Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

We hear about the high temperatures out there because our son lives on the west coast. The northeast has already turned cool. Last night's low was 52°, and today's high is projected to be 77°. The end of next week is projected to be warmer for a couple days, highs in the low 80's, but a very similar prediction was made for this week and it didn't happen.But what's been nicest about recent weather is the lower humidity. The almost constant 90%+ humidity during the day over the summer was a lot to bear for anyone engaged in physical activities like yardwork or sports. Yesterday the humidity during the afternoon was around 50% - it was wonderful.--Percy

The light is very strange here today because of wildfire smoke. I went over to my stream for a few minutes but my throat started feeling raw so it looks like a day indoors processing images today. Normally we can see both the Cascades and the Coast Range from here but today I can't see Knox Butte a couple miles away. The temp is ramping up pretty fast today.

From AZPaul3:“There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion,” - -Daniel Dennett_________________________________The illusion is all Dennett's. Eighty-five percent of Nobel Laureates in the 20th Century were Believers in Nature's God.I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama… Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor by-product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here. (Paul Davies, The Mind of God, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1992, p 232)Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life. It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. (Richard Lewontin, Scientific American, September 1978, p. 213)How many more citations from learned scientists similar to these would you like? I have compiled very many.

I have no idea why you are posting your message to AZPaul in a response to me, but since you did, I will comment.It makes no difference what Nobel Laureates or any other scientist believes, because that word "believes" means they have absolutely no physical evidence of any deities. Not one of them published a scientific paper in a scientific journal documenting testable evidence of "god." Their opinions about "god" are as worthless as their opinions about flying saucers and aliens.It's embarrassing that adult humans believe in an invisible friend.

He's a troll?

Yeah, but not a very bright one.

quote:

---

Yeah, but not a very bright one.

---

Not bright enough to post on topic. Likely dumb enough to think we’ll fall for the obvious quote mine. And dumb enough to claim responsibility for it, too.

Do you have anything to say? Is there some kind of point that you're trying to make? If you do, then please make it. If you just came here to vomit up creationist BS, then at least have the common courtesy of cleaning up after yourself.Common practice here is to use dBCodes; eg:

• [qs] copy-and-paste member's quoted text here [/qs]
  
  The qs-tags are for quoting from the message of the member you are replying to.
  I will demonstrate that below.
  ​
• [quote] copy-and-paste external text being quoted here [/quote]
  
  quote blocks are for quoting some external text; eg, from a webpage, from Wikipedia, etc.
  I will demonstrate that below.
  ​
• A few miscellaneous tags that will help:
  • [i] [/i] -- italisize
  • [b] [/b] -- bold
  • [url=insert_ULR_here] insert a label for that link here [/url] -- inserts a link to a website, etc. Another way to accomplish this is to simply copy-and-paste the URL as text.
  • [msg=msg_no] -- inserts link to the message in the same topic.
    For example, in this string, Message 978 of 981 (920230), The message num is 978.
    Message numbers are not unique in the forum, but rather a given message number could exist in any number of topics.
    
  • [mid=msg_ID] -- inserts link to the message in the same topic.
    For example, in this string, Message 978 of 981 (920230), The message ID num is the number in parentheses, 920230.
    Message numbers are unique in the forum; there is only one.
    

If you see something in a message and you want to see how they did that, then click on the Peek in the lower-right corner of the message, right next to the Reply button that you have already found.Text placed under a horizontal rule (ie, <HR ALIGN=LEFT WIDTH=25%>) is your signature. Beneath the edit box you type your reply into are two check boxes, one of which is Include signature. I will check mine to show you what a signature looks like. A signature is NOT part of your reply. That means that if you place your reply in the signature portion of your message, then NOBODY IS GOING TO KNOW TO READ IT. 
Here's an example of a qs-block: You can see how that immediately calls our attention to that to which you are replying (though if you are a typical creationist, then you will never actually address the message to which you claim to be replying).And I'm sure that every one of those "citations" is a lie. We have a lot of experience with creationists and how they roll.Now, regarding your quote-mining of Richard Lewontin, do kindly include the next few sentences from that article. The vast majority of the time, the simplest and quickest way to expose how a creationist is lying about his quote-mined source is to go to the source and read the next sentence. Since I am in the process of packing to move, my copy of that article is in a sealed box.But in the meantime, here is what he had to say about stupid lying creationists who misquote him citing the very quote-mined lie that you posted here; from the NCSE article Misquoted Scientists Respond (Creation/Evolution Journal, Volume 2, No. 4, Fall 1981):

Richard Lewontin:

---

Dr. Richard Lewontin
Author of The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, biologist at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Agassiz Museum, Harvard University.

