1c: If I Sent You Here, This Approximates What You Wrote

I have heard this hundreds of times:

ID is not true science. It raises more questions than it answers.  It’s not testable nor falsifiable, and it can’t make any predictions. Evolution is real.   It has mountains of evidence. 99% of all scientists in the world believe evolution. All the evidence against evolution has been refutedby peer  reviewed papers.  You don’t understand evolutionDo research, write a paper and get it peer reviewed so you can get the Nobel Prize. Many medical wonders have been produced by evolution. Yours are nothing but arguments from ignorance……or incredulity.  Or ad hominem attacks. Or you are quote mining. Anyway, one of those. WE have real dedicated scientists who are trying to explain the universe and nature, instead of being lame lazy individuals who say that everything in nature is designed. Get an education. Come up with another idea. Read this book: Improbable Mountains of Evidence by Richard Dawkins.  Here is a wonderful link to why evolution is wonderful: www.evolutioniswonderful.com.  In fact, here is a wonderful YouTube video by AronRa: Creationism Sucks, So Does Noah.

At least try being original and think on your own.

No need to read this, but here is a generic sample  comment that caused the writer to get sent to this page. 12/16/10 Steven Wrote:

Way to go Stevebee. No better way to prove that you are right by spouting nonsense that has been refuted countless times before and throwing ad hominems at the people who dare questioning you. Sure beats doing actual research and getting it published


  1. 9pt9 said,

    LOL the it’s the eTimeout center!

  2. RobPrice50 said,

    Help me, I’m desperately trying to work out what this website is about. If refutes nothing and says nothing.

    The text above is equal to someone saying – Trees: Yes I know they’re green, yes of course they come in lots of varieties. I understand they are very old. OK, yes they have many different types of leaves and roots. – When trying to pwn a site about the theory of trees and equally giving no counter argument or a sensible reason why you are even starting an argument to begin with.

    Is this not to be 100% expected? Why the surprise and why do you second guess a response you already know the answer too? It’s like literary self flagellation. I simply can’t make head nor tail of anything here or what the actual agenda, meaning or reason behind setting it up would be other than for purely masochistic pleasure. It’s all very strange.

    Oh, I should point out that page 17 of your blog is a well used fraudulently edited video which claims to show Dawkins unable to answer a question. If this constitutes evidence for your cause then it’s really a blatant lie.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Re: the vid on Dawkins. Not a “blatant lie”. Your response is blatantly indoctrinated. You spout what you were given by your group trainers. You are not using your own words. He said what he said. I heard his explanation. Sounds like Nixon explaining Watergate.
      Why did I start this argument? I love this subject: that of our and nature’s origins. I was a very keen supporter of evolution for most of my life. Until I realized I had been fooled. Just like you are now. I don’t like being fooled. As I studied the subject to see how fooled I had been, I made this blog, as a diary/reference so I wouldn’t lose sources. People began visiting. It grew. And became more and more interesting for me. And, no, my research didn’t take me to religious or Creationism sites. It involved my own reason, newly found skepticism, and purely biological/evolution sites. TalkOrigins, many YouTube pro-evo vids (potholer54, cdk007, AronRa), books (The Blind Watchmaker), etc. I think on my own, and write my own stuff. If a science is wrong, and no one speaks up, it will take hundreds of years before wrongs are righted. And that will be the case with evolution no matter what. There are to many indoctrinated believers and zealot supporters, as well as millions of innocent uneducated ones. This house of cards will take a very long time to tumble. But it will.
      This site refutes Darwinian evolution. You are just too indoctrinated to see it. It proposes nothing in the way of an alternate source. You are right on that. The first step to getting rid of a turkey like evolution is realizing that it’s not valid. THEN a valid answer can be searched. Evolution blocks that search.

  3. RobPrice50 said,

    “If a science is wrong, and no one speaks up, it will take hundreds of years before wrongs are righted.”

    That’s fine but you’re not offering any evidence so what you have here is just an empty statement. To say science is wrong is pretty bold with nothing to explain your conclusion. Also if it is going to take more scientists (because to say this is wrong you need to show why and that requires more science) to show this is fake, why would anyone believe them over the ones you currently say are involved in an enormous worldwide conspiracy to lie to the entire human population? Seems like we are actually stuck in a never ending lie, perpetuated by scientists with the potential evidence for jumping out of this vicious circle not able to be relied upon. How do YOU see we are going to show evolution is a fraud when the system required for doing so (in the absence of you yourself having no substance to your argument) is apparently rotten and false at best?

    “As I studied the subject to see how fooled I had been, I made this blog.”
    “It grew. And became more and more interesting for me. And, no, my research…”

    Therefore you must have some of this excellent but seemingly elusive evidence and solid research to discredit the theory, please provide some key points where it can be falsified along with something I can check to make sure you are not lying. At the moment I’ve got nothing to suggest you are not. Imagine you’re in a court and the prosecution ask for some additional evidence for your claims, what would you provide?

    Re: The Dawkins video. There are plenty of explanations for this on the net and it has been clearly shown to be false. It would have some substance if Dawkins indeed couldn’t answer the problem but he does so and has done so on many occasion together with many others who have stepped up to the challenge and answered for him. This clearly shows that the question can be answered and the answer checked and verified. I take it you are aware of the reason behind the pause in the video? Amazing too that in the 15 years since this unprofessional, underhand video, he has made literally thousands of public appearances and written many books but we don’t see video after video demolishing his argument based on his inability to deal with difficult creationist questions do we? We just have this single clip, which is fake. It doesn’t really speak highly of your ‘evidence’ does it? Yes you did indeed hear what he said but if you then close off your ears and mind to why you are seeing what you are seeing, you can just make up your own little version of events that don’t in fact tally with reality. I saw and heard Leonardo DiCaprio go down on the Titanic but that doesn’t make it a fact, especially when you step out from behind the camera and see the boat isn’t real and Leonardo is pretending.

    Do you hold that Dawkins was indeed stumped by this question and that he hasn’t or others have not answered it satisfactorily? Is this really your evidence for the entire ToE being a total hoax?

    Questions summarised so you can answer them properly:

    1. Who’s going to believe scientists if the process to verify their work is science itself, therefore needing to be verified by said scientists? (phrased so because you suggest a giant co-conspiracy)

    2. Can you provide some solid arguments/evidence to show how such a ‘mountain of evidence’ is ALL fake?

    3. Do you know why Dawkins paused to think in the video?

    4. Do you think that Dawkins or evolutionary biology cannot answer the original question posed?

    Other questions form elements of ones already asked.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      (1) Evidence? How about this: your “mountain” is a shitpile. Since you choose not to read, that is my evidence for you. My word against Dawkins who makes up his stuff.
      (2) Nice dissertation! Dawkins would be proud of you. His clip? The silence was because he was stumped. Obviously. He wasn’t thinking for 30 sec that he should kick out the creationist as he said. He’s a bullshitter, and you are a gullible receiver of bullshit. Lots of it. He was so stumped he didn’t answer the question posed whatsoever. He went dead silent, then he rambled on like a fool about what we would see or not see a long long time ago. Once upon a time. The question was on the increase of information in the genome. But he is your Jesus, and he can do no wrong. Say hallelujah. I read his excuse, and saw his vid clip explanation. Lame.
      (3) No
      Any other questions?

  4. Dane said,

    Although pro-evolutionists are chided by Steve for not being original, it’s only fair to point out that there is nothing original on this site. All of the “arguments” that are presented by Steve have been around for years. So-called “creationist scientists” have used the same arguments that Steve employs for quite a while now. Back in the late 80’s when creationists were beginning to use the term “intelligent design” in an attempt to repackage creationism as a legitimate science, the same arguments were employed. Steve chides pro-evolutionists as being ‘indoctrinated’, but the fact is, Steve has been indoctrinated himself, mainly because ID so fits with his personal ideology that life is just too amazing to not be the product of some greater intelligence.

    Personally, I believe that, even though he publicly disdains religion, Steve is actually a closet theist that jumped on the ID bandwagon because it permits him, in his mind, to voice the belief in a higher power without sounding religious.

    Now, I know some people might view that as personal attack, but it’s not at all intended to be one. It’s simply that as I’ve read through this website and seen Steve’s responses to questions and comments, I realized that I’ve one heard one kind of person speak in the tone and use the tactics that Steve does: a religious zealot.

  5. Kevin Clark said,

    It would appear we have the same ‘genetic’ tendancy to spot BS and and make logical inferences. This must be another observable instance of ‘convergant evolution’. send me an email.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: