Some “Reasonable” Levels of “Why?”

A Treatise of
“Why I Can NOT beLIEve”
and
“Why I shall NEVER beLIEve”

— by RMF Runyan; aka Arakish

Firstest and Foremostest, Thank You for letting me know Matt Slick is doing fine. I was literally scared shitless with the sudden change in WWW pages dealing with “self-harm”. It DID frighten me. I amy not be a psychiatrist, but the extensive studies I did in abnormal psychology (trying to find if I could bring the old me back) jsut suddenly made me thing of one thing: Could this be a tendency of that person? Once that thought hit, choosing to ignore it me self was impossible. I had to know. Thus, THANK YOU.

Additionally, give thanks to whomever got those WWW pages removed/changed. Not a good subject to harp on.

And, yes, there is a valid reason for every specialized spellings.

“Why” is the only Unanswerable Question. For no matter the answer given, I can again ask “Why?”. Infinitely regressively. Why CANNOT be answered. Easy peasy. Thus, the best I can do is offer “reasonable” levels of why.

This is long. Need quite a few reasonable levels of WHY …

This is a letter I wrote back in response to a Religitard whom says I am not utilizing critical thinking. My question: How in 7734 would you even know if someone is using critical thinking when NO Religitard is capable of critical thinking. Here is the WWW posting of my response.

Some Definitions

OHEFE – Objective Hard Empirical Facts and Evidence.
FoR – Frame of Reference
PoV – Point of View
Brain Diarrhea – [dfntn derived from AI Search for (define “brain diarrhea”)] “Brain Diarrhea is not a medical condition. It is a humorous, often derogative, term used to describe someone who constantly talks or speaks their thoughts without ever thinking. It is similar to a “brain fart”, but with a constant stream of nonsensical words coming out of their mouth.” The SAME EXACT definition given to that term over 60y ago where I grew up as a child. Most persons being nice around children would say Brain Poopoo. And Religitards add IRSS.
IRSS – Incoherent Rapid Speech Synthesis. Always used with Brain Diarrhea and Empathic Predation.
Brain Diarrhea – Also used to reference “Word Salad utilizing Empathic Predation”. I may also use Brain Poopoo.
Word Salad – Y’awl already know this.
Empathic Predation – A predatory method of using persuasive “brain-washing” techniques on a person to force their emotions to beLIEve a Religitard’s perversion and twisting of FACTs as “truth” overriding their intellect. Always uses IRSS.
FACT – Formally Accurately Codified Truth.
Morons – Also called the LDS Mormons.
tweeners – “in-between”.
Sometimes I shall type 9e23 instead of 9 × 1023. Easier.

Reread as many times as necessary to drill these into your head.

Religitards’ Favorite Treatise:
The Kalam Cosmological Brain Diarrhea

And so you cannot scream ambiguity: Treatise = “a formal exposition”. However, in my case, I would refer to this as “informal exposition”.

Author’s Note: This is Sociopathic Bill’s (nt) and Witless Matt’s (nt) most favorite argument. According to them, this argument alone proves their God-Thing does exist. However, it only proves Religitard’s lack of any kind of research skills, both use this argument, excessively, adding their personal Brain Diarrhea. They chose to be igNORant and igNURunt the FACT that the Kalam was utterly debunked not even a decade later. He constantly chooses to igNORe the FACT that the Kalam only proves one thing: The universe exists. Thus, it had a cause(s). And NEVER forget, it can be more than one cause. All that God-Thing horse hoowhee is added Brain Diarrhea.

Foremost, the Kalam argument has been utterly debunked over 500 years ago. All Religitards do is just add more huge piles of Word Salad and Brain Diarrhea. When shall you Religitards comprehend the fact adding more Word Salad cannot undebunked a completely debunked argument? The Kalam was originated by Aristotle’s “prime mover” horse hoowhee. In the early 6th century, John Philoponus (c. 490-570 CE) proposed the version of the argument used by Sociopathic Bill based on the impossibility of an infinite temporal regress, postulating that time itself must have had a beginning. The problem here is that we CANNOT know whether Time had a beginning. 7734, we CANNOT even know whether Time will end.

In all truthfulness, “Time” does NOT exist. Rather it is a conceptual framework mechanism which eases understanding of the natural progression of everything. Time only exists because humans invented it. Time is only an abstract mental construct and does NOT truly exist. I have been saying, “Time, Day, Date are utterly irrelevant. There is ONLY “NOW”.”

At its ultimate basic, the Kalam is only this:

Everything that exists had a cause. From which came the Principle of Causality.
The universe exists.
Thus, it had a cause.

Then, Kalam himself simply projected that “universe cause” onto his doG-Thing. The Kalam only covers the fact that the universe DOES exist. Thus, yes, it had a cause. What that cause was, we still do not know. There is that pesky Planck Time thing to deal with.

The Religitard prevaricative method utilized by Sociopathic Bill:

Everything that exists must have a cause.
The universe exists.
Thus, it must have had an uncaused cause.

See the lies? And all Religitards have done is to add monumental mountains of Word Salad utilizing Empathetic Predation. They add so much Brain Diarrhea that preys upon your emotions, forcing YOU to override your own intellect with YOUR emotions. And, what is this “must have” horse hoowhee you Religitards always harp on? Why must anything “must have” anything?

Why would you believe anyone that purposefully, with evil intent, screws with your mind?

And would someone PLEASE invent a “Brain Pepto”?

Ultimately, the Kalam is simply stating what later became the Principle of Causality: “Everything that exists had a cause(s)”. Nothing else. NO “must have”. The Kalam proves nothing about any divinity fantasy. That was Kalam’s Brain Diarrhea additions. Modern day Religitards just tend to use a more sophisticated verbiage to add even more Brain Diarrhea.

The “igNORance” and “igNURunce” Factors

If IT violates Religitard beLIEfs, it is to be igNORed as blasphemy.

Religitardism THRIVES on igNURunce and igNORance. Stupidity, is what I call it more simply.

Faith is viewed as a virtue, yet it also REQUIRES igNURunce and igNORance.

BeLIEf requires a surrendering of the intellect. If you cannot igNORe FACTs, you cannot be a beLIEver.

How Knowledge is Acquired

What is the difference between how science and religion acquire their knowledge?

Science questions and investigates. Religion dictates, commands, and demands obedience to the faith. Science even questions itself. Science is also self-correcting. Science is also self-FACTchecking with each new proposal called “Peer Review”.

One such self-correcting feature was that “Cold Fusion Fiasco” some 40+ years ago. Was it not done in Utah? Moron country? They announced their “cold fusion” before the Peer Review process was completed. And did so through “religious” media. Those two guys (care less their names) were completely debunked and laughed out of academia to never to be heard from again.

What makes science so fearful to the Religitards is the FACT that science is exceptionally arduous, both physically and mentally, and, at times, can be exceptionally BORING. Well…, maybe not boring, but rather, time-consuming with piddle time. Thumb Twirling. Anticipation is making me wait. Old TV commercial for Heinz Ketchup.

The only thing religion offers is a more sophisticated usage of verbosity for their monumental mountains of Word Salad. Without a decent vinaigrette even.

Principles of Probability

There are no Religitards whom understand these principles. And quit calling them laws. They are principles so to distinguish from the laws.

First and Foremost, probability is composed of a number of factors that have a chance ranging: 0 ≤ N < 1.

Secondly, when determining “chance” of something, probability is ALWAYS multiplicative. NEVER additive. The ONLY time probability is additive is to answer: How much? How many?

Thirdly, and last I cover, the chance of a probability ALWAYS decreases with each added factor of that something.

You Religitards have added so many factors to your doG-Things, you have literally described them into a virtual 0.000% chance. Ooops…

Examples:

Additive
Each has 10%
• 10%
• 20%
• 30%
• 40%
• 50%
Not long before 100%

Multiplicative
Each has 10%
• 10%
• 1%
• 0.1%
• 0.01%
• 0.001%
Not long before
essentially 0 (zero)

See the difference? In Probability, the additive method only answers “How much?” or “How many?” Additive ONLY gives a “percentage of” NOT a “percentage chance”. Think.

Now, about this “probability of life by chance” concept. The largest number I have seen on any Religitard WWW site is: 1 chance in 1 × 101240. Yet they never deign (do something that one considers to be below one’s dignity) to explain HOW they derived that number. Since no Religitard even deigns to explain how they derive such a number, I am only left with the option of: “they must pluck it out their arse”. Let me show how I can pluck a ridiculously huge number out me arse.

4.301 × 10^{4,654,958,537}

Is that a HUGE enough number for you? 4301 followed by over 4½ Billion zeros? Need it bigger? I hypothesize that is the number of times the DNA molecule is replicated by Life globally every millisecond. And I am probably severely underestimating.

Yes, in geologic annals, Life was lesser. Lesser number of chances. However, as Earth became more and more conducive, more and more Life. Larger and Larger numbers of chances. In just the last 10Ka, how many times has Life replicated the DNA molecule? Question is moot. You just might as well say Life has replicated DNA infinite number of times and is still doing it infinite more times.

We could use Numeration Theory to haphazard a guesstimation, but why? We all kind-of can imagine it is an incredibly huge number.

That is how probability works. When Life is taking that many chances, that quickly, it kind of makes your Religitardistic numbers look infinitesimally small.

As for my method of creating ridiculously huge numbers, I have a PI() file with the first 10,240 digits (10K binary) of PI(). And why do I tend to always call it PI()? To me, PI() is NOT a value, it is a mathematical function from which a value can be derived. I just simply open that file, clip a chunk of digits, copy, paste, reformat. Easy peasy. The chunk I copied for above number was “43014654958537”.

Principles of Logic

As simple as possible, Logic is only True/False. Not all those Religitardistic Maybes, Wannabes, Buts, Howevers. Thus, the dichotomy of the “belief in a doG-Thing”. Ultimately, you believe or !believe. No tweeners. Those agnostics of today are just gut-less, ball-less atheists.

Logic does not give a damn about any maybes, wannabes, howevers, etc. Anything other than True/False is non sequitur. A great example is the huge pile of the most illogical non sequitur in Matt Slick’s: The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG). I have never seen so many maybes, wannabes, wishes, howevers, dreams, fantasies, etc. All Matt’s TAG ultimately boils down to is this:

P exists ⸫ P.
Q exists ⸫ Q.
Q exists because
- P-caused
  - or
- !P-caused

Remove all those wishy-washy maybes and wannabes, and above is all you are left with. And this also proves nothing about any doG-Thing.

Brutal Questions

I have two questions that are quite brutal. No Religitard can answer them sufficiently under my stricture: Cannot use anything religious to answer.

What is any statement, assertion, claim without proof other than a lie?
What is any otherwise intelligent person whom believes faerie tales and lies are truth other than a mental retard?

Brutal? Very. Grossly crude? Only to Religitards. Truthful? Definitely.

Reiteration: You cannot use anything religious to answer.

Divine Invisibility

Ultimate Question: Why MUST your doG-Thing be completely invisible?

Why cannot your doG-Thing just show ITs self and answer that question once-and-for-all?

Why is your doG-Thing so damned fearful of showing ITs self?

Again, the “mysterious ways” Brain Diarrhea no longer works. Although progressing rather slowly, our “global” society IS becoming more knowledgeable of Reality rather than lying to themselves with religion. Although that still occurs.

Then I LOVED this one: “Humans are too petty and sinful to be allowed to “envision my doG-Thing”, unless in the spirit.” First, thanks for the vote of confidence in your fellow humans. And, FOREMOST, you MUST first prove this “spirit-thing” before making that claim.

“My doG-Thing remains hidden to unbeLIEvers.” Again, why so afraid to show ITs self?

“UnbeLIEvers cannot see my doG-Thing because they don’t beLIEve.” Can’t get more childish.

“Atheists do not, will not, beLIEve because they only want to sin. My doG-Thing will not show ITs self to reprobate sinners.” Talk about self-incriminating.

And, I have heard far, FAR!, too many other such Brain Diarrhea. Does ANY Religitard even TRY to think of what they say/write? 7734, one does not need Critical Thinking to see the fallacies. The Wrongness! All needed is just pondering the Brain Diarrhea. Does the word and sentence structure used convey truthfulness intellectually? Or, is it Empathic Predation?

OHEFE

Objective Hard Empirical Facts and Evidence. Without, it is only a lie. Make-believe fantasy. You cannot prove anything true without OHEFE. It is impossible to prove your Word Salad true when you ain’t got no evidence.

FACT: Why is American English the ONLY language on Earth that prohibits the use of a double-negative? Ain’t that FACT alone proof America ain’t got no smarts?

Word Salad

This IS the absolute worst. How is it that no Religitard understands that Word Salad PROVES nothing? Y’awl use phenomenally huge mountains of Word Salad in ALL attempts to just to describe your doG-Things. I found one page describing one of those doG-Things, and it printed over 24 pages! If you have to use that much verbosity to describe one single Thing, you ain’t doing it correctly. Just give up.

“Word Salad MUST be served with a fine vinaigrette. Else, it is ignored.” — CyberLN’s Razor.

Why IS the only proof you Religitards can ever offer for your doG-Things is a humongous bunch of incoherent words?

The Pulpit Prevaricators are specifically trained how to LIE believably. Prove me wrong. The schools are called Seminaries.

All that Word Salad you Religitards offer PROVES absolutely nothing. Only proves you know how to fabricate believable lies. It is almost as if you Religitards lost comprehension of English.

My doG-Thing: Lysantra

Lysantra is a phenomenally powerful entity. Legends and myths speak of her receiving the greatest might of the eternals as they came to Be. Her beauty is beyond words or concepts. Her greatest gift is her Auralight. For her power is so great she barely contains it. Thus, she constantly sheds small amounts that gives her her Auralight. Just having her Auralight fall upon you relieves all ills and eases the spirit from its many travails.

More may be added later…

There. I have used some Word Salad to describe My doG-Thing. I have conveyed the idea that she is incredibly powerful, but never insinuated she is limitless. Let’s call them “Eternals” as I did in the first sentence. Simplifies.

Although containing the greatest single amount of might, that does not mean she cannot be taken out by a Baker’s dozen of other Eternals. Lysantra is actually infinitely more plausible than any of y’awl’s doG-Things. Incredibly powerful? YES! Limitless? No.

Although she is the most powerful of the Eternals, she cannot wish this universe away and think a new one into existence. Besides, if she wished this universe away, she would no longer exist to wish a new one into existence. In other words, she is part of this universe for there is no “outside” the universe.

That same concept goes for all your doG-Things. If IT is “outside” the universe being spaceless, timeless, immaterial, then IT cannot do anything “inside” this universe without also utterly destroying ITs creation. IT could not even project ITs thoughts “inside” because that would require Power. Might. Again, destroying ITs creation.

Spirituality versus Religion

Has not one Religitard actually discovered that religion is entirely subjective? Einstein PROVED everything is relative to everything. Spirituality is completely different, yet just as subjective, for spirituality is PERSONAL. Although many will take the easier, more seductive way and become Religitard. Spirituality takes deep contemplation and pondering. Organized religion today still acts like a criminal syndicate. Spirituality is entirely personal. Religion has NEVER been personal.

Lack of Proper Knowledge

This one is most paramount. Meaning “having superior influence or requirement”. For Religitards are exceptionally lacking in any scientific knowledge. TRUE scientific knowledge. Yet, they convincingly lie as if having authority. This is INHUMANE. Forcing YOUR lies and misinformation onto others is absolutely reprehensible. Abominable. And doing it for no other reason than to rapine riches and wealth. Especially from those whom can ill afford. Fleece the sheeple.

Here is one example statement: “The universe is still expanding; thus, it is not infinite in size.” Utterly False. We still do not know whether the universe is infinite or not. You are confusing “observable universe” with being the “whole universe”. As simply as I can falsify. You need to realize we still cannot see the “whole universe”. 7734, we do not know if the universe is an open or closed system. Thermodynamically speaking.

Closed System. The space, matter, and energy continue expanding until fully dispersed. Nothing exists except pieces of rubble. The great Heat Death. Existence itself ceases to exist, including your God-Thing. FOREVERMORE!

Open System: Simply put, the universe goes through an endless cycle of expansion – collapse – expansion – collapse … Begs the Question: Which Iteration are we in now? First? Second? Millionth? Is ultimately moot. This model violates no principles of physics. Think. The collapse is going to put a universe’s “worth of energy” back into the singularity of collapse. Supercriticality, BOOM, a new iteration of the universe. Would it have the same principles? Or would they be better refined? The universe gets better with each new iteration?

The Closed System Model means this is the ONLY iteration. Thus, IF there is a doG-Thing, it would cease to exist also. Eventually, it will die with the universe. Nothing left for even the thought of a doG-Thing. Thus, nothing. Open System Model is wide-open, infinitely. And do not be fooled when a Religitard says infinite regression is impossible. It ain’t. Infinity progresses and regresses infinitely.

The only thing Religitards prove when speaking/writing science is that they are absolutely clueless, igNORant, and igNURunt. Even those whom legitimately earned science degrees, now only use the scientific language to ultimately fail in applying their beLIEfs to the science. They may be scientists, but they act more like Religitards.

Religitards will pervert and twist truthfulness into beLIEvable prevarications.

Mental Retardation and Brain Damage

Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration. Go look it up. It is a form of brain damage and mental retardation Religitards purposefully execute upon themselves. Basically, it amounts to a lack of using the prefrontal cortex (The Human Side) for extended periods of time. As this underdevelopment continues, it actually causes degeneration of that brain region. Enough degeneration leads to actual and literal brain damage. Sometimes permanent. Kenneth Copeland is a perfect example and perfect evidence. He has lost all sanity.

A Law Proposal

This would never become a law. The Religitards would scream inhibition of freedom of speech. However, if you think, this law would not inhibit free speech; rather, it helps with the searching of knowledge and how to more properly route the data.

I pledge a law be passed that prohibits ANY form of “science” within the meta-tags of any WWW document. You know, the keywords thing. I do not think any WWW site should be allowed to use “science”-form keywords unless the WWW site IS a science site. Of course, “science”-form words can be used in the document, just not within the Header. I can type “science” into google and 50% of the results will be Religitard WWW sites. Less than 5% will be actual science WWW sites. Thus, the reason I have science journal paper sites as Favorites.

But. I do feel this is a law that should be implemented. Force Religitard WWW sites to only use “religion”-form keywords. If a personal WWW site, then only “personal”-form keywords.

As said, this is not infringing on free speech, just helping to redirect it better.

And, just to show you what I mean and how serious. The main keyword for my WWW site would be “opinion”. Others would include: atheism, anti-theism, anti-religitardism, information, …

Objectivity/Absolutism versus Subjectivity/Relativism

Study up on the Theory of Relativity. Einstein proved there is no such thing as an absolute FoR, nor objective FoR. The same applies for any PoV. Everything is Relative to Everything. Even Moral Codes and its mores. In true actual reality, each individual person decides their own Moral Code. No matter what Religitards can say to the contrary, there are no two persons with the same exact moral code. You may have to go truly nit-picky to find a difference, but there is always a difference. When many agree, thus come our laws for social behaviour. Moral Code is entirely personal, subjective, and relative. You dumb arsed Religitards are confusing “widely accepted” with being objective or absolute.

Think.

Even if you get your Moral Code from a doG-Thing, that Moral Code is subjective to that doG-Thing. You Religitards are so supremely intellectually lazy.

Bribery

Ultimately, religion is an “emotional” bribe. It is a bribe that makes YOU want to beLIEve. Preys upon YOUR emotions to help make you beLIEve. It preys by bribing all with the beLIEf that only religion has the “ONE-and-ONLY-truth”. The FACT that there are over 40,000 different beliefs systems globally proves religion has no truth. Proves no religion is divine. It also debunks any religion’s claim to possessing truthfulness.

Just ask Georgia Purdy how much bribery she took from Ken Ham to use her scientific knowledge, combining it with religion, for the sole purpose to prove his Ark-thingy beliefs system true.

Fallacious and Irrational Thinking

Here is one: The “I-just-want-to-sin” card. That sounds more childish than an argument. Everybody sins. However, studies have shown that Religitards tend to be the most “sinful”. Explain that FACT.

Another FACT: Sin does not exist until YOU define it as a sin, then it becomes a sin for ONLY YOU. Another way to put it: ONLY YOU have the power to give anything the power to offend only YOU.

Thus, if something I write is offensive to you, the problem is you. Not me. Because I evidently do not find it offensive, else I would not have written it. There is very little I find offensive. Take a guess which is #1.

If one were to truly read and truly think about what Religitards speak/write, one would easily how their thought processes are utterly fallacious and completely irrational. I fact, it is impossible to list any examples of the fallacious and irrational thinking of Religitards for there are far too many since everything, anything from Religitards is fallacious and irrational.

The Four Omnis Incompatibility

Here they are:

Omnipotent
Omniscient
Omnibenevolent
Omnipresent

The first two are mutually exclusive. No Thing, not even an imaginative concept, can both Know ALL and be ALL Powerful. If Knows ALL, IT is powerless to change what IT knows, thus not omnipotent. If ALL powerful, it can change what it knows, thus not omniscient.

Every last doG-Thing ever claimed to exist is definitely and definitively NOT omnibenevolent. 7734, the doG-Thing of that “Holy Bible” thingy is the greatest murderer, rapist, serial killer ever created by humans, fictional or non.

And Omnipresent, everywhere at once, does not even make illogical sense. No Thing can exist everywhere. A Second Grader can tell you that.

There. All four have been utterly debunked. There are no Omnis.

How About My Stupidity?

I cannot beLIEve because you can only offer hearsay. Gossip.

Longevity of a document NEVER proves it veracity. Other factors determine veracity, but never how old it is. Why? We have discovered documents many millennia older than the Hebrews. The Laws of Hammurabi pre-date the Hebrews by 2 or 3 Ka. The Epic of Atra Hasis 3 or 4 Ka older than the Hebrews, and it led to the Epic of Gilgamesh then to Noah. 7734, cuneiform-form documents pre-date the Hebrews by up to 6 Ka. Thus, document longevity alone NEVER proves veracity. What about the “cavemen” documentation? Tens of Ka older. And you Religitards do realize that a “global flood” would have completely eradicated those cave paintings. Do you not? Completely GONE to never be discovered. Think. There is more evidence falsifying a “doG-Thing” than there ever shall be verifying IT.

Religitardism is nothing more than the behaviour of childish, spoiled brats whom want only power and control. Just like bullies.

Summation of ALL 40,000+ Cults of Religitardism: “My IF can beat up your IF.” With, IF = Invisible Friend.

Religitardism is only a method of psychological terrorism to force others to brain‑fuck them selves.

Existence. Did you know that a part of YOU shall exist for eternity? All those molecules that constitute your body will simply be transformed into something else. And those molecules will continue to be transformed until the End of Eternity. The “mind” part of YOU… well… ALL evidence shows it just goes poof.

One of My Known Beliefs: “Humans have never created any gods better than them selves. Rather, they act like childish, spoiled brats.” — Robert A Heinlein.

Why should I beLIEve any ideology that only commands and demands obedience to the faith? Obedience, just like “trust” and “respect”, is EARNED. You cannot demand obedience without resistance. Even if only thought.

Intelligent Design Fantasy (IDF)

Want to know why the IDF “ain’t” science? Before you CAN claim that “intelligent design” thing, you MUST first prove that “intelligent designer” thing. Creationism simply re-branded. Without first having proof of those “intelligent agency” things, the IDF is just make-believe fantasy.

Some Logic: Number of Stars

Please realize I am using easy numbers to show a point.

How many stars are in our galaxy, the Milky Way?
- About 300 billion.
How many galaxies are in the universe?
- About 3 trillion.
That gives an approximation of (3e12 × 3e11 =) 9e23 stars.
900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
900 trillion billion.

Begs the Question: Why would a doG-Thing create so much extra “garbage” for just one primitive, barbaric, savage species of animal?

That question nullifies the idea of a creator as being ludicrous, ridiculous, and completely irrational and unreasonable.

Remember that number (made smaller): 4e465,495? Now multiply that by 9e23 stars and you can begin to see how life can abiogenesize by chance. BTW: That would be 3.6e465,519 chances.

My ICIDIC Hypothesis

Ultimately stolen from the Star Trek Vulcan IDIC. I just added an IC around 45 years ago. Simplest stating:

Infinite Complexity from
Infinite Diversity through
Infinite Combinations

I also combine this hypothesis with the Theory of Evolution. Then add in the Principles of Probability. Voilà. Easy peasy. I can easily see how Life could produce infinitely complex structures such as the bacterial flagellum.

Think.

If DNA goes through infinite combinations creating infinite diversity, then what is so hard about grasping Life producing infinite complexity? This also completely eradicates the intelligent design fantasy. It also debunks Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and many other Brain Poopoos from Religitards.

Back to the bacterial flagellum. What is the most “natural” form of Natural Forces? The Vortex. Rotary induced movement. And get this FACT. That rotary bacterial flagellum moves the bacteria much faster than any human engine can move any boat. When scaled properly. Could we build such a rotary propulsion system for submarines? 7734 No. We have not the material nor material technology to withstand scaling up the bacterial flagellum. Any we could build would just tear itself apart. Thus, we have to use rotary impulsion. Screws. Propellers.

The one thing that MUST ALWAYS be remembered about combining the Theory of Evolution and the Principles of Probability and my ICIDIC Hypothesis, IS that nature NEVER attempts for a specific solution. Instead, it attempts ANY solution. Afterwards, the only factor is if it survives long enough to reproduce, spreading that allele into the population.

An exceptionally easy concept to comprehend. Yet, Religitards cannot due to the poisoning of religion (Religitardism).

Possibilities of DNA

Do comprehensive DNA studies on all forms of people. Ranging from die-hard Unconvinced Scientists to die-hard Inexorable Religitards, and all the greyscale between. Let us see which has more Neander DNA in the junk. Us Sapiens have 3-8% Neander DNA. Be interesting to see if any effect on belief and disbelief. Of course, collection should be as anonymous as possible. There would be no complete anonymity else cannot mail results, but can as possible.

A hypothetical idea: The more believing the person, the more Neander DNA. Obversely, the more scientific the person, the less Neander DNA.

THAT would be interesting to find out. I seriously doubt such would have any effect. But what if it did? THAT is what makes science so fascinating, so intriguing, so captivating, so enchanting. Words kind-of fail. Science, the almost limitless possibilities for acquisition of knowledge and learning.

However, just think on this. The Neander DNA us Sapiens still possess is within what has been termed as “junk DNA”. The parts of DNA that are deactivated. However, does such truly have absolutely NO effect?

My Veracity

“Just because I seek learning and knowledge me self, never means my knowledge is False. There is NO shame in being self-taught, seeking learning and knowledge for one’s self. The ONLY shame is not seeking in the first place.” — Arakish.

The most major problem with Religitards is that NONE know How to seek learning and knowledge, let alone where to seek it. For their scientific inquiries, they will only search other Religitard WWW sites for their lack of science knowledge. Why not go to the source? Science Journal Paper sites. 7734, most you can download a package that not only includes the Journal Paper, but also all the experimentation and data collection done how and when, and how to build and repeat it for yourself.

With the “general layman populace” language method I use also does not mean my knowledge is False. Just using a language method to reach the larger population. You criticize such as not being “critical thinking”. However, IF YOU were to research properly and for the correct information, you shall find my knowledge is not inviolate, but is still quite relevant. Old. But not obsolete.

“Information Theory” is NOT a Scientific Theory

“Information Theory” is actually ONLY a “mechanism” for handling those globs of 0s and 1s. It is NOT a scientific theory. Rather a set of logic tools for us to use those globs of 0s and 1s in a meaningful manner. For a machine to process information much faster than we can.

An example from the DNA molecule. We know the elemental constituents of the DNA molecule (no order): H, O, N, C, P. We also know that all elements come in a variety of nuclides. Isotopes. We also know that regardless of the isotope of an atom when within a molecule it will be processed no differently than a molecule with the normal isotope. The most common and stable.

What of an “uncommon” stable isotope of phosphorus within the DNA molecule? Can you definitively say that shall have absolutely no effect? What of the mitosis process? Does that uncommon phosphorus somehow get replicated? Then replicated again. … Could such be a cause of cancer? Hmm…

How would one go about falsifying/verifying THAT hypothesis? And answering this question: Where did the uncommon P-isotope come from and get into the DNA molecule?

We know replication is virtually never perfect. I.E.– cellular mitosis. Can that process imperfectly copy an atom within the molecule?

Information theory CANNOT be applied to biological information, for biologics do NOT work through the Principles of Logic. Biologics can NEVER work through the Principles of Logic. Information theory could never be used to make such a prediction.

SI (Simulated Intelligence), on the other hand, could make such a prediction. How do you think I came up with that “uncommon phosphorus cancer hypothesis”? T…H…I…N…K…

Due to the FACT that I possess advanced knowledge in many fields of science. Do you Religitards honestly think a Global Climatologist scientist ONLY knows about climate and weather? 7734 NO!! Scientists are overwhelmingly curious. Scientists THRIVE on curiosity and the unknown. They shall always study other fields of science other than their specialization. Even if only as a hobby.

SI with its now overwhelming inter-connectivity can access many different fields of science, bringing that information together, and could literally come up with a “hunch” about something else. My cancer thing above was a complete “hunch”. It just popped into me frond from nowhere.

How? Because I do have studies into DNA, genetics, evolution, biology, and others. My intellectualism made that connection without me even thinking of it until after it was thought. SI may be able to imitate such.

And why am I in possession of so much different knowledge?

I am a junkie.

A “seeking of learning and knowledge” junkie. I am an addict. Damnit!

Now what thinkest thou?

Take as long as necessary. I ain’t never in a hurry except when I worry about the health and well-being of someone.

Again, most of all, thanks for letting me know Matt Slick is OK. THANK YOU.

— The Unknown Atheist

Top of page