1d: Sample of Awful Evo-Comments

This is a good sampling of evo-comments that I consider a waste of time and space. Cadman2300, a member of www.rationalskepticism.org says he saw many comments before they were deleted, and feels they are extremely intelligent and well written.  Universally, of course. Not a bad one in the group. Of course. They were written by fellow evolutionauts, who can do no wrong.  A sample of his criticism of me that he wrote on rationalskepticism.org on the fact that I screen comments:

“Liar-liar, pants on fire.
Pictures of Crocoducks and life evolving from a rock?
His pants aren’t on fire anymore. Now they’re nothing but smoking ash.”

And of course the ever present and tiresome attack on my education.  And “pants on fire”? How does one respond to that?  Don’t these guys ever realize when their arguments get  overused and trite:

“A lot of people are skeptical about your educational background. Should we all just ignore that and pretend that you have proper training necessary to evaluate any and all evidence? I don’t think so.”

“Maybe you would have a case against evolution if you presented something other then some BS about Tyrannosaur arms, teeth fitting together, and the never-ending accusation about how anyone who disagrees with you is “indoctrinated”.

There are over 36 pages on this blog. And hundreds of points I make on why evolution doesn’t explain the designs of nature.  These evolutionauts have blinders on.  Maybe if Cadman2300 actually read the blog, or even some of it, he would realize that the T. Rex arms are just one “teensy tiny step in the evolution” of the thinking of stevebee when he evolved from evoutionaut to evo-denier.

I would say that anyone who poses himself as good critic of comments, like Cadman2300 does, should be able to write better comments than this. And he wonders why I began screening. Sorry Cadman2300, I don’t want to waste any more time with this kind of trash. Any evolutionaut who can write something even close to being intelligent will post.

If you read these maybe you can get a hint of why I need to screen just a bit. I am sure any evolutionaut reading this page will think these are brilliant comments.   They are such a waste of time and space on my blog. Note the complete lack of any comment that has the courage to actually take on any point in this blog. They are all generalized personal attacks and religious strawmen.  And note the inability to even spell check. And they so freely rag on my education?

And Here they are:

Stevie-beeten: How about this for a change of pace?
You’re over a century too late to rewrite the backbone to modern biology. You lose. Now get over it already and move on with your life. (If my stuff is so far off, why is he so concerned?)

Another feeble attempt to make it look like a clash between world-views. Evolution has acceptance by the scientific community which deals with the inescapable aspects of reality, while creationism can’t even make it past the fundamentalist ideology stage. (Evolution good.  Stevebee bad.  Me: not a “Creationist”)

You know Al, and Steve, there are also these amazing places called ‘Natural History Museums’. You both might want to visit such a place sometime while you’re still able. (This guy didn’t even read page 1 or 2, obviously.  I BEGAN this blog because of a visit to the Field Museum in Chicago.)

ME: “Unicorny: You are indoctrinated. And boring. And repetitive.”
Unicorny: Look who’s talking. You might as well just cover your ears and sing to your self really loud.

Steve-beaten can’t formulate a proper rebuttal so all he can do is wave his hand at what’s right in front of him.

Wow, just some rehashed old arguments of incredulity. “I cant imagine how dna formed, therefore it is designed” <–So far this has been always a stump for IDiots (:

This blog only serves to reinforce creationists their loved belief in their silly unexistent god, by having the illusion that this is a genuine scientific look on evolution. The thing is that this guy is not even a scientist. If you dont understand evolutionary biology dont write a blog about it claming to refute it. This guy even knows crap about I.D. so i dont see the point. (Again, and again, I don’t do religion.)


ROFL! You are just too much Stevie. Your “indoctrination” excuse and the excuses you use to justify it get shot down a million times but you clutch to them like they’re some kind of life-line or get-out-of-jail-free cards that supposedly save you from having to run an honest blog.
Seriously, we have genomes to map, cancer to beat, more transitional fossils to uncover, and a universe to better understand.
While whiny science haters have nothing better to do than play pretend-expert.

But that’s enough from me. I think I’ll head over to the Smithsonian and check out that Human Origins exhibit before some denialist whack-job tries to vandalize it.

I don’t know what history you have with Steve, but hopefully you now realize what you’re dealing with. Providing Steve with information and evidence is pointless, because his problem one of ignorance. It’s a much more basic and pernicious inability to think logically. You can see it in his responses to ADParker above, where he essentially says “I don’t have to prove black swans exist. You’re the one who says they DON’T exist, so YOU have to provide ME an example.” But for an even more priceless example, look at his “Population Paradox” page. There, he expends vast amounts of bandwidth to argue that, because something that is literally impossible didn’t happen, then this is an “incredible paradox.” He doesn’t even understand that a “paradox” would be if something was impossible, but DID happen.

