New guy who believes in God


Hi there. I said if your mission is Jesus… Jesus is not their mission. It is also not your mission to convert anyone to finding Jesus. The biggest eye opener I have received on this forum is how many people who claim to be Christians will come here and battle like Don Quixote.

The best advice that I can give you for civil communication is to try remembering that these are real people who have real and personal reasons for why they think and feel the way they do.

If your mission is understanding, try “listening” and learning. Many members have been reading the Bible since before you were born. You don’t have to agree to learn something.

1 Like

You have failed to consider other explanations. For example the multiverse. And there may be other explanations, each requiring intense investigation.


@Cr2187 Now look up multiverse, and learn something new. God doesn’t need you to champion for him. Neither does Jesus. You however (like we all) could benefit from learning about the world around you outside of your own perspective.

1 Like

For someone who says Atheism is a lie. You quote Stephen Hawking quite a bit and he identified as an Atheist who believed the laws of physics to be an impersonal god. And he didn’t believe your god created anything. Science is not a belief like you’ve been told multiple times as it is based on FACTS and EVIDENCE.

1 Like

@MrDawn That’s not a wall, its a bridge. I hope y’all have a good night.

1 Like

@Tia_Thompson I have no clue what you meant by that. :confused:

1 Like

@MrDawn A bridge between two different perspectives.

If the goal is for at least one person to understand, Stephen Hawking is a excellent place to start.

1 Like

I am really attempting to understand what you believe and why, but you continue to employ such obvious faulty reasoning and logical fallacies , that it just comes off as clutching. Let’s just deal with one here.
How did you come to the conclusion the these are the only alternatives? You have not shown that "nothing " even exists. Where is there an example of nothing? You also refer to “inside the universe” as if to imply that there is a known “outside of the universe”.
Whether or not you think it is unreasonable to conclude

has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is even a candidate explanation. The idea of a “force outside of the universe” is logically incoherent, since we have no way of demonstrating that anything actually exists “outside of the universe”. I really am sorry that you have decided that

For all of us who share space on this planet, there are many things that don’t make any sense to us. Generally speaking, we usually try to educate ourselves to the known, demonstrably reliable information available to us and formulate our understanding thusly. Sometimes we are intellectually incapable (and I certainly include myself in this) of making sense of reality. Some of us like @Calilasseia can articulate on a level which can greatly illuminate these questions for those capable of understanding. Nothing “fancy” about providing accurate information and an opportunity to learn.
If you are relying on your own definition of the universe, then by all means go ahead and write your own story, as you seem determined to do.
You seem to be greatly bothered by the idea that some things presently do not have demonstrably conclusive answers and that the best most accurate answer is “I don’t know”. Please try to understand that clutching at an answer just to have an answer is not really an answer at all.


Meanwhile, since you’ve subsequently posted this:

What part of “the braneworld postulated to exist by Steinhardt & Turok exists outside our observable universe” did you fail to register when I first covered this topic?

In your eagerness to post yet another apologetic spell to conjure your cartoon magic man into existence, you failed to register an obvious fact about the content of the papers in question. Namely, that our obsevable universe, in this model, is embedded within the braneworld that instantiated it, and furthermore, is instantiating other, causally disconnected universes aside from ours, on a regular basis?

Indeed, the whole point of the braneworld model, is that the process of instantiating a universe, once in place, need not be restricted to one occurrence. in short, there’s nothing special about our universe in this regard, it’s simply one of many that were instantiated by that process, and all of the instantiated universes reside within that braneworld.

It’s really hilarious, seeing you try to prop up the idea that a fantastic magic man exists ouside the observable universe, but were incapable of applying the same geometrical property to a testable natural process. Because you’re so desperate to avoid letting testable natural processes be a part of the equation, despite the superabundance of evidence for these, because you want a cartoon magic man from your favourite goat herder mythology to be real, regardless of how much real world data renders all cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies superfluous to requirements and irrelevant, yours included.

Do I have to break out the crayons and draw a pretty picture for you?

Pathetically and hilariously wrong.

Oh wait, Steinhardt & Turok explicitly state in their papers, that gravity is an intrinsic property of the colliding branes in their model. Indeed, their model postulates that two types of brane exist in the 11 dimensions of M-theory, branes in which gravity is an attractive force (“positive tension”), and branes in which gravity is a repulsive force (“negative tension”). But because you never bothered reading the papers, and learning what the contents were actually stating, you never worked out that cosmological physicists regard gravity (and the other three forces) as being omnipresent in every spacetime they construct.

Oh, and don’t bother peddling the obvious apologetic riposte, that those physicists are just replacing your magic man with physical forces, because there’s no evidence that there’s anything to replace therewith.

First of all, that illustration has been doctored by you to prop up your apologetics. The original can be found here.

Furthermore, even the original illustration, minus your dishonest doctoring, is out of date. First, because when a cosmological physicist uses the word “nothing”, this is used as a shorthand for an empty spacetime, in the sense of there being no particles or radiation therein. But spacetime itself has a vacuum expectation energy, and is also postulated to be populated by quantum fields, the existence of which make a truly empty spacetime unstable. The Casimir experiment demonstrates this latter fact.

Second, because, once again, the Steinhardt & Turok model is as far removed from “nothing” as it’s possible to be - it’s an 11-dimensional spacetime populated by 10-dimensional branes, and those 10-dimensional branes have both rich geometrical structure and their own sets of quantum fields. Which is yet another reason why the fatuous “atheists believe the universe came from nothing” garbage is garbage.

You really are an amateur at this, aren’t you?

Poppycock. You’re desperately trying to fabricate apologetics spells to conjure your imaginary cartoon magic man into existence, because you lack the functioning neurons to understand cosmological physics. You wouldn’t recognise genuine logic if it backed a main battle tank into your ribcage. I’ll illustrate this as follows, by predicting that you’ll be unable to answer these questions from Willard Van Ormand Quine’s Methods of Logic:

[1] What is the relationship between the material conditional and implication?

[2] Why do there not exist rules of passage for the biconditional?

Of course, another elementary and absurd piece of failure that I observe among mythology fanboys, is the mistaken view that just because a given deduction using the propositional calculus delivers safe conclusions at the end, this means that you can run the deduction backwards and validate the premises. Er, no, propositional logic doesn’t work like that (though charlatans such as William Lane Craig routinely perpetrate this fallacy). All that a logical deduction tells you, is what conclusions can safely be drawn, given the existence of known truth values for the premises. The problem here, of course, is that if the premises do not have a known truth value, then the entire deduction is mere conjecture. Which is one of the reasons we can toss his Kalam cosmological nonsense into the bin (along with others, of course).

Oh, by the way, your purported “quote” of Hawking’s words is part quote mine, part fabrication. Here’s the actual text from my copy of A Brief History of Time, in which Hawking is actually discussing the validity of FLRW spacetime metrics in general relativity:

I’ll move on to other matters shortly.

Since our resident mythology fanboy brought up the bacterial flagellum, it’s time for this …


The bacterial flagellum was erected, wholly wrongly it has to be added, by Michael Behe, as the supposed “poster child” for “irreducible complexity”. Unfortunately for Behe, his attempt to erect “irreducible complexity” as a purported “problem” for evolution merely demonstrated that he hadn’t done his homework. First of all, the concept wasn’t his to begin with - it was, in fact, alighted upon way back in 1918 by an evolutionary biologist, and was erected not as a “problem” for evolutionary biology, but as a natural outcome of evolutionary processes. The biologist in question was Hermann Joseph Müller, and the paper in which he first expounded upon the concept was this:

Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors by Hermann Joseph Müller, Genetics, 3(5): 422-499 (1918)

The requisite quote can be found starting near the bottom of page 464 of that paper, and moving on to page 465, where it reads as follows:

So, Müller alighted upon so-called “irreducibly complex” systems in 1918. He and other evolutionary biologists placed this on a rigorous footing by the 1930s, before Behe was even born. Behe’s canard has been KNOWN to be a canard for over six decades. The mechanism by which so-called “irreducibly complex” structures arise is known as the Müllerian Two Step, which is described succinctly as follows:

[1] Add a component;

[2] Make it necessary.

Müller and other contemporaries placed this on a rigorous footing by the 1930s. Therefore Behe’s “irreducible complexity” nonsense was known to be a canard by actual biologists the moment he aired it in public.

Of course, Behe’s failure to perform the requisite literature search, and realise that this problem had, in essence, been solved back in 1918, merely set a precedent that he was to revisit during the Dover Trial, where he asserted that evolutionary biology not only had no answer to the “problems” purportedly posed by the vertebrate blood clotting cascade, but that evolutionary biology never would find any answers. His rashness in uttering this was sharply exposed, when the cross examining counsel presented Behe with no less than fifty-eight peer reviewed scientific papers, and nine university textbooks, containing the very material Behe had claimed would never exist.

Likewise, his arguments with respect to the bacterial flagellum revealed that he had not bothered performing even the most perfunctory of literature searches. Not least because scientists were publishing papers containing research unravelling the secrets of the bacterial flagellum several years before it was erected as a purported “poster child” for “intelligent design”. However, it appears that the situation is now even worse for the “cdesign proponentsists” with regard to the bacterial flagellum.

Those nice people over at TalkRational pointed me to a very interesting blog. Namely the blog of Mark Pallen, who was co-author with Nick Matzke of at least one peer reviewed paper in Nature on the bacterial flagellum (and indeed probably wrote more - I just happen to be aware of the one I have saved to my hard drive). That paper is the following one:

From The Origin Of Species To The Origin Of Bacterial Flagella by Mark J. Pallen & Nicholas J. Matzke, Nature Reviews Microbiology, 4(10): 784-790 (October 2006).

I shall return to this paper shortly, but first, a little preamble is needed.

For those unfamiliar with the background, Nick Matzke was the author of an interesting article, namely this one, which hypothesised that the various proteins that are found in the bacterial flagellum would be found to be homologous with other proteins belonging to other metabolic systems, and that as a consequence, the bacterial flagellum would eventually be found to be the result of co-opting existing, earlier systems and re-using them for another purpose - a classic evolutionary process. Needless to say, a lot of noise was emitted by the ID brigade to the effect that Matzke’s ideas were “speculation”, and the rest of it, but, the point here is that Matzke made testable predictions in his article, and in doing so provided evolutionary biologists with real substance that they could pursue in the laboratory. The following quote from the abstract of Matzke’s original paper is apposite:

Now, note that specific predictions were made with respect to the homologies involved, namely that homologies would be found between flagellar proteins and those of the Type 3 Secretory System, plus an enzyme called F1F0-ATP synthetase. I’ll leave the latter enzyme aside for a moment, but return to it because this one turns out to play an important role. Stay tuned for the fun revelations!

Now, first of all, the paper from Nature Reviews Microbiology I cited above by Matzke & Pallen itself dispenses wholesale with the idea of the bacterial flagellum being “irreducibly complex”, because, lo and behold, there are bacteria with flagella that are missing numerous components. From that paper, I copy the following details with respect to the presence or absence of specific flagellar proteins in various bacteria possessing flagella:

FlgA (P ring) - Absent from Gram-Positive bacteria
FlgBCFG (Rod) - universal
FlgD (Hook) - universal
FlgE (Hook) - universal
FlgH (L Ring) - Absent from Gram-Positive bacteria
FlgI (P Ring) - Absent from Gram-Positive bacteria
FlgJ (Rod) - FlgJ Rod N-terminal domain absent from some systems
FlgK (Hook-Filament Junction) - universal
FlgL (Hook-Filament Junction) - universal
FlgM (Cytoplasm & Exterior) - Absent from Caulobacter
FlgN (Cytoplasm) - Undetectable in some systems
FlhA (T3SS apparatus) - universal
FlhB (T3SS apparatus) - universal
FlhDC (Cytoplasm) - Absent from many systems
FlhE (Unknown) - Mutant retains full motility
FliA (Cytoplasm) - Absent from Caulobacter
FliB (Cytoplasm) - Absent from Escherichia coli
FliC (Filament) - universal
FliD (Filament) - Absent from Caulobacter
FliE (Rod/Basal Body) - universal
FliF (T3SS apparatus) - universal
FliG (Peripheral) - universal
FliH (T3SS apparatus) - Mutant retains some motility
FliI (T3SS apparatus) - universal
FliJ (Cytoplasm) - Undetectable in some systems
FliK (Hook/Basal Body) - universal
FliL (Basal body) - Mutant retains full motility
FliM (T3SS apparatus) - universal
FliN (T3SS apparatus) - universal
FliO (T3SS apparatus) - Undetectable in some systems
FliP (T3SS apparatus) - universal
FliQ (T3SS apparatus) - universal
FliR (T3SS apparatus) - universal
FliS (Cytoplasm) - Absent from Caulobacter
FliT (Cytoplasm) - Absent from many systems
FliZ (Cytoplasm) - Absent from many systems
MotA (Inner membrane) - universal
MotB (Inner membrane) - universal

So, the mere fact that there are in existence bacteria with missing proteins from the above list whose flagella still function rather makes a mockery of the “irreducible complexity” assertion to begin with. But, this is only part of the story. The same paper continues with the following:

The paper continues with:

Now, as a slight tangential diversion, which along the way provides yet more evidence for evolutionary hypotheses, one avenue of attack being considered with respect to the development of the bacterial flagellum is the reconstruction of earlier, more ancient versions of the proteins responsible for the construction of this structure. Precedents already exist with respect to the reconstruction of ancient genes, and the following four papers are examples thereof:

Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007)

Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004)

Resurrection Of DNA Function In Vivo From An Extinct Genome by Andrew J. Pask, Richard R. Behringer and Marilyn B. Renfree, PLoS One, 3(5): e2240 (online version, May 2008)

The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002)

From the paper by Pask et al above, we have:

So scientists are already resurrecting ancient proteins and testing their functionality in model organisms. Indeed, one of the results in the scientific literature comes courtesy of this paper:

Resurrecting The Ancestral Steroid Receptor: Ancient Origin Of Oestrogen Signalling by J.W. Thornton, E. Need and D. Crews, Science, 301: 1714-1717 (2003)

in which the scientists determined that the modern receptors for steroid hormones in modern organisms are traceable to an ancestral receptor dating back 600 million years, and reconstructed the ancestral steroid receptor in the laboratory to determine that it worked.

So, given that precedents already exist for the successful reconstruction of ancient proteins and the genes coding for them, this avenue of attack is likely to prove highly instructive with respect to the bacterial flagellum. Indeed, Pallen & Matzke make this very observation in their paper:

However, let us move on to the more recent developments.

Now, back in 2006, Pallen & Matzke listed some known homologies, and once again, I reproduce their results from the table in the paper:

FlgA (P ring) - CpaB
FlgD (Hook) - none specified
FlgE (Hook) - FlgBCEFGK
FlgH (L Ring) - none yet known
FlgI (P Ring) - none yet known
FlgJ (Rod) - none yet known
FlgK (Hook-Filament Junction) - FlgBCEFGK
FlgL (Hook-Filament Junction) - FliC
FlgM (Cytoplasm & Exterior) - none yet known
FlgN (Cytoplasm) - none yet known
FlhA (T3SS apparatus) - LcrD/YscV
FlhB (T3SS apparatus) - YscU
FlhDC (Cytoplasm) - Other activators
FlhE (Unknown) - none specified
FliA (Cytoplasm) - RpoD, RpoH, RpoS
FliB (Cytoplasm) - none specified
FliC (Filament) - FlgL, EspA
FliD (Filament) - none yet known
FliE (Rod/Basal Body) - none yet known
FliF (T3SS apparatus) - YscJ
FliG (Peripheral) - MgtE
FliH (T3SS apparatus) - YscL, AtpFH
FliI (T3SS apparatus) - YscN, AtpD, Rho
FliJ (Cytoplasm) - YscO
FliK (Hook/Basal Body) - YscI
FliL (Basal body) - none yet known
FliM (T3SS apparatus) - FliN, YscQ
FliN (T3SS apparatus) - FliM, YscQ
FliO (T3SS apparatus) - none
FliP (T3SS apparatus) - YscR
FliQ (T3SS apparatus) - YscS
FliR (T3SS apparatus) - YscT
FliS (Cytoplasm) - none yet known
FliT (Cytoplasm) - none yet known
FliZ (Cytoplasm) - none yet known
MotA (Inner membrane) - ExbB, TolQ
MotB (Inner membrane) - ExbD, TolR, OmpA

Now, as Pallen states in his blog entry as linked above, out of this list of proteins, only two were listed as being both essential to all bacterial flagella AND possessing no known homologues in 2006. Those proteins were FliE and FlgD. From the 2006 update of Matzke’s original 2003 paper, we read:

At least, this was the situation back in 2006. However, science moves on!

First, take a look at this site, which is the site devoted to ATP synthase. Now, one of the homologies that Matzke originally hypothesised was that at least one of the flagellar proteins would prove to be homologous to proteins in the ATP synthase group, in particular the awkwardly named F1F0-ATP synthetase. Now it turns out that ATP synthases are themselves complex entities, and indeed F1-ATPase rotates on an axis as it performs its synthesis! However, as this paper:

Axle-Less F1-ATPase Rotates In The Correct Direction by Shou Furuike, Mohammad Delawar Hossain, Yasushi Maki, Kengo Adachi, Toshiharu Suzuki, Ayako Kohori, Hiroyasu Itoh, Masasuke Yoshida and Kazuhiko Kinosita, Jr., Science, 319: 955-958 (No. 5865, 15 February 2008)

reveals very succinctly, dismantling this structure so that it no longer has an axle to rotate about does not stop it from functioning! Here’s the abstract:

Another blow to “irreducible complexity” (Hermann Müller would doubtless have smiled wryly over this!), but this isn’t all. Returning to Pallen’s blog, we find this:

So, the FliI protein appeared on the face of it to be essential, because knocking out the gene for FliI synthesis destroyed flagellar biosynthesis. But, and here’s the part that really throws the spanner into “irreducible complexity” as espoused by Behe, if you knock out the gene coding for FliI, but in addition knock out the gene for FliH, flagellar biosynthesis returns! This rather buggers up “irreducible complexity” in a spectacular manner.

Yet even this is not the whole story. Believe it or not, there is more! Returning to Pallen’s blog, we read:

Incidentally, the paper covering the homology between FliI and the alpha and beta subunits of the F-type ATPase is this paper:

Salmonella typhimurium Mutants Defective In Flagellar Filament Regrowth And Sequence Similarity Of FliI to F0F1, Vacuolar, And Archaebacterial ATPase Subunits by Alfried P. Vogler, Michio Homma, Vera M. Irikura and Robert M. McNab, Journal of Bacteriology, 173(11): 3564-3572 (June 1991) [Full paper downloadable from here]

so this homology had actually been known even before Behe made his assertions about “irreducible complexity”, something he would have known if he had bothered to perform a basic literature search. After all, he has institutional access, whereas I don’t currently, yet I was able to find this paper once pointed in the right direction. This paper also covers the knocking out of the gene for FliI and the effect on flagellar biosynthesis.

More pertinently, the following paper:

Evolutionary Links Between FliH/YscL-Like Proteins From Bacterial Type III Secretion Systems And Second-Stalk Components Of The F0F1 And Vacuolar ATPases by Mark J. Pallen, Christopher M. Bailey and Scott A. Beatson, Protein Science, 15: 935-941 (2006) [Full paper downloadable from here]

is the one containing the confirmation by Pallen of one of Matzke’s predictions as cited above. Another homology was confirmed courtesy of this paper:

Structural Similarity Between The Flagellar Type III ATPase FliI And F1-ATPase Subunits by Katsumi Imada, Tohru Minamino, Aiko Tahara and Keiichi Namba, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 104(2): 485-490 [Full paper downloadable from here]

This paper:

Distinct Roles Of The FliI ATPase And Proton Motive Force In Bacterial Flagellar Protein Export by Tohru Minamino and Keiichi Namba, Nature, 451: 485-489 (24th January 2008) [Full paper downloadable from here]

is the paper that covers the knocking out of FliH and FliI resulting in restoration of flagellar biosynthesis.

So, now the only two proteins remaining to find homologies for are FliE and FlgD, and you can bet that this is being worked upon as I type this.

So, another massive nail in the coffin for ID is hammered home, and evolution wins yet again. I’ll raise a glass of claret to that. :slight_smile:


This is what has built my confidence in science over the years WHEN I actually began to learn and pay attention.

I was a kid who had any “science” (especially evolution) countered by religious “reasoning” and sadly, I missed the opportunity when I was younger to understand. Curiosity was crushed. AND the pre-supposition of god’s existence was NEVER called into question.

The simple basis for this was 1 Cor. 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness(A)in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”

:crazy_face: … a stupid fucking assertion that was NEVER called into question when you’re a believer. It was a way of mentally dismissing the intelligence and research and evidence of anything over our little heads. :woman_shrugging:t2: I mean why bother with it if god is smarter and the “world’s wisdom” is stupid.

fffuuuuuucckkkkkkk I need a smoke :smoking:


Your assumption is that the universe came into existence. The question is; “Came into existence from what?” The universe is here, that is a fact. Big Bang cosmology is not a theory of the universe coming into existence. It is a theory of why a singularity began to expand. Now you are using the 'expansion model of the universe.

“A new theory of the universe suggests that space and time may not have begun in a big bang, but may have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth. Princeton physicist Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok of Cambridge University described their proposed theory in an article published April 25 in an online edition of Science. The theory proposes that, in each cycle, the universe refills with hot, dense matter and radiation, which begins a period of expansion and cooling like the one of the standard big bang picture.”

This theory is actually answering questions that Big Bang Cosmology left unanswered and it is gaining in popularity among physicists. The new model replaces inflation and dark energy with a single energy field that oscillates in such a way as to sometimes cause expansion and sometimes cause stagnation. At the same time, it continues to explain all the currently observed phenomena of the cosmos in the same detail as the big bang theory. Princeton - Weekly Bulletin 5/6/02 - New theory provides alternative to big bang

Here’s the catch, “WE DON’T KNOW” “YET” Drawing a weak ass representation of an expanding universde with “Nothing” outside of it, 1. Does not prove nothing exists. 2. Does not show anything at all that can be demonstrated beyond our known uiverse. 3. Does not say one way or the other if there are forces of any kind beyond our universe.


Demonstrate that nothing can exist!

1 Like

@Calilasseia @Whitefire13

“scientists determined that the modern receptors for steroid hormones in modern organisms are traceable to an ancestral receptor dating back 600 million years, and reconstructed the ancestral steroid receptor in the laboratory to determine that it worked.”

I might not have seen this excerpt in an amazing sea of information if it were not for you Whitefire13. It directly relates to something else I was looking at. Thank you both.

1 Like

A universe from nothing doesn’t seem to violate any of the exact conservation laws. Making it difficult to rule out a universe from nothing.

1 Like

At this point, @Cr2187 is turning a blind eye to the dead body that you’ve dragged in the room. When you have someone that blind. It’s hard to keep debating with them. That’s like murdering someone and having tons of forensic evidence and the murder weapon, calling the cops on yourself, and the cop is a complete idiot who comes in and see’s the dead body and gets your confession but is just like that, “There’s nothing here, this isn’t evidence.”

We can offer all of the existing evidence. But he’ll just keep turning a blind eye and countering with imaginary evidence that he doesn’t have and keep saying “but god put all of this stuff there because we don’t know the origins of the universe and something can’t come from nothing” or God of Gaps argument that he keeps peddling. He won’t accept “We don’t know.” because that’s an unacceptable answer and that to him, that is stupid and ignorant. He’d rather cling to man made “god claims” then try to learn something on his own. He also doesn’t seem to realize is that he came here, on an atheist forum and presented this argument without evidence and to top it all off. He quotes an Atheist, Stephen Hawking. Oh but wait, he has all the imaginary “evidence” and we’re the idiots. We’re the crazy ones. That’s just him moving the goal posts every time we counter yet another bullshit argument he gives.

1 Like

Trouble is, mythology fanboys frequently demonstrate that they are incapable of even imagining a world view that doesn’t involve “doctrines” or “prophets”, and project this laughable cognitive deficit onto rational world views that involve neither.

They are incapable of understanding that the ideas presented in, for example, the scientific realm, do NOT depend for their force on the credentials of the authors thereof. Those ideas stand or fall, on the basis of their accord with large bodies of relevant observational data.

Indeed, one of the favourite aphorisms among scientists is that the most beautiful and elegant hypotheses are frequently pulverised on the rocks of ugly data.

A brilliant scientist with a hard won reputation in his field, can come unstuck by overconfidence in a mistaken idea, while a neophyte can launch his reputation into the stratosphere via a “eureka moment” that solves problems previously considered intractable. Ultimately, reality is the anvil upon which bad ideas are shattered, and good ideas shaped into tomorrow’s theories.

Indeed, the whole business of testing assertions, is utterly alien to many mythology fanboys. As is the notion that untested assertions exist in an epistemological limbo, and are safely discardable until someone devises a proper test thereof.

They come from an arena in which the casting of apologetic spells to conjure their wish fulfilment into reality, replaces proper analysis of ideas and proper concern for concepts such as relevance and deductive rigour. They then compound this fallacious approach, by treating science as a branch of apologetics, when it’s as far removed from the business of fanciful fabrication as it’s possible to be outside the realm of pure mathematics.

There might have been an excuse for this approach in, say, the 13th century, but there is NO excuse for this in the 21st.


Does He talk to you?

1 Like

This is excellent. You two need to go and start your own thread. We’ll call it "The Author and Ratty, No no … Ratty was here first… "Ratty and The Author Consider Nearly Everything. ‘RATACNE’ This will be very entertaining.


We can have a “dick off”. It’s an army thing. Whenever people have an argument they can’t settle, they simply pull out their dicks and the guy with the biggest dick wins the argument.

It’s also a great way to get dick pics over the internet. It’s an army thing!

But, I think the author and I are very different. I’m not the type to go around preaching doom and gloom (even if I personally believe that my goal in life is to please the OverLord well enough that he doesn’t send me to Hell).

I still haven’t heard from this prick. Would be interested to see if he talks to God and God talks back.

Ratty, ratty , ratty, You can’t have a ‘Dick Off.’ You lost yours a long time ago to me. Sheesh. That puppy got whacked and is not sitting in a jar above my fireplace.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … Must I remind you of the inane bullshit you do preach? The Overlord? The True Form of Buddhism? What other nonsense have you brought to the site? You two could be twins.