About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

17 Replies to “CERN confirms Danish solar-cloud theory on Earth’s climate”

  1. I don’t think it is a good analogy to compare creationist with the church of climatology.

    I have been an agnostic for a very long time and come to the understanding of random chance for what we have is next to zero. Then there is the obvious two questions. Where did the matter come from and how did the first life come to being? These questions only creationist come even close to answering.

    But church’s that is a different story.

    Wolfgang Wagner is the second person that has been charged and convicted of heresy from the church of climatology and this has happened this month. It is the biggest climate story this year so far.

  2. Evolution does not claim that life is a matter of random chance. This is a very common misconception and it also is the basis for most straw men arguments on evolution or rather against it.

    Understanding evolution is difficult. It takes real effort. Evolution is the process whereby quite intricate natural rules create various outcomes which we interpret in certain ways. For example, the notion of species is a human taxonomic issue to a degree. But game theory does explain how the process of natural selection can work. And no, it is not chance although an element of chance is present, such as a given seed landing on a spot where conditions are right for it to germinate etc.

    The book, ‘The Selfish Gene’ by Richard Dawkins, a man who can be somewhat of a jerk when he speaks about religion, is a brilliant writer on evolution and evolutionary theory. Much like John Lennon was a brilliant song writer but a horribly abusive jackass when it came to any views that did not agree with his brand of angry secularism.

    http://youtu.be/7LjecobHAKs

  3. The Church of Global Warming is designed to appeal to those who listen to sound bites and think they are listening to reasoned arguments, these are the same people who blindly follow any leftist who starts playing a class war, redistribute the wealth tune.

    As for evolution, directed evolution is the only way things could have worked.

  4. ‘Where did the matter come from and how did the first life come to being? These questions only creationist come even close to answering.’

    And how do creationists do that?

    ‘As for evolution, directed evolution is the only way things could have worked.’

    Directed by what?

  5. That is the question, I say Jehovah but others say other Gods. This is the question that will never be answered but will always be ask.

  6. Richard, ‘blind’ is not synonymous with ‘chance’.

    Genetic mutation is essentially a random (chance) process, but natural selection – the purposeless (blind) process that drives evolution by acting selectively upon advantageous phenotypic expressions of random genetic mutations – is most assuredly not.

    Richard Dawkins is one of the very best explicators of Evolutionary Theory, and for a very sound understanding of how and why this theory is true, I would recommend that, in addition to his ‘The Selfish Gene’ (already recommended by Eeyore), you read his ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ and ‘The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution’, and also Jerry Coyne’s ‘Why Evolution is True’.

  7. ‘While we are asking unanswerable questions how about where did the Creator come from, who created him?’

    Richard, your questions are based on a false premise: that there is indeed a ‘Creator’.

  8. You believe in evolution with blind faith, after all it is a theory that has never been proven. I believe in God on blind faith, seems like we both rely on blind faith.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*