Woah, a creationist vanity blog!
Were you mr dentist, ex- “evolutionist”, ever really as rational as you claim? Not on this evidence…..
Why have you set up this site at all? Is it, as someone asserted up thread, that you’ve been tossed off Dawkins’ site as a boring troll?
Wouldn ‘t surprise me, not at all.
No one cares if you feel that if evolution were true T-rex would’ve had longer arms, or that the celeocanth would have gone extinct: it’s a counterfactual, and didn’t happen. Remember, evolution is only about what is, not what might be.
Ridiculous nonsense from a man who has too much time on his hands and a mind virus he just can’t get rid of. (I bet your relatives groan whenever you get started on this nonsense!)
Why don’t you do something constructive with your retirement, raising money for the poor, for example, rather than make yourself a public fool? (This comment wouldn’t make it on RS either.)

Would you care to take a claim and publish it on a reliable site where it can be verified to see if its accurate? no.
I really didnt bother too look at the rest of the garbade on this page when i saw that no good mutations can arise and that it is invisible to us. Aparently you are too lazy to read the Greatest Show on Earth from Richard Dawkins. If you are so wonderful and smart to prove evolution wrong, then why dont you do it do the scientific community and not just to the layman who want to reinforce their silly belief of the magical sky daddy with the talking snake? which im sure it makes a whole lot more sense (:

Get a nobel prize or something if you think you are so sure. But of course we know you cant and you would make an artificial excuse that “oh evolutionists are so dogmatic that wont even allow hyper bunnies from outer dimension in his dogmatic materialistic view” Or some other B.S. Like that

Behe who is a lot more respectable than you, has had his silly calims debunked over and over about his “unlessaneble complicatedness” so much loved by IDiots.
The human inmune system. Bacterium Flagellum. Etc.

“Re. NS and RM “directly observed happening and are facts”. Sure but never observed building anything. Except in your group imaginations.”
Somebody sounds like an angry Wendy Wright, Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind all thrown together into one neat little package.

“I have read most of the major pro-ev books, and look what it did. Made me an evo-denier!”
And yet, your arguments don’t address anything at the middle-school textbook level, much less what’s in all the other books.
So far, all you’ve done is quote-mine The Blind Watchmaker.

Here’s the brutally honest Richard Dawkins on the issue:

“A belief in creationism is just as valid as a belief in evolution because neither have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

Another feeble attempt to make it look like a clash between world-views. Evolution has acceptance by the scientific community which deals with the inescapable aspects of reality, while creationism can’t even make it past the fundamentalist ideology stage.

“No atheists has ever put forth concrete proof that any species of animal, fish, bird or plant ever evolved into a new species…changed yes, but no new species…no evidence.”

Wrong again: Here’s why.
You know Al, and Steve, there are also these amazing places called ‘Natural History Museums’. You both might want to visit such a place sometime while you’re still able.

Johnnyboy 12/20/10

I’ve been looking at this site and then did some background on it. The best and most descriptive review I found was this:

“This is one in-on-the-scam peddler of “don’t ask, don’t
tell ID.” One who is on a mission to save the world because he thinks
the “masses” can’t handle the truth of “evillusion.” Either that, or
he just likes selling snake oil. ”

Google Chat Group.

I can’t really put it better than that. I’m dumbfounded by the stupidity and I really wonder why people bother writing long winded replies because he just ignores them. A waste of time for a waste of space-It would be different if he had something to say. [[[ yawn ]]]



  1. Tramopoline said,

    This article does far more damage than good to your blog. You do know that, right?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Oh? How so? It’s just a rewrite of the repetitious evo-comments already on the blog.

      • Tramopoline said,

        And do you correct any of these comments or point to evidence, other than your own words, to prove them wrong? It doesn’t look that way to me.

        This comment wasn’t even posted on your blog. You just copied and pasted it from the RS forum.
        “A lot of people are skeptical about your educational background. Should we all just ignore that and pretend that you have proper training necessary to evaluate any and all evidence? I don’t think so.”

        Other than calling the comment cliched you don’t answer the question at all.
        Logically Steve, this is hardly what anyone would call an attack. He raised a valid point regarding your qualifications.
        Are there any articles here where you present proper credentials that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you really did study the topic for a few decades before dumping it?
        Because if it’s true that you really did study evolution for that long a time, your articles would have a much higher level of professionalism to them, other than you saying that it’s junk-science and biologists should just cut and run.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        I will post this as another perfect example of a nothing comment. Rag on the education. I copied and pasted from RS? So what? My stuff is frequently copied over to RS by evolutionauts. My vids are also posted there. BTW, fine with me. I am proud of what I write. Obviously you are not. “Pants on fire.”? What a laugh. One of your guys wanted to close the thread. One person, me, being unsuccessfully attacked by 15 evolutionatus. As I said, it’s not fair for you. I don’t blame him. It’s an embarrassing thread for you.
        So what is your point here? What’s good for the evolutionaut is bad for the “denier”? If a challenger to evolution made valid challenges that you can’t answer, and he was a kindergartner, you would challenge his credentials. “He’s a kindergartner!” You would never answer the challenges, as y’all NEVER do. You then always compliment the guy who doesn’t answer, ala shrunk and ADParker. There is never a bad pro-evolution comment. No matter what you guys write, it’s always: “Oh, his answers were just wonderful. He sure got stevebee.” Evolution is a zombie zoo.
        I have written tons here. You have chosen the same rout. A comment about nothing. My stuff should be a cinch to challenge if it is as you say: unprofessional. And you are REAL science. So, c’mon Mr. Science. Have at it. Attack away. Should be simple for you . Y’all are so goddam smart. Where are those smarts? Where is the science you say you are? What a bunch of failures. Your friends at RS and you can’t comment without your hugely trite evo-jargon: “argument from……” “your education……” “sky fariies……” None of you can think above that level, including you. Think “Pants on fire” is good strategy?

  2. mattvr said,

    Hi Steve,

    many of your points are discussed in Dawkin’s book, ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’. He covers things quite lucidly and details the evidence well.

    It might be worth a read to see why so much of what you’ve written here is rejected outright by biologists. It might allow you to refine your hypothesis and dispose of the redundant arguments which do you no service?


    • stevebee92653 said,

      Try page 18. Dawkins is full of shit that you believe. Ask yourself why. That would be “worth your time”. What “redundant” arguments. Are you just spouting without reading?

  3. mattvr said,

    Hi Steve,

    Perhaps your attitude could be a little less confrontational? You seem to be perceiving some kind of attack? I would have thought you’d be interested in any and all information presented on the topic, regardless of author, and especially when it deals directly with your hypothesis?

    I read your analysis of another of Dawkin’s books in chpt18, but it doesn’t cover the title I mentioned, which has much to say about the concept of design and anatomy.


    • stevebee92653 said,

      Matt, thanks for the comment. Try reading P. 1a #1 and a quick paragraph at the top of P. 1b. It will only take you a minute. Richard Dawkins doesn’t know any more than my dog about the initiation and formation of the designs of nature and how things came about. Neither does any person who ever lived on the planet earth.
      Sorry if I come across as irritated. If I ever find an evolutionaut who actually can read and discuss the material in this blog I will leap for joy. 99% of all evo-comments here are copies of yours. Which may give you a hint as to why I respond like I do to the same stuff. Over and over.

  4. mattvr said,

    Hi Steve,
    I’ve been reading here and to be honest I don’t know what you’re trying to do with your blog.
    Leaving your interpretation of the evidence surrounding evolutionary theory aside, your approach does you no favors.
    Probably most importantly, if you’re proposing a hypothesis of a designed ecosystem, then the onus goes to you to support that with more than negative evidence for evolution.
    You need to propose a hypothesis that fits all the evidence, fossil, molecular, genetic and anatomical, and then back it up.
    What’s the mechanism for design? Is it on going or did it take place at a single point in time? How does the development of animal and plant varieties we can see through selective breeding etc, fit in?
    I can see you’ve stated that much of the development of life is unexplainable by humans, but I think applying scientific method to the points above would give you positive evidence if you can find it, rather than spending your time arguing with evolutionists.
    Frankly, disparaging authors because you disagree with them or feel their evidence is poor, disregarding the citation of scientific papers as it indicates ‘indoctrination’ really will only garner the sort of blow back I can see throughout the comments here and frankly, if you want the attention of the scientific community you simply wont get it.

    Spending your time working on supporting your idea might make you a bit less irritable as well?(stop responding to the same stuff over and over and do something constructive?)
    I’ll leave it at that, after seeing the flame wars here I really would rather not get drawn in, it’s trouble I can do without.
    I hope I’ve given you something positive to consider.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Here is a few simple facts, Matt.
      (1) The onus is on you to show how the incredibly designed bio-systems of nature have no design source. How essentially nothing can come together to make digital cameras with auto focus, auto f stop, 120,000,000 pixels……consciousness, intelligence, sonar, locomotion, perfect aerodynamic flight…..my gawd the list is endless. You show me how that can arise from nothing. Even from unicelled biology. I have the very obvious design as my evidence. You have the same that you think built all of nature as your evidence: NOTHING. Zero.
      (2) I don’t need to “propose a hypothesis”. That notion was given you by your trainers, and you are repeating it here. Newtons Laws had big problems. They were falsified long before Einstein came along. The measurements of the movement of the planets didn’t match Newton, and for a very long time astronomers had no hypothesis whatsoever. They simply knew that Newton didn’t match what they saw. Einstein would never have come up with relativity had it not been for the falsification first. With no substitute.
      (3) The mechanism for design? NOT NS and RM for certain. Your team of two has no design ability whatsoever.
      (4) Think you are powerful enough to tell me how to spend my time? You wonder why your are irritating?
      (5) Re: “we” can see through selective breeding etc, fit in? The use of the word “WE” is a sure indicator that you have been thoroughly indoctrinated. You are in a groupthink cult, and brainlocked, and you have no idea. There is NO OTHER SCIENCE where those who hold interest would use the word “WE”. Would you say “WE” have found black holes” You have no idea that you have forfeited your skepticism and reason to this gawd awful hoax. Indoctrinates NEVER do realize they have been had. They always think they are right. Just like you do. You can’t even entertain the notion that Darwin was wrong. You will go along never knowing. They have fooled you. Another indicator: again, there are hundreds of challenges on this blog for you to attack. You come ignore all, and try to tell me how to use my time, and that I am wrong. Ever seen “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”? That is the “WE” you are referring to. The snatched.
      (6) The “scientific papers” in this field are pure bullshit. Want evidence “mountains” ? Try p. 5.
      The reason I am so sure of what I am talking about? I was in your shoes. A full on believer and arguer, just like you. I am a rare escapee. You never will. You are now permanently wired. And you are a clone of every other evoutionaut, exactly like the thousands I have talked to. Ask yourself. When is the last time you questioned this stuff in your own mind? You can’t. You have been empowered by your trainers. You actually think you know how all of nature formed. You can’t give that power up, now can you. What could be more absurd.

  5. mattvr said,

    Oh Steve.

  6. mattvr said,

    Ok, once again the confrontational and emotional stance?
    1.) You’ve proposed an alternate model. Cool. Is all of your evidence going to consist of a critique of evolution? Will you provide your own ideas on how complexity was manufactured artificially and when? It’s the other side to your argument which will help to support it.
    2.) You can call it what you like, an idea, a concept.
    3.) Once again, you’re on the attack when I simply hoped to inspire a positive direction in your own idea.
    4.) It was a suggestion. I’m some guy at a computer you’ve never met who thought you might like a different take on your web site than having it as a forum for abuse.
    5.) Really? I used the term ‘we’ for you and I. Do you think selective breeding in domestic animals doesn’t result in differences which humans have taken advantage of? Farmers have been doing this for a long time without taking reading a single page of Darwin.(this was the context of what I wrote)
    6.) If you feel that the fields of Biology, Palaeontology and Geology are so poor, and lacking in rigor, all I suggested was you do some of your *own* science to give your position some positive evidence.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Matt, you have been fully indoctrinated. You keep coming back and showing it. Your answers skirt my points. You skip off the question, like all evolutionauts. Peer reviewed papers are fine for Geology, Biology, Paleo. I used them in dentistry frequently. In this venue, evolution, they are fake, and peer reviewed by fakes. “We” was not you and me, and you know it. It was you and your your fellow groupthink indoctrinates. It’s a very transparent mistake made by evos frequently, and it’s very predictable and telling. See page 34 #11. If you don’t know the the difference between selective breeding and evolution, back to school for you.

  7. mattvr said,

    I’m really sorry Steve, I answered in a honest way and you’re accusing me of being unable to think for myself and being somehow indoctrinated because I used the word ‘we’ when I referred to a pretty basic point about selective breeding and how you may look into that in relation to your idea of an artificial ecosystem. I’d use the same ‘we’ if I referred to something observable in physics.
    I thought you might be interested in having a conversation about what you propose in a positive way, rather, you seem pretty determined to make this another flame war.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      No flame war here. I love intelligent discussion. Your posts so far have been generic dogma. That isn’t thinking at all. You are just spouting. I know you don’t THINK you are. But you say exactly what hundreds of evolutionauts have said that came here before you. Take a look at the pages I wrote on the subject. You said exactly what was on those pages. The stock comments I say to avoid. All on pages I already wrote before you came here. Might want to do some self examination and ask yourself where you got that programming. What was the source. Your trainers?
      Thinking on your own would entail reading a page of my stuff, and intelligently telling me what you agree with and what you don’t. You haven’t come close to that level of thought. Why? Again, ask yourself. Instead of coming here and naively laying eggs, one after the other.
      And quit trying to explain the “we” thing. Use it for self examination. You should try to figure out why you use “we” instead of “I think that….”. I know the answer. You know, but are trying to block it out.

  8. mattvr said,

    The reason I’ve focused on the word ‘we’ is because you have decided that its usage denotes that I’m unable to think independently.
    I used ‘we’ to refer to something that both you and I can see as a fact: that humans can breed animals selectively to get particular results.
    I can say that *I* can see that. Is it not a fact but a product of ‘groupthink’?
    Let’s remove the ‘groupthink’.
    I can verify it with personal evidence. When I was young my brother kept fish and selectively bred guppies for particular colour traits. I saw the combinations and results.
    Yet you’ve decided that you know my experiences and I’m unable to think for myself because I used the word ‘we’.
    Lets look at the context, I used it suggesting a positive path of research to support your idea. Not an attack, nor does the way I’ve used it imply evolution is ‘true’.

    I’m not sure you want a conversation. The way you’ve responded so far to constructive ideas is to call names ‘evolutionaut’ and deride me as not being on the same ‘level’ as you.
    If I did as you suggested, to examine and offer other ideas for whats in this site, would I get any other response? Would you assume I knew nothing about anatomy, biology etc. except what I’d been ‘brainwashed’ with? If I made a point which I had reached independently but was similar to others would you accuse me of ‘groupthink’? Is it only ‘groupthink’ and ignorance if I reach a different conclusion to you?
    Steve, please stop assuming that you know me.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      You have all the shots you want. You came here and said nothing but what hundreds of other evolutionauts have already said, nearly verbatim. You tell me how I should spend my time. How wrong I am. This is a site made up of tons of information and reasons evolution isn’t the answer. You have completely ignored what is on the site to tell me the what I should do and the way I should think. Ignoring the “we”, you tell me about selective breeding, which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Compare and contrast selective and intelligently done breeding with random events that supposedly brought into existence all species as well as heart/lung systems, vision, bat sonar, consciousness, intelligence….. Your belief that breeding and these are in the same category is further evidence of indoctrination, and that you don’t think independently.
      Names? I never call people names. Evolutionaut was coined because so many of you hate evolutionIST but can’t give me a substitute substitute. Coined by me. Combo of evo and astronaut. You should be proud.
      You have already shown a huge amount of indoctrination. The last people to know are the indoctrinates themselves. Your writing drips of it. You have plenty of chance to attack my stuff with science and your own thinking, so have at it if you like. I doubt you will. You have had ample chance already, and aren’t to square one.

  9. mattvr said,

    Steve, I took no ‘shots’. I didn’t tell you what to do, I made a suggestion.
    At no point did I say you were wrong except in your obsessed association of the word ‘we’ with indoctrination.
    I provided paths for positive approaches and an opening for conversation.
    I didn’t say selective breeding proved evolution, but was a possible opportunity for research.
    You write the same thing again and again, then accuse me of being unable to think.
    This is not a conversation.

    I capitulate, you are the most intelligent and thoughtful person I have ever met. You are *the* original thinker and have insight that no amount of experience or experimentation or knowledge will ever give another person. You have the only valid evidence and have made the only deductive conclusions that could possibly be true.
    Well done Steve, enjoy your site.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks! I obviously do enjoy it. Bye.

    • tonygoodman said,

      Don’t bother Matt. As you can see he makes a big deal about getting abuse on other forums (through lack of a solid argument) then he does exactly the same thing to people who visit his own site. He’s the judge jury and executioner here, so you’re already on a loser. He ignores your own argument saying it’s tired old crap, in fact any scientific based evidence is automatically corrupt and fake. That is his basic premise, not that he’s got anything to back it up.

      Doesn’t matter how sincere, credible or open you are, you’ll get the same treatment he accuses others of. Just read the blog and his commentary and see for yourself.

      He’ll no doubt stoop again and respond to this post in his usual way, he is the most belligerent person you will ever have a dialogue with. I feel sorry for his family who must have to endure this rubbish day in day out.

  10. Mike said,

    Stumbled upon this site yesterday. Been very fascinated with it as I myself am a former hardcore evolutionist who has been having doubts ever since an unrelated life crisis forced my ego defenses to drop and thus forced my mind to open.

    But enough about me. The comment I wanted to make here is thus:

    I love the attacks on your credentials. This is pure appeal to authority, and shows that the evolutionist in question is unable or unwilling to think for himself. If he can somehow show that you’re not a real dentist, etc., he “wins” without having to so much as scratch the substance of your arguments. Or so he thinks.

    As for me, I don’t give a damn about your credentials. Maybe you lied about them, maybe you didn’t. But there has been so much food for thought on this site that I just don’t care whether or not you somehow felt the need to unnecessarily puff yourself up with lies. Frankly I think this is a great site. Keep it up.

  11. tonygoodman said,

    “Me: not a “Creationist””

    Says Stevebee, but then he says evolution is false and then tries to say there must have been another way.

    Well, the other way is that they just poofed into existence, or in other words created, so you’re a creationist.

    Maybe not a religious based one but a creationist nonetheless. That’s why creationists of the traditional type side with your vacuous ‘arguments’ as they match their own in terms of actual content. Equally zero.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      You are a creationist as well. An entire universe out of a point singularity; life from sterility. Modern organs, bio-systems, and species that didn’t exist at all at some point in time are creations. The religious think it happened fast and God made everything. You think it happened slow, and “Nothing” made made everything. And the difference is? Speed of the creation? So don’t be so goddam smug. Everyone who has an interest in this subject is a creationist. That includes you.

  12. tonygoodman said,

    “Richard Dawkins doesn’t know any more than my dog about the initiation and formation of the designs of nature and how things came about.”

    Correct because that’s not what Dawkins is about. A brilliant observation! The point being…?

    You could have also said.

    “Richard Dawkins doesn’t know any more than my dog about the initiation and formation of the designs of steam engines and how they came about.”

  13. tonygoodman said,

    “I have the very obvious design as my evidence.”

    er…, if you have ANY idea about scientific enquiry you’ll know straight off the bat that this is BS. Even if you did have an argument it wouldn’t get passed the first hurdle since you can’t even construct a model of what you purport! This blog is just dire…

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Why does it take you so many comments to say the same “nothing” that your evo-peers say? Astounding! Don’t you evos get embarrassed saying the same thing over and over? My gawd.

      • TonyGoodman said,

        stevebee “Don’t you evos get embarrassed saying the same thing over and over?”

        “my gawd”
        “no one knows”
        “my gawd”
        “my gawd”
        “assembly of bio systems”
        “my gawd”
        “It couldn’t have happened”
        “my gawd”
        “my gawd”

        There’s only one broken record on this blog.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        That’s nothing but an argument from incredulity! Wait, from ignorance! What’s your education level? Did you get out of the 3rd grade?

  14. Thursty said,

    Steve, what you’re missing is that the participants on the discussion groups you’ve dealt with are primarily there for the joy and self-gratification they get out of telling the other side how stupid they are. They’re not interested in any type of actual discussion. This is true of just about any discussion group on any topic but especially true of any group with religious connotations. Each side thinks that they have discovered the “TRUTH” and it’s so wonderful that they have to show everyone the “TRUTH” and if anyone else can’t see their “TRUTH” then they must be fools, morons and idiots or whatever and isn’t it great to be so much smarter than they are? Think about it, both the Christians and the Atheists think they cornered the market on the “TRUTH” and the worst ones are the converts regardless of which way they converted. Having pointed this out, each of us should reflect on how this applies to our own views and behavior.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Well, you are right on. I am not missing the point you make. I am fully aware of the mind set of the people I “discuss” this subject with. So why do I keep doing it? I would say, primarily, it’s fascinating. I love the subject. And, if there is no rational voice, those people win, and control minds. So I will keep being a drop in the bucket, until the drops add up to buckets full. Unfortunately, that won’t happen in my lifetime. Thanks for the intelligent note.

  15. Socks Leahy (@nadnerbsamoht) said,

    So… wait, why is any of this wrong, again?

    For that matter, why is the strawman posted to the sister page wrong?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: