particular science is conceived as wrong by an objective person interested in that science, and nothing is ever said, that science becomes a belief. And real science cannot advance. And that is what I see with evolution. I want to KNOW, and I realize that I never will. But if real objective science wins the day, someday maybe future generations will get the immense thrill of finding out the answer, or at least some little portion of it. Unfortunately evolution is so adamant about battling its enemy, religion, that common sense and objectivity goes out the window where good science should be the norm.
Actually, a full genome has been synthesized, so I would say we are getting pretty close.
Not even. Dead bacteria have DNA and all of the biochemicals and structures required for life in one neat little package. They can’t be brought to life. The bar will always move.
BTW, could you tell me something about yourself? Just curious to know who I have been talking to.
Serdan said,
May 13, 2008 at 10:30 pm
“It is very difficult to convince ev’s that that is the case, due to the fact that most ev’s are convinced that there are only two possible beliefs, A and B.”
Can’t say I blame them. So far I have only encountered two persons who take your stance, and you’re one of them. If you actually want to be heard I would first of all suggest that you forget about those fancy labels. People who study evolution are “evolutionary biologists”. Not “evolutionists”, nor “ev’s”.
I’ve just read through some of your archived debates and another thing to consider is your use of the word “proof” in the context of a scientific theory. It’s a common mistake made by creationists, so be careful with that.
Finally, I would suggest that you study your own behaviour. I’m willing to bet that people such as those at Myers blog not so much take exception to what you say, but rather how you say it.
“But that’s as close as I can come to any satisfactory answer in my mind.”
You call that satisfactory? ô_o
To me it sounded like a whole lot of gobbledegook. If the universe needed man to exist then what did it do all those billions of years before man came about? What is even meant by the universe being intelligent? And why would the universe need an observer to exist?
“I read “The Blind Watchmaker” and my conclusion was that deep down inside, Dawkins himself really doubts himself. I wrote a review on the book if you have a minute, and you will see why I think that.”
Trying to make me puke?
I read both your “Richard Dawkins Stumped” and your “review” of his book and, well, I’ll just speak from the heart, since I’m sure you’ll appreciate that:
A piece of writing has never before made me feel so utterly disgusted and offended. I could literally feel my IQ drop as I crawled through your bullshit. Layer upon layer of BULLSHIT. Not to mention the condescension and sheer arrogance and extreme ignorance. How you can let something so utterly inane stand as a testament to your supposed brilliance is incomprehensible.
But that was just my gut reaction. A considered response would likely be slightly more measured. After all, I do try to be polite when circumstances allow.
Anyway, want me to point out any of your numerous “mistakes” to you? I’ll dedicate a considerable amount of time to it, if you want.
“Not even. Dead bacteria have DNA and all of the biochemicals and structures required for life in one neat little package. They can’t be brought to life. The bar will always move.”
Did you read the article?
“BTW, could you tell me something about yourself? Just curious to know who I have been talking to.”
I considered indulging you in this before reading your “review”, but now… I don’t trust you. At all. I suspect you might try to use any perceived weakness against me. It would just be utterly pointless and an enormous waste of time.
Anyway, you’ve missed some questions that I would really like an answer to:
I’m curious to know where you draw the line between micro and macro. You mention changes in colour, size and habits as examples of micro. You also aknowledge changes in form (Darwin’s finches), so where do you draw the line? Hypothetically, is it not possible for a rodent to evolve wings and fly? We already have the intermediate glider, you know.
-
Let’s assume that I have written a program which simulates evolution. This program is so good that the organisms can evolve an organ of equal complexity to the eye. Would you accept that as evidence in favour of evolution?
stevebee92653 said,
May 14, 2008 at 11:54 pm
I feel honored that I got such an incredible response to my review! Hard to
believe I could be that important to you. Sorry about the IQ drop problem. I
hope your IQ is back up now, and are OK, and that you didn’t puke on your
keyboard! Actually that page needed some editing, and a bit of taming. But
the points remain. And, I sure would like it if you would tell me where you
think I am wrong, if you have the time. That will be a more difficult task
than you think. And, please remain CALM. This is not that big of a deal.
BTW: Regarding Dawkins not really believing his own stuff, I highlighted in
red his quotes that I think showed that very clearly, just for you. So you
can be proud.
Anders: People who study evolution are “evolutionary biologists”:
Many are just fans, hence ev’s, which groups evolution biologists, evolution
believers, evolution hobbyists, etc. I am not always dealing with
biologists.
Re. Meyers blog: I was respectful always, they were unbelievably rude.
Which, for some strange reason, is pretty usual for that type of
communication with evolution biologists. I quit several times, but each
time I did I got a mountain of responses that, of course, had to be
responded to.
Anders: What is even meant by the universe being intelligent? And why would
the universe need an observer to exist?
Try “The Symbiotic Universe” written by George Greenstein, a physicist and
strong evolutionist. Ask your physics department about the existence of
anything requiring a conscious observer. I really don’t want to broach this
one considering all of that emotion you displayed with my review. I
prefaced this sentence by saying it was my PHILOSOPHY, and not at all
scientific. Check it. I don’t want to argue belief. But that is as close
as I can get to any thought as to why we are.
BTW, you are completely stuck at some point. Life will never be synthesized
in the lab. If by some miracle it is, you still have another major hurdle:
the building blocks, amino acids, utilized by living things all are
left-handed molecules. When amino acids are synthesized, they are 50/50
right and left. Why did life decide to only use the lefties? How does
evolution answer that? I’m serious, and is there one?
Anders: I don’t trust you. At all.
You are too serious. How could you not trust ME? We’ve known each other
for so long now. What kind of friendship is that? Actually, what do you
think I would do with any information you might pass on? You certainly know
a lot about me, which is on my blog. Either way………
I’m curious to know where you draw the line between micro and macro.
A certain amount of “speciation” is sure probable. I can’t really give a
good answer as to why each continent has very different species. Kangaroos
only in Australia? Pandas in China, grizzlies here? Sure looks like
speciation to me. But, on the other hand, giraffes evolving from what? And
long necks? Kangaroos evolving pouches? Then on to eyes, digestive tracts,
and hearts? And a consciousness evolving from biochemical signals? Now you’ve
crossed a giant chasm. PS I am a nonbeliever in the flying rodent.
Let’s assume that I have written a program which simulates evolution. This
program is so good that the organisms can evolve an organ of equal
complexity to the eye. Would you accept that as evidence in favour of
evolution?
Not possible, and no. If it’s in a computer, it isn’t real.
Serdan said,
May 15, 2008 at 3:38 am
“I feel honored that I got such an incredible response to my review!”
You shouldn’t be. It was a wildly exaggerated response for the purpose of my own amusement. Sorry about that. No need to feel special or anything.
I actually don’t remember the last time I felt personally offended, so don’t restrain yourself over some concern for my mental well being.
“Sorry about the IQ drop problem. I hope your IQ is back up now, and are OK, and that you didn’t puke on your keyboard!”
My brain rebooted succesfully after the bullshit filter crashed, so no worries.
And the puke was imaginary.
“Actually that page needed some editing, and a bit of taming.”
You forgot to fix the arrogance.
“And, I sure would like it if you would tell me where you think I am wrong, if you have the time.”
Sure, but I may not get it done today. It’s a pretty long article, you know.
“Regarding Dawkins not really believing his own stuff, I highlighted in red his quotes that I think showed that very clearly, just for you.”
Thanks. I’ll address that in my review of your review.
“Re. Meyers blog: I was respectful always, they were unbelievably rude. Which, for some strange reason, is pretty usual for that type of communication with evolution biologists. ”
As I’ve remarked before, anyone who publically supports evolution is instantly faced with an unbelievable amount of idiocy. I am not surprised that some people simply can’t be bothered to even pretend to take “anti-evolutionists” seriously anymore.
People are people and that will never change.
You are the one who has to adapt if you want to be heard.
“Ask your physics department about the existence of anything requiring a conscious observer.”
Are you talking about quantum mechanics? I’m pretty sure that the observer does not need to be conscious, or even alive.
“I prefaced this sentence by saying it was my PHILOSOPHY, and not at all scientific.”
You mentioned it, so I commented. We can just leave it at that.
“Life will never be synthesized in the lab.”
What makes you so sure? We know what life consists of, so there is nothing intrinsically mysterious about that.
I smell dogma.
“the building blocks, amino acids, utilized by living things all are left-handed molecules. When amino acids are synthesized, they are 50/50 right and left. Why did life decide to only use the lefties?”
Honest answer: I have no idea.
Speculation: There may be some, as of yet unknown, advantage to being a lefty, or maybe it was just a coincidence. If life had “chosen” to use righties your question would reflect that. Honestly, I don’t see why you consider that to be of any great importance.
“How does evolution answer that? I’m serious, and is there one?”
Evolution doesn’t. It’s the domain of abiogenesis.
“You are too serious. How could you not trust ME? We’ve known each other for so long now. What kind of friendship is that?”
Yeah, I know. And with you being so huggable and all…
“Actually, what do you think I would do with any information you might pass on?”
You have shown that you are not entirely unfamiliar with the concept of humour, so I’ll let you mull it over one more time.
Actually, I’m withholding my personal information to protect you. Given the assumptions you’ve made it would just cause some apocalyptic event to occur were you to learn the truth.
“But, on the other hand, giraffes evolving from what?”
Shorter necked giraffe ancestors. I’m sure you can find the evolutionary tree for the giraffe online. It’s actually an example where it’s very easy to imagine how it could have evolved, since any increase in height would have been an advantage.
“PS I am a nonbeliever in the flying rodent.”
How come? Flying squirrels are excellent gliders, but you really think that there is no room for improvement?
“Not possible, and no. If it’s in a computer, it isn’t real.”
Not possible?! You’re pretty much begging me to write it.
Do you understand the concept of “simulation”? By the way, data is physically stored on the harddisk, so it is very much “real”.
Whoops… Running out of time, which is fine I guess, since I don’t really have anything else to add right now.
Please excuse all the bad grammar. English is not my main language and I’m tired.
Sincerely,
Anders Kronby Kehlet
Serdan said,
May 15, 2008 at 8:08 pm
My friend suggests that you cut down on the nitrous oxide. ^_^
stevebee92653 said,
May 18, 2008 at 7:06 pm
When did I say scientific progress has halted? I say scientific progress
has gone way beyond Darwin. Darwin is way too simplistic to account for
nature.
Try using what I say, not what you hope or wished I had said. How could you
possibly deduce that I think scientific progress is halted from my writing?
If you try to put words in my mouth that you know I haven’t communicated,
all discussion is moot.
One thing I do not do is try to fool people or lie.
Again, you are suffering from severe “words in mouth syndrome”. I have a
feeling any discussion between us is going to go south real quick, unless
you can drop that bad habit.
BTW: Gee, I even have an article on whale evolution. (pg. 20) and giraffe
evolution (pg. 22) below the giraffe pix. No growth of giraffe fossil necks
is obvious, and just another embarrassment for evolution.
No matter what you do in computer, it cannot in any way mimic nature.
Natures variables are almost infinite. A programmers are not. You can’t
make an eye in a computer, or any other organ.
Anders: Why British though?
Your spellings are British.
Andrian said,
July 12, 2008 at 11:01 pm
The Evolution method had shown amazing results in training artificial Neural Networks.
I should register that.
The Evolution method had shown the ability to design new structures to fit a given problem.
The Evolution method is only at the very beginning of being simulated for applications in real world.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see self driven cars in near future (also Neural Networks and Evolution)
Pretty much any engineering problem can be solved with simulated evolution. How’s that for uses in the outside world. AutoEngineer
stevebee92653 said,
July 12, 2008 at 11:44 pm
I guess we will have to wait millions of years for these great things to happen? Oh wait. I think you mean genetics?
Aaron Baldwin said,
July 13, 2008 at 7:50 am
Hi,
I would love to discuss the issues brought up on this page with you. I am a professional evolutionary biologist and college professor. Given your responses to others I am suspicious and hesitant, am not sure that honest discussion is what you are really seeking but willing to try.
I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong, and I hope you are as well. It does not start a discussion in the best way if opponents to any viewpoint are automatically classes as ignorant or spouting dogma. Some of your anti-evolution points certainly point to you not understanding the idea, although I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.
One example that stands out is on your evolution of birds page (Species and organs…). You make a valid statement here about how a non-flying organism must evolve wings to fly. But then state it must also evolve eyes to fly as well. The ancestors of birds already had eyes. When a new form evolves it does not have to re-invent all structures. Just modify existing structures. You may or may not accept this (and is worthy of discussion) but to throw in additional adaptations which are already present is false.
stevebee92653 said,
July 13, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Hi Aaron
Thanks for the note. You get an A+ on my grade sheet. Why? Because you
wrote the most intelligent and reasoned comment from an evolution biologist
that I have received in the three years that I have been doing this blog.
For your interest, and to give you an idea what I have faced, see my video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGUtL7ksQHAv=zGUtL7ksQHA
It was only done with a little fun in mind, but you might get the idea of
what I have run into in my discussions with evolution biologists and
believers.
A majority of the comments on that video came from PZ Meyers group, who I
carried a long discussion with. The discussion is still on their blog:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php,
#72 to the end if you are curious; or on my blog with a few comments. What
you read on my site is absolutely true, and I have no other agenda than
being completely fascinated with the subject. I REALLY was a total and
fully dedicated evolution believer and defender until a few years ago, as
noted on my blog. I REALLY am not religious, and I have no agenda except
the fact that I think selected mutations cannot possibly account for all of
nature and us. I think there is an incredible intelligence in nature, but
the fact that it is not scientifically “findable” has created two armed
camps, of which I am somewhat in the middle. I don’t believe either side has
the answer.
A lot of the things you might want to discuss have been already discussed on
my blog. For example the evolution of eyes. I promise you I have some
additional takes on the subject that you may not have read before.
According to National Geographic, birds appeared “suddenly” in the fossil
record, with no precursors in earlier sedimentary layers. The earliest bird
fossils had wings, and were fully skilled flyers. They also had eyes, as
you mentioned. The problem here is how could the “trait” of eyes spread
from another species to birds? Since reproduction between species is not
possible…..The exact same problem exists with insects, whose earliest
fossils appeared “suddenly”, and the earliest insects were skilled flyers
and had eyes.
If you find anything in my blog that is not correct, please let me know. I
am not dogmatic, and I am fully open to correction.
I don’t know how you found me, but I have another YouTube video on
abiogenesis. It is in answer to Potholer54’s video “The Beginning of Life
Made Easy”. Both of these videos are on my blog: http://www.evillusion.net page
11, second and third videos.
Anyway, thanks again for the very refreshing the note.
Regards, Steve
Andrian said,
July 14, 2008 at 9:48 pm
“I guess we will have to wait millions of years for these great things to happen?”
No, you don’t:
http://www.demo.cs.brandeis.edu/pr/robotics.html
Also see this for something that will inspire young minds to apply the Method of Evolution There is lots of college papers on Genetic Programming. It has to be said that only recently this method began to gain popularity. Those who are creative will find uses for it and benefit.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oCXzcPNsqGA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rSSg9vciKlY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gXQZeqqqhSY
Rich Grod said,
July 26, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Where is page 15? Between 14: “Einstein’s Thoughts” and 16: “Habilis and Erectus were Buddies”
Andrian said,
August 5, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Combine this:
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
With evolution to evolve all kinds of structures from atoms to buildings.
The world will not wait for people to “get it”, if you want to understand then it is up to you to learn.
Mr. Dude said,
August 17, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Hey Steve, do you happen to post at a forum called FARK under the name Bevets?
Anyway nice ‘flat-earth’ site I am sure you’ll deceive lots of naive people.
Geoff said,
August 25, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Hi there
Just a line to congratulate you on your web site. You have some really useful material on it. Don’t be intimidated by people who would rather make sarcastic comments than really consider the evidence, and follow where it leads. Why do some people get so angry when anyone criticises Darwin or evolution? What are they scared of?
Unlike you, I am a creationist, and for 27 years have been involved in writing and speaking on this subject.
You may care to take a look at a website I helped to create to help counter the euphoria that will be accompanying the Darwin Day celebrations next year – see www. darwinday.org.uk.
I have also produced a leaflet entitled “Darwin in the Dock” and 25,000, are being printed. If you’d to see it, I’ll gladly send you a copy.
Keep up the good work!
Geoff Chapman (Creation ResourcesTrust)
stevebee92653 said,
August 26, 2008 at 12:27 am
Thanks! I checked your site. Good read. I’m loaded with information right now, You should put your pamphlet on the net. If you do, let me know. I have several videos on YouTube that might interest you, and more coming. Look at vids under stevebee92653 if you get a moment.
Robo said,
August 27, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Hi, I guess that I really just don’t get the point of your blog/website/articles. You say that Evolution is wrong, that Creationism is wrong, and that in your opinion some sort of Intelligent Design is correct, but you can say nothing more about it. So what is the point of it all if you have no answers to give but only questions to throw out? The only paradigm that your thinking seems to work in is that you might be able to figure it out, but probably not.
stevebee92653 said,
August 27, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Wow. You hit it right on the head. What you describe is exactly what I am saying. If A is not possible, and neither is B, then it’s time to reload. If science doesn’t have the answer, science should say as much, and not continue on with a fantasy. It’s OK to say we don’t have the answers to the Puzzle. We don’t know why the Big Bang took place, and we can admit that. No one has to come up with a “reason”, or fantasy as to why it happened. This blog simply started more as a diary for me to keep notes and to help me recall the many articles and facts that I have read. And it grew. And, sorry, but I can’t propose any theory as to how nature and “we” came about.
Andrian said,
August 30, 2008 at 12:13 am
I heard the news on NPR some months ago about how people are leaving US medical system to seek treatment overseas (including dental assistance).
In addition to poor law and billing system, there are also doctors that instead of gaining knowledge will expose their poor understanding and make a parade out of it. Instead of gaining the knowledge and apply it to better serve your clients you’re choosing to make decisions based on natural explanations prior to discovery of DNA.
Here’s my question; Why did you stop at DNA? Why didn’t you stop at the biology level of the medieval times?
You are a doctor whose decision making algorithm, at the very core, does not have a full understanding of DNA. Honestly, I don’t trust you as a client.
I believe that anyone who opposed your view here suspects that your medical degree is just a cover up. We’re all waiting for you to make a mistake, sooner or later everyone does.
Jason R. Koch said,
September 10, 2008 at 2:26 am
Stephen..
I respect and agree with an independant search for the truth. It is moral and it is all we can do as people. Some of your information is interesting.. as the information of evolution and creation is very imperfect. It is very difficult to find any sure fire belief in the exact system of events that lead to the existance of US, of people. This is true..
I do not want to come off as a jerk, I just ask you to think about some of your more emotional responces in debates you have. It doesn’t do anything to convince, also it doesn’t support the refining of knowledge, pursuit of knowledge or working together. It is in the human psyche to rebel and defend against aggression. I am sure you know this.. so it blunts any kind of intellectual debate, which should, SHOULD be constructive.. but, it is rarely. Ego…
Just wanted to write, I do not mean offence. Perhaps it may also help you to drop the aggression in terms of your own pondering.
Sincerely..
Jason.
stevebee92653 said,
September 10, 2008 at 4:39 am
Nice comment. The debates you read happened when I was first an anti-ev; in fact one was when I was still a fifty-fifty supporter, and I pretty much took the “devils advocate” side. (The Talk Origins debate.) The further I got into the debate, the more I realized that things didn’t happen that way. I have come to the same conclusion as you. The debates are all ego, and not much common sense. I spend little time debating evolution now, and cut people off rather quickly. Ninety percent of the time, the debates are just circular. I made some YouTube videos on the subject, and the comments are rather astounding. Rational discussion is rarely a possibility. My blog started when I simply wanted to keep a log of facts that I had read, and I didn’t want to forget them. From there it grew. Sounds like you are a chess fan? Great game.
Kelly Brian said,
September 26, 2008 at 1:45 am
SteveBee….thanks for all your effort on the site. I have found it to be great fodder for the subject. My hats off to you for sharing your research and opinions. Please keep up the good work
stevebee92653 said,
September 28, 2008 at 6:25 am
Thanks for the kind words! Unusual. I am used the being severely attacked for what seem to me to be good scientific challenges.
Micahklaz said,
October 9, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Those are the perils of debating with fanatics. Happens to me all the time, and is probably made slightly worse by the fact that I’m a Creationist. Please don’t hold it against me, though.
Brandon said,
October 2, 2008 at 2:29 am
Steve,
Very good site with very good points. It amazes me that the same people that refute you do not even read your responses more than half the time. I am not a doctor, however a very well rounded engineer, and definitely believe in something greater than us, its obvious. I think some people are too pompous to even contemplate that point. I have drawn many of the same conclusions as you have, just in my own pondering, and find it interesting that we are very similar in thinking. I was tought evolution in school also and was a sheep once also, but as I got older it did not make sense. Evolution and the movement of people does not come closing to expaining humans. Also, I do believe in God, but that is besides the point, I am focusing more on the likenesses of this forum and my beliefs rather than vice versa. I also like the fact that you state that you are not proposing a new theory of creation rather just stating that evolution does not make sense. If life cannot be created in a lab in a controlled environment then how can life have just just happened and magically DNA or RNA was magically coded to replicate itself and knew what to do with itself and the amino acids that you spoke of earlier? I could go on for days on the conclusions that I have drawn, but it seems as though with majority of your “evo” posters it would go by the wayside.
Also, I am american but from some of your responses I take it you are British? I remember you posting something in pounds. If so that is funny that the one guy posted something about american dentists. That would be another example of someone making up their mind and jumping to conclusions without contemplating their thoughts, if that were so. Anyways, keep up the good work!
stevebee92653 said,
October 2, 2008 at 3:07 am
Wow, thanks. for the great comment. Every time I open a comment, I expected to be severely attacked. I made several YouTube videos, if you are interested. Under stevebee92653. I am American also, not British. What really bothers me about evolution is the way they shove it down kids throats as if it were real science. As I said, I was a full on believer, until a few years ago when I started taking an objective look. The deeper I got into the subject, the farther away I seemed to be from the answer, and the more I realized that Darwin didn’t have it. I believe in some sort of “god”, but not a personal or religious thing. There has to be something more, something very incredibly intelligent to have made all of this. What really fascinates me is thinking about what exactly is life, and how did it get infused into whatever was first to get it. And how the hell did mitosis begin, and on and on. The deeper I get, the farther away I feel I am from an answer, and the more I want to dig. What an incredible puzzle. It is something that I will continue being fascinated with until the day I die.Then will I get the answer? I don’t think so, but maybe…….? Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to comment.
A Theist said,
October 4, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Stevebee:
I’ve gone through most of your comments and replies and while I do agree with you conceptually, a few points have to be made.
1) The theory of evolution is exactly that – a theory, otherwise it would be the natural law of evolution. It has not been proven absolutely. All we have is a large stockpile of evidence. With that being said, it is not fact, it is theory until proven or until something replaces it.
2) You seem to dismiss evolution because it cannot be. You seem to have the same stance I’ve seen before that you see a heart or eye and suddenly evolution breaks down. While I won’t take the stance that it has to be, (once again we are analyzing a theory) I also won’t say it cannot until I see exactly how it cannot. That is how the scientific community works, not on gut instinct without evidence. You fully have the right to pursue this and the scientific community would love an experiment that help to gather evidence or prove/disprove something – that’s how we learn… but you seem to present a gut instinct as factual (perceived factual for yourself at least) when nothing in reality is ruled out.
3) You stated a couple of times that evolution or life has not been synthesized or duplicated in a lab but that isn’t true. You should read up on some of the cool stuff that’s going on right now:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html (observed evolution)
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp (nearly synthesized life)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080124175924.htm (synthesized DNA)
once again, I’m not going to say that evolution is absolute fact, but I’m also not going to make the same concession for evolution being wholly or partly fictitious. We simply don’t know. For now it’s our best model and that’s all.
stevebee92653 said,
October 6, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Thanks for your reasoned and well written comment. It’s such a rarity coming from an evolution supporter. I read your suggested articles, and they are very interesting. I am glad scientists are working so diligently to find the answer, but reality is they are light years from synthesizing life. But if science comes up with the answer, I am certainly willing to change or trash my blog. I don’t see that happening, though.
There is something so magic and incomprehensible about life, and my take is that they will always be “almost be there”, but never cross the finish line. I have no argument with the idea that species change, (the citrate metabolizing bacteria). I have a page on evidence FOR evolution, you may have noted. It’s just the idea that evolution could produce hearts and eyes, et al, just doesn’t jive; by common sense, logic, mathematical probability, and the fossil evidence. And synthesizing DNA is really great, but again not close to synthesizing life. All they will wind up with is a lifeless blob.
Anyway, I will keep an open mind. That is why I am where I am today. I opened my mind and did an analysis of the theory, and the more I looked, the more it failed. Evolution being “the best we have” just doesn’t cut it for me, as there are too many impossibilities. There has to be something more, much more, in the equation.
Again, thanks for the good comment.
A Theist said,
October 6, 2008 at 9:28 pm
@stevebee
“my take is that they will always be “almost be there”, but never cross the finish line.”
This is one of the things I take issue with though. Just as you noted that there is no proof that evolution happened, there is no proof that it couldn’t have. When you say something like you think it will never cross the finish line, you’re doing nothing but making an assumption.
“It’s just the idea that evolution could produce hearts and eyes, et al, just doesn’t jive; by common sense, logic, mathematical probability, and the fossil evidence.”
I’d like to say that it isn’t true that we don’t have at least some fossil evidence of early eyes (simple concave eye structures have been found in fossils as far back as the Cambrian period) but it is true fossilized eye / heart stages are harder to come by because of the circumstances needed to preserve the entire organic structure. It is true that there are in-depth articles about how the eye specifically formed under evolutionary theory and in addition there are currently living species exhibiting every one of these stages of eye development. While we don’t have proof that one stage led to another, we can use common sense to admit it could have happened that way (not that it did, but that it could have mind you) Once again, by dismissing it as saying it doesn’t “jive” while may be correct if evolution is ever disproved, would be correct for exactly the wrong reasons. (once again this is only an assumption)
There’s actually a good collection of articles over the development of the eye under evolutionary theory over at Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
“Evolution being “the best we have” just doesn’t cut it for me, as there are too many impossibilities.”
Remember – improbabilities, not impossibilities. We haven’t proved or disproved anything. I fully agree there are a lot of improbabilities, but keep in mind that every time you shuffle a deck of cards for example, there’s about a 1/80 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion chance the cards will end up in their final state. There’s bound to be improbabilities regardless of the current observed state of the universe, we’re just trying to find out how our deck was shuffled.
stevebee92653 said,
October 7, 2008 at 3:46 am
To say there is no proof that something “couldn’t have happened” opens the door to anything. There is no proof that Noah and his family couldn’t have collected all of the animals in the world and put them on a big wooden boat. But, of course that is beyond absurd. The best rout for this science is to prove something DID happen.The living species with “simple” eyes is proof that there are living species with simple eyes. What evolution needs is a species that started eyeless, and a million years later was eyed. That would certainly be good evidence. But all eyed species are first found with eyes, just like all flying species show up in their earliest fossils as skilled fliers. (Birds and insects, e.g.)
I read Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker” (reviewed p. 18 on this blog). It is astounding how he can take an event that has incredible improbabilities, (hemoglobin formation=1:1X10 182th) and work his computer to make it look like the event could happen. And, of course, once he simplifies the odds of that one event, the new odds have to be multiplied by all of the other odds for all of the other thousands of unlikely events to come up with true odds of selected mutations producing any species. Of course, he ignores that fact, leaving his simplified odds for hemoglobin as if that can stand alone and isolated.
I have read every article I could get my hands on regarding eye evolution. I made a YouTube video on the subject, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRDAY39Zd9Mkind) a response to a vid on how the eye evolved
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA). I am very up to date on the current theories. I even debated with the U of Minnesota biology department on the subject (p. 23 C),
And, of course, I thoroughly love the subject. But I feel farther away from any kind of answer now than I did when I started this blog. And, whatever the answer truly is, I agree that we are dealing with huge improbabilities no matter how things really happened.
A Theist said,
October 7, 2008 at 4:43 am
“To say there is no proof that something “couldn’t have happened” opens the door to anything.”
I wouldn’t say anything, but it does swing the doors wide open. You are correct that there is no absolute proof that the noah/flood story didn’t happen, but in that particular instance there is nearly damning evidence such as lack of such a historical flood in any natural record, the calculated weight of the animals, overcoming natural animal instincts to hunt, food issues, etc. Because of all of these issues you are correct to say that the improbable becomes ridiculous.
In the instance of evolution however, we have current species with every stage of the proposed eye development and we DO have some (albeit limited) fossil record of the eye getting better over time within a phyla – the fossilized snails with their concave eye structure of the cambrian era are most closely related to a lot of current snails which exhibit in many instances a full lens structure.
All of this evidence makes it more and not less likely that evolution is the driving force behind species selection, but of course there are a lot of gaps that still need to be filled. It may take hundreds if not millions of years to prove evolution without a doubt. Remember that e coli I was talking about? In order to absolutely prove evolution we may need to see it colonize into multi-cellular organisms, sprout gills, develop a digestive tract, grow eyes, ears and a nose raise children, develop cognitive thought, and prove evolution, but unfortunately that’ll take some time.
In a sense you should feel like you’re farther from an answer – you’re probably thinking more scientifically because you have most likely dismissed some preconceived notions you may have had before you sought an answer. Unfortunately we’re only about 200 years into the scientific age though so anything requiring a written and researched record longer than that is going to have to wait a while.
stevebee92653 said,
October 7, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Roger that. It is very frustrating knowing that we will never really know the answer to the Puzzle. All we really have are vague hints, many of which are contradictory. But, as you say, very future generations may get a better handle on things. Unfortunately those of us who are fascinated with the subject will never find out. All we can do is to keep trying, knowing there is no finish line for us. And thanks for the most enjoyable and intelligent comments that I have received from your side of the fence.
A Theist said,
October 7, 2008 at 3:25 pm
and thank you for an intelligent and civil discussion!
Curtis said,
October 14, 2008 at 3:44 am
Well my assumption is that you are blinded to the truth. You see, truth is not always something that people want to hear. Much like your case. If you do not believe in science or only the science you want to believe in that is of the Christian faith and not the reallity then you are entitiled to your opinion. That is the great thing about freedom of speech. We are all entitled to our own opinion and with like minds we can all back it up. Or at least with our own interpritations. So we are still all not alike. I think that you are still smart and understand what you are talking about but, in my opinion you would still refute the partical accelerator opened in Switzerland because it might bring your precious theory of God creating the earth down yet another time. So Fuck you and this stupid site, I know those are some dumb words but the point is still given. So why don’t you just put up some more blinders and make the world your own and not find acceptance or understanding in somthing you do not believe in. I mean I don’t believe in Santa either, so I guess we do agree on something?
stevebee92653 said,
October 14, 2008 at 4:52 pm
What an intelligently written comment. There are lots of points in this video that you could challenge, but have chosen not to. Why? Either you didn’t read them, or you are completely incapable of challenging them. I think both. So your comment goes in the trash bucket of the comments written by most evolutionauts that can’t use science to refute mine, so they defer to epithets. My points have nothing to do with religion. My points are solely that the theory of evolution is not possible. Good science is made by skeptics, not by blind believers like you.
Michamus said,
November 14, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Steve,
I read your article and have seen a couple of your videos. I would like to make a few points on what I think.
From what it appears, you have mistaken Evolution as being an explanation for the origin of life. This is inappropriate as Evolution is only concerned with how life operates, not how it came about.
I have also noticed that you use atheism and evolution interchangeably. This is not accurate either. Their are atheists who do not accept evolution (ig. Raelians) and theists who do accept evolution (Ken Miller).
Now when it comes to the diversity of life, there is no competitor to evolution. We have used evolution to create high-yield crops, in modern medicine (gene therapy), and for biology in general.
I once made the same mistake you are making, in that I couldn’t understand how evolution could account for the diversity of life. I also used to confuse the hypothesis of (a)biogenesis with evolution as well, but then I researched the material.
The interesting thing though is you do make excellent points when it comes to the majority of those who accept evolution. I myself have seen individuals act no different than a zealot when it comes to evolution. These same zealots usually don’t understand evolution very well themselves either, which is no better than a religious zealot, regardless of the accuracy of the theory. You won’t believe how many misconceptions there are about the theory.
I hope you understand I am writing this to you out of the best of intentions. I was once in your state and simply needed to get to the actual material on the subject. I would highly recommend staying away from Youtube videos, or books that are based on religious convictions (ig The God Delusion) which I feel do more harm than good. If you want to learn about evolution itself, read Science magazine, or evaluate some actual scientific material on the subject. If you must watch a youtube video or two… the only person I can think of off the top of my head, who actually provides science to back his claims is cdk007.
Thanks for your time sir,
Michamus
Matt said,
November 15, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Steve,
So you’re a creationist? And a theist? I know you claim not to be religious, or a creationist, but the way you write, the things you say, and the arguments you use all radiate it. If you really don’t want to discuss creationism, ID or god, you shouldn’t base your arguments on them then.
I read the intro page first, and the stuff you said in there was almost enough to make me post a comment, but then I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and read some of your pages, so I read page 2, where you are talking about the T-Rex not evolving longer arms. Sure it would be at an advantage, but so what? If the T-Rex with the shorter arms are surviving just fine, then why would it even require it to have longer arms, let alone have selective pressure on it to increase the survival of that T-Rex? And that just goes to prove another fact about evolution, it is random. Evolution doesn’t have some ultimate goal, coelacanths didn’t evolve legs or arms because there was no reason for them to if they are thriving without that change. Theres nothing so say that there isn’t a speicies today that had a common ancestor with the present day ceolacanth that did evolve legs though. We didn’t evolve into intelligent bi-peds because that is the goal of evolution, it just happened.
Its pretty clear that you have an agenda. You only seem to reject evolution and abiogenisis, which are all based upon the same scientific method as every other science is, which you do seem to accept. If you aren’t religious, why do you have a problem with kids being taught ACCEPTED science in school? You may disagree, and you have every right to do so, and in fact I would encourage you to. But then to offer no alternative to a theroy that does actually work and make testable predictions? That isn’t very scientific. You said yourself it’s a useless science, and wont produce anything, (which is GROSSY incorrect) so what bugs you so much about it? Unless you want kids to be taught that your creator made everything.
So why has evolution managed to fool so many brilliant scientists today and in the past, so much so, that it’s taken you to come along a see flaws with it? (That’s assuming you are being impartial about the subject and following the real evidence to your conclusion) That’s pretty arrogant I must say. Why are you so brilliant that you pick up on all these things that other people miss? Or maybe you just don’t actually understand it as well as you think you do?
If you dont want people to keep saying you’re Bible thumper, then you really ought not to act like one. I’m not trying to be mean or condescending, but if you really want to have a scientific discussion then you need to act like it.
stevebee92653 said,
November 15, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Thanks for the great scold. For you to have any kind of reasonable discussion with me you have to take what I say about my worldview as true. Otherwise, any discussion is useless. Same thing with my view of you. Because that is all we know about each other. So, to reiterate, what I say about my belief system is right on. I have no “agenda” except to prove that a current science that I was a full-on supporter of is completely flawed. And the reason for this blog is that I am fascinated with the subject of our and nature’s origin, and I feel that I was fooled for so many years by my teachers, professors, and so called scientists. And I don’t like being fooled. The reason I brought up T. Rex is it was my first inkling that something was not right with this science. I was a firm believer and staunch supporter of Darwin at the time, and for decades before. And I argued like you do, in its favor.
To me today, evolution looks like a scientific cult. And like major religions, is believed vociferously by many. Your comment is just like so many evolution believers. You cite two items in my writing that show absolutely no evolution. T. Rex and ceolacanth. In reality, these are only two examples of everything that doesn’t show Darwinian evolution. And you are unable to show any examples of species that do, because none do except in the imaginations of evolution followers.
With evolution, evidence is bent to fit the theory. The theory does not modify to fit new evidence. Which makes you a wishful thinker, like all of evolution. So you are way off on that point. Evolution is composed of made up fantasies about how things “could, or might have happened”. What should be taught in schools is what is actually there, not what some person thinks happened, which then becomes accepted by other evolutionists who are happy to have at least some theory that supports their beliefs. The real problem with this science is that it is necessary to support a religious belief, atheism, which causes all kinds of problems with objectivity. No other science has this as a monkey on its back.
You call me arrogant for expressing my thoughts. Maybe I am. That arrogance is only a mirror of the incredible arrogance shown to me by evolution believers and gurus who spend their communication skills demeaning me personally, and who are completely unable to demonstrate REAL evidence for their supposed science. Like you.
JayBay44 said,
May 26, 2009 at 4:44 pm
> For you to have any kind of reasonable discussion with me you have to take what I
> say about my worldview as true.
In light of your recent troubles on richarddawkins.net and much later in the comments on this page, this statement is supremely ironic. We have to take what you say about your worldview as true, but what you said your name was turned out to be false. No wonder you’re so embarrassed!
Jared said,
November 23, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Hi – I think your efforts are interesting. Basically, from what I understand, you are saying that the processes of evolution are plausible only as long as there is some kind of underlying creative/intelligent force behind them. If that is correct, I would agree. I don’t have a problem with the idea of life beginning in very simple forms, and growing in complexity over billions of years, into what we have now. But I personally don’t see that as being possible without some kind of underlying “life force” driving it. I do agree with you – there is a Source. It is creative and intelligent, and we are a part of it. this Source is not “god” as we have conceived of god. Our religions can’t explain it. We are not the center of the universe – just one small part of it. What’s going on is infinitely intelligent and expansive and life on earth is just one manifestation of it. I don’t see why evolution can’t expand itself to incorporate the idea that there is an intelligent creative force in this universe.
stevebee92653 said,
November 23, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Wow. What a refreshing and intelligent comment. Really. You are right on the mark. I am so used to opening comments and being called names, and that’s about all I get. Why can’t science admit there has to be an intelligent source in nature? It does not have to be a religion, but the overwhelming proof of design is there. It is amazing that evolutionauts can ignore it.
The real problem for me is the number of species and electromechanical devices, like eyes, that just showed up almost instantly, all over the world, in the fossil record. All at very different times. That is the pure and objective evidence. Even Dawkins admits that and is puzzled by it. So, there is overwhelming intelligence, there certainly is some evolution, there are species that turn up quickly but at very different times, millions of years apart, and electromechanical devices show up in the first (earliest) samples of every animal fossil found so far. So, put that all together, and what do you get? It’s impossible tie all of this into a scientific theory that makes any sense, and matches all of this information. But it sure is fascinating. Anyway, thanks again for the comment, and for THINKING!
Jared said,
November 24, 2008 at 1:42 am
I can understand where a lot of the comments are coming from. Creation “Science” is a bit wacky, and flies in the face of some pretty well established facts – for instance, the age of the earth. I’ve heard that creationists believe the world is 6,000 years old and all the signs of age in the earth, as well as the fossil record, were are put there by God to test our faith. I think it’s a bit crazy for them to try to make their science fit into their religion, and there’s a lot of that going around, so don’t be too offended. I think I understand where you’re coming from though.
There is intelligent design in this universe. By virtue of the fact that we are communicating via a world wide web that was intelligently designed by human beings, we can conclude that intelligent design is in this universe. Consciousness is in this universe. We are conscious, and in the universe. Therefore there is consciousness in the universe. Who are we to say we’re the height of consciousness. If we, in our infinitely small capacity, are “conscious” then how much more conscious could the Source from which we spring be? Only human arrogance would suggest we are the height of creation.
I run a business. this business began with an idea. I took small steps at first to create it. I made mistakes. I corrected my course, learned from my errors, deliberately adjusted my efforts based upon what worked. I saw what worked and didn’t and adapted as a result of my experience. Much time has passed and through the many small changes that I made in my business, it has “Evolved” quite extensively into something far more complex than I ever imagined it would initially be. So, me with my small spark of creative consciousness, accomplished this small bit of evolution. I think what I just described is the very process by which all things have come to exist and continue to be created, on an ongoing basis.
There is a Source. It is intelligent. We are a part of it. Just a small part. I don’t see anything delusional or crazy with making this observation. It has nothing to do with the bible or religion. I know nothing of God. But I do know that I am conscious and creative – and If I am these things, in my primitive human form, how much more is the universe as a whole?
stevebee92653 said,
November 24, 2008 at 6:23 am
Roger that. Wouldn’t it be nice if scientists could take that open view? It would make their job so much easier. They wouldn’t have to stress and jump through so many hoops trying to explain the inexplicable. Anyway, we are right on. I hope your business is great. And thanks for making my day. It’s so rare to communicate with an intelligent open minded “fan of how we got here”. Which is what I am.
Jared said,
November 24, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Thanks for the kind words.
So, if you accept that evolution is possible, assuming there is a driving intelligent life force behind it, why not change your message slightly to reflect that? Right now, you’re saying evolution is “evillusion” – use of the term “Evil” denotes religion and that’s probably where you’re getting the bible thumping accusations. Instead, perhaps shift your efforts toward demonstrating why there must be an intelligent, conscious life force behind the processes of evolution. If evolution did not occur, then how else did things go from simplicity to complexity? Surely you wouldn’t suggest they were created in their complexity overnight. So really, evolution is the way things came to be – but we both agree that a conscious intelligence is required for this to happen. Shifting your efforts to prove this necessity might be more fruitful, and perhaps less confrontational to the die-hard “Evolutionists.” Just my suggestion.
Matt said,
November 25, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Ok, I didn’t know the burden of proof was on me to produce something, since you can go and look in any scientific journal dealing with evolution or find reliable resources on the internet to provide any evidence I might give you.
How about the bacteria that was discovered around 1975 in Japan, that can digest nylon? Nylon has only been around since near the beginning of WWII, 1935 to be exact. Now there are bacteria 40 years later that can digest this synthetic product. The scientists that discovered this can even tell you how this mutation came about, and its really very simple if I recall correctly. You’ll have to look that one up yourself though, as I am not sure of the specifics off the top of my head. Is that evidence good enough? Or will you have to move the goal posts again?
And I’m sorry if calling you a theist upset you, but you have to realise this:
You say random mutations can’t explain everything. There has to be some underlying intelligence guiding this process. So, either you beleive in aliens, (then where did the aliens come from), or you believe in some supernatural intelligence, eg. god (which doesn’t HAVE to be the god of any currently established religion).
Even in your response to me, about the T. Rex and the ceolacanth, it shows that even if you did actually believe in evolution at one point, you still didnt understand it fully. The ceolacanth has remained RELATIVLY unchanged for so long because it hasn’t needed to evolve. Its numbers had actually declined because it hadn’t evolved, but because it hadn’t changed to adapt to changing environments it really only survives today in environments which have changed little as well, which is where it was ‘rediscovered’. By studying fossils it is actually hard to determine whether there has been a change in the species, unless it’s bone structure has changed. Other than that, I would say it would be almost impossible to tell whether it has evolved to say, digest something different because enzymes don’t fossilize.
If there is some intelligence behind evolution, why do we require vitamins when this intelligent evolution could just make us create enzymes that are able to make these vitamins out of simpler substances?
Jared said,
November 25, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Matt, what is your explanation for Consciousness? Love? Beauty? Music? Creativity? Hatred?
Why do people use the phrase “believe in evolution” as if it requires belief? Evolution is observable. It’s not a matter of belief. The question is, how did all this get started – not whether it happened. And the discussion here, as far as I see it, is about whether there is some kind of purposeful cause in this universe, or if everything really is just the result of chance. Purposeful cause, or chance. That is the debate.
I understand the efforts to discredit those whole believe in a god, and creation “science” and all that hocus pocus. I’m with you – I think it’s nonsense. But no matter what anyone says, I cannot accept that life in all its complexity is just the result of chance, and no matter who presents what evidence toward that end, it still cannot be proven. If what you’re saying is true, nothing has any meaning or reason, and I just can’t accept that.
But there is consciousness in this universe. You are conscious, and in the universe. So, if you, in your tiny insignificant form, contain the massive consciousness that is you, please give the universe some credit ok? We are not the be-all, end-all of creation. We’re monkeys that live on an unremarkable planet around an ordinary star in the backwaters of a run of the mill galaxy. There’s more going on here than you or I understand, and it’s ok to accept that.
Matt said,
November 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Jared,
Acutally, evolution is not about how things got started, that is abiogenisis. Evolution explains the diversity of life. People say they ‘believe’ in science, because they do not do the experiment themselves (usually) but they have to take the word of the scientists in that field. Why believe in science at all you might ask? Because my TV works. The internet works. These all come from science, if the science didn’t work, these things wouldn’t work.
If you are familiar with debating philosophy, your agrument of “I just can’t accept that.” is a logical fallacy called ‘argument from incredulity’. Now I don’t know if there is anything supernatural out there. When I was a kid I really wanted to believe this stuff, but the more I found out the more I found that either the people that supported this stuff were either just wrong in there methods to prove that it is real, or they were just flat out deceptive about it to con money out of people. Part of me still hopes that we do find something supernatural out there, but unfortunantly the more I learn and the more I see, the less possible it becomes.
Love, beauty, music, creativity and hatred all stem from a conciousness. And what is conciousness? What makes humans human? I don’t really know, and I don’t think anyone else does, I have some ideas though. I don’t think it has to stem from the supernatural though, but I don’t think it makes it any less special. I never said I, or science, knows where we came from, I was disputing Steve’s understanding of evolution.
We are just a spec of star dust in the universe. I don’t think there has to be a consciousness in the universe for us to have it. I dont think that makes life meaningless. As long as you are here to think, then you will always give yourself meaning or purpose. As for my purpose/goal in life, I’ve found out recently I have a terminal illness, one that science doesn’t know much about, so I want to leave my mark on civilisation, and work on this illness, so that other people that get this sort of illness wont have it for the rest of their lives like I will. So yes, I realise that science doesn’t have all the answers all too well, but I can’t stand to see people dismantling the hard work of so many people just because they dont understand it, and by doing so, pass on their misunderstanding to other people.
I hope you see my point, Jared. Thanks for the questions, I hope my answers helped.
Jared said,
November 25, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I do see your point – and I do understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. I’m sorry to hear you have a terminal illness. That sucks. I hope you find your way to leave your mark on the this world.
I don’t think life has anything to do with the supernatural – all of it is perfectly natural.
To me, supernatural means vampires, magic and powers and crap I see on TV. That stuff is cool, but not real. Consciousness, creativity, intention – those things are real – and all around us. We possess these traits. What makes us think they are unique to us? I think, rather, these traits are inherent in the universe, and just happen to be expressed in us. All of life is an expression of this same consciousness and intention. You’re right, by lack of ability to accept that it all happened by chance doesn’t hold weight in a logical, philosophical argument. I’m not really debating here – only stating my point of view. I’m not interested in changing your point of view. I believe in no god, no religion – everything we humans are doing here is totally made up by us. You’re right: we just don’t know where we come from. It’s fun to talk about though. I, for one, think there is more than meets the eye to this universe.
One thing I think about is this: All matter is just energy, vibrating at different frequencies. If we are “matter” and we are conscious, and in fact all matter is energy, then in fact, energy can be conscious. If that reasoning doesn’t hold weight, I’d like to hear your point of view on the matter.
I hope you feel better….
stevebee92653 said,
November 25, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Jared
I am going to change the spelling of evillusion to ev-illusion to remove the confusion. I hope that will do it. No, I don’t think “things were created in their complexity overnight.” But I don’t feel any closer to understanding how things came about than I did when I started this blog. Selected mutations cannot possibly have been the causative agent, as there are absolutely zero mutations that form healthy retinal cells, or kidney cells, etc. AND that are capable of locating those cells in the body where they should go. Those types of mutations should be all over the place, and there are none. So, why then, and why not now? That scenario is like the Old Testament Bible, when God talked to the cast of characters, but he doesn’t today. I couldn’t figure that out when I was a kid, and as an adult, I have the same problem with evolution. Magic then, none now. Evolution should be an ongoing process. When they come up with changes in bacterial metabolism , that is pretty pathetic proof. There needs to be MUCH more. I do have a page in the blog on provable evolution. Of course that is a factor. But evolution coming up with complex electromechanical devices is just not in the cards. There is something much more powerful. And, to reiterate, I mean that scientifically, not in any religious vein.
stevebee92653 said,
November 25, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Matt
Para1: Of course I spent a great deal of time looking over the evidence, both in books, and evolution websites. A good deal of my findings are in this blog. Talk Origins, The Blind Watchmaker, debates on PZ Meyers website, heart evolution websites, etc.
Para2. Bacteria changing their metabolism is proof that hearts can evolve from nothing? Neither are fruit flies that don’t mate, or moths that change the color of their wings. Sorry, but if you can’t see that that doesn’t cut the mustard, I can’t help you. Selected mutations cannot possibly have been the causative agent, as there are absolutely zero mutations that form healthy retinal cells, or kidney cells, etc. AND that are capable of locating those cells in the body where they should go. Those types of mutations should be all over the place, and there are none. So, why millions of years ago, and why not now? And if the mutations needed for proof were present, there would still have to be a blueprint or intelligence to assemble the parts.
Para3: Those are my choices? And you are limiting me to those? Funny. My choice, and the one you didn’t give me, is that I am not intelligent enough to figure it out. Not even close. And neither was Einstein, neither is Dawkins, or any human who ever lived.
Para 4: Think of the immense amount of evolution that had to take place in a few million years that went from hominid to human. The most rapid evolution ever was supposedly the skull growth from Australopithecus-like ancestors to humans; in just a few million years. Compare that with the changes in Coelacanth in 410 MY, and T. Rex in 20MY. It’s just astounding that everywhere there should be great examples of evolution, it just isn’t there. So, evolutionists set the evidence “against” aside, and go on pretending.
Very sorry to read about your illness. Damn.
Matt said,
November 25, 2008 at 7:01 pm
“When they come up with changes in bacterial metabolism , that is pretty pathetic proof.” You’ve got to be kidding right? You are telling me a bacteria that has evolved a gene that codes to make an enzyme that digests something no other organism can, and you tell me thats pathetic proof? Right. So we are moving the goal posts then…
So if that one organism can change, say one gene in 40 years, and lets say life started 4 billion years ago, that means that the original organism could have had 100,000,000 gene changes. Are you telling me that all those changes couldn’t add up?
And in fact, mutations are introduced into a genome every time it is copied, an average of 2 mutations per complete replication of the genome, if I recall correctly. You ask for proof of evolution, I give you some, you move the goal posts. There are plenty of other examples of evolution, but that one is the best one by far off the top of my head. And then on top of that, there is natural selection, which is responisible for organisms that better suit their environment surviving and purpetuating these mutations…
Seriously, what sort of proof do you want? Or will you just never be satisfied until you find something that agrees with your predetermined conclusion?
stevebee92653 said,
November 25, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Matt
Mutations that form any healthy and useful tissues in macro organisms, and can place those tissues in the correct locations so they could perform a needed function would certainly be a good place start. Ya know, like evolutionists say it happened. No the goalposts are not being moved.
Matt said,
November 25, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I posted my earlier respons before I read your post adressed to me Steve;
You know why you dont see mutations in kidney cells or heart cells? Because the bad ones make it so the organ doesn’t work and the feotus dies. There are no mutations that form healthy retinal cells? True, none that we have seen, the result in blindness… Did you know, there have been some studies done to show that some women can actually see light in the UV spectrum now? And the rest of the mutations that aren’t beneficial result in blindness. You can’t say that there are NO mutations that produce healthy cells until you have studied everyones DNA, and somehow I dont think you have done that.
As for the response to paragraph 3, if you dont think those are the only choices (natural or supernatural) then what are the others? I dont think that’s a false dichotamy. If you think we are intelligently designed, then it can ONLY be by one of those two agents as far as I am aware.
And as for paragraph 4, it happened, its a fact. Having a brief period of seemingly rapid evolution does not go against the theory. Look up Steven J Goulds punctuated equilibrium.
stevebee92653 said,
November 25, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Matt
Punctuated equilibrium is just an excuse for why we don’t see any evolution today. And your response just backs that up . It happened a long long time ago, but not now. As I told Jared, when I was a kid, I couldn’t figure out why God wouldn’t talk to me because he talked to all of those guy in the Old Testament. Then I figured it out. The same thing is happening with evolution. Long time ago, but not now. So, don’t think about it, and accept it on “blind faith”. Which you do, I did, and I don’t anymore.
Mike Smith said,
December 10, 2008 at 10:34 pm
So it sounds like your problem with TOE is that it doesn’t explicity state that their is some “intelligent designer” behind it all. The thing is, TOE is silent on the issue. You can look at all the evidence for evolution and say, “Of course this was the work of an intelligent agent”. That would not invalidate TOE would it? Does TOE explcilty state that their is no designer involved? No. What it does say is “random mutation” and natural selection. For most people this automatically means no intelligence involved. Let me ask you, if you believe in God/designer behind everything, isn’t he directly responisble for the situations organisms find themselves in, thus controling natural selection. In the same sesne, what seems like random mutation could be anything but random, but actually the will of this grand designer. My point is, this grand designer is ultimaltey responsible for everything and the way everything is. Therefore, even if evolution does not mention the designer, he is behind everything anyway so he is responsible for evolution and how everything go to be the way it is. There is no way to ascetain whether or not there is a designer, so science in general is silent on the issue. You say you like “observational” science (what is “objective”science by the way…I guess I never realized there was “subjective” science…) like astronomy. Our understanding of how stars and solar systems form makes no mention of a grand designer. However, people who believe in God, and also understand sicince, still believe God is ultimatley responsible for the formation of the trillions of solar systems now existence. My point is, the belief in a designer seems to be above and beyond science. If you want, you can say science explains how the designer does what he does.
I want to end this post by saying I am not religious, or even a theist for that matter. Yet, I can understand how people could use the logic mentioned above to hold on to their faith.
stevebee92653 said,
December 11, 2008 at 12:01 am
That was a nice comment. It’s rare to get a well thought out and thoughtful one, so an A for you. We are pretty much in agreement on things. I still have a problem with RM and NS making anything but minor generational changes in species. The idea that a complex vision system could come about by that mode just doesn’t fit the evidence, and possibilities. So many species and organs just kind of showed up in the fossil record with no obvious precursors. Trilobites had eyes right out of the shoot….earliest fossils had them, and we have fossils for a 250 MY period., Birds were in a single strata all over the planet with no obvious precursor. They first showed up with their own version of eyes, and wings. Flowers too. So what is to be made of that? A creator that created different species and organs all at different times? Was it trying to trick us? That is not my theory, as, like you, I hold no religious beliefs. But, what a great puzzle. Evolutions problem is that they interpret everything to fit the theory, and ignore the obvious evidence that goes against. The fossil record and possibilities don’t add up to any logical conclusion, and I can’t make one.
Mike Smith said,
December 15, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I’m curious how you feel about Matt’s question regarding supernatural vs. natural. If those are not the only two choices, what’s the other option? Obviously “natural” can trun out to be a lot of different things as can “supernatural”, but it’s either one or the other. What’s the alternative?
stevebee92653 said,
December 15, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Since everything that exists is “natural” I don’t go for the term “supernatural”. That brings thoughts of flying caped supermen, or magic. So that word is just out for me. There is only one choice: natural. And the source and intelligence for all of nature, for me, is natural.
Gene said,
December 25, 2008 at 12:15 am
Why do you bother with the ev’s and their pointless crude rants? I say if they can’t come up with something intelligent to say, don’t waste your time or space on your site. I read through several pages of pointless rants that you took the time to respond to. You could at least pick one point, say the formation of the first heart, and debate that.
You are completely correct that ev’s use only crude insults or arrogant old arguments that don’t work. Its a shame you haven’t been able to find one worthy of responses in all of this.
Thanks for the site.
Gene
stevebee92653 said,
December 25, 2008 at 12:25 am
Thanks for the comment Gene. I am a lot more selective about my responses now. You are very correct on that note. Just a waste of time in most cases. Naive on my part. At first I tried to discuss with everyone who commented.
Steve
Richard Roy said,
December 29, 2008 at 11:17 am
One of the problems I have with intelligent design is that it requires an intelligence that doesn’t show up in the design. But one presupposes the other. But is there a design? Where you see a design, I may only see a nature. i.e., it is what it is because it is all that it can be. In other words, this element and that element interact in the way they do because it is in their nature to do so under these circumstances. The other problem I have with intelligent design is the requirement of a designer. If such were the case, the designer would require a designer, and for the same reason. The problem here is that, presuming the designer is living, it can go out of existence. The law of conservation gives matter immortality by comparison, and needs no creator. Life, on the other hand, by the decree of intelligent design, requires a creator. So, do you start with something that has no beginning, or do you begin with something that cannot start on its own?
stevebee92653 said,
December 29, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Actually the intelligence is overwhelmingly obvious in the design. Eyes are digital cameras that took intelligent mankind thousands of years to design. The list is long and obvious. The source for the design isn’t apparent, so we are all stuck making things up or admitting that we are not yet intelligent enough to figure it out. Or we try to pick out faults in the overwhelmingly complex designs to show they weren’t designed. Mankind’s position is pretty fragile here.
” The problem here is that, presuming the designer is living, it can go out of existence.” Maybe it did?
So you believe that nothing brought about something, and I believe that something brought about something, and I have no idea the source of the source. And, in reality we are all stuck. Some will admit it, some will deny it. I will admit that I am stuck, and don’t know. But I won’t believe fables of any kind, be they scientific, or religious.
Richard Roy said,
December 29, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Well, since, to you, scientific method is a fable, there is no need to continue this discourse. You are stuck, no question. I’m not here to draw you from the side you’ve chosen. Your claim seems to be than nothing changes on it’s own, yet it goes on about you all the time. Before I waste any more time here, let’s see what you say about this last statement.
stevebee92653 said,
December 30, 2008 at 3:00 am
Your problem is exactly like almost all evo-believers comments. I didn’t realize you are a clone. Sorry. I misjudged you. I make so many concrete points on this site and on my YT vids. The typical evo-response is exactly like yours. You completely slide over the issues that I present showing how TOE cannot be responsible for the formation of almost all of nature. Evo-comments are nearly always some generalized question or information. I stick my chin out, and offer the supporters of this “science” of evolution to take a swing. And few evolutionauts can or do successfully. Including you. A pretty sad situation.
“Well, since, to you, scientific method is a fable” A pathetic statement, gleaned from what? Not worth a response.
“Your claim seems to be than nothing changes on it’s own.” Try page 7
Adios
Richard Roy said,
December 30, 2008 at 7:30 pm
“…gleaned from what?” It’s your statement. “But I won’t believe fables of any kind, be they scientific, or religious.” Though it’s possible that you could be saying that there is Science that is not fable, and there is Science that is fable, to equivocate it with Religion as if there was some Religion that was not fable is to lead one to think you consider all elements of both to be equally invalid.
I had no problem with why Sue didn’t evolve over a given period of time, because I can see, not changing, as having an advantage in the environment of the time as well. Your presuposition that it would be a “greater advantage” to have longer arms for fighting, doesn’t mean it would have been more advantageous for Sue to have longer arms for fighting. It means you wont leave Sue in her environment. You want to take her out of it and put her into one of your own making so that she can better fit your preconceived notion.
At one point, on page 7, you say they can’t use numbers when they don’t know. “Evolutionists say that only 1 in 1,000 species that inhabited the earth have been found as fossils.” (And I agree, but I bet it’s not all evolutionists who say this, since you have a tendency to stereotype. It is also possible for you to be misquoting, and that they may have actually said ‘It is estimated that 1 in 1000 species…’ ) Then you use numbers when you don’t know. “In reality, micro-evolution is not even one trillionth of what would be necessary to form hearts and eyes.” This implies you do know exactly what it would take to form them. It’s just like whatever fool said “man only uses a fraction of his brain”, implying that this person knew exactly how the brain worked. When in reality he should have said “man only knows a fraction of how the brain works”.
This is the same with evolution. If it claims to know everything about how it happened, it’s lying. But not everyone who finds some validity to an idea is necessarily a liar. Also, there are always some who run with an idea and try to turn it into some kind of dogma, demanding conformity of all. You, however, are the reverse. You find a seeming error, and demand dismisal of everything that has even the slightest association with it. Your quote from Galileo Galilei on your first page was directed at the authoritarians of the time. It didn’t mean there couldn’t be more than one person with authorship on an idea. And the Scientific comunity isn’t an elite sect with underlying motives to rule the world. I think the same way of the Religious community. Though there may be those who have some underlying motives, I don’t think the whole community does.
If we’re going to work on preconceived notions that cloud ones ability to focus on an idea, lets talk about your predisposition to assume that you have to expect that “evo-believers” are out to strike you on the chin. “I stick my chin out, and offer the supporters of this ’science’ of evolution to take a swing.”. This is your expectation of the nature of some people? If you think asking a question is equivalent to a swing, then it has to colour the outcome.
And let’s get something straight here. I’m not an “evo-believer”. I do think evolution has the best explanation for what exists though. Your problem is, you automatically think I’m out to convert you. Frankly I don’t give a damn if you believe of not. I just as soon prefer you didn’t, because I’m no proponent of faith. i.e., I’m not an “evo-beleiver” because I don’t beleive in anything. I know, or, I don’t know. I don’t know that things came about in the way that some say, but I do know that some explanations fit better than others.
You say you’re, “…not a ‘Biblical’, or ‘young earth’ Creationist in any way.”, then later you say, “Yet they [evolutionists] are absolutely certain that there was no intelligence that brought about life and the origin of species.” I’m sure that many will recognize this as support for “intelligent design”. You said, “So you believe that nothing brought about something, and I believe that something brought about something,…” And you drew that from what I said that, “the…problem I have with intelligent design is the requirement of a designer. If such were the case, the designer would require a designer, and so on ad infinitum, and for the same reason. The problem here is that, presuming the designer is living, it can go out of existence. The law of conservation gives matter immortality by comparison, and needs no creator. Life, on the other hand, by the decree of intelligent design, requires a creator. So, do you start with something that has no beginning, or do you begin with something that cannot start on its own?” Where in that does it say I think something came from nothing? I’m saying that matter always existed, and life could come from that. But life can go out of existence. So, unless it could come about on its own, without the intervention of an intelligent designer, because, so far, the only intelligence we know of, is living, then, life could not have come about from an intelligent designer. DID YOU GET THAT THIS TIME? Are you capable of extrapolation at all?
Even if you discovered that, at some point on the time line of evidence that eventually comes to light, there is proven to be an intervention by an intelligent designer, there has to have been a point at which life didn’t exist. Since we know that intelligence only exists in living things, there has to have been a point at which it didn’t intervene. Or do you think life had to have always existed? In that case, you don’t think there is an origin; just an always. No point in discussing it further.
I’ve looked over your sight, and it is laced with support for intelligent design throughout. You pretend to be a proponent of “objective science”, and then try to interject this shit about intelligent design so that people will assume that science is in support of it. It’s not.
You said, “The main purpose [of this site] is to question and challenge the veracity of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.”. I don’t think so, since you don’t question the veracity of the fable of intelligent design.
I get the impression that the real purpose of this site is to drive a wedge into some peoples impressionable minds of the veracity of scientific method by proposing to them that intelligent design is a valid alternative. Again, it’s not.
Ultimately, what you want is for me to try to explain every little detail about evolution that you question, so that you can pretend to tear it down. “…if a highly accepted science is incorrect, true objective science cannot advance until the incorrect science is eliminated as a possibility.” Where did you get this crap? Obviously, you have know idea of what the scientific method is. You don’t remove an idea, then try to find a replacement. You replace an idea with a better idea. Don’t, in the same breath, purport to be a supporter of objective science, and then espouse intelligent design.
Of course, it could be your alterior motive to subplant the theory evolution with your version of intelligent design. Then you could patent it.
stevebee92653 said,
December 31, 2008 at 4:16 am
“Your presuposition that it would be a “greater advantage” to have longer arms for fighting, doesn’t mean it would have been more advantageous for Sue to have longer arms for fighting. “
So, let’s see. Birds found it advantageous to grow longer arms that would eventually form “wings” even though they couldn’t fly with the transitional stages, but T. Rex wouldn’t have use for longer stronger arms even though they COULD use the transitional stages for defense and predation. Right? And later on, T. Rex type theropods evolved into birds that did do the arm growth thing. That really makes sense.
“This implies you do know exactly what it would take to form them.” (Hearts and eyes.) A little tip re: science. Don’t assume anything. If you read my first two pages you would know that I said no one who now lives or ever lived on the planet earth knows. Including you, me, Dawkins, Darwin, and Einstein.
“If you think asking a question is equivalent to a swing, then it has to colour the outcome.” This was allegorical. I take all the risk. The whole world can attack what I say. I can be wrong and look very foolish. And if I was wrong, I would certainly change the blog. But no such luck yet for the evo-readers. There is no risk for you.
“I do think evolution has the best explanation for what exists though.” “Best explanation” is not science, and is much different than the “correct explanation”. The “best explanation” for the movement of the sun was it went around the earth.
“I’m saying that matter always existed, and life could come from that. But life can go out of existence. “
Two huge problems here. If you think matter always existed, you are saying matter is eternal. And eternity is not a possible choice. So I would change that thought if I were you. On page 22 I have a brief discussion why. (Toward the bottom: The Idea of Infinitely Existing Matter) The other is that life and matter are symbiotic. One can’t exist without the other. Try “The Symbiotic Universe” by Greentein (an evo) one of my favorite reads.
“Proposing to them that intelligent design is a valid alternative. Again, it’s not.” And how do you know this? Darwin told you? Dawkins? The problem is you don’t know, no matter who told you. And if you just think it isn’t, your opinion is one of billions.
And, yes I think there is Intelligence in nature, and responsible for the design.
Your problem is that all I have to do is find ONE item in nature that can’t possibly evolve, and the whole theory is dead. Do you realize that? That would mean that some other entity was responsible for that one item. I can think of many items that can’t possibly evolve, and you or evolution would have to come up with a fantasy to cover the fail. And the whole basis for evolution is that mutations that can form healthy useful organ tissue, and place it in just the right location in the body of the host so it can be utilized, and in just the correct amounts, is an event that has NEVER been observed. That is the WHOLE basis. So, sorry, your belief is a fake. But, I am sure you will continue on being a supporter of this “crap”. (Your words)
I think we have completed the circle. So, if you don’t have something big, have a nice life.
Richard Roy said,
December 31, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Nope; I’ve read enough of your site to see that I’m done. I have no time for people who accept faith as a valid means of aquiring knowledge.
By the way, it’s cute the way you use a “slight of mind” to pretend to explain how the Universe is finite. But it’s just a math trick. It makes a finite Universe as real as i.
ta, ta.
stevebee92653 said,
December 31, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Nothing amazes me more than people of faith who think they aren’t. Like you Richard. Only you have faith in someone who told you that the universe is eternal. ” Slight of mind” is really just simple mathematics. Did your math teachers trick you in school too? ta ta
Alejandro said,
January 1, 2009 at 2:42 pm
“Without evolution, atheism has no possible explanation for how we and all of nature got here, and it cannot exist as a viable worldview.”
Only for this reason, evolution is still widely accepted and worshiped. They like “L-I-K-E” to believe there’s no God (Designer, Creative Force or whatever).
Some of them aren’t scientists but angry and resentful against any religious organization.
Others were traumatized and brainwashed in their childhood (by jerks like Dawkins).
stevebee92653 said,
January 1, 2009 at 11:28 pm
“angry and resentful against”…..everything. The most unhappy angry group of people I have ever seen.
Josh said,
January 9, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Sir, I have read over your site, and it seems rather curious to me. You accuse “evolutionists” of being closed minded, brainwashed, arrogant, condescending, etc. I’m sorry if “evolutionists” have come across like that. You have to understand that if they have talked down to you, it’s because most of the people who dissent from TOE are total nutcases and not really worth any of their time (I’m talking about YECs and such). You are not one of these nutcases, you just present some very well thought out scientific questions.
However, I think you lack the perspective in which you seek. Whenever someone mentions the evolution of the eye or of sexual reproduction, you seem to curl up in a ball and yell “impossible!” and leave it at that. Sir, that kind of closed mindedness is not how science advances itself, and I’m sure you are bright enough to understand that. Don’t get me wrong, there are MANY unsettled questions. However it does no good to claim the whole thing is impossible. Imagine what would have happened if medical researchers had done the same when attempting to find a vaccine for influenza. Science improves on itself by constant inquiry followed by research, research, and more research. The beauty of science is that it provides us with answers about nature. Obviously, nature is accounted for naturally.
The complexity of life certainly is marvelous, however, this cannot stop us from searching for its natural processes of coming into existence that may be equally as marvelous.
stevebee92653 said,
January 10, 2009 at 2:34 am
“closed minded, brainwashed, arrogant, condescending” I said that? Where? Probably true in most cases, but I didn’t think I said those things in my blog. BTW, I do appreciate your calm reasoned comment. Rare from evo’s.
“evolution of the eye or of sexual reproduction, you seem to curl up in a ball and yell “impossible!” and leave it at that.” You couldn’t have read much of my blog and come to that conclusion. There are many very concrete reasons why selected mutations couldn’t POSSIBLY have formed either. If you want more detail, check out my vids on YouTube. There are three on complex visual systems, and one on sexuality under stevebee92653. I find that most evo’s gloss over the points I make, and resort to generalized criticism. Which is what you are doing.
I certainly think we should continue searching for our origins. It is the most fascinating puzzle imaginable. And, of course I love science. And math. And astronomy. Which is why I do this stuff. It’s just that evolution hit me really hard. I was a very staunch supporter. Until I really looked at it, did research, and thought deeply about the subject. I really think it puts us in the position that we were in in the Middle Ages when we were absolutely sure the sun went around the earth. There are so many thing about evolution that make it impossible, which means it’s time to reload and look elsewhere; and dump it.
Josh said,
January 10, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I will take a look at those videos when I have a chance.
In regards to my “generalized criticism,” I cannot go into great detail of mutations and such. I am only a freshman undergrad, majoring in biology. I hope to learn more on the subject in years to come, and hopefully will be doing my own research. However I can do my best and try to answer your question on T-Rex and the lack of change in its arms. Species don’t evolve in ways that might be considered improvements by our own criteria. Your question reminds me of someone asking me one time, ‘why have humans not evolved wings?’ Natural selection only selects for traits that already exist, and on top of that, only select adaptively.
I’m not doing a very good job explaining. This is from TalkOrigins.org:
“Different organisms make their living in different ways, so a trait that is beneficial for one organism may not be benefical for another. For example, if the ability to eat a certain kind of hard seed is beneficial for one bird, it may not be beneficial to another for the simple reason that the first bird has a monopoly on those seeds already.
Beneficial traits have drawbacks, too. They usually cost extra energy to grow and use, and often they have other costs. If a trait’s advantages do not outweigh its disadvantages, it will not evolve. The existence of an organism that already has the trait often means it is not worth it for another organism to evolve it.
Evolution can work only (or almost only; there may be rare exceptions) by making slight modifications to existing features. Most of the modifications must be adaptive. If the raw materials for a trait do not exist, the trait will not evolve even if it is beneficial. ”
That’s all I really have time for today. I will check your site regularly, and check out those vids soon. Cheers.
stevebee92653 said,
January 10, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Josh:
Good luck in school. I won’t respond except to say that evolution is so full of excuses for why it didn’t happen that it’s ludicrous. And, actually, there is no sign in the fossil record of a single species evolving different “traits”. All I can say is keep your mind open, and don’t just accept what you are told. Think. Be objective. It’s really much more fun.
Bye
Objective said,
March 8, 2009 at 5:01 am
TOE, like Big Bang, is a theory. Some theories some stick around, others are either replaced or improved upon along the way. The fact that scientific evidence CAN be pieced together although in relatively small amounts over relatively longer time, goes a long way to keeping TOE around as the best SCIENTIFIC explanation available. When I learnt about TOE in school I understood what a “theory” is, and that it wasn’t being forced down my throat. (Btw I also had a separate class where we would talk about morals and God.)
What invalidates the entire “scientific” discussion on this page is that your main explanation, “ID”, has no place in science. I agree that ID may well be behind everything in the universe, including the laws of physics. But that doesn’t mean that Newton threw his hands up on what would be half formed theories in his time, with the excuse that “ID is involved”. You are confusing science with philosophy, a serious mistake for a doctor. If all doctors thought in that fashion, we would still be dying from minor infections.
stevebee92653 said,
March 8, 2009 at 5:14 am
Read page 12. We agree more than you think. You just didn’t dig far enough. By the way, now that you bring up Newton. He thought like I do. Oops. Reverse that. He was a string believer in ID.
Objective said,
March 8, 2009 at 5:55 am
What matters is what Newton did for science, not what his philosophical beliefs were. That was exactly my point.
Pg 12: You refer to TOE as a belief system. But it is what it is – a theory (as opposed to fact). It makes a logical attempt (i.e. without involving ID) at speculating about the reasons for the diversity of species. For that reason it deserves to be in a Science class. And also for that reason it is presented as a Theory, not as established fact. Everyone who pays attention in school just a bit would know the difference between theory and proven fact. It would be incredulous to relegate a study of Fermat’s theorem to philosophy class.
stevebee92653 said,
March 8, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Your first problem is that you think evolution is a theorem that reasons the diversity of species. That is only a minor part. It posits an idea for the assembly of complex organs, a brain, consciousness, and the beginning of life itself. (Please no abio/evo separation debate. They are intimately tied together.) I could see a person believing in species diversity through evolution. I cannot understand how someone could believe ev/abio could be involved in the formation of organs/brains/consciousness/life. And since evo’s explanation for these is pure fantasy and belief, it should be moved to the philosophy dept. And. in most schools it is taught a fact. I beg to disagree here also.
Objective said,
March 8, 2009 at 9:28 pm
I agree that TOE may not be all the way correct. I DISagree that it be left out of Science curriculum for that reason. It still employs logical reasoning and ALLOWS FOR scientific methods for it to be proven. The fact that gaps are filling in too slowly or inadequately is not of as much consequence as the fact that its roots are in Science.
What is wrong with a scientific attempt at explaining the assembly of complex organs? For a subject to be included in Science class, what matters most is that the method is scientific, not whether it starts out being right or wrong. There are a lot of things I didn’t learn in particle physics in school that is accepted science now, decades later. Does that mean particle physics belongs to philosophy class because we don’t know everything about it?
Science is the process of TRYING to explain physical processes around us, not throwing our hands up in frustration at a seemingly insufficient theory. The very definition of Science and scientific processes envelopes TOE and leaves out ID. ID is not scientific and not a good enough explanation. There is a clear distinction. Science is about the pursuit of human knowledge BASED IN METHOD, whether initially correct or incorrect.
Note that this does not stop interested individuals from pursuing philosophical interests like ID.
R. S. Martin said,
March 11, 2009 at 4:39 am
What I have found with my study is that the “science” of evolution is devoted to proving Darwin was right.
COMMENT: Would you present your argument, along with the evidence, to prove your statement that science is devoted to proving Darwin correct? I would expect links and other proper documentation with your argument so I can research your evidence for myself. Thank you.
The greatest engineering group cannot come close to synthesizing the simplest of our organs.
COMMENT: If you will allow me, this is because we just climbed as far as we had to in order to survive whatever obstacle blocked our way. Also, no greater obstacle overwhelmed us so that we managed to overcome whatever obstacle confronted us. This allowed us to grow whatever muscle or other adaptation we needed for the occasion. So you’re right—humans cannot make artificial organs that are as good as naturally-grown organs, and they cannot make a human being. You indicate that you do not wish to discuss the origin of species so I won’t address the issue further.
Without evolution, atheism has no possible explanation for how we and all of nature got here, and it cannot exist as a viable worldview.
COMMENT: This statement is false. When I became an atheist, I thought the universe might be eternal. I knew practically nothing about evolution and had not read any atheist literature. My exclusive lifelong focus had been on finding evidence for the existence of the supernatural. I found none. To preserve intellectual and personal integrity I had to give up belief in the supernatural. That, by definition, made me atheist. My worldview did not undergo a radical change. As is everyone’s worldview, mine was largely formed by culture, life experience, and my immediate environment. All of these continued to serve me with a viable worldview, as they had before.
But we know it’s there, just like we know eyes and hearts are here, but how the heck did they get that way? I guarantee you it wasn’t from selected mutations.
COMMENT: Would you please explain:
1. What you mean by “selected mutations”?
2. Who proposes that eyes and hearts are here by selected mutations?
3. In what sources you found the information that eyes and hearts are here by “selected mutations”? Please accompany your argument with full documentation. Thank you.
stevebee92653 said,
March 11, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Your are pretty demanding. Funny. You have research for ME to do? Try reading the blog, then make the request. You obviously haven’t gone past page one.
But, if I must direct you:
Comment #1: Try reading 3 a and b, 5, 8, 16, particularly tiktaalic, 18, 19……….
Comment #3: Evolution is the only MAJOR explanation atheists can come up with for how nature and life came about. That is why atheism is dependent on evolution. Many religious people think God did things through evolution, so the reverse is not true, Religion is dependent on ID, but ID is not dependent on religion.
Comment #3:
1. Short for “random mutations and natural selection”.
2. Darwin and neo-darwinian evolution.
3. Page 5
R. S. Martin said,
March 12, 2009 at 5:53 pm
I see. You don’t want discussion. You want obedience. You seemed like an interesting person to talk to so I tried really hard to play by your rules. You said to pick out points to discuss and you spelled out what we shouldn’t do. I think I did that. Since my best isn’t good enough, I will find other people to talk to.
FYI, I know about tiktaaliks. If you want to know what I know, you can read about it on my site in the science section and follow the links to where I learned about it.
One more point. I saw how you treated Anders and he saw how you treated Dawkins. No need for me to put myself through the same mill.
stevebee92653 said,
March 12, 2009 at 11:14 pm
If you want intelligent discussion, I wouldn’t be so demanding, as you are. You think at your whim I am going to do your research? You obviously haven’t read past page one of my blog.
Objective said,
March 14, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Just wanted to say – I am quite objective, especially when it comes to people and their personal beliefs – everyone has different experiences and circumstances in life and their own reasons to believe – each to their own.
So I understand where you are coming from, and can identify with your view on ID.
The problem I have with this “scientific” site: –
Inspite of my spiritual beliefs, try as I might, I cannot get my mind around how, as you allege, the attempt at REASONING how we got here doesn’t belong in the realm of science. Admitted we don’t always have the right answers, in fact we often get things wrong more than right, before the right answer is eventually discovered, but isn’t the urge to REASON the cornerstone of science and given us all our discoveries and inventions in the first place?
To me, this is what evolution is – the urge to reason where we came from in PHYSICAL TERMS. If the explanation is wrong, so what? We’ll eventually get it right, or never will. It is the effort that matters. Who’s to say whatever created us and everything else in the universe/s didn’t intend for us to go through this process of self-discovery?
It doesn’t make people any less spiritual if they seek answers in the physical realm. It really has nothing to do with being theist or atheist. That kind of comment is just plain insensitive to theists seeking scientific answers.
R. S. Martin said,
March 14, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Objective, I think you have a point. As physical beings we had to physically come from somewhere.
Also, it is my opinion that you rightfully put science inside quotes as it regards this specific site. For a person to switch over-night from one belief system to another, due to a visit to a museum, is not intellectual integrity. A person needs to be able to produce solid reasons and arguments both for the beliefs he held previously and for his switch, and also for the beliefs he currently holds. Otherwise, he comes across as insincere. Steve provides neither in this blog entry; sending people all over the website is none other than disingenuous.
It is also a false assumption that atheists of necessity believe in evolution. They do not. The important term here is “of necessity.” To claim otherwise is to discount the life experiences of real live individuals. Atheists can and do exist quite well without accepting evolution, say what you will, Steve. You’re not omniscient and you cannot know everything.
BTW, I’m not asking you to research anything. I’m just asking you to share what you know and tell me where you learned this stuff so I can look it up for myself. Obviously, that would mean full documentation as in providing author, date, and title of the works from which you learned–the kind of thing every high school kid knows. You claim college degrees.
stevebee92653 said,
March 15, 2009 at 2:03 am
R.S. Martin
I just never cease to be astounded at what evo’s come up with. So where did you get this notion: “For a person to switch over-night from one belief system to another, due to a visit to a museum…..” The museum was a catalyst for a long thought process. Overnight? Where did you find out that information? Did you make it up? Well, that’s how evolution works. Just like objective’s comments. (response below) Made up. Hate to tell you, but most atheists use evolution to support their belief. A silly point to argue. Certainly not all, but certainly most.
So you think I am insincere and have no personal integrity? Not a way to communicate when you want stimulating and honest discussion.
You wanted me to cite papers, however you don’t bother to read mine, or you come out with completely incorrect information about me. So, why would you want papers?
I took a look at your site. Did you do all of that work? It does look very nice and thorough. We are sure on opposite sides of the fence. You have a large section on tiktaalic, which is about as real as Piltdown. You fell for the con. And Eugenie (YT vid) talking about how ID was made up recently to cover for religious creationism is just another fable. ID was written about circa 3,000 years ago by the Greeks. And Isaac Newton and Einstein were both believers in intelligence in nature. It is not a new concept, and to think so is unbelievably naive. It is only natural that thinking people would come up with an explanation for what they see. For what is there.
Answer for objective:
“I cannot get my mind around how, as you allege, the attempt at REASONING how we got here doesn’t belong in the realm of science.”
I find it impossible to believe that you would come to this conclusion after reading some, but not enough, of my blog. But thanks for your well mannered but poorly researched comment. My site is loaded with REASONING. In fact, there is so much reasoning that I have been attacked for it by evolutionauts.If you can find one place in my blog that shows that I don’t want objective intelligent thought, observation, and reasoning to be the leading movers in figuring out how we got here, please let me know, so I can make corrections. I want the Puzzle figured out. How did we get here, what made the diversity of life and nature? It didn’t happen by Darwinian evolution and ev-abiogenesis. It really doesn’t take a whole lot of observation and reasoning to kill those ideas. So, it happened some other way. As long as evo and ev-abio are so highly accepted, we for sure will NEVER know. and that to me is tragic
Objective said,
March 15, 2009 at 8:27 pm
“So, it happened some other way.”
Surely you are not stopping the search at ID? If so, then why just TOE? Why not attack genetics or particle physics?
(And if NOT, then why kill TOE as a whole before you have a scientific non-ID alternative? Aren’t there elements of TOE that may be correct, by your own admission?)
I sense mistrust and suspicion that evolution is some kind of conspiracy against religion/philosophy. TOE (or science as a whole) is not an attack on anyone’s lifestyle/personal beliefs and should not be called a “belief system”! It is as far removed from philosophy as the latest particle accelerator. Whereas in a “belief system”, you cannot go wrong – you just know. Because He wants you to know (or something similar). In TOE, you can AFFORD to not have the answers! That is the beauty of science and scientific processes. It is a voyage of discovery and leads you to bigger answers. Along the way it creates TV and the internet so televangelists can get rich beyond their wildest dreams broadcasting their BS to the world instead of brainwashing their little towns.
My own reaction to shortcomings in TOE were – hmmm… so how do genes know how to mutate for the right reasons? how do they know which base pairs to fit in what sequence that will cause something a million times bigger than them to display a certain change? what caused the first complex molecules to band together (besides chemical stability) and replicate (as separate bodies rather than crystal-like replication)?
My answer: There’s no answer AS YET. Patience. To me TOE is a work in progress. It took us millenia to make the breakthroughs of the last few centuries. Till then we were made to think everything revolved around the earth. Because it did. Because there was no need to look any further – we just knew. ID. BAM! Breakdown of accepted philosophy. Religion/philosophy by its very nature obviously doesn’t change as easily as science does. It has to be forced to change by way of demonstrable proof to the contrary. To me, that is closed-mindedness in its essence.
My spiritual, unbiased, open mind tells me that if ID were involved, the intervention could be
1) at a biological level,
2) at a subatomic level,
3) a baser level that physicists don’t understand yet.
… and so on …
If we don’t look for something, we won’t find it. To me, this is a unique challenge. Maybe it’s a challenge that wasn’t thrown to us by accident, who knows? TOE at least takes up the challenge. People who hide behind ID are throwing the towel in.
stevebee92653 said,
March 15, 2009 at 8:43 pm
I like your list of three, things I have thought of frequently. That there is intelligence in the mix is so obvious. It’s not a “be patient, TOE will find it” sort of thing. So many events are not possible through TOE, TOE will NEVER find the answers. And, that is the situation as it stands. Solutions to ‘impossibles” cannot be found. It’s not a matter of closed- mindedness.
“Why not attack genetics or particle physics?” Why ask inane questions? Don’t waste your time and effort.
When followers need to believe impossible events to go with TOE, that makes it a belief system, not a science.
I have a page on evidence FOR evolution if you are interested. (7)
Objective said,
March 15, 2009 at 11:39 pm
“Solutions to ‘impossibles” cannot be found.”
At one time, it was “impossible” to say that the earth went around the sun.
“Why ask inane questions?”
I’ll try to get the point across without using the examples of genetics and particle physics. In your blog above, you say:
“Evolution science is kind of like the state of astronomy. ”
Evolution ’science’.. you seem to accept it as a science, and even compare its state to astronomy, which certainly doesn’t belong to philosophy class. But you still want evolution to be moved to philosophy class? Is it because TOE deals with life as opposed to astronomy dealing with inanimate objects? Is that disconcerting at a baser level?
“When followers need to believe impossible events to go with TOE, that makes it a belief system, not a science.”
I’m not a “follower”! TOE is not a religion. As humans we seek answers, thats all. And I admitted myself that there are things I didn’t understand about TOE. We also don’t know everything about ANY field of science, but theories in all sciences abound. This theory just happens to surmise about life.
Further quotes from your blog above:
“When evolution is being argued, the true argument is a religious one.”
This comment appears to the casual visitor to be self-revealing? Why even talk about religion and/or atheism on a site that is “scientific”? Science and philosophy are separate subjects.
“I believe that evolution can account for 15% or 20% of the status of nature today, while it is credited with 100%.”
And that is one more reason to keep it around! 15 to 20% is HUGE, for all the complexities of life over time periods so vast that they are incomprehensible in relation to the human time scale.
If you genuinely think evolution is wrong from a scientific perspective and have no philosophical agendas, don’t worry! Sooner or later people will find alternative theories, but there is no need to kill TOE for people to do that. Theories can spawn and exist in parallel or replace one another (just like the current physical undersandings of the big versus the small). You are bright and accomplished yourself. If you stopped going down a negative path to put down Darwin, you just might find a scientific alternative yourself! The key is stop talking about how wrong Darwin is and doing something else more constructive about the problem itself on a divergent path (besides resorting to ID). Otherwise it just appears to people that you want TOE out of the way so you can potter around a bit and then proclaim ID as the sole explanation. And ID may not be happy about you throwing in the towel!
MaximusArurealius said,
March 16, 2009 at 3:33 am
Great! I agree with everything you said. I couldn’t read all the ignorant comments. I have heard them all before. I am tired of them. I don’t feel like being nice to morons anymore. You’re videos are excellent. You have done a great job! Keep up the good work. I also believed in evolution at one time 40 years ago. I read a book. As they say.
stevebee92653 said,
March 16, 2009 at 4:51 am
Hi Max.
Thanks for the comment. It’s so nice getting supportive feedback. I felt so sucked in by this supposed science. If you let it go 40 years ago, you are better than me. I was very avid for that long. When I really started thinking, and figured it out, I felt betrayed by this so called science and its proponents. This blog just started as a log of the information I found, and it was only for me. But, then things grew. I think if no one speaks up, this bent science will continue indoctrinating kids, and destroying real science.
stevebee92653 said,
March 16, 2009 at 5:43 am
“it was “impossible” to say that the earth went around the sun”
Bad example, and not worth explaining why. You are too smart.
“Evolution ’science’.. you seem to accept it as a science”
I do, and wrote a page to that effect. It simply cannot be responsible for all of the events and biological technology that are claimed.
“Science and philosophy are separate subjects.” Not in the case of evolution. Check out Dawkins and Hitchens who are the worlds leading evillusionists and atheists. Are you familiar with their books on both subjects?
Crediting evolution with changes in populations is fine. But Darwinian evolution is credited with everything. Hearts, visual systems. consciousness, brains, teeth, man from early apes, things it cannot possibly have invented or produced. That part must be moved out of science classes until there is definitive evidence that it is or is not the responsible party.
“Sooner or later people will find alternative theories, but there is no need to kill TOE for people to do that.” Incorrect. Most of science in this field is dedicated to proving RM and NS, not searching for truth. And if you don’t think that is true, do some objective searches yourself. A great example is tiktaalic on my page on the Dover trial. A complete fabrication and modification of evidence to back TOE. Or try my review of “The Blind Watchmaker”. Both great examples of wishful thinking and bent and forced evidence.
ID is not an end in itself because you think it is not scientific. I think it is very scientific, and I truly don’t think we will never figure out the source. Or how life began, or why the universe is here, rather than not. But it (the source) is there, and can only be denied by the blinded and indoctrinated. But it too should be considered a philosophy until absolute evidence of it is found, just like Darwinian evolution (as opposed to evolution or changes in populations which are fine by me in biology classes).
You are a good and rare thinker and writer, even though we are on opposite sides. So I must compliment you for intelligent discourse. With the exception of your bit of demeaning, which seems out of character considering the rest of your writing.
Objective said,
March 16, 2009 at 8:18 am
Sorry for any bit of perceived “demeaning”.. its all in good debating spirit. At least I didn’t call you ignorant or a moron like maximusmanners did and you had such kind words for him!
it was “impossible” to say that the earth went around the sun…. _you_: “Bad example, and not worth explaining why. You are too smart.”
If I was too smart I’d know all the answers – and like TOE, I don’t. Why again is this a bad example?
“Hearts, visual systems. consciousness, brains, teeth, man from early apes, things it cannot possibly have invented or produced.”
What is wrong with a scientific attempt at explaining the assembly of complex organs? For a subject to be included in Science class, the method of study has to be rooted in science, not whether it starts out being right or wrong. Trying to understand where you are coming from as a fellow IDer and I don’t.
“I think it (ID) is very scientific. and I truly don’t think we will never figure out the source.”
This is a well written blog, but if you put the above statement at the very top of your blog that you think: “ID is scientific”, it will provide a different (helpful) context for visitors re: the views and statements that follow.
Science and philosophy are separate subjects…. _you_: “Not in the case of evolution.”
Because it involves life? As opposed to planets and stars? Clearly you think TOE is in some kind of philosophical battle with (your notion of) ID. Then why promote this blog as a “scientific” debate? It would be just as engaging as an honestly philosophical discussion, if not more. Regarding my “list of 3″, at what point do you think ID intervenes? Are you so sure that it is intervening at the biological level? (That is a philosophical question obviously, not a scientific one – like I said – make this a philosophical site, leave TOE to scientists, and this discussion will become so much more interesting.)
Every sphere of man, including religion, needs money to operate. And there are individuals with individual ambitions in every sphere, and science, and TOE in particular, is no exception. tiktaalic _may_ be a mistake, but it would be one made out of personal zeal and ambition, but certainly not conspiracy! I have been reading all the pages you have been suggesting, and more. I was genuinely eager to read many of your pages, especially “My scenario for evolution”, and was disappointed. Like I said, I believe in ID, I just don’t think ID has a place in science.
stevebee92653 said,
March 17, 2009 at 12:13 am
TOE is so supported by fantasy. With the sun and earth, obviously one was going around the other, and no fantasy was involved. It would have been easy to take two balls, and figure out the two possibilities without resorting to fantasy.
“attempt at explaining the assembly of complex organs” An attempt at explaining the unexplainable isn’t science. Science should be honest, and admit that we simply don’t know at this time. There is nothing wrong with that, just like we do admit we don’t know why the universe is here, rather than nothing, or how life formed.
My first page pretty well tells about my thoughts on ID, and that this blog supports the idea. Give it another look.
Leave TOE to scientists? Who get grant money for finding “the correct” results that “prove” TOE? Who get dazzled peer reviewers to support their writings? Who stuff this fake science down the throats of kids? I am not here for philosophical reasons. I am here to show what a hoax this science is, and hopefully inspire a reload with real scientific bullets. My point is purely scientific. I do allude to philosophy, but that is not my thrust.
Disappointed? How so? Saying that is a meaningless criticism, which is a very bad way to communicate. I immediately think you didn’t really read what you say you did. Disappointed says nothing, and I hate “nothings” in intelligent communications. It disappoints me that you would use that useless tactic. It’s nothing more than common evo-debate strategy. I don’t advocate ID in science classes. You didn’t read my page on what should be taught in schools.
Mark Green said,
March 17, 2009 at 3:34 am
It was extremely gratifying to come across one of your videos and then be directed to your website for further elucidation on your current positions. I have been visiting YouTube for a few years now and you are the first person I’ve run across who is prepared to “step up” the discussions from the typical atheist/evolutionist vs. religionist/creationist argument.
In my private notes I had stated to myself that, while I was temporarily prepared to support the atheist/evolutionist position as it was much closer to what I currently favor to be the truth, I would eventually have to “come out of the closet” with my most favored understanding that consciousness existed prior to the beginning of what we call the material universe.
I do not hold the position that the “primary” consciousness is omni-this and omni-that but only that it was the cause that effected what we term the physical universe. For the most part, I can easily go along with and actually favor the principles of evolution as they relate to universal development. But the principle of “life” itself is not so easily explained.
Actually, I’m still personally working out, obviously on a philosophical basis, the question of whether consciousness or pre-matter existed first or simultaneously or whatever and do not expect to come to a conclusion anytime soon.
Anyway, it is refreshing to see someone, yourself, being bold enough to question the currently most rational explanations for our existence in a public forum and I applaud you for your courage.
stevebee92653 said,
March 17, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Thanks so much for the well written and well thought out (I always appreciate that) comment. It’s so nice to hear from someone who thinks above the indoctrination that we all have experienced in school. The idea that consciousness existed before matter is interesting. It almost had to. I also am very fascinated with the idea that nothing can exist without a conscious observer, which does amazing things to the Big Bang and the birth of the earth. Did all of this occur since there was no conscious observer? I hope you understand the scope of this thought, and I think you do.
Anyway, thanks again for the great comment.
louisa said,
March 22, 2009 at 1:15 am
hi steve its me aaugoaa, i thought id just visit your site and have a nose round lol, crikey it took ages to reach the comment section, i thought it was going to scroll on forever, just thought id say hi
noyourashill said,
April 7, 2009 at 6:40 am
Steve this site is so very solid and reasoned completely. The atheists are up in arms despite oceans of evidence laid out here and elsewhere, because their agenda is falling to pieces and in not just evo biology. I just learned over the past few days how unassailable Intelligent Design is, or at least that we need a new theory. You’re destroying their religion don’t go too hard on them even if they are on you. But I see that YOU are the one who is trying to have a reason based argument and the other side can’t help but get in at least a little uncalled-for back stab in their every post (and then accuse you of doing that). The truth will win out it just takes time. I’ll send interesting stuff to the sight if I see something.
stevebee92653 said,
April 7, 2009 at 6:52 am
Thanks so much for the very intelligent and reasoned comments. I read your others, and they are right on the money. Logical, commonsensical, and just what the evos hate. They actually tell me that common sense is out the window in science. Well, for me it sure isn’t. And apparently not for you either. So nice to open a comment and get positive feedback, since I think you know what I get 90% of the time. But, in a way, that makes it fun. This fake science that I believed in for so many years needs to be reloaded.
Regards
Steve
CreatedMan said,
May 7, 2009 at 7:28 am
Steve,
Great site – love your reasoning that makes short work of the typical evonaut smokescreen of demeaning and name calling. I see it over and over and over again on every debate site I’ve ever come across that when evidence is requested to support macro-evolution ToE the evo’s response is to either provide the evidence for micro-evolution or to demean or leave…
You’re closer to the Truth than you think you are…
Cheers,
CM
stevebee92653 said,
May 8, 2009 at 4:29 am
Thanks. Amazing how they all follow the same pattern of debate, as you mentioned. Maybe the all did evolve from the same brain…….nah.
Regards
Steve
Jorge said,
May 7, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Steve,
You’ve come such a long way – great job!
Now if only you’d take the next logical step – it’s not that hard.
Echoing CreatedMan’s comment : you’re close to the Truth … hang in there.
Feel free to email me for a chat if you think that I may help.
Jorge
stevebee92653 said,
May 8, 2009 at 4:27 am
Thanks! For the visit and support. Glad you noted the additions.
Steve
jerry said,
May 9, 2009 at 10:53 pm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?db=Books&rid=cell.section.61
how would you counter argument this?
stevebee92653 said,
May 17, 2009 at 10:13 pm
“Multicellularity enables a plant, for example, to become physically large; to have roots in the ground, where one set of cells can take up water and nutrients; and to have leaves in the air, where another set of cells can efficiently capture radiant energy from the sun. Specialized cells in the stem of the plant form channels for transporting water and…….”.
I need to counter THIS?
Jim Beam said,
May 25, 2009 at 5:52 am
Just cannot think for yourself can you?
Atrax Robustus said,
May 19, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Hi Steve.
I spent a few hours checking out your blog. (left anther comment where there’s a bit of action happening in the comments section). You have some interesting viewpoints – I don’t agree with many of them, but very interesting all the same.
A quick question though (I might not have goten to the right page yet – apologies if that’s the case): your blog highlights your concerns with the theory of evolution and you identify why you have issues with many elements of the theory and the way scientists are interpreting their results.
If this is the case (the theory is actually wrong), why do you think the non-biology sciences also appear to support it? I’m not a scientist, but from my reading it certainly seems that the theory is also being supportd by geology, archeology, paleontology, genetics, chemistry, cosmology, physics and so on. I’d really appreciate your opinion on this. Thanks
stevebee92653 said,
May 19, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Hi Atrax. Thanks for you reasoned question. And a very good one that I wish I could completely answer, because I have a difficult time understanding why anyone goes for D. evolution myself,even though I did. . The book should still be open, and it isn’t. The other sciences that you mention don’t really deal with evolution, and my feeling is they go along with what evolution scientists say. It’s a team thing. And of course, all of those other scientists were taught evolution in schools just like I was, and you probably too. I went for it big time, because it made so much sense to me compared to what I was taught as a kid. And it was SCIENCE! It’s all objective science, and evolution seems to be objective and pure. It isn’t. Not by a long shot.
Group psychology has a lot to do with it also. The group builds each other up, pats each other on the back when a new find is made, congratulates each other, and evolution marches on without the slightest bit of skepticism that is necessary and paramount in the other sciences. If you will notice not one evolutionaut ever questions the evidence, the dogma. No matter how nonsensical it may be. ANYTHING is evidence.
Science has to look at itself in a very non-religious fashion, and rightly so. Religion has no place in science. Which is a third problem. Science must deny a maker or an intelligence, so science becomes atheistic. Atheism then needs an MO for the appearance of life and the wonders of nature that excludes any kind of god figure. And evolution fits that bill perfectly. In fact there is no other place to go. Science without an intelligent force absolutely needs evolution.
In my case I am absolutely convinced there is an intelligent force in the universe, which I cannot define. And I don’t think it should be taught in schools as science unless that intelligence is understood on a purely scientific basis. Which will probably never happen.
And I know this isn’t a great answer, because I don’t understand where the skepticism went that makes good science. It just isn’t in this science.
Atrax Robustus said,
May 20, 2009 at 10:27 am
Thanks for taking the time to reply Steve. You’ll have to bear with me I’m afraid because you’ve raised more questions.
I really don’t see your point with the scientists ‘team thing’. As faar as I can see (only from books, not experience) a geologist for instance isn’t really interested in evolution. If he (I’ll assume its a male – sorry all you lady readers!) is looking for a seam of gold that goes through a 90 myo rock layer and there is fossils in it he’d probabbly say something like ‘Yes and so what?’ becasue he is aware that animals like T.Rex lived when that rock layer was laid down. Unless it was something like a T.Rex fossil, it probably would be of interest for a while but he would continue searching for the seam of gold. If he found a homo spaien skeleton in that 90 myo rock though – I think he’d be really excited because the theory of evolution says that it just isn’t possible (in fact he’d be really famous I think because he’d be the one that proved the theory is wrong). I really don’t think he’d keep something like that a secret becasue he was a member of the team would he?
You’ve also lost me with your point about evolution and science means that scientists have to be atheists. I know that there a lots of scientists that believe in God (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhist – you name it). I haven’t read any of his books but one of the scientists that discovered the DNA molecule is a practivcing Christian (I might be wrong).
Finally, isn’t skepticism a large part of the scientific method? I thought that was why scientists do blind tests etc? If a biologist is wriiting something that is a lie, then surely other scientists are going to challenge it aren’t they?
stevebee92653 said,
May 20, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Not in evolution. Why? Because there simply isn’t anywhere to go. They can’t say half of nature came from evolution, while the other half came from………? That would KILL the TOE. So, they are painted in a corner, with nowhere to go. They are like a trapped varmint, and they will fight to the death to support this theory.
My point in the blog is that science should address the facts of the evidence, and not bend those facts to fit their theory. Species have definitely changed over the eons, with old ones disappearing and new ones showing up almost instantly. But while they are here, the evolution that is needed for proof isn’t. And geology is certainly a help here.
Birds and insects are a good example. The first insects appeared in the fossil record suddenly, and the first ones were competent fliers. If D. evolution was how things happened, we would see precursors to those fliers. And bird fliers. We would have a hint as to how flying evolved.There is none, but the “evo-scientists” make fantasies and pretend like there is.
Why? I wish I could answer.
Atrax Robustus said,
May 21, 2009 at 10:28 am
Surely not Steve? Why would a scientist who has seen a flaw in the TOE keep it quiet? Wouldn’t that be a ticket direct to the Nobel Prize? It’d be like a physicist who has just found a mathematic proof that the general theory of relativity is wrong – but keeping it quiet because everyone ‘likes’ einstein. Sorry, I find it hard to accept that every scientist in the world is part of some great conspiracy and that they are willing to lie to avoid getting the Nobel prize and the money/publicity that would come with such a proof.
I know you’re not a creationist, but if what you are saying is accurate, why haven’t the creationist scientists revealed the correct interpretation of the evidence? Let’s face it – those guys have the most to gain if these proofs do exist (not to mention prizes/money).
stevebee92653 said,
May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Atrax:
Because if they don’t follow the party line they get socially isolated and their asses fired. Are you kidding?
Atrax Robustus said,
May 22, 2009 at 11:27 am
Steve: You’re asking me am I kidding? Are you telling me that all scientists are lying to protect their jobs? Worse – that creation scientists are also complicit in this conspiracy?
Either you’re the one who’s having a bit of a joke here or (contrary to my first assessment) you are not just an intelligent design proponent – you are apparently one of the true believers in the garbage that was presented in the Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed ‘documentary’.
Either that, or you’re suffering from the effects of some traumatic event in your past. Perhaps someone wearing a lab coat kicked over your sand castle when you were a little boy or something?
But then . . . I’m sure you are having a joke with me aren’t you?
stevebee92653 said,
May 22, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I know of a couple of teachers who were shut down for mentioning ID. Check out Dover, where it was requested that a book in the library only had to be noted to the students without any teaching whatsoever. Which brought up that huge waste of time and money lawsuit. Evolution won, freedom of thought lost. The students could not be told the book was in the library. What fun.
Yes, scientists that don’t go along with evolution cannot let it be known. I can’t imagine what it would be like for me, thinking the way I do, if I were working with a bunch of evolution supporting scientists. I would be hugely derided, just like I am on the web, and at Dawkins. I would be hated.
Atrax Robustus said,
May 23, 2009 at 11:31 am
Wow Steve! You have a totally different view on a wide range of things don’t you? The Kitzmiller v Dover trial included! Where did you get that story about a simple book in the library and no teaching from?
Evolution didn’t win the Kitzmiller v Dover trial.
The Dover board of education lost it – even with the support of the Discovery Institute (aka Creation Scientists – lead by Michael Behe). Oh – and the book they were trying to push into the classroom contained “outdated concepts and flawed science” – and this was even admitted to by the witnesses called by the Dover Board of Education! It wasn’t a case of keeping a book from the students, it was a case of keeping false information away from them – and preventing Creationists from forcing the teaching of that false information. Were those teacher friends of yours trying to teach something that is plain wrong perhaps?
I had a look at the Dawkins.net forum. Steve, you aren’t doing yourself any favors you know? Denying evolution without anything to back up your assertions is not going to falsify the TOE – no matter how much you wish it will. Instead of just saying that the TOE is wrong, you need to start providing reasons why it is wrong . . .. and I don’t mean the stuff you have on your blog that looks remarkably like the stuff put out by creationists.
stevebee92653 said,
May 23, 2009 at 4:48 pm
No, freedom of thought was the loser in Dover. And the idea that one group can force their ideas and opinions on another is one that you should revile. Even if you consider the ideas wrong. Who is the judge of how people should think? You? Imagine if you lived in a country where creationism was forced down the throats of school kids (Iran eg.) and a book on evolution was in the library, And just by a teacher notifying that students that another idea is in the library, a major lawsuit ensued, which cost the school district millions of dollars. Your opinion is no better than mine in a free country. And I would like my country to remain free, I don’t know about you.
And you so easily say what I have on my blog is wrong without pointing out any wrongs, just like 99% of evolutionauts do. You can’t argue any points but you make a broad generalized “it’s wrong” comment. I say very specific things, you come back with nothing. Typical. And thanks for being such a objective judge.
Atrax Robustus said,
May 24, 2009 at 11:39 am
Oh dear me!
Freedom of thought is the loser? Aren’t you free to think that there is some massive conspiracy of science against your denial of a theory that has sustained the investigation of research biologists and any number of other challengers over 150 years – and is still providing answers to how you, I and the rest of your blog readers got here?
Your free to think whatever you like – even that I am an “evolutionaut” . . . The problem is that you just make assertions that have nothing of substance to support them. I haven’t pointed any out that is wrong. . . What about (from this page of your blog):
“The amazing thing is that evolutionists have absolutely no idea how life formed. They are completely unable to duplicate life in the laboratory. Yet they are absolutely certain that there was no intelligence that brought about life and the origin of species.”
Abiogenesis is of no consequence to the TOE . . . but you use this statement as if it is a major flaw of the theory. This is WRONG Steve – but you majored in biological sciences didn’t you? So you know this. Is it the case then, that you posted this misleading statement on your blog on purpose or is it an error?
Of course your allies on the Intelligent Design websites also post exactly the same misleading line. So both you and the IDers are all complicit in stating things that anybody with the ability to read a textbook or search the web can quickly identify is WRONG. How much more of your blog would you like examined Steve? So far we’ve made it to the fifth paragraph of the home page!
Oh, and as you seem to have no idea about the Kitzmiller v Dover trial and are willing to try and reinterpret the outcomes of the case to align with your conspiracy theory, try looking up “cdesign proponentists”. Have a look at the evolutionary history of Intelligent Design – and take the opportunity to see what your ID heroes were actually up to.
Oh yeah – and apparently you’re an expert on the secondary and tertiary education of Iran as well? You might need to do a little more research on your assertion there as well!
stevebee92653 said,
May 24, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I have news for you Atrax. The birth of evolution is abiogenesis. Evolution of early biochemistry had to occur for life to occur they way current science says it did. See potholer54 on YT. And as soon as the first cell came to life, evolution had to be in gear according to evolution. Separating the two is done because the evidence for “scientific abiogenesis” is so pathetic. There is none. If I were evolution, I wouldn’t want the connection either. But they are completely intertwined, except you suckered for the separation, just like a good indoctrinate.
Saying “Abiogenesis is of no consequence to the TOE” a classical dumb statement from ignorance. It’s so dumb it’s funny.
I have a whole page on the Dover trial, which of course you inanely comment on, but didn’t read. Please go to a chat room, so you don’t have to put any reading effort in. Or stay with your friends on D.net. No matter what you say there, you are cheered. If it’s pro-ev, of course. You are looking ridiculous here.
Atrax Robustus said,
May 25, 2009 at 7:50 am
Sorry Steve.
I won’t take up any more of your time or storage space.
There will be plenty of readers who will swallow the stuff you have on your blog and be able to provide comments akin to “Wow – I didn’t know this!” Of course there will be others who will have the temerity to question what you have posted. I hope that those who take the time to actually check the facts won’t be expecting a reasonable discussion if they question your “facts”.
Enjoy your conspiracy theory.
stevebee92653 said,
May 24, 2009 at 10:50 pm
JayBay44, is your real name JayBay44? Did you mommy and daddy name you JayBay44? If you’re lying about your name, then you have lost all credibility. You guys can’t be that dumb. My gawd, hard to believe. So, you found out I had a pen name? Very Sherlock Holmesian of you. Show me one person on dawkins.net that goes by his real name, and you get the Nobel Prize. If you get is peer reviewed. Was Mark Twain………never mind. And if you want to know why, try thinking for once.
stevebee92653 said,
May 25, 2009 at 2:09 pm
So you are too stupid to figure out why I might want to remain anon. Well, congrats on the big find.
JayBay44 said,
May 25, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Thanks, and sorry to have caused you so much embarrassment, but it’s very much your own fault. The claim you made was an interesting one, and it was just too easy to check to find out you were lying.
You are extremely embarrassed by that very public gaffe, to the point of actually removing the posts I made pointing out that your name isn’t actually “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon.” No doubt, you will remove this post also, but the screen shots have been saved and your notoriety as a compulsive liar will be cemented in place over on richarddawkins.net. Meanwhile, over here, if you remove all of JayBay44’s posts while keeping your own replies to JayBay44’s posts, it only looks like you’re participating in a conversation by yourself, which is a symptom of schizophrenia.
For all I know or care, you can remove this entire conversation, but if you can’t be honest with your blog readers or your evolutionary biology opponents over at richarddawkins.net, at least be honest with yourself. Removing these posts won’t make the problem go away: you have still claimed, at the top of this page, that you are “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon,” and now you admit you want to remain anonymous. Others have noticed, and are disappointed in you. I’m not so much disappointed in you as I sincerely pity you. Dishonesty to others is bad enough; in order to hold together your fragile crackpot scientific theories, you’re forced to be dishonest to yourself, which is much worse.
Radhacharan said,
May 25, 2009 at 9:56 am
Hey steve, could you please send me your email, i would like to send you an interesting book/theses. It was written by a former science book writer, “David Webb” he wrote “Darwin’s Secret Identity” in 1985. He has written some more things recently, and he has just given me permission to give this book to you also. I will send it to you via email, so please email me. Hare Krishna
JayBay44 said,
May 26, 2009 at 4:14 pm
> You must really be a jackass in person. Excuse me, you are really a jackass.
Do you still stick to your previous statement “You evoltionauts cry constantly about ad hominem attacks, but that is all you have done to me both here and at dawkins”? Do you not consider your words here an ad hominem attack? Do you understand what an ad hominem attack is? You can’t have it both ways: you can’t bitterly complain about a behavior that you are now exhibiting yourself.
> You are still ragging on my patents after almost everyone at Dawkins.net has found
> them?
No – you’ve missed the point. I’ve ragged on your dishonesty claiming you were “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon, holder of five patents” when no patents at all were issued or applied for under that name.
> I thought you were Sherlock Holmes, but I even take that away.
You were trying to be clever, and it didn’t work.
> You are a worthless troll.
Hardly. I’ve pointed out that you aren’t who you say you are, and that is a heavy impeachment on the potential worth of your word to the readers of your blog.
> You have nothing to say about the information on my site.
More “Ostrich Head in the Sand” strategy. I’ve pointed out that the information on your site includes two claims (“I am Dr. Steven B. Lyndon” and “…holder of five patents,”) that, according to Google Patents, can’t possibly both be true at the same time.
> You have spent thousands of words ragging on the fact that I would like to remain
> anon, and that you think I am lying about my patents.
Wrong on both counts. First, if you want to remain anonymous, don’t identify yourself as a character “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon” with credentials as a dentist which you are relying on in order to prop up your argument from authority. Second, I don’t particularly care whether you’ve got patents or not under your actual identity, just that you claimed your made-up identity had five patents, which “he” doesn’t. That indicates an element of fantasy and fiction in the second sentence on your blog, which is an early indication the rest of your blog might be just as fanciful, fictional, and misleading.
> How to really look stupid.
Sentence incomplete.
> Don’t rag about stuff if you are not sure.
I’m positive that there’s no patents issued to or applied for a person named “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon.” By your own standard here, I’m entitled to rag about it.
> Lawyers learn that quickly, because they make fools of themselves in court, like you
> are doing right now .
Imagine if you had been honest about your claimed name on your blog here. Suppose a competitor had infringed on one of your patents, and you took him to court suing for compensation for the infringement. The defendant simply states “Here’s evidence that the plaintiff claims his name is different on his blog,” and produces evidence that your name was actually Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon. You not only get no compensation, but also each of your patents get revoked, and your competitor has free rein to use your inventions. Imagine what a fool you’d look like in court had you actually been honest about your name on your blog!
> Wow. Just to rub your face in chihuahua terds, please go to my blog at
> http://www.oninventing.wordpress.com.
You do have extreme trouble correctly spelling “turds”, don’t you?
> You will have the pleasure of seeing my patents.
No good – there are still no patents registered under the name “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon.” That’s the issue. Patents cannot be issued to an inventor if the inventor is fictional, and it is a crime to apply for a patent under and assumed name – it’s a simple case of fraud.
> Then come back, and apologize for being a chihuahua terd, then leave.
No apology necessary, apart from “I’m sorry you can’t spell ‘turd’,” and “I’m sorry your feelings are so hurt for being exposed as a liar.” In order to cope with it, you have to pretend I’m accusing you of lying about having patents under whatever your name is. That’s not the charge; you are lying about your name being “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon,” and that this fictional character has five real-world patents.
> BTW, now I know you are a CT. I was kidding about the Nobel AND the ad hom.
> Kidding.
See, that’s the problem. When you are conclusively demonstrated to be wrong, as I refuted your understanding of the qualifications and selection process for the Nobel Prize, you backpedal and say “I was kidding” – on a blog with plenty of pseudo-technical information attempting to bolster what is essentially an indefensible position of creationism. Any arbitrary statement of yours, including “I am Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon,” could easily be nothing more than you “kidding”. On that basis, there’s no compelling need to take anything you say seriously.
> You have no sense for when your chain is being pulled, poor guy.
I’m fairly certain, as are many of the co-analysts at richarddawkins.net, that this entire web site is nothing more than an exercise in chain-pulling.
> Hard to believe you have any patents if you couldn’t find my five just using my name.
I did use the name you claimed for yourself, “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon,” and found none. You’ll need to show the screen shots of similar searches if you found any patents associated with the name “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon.”
> You can also see the patents in actual operation with YouTube vids that I placed on
> the blog.
I’m not concerned with your patents at all, just with your dishonesty in a matter as simple as your actual name.
> Or you can go to stevebee92653 on YT and see the patents in action on vids.
From what I’ve seen on YouTube, you misrepresent your name using other aliases. Who is this “Anders Lyndon?” That’s why we have user account names, such as you have with stevebee92532, and I have with JayBay44 here and Occam’s Laser on richarddawkins.net. You’re calling yourself several different fictional names, and they’re all connected by way of the same email addresses, etc. In any case, on YouTube, the most entertaining part of your videos is the comments section. There is a clever and wide variety of comments explaining exactly how wrong you are with your anti-evolution frothing.
> Or you can do a quick patent search and find them. Very easy.
I did a quick patent search on Google Patents where the inventor field includes “Stephen B. Lyndon,” “Stephen Lyndon,” “S.B.Lyndon,” or “Steve Lyndon,” and came up empty. That was very easy, yes, and it refuted the second paragraph on this page of your blog: the statements “I am Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon” and “…holder of five patents,” are mutually exclusive. If you wanted to remain anonymous, you could have left out the “I am Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon” identification entirely. Yet you did not, which exposed you to a relatively very simple verification search which demonstrates your dishonesty. I suppose you wanted to attach some kind of human element to your story, because you really don’t want to go totally anonymous, but you aren’t smart enough to do it the right way.
> If you have so many patents, hard to believe you are so stupid at looking up
> patents.
No matter how many schoolyard insults you throw out, there won’t be any results from Google Patent searches for any patents issued to or applied for by “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon.” And as I notice at the top of this blog page, that claim is still in effect.
> Now, when you lay eyes on my patents, be sure and come back and apologize for
> being such a knowitall and jackass.
I really hurt your feelings, didn’t I? Whether you hold patents or not isn’t the point. The point is your name is not “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon,” as you claim on this page. It really serves no purpose other than the basis for an argument by assertion logical fallacy, so it won’t do to make yourself completely anonymous. For all we know, you could be impersonating a dentist, or impersonating the actual inventor (pictures and all). That’s the kind of deep doubt that accompanies those who have been shown to be dishonest – nothing you say is taken at face value any longer.
> Then go home. I won’t actually expect either.
Good, because you don’t deserve any apology at all. I think you actually do understand the problem, and the seriousness of the issue of you misidentifying yourself, and your feelings are deeply hurt. Unless and until you take measures to address that problem – either by putting you real name on this page, or removing any reference at all to your name – you will continue to expose yourself to the same kinds of discovery problems.
> You will disappear out of embarrassment.
Not for nothing, but isn’t that what you did at richarddawkins.net? After only thirty content-free posts, you turned tail and ran for the hills.
> And please tell those lovely people at d.net that I do have them, that you did see
> them, and that you are sorry for being such a pain.
Don’t beg. It ain’t dignified, especially when you’re begging for respect and apologies you do not deserve. You’re not being ridiculed because you have no patents. You’re being ridiculed because your position is so indefensible, so ridiculous, so overwhelmingly contradicted by actual science (some of it at the high school level) that you are too embarrassed to use your own name honestly. You need to create a pseudonym (as a creationist blog author), so that you don’t lose business or pretended prestige in your other compartment of life (as a dentist or pretended science authority).
> And wrong big time.
All I’m claiming is that “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon” has no patents. According to Google Patent search, I’m RIGHT big time.
> I will continue being Stephen T. Lyndon.
Didn’t you mean “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon?” Simply changing your middle initial won’t resolve the problem of your last name being fictional. Regardless of the middle initial you choose, Stephen T. or B. Lyndon will continue having no patents. Do you intend to maintain the claim that you still have five patents under your pseudonym? That is an easily checkable claim that I happened to check, and found you were lying.
> That is my pen name. My choice, which has nothing to do with you. Pen names are
> used by many writers, if you didn’t know.
Pen names are used by poetry writers, fiction writers, and political writers. Pen names are NEVER used by scientific writers who hope to be taken seriously. That’s part of the scientific process which you’ve previously alluded to – the peer review process – and it’s a part of the scientific method that creationists try very hard to avoid, since the refutations are so easy and embarrassing for the actual author.
> Adios fool
“But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” (Jesus, in Matthew 5:22)
> Oh, and if you still can’t find my patents, please let me know.
I still can’t find any patents registered, or applied for, by the inventor named “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon.” There are none. The only legal hope you have of that coming to pass is if you legally change your name to “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon,” and file an amendment on each of your patents at the USPTO.
> I will deliver them to your house, as soon as you put your address and real name
> on all of your stuff. Liar.
Look, “Dr. Steve.” It’s bad enough that you’re exposed on your own blog as being dishonest about your own name. It’s much worse setting yourself up as a real-life stalker.
You’re losing it, assuming you ever had it.
stevebee92653 said,
May 27, 2009 at 4:07 am
Too long to read. Wasting your time again. And If I am so pathetic, WHY ARE YOU HERE. Why would you spend so much time on me. Ya know why? Because I pose a big challenge to your phony belief system. That’s why. Otherwise, you wouldn’t give me a moments thought. I’m losing it? Look at your absurd comment. Psychotic doesn’t describe it. Get a life . Do something constructive. Go home to daddyR.
JayBay44 said,
May 26, 2009 at 6:05 pm
And you’re removing every post that demonstrates you’re lying about your name. The problem is, “Steve”, the contents of my responses are also being posted to richarddawkins.net, and we’re having quite a big laugh at your expense. You feign innocence at the charge that you’re censoring your own blog, but here’s the problem you’ll have to overcome: I have screen shots of my posts appearing on this blog, which you’ve since removed. That’s pretty overwhelming evidence that you’re censoring. When your cowardice gets to such a degree that you can’t bear to have opposing opinions on your blog, that’s when you can be sure you’ve thrown in the towel.
What a coward.
stevebee92653 said,
May 27, 2009 at 4:03 am
Wait., I am the coward, and I come on Dawkins.net and get the shit attacked out of me?And I write a blog that goes against the scientific norm, and get the shit attacked out of me? And I make YouTube vids that make a mockery of evolution, and get the shit attacked out of me? And you bring twenty of your fellow zealots here, and continue your silly attack? I have not removed any comments, with the exception of one, as described. Sorry to disappoint you. If they were removed, WordPress did it, not me. So, you called me a liar on my patents, and were wrong. Now this, and you are wrong. I love your foolish attack on my pseudonym. It just shows that you are all too feeble to handle my stuff. Twenty against one is not fair to you.
And If I am so pathetic, WHY ARE YOU HERE. Ya know why? Because I pose a big challenge to your phony belief system. That’s why. Otherwise, you wouldn’t give me a moments thought.
JayBay44 said,
May 27, 2009 at 3:39 pm
> Wait., I am the coward, and I come on Dawkins.net and get the shit
> attacked out of me?
Nope. You went on richarddawkins.net, posted a lot of silly science-sounding stuff, and got the shit attacked out of you for being so wrong. Then, you ran away – thus, the charge of you being a coward.
> And I write a blog that goes against the scientific norm, and get the shit
> attacked out of me?
Yes (metaphorically speaking) because you’re so very, very, very, very wrong – and people can demonstrate why you’re wrong.
> And I make YouTube vids that make a mockery of evolution, and get the
> shit attacked out of me?
Yes, for the same reason you’re very, very wrong. I gotta tell you, some of those comments on YouTube are priceless – it’s like a competition to see who can come up with the cleverest put-down of your wrongness.
> And you bring twenty of your fellow zealots here, and continue your silly
> attack?
I haven’t brought anyone. As I strongly recall, you repeatedly invited people to read your blog, as if it was some kind of authority. All I did was point out that you were bullshitting in the first sentence you wrote about yourself.
> I have not removed any comments, with the exception of one, as
> described.
You really haven’t learned anything by now, have you? You’re not smart enough to keep track of your lies. I’ve taken screen shots of posts I’ve made, and I have them as evidence you’ve removed at least THREE posts of mine.
> Sorry to disappoint you.
Far from disappointing me, you only confirmed what I already knew about you: your dishonesty. So, on that basis, I’ll give you credit for being consistent.
> If they were removed, WordPress did it, not me.
That’s a very poor excuse which doesn’t fly with people who actually know how blogs work. In fact, as I mentioned, I have screen shots (press Alt-PrtScr to get an image of the currently active window display on the clipboard, and paste that image into an image program like IrfanView to save it to a file) of my posts actually making it through, so it’s not WordPress’s fault. How do you manage to live with your own dishonesty?
> So, you called me a liar on my patents, and were wrong.
I called you a liar when you identified yourself as “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon,” and claimed “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon” had five patents, when Google Patent search showed none registered to or applied for by that name. By your admission (“But you blew my cover!”) and your modification of the second paragraph above, you’ve confirmed I was RIGHT.
> Now this, and you are wrong.
I’ve got screen shot evidence of posts I wrote to this blog, which appeared on this blog, with corresponding text posted to richarddawkins.net. Those posts are no longer here. I’ll send that to anyone who’s interested (email address is llhanson4@gmail.com). That’s evidence that you’re bullshitting again.
In fact, if you drop in and check out the continuation thread on richarddawkins.net (the first one was archived after it hit 1000 posts, which is the forum policy on any long thread), I’ll post the screen shots there.
> I love your foolish attack on my pseudonym.
If you love it, why do you complain so bitterly about it?
> It just shows that you are all too feeble to handle my stuff.
Others have handled and totally destroyed “your stuff” completely, and you’ve had no response of any significant content in rebuttal. But speaking just for myself, I didn’t even have a chance to get to “your stuff,” because I didn’t bother going past your first lie, which was about your identity.
> Twenty against one is not fair to you.
There aren’t twenty people opposing me at all. Perhaps you were referring to yourself when you used the pronoun “you” in this sentence; in which case, the proper pronoun would have been “me”. If you were referring to yourself, that’s a particularly cowardly attitude in light of your opening quote from Galileo: “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” But the humble reasoning of the single individual (you) is trembling in his boots over odds not nearly as great as a thousand to one, but merely twenty to one. So the humble individual is too humble to give his reasoning now.
> And If I am so pathetic, WHY ARE YOU HERE. Ya know why?
Sure. I was here to investigate your patent work, which couldn’t be found, because you were using a false alias. I was here to point out that problem, and suggest a correction to your introductory paragraph… which I now see… worked. You have changed it to something more honest, but something even less effective as a scientific document. Using a false pseudonym when writing about scientific topics is bad enough; publishing it anonymously is even worse. I’ll leave that alone, though, since it could very well be the case that you’re too ashamed of your own creationist stance that you don’t want the embarrassment affecting your real life activities.
> Because I pose a big challenge to your phony belief system. That’s why.
Perhaps you overlooked the fact that I am an atheist. Atheism is characterized by a lack of belief, not a particular belief – specifically, a lack of belief in gods of any kind. If you had known I was an atheist, and had known the definition of atheism, you probably wouldn’t have made a mistake. Otherwise, you’re trying to equivocate “belief system” to apply to evolution, which is quite wrong, since that’s more of an extremely high degree of confidence (instead of “belief” or “faith”) in prior confirmation of tangible evidence, repeatedly being able to make reliable future predictions. That’s routinely done to attempt to level the playing field by equating unsupported speculation like a creationism “belief system” or religious “faith” – both of which have no evidence and amount to nothing more than wishful thinking – with scientific confidence in results borne out of the scientific method. You’re being way too transparent.
> Otherwise, you wouldn’t give me a moments thought.
I do get some kind of a schadenfreude experience when I expose sanctimonious, condescending, patronizing types like yourself as being basically dishonest. It’s good to see you’ve mended your ways by mending your opening paragraphs. I’m happy to be of help to you as you attempt to reconstruct your reputation.
AlanP said,
May 26, 2009 at 7:02 pm
The comment count shows 154 comments, but the last comment is numbered 138. do you know what happened to the other comments?
JayBay44 said,
May 26, 2009 at 7:19 pm
“Dr. Steve’s” been removing comments critical to his position and credibility, while at the same time he’s complaining about his perception that he’s being censored over at another message board.
stevebee92653 said,
May 27, 2009 at 3:53 am
You lie. Are all you guys liars? You rag on my pen name, then you lie like crazy.
stevebee92653 said,
May 27, 2009 at 3:55 am
That magic evo fairy has been removing them. I removed only one, with my name splashed all over it. What’s it to ya.
Jim Beam said,
May 27, 2009 at 1:15 am
Your name isn’t really Stephen B. Lyndon. Why do you use a pen name? Why put “Dr.” in front of it if you’re trying to lead someone away from who you are? I bet you felt that putting “Dr.” helped your credibility. Guess what? Lying has the opposite effect.
Wouldn’t just “Stephen B. Lyndon” suffice?
I see you’re still popping into RichardDawkins.net, “over and out” my ass!! I thought you said you were done with us??
Jim Beam said,
May 27, 2009 at 1:16 am
Your name isn’t really Stephen B. Lyndon. Why do you use a pen name? Why put “Dr.” in front of it if you’re trying to lead someone away from who you are? I bet you felt that putting “Dr.” helped your credibility. Guess what? Lying has the opposite effect.
Wouldn’t just “Stephen B. Lyndon” suffice?
I see you’re still popping into RichardDawkins.net, “over and out” my ass!! I thought you said you were done with us???
Jim Beam said,
May 27, 2009 at 2:04 am
I see you changed your About Me section.
stevebee92653 said,
May 27, 2009 at 3:50 am
Very slightly. Very.
Jim Beam said,
May 27, 2009 at 2:31 pm
It’s about time to start being honest, if not completely.
stevebee92653 said,
May 27, 2009 at 3:52 am
Jim you are really sharp. You are three days behind, boy Get with the program. Be original. Vow no more copy/paste comments. Think on your own. Group think is bad for anyone.
I’ve popped in because I have received notes. Is that OK with you?
Jim Beam said,
May 27, 2009 at 2:18 pm
No copy and paste arguments here, I thought my post didn’t go through when I didn’t see it added to the bottom. I’m not familiar with this set-up. Lighten up Steve, all in good fun. I’m sure you had fun too there too.
Jim Beam said,
May 27, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Quick question, why does the time of my post correspond with GMT Monrovia, Reykjavik time??
stevebee92653 said,
May 27, 2009 at 4:21 am
Is this a evo-trap? You put on three of the same. If I remove two, you go back to Dawk and cry that I removed two of you comments. BOO HOO. That mean Dr. Lyndon. Right?
Serdan said,
June 3, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Hey Steve,
Do you accept that micro-evolution occurs?
stevebee92653 said,
June 3, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Try page 7.
Serdan said,
June 4, 2009 at 12:12 am
That’s what I thought. I was just confused by your continually repeated and contradictory claim that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation.
The colour of a moth is controlled by its genes. For its colour to change, some changes in its DNA must occur. I.e. mutations.
Do you deny this?
stevebee92653 said,
June 5, 2009 at 8:10 pm
I don’t get your question. “already in the genome”? What is “already”? At some point there were no genes. Now there are. No matter what you believe. How did they get the way they are? Dunno. But not by mutations. Some other way.
Sorry, there are no observable beneficial genetic mutations. They should be everywhere. Instead they are hidden in bacteria, mosquitoes that don’t mate with other mosquitos, colors of moth wings, et al. So, out of the billion or so species and all of the bio-electromechanical devices, that is all evolution has. Which equals nothing. So don’t talk so casually about them as if they were apples on a tree.
Shrunk said,
June 23, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Steve says: “Sorry, there are no observable beneficial genetic mutations.”
Steve is wrong. Just one example: Warfarin resistance in rats:
NEW “SUPER RATS” EVOLVE RESISTANCE TO POISON
Rats across Britain are evolving a resistance to poison that makes them almost impossible to kill, scientists have warned.
Genetic mutations have produced a new breed of “super rat” with DNA that protects the vermin from standard toxins, according to Professor Robert Smith at the University of Huddersfield.
Ratcatchers in Berkshire and Hampshire were the first to report that their poisons were no longer effective, which experts put down to increased immunity among the pests.
But as the poison-resistant rats continue to spread, tests have revealed that they boast an entirely new strand of DNA that wards off attacks from pesticides.
http://tinyurl.com/p8tzo8
Scientific articles (or, as Steve calls them, “made up stuff” from “magazines”) available here:
http://tinyurl.com/lkeohq
Shrunk said,
June 23, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Sorry, the link to the scientific articles doesn’t seem to work. If interested, search for “rat warfarin resistance” on Google Scholar.
stevebee92653 said,
June 24, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Here is a tip for you Shrunk, and your fellow evolutionauts:
1. Read the question or challenge.
2. Answer the question or challenge.
3. Reread the question or challenge again.
4. Reread the question or challenge again.
5. Make sure you answered the question or challenge.
6. Reread your answer and be really sure you answered what was asked.
7. Repeat 5-6 as many times as it takes for you to make sure you did answer.
johnstevens said,
June 22, 2009 at 7:31 pm
п»ї
Great page. Good stuff.
Darth Fader said,
July 3, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Steve,
Can you explain existence and evolution of the golf swing?
stevebee92653 said,
July 3, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Yes, the golf swing originated with Adam and Eve. Eve had an apple in her teeth and she asked Adam to hit it with a stick. The apple flew into a giant sink hole. And the rest is history!
Darth Fader said,
July 4, 2009 at 2:27 pm
So …. Did Adam get the snake when he three putted???
Mach said,
July 26, 2009 at 7:45 am
1: If Evolution never happened, Where did the idoits come for?!
Mike Knaga said,
July 28, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Hi Steve. My name really is Mike Knaga. I’m not a biologist, or a scientist at all for that matter. I just fly helicopters. I am also an atheist and believe in evolution. I don’t really have any strong points to make that arn’t standard cookie cutter evolutionist arguments, but I do have a few questions for you.
Do you seriously think that 98.4% of the scientific community (the percent that agree on evolution) are involved in a mass conspiracy? Really?
Why do so many branches of science STRONGLY agree with evolution?
Yes, life is INCREDIBLY complex, but over eons, why is it so hard for you to imagine complexity advancing?
Our consciousness is produced in our brains, the most complicated machine known to man. You claim of a consciousness that not only exists without a means to produce it, but it’s all knowing and infinately intelligent. Doesn’t this complicate things WAY more than evolution alone?
And I know it’s the question that is always asked, but I want to know how you answer- Where did your all powerful consciousness come from?
Just between you and me and everyone reading this blog, I don’t really care if you believe in a higher power, provided your not practicing a religion, that have shown to divide people into factions and cause senseless voilence. Any good that has come from the church could have easily been done by the people in the church without deities, only with five times the budget. I just wanted to point out that you are quite angry at times when referring to evolution. Even if you are right, the vast majority believe otherwise. It weakens your point to show so much anger.
Thanks, and I look forward to your response.
stevebee92653 said,
August 4, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Hi Mike.
My son was a flight surgeon and flew helicopters for the Marines. Are you military? You say you are an atheist. That is such a strange position. It says you know 100% that there is no intelligence above ours, (or other planetary aliens) and you know 100% that is the case. And that an entity with an IQ of zero can form unbelievably complex systems. A hard position to defend.
(1) 98.4%? Isn’t that our body temperature? It’s not the percent of evo believers. It may be more like 70%. Or less. Many skeptics are unable to express their thoughts, as they would be banned or excommunicated. But, in any case, if 98.4% of a group believe something that looks impossible to me, I would be remiss and completely dishonest in saying I believe for that reason. Science isn’t done by majority vote. I have not lost my ability to reason, think, and be skeptical. Unlike most evo believers.
(2) ditto
(3) Hard to imagine? That’s what evolution is. Imagination. Not science.
(4) When there are systems that require intelligence to build…..no. To credit the event of one animal killing another repeating over the eons, plus mutations that never have been demonstrated, with the formation of incredibly complex systems IS hard to imagine. Not only that, it simply isn’t possible. And you go for that?
(5) Read page one of the blog. I don’t know why the universe is here, what life is or why it is here, where consciousness came from. You don’t either. Either did or does any person who ever lived. Sorry.
(6) Angry? Try reading some of the unbelievably stupid attacks and comments by evos, and you might get an idea of why I am impatient. Not angry. Tired of the same old BS over and over. Tired of indoctrinates who can’t think on their own, and just spit out the same old bullshit.
You do get credit for respectful questions and a good comment.
Regards
9pt9 said,
October 1, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Great site steve. How do you explain the evidence brought forth by evolution concerning hominid fossils? If they are not ancestral humans what are they?
stevebee92653 said,
October 2, 2009 at 4:38 am
I initially had a problem with that question myself. Again, until I took a close look. They’re apes. They ALL have small craniums, and large bony brows. All of them. Humans have large craniums, and tiny bony brows. The total number of hominid fossils would fit on a kitchen table.
According to evos, the most rapid evolution known was the evolution of human craniums from Australopithecus. A huge amount of growth. They, of course, neglect to make note of the incredible evolution that had to take place to form our consciousness, intelligence, et al, along with that huge cranium.
They never consider the possibility that this”fast evolution” didn’t take place; that no evolution took place. As good science should require.
They have no problem with the fact that trilobites didn’t evolve a lick in 300 MY, but in a few hundred thousand years, our huge craniums, consciousness, and intelligence evolved.
Radhacharan said,
October 3, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Not forgetting to mention losing the all weather skin, fur and developing bipedalism and a whole host of other unique characteristics and achievements.
Radhacharan said,
October 1, 2009 at 5:36 pm
hey steve, was just reading your blog again. it is always interesting and refreshing to read. I watched your video on age of the universe and about how substances such as colour, sound only exist within the perception of the conscious observer. This truth has also been discussed about in many eastern esoteric systems of thought. here’s a link to a book that I think you will find interesting. Book is called, subjective evolution of consciousness. let me know what you think, you have my email address. Hare Krishna
http://www.bvml.org/SBRSM/books/SUBJEKTEV.PDF
stevebee92653 said,
October 2, 2009 at 3:29 am
Thanks for the comment. I will check out your recommendation. Glad to see a rare person who gets it. Reality doesn’t work well for evolutionauts, because perception isn’t something that can evolve from nothing And everything in our existence is perception. You can say its metaphysical, but it is also just good plain physiology.
stevebee92653 said,
October 2, 2009 at 4:24 am
I like a lot of what your book says:
Consciousness is not a product of the world; the world is a product of
Consciousness. Yes, consciousness comes first and then matter.
The basis of all things material is consciousness.
Reality is subjective. It is based on consciousness. Color is
perceived through the eye. It is not that the color is there and the eye
can catch it. But the seer sees through the eye and perceives color. So
color is a perception.
Good stuff.
Radhacharan said,
October 3, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Hey Steve, I’m very glad you have read some of the book I suggested and also liked parts of it. I just got an email from my genius friend, he is a spiritual teacher and former science writer. He is very in line with your way of thinking. He has just completed 2 papers in the last few months, I will forward them to you in your email. I also have found another piece of evidence for you in regards to evolution and the geographic distribution of ratites(flightless birds) and freshwater crabs. Ratites are found in Africa, Australia, New Zealand and South America and it has been ascertained that continental drift was not the cause of their distribution.
Read more here:
http://www.discovery.org/a/8101
Oh and if you want to learn about suppressed findings and scientists who were swept aside when they discovered things that were not in line with evo theory. look up “hueyatlaco” and “virginia steen mcintyre” (an up and coming scientist who was silenced decades ago) and her views were misrepresented and then ridiculed. What she personally says about her ordeal is quite interesting.I’m in the process of contacting a few of them.
Thanks for reading
Mariann said,
October 7, 2009 at 6:19 am
Hey Steve,
What came about first, the taste buds or the delicious fruits not to mention chocolate?
Maybe you can do something on this. Just an idea.
Thanks.
stevebee92653 said,
October 7, 2009 at 4:12 pm
That is a great one. There are so many chicken/egg scenarios that evos just blindly overlook.
Radhacharan said,
October 7, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Could you give some examples of chicken/egg scenarios etc steve?
Also you have an argument about eyes spreading to other species. That if one eye evolved in one species, how could it have passed on it’s visual system (as opposed to evos calling eyes a trait). Which organism do they say had the first eye? And I don’t mean light sensitive spots.
Couldn’t a species very early on in history have developed an eye and then evolved and branched off into many different species and the visual system would then have been inherited from the species who originally begun this branching off, Not sure if I communicated that well. Let me know, thanks
Radhacharan said,
October 12, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Hey again steve, my science writer contact just sent me an email, here’s some areas of nature you may want to look at:
No 1. ARTHROPODS: they have to grow by molting. Molting has to be perfect or it is LETHAL.
“The rigid cuticle inhibits growth, so arthropods replace it periodically by molting.” :wikipedia
The wings in some insects have to be shed and the entire exoskeleton in arthropods.
How did this evolve?
No 2. MOSQUITOS: A mosquito hatches from an aquatic creature. How is that supposed to have happened? Especially when the mosquito’s flight mechanism is completely different from that of a dragonfly for instance.
No 3. You might like to look up transparent fishes with no haemoglobin closely related to fishes with haemoglobin.
I will send you the book he sent me via email.
Hare Krishna
stevebee92653 said,
October 12, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Great examples. Thanks!
MichaelBryant said,
October 16, 2009 at 12:16 am
your very brave guy questioning evolution. Plus you have degree in biology which makes you qualified to question it. I like to read criticisms of evolution form well informed people like you.
stevebee92653 said,
October 16, 2009 at 1:37 am
Thanks for the good note!
jan said,
October 16, 2009 at 3:36 am
“punk science”………. a new term…….to describe, in a pop-culture term, the evolutionary “sciences”as they are as of late…… Steve, I came up with the term…… in music, just recording the tunes copyrights them……… I would expect the same from this………you have my e mail.
I know you can strike this message from you site…… but you don’t seem to be that kind of guy….. I trust you……
Here is the deal…..music used to respect certain technical aspects of what made music enjoyable to listen to……… harmony, melody, symphony, etc…… then electronic instruments came into play, that somehow, with distortion and overdrive commanded the attention of music listeners everywhere…..while still retaining some of the traditional components of “music” enjoyed by the masses…..then “punk music came along…… even though not really enjoyed by the mainstream, certain components of the society chose to embrace this form of sonic identification, for the simple reason that it differentiated them from the masses, giving them the feeling that they were somehow unique and special…….in their minds, an impressive departure from the status quo…… maybe they got laid more than their counterparts,,, i guess vital in the scheme of “survival” …….
Could this somehow be some sort of parallel with what is know today as “evolutionary sciences”?
What do you think, Steve????????
stevebee92653 said,
October 16, 2009 at 3:53 am
Punk science? You mean why do they like punk music? As compared to why do they believe this punk scinece? Both are an incredible puzzle. “Punk science” fits the bill for sure.
BTW, I hope you got my note about being blocked. You were not. You didn’t respond, so? I do block people who are BEYOND a pain in the ass, excessive horrible language ( I use some blue stuff myself. You gotta sometimes with these people.) And giving out personal information. Other than that this is a very freewheeling site.
Your attacks are a fun watch. These people from dawkins.net are really nuts. And they think they are so scientific. They are bunch of clones only capable of groupthink.
jan said,
October 17, 2009 at 3:10 am
Steve,
I didn’t get your message about not being blocked. But that is fine. Thanks. If I throw darts at you from time to time I know, unlike other places I have been, I can trust that you won’t scratch me and trash my computer…….Keep it up man. Seeking reality is often a contentious and combative enterprise amidst all of the bullshit………..
jan said,
October 25, 2009 at 6:56 am
“Steve,
So all novel features we observe must have already been present in the genome? What a curious claim. You should already be familiar with the evidence which contradicts your claim, so I’ll just wait for you to refute that first.”
Serdan,
You blind and arrogant fool….. There is absolutely no scientifically confirmed, even in a scant sense, of fundamental things regarding the “development” of the “genome” in any kind of sufficient comprehensive viable way. You STUPID SHIT!!!!!
“jack and jill went up the hill”
Darryl Householder said,
November 11, 2009 at 4:31 am
This was posted on the Facebook Creationism discussion group … I remembered your background and thought you might have an answer I could post to him.
John Matthew Tramel
I have a serious question for creationists: why did god make people with jaws too small for our “wisom teeth”? Why would an intelligent designer bless us with wisdom teeth that we don’t need, which cause painful impacted mollers and infections which frequently cause brain abscesses (unless you’re saying it evolved lat…er)? Can we all agree that our dental setup is not ideal? I can think of several structural issues which even I would immediately if I were to design such a device. But this makes sense to me coming from a scientific perspective (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7035).
stevebee92653 said,
November 11, 2009 at 6:48 am
Citing a tiny flaw, and ignoring the incredible invention and designs of the jaws and teeth doesn’t even rank as absurd. Try my discussion of teeth on pg. 4b #5.
Radhacharan Das said,
November 14, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees
However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. Still, the number of proteins responsible for the phenotypic differences may be smaller since not all genes are directly responsible for phenotypic characters.
Even if all the proteins aren’t responsible for the phenotypic differences, it’s still a vast difference. Seems like a lot of change since our proposed common ancestor, what do you think steve?
link to source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009
stevebee92653 said,
November 14, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I think you are full of great finds. Thanks.
jan said,
November 23, 2009 at 5:47 am
Steve,
Above, somewhere, you accurately describe the nauseating use of the human invented term, for the sake of pop culture human consumption, of “NATURAL SELECTION”….Sounds so SCIENTIFIC. Apparently this concept is one of evolutionary “sciences” biggest supposed “demonstrations” of chemicals to living systems evolution. This is just fucking unbelievable to anybody who gives adequate thought to the topics. Why would any thinking individual, BEYOND A CERTAIN POINT, continue to accept this term that “paints pictures” regarding the developments required in going from chemicals to living systems and all that must entail?????? The “pictures” are vastly over simplistic of the actual requirements…… I know I am being redundant here in the sense of other comments made, but why can’t these people see this? It just seems so obvious and elementary. What is preventing them from understanding this… They (people who espouse large scale evolution as fact) are the ones who assert they have all of the necessary expertise and information to be able to have the adequate competence giving them the authority to advise society on such CRITICAL ISSUES………What the fuck is the motivations? Why does society keep funding these assholes? Why shouldn’t the resources, that are continually diminishing in the US (that is another topic in itself) be used in A WAY THAT DIRECTLY IMPROVES THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION. Instead, it seems that are a bunch of fuckheads that have wormed their way into publicly funded institutions that are sucking up unwarranted funds to support their philosophical belief systems………..
What the fuck is going on?????? Are we alone????????
stevebee92653 said,
November 24, 2009 at 4:31 am
I am beginning to think so. At least on there venues (YT and my blog). I “debated” with a couple of idiots on my Evo of Teeth vid. These guys are so dumb. I mentioned the fact that teeth (and eyeballs, and ball and socket joints et al) are inventions that came from nothing to the incredible systems they are. They just couldn’t get it. That the earth was once sterile. Then there were animals. Then inventions. Incredible inventions. No, they said. I don’t understand evolution. Have you ever heard that one? They think eye/joints/teeth et al evolved in small steps from the original eye/teeth/joints. The original were somehow just here, and what we have is “selected for” improvements on the originals. They are retarded. If you have a second and want to be bored, check out the comments. Evo of Teeth………..
jan said,
November 29, 2009 at 8:26 am
Radhacharan said,
October 9, 2009 at 10:16 pm
yes because before the cambrian period there was only soft bodied organisms according to evillusionists. And after a geological flash, most of the phylas appeared, some appeared with advanced eyes, trilobites are found at that time. that’s a real killer for the theory. Thanks again Steve
Hare Krishna
What is this Hare Krishna stuff? What does it have to do with these discussions?
Help me here. I have to admit, there is something I don’t understand. Please educate me. I don’t know what you are talking about.
stevebee92653 said,
May 25, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Lying about what? My Name? And you are really JayBay44? You’ve gotta be kidding. I could care less what they copied and pasted at dawkins. Wanting anonymity on the net is not too unusual. In fact it’s about 99%. If you were honest, you would put your name and address on all of your “writings”. So would all of those other fine people there that have nothing else to say at dawk. Other than that, where have you found me to be a liar? You still don’t know I have five patents? Well, I am taking the patent info off as I would prefer to go back to anon. So as soon as I disappear on dawk, I will be back to my pen name. And you will remain proud that you wrote nothing of interest, did nothing, answered nothing, and acted asinine.
I tried to stay anon because I have a concerned family, and because you have a few nut cases in your corner. They asked me to be, and I don’t blame them. But, you blew my cover! I love how some of the people on your side are still ragging about my patents, like a dog sniffing were there used to be urine. Back again and again.
You evolutionauts cry constantly about ad hominem attacks, but that is all you have done to me both here and at dawkins. More than I have ever seen. So, please don’t ever complain about that to ANYBODY. You guys get the Nobel Prize for ad hominem attacks. But it must be peer reviewed first. Har Har Har………….Bye
JayBay44 said,
May 25, 2009 at 8:55 pm
> Lying about what? My Name?
Yes. You claimed you were “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon,” a dentist with five patents. Google Patents indicates there are no patents registered under that name. The difference between you and Google is that Google doesn’t lie.
> And you are really JayBay44?
No, of course not. I never claimed I was. I already mentioned that in my previous post which you removed.
> You’ve gotta be kidding.
Nope – you definitely lied when you said you were “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon,” and that you had five patents. If you were simply picking an anonymous name, why not claim ten patents, or fifteen? You could make up your entire persona, which is pretty much what you did.
> I could care less what they copied and pasted at dawkins.
It seems like you’re trying to use a common English idiom, but you’ve got it wrong. The proper idiom is “I COULDN’T care less.” The way you’ve stated it, you indicate there are things about which you could care less than my copying and pasting, and the impression you wanted to convey is that there wasn’t anything you cared less about. Try not to make that mistake in the future. The reason you do care what gets copied and pasted on richarddawkins.net is that you have no control over deleting the posts on that message board. Your knee-jerk reaction will be to claim I made up the posts, but I’ve taken the precaution of saving screen shots of my posts on your blog before you delete them.
> Wanting anonymity on the net is not too unusual. In fact it’s about 99%.
Then you have no right complaining about me using JayBay44 as a user account, just as you use stevebee92653 as your user account. The difference is, you formally introduced yourself as “I am Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon” on this blog page, as if it was a matter of fact. It wasn’t; it turned out you were lying about it.
> If you were honest, you would put your name and address on all of your
> “writings”.
That’s ridiculous. You just got done saying that 99% of posted material on the Internet is anonymous. Honesty has nothing to do with it, as I’ve made no claim that could be shown to be a lie. On the other hand, you’ve made a pair of claims that, taken together, indicate at least one of them MUST be a lie – and that lie is your name. The name “Stephen B. Lyndon” corresponds to exactly zero patents issued or applied for.
> So would all of those other fine people there that have nothing else to say at
> dawk.
To my knowledge, NOBODY at richarddawkins.net requires that a name and address be given on every post. That’s just stupid. Your problem is you volunteered that information at the top of this blog page, and it turned out to be a lie.
> Other than that, where have you found me to be a liar?
I haven’t bothered. Your credibility is impeached; shot to hell. Most likely, you are lying about other matters, so if I actually read any of the rest of your claims, I’d be safe to second-guess anything you say. Imagine you took that approach in a court of law: “I was lying then, but I’m not lying now.” You’d be laughed off the stand. That’s what impeachment of testimony means.
> You still don’t know I have five patents?
Right, because even if you do, you’ve given no indication of what your real name is, and you’d need to do that in order to identify which patents you hold. Nobody is willing to simply take your word for it; you’ve admitted you’ve already lied about your name.
> Well, I am taking the patent info off as I would prefer to go back to anon.
But then you’d be hanging yourself by the standard you tried to apply to me. Your own words are about to bite you in the butt: “If you were honest, you would put your name and address on all of your ‘writings’. ” If you were to remove your name, by your own standard, you wouldn’t be honest.
> So as soon as I disappear on dawk, I will be back to my pen name.
In your last post there, you’ve claimed you’ve already disappeared. Nobody believes you on that claim, either; there’s an Internet saying known as “Shaker’s Law,” which indicates people who most vigorously claim to leave will be back very quickly.
> And you will remain proud that you wrote nothing of interest, did nothing,
> answered nothing, and acted asinine.
You claimed your name was “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon,” and that you had five patents. I hold seven patents, and am an IBM Master Inventor with about forty-five additional patents pending. I have an interest in promoting patent activity. So, I looked on Google Patents to find out about your work, and there was none to be found. I suppose it was asinine for me to take you at your word? The guys and gals over at richarddawkins.net were very interested in that analysis, which I think played a big part in your running away.
>I tried to stay anon because I have a concerned family, and because you have
> a few nut cases in your corner.
But you were already “anon” under the name “Stephen B. Lyndon” long before you were invited to participate on richarddawkins.net, so this complaint is without merit.
> They asked me to be, and I don’t blame them.
Who’s “they”? What did they ask you to “be”? You’ve got to be a little clearer. You’re not making any sense. You can’t be expected to stay anonymous when you broadcast a fictional name, associate that fictional name with real-life patents which can easily be checked.
> But, you blew my cover!
It was no big effort, believe me.
> I love how some of the people on your side are still ragging about my patents,
> like a dog sniffing were there used to be urine. Back again and again.
The main problem is you’ve peed in public, where reasonable, respectable people are expected not to pee, and you haven’t cleaned it up. The problem is still there. You can’t bring yourself to own up to your dishonesty or apologize for misleading those of us on richarddawkins.net, or here on your own blog. Your pride is much too great an obstacle for you to overcome.
> You evoltionauts cry constantly about ad hominem attacks, but that is all you
> have done to me both here and at dawkins.
Technically, it is an “ad hominem” attack, but it’s one of the allowable exceptions. Your credibility is impeached, because it has been emphatically determined that you’ve misrepresented your identity. You lied. You then proceed to put forth your position, which people need not take seriously, because your credibility has previously been impeached: You lied about your name, so it can be assumed that you could very well (and most likely) be lying about pretty much anything else.
> More than I have ever seen. So, please don’t ever complain about that to
> ANYBODY.
Actually, I’ve never complained that you’re throwing out mindless insults against people, completely unrelated to the argument at hand. What I’m specifically complaining about is your lack of honesty and integrity, and it’s that complaint which you’re trying very hard to avoid responding to.
> You guys get the Nobel Prize for ad hominem attacks. But it must be peer
> reviewed first.
As I mentioned in a previous post which you deleted, you are very confused about the Nobel Prize and its qualifications. There isn’t actually any category for “ad hominem attacks.” Perhaps that’s one of the many topics related to science that you don’t understand.
> Har Har Har………….Bye
Exactly how do you plan to remove the patent information and your false name from this blog page? “I am an anonymous dentist, holder of five patents – you’ll just have to take my word for it.” That’s not going to work, especially if you plan on setting yourself up as the basis for an argument from authority logical fallacy.
stevebee92653 said,
May 26, 2009 at 4:34 am
You must really be a jackass in person. Excuse me, you are really a jackass. You are still ragging on my patents after almost everyone at Dawkins.net has found them? I thought you were Sherlock Holmes, but I even take that away. You are a worthless troll. You have nothing to say about the information on my site. You have spent thousands of words ragging on the fact that I would like to remain anon, and that you think I am lying about my patents. How to really look stupid. Don’t rag about stuff if you are not sure. Lawyers learn that quickly, because they make fools of themselves in court, like you are doing right now . Wow. Just to rub your face in chihuahua terds, please go to my blog at http://www.oninventing.wordpress.com. You will have the pleasure of seeing my patents. Then come back, and apologize for being a chihuahua terd, then leave.
BTW, now I know you are a CT. I was kidding about the Nobel AND the ad hom. Kidding. You have no sense for when your chain is being pulled, poor guy.
Hard to believe you have any patents if you couldn’t find my five just using my name. You can also see the patents in actual operation with YouTube vids that I placed on the blog. Or you can go to stevebee92653 on YT and see the patents in action on vids. Or you can do a quick patent search and find them. Very easy. If you have so many patents, hard to believe you are so stupid at looking up patents. Now, when you lay eyes on my patents, be sure and come back and apologize for being such a knowitall and jackass. Then go home. I won’t actually expect either. You will disappear out of embarrassment. And please tell those lovely people at d.net that I do have them, that you did see them, and that you are sorry for being such a pain. And wrong big time.
I will continue being Stephen T. Lyndon. That is my pen name. My choice, which has nothing to do with you. Pen names are used by many writers, if you didn’t know. Adios fool
Oh, and if you still can’t find my patents, please let me know. I will deliver them to your house, as soon as you put your address and real name on all of your stuff. Liar.
stevebee92653 said,
June 4, 2009 at 2:02 am
Not so. There could be several colours available in the moth’s genome. No mutation necessary. You are climbing out on a thin branch. Even if some genetic change caused a new colour for the wings…..sowut.
Serdan said,
June 5, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Steve,
So all novel features we observe must have already been present in the genome? What a curious claim. You should already be familiar with the evidence which contradicts your claim, so I’ll just wait for you to refute that first.
What do you mean “sowut”?! If a genetic change is beneficial to the survival of an organism then that is a beneficial mutation, something you claim is not possible.
stevebee92653 said,
October 8, 2009 at 5:08 pm
There are tons. But a great one is the butterfly. Which came first, the caterpillar or the flier? There is simply no scenario with evolution that can account for the butterfly. So it is ignored.
Eyes of course can’t spread to other species because species can only procreate with their own kind. Cows could not spread a “trait” to birds. Even with geographic separation, and the evolution of one group into a new species, that scenario could not account for the 99% of species that have eyes. So that again is ignored by evolution.
Radhacharan said,
October 9, 2009 at 10:16 pm
yes because before the cambrian period there was only soft bodied organisms according to evillusionists. And after a geological flash, most of the phylas appeared, some appeared with advanced eyes, trilobites are found at that time. that’s a real killer for the theory. Thanks again Steve
Hare Krishna
stevebee92653 said,
October 10, 2009 at 1:30 am
Thanks for the visit. And yes, the Cambrian is just another killer in a line of thousands for evolutionauts. But they keep on truckin”. Why, I don’t know.
stevebee92653 said,
October 18, 2009 at 6:11 am
Just before you click the comment link, you may want to copy your writing. A few somehow don’t make it on. I don’t know why. I sent you three to let you know you weren’t blocked. you got one. Dunno. But have at it. I enjoy reading your stuff.