23. I Debate Evo-illusionists and Evolutionauts


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.

 

The following pages (sub-pages) are debates that I have had with evo-illusionists. The source of the debaters runs the gamut from YouTube commenters to a website from The University of Minnesota biology department, who I thought would be the most intelligent group. You can judge for yourself if you think they are. The debaters were outside volunteers that help PZ Meyers, the head of the bio/ev department there, and a famous evo-illusionist.  The common denominator of all of the many evo-illusionist debaters that I encountered is that they all find it necessary to demean the questioner, which in these cases is me. Initially I naively thought that biologists would be interested in facts that would seem to disprove evolution. I actually thought that scientists were objective and interested in new theories. In the case of ev-illusionists, that certainly is not the case. Every one of the debaters believed what they defended so vociferously because some revered authoritarian figure in their life had told them what they were spouting to me. With evo-illuion being supported by supposed science books, they believed the illusion. They in turn spouted the information to their students, family, and people that they were in charge of, who also believed the illusion. This is, in a sense, a perfect example of evolution. Once layer after layer, generation after generation, believed the illusion, it became a locked in science. And, of course, underlying evolution is the religious belief of the followers. In reality, we are not arguing science here, we are debating religious belief. We are debating atheism. Atheism is a religious belief just as certainly as Christianity or Islam. In reality, these debaters are defending their religious position, and are not interested in logic, common sense, and probabilities. They have no interest in objectivity, and true science. They have swallowed the illusion hook, line and sinker, and their minds cannot and will not be changed. And they will demean anyone who tries; like me. Atheism completely depends on evo-illusion for its existence. Interestingly, evo-illusion does not depend on atheism. Many Christians believe that God used evolution as a tool to create life and species. Virtually all knowledgeable atheists must believe in random mutations and natural selection as the cause of us, life and species. Without evolution there is no atheism.

One more observance: A large percentage of the commenters on this site and my YouTube videos talk about “we”.  “We” have the evidence….”we” found that…..”we” have this, “we” have that.  If a person were talking about a true science, they would say “astromomers have” or “chemists found that…”  They would not say “we”. The use of the word uncovers theiry thinking.  They think they are in a group of believers, which makes them like a cult. And, as far as I am concerned, a group of people assembled for the purpose of promoting their beliefs, and who believe preposterous and impossible events to support their beliefs is a cult.

Before going into the discussion, here is a review of the steps of ev-illusion which may help in the understanding of how things work in the world of evolution “science”.


Step 1: Have a very credible demeanor as if your are “above it all”.Sound British, and intelligent. Be or be like a college professor.Talk in echo-y lecture halls.No one will want to challenge you, whatever you say.The audience will be responsive, worshipful, intimidated, and even more enthusiastically on your side.They will laugh at your jokes, no matter how bad.At every chance, make light and fun of those in the skeptic group.It will shrink and skeptic turncoats will come over to your side.No one wants to look foolish.

Step 2: Group all skeptics together, no matter their reasons for being skeptical.Make fun and light of the least credible in the group so it seems like the whole group is equal to the buffoon.Most in the audience will not want to be associated with the group of skeptics, and will willingly and enthusiastically be on your side. No one wants to look foolish.

Step 3: Make the audience think that they are witnessing an impossible event of your choosing, or that an impossible event took place that you describe.Make them think they are seeing something that they are not.Fool them into believing an event took place that didn’t.Once they believe in that one impossible event, they can be easily convinced the next impossible event also took place.As each impossible event is displayed, the audience will be more and more easily convinced, until an entire series of impossible events of your choosing will be accepted by the audience without question.No one wants to look foolish.

Step 4: Bait and switch. Make the audience think you are going to show, do, or describe something unbelievably difficult. When the audience is convinced, show, demonstrate, or describe an event that is far easier, but convince the audience that the new task is ever MORE difficult than the one you originally were going to show, do, or demonstrate. As they are already in your pocket because of the first three steps, they will accept step 4 without question.

By the way, I put an unhappy face next to the debaters comments, because they seem so unhappy, and angry. If I get into a debate with and evillusionist who seems normal, and enjoys discussing science, I promise I will put a happy face next to his or her comments. But I won’t hold my breath on that one. I hope I am wrong.

This is a video that I made about some of the comments that I have received from avid evolutionists.

[YouTube=]

Advertisements

10 Comments

  1. MichaelBryant said,

    when ever I ask question about evolution on amazon forums they view me as anti science. In post I never said that model evolution was wrong I just ask a question. But evolutionist see any one that questions evolution is anti science. Nothing can be further form the truth. In science we should ask questions all the time to get at the truth.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Evolution blocks good science.

  2. Mike said,

    Have to diasgree with you on the origin of evolution-fanaticism, at least speaking for myself only. You seem to imply that it’s all about following authority figures.

    Perhaps in some cases. For me it was fear of hell. I was raised Catholic and was devout until late high school, when the ridiculousness of some of Church doctrines became too much and I gave up the faith.

    Very soon after giving up the faith, I found myself on discussion boards vociferously debating against religion and debating for evolution.

    Looking back on it, the true motivation was my fear of hell. I was trying desperately to convince MYSELF that the universe was completely unintelligent and thus there could not possibly be any true meaning to life and therefore I could not possibly be held “cosmically” responsible for my behavior.

    Please note, I am not a hell-believer. The whole doctrine of hell stinks of propaganda aimed at control. But this does not change the fact that fear of hell, or in a looser sense fear of responsibility, is what was driving my intense dogmatic debate behavior on the message boards.

    In fact, looking back on those religious debates makes me giggle a bit. It’s those who are desperately afraid there might not be a god versus those who are desperately afraid that there might actually be one. The desperation results in dogma as a defense mechanism, so it’s dogma versus dogma.

    And they both accurately portray each other as dogmatic, because projection is what we humans do best.

    We’re such silly creatures.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Your story is like mine. I was in fear of the notion that there “might be a hell, so why not believe” for most of my teen years. When, as a child, you are indoctrinated into a religion, your brain is not fully matured. The most absurd notions can be believed. When I got to college I escaped what I had been taught for so long but questioned do deeply. Evolution was my out. My answer, just like yours. I had such a free feeling when I realized the answer wasn’t the religion that I had been taught but didn’t really accept. I felt so enlightened. At last! And, like you, I became a pretty adamant pro-evolution arguer. I wanted other people to have the same enlightenment that I was now so fortunate to have. Until I got my second enlightenment. Which was just as much fun as my first, amazingly. I didn’t actually bug people with evolution, but if asked, I did freely discussed if pressed.
      The other entity that keeps evolution going is the power it gives believers. Just imagine that you finally KNOW how all of nature formed. For sure! It gives you a certain strength that other “gullible” and now “inferior” people don’t have. It is very empowering. And I felt empowered. And smart!
      So nice to see I am not alone…..and, you are right on. They have to attack me personally. They fail so badly at attempting to attack the information on this site. If I was a fifth grader with this site, it wouldn’t make a lick of difference. The objective facts presented trump the presenter. And since they can’t answer those, I personally have become the target. Which I find amusing. Doesn’t bother me a bit. It’s actually fun to see how much time evos will waste trashing lil ole me! Over and over….
      Thanks for the visit and great comments.

  3. George Keith said,

    I spent some time on the Free and Rational Discussion Board (www.freeratio.org) debating evolutionists. My objective was a bit different than yours. I did not expect to persuade anyone toward skepticism of Darwinism, but I wanted to see if my arguments would hold up, and possibly learn something. I figured I would learn more about evolution on an evolution oriented site, than a creationist one. I did not respond to personal attacks, and told them that I would not. Indeed, it is against their site policy, and they do have monitors to discourage it. Nevertheless, they were pervasive. I simply stuck to discussing the topic, and would only respond to those that had something to say. One problem with all of this is that it can be quite time consuming, especially if you attempt to respond to the ten or twenty posters who want to get their oar in. As you noted, though, I loved your comment that the odds of 20:1 weren’t fair, for them! Considering the case they are trying to make, you are so right!

    Early on I was pointed to one of their favorite internet links, demonstrating tons of transitional fossils. It’s a thirty page post, with all these Latin names, and appears quite imposing. I constructed a table based on this article, with a few other fossils I had encountered elsewhere, showing which fossils occurred where in the geological time scale, and pointing out gaps and other problems. I used a green font for things that favored evolution, and a red font for things that didn’t. The table had a lot of red. One person said, “So, there is more red than green. Creation wins!” Yup. This table irritated them sufficiently that they closed the thread. I was somewhat disappointed, as I was only half done with the table. The comment I liked the best was “This thread has been very frustrating.”

    My other favorite thread was the one I opened on abiogenesis – life from chemicals. I figured it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Yup. There were times when some of the posters learned something that they would have preferred not to. I observed that even the contents of a single cell is not understood. How could you believe it could form from random reactions, if you don’t even know what is in it? This solicited a great deal of skepticism, even after I quoted from Neil Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish”, where he makes the same point (that the cell is not well understood). Besides being accused of quote mining, at least one poster started dumping on poor Neil as an inadequate authority. At last one of their more educated posters admitted this was so. One poster pointed me to a lengthy paper describing how life could have started with RNA. This is the latest darling of abiogenesis, because RNA is viewed as an easier starting point than DNA. I don’t think the poster expected me to actually read the article and take it apart point by point, although he did hang with me for a long time. I pointed out that it merely discussed nine independent islands of research that had no way of interconnecting, other than random chance. Therefore, his belief in abiogenesis was an act of faith, nine times no less.

    This is not well received by evolutionists, who know what happens to any path that is subject to random chance. Someone, like you did with hemoglobin, will point out that there is not enough matter or time in the universe to make that particular leap. Their security blanket for this kind of thing is to say that science doesn’t know the answer to that YET. So, all their beliefs are provided by science, or will be, some day. Hence their own beliefs are not based on faith, but on confidence in what science will ultimately show. Do they have a time limit for this kind of thing? That would show a lack of faith, so, no.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      The screening at evo-forums is always only for evo-skeptics, as you found out. I went 330 pages at rationalskepticism.org. I was warned numerous times, and blocked for weeks at a time for my very respectful and tame discussions, when the evos were allowed to be as asinine and rude as you could imagine without any warning whatsoever. They finally gave me a lifetime ban which is really great. I wasted too much time there talking to the clones who are so unbelievably indoctrinated there is absolutely no hope of even having a semi-intelligent discussion. It’s interesting to check the other threads, and see how these clones say the exact same very rude stuff, over and over, like programmed robots. A very funny “science”, this evolution. Can you imagine astronomers or physicists discussing like that?

      • Michael S. Crowe said,

        I am just checking in to see what is new on your website, and to check your boxes to notify me of new comments or posts via e-mail. Thanks for all you do here. I really like it, and found out about you through your debate on rational skepticism, which was a hoot!

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Hey thanks! Nice to hear some positives. I was banned for life from ratskep. That’s how they win debates.

  4. Joe Rodriguez said,

    Hello Steve, I have been looking for a site like yours for a while and I am very grateful that you’ve gone to the extent that you have in examining the evidence for evolution vs intelligent design. Is this site still active? Are you working on another book? By the way how do I get a copy of your book? The Amazon link to your book is dead.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Hi Joe
      Thanks for the visit. Yes, this site is still active. It’s pretty big, so I don’t want to overwhelm people too much. But when I see a good article or subject, I do add.
      If you go to Amazon, and type Evo-illusion you will find my book. I am just wrapping up book 2, which is titled The Evo-illusion of Man. It was a pretty astounding book to write, and I hope a good read. I didn’t have enough room in book 1 for ape-man evo, ergo, book 2. Let me know if you have any problems with Amazon.

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: