The Global Warming Fraud

[OldBiologist]

OldBiologist, how is it that you can be so faithfully a follower of Charlie Darwin, but not Al Gore?
Do they not call you too a "denier"? That must hurt.

I haven’t found a pigeon hole yet that fits me well. There are plenty of well controlled, peer reviewed, repeatable experiments published that clearly show evolution occurring. There are no such experiments for man made global warming, impossible to do as far as I can tell.

I think most evolution objections have to do with the origin of man. There are only hypothesis right now for the origin of man, or even life in general. It is difficult or impossible in either case as well to conduct actual experiments. Evolution is really a very simple idea, nothing at all remarkable about it but it was a huge Aha! initially. Evolution is nothing more than the fact that certain traits in individuals can, under some circumstances, increase the odds that an organism will be more successful in reproducing. That has been easily confirmed many times in laboratories around the world.

I think the really controversial stuff that bother most folks come from anthropologists and paleontologists, not evolutionary biologists. and yes, they call me a denier, stupid, ignorant of science, blah, blah, woof, woof. Of course if I ask them if they are a denier because they don’t believe in a god and then it’s oh, gee whiz, that’s different.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Evolution is nothing more than the fact that certain traits in individuals can, under some circumstances, increase the odds that an organism will be more successful in reproducing. That has been easily confirmed many times in laboratories around the world.
.

Adaptation is NOT evolution. Big difference.

The insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis render evolution utterly and completely impossible. You speak of "odds" and ignore the REAL odds implicit in all biochemistry.

 

[OldBiologist]

There is an adage regarding evolution, “Adapt or die”. So yes, adaptation is just another term that can describe evolution. Obviously this does not mean adaptation of an individual during one lifetime but adaptation of succeeding generations of individuals of a species over time.

Also, you are misunderstanding the element of chance involved. One can say with certainty that the odds of a group of molecules coming together in just the right combination to produce an eye are beyond astronomical. However, one can also say with certainty that the odds of a group of molecules coming together in just the right combination to produce any particle ball of dirt are just as astronomical and no one seems particularly impressed or upset by that. We are not concerned with simple chance however when cumulative selection in replicating systems is the process.

However, this is really beyond the scope of a discussion like this. Folks can believe anything they want but if you have any sincere desire to understand the “other side”, I’d recommend “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins because a book length explanation is really warranted.

 

[ChemEngineer]

However, this is really beyond the scope of a discussion like this. Folks can believe anything they want but if you have any sincere desire to understand the “other side”, I’d recommend “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins because a book length explanation is really warranted.

My critique of The Blind Watchmaker includes these excerpts:


P. 37: “If Paley’s explanation for any one of his examples was wrong we can’t make it right by multiplying up examples.”

(We CAN make evolution right by multiplying up examples however.)


Ibid: “Our modern hypothesis (evolution) . . .”

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

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 10 exp 40 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 10 exp 301. Science turned on its head for evolution.)


P. 46 “I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.”

(No it couldn’t. Not ever, ever. Dawkins provides his own proof, contradicting himself yet again:

From P. 315: “Dover’s alleged rival to natural selection could never work, not just never in a million years, but never in a million times longer than the universe has existed, never in a million universes each lasting a million times as long again.” The reference is one chance in 10 to the 301 power. Our Shakespeare typing monkey far exceeds such impossible odds in trying to type merely the first 301 letters of the FIRST PAGE of the FIRST BOOK of Shakespeare, or one chance in 26 letters to the 301 power.)


P 81: “An ancient animal with 5% of an eye . . . used it for 5% vision.”

(Five percent of an eye is an enormous step, not one of the “inch-by-million-year-inch” steps evolutionists love to cite! Moreover it is inconceivable that 5% of an eye worked even a fraction of a percent! These are just more baseless and hopeful assumptions, devoid of science. Tell us about the 5% of the proteins and enzymes needed for vision. Five percent of a protein is worthless! Five percent of sugar is either black carbon, or water or a gas. Yum! Tasty AND nutritious. Countless blind people have 90% of their eyes, with no vision whatsoever!)

P. 139: “Given infinite time or infinite opportunities, anything is possible.”

(Infinite time has not elapsed since the earth is said by scientists to have formed. Nor are there infinite opportunities. Dawkins first says one chance in 10 to the 40th is impossible, then he states "anything is possible." Please, this is utter nonsense.)

P 230: Evolutionists “despise so-called scientific creationists”.

(Such tolerance. Such objectivity, impartiality, decency. And finally - finally - such honesty.)

Would you like to see other examples of Dawkins' published nonsense? It gets even worse in Climbing Mount Improbable and Viruses of the Mind to name but two. Carl Sagan also published anti-science in one volume after another. But this is only because he was a Leftist and agnostic. Those credos go hand-in-hand with mendacity.

 

[bripat9643]

We were 50 years ago able to stop this process. It had happened nothing. So it looks like now mankind is only able to reduce this process and to avoid some of the worst case scenarios. But this was yesterday.

Huh ?

The USA - a nation with a big reputation worldwide - gives a very bad example for politics in times of global warming, which is without any doubt made from the human race and a consequence of a wrong form of industrialisation. And this bad example of the USA has very real and serios negative consequences worldwide.

The worst polluters are China and India and what the fuck is the "right" form of industrialization.

To be a planet murderer is more easy when others are planet murderers too, isn't it? The USA uses much to much ressources - is wasting much to much energy - suffers a lack of respect for all and every life and the quality of life of all existing entities. It is not only doing nothing to help our planet - it is doing less than nothing and motivates other nation to help the USA to waste the world. Your nation is a shame for all mankind. That's not a nice Christmas message in the 20th year of the third millennium - but it is necessary to be said.

Nevertheless Merry Christmas.

Tell us where you live so we can ridicule your homeland.

 

[bripat9643]

Evolution is nothing more than the fact that certain traits in individuals can, under some circumstances, increase the odds that an organism will be more successful in reproducing. That has been easily confirmed many times in laboratories around the world.
.

Adaptation is NOT evolution. Big difference.

The insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis render evolution utterly and completely impossible. You speak of "odds" and ignore the REAL odds implicit in all biochemistry.

What "insuperable statistics" are those?

 

[bripat9643]

However, this is really beyond the scope of a discussion like this. Folks can believe anything they want but if you have any sincere desire to understand the “other side”, I’d recommend “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins because a book length explanation is really warranted.

My critique of The Blind Watchmaker includes these excerpts:


P. 37: “If Paley’s explanation for any one of his examples was wrong we can’t make it right by multiplying up examples.”

(We CAN make evolution right by multiplying up examples however.)

Huh? You dropped the context. I have no idea what you think you're proving.

Ibid: “Our modern hypothesis (evolution) . . .”

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

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 10 exp 40 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 10 exp 301. Science turned on its head for evolution.)

I have no idea where he says what you claim. Can you quote it?

P. 46 “I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.”

(No it couldn’t. Not ever, ever. Dawkins provides his own proof, contradicting himself yet again:

The quote wasn't found in the book. It sure wasn't on page 46.

From P. 315: “Dover’s alleged rival to natural selection could never work, not just never in a million years, but never in a million times longer than the universe has existed, never in a million universes each lasting a million times as long again.” The reference is one chance in 10 to the 301 power. Our Shakespeare typing monkey far exceeds such impossible odds in trying to type merely the first 301 letters of the FIRST PAGE of the FIRST BOOK of Shakespeare, or one chance in 26 letters to the 301 power.)

Quote not found in the book. Not at page 315.

P 81: “An ancient animal with 5% of an eye . . . used it for 5% vision.”

(Five percent of an eye is an enormous step, not one of the “inch-by-million-year-inch” steps evolutionists love to cite! Moreover it is inconceivable that 5% of an eye worked even a fraction of a percent! These are just more baseless and hopeful assumptions, devoid of science. Tell us about the 5% of the proteins and enzymes needed for vision. Five percent of a protein is worthless! Five percent of sugar is either black carbon, or water or a gas. Yum! Tasty AND nutritious. Countless blind people have 90% of their eyes, with no vision whatsoever!)

Dawkins said "5% vision is better than no vision at all." I can't copy and paste from Kindle, so forum members will have to read what Dawkins said for themselves. The quote is on page 80 of the Kindle version of the book.

P. 139: “Given infinite time or infinite opportunities, anything is possible.”

(Infinite time has not elapsed since the earth is said by scientists to have formed. Nor are there infinite opportunities. Dawkins first says one chance in 10 to the 40th is impossible, then he states "anything is possible." Please, this is utter nonsense.)

Anything is possible GIVEN INFINITE TIME. I fail to see why you don't understand that. I have no idea what "infinite opportunities" means. I don't see where Dawkins used the phrase. None of this is discusses anywhere near page 139.

P 230: Evolutionists “despise so-called scientific creationists”.

(Such tolerance. Such objectivity, impartiality, decency. And finally - finally - such honesty.)

Would you like to see other examples of Dawkins' published nonsense? It gets even worse in Climbing Mount Improbable and Viruses of the Mind to name but two. Carl Sagan also published anti-science in one volume after another. But this is only because he was a Leftist and agnostic. Those credos go hand-in-hand with mendacity.

I didn't find this comment in the book. It certainly isn't anywhere near page 230.

I have no interest in watching you misquote and mischaracterize Dawkins. If you want to quote him accurately, then have at it.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Climbing Mount Improbable, by Richard Dawkins

Selected excerpts from my critique:

Page 77: “Any Designer capable of constructing the dazzling array of living things would have to be intelligent and complicated beyond all imagining. And complicated is just another word for improbable - and therefore demanding of explanation. . . . You cannot have it both ways. Either your god is capable of designing worlds and doing all the other godlike things, in which case he needs an explanation in his own right. Or he is not, in which case he cannot provide an explanation.”

(To pretend that science has all the answers, or will ultimately FIND all the answers is pure anti-science folly. Where is it written that man must and will learn everything? How much above us is Nature's God, as written in the Declaration of Independence? Finally, this is supposed to be a science book, and one invariably finds the Bible cited by those who hate and demean the very Book they bring up so often, in the name of "science." God says "I am." That is quite complete. Our minds can't adequately grasp the invisible crisscrossing of the broad electromagnetic spectrum all around us, or even gravity waves. How can we possibly comprehend their Creator?)

Page 79 “It was Darwin’s great achievement to discover the gentle gradients winding up the other side of the mountain.”

(If synthesis of hemoglobin is such a “gentle gradient”, why don’t we make some in the laboratory, in the very same way the body does. That shouldn’t be too hard, should it.

The number of different combinations for its components exceed 10exp190. And one chance in 10exp50 [a hundred thousand billion billion billion billion billion] is absolutely impossible. Evolutionists cannot explain the mechanisms of protein synthesis that wend their way ever closer to an enzyme one percent at a time; they cannot show precisely HOW each incremental percent of an enzyme enhances survival, because even one half of an enzyme is not functional. This argument of “gentle gradients” is really quite absurd.)

P. 101 - “(Sir Frederick Hoyle) is reported to have said that the evolution, by natural selection, of a complicated structure such as a protein molecule or by implication, an eye or a heart is about as likely as a hurricane’s having the luck to put together a Boeing 747 when whirling through a junkyard. If he’d said ‘chance’ instead of ‘natural selection’ he’d have been right.”

(Dr. Dawkins did NOT quote Sir Hoyle. What Sir Hoyle said was “The spontaneous generation of a bacterium is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein”. Dawkins’ first error was in substituting “protein” for “bacterium”. Complex as a protein is, a bacterium has hundreds of them in it. Secondly, “probability” is purely a matter of “chance”. )

P. 139 - “It has been authoritatively estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty times, and probably more than sixty times.”
(And all advanced orders just happen to have two eyes and see with the protein retinol, which flips back and forth from its trans- to its cis isomer so everything can see. Convergent evolution, around the globe, forty to sixty times? Not from random mutations, sorry. Impossible.)

P. 155 – (Figure 5-10. Dawkins mislabeled the “leaving angle”, showing the path of light INSIDE glass instead of OUTSIDE it. His error is so glaring, that Dawkins mistakenly shows the angle of incidence as equal to the angle of refraction. Dawkins has disparagingly referred to MY ignorance. I here return the favor.)
P. 196 - “Nothing is as difficult to evolve as we humans imagine it to be.”

(Evolve me a new bacterium from scratch, will you? Just one.)
P. 287 - “An elephant is a colony of about 1,000 trillion cells, and each one of those cells is itself a colony of bacteria.”

(There you go. An elephant is just one big infection. Ain’t science amazin?

Now to be fair to the author, he pointed out that he feels that mitochondria in the nucleus evolved from bacteria. But he does not say that the cell “was a colony of bacteria”. He says it “IS” a colony of bacteria. I suppose it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.)

 

[bripat9643]

Climbing Mount Improbable, by Richard Dawkins

Selected excerpts from my critique:

Page 77: “Any Designer capable of constructing the dazzling array of living things would have to be intelligent and complicated beyond all imagining. And complicated is just another word for improbable - and therefore demanding of explanation. . . . You cannot have it both ways. Either your god is capable of designing worlds and doing all the other godlike things, in which case he needs an explanation in his own right. Or he is not, in which case he cannot provide an explanation.”

(To pretend that science has all the answers, or will ultimately FIND all the answers is pure anti-science folly. Where is it written that man must and will learn everything? How much above us is Nature's God, as written in the Declaration of Independence? Finally, this is supposed to be a science book, and one invariably finds the Bible cited by those who hate and demean the very Book they bring up so often, in the name of "science." God says "I am." That is quite complete. Our minds can't adequately grasp the invisible crisscrossing of the broad electromagnetic spectrum all around us, or even gravity waves. How can we possibly comprehend their Creator?)

Page 79 “It was Darwin’s great achievement to discover the gentle gradients winding up the other side of the mountain.”

(If synthesis of hemoglobin is such a “gentle gradient”, why don’t we make some in the laboratory, in the very same way the body does. That shouldn’t be too hard, should it.

The number of different combinations for its components exceed 10exp190. And one chance in 10exp50 [a hundred thousand billion billion billion billion billion] is absolutely impossible. Evolutionists cannot explain the mechanisms of protein synthesis that wend their way ever closer to an enzyme one percent at a time; they cannot show precisely HOW each incremental percent of an enzyme enhances survival, because even one half of an enzyme is not functional. This argument of “gentle gradients” is really quite absurd.)

P. 101 - “(Sir Frederick Hoyle) is reported to have said that the evolution, by natural selection, of a complicated structure such as a protein molecule or by implication, an eye or a heart is about as likely as a hurricane’s having the luck to put together a Boeing 747 when whirling through a junkyard. If he’d said ‘chance’ instead of ‘natural selection’ he’d have been right.”

(Dr. Dawkins did NOT quote Sir Hoyle. What Sir Hoyle said was “The spontaneous generation of a bacterium is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein”. Dawkins’ first error was in substituting “protein” for “bacterium”. Complex as a protein is, a bacterium has hundreds of them in it. Secondly, “probability” is purely a matter of “chance”. )

P. 139 - “It has been authoritatively estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty times, and probably more than sixty times.”
(And all advanced orders just happen to have two eyes and see with the protein retinol, which flips back and forth from its trans- to its cis isomer so everything can see. Convergent evolution, around the globe, forty to sixty times? Not from random mutations, sorry. Impossible.)

P. 155 – (Figure 5-10. Dawkins mislabeled the “leaving angle”, showing the path of light INSIDE glass instead of OUTSIDE it. His error is so glaring, that Dawkins mistakenly shows the angle of incidence as equal to the angle of refraction. Dawkins has disparagingly referred to MY ignorance. I here return the favor.)
P. 196 - “Nothing is as difficult to evolve as we humans imagine it to be.”

(Evolve me a new bacterium from scratch, will you? Just one.)
P. 287 - “An elephant is a colony of about 1,000 trillion cells, and each one of those cells is itself a colony of bacteria.”

(There you go. An elephant is just one big infection. Ain’t science amazin?

Now to be fair to the author, he pointed out that he feels that mitochondria in the nucleus evolved from bacteria. But he does not say that the cell “was a colony of bacteria”. He says it “IS” a colony of bacteria. I suppose it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.)

I have to buy the Kindle version of The Blind Watchmaker to dissect your criticism of that book. I'm not buying another book just so I can criticize your attacks on it.

 

[zaangalewa]

We were 50 years ago able to stop this process. It had happened nothing. So it looks like now mankind is only able to reduce this process and to avoid some of the worst case scenarios. But this was yesterday.

Huh ?

The USA - a nation with a big reputation worldwide - gives a very bad example for politics in times of global warming, which is without any doubt made from the human race and a consequence of a wrong form of industrialisation. And this bad example of the USA has very real and serios negative consequences worldwide.

The worst polluters are China and India and what the fuck is the "right" form of industrialization.

To be a planet murderer is more easy when others are planet murderers too, isn't it? The USA uses much to much ressources - is wasting much to much energy - suffers a lack of respect for all and every life and the quality of life of all existing entities. It is not only doing nothing to help our planet - it is doing less than nothing and motivates other nation to help the USA to waste the world. Your nation is a shame for all mankind. That's not a nice Christmas message in the 20th year of the third millennium - but it is necessary to be said.

Nevertheless Merry Christmas.

Tell us where you live so we can ridicule your homeland.

I'm a German undear ignorant, intrigant, arrogant and aggressive asshole, U.S.-American one.

 

[zaangalewa]

Because of the intrigant censorship in "the global warming fraud" including an intransparent form of mind manipulation I will leave the forum USMessageBoard. I do not think it will make in my future life a big sense to try to speak any longer with people from the English speaking world.

 

[bluzman61]

Because of the intrigant censorship in "the global warming fraud" including an intransparent form of mind manipulation I will leave the forum USMessageBoard. I do not think it will make in my future life a big sense to try to speak any longer with people from the English speaking world.

One more time - Climate Change = Weather. This is all you need to know.

 

[zaangalewa]

Because of the intrigant censorship in "the global warming fraud" including an intransparent form of mind manipulation I will leave the forum USMessageBoard. I do not think it will make in my future life a big sense to try to speak any longer with people from the English speaking world.

One more time - Climate Change = Weather. This is all you need to know.

Hör endlich mal mit deinem ideoligisiertem Blödgeschmarre auf und fang das Nachdenken an, Volldepp, boaniga.

 

[bluzman61]

Because of the intrigant censorship in "the global warming fraud" including an intransparent form of mind manipulation I will leave the forum USMessageBoard. I do not think it will make in my future life a big sense to try to speak any longer with people from the English speaking world.

One more time - Climate Change = Weather. This is all you need to know.

Hör endlich mal mit deinem ideoligisiertem Blödgeschmarre auf und fang das Nachdenken an, Volldepp, boaniga.

Yep, I think you FINALLY got it. Climate Change = Weather. Good for you! (Just a hint of sarcasm.)

 

[zaangalewa]

Because of the intrigant censorship in "the global warming fraud" including an intransparent form of mind manipulation I will leave the forum USMessageBoard. I do not think it will make in my future life a big sense to try to speak any longer with people from the English speaking world.

One more time - Climate Change = Weather. This is all you need to know.

Hör endlich mal mit deinem ideoligisiertem Blödgeschmarre auf und fang das Nachdenken an, Volldepp, boaniga.

Yep, I think you FINALLY got it. Climate Change = Weather. Good for you! (Just a hint of sarcasm.)

 

[zaangalewa]

Because of the intrigant censorship in "the global warming fraud" including an intransparent form of mind manipulation I will leave the forum USMessageBoard. I do not think it will make in my future life a big sense to try to speak any longer with people from the English speaking world.

One more time - Climate Change = Weather. This is all you need to know.

Hör endlich mal mit deinem ideoligisiertem Blödgeschmarre auf und fang das Nachdenken an, Volldepp, boaniga.

Yep, I think you FINALLY got it. Climate Change = Weather. Good for you! (Just a hint of sarcasm.)

The U.S.army trains by the way in the moment to move very fast 20,000 U.S.-soldiers from Germany into the East of Europe. What about to train to bring them home yesterday, instead to try to solve the self made trumplems of the U.S.A in a nuclear war against Russia and China?

 

[OldBiologist]

Are you under the impression that all that hyperbole proves anything? Everything published in science is not only subject to criticism, it is expected to be criticized and falsified if it can be. This is the only way a theory can be sustained.

Here is an example of one of the experimental proofs of evolution.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

This particular experiment has been going for over 30 years. However, let’s be honest, there is absolutely nothing I can say here that’s going to change your mind about it. That’s fine. As I said, people believe all kinds of stuff, believe whatever you want. You have your rules, I have mine. Mine are that I accept as knowledge those things that can be experimentally proved or, through inductive probability, be proved to my personal satisfaction through direct experience. Anything else can be answered with I don’t know. So, knock yourself out.

However, this is really beyond the scope of a discussion like this. Folks can believe anything they want but if you have any sincere desire to understand the “other side”, I’d recommend “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins because a book length explanation is really warranted.

My critique of The Blind Watchmaker includes these excerpts:


P. 37: “If Paley’s explanation for any one of his examples was wrong we can’t make it right by multiplying up examples.”

(We CAN make evolution right by multiplying up examples however.)


Ibid: “Our modern hypothesis (evolution) . . .”

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

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 10 exp 40 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 10 exp 301. Science turned on its head for evolution.)


P. 46 “I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.”

(No it couldn’t. Not ever, ever. Dawkins provides his own proof, contradicting himself yet again:

From P. 315: “Dover’s alleged rival to natural selection could never work, not just never in a million years, but never in a million times longer than the universe has existed, never in a million universes each lasting a million times as long again.” The reference is one chance in 10 to the 301 power. Our Shakespeare typing monkey far exceeds such impossible odds in trying to type merely the first 301 letters of the FIRST PAGE of the FIRST BOOK of Shakespeare, or one chance in 26 letters to the 301 power.)


P 81: “An ancient animal with 5% of an eye . . . used it for 5% vision.”

(Five percent of an eye is an enormous step, not one of the “inch-by-million-year-inch” steps evolutionists love to cite! Moreover it is inconceivable that 5% of an eye worked even a fraction of a percent! These are just more baseless and hopeful assumptions, devoid of science. Tell us about the 5% of the proteins and enzymes needed for vision. Five percent of a protein is worthless! Five percent of sugar is either black carbon, or water or a gas. Yum! Tasty AND nutritious. Countless blind people have 90% of their eyes, with no vision whatsoever!)

P. 139: “Given infinite time or infinite opportunities, anything is possible.”

(Infinite time has not elapsed since the earth is said by scientists to have formed. Nor are there infinite opportunities. Dawkins first says one chance in 10 to the 40th is impossible, then he states "anything is possible." Please, this is utter nonsense.)

P 230: Evolutionists “despise so-called scientific creationists”.

(Such tolerance. Such objectivity, impartiality, decency. And finally - finally - such honesty.)

Would you like to see other examples of Dawkins' published nonsense? It gets even worse in Climbing Mount Improbable and Viruses of the Mind to name but two. Carl Sagan also published anti-science in one volume after another. But this is only because he was a Leftist and agnostic. Those credos go hand-in-hand with mendacity.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One more time - Climate Change = Weather. This is all you need to know.

...to be an ignorant fool denier. You are right, that is about the limit of your knowledge on the topic.

 

[bluzman61]

One more time - Climate Change = Weather. This is all you need to know.

...to be an ignorant fool denier. You are right, that is about the limit of your knowledge on the topic.

Climate Change = Weather. You're welcome, ya knucklehead.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Climate Change = Weather.

Wow! Have you told the scientists this?!?!?!

It will be like Good Will Hunting, if Will was a mentally challenged ferret.