N: Arguing at rationalskepticism.org

“Real scientists dig and question constantly; real indoctrinates defend.”  TJ McGovern

“Hydrogen is a colorless, odorless gas that, given enough time, will turn into human beings.” Author unknown

“It (coelacanth) is a living fossil in the sense that it has changed hardly at all since the time of its fossil ancestors, hundreds (410) of millions of years ago”

“It is conceivable that coelacanths stopped evolving because they stopped mutating-perhaps because they were protected from cosmic rays at the bottom of the sea! -but nobody, as far as we know, has seriously suggested this……”Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 246-7

A commenter at rationalskepticism.org has given me several “tests” to take in hopes that he will show me up, of course. So here is my test for him:

Shrunk test for the day:

Richard Dawkins wrote the above (in blue) to:

(1) Confuse people into thinking he knows why coelacanth didn’t evolve a lick in 410,000,000 years.

(2) Confuse people into thinking he has no idea why coelacanth didn’t evolve a lick in 410,000,000 years.

(3) Both of the above

In the last few weeks I have had the pleasure of “discussing” evolution with the good people at www.rationalskeptic.org.  Why I keep going back is the big question.  I know in advance it will be a waste.  They are “uni-thinkers”.  They seem so unhappy and constantly pissed off  as a group.  They never catch humor. Is there such a thing as “group-unhappy”? If not, I am coining another word to describe them.    When I do answer with a bit of humor, they never catch the humor.  They usually go into some serious dissertation in answering a tongue in cheek comment I made. Then they rag on me as if I am some sort of mass murderer. I can’t wait to see this paragraph copy/pasted over at RS.org.  If it is, there will be the typical BOO HOO’s, and “stevebee can’t take it” comments.  On that they are right.   I can’t take the notion of wasting any more time “communicating” with them. It’s a zombie zoo like any group of evolutionauts.  Anytime I go on one of their sites and discuss, I know when I leave, no matter what, they will celebrate a great victory, and talk about how I am leaving with my tail between my legs.  No matter when I leave, or under what circumstances.  100% of the time they think they have beaten down anyone that disagrees with them.  The score is always evolutionauts 65, denialists 0.  Always.  What fun to play a game and never lose. In their minds, they don’t.  Reality is another story.

Actually I did find one evolutionaut that was a joy to talk to. A 20 year old biology student that goes by the name “Sounds of Silence” at YouTube.  He made a very attacking video about me. Instead of getting defensive, I communicated with him on an adult level, and gave him a few suggestions on his vid. He responded in a very adult manner, and we wound up having a great conversation across the divide.   A mutually respectful one, and I shall not forget it. He is a rare gem. He retracted the vid and made a new and very accurate one that depicted me and my stance in a very fair and objective manner.  If you would like to see it:

To give you and idea of the high science done at rationalskeptic.org, and, in fact, all of evolution, here is a question that I posed there:
stevebee92653 wrote:OK, take me through the evolution of teeth. The very beginning . You could do it in just a few sentences. You know so much, so let’s see it. What started the “notion” of opposing teeth mashing and killing? With a jaw in between. What was the first example. Have at it. Or shut it. All I hear here is “we told you and gave you papers”. But no “telling” has occurred. So, tell. Please.

A contributor named Lucek gave me his obviously researched answer.   Of the twenty or so contributors there that spend so much effort trashing  me, why doesn’t at least ONE have questions about his answers?  Actually I do know the reason They are fully indoctrinated.   They cannot question. That is what groupthink, unithink, (unanimous or universal think)  and indoctrination does to people.  Indoctrination is so much stronger than I had ever imagined.  Looking back, I was right in there with them.  I was an evolutionaut.  I would have been one of the congregation. I did treat denialists with respect, though, when I did my arguing. Not like these people treat their imagined enemies.

At left is a cartoon drawing of the hypothetical (admitted on the second step) steps for the initiation and evolution of the “gnathostome” inserted by Lucek as proof of the evolution of teeth. I don’t quite get how he thinks this helps him. (Click on the drawings if you want a better view.) At the very top of this page is a jawless maw provided by Lucek, “with teeth that are functional.”  Of course the question arises, why does this maw still have such rudimentary jaws and teeth? Why no bony jaw and temporomandibular  joint?  It didn’t evolve in over 500,000,000 years and, as usual, evolution’s evidence goes against  evolution itself.  I’m sure there is an excuse:  “It didn’t NEED to evolve.”

Evolution is made up of “mountains” of hypothetical cartoons. Hypothetical cartoons are a major part of their “mountains of evidence” they always brag about.  

(Lucek responded to my answers on rs.org after I posted them here. In fairness to him, I have added his responses in green below. I included a few bolds and underlines to emphasize a few of the major  phrases I would have an argument with, but I won’t bother actually arguing his points. They are all so ridiculous.  God could be exchanged for Natural Selection here.  These are nothing but miracles, one after another. I can’t argue beliefs or miracles.  Not worth the effort. My questions involve where the notion came from for teeth, jaws and their clamping, chewing, and weapons usage; their invention, design, and assembly. Lucek’s answers usually involve “they are there, and…….” Lucek:  “The joint is still farther back with the rest of the gill that formed the upper jaw.” If you are an evolutionaut you will think his answers are just fine.  If you can think openly, and have no agenda, you will scratch your head in wonder.  How can anyone believe this nonsense.)

Here are Lucek’s  steps to the initiation of teeth:  (In blue are my comments, which are questions that any objective science fan should be asking.)

Step 1 rough scales provide better fluid dynamics than smooth ones so denticles are evolved.

Me: Better “fluid dynamics”? So “denticles are evolved”? Denticles are similar to tiny teeth that cover the scales of cartilaginous fishes: sharks, rays, and chimaeras. How did the fish “know”, or natural selection/mutations, “know” that covering  scales with calcium would produce better fluid dynamics? Why did that occur on only these three fish if it was such an advantage? Why not all fish? Where did the increased DNA code come from? Did selected mutations make up the “idea” of denticles? We went from no denticles to denticles.  Evolutionauts will say “That’s not how evolution works.  Stevebee doesn’t understand evolution.”  But we went from “nothing” to denticles, and the notion had to come from some source.

Lucek: Straw man: there is no previous knowledge of what will be beneficial. The texture of the scales increases eddies allowing the fish to swim faster. As the scales become more denticle like they again provide greater speed. Increased speed both allows them to avoid predators and catch prey.

Step 2 denticles enlarge and specialize around the mouth opening of fish providing a structure to grasp prey.

Me: They enlarge and specialize around the mouth? My skepticism is overwhelming. The many questions here are too obvious to write. Where did we get a mouth?  Gawd, these steps beg for all kinds of questions, unasked by the friendly groupthink folks at RS. org.

Lucek: Moving the goal post: Were did we get a mouth. Are you seriously asking this. For one I’ve explained this to you before. The mouth formed as an indentation that slowly deepened and exited out the other side. And before you ask the other end is an anus. I’m just in shock you asked this I explained this step by step on your blog before.

Step 3 muscle mass is developed around the teeth to increase the strength for grabbing prey.

Me:  Does Lucek know that teeth don’t have muscles? I can’t imagine the ragging I would take if I wrote something this dumb at rs.org. If he is talking about the four muscles of mastication, the muscles that open and close the jaws, how did they just start forming on their own? Did natural selection/ mutations realize muscles were needed to operate the jaw? Where did the jaw come from? Did natural selection realize a jaw was needed for the teeth? Did the calcified scales migrate into the jawbone? Did the “opener muscles’ evolve before the “closer muscles”? Then the jaw could only open, but not close.  Or visa versa?  Or both at the same time?  Wouldn’t that take intelligence and planning?  Think how many muscles in the bodies of millions of species would then have to evolve exactly at the same time as their opposers.  If “same time evolution” occurred in the jaws of species, then “same time evolution”  of ALL muscles and their opposers in all animal species would be the norm.  The intelligence required would be enormous. My gawd. The questions are endless.  None asked by any of the “scientists” at RS. org. Ever. Never.  They accept like pissed off little Sunday school children.

Lucek: Straw man: I never claimed teeth have muscles. What I was talking about is that the mouth develops muscles. I explained this to you before. Ignoring an explanation isn’t disproving it.

Straw man: Only one set of muscles in one species would have to evolve as that species is the common ancestor to all other animals with the features. The lack of understanding in this quote is just unmeasurable.

Step 4 the first gill slit migrated forward giving a flap that the mouth could close and open.

Me:  A flap that the mouth could close and open? What is this? The beginning of a jaw, or the temporomandibular joint?  I don’t get this one.

Lucek:  Argument from ignorance:The original flap would be just the lower jaw. The joint is still farther back with the rest of the gill that formed the upper jaw. Remember the image you chose to mock instead of look at this was depicted there.)

Step 5 the gill slit calcified.

Me:  Ah. I suppose the migrating gill slit became the jaw or joint or something. So, how did the calcified gill slit become a joint, if that is what Lucek is saying?  How did the DNA code for a brand new design, the calcium coating,  that wasn’t previously in the code?  The questions I could pose here are endless, but that’s enough.

Lucek: Argument from ignorance:The joint is present in gnathostomes in all the gill arches not just the one that formed the jaw. We know this is because of the hox 2 gene.

Lucek finishes with:

Steve that’s the third time I’ve explained the pathway to you.

Me:  Somehow these indoctrinates think if they “explain” something, you must accept that explanation without challenging, or you are  moron. Amazing that Lucek thinks he knows how teeth invented/initiated themselves, first formed, and built themselves into the dentition humans have today.  He actually thinks he can “explain” this to a dentist who has been trained for years on the embryology, formation, anatomy, histology, genetics et al  of teeth.  He is going to “explain” it to me!! Talk about delusions of grandeur.

Lucek continues: I don’t hold high hopes that you’ll even bother to read it but stop saying we’ve yet to give it to you. Of course go ahead prove me wrong. Show evidence that I’m mistaken or that there is some gross oversite in my reasoning. I’ve given you what the fossil and zoological evidence suggest is the most likely scenario. Show the error.

Why isn’t Lucek capable of finding his own errors? Of analyzing this horror story of how teeth came to be invented?  Dermal denticles are found only in sharks, rays, and chimaeras.  Are these fish the common ancestor to all toothed species on earth? Or is their common ancestor? Not possible of course.  See p. 36.

I argued with as many as twenty evolutionauts at www.rationalskepticism.org in hopes of finding at least one who could talk in a rational way, and who could exchange ideas in a respectful and inquisitive manner. The results were horrendous, as almost always.  Sad. I left over forty pages of discussion there in the Creationism and Intelligent Design section.  Three of the threads have my name in the title, which is why I wandered into that site. Many of my vids have been posted there, but the questions posed in those vids are never answered.  A few tried, but the usual evo-fable answers were not accepted by me, which stirred up the evo-beehive. I told them where their answers fail, which only pissed them off more. I took these comment segments below off of only the last three pages of one of the threads to give you an idea of how bad the discussion was. I posted these comment segments on the thread as a farewell, and to give them an idea of how they look to those outside the cult.  I keep saying I will never waste my time with discussions like this.  I can do it for a while, but burnout hits.  And realization that it’s a complete waste of time.  When evolution grabs someone, they are grabbed like an astronaut falling into a black hole; never to be released.  I was a rare escapee.

Above is a poster that one of the evolutionauts posted on the thread.  They all thought this was so clever, and applied to “others”: creationists, IDers, the religious, evo-deniers.  Not one of them has the slightest inkling that this poster fits evolutions believers to a tee. From the poster: “If you can’t accept that you’re mistaken you are not doing it (science) at all.”  Me? I accepted that I was mistaken twice. Evolutionauts? Zero to one time.

Below is my comment-segment collection from rs.org. If you have concentration trouble  reading it, it’s very understandable. It’s kind of like reading wallpaper.  Same stuff over and over and over. But that’s what wallpaper is, and what evolutionaut writing is like: boring you to death with constant diatribes and scolding.

I wrote these two phrases (in blue) in comments at RS.org.

My new term for the day: “unithink” (I have coined a few terms which they universally despise.  “Bio-systems”, evo-denialist, “evolutionaut”, more.  I like this new one, coined for the evolutionauts at RS.org because that’s what they do.)
Fun with evolutionauts, or I hope this isn’t a quote mine: (I posted the material below at RS.org, and prefaced the post with this sentence.  Actually I couldn’t care less if they think it’s a “quote mine”.  According to them, any quote by a evo-denialist is a “quote mine”. Evolutionauts focus hugely on “quote mining”, which can be defined as ANY quote of an evolutionaut that doesn’t boost evolution, or may put evolution in a bad light.  Again, if you are a “denialist”, any quote you use no matter what is a boo hoo hoo quote mine.)

Theirs (MY conglomeration of many evolutionaut comments): How about you show the tiniest hint of having even the most minimal clue about evolution works instead of pushing your infantile strawmen? Picking on such specific details and demanding answers is just dishonest and/or confused. That you (once again) admit to liking quote-mines is quite telling. How about you demonstrate a basic understanding of evolutionary biology, or at least a willingness to learn, first? You have claimed repeatedly that it COULDN’T happen. How about supporting that assertion with more than your usual bluster? I’m going to have to somewhat retract my previous post as Steven has seemed to have forgotten how the quote function works again. Stevebee combines god-of-the-gaps, strawman arguments, arguments from incredulity, and willful ignorance to provide the most absurd attempts at a counter to evolutionary theory. Are you under the impression that solar radiation is the only source of mutations? Yet more evidence that you don’t know jack shit about biology, genetics, or mutations. Or perhaps you know about transcription errors, yet choose to keep quiet and hope people will chase your strawman argument and become distracted from reality. Steve, YOU are the one who refuses to dig, to learn how things really work. People here have bent over backwards providing you with scientific material directly refuting your silly assertions, yet you seem to just close your eyes, plug your ears and say “lalalalala” hoping the real world will go away. I had another look at your blog and your only argument against this is that you, personally, cannot believe that each gradual step could be beneficial, which just doesn’t fly. Sorry. That is a logical fallacy which you should be familiar with by now since it is one of your favorites, called argument from incredulity. Basically what you have here is your intuition, nothing else. It amounts to talking out of your anus. If by your made-up term “bio-system” you mean any useful trait, then we have myriad examples. Lenski’s epic E. coli experiments, bacteria digesting nylon, lizards evolving new cecal valves – as memory serves, you’ve even mentioned a few of these yourself. But let’s not change the subject. You said natural selection cannot evolve new features. This is not a null hypothesis, it is not a position of passive skepticism. It is a positive assertion, and as such it needs to be substantiated or it is worthless. If you’re admitting that you can’t demonstrate your assertion, that raises the question of why you cling to an assertion you can’t justify, doesn’t it? Actually it is, now more than ever. How is “bio-system” an abbreviation for biodiversity? And if you did mean biodiversity, that makes all of your statements in which you used this term make even less sense than ever. Thanks, Lucek, for providing evidence of yet another quote-mine by Stevebee. So, Steve, who is *looking so goddamn foolish” now?Quote-mine reported, BTW. And by his assertion; could not have evolved independently – which is technically correct, but confused. He can’t seem to grasp the idea that (for example) a heart can first evolve (without any lungs in the organisms.) And then that heart evolves further alongside, and in conjunction with, the newly emerging lung. Such that they become dependent upon one another in certain ways. He does that all the time. It’s one of his more tiresome little games. Wait. That’s all Stevens arguments has ever been. Introduce topics shotgun style and then never go back to one. Actually on several occasions Steve has expressed an unwillingness to repeat himself. I know the irony strikes me as well. Please invest some effort in your arguments or don’t write anything at all, because that was truly pathetic. Any rational observer would take such a short and substance less answer as an admission of defeat, in addition to being just plain infantile. I also admire your persistence in bringing up comparisons with Biblical bronze-age fables and faith. Where have I seen that tactic before? Oh yeah… from creationists and ID-proponents. You seem to be employing the full range of creotard weaponry in your endavours, and you are supposedly not even religious(or so you claim). I notice that yet again you dismiss offhand without offering any evidence, not even a rational argument. No argument at all other than “nuh-uh”Modern life gives us two choices here. Life designed by an idiotic design source, little to no evidence to support it, or evolution vNS, supported by virtually every scientific discipline, every scientist, every educated person, every intelligent person and not to mention the staggering amount of quality evidence. Sorry stevebee92653, but your evidence is non-existant, your arguments weak and fallacy-strewn, your beliefs ridiculous and your efforts pitiful. Uuuuh I’m so smelling another mod warning coming towards Steve… folks, we all know that “arguing” with Steve is futile, given his “answers.” Since he cannot even seem to get the basic propositions of the scientific method right, indeed, appears to reject them, any response to his self-amusing sniping is in vain. Chalk up another quote mine for Steve. Either that, or just more evidence that he doesn’t understand the things he reads. Obvious quote-mine is obvious. The only way creationism can be supported is through lies, misrepresentation, and misunderstanding. They continue to bear false witness because they think lying for their religion is alright. Those that demand evidence secondary to those that demand faith. They are Wormtongues, they will do or say anything to further their cause. They should be tried for fraud. Obviously. If what you want to defend is demonstrably false, all you have left at your disposal is dishonesty. Worse than the part that got left out is the part that got changed; the actual description of the idea was that it was “conceivable”, not that it “happened” or was “known” or even merely was “indicated by the evidence” or “generally accepted” or anything like that at all… but just that it was “conceivable”.That’s not just leaving important ideas out; that’s replacing one idea with another… making it a case of not just dishonesty by omission but flat-out lying… again. Not necessarily. It’s also possible that this is yet another example of Steve’s tendency to misunderstand and misconstrue anything, no matter how clearly written, so that it seems to him to confirm his creationist views. So, Steve either completely misread and misunderstood what Dawkins wrote, or deliberately distorted what Dawkins wrote. Either way, it doesn’t say much for the credibility of anything else he has ever written (not that his blathering had any credibility anyway). It’s just another quote mine from a person famous for quote-mining.The only difference this time is that he didn’t put quotation marks around his excerpt – perhaps trying to get around the FUA?Either way, it says nothing good about the trustworthiness of his posts.

Their response to my post? More of the same:

Use the quote function (and proper paragraph formatting). Your wall of text is barley readable as it is.  Is it a rebuttal or a wordsearch?It seems to be just a compilation of quotes from recent posts of other members. He somehow thinks this is an appropriate response to the revelation that he has yet again misrepresented or misunderstood the evidence he purports to understand. No, Steve, the appropriate response is to acknowledge your error and apologize for it.This is getting beyond pathetic.Do you expect anyone to read this shit?If you’ve read the thread, I believe you’ve already read it.  I think Steve is trying to make the point that he faces universal scorn on these boards.  Whether or not he deserves scorn for his obvious quote mining is left as an open question for the reader, apparently.  I think the point Steve is trying to make is that, because we all agree he is wrong, we are unthinking automatons who walk in lockstep to the dictates of our evolutionary doctrine.  (RIGHT! This guy got it!) The fact that Steve’s pathetic lies/errors are so blatant that no one with a functioning brain could fail to recognize them doesn’t seem to cross his mind.  Perhaps this is Unintelligible Design?Indeed. That’s a point that needs to be made clear, I think. Steve’s objective obviously is to discredit evolution by badmouthing it’s proponents, erecting straw-man and other dishonest tactics.  What he doesn’t realize is that he already lost the game. His posts are nothing but him arrogantly asserting that we are wrong and telling us in the most smug way how we all have no clue – but never actually caring to explain why. They contain lie upon lie. The “evolutionauts” on the other hand show the utmost patience in explaining him in detail how evolution works, citing loads of sources (while he quote-mines) and debunking his lies.  Any open minded, yet undecided person (who are the real target of steve) reading this topic should easily realize who’s actually making sense here and who’s just ranting incoherently and dishonestly.  SteveB is an excellent proponent of evolution, the more he spouts the more he strengthens those how oppose him.  We are Borg! Resistance is futile!  Atheistobot #79b concurs.  You display enough trouble with regular terms. Don’t confuse yourself with making new ones up. And it is just a rehash of your old “group think” blather, where you pretend that Everyone disagreeing with you, and all noting the exact same errors and dishonest tactics in your posts is evidence that we are all mindless automatons in some kind of cult that feeds us our singular answers, rather than facing the FAR MORE likely conclusion; that YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS WRONG. You are just making yourself appear more and more dogmatically closed minded and smug.  If you bothered to learn what it means, then you wouldn’t have to hope, now would you?So by “unithink” you meant a fair compilation of just how full of crap everyone here thinks your post history here, and on your blog, truly is ?!  Yes, I think you gave a rather good synopses of the general consensus on just how awful your pathetic attempts to challenge evolutionary biology has been. Doesn’t make you look good at all does it? Care to address ANY of it?  And no, while it is a pathetically poor mishmash of quotes, with none of them distinguished from one another, nor attributed to their authors, or even placed within quotation marks (as is only proper), it does not contain anything that I would call a quote-mine, as they all accurately convey the intents behind them; they are not out of context. And I think we all (I know I do) stand by what was said, and then so poorly quoted by you.  Don’t you love it when cdesign proponentsists strawman themselves?  Shouldn’t we be getting “credit” for these quotes from Steve?  He is copying, word for word, exactly what a number of us have said in this topic – shouldn’t those copies be marked with appropriate quotation marks and cited as to the author?  How is this not a violation for plagiarism?  Because he is not taking it as if it was his own writing, but displaying complete incompetence in quoting others.  Actually that reminds me of a question. Why did he quote in blue? I thought he used blue to signify material he wrote. As redundant and worth ridicule as it is it’s been his pattern. So what’s going on there.  It’s astonishing how much one person can fail at using the quote function.  I’d rather they just STFU but as that ain’t gonna happen the best we can hope for is that they reveal the true depth of their ignorance for all to see and SteveB has done a truly magnificent job in that area. Well done Steve. His fail to use the quote is just a tiny percentage of his overall fail in these few threads we have going on here.  I’m still waiting for the A, B or C question answer and the citation of his scientific sources that shows that evolution is wrong. Here and on the other thread. The fact that answering both questions would be devastating to his claims might have something to do with his silence. We will wait and for me this will be the ultimate test of his mettle and will root him out as the charlatan he is. No one could really be as willfully idiotic in his postings, surely? Use of the word charlatan is wholly justified in light of his deception with the Richard Dawkins quote mine which he was already warned about. The comment is not without substance.  At least the ownage, as well as self-ownage, continues. The good in this is that any lurkers that might have come here siding with him *may* now see how full of fail he and his arguments are.

To add to the fun, they repeatedly ragged about my use of colored text, which I used to separate my writing from theirs in a very clear fashion. They thought colored text was some sort of crime, punishable by endless ragging.   Of course more complaining brought more usage by me. They complained that I didn’t properly use their “quote” system. They made a big deal of any grammatical error.  One night I began writing a response, and in the middle of writing it, my wife and I went out to dinner. When I returned I finished the comment, only to get trashed by one of the contributors. “It took you 69 minutes to write this answer….blah blah blah.” Astounding. Anything they can to put you down, except science.  With science, all they have are cartoons and fables.  These people are a laugh a minute.

I invited the fine folks at rationalskepticism.org to come over and read this page.  The responses were more of the same.  They just can’t help themselves:

Nope, don’t care. I stopped reading at the point where he treated Lucek’s saying: Step 3 muscle mass is developed around the teeth to increase the strength for grabbing prey.  With the following: Does Lucek know that teeth don’t have muscles? Yes, yes he does. That’s probably why he didn’t say they had them. (Muscles evolved around teeth means just that.) Thanks, but NO THANKS. I didn’t even have to read the entire article to see what a misconstrued mish-mash it was.  I think Steve has taught us an important lesson. Quality is far more important then quantity.  It is, in fact, possible for 25,732 characters to depict nothing even remotely involved in reality. If you can’t win a debate, lie!  If you can’t win a debate, shit on it and fly home.  I’ve been to your lair and it’s hard to stomach.Wow. That really makes it look like you seriously believe that it’s all been about nothing but personal conflicts all along… like you can’t even comprehend or imagine the alien idea of anybody anywhere ever reacting to the facts that are being talked about and what is said about those facts, so everything must instead be just a matter of people expressing how much they like or dislike which other people.  What a strange, surreal way to be stuck seeing the world! It sounds like a terrible affliction.  Never mind all this Steve, what about answering the questions? You’re making yourself look remarkably stubborn and bereft of anything of substance in your arguments. You owe it to your army of followers to put it right.  I’m sure he is convinced he did just that with this piece of dishonest, ignorant crazyness.  OK, Steve, I went to your “lair” and read your post.  Why do you lie on your own blog?  Isn’t that rather like cheating at Solitaire? What is the point, other than to prove to anyone watching over your shoulder that you have no integrity?  Again, remember the wise words of George Costanza: “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”
He really doesn’t understand the the quote he puts in bright red letters at very top of his page clearly shows he is misrepresenting Dawkins words, which he continues to do in the rest of the page.  It’s as if I were to say, right here, “Weaver admits to never having read Steve’s post.”  I’m thinking the 2 vowels in this word are the wrong way around  “Lair” …but I could be mistaken.  Since this thread is starting to drag on, it might be a good idea to draw your attention to this other thread that’s been neglected for a while now.http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat … 15882.html It covers his latest video where he resorts to the ultra-overused creationist tactic of accusing science of bending the evidence.  Nah, I’m pretty much done with Steve. If you want to continue this go ahead but he can wallow in his own ignorance for all I care at this point. (And I am done with them.) Bye

Well, my “Bye” lasted only a week or so. The good people at http://www.rationalskepticism.org give me great examples of how evolutionauts  defend their belief system.  On a thread dedicated to “Why stevebee is Wrong” there, the Anders Lyndon and the U of TA, Arlington came up, and completely overwhelmed the discussion of the origins of the Krebs Citric Acid Cycle, a series of enzyme-catalysed chemical reactions, which is the energy producing biochemical entity in all living cells on earth that use oxygen as part of their metabolism, a “discussion” on the origin of arboreal branch bird nests, and heart, lung/blood/vessel/controller systems.  Nowhere in any of my writings or discussions do I quote or cite the U of TA Arlington, or Dr. Anders Lyndon, a member and department head; not in one single place. Dr. Lyndon and the U of TA Arlington are simply credited as the maker of some of my videos, but zero information is credited to him or them. The people who DO use the U of TA and Anders Lyndon are evolutionauts who utilize both as a distraction from the questions they can’t answer.  One would think that discussing the origin of nature’s incredible bio-systems would certainly be far more important than Dr. Lyndon or the U of TA, Arlington. But, here we go, on a fun ride.  The following is a compendium of several pages of discussion at RS.org:

From: Why stevebee is wrong

at http://www.rationalskepticism.org

byofrcs wrote: The way that stevebee talks about a thinktank of U of CA Arlington (Me: No, it’s the U of TA, not CA) just shows they are not playing with a full set of cards. We should probably leave them to their solitaire. (Me: byofrcs can’t even get the U of TA right. I wonder how full his deck is?)

lucek wrote: As said I did a cursory scan and I’m not diving too deep. All I know about the 4 (A. Lyndons) I listed was there name state they live in and age. I figure if this person is actually a forum member saying A. Lyndon of California is no more harm then A. Lyndon, and again It’s not like anyone who saw what Steve wrote couldn’t pay the $15 that I didn’t to get home phone, name of relatives, home address and more. (Why on earth would lucek want Dr. Lyndon’s personal information? What the hell would he do with it? Would he like his own personal information placed on the internet? I bet there are a ton of scammers out there that would love his information.)
Oldskeptic Stevebee’s blog:
The U of TA Arlington is a think tank that researches and discusses biology and evolution.

Oldskeptic:  So you say, but where is it? Why can’t you provide a link that might list membership? (Why on earth would I hand out member rosters to these guys? Why, they’re so friendly and helpful themselves!)

Stevebee’s blog:
Evolutionauts routinely have problems counting the A’s in the name.

Bullshit! The name is University of Texas at Arlington – U of TA, Arlington is pretty specif. Some times it is abbreviated UTA, but so is UCLA an abbreviation of University of California at Los Angeles. (Me: This guy can’t count A’s. The University of Texas, Arlington would be U of TA, NOT U of TA, Arlington which would read U of TAA. Methinks he tries so hard to find fault, he can’t count A’s.)

Stevebee’s blog:
They spend (waste) their time researching the University of Texas, Arlington, Texas, in hope of finding Dr. Anders Lyndon, a department head at the U of TA Arlington.


In one way it is a waste of time since Anders Lyndon PHD of U of TA, Arlington does not exist. But when you are called on this you make up a think tank that goes by the same name. (The same name as what? U of T?  No, not the same, sorry. Again, it’s U of TA, A.  Methinks you …..never mind.) Now you have not just made up an authority and his credentials, you have made an institution that he is connected to – one that cannot be found.  If this Anders Lyndon PHD exists and is attached to a think tank that goes by the same initials as the University of Texas at Arlington why does it seem impossible for you to provide information that would corroborate this? (Me: Again, these evolutionauts are arguing with stevebee, and they have all of my credentials and more. The thread is named after me, not Anders. So, why the focus on my very good friend Anders? Not one single word was added to this thread of over 100 pages by Dr. Lyndon.  So why the wild goose chase?  Such an interesting group, these evolutionauts.)

Stevebee’s blog:
Their big hope is to find flaws in my being, since they have so much trouble finding flaws in my writing.


Anders Lyndon is one of the flaws in your writing. You used an authority which can’t be verified even though many have tried. Why don’t you just provide this verification and make all doubters eat dirt. (Me: Never was Anders mentioned once in ANY of my “writings” on this blog or ANY of the threads at http://www.rationalskepticism.org.  Anders was never cited as an authority on anything.  ANYTHING. Methinks……)

Stevebee’s blog:
It’s amazing how easy it is to distract these people from the important discussion: biology, evolution, and the origin of species and bio-systems.


The veracity of your sources is not a distraction, it is key to anything that you say, write, or post on youtube. In case you haven’t noticed the subject of this thread is your own veracity and that of the claims that you make. It is important to know where your information comes from.  (Me: Again and again, Anders was not cited or sourced for one single word by me.  Not one.)

Stevebee’s blog:
They routinely have a major need to find flaws in their opponent, because they are so devoid of evidence for their belief system.

And just what are you doing with that statement? One of your main tactics is finding flaws in your opponents. (Me: No, my opponents do that very well on their own.   No “finding” necessary by me.)

Stevebee’s blog:
If those evolutionauts would count the number of A’s in the name they would realize that the University of Texas, Arlington would read : U of T, Arlington. Not U of TA, Arlington.

Bullshit again! Post some kind of link or information that there is a think tank that goes by the same initials as the University of Texas at Arlington. (Gawd.  They are not the same initials.  This guy is angry! Maybe when he learns to count A’s he will cool off.)

Stevebee’s blog:
Further, there are numerous Arlington’s. Never was the state of Texas mentioned.


Texas didn’t need to be mentioned any more than California needs to be mentioned if  I wrote U of CA, Los Angeles. (Ah, you mean University of California Angeles, Los Angeles? Ever heard of USC and USC?  University of Southern California, and University of South Carolina?  Of course the state has to be mentioned. )

Stevebee’s blog:
To name a few: Arlington, MA, Arlington, MN, Arlington, VA, Arlington, KS, Arlington, SD, Arlington, GA.


Are you saying that your U of TA, Arlington is in one of these cities? If so which one? Otherwise what is your point? (Me: My point? The point is entirely y’all’s at RS. I never brought up Anders or the U of TA.  Not once. I have no point except it’s astounding how evolutionauts demean and distract from the issues being discussed when they have no answers.  Which is always.)

Stevebee’s blog:
So off they go, on a wild goose chase, wasting their time on a useless search to find flaws not in the least bit related to the discussion.


A wild goose chase that you sent people on because you either made up Anders Lyndon and his institutional affiliation or you’re being coy about telling us who he is. (Me: I sent people?  Surely Oldskeptic jests!  I wish I had that much control over people.  These evolutionauts wouldn’t do what I wanted to save their skin.  I am a highly hated individual at RS.)


It’s already common knowledge that Anders Lyndon is just another one of his fictitious pen names and it’s also common knowledge that he attached some phony trumped-up credentials to it in one of his videos. Apparently, he thinks that looking up names and finding out if he’s telling the truth is a waste of time as far as he’s concerned.

Oldskeptic :I’d still like to know who Anders Lyndon is and what university he is actually attached to. (Me: Why? Since, again, he has zip to do with the conversation here.)
Why is this such a difficult question to get an answer too?


I has been gone over before. He claimed it was just a “Pen Name.” But could not seem to recognise the dishonesty in ‘giving’ that pen name character implications of qualifications and positions (appeals to authority) that the person using the pen name does not in fact have, that goes WAY beyond a mere pen name.  (Me: Ah, the “dishonesty” card again.  Fun at RS: Stevebee has no patents.  He is a liar.   He is dishonest.  Oh…..he does…..Oh.  Well, his inventions are no good! )


So Anders Lyndon PHD of the University of Texas at Arlington, Department of Biology is a creation of SteveBee? But Stevebee gets to claim that he never impersonated someone having these credentials because it was all made up? That is FUBAR.  What say you Steve, is this accurate?  (Me: ‘Scuse me.  I am getting sleepy. How could I impersonate Anders when I am stevebee? zzzzzzz….)

Oldskeptic wrote:

I’m getting a bit confused. (Me: Of course he is.  He has  been confused for a long time.) This video..(Me: My video on The Origin of Life Made Diffiuclt) .was made by Dr. Anders Lyndon of U o B (Me: Now we are at the U of B??  I wonder what state the U of B is in? What does the B stand for?  Is it in Arlington, Texas?) dept of biology. But this one.. (Me: My Video “The Beginning of Life on Earth”) was made by Professor Anders Lyndon of the dept of biology at University of Texas at Arlington. (Me: No, again, the U of TA, Arlington.  I give. And, no Anders isn’t a professor.  Made up again by RSers.)

Shrunk wrote:More problematic was the video in which he claimed to be a professor of biology. (Me: What video was that? A professor? Shrunk is an evolutionaut known for making things up.)

CADman2300 wrote:

Who is Anders Lyndon? And why isn’t he listed as Dept of Biology faculty at UTA during the period that the video was posted? What university is UoB? (Me: Cadman will have to ask Oldskeptic about the U of B.  I really have no idea what the U of B is.  But I sure am curious!  I wonder if it’s Arlington as well.  I am sure Oldskeptic knows.) And finally is Anders Lydon an alter ego of Stevebee?


Actually, Anders is 6′ 7″ tall and weighs about 210 lbs.  Me: 5′ 9″, 160 lbs.  So I don’t think he’s my alter ego. Actually he is my brother. He is five years younger than I.  He was an excellent college basketball player.  He and I teamed up to win a major city basketball championship in California after we graduated from college, along with three other players.  Yep, we played the whole league and the playoffs with only five players, and won the whole thing over sixty-four other teams! Anders primary interest is in oceanography.  He is a fascinating guy, and is dying to get in on some of the evo-discussions that I have had.  But he’s concerned about being a distraction.  He almost pressed the button several times at RS.  He was one of the founders of the U of TA, along with me and Dr. TJ.  Many members of the U of TA are instructors, and are fearful of being exposed, as they would have a difficult time in their respective schools.  So it was voted to keep the membership of the U of TA private, and not go online. Certainly not give it out to you evolutionauts  at RS.  Who knows what they would do with it; copy it right up on their thread? So the world would know their personal information?

Now, on to the evolution!  These are some of the questions I have, and it’s very interesting that, if evolution is the science that the avid supporters say it is, why are these not the points of discussion.  It seems rather strange that my personal information is so important, when these questions can’t be answered by any of them.  Some questions that are just kind of bothersome for me.  Perhaps they have the answers.  And if they don’t, I wonder evolutionauts  don’t wonder and question, like I do.  What’s wrong with their wonder/skeptic centers in their respective brains? Seems like wonder and skepticism died long ago for these people.

Well, here we go:

Were the first conscious organisms able to mutate more consciousness?  And then did the most conscious get “selected for” and survive over the least conscious?  In other words, would a carnivore not be able to kill and consume a person with a tiny bit of consciousness because of that consciousness? Then there is sexual selection and environmental survival to consider.  Did a tiny bit more consciousness….well, you know the question.

And what about that Krebs Cycle?  Do any more peer reviewed papers on that one that REALLY tell the story?  Did organisms with three steps of the Krebs cycle survive over organisms stuck with only two steps?  Or did some only have citric acid in their cells without any cycle at all?  Did citric acid produce a little bit of energy?  And did one step, and two steps somehow produce energy in mitochondria just like in modern organisms?  Or did the cycle first appear in the cytoplasm.  Then mitochondria evolved?  Then the cycle migrated into the mitochondria?  I know this sounds like a crazy question, but which did actually arise first? Krebs, and which part, or mitochondria? Both at the same time?

And the invention, design, and assembly, of the heart/lung/blood/vessel/controller system really bothers me.  I realize that evolutionauts say evolution doesn’t “invent”, but that is not possible, since there was not even a notion of what a pump, or a tube, or blood was on that early earth.  From absolutely nothing but chemicals, water, dirt, and rocks, weren’t the  appearance of  complex four chambered pumps, blood, lungs to oxygenate the blood, cusps, controllers in the brain……… inventions?  My gawd, if those aren’t inventions, what is? Who actually is credited with determining that a heart/lung/blood/vessel/controller system isn’t an invention?  What is his/her name? Is it Richard Dawkins?  Eugenie Scott? PZ Meyers? And what gives that person the authority to say such a thing?  My inventions (I have four) are improvements on entities that already existed. So my ideas were improvements on precursor ideas, as is true with practically all human inventions.   But from absolutely nothing, a heart/lung/blood/vessel/controller system?  With no intelligence? Now THAT is an invention! FAR MORE of an invention than any that man has made in his history on the planet earth.

You see, I think these questions are far more important than personal information that is so focused on by pro-evo-arguers.  And I don’t really think it matters if I am a Doctor, of a third grader.  These question must be addressed for evolution to be valid.  Matters not who asks the questions.  Is evolution valid as the source and inventor of all of this? That should be evolution’s challenge, not my patents, U of TA, Anders………..


  1. Dane said,

    Say, can I get one of the decoder rings for the super-secret society known as U of TA?

  2. Yibble Naught said,

    Don’t be bothered by rationalskepticism.org. It is clear from the posts that these people blindly use evolution as a blanket explanation for everything that cannot be directly observed. It’s not even worth posting a rebuttal, check this out:

    One thread posts an article on a study hypothesizing that the human brain is at capacity, here is an excerpt:

    “The scientists say that the wiring inside the brain would need vast amounts of extra energy to become more efficient. As it’s impossible for humans to provide this, they can’t become any smarter.”

    I am ASSUMING these vast amounts of energy are orders of magnitude greater than the human body can produce. Still, the blind faith in evolution is obvious:

    “I think not. As long as humans have a desire to get more and more out of life than is possible at the time, I think we will keep evolving until we end it.”

    I’m speechless, I honestly have nothing to say to this ridiculous comment.

    “So we’ll just evolve bigger lungs, better arteries, etc.”

    Apparently this individual didn’t read the post either.

    I find it ironic that these evolutionists wield logic, reason, and science to indoctrinate irrational, anti-scientific, and illogical ideas. It’s beyond silly and absurd, there is no word to describe this kind of insanity.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I mostly have fun at ratskep. They are kind of addicting. And amazing. How could anyone believe their nonsense with such overwhelming confidence? Thanks for the good comment!

  3. Jay Cie said,

    Hey Steve boy. Just because you got kicked out of the sandbox for being bad is no reason to trow poo across the fence. Anyone interested in reading what actually was said in the long and painful thread to which MR. I’m really a dentist and that means I’m a doctorate in all science ever can go to the source.


    I warn you it’s a long read.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      It’s amazing how evo-people will make fools of themselves over hundreds of pages and be proud of the fact, don’t you think JayBoy? Try reading the last page of this blog to see how idiotic you and your friends are. I would be embarrassed, but one of the characteristics of evo-believers is the total lack of embarrassment.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Are you lucek Jay? Try introducing yourself. Can you imagine if I used a pseudonym at ratskep? I would be a liar and a dishonest fake. Right? Tell me who you are. And, no you weren’t banned here. Actually I haven’t banned one single evo-zealot like you, of which there have been many. If you are lucek, I do want to commend you for speaking out for freedom of expression. You were the only one. If you are not lucek, disregard this comment.

      • Kent Perry said,

        Do you remember Ratskep banned me JUST for introducing myself. They apologized and reinstated but after I saw the childish manner that is the signature style of the typical dimwits for darwin made patent at Ratskeptic, I chose not to argue with people whose only intention is to dare anyone to make them believe facts they have no intention of agreeing with you about.

        Where it got really silly was when they doubted you being a Dentist and the crap they say in the comments section on your book review I can just tell most of them came from the punks at ratskep

      • stevebee92653 said,

        They are an astounding group. I did get a lot of material for my book from those wonderful people though, so my time there wasn’t wasted. I sent you a note on your facebook page with my email so I can get your address and send you a copy of my book as you were the catalyst.

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: