36: Do Evolutionauts Have a Sense of Humor?
The page begins below.
I have found most evolutionauts to be devoid of any kind of humor. I will jokingly make a comment that any third grader would realize is in jest. In almost all cases, mature educated adult evolutionauts are so tense and indoctrinated about their belief system, they are incapable of catching the most absurd humor, and usually go into some sort of serious dissertation on the pun. Hard to believe. This page will be dedicated to those that get stuck in the web of making fools of themselves due to evo-hyperseriousness. I will add to it as the good stuff comes in. I wish I could remember where so many past examples were. This page would be huge. So don’t feel bad evolutionauts, you have lots of company.
My first example: I was “discussing” evolution at http://www.rationalskepticism.org, a popular evo/atheist chat site. A commenter there challenged me to compare two sentences that I had placed in a video I had made on PZ Meyers, a leading ev-illusionist. The commenter had made a big deal that the two sentences were exactly the same, so I told him to compare and contrast the two for his homework for the day and get back to me. He couldn’t tell the difference of course, but came back with his own homework for me. I responded to his homework in jest. This discussion will give you a hint about the sense of humor level of evolutionauts. They are so tense and serious about their belief system, they are unable to see humor at all when discussing this subject. It goes right past them. Their “dogma button” is pressed, and they will begin a serious dogma dissertation about anything, no matter how absurd. My side comments are in red, preceded by “Me”:
by stevebee92653» Dec 02, 2010 6:18 pm
Your homework for the day: Compare and contrast these two statements:
“Complexity can only be created by design”
“The incredible designs in nature are evidence of and require an intelligent source.”
I know you can do it! Put on your thinking cap! Report back. Shouldn’t be too tough….CADman2300 wrote:Well now, that “intelligent source” must also have had an “intelligent source” or how else would it have arisen? The second statement is based on painfully obvious circular reasoning, but other than that, I see no significant difference between either of them. As a matter of fact, all you did was prove PZ’s point by arguing “Complexity” just like he said in the first minute of that video.
Me: He gives me my challenge for the day:
Now for an assignment that I’m giving you. See if you can make an accurate prediction regarding the flight muscles in an Ostrich. These vestigial bird components are seen as evidence that the flightless bird came from flying ancestors but evolution predicts that these muscles will fade away in the future. I’d like you to write a prediction with your own theory about what will happen to those muscles and we’ll wait for about five to eight million years to see who’s right, evolutionary theory or you.
by stevebee92653 » Dec 03, 2010 2:18 am
OK OK you win. Visual systems are really simple and easy evolution.
by ADParker » Dec 03, 2010 5:32 am Pretty much, yeah.
Me: I said this in jest, of course. Taken seriously by the evolutionauts. They haven’t the slightest inkling. This is a common statement by evolutionauts, believe it or not. See what these people have to believe to support their belief system?
My prediction? Ostriches are in the throes of evolving wings, and becoming possibly the largest flying species on the planet. According to me,that will take only 10,000 years. They will also evolve teats and become the FIRST bird/mammal cross! I am writing a peer reviewed paper on the subject which, I am hoping, might get me a Nobel. Hoping big time!
by ADParker:Then you once again display your complete ignorance of the subject.
Me: He actually takes me seriously! What fun! “According to me?” Isn’t that a hint that this is in jest?
by ADParker: Because stevebee92653 has absolutely NO CLUE how evolution works.
Bird/mammal cross?! What next; the Crocoduck?! One can not be “writing a peer reviewed paper” – one can only write a paper and then subject it to peer review. I am sure you THINK you are being funny. But how I wish it were true; I would so like to see that rejection letter. Althoug , of course, I doubt it would even get that far to begin with.
Re: my prediction about ostriches:
stevebee92653 wrote: According to me,that will take only 10,000 years..
Me: “According to me?” again, and he still goes on with his serious explanations!
Cadman said:That might be enough time for some speciation to occur but not enough for full flight to reappear.
Me: Cadman actually thinks he knows how long it would take to get Big Bird flying? And growing teats? My gawd. Astounding. This guy also thinks camcorders are better designed and more complex that human visual systems, so nothing is really astounding. With him or any of the indoctrinates.
stevebee92653 wrote: They will also evolve teats and become the FIRST bird/mammal cross!
Cadman said: Sorry to ruin the fantasy for you but a chimera-like creature is something that evolution would neither produce nor permit. Maybe your highly abstract version but not the actual theory itself. Besides, birds already have an effective feeding method of simply regurgitating partially digested food for the chicks to slurp down.
I am writing a peer reviewed paper on the subject which, I am hoping, might get me a Nobel. Hoping big time!
Cadman said:Don’t you mean that you’re writing a paper and hoping to get it peer reviewed? Because that makes a whole lot more sense than writing something that’s already reviewed.
Me: I know. This guy is a comedian on the side.
by sam J, Dec 03, 1020 9:50 Me: samJ steps in and responds to my prediction of mammaries and flight with ostriches and hopes for a Nobel. Good luck, let us know when and where it is published, would love to see the evidence you present in it. But hard and diligent work towards presenting a sound and well reasoned and evidenced case is a lot more effective than just crossing your fingers and hoping. Bonus points if you get it published in the original research section of Nature or Science.
Me: After I placed the photo above, the flying breasted ostrich, on the RS.org site, I got this retort from Shrunk:
by Shrunk » Dec 04, 2010 8:43 pmAll kidding aside, Steve, is a “hybrid ” of this sort something you would actually predict to exist at some point, according to your “theory”? Oh, that’s right. You don’t have a theory. All you have is a series of “I don’t know’s”. It is interesting to note that evolution specifically predicts that such chimerical beings would never be found, a prediction that has proven 100% correct. According to Intelligent design “theory”, OTOH, there is no reason why they should not exist. Yet they don’t. I wonder why that is? (It’s a rhetorical question, Steve. I know your answer is “I don’t know, you don’t know, nobody knows.” However, the answer is obvious and trivially simple to someone who understands evolutionary theory. That is why evolution is an actual theory, and ID is just bad theology masquerading as a “theory.”)
Me: This guy thinks laughing AT a person demonstrates a good sense of humor. I bet he’s just walking around giggling all the time! I made this comment on their site:
I think my flying breasted ostrich is pretty damn funny. Isn’t it at least worth a smile??
by CADman said:» Dec 05, 2010 5:55 pm I’ll say it again. Nobody here thinks at the grade-school level like you, so context-wise, you’re in the wrong venue. Creationist forums might be more up your ally but not this place, or any place that deals with objective reality for that matter.
My idea of humor in this area is when people poke fun at silly chimera concepts like your lactating ostrich and Cameron’s crocoduck when they use the images as a pattern on a tie. Dawkins wears his crocoduck tie and so does PZ Meyers. In fact, the tie has become quite popular among evolutionists and I wouldn’t mind having the image emblazoned on the back of my jacket with a witty caption at the bottom.
Other things that I find hilarious are creationists who write statements that are totally self-defeating. Like when you said something about how the things you see in nature should all be viewed as needing an “intelligent source”. Remember that Steve? You couldn’t make the distinction between the “intelligent source” and some non-specific god and that’s why I found that statement quite entertaining.
Me: This guy is a barrel of laughs.Why on earth would he think I need a list of things he finds funny? “I think clowns are funny. And whoopee cushions, and and…..jokes, and balloons.”
Can’t any of you stop the tenseness and ultra-serious questions for even a few minutes?
by CADman said: We can when we want to, but that’s not really the issue here. Your effort to discredit by attacking a perceived lack of humor is clearly nothing more than a distraction from your twice-failed attempt to answer the ostrich assignment.
stevebee92653 wrote:Well, anyway, I had fun. Wrong audience, I guess.
by CADman said: Wrong audience indeed. By far the only true thing you’ve said in this entire humor discussion.
by CADman2300 » Dec 05, 2010 1:50 am It’s probably “tongue in cheek” Me: Probably? I tell him it’s a spoof, which gets him to the “probably tongue in cheek” level? like that silly video you did about ISP but if you think a cheep photoshop job of questionable taste is going to give you any credibility, Me: going for a little humor here, Cadman, not credibility. then you were probably better off not trying to answer my challenge in the first place.
- And after I just recently visited your blog, I have to say that It’s also idiotic to accuse people of having no sense of humor
- Me: Not an accusation, Cadman. It’s just plain fact.
- You are proving it in this very comment. when they point out how poor your sense of reality is. This is what critical thinking does to people. It prevents them from laughing at jokes that are simply NOT funny.
- Me: Again he doesn’t get it. It was a spoof, and he had no idea. “Laughing” isn’t the point. Complete lack of ability so see a spoof is.
by CADman2300 » Dec 05, 2010 7:56 pm On his blog, the Stevebee decides to throw a little temper tantrum.
Me: I wrote this below in the comments on this page in response to Cadman’s comment to me trying to show me how wrong I am about his sense of humor.
stevebee92653 wrote:Let me put it this way Cadman. You are such a zealot, you have no idea when your chain is being pulled. In other words KIDDED. Matters not if you find it funny or were “laughing”. YOUR CHAIN WAS BEING PULLED, and you immediately began spouting evo-dogma like a good evolutionaut would. You had no notion. You exist on autopilot. So give it up, just like you did your skepticism, sense of humor, ability to reason, ability to be dazzled by nature’s bio-systems. You gave all that up so you could be indoctrinated. If I were you, I would do a bit of self examination and analysis. What is this thing you believe so adamantly? Why does it do such absurd things to people? Is it real, or are you being fooled beyond belief? I know what indoctrination does to people, and it has done it to you and all of your cohorts there at RS. The problem is you can’t escape it. You are permanently wired now. And I really wonder why you spend so much effort trying to convince me? All you at RS think I am such a dunce. Why do you care to keep coming back here? Why do you care what I think of you? Might want to ask yourself that as well…
Me: Does this seem like a temper tantrum? Evolutionauts commonly exaggerate to fit their agenda. I would say the above is good advice for an indoctrinate.
by Cadman2300: I do have a sense of humor Steve. This whole incoherent string of petty name-calling Me: Name calling? See? Exaggeration is their MO. and repeating the same crap over and over is making me smile and laugh like never before. Me: Oh boy, this guy is just full of giggles!
And as expected, you totally didn’t bother to address the ostrich issues. Me: This guy still doesn’t get it. Right back to the serious “Ostrich Test”.
Me: I let them know they need to lighten up. But does it work? Of course not. The tense serious evolutionauts continue their rant.
by stevebee92653 » Dec 05, 2010 2:37 am I think my flying breasted ostrich is pretty damn funny. Isn’t it at least worth a smile?? Can’t any of you stop the tenseness and ultra-serious questions for even a few minutes? Well, anyway, I had fun. As I said, wrong audience, I guess.
by ADParker » Dec 05, 2010 2:45 am Then I bet you think that new “Jackass 3D” movie is comedy gold.
It’s not funny stevebee92653, it’s just stupid. And there is a difference between having a good sense of humour and laughing at any piece of inane bullshit. Sure, and we do (stop) it often. But we also actually enjoy having a serious conversation. If you can’t be bothered, then why are you even here? Indeed; your drivel is best served for the unthinking sycophant audience.
Me: Just when I thought the fun was over: Earlier on this thread I made a comment about something that does not “qualifying as dumb”. Of course I meant that it was so absurd it didn’t reach the level of dumb. This brought a new attack point for these very scientific minded evolutionauts. The conversation went like this:
by Kytescall » Dec 08, 2010 2:23 am A tiny linguistic derail here, but why does Steve say “X doesn’t qualify as dumb (etc)”? That means X isn’t dumb, which is a strange thing to say when the context implies that he is wanting to say that it is. I think what you mean to be saying is “X doesn’t even qualify as dumb”, which would imply that X is beneath even the standard amount of dumbness. It’s a lot like how so many people say “I could care less”, which of course means that they do care, at least slightly, when what they really mean is “I couldn’t care less.”by
A contributor at RS.org brought up that he is agog at the “fact” that I, stevebee92653, think insects had sex with other species so they could attain eyes. He/she apparently saw one of these photos from my videos. AGAIN he/she didn’t realize that the notion and these photos were nothing but a spoof. Impossible to believe. Thanks Religion? and DNAunion for adding to my long list of evidence for this page. You both could not have done better!
by Religion? » Dec 15, 2010 12:02 pmI’m keen to hear what people say because it appears that for as many of those who think, as I do, that he’s not on the same planet as almost every other person I’ve ever engaged, there are an equal amount who seem to love what he does and revel in the illogicality of it all. I keep finding myself staring into space and thinking why would anyone with a sane, semi-rational mind think that insects had to mate with other species to get eyes! It beggars belief but then he’s on about serious molecular biology (he’s apparently qualified) with the appearance that he knows at least some of the processes but someone who at the last hurdle rejects what they demonstrate regarding the theory that he obviously hates with a passion.
by CADman2300 » Jan 05, 2011 6:47 am
Let me start by saying the somebody must have bean asleep in anthropology class. During the Ice age when we humans were mere hunter/gatherers we built simple huts out of sticks, stones, and animal bones. People back then were not used to having permanent residence in any location so the tent-like dwellings were crude, easy to build, and easy to take down when the group wanted to relocate.
Me: Here is an evolutionaut who, out of a clear blue sky, brought up the term “doctor of philosophy”. We were in a heated debate about the source of the Krebs Cycle and arboreal bird nests. I don’t get his thinking at all, but for fun I responded. Of course I couldn’t care less about “doctors of philosophy” and they weren’t so much as mentioned in thousands of entries.
lucek wrote Feb 12, 2011 9:44 pm
I’m at least glad that there hasn’t been an attack against the term “doctor of philosophy”.stevebee wrote Feb 12, 2011 9:50 pm (in jest):
Me: When I wrote this, I really thought Lucek would know right away that I was kidding. How could he not?
lucek wrote Feb 12, 2011
I had to poke the bear. So let me get this strait. PHD=Group think. I was just thinking you might try some bullshit about the word philosophy but no you attack the education systems of most of the world. [Hands up in the air.] 60,000,000 people are just agreeing with each other as not to upturn the apple cart. Steve could you have made a more moronic, anti-intellectual, generalized statement? Pleas don’t take that as a challenge.
stevebee wrote Feb 12, 2011:
Get yourself a sense of
Re: Major Geologic Experiments in my Garage:
Me: One of the contributors at rationalskepticism.org said I should do my own experiments and studies to prove Intelligent Design. My response was, of course, in jest:
Stevebee wrote: Mar 28, 2011 1:09 am I do think on my own, unlike the folks at RS who believe what some other person told them. I also have run detailed studies and experiments on geology, paleontology, biochemistry, molecular genetics, ethology, etc. all by myself. In my garage.
by Latimeria » Mar 28, 2011 3:03 am
Stevebee’s freethinking and epistemological rigour is to be applauded, and he clearly does have answers from his extensive garage experiments that he has thus far been unwilling to share.
Me: Latimeria has no idea when I am pulling his chain. But a couple of new arrivals into the fray have no idea either.
sennekuyl » Mar 29, 2011 3:24 am That is just incredulity. Where are the data points from the tests you did in your garage? The outlines of the experiments and predictions?
FinalLegion » Mar 28, 2011 2:13 am Wait…wait…this guy claims to have run detailed experiments…in his garage?!? I suppose he has cutting edge scientific equipment and implements in there as well. I’d sure like to see these highly detailed experiments and calculations that prove that evolution is all a bunch of hogwash. Of course, I doubt Steve will ever provide any of them.
stevebee92653 said:Right! I got a hammer, a chisel, some nails, and a table saw! And I do some highly detailed experiments and calculations. In my garage!
Latimeria » Mar 28, 2011 3:03 am It was a joke but a cheap evasion of a serious question.
Me: It was a joke but a cheap evasion? Oh well. No fun at all in these people. Oops. Actually there is. Latimeria then came up with this hugely funny photo and comment. The funny thing really is the amount of effort Latimeria put into this very funny entry. THAT is the joke. And if you get it, let me know in the comments section below. I guess what you do is take the mallet and hit my picture?
by Latimeria » May 11, 2011 4:20 am
You don’t need the hammer, just a large padded mallet
C’mon, Stevebee, I bet even you can get a chuckle out of that
Me: Another great example: One of my longtime patients went on rationalskepticism.org and lightly tried to defend me. I had discussed this site with him, so he has been following my debate with these evolutionauts. His welcoming committee was headed by a guy who calls himself hackenslash. The nice things he had to say to tozonthenoze, my rare supporter:
Well, you know what they say about opinions and arseholes, don’t you? Your arsehole may be worth two shits. Your opinion is entirely without value, as is that of everybody unless and until it can be supported by something less noxious than the vaporous contents of your bowels. In short, your opinion has less value here than Steve’s, and his is worth less than nothing, not least because both opinions are borne of having not the first fucking idea concerning the topic at hand. If you want to defend fuckwittery here, especially that of somebody who routinely lies and, worse, demonstrates not the tiniest bit of integrity in a sordid tenure that extends way beyond this forum, and in fact way beyond the confines of the intellectual flatulence of which this alleged dentist with alleged ties to a fictitious institution, then you have to take on the mantle of ‘fuckwitted numpty of the century’. Do you want this title? Are you really sure you want to go to bat for such a pile of wankery as that propounded by a dentist so ignorant of his own field that he couldn’t deal with the robust scientific evidence regarding the evolution of dentition (you think we don’t fucking know?!! Get a fucking education!) when it was fucking presented to him on a plate, and subsequently dismissed by this so-called ‘specialist’ as being ‘too wordy’. Do you really think that you’re the first sock account erected by a credulous, ill-educated intellectual amoeba to have come and challenged the critical thinkers here? The forum cat would tear this drivel a new one without breaking a sweat. You have turned up for a nuclear war armed only with your intellectual marshmallows. You think you have a challenge?
Me: Think this guy is a fun guy with a good sense of humor? A contributor to http://www.rationalskepticism.com insultingly and facetiously put up a picture of a bird and asked me to tell him if it was an animal or not. I responded, facetiously, that “Everyone knows it’s a plant.” Another contributor there picked up on my “plant” comment, and did me another favor. Proved again that evolutionauts simply have no idea what humor is, and when their chain is being pulled. His response to my “plant” comment:
GapWim said May 15, 2011:
Birds (and even insects and fish) do belong to the kingdom of animals. This is due to classification, the distinctions you want to make are located higher up in the classification.
Me: He even gave me references so I could look up about birds not being plants! I didn’t respond to his entry, as I felt more sorry for him for being such a dunce.
Further, I was told that I am NOT god by TomatoAddict, a guy that came over to this site from The Sensuous Curmudgeon, a site that spent a good deal of effort demeaning me and my book with a full page treatise. The exchange went like this:
Tomato Addict said, September 25, 2013 at 3:03 am ·
But you are not God, and I am not a comic book character.
Me: Is he serious? I responded with, kiddingly, of course:
Stevebee said : September 25, 2013
I told you I AM god. You ARE a big green guy with anger issues. You’re an evolutionaut. You are supposed to be angry.
Me: Having no idea that I was kidding, he went back to The Sensuous Curmudgeon and left this bird turd: