My Three Books on the Subject of Evolution: (All three books are now on Kindle.)
Before you dig into my blog, I would like to introduce you to the three books I wrote on the subject of evolution. Please feel free to take a look at my two-minute trailers for each book (below). I hope at least one of these books will stimulate your interest. Direct links to each book on Amazon are under each trailer. Below the videos is a brief introductory statement about my blog and two videos that show the problems with ape-to-human evolution. If you would like the Kindle version, go to:
https://www.amazon.com/Kindle-eBooks/b?ie=UTF8&node=154606011
and type in the book title.
Click on this link below to go straight to Amazon and The DNA Delusion:
The DNA Delusion
Click on this link to go straight to Amazon and Evo-illusion:
Evo-illusion.
The trailer for my second book, Evo-illusion of Man:
Click on this link to go straight to Amazon and Evo-illusion of Man: Evo-illusion of Man at Amazon
About this Site-My Statement
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Galileo Galilei
“Whether all this which they call the universe is left to the guidance of unreason and chance medley, or, on the contrary, as our fathers have declared, ordered and governed by a marvelous intelligence and wisdom.”-Socrates
http://www.evoillusion.org is an objective discussion about the scientific validity of evolution. The scientific argument about the validity of evolution should not be a debate about evolution versus any other notions about origins. The discussion here is about whether or not evolution can stand alone as valid science. Or is evolution a fraud that should be eliminated from textbooks, schools, and museums of natural history. There is no doubt that random mutations and natural selections do occur, and that they can alter the characteristics and traits of populations of living organisms. The debate should be about whether or not those naturally selected random mutations were and are up to the task of forming new species and their organ sets and body parts, and of inventing and improving the initial designs of biochemical and biological systems. Or is there something else in nature that is far more impressive?
My primary problem with evolution doesn’t involve design. Evolution’s greatest problem involves invention; the bringing into existence of complex systems that are new, useful, and not obvious, where they didn’t previously exist at all. New useful, and not obvious are the requirements for an invention from the United States Patent Office. Every body part of every species, every organ, every biological and biochemical system is an invention, far more so than any invention that was ever made by any man. The only intelligence we know of that is capable of inventing complex entities is us. Humans. Humans were not even around when nature’s unbelievable inventions and designs were created. Even if we were, we are not nearly within light-years of being intelligent enough to invent and design the phenomenal and complex entities in nature. For example, a skin cell is so small that 10,000 can fit on the head of a pin. But each skin cell is more complex than a nuclear submarine. Each skin cell, in fact, all somatic cells in our bodies, manufacture 2,000 new protein molecules every second. The average protein molecule is composed of 500 amino acid molecules that need assembling. Amino acid molecules are assembled in strands like a pearl necklace. Can you imagine assembling 500 amino acid molecules in strands, and making 2,000 strands per second? Well, every cell in your body does just that. Only one living skin cell is light-years beyond the ability of any human to invent and design. The choice then is, did evolution’s complete lack of intelligence invent and design the uber-complex and phenomenal entities of nature, or did an intelligence far beyond our abilities to comprehend do the job.
So basically this is the theme of my blog. If this fits what you are looking for, I hope you will enjoy perusing my pages. Below my three book trailers are two videos, How To Tell the Difference Between Human and Ape Skulls, and The Smithsonian’s Fake Hominids. They are kind of an addendum to my book, Evo-illusion of Man. I hope you have a few moments to take a look. Feel free to leave a comment.
Evolution: An Objective Look 
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.
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.
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.
YourBrainOnReligion said,
May 31, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Why is he here? To make sure you’re not allowed to run around parading your ignorant lies under the guise of being a legitimately educated biological scientist. I see this conversation was almost exactly a year ago and you STILL have not addressed the problem EXHAUSTIVELY explained to you by JayBay44.
This means you are AWARE you are 100% dishonest and do nothing to fix it. Why? This clearly shows you do not care about honesty at all – let alone INTELLECTUAL honesty.
You’re the physical embodiment of a scum bag if there ever was one.
stevebee92653 said,
May 31, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Surprise! Another personal attack without a single answer. Good job! You were well and successfully indoctrinated. Congrats!
There are so many points in this blog for you to challenge. The answers are always a reference to some article which I must read, which always fails, or that some other wonderful person answered my challenge, and why don’t I just accept their anwer…or an ad hom. Is there a brain out there in evo-land?
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 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,
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
Click to access 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
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.