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 
X-Men said,
September 28, 2010 at 5:03 am
Steve, I’m with you all the way.
Evolution is nothing but fairy tales.
stevebee92653 said,
September 28, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Fairy tales hugely supported by government money, universities, and a lot of people. Thanks!
Adrian said,
September 29, 2010 at 4:48 am
Right, they teach fairy tales instead of the 100% scientific I.D. Which has done ZERO resach, which is religiously and politically motivated, who was spent more money on campaign instead of research. A clear fraud
I.D. fits in every description of Pseudo-science.
stevebee92653 said,
September 29, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Just think. You can do the research yourself in the privacy of your own home. The research is (1) Take a goddam good look at the biological systems of nature (2) Answer this question: Has any utilitarian entity, such as these systems, in any person’s experience who ever lived on the planet earth, invented, designed, assembled, and sustained itself (3) Think: If “yes”, evolution is certainly a possible theory. If “no” evolution is a sham.
That’s all the research you need. Give it a try, and report back. I kept coming up with “sham”.
Adrian said,
September 30, 2010 at 2:16 am
Wow i can do some genuine scientific breaktrough inside my home without being an actual scientist, jesus i didnt know that. just making some wishful thinking about the biological made by supernatural intervention by another entity which is more complicated and needs no explanation.
Too bad i wont have the SCIENTIFIC recognition as galileo, but hey, life isnt fair ):
stevebee92653 said,
September 30, 2010 at 3:27 am
Right! Isn’t that great. All it takes is a little logic, reason, thinking, and skepticism. And off you go. Only problem is real actual evolutionauts can’t perform the study I mentioned. The/you are too indoctrinated. Tis a shame.
Adrian said,
September 30, 2010 at 7:57 am
Yeah, its is also logical that the earth is the center of the earth, and i can do my research from home, i just see the evidence that the sun revolves around me and not the other way around. Just because all scientists agree that the earth revolves around the sun because of the evidence, that doesnt mean that it is the truth right? i really should pay more attention a guy who is not even a scientists nor has any clue of evolution or a scientists who is unrelated to evolution or geocentrism like this fellows.
http://www.catholicintl.com/galileowaswrong/index.html
Galileo was wrong (:
stevebee92653 said,
September 30, 2010 at 4:35 pm
(1) So I take it you HAVE observed and experienced self inventing, designing, assembling, and sustaining utilitarian entities. Or (2) This is another subject change when Adrian (or any evolutionaut) is stuck? I’ll take (2)
Rob said,
December 26, 2010 at 7:22 pm
“Adrian…A question for you…Has any scientist ever created any new genetic information by randomly mutating existing DNA? OR has at least one new gene ever been observed in nature, by scientists?
Adrian said,
December 28, 2010 at 1:51 pm
I believe there are numerous examples on new information being made from existing genes on the web, and about the gene im not that well informed but ill take a look.
Adrian said,
October 1, 2010 at 4:01 am
Im glad you clarified that for me. But since no other theory stands as strong as the theory of evolution, i will accept it as the explanation for the origin of species, any evidence of the contrary ill be willing to accept, which i havent found any, and you’re commiting another fallacy, A being wrong doesnt automatically proves B right, because you’re ignoring the possibility of C
And actually if you read some chapters of The blindwatchmaker or The greatest show on earth, the evidence speaks againts I.D. Which i doubt you will ever read.
Also i dont reject out of hand the possibility of non-supernatural I.D. but i just think its untestable and doesnt add anything, its useless, its like saying we live in a computer simulated world. I also consider the possibility but its untestable, unfalsifiable and useless.
stevebee92653 said,
October 1, 2010 at 7:05 am
Ah, “The Blind Watchmaker”, my favorite pro-ID book of all time. See p. 18. And p.1, 1/3 of the way down in dark blue. Better look over the blog a bit before you rant. You choose to believe even though not you or any person who ever lived has observed utilitarian entities inventing and assembling themselves. So, why discuss anything. You are a believer, just like a person who adamantly believes that Noah’s family collected all the animals in the world and put them on a wooden boat. Evidence contrary to evolution you blindly ignore. You aren’t “willing to accept” anything. You are a believer.
Adrian said,
October 1, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Im willing to accept, not everyone is a closed minded like you who looks skeptically at evolution but not id. no evidence contrary to evolution has ever been presented. So your logic is “we havent seen organs formed in ourlife time, therefore its impossible to form and I.D. is the answer” Well I.D. cant address all the flaws in nature which is easily explained by evolution.
We have seen more evolution in action than I.D.
Until i see someone I.D. other than the blind forces of N.S. ill accept evolution as the explanation. You are no different from a believer, believing dogmatically on I.D. when you have seen not evidence of the designer, or evidence of him designing. No evidence of supernatural as well.
So why believe in something which require alot more explanations and more faith?
Have you ever seen just a bit of I.D. intervention or supernatural intervention in nature? No thats the forever stuck point of I.D.iots
As always trying to debunk a well established theory that has more than 150 years of research with theory with a “theory” which has zero evidence.
Read the greatest show on earth before writing bullshit, unfounded claims in your blog.
stevebee92653 said,
October 1, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Funny, you and I and every person who ever lived on the face of the earth actually observe ID every minute of every day. You completely take it for granted because it is so common. Neither of us and no person who has ever lived has observed evolutionary invention and assembly. You choose to ignore and not accept what you can actually see AND experience, and to tout and believe what you and no person has ever observed or experienced; a strange conundrum that I will never understand. Why are there so many of you? And you call me an idiot? You have no idea how dumb you look. Groupthink will prevent you from realizing. Now you want me to read “The Greatest Show…” when you found out I read and reviewed on this blog your other wonderful book suggestion , “TBWM”? Why no mention? You are trying to be funny, right? You are very entertaining.
Larry bartlettr said,
January 9, 2011 at 3:09 am
Adrian’s religion is evolution and he doesn’t know it, he has real “faith” He believes dogmatically on evolution when he has not seen any evidence of it simply because it is so well established. In truth, he attacks the religious aspect of ID like religion or religious people cannot be scientific. As a religious fanatic myself I constantly test my faith in god and ID. I look at both sides with great curiosity and open mindness. Beign religious I would say I dogmatically look for the truth, where he simply has faith.
9pt9 said,
October 1, 2010 at 1:20 pm
lol you’re not doing so hot on here are ya moron?
Adrian said,
October 1, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Really you reviewd the book? did you actually attempt to disprove every finding made proving evolution?
Where is the evidence of supernatural intervention? where is this I.D. of yours? why is he so dumb he made the inverted retina on humans but not on cephalopods?
Youre not even funny, you are no less lame than the religious zealots who needs no other explanation but god to everything in the universe you just rename it I.D.
You are no different from creationists. Even michel behe cant disprove evolution and he admits it and he is a scientist, a biochemist, you are not even a scientist and you claim you refute evolution. Maybe i can find that funny (:
stevebee92653 said,
October 1, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Adrian: My gawd are you corny, trite, and tired. You need to show at least SOME intelligence to post. All you show is you are able to copy/paste unoriginal repeat-o-matic dogma and demean. Pretty lame, like all evolutionauts.
Adrian said,
October 1, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Right, asuming im copy pasting. You cant show intelligence or any evidence presented for your claims. I repeat the same issues which is a stumper as always for IDiots, same issues which almost no IDiot cares to address. Objective view on evolution? What about objective view on I.D.? it doesnt even stan on its own.
All those idiots wasting their money trying to push their stupid beliefs to teach in schools, and they got their ass kicked and then they wanted to teach the “controversy” Which between the experts there isnt any.
Why an objective view on evolution? why evolution? you’re not even a scientist and you come claim to debunk all aspects of evolution.
Why not an objective view of quantum mechanics? On einstein’s theory of relativity?
Why not on atomic theory?
According to your logic you dont need to be a scientist to disprove science.
stevebee92653 said,
October 2, 2010 at 3:14 am
You skipped over: every minute of your day you observe ID, but you ignore it and pretend it doesn’t exist. You have NEVER experienced the invention and assembly of bio-systems, nor has any person. But you pick to believe what you don’t see, that invention and assembly occurred. You disbelieve what you observe daily. Why did you pretend that question didn’t exist?
Final answer: Because atomic theory, quantum mechanics, relativity are valid and not hoaxes. Obviously. Or I would attack them as well.
ID should NOT be taught in SCIENCE classes in schools. I have a whole page on that subject. I am sure you have no idea. Neither should evolution. Kick both to history/philosophy.
Adrian said,
October 2, 2010 at 4:10 am
No, i really havent skipped anything, i really havent seen this Designer design ANYTHING in nature, nor i have seen the designer and neither does anyone, again its bullshit.
How do you know quantum theory and relativity are not hoaxes? they have the same support or even less support than evolution yet you accept them. Why evolution? because it destroys your beloved hope than an loving designer waiting for you? I really dont get it.
Whats your theory about evolution being accepted. Some scientists conspiracy theory choosing to make a hoax of evolution only?
Why evolution? why not relativity?
Again i suspect this is just a tactic for creationist to claim and reinforce their belief that evolution is in question because they think this is a genuine scientific critique. But no, its actually a lame attempt to disprove evolution. There is a difference between being an evolution skeptic and an evolution DENIALIST.
Accept it, youll NEVER win the fight against evolution, your only hope is to fool the layman by reinforcing what they already believe.
stevebee92653 said,
October 2, 2010 at 5:09 pm
You have never seen the designer, but you see the designs every waking minute of your day. You see them so often that you are numbed and immune to their incrediblness. You completely blind yourself for some strange reason. I will never win the fight, but I am a very small stepping stone in that fight. Evo will crash. Not in my lifetime, but it will. Hoaxes always do.
stevebee92653 said,
October 2, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Adrian: Re: “Saying just “its designed” its just a dead end with no use.”
Saying just “it evolved” its just a dead end with no use.
Rob said,
October 2, 2010 at 8:23 pm
“Science is committed to philosophical naturalism and therefore science must assume that no Creator, and no purposeful intelligence, is behind our existence … All that science can address is the question of: ‘granted that we are here as a result of purposeless material mechanisms, what’s the most plausible purposeless material mechanism that we can imagine?’” (This is obviously what Adrian believes in)???
Hey Adrian…when your evo scientists can create a big bang theory or black hole in their labs you’ll get some respect but don’t assume everything else must be wrong because it doesn’t fit in with your selfish way of thinking. You are so narrow minded if you fell on a needle it would blind you in both eyes!!
Better still can you or any of your evo mates improve a fully functional DNA strand by randomly changing and adding nucleotides??? I thought not!
If cells pass on information to randomly improve upon itself where did the first cell get its information from to start this so called random improvement?? Too bad you really are not in the hunt for absolute truth at all…especially when you don’t consider other plausable theories. Please don’t judge us simply because we choose to BELIEVE differently to you!!
I hope you understand that if you take gibberish, and randomly mutate it with more gibberish, you will still have gibberish!! To me that’s exactly what evos arguments are…Gibberish!! Remeber though you guys are here as a result of purposeless material mechanisms…and your arguments are purposeless as well…but that’s in your DNA…you can’t help it!!
Steve, you are to be commended for your foward thinking and rational questions/comments and logical reasononing…keep up the good work!! Some of us really enjoy it!!
stevebee92653 said,
October 2, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Thanks. These evos are so much fun.
Adrian said,
October 2, 2010 at 10:30 pm
So which is the answer? should all research on evolution stop and not teach it and just assert that everything in the universe was designed so you they wont wear anny brain tissue? Does ID has explanatory power? is it science?
stevebee92653 said,
October 2, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Try p. 12
9pt9 said,
October 22, 2010 at 3:06 am
You are so lame and tiresome. You vomit the same crap incessantly. “ID is a science stopper, there is no proof of ID”…ad nauseum. Yet you can not formulate an argument against the material on this site. Please go back to richarddawkins.net. All your fellow condescending indoctrinites are waiting for you there. When you can answer how DNA invented and coded itself without falling back on “small mutations over time” come back. He’s not claiming to understand the puzzle, he’s simply raising great questions that are not answered by evolution or you. Just shut the hell up already.
stevebee92653 said,
October 22, 2010 at 5:43 am
Bri
Try page 1b. I sent Adrian. Maybe he will get the idea. NOT. He sent me a comment for you, but it’s just the same stuff. I told him he had one more shot, and he blew it. What a shock. These guys can’t turn of the recorder. Over and over. Same stuff.
Adrian said,
October 2, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Y read page 12, well i have to admit im impressed i thought you were a severecase of a nutjob but apparently i would like to believe you’re serious.
However.. People teach evolution because no other alternative theory which explains the facts exist, and because all of ID is just arguments from ignorance. (And thats what most of your pages in your site are) some are genuine questions like how the first photocell receptor came into existence and how it is connected to the brain. But its still an AOI. Evolution is never going to go away unless you propose a theory that can withstand to the facts.
ID is just some other form of creationism it doesnt solve anything. You still have to answer who made the designer, how he designs, when he designs, what predictions does ID have etc.
Really your site could be pro-science if you take off the ID of the page and analize the misteries of evolution. Just because scientists dont know, it doesnt mean that its wrong. Again A being wrong doesnt prove B. have you ever thought of C?
stevebee92653 said,
October 2, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Actually I am C. You are B. The religious are A. “No other theory” does not mean humans should “accept” a failure. I agree, evolution is the “best” we humans have but it’s light years from being correct. There simply is no theory that can be honestly made from the information we now have. Admitting to that IS good science.
“
John Stockwell said,
October 17, 2010 at 7:59 pm
I assume from reading your blog that somehow you have decided that
you “see design” when you look at biology. We actually do not detect design,
we model manufacture. When we look at an object, such as wrench, we do
not recognize it as being “designed’ we recognize it as being manufactured
because we have an understanding of the steps of the manufacturing process
that produced it. An individual may fool him or herself into thinking that they
view it as “designed’ by identifying “evidence of fore thought and all of that”
but what we really have to go off of is the process of origin.
Biology is self-manufacturing. There is “hand on the control mechanism”. So
this tells us right off claiming that biology is “designed’ is meaningless.
Darwin brought biology into the realm of science by taking it away from the natural theologians, and putting the topic into the area of the discussion of processes.
Of course the number one process of origin of species is reproduction.
stevebee92653 said,
October 17, 2010 at 8:45 pm
So you can look at a wrench and see design, but you can look at a visual system and see none? That will never cease to astound me. An eyeball is a digital camera thousands of times superior in design than any digital camera man has come up with. Self focusing, auto f-stopping, 120,000,000 pixels, self repairing……..and not designed? You also forget invention. That digital camera, and every bio-system, had to be invented from nothing; from no prior art to go by as a guidepost. You only see manufacture, which is the assembly of previously invented devices. Invention is the most astounding piece of the puzzle. Darwin and friends have no idea how any biological system was invented, and, assembled. Of course except for those cartoon tea-cup eyes that are so absurd. So, your opinion is your opinion. I can’t argue with beliefs.
Adrian said,
October 20, 2010 at 10:34 am
ID is just a faith belief and non-scientific. You just say, oh evolution cant explain this. And claim its impossible and improbable. YET you come up with an even more improbable event which is ID.
If your going to refute a well established and supported theory. Please come up with a better explanation not just arguments of ignorance, which all your website is and debates ive seen around here are just that.
stevebee92653 said,
October 20, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Evolution is just a faith belief and non-scientific.
If you’re going to rag on my stuff, try being specific. Which fact on this blog is a bad argument? There are TONS for you to pick from. Are any of you capable of specific challenges? You evolutionauts are great at generalities. “Your stuff is wrong. My stuff is good and right.” Do you have any idea how boring that is? And repetitive? My gawd. You guys can say nothing endlessly.
Charlie said,
December 16, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Adrian, you make a very bold assertion here.
“YET you come up with an even more improbable event which is ID. ”
Facts please? Has anyone calculated the probability of an ID? Where do these numbers come from?
Seems very simple to me, actually:
A Creator/Designer either exists or does not exist. Yes/No. No middle ground that I can see- can you?
I’ll go slow…
*IF* a Creator/Designer DOES exist, then the C/D exists.
*IF* a Creator/Designer DOES NOT exist, then the C/D DOES NOT exist.
*IF* a Creator/Designer DOES exist, then no one’s DESIRE to accept or deny the C/D’s existence will have ANY bearing on making the C/D exist.
*IF* a Creator/Designer DOES NOT exist, then no one’s DESIRE to accept or deny the C/D’s existence will have ANY bearing on making the C/D NOT exist.
So, obviously, our DESIRE has no bearing whatsoever on the C/D’s existence.
You have somehow placed the C/D into some box that you define and then propose that you can calculate reasonable probabilities about the existence of that box. I at least admit that I can not calculate reasonable probabilities about the existence of a C/D.
But if I had to propose a probability… I think it’s much nearer to 50/50. And since I cannot help but see design, I’d say it’s much more reasonable to see that a Creator/Designer was indeed involved.
Adrian said,
October 21, 2010 at 6:23 am
Im not saying you dont have good arguments, i think quite a few are ok, but no matter how its still argument from IGNORANCE. Most of your debates are “oh how come evolution happened with X path? there is no way” As if you eliminated all the possibilities. So why insist on ID? ID is not even a hypothesis, it cant be tested and cant make any predictions, it doesnt add anything other than saying its designed.
Why insist on the same bullshit? Why try to “refute” a theory with a even more improbable theory which explains even less? this is the ultimate conundrum.
stevebee92653 said,
October 21, 2010 at 7:07 am
My choice is a theory that is not possible, and not supported in the fossil record or any lab tests of interest. Or going with the obvious. That there had to be planning and design in the formula that invented and constructed nature’s bio-systems and species. Even though that intelligence can’t be located or determined. A choice of “impossible” or “there had to be but the source can’t be determined”. And guess which one I take.
Adrian said,
October 22, 2010 at 1:18 am
Sorry but ID is even less supported and it really raises more questions than answers so it doesnt add anything. Intelligence can arise from non-intelligence. And that is a fact.
stevebee92653 said,
October 22, 2010 at 1:30 am
Re: “Intelligence can arise from non-intelligence. And that is a fact.” It sure did. At sometime there was no intelligence. Now there is. Means absolutely nothing in regard to evolution. Zero. Life can arise from sterility. Visual systems can arise from blindness. Hearing from stone deafness.
Adrian said,
October 22, 2010 at 1:39 am
Yes but you still cling to your theory which is far beyond impossible than evolution.
Evolution at least try to explain how it came to be. You IDicks just sit around in your laziness with out doing any thinking whatsoever and just saying that anything complex its designed.
You will never win the battle of evolution, it will get stronger and stronger and get more scientific support as it always has. (Actually it has all the scientific support, because nobody has been able to bring a better theory because all other theory are bullshit like creationism and ID)
Its not a complete theory but it gets refined with each discovery and its sure a much more better explanation than ID. Which, as i always point out to you but you never listen, raises more questions than answers, it doesnt explaint anything and it doesnt add anything, its a dead end. Its really surprising that someone like you who likes to brag alot about how intelligent you are and whatnot, that cannot see this, unless you are indeed intelligent and you are voluntarily misleading. Which many on the sites you debate go for the latter…
stevebee92653 said,
October 22, 2010 at 1:54 am
OK, so you believe very strongly. Congratulations. You are unable even to mention or challenge any of the points on this vid. Which is standard fare for people who believe like you do. No sense going further. You just keep repeating Evo good, ID bad. Tiring and trite. Nice try. Bye.
Adrian said,
October 22, 2010 at 4:09 am
Yes deflect as always, as every YEC or ID does. I repeat the same arguments because you havent addresed any of them, no wonder you are so tired of them because you know they are valid. You have a strong inner conviction that evolution is wrong and you deny any evidence. Yet you accept without questioning an ID which is even more improbable than evolution. You just postulate what scientists are trying to explain.
And ill repeat again:
It raises more questions than answers, its not testable nor falsifiable, cant make any predictions and it doesnt add anything other than saying its designed.
Its not my fault that you’ve heard ir many times before, and still dont addres than big problem of ID.
stevebee92653 said,
October 22, 2010 at 4:56 am
OK, here is your problem, besides the fact that you can’t counter any of the points in my blog. Strange that you are so strong a believer, but you can’t even give it a try. The point you keep arguing is ID. My point is that evolution is a hoax. THAT is my main point. I say many times in this blog that the source for intelligence cannot be scientifically located, or determined, and it probably never will be. So your continual rant on ID is useless. Evolution doesn’t come close to explaining nature, species, and bio-systems and it needs to be trashed. It’s not an “inner conviction”. It’s reality. The evidence proves evolution a fake. Evolution pretends as if it doesn’t, continually talks about mountains of evidence, lots of scientists and biologists. You have no arguments. I have “mountains of them” that proves evolution should be trashed. Just sitting there for you to attack. You fail constantly. Over and over and over. So, either put up or give it up. I will post this one, but not another “evo good, valid, stevebee denies, is wrong, and bad”.
stevebee92653 said,
October 22, 2010 at 5:41 am
Adrian: I take it you can’t read? If you can, go to page 1b.
stevebee92653 said,
October 22, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Adrian: You are 180 deg off. It’s way too designed so evolution could not be the source. THAT is my point. Science is “wonderful”. Evolution isn’t in the category of science. “Science fiction” would be more like it. Oh the same things you keep saying to me, you are just like any evolutionaut.
stevebee92653 said,
October 31, 2010 at 6:33 am
Check out my blog and see why you are wrong. There is a better theory. We humans just don’t know it yet.
Adrian said,
November 3, 2010 at 4:14 pm
The better theory is the most parsimonious one which can actually account for most facts without raising more questions than answers. There is no better theory. ID is not more probable than creationism.
stevebee92653 said,
November 3, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Say hallelujah and praise Darwin!
Adrian said,
November 3, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Yes, praise darwin, a man who did really do something unlike any of the IDers in history together, who have never acomplished anything worthwhile for humanity.
stevebee92653 said,
November 4, 2010 at 1:21 am
That is possibly the stupidest comment I have seen in a while. Thanks. You might want to reread it and give it some thought.
Adrian said,
November 4, 2010 at 6:39 pm
The fact that you think its stupid doesnt make it any less true.
stevebee92653 said,
November 4, 2010 at 7:57 pm
I will give you two IDer’s. You can go from there: Albert Einstein Socrates. Think maybe they did a few things? Or were they a total waste. Now try thinking just a bit, and you can come up with tons.
Adrian said,
November 4, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Im impressed, i didnt thought you would come up with a reply.
Anyway, socrates wasnt even a scientist.
Albert Einstein wasnt an ID Proponentsist and i somehow doubt he believed there was better alternative to evolution. Is there any references that Einstein was a proponent of ID? Or any that he believed that ID was a better explanation por evolution? or that he doubted evolution?
stevebee92653 said,
November 4, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Try p. 14
Adrian said,
November 5, 2010 at 5:59 am
Those quotes from einstein i can see them as an agnostic perspective, the mistery of the universe, something that we humans cant understand and to some extent that is my position. Still i dont see him as a proponent of ID or even that he favors ID over evolution.
Its funnt that it mentions Stephen Hawking. Didnt he say that god wasnt needed for the creation of the universe in his latest book?
stevebee92653 said,
November 5, 2010 at 6:26 am
Don’t try to interpret what they said please. Makes you look bad. They said what they said.
RobPrice50 said,
December 17, 2010 at 12:04 am
I’ve been saying that to Christians for years about the bible. Only the JW’s and Pentecostals agree.
RobPrice50 said,
December 16, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Yes, however if you stop and ask any person over 18 in the western world who Darwin was (bearing in mind he died almost 150 years ago) they will give you a pretty near if not correct answer.
If you then asked who Michael Behe is (bearing in mind he’s still alive, been involved in some high profile courtroom burials and also currently doing a tour of the world) I bet you less than 3% would have an idea who he was.
What this says is that Darwin did do something monumental and without your showing exactly where it has failed (apart from sweeping generalised statements) then it will go on because no one has ever shown it to be false. If you think you’ve got the golden ticket, then let us (the rest of the world) have it. The gutter press would take you seriously to begin with, once you’ve got a toe hold and a publicist onside, you can then look at getting your falsifications global and complete your demolition of ToE. In 150 years time, the name of Stevebee and his cohorts will be on everyone’s lips.
No?
That’s probably because you actually need a case and there’s nothing like that amongst this tripe.
stevebee92653 said,
December 17, 2010 at 2:15 am
Your comment shows what a sucker you are. If numbers were the criteria, Jesus would win. You should be Christian. Then Mohamed. Both better known than Darwin. Darwin did something monumental? Declared natural selection invented, designed, assembled, and sustained all of nature? That’s not monumental. Getting so many gullible people to believe that something as simplistic as NS could do ALL of that IS monumental. Tripe? You haven’t read it, so how the hell would you know. Your a troll who has no idea what’s in this blog.
Adrian said,
December 17, 2010 at 5:27 am
Really? so we should hail you as the new einstein for ID? What has ANY IDiot scientist ever contributed to mankind???
stevebee92653 said,
December 17, 2010 at 5:58 am
Well, since you mention Einstein as an idiot, I mean IDiot, try him at p. 14.
Adrian said,
December 17, 2010 at 8:59 pm
I already tried your page, it doesnt say anything supporting a supernatural designer nor that he doesnt believe in evolution, his work was NOT on intelligent design by the way. Care to provide a genius of ID as darwin was to evolution? has any IDiot contribute anything to the theory of ID or even to mankind? Thats why all you IDers are a waste of time because you are all a fraud, and without evidence you wont convince any reputable scientist even less win the battle against evolution.
It is funny that you mention stephen hawking because his latest book was about god being unnecesary for the creation of the universe.
stevebee92653 said,
December 17, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Gee, is anyone holding you hostage Adrian? You keep bitching the same bitch. But you stay here, and complain what a waste of time it is. You evos are a fun lot.
Adrian said,
December 18, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Yeah, evade the argument again just saying “oh you keep saying the same stuff” instead of addresing the argument that Einstein was NOT an ID proponent. ID in itself is a waste of time, has contributed one bit to the benefit of humankind, not even in science fiction.
RobPrice50 said,
December 17, 2010 at 9:08 am
Don’t bother writing a dissertation Steve, that was joke. Jeez, hasn’t anyone around here got a sense of humour FFS? It’s all so serious, oh except when Steve decides the conversation is getting a bit sticky for him and drops in a quick bum steer jokey jokey, hahaha…
The problem is still here Steve and that is this entire blog is actually an empty husk with you saying that science is a pile of BS and a hoax without backing and your own assumption, well is just that.
I think I need to have a lie down.
9pt9 said,
November 3, 2010 at 9:55 pm
You don’t teach a bogus theory just because it’s “the best we have”.
Adrian said,
November 4, 2010 at 6:43 pm
9pt9
No unbiased scientist thinks it’s a bogus theory, there are things that evolution cant explain yet. But the is a lot that it can explain beautifully and elegantly which no other theory cant.
Besides you dont replace a “bogus theory” with an even more bogus theory.
Jordan Retro said,
November 6, 2010 at 3:12 am
I’m glad to see this blog.
I really like that because the post have many things to learn………
RobPrice50 said,
December 16, 2010 at 10:39 pm
What can be learned exactly?
Steve says evolution is a hoax but provides no direct evidence and solid scientific refuting of any kind to challenge the assertion. If he did he’d be a household name. He isn’t. Not only is the theory a hoax but every single piece of science that corroborates it is involved in some kind of gigantic conspiracy with everyone involved sworn to secrecy and no evidence of this conspiracy has ever been shown or made public – keeping the secret going for over 150 years. People working today in the field of evolutionary biology and any of it’s associated practises are all engaged in a massive fraud. Each day they spend their lives contributing nothing to a false idea, whilst getting paid and continuing, often for a lifetime, to swallow this ridiculous way of life. No one has ever been so sick of the fraud that they have blown the whistle on the entire charade.
Steve then says something else did it but again provides absolutely nothing to back up his claims, scientifically verifiable or otherwise. He can’t answer why ID creates more problems than it answers. He can’t explain why ID can’t add to any knowledge that might be gleaned about it’s constructs or systems, it’s premise, it’s originator and reason for existence. He is unable to say why his own version of events, which he has yet to flesh out, holds anymore water than the hundred or so other crackpot reasons of how life became so prolific in its current forms.
Steve then says that he acknowledges these accusations.
Therefore this blog is actually a big fat zero. We can learn nothing from nothing.
9pt9 said,
December 16, 2010 at 11:37 pm
You had a good belly laugh did ya? Then you must know all the answers on page 20. Good luck.
Charlie said,
November 18, 2010 at 8:39 pm
I’ve enjoyed what I’ve read so far on your blog- just a few pages including this one and a handful of comments. But I plan to return.
That being said, I actually came across this site while doing a search for “Evolution is illusion”. I was curious if anyone had done any actual research on the topic. I am in the process of proposing a method for explaining why evolution may in fact appear to be so scientifically plausible.
Of course there are the blatantly disingenuous tactics that are posed by the ‘ev-illusionists’ as you term them and their sheeple. But I’m talking about the more rigorously tested scientific evidences. (I am supposing that there are some actual scientific evidences that do point toward evolution and are hard to refute.)
I wonder if anyone has come up with some blind study that examines several simulated scenarios that have all of the characteristics that are ACTUALLY observed and proven. One in which we can actually control, journal and catalog the diverse propagation of species from a) a single- or even several ancestors- that are able to evolve into a multitude of species over a long period of time; and b) a multitude of original simultaneously created species that are able to evolve into a huge variety of subspecies over a shorter period of time within their species only.
Once the entire history is actually established for each scenario, along with a definitive tree of descent, the next step would be to smudge out a large swath of the early portion of the tree. Some of the early history would remain available as ‘fossils’, but much of that ‘ancient’ history would become purely speculative in the dating. The majority of the ‘fossils’ in the data would be left as ‘yet to be discovered’ data.
The challenge would then be to build a taxonomy on each smudged scenario, in an effort to deduce which were built from the ground up with evolution as their actual origin, and which were built from the ground up with creation as their actual origin.
It would also be interesting to see whether one could easily use some of the same logical fallacies on the creation scenarios and make them look convincingly to have come from strict evolution. This step could be performed on each of the original smudged scenarios and then placed up for blind review. Each of the forced-evolution taxonomies could be examined alongside the true-evolution taxonomies (along with the smudged data) for the detection of whether evolution appears to be easily discernible from actual evolution.
I wonder if this would enable us to be able to create markers and techniques that would more easily be able to detect what the differences would be between true creation and true evolution.
Anyhow, I thought I should share this idea with you, as you appear to be more open-minded and informed than many of the people that I have discussed this topic with.
Thank you,
RobPrice50 said,
December 16, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Don’t confuse open minded with empty headed. What exactly has he said to you that has resonated? Where are his concrete examples of the demolition of evolutionary theory (apart from just saying it out loud) that have consigned it to the garbage can of fake science? I must have missed it, so please link to the content here.
Charlie said,
December 16, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Steve, maybe RP50 here is right. You should put a concrete list of specific questions on the site, so that it isn’t so confusing for people that want to jump onto such a site and just immediately flail around and look dazed and confused before bothering to spend some time and see who what the site is all about and what ideas have already been taken to their logical end.
Here is a concrete list of questions that you might appreciate, RP50.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ010631.html
The NCSE has already provided you with the template answer. See if you can respond to the detailed answers that Wells follows up with and correct where the NCSE went wrong- or perhaps where we misunderstood them.
I’m sure that we could come up with dozens more of specific lapses of logic and scientific reasoning, but I think these are plenty for the time being.
stevebee92653 said,
December 17, 2010 at 6:15 am
That’s a good idea. If people read page one, and aren’t trolls, which most are, I could refer them to p. 20. A test to give them an idea of what kind of problems evolution has. Good note. My questions are plenty, but thanks for the referral.
Charlie said,
December 17, 2010 at 12:07 am
Here’s a head start, RP50. Just in case you need to hone up on what the mother ship tells you to say:
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icons-evolution
I’ll give it a read over the next few weeks and see where I might disagree. Maybe you’ll find this interesting, Steve? The NCSE seems to be a substantial protecting authority when it comes to all things evolution, so it bodes us all to see what it is they say.
Charlie said,
November 18, 2010 at 8:42 pm
(I’m not sure why my comments are appearing with such early numbers in the comment thread, and I should mention that my second post today was a correction to the first (the first should be deleted))
Thank you,
stevebee92653 said,
November 18, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Thanks for the comment. Looking at the fossil record, and without any preconceived notions, it shows a multitude of species appearing without precursors, in other words, suddenly in their layers, (The Burgess Shale being a great example). Further, they don’t evolve much over the millions of years of their existence (trilobites, coelacanth, frogs, turtles, T. Rex, on and on). The time frames for the appearance of the different species are completely random. In other words there was no SHAZAM, and all species appeared in a single layer, a la Genesis.
The common ancestor/phylogenic tree idea kills the ability of organs and biological systems to spread from species to species. Which means that each species had to evolve/form it’s own entire set of organs and bio-systems independently of other species, but in many cases identically to those evolved in other species. Which is not a possible choice. The tree commits suicide. See p. 36 for a more detailed discussion.
So, to be realistic, there is no real theory that can be posed from reality; from the actual unbent evidence. So evolution bends reality so it can fit the theory. You would have trouble performing your “experiment” because of the above.
Charlie said,
November 24, 2010 at 7:26 pm
I thought that you might find this article interesting, Steve.
Should Airplanes Look Like Birds?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101121160222.htm
“The most important point is that we may be wasting large amounts of fossil fuel by flying in fundamentally sub-optimal aircraft designs,” says Spedding. “At the very least, we can show that there exists an alternative design that is aerodynamically superior. One may argue that there is now an imperative to further explore this (and perhaps other) designs that could make a significant difference to our global energy consumption patterns.”
It does seem promising that at least some scientific progress is being made by considering that some things in nature do have some value in their ‘design’. Doesn’t it?
stevebee92653 said,
November 24, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Interesting. Did nature out-design human intelligence? It did in so many instances.
Charlie said,
November 29, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Steve, I don’t see a place on your site where you might just take suggestions for materials. So I apologize beforehand if this is the wrong place to refer to items that might interest you. Please let me know where you would prefer me to add these things, if anywhere at all.
I found the following while looking for other such honest evolution information sites:
“Werner Arber: An Honest Evolutionist?”
http://www.icr.org/article/werner-arber-honest-evolutionist/
Excerpt:
“Although Dr. Arber [Nobel Laureate, evolutionary biologist] indicates that he supports the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution, he has not rescinded his published statement that a Creator is a possible explanation for the origin of life. Dr. Bergman’s [ICR contributing author] correspondence with him and review of the original materials supports the conclusions of the Acts & Facts article [that the weight of evidence, by far, supports the view that life was created by God].”
This may simply provide a lead toward some more useful information.
Thank you,
Charlie said,
November 29, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Another suggestion for reading:
“The Honest Evolutionist”
(Apparently a review of a publication “Evolution” copyright 1978)
Excerpt:
“Now, from this we glean some very important ideas, regardless of how evolutionists may qualify them:
* Evolutionary theory is a historical theory concerning unique, unrepeatable, past events
* Evolutionary theory is not as scientific as physics
* Natural selection theory is not scientific, but rather axiomatic
* Natural selection theory is not falsifiable, since random mutations can always fill in the gaps
* Evolutionary theory makes essentially metaphysical claims
* Popper and Kuhn are no friends of the modern scientific atheists
”
I just thought it was an interesting read and thought you and your readers might as well.
Adrian said,
November 30, 2010 at 1:39 am
Most of evolution history is unrepeatable but some are.
Physics is more scientific because it concerns with actual events. Unless youre trying to explain the origin of the unverse and i think the theory of evolution stands stronger than the big bang.
Natural selection is falsifiable if you can demostrate the limits of mutation or show that no mutation can happen or that mutations cant be pass on to genes.
What metaphysical claims does ET? make?
Charlie said,
November 30, 2010 at 2:04 pm
@Adrian, at least read the linked article before you begin commenting on the parts that I excerpted, please.
It may very well be that you’ll find that the gripe you have is not with me but with Colin Patterson, evolutionist, paleontologist, and author of Evolution, and Karl Popper, esteemed scientific Kantian philosopher.
This appears to be an NCSE thread on the very same article:
http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution
I haven’t read through this NCSE article yet.
Charlie said,
November 30, 2010 at 4:56 pm
More material for your review.
ICR just posted an article regarding an upcoming December vote in Louisiana regarding science text books.
http://www.icr.org/article/5801/
Excerpt:
“Retired Louisiana State University professor Dr. Charles H. Voss, Jr., reviewed the textbooks that are up for the vote. He said they contained “serious errors” and would lead students down wrong paths that don’t promote critical thinking and analysis.
“They are full of untruths and half-truths,” he said in a recent interview. “We just want [the schools] to teach the truth.” His addenda detailing the weaknesses of each book can be found at textaddons.com.
”
And here is a link to one of the addenda- specifically for “Biology: The Dynamics of Life” by Biggs, Gregg, Hagins, others. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 2002
Click to access 7_06_2002_Biology_The_Dynamics_of_Life.pdf
I read through some of the addenda posted at http://textaddons.com, and thought that you might find them informative. The list of material reviewers is available at the site. Though it would obviously add authority if more honest people with relevant credentials would add their untainted acknowledgments to the list of reviewers.
This site appears to be a good place to place that call for additional credentials to lend their meticulous review and credentials to such publications as these.
stevebee92653 said,
November 30, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Good for them. They know what biology is, unlike evolutionauts, that think biology includes evolutions fables. This is a good sample:
“An addendum is necessary because the authors have written the text around the idea that evolution
is an essential part of biology as is evidenced by the textbook statement on page 10, “The gradual
accumulation of adaptations over time is evolution. Clues to the way the present diversity of life came
about may be understood through the study of evolution.” It should be remembered that biology is the
study of living things. It is not necessary to know an organism’s origin to determine how it functions
internally and externally, to how it relates to other organisms and to make predictions about other
organisms. Origin of and similarity to other organisms, while interesting, is not necessary to understand the
detail functioning of a specific organism.”
Thanks for the heads up. Your comment didn’t post immediately because it had two links, which wordpress likes approval on.
Charlie said,
November 30, 2010 at 6:10 pm
I especially liked the conclusion to one of the addenda, which included the following text:
3. The fact that adaptation of species (micro-evolution) is true does not imply or prove that molecules to man evolution (macro-evolution) occurs any more than the first cool days of October imply or prove that an ice age is beginning or because a person learns something from watching PBS for an hour imply or prove that watching PBS continuously will produce a genius. The major problems that Darwin recognized with his hypothesis are still true plus new ones as science has advanced. Some of these are:
Gaps in the fossil record.
Cambrian explosion
The fossilization process demands catastrophic happenings more violent than what we see today.
Similar genes do not necessarily produce similar structures.
How new meaningful information can be added to the DNA by random chance happenings.
Optical isomers preclude the origin of life by random chance happenings.
Is he positing that PBS is where most of these evolutionaughts get most of their indoctrination? That was maybe not so subtle but amusing.
I noticed a lot of room for many small editorial improvements, so I’ve begun sending him a few updates in order to help.
He obviously is only scratching the surface of this peculiar perversion of science. But has done a nice job.
Charlie said,
December 2, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Here’s another interesting read for you, Steve. This goes back to my initial though that common design could legitimately ‘look’ like common descent- providing us with an illusion of evolution even if creation was an absolute certainty, if the circumstances were just right. Fortunately, the tale isn’t quite as confusing as that, as we have seen pretty clearly that common descent seems to be a forced conjecture at this point.
Douglas Theobald’s Test Of Common Ancestry Ignores Common Design
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/douglas_theobalds_test_of_comm041071.html#more
Excerpt:
”
It turns out that a recent paper by a non-pro-ID scientist, Eugene V. Koonin, correctly criticizes Theobald’s paper by unwittingly using common design as an alternative explanation for sequence homology.
Koonin and Yuri Wolf wrote a paper in Biology Direct which sought to show that one can generate similar sequences – for which convergent evolution is a highly unlikely explanation – without common ancestry. In essence, they used their own minds (i.e. intelligence) to analyze the genes found in all organisms. Then, they used their own minds (i.e. intelligence) to generate a gene hypothetical sequence which is similar to the real genes found in living organisms. Finally, they noted that these sequences are highly similar to actual genes, yet there is no common ancestor.
”
I’d love to think that this thing will soon come to a boil and rationalism will return… But I just know that it will be a tough fight. They’ve carried the banner of ‘science’ for so long that people are afraid to strain against the indoctrination.
stevebee92653 said,
December 3, 2010 at 4:43 am
Thanks. I’ll give it a look.
MikeTheInfidel said,
December 3, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Hi, Bevets.
MikeTheInfidel said,
December 3, 2010 at 12:42 pm
“My visit brought up a lot of questions about evolution sciences that weren’t there before. I wondered why those tiny arms on their magnificent T. Rex fossil didn’t evolve a lick in millions of years. Wouldn’t a T. Rex with bigger arms be a better grappler? I began pondering if Darwin was really right.”
Do you not see the problem here? You’re claiming that life was intelligently designed, and yet you, a HUMAN intelligence, were able to think up an improvement to the design of a T-Rex. How intelligent could that design possibly be? It makes a hell of a lot more sense to think that the T-Rex’s arms were just what worked at the time, and that they evolved that way.
Dexter said,
December 3, 2010 at 1:59 pm
@Mike: Your argument is ridiculous. Evolution brought up a heart, lung and filter system (and so on) for T-Rex, but couldn’t make a simple improvement regarding arm length? What a fable filled with dilemmas Can’t you see it?
MikeTheInfidel said,
December 3, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Evolution is not about making improvements toward some platonic ideal. Evolution goes with what works at the time. That’s it. It’s your utter misunderstanding of evolution that’s the problem here, not what the science actually says.
Dexter said,
December 5, 2010 at 10:12 pm
First of all: I have a grade in evolutionary biology. Next: You are the one who doesn’t understand the theory of evolution.
stevebee92653 said,
December 6, 2010 at 12:45 am
You have a grade in fake science. You wasted your time. What do you mean you “have a grade”? Never heard that one before. Next: Try p. 34, #16, then #8. Made for you.
Dexter said,
December 6, 2010 at 1:43 am
Hey Steve, buddy,
I hope you got that I’m absolutely on your side. But Mike’s arguments are still ridiculous. Especially since I’m so in this theory.
stevebee92653 said,
December 6, 2010 at 4:15 am
Did I read you wrong? If so, sorry. You need to leave a little more info. Who is Mike?
Dexter said,
December 6, 2010 at 11:56 am
Mike = MikeTheInfidel, who thinks I haven’t understand theory of evolution.
stevebee92653 said,
December 3, 2010 at 6:17 pm
I am certainly glad you think that. You have to make up so many excuses, though. All species were in “evolution nirvana”. They didn’t evolve a lick. So keep making them up, and fooling yourself. Eventually you will look as silly as evolution itself does. You just won’t realize it because you have been so fooled.
MikeTheInfidel said,
December 3, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Just because the adaptations YOU expect DID NOT arise doesn’t mean there was NO adaptation.
Why do you think that evolution guarantees the sort of improvement YOU can conceive of?
stevebee92653 said,
December 4, 2010 at 3:03 am
You accept the fact that no species show evolution and you make excuses instead of questioning why. Part of the indoctrination. You accept like a religion. You can’t question it yourself. You lost that ability. Evolution takes it away from you. Too bad. You are brain locked in this cult. No way out for you. Once they have you, that’s it. Sorry.
MikeTheInfidel said,
December 3, 2010 at 11:08 pm
You complain that the T-Rex should’ve evolved longer arms. No consideration of the fact that T. Rex’s adaptations of great size, powerful jaws, and a keen sense of smell helped it and its Tyrannosaurid relatives become the dominant predators across the northern hemisphere during the late Cretaceous. The arms don’t even enter into it – it didn’t NEED longer arms. Your arguments from ignorance are astonishingly obvious.
ThorGoLucky said,
December 3, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Evil illusion, more like. The idea of evolution was compelling in Darwin/Wallace’s time in the 19th century even with only sparse fossil evidence, but then along came genetics that could’ve disproved evolution but instead gave independent corroborating avenues of additional evidence from retroviruses and pseudogenes. It’s a history of inheritance unless supernatural/magic is invoked.
Speaking of magic, regarding the Judeo-Christian creation stories (never mind all the others, eh), there’s a fun concise video series called The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism. I have them listed in order in the Creationism section of my Debunkatron website.
stevebee92653 said,
December 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Ah, my favorite guy AronRa. I debated him. He couldn’t take it and blocked me. My debate is in the p. 23 debate section, lucky for you.
MikeTheInfidel said,
December 3, 2010 at 11:10 pm
“I debated him. He couldn’t take it and blocked me.”
If the results of the debate in this forum thread are any indication, I’d be willing to bet you’re being a little less than honest.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/stevebee92653-and-his-latest-video-t13345.html
stevebee92653 said,
December 4, 2010 at 2:58 am
No matter how bad evo-indoctrinates do, they always think they won. 100% of the time. Like spoiled children.
Adrian said,
December 4, 2010 at 8:13 am
Funny, so you assume you always won your debates, ive seen many times onf RS where you simply leave and say “oh they thought they won but they didn’t”
You just dismiss evolution theory and call it indoctrinated at evey people who believe in it, but somehow IDers get excempt of this label of yours, oh yes but believing in ID is completely scientific.
MikeTheInfidel said,
December 3, 2010 at 11:11 pm
“Natural selection is the process whereby one organism is able to kill and
consume another organism due to some genetic/mutational advantage the
predator has over the prey.”
*rofl*
I’m not sure “ignorance” is strong enough of a word for this. Delusion, maybe. You claim to have a degree in “biological sciences” (which one, exactly? dentistry?) and yet you’re utterly unfamiliar with what natural selection actually is.
stevebee92653 said,
December 4, 2010 at 2:55 am
Oh? What does the know-it-all think I missed. I’m sure it’s HUGE and really complicated. Sexual selection too maybe? Environmental survival? And uh uh…..”Ignorance” is you thinking you know why T. Rex didn’t evolve longer arms. The height of indoctrination successfully accomplished. Congrats. What amazes me is how many of you zombies think you know how all of nature formed. That is the biggest ROFL on the planet.
earthling said,
January 19, 2011 at 9:05 pm
He’s right, Steve. Your definition of natural selection is way off and it demonstrates your lack of understanding of evolution in general. Heres a better definition:
Natural Selection is the process by which variants within a population that have more advantageous traits become more prevalent in successive generations because those traits are inheritable and result in an increased chance of survival and the production of more offspring.
Its probably not the best definition but hey, I just came up with it off the top of my head. Natural selection isnt confined to affecting traits that makes predators better at predation. It can also affect traits that make prey animals better at elusion or camouflage, or traits that confer additional resistance to disease or parasites, or traits that allow an organism to survive longer without food or traits that make one more attractive as a mate. The bottom line is that if a trait confers upon an organism higher reproductive success than those without the trait, and the trait is inheritable, then there will be more organisms with the trait in future generations. That is natural selection.
Your argument about T Rex not having longer arms is a non sequitur. Evolution is not a purposeful process – it does not strive to reach some know optimal condition like bigger arms on a T Rex (if in fact that is optimal). It simply produces more adapted organisms – the ones who are likely to have more offspring because of their adaptations.
I dont mean to be harsh but you really dont know what youre talking about. The fact that you’ve obviously devoted so much time to debunking evolution without the proper intellectual background is very sad.
stevebee92653 said,
January 20, 2011 at 12:20 am
Gee, what a different explanation. You sound so well indoctrinated, just like ADParker. Congratulations. Your trainers did a good job.
BTW, T. Rex isn’t an argument. Its tiny arms remained static for millions of years. Zero evolution. What’s to argue? It was written here because it was the stimulus for me being an indoctrinated believer like you are, to a free thinker and skeptic. Like I am now. So I love those arms.
Charlie said,
January 20, 2011 at 4:02 pm
T Rex arms… it’s funny that people keep getting stuck on how ‘silly’ the notion is that an evolution-doubter would bring up their lack of evolution.
But really, where ARE all of the evolutionary attempts and failed/partially successful dead ends? You would think that at least SOME of them would have had some success. Are there any animals out there with a third eye? A fourth one? A fifth one? How about other configurations of asymmetrical eyes? Or asymmetrical limbs for that matter. Or just more asymmetry at all? Why does evolution produce such symmetrical designs in the first place?
Sure, I can see some magical evolutionary event that introduces symmetry and voila- it happens to be a common ancestor and we all share symmetry. But why should that magical event be limited to just one occurrence? Wgy would there not be another event that deviates from that symmetry? Why don’t we see creatures that evidence deviations from that symmetry? What creature wouldn’t benefit from a set of eyes on their hands? Or maybe an extra kidney or lung. Some animals have more than one stomach or heart. Do those animals have clearly evidenced ancestors that have any indication of having a partially formed extra stomach- something that is ‘on its way’ to becoming an extra stomach? What about mutations that would show some organs and features retreating back into ‘vestigial organs’ (Why aren’t more ‘vestigial organs’ found to parallel other existing organs?)
Where are all of the intermediate forms?
It’s all a bunch of baloney.
Do you know who has a good site, Steve? http://www.crev.info. Almost daily updates of new developments in evolutionary science- picked apart by people with skeptical minds. (Albeit, they have no qualms about being creationists- but the rationale is sound if the tone is not.)
I think just trawling through the science journals themselves- Scientific American, Nature, ScienceDaily, etc., you’ll find articles that, upon inspection, provide all sorts of ammunition to pit evolutionary scientist against evolutionary scientist . Sometimes- and often- the scientist against himself.
This ship is sinking fast. It won’t be the end of it, though, I’m sure. They’ll retreat into horizontal gene transfer (an utter appeal to unfalsifiable theory) and saltation and dive deeper down the rabbit hole. They can’t ever even consider the possibility of another explanation. No matter how much they have to contort their logic to fit together a ‘more logical’ explanation.
stevebee92653 said,
January 21, 2011 at 3:21 am
Good comment. I like the second paragraph. I am debating at an evo-site. The guy is talking about how two indentations formed on the face of early blind species. The indents then turned into pinhole cameras. Did indents form all over the bodies of these blind species as well? Then the two on the face stayed, got selected for? The rest evaporated? Did they look like golf balls? Randomness would require lots of indents, would it not? These people are fun.
Steve's Tiny id said,
December 7, 2010 at 11:07 am
This has to be the funniest site I’ve seen for ages!
This guy can’t even get the definition of Evolution right!
Then he thinks a thing with a mouth like a great white shark needs big arms to grapple with prey!
LOL! He thinks it’s such a bad idea it can’t have happened at random but some idiot designed it!
Comedy GOLD!
Steve's Tiny id said,
December 7, 2010 at 11:11 am
Now there’s no transitional fossils!
Better rebury all those whales they’ve dug up in Pakistan and the Sahara! Don’t fit you see.
Oh, I’m giggling so hard the room is spinning.
Steve's Tiny id said,
December 7, 2010 at 11:13 am
“Bio-systems are designed in a far more intelligent way than any intelligent man who ever existed has the capability of designing.”
Except T-rex arms! They suck!
Weeeeeeeeee! You go Captain Contradiction!
Steve's Tiny id said,
December 7, 2010 at 11:22 am
Now peer review papers are no good because they are made up!
They didnt look a fossils or anything. THey didnt grow stuff in the lab using genetics to show some proof! Nup none of it happened!
Especially if you look into my eyes woooooo!
Conspiracy time! All those scientist earning squillions of $$$$$$$$. Laughing at you from their yachts and their sports cars with all those women all over them!
I can’t wait to read more! Its exciting!
Steve's Tiny id said,
December 7, 2010 at 11:30 am
If we are all toddlers, surely you are a giant amongst toddlers. its like your the kid from the big room.
My eyes are bugging, EVERYTHING is impossible! Well almost, 5% isnt.
So much fun! Evolution scientists make things up in papers but you can pull a guesstimate of 5% out with no back up!
Good thing we trust your guesses more than those evolution zombiesand their silly papers!
RobPrice50 said,
December 16, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Yeah, he goes on like this is some kind of alternative theory, despite having absolutely nothing to say about his assumptions.
If you came here seeking some kind of explanation on where the thing fails or a serious rebuttal to ToE, then you’d come away empty handed and probably totally bewildered.
I have to admit though I have had some serious belly laughs, especially the one where he says that the design is far in excess of possible human design then he self refutes with examples of where the design is clearly terrible-and he says as much!!! According to Steve we live in a perfect world with a designer who knows what’s best. It’s not the one that I inhabit.
Adrian D said,
December 14, 2010 at 10:22 pm
I respect your opinion but I wish to address a few things:
1) “The advantages are formed by non-occurring good mutations. Non-occurring because mutations forming just the right healthy useful tissues in just the right amount, just the correct shape, just the correct location, and shutting off at just the correct time, has never been demonstrated.”
Evolution HAS been demonstrated and we have observed it in our time. I am sure you have heard of the drug resistant tuberculosis from the Russian prison systems. This form of TB is the result of bad medical practice where antibiotics are given in different doses to fight TB in prisoners. The medicine isn’t given all at once but at different intervals because some of the TB viruses are more resistant to the drugs than others and therefore require more treatment. However, some prisoners are released without finishing their treatment and they are left with a higher concentration of drug resistant viruses reproducing in their bodies thus creating a new more resistant form of TB. This is an example of natural selection and evolution.
But it is not just TB swine flu is another example of evolution.
If you want more examples try this link.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/48744/Resistance-Cost.html
For the Russian prison article, here
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_09.html
2) “Do plants selectively kill and consume each other, and in doing so advance their bio-systems and complexity?”
Of course not, that would be preposterous. I would explain to you the evolution of plants, the stoma, the means of water transport, the evolution of wood but that would be too much. I suggest you research it. Also to say that plants are advancing their bio-systems and complexity is a Lamarckian concept and is no longer accepted in the scientific community.
3) And that these advantages, many 1/500,000 of the finished product, prevent the individual from being consumed by another species that doesn’t have that tissue.
Just out of curiosity where did you get this number? It would be very interesting to know the average number of mutations that occur per reproduction.
4) Are these processes capable of inventing, designing, assembling, and improving complex bio-electromechanical devices?
Not unless you believe in intelligent design. Evolution is not meant to improve an organism; once again, Lamarckian concept.
You claim that intelligent design is the only logical explanation to the origin of life. But this opinion is philosophical, not scientific. I do not argue that your idea is false, but you cannot argue this idea on a scientific level without providing evidence. Evolution is the best scientific explanation to the origin of life. If you want intelligent design to be taught in schools then it should be taught in say a history or philosophy class. If you get the chance you should watch Richard Dawkins interview Father George Coyne, I’m sure you will find it quite fascinating.
stevebee92653 said,
December 14, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Do you know the difference between “tissues” and “bacteria”? Your enthusiasm to “show me” overwhelms you thought processes. Or you don’t know the difference. Which one is it?
(3) Shows you do know what tissues are. So why don’t you show it in (1)?
500,000? The number of steps/generations in the evolution of bio-systems given by evolutionauts. Nilsson said that an eyeball would take 250,000 generations, which would mean 250,000 steps. Later numbers he uses are 2,000. Matters not. They are both imaginary numbers. So is 1/500,000. Would a species with 1/100 of an eye survive over one that has 1/500th of a liver? Try thinking and not just spewing. The complexities for you are beyond enormous.
Evolution HAD TO improve organisms. The genome had to increase. You don’t know your own science.
I know Richard far better than you, most likely. (see p. 18) The evidence that RM and NS invented, designed, assembled complex bio-systems is ZERO. The evidence that intelligence is necessary is in your face. Everywhere you look. In your brain. In you. In every species that lives on earth. In the carbon atom. In every atom. The source is not findable, or ZERO. They are not equal. ID with it’s footprint everywhere, trumps evolution, with none. Neither should be taught as science. (see p. 12) But the designs of nature are already taught in every science class; not the source. What do you think is being studied an anatomy? Physiology? The design of the human body. Not the evolution of the human body.
Adrian said,
December 14, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Same old crap. No evidence on intelligent design, it is quite funny how you use a cheap cop-out sayin “The source is not findable, or zero” Its is actually not any different from the creationist argument where god is claimed to be “out of time and space” It is unfalsifiable and it’s not science.
Really you could change the word ID with magic and you’ll see no difference. “Look around everywhere the powers of magic, how everything formed see how beautiful and complex is the world thats all the evidence you need for the existence of magic!”
ID relies on some sort of super natural intervention so it is really the same old crap as creationism but on a different label.
stevebee92653 said,
December 15, 2010 at 2:32 am
Your words are meaningless and those of an indoctrinate. You believe, and I sure wouldn’t want to spoil that belief. So why bother me with it? Believe all you want, ignore what I have to say here. Live your life. Your belief won’t make any difference anyway.
Adrian D said,
December 15, 2010 at 12:53 am
I came here to hear your argument against evolution because I was curious. I’m sorry if challenging your beliefs was offensive but I wanted to hear your response. What is the agenda of this website? To educate us or to belittle those who question your reasoning?
And believe it or not, I actually do know the difference between bacteria and tissue. However, I choose to explain evolution found in microorganisms rather than tissue.
And to say that evolution improves an organism is false. A bird may evolve to become more colorful than another in order to attract mates more successfully. But a more vibrant color will also attract predators more easily. A snake may evolve to have more poisonous venom, but this also means that it requires more energy to produce this venom. A male lion may evolve to become larger, but this increase in size increases its need for energy and may also reduces its speed.
Philosophically speaking I respect your opinion.
But scientifically I have not found any evidence solid evidence against evolution.
And of course evolution isn’t the exact answer to the origin of life. It would be unscientific to say so other than that evolution is the best explanation we have to explain how we came to be.
stevebee92653 said,
December 15, 2010 at 2:44 am
Re: “I choose to explain evolution found in microorganisms rather than tissue.”
The reason?: Because it’s invisible. And, there is no evolution you can demonstrate in tissues of any species. So, that is an excellent choice for you. But very transparent. Can’t you see that?
You think the evolution of vision or heart/lung systems, if that did occur, isn’t an improvement? As I said, you don’t know your own scientific hoax very well.
The “best explanation” doesn’t make it the correct explanation. The “best explanation” was the sun went around the earth.
The best and the most honest explanation is:
we don’t yet have enough information to put together a plausible hypothesis.
THAT is the best explanation.
Adrian D (not the other Adrian) said,
December 15, 2010 at 5:44 am
I meant to say chose not choose, I am not implying that evolution can only be explained through microorganisms. There are plenty of other examples but as of right now I am beginning to find this website very pointless as it picks at an idea backed by some evidence and chooses to push an idea that has ABSOLUTELY no evidence. I came here to see what you had to say about the origin of life and so far all you have done is belittle me and my challenges to your belief. Anyways, your counterarguments don’t make any sense—> (evolution in microorganisms is invisible). I’m done here.
stevebee92653 said,
December 15, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Oh shucks. You’re done? You’ve done so well. There are no examples of tissues evolving. So, time to hightail it. I don’t blame you. Your best strategy. Bye Keep pretending!
Charlie said,
December 15, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Adrian D:
>Anyways, your counterarguments don’t make any sense—> (evolution in >microorganisms is invisible). I’m done here.
See ya. We’ll miss all of the additional information that you’ve provided that actually answers any of Steve’s questions. Or not.
🙂
Adrian said,
December 15, 2010 at 2:36 am
So meaningless that you didn’t even reply to anything i said. You cant escape the fact that ID is just junk science for the reasons i mentioned earlier, the fact that you evade the issues is a sign of your indoctrination of ID, just believe its designed.
stevebee92653 said,
December 15, 2010 at 3:15 am
I did reply. You have on your evo-blinders. Using microorganisms to example evolution when they still are microorganisms after billions of years is a loser for you and a definite reply. I see design, and I say there must be a design source. You see design and you must fib to yourself and others and say it isn’t designed so you can support your belief system. And never the twain shall meet. Believe what you want. I couldn’t care less. You are wired and irretrievable so I know you are hopelessly closed. Why are you even here? Go to Talk Origins, or rationalskepticism.org. So you can sing with the choir.
Adrian said,
December 15, 2010 at 5:25 am
First of all you replied to “Adrian DON” not me.
The best explanation is no explanation?
Please, youre biased towars ID, thats not an objetive view of evolution, you will just dismiss any data that doesnt fit with your view.
The best explanation is the one that can explain most of the facts, in that sense evolution is strong, at least much more strong than a baseless junk science ID which is worst than no explanation because it doesnt give answers only questions. ID proponents always baffle me.
stevebee92653 said,
December 15, 2010 at 5:43 pm
And people that think “nothing” can invent design and assemble always baffle me. So I guess we are even.
Charlie said,
December 15, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Thanks, Adrian,
At least ADParker attempts to answer the questions regarding the science with something that at least resembles intelligent discourse.
I can’t say the same for most anyone else that I’ve seen respond to Steve’s questions. It’s most always obfuscation, redirection, belittling, ad hominem, etc.
Here’s an interesting article for those who might want to see another take on the challenges posed by ToE:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ010631.html
Maybe someone has some better answers than the NCSE has to offer? Eugenie needs some help there.
(Yes, the article is old… And the questions still remain firmly on the table since ~2000)
Charlie said,
December 15, 2010 at 5:04 pm
That first link may not work for some reason.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ010631.html
Adrian D (not the other Adrian) said,
December 15, 2010 at 5:47 am
I agree he has no evidence other than his gut feeling. I apologize for the name confusion, I thought I was the only Adrian.
Adrian said,
December 15, 2010 at 6:12 am
No problem, steve was the one confused not you to my knowledge. I have no problem in questioning evolution but there are no objections in this page to evolution, its all filled with arguments of ignorance and that’s not evidence
To sum all the pages in this website: “I cant explain how evolution can do that, therefore ID must be the answer” That’s very far from being objective.
Yeah, the best explanation was that the sun revolved around the earth in that time, until galileo PROVED otherwise, and i dont see any proof of intelligent designer or intelligent design. “The source cannot be found” is just a cheap cop-out and Steve knows it.
stevebee92653 said,
December 15, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Re: “its all filled with arguments of ignorance and that’s not evidence”
“I cant explain how evolution can do that, therefore ID must be the answer”
My gawd. Another copy/paste dogma display. Don’t you indoctrinates get tired of saying the same stuff in unison?
Adrian said,
December 16, 2010 at 6:07 am
I get tired particularly for the reason that i never get a reply and you wont accept that arguments of ignorance is not evidence nor contrary evidence for evolution. You believe in a magical supernatural being more complex than evolution inself, so you believe in something more improbable, thats why IDiots always baffle me.
stevebee92653 said,
December 16, 2010 at 6:15 am
You’ve just lost all credibility. Not that you had any in the first place. How could you not be embarrassed calling people names. Are you and adult? Not only names, but trite, tired over used ones at that. And, my gawd. “Arguments from ignorance.” Gawd, how corny. You are really pathetic. Try thinking on your own sometime. You can’t. You have been wired, and you will spout. Tis a shame. That’s what this fake science does to people. Like it did you.
Adrian said,
December 16, 2010 at 7:26 am
As usual, another comment evading the topic, “oh look that same argument you say dont you keep tired of saying it”
And i ask you. Dont you get tired of always get stumped and not answer or at least accept that an argument of ignorance is not evidence. ID is even more improbable than evolution and you know it, were not the same.You have to take huge leaps of faith to believe in something as silly and improbable as ID.
Are you going to explain why is not more improbable than evolution or are you just going to use cheap cop-outs, evasion of the argument as always as every ID mediocre proponent does?
stevebee92653 said,
December 16, 2010 at 5:09 pm
You are barking up the wrong tree. That evolution could invent/assemble all of nature is not possible. The source of intelligence certainly required to do same is not a possible find for humans. My point is not ID but that evolution is pure and simple human fantasy, made up because we have no idea. We humans can’t imagine that we are not smart enough to figure it out, which we are not. So we MUST come up with something. And this fake science is the best we can do. It’s not close. So don’t waste your time asking the same question over and over. I go for ID as a philosophy, simply because intelligence has to be in the formula. I make it very clear on p.1 that I don’t argue intelligence, as, again, it’s now philosophy, not science. It cannot be science unless and until the source is findable. Got it? I didn’t think so. You would do much better defending your belief system against the myriad of points I make in this blog. You would fail, so I see why you don’t try. And why you repeat.
Adrian said,
December 16, 2010 at 5:43 pm
AT least a little bit of honesty here. In any case its no different to say that we live in a computer simulated world or that the flying spaghetti monster is the designer, but its just that, fantasy, science fiction with no macro ID or even micro ID. You question evolution because you think is improbable, but you believe in ID which is even more improbable. Youre right, humans are not smarth enough, and you as a single person you are being arrogant and closed minded to think evolution is impossible as if you know every detail about it in the history on the universe, there is no better explanation, thats why i reject ID completely because of the lack of evidence. Evolution is gradual, you dont have to take huge leaps of faith as you would have to do believing in ID.
Adrian said,
December 16, 2010 at 7:08 pm
“Facts please?” how more improbable you want for the emergence of an even more complicated being to create all complex life on universe.
There has not been observed any other method for creating complexity other than natural selection. To assume that all life was designed is to be begging the question, as who or what made the designer?
The designer must even more complicated to design the universe, it is a more unparsimonious explanation and that’s the reason it is more improbable yet you delude yourself believing BLINDLY in ID and rejecting evolution, being closed minded and simply ignore all the evidence that has been discoveres or that it will ever be discovered. I cant find a better example than you for a close minded individual. Im at least very open to a better explation as long as it is backed up by EVIDENCE. In that sense we are more open minded than you.
stevebee92653 said,
December 16, 2010 at 7:36 pm
You are not open. You’re brainlocked. You are 100% sure you know how all of nature formed. I am 100% sure I don’t know. And that no person who ever lived does either; including you. Shame you can’t see or understand the difference. Somehow you think, which is true of almost all of evolutionauts, that if you can “prove” there is no intelligent source, then evolution is how things happened. That is a huge logical fallacy. Evolution is a immense failure, and supported by pretenders. Not evidence. My argument is whether evolution is valid. Why can’t yo get that?
Adrian said,
December 16, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Another cheap straw argument, im not 100% to know how all nature formed, im open to better explanations which not anyone has found, and no we havent prove that there is no Intelligence Source, its just that we havent seen any evidence from it and plenty for evolution. ID is completely supported by pretenders and religious zealots trying to get ID into schools, not einstein, not hawking, not any scientist has contributed ANYTHING useful from the ID hypothesis, no research, no evidence no nothing, Einstein wasnt a ID proponent, not even hawking or any reputable scientist. Galileo actually proved his heliocentric theory, but no scientist has ever contributed to anything to support the theory of ID.
Thats the reason that this page is a waste of time, dont you get tired of just presenting arguments of ignorance? it is a hopeless delusion that you have even a chance of winning the battle against evolution, for the very fact that there is no EVIDENCE of ID. No religious motivated scientist even believes in ID as a better explanation.
stevebee92653 said,
December 16, 2010 at 9:15 pm
A “cheap straw argument”? What a laugh. You evos are constantly telling everyone that you have mountains of evidence when you have none. You are fooling yourself, but not me. Two killers for you are
(1) fossils within species show near zero evolution over millions and sometimes hundreds of millions of years
(2) complex bio-systems have never been shown to form, partially form, whatsoever by NS et al. NS has not been shown that it has the ability to invent, design, assemble anything at all. Zero. Zip. Nada.
So keep up with your “cheap talk”. You have nothing for evidence. You have been convinced you have. For some reason you want to believe it. So do. Why are you bothering me with your belief? Do you actually think I will change my mind about evo? I did twice. Once to believe, once when I realized what a crock it is. You won’t convince me, obviously. So why beg the point? You believe. That’s about all we can say.
Charlie said,
December 16, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Robots! So frustrating! So addicting!
So educational… the astounding lack of actual intelligent answers continually astounds me. Especially when these robots never cease to run into corners to avoid contemplating even the HINT of anything that transcends our material world.
Charlie said,
December 16, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Adrian:
>…how more improbable you want for the emergence of an even more
>complicated being to create all complex life on universe.
Argument from Ignorance. Not at all impressive or informative- your opinion is noted already.
Adrian:
>There has not been observed any other method for creating complexity other than >natural selection.
Your ‘support’ for the first ‘assertion’ is a false premise. For one, human intelligence has been known throughout history for creating complexity. Or was that simply Natural Selection, too? (Not all designs and implementations arose from multiple iterations of trial and error.) For another, are snowflakes also generated from Natural Selection? The great Natural Selection is not involved in creating all complexity. (Tangentially, I have seen NS given tribute even when what was really going on is known to computer engineers as Binary Search algorithm. Very powerful thing, NS, that it takes credit for things that are DESIGNED.)
Adrian:
>who or what made the designer?
Ah. The famous cop-out objection. I think that one has already been addressed quite well elsewhere on this site and on various others. It is not evidence or a valid objection. (In short, Would your existence be called into question if we didn’t know who/what designed you? Would the existence of the computer in front of you be called into question if you didn’t know who/what designed it? Or for that matter would its existence be called into question if you didn’t know who/what designed the designer of your computer?) Empty objection. It’s a philosophical naivety.
I don’t doubt at all that the Creator/Designer would be more complicated than the universe. That is not a valid proof either. Such a Creator/Designer could be by definition undetectable and intangible and perhaps even undefinable really to our natural world. Call it tautology if you like. But IF such a C/D exists, then that C/D does in fact exist. Plain and simple. And IF such does NOT exist, then such does NOT in fact exist. Just IS or IS NOT. We can either decide to KNOW (one way or another) or KNOW NOT. But we cannot claim that the relative complexity has any bearing on its existence. That would be an argument from ignorance.
(You may claim that science gives the C/D less room to be probable. But science can never actually do anything of the sort. The C/D transcends our material world. But we don’t even need to go that far. Currently, good science has to resort to denying his existence to begin with in order to provide any evidence that he doesn’t. Talk about begging the question.)
You talk about probabilities. And you have no facts or actual knowledge to back up your assertion. Just opinions. So don’t mind me if I ignore your opinion if it is not backed by anything informative.
I don’t look at ID blindly. I would have to be blind, however, to accept Darwinian evolution. And I certainly cannot allow myself to be as close minded as you ask me to be. You see- that is my opinion. You have yours. I have mine. Opinions have no value unless they are backed by information.
ToE purports to have evidence. This site calls that evidence into question with valid challenges. No one yet has addressed any of those challenges head on without empty objections, dishonest redirection or novice deflection.
Try again, please. You assert that a Creator/Designer is somehow less probable than ToE. I’ll be even more bold.
Why don’t you prove how the probability that a Creator/Designer exists and is responsible for our existence is less than 50%?
That should be easy, right? Impress me with facts and knowledge. (You can leave the chaff behind please- just solid ‘nuggets’ of information.)
Adrian said,
December 16, 2010 at 8:20 pm
At least a little more honesty in here about the improbability of the designer.
Yes, human intelligence, but other than that there isnt any other method besides natural selection, ID has never been observed in nature, its an iunfalsifiable hypothesis unlike evolution. There hasnt been shown a limit of how much mutations can modify an organism, if mutation wasnt hereditary that would disprove evolution, no alternative has ever been shown, all new evidence found is just confirming evolution.
Impress you by facts? there is huge ammount of data supporting ToE and ZERO evidence supporting ID, even the author of this page claims that ID is not science.
If you think you have to be blind to believe in ToE then you would have to be blind, deaf or even senseless to believe in something more improbable, unparsimonious as ID.
I agree that the improbability of ID doesnt disprove a designer BUT in the same way the improbability of evolution doesnt disprove it and it is also less improbable than ID so evolution is the most parsimonious answer. ID begs the question as how the designer came to be, you have to take a bigger leap of faith to believe in ID
Who made the designer, cheap cop-out? isnt it a cheap cop-out NOT trying to answer this argument??
“In short, Would your existence be called into question if we didn’t know who/what designed you?” Ahh yes, the big difference is that i EXIST and there are various methods that you can do to verify how i came to be, HOWEVER there is no evidence of ID in action or even less of a supernatural designer, its completely untestable and unfalsifiable and raises more questions than answers, so your argument is flawed.
Charlie said,
December 16, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Adrian:
>Yes, human intelligence, but other than that there isnt any other method >besides natural selection
Funny- that is also false. At the very least very questionable. There are various computer programs out there that create complexity on their own. They have been programmed to create programs that create programs and so on. What about spider webs? Is it Natural Selection that creates those webs? I would argue that it was the spider itself that created the complexity of the web. At the very least, Natural Selection is not a direct cause. There are indeed many things that are known to cause complexity in nature. Natural Selection is just one of many. But generally, it takes intelligence of some sort.
Adrian:
>ID has never been observed in nature
That is laughably just an opinion. You believe that you see no ID in nature. I believe that it is evident everywhere. You choose to believe what you do. I choose to believe what I do. Who is right? It is an argument from personal opinion, not fact.
Adrian:
>its an iunfalsifiable hypothesis unlike evolution.
ToE has proven itself increasingly to be exactly unfalsifiable. Its forced union of micro-evolution and macro-evolution is done purposely to be able to evade any sort of falsifiability. ToE declares essentially that Descent from a Common Ancestor according to Random Natural Causes is a fact and that all of the supporting evidences are the theories to explain how it occurs. Time and time again, whenever a theory appears to be invalid, evolutionists will argue a new theory that holds it all together- but that the fact remains. It does not allow itself to be falsified. It is dogma.
Adrian:
>There hasnt been shown a limit of how much mutations can modify an >organism […] Impress you by facts? there is huge ammount of data supporting >ToE and ZERO evidence supporting ID, even the author of this page claims that >ID is not science.
>
>If you think you have to be blind to believe in ToE [… zzz …]
Here is actually some very compelling research that Natural Selection by Random Mutations is in fact not a factor at all:
http://www.icr.org/article/5847/
The article describes how a certain microbe is found repeatedly to ‘evolve’ a certain way whenever placed a certain altered environment. It is curious that the DNA sequence is altered in exactly the same way in exactly the same place every time they reduce the oxygen level. Seems very non-random. But such is Natural Selection, right?
There in another article that I can’t find at the moment… but it reported a microbe that had a key functionality intentionally debilitated by removing/corrupting one discrete part of its DNA. In repeated experiments, researchers anticipated that the microbe would eventually ‘evolve’ to repair the bad piece of DNA. Instead, what they found over and over again is that the microbe would lose the rest of the debilitated functionality (and associated DNA) instead of regain its original functionality.
Adrian:
>I agree that the improbability of ID doesnt disprove a designer BUT in the same >way the improbability of evolution doesnt disprove it and it is also less >improbable than ID so evolution is the most parsimonious answer.
Some honesty… and then an appeal to an opinion again for a comparison of relative probabilities and parsimony. Or did I miss where you came up with any sort of probability for the existence of a Creator/Designer. Or the probability for the validity of evolution? Where are these numbers?
Adrian:
>ID begs the question as how the designer came to be, you have to take a >bigger leap of faith to believe in ID
ID begs the question? If so, then so does ToE. ID states that we see Design. (I actually do and believe genuinely that you simply choose to deny.) Because we see design, we should look for other Design. (It does NOT ask us to figure out “how the designer came to be” or any other such nonsense.) The ToE demands that all plausible answers must be of a materialistic cause in order to be contemplated. Which begs the question that all answers are of a materialistic nature because they must be of a materialistic nature.
Adrian:
>Who made the designer, cheap cop-out? isnt it a cheap cop-out NOT trying to >answer this argument??
No. I don’t need question Who made the Designer in order to believe that there IS a Designer. Do you need to question Who made your Car’s Designer in order to believe that there IS a Car Designer responsible for your car?
Now the question of Who is the Designer? Yes, that would be a copout. I personally don’t stop there. ID does. I go on to look for who that Designer might be. I use other evidence that I trust. I get to a place where I can make a reasonable conjecture about who the Designer is, and then where evidence can never reach, I make a ‘leap’. But it is more like deciding that a plane I am about to board has a relatively good chance of getting me safely to my destination and then- where evidence can never reach- I make a ‘leap’ and trust that the plane will indeed arrive.
Adrian:
>Ahh yes, the big difference is that i EXIST and there are various methods that >you can do to verify how i came to be, HOWEVER there is no evidence of ID in >action or even less of a supernatural designer,
Again. All just opinion and conjecture. (You do exist- that’s fine… but… ) I see Intelligent Design in many things. Especially now that we can see right down into the micro biomechanics of simple life cells. It is amazing. But your claim that there is no evidence of a supernatural designer is all subjective.
Adrian:
>its completely untestable and unfalsifiable and raises more questions than >answers, so your argument is flawed.
Yes, it is completely untestable and unfalsifiable. But so is the claim that everything must be have a materialistic cause. So ToE is left with the same problem. Where exactly is my argument flawed?
And have you calculated those probabilities yet?
Charlie said,
December 16, 2010 at 10:10 pm
And I brain-farted in my last post:
I wrote: “There are indeed many things that are known to cause complexity in nature. Natural Selection is just one of many. But generally, it takes intelligence of some sort.” But I should have actually written: “… Natural Selection is just one *** hypothetical cause out *** of many. …” (Natural Selection has been shown to be A factor in driving genetic changes… but it has NOT been shown ever to produce complexity.)
This article is close to the one I was thinking of in my last post. It’s not exactly the one I was thinking of- but it might be talking about the same study.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/the_first_rule_of_adaptive_evo041811.html#more
9pt9 said,
December 16, 2010 at 7:52 pm
“There has not been observed any other method for creating complexity other than natural selection.”
So far Natural selection has never been observed creating anything. ZERO. Unless of course you can provide an example and make believers out of all of us.
“To assume that all life was designed is to be begging the question, as who or what made the designer?”
That is a red herring. In order to determine that an explanation is the best you don’t need an explanation of the explanation. That leads to an infinite regress. I could equally ask what selected for he selector or who evolved the evolver.
You don’t see any evidence for a designer? Eyeballs are designed to see. Wings are designed to produce flight. Whether designed by intelligence or evolution they are designed. So your designer is evolution. If you don’t think the production of visual images or the ability to produce flight are intelligent actions you are either obtuse or severely indoctrinated.
If you were to find a computer in the dessert you would automatically infer intelligent design. But you could not gain any information about what or who designed it by examination of the computer itself. ID is beyond ultra-obvious in EVERYTHING in the universe.
Adrian said,
December 16, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Even the same author of aknowledge that natural selection has indeed been seen on action albeit not accounting for all the observed life forms on earth. But we have to yet see evidence for supenatural design intervention which is ZERO.
So evolution needs and explanation but a intelligent being doesnt? a being much more complex than evolution, how is than even plausible?
I see evidence of eyeballs, complexity, redundancy, un-optimal bio-systems, not design. You have to assume a priori the existence of the designer. Its like claiming that the sun is evidence for the existence of the god RA, Humbug.
A computer in the dessert, yes i would conclude it is designed because a computer doesnt mutate, it doesnt reproduce, it cant adapt and it is not subject to natural selection, besides a computer is designed by the simple fact that it is aimed at simplicty, i would find it practical, unredundant, and every component doing his job perfectly wasting very little energy…
However in nature this is obviously not the case.
Charlie said,
December 16, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Adrian, if you truly consider yourself an open mind, please let me know what you think of the following series:
God or Science: Stephen Hawking’s False Choice (4 parts)
http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2014
http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2015
http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2016
http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2017
Give yourself some quiet time to actually listen and give your mind time to reflect on the concepts. Ravi does a good job of dealing with things without imposing unsubstantial bias.
Get back to me when you’re done.
Adrian said,
December 17, 2010 at 10:34 pm
I think ive seen around this documentary before, ill probably take it a look. to have a broader idea about the concept.
Adrian said,
December 17, 2010 at 5:23 am
“I see Intelligent Design in many things.” you see the illusion of design and this is subjective, have you ever seen this magical being creating a design? how this designer came to be? by small selected steps like evolution? or it came into existence just like that?
To claim that there hasnt been evidence of supernatural intervention is subjective? care to provide the data that there has been?
It is quite funny that you try to make a conjecture as to what is the designer.
If a car that i didnt know the designer i wouldnt say it wasnt designed, as it is clearly obvious that i know that cars can be designed. But those are not living things so it is a very flawed analogy, now if i see a very highly tech device, i would say it COULD be alien or that time travel is possible. Even if you claim that we were designed by aliens, you would have to explain as how they came to be, otherwise you wouldnt be answering anything, thats why “who made the designer” is a legitimate question.
Now to put you an example, what if i said that we live in a computer simulated world, would you think that “who made the computer simulated world” is a cheap cop-out?? Of course not. It is another untestable hypothesis which is unfalsifiable and useless just as ID or any from of creationism.
“The ToE demands that all plausible answers must be of a materialistic cause in order to be contemplated.”
Do scientists have to insert supernatural interventions into account? how about leprechauns or magic??
What is a supernatural event? if it occurs then it would be by definition material dont you think?
You think ID is scientific? how can it be tested? how can it be falsified? what we should expect from ID? when we should expect bad “designs”? in which species?
Why the giraffe was a recurrent laryngeal nerve.
Honestly it really doesnt add anything that you claim that living systems are designed. ID proponents hasnt even agreed upon a coherent theory as to what should we expect.
stevebee92653 said,
December 17, 2010 at 6:03 am
So I guess we can conclude that you think nothing above species selectively screwing their own and destroying other species, and non-occurring good mutations didit. Well, there is no evidence for that. So we are down to philosophy. You can have yours. I’ll take mine.
Steven said,
December 17, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Way to go Stevebee. No better way to prove that you are right by spouting nonsense that has been refuted countless times before and throwing ad hominems at the people who dare questioning you. Sure beat doing actual research and getting it published. The latter is only for suckers.
9pt9 said,
December 17, 2010 at 8:25 pm
What a tired comment. Can you or anybody else answer the questions on page 20 with peer reviewed material? Nope. Enjoy your delusion.
stevebee92653 said,
December 17, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Go directly to page 1b.
Ryan said,
December 21, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Hey thanks so much for being a breath of fresh air. I just began making a concerted effort to wade through the muck on all sides starting a week ago. After reading and listening to several books it quickly became apparent that both Biblical creationism (I was raised as a baptist) and Darwinian evolution are saturated with dogma and can’t take an objective look at anything.
I look forward to pouring over your site, it looks like you’ve been doing for quite a while what I just set out to do!
Keep up the great work!
stevebee92653 said,
December 21, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Thanks for the note and visit. Your comment is a breath of fresh air as well. 90% are attacks, as you can imagine. Sounds like we are pretty much on the same page.
Adrian said,
December 22, 2010 at 7:40 pm
“90% are attacks, as you can imagine” Maybe for the same reason that it is pseudoscience. Do you think you get less attacks than homeopathy, witchcraft or creationism?
Same page? At least some honesty as there is little difference between biblical creationism and Supernatural ID creationism.
stevebee92653 said,
December 22, 2010 at 9:12 pm
I should say the same unintelligent copy/paste evo attacks where no intelligence is needed. Just like all of yours.
Adrian said,
December 22, 2010 at 9:37 pm
“New Gallup poll shows acceptance of evolution increasing! http://ncse.com/news/2010/12/new-gallup-poll-evolution-006373”
Seems like you are way ahead of the battle, ID being accepted over time, i think trends show quite the opposite, and it will keep this way as long as there is NO EVIDENCE backing up Intelligent Design.
Galileo’s Heliocentric theory gained acceptance ONLY BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE, the very thing ID lacks. So it is only a matter of time before it is doomed to the flat-earthers corner.
stevebee92653 said,
December 22, 2010 at 10:03 pm
When you or any evolutionaut shows me how NS and RM formed organs and bio-systems, I will be a believer as well. But since you have NO EVIDENCE, you are nothing but a cult believer. One of millions of gullible worshippers.
Adrian said,
December 23, 2010 at 11:56 pm
When you show me actual proof if ID, even micro ID ill believe you, but then again if there would be proof of it you wouldnt need to rant so much about evolution. You have no credibility, you are not even a scientist, no reputable scientists supports ID and YOU KNOW IT, thats why you have to write your rants and tiredsome arguments of ignorance to see if the gullible and feeble minded religious idiots fall for your un-scientific viewpoint.
stevebee92653 said,
December 24, 2010 at 3:07 am
Mind of I add your comments to page 1a? They are perfect.
9pt9 said,
December 22, 2010 at 10:32 pm
You are a like a parrot spouting the same shit over and over. Answer the questions on page 20 and prove your’re just another whacked out dogmatic douche. There is ZERO evidence for RMNS being at the cause of complex life. Prove otherwise and I will believe. Answer the questions or you are completely owned. End of story.
Adrian said,
December 23, 2010 at 11:53 pm
No, there is more evidence from mutations and natural selection at work, observable, micro evolution. Even if you dont accept the evidence for macro evolution, not even hardcore creationists fundamentalists deny micro evolution.
But what about ID? there is ZERO evidence for it and no research or evidence supporting it.
Just name ONE reputable scientist who thinks that ID is the best explanation for the complexity of life.
I don’t think you’ll answer.
Adrian said,
December 22, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Oh and by the way, even less intelligence is needed from your side, you just acknowledge the attacks without responding. 100% of your page is just IGNORANCE. No evidence, no proof no nothing. You just copy paste the same words without addresing any argument and without putting ANY evidence in favot of ID.
stevebee92653 said,
December 22, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Think I should rewrite the blog in the comments Adrian? For lame evo-believers like you who for some reason can’t read it? And NEVER refer to it at all?
9pt9 said,
December 24, 2010 at 4:31 am
Evidence for ID is not the issue. The fact that there is zero evidence for evolution is the point. There is no scientific explanation for the origin of the universe so does that mean we should adopt a fake theory for that too?
The bottom line is A) organization is the product of intelligence. B) the universe and life is organized. C) intelligence created the universe and all therein. That’s the very best logical inference.
Adrian said,
December 26, 2010 at 2:41 am
“Evidence for ID is not the issue.” Bullshit, every page written in this blog is biased towars ID. Thats not objective. Even if no theory exists we shouldn’t hold to the most unscientific one which is ID. Saying ID did it is just a cop out to avoid any coherent explanation for the origin of life or the universe.
That intelligence must have come by somehow which doesnt answer anything thus leaving more questions unaswered thats its why is unscientific, unparsimonious and useless junk-theory.
No scientific research has ever disproved evolution and no reputable scientist disputes it and the only “scientists” disputing it are heavily religious motivated and/or don’t have an expertise when it comes to biology or evolution.
Your theory is only supported by people who think they are talking to a zombie jew who lived 2000 years ago which is a son of an imaginary being.
ID can’t be tested, falsified or make any valid predictions, end of story.
9pt9 said,
December 26, 2010 at 4:07 am
Fine ID is pure crap. Still no proof of evolution by any mechanism proposed thus far.
Adrian said,
December 24, 2010 at 3:21 am
I don’t mind at all, and yes indeed, they are a perfect example in how you evade to present any argument in favor of ID so go ahead if you feel so.
9pt9 said,
December 26, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Can you answer the questions on page 20? No? Ofc not.
Adrian said,
December 26, 2010 at 7:22 am
To an incredulous of a non supernatural explanation, yes it is full crap. oh and happy kitzmass oh and merry Kitzmas everyone! 5 days ago was the 5th anniversary of Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education: big defeat of ID creationism.
stevebee92653 said,
December 27, 2010 at 4:08 am
Actually Kitzmiller was a big victory for stupidity, a hoodwinked judge, and tie-clip mouse traps. Try P. 16.
Adrian said,
December 28, 2010 at 1:47 pm
It would actually had been more stupid if ID won, “teach the controversy” or alternate theories? pfft at least there is a lot more respect to science now than any form of stupid ID supernatural creationism.
Adrian said,
January 21, 2011 at 5:06 am
IDers are more fun and the thing is that they’re the majority of the people so you have plenty of to have fun with them. You are not an evolution skeptic but an evolution denier. I on the contrary im an ID skeptic because im open to proof but there isnt any, there isnt observable micro creationism or micro ID, zero, zip, nothing. ID “philosophy” wont get to pass on history or to trascend because it its junk science. How many people praise darwin for his science and how many people praise behe? or any other ID proponentsist?
ryanb said,
February 14, 2011 at 2:42 pm
oh my gosh steve, you’re right, evolution is such a sham! I’ve been conflicted about this for so long but only recently did I really dig in and try to sort it out. But now it’s so clear to me why it didn’t happen.
I think it’s important to note how dogmatic people are on both sides of the debate about things such as biblical creationism and DOE. You can’t see through the fog until you’ve actually made truth the highest virtue in your mind. Similarly you won’t find truth looking through the lens of your rigid belief system.
Thanks for the thought provoking articles you’ve written, they’ve really made it easier to see the fundamental evidence for each side of the debate.
stevebee92653 said,
February 14, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Roger that, and thanks for the great note. Amazing how indoctrination will change minds to such a degree. Destroy skepticism and reason.
F.Whitman said,
February 16, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Steve is suffering from a text book example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Here’s the deal:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to the situation in which less competent people rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence. Competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. “Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.”
Sound like anyone you know?
9pt9 said,
February 16, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Why yes, it sounds like you. Just answer the questions on page 20 of this blog and show how your “skill and metacognitive ability” has led to your acceptance of evolution. If not, you’re just another failure dropping by the site.
ryanb said,
February 16, 2011 at 2:34 pm
you? Think about it people like Steve and I went searching for the truth. I was raised a Biblical Creationist. Steve was raised the same I think, and then became a devout D.evolutionist. But we saw things that didn’t add up in each of our outlooks and questioned our own beliefs.
I don’t care about what the truth is, all I care is that it is truth, and your theory doesn’t hold much water, or is hole-y at best.
There is no need for insults going either direction. If you disagree, fine, but it shouldn’t cause so much pain to consider that maybe you’re wrong. Steve and I both did, and we altered our outlook based on the evidence, without trying to mold it in to something that it’s not. Why is it so threatening for ID or not-evolution to be reality. What is so important that you feel inclined to hit others with venom?
Why do you need evolution to be right.
I believe that over the past few months of examining all sides of the debate; DE vs Biblical creationism vs. non-religious intelligent design that the evidence most easily fits Intelligent design. But I don’t NEED ID to be correct, occam’s razor simply points that way, if a better theory or new evidence comes to light, then I’m totally open to switching things up. And that’s the way it should be.
stevebee92653 said,
February 16, 2011 at 5:35 pm
I love D-K Whitman. Evolution is one massive group D-K. When it’s beyond obvious that no person on earth has the intelligence or ability to figure out the origin of life, bio-systems, and species, your massive group actually thinks they do. The biggest scientific joke played on humanity ever. The biggest D-K in existence.
“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people (human evolutionauits that think they know) make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions (that Darwin did know), but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.”
Adrian said,
February 16, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Well you cant have it bothways, ID think its the same yet the have ZERO evidence and also the fact that it’s bullshit science and you think you know ID is the answer and you perfectly understand evolution.
That statement perfectly fits to you. You have limited understanding you you shouldnt jump to conclusions to think that ID solves it all, IT DOESN’T
ID theory fails for itself. And i agree that the origin of life its complicated to understand it to the full as it comprehends a lot of time, the same reason you shouldn’t have the intelectual ARROGANCE to deny it outright.
stevebee92653 said,
February 17, 2011 at 3:59 am
What? My gawd, between you and ADParker…….
Adrian said,
February 17, 2011 at 4:40 am
Yeah i’m sorry, the reality isn’t going away that you have nothing to backup your self-defeating “theory” so it’s quite ironic that you wrote that no person on earth has intelligence to figure it out why. I assume it excludes you? how funny your quasi-religious nature can be.
John13 said,
February 19, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Steve let me ask you something.From what i understand you believe in a type of a creator that creates more and more complicated organisms or improves older versions creating new ones.I have a sympathy for this scenario however do you realize that this is tough to be proved?The sudden appearance of phyla during the cambrian explosion, alone, cannot prove this scenario.
But i can agree with you for sure on one thing: That Neo Darwinism is a hoax and has managed to mislead millions of people that no design skills exist.And is sad that many people dont realize that if Darwin lived today he would change his own theories
stevebee92653 said,
February 19, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Re: Darwin. I bet the same. He had enough honesty to critique his own theory. That doesn’t exist today with evolutionauts. Imagine of a person said the things Darwin himself said about his own stuff, he would have been endlessly ragged on by his own supporters.
If you go by the fossil record, it shows the appearance and extinction of many species at very different times, and the appearance and continued existence of many others into modern times. With a huge appearance in the Cambrian, and very little change within species. So, going by the fossil record alone, what can one make of it? I really have no clue. Except it’s pretty obvious species didn’t evolve as evolutionauts wish they did. And it didn’t happen in a flash as religious scenarios depict. So we are left with the greatest Puzzle in existence. Too bad the fossil record doesn’t give give us a definite clue about how “it” happened. The argument would be over. But fossils only expand the argument. Mother nature’s trick on us humans. Thanks for the note.
Adrian said,
February 20, 2011 at 3:08 am
Right… And we would be praising michael behe.
You’re right evolution is a hoax a conspiracy made by scientists for the new world order to hide the existence of aliens of outer space but the government is hiding from us.
Please grow up.
If darwin were alive he would probably kill himself for all the people spreading misinformation and so much evolution-DENIERS because Evolution skeptics are also skeptic of ID. Your’e not.
Ryanb said,
February 20, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Hey Steve I was wondering if you could point me to the clade chart(s) you mentioned above that are not in chronological order. I’m trying to make sense of the fossil record and also just curious. Thanks!
stevebee92653 said,
February 21, 2011 at 7:40 am
The one I used in my YT vid:
It’s on the PBS site.
Ryanb said,
February 21, 2011 at 3:27 pm
thanks, I appreciate it! keep up the great work.
Ryanb said,
February 20, 2011 at 10:30 pm
also Steve, I think if you disable threaded comments it would stop posting comments in whatever order it pleases, it gets really confusing otherwise. Just a thought for ya.
stevebee92653 said,
February 21, 2011 at 7:58 am
Responses are set to be placed under comments, three deep. Oldest at the top. I can’t find any settings that would make this better. I know it can get confusing, but it isn’t a forum, and comments are a bit more difficult. But thanks for the note. If you have anything I don’t know about, I would be glad to hear.
Charlie said,
February 22, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Definitely, Steve,
Keep up the good work.
Here’s an article to add to your thread…
Human Genome Project Supports Adam, Not Darwin
http://creationsafaris.com/crev201102.htm#20110221a
The Human Genome project appears to be pointing increasingly toward the implication that ALL humans are essentially variations from a single evolutionarily optimized (fully formed and optimally functioning) human form… and NOT from a progressive evolution from ‘goo to you’. Evidence continues daily to mount a case for the Truth. Share the good word!
Excerpt:
“What is on the top tier [the ‘major players’ in human variation factors]? Increasingly, the answer appears to be mutations that are ‘DELETERIOUS’ by biochemical or standard evolutionary criteria. [… they] overwhelmingly make up the most abundant form of nonneutral variation in all genomes. A model [is emerging that implies the existence of an (ideal/FIRST?) ‘wild-type’] human genome in which most genes exist IN AN EVOLUTIONARILY OPTIMIZED form. There just are no ‘wild-type’ humans: We each FALL SHORT of this Platonic ideal in our own distinctive ways.” [emph mine]
stevebee92653 said,
February 22, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Interesting! Thanks.
Adrian said,
February 23, 2011 at 10:46 pm
LOL. Biblical creationism? Im looking forward to that (:
kallero said,
February 28, 2011 at 1:51 am
The idea a website called EVILlusion.net could present an objective view of evolution is so hysterical that I forgot to laugh, remembered to laugh, forgot to laugh again, made a cup of tea, remembered to laugh, and then forgot to laugh. Again.
Ryanb said,
February 28, 2011 at 2:03 am
Yeah that is funny, seriously I was geeking out. But unfortunately for you the only thing that is more funny is that when your ignorance looks in the mirror it doesn’t even recognize itself. Bummer!
9pt9 said,
February 28, 2011 at 12:29 pm
You know what made me laugh? This site is called ev-illusion not EVILusion. And don’t start laughing until you’ve answered all the questions on page 20.
Adrian said,
March 1, 2011 at 3:50 am
You got questions, we got questions. so what? At least ill stop laughing when ID becomes a recognised legitimate science. Which at this pace it will be a loong loong time to happen. Of course if it ever happens….
Adrian said,
March 9, 2011 at 5:57 am
Your objective is to proof evolution is bullshit? again your not a reputable scientist or even a scientist or even reputable anything except maybe willingful dishonest.
You seriously have no credibility and no backup, a waste of time. You are a coward for backing up away and saying “Oh im not trying to prove ID but ID is right but i dont need to prove it”
If you think your’e right go show it to the world.
But generally if you try to dismiss one theory you should really try to explain it with another more coherent theory. But we already know that the pseudo-scientific theory that you come up with, it explains shit about the facts and has only questions but no answers.
Thats what IDiots have, More questions but less answers.
Wow, thats really helpful….
And accept it, you wont contribute ANYTHING to the knowledge of mankind. No IDiot ever has and i doubt any IDiot will.
That’s all.
Thanks for reading (:
Christina Metzger said,
March 9, 2011 at 8:20 pm
are you familiar with http://www.answersingenesis.com ?
Adrian said,
March 9, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Are you familiar with no answersingenesis.com?
Adrian said,
March 9, 2011 at 9:17 pm
It is ridiculous to try to debunk a theory using a theory which does less explanatory power.
Another claim that is self defeating is that intelligence can only come to be trough intelligence. Except that the ultimate ID designer is the ultimate source. Again unfalsifiable and unscientific. You could as well say that we are made by 2 giant turtles who put the universe on top of their shells or that we live in a virtual simulated world.
ID is just as plausible as those. You could say that this world doesnt exist and it is only a dream. Nothing is real, everything is permitted.