A. My Debate with an Avid Evolutionaut from TalkOrigins

I wrote a comment to an evolution website. www.talkorigins.com, an excellent and fair evolution website by the way, even though they treated me condescendingly as is usual. Talk Origins treats evolution as if it were an absolute fact. I wrote that they should not get so over committed and demean nonbelievers, because they just might be wrong. I received an email from a frequent user of the site, Tom, and a staunch evolutionaut who was itching for a debate with a creationist, which I was not. I attempted to communicate with him on a respectful level. Actually, at the beginning of our discussion I was still a Darwin believer with doubts. This is my first debate on this subject.  I started communicating with him as a devil’s advocate, as if I was a non-evo-believer. The more we discussed, the more I realized how wrong Darwin really was. By the end of our discussion over about a three month period, in my mind, I dropped TOE as a possibility of how species appeared on earth. His emails were rather disdainful and typical evolutionist communication. This is a compendium of an ongoing debate that we had: (My comments are in italics.)

Below my debate with Tom are debates with other evolutionists. The most amazing feature that I have found with believers is that they are angry and sensitive with challenges, they use pejoratives frequently, and they never doubt this dubious science. Never. They are 100% in lockstep. The ones that I have communicated with all have to refer to a paper written by someone else. They can’t do their own thinking, and use their own common sense.
Me:
Tom, why did you pick my entry to respond to?


angry.jpg Tom: I use the site frequently and read the feedback every month and pick a few of the more inane posts( no offence intended :-)) (I am offended.) from which to send an email. Your post was answered and the official reply was:

Dear Steve,
We don’t need to make it look like everyone who attacks evolution is a fool.
They do a good job all by themselves.

(See what I mean about “condescending” and “name calling”?)
As you can see they give short shrift to persons such as yourself. (Condescending.)

Me: My biggest problem with your writings is that your simplistic “either-or” thinking kills any intelligent discussion of evolution.

angry.jpgTom: That is probably because the discussion you want to have was settled over 150 years ago and repetitious arguments get old.

Me: You must know that nothing in science is “settled”. As new evidence is discovered and tested, models and theories must be modified to fit new information. Try doing a mind experiment and see if you can come up with heart evolution. Draw the steps on a sheet of paper. In actuality, there are no possible intermediate evolutionary steps to a heart system; or eyes, or birds and eggs. A half heart would yield a dead (no) animal and no ev.

angry.jpgTom: You are presenting Paley’s arguments from incredulity. Just because you can’t see how it can’t happen doesn’t mean that it didn’t. (No one can figure out how it happened; not even a highly educated evolution scientist.) Evolution opponents assume that an organ today had the same functions millions of years ago as they do today and that is an erroneous assumption. (I wonder what other functions they can think of for hearts, eyes, lungs…….) I don’t have long to educate you but the first site I hit in a search was this one: http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=310You might want to increase your knowledge by researching this. (More condescension. Notice how the question is not answered? Tom spends so much time telling me what a fool I am, but he doesn’t have time to “educate” me on how organs evolved.)

Me: I will look at this site, but I have already searched many evolution sites
that try to explain heart and eye evolution. What a joke all of them are. They make cartoon drawings of hearts and eye chambers gradually closing through evolutionary micro-steps, and becoming functional organs. The evolution that they draw is impossible anyway. Why would this happen? Where is the evolutionary evidence for these drawings? There is absolutely none. These are no more than figments of someones imagination. If you are truly a scientist with an open mind, you would have to agree.

angry.jpgTom: Are they a joke? If so perhaps you can suggest a way. The first thing that is required is the ability to distinguish between intelligent design and design which isn’t intelligent.

Me: Doesn’t the word “design” just reek of intelligence? (Even dumb design requires intelligence.)

angry.jpgTom: Only fifty years ago there were competing theories on the existence of
the universe. Today there is little opposition to the big bang theory. What happened to the steady-state theory?

Me: No evidence to support it. The same with evolution.

angry.jpgTom: That is why I made the comment to you, that if you had a scientific theory to supplant the TOE you need to present it. (The scientific method has never required an alternative theory to falsify an existing one. All that is required for falsification is the evidence that falsifies…nothing more! )

Me: Unlike evolution, the “steady state” theory was supplanted by the “big bang” because of overwhelming evidence and mathematical calculation. Astronomers determined that if the big bang truly occurred, there would be cosmic background radiation. It was found in 1989, further proof that the big bang was the beginning of the universe. With evolution, no fossil or lab evidence required for proof has been found, but it just keeps on rolling along as if there was. I do have a theory to supplant evolution. It’s exactly the same as science’s theory on what there was before the big bang. It’s called, “We Simply Don’t Know, but Here is What We Have So Far”.

angry.jpgTom: ID must explain features which are poorly designed, such as the eye. ID can’t do it, but evolution can. (Only an evolutionist would think that an organ as miraculous as the eye is poorly designed.) They aren’t absolute. They do involve some speculation. It simply isn’t known how many of the evolutionary processes of specific organs occurred. (Then why is this a science that is not to be doubted?) There is much evidence that evolution occurred without the specifics of the evolution of each specific organ. You argue against a strawman which you have constructed while ignoring the larger evidence that it did occur. As I like to tell my creationist buddies, once life on earth didn’t exist. Today it does (And evolution can’t come close to explaining how life did get here. 100% of their lab tests have been failures..) and evolution explains that diversity and distribution of the flora and fauna on earth better than any other potential theory.

Me: That the universe has a purely scientific intelligence somewhere is probable, and I think necessary for development of species.

angry.jpgTom: Probable under whose theories? (Can’t evolutionists come up with their own thinking without needing to refer to some one else’s thinking?) The new evidence from the last 150 years has supported the TOE. If the TOE were as fragile as you think, it would have collapsed years ago. There is no theory on the horizon to supplant the TOE but you are certainly encouraged to introduce the first. (TOE is correct because there is no other theory that they can think of? Sorry, but that’s not objective science.)

Me: It is completely obvious that there needs to be another scientific model
besides evolution to explain the appearance of species.

angry.jpgTom: Obvious to whom? You? It isn’t to me!

Me: The “we simply don’t know yet but here is the evidence that we do
have” would be a far more defensible scientific model than evolution.
The problem with your thinking is that you can only accept theories that
have already been proposed and accepted by someone else. Is my choice
only model A or model B? Can I think on my own?

angry.jpgTom: Sure, but you need to provide at least a small framework. Usually people who think evolution is a crock make themselves look like fools. (Uh-oh……calling me a fool again.)

Me: Thanks for the compliment. Try opening your mind. You too could look
like a fool. We both know that many famous inventors and scientists were
mocked as fools before they were taken seriously. Also, thanks again for
taking the time to communicate. I love the discussion, and am completely
interested in the subject. Actually I was a firm believer in evolution
for many years. Recently I started making it a study, and POOF! Evolution
became extinct (in my mind) as a possible theory for development of
species. When I saw how impossible evolution really is, I became even more
fascinated with the subject than I was before. How we got here is a
subject that I think about frequently, study a lot, and get very
frustrated by. It is a fun puzzle that will never be solved, but trying
is a kick. (I continue writing respectfully to Tom. Appeasement never works!)

angry.jpgTom: I’ll be honest with you Stephen, I don’t believe that you ever understood evolution or that you even studied evolution. (I majored in Biology in college.) The framework which you have used as your discussion indicates that you don’t understand the basics of evolution, much less the details. (Oooh, more condescension!)

