The ones that disappear

Why do you go out of your way to capitalize words that are not supposed to be capitalized? It makes you look like an idiot.

1 Like

@Cognostic … I had a feeling that if I dug deep enough, I’d find something useful in this vein.

Of course, it won’t have any effect upon our mythology fanboy, because his modus operandi can be summed up as “if reality and my mythology differ, reality is wrong and my mythology is right”.

Indeed, that’s an effective summary of the modus operandi of many mythology fanboys, creationists in particular (the late arch-charlatan and professional liar for doctrine known as Henry Morris, inadvertently let this cat out of the bag in one of his screeds, which effectively admitted the above during one of his tedious rants).

Quite simply, mythology fanboys operate on the basis of an entirely different definition of “truth” to the one you and I use. You and I consider a statement to be true, if [1] it is consonant with a relevant body of observational data, or [2] is demonstrated to be the end result of an error-free derivation in an appropriate formaal system (pure mathematics being of course the canonical example of such a formal system).

Mythology fanboys, on the other hand, consider a statement to be true only if it can be apologetically manipulated to conform to the strictures of their favourite mythology. No amount of data or rigorous mathematical proof will sway them in this regard. The more fundamentalist mythology fanboys are indoctrinated right from the start, to rely only on whatever mythology they’ve had their brains addled with, and to reject summarily anything not conforming to the requisite fundamentalist interpretation of that mythology.

One of the more amusing moments I experienced with respect to the fatuous nature of mythology fanboyism, and the creationist variant thereof in particular, occurred when reading that scientific paper on SN1987A. Creationism is so far up its own rectal passage, that it requires trigonometry to be wrong in order for its assertions to be right. When you’re in the position of asserting that Pythagoras et al were all wrong, you’re really deep in the mire of delusion.

Of course, I have to be rigorous here, and note that the rules of trigonometry change in well-defined ways when one moves away from a Euclidean space. But since [1] those changes do not support fatuous creationist assertions in any way, and [2] the scientific data tells us that the space between us and SN1987A is effectively Euclidean, this excursion into rigour is superfluous to requirements for those appraising the data honestly. I only need to bother with this excursion in order to kill anticipated duplicity at source.

I’m minded to note that if the effort expended in peddling creationist lies and bullshit, and developing an entire corporate creationism industry, had been expended in honest endeavour instead, we might now be watching the first manned Mars mission on our TV screens (ionly of course for the tinfoil hat brigade to try and pretend it never happened 50 years further down the line of course).

It’s a measure of how insidiously venomous mythology fanboyism is, that it positively encourages lying of the sort we’ve seen deployed here in quantity, and creationism in particular is a capital offender in this regard. The whole poisonous business of treating unsupported mythological assertions uncritically as fact, then wasting time and effort making shit up to preserve that fatuous fantasy, is a disease infecting vast swathes of human activity, an ideological version of smallpox that we should have sent to the same dustbin of history as that actual virus.

Unfortunately the powerful vested interests that mythology fanboyism spawned, will make that task difficult, but I would hypothesise that it’s within our reach. We simply need to be more determined and better organised than the enemy.

Once again, it’s a measure of the insidious nature of the mythology fanboy disease, that in contrast to our presenting facts to support our statements, the ex recto apologetics offered up by mythology fanboys as a substitute for substance, is frequently seen to be shot through with duplicity. None of the offenders in this regard ever waking up to the fact that if they have to lie to this extent to keep propaganising for their goat herder mythologies and cartoon magic men, then both are worse than worthless, they’re a pestilence.

1 Like

Why love? Why not a fart? How about wetness? Or dreams?

I don’t need to show you fuck all. I don’t make a claim. I trust the scientific method that has thus far arrived at Theories (capital T) as an explanation for the observations. Should more information be added to the Theories, I await with anticipation.

Specifically - The laws of causation say that something must have a cause - what caused the Quantitative to produce the Qualitative ?

“laws of causation”??? Legal or philosophical or
physics (Causality (physics) - Wikipedia

In physics, and I know someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s a principle at a certain level - more observations on quantum levels are not as “certain”


Retro causality
Retrocausality - Wikipedia.

:joy: if you’ve even gotten this far - your “cause (god)” didn’t have a “cause (god)” now did it?

Kinda shot yourself in the foot. My imaginary friend doesn’t need a cause but everything else does cause my imaginary friend is awesome!

1 Like


A host of chemical reactions and brain perceptions and interpretations and reactions - make us all unique. IF the brain is healthy. Now, a brain may be devoid of certain “rewards” :woman_shrugging:t2:

Bonding. A social evolution that allowed us an advantage for our species’ survival.

1 Like

And, as those pages from the Innes book demonstrate, proved to be an advantage for the survival of several hundred species of Cichlid fish. That’s before we consider the Pomacentridae (Damselfishes and Clownfishes), the various Anabantoids (Gouramis, Siamese Fighting Fish etc), the Nandids, the Gasterosteids (Sticklebacks & allies), various Centorpyge Dwarf Angelfishes, and of course one of my favourite Characoid fishes, Copella arnoldi, whose parents co-operate to lay eggs out of the water, followed by the male splashing the eggs to keep them moist prior to hatching.

1 Like

Or, how about wet dreams? Ha! Let your god explain THAT, @Sid .


If he were a pagan, he’d have a field of more answers. He could just say “oh yeah…that’s Priapus, the god of sex :laughing:

1 Like

You haven’t answered my question yet, are you a young earth creationist?

No, in at least 20 characters .

Unless of course your parents decide to eat you .

Sure :woman_shrugging:t2:

It may well have happened way back in our evolutionary line.

Cats can and will sometimes eat their kittens.

I’m guessing your deity isn’t responsible for that? Just the good stuff eh, funny as…

Well it did (Judaic god) eventually figure out that killing members of your tribe reduce your numbers and strength when tribal wars break out. Hence- killing your own “bad” …killing the “other” good :+1:


I’m not aware of any species that does this as a matter of course. Are you, @Sid?
According to studies, there are evolutionary benefits for parents to eat offspring on occasion.

Oh, like you Christians did in 2 Kings 6:24–30

Ironic, and you guys call us Atheists “baby eaters”. Ha ha, you’re such a funny guy.


Actually, that’s the Old Testament and predating the christ-o-philes, so you cannot really blame it(*) on them.

(*) Assuming of course that what is written in the birdcage liner material they call the Bible has anything to do with actual history. Which there is very little reason to believe.

1 Like

Then you believe in evolution, right?

Second verse….
Why you no answer, @Sid ? :frowning:


Yes, in at least 20 characters.

Sorry about that .
5 things ? Off the top of my head I would say