36: Do Evolutionauts Have a Sense of Humor?


The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at AmazonThe URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.

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”:

These comments are from www.rationalskepticims.org.  The thread is Why stevebee is wrong:


Postby 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…

.
:roll: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.

:smug: 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? 

 

by stevebee92653 

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. :lol:

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.:roll:  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.


Me: Even with the “Nobel” jest, he still has no idea!
.

Re: my prediction about ostriches:
Cadman said: I doubt it. That title is already held by the now-extinct Argentavis with its 23-foot wingspan and weight of 150 lbs. Me: It’s extinct! Your typical ostrich weighs about 220-350 lbs and only presently has a wingspan of 6.6 feet making it far too heavy to be an effective flier, especially with the dumpy wings. Let’s also not forget that an ostrich can sprint up to 40-45 mph and maintain a comfortable 31 mph running speed which is just as fast as most birds can fly, so there’s no need for it to adapt back to life in the air when it functions just as well on the ground. Me: Takes an obvious joke seriously again and again. 

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.

stevebee92653 wrote:

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:

Postby 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.”)

 
by Rumraket» Dec 05, 2010 7:39 am
I have been laughing pretty much since page one in this thread.
 

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:

stevebee92653 wrote:

I think my flying breasted ostrich is pretty damn funny. Isn’t it at least worth a smile?? :lol:

:coffee:
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.
:lol: 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.”

stevebee92653 wrote:

Can’t any of you stop the tenseness and ultra-serious questions for even a few minutes?

:smug:
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.

:roll:
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. :whine:

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.

:rofl: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!
:roll: 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.

Postby 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?? :lol: 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 :nono: Then I bet you think that new “Jackass 3D” movie is comedy gold. :nono:
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

by stevebee92653 » Dec 08, 2010 2:40 am  It means X is below dumb.
by ADParker » Dec 08, 2010 4:30 am   Which of course makes no sense. But this is stevebee92653, who also refers to things having an “IQ of less than zero” and so forth.
by Kytescall » Dec 08, 2010 6:16 am Except it doesn’t, does it? “X doesn’t qualify as dumb” literally means that X does not meet the definition of dumb, which is why last time you said this I responded by saying that, yes, X “doesn’t qualify as dumb because it is not”.
by lucek » Dec 08, 2010 7:19 am How can something be below showing a lack of intelligence, or are you using the word as in lacking some usual attribute. Both ways dumb refers to a state with no bottom limit. IE if something is considered dumb anything with less intelligence in evidence would by definition be dumb as well.
by Shrunk » Dec 08, 2010 11:24 am Then you should say “Doesn’t even qualify as dumb.” You know, to avoid misunderstanding. You don’t want the evonauts to mistakenly think you’re praising them.
by stevebee92653 » Dec 08, 2010 6:02 pm This whole page doesn’t qualify as dumb. For those of you who may not understand, it means the discussion doesn’t rise to the standard of dumb. How could anyone pick such an inane topic. Maybe this could be a whole new thread! What stevebee meant by “doesn’t qualify as dumb”. It would be fascinating.
by Shrunk » Dec 08, 2010 6:17 pm Thanks, Steve. I knew you liked us, after all.by
lucek » Dec 08, 2010 6:34 pm   Steve I’m not shore if you can get this but something can’t be less than dumb. Something shows a lack of intelligence, speech or some other normal attribute or it doesn’t. Something that shows no intelligence is still just dumb, and there is no such thing as negative intelligence. This means that the only meaning of “doesn’t qualify as dumb” is that it is at or above normal intelligence, etc.
by Delvo » Dec 09, 2010 1:21 am   Off-topic stuff is a convenient distraction from the on-topic stuff that he can’t answer.
Me: Does this guy realize they are the ones off topic?  Ever the criticizers. That is their only successful strategy.  Demean until people get sick and tired of it and leave.  Then declare a great victory.   Say Hallelujah!  What fun.Just when I think my friends at RS.org could not possibly do any more to prove that evolutionauts are devoid of a sense of humor, another one will come up with another mind boggling bit of evidence.  A guy named DNAunion made several very demeaning videos attacking my videos.  He basically stuck his not too handsome face in a camera and ranted on and on about how terrible I was and how I didn’t know anything about science, evolution, anything…….  I placed a response video on YouTube, showing a beetle mating with a nautilus underwater so it could “attain vision…..eyes”.  Of course the notion was completely in jest. A beetle? With a Nautilus?  Under water? To attain eyes?  What do I have to do so these evolutionauts will realize that everything isn’t serious?! My gawd! As is typical, DNAunion didn’t have any idea that the photo and notion of the beetle/nautilus sex was a pun, and he made another video giving me a serious dissertation about how the beetle didn’t get eyes that way.  He didn’t even mention that they are two different species ergo they cannot mate anywhere, and beetles can’t live underwater, and…..that he realized it was a spoof.  He had no idea.
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!


Postby 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.
Me: It beggars belief that anyone on the planet earth would take these pictures seriously……oh, except an evolutionaut.

Actually, I didn’t have to wait long for another example, just when it looks like it’s over.   On rationalskepticism.org, one of the contributors asked a question in jest, only to get ragging from his ally, who thought the comment was serious, and probably thought the comment was from me!  As he rags about how I wasn’t paying attention in class, something that he would NEVER do to a fellow evolutionaut.

 


by Paul G » Jan 05, 2011 5:24 am   Me: I got into a discussion on the site about the evolution of arboreal bird nests. I asked, did they evolve one twig at a time? Per generation? Until thousands of years later, there were completed bird nests?Here’s one for you evolutionauts.  You’ve failed at bird’s nests and beavers dams, so I’ll give you an easier one. How did people learn to build houses? Did it evolve one brick at a time? Huh??????????

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.
The end of the ice age about 12,000 years ago brought about great change as people took to raising specific plants and animals for domestication. People needed permanent dwellings so they built bigger and studier huts with logs instead of sticks, and cut stones held together with mud and mortar. Houses are not the result of any kind of biological evolution, just human ingenuity.
(Just another fascinating dissertation about a joke.)

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):
The term “doctors of philosophy”, if you use it, demonstrates a bunch of no good goddam indoctrinated groupthinkers that accept anything. It’s a completely useless term. 8-)

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 :lol:

Me: Even when I rag on them for having no sense of humor, these generous people still give me fodder!  Why the hell would I care about “doctors of philosophy”?  What on earth would have brought Lucek to make this comment in the first place??

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?

 

Postby Latimeria » May 11, 2011 4:20 am

Your award, as promised, for so accurately describing one of Stevebee’s automated algorithms – because at the end of the day, figuring out the pattern makes you better at the game…
by Religion? May 11, 2011: I see the words assemble, invent and design again in relation to NS I think I’m going to take a hammer to my laptop.

You don’t need the hammer, just a large padded mallet :mrgreen:

6a00d8341c652b53ef01053607dc72970c-800wi

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect

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:

  1. Epilogue: Dr. Blume now claims that he is God. I guess that shows us.

    Me: The ever serious Mr. Curmudgeon chimed in with:

  2. Tomato Addict informs us: “Dr. Blume now claims that he is God.”

    It’s always good to know your place.

    Me: Thanks Mr. Tomato for this great addition to my “evolutionauts have no sense of humor” page.

 

54 Comments

  1. leanord said,

    He actually took you serioiusly. evolving teets, didnt he realize you were joking. FOR THE SAKE OF GOD. … wtf

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Mindboggling!

      • MaximusArurealius said,

        What I find funny is the fact that they come here and argue ad nauseam about this.

    • ADParker said,

      No we (stevebee92653 quoted two of us) did not take him seriously. We haven’t taken him seriously for months.
      And remember; Kirk Cameron brought up the Crocoduck, a similar bit of stupidity, and claimed that he WAS serious! And other creationist apologists have made similar ‘serious’ assertions.
      Poe’s law springs immediately to mind – it works both ways. It is just so difficult to distinguish the “serious” from the “parody,” when the “serious” is just that pathetically ridiculous?!

      • MaximusArurealius said,

        So you thought Crocoduck was serious? hahahahahahhahaaaa Hey keep bringing on the laughter Mr Parker. BTW does AD stand for Attention Deficit? Just wondering. Try not to laugh, OK?

  2. gene said,

    Lack of humor for sure.
    I was actually reading that forum following the link you gave me earlier. I was going to jump in but decided not to. It’s crazy there. I guess you have to take it with dose of humor. Evos are not capable of following simple logic. Their behavior is absolutely shocking – they act like a bunch of rabid hyenas.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      That would be a compliment. I don’t know why I go back. “Hope” that there will be just ONE…….But alas, not.

  3. cadman2300 said,

    Just to clarify a few things.
    When I gave you that challenge I was expecting you to do what most creatards do by presenting some kind of biological absurdity, and low and behold, I was not disappointed. Cheep photoshop jobs are a great way to show the world how little you know about anything at all. Remember Kirk Cameron and his Crocoduck? Of course you do.

    I also had this to say about you thinking they have no humor at the RS forum.
    “I have to say that It’s also idiotic to accuse people of having no sense of humor 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.”

    But that doesn’t mean we have no sense of humor. We’re all happily laughing at you Steve. You’re the best joke that the RS forum’s ever had.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      See Cadman, you fake laugh AT people, never with them. Your strategy is always made up of fake internet ROTFL’s. Fake as can be. Something funny, or done in a “tongue in cheek” tone is always taken seriously by y’all. This is only one example. I have gotten serious dissertations by RSers from several of my tongue in cheek comments. You can’t get off the serious rag.
      Right. Mention the crockoduck. Display your “great” sense of humor even more than you have. You are too tense and serious Cadman. I love Shrunk telling me I failed the “ostrich test”. Impossible to believe. I wonder if any of you had a “non-demeaning” sense of humor at birth and lost it because of evolution. Or were you simply born without one. I am really not sure which. In any case, I feel sorry for you.
      And regarding your “NOT funny” comment: Right. Nothing is funny to you RSers, and almost all evolutionauts. You prove my point. You have no idea when your chain is being pulled, even though something may not be “funny”. You are a loser either way.

      • cadman2300 said,

        Sorry but nobody there thinks at the sub-layman level like most internet trolls do. You’re trying to push your personal poor taste in humor into a venue where it simply doesn’t belong so the reasons they think you’re a joke are fairly obvious to everybody but you. You can either take the subject matter more seriously or blow it all off like you always do. The choice is yours.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You don’t know what humor is, Cadman. Your friend Shrunk doesn’t either. Here is his comment after seeing the pic of the double breasted flying ostrich:

        All 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?

        So, at least you are not the only humorless one. You’re ALL humorless!

  4. cadman2300 said,

    None of us are in grade school Steve and an ostrich with mammary glands is simply NOT funny. It’s just stupid.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Cadman, You would do better not continually proving my point. “Thou protesteth too much.” As I said, NOTHING is funny to you RSers. I got it. Except your fake laughter aimed at your opponents when your arguments fail.

      • cadman2300 said,

        Let me put it a more bluntly. You’re not funny, and when I explained where you were wrong in your first response to the ostrich test you didn’t bother to address a single point that I raised. I didn’t ask for an obscene image composite and the purpose of that thread was to have a serious discussion. My arguments didn’t fail. You failed to address them.

        There’s a huge difference between having a good sense of humor and just mindlessly laughing at everything in sight. When you learn that difference, I’ll start being more open.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        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. BTW, I really like that accurate description of me you wrote on the evo-Wiki site. Pretty astounding. Now THAT was funny!

    • aaugoaa said,

      of course it’s funny , you bore..but not as funny as your silly attitude.

    • MaximusArurealius said,

      Cadman, You sound like one of those Jr. Hi vandals who thought is was funny to go around drawing a penis on statues and pictures in your school.

  5. ADParker said,

    You are right stevebee92653; your attempts at humour ARE of the sort that “any third grader would get a kick out of/.” Some of us have actually grown up since we were that age, at at that level of maturity. Do you crack up when people fart as well?

    What I would find incredible, if I wasn’t used to your inanity by now, is that you actually thought that any of us who responded really took what you said seriously! (In fact I said, and quoted, that I realised that you THOUGHT you were being funny.)

    Excuse me (and us on that thread) for preferring to have a serious mature discussion, instead of engaging in childish little games.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Here is your problem ADParker. Doesn’t matter if you thought it was funny or not. Your chain was being pulled. You were being kidded. And you had no idea. You went into serious discourse on the evolution of the breasted flying ostrich. If the picture wasn’t hilarious to you, the fact that you didn’t realize it was just done in fun, and your response was unbelievable. And a glimpse at your level of zealotry. So quit trying to convince me of your great sense of humor, and high level of intellect and knowledge on how all of nature formed. The cat is out of the bag, and won’t go back in. I know you, and you have demonstrated your persona well.

      • ADParker said,

        Of course I understood what you were doing. Do you know how many times religious apologists make just that kind of stupid little snide remark? Parodying evolution in a way that represents how poorly the understand it.

        Serious discourse?! Did you even read what you copied from my post?! It’s right here for you to read again if you like. You have no bloody clue, do you?

      • aaugoaa said,

        you know that it is a sin to question their prophet Darwin Steve. your funny pictures are a kin to making a cartoon image of Mohammad to the Muslims.
        hee hee 🙂

    • MaximusArurealius said,

      ADParker, You just proved Steve right. You have NO sense of humor.

      PWNED

      • ADParker said,

        He’s not funny, at least not to anyone with a sense of humour that has developed beyond that of a third grader.

  6. 9pt9 said,

    “that might be enough time for some speciation to occur but not full flight to appear”

    Lol, as If there’s any actual data in existence from which he could know 10,000 years is ONLY enough time for some speciation and nothing else.

    They love to pretend it’s a real testable science!

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Right. They KNOW for sure. Ain’t that kick! “His trainer told him so.”

  7. gene said,

    Richard Dawkins talking to his followers

  8. aaugoaa said,

    lol cool pictures steve.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Glad you liked ’em. Aren’t these guys fun??

  9. Hirino666 said,

    A relatively amusing article Steve.
    What better way to distract people away from your inability to properly answer a challenge than by accusing the questioners of having no sense of humor.
    A sense of humor that only a crackhead could appreciate.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      There’s actually a challenge? Where? I must have missed it.

      • Hirino666 said,

        Cadman2300’s ostrich test? Don’t tell me you forgot about that already, especially after failing it twice. If you’re not going to take the subject matter seriously, and then poke at a perceived lack of humor in order to worm your way out of a serious discussion, then there truly is no hope for your senseless little crusade against science.

      • aaugoaa said,

        Hirino666 says you are on a crusade Steve, yet wears the mark of the beast 666 lol

    • MaximusArurealius said,

      HI Rhino, wah wah wah Go see mommy and tell her Steve tricked you into not having any humor.

  10. Vashti said,

    I’m not an “evolutionaut” at all but I have to agree with the people at the RS forum. Your sense of humor really does need work.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      What a very unusual email address and a very interesting comment. When people tell me they are “not”, they usually are in this venue. You might want to ask your mother about that email address. I am sure she could give you some good advice.

      • MaximusArurealius said,

        Steve, I believe we have some candidates here for my evolution test. HAR HAR HAR

    • MaximusArurealius said,

      So you must be an evotard instead? They don’t have a sense of humor either.

  11. Richie said,

    G’day Steve,thought I’d share a laugh a minute moment too,my theory is parody of any sort cuts too close to the bone.
    1 week ago Funny,we’re constantly told we can’t “see”rm in action because it takes millions of years to accumulate into something tangible,but this lizard works out, gets bigger legs and suddenly it’s evolution in action? That’s called having a bet each way. If there’s a twitching gene,as this vid implies,I hope there’s a dancing gene,I’d love to have 1 implanted from a black dude,I’m white n can’t dance for jack.

    Copsweet 1 week ago Shenanigasm
    1 week ago @Copsweet Yeah.. evolution is a fact, everyone who’s educated in biology knows it. Btw, it’s not evolution in action, it’s natural selection in action. Once there are no nontwitching lizards left in that area, there will only be twitching lizards that pass on their genes. You have no idea how evolution works and you probably didn’t even watch the video.
    Shenanigasm
    1 week ago @THC1989 So if I proved to them that natural selection was happening, it also supports evolution happening. I can understand why you took my meaning wrong, I didn’t word it in the right way. But you should get my point. I know natural selection and genetic mutation are the driving engines of evolution and evolution is a very slow process. I thought what he was look for was speciation anyway, which is ridiculous to expect to see in real time.

    Shenanigasm 1 week ago Shenanigasm
    1 week ago @Copsweet The mere statement you made about a single gene responsible for good dancing and that you wanted one implanted in your DNA makes you look like a fucking retard. You can avoid this in the future by studying the things you want to argue about, or just keep it to yourself.

    Shenanigasm 1 week ago Copsweet
    1 week ago @Shenanigasm No,see I want it implanted in my legs,as that’s where dancing begins. Evos really struggle with comprehending irony and sarcasm. Is it possible defending such a ludicris theory sucks the marrow out of your sense of humour? You guys must workshop default responses and insults,never seem to be able to express yourselves individually.

    Copsweet 1 week ago Shenanigasm
    1 week ago @Copsweet Yeah, I know it was a joke. You still look like a retard, it’s the spirit of the joke that is so fucking stupid, besides the fact that it wasn’t even funny. Anyway, the “joke” annoyed me the most, out of sheer stupidity. How are you supposed to sense sarcasm on the internet btw? You honestly appear stupid enough to think that’s how genes work, I don’t know. Anyway it really was a super lame joke.

    Shenanigasm 1 week ago Copsweet
    1 week ago @Shenanigasm Must be such a chore for you,wading around the internet suffering fools day in day out. You know you used the word stupid 3 times in 1 short post? Poor boorish, unhappy & angry little troll unable to vent originally.

    Copsweet 1 week ago Shenanigasm
    1 week ago @Copsweet It really stood out to you didn’t it?

    Shenanigasm 1 week ago

  12. Richie said,

    G’day Steve,if you want to see evo humor in all it’s glory,check out Edwardcurrents “Humans are not animals” vid on youtube. As you probly know he’s an evo who uses parody and comedy to get his message across,and it’s actually quite well done,by and large. But on this vid particularly the responses from evos are just great,so much anger and derision,they entirely miss the fact that he’s on their side,and that the video is parodying creation. Don’t know about you,but in my experience when people are so dogmatically defensive and agressive,it usually means their position is on shaky ground,and they’re not convinced of it themselves. Cheers

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I’m sure that’s why they are always so pissed. They are standing on quicksand. I will check it out. Thanks

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Amazing. Most of his allies are so dense they rag like hell on his stuff. I should put the whole thing on my page on evo-sense of humor. They have none. How did that guy get 350,000 viewers????

  13. Charlie said,

    That’s not FUNNY!

    Now take it back. Or a I’ll… hit you over the head with a fossil from a flying ostrich with teats.

    Now quit laughing at jokes that I don’t understand. And treat me with the respect that I deserve. Because I DO mean something and am important. Even though I strive with every breath to deny that I come from anything purposeful.

    I MEAN IT!

    • Charlie said,

      REALLY- I MEAN IT. You darn creotards!!! {stomps feet}

  14. Shane McHan said,

    evohyperseriousness – I love it. Your blog is awesome by the way. I am currently in school and they are teaching the same disproved crap they have always been teaching. Ohh….humble’s law and the expansion— well jerk offs you can only go so far back. Anyway – whose to say it all started at one point – philosophical (religious) die hards of evolution have the same defensive posture of die hards on the other side of the fence. It’s funny.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the note and visit. Nice to see someone who has enough intelligence to fend off the indoctrination!

      • ADParker said,

        Yet not quite enough to get the name of the law right.
        I expect that he meant Hubble’s Law, which originated with Edwin Hubble. A law (description of observed phenomena) of astronomy of course, not evolution.

        I can’t fathom how he (Shane McHan) concludes that these observations could have possibly been disproved. Explanations (theory/hypothesis) of those observations, and even possibly a revision of the description (law) of those observations, perhaps. But not the observations themselves.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        No, he IS talking about “humble’s law”, which states that the heads of evolutionauts will expand and weigh over 50 pounds some day through natural evolutionary forces if they aren’t more humble. Don’t you know that one ADParker?

      • ADParker said,

        No I don’t know that one stevebee92653. I happily leave the making-up-bullshit-terms game to you.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Out of curiosity, have you ever misspelled a word when writing on the net? Just wondering.

      • ADParker said,

        Sure I have – haven’t you been reading my comments on your own blog!

        Have a sense of humor why don’t you.

  15. Challagar said,

    Loved the video, Gene! HILARIOUS!

  16. LucidFlight said,

    Love the whole blog, Steve. Well done.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Ah, you have been here all along. Jay Wilson?

  17. Sennekuyl said,

    *sheepish* heh. I was so convinced you were building a secular AIG. Good job, so realistic.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: