Hateful Atheist Richard Dawkins' Antiscientific Rubbish

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2019
5,965
5,717
1,940
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.
 
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''.
 
Wow, you read this guy?

I have better things to do, like stick my head in a fan.

You have to know your enemy. He has long been idolized by Leftists and atheists. He named himself and all his acolytes "brights." I was certain that his writings would be filled with nonsense and that if anyone could slice and dice the liar, I could. It was so much easier than I could have imagined! For him, for Carl Sagan, and for Isaac Asimov. Not ONE of them tried to excuse or explain their mistakes I quoted to them. Not one. Then I provide them to their sheep and they ignore them as well. All they can come up with is calling me names. This is the Fallacy of the Ad Hominem.

IF I WERE nearly as "stupid" as they call me, how could I possibly quote their many errors which they ignore.......

Q.E.D.

It is fun to have fun but you have to know how. - The Cat in the Hat
 
Wow, you read this guy?

I have better things to do, like stick my head in a fan.

You have to know your enemy. He has long been idolized by Leftists and atheists. He named himself and all his acolytes "brights." I was certain that his writings would be filled with nonsense and that if anyone could slice and dice the liar, I could. It was so much easier than I could have imagined! For him, for Carl Sagan, and for Isaac Asimov. Not ONE of them tried to excuse or explain their mistakes I quoted to them. Not one. Then I provide them to their sheep and they ignore them as well. All they can come up with is calling me names. This is the Fallacy of the Ad Hominem.

IF I WERE nearly as "stupid" as they call me, how could I possibly quote their many errors which they ignore.......

Q.E.D.

It is fun to have fun but you have to know how. - The Cat in the Hat
Is there a purpose for your collecting "quotes" which you have apparently edited and dumped into various threads? Yes, you revile science but shouldn't you be doing something productive with your life other than hating non-christians?
 
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.

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

Do you feel better now luvvie? That must be a weight off yoyr shoulder.

As a godbotherer, of course you would display your ignorance to Dawkins. He's forgotten more than you will ever learn. You quote passages which You misinterpret deliberately to bolster your ignorant position of believing there is a god.
I don't see or hear you speaking at forums all over the world but you compare yourself with Dawkins.
What he writes will go down in history. What you write will go down the toilet after you have used it.
 
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.

A bit difficult to see what your point is, other than you don't like what this guy has to say.
 
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.

Yes, a modern hypothesis. Any scientific hypothesis is subject to change as new information is discovered. Darwin's writings from 1859 are not the same as the modern scientific theories concerning evolution.
 
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.
 
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.

Yes, a modern hypothesis. Any scientific hypothesis is subject to change as new information is discovered. Darwin's writings from 1859 are not the same as the modern scientific theories concerning evolution.
Oh please, stop it. Darwinism claims a single organism branched out to everything we see today. It all made itself, from water dripping on rocks. Millions of careers and billions of dollars of *research* are based on this tautology - "It survives because it's more fit and it's more fit because it survives." Tiny increments dontcha know. Up "Mount Improbable" in the words of hateful atheist Richard Dawkins, whose books are fraught with ignorance and anti-science.
 
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. These are not "nothing.

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

Yes, a modern hypothesis. Any scientific hypothesis is subject to change as new information is discovered. Darwin's writings from 1859 are not the same as the modern scientific theories concerning evolution.
Oh please, stop it. Darwinism claims a single organism branched out to everything we see today. It all made itself, from water dripping on rocks. Millions of careers and billions of dollars of *research* are based on this tautology - "It survives because it's more fit and it's more fit because it survives." Tiny increments dontcha know. Up "Mount Improbable" in the words of hateful atheist Richard Dawkins, whose books are fraught with ignorance and anti-science.

And the tiny incremental changes are critical to the modern hypothesis.
 
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.
 
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.

Yes, a modern hypothesis. Any scientific hypothesis is subject to change as new information is discovered. Darwin's writings from 1859 are not the same as the modern scientific theories concerning evolution.
Oh please, stop it. Darwinism claims a single organism branched out to everything we see today. It all made itself, from water dripping on rocks. Millions of careers and billions of dollars of *research* are based on this tautology - "It survives because it's more fit and it's more fit because it survives." Tiny increments dontcha know. Up "Mount Improbable" in the words of hateful atheist Richard Dawkins, whose books are fraught with ignorance and anti-science.

And the tiny incremental changes are critical to the modern hypothesis. "I do not go gentle into that good night. I rage."
You rage with ignorance.

The insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis preclude the silly pretensions of Darwinism. It is useless to present any science to you. It's all over your head, "ect ect."
 
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 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.
 
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.

Yes, a modern hypothesis. Any scientific hypothesis is subject to change as new information is discovered. Darwin's writings from 1859 are not the same as the modern scientific theories concerning evolution.
Oh please, stop it. Darwinism claims a single organism branched out to everything we see today. It all made itself, from water dripping on rocks. Millions of careers and billions of dollars of *research* are based on this tautology - "It survives because it's more fit and it's more fit because it survives." Tiny increments dontcha know. Up "Mount Improbable" in the words of hateful atheist Richard Dawkins, whose books are fraught with ignorance and anti-science.

And the tiny incremental changes are critical to the modern hypothesis. "I do not go gentle into that good night. I rage."
You rage with ignorance.

The insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis preclude the silly pretensions of Darwinism. It is useless to present any science to you. It's all over your head, "ect ect."

It is not over my head. It is simply that you dislike my answers, and yet cannot refute them.

The statistics of polypeptide synthesis is complex. But it does not preclude anything Darwin said. In fact, nothing Darwin said addressed "The insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis...".
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top