Hateful Atheist Richard Dawkins' Antiscientific Rubbish

[sealybobo]

Atheist rubbish they spew:

1. "Science has a self-correcting mechanism."

OOOOOo. Everyone is supposed to be impressed with this silliness? Think about it. Plants have a self-correcting mechanism. They send out roots and correct them until they find water.
Turn a plant on its side and it makes a turn back to vertical.

2. "Atheists are rational and oh so scientific."

The Ivy League Colleges all have Christian charters. They were founded by Christians to teach science and other subjects. Atheists frequently show their irrationality and unscientific silliness in more ways than you can count. The Multiverse - a joke. Their claims of "morality"? On what basis? They're "smarter" than anyone else? Claimed but never proven. The universe has always existed? Nobody contends such nonsense but an irrational atheist. Nobody.

3. "Who made God, huh, huh, huh!"

If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He.

Please carefully analyze atheist claims and write down why they are irrational and anti-scientific here.

Yes Christians appreciate science but they cherry pick when science contradicts their stupid made up religion. God made the earth in 7 days. He made man out of clay. He made woman out of Adam's rib. Go fuck yourselves you fucking fools.

 

[Ringtone]

Ringtone
Not so smart now boy.
Gone awfully quiet when the truth is revealed. Try Again.

Please explain how an actual infinite (e.g., an infinite regress of causality or temporality) can possibly be traversed to the present, let alone exist in the first place, or how the universe came to exist from an ontological nothingness, i.e., sans any cause.

Once again, atheism is rank stupidity.

 

[Astrostar]

After reading nonsense published as "non-fiction" by Isaac Asimov, cited on this very thread, I proceeded to check out books by Carl Sagan and critique those, which critiques I mailed to his publisher. Then it was malicious atheist Richard Dawkins' turn. So much nonsense that I won't burden readers with more than a small fraction of it.

Cover: Subtitle: “Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design”

(Never before in all my book reviews have I had to begin my critique at the COVER! A title and a subtitle - both misleading - both wrong. Professor Dawkins contradicts his own subtitle on Page 21:

‘We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose, such as flying, swimming, seeing, eating, reproducing, or more generally promoting the survival and replication of the organism’s genes.’ Every living plant and animal you see shows these “attributes” cited by the author.)

P 37: “Our modern hypothesis (evolution) . . .”

(Ah yes, that ‘modern’ hypothesis - evolution. 1859.)

Ibid: “Whenever I read such a remark (as the impossibility of believing in evolution), I always feel like writing ‘Speak for yourself’ in the margin.”

(Let me return the favor. On P 160, Dawkins writes, ‘Our minds can’t cope with the large distances that astronomy deals in, or the small distances of atomic physics...” SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. Dawkins: “Our minds can’t imagine a time span as short as a picosecond.’ SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.

Dawkins: ’Our minds can’t imagine a timespan as long as a million years...’ SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.


P. 163: “Our own subjective judgment about the plausibility of a theory of the origin of life is likely to be wrong by a factor of a hundred million.”

(SPEAKING FOR HIMSELF.)

Dawkins: “When we read in a newspaper about an amazing coincidence . . . we are more impressed by it than we should be.” (SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.)


P. 105: “There is a considerable surplus of humans.” (SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!! Interestingly, Carl Sagan said the same thing. Sagan hypocritically had five children, an "excess" by his own statements.)

P. 41: “Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability. Indeed it is a method that we shall use in this book several times. BUT YOU HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT.”

(Emphasis added, again. If there is ONE thing Professor Dawkins does NOT do right, it is measuring the statistical improbability. He defines one chance in 10exp40 as “impossible”, and then says one chance in a universe full of numbers is “possible”. But a critic’s idea is impossible at one chance in 10exp301. Science turned on its head for evolution.)

P. 129: “Modern DNA replication is a high-technology affair, with elaborate proofreading techniques that have been perfected . . .”

(Subtitle: "... a universe without design...." but it's "high-technology, with elaborate techniques that have been perfected....")

P 160: “ . . .it is possible for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen....It is theoretically possible for a cow to jump over the moon with something like the same improbability.”
(Atheists will make every effort to defend Dawkins' ridiculous attempts because they never admit that they were wrong. The arrogant, condescending Left is like that. And this is just ONE of his many books fraught with anti-science. Like Asimov, like Sagan, like all their excuse-makers, none of them could bring himself to say, "You make some good points. I overlooked that." No, Asimov and Dawkins simply engaged in attacking ME, failing to address the points I made. Sagan, on the other hand, greedily asked me to buy his newest book, overlooking the fact that I checked them all out at the public library, which by the way, invariably purchases Leftist books, but almost none on apologetics or by Christian authors. Librarians too have been brainwashed at Leftist socialist colleges. I had to borrow the book, The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, from the Library of Congress, since not one library outside of it had a copy to loan.

Q.E.D.

Sheesh. The angry, hateful religionist is waging his own online jihad replete with the expected edited, parsed and out of context ''quotes''.

They are so like Trump, can't get enough of their snake oil pitches!

 

[Ringtone]

After reading nonsense published as "non-fiction" by Isaac Asimov, cited on this very thread, I proceeded to check out books by Carl Sagan and critique those, which critiques I mailed to his publisher. Then it was malicious atheist Richard Dawkins' turn. So much nonsense that I won't burden readers with more than a small fraction of it.

Cover: Subtitle: “Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design”

(Never before in all my book reviews have I had to begin my critique at the COVER! A title and a subtitle - both misleading - both wrong. Professor Dawkins contradicts his own subtitle on Page 21:

‘We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose, such as flying, swimming, seeing, eating, reproducing, or more generally promoting the survival and replication of the organism’s genes.’ Every living plant and animal you see shows these “attributes” cited by the author.)

P 37: “Our modern hypothesis (evolution) . . .”

(Ah yes, that ‘modern’ hypothesis - evolution. 1859.)

Ibid: “Whenever I read such a remark (as the impossibility of believing in evolution), I always feel like writing ‘Speak for yourself’ in the margin.”

(Let me return the favor. On P 160, Dawkins writes, ‘Our minds can’t cope with the large distances that astronomy deals in, or the small distances of atomic physics...” SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. Dawkins: “Our minds can’t imagine a time span as short as a picosecond.’ SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.

Dawkins: ’Our minds can’t imagine a timespan as long as a million years...’ SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.


P. 163: “Our own subjective judgment about the plausibility of a theory of the origin of life is likely to be wrong by a factor of a hundred million.”

(SPEAKING FOR HIMSELF.)

Dawkins: “When we read in a newspaper about an amazing coincidence . . . we are more impressed by it than we should be.” (SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.)


P. 105: “There is a considerable surplus of humans.” (SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!! Interestingly, Carl Sagan said the same thing. Sagan hypocritically had five children, an "excess" by his own statements.)

P. 41: “Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability. Indeed it is a method that we shall use in this book several times. BUT YOU HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT.”

(Emphasis added, again. If there is ONE thing Professor Dawkins does NOT do right, it is measuring the statistical improbability. He defines one chance in 10exp40 as “impossible”, and then says one chance in a universe full of numbers is “possible”. But a critic’s idea is impossible at one chance in 10exp301. Science turned on its head for evolution.)

P. 129: “Modern DNA replication is a high-technology affair, with elaborate proofreading techniques that have been perfected . . .”

(Subtitle: "... a universe without design...." but it's "high-technology, with elaborate techniques that have been perfected....")

P 160: “ . . .it is possible for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen....It is theoretically possible for a cow to jump over the moon with something like the same improbability.”
(Atheists will make every effort to defend Dawkins' ridiculous attempts because they never admit that they were wrong. The arrogant, condescending Left is like that. And this is just ONE of his many books fraught with anti-science. Like Asimov, like Sagan, like all their excuse-makers, none of them could bring himself to say, "You make some good points. I overlooked that." No, Asimov and Dawkins simply engaged in attacking ME, failing to address the points I made. Sagan, on the other hand, greedily asked me to buy his newest book, overlooking the fact that I checked them all out at the public library, which by the way, invariably purchases Leftist books, but almost none on apologetics or by Christian authors. Librarians too have been brainwashed at Leftist socialist colleges. I had to borrow the book, The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, from the Library of Congress, since not one library outside of it had a copy to loan.

Q.E.D.

Sheesh. The angry, hateful religionist is waging his own online jihad replete with the expected edited, parsed and out of context ''quotes''.

They are so like Trump, can't get enough of their snake oil pitches!

Please explain how an actual infinite (e.g., an infinite regress of causality or temporality) can possibly be traversed to the present, let alone exist in the first place, or how the universe came to exist from an ontological nothingness, i.e., sans any cause.

Once again, atheism is rank stupidity.

Thanks.

 

[Colin norris]

Ringtone
From examining your jumbled word salad it would appear that to you.

It can't be categorised as stupid because it doesn't have to be compared to something you regard as not stupid.
If you are a godbotherer, you believe in immaculate conception and virgin births etc yet you call belief in nothing, stupid.
Explain to the world how those fantasies work.

 

[Ringtone]

Ringtone
From examining your jumbled word salad it would appear that to you.

It can't be categorised as stupid because it doesn't have to be compared to something you regard as not stupid.
If you are a godbotherer, you believe in immaculate conception and virgin births etc yet you call belief in nothing, stupid.
Explain to the world how those fantasies work.

Rank Stupidity Alert!

 

[Colin norris]

Ringtone
You're a plethora of intelligent comments. Very original. Brain dead.

 

[Ringtone]

Ringtone
You're a plethora of intelligent comments. Very original. Brain dead.

Atheism = Rank Stupidity.

 

[Colin norris]

Ringtone
Of course and you being an expert on the subject vindicates it.
As if you know anything.

 

[Hollie]

After reading nonsense published as "non-fiction" by Isaac Asimov, cited on this very thread, I proceeded to check out books by Carl Sagan and critique those, which critiques I mailed to his publisher. Then it was malicious atheist Richard Dawkins' turn. So much nonsense that I won't burden readers with more than a small fraction of it.

Cover: Subtitle: “Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design”

(Never before in all my book reviews have I had to begin my critique at the COVER! A title and a subtitle - both misleading - both wrong. Professor Dawkins contradicts his own subtitle on Page 21:

‘We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose, such as flying, swimming, seeing, eating, reproducing, or more generally promoting the survival and replication of the organism’s genes.’ Every living plant and animal you see shows these “attributes” cited by the author.)

P 37: “Our modern hypothesis (evolution) . . .”

(Ah yes, that ‘modern’ hypothesis - evolution. 1859.)

Ibid: “Whenever I read such a remark (as the impossibility of believing in evolution), I always feel like writing ‘Speak for yourself’ in the margin.”

(Let me return the favor. On P 160, Dawkins writes, ‘Our minds can’t cope with the large distances that astronomy deals in, or the small distances of atomic physics...” SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. Dawkins: “Our minds can’t imagine a time span as short as a picosecond.’ SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.

Dawkins: ’Our minds can’t imagine a timespan as long as a million years...’ SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.


P. 163: “Our own subjective judgment about the plausibility of a theory of the origin of life is likely to be wrong by a factor of a hundred million.”

(SPEAKING FOR HIMSELF.)

Dawkins: “When we read in a newspaper about an amazing coincidence . . . we are more impressed by it than we should be.” (SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.)


P. 105: “There is a considerable surplus of humans.” (SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!! Interestingly, Carl Sagan said the same thing. Sagan hypocritically had five children, an "excess" by his own statements.)

P. 41: “Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability. Indeed it is a method that we shall use in this book several times. BUT YOU HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT.”

(Emphasis added, again. If there is ONE thing Professor Dawkins does NOT do right, it is measuring the statistical improbability. He defines one chance in 10exp40 as “impossible”, and then says one chance in a universe full of numbers is “possible”. But a critic’s idea is impossible at one chance in 10exp301. Science turned on its head for evolution.)

P. 129: “Modern DNA replication is a high-technology affair, with elaborate proofreading techniques that have been perfected . . .”

(Subtitle: "... a universe without design...." but it's "high-technology, with elaborate techniques that have been perfected....")

P 160: “ . . .it is possible for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen....It is theoretically possible for a cow to jump over the moon with something like the same improbability.”
(Atheists will make every effort to defend Dawkins' ridiculous attempts because they never admit that they were wrong. The arrogant, condescending Left is like that. And this is just ONE of his many books fraught with anti-science. Like Asimov, like Sagan, like all their excuse-makers, none of them could bring himself to say, "You make some good points. I overlooked that." No, Asimov and Dawkins simply engaged in attacking ME, failing to address the points I made. Sagan, on the other hand, greedily asked me to buy his newest book, overlooking the fact that I checked them all out at the public library, which by the way, invariably purchases Leftist books, but almost none on apologetics or by Christian authors. Librarians too have been brainwashed at Leftist socialist colleges. I had to borrow the book, The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, from the Library of Congress, since not one library outside of it had a copy to loan.

Q.E.D.

Sheesh. The angry, hateful religionist is waging his own online jihad replete with the expected edited, parsed and out of context ''quotes''.

They are so like Trump, can't get enough of their snake oil pitches!

Please explain how an actual infinite (e.g., an infinite regress of causality or temporality) can possibly be traversed to the present, let alone exist in the first place, or how the universe came to exist from an ontological nothingness, i.e., sans any cause.

Once again, atheism is rank stupidity.

Thanks.

Why does anyone need to explain some silly notion of an 'actual infinite'? Your notion of partisan gods which is what you call an 'actual infinite' is superstitious belief.

 

[Colin norris]

Hollie
What's the difference between an "actual infinite" and a normal infinite?

 

[Ringtone]

Hollie
What's the difference between an "actual infinite" and a normal infinite?

A normal infinite?! That's what I thought when you prattled your nonsense about word salad. Like Hollie, you don't have a clue. Yours is the response of the typical atheist to things he's never studied or thought about, the atheist's routine response to things he doesn't understand.

Actual and potential infinities are mathematical and philosophical constructs inherent to the study of set theory and the infinitesimals of calculus. An infinite regress of causality or temporality is an example of an actual infinite. Ironically, the actually infinite does not and cannot actually exist as anything more than a mathematical concept in minds. It's the mathematical concept of an indeterminably large number or amount of something corresponding to the indeterminably small (or infinitesimal) numbers of calculus. Actual and potential infinities strictly pertain to quantity, not quality. As an actual infinite is indeterminably large, it cannot be traversed. Common sense 101.

Ontology is the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. —Google​

 

[Hollie]

Hollie
What's the difference between an "actual infinite" and a normal infinite?

That’s a good question. I suspect it’s some slogan used by the hyper-religious.

 

[Ringtone]

Atheists always fall back on magic at some point. There's a reason so many lefties love Harry Potter.

Marvin, you Da Man. They pretend that nothing made everything. Lefty Magic.

They do not. Not one atheist I know has ever thought that nothing made everything.

Please tell your unwilling but captive audience what atheists think made everything. Don't weasel out with some non-answer. Be specific and scientific, IF you can.

Natural forces. There are many elements and forces on the earth. Winds, tides, chemical reactions ect ect. (sic) These are not "nothing.

Gravity pulled the materials together for the planet. Gravity is not nothing. Nor is it magic.

ZERO specifics. ZERO as usual from you.

1. Where did these "materials" come from, Mister Nihilist Atheist?
2. Where did gravity come from, Mister Anti-Science?
3. How did gravity just "happen" to have a critical value precise to within one part in trillions of trillions to form the universe? You don't have a clue nor do any of your atheist pals. You simple dribble out some nonsense and trot away, satisfied with your inane bullshit. Which brings me to Brandolini's Law: It requires an order of magnitude more energy to refute bullshit than it did to produce it.
4. You don't even know the proper abbreviation for et cetera. Look it up. Try to learn something today. [It is NOT "ect ect." (sic)]
5. You overlooked a comma between your two ignorant, incorrect abbreviations.

Grammar and spelling is (sic) your argument? lol Ok then.

The materials have always existed.

Gravity is a natural force. It is based on mass and energy. It has always existed as well. Gravity did not just "happen" to have any precise value. It has always been the same.

1. "LOL". Grammar and spelling ARE....
Pretty funny Mister Atheist "Intellectual."

IF you were as smart as you pretend to be, you would know how to construct sentences in good grammar. But you are not so you cannot. Q.E.D. "LOL".

2. NO the "materials have (NOT) always existed."
3. Neither has gravity. That is anti-science and completely without foundation or logic.
But giggle away.
4. HOW gravity happened to have that value is beyond your comprehension even to discuss.
You're talking in circles like Darwin did but you can't even see. I'm presenting counters to your nonsense not for you, but for others who might tend to believe your nonsense. You do.
Refer to the Anthropic Principle. Scientists of great training understand that these values are not a matter of "luck" or were "always there." That's atheist magic talk.

Readers, you may as well talk to a pigeon as this "moderator." He's a complete waste of time.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that the materials have not always existed. They have changed form. But no proof they have not always existed.

You claim that the idea that gravity has always existed is anti-science. What evidence is there that gravity has not always existed.

Logic, mathematics and science all tell us that the universe has not always existed.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie
What's the difference between an "actual infinite" and a normal infinite?

A normal infinite?! That's what I thought when you prattled your nonsense about word salad. Like Hollie, you don't have a clue. Yours is the response of the typical atheist to things he's never studied or thought about, the atheist's routine response to things he doesn't understand.

Actual and potential infinities are mathematical and philosophical constructs inherent to the study of set theory and the infinitesimals of calculus. An infinite regress of causality or temporality is an example of an actual infinite. Ironically, the actually infinite does not and cannot actually exist as anything more than a mathematical concept in minds. It's the mathematical concept of an indeterminably large number or amount of something corresponding to the indeterminably small (or infinitesimal) numbers of calculus. Actual and potential infinities strictly pertain to quantity, not quality. As an actual infinite is indeterminably large, it cannot be traversed. Common sense 101.

Ontology is the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. —Google​

Yours are the hurt feelings of the typical hyper-religionist. You rattle on with terms and definitions you don’t understand and through a collection of misapplied labels, you hope your stuttering and mumbling will be accepted as ‘proof’ of your gods.

 

[LuckyDuck]

After reading nonsense published as "non-fiction" by Isaac Asimov, cited on this very thread, I proceeded to check out books by Carl Sagan and critique those, which critiques I mailed to his publisher. Then it was malicious atheist Richard Dawkins' turn. So much nonsense that I won't burden readers with more than a small fraction of it.

Cover: Subtitle: “Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design”

(Never before in all my book reviews have I had to begin my critique at the COVER! A title and a subtitle - both misleading - both wrong. Professor Dawkins contradicts his own subtitle on Page 21:

‘We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose, such as flying, swimming, seeing, eating, reproducing, or more generally promoting the survival and replication of the organism’s genes.’ Every living plant and animal you see shows these “attributes” cited by the author.)

P 37: “Our modern hypothesis (evolution) . . .”

(Ah yes, that ‘modern’ hypothesis - evolution. 1859.)

Ibid: “Whenever I read such a remark (as the impossibility of believing in evolution), I always feel like writing ‘Speak for yourself’ in the margin.”

(Let me return the favor. On P 160, Dawkins writes, ‘Our minds can’t cope with the large distances that astronomy deals in, or the small distances of atomic physics...” SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. Dawkins: “Our minds can’t imagine a time span as short as a picosecond.’ SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.

Dawkins: ’Our minds can’t imagine a timespan as long as a million years...’ SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.


P. 163: “Our own subjective judgment about the plausibility of a theory of the origin of life is likely to be wrong by a factor of a hundred million.”

(SPEAKING FOR HIMSELF.)

Dawkins: “When we read in a newspaper about an amazing coincidence . . . we are more impressed by it than we should be.” (SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.)


P. 105: “There is a considerable surplus of humans.” (SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!! Interestingly, Carl Sagan said the same thing. Sagan hypocritically had five children, an "excess" by his own statements.)

P. 41: “Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability. Indeed it is a method that we shall use in this book several times. BUT YOU HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT.”

(Emphasis added, again. If there is ONE thing Professor Dawkins does NOT do right, it is measuring the statistical improbability. He defines one chance in 10exp40 as “impossible”, and then says one chance in a universe full of numbers is “possible”. But a critic’s idea is impossible at one chance in 10exp301. Science turned on its head for evolution.)

P. 129: “Modern DNA replication is a high-technology affair, with elaborate proofreading techniques that have been perfected . . .”

(Subtitle: "... a universe without design...." but it's "high-technology, with elaborate techniques that have been perfected....")

P 160: “ . . .it is possible for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen....It is theoretically possible for a cow to jump over the moon with something like the same improbability.”
(Atheists will make every effort to defend Dawkins' ridiculous attempts because they never admit that they were wrong. The arrogant, condescending Left is like that. And this is just ONE of his many books fraught with anti-science. Like Asimov, like Sagan, like all their excuse-makers, none of them could bring himself to say, "You make some good points. I overlooked that." No, Asimov and Dawkins simply engaged in attacking ME, failing to address the points I made. Sagan, on the other hand, greedily asked me to buy his newest book, overlooking the fact that I checked them all out at the public library, which by the way, invariably purchases Leftist books, but almost none on apologetics or by Christian authors. Librarians too have been brainwashed at Leftist socialist colleges. I had to borrow the book, The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, from the Library of Congress, since not one library outside of it had a copy to loan.

Q.E.D.

Aahh, the religious zealots just can't refrain from their "Religion" posts to slide over into science, as though an invisible thingy in the sky that can do an see all, is science.
Evolution is no longer categorized as a "theory." It is now deemed factual. The only thing that remains a theory is HOW that change works.

 

[Ringtone]

After reading nonsense published as "non-fiction" by Isaac Asimov, cited on this very thread, I proceeded to check out books by Carl Sagan and critique those, which critiques I mailed to his publisher. Then it was malicious atheist Richard Dawkins' turn. So much nonsense that I won't burden readers with more than a small fraction of it.

Cover: Subtitle: “Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design”

(Never before in all my book reviews have I had to begin my critique at the COVER! A title and a subtitle - both misleading - both wrong. Professor Dawkins contradicts his own subtitle on Page 21:

‘We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose, such as flying, swimming, seeing, eating, reproducing, or more generally promoting the survival and replication of the organism’s genes.’ Every living plant and animal you see shows these “attributes” cited by the author.)

P 37: “Our modern hypothesis (evolution) . . .”

(Ah yes, that ‘modern’ hypothesis - evolution. 1859.)

Ibid: “Whenever I read such a remark (as the impossibility of believing in evolution), I always feel like writing ‘Speak for yourself’ in the margin.”

(Let me return the favor. On P 160, Dawkins writes, ‘Our minds can’t cope with the large distances that astronomy deals in, or the small distances of atomic physics...” SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. Dawkins: “Our minds can’t imagine a time span as short as a picosecond.’ SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.

Dawkins: ’Our minds can’t imagine a timespan as long as a million years...’ SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.


P. 163: “Our own subjective judgment about the plausibility of a theory of the origin of life is likely to be wrong by a factor of a hundred million.”

(SPEAKING FOR HIMSELF.)

Dawkins: “When we read in a newspaper about an amazing coincidence . . . we are more impressed by it than we should be.” (SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.)


P. 105: “There is a considerable surplus of humans.” (SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!! Interestingly, Carl Sagan said the same thing. Sagan hypocritically had five children, an "excess" by his own statements.)

P. 41: “Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability. Indeed it is a method that we shall use in this book several times. BUT YOU HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT.”

(Emphasis added, again. If there is ONE thing Professor Dawkins does NOT do right, it is measuring the statistical improbability. He defines one chance in 10exp40 as “impossible”, and then says one chance in a universe full of numbers is “possible”. But a critic’s idea is impossible at one chance in 10exp301. Science turned on its head for evolution.)

P. 129: “Modern DNA replication is a high-technology affair, with elaborate proofreading techniques that have been perfected . . .”

(Subtitle: "... a universe without design...." but it's "high-technology, with elaborate techniques that have been perfected....")

P 160: “ . . .it is possible for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen....It is theoretically possible for a cow to jump over the moon with something like the same improbability.”
(Atheists will make every effort to defend Dawkins' ridiculous attempts because they never admit that they were wrong. The arrogant, condescending Left is like that. And this is just ONE of his many books fraught with anti-science. Like Asimov, like Sagan, like all their excuse-makers, none of them could bring himself to say, "You make some good points. I overlooked that." No, Asimov and Dawkins simply engaged in attacking ME, failing to address the points I made. Sagan, on the other hand, greedily asked me to buy his newest book, overlooking the fact that I checked them all out at the public library, which by the way, invariably purchases Leftist books, but almost none on apologetics or by Christian authors. Librarians too have been brainwashed at Leftist socialist colleges. I had to borrow the book, The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, from the Library of Congress, since not one library outside of it had a copy to loan.

Q.E.D.

Indeed, our minds can't imagine the readily evident and imaginable. What a moron. Atheists write this sort of piffle all the time, and the sheep go bah, bah, bah.

 

[Hollie]

Atheists always fall back on magic at some point. There's a reason so many lefties love Harry Potter.

Marvin, you Da Man. They pretend that nothing made everything. Lefty Magic.

They do not. Not one atheist I know has ever thought that nothing made everything.

Please tell your unwilling but captive audience what atheists think made everything. Don't weasel out with some non-answer. Be specific and scientific, IF you can.

Natural forces. There are many elements and forces on the earth. Winds, tides, chemical reactions ect ect. (sic) These are not "nothing.

Gravity pulled the materials together for the planet. Gravity is not nothing. Nor is it magic.

ZERO specifics. ZERO as usual from you.

1. Where did these "materials" come from, Mister Nihilist Atheist?
2. Where did gravity come from, Mister Anti-Science?
3. How did gravity just "happen" to have a critical value precise to within one part in trillions of trillions to form the universe? You don't have a clue nor do any of your atheist pals. You simple dribble out some nonsense and trot away, satisfied with your inane bullshit. Which brings me to Brandolini's Law: It requires an order of magnitude more energy to refute bullshit than it did to produce it.
4. You don't even know the proper abbreviation for et cetera. Look it up. Try to learn something today. [It is NOT "ect ect." (sic)]
5. You overlooked a comma between your two ignorant, incorrect abbreviations.

Grammar and spelling is (sic) your argument? lol Ok then.

The materials have always existed.

Gravity is a natural force. It is based on mass and energy. It has always existed as well. Gravity did not just "happen" to have any precise value. It has always been the same.

1. "LOL". Grammar and spelling ARE....
Pretty funny Mister Atheist "Intellectual."

IF you were as smart as you pretend to be, you would know how to construct sentences in good grammar. But you are not so you cannot. Q.E.D. "LOL".

2. NO the "materials have (NOT) always existed."
3. Neither has gravity. That is anti-science and completely without foundation or logic.
But giggle away.
4. HOW gravity happened to have that value is beyond your comprehension even to discuss.
You're talking in circles like Darwin did but you can't even see. I'm presenting counters to your nonsense not for you, but for others who might tend to believe your nonsense. You do.
Refer to the Anthropic Principle. Scientists of great training understand that these values are not a matter of "luck" or were "always there." That's atheist magic talk.

Readers, you may as well talk to a pigeon as this "moderator." He's a complete waste of time.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that the materials have not always existed. They have changed form. But no proof they have not always existed.

You claim that the idea that gravity has always existed is anti-science. What evidence is there that gravity has not always existed.

Logic, mathematics and science all tell us that the universe has not always existed.

The hyper-religious, with limited training in logic, mathematics and science are hardly equipped to offer such emphatic statements.

The ramifications of the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science point toward a natural world as opposed to your fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism. You are much more entertaining with material you stole from William Lane Craig.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Atheists always fall back on magic at some point. There's a reason so many lefties love Harry Potter.

Marvin, you Da Man. They pretend that nothing made everything. Lefty Magic.

They do not. Not one atheist I know has ever thought that nothing made everything.

Please tell your unwilling but captive audience what atheists think made everything. Don't weasel out with some non-answer. Be specific and scientific, IF you can.

Natural forces. There are many elements and forces on the earth. Winds, tides, chemical reactions ect ect. (sic) These are not "nothing.

Gravity pulled the materials together for the planet. Gravity is not nothing. Nor is it magic.

ZERO specifics. ZERO as usual from you.

1. Where did these "materials" come from, Mister Nihilist Atheist?
2. Where did gravity come from, Mister Anti-Science?
3. How did gravity just "happen" to have a critical value precise to within one part in trillions of trillions to form the universe? You don't have a clue nor do any of your atheist pals. You simple dribble out some nonsense and trot away, satisfied with your inane bullshit. Which brings me to Brandolini's Law: It requires an order of magnitude more energy to refute bullshit than it did to produce it.
4. You don't even know the proper abbreviation for et cetera. Look it up. Try to learn something today. [It is NOT "ect ect." (sic)]
5. You overlooked a comma between your two ignorant, incorrect abbreviations.

Grammar and spelling is (sic) your argument? lol Ok then.

The materials have always existed.

Gravity is a natural force. It is based on mass and energy. It has always existed as well. Gravity did not just "happen" to have any precise value. It has always been the same.

1. "LOL". Grammar and spelling ARE....
Pretty funny Mister Atheist "Intellectual."

IF you were as smart as you pretend to be, you would know how to construct sentences in good grammar. But you are not so you cannot. Q.E.D. "LOL".

2. NO the "materials have (NOT) always existed."
3. Neither has gravity. That is anti-science and completely without foundation or logic.
But giggle away.
4. HOW gravity happened to have that value is beyond your comprehension even to discuss.
You're talking in circles like Darwin did but you can't even see. I'm presenting counters to your nonsense not for you, but for others who might tend to believe your nonsense. You do.
Refer to the Anthropic Principle. Scientists of great training understand that these values are not a matter of "luck" or were "always there." That's atheist magic talk.

Readers, you may as well talk to a pigeon as this "moderator." He's a complete waste of time.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that the materials have not always existed. They have changed form. But no proof they have not always existed.

You claim that the idea that gravity has always existed is anti-science. What evidence is there that gravity has not always existed.

Logic, mathematics and science all tell us that the universe has not always existed.

The hyper-religious, with limited training in logic, mathematics and science are hardly equipped to offer such emphatic statements.

The ramifications of the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science point toward a natural world as opposed to your fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism. You are much more entertaining with material you stole from William Lane Craig.

Atheist rubbish they spew:

1. "Science has a self-correcting mechanism."

OOOOOo. Everyone is supposed to be impressed with this silliness? Think about it. Plants have a self-correcting mechanism. They send out roots and correct them until they find water.
Turn a plant on its side and it makes a turn back to vertical.

2. "Atheists are rational and oh so scientific."

The Ivy League Colleges all have Christian charters. They were founded by Christians to teach science and other subjects. Atheists frequently show their irrationality and unscientific silliness in more ways than you can count. The Multiverse - a joke. Their claims of "morality"? On what basis? They're "smarter" than anyone else? Claimed but never proven. The universe has always existed? Nobody contends such nonsense but an irrational atheist. Nobody.

3. "Who made God, huh, huh, huh!"

If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He.

Please carefully analyze atheist claims and write down why they are irrational and anti-scientific here.

Another piece of atheist nonsense:
"No whale can possibly swallow a human being, as claimed by the Bible in Jonah Verse 17."

Think about the power of Nature's God Who created matter, energy, science, our universe, and explain why Nature's God is unable to modify any fish or whale to hold a human for three days and nights. Go ahead. Take your time.

Another: "The Ark couldn't hold two of every animal on earth."

There were none of the thousands of variants of domestic pets and farm animals and plants we have bred since Noah and the Ark. Not one of them were on it. Adaptations have taken place in the thousands of intervening years to produce an abundance of different animal types many of which are closely related.

 

[Hollie]

Atheists always fall back on magic at some point. There's a reason so many lefties love Harry Potter.

Marvin, you Da Man. They pretend that nothing made everything. Lefty Magic.

They do not. Not one atheist I know has ever thought that nothing made everything.

Please tell your unwilling but captive audience what atheists think made everything. Don't weasel out with some non-answer. Be specific and scientific, IF you can.

Natural forces. There are many elements and forces on the earth. Winds, tides, chemical reactions ect ect. (sic) These are not "nothing.

Gravity pulled the materials together for the planet. Gravity is not nothing. Nor is it magic.

ZERO specifics. ZERO as usual from you.

1. Where did these "materials" come from, Mister Nihilist Atheist?
2. Where did gravity come from, Mister Anti-Science?
3. How did gravity just "happen" to have a critical value precise to within one part in trillions of trillions to form the universe? You don't have a clue nor do any of your atheist pals. You simple dribble out some nonsense and trot away, satisfied with your inane bullshit. Which brings me to Brandolini's Law: It requires an order of magnitude more energy to refute bullshit than it did to produce it.
4. You don't even know the proper abbreviation for et cetera. Look it up. Try to learn something today. [It is NOT "ect ect." (sic)]
5. You overlooked a comma between your two ignorant, incorrect abbreviations.

Grammar and spelling is (sic) your argument? lol Ok then.

The materials have always existed.

Gravity is a natural force. It is based on mass and energy. It has always existed as well. Gravity did not just "happen" to have any precise value. It has always been the same.

1. "LOL". Grammar and spelling ARE....
Pretty funny Mister Atheist "Intellectual."

IF you were as smart as you pretend to be, you would know how to construct sentences in good grammar. But you are not so you cannot. Q.E.D. "LOL".

2. NO the "materials have (NOT) always existed."
3. Neither has gravity. That is anti-science and completely without foundation or logic.
But giggle away.
4. HOW gravity happened to have that value is beyond your comprehension even to discuss.
You're talking in circles like Darwin did but you can't even see. I'm presenting counters to your nonsense not for you, but for others who might tend to believe your nonsense. You do.
Refer to the Anthropic Principle. Scientists of great training understand that these values are not a matter of "luck" or were "always there." That's atheist magic talk.

Readers, you may as well talk to a pigeon as this "moderator." He's a complete waste of time.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that the materials have not always existed. They have changed form. But no proof they have not always existed.

You claim that the idea that gravity has always existed is anti-science. What evidence is there that gravity has not always existed.

Logic, mathematics and science all tell us that the universe has not always existed.

The hyper-religious, with limited training in logic, mathematics and science are hardly equipped to offer such emphatic statements.

The ramifications of the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science point toward a natural world as opposed to your fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism. You are much more entertaining with material you stole from William Lane Craig.

Atheist rubbish they spew:

1. "Science has a self-correcting mechanism."

OOOOOo. Everyone is supposed to be impressed with this silliness? Think about it. Plants have a self-correcting mechanism. They send out roots and correct them until they find water.
Turn a plant on its side and it makes a turn back to vertical.

2. "Atheists are rational and oh so scientific."

The Ivy League Colleges all have Christian charters. They were founded by Christians to teach science and other subjects. Atheists frequently show their irrationality and unscientific silliness in more ways than you can count. The Multiverse - a joke. Their claims of "morality"? On what basis? They're "smarter" than anyone else? Claimed but never proven. The universe has always existed? Nobody contends such nonsense but an irrational atheist. Nobody.

3. "Who made God, huh, huh, huh!"

If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He.

Please carefully analyze atheist claims and write down why they are irrational and anti-scientific here.

Another piece of atheist nonsense:
"No whale can possibly swallow a human being, as claimed by the Bible in Jonah Verse 17."

Think about the power of Nature's God Who created matter, energy, science, our universe, and explain why Nature's God is unable to modify any fish or whale to hold a human for three days and nights. Go ahead. Take your time.

Another: "The Ark couldn't hold two of every animal on earth."

There were none of the thousands of variants of domestic pets and farm animals and plants we have bred since Noah and the Ark. Not one of them were on it. Adaptations have taken place in the thousands of intervening years to produce an abundance of different animal types many of which are closely related.

There was no Noah and no Ark.

Stop the madness.