​

Modern expressions of creationism and especially so-called "scientific" creationism are making extensive use of the tactic of selective quotation in order to make it appear that numerous biologists doubt the reality of evolution. The creationists take advantage of the fact that evolutionary biology is a living science containing disagreements about certain details of the evolutionary process by taking quotations about such details out of context in an attempt to support the creationists' antievolutionary stand. Sometimes they simply take biologists' descriptions of creationism and then ascribe these views to the biologists themselves! These patently dishonest practices of misquotation give us a right to question even the sincerity of creationists.

​

Several examples of falsification can be found in a recent issue of Acts & Facts, published by the Institute for Creation Research, in an article written by Gary E. Parker, a member of the Institute and a teacher at Christian Heritage College in El Cajon, California. On page two we read that "As Harvard's Richard Lewontin recently summarized it, organisms '. . . appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.' He calls the 'perfection of organisms' both a challenge to Darwinism and, on a more positive note, 'the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.' "

​

But the point of my article, "Adaptation" in Scientific American, from which these snippets were lifted, was precisely that the "perfection of organisms" is often illusory and that any attempt to describe organisms as perfectly adapted is destined for serious contradictions. Moreover, the appearance of careful and artful design was taken in the nineteenth century before Darwin as "the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer." The past tense of my article ("It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment . . . that was the chief evidence of 'Supreme Designer' ") has been conveniently dropped by creationist Parker in his attempt to pass off this ancient doctrine as modern science.

​

Later, on the same page, Parker says that "selection works fine—if a species has great genetic variability 'built right into it' by plan, purpose, and special creation." He then tries to support this point of view by quoting a statement of mine which said that selection can change organisms "only if their gene pool contains genetic variation" for the character in question. But it is precisely the random nature of the mutation process, the fact that species depend upon chance events in their history to acquire the genetic variation for evolution, that makes a successful response to the pressure of natural selection an uncertain process. Moreover, because populations and families are finite and sometimes quite small in size, mutations that could be selected may be lost to the population before selection has acted to incorporate them. To ascribe the failure of adaptation to deliberate design as creationists do is sheer perversity and illustrates why creationism is not science but blind prejudice.

​

On page four of Parker's paper is another quotation from my article on adaptation, stating that ". . . natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species' chance of survival but simply enables it to 'track,' or keep up with, the constantly changing environment." This is then alleged to support a conservative rather than a creative role for natural selection—a favorite theme of creationists, who admit minor evolution within species but no major changes. But the theory of environmental tracking (which I think is not a particularly good description of the evolutionary process) does not say that the form and function of species is kept constant. What is conserved is the life of the species, but this conservation is made possible by continual change, sometimes quite radical, in the form and function of the organisms as they track an environment that is itself changing in sometimes quite radical ways. Here the creationist has simply played with the meaning of words.

​

Because of errors and misquotations of this nature, scientists and educators must clear away a great deal of confusion in the public mind about the true nature of evolutionary science. Confusion that wouldn't be there if it hadn't been created by creationists.

---

Here is the introductory text of that article:

quote:

---

Creationists have developed a skill unique to their trade: that of misquotation and quotation out of context from the works of leading evolutionists. This tactic not only frustrates scientists but it misleads school board members, legislators, and the public. Whether such actions by creationists of selectively seeking out quotations or references in order to prove a preconceived case are willful distortion or the product of wishful thinking is irrelevant. Such acts misuse science and scientists in bogus appeals to authority. Creationists seem to be saying, "Don't just take our word for it—look at what Professor X has written to prove our case."

​

To respond to such arguments is difficult for anyone who is not working full time at checking every quotation or tracking down for comment each quoted person. Teachers, parents, policy makers, journalists, and other interested persons are therefore at a disadvantage, and it is for them that this anthology of responses from the scientific community has been compiled. Leading evolutionists in various fields were asked to comment briefly on misinterpretations of their areas of expertise and of their work. Most scientists who were approached replied, although a few cited other commitments that prevented their participation and a couple noted that they could not explain their position in just a few paragraphs.

​

Half of the following comments were especially written for this article, and the other half are from previously published material, excerpted with the authors' permission. Many topics—and scientists—are not included, but, as an introductory survey of scientists' responses to misquotation and misrepresentation by "scientific" creationists, it is hoped that this anthology will be useful as a representative sampling.

---

This is why those of us familiar with creationism and creationists have such a low opinion those "Liars for the Lord".Just because you're from Anaheim doesn't give you license to mickey-mouse everything. And as promised, below is one of my signatures.

Hi, RenaissanceMan, welcome aboard. Sorry you got such a hostile welcome. Paul Davies believes one thing, I believe the opposite. Now what? Maybe...evidence?And here's your Lewontin quote, in precisely the way you quoted it (you left out a paragraph break):

quote:

---

Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life. It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. (Richard Lewontin, Scientific American, September 1978, p. 213)

---

Your quote is from a Scientific American article titled Adaptation where he makes clear he's actually saying the opposite of what your quote makes him appear to be saying, which is lying on your part, usually thought to be an unChristian thing to do. Here's a fuller quote that makes clear his meaning.

quote:

---

Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behavby Richard C. Lewontin iors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life.

​

It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. Darwin realized that if a naturalistic theory of evolution was to be successful. it would have to explain the apparent perfection of organisms and not simply their variation. At the very beginning of the Origin 01 Species he wrote: "In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist ... might come to the conclusion that each species ... had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and coadaptation which most justly excites our admiration." Moreover, Darwin knew that "organs of extreme perfection and complication" were a critical test case for his theory, and he took them up in a section of the chapter on "Difficulties of the Theory." He wrote: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

​

These "organs of extreme perfection" were only the most extreme case of a more general phenomenon: adaptation. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was meant to solve both the problem of the origin of diversity and the problem of the origin of adaptation at one stroke. Perfect organs were a difficulty of the theory not in that natural selection could not account for them but rather in that they were its most rigorous test, since on the face of it they seemed the best intuitive demonstration that a divine artificer was at work.
 
  —Richard Lewontin, Scientific American, September 1978, p. 213

---

But this lying didn't originate with you. What no-doubt-Christian website did you get it from? Do the ends justify the means for Christians? Is "lying for God" okay if it creates more believers?And last but by no means least: Discussions here attempts to avoid fallacies, in this case the fallacy of the argument from authority. The foundation of debate here is evidence. If you have evidence we'd love to see it.But not in this thread. You're off-topic here. This thread is about climate change.--Percy

Well, school has just started, so he's probably just yet another Christian school student who has been given an assignment to join an "evolutionist" forum and dump a load of steaming hot cow patties (AKA "taurine coproforms", BS) all over the place.Besides following the pattern of going out and make yourself a complete asshole so that you get flak after which you slink back to your fellow cult members and commiserate how "everybody hates us because they hate God ... ".It reminds me of 5 O'Clock Charlie which was depicted in an episode of M*A*S*H where every day an enemy pilot would fly over in a loud plane and drop one bomb, not to do any actual damage but rather as harassment for psychological effect. In WWII my father talked about that on Saipan, saying that the plane's engines were deliberately placed out of balance to make it louder, hence the "washing machine" appellation.From that link:

5 o'clock Charlie:

---

During the U.S. Pacific campaign of World War II—specifically, during the Guadalcanal campaign (1942–1943)—Japanese bombers would harass various U.S. Army Air Force bases at night to deprive personnel of sleep. American troops nicknamed these bombers with various related nicknames, such as "5 O'Clock Charlie", "Bed-Check Charlie" or "Washing-Machine Charlie". Various methods of harassment included overflights at full throttle with propellers at near-flat pitch, or deliberately unsynchronized engines.

​

One Washing-Machine Charlie appeared in the U.S. television comedy series McHale's Navy.[6] Washing Machine Charlie was also discussed in Gregory Boyington's autobiography and made appearances in Black Sheep Squadron, the television show loosely based on Boyington's World War II exploits.

---

Looks like it's worse than we thought.I thought that RenaissanceMan's website looked too familiar, so I searched for it and found it in this Message 2929 (09-Apr-2024): Ironically, he was replying to himself, self-identifying as suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.And that is the exact same URL for the website claimed by RenaissanceMan, meaning that RenaissanceMan and ChemEngineer are one and the same. It was also the topic, The Miserable End of Darwinian Evolution, which he proposed but which was never promoted for the same reason that his current attempt won't be promoted: he only "argues" through quotes.ChemEngineer disappeared after 18 posts. I predict that RenaissanceMan will not last as long and will likewise disappear only to reappear months later in a different guise.ChemEngineer gave his location as Irvine, CA, and his date of birth as 28 Oct 1946. From his email address we deduce that his name is John Jaeger. On amazon.com we find that John Phillip Jaeger self-published a book, Brilliant Creations: The Wonder of Nature and Life, like other Dunning-Kruger sufferers we've seen here have done. ChemEngineer make all kinds of unsupported assertions which were repeatedly refuted and ignored repeated admin admonitions to support his claims, etc, which he ignored. ChemEngineer last posted on 09-Apr-2024.Now he has reappeared as RenaissanceMan with an even more unreadable message style. This time he gives his location as Anaheim (about 8 miles from Irvine), has a different email address which does not reveal his name, and has withheld his date of birth.Basically, it looks like some superficial efforts to cover his tracks so that he can post his nonsense anew. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if he were to employ his two identities as sockpuppets to engage in a "discussion", especially for one to end up profusely agreeing with and praising the other -- I've seen that done before. Why do creationists have to be so crassly dishonest? Sorry, I forgot: they have nothing else.

Well that is against the rules. He breaks a lot of rules. A Liar for Jesus.

Hi RenaissanceMan aka ChemEngineer. Your two accounts have been merged. It was detected because you had identical IPs and were posting in a similar manner. Mostly the profile settings from the RenaissanceMan account have been retained.Participating as two accounts is against the Forum Guidelines:

9. Do not participate as more than one ID. You may change your user ID by going to your Profile Page and creating a new alias.

You are violating the Forum Guidelines on a regular basis, which warrants greater attention. From here on I'll be moderating your participation, even in threads in which I'm participating as Percy.I'll ask the rhetorical question that has already been asked: Why is it always the creationists and Christians who do these types of things. Follow the rules. What is so hard to understand about that?

Dear Forum Director,I participate in many different arenas. This was one of them some months ago, but lots of things have changed in the last few years.First, I found this "forum" to be founded on lies and hatred. You atheists don't participate in "Understanding through Discussion." Rather you participate in hatefulness, condescension, ganging up on Christians who put forth anything which disturbs your hotbed of hatred and superiority, until most anyone would never want to come back unless they were as miserably hateful and godless as your entire group.But I am persistent and thought i would try to present some new observations, particularly the insuperable statistics of naturalistic polypeptide synthesis. All any of your cohorts has to do is call me names, claim intellectual superiority, and he/you win, I lose. Your field, your grotesque rules. You make your own hell here and you enjoy it very much.I attempted to sign in under my original name but was unable to do so. Therefore I decided to use a different name to present what I think are important ideas. I have a lot of them. You atheists obviously do not, with one-track minds.I wrote a book of inspirational science which a medical doctor said is "beyond incredible. Required reading for every literate human."I have been around the world many times, speak French, am a licensed pilot, certified diver, expert snow skier, double black diamond, and have many other achievements I need not go into here.And you?Yes, you made your own hell, and anyone deigning to try to teach you anything is a "troll" and will not last long in the hell you made and maintain. You make certain of that.

Point out the lies and hatred. See, I think a person deserves respect when they've earned it, that isn't hard to do, but it does take some action.Like over here: Message 978 you specifically do something called a quote mine, an out of context quote missing parts to create a narrative that the actual author didn't intend. When you're confronted about this and corrected on this. You do not accept that, you move on to something else, something new.This means you're lying. So far from anything, you don't get to be the arbiter of what is lying when you yourself have no problem lying.In the best case scenario, you're very wilfully ignorant. Which still isn't good.If a simple correction of something you said can't be dealt with in an honest manner by you, why should anyone put any stock in what you have to say? You're willing to lie on something small, who knows how many big lies are easy for you to make as well.You are making yourself untrustworthy through your actions, and there's only one way to fix that, by openly and solidly confronting the criticism you are getting. If you deflect or move on to something new, everyone will be like 'ahhhh, one of those, hot air, no substance, a lot of bla bla bla.Will you do confront your own mistakes? Like the quotemine and those have pointed out how wrong you are with that quote?