Me: Why didn’t T Rex’s arms (or any other part of T Rex) evolve in the twenty million years that it roamed the earth? Wouldn’t NS and SOTF have evolved longer arms for T Rex, since that would have been a huge advantage in fighting and seeking food? For this species, there was virtually no evolution for twenty million years, ten times longer than it took hominid to evolve into man. The more I looked at other exhibits in the museum, (I visited the Field Natural History Museum in Chicago.) I noted that other species for which there were fossils over millions of years showed virtually no evolutionary changes.

angry.jpgTom: Evolution isn’t a directed process that must proceed in a certain direction
and in a certain time. (Tom knows this because he is actually God in disguise.) Did the arms of T Rex prevent him from functioning in his environment? Evidently it didn’t because he existed quite well right up to his extinction. As to other species I would need to know what they were before commenting upon them. Cockroaches haven’t evolved either. (Thanks! Another great example of non-evolution.)

Me: Massive changes would have to show in the fossil record for Darwin’s theory to be correct. Where were they? Were evolutionary changes specific to only fossils that haven’t been found? I started reading and studying to update myself on the subject, as it is a subject that I am obviously fascinated with. (Again I try respect.)

angry.jpgTom: I would imagine you should be with a degree in biology. I do wonder what
course requirements you had in college that you would be clueless about
evolution. (Fabulous condescension!)

Me: I HAVE spent a lot of time reading and on pro-evolution websites. I thought they would answer a lot of my questions, but they only created more. Some notes on
your reply: You say that TOE is the only theory on the horizon, so it must be true.
Sorry, that is not science, that is belief. Science simply cannot come up with a model
that really fits the fossil finds, and lab evidence, so evolution wins by
default, not by scientific proof. Plus, ev scientists have so completely
committed to ev that they cannot even entertain the obvious fact that it
is poppycock. They cannot back out of their huge over-commitment.

angry.jpgTom: Of course you have mountains of evidence that the TOE is ‘poppycock’
Me: Try to envision an eye evolving when all species on the earth were blind. How
did evolution know that if the pre-eye continued to evolve into a complete
camera system, there would be incredible images at the other end? How
did a heart evolve when there were absolutely no pumps in existence on
earth? Even if evolution were fact, intelligence still had to be part of
the puzzle. Evolution would have to also be an incredible inventor. In
my case, I absolutely accept the time line given by science for appearance
and disappearance of species, and the age of the earth and universe. That
the earth is billions of years old, as well as the universe, is proven
beyond doubt. Evidence for evolution, on the other hand, is non-existent.

angry.jpgTom: Evolution doesn’t envision anything. Natural selection selects the desirable traits and not all traits are desirable by all species. (Natural Selection sure is smart!) Again, I don’t intend to engage you in a rehash of the evidence supporting the TOE because it is painfully evident that you haven’t studied the TOE enough to formulate supported evidence for your position. Do me a favor Stephen. Instead of spouting such bullshit, go to the web sites of the journals Science or Nature or to Pub Med and do a search on ‘evolution’. The enormous amount of information should keep you busy for the rest of your days. (Tom’s suggested sites:)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/art_1_0.htm
http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html

Me: The framework of your discussion shows that you believe evolution because
that is what you were taught, lots of people believe it, and it is the only thing “on the horizon”. The really great thinkers were able to “think out of the box”. You are locked in it. And, they would certainly feel like they were giving in to religion, because, like you, everyone seems to think the only choices are Adam and Eve or evolution. Can you imagine what an OOOPS that would be? The number of textbooks that would have to be dumped? It’s far easier to continue with the TOEBS than trying to look elsewhere, and look foolish in doing so.

angry.jpgTom: Textbooks are revised all of the time. I know when you were
studying biology they changed course textbooks frequently. I know that it seemed to me
like my textbooks were changed every quarter and I had to shell out big
bucks for new ones.

Me: Evolution theory in textbooks has not changed a lick since I was in
school. (I’ve seen my kids college texts: same as mine.) No new
information supports evolution, but evolution marches on with the same
BS just as if there was lots of proof. Like you, I sincerely thought people that didn’t believe in evolution were either uneducated, or somewhat religio-nuts. (The people you think are my bedmates.)
angry.jpgTom: Actually I am more concerned with the fundamentalists who believe that the earth and universe are young. These people, the vast majority of whom arereligious fundamentalists, use biology to further their religious views because biology is perhaps the least understood science by the general public. If the creationists had their way in biology they would be turning their attention to the other sciences. Any science that contradicts the Genesis version of creation must be destroyed. By the time the public realizes what happened we may be in the dark ages. You have heard of the dark ages, haven’t you Steve? It was the last time that religious fundies ruled the Western world.


angry.jpgTom explains evolution to me (at last!): Your vision of how evolution works is seriously flawed. The best analogy I can use is this. If you start with a series of organisms named AAAAA and went to ZZZZZ you would have a progression chart like this:
AAAAA, AAAAB, AAAAC, AAAAD……..ZZZZX, ZZZZY, ZZZZZ.
Pretend (I love this word. It’s evolutionists motto! I had to highlight it, as it is the centerpiece for TOE.) that these are organisms and we see that AAAAB looks almost identical to AAAAA. AAABA would still look almost identical to AAAAA. When you get to ZZZZZ he looks almost totally different from AAAAA but there is a resemblance. At any point if you look into this progression you will find all of the organisms fully functional and like the immediate organisms around him. AAAAA is a fossil that we have found and ZZZZZ has been found.
There are many intermediates but many of them would not be immediately
recognized as AAAAA or ZZZZZ. MMMMM, if we were lucky enough to find him,
might be recognized as an intermediate. If we had a rich fossil record it
would still be difficult to recognize the changes because soft body parts
change more quickly than hard parts, thus it would be many generations
before we recognized what was happening. As it is we are lucky to have
fossils at all.

Me: (I finally get condescending back.): Wow! This is really scientific! This is the perfect example of the BS that evolution is based on. Did you make this up yourself?

angry.jpgTom: The many examples of eyes in many species of today shows that there are
many variations of the eye and that they arise from the evolution of the eye,
especially for a person like you who believes that life began as a single
cell organism.
Me: Tom, there are no examples of eye evolution today, or in past fossil
records. But, I am sure you will continue to play pretend, like all ev
“scientists” do. It’s the only thing they have to do battle with religion.

angry.jpgTom: It is ridiculous that someone with a four year degree in biology doesn’t
have a clue abut the evolution of the eye!

Me: Here you are absolutely correct. It is hard to be an expert on something that cannot happen. No highly educated scientist has a clue either. They universally make up fairy tales as to how the eye evolved. Then they present their tales, and people like you agree and worshipfully accept them without question because they are so “educated” (by people that also believe evolution fairy tales). I do commend you on your self-initiated interest in a very fascinating field. However, advancement of science requires a completely open mind. Current models of any science need to be constantly tested and questioned, no matter how locked in they may seem. If this was not the case, scientists would be just as guilty of stifling scientific advancement as the religious zealots that you hate so much.

angry.jpgTom: What more can I say Steve? You simply stick your head in the dirt and refuse to acknowledge anything which supports evolution. When the evidence supports a theory other than evolution, then you might have a case. Until then, you have absolutely nothing except your personal incredulity of evolution. There is so much wrong with the assumptions you make about biology that it isn’t worth my time to refute them.
(Translation: Tom can’t answer them.)

Me: The trouble with your communication is that you are unable to refute what
I say, so you put the answers off to me sticking my head in the dirt. Or
you refer me to a website that has imaginary answers no better than your
lack of answers, or you don’t have time to “educate me”. My questions are
very reasonable, and a person not so locked into their belief system
would see that they are, and be able to discuss them reasonably.

angry.jpgTom: No Steve, what you say is easily refutable. The problem is that you can’t recognize that it has been refuted.

Me: I am rather amazed that you picked my writing to respond to. There are so many more inane feedbacks than mine (your word), I really wonder why you chose mine. Do you respond to all? Here is my problem with so called evolution scientists: they are completely condescending, like yourself. They think they are so smart, and everyone else that doesn’t believe is a fool. They and you suffer from severe tunnel vision, and to pin down any reasonable questions that any doubter has is like catching a greased pig. They, and you, completely skip over or ignore reasonable questions. Notice the response that I got from the TO site? No intelligent discussion, he simply calls me a fool. Like you, the replier must not have time to educate me either.

Me: (weeks later) Hi Tom
I hope all is well with you and your family. For the fun of it, I made a blog inspired by our debate. Since you were the inspiration I thought you might like to see how inane my thinking really is! Anyway, if you have time: http://evillusion.blogspot.com/
Either way, have a great holiday……
Steve

angry.jpgTom:

I think you need to consult with your legal counsel. (Now that’s real science!)

I wrote the following paragraph regarding a YouTube video promoting evolution. I got the following responses from reasoned evolution believers. Pretty amazing……..

Me:Darwin’s ideas are absolute BS.You have to believe in miracles to go for this sucker deal. A heart/lung/blood vessel/blood/nerve/brain system cannot possibly evolve in small steps. Adam and Eve are the same; pure fantasy. It is not possible that species arrived by either scenario. Why does Dawkins (atheist/evolutionist speaking on YouTube.com) think that if you don’t believe in Darwin, you must believe religion did it. Time to look somewhere else!

angry.jpgEdwib22: Read a book on evolution, then come back and apologize for your ignorance.

Me: I used to be a sucker believer like you. I did read and study evolution and cosmology. Sorry, but there are just so many things that can’t possibly evolve in small steps that it is ridiculous. People like you believe this nonsense because lots of people do, not because it makes any sense. The god of evolution is “millions of years” the prophet is Darwin; no different than religion. Read it yourself, and do some independent thinking, rather than just believing.

angry.jpgRoger: Brilliant satire of creationsts’ attempts at turning the argument back on the evolutionists. “I used to be a sucker believer” – Hilarious! “People like you believe this nonsense because lots of people do” – cheeky! “The God of evolution” – OK, this one is rather trite. “Do some independent thinking” – LOL!Anyway, way to go, buddy! Excellent lampooning! Can you imagine how stupid someone would have to be to actually posit this as legitimate criticism? Ha Ha!

Me:Roger: What in my writing could possibly make you think I am a creationist? I guess your brain hasn’t evolved enough to think clearly and logically. Way to go buddy. You are a typical evolution sucker. You make huge conclusions out of nothing.

angry.jpgRoger: Going against both creationism and evolution is pretty shrewd. You make yourself out to be an independent thinker, an anti-establishment rebel, etc. and you don’t have to risk anything to do so. By simply rejecting everything, you don’t suffer the inconvenience of committing to anything. From this smug vantage point, you get to accuse everybody else of being a “sucker.”If you can offer a plausible alternative to evolution, I’d love to hear it.

angry.jpg No difference between religion and evolution? Are you really that ignorant? Evolution is based on scientific evidence, and the reason that Dawkins and millions of others believe in it is because it is the best explanation of how we got here that currently exists. Religion is not based on evidence or testable hypotheses. If you seriously believe that the two are comparable then i would take a good look at those study materials of yours.

Me:Evolution is based on millions of layers of IMAGINATION, not science, EXACTLY the same as religion. If evolution were real, it would be all over the place today. You would still see fish crawling out of the oceans. Why did it only occur when no one could see it? Kinda like Moses getting the ten commandments. No one could see the event, but lots of believers out there. No diff.

angry.jpgRoger:You jackass, evolution IS happening all around us today. It’s just happening very gradually. Nature isn’t obligated to provide your feeble mind with dramatic instances like fish crawling out of the oceans (which you wouldn’t notice anyway, since it’s an exceedingly rare occurrence). Evolution is based on observation. If you can’t see it, or aren’t willing to see it, then that’s your loss.

Me:Why is it that ev believers are so quick to call doubters names? Is it that you can’t argue intelligently due to your brain not sufficiently evolving? Fish crawling out of the oceans is a non-occurrence. Not in the fossil record, not happening today. But, keep BELIEVING, and never think on your own! Keep looking “all around us”. Let me know if you find anything!

angry.jpgRoger: Listen, ass-clown, evolution is an ongoing process. It is happening right now, it is always happening. Just because something is not in the fossil record doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Just because you didn’t see something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Cut this bullshit about evolutionists being brainwashed, it’s laughable. I call you names because you deserve to be called names. What’s more, you’ll take it and like it.

angry.jpgShowbat44:Hey, you are one bright guy! I guess you went to a good school, attended all your lessons and did your homework on time too! Please don’t disapoint me and say, no, you’re just another dumb idiot! Heart/lung/eye, whatever… can’t evolve in small steps? Are you really stupid or is this a joke?

Me:If you are so goddamm smart, let me know how a heart/lung set can evolve. You can’t, and neither can fake evolution scientists like Dawkins. Ev “scientists” say a throat gene mutated and copied itself and formed another throat that turned into a heart. If you can believe this, you can believe ANYTHING. What would it pump, Kool-Aid? How did it “grow” vessels,connect to the brain? Where did the blood come from. Obviously you are a believer, so writing this is a useless effort.

angry.jpgEdwib22:Of course i can’t tell you because evolution wasn’t a one day event. It’s a continual process that has happened over billions of years. It’s funny how you’re quite happy to criticise existing theories without offering your own. Just because you don’t have the capacity to understand something doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened.

Me:If it’s a continual process, where is it today? Non-existent. Darwin’s theory is not possible. (Of course neither is religion’s.) I used to be a believer in Darwin. After doing a great deal of studying and seeing the bullshit, I have absolutely no idea how “it” began. On that note, I am a dumb idiot, like you said. And you are a blind faith believer. I would rather be a dumb idiot. I can think on my own.

angry.jpgRoger:I told you, you stupid clown, evolution is observable even today. You just don’t want to see it because you’re an obtuse pain in the ass. I question the quality of your “studying.” You have “absolutely no idea how ‘it’ began?” Well, do some more studying!

I’m glad you agree with me. You are a dumb idiot. Enjoy your “independent thinking” (excuse me while I collapse in hysterical laughter)…

Me: Are you hallucinating? Where is it today? A moth that changes color? Bacteria that are not sensitive to Penicillin? That’s what Dawkins would say is today’s evolution. You question my “studying”, but not what evolution fakes tell you? I’m glad you know how life began as you are the only one in world who does, beside the religious. So keep believing! Adios. You are not worth my time.

angry.jpgRoger:“A moth that changes color,” “bacteria that are not sensitive to Penicillin” – what’s wrong with these examples? These are perfectly compelling instances of natural selection. No wonder you won’t accept evolution. It’s staring you right in your moronic face and you dismiss it. Why? I don’t know, maybe because you’re a giant asshole?

Me:The moth and bacteria are examples of evolution that would produce hearts, lungs, and eyes? Right! I believe that! Makes sense to me. I believe that as much as I believe in the big invisible man in the sky. And, please keep up with the great array of names that you have called me. You seem so intelligent!

angry.jpgRoger: Who said anything about moths and bacteria producing organs? What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you not understand English? Or are you just retarded?

angry.jpgRoger: Don’t flatter yourself, pal. If one can draw conclusions from your posts, your time is worthless. Worse than that, it’s deleterious to humanity as a whole. Please, do us all a favor, and kill yourself!

Me:Me critically looking at “evolution science” is deleterious to HUMANITY AS A WHOLE? WOW! That’s the greatest compliment I have ever had. Really. I had no idea that I was that important. Thanks!

angry.jpgRoger: If you’re desperate for “compliments,” there’s plenty more where that came from…

I debate a Florida Citizens for Science user who names himself PC Bash:

angry.jpg PC-Bash: If the human jaw was designed intelligently, then why do we grow wisdom teeth? (Me: Why did natural selection “select” teeth that weren’t needed? Does PC have any idea how complex the jaws and teeth are? He couldn’t and ask such a question.)

angry.jpg PC-Bash: The damage that Creationism, or its current two political incarnations, “Intelligent” Design and anti-Evolutionism, will cause to children and to science as a whole is much more scary than it is funny.(Me: What damage? Very few people care an ounce about the subject, and few ever give a thought.)

Me: Evolutionists say eyes evolved when there was no vision on the planet earth. How did mutations know that if it continued in one of millions of possible directions, it would wind up with an incredible vision system?

angry.jpgPC-Bash: To go from a light sensitive organ, which is useful to itself, to an eye is not difficult, nor is it any sort of engineering feat. (Me: Right! A very simple task. Anyone could do it with enough time and some cardboard, wires, and glue.)

angry.jpgPC-Bash goes onto a long explanation of how eyes evolved that is less believable than Alice in Wonderland: “Animals with narrower openings would have less debris enter this cavity, and animals that developed sphincter muscle would have additional protection, with the ability to close off this opening to protect it from harmful debris…….Still, the cavity is susceptible to debris. The sphincter muscle helps, but skin tissue could help even more. If skin, or perhaps some other translucent material grows over the opening, then the animal can go places that it would normally have to avoid…….I fail to see how evolution could fail to develop an eye, or how any part of this eye, when approached in this logical order, is too complex to evolve from simple nerve tissue, over millions and millions of years.

angry.jpgPC Bash: Do you believe that animals with better advantage are more likely to survive, or not?
ME: Sure, but why did homo sapiens dis-evolve the ability to survive in the wilderness unclothed? Is that survival of the weakest? Out of billions of species, we are the only specie on the planet earth that cannot survive unclothed in our own backyards most months of the year. Oh, let me answer that for you: I am setting up a straw man, putting the cart before the horse, hand waving, I should get a basic biology book, and I am an idiot for asking.

angry.jpgPC Bash: We no longer needed (the status of being in”need” requires intelligence) fur and hair. Notice that we stand upright, and the most exposed part of our body, our head, still has hair. (Me: What about our shoulders?) If a mutation, such as albinoism or lack of hair, doesn’t harm an animal’s ability to survive, then natural selection will not have the opportunity to cull it. Poor argument. Please try again.

Also, it is fairly well established through anthropology records that humans migrated from tropical regions to temperate regions. Having fur is a distinct disadvantage in a tropical region: fur attracts more parasites, it retains sweat longer (harder to regulate body heat), it is harder to clean (thus leading to more opportunities for disease), etc.

ME: Your answer is so inane, I have to give it one more go.
Let’s see: Apes in Africa (the tropics), as well as lions, and tigers, etc. evolve fur even though they don’t need it. Apes then dis-evolve fur and become homo sapiens. They migrate to where it’s freezing cold, colder than they could imagine, and they don’t re-evolve fur. I get it! The wonders of evolution at work!

angry.jpgPC Bash: We don’t really need fur if we can make clothes, do we? Why spend all of that energy on fur when we have a large enough brain to seek clothing? If anything, not having fur puts us at an advantage, because we can cast off our faux fur when we don’t need it.

I don’t answer on this one anymore, and I give. Why keep on trying……………

Advertisements

59 Comments

  1. Mike Batchelor said,

    Argument from cranky internet forum regulars? That’s a new one.

  2. Ben said,

    You clearly have absolutely no idea how selection works. Why do you post this embarrassing nonsense?

    I don’t get it. I’ve made mistakes and humiliated myself – but I’ve apologised afterwards and I’ve restated my position when I was in error.

    I’ll ask you frankly, because I’m finding it hard to believe…

    Do you genuinely feel that the human heart, human lungs and human eyes could not have developed from simpler forms?

    We know so much about DNA nowadays, I don’t understand how you can’t “believe” evolution.

    Eyes have been done to death, so I’m cool if you’d rather a different human organ was explained.

    Choose one, it’ll be a good exercise for me – who knows you might even sow a seed of doubt.

  3. stevebee92653 said,

    Try eyes, don’t skip over them. Try teeth if you are bored with eyes. Or do hearts. None of them could have evolved a la Darwin. Take your pick. Or do joints and muscles. Or do consiousness. Or do the maxilla and mandible. There’s lots of fun stuff that will make you squirm and spout dogma. And if you do hearts, please don’t start with a “simple tube” that pumps. Start with the first heart cell and go from there to the first tube that pumps. You will really educate me if you can.

    • colinlpatterson said,

      Hi Steve – stumbled across your blog while searching for phylogenetic tree…I will return – Thanks for the truly scientific attitude you show…One immediate observation is that many people still disparage negative logic – that which says ‘That cannot be right – it is wrong’ without saying what is right…They seem quite unable to appreciate the benefits of pointing out a false road without knowing what the right road is…Cheers – Colin.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Thanks for the note and visit! Evolution and its tree cannot coexist. Easily proved, but looked over by this fake science.

  4. Ben said,

    I shouldn’t need to explain the eye: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

    Like I said, it has been studied to death. If you have found discrepancy then point to that discrepancy – don’t just claim it couldn’t have evolved.

    On teeth, I imagine you are coming from the irreducible complexity angle? Perhaps you would do the decent thing and explain exactly where in the evolution of teeth you have a problem…

    Please?

    Heart: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/evolution-of-th-5.html

    Muscles: http://www.umbi.umd.edu/~collins/myoinformatics/muscle-evolution.pdf

    You mentioned joints, but I’m guessing that was joke right?

    Mandibles: http://darwiniana.org/jaws.htm

    Consciousness I’ll give you. I don’t know what that is or how it could have gotten here. That said, I’m more than happy to talk about it with you.

  5. Brian said,

    Steve, don’t stop asking the right questions! Evolution religion is hopelessly WRONG!! You sir, are a warrior with a great mind. You are far from being alone.

  6. stevebee92653 said,

    Thanks Brian
    I have only begun……………

  7. jan said,

    I shouldn’t need to explain the eye: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

    Ben, you gullible fool………..Have you EVER questioned “authority” sufficiently on natural processes real demonstrated capabilities to build up ANY KIND OF DEPENDENT, YET INTERDEPENDENT SYSTEM THAT TRANSLATES INTO SUCH FUNCTION THAT IS SO FAR REMOVED FROM MERE CHEMICALS?????????

    Get your head out of your ass….. and challenge these stupendously insufficient explanations you media addict………..

    • Ben said,

      Jan, you gullible fool………..Have you EVER questioned “authority” sufficiently on the origin of your holy text and the validity of the claims therein to build up ANY KIND OF LOGICALLY COHERENT EXPLANATION, INDEPENDENT FROM GODDIDIT THAT TRANSLATES INTO [gobbledigook that meant nothing]?????????

      Get your hand out of your parishioners wallets and grow a pair you drug addict………..

      ——————————–

      Evolution happens. It’s about time your kind stop murdering people and got over it. You’re an animal like all the other animals.

  8. jan said,

    Ben,
    Seems that much of your above post may not make much sense to some people’s point of view. To some, such as my self, it doesn’t seem too well thought out….. maybe a little bit too much “philosophy” and animosity towards what you might consider to be a competing philosophy.
    Evolution, of course, happens……Evolution is a takes on many meanings under many different circumstances. But the evolution that is demonstrated and observable seems incredibly trivial compared to what many can imagine to be insurmountable barriers to such a simplistic approach to explaining life’s realities………. I can elaborate but I don’t think you, in your current frame of mind, are willing or able to consider what I would have to say……..You are more interested in protecting your beloved philosophy (financial interests?) than having an open mind.
    On a personal note, (since that is what you reduced this discussion to) I, humbly, try to question any kind of authoritarian dogma that tries to assert influence in my life……
    You may want to try the same…. or maybe not….it depends on you motivations I guess.

    • Ben said,

      Financial? What?

      I know telling stupid people they’re stupid doesn’t change anything – likewise for delusional people; but I’ll continue to do it, just in case.

      Grow up you delusional idiot. You are an animal, you evolved as an animal and none of your gods exist, no matter how hard you wish they did.

  9. jan said,

    “Financial? What?”

    I don’t know dude…..are you an evolutionary “scientist” or a teacher?

    “you evolved as an animal and none of your gods exist, no matter how hard you wish they did.”

    I don’t remember bringing up the concept of “gods”. And how do know no “gods” exist?

    • cb said,

      Jan, you have a lot to learn about convincing people. You do something that Creationists often do to me routinely and it’s utterly annoying… you START with an insult and then get incensed when the conversation takes a dive, like you’re the victim of some intolerant buffoon. The reason Ben immediately assumed that you believed in God is because, in the 13 years that I’ve been discussing evolution with creationists, I’ve never once, in 13 years, ever met one who was an Atheist or an Agnostic.

      You need to have an agenda to believe in ID/Creationism. That agenda is, “I can’t believe in evolution, because if I do, then that means the Earth is older than 6000 years and Genesis would be wrong, and if Genesis is wrong, what else in the bible could be wrong? If all kinds of part of the bible are wrong, could Jesus have even existed like the bible said? I mean what parts can I trust and not trust? And I need my Jesus! I need an explanation for what the point of my life is!”

      Believing in Evolution often creates a mental slippery slope that many Christians can’t handle. Without that strong bias/agenda, it’s impossible to believe in ID. That’s why he said that. 😉

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You said it just right. “BELIEVING in evolution”. Evolution is a belief, just like any religion.”God did it” and “natural selection did it” are one and the same.
        And you can never say again that every anti-ev you have ever met is religious. As, I am not at all.

      • Challagar said,

        Stevebee was right on on this point. I do not have to believe in the law of gravity or in biology or in meteorology because these are scientifically tested. I would, however have to believe in evolution because so much of it is speculation. Way too many “what if”s and “might have”s

  10. jan said,

    see how they run

    • Ben said,

      I don’t ever expect you to understand why exhaustively playing with the intellectual runt of the litter is less than beneficial to my survival…

  11. Ben said,

    RE: And you can never say again that every anti-ev you have ever met is religious. As, I am not at all.

    Really? Explain the origin of species how you see it then…

    Oh that’s right, you’re lying.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      OK, I will explain it to you. It’s easy. I don’t have any idea how species formed. And you don’t either. The difference between us is I don’t fool myself into thinking I do know. You fool yourself. You and your group of gullible believers. Darwin has given you that ability. You are lying to yourself.

      • Ben said,

        Nice try, but I’m not playing that game.

        You know that speciation occurs. You also know what the word species represents. You know that previously unfounded species are discovered on a daily basis.

        You know all this, but the shameful fact remains you wish there was a God doing it. Your real issue isn’t evolution at all – you already know it’s a reality. You simply can’t marry natural selection with your world view so you say it isn’t so.

        Alas, of late I couldn’t care less what dangerous, self serving lies you fill your own head with, just keep it away from my (and anyone else’s) children.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        If you have ’em I sure feel sorry for them. I’m sure they are being well brainwashed.
        Even if you could prove massive speciation, and if I gave that to you, you aren’t even at the starting line. You have to prove that your bullshit NS and RM could invent, design, assemble, and improve bio-systems that even a genius like you don’t comprehend. And since all your team can do is come up with fantasies, and horrible tries at demeaning like you just did, your belief system is nothing but a pile of bullshit. So believe away, be a smartass know-it-all like you are, and like most of your peers. You come off like a….never mind. I can’t be like you.

      • Ben said,

        You are everything that is wrong with the world.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Wow! I didn’t know I was that important! Thanks!

      • Ben said,

        That comeback falls short of the mark darling. Are you really so dense as to not know when you’re being debased?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        I always find that being “debased” by a gullible know-it-all evolutionaut who has nothing to say about the points I make is a compliment. Ergo, it would be impossible for you to debase me. Don’t you know when your chain is being pulled? (My Thank You) Of course not. You are an evolutionaut, ergo devoid of humor.

      • Ben said,

        Steve, you haven’t made any points.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You made one with your absurd “peer reviewed papers”. “We just don’t know how lungs evolved” Thanks. I can read. You can’t, obviously. Not my site, not your own papers. Thanks for the help.

      • Ben said,

        Lung evolution is not difficult to hypothesise. They’re hardly complex. If you lack the imagination to reverse engineer mammalian lungs in the thought lab then how can I possibly help you?

        I’m not sure it’s worth my time compiling an image sequence of countless small changes if your only going to say it aint so. So please, ask a specific question and you’ll get a specific answer.

        If it helps you see beyond your bias we can pretend it’s a new theory.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        “They’re hardly complex.” You must have never taken a class in biological sciences. So give me a summation on how lungs formed. I sincerely am dying to hear. Did lungs evolve before hearts? Before blood vessels? Where did the nerves that ran the early hearts and lungs come in. Did they evolve before or after the lung/heart system? If you have the answers to these questions, you could sure educate me.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Hey Ben. Are you smarter than these guys? Just wondering.

        Deconvoluting lung evolution using functional and comparitive genomics
        American Journal of Resporitory Biology

        ” we are still far from uniting proximate ontogenetic mechanisms and ultimate adaptive processes to explain the evolution of lung structure and function….”

      • Ben said,

        Lungs are obviously precursor to the heart. The lungs do the unique job of exchanging carbon dioxide for atmospheric oxygen. If all our tissue was in close proximity to the surface which governed that reaction then we wouldn’t need our heart and lungs as we know them today. The primary job of the heart is to move toxic blood back to the lungs and useful blood back to tissues.

        Likewise for nerves. Simpler organisms don’t need a network of nerve cells if all things that need to communicate are adjacent. So a nerve system allows new and existing components of an organism to simply be in other places.

        Blood vessels could exist without a heart. Plants don’t need a heart to keep capillary networks online. Whether in our case a pumping mechanism existed before the rest of the plumbing however isn’t a critical issue, because a rudimentary functional organism can easily be hypothesised that would benefit from either exclusively.

        I don’t know what they tell you in church, but understanding evolution/natural selection doesn’t mean we know stepwise how every single specimen arrived at their current form. It simply says; organisms change over time, those changes that are relatively beneficial will better survive.

        Some of the most important rules follow the discovery of DNA. Now we understand better the mechanism that preserves those changes, we know to not hypothesise beyond what said mechanisms permit.

        Sciences stands by evolution by natural selection – because even with these rules it still works. If natural selection didn’t fit then thousands upon thousands of scientists wouldn’t continue to study it.

        I look passed how you lifted a quote wholly disrespecting context in that typical creationist manner and address it as if you were a child discovering the scientific method for the first time:

        Science isn’t like your church and scientists don’t operate in the same way your pastor or whoever he is does. The scientific effort is as much about learning what is not true, what is impossible, what couldn’t work. You might be comfortable in a world where people tell you exactly what the consequences of your actions are, but the world of science asks how and then, when it might be on to something it’s challenged and second guessed.

        Which takes us nicely on to my closing suggestion. I know as a creationist you’ll probably find the idea hard to stomach, but here’s to trying:

        READ MORE THAN ONE SOURCE.

        http://www.springerlink.com/content/p2638883xxn6n025/

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Hard to believe you could spend all that time writing without at least knowing who you are talking to. Try a good read of page 1 of my blog, then give it another try. You couldn’t possibly know any of the points I make, since you haven’t even bothered to navigate my first page. What a laugh. You are not looking good.

      • Ben said,

        Why? Is it any different now to the nonsense it was a year or so ago?

        You’re a creationist who knows it’s whack but prays it’s true. In your two minds you’re clinging to the futile idea that if you can just convince other people God did it you can come right out the closet and say “that’s what I thought all along”.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You are not only an indoctrinated gullible know-it-all, you think you are a mind reader. You are not. But infortuantely you are not possible to have an intelligent discussion with. So adios. Nice try.

      • Ben said,

        This from a grown man with invisible friends…

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Well this qualifies as one of the dumbest attempts at trying to sound smart in challenging my stuff. If I was a teacher, you would get an F.
        First, you should get SOME idea of who you are talking to before you write. Try reading my statement page. (p. 1) Ya know READ MORE THAN ONE PAGE. Then come back and edit your inane comment.. All of the religious bullshit you wrote is pure garbage because you DIDN”T do what you recommended for me.

        Re: I look passed how you lifted a quote wholly disrespecting context:

        What quote?

        Re:L Lungs are obviously precursor to the heart.

        How the hell do you know this? Are really God in disguise? “Obviously”? What a laugh.

        Re: Whether in our case a pumping mechanism existed before the rest of the plumbing however isn’t a critical issue, because a rudimentary functional organism can easily be hypothesised that would benefit from either exclusively.

        Isn’t a critical issue? Are you kidding? “Not critical” because you have no idea, and there is no plausible evo-explanation. So you throw out a very critical point. Easily hypothesized? ANYTHING can be easily hypothesized. ANYTHING

        The world of THIS “science” asks how, makes up bullshit, and you and your fellow gullibles believe without the slightest bit of skepticism. You NEVER wonder. But that’s how indoctrinated evolutionauts operate.

        Note: None of the “sources” including the one you gave have absolutely any idea how bio-systems formed. None. And if you can read them and believe they do, your are hopeless. Well, you are anyway. You are stuck.

      • Ben said,

        You are actually retarded.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Thanks for showing off your intelligence here! So unusual for you evolutionauts. Ya know, to demean and call people names. Do y’all take classes on that? So many of you do it when you get stuck. Just curious. I liked the invisible friends one too. Classic! Great representation of your “science”.

      • Dick said,

        “So believe away, be a smartass know-it-all like you are, and like most of your peers. You come off like a….never mind. I can’t be like you.”

        Aww, does the little baby need a time-out for a nappy? Sorry, but you can’t get your way all the time and schools are required to teach real science. Until some alternative to Evolutionary Biology can somehow make it past the pseudoscience stage, you’re pretty much doomed to make a never-ending string of flawed arguments.

        Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the burden of proof is on you because you raised the topic in the first place.

        The claim that the scientific consensus in favor of Evolution is just one huge conspiracy is quite extraordinary in my humble opinion. Good luck finding evidence on that, but knowing you, you’re more likely to just make stuff up until your internet provider cuts you off.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        One of these days I will get an intelligent comment from an evolutionaut. I keep hoping. As it is, yours is just another on the trash heap of brainless zero content evo-comments. Not one of you can argue with the points I make, or even try. Very sad state of affairs for your great science.

      • bencharnock said,

        Cry me a river you mindless drone.

        You get plenty of comments regarding your arguments you just choose to ignore them, burying your head in your arse.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        So you are telling me that you are incapable of thought and reason on your own. So you depend on someone else to think for you. THAT is evolution in a nutshell. Thanks.

  12. PattyPageTurner said,

    Wow Steve, you got your ass handed to you on a thousand silver platters. Maybe in your next debate you’ll explain why “evolutionauts” should care what a dentist says about biology.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      You know what’s fascinating about indoctrinated evolutionauts like you? You always think you have won. Kind of like three year olds. Same mind set.

      • PPG said,

        We don’t think we’ve won. We KNOW we’ve won. We kicked ID’s ass in Kitzmiller v. Dover when it was concluded that ID was nothing more than creationism with a different sounding label. Creationuts might do well in debates where the whole point is to just win an argument, but in court, they’re terrible. In courts you can’t give speeches and you have to answer direct questions. Evidence is required to support your position and that evidence is subject to heavy cross-examination. The same applies to creationist and ID claims on the internet. It’s inevitable that someone will stumble onto you and be quick to shoot all your arguments down and a hundred invalid arguments will not accumulate into one valid argument.

        I also notice that your persuasion style consists of nothing more than cheap insults and petty name-calling, desperately pretending that evidence doesn’t exist and using the most pathetic straw-man arguments imaginable. All this and still failing to provide any alternative explanation. It’s obvious at this point that you have nothing meaningful to say so you’re better off not acting like you do.

        BTW:
        PattyPageTurner’s email address is phony just like the one I’m using in this message. This is a great way to persistently mock you without getting banned.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You are another evolutionaut who has nothing to say. Yours is just another zero content comment. “Some one else will kick my butt”, but not you. Right? You are a cheerleader. Well, that’s all I have found in this fake science. Cheerleaders with nothing to say. Be sure and read my analysis of Dover on p. 16. A win for a bunch of charlatans who fooled a judge. Pretty sad.
        Great trick on the name thing. I rarely block here. In fact I don’t think I have any blocks. You have to be a pretty big pain in the ass to get blocked by me. So don’t waste too much time on the trickery. If you care to respond.

  13. DicksterDumbass said,

    steve-beaten decides to throw a temper tantrum:
    “You are another evolutionaut who has nothing to say. Yours is just another zero content comment. “Some one else will kick my butt”, but not you. Right? You are a cheerleader. Well, that’s all I have found in this fake science. Cheerleaders with nothing to say. Be sure and read my analysis of Dover on p. 16. A win for a bunch of charlatans who fooled a judge. Pretty sad.”
    “Great trick on the name thing. I rarely block here. In fact I don’t think I have any blocks. You have to be a pretty big pain in the ass to get blocked by me. So don’t waste too much time on the trickery. If you care to respond.”

    Cry me a river baby boy, just cry me a river. In the grown-up world we have a term for this kind of display. It’s called ‘being a crybaby’. The responses that your detractors have given you are obviously good and well thought out but you’re too much of a child to deal with it.

    You being as old and educated as you say you are is obviously the real fantasy. Your knowledge of basic biology is barely at the Dr. Seuss level so there goes your claim of studying evolution for a few decades. Your claim of owning 4 patents turned up negative and I bet that’s not even your real photo at the starting page. A person that old and experienced would know better than to act like a jackass when his ideals are debunked.

    BTW: This email address is just like you: Phony.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I swear, someday I will get an intelligent comment from an evolutionaut. But not yet.

      • BadBoyBlur said,

        You’ve been getting intelligent responses on a daily basis but your personal definition of “intelligent comment” falls within the realm of any comment that’s meant to shout encouragement on your part. If you really want an intelligent conversation, you’re going to have to take a deep breath and ACTUALLY listen to what they say and be willing to correct your own mistakes.
        We need to be humble and start being honest with ourselves about these issues because science thrives on scrutiny and self-correction when new evidence is found, not personal beliefs or intuition.

        A common ancestor at the base of all Eukaryotic cells, our close taxonomic relationship with the other great apes as made clear by comparative anatomy and genomic sequence data, the FACT that we’ve been classified as primates since the 1700’s, and the FACT that this is also well supported by the fossil record.

        Do you really think we believe these things because we want to? I don’t think so, but this is what all the evidence point towards whether we want to believe it or not.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You are on the team. The evolution team. You are an emotional commenter. I have a ton of challenges for evolution, and the comments I get that you think are intelligent are just like yours. They say nothing. They don’t challenge my challenges. They are in the range of “you are dumb, you don’t know what you are talking about, I am smart” So many facts on my blog, all untouched. Completely. Why? Because they and you have no answers for the concrete information and challenges on this blog.
        You think that proving common ancestry does the job for proving evo? That is a smoke screen. You have been directed by some other believer (teacher?) to completely think along those lines. Common ancestry is more believable than the real atomic bomb over evolution’s head that MUST be ignored. The INVENTION ASSEMBLY IMPROVEMENT SUSTENANCE of bio-systems like heart/lung/blood/vessel systems, visual systems, alimentary systems, consciousness, and Kreb’s cycle. These all had to be INVENTED, then assembled, then supported and improved. And there is no way natural selection could do that task. No way. So stay with your common ancestry argument, you are still light years away from proof. And keep being a cheerleader for your fellow evo-commenters. Because that is all you are. My challenges are just sitting there like a huge target, my chin is out, waiting for an intelligent challenge back. But alas there aren’t ANY.

  14. Ben said,

    “The INVENTION ASSEMBLY IMPROVEMENT SUSTENANCE of bio-systems like heart/lung/blood/vessel systems, visual systems, alimentary systems, consciousness, and Kreb’s cycle. These all had to be INVENTED, then assembled, then supported and improved. And there is no way natural selection could do that task. No way.”

    I’ve already explained this but you ACTIVELY REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      You mean 1/6/10? I don’t acknowledge because you didn’t “explain it”. You suffer from delusions. No person who ever existed could “explain it”. The fact that you even think you came close says everything about you. You have no concept whatsoever.

      • LOLatEvolution said,

        Hey Steve lol,

        I find it funny how you are totally dead on with the “group think” pattern of evillusionists. They can’t even come close to responding you challenges. whats worse,,,is the fact that they label you and anybody else who opposes the THEORY a “creationist” lollllllllllll!!! I mean really??? do they actually believe that? without even knowing who you are or what youre about and even when you explain to them or they see on your site that youre not christian nor a creationist they still go on these long winded rants that somehow “deep down inside!” you really are some angry creationist trying to “fit god into science.” what a strawman argument!! 🙂 thats what i got a kick out of the most lol! You see they have to resort to that you know why? because their battle IS against religion! thats what this is all about! its not about the “scientific acknowledgment”. Notice how harshly and persistently they bash religion (especially christianity for that matter, i noticed thats the most attacked by evo’s, you rarely see them critizing, baal, sheeva, or even “lucifer” for that matter! which is a funny thought when you think about it, when was the last time?) they know that if evo goes down the tube,,,then their atheistic world view isn’t as justified nor reinforced (“backed by science”) as much as they want it to be. they say creationists want to “wish” god was responsible for everything, but from what ive observered, i’d say they’re afraid some god could possibly be responsible for our existence! Thats why they neeeeeeever (well I havent seen it done) question the theory and take any answer that talkorigins, darwin, dawkins, aaronra, cdk007, “mad scientist” and the like gives them for gospel without even checking and critically critiquing their claims and constructing mental experiments to see if they are even possible let alone true?! Yes, the “scientific community” has responded back (“refuted”) to anti-evo scrutiny,,,,,but how valid are those answers? dont just assume the person asking the question doesnt understand evolution, challenge the theory, IS IT CONSISTENT?!!!!!! dO you really believe that heart/lung/blood/vessel systems, visual systems, alimentary systems, consciousness (they were stumped on that one 😉 lol), and Kreb’s cycle are that “simple” and “easily created by blind NS and RM mechanisms?!?!?!?!?!?! (anything is “Easy” for an evolutionaut 😉 How?! and i think thats the question youre trying to ask here steve. how did blood come about? what were the advantages? dont show me illustrations of how a bacteria mutating into different shapes is a good example of how the lung and heart “mightcouldhavemaybesorta” evolved. Show me evidence of it in the fossil record! what group of ancestors/descendatns can we use as exhibit A through G to show the progression of such complex systems. hahahaha, they claim bacteria could distinguish between night and day and can sense light, WRONG, they could only sense E-M Radiation 🙂 which brings us back to square 1 on the eye (they didnt come back with an answer to that one steve 😉 How could these organs begin to all of a sudden invent a sensory network (yes folks its more than just a bunch of millions of repeatable mutations, each nerve and cell has a specific function and each mutation would have to know what the predecessor before it did in order for it to improve upon and reinforce the overall functionality, but with RM there is no “goal” nor “boook keeping” so I wonder how that happened?) to detect light.?How could you agree with yourself trying to imagine all those complex parts and millions of cells from the eyes connecting to the brain and interacting in such precise synchronization and harmony were just a “blindrandomjustbychance” occurence. what steps could have been taken to go from no eye to fully networked and functional eye, and why? what “environmental pressures” would force those type of internal changes within an organizm? now lets just say for arguments sake that NS and RM was the factor for the development of the eye it gets even worse! picture that one poor little organism with this new random “good” mutation (in its early stage, especially considering it needs to go through many many many stages to reach a complete optical system) trying to spread it out among the many who DON’T have that trait. oh i get it,,,,it was separated from rest of the pack and settled in a new environment! why would it leave?! it was now suddenly “better” than the rest of the species since it has this random “one in a million” mutation that is most likely never going to happen again? What, did NS and RM SHUN it from its original environment because it was a mutant?!?!?! NS served it an eviction notice from its current habitat and said; “sir, you gotta leave you’re gonna spread your mutation to the rest of the species???” did it pack its bags grab its mate and say “honey were gonna get outa here i just got a feeling that tumor on my forehead is gonna make our kids famous someday lets procreate elsewhere to secure it doesnt die out with the rest of those non-mutant rejects”?!?!?!?! picture that! Now picture that happening in unison to other completely difrerent completely seperated species in completely different habitats all yielding a similar “design” 😉 that “looks designed eventhough its really not bcuz there is no god and no inteligent design eventhough nature reaks of it,,,it just sortofhappens to look that way” – as per Dawkins. then picture that happening with every other complex systems (heart/lung/brain/skin) and this is something that happened all at the same time throughout the vast world according to the Cambrian explosion? How unlikely for such a random process. With that type of luck I could play the lotto TONIGHT and strike big!! what logic,,,, :-s

        Look, the bottom line here is that they havent even come close!!!!! to calling TOE a fact!!!!!!! how can they do that when they dont even know what the origin of species is???! WE DONT EVEN KNOW HOW LIFE STARTED ON THIS PLANET! why cant we just “simply” 😉 say,,,,,”we dont know” that would be alot easier than making up fairy tales that are BY FAR from proven and calling them facts!! why is abiogenesis excluded from the whole TOE discussion? because they know its impossible and they have no idea so they focus the smokes and mirrors elsewhere; biology. its alot easier to manipulate biology then to create a single celled organism in a testtube that eventually “evolves” into a fish. i know i know, it takes a shitload of time for that to happen, but at least we should see some progression of how one experiment of a few chemicals stimulated by some electrical reaction formed a cell that turned into many cells that eventually “evolved” into a tuna (what a yummy experiment that would be) :-/,,,,given the right habitats and “environmental pressures” of course, i’m pretty sure that should “eeeeeeasily” 😉 be simulated or reenacted nowadays right? Hey, NS and RM did it by pure chance, we’ve CREATED/DESIGNED pieces of metal that can shoot to Mars and back, and computers that can “process a quantum physics equation in nanoseconds” why can’t we make some life? To all you evolutionauts im pretty sure that after that feat your descendants (maybe they would be evolved into gods by then and have grown wings) would be proud of you. but you cant see any possibilities of this even possible today by a long shot. Alls we got is some overzealous scientists eager to be anti-crhistian or anti-religious claiming that we formed on some lucky spot on the ocean floor (“under the sea” haha, reminds me of the little mermaid, my niece loves that movie) due to some chemical reaction that took place on a piece of clay,,,,(just want to let you guys know that in the bible it also says god made people out of clay,,,,just thought i might add that as a funny thought. also the Egyptians thought frogs evolved some primordial mud that eventually evolved into Darwins’ third cousin :-/).

        well steve, i think ive ranted and raved enough here, keep on truckin! all they have for you are ad hominem attacks false questioning of your credibility and education (why dont they apologize when they find out that youre telling the truth about all that?) ragging on your patents, asserting that you know nothing about evillusion (i mean really, you said a million times that you used to be an evolutionaut….:-/) and affiliating you with a bunch of groups that you’re not even a part of lol not once did you preach not even half a passage from the bible here, nor mention any notion of religion! (they have no other defense mechanism, they know that this just makes it harder for them because they have more antagonists to fend off, the load is heavier and the plate is even fuller. Keep blowing at that house of cards,,,,,its gonna take alot more of us to bring down this pseudo-scientific “papacy” leady by R. Dawkins and friends with an atheistic agenda, but at least somebody! had to take a stand. I applaud thee sir,

        Good day 😉

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Thanks for the great note. What is amazing and fun about this fake science is that it is so easy to come up with fallacies on your/our own. You don’t need a textbook or peer reviewed papers. All you have to do it just think and reason! About just about any of it. Think these tenets out, and figure if they can be possible. And, in almost every case, they cannot.
        I love your thinking on: did it pack its bags grab its mate and say “honey were gonna get outa here i just got a feeling that tumor on my forehead is gonna make our kids famous someday lets procreate elsewhere to secure it doesnt die out with the rest of those non-mutant rejects” Very funny and very true at the same time. If one individual mutated a new feature he better get the hell out of the population before the mutation is diluted or is vanished by the other non-mutants. What a laugh. Good one. You are right on.
        Of course if no one speaks up, this group of indoctrinated believers get free reign to indoctrinate children in school. Which they do now. And which is why I will keep on truckin’.

  15. LOLatEvolution said,

    Great! I’m glad you read it! (I know it was really long but I just drank coffee and I was riled up after reading all the comments on this particular post :-/ ) I figured a little comic relief would maaaaybe somehow get them to realize how “brainlocked” they are,,,theyre not even using real logic nor science anymore. well, lets see if any of them respond back to any of the challenges with real (not pseudo) science and empircal evidence. Take care man.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Roger that. You too.

      • Terry Thone (@thoneter) said,

        I have read through the blog and do believe that you are non-religious. I do believe in a sentient being beyond our comprehension that did create all. Unlike Einstein I do believe He’s a personal creator in touch with his creation. I say this so that any logical proposition I come up with will be debased because of this belief!

        I went to http://debatingchristianity.com/ which appears to be filled by NS individuals and tried posing a few thoughts for constructive criticism. One of the thoughts was on great whites and their symbiotic relationship with cleaning fish.

        How long did the cleaners keep trying before they were not consumed? After that fish survived how did he/she and shim(for the lgbt crowd) pass that trait to its offspring. What are the odds that those offspring that got that trait swam in the same area as the sharks that passed on that trait?

        I suppose the cleaning fish were first attempting on fish that didn’t eat them and then tried other fish but wouldn’t those fish probably want to choose a species that is not at the top of the predator line?

        Not sure my logic is infallible but wanted to put it out there for those that really do want to consider the merits of thought and logic.

        On the subject of NS and evolution I ran into the same problem that is presented over and over again on this blog. No one on the evolution side wanted to discuss my question and just pointed to experts on other sites. What has happened to empirical thinking?

        Not to make your head big as I hate to high five anyone but I loved the video discussing the conscientious observer. It is true that without our senses and us being that nothing can be observed. The universe is and we observe. I also love Einsteins quote on life.

        “I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?” (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 208)

        “We know nothing about [God, the world] at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never.” (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, Page 208)

        “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with modest powers must feel humble.” – Albert Einstein, towards the end of his life”

        I think this defines religion! a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. dictionary.com

        This is where I do see a personal Creator. I’m sure that now that I’ve disclosed my true nature as a creationist it will be time for the evolutionists to call me an asshat! I’d also like to take the time and call you an asshat. 1 I like the sound of the word and I’m sure you’ll take offense as I just said it to ridicule those that use the word to convince asshats that they are asshats and that will persuade them to become non-asshats! Phew that was cathartic!

        Thanks for putting your thoughts out on the net for me and other asshats to browse. Feel free to tell me how much of an asshat I am as I love it!

        My dad when I was young told me that when someone tells you that your an asshole the best thing you can do is agree and move on. So by now I’m sure I’ve become some evolutionists favorite asshole but I still prefer asshat. Never gets old!

        So with all the nonsense out of the way I would enjoy some honest opinions and logical comments about the whites and cleaners.

        Your evolutionary personality disorder test is hilarious. Some day I’ve got to get me one of those humerous thingies so I’m not labeled as an evolutionists! Would have used some smilies along he way but I’m not bright enough or ambitious enough to research the code and you don’t have the buttons like the evolutionist forums have 🙂

      • stevebee92653 said,

        This is a good one. There are so many examples that kill evolution. Thanks for the comment!

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: