L. I Debate AronRa About Creationists, and Arboreal Bird Nests

A hot Evo-YouTuber named AronRa placed a vid on that discusses the types of creationists there are. When he puts a video on, and no matter how bad or boring, he gets 250,000 viewers in a short time. My best is 12,000 so far. He is WAY over me in viewers, I don’t know why. Several evolutionauts came on my site and said I should debate AronRa.  He will “show me”.  So here I am, on his channel, and he didn’t. On discussing being a creationist, he omitted himself. I started by telling him he too is a creationist:

  • stevebee92653 You forgot the 3rd kind of creationist. YOU. You believe the Big Bang Created a universe out of a singularity smaller than an atom, that the sterile early earth invented and Created all species, visual systems, heart/lung systems, alimentary tracts, consciousness, intelligence, emotions. You are a Creationist. The notion that natural selection can assemble all of nature is just as absurd and magical as religion. Abra cadabra. Making religion look foolish doesn’t make you look not foolish.
  • AronRa @stevebee92653 Creationists believe in creation. I don’t.
  • stevebee92653 @AronRa Yes you do believe. Are you kidding? A universe out of a singularity smaller than an atom? Life out of a sterile earth? Species and bio systems inventing themselves and forming all by themselves? Oh, right. By natural selection. Sorry. You are fooling yourself. You are a Creationist, yours is just slow. Your god is NS and RM. Religion’s is God and he did it fast. No difference as far as humans are concerned. The results and all of man’s observations of nature are identical. Hi Creationist
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653The difference is one world view is supported by scientific enquiry, facts and evidence, the other, is not.     p.s. creationists of any stripe or flavour require a creator, non creationists, do not.
  • stevebee92653 @nakedapedude The creator in your case is natural selection et al. Because you think you know how it happened does not make nature a non-creation. You are slow creationists that rag on fast creationists.
  • Feralus69 @stevebee92653
    “Life out of a sterile earth?”
    Organic material is far from sterile, but before you reply to this do you know what organic means? Do you know what makes up organic material?
    “You are fooling yourself. You are a Creationist”
    Please look up ‘creationist’ and copy paste the definition (any of the 3 or 4) into your reply. Show how anything Aron has said is wrong in any way before making assertions that he is.
  • stevebee92653 @Feralus69 Obviously you don’t have any idea what sterile is. You actually think organic material isn’t sterile because it’s orgainc? Try a dictionary. Foot in mouth disease here.
    Def: The act of creating; especially : the act of bringing the world into ordered existence The act of making, inventing, or producing
    You evos are creationists. Fun watching creationists who think they are not rag on creationists who think they are.
  • AronRa @stevebee92653 I don’t believe in a singularity smaller than an atom, and I don’t believe the universe created itself either. I do believe in evolutionary biodiversity because it can be demonstrated as an inescapable fact of population genetics. I don’t have a god, I don’t have any required belief, and I don’t believe in creation of any sort because I don’t believe in magic.
  • Porion491 @AronRa Quite technically, a gravitational singularity would -have- to be smaller than an atom. the nature of a singularity requires that it exist in an infinitesimally small point in space. Or, at least, exist on such a microscopic level that we don’t have the ability to determine exactly how small it is or has been. Zero volume and infinite density.
    The whole concept is still a bit difficult to define, general relativity defines it differently than Penrose-Hawking.
    Sorry to be a know-it-all 🙂
  • stevebee92653 @AronRa OK, ping pong ball. Any size. The latest science says smaller than an atom. but pick the ball. You do believe in magic. You believe that natural selection can invent design assemble improve and sustain bio-systems. Since that has NEVER been demonstrated or observed by any man living or dead, you do believe in magic.You are a believer just like the religious you spend so much time ragging on. But you are smug in thinking you don’t. No population genetics has ever formed any biosystem.
  • AronRa@stevebee92653 You don’t understand my position on cosmology, (you didn’t even ask) but automatically assume that my understanding of what natural selection (and other related factors) actually do show in the lab is supposed to mean [to you] that I believe in supernatural spell-casters or conjurations of incantation. You may believe in these things, but I still do not.
  • stevebee92653 @AronRa I assumed you go for the Big Bang as proposed by modern science. Highly unusual if you don’t since you consider yourself so scientific. So you don’t? Then you bitch that I didn’t ask.
    You then turn around in the same comment and try to credit me with belief in “supernatural spell-casters or conjurations of incantation”. Where the hell did THAT come from? Did you ask me? You must be tired and not thinking to well today.
  • AronRa @stevebee92653 The idea of “supernatural spell-casters” and “conjuration by incantation” came from the only descriptive anyone has ever given for how any god ever created anything. Do you know of another option?
  • stevebee92653 @AronRa I sure do. We are not within light years of figuring out the answer to this Puzzle. That is true science.
    There are two indoctrinated groups full of people who have been fooled and fool themselves into thinking they do know. You are in one group. Your assigning me belief in your idiotic entities that you use to put down the religious is pretty silly. And trite. And overused.
  • AronRa @stevebee92653 I think you’re confused. I haven’t ‘assigned ‘ you anything.
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653“invent”, “design” and “assemble”? Natural selection does none of these things, by using such language you’re implying intelligence behind the process when there isn’t any. I’ve watched your videos and they are all grounded in ignorance and personal incredulity. Just because you find evolution to amazing to be true doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, get your head out of your ass and go read a book. stevebee92653 @nakedapedude
    Re: “invent”, “design” and “assemble”? Natural selection does none of these things.
    How wonderful. We agree finally! So if you know that, why believe in evolution? Get your head out of your ass and go read a book.
  • Porion491 @stevebee92653 That’s a bit of a fallacy. The “ends” of the universe are well-known, but the “means” are what are in debate. Creationism states explicitly that a pan-dimensional being wished the universe into being from absolutely nothing (not just no matter, but no spacetime either). General scientific consensus posits that the means occurred through natural processes, not supernatural intervention.
    The only similarity between them is that they agree on the ends. Means are totally different.
  • stevebee92653 @Porion491 Evolution states that a zero IQ non-intelligent entity created all of nature for some entirely unknown or non-existent reason. You have just picked one belief over another. It’s not any better because is is said to be scientific. The result of the two notions are identical.
  • Mafiaaffe @stevebee92653 “Evolution states that a zero IQ non-intelligent entity created all of nature for some entirely unknown or non-existent reason.”
    Lol, you missed the point so completely. I mean really did the education system really fail you that hard or are you lieing on purpose (in other words are you a retard or a troll)?
  • XGralgrathor « zero IQ non-intelligent entity created all of nature »
    For the millionth time, no it doesn’t.
    Evolutionary theory says nothing about the origin (if any) of the universe.
    It says nothing about the origin of the solar system, or the planets therein.
    It says nothing about the origin of life on this planet or any other planet.
    What it *does* describe is how existing life diversifies, via descent with modification, subject to natural selection, giving rise to nested hierachies. 4 days ago
  • Porion491 @stevebee92653 No, evolution is a description of biological change over time. Cosmology and physics continually uncover the mechanisms of the universe and try to understand interesting things in them, such as the “beginning” of the universe. There’s no reputable publication that i know of that claims that any entity created a universe
    Sort of like how you would see a canyon carved by water over centuries. No intelligence, no entity, just a process that we see everyday, over a long period of time.
  • stevebee92653 @Porion491 Are you kidding? You think I am not aware of your dogma? You waste your time and words. I used to be you. You compare a water eroded canyon with visual systems, heart/lung systems, alimentary tracts, human intelligence and consciousness supposedly formed by natural selection?
  • Porion491 @stevebee92653 Was that supposed to be an argument from incredulity, or of ignorance? You first call discourse “dogma” and then tell me i’m wasting my time by debating.
    I won’t prod you with any shame tactics, but i will suggest that you try to set aside your preconceptions about what is and what can be, what you think you know, and then look dispassionately at creationism versus evolution.
    It wasn’t all that long ago that everyone thought time was separate from space. 2 days ago
  • stevebee92653 @Porion491 My favorite brainless evo-coomment! (argument from incredulity, or of ignorance) Do you have any idea how trite you are? Repeated over and over. All this shows is you have nothing of interest to say nor do you think on your own. The perfect example of relaying dogma. And you don’t even know it. You assume me to be a religious creationist. Again you think on auto pilot. I am not and never said I was. OMG The time-space thing. Ugh. You are the perfect example of an indoctrinate.
  • Feralus69 @stevebee92653
    “You are the perfect example of an indoctrinate.“
  • Porion491 @stevebee92653 You may want to argue with someone who just wants to bash you, but this isn’t that argument. I see no real contest to anything i’m saying, simply the objection that it is “dogma.”
    What, exactly, is it that you think happens with genetics? That they do not change? That there are some artificial boundaries upon this change? That there must be some “ends” that this change works toward?
    If you answered ‘no’ to those questions, then you’re on the fast-track to “believing” in evolution.
  • stevebee92653 @Porion491 No argument that there is change in populations. My argument is that change in traits can’t invent, design, assemble bio systems. There is not one single bio-system that evo can account for. Not even arboreal bird nests. Which is why your huge defense is population change and common ancestry. Your smokescreen. Your biggest hurdle is invention and assembly.
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653You don’t think we can explain why birds make nests? And you think that this “fact” disproves evolutionary theory? Really? 1 day ago
  • stevebee92653 @nakedapedude I don’t “think” you can’t explain the evolution of arboreal bird nests. You can’t. Or ANY other bio-system. You can certainly fake it, like evos do, but not well. “Perhaps, maybe, could be that……” You know.
    You may need a little reading comprehension brush up. I didn’t say “why birds make nests”. That is what you wanted to read. Your filter at work. 1 day ago
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653Evolution of nests? What are you talking about? Birds lay eggs, eggs are fragile, any bird that lines a hollow in a tree or branch with grass or feathers or whatever has a better chance of it’s eggs surviving, is that really so difficult to comprehend? I think you’re trying to create a problem when there is none.
    You don’t seem to understand that evolution is established scientific fact, it’s only the mentally unwell and the religious that insist on rejecting it.
  • stevebee92653 @nakedapedude My gawd, if the evolution of bird nests is so far over your head, as it obviously is, you better cease commenting here.
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653Sorry buddy, that’s not going to fly, I know far more about evolutionary theory than you, you have made that very obvious.
    Why don’t you explain to the rest of the class why birds nests are impossible except through some kind of magical intervention from a deity?
  • stevebee92653 @nakedapedude Explain how bird nests evolved. I picked the simplest bio-system I could think of to make it EASY for you. You have all that education. Isn’t this a slam dunk? All you do is skirt around the question. I could’ve picked heart/lung/vessel/ systems, but I picked bird nests. C’mon. Show off your education. How did they evolve. What was the first attempt like? Was it an advantage? What were the steps? Don’t defer to the “magical intervention” thing, goddamit. Answer this simple question.
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653I don’t need to explain to you how birds nests evolved, I’m not an expert or even trained in a relevant field, go look it up, I’m sure there is plenty of information out there. Like I said before, I imagine eggs laid on something softer than dirt or rock or bare wood would be less likely to break, it really doesn’t seem like a huge problem for evolutionary theory, why don’t you explain why you think it is a problem? stevebee92653 @nakedapedude Boy, all that education wasted. You can’t even explain bird nests. What a laugh. I did look it up. You did too. Nothing. As expected. Not even a good “perhaps, maybe, possibly……” Like all peer reviewed papers.
    A problem because nests couldn’t have evolved in small steps. And you can’t even come up with an imaginary path. You are a loser who spent all that time studying a fantasy. Sorry. If you can’t do bird nests, you can’t do vision, alimentary, musculo-skeletel, spider webs.
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653 Unlike believers in magical creation I don’t have a problem saying “I don’t know” when I don’t know the answer to a question. Why would I know anything about the evolution of birds nests? I’m not an evolutionary biologist or an ornithologist.
    You STILL haven’t answered my question which is why do you think birds nests are a problem for evolution? I can see how nests came about, because they would help with egg survival, why can’t you?
  • nscangal @stevebee92653 My understanding is that a bird’s nest is simply part of more widely observable “nesting instinct” which makes sense: If you don’t have any safe, warm place to keep your young, they won’t survive. This is something observable in many species, including humans: Why do you think that many pregnant women become obsessed with preparing the house “for the baby”? (My sister remembers waking at 3AM with the urge to clean the kitchen). Insects have it, too: Think of bee’s honeycombs stevebee92653 @nscangal You don’t get the question. My question is there is no evolutionary-path for the formation of ARBOREAL bird nests. And I am using it to do evos a favor. One of the most simple bio-systems, and not one can even give an imaginary path for its evolution. There isn’t an imaginary path or a real one. Think about the first bird that made the first nest. A twig in a tree, lay the egg, then splat! Get the idea? How did the first then second, then third nest look.  How did the idea get passed to other birds.
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653Some birds nest on the ground and birds that nest in trees and cliffs. Some birds that nest on the ground make nests some don’t. Birds that nest in trees increase their chances of survival over those that nest on the ground. There are plenty of holes and hollows in trees and cliffs to nest in, if these are lined with feathers or twigs the eggs would be more protected and more likely to survive, there you have nest building. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
  • stevebee92653 @nakedapedude You need a brain to help you along. You know the question I posed. And you can’t avoid it by giving me a Wiki on different bird nests. You are still a loser, only a bigger one. When someone avoids the question as much as you do, they know they have lost. So, realize that, be honest with yourself, and say “Evolution is Bullshit”. Ten times. You have proved it, but you are too indoctrinated to accept the fact.
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653 Ok, so because a person with no formal training in evolutionary biology (me) can’t explain to you exactly how birds nests evolved that means evolution is bullshit and I’m an indoctrinated, dishonest, loser with no brain?Great line of reasoning, I think you’ve pretty much refuted yourself on this one, genius. stevebee92653 @nakedapedude Doesn’t matter how much training you have in evo. You couldn’t answer if you had a triple PHD. There is no answer to nests. If evolution is FACT and not theory this should be an easy answer. There isn’t even a good imaginary answer. Which I find amazing. I for the life of me can’t come up with anything myself.
    I treat people like they treat me. I rag when ragged upon. You come across as a know-it-all and write condescendingly. Maybe you should change you MO.
  • Yeeksquilack @stevebee92653 Nest building is an instinctive behavior. If you believe evolution cannot account for these, you are mistaken. Also, to clarify: Evolution is a fact. The *Theory* of Evolution is an *explanation* of that fact. That’s what theories *are.* They don’t turn into facts, or graduate from theory school to become facts – theories explain facts. In the same way that gravity is a fact, and the theory of gravity explains it.
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653 Interesting, I’ve never thought about the evolution of nests but within a few minutes of being presented with this so called “problem” I managed to come up some pretty good ideas of how it might have happened without resorting to any kind of online help at all, I wonder why you can’t? The reason I may sound condescending sometimes is that rejection of evolutionary theory means you are mentally unwell and hey everyone likes to laugh at a retard now and again.
  • stevebee92653 @nakedapedude You have failed miserably. You can’t come up with a rationale for the evolution of bird nests. What a laugh. What are the ideas? I need another good laugh. You haven’t come up with shit. And you know it. Or you would be telling me. Anything you do come up with could be shredded by my dog. There is no answer. You are right on your first sentence. “Interesting, I’ve never thought”. That is you most intelligent and true comment from you yet. Finally we agree.
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653
    The fact that I don’t know exactly how birds nests evolved has no bearing on the veracity of evolutionary theroy, and if you think it does, you’re insane.
    I’m afraid it is you that is that has failed here, sorry. 2 hours ago
  • Danikar @stevebee92653
    what is this imaginary problem with nests you think you have? do you think that evo cant account for it or hasnt accounted for it. if cant you need to show it .
  • stevebee92653 @Danikar Not my problem. It’s yours. Not that I don’t THINK evo can account. I know it can’t. And again (and again), the question is so simple and basic. You scientists talk around it, answer different questions than what was asked, pretend it doesn’t exist or is untouchable. A 1st grader would understand the question. This is getting rather humorous. And embarrassing for y’all. That is a great statement. “If evo can’t account for nests, I NEED TO SHOW IT?” What a laugh. 2 minutes ago
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653
    No they are not equal, one book contains ideas that are supported by evidence and the other does not (no prizes for guessing that the bible is the book not supported by evidence).
  • Feralus69 @stevebee92653
    ‘Sterile; incapable of producing offspring’
    Since we know that organic material actually can multiply and copy itself given the right surroundings from the study of abiogenesis, wouldn’t it also be prudent to then say that organic material is not sterile?
  • stevebee92653 @Feralus69 No. It’s sterile.
  • Feralus69 @stevebee92653
    No, it’s not, since again, we know that organic matter can replicate and multiply given the right environment.
  • stevebee92653 @Feralus69 No, it’s sterile. Completely and 100% sterile.
  • Feralus69 @stevebee92653
    No, it’s not, look up the definition again of sterility when it comes to reproduction and organic matter then look up the duplication that makes up adenine. Then look up the definition of sterilization of tools/objects/environments/etc, just to put into perspective how stupid your last statement was to me. 3 days ago
  • Feralus69 @stevebee92653
    ‘creationism’ (which is what I asked you to define)
    “the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.”
    If you did try to define creationism with that you either lied or looked up the wrong word. 4 days ago
  • stevebee92653 @Feralus69 You don’t even know what sterile is and you are arguing here? A person who believes in the creation of nature from a sterile world by any means is a creationist. And the notion that animals selectively dying and choosing to kill or procreate with other animals, and non-occurring miraculous mutations could create all of nature and it’s bio-systems is no different than a religious belief. Equal bullshit on both sides. 4 days ago
  • Feralus69 @stevebee92653
    I just quoted the dictionary definition of sterile, and organic material is not by definition sterile since it can replicate. Therefore people that know this fact are not creaitonists since we know that parts of nucleotides can come the replication of hydrogen cyanide and ammonia. The difference between religious belief and biodiversity is we have evidence of biodiversity. 4 days ago
  • stevebee92653 @Feralus69 Wait. That’s good to know! So if a hospital runs a sterilizer with organic material on an instrument, the sterilized instruments ARE NOT STERILE! wow! You better get that message out. Quick! 4 days ago
  • Feralus69 @stevebee92653
    “So if a hospital runs a sterilizer with organic material on an instrument, the sterilized instruments ARE NOT STERILE!”
    Are you really this stupid? Or is this a joke. 4 days ago
  • stevebee92653 @Feralus69 Are you so dense I have to tell you?
  • Feralus69 @stevebee92653
    If you don’t understand the difference from sterilizing equipment compared to sterile chemicals/organisms then yes, you are that ‘dense’.
  • Feralus69 @stevebee92653 Also, reread the definition of creationist and then call people that accept the findings in the field of abiogenesis creationists so I can rightfully call you a liar.
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653Stop being such a jerk off, creationists believe in a creator, end of story. As for your claim about evolutionary theory being unable to explain species diversity, you’re just wrong, it does and it does so incredibly well. Just because you don’t understand it or can’t possibly imagine how it could happen doesn’t make it any less true.
  • stevebee92653 @nakedapedude Since you have declared evolution can, that is good enough for me. A person that believes nothing can create something is a creationist as well as one who thinks something can. Stupid argument time. Bye jerk off
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653 Creation requires a creator, if you don’t believe in the existence of a creator you are not a creationist. Seriously dude you’re just making yourself look ignorant now, just drop it.
    There is no explanation other than evolutionary theory that can explain ALL the facts we know about species diversity, none. If you don’t believe it happens then you should give reasons why, not just present unsupported assertions that it’s impossible.
  • stevebee92653 @nakedapedude Dude, your creator is natural selection. Feel free to watch my vids. Bye again
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653 You’re an idiot.
  • stevebee92653 @nakedapedude I love your originality.
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653You’re a nut, I’ve seen your videos about how evolution is impossible and they are absolutely full of demonstrably absurd garbage. 4 days ago
  • stevebee92653 @Danikar 2nd grade?
  • Danikar @stevebee92653
    so in other words you prefer to push your strawman. thats cool, have fun. people are only going to laugh at you.
  • stevebee92653 @Danikar I can’t believe how dumb and thoughtless this comment is. Really. Did you make this up? What grade are you in. I hope not over 4th. Was there a birdie-nest creator that just did nests? Must be. Astounding. 5 minutes ago
  • Danikar @stevebee92653
    “If you can’t explain bird nests, you can’t explain visual systems, heart/lung systems, bird flight, bat sonar; any bio-system”
    but we already did. the act of making nests predates birds and a bird decided to use twigs to make it and that habit passed on. the first bird nest with twigs would have been a complete nest, not a single twig as you suggest. nests dont evolve, so as such they dont require an evolutionary explanation. the habit of making nests does and there it is nakedapedude @stevebee92653
    Oh and by the way you haven’t got a leg to stand on when it comes to supposedly being “demeaning”, almost every one of your comments has included something about the previous commentor being a fool or being brainless, dense or stupid.
    Grow up or fuck off, your absurd rejection of the most factually supported explanatory theory in history is pathetic.
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653
    Believe me, bird’s nests aren’t a problem for me, I don’t usually give them a second thought and they certainly don’t keep me up at night.
    I haven’t avoided answering you, I have told you that I don’t see the problem and you haven’t explained why it is a problem.
    Bird lays eggs on ground in hole, bird lays eggs in tree in hole, bird lines hole with stuff, nest.
    If you can’t explain nests you can’t explain eyes? Are you on crack? 1 hour ago
  • stevebee92653 @nakedapedude Arboreal bird nests are an immense problem for you. If you can’t explain bird nests, you can’t explain visual systems, heart/lung systems, bird flight, bat sonar; any bio-system. You are dead in the water without a paddle. Slough it off if you like. You and your peers here have made fools of yourselves trying to avoid answering. Or worse, trying to answer.Your demeaning last sentence only demeans yourself for being such a huge failure. Awful attempt at covering up your ignorance. nakedapedude @stevebee92653
    You have invented a problem for evolutionary theory where there is none.
    If a bird can build a nest on the ground or in a hollow in a tree or branch then a bird can evolve to build a nest in the branches of a tree.
    How about instead of having this absurd conversation about nests you tell the rest of the class your beliefs about the origins of species diversity on earth? I’m sure that will make for hilarious reading.
  • stevebee92653 @KarlHeinzofWpg Beyond stupid #1Here is a little debate hint for you Karl. Find out what position the person you are debating holds before going off on a limb and making a fool of yourself. Like you just did. You just laid a bigger egg than any bird.
    Beyond stupid #2: Do you know what an ARBOREAL bird nest is? No, an arboreal bird nest isn’t useful until it can hold eggs. See if you can figure out why. It’s not too tough. 3 hours ago
  • KarlHeinzofWpg @stevebee92653 – So the only reason a bird has for building a nest is to lay an egg in it? A nest isn’t useful until it can perfectly hold eggs? Is that what you are attempting to say? Is that why gorillas build nests? A new one every night? They do it to hold eggs? Put down your bible, start thinking.
  • stevebee92653 @KarlHeinzofWpg You and your mates are STUCK. No answer to my very basic question. There wasn’t a first bird? A first flier? A first successful arboreal nest? Are you joking? You better review your belief system again. There had to be a first of everything. A first operational heart, joint, audio system. Do some review, think, then come back. You don’t comprehend your own stuff. “What came first the nest or the bird?” That is a question YOU need to answer but can’t. For sure.
  • nakedapedude @stevebee92653
    You have had plenty of good answers on this so called nest problem but the real answer is, it’s not a problem for evolution, the problem is in your head. You don’t believe evolutionary theory describes reality so you are desperately searching for something that disproves it, in reality all you are doing is showing your own ignorance and incredulity, nothing more. KarlHeinzofWpg @stevebee92653 – so you’ve given up because at last you realize how hopeless your cause is. That’s ok. I knew you would.
    I notice (between your sniffles) that you completely ignored my direct answer to your question. Very brave of you. Again, we have direct physical evidence of nesting behaviour that pre-dates birds, in the very animals that would evolve into birds, yet you still wonder where nest building come from. Wow.
  • KarlHeinzofWpg @stevebee92653,
    Steve, you remind me of that youtube guy Andy from London. He wanted to know how we were able to urinate while waiting for the penis to evolve. lol
    You actually have a picture in your mind that suddenly poof there was a fully formed first bird sitting on a branch, and this magic bird now has a problem that evolution cant solve. Bird says WHERE THE HELL DO I LAY MY EGGS??
    Well, youre right steve. Evolution cant solve your magic bird problem. Luckily it doesnt need to.
  • KarlHeinzofWpg @stevebee92653 – cont…
    You know of course that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs right? The brought their nesting habits into the trees with them. Birds didn’t suddenly appear out of thin are, land out a tree and wonder how the hell they were going to build a nest. That’s your world view, and as you can see, it’s quite ridiculous.
  • stevebee92653 @KarlHeinzofWpg That’s really top notch thinking. Amazing what indoctrination will do to people. You make up your own stuff to go along with the stuff that has been made up for you You believe whatever nonsense you need to to support that belief. Time to give it up. Not one of you or your mates has been able to answer such a simple question. As long as you think you have, your have satisfied yourself. Not me. If this was any other field, you would laugh at your answers. Bye 1 hour ago
  • KarlHeinzofWpg @stevebee92653 – said “What came first the nest or the bird?” That is a question YOU need to answer but can’t.
    Well, actually I can, and I did. You must have skipped over that part. Here it is again, pay attention….
    Nesting habits came first. There is absolutely no question about that. They were happening millions of years before there were any birds on our planet. We have lots of fossil dinosaurs sitting on eggs in nests.
  • foxlake02 Block User I noticed you like to ask how evolution does things that don’t seem to have any direct genetic or fossil evidence. Then you start the ad hominem attacks when someone attempts an answer. You failed big time with the “first bird nest” question on AronRa’s video. Fossil evidence of nesting behavior preceding birds have been found. That makes your bird nest “problem” a moot point. Birds make nests because they work. If people don’t know all the details that doesn’t disprove evolution.

On my “Bird Flight: It’s Impossible” video, a guy came on with the typical condescension.  He called my video “simple”.  Little did he know he would get stuck in quicksand:

  • KomatiiteBIF Unblock User what a simple video, nice music though. if these nests “evolved” just like any other nest, then it sounds plausible that they could simply build their proto nest or not build a proto nest defining which would continue on. as for the wing developement, we…it took birds millions of years to make nests, and it took humans millions of years to make jets, haha, as for the dinos in the tree thing, actually larger legs=more weight/more energy smart one 😛
  • stevebee92653 @KomatiiteBIF Your problem is you need to actually define the beginning arboreal nests. Blandly talking over reality doesn’t fly. What actually happened when birds began building a. nests? One twig wrapped on one leaf? Then splat? Every evo-answer I have received so far has been just like yours. “they first built proto-nests, then bigger ones, then more complicated ones, then…….” Try drawing out your proto-nest with a pencil. There simply is no explanation that could involve evolution.
  • KomatiiteBIF @stevebee92653 well thats like asking, when the first piece of clothing was made, its not a “bam” its there, its a…ok im going to do this, and improve on it. the first nest was probably nothing more than a handfull of soft leaves stuck together. Then you just follow suit with more complex nests.
  • stevebee92653@KomatiiteBIF That’s all you can come up with? Did the egg go “splat” when the bird laid the egg on the “soft leaves”? Did the next generation try again? Where did the weaving skills come from? You HAVE TO gloss over your answer, because you have none. The amazing thing to me is that you are willing to. Instead of thinking critically. But, that’s what evolution does to people. You are not alone.
  • KomatiiteBIF @stevebee92653 is that all i can come up with? thats how it works…its fairly simply. the egg didnt go splat and the next generation continued. they dont need to weave if its a proto next, its still simple.
  • stevebee92653 @KomatiiteBIF You KNOW the very first arboreal bird nest worked because you were there? To observe? That first tree-nest building bird that chanced laying the egg in that first nest? I hope you got pictures. They would be worth a fortune. If you weren’t there, how did you know? Dawkins?
  • KomatiiteBIF @stevebee92653 i like how i answer your question and you return with “were u there?” its called evidence buddy. we can see similar things happening all around us all the time.
  • stevebee92653 @KomatiiteBIF I am just amazed at how you evolution believers know everything. It must be fun. What you don’t realize is how stupid your answers are. Then they are supposed to be accepted or you go into your rant. My video is “simple”? And you are stuck on the “simplest” question on my “simple” video?.
    “We” can see things? Who is “We”. You and your fellow indoctrinates? Are they “things” no one else can see? Must be.
  • KomatiiteBIF @stevebee92653 “we” are the people who have the evidence, and yes everyone can see them, all u have to do is go to school.
  • stevebee92653 @KomatiiteBIF You mean hallucinate? 30 minutes ago
  • KomatiiteBIF r @stevebee92653 think of a city after its been hit by a tornado…u dont have to see the tornado to know what happened, because it leaves its trail. if you dont study the trail, u wont understand it…simple as.

stevebee92653 @KomatiiteBIF What a terrific example. Is your favorite word simple? Bye

He is blocked. He started out rude, never spent a minute pondering.  He just regurgitated typical evo-banter, and made up most. No time for him.



  1. JabTazlet said,

    I love your debate style Stevie. It’s like watching a monkey throw his feces at a few other monkeys only to have them retaliate with fragmentation grenades.

  2. stevebee92653 said,

    Isn’t indoctrinations great! I only wish I could be indoctrinated like you. Looks like you’re having so much fun being fooled.

    • Phyerbyrd said,

      It seems like you were kind of being rude to that first guy, more so than the second guy was to you actually. By your definition of creationist, who isn’t one? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like you think anyone who believes anything created the universe be it intelligent or non-intelligent is a creationist. This is unreasonable, as something must have created life, as it exists.
      On you saying that not knowing how a specific organ evolved proves that it couldn’t and that showing hypothetical feasible organ intermediates doesn’t prove it can really happen,
      If you can imagine a scenario where an organ could evolve, that scenario is realistic and it follows the laws of biology then it is possible, therefore disproving your claim that it’s impossible. Science classes don’t even cover how things like hair evolved if there is no evidence; they just show that it is possible. A computer simulation can simulate natural laws; so genetic algorithms do qualify as evidence. All of the stages in the program could work in real life as real organs. The programs also have use in creating real machines as the concepts apply to reality. You don’t need to know that something happened to know that it’s possible.
      On you saying that mutations can’t place organ tissue anywhere correctly,
      The pre-existing genes already place the organ tissue where it needs to go; the mutations just alter how they do it for better or worse, like making someone taller. Any mutation that helps an organism survive is beneficial. I still don’t understand why Nylonase doesn’t count, the organism mutated, and it can now feed off of something that it couldn’t before. It couldn’t have already been there as nylon doesn’t occur in nature and that gene would have been useless before the factory was built and the fact that it’s all the bacteria could eat, meaning that they couldn’t have always been like that. They would have starved if they weren’t inside the factory, the factory hasn’t always existed, no intelligent being altered them, and so they must have evolved the trait in response to them being stuck in the factory.
      On you saying that intelligence is necessary for life to be the way it is,
      Intelligent forces cannot be the ultimate source of life or the universe. Intelligence is a material trait and requires that the intelligent entity be made up of some form of matter. The reason is that intelligence is defined as being able to form associations between observed phenomena and react to your environment based off of those associations. Interaction implies substance, meaning that an intelligent creator must be material. Material entities capable of thought are things like computers and brains; things that we both agree cannot form in a split second. So either the creator formed through something like evolution, or it was designed. The former just adds an extra unnecessary step as if they could evolve or slowly build up through some other means without intelligent interaction so could we. The latter leads to an endless chain and therefore can be ruled out.
      I often wonder why common people like us feel like we can decide weather or not scientific theories related to our origins are true or not, while all agreeing that we don’t have the knowledge or expertise to diagnose and write a prescription for a patient at a hospital, determine if the higgs particle exists, or predict when and where major earthquakes will occur. We don’t have nearly as much experience or expertise as the scientists who study evolution, the big bang, or all of the other theories we feel deserve our opinions. So why do we criticize, support, or debate with other people about them being correct or not?

  3. Phyerbyrd said,

    Odd, the date on the comment says it was posted tomorrow. Anyway, about the big bang thing, do you not think it’s real anymore? I just noticed that you criticized it in this debate and I’m wondering if it’s old.

  4. Alejandro said,

    Here in Argentina and other south american regions we have a bird called “Hornero” (Furnarius) it’s not famous for being an exotic bird but for it’s nest. It literally builds a “house made of mud” and it has nothing to do with traditional birds’ nests. And what about other intrincated kinds of nests, like hanging nests? And the best they can give is “dinosaurs made nests before”.
    Another south american, a bird called “Tero” (Vanellus chilensis) a rural bird who builds nests on the floor but has an incredible “acting” talent to fool predators and keep the nest safe. So it has nothing to do the place you build your nest, natural selection just doesn’t exist or it is a very relative concept.
    You are not just a capricious asking over and over again the same question, the point of this debate is: why do they call it a science if they don’t have certain answers? Is it so hard to understand?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Right on, Alejandro. Thanks! There just isn’t any kind of explanation for the first formation of arboreal nests. Seems like it would be a simple problem. I wish I could think of an answer. What would we see if we could go back to the time the first arboreal nests were being made? I can’t imagine.

      • Alejandro said,

        The best I can imagine is that birds simply appeared already programmed to build nests. Don’t ask me how it happened, but it makes more sense to me than feathered ex-dinosaurs starting to fly and thinking: “Hey, what if we try to build our nests on trees?”.

  5. F.Whitman said,

    Steve, if you only answer a single question in this blog because I know you have a problem answering questions, almost as if they aren’t there, answer this one…

    You said at the start of this blog and assigned the following staement to AronRa:

    ‘You believe that natural selection can invent design assemble improve and sustain bio-systems’

    To which another person said: Re: “invent”, “design” and “assemble”? Natural selection does none of these things.

    To which you replied: “How wonderful. We agree finally! So if you know that, why believe in evolution? Get your head out of your ass and go read a book.”

    So, in the first line we have you stating that NS invents, designs and assembles and you assign that to someone, then when it’s pointed out that this is NOT what NS purports, you then agree with them!

    So my question is, why would you make stuff up that isn’t true, suggest that someone believes that and then within just a few lines then agree that what you said initially was rubbish?

    Some of what you say does hold water, much is semantic nonsense but that example is utter bullshit. If you ever wonder why people accuse you of lying, there is your text book example for all to see. Hell I’ve even screen grabbed it and pasted it on my own blog it’s so underhand! care to address it?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      What is wrong with you. Do you have comprehension problems?
      The “out of your ass” is not terminology that I use. It was an AronRa comment that I shot back at him.
      AronRa and I obviously agree for different reasons. See if you can figure them out. You obviously are so intelligent. At least you think you are.

      Your homework for the day:
      Compare and contrast these two phrases:
      What you say I said: “So, in the first line we have you (me) stating that NS invents, designs and assembles”
      What I said: ‘You (AronRa) believe that natural selection can invent design assemble improve and sustain bio-systems’
      AronRa MUST think NS and RM “invent”, “design” and “assemble” bio-systems since they were invented designed and assembled. But you evolutionauts must pretend they weren’t, which I find astounding. Pretend is really a tough game to play constantly.

  6. Chewbywhooby said,

    “He is WAY over me in viewers”

    I just read the first paragraph and this stuck out for me. If you wrote something even remotely coherent I’m sure you’d have lots of hits, as opposed to a few thousand from your ‘creationist choir’ who all suck up your incredulity and BS without question – much like their general approach to life.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Good stuff!

    • stevebee92653 said,

      One wonders why you are drawn here. What does that say about you? You might want to do a little self analysis.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: