You mean SCIENCE. Your continued misrepresentation of science in this manner merely demonstrates that you’re fulminatingly duplicitous.
This has already been done for entities you don’t even know exist. Try again.
Good luck with finding a “gotcha” that doesn’t involve your usual rampant duplicity.
But not simple enough for you to understand it seems …
Drop the “atheistic materialism” duplicitous misrepresentation of science, mythology fanboy, because it IS duplicitous, and I’ll explain why. First, if scientists alight upon genuine evidence for a god type entity of any sort, they will eagerly publish the requisite data. Second, the moment reputable peer reviewed scientific journals find out about this, they’ll be queuing up to be the first to present the results in public. Third, success in this endeavour will guarantee a Nobel Prize for the scientists in question.
Indeed, the people expressing the most butthurt, the moment this happens, will be mythology fanboys like you, because the data in question will almost certainly falsify all of the sad, pathetic pre-scientific mythologies in existence at a stroke. We know in advance that the data won’t point to any of the cartoon magic men in question, because said cartoon magic men are not merely made up shit, they’re badly made up shit. Even from the standpoint of fiction, they’re ridiculous.
Science has an explanation for this. Which has already been presented to you. Stop lying.
No there aren’t, this is a fiction you pulled out of your anal sphincter.
Except it doesn’t. Plus, “Magic Man did it” isn’t an “answer” to anything, it’s an open admission of stupidity and ignorance on the part of eveyone who presents it.
Bullshit. The made up shit “answer” involving an imaginary cartoon magic man, plays NO part whatsoever in the scientific explanation thereof. Scientists didn’t have to “steal” anything from your worthless Bronze Age mythology, because it had nothing worth stealing. Stop lying.
You mean SCIENCE. Every time you come up with the “materialism” bullshit, you’re simply making a spectacle of yourself before a global public audience.
Bullshit. Science has demonstrated time and again that qualitative phenomena have quantitative underpinnings. My exposition on the SN1987A supernova event, and the scientific findings relted thereto, is a classic example of this.
Total crap. And once again, you mean SCIENCE.
This is such a blatant ex recto fabrication on your part, that several here will be left questioning your sanity for posting it.
Here’s a clue for you - the electromagnetic spectrum detonates a nuclear depth charge under this encephalitic assertion of yours.
Bullshit. Your desperate and ignorance driven straw clutching is amusing to behold.
Bullshit. The burden of proof for SCIENTIFIC postulates lies with SCIENTISTS. And unlike mythology fanboys, scientists have DELIVERED, and delivered by the supertanker load.
The only thing an atheist is required to do, is watch mythology fanboys like you fail to support their assertions, and discard said assertions as a corollary of said failure.
Stop lying on this matter.
It’s nothing to do with “need”, mythology fanboy, it’s everything to do with being a consequence of the quantitative underpinnings.
The only one in need of luck here is you.
By the way, how much is the Duplicity Institute paying you for being their shill here? Only your rhetoric is now so blatantly traceable to their house style, as to destroy any notion that this is mere coincidence. Much of your vocabulary is straight out of the Wedge Strategy document.
Meanwhile:
Indeed, in a species whose offspring take 18 years to reach sexual maturity, and which are in need not only of intensive parental care for, say, the first 10 of those years, but parental guidance up to the point of sexual maturity, having two parents to perform the requisite tasks is demonstrably better than having just one parent, certainly in an environment involving the presence of determined and resourceful predators. Consequently, any phenomenon that results in the parents being committed to a long term pair bond will improve the survival chances of the offspring.
I’m aware that this principle works in fish. I’ve mentioned in the past, that Central and South American Cichlids exhibit lifelong monogamous pairing, coupled with intensive parental care of their offspring, and even listed several species that are aquarium favourites, precisely because they provide the aquarist with this behaviour in the aquarium. Indeed, the author of one of my aquarium books, Dr William T Innes, was so taken by this behaviour on the part of these fishes, that he described them in an anthropomorphic manner that would not pass muster in any modern text, though he can be forgiven for doing so in 1936. At some point I will have to scan the book (or use the text mode of my digital camera to shoot the pages), and bring that text here, because despite its obsolescence and the aforementioned faults, it’s still usefully informative despite this, as the essential information hasn’t changed since he wrote the words.
Oh, of course, any taxonomic names mentioned therein are in some cases obsolete - the entire Cichlasoma Genus as he knew it has been massively revised in modern times, and there are now at least two dozen new Genera constructed as part of a thoroughgoing phylogenetic analysis of the entire Cichlid clade. But with those provisos in mind, this is one example of an old book that’s still relevant and still contains useful, empirically verifiable information. A lesson there for our mythology fanboy …
) to explain how, quelle surprise. the more you ask, the more he pointedly ignores the question.
