geniusisdisruptive
Atheism has nothing to do with Darwinism. Do you even know the difference between the two?

I remember Dawkins saying the Selfish Gene could have just as easily been called the Cooperative Gene.

As for how heamoglobin evolved, I've no idea whatsoever. But don't know only means don't know. Thus don't know cannot be seen as evidence for anything, let alone as evidence for a divine supernatural agent! So if by some mirical you did falsified the scientific theory of evolution you'd only get back to don't know.

//""Mirical" (sic). Brilliant. Misspelling one word two different ways. How can you atheists always brag and boast about your *intellectualism* when you write so very poorly so often? It's much easier to use proper middle school grammar than it is to discuss science."\\

Spiffing - you think a few typos means you can extrapolate out and stereotype all atheists. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but not all atheists are dyslexic!

//"By the way, where is it written that you MUST have an explanation for everything? The bottom line is that if an hypothesis doesn't work, it must be discarded. You don't hold on to it until you create some new and better hypothesis. That is how science works.
You didn't even know that, much less how to spell "miracle.""\\

I didn't assert that yoy must have an explanation for everything. What said was don't know can only mean don't know. So if as you say a hypothesis or scientific theory is shown not to work we only go back to not knowing. Thus my point stands.

//|It isn't Christians who are always proclaiming their intellectual superiority. It's atheists."\\

Yes some atheists do that, but it's not unique to atheists, many theists do that. In-fact you've just done it in this post I'm responding to. After all you started out be questioning my inability to spell & use middle school grammer.

//"How embarrassing it should be to be corrected by someone you atheists always claim is so very STUPID."\\

You assume to much. I don't assume anyone is stupid. Plus I'm dyslexic thus have no problem with people correcting my spelling / grammar. In-fact I'm happy for people to do so.

//"Now as to hemoglobin, its space, or in other words, the number of alternative structures possible from 20 different amino acids in a chain 574 bases long is 20 to the 574th power. Only ONE is hemoglobin. And Richard Dawkins himself defines "impossible" as one chance in 10^40th power."\\

Impossible without a blind watchmaker. So, well, not impossible.

//"You don't get eternity or an infinite number of attempts to work Darwinian magic. Including possibilities of R vs. L amino acids, including possibilities of peptide vs. non-peptide bonds, the number of ways such a polypeptide could form is ~10^1,000th power.
Only 1 works. So it's 1 in 10^1000th power. Impossible hundreds of orders of magnitude beyond Dawkins' definition of "impossible.""\\

I say again not with a blind watchmaker.

//'But then again, he screwed up his books so terribly, why would anyone believe anything he says. Examples to follow, most particularly his monkeys typing Shakespeare. What an ignorant joke.''\\

You don't need to believe his books. At this stage I question if you've actually read them. But its not the books that you should look at but the evidence he cites.

Wow, so angry. Chill, bro.