CO2- What if it Doubles?

-
If CO2 doubles, from 280 PPM to 560 PPM, that will only cause an increase in temperature of 0.6 degrees Celsius. That's it, 0.6 degrees C. That's about 1 degree F. And that is only if everything else stays the same, which we know doesn't happen. We are around 400 PPM now.

The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide, Part 1

The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 2

The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 3

The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 4

Soot and dirt on snow and ice cause melting even when the ambient temperature is below freezing. Look at pictures of glaciers and you can see they are covered with soot and dirt.

Kevin R. McCarthy is a Liar and a Coward

-
Kevin proves that he cannot take any criticisms of his claims as he has banned me for pointing out that he is a liar and a loser.

Kevin sed:

(in spite of the metric tons of information that show that life, the universe and everything arise from basic laws of physics and chemistry that you have been provided with)

Unfortunately for Kevin there isn't any such evidence. There isn't any evidence that Kevin's position can account for those laws. There isn't any evidence the genetic code can arise via those laws.

So Kevin, why are you such a liar and a coward?

And just because we don't know who the designer is Kevin spews:

Then you have no idea what your supposed designer can or cannot do, over what time period, or how. In other words, regardless of the appearance of design, you cannot support any claim that a designer exists.

We can support the claim a designer existed by demonstrating the design exists, duh. That is how it works in science you ignorant ass. First you determine design exists and only then do you try to figure out who did it.

Are you really that stupid, Kevin?

 

"Waiting for Two Mutations", Why Evolutionism Fails

-
In 2008 a paper titled Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution, was published. It was intended to show that Dr Behe was wrong about the mathematical limits of Darwinian evolution. The scope of the article was very limited:

 In this article we apply these results to obtain insights into regulatory sequence evolution in Drosophila and humans. In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. 

Got that- they are only discussing a transcription binding site and only in a very limited sense.

What's the point? Evolutionism requires many specific mutations and this paper says there just isn't enough time in the universe for such a thing. Duplicated genes need a new transcription factor binding site. It needs a promoter and then it may also need specific mutations to alter its original function. The alleged evolution of color vision is such a scenario- duplicate an opsin gene and then tune it to a different wavelength. That is out of the reach of natural selection and/ or drift.


Dr Behe responds

Dr Behe continues

For the lying loser evoTARDs- Dr Behe has NOT been refuted. To do so requires actual evidence and evolutionism doesn't have any.