Oh no … not

again, Mr Argus …

henpecked-1… PERLEEEEZE~ 

Hard luck, Toots! Here it comes—so deep breath, close your eyes, cross your legs and think of England:


(actually, lots of pups, but who’s counting?)


be aware that—regardless of truththe academic professionals (being people who have invested in education and now use the fruits of their labours to defend their turf) (much like anyone else) will NOT countenance any threat to their dominance. No?


whatever they have absorbed as ‘fact’ will stay locked in forever as FACT.

BUT don’t fret.

On occasion some outfielder comes in despite the flak and drops bombshells of unassailable evidence revealing the current paradigms false, wrong, a wee bit totally incorrect … and old hat. Junk.

And so some of the ‘knowledge’ gets quietly revamped. To hell with any ‘facts’ from past doctrines, they get quietly buried; the newest facts become “This is exactly what WE were saying all along!”


I have two filters where knowledge is concerned:

  • I look for apparent contradictions, and
  • does it make sense?

The Establishment has much to answer for but so long as it holds all the power progress is halted—

—until their dams burst under the accumulating weight of no-longer-deniable apostate facts. (Yes, Little Virginia … Academia too is Church.)

Here’s an instance (14 minutes)—

—make of it what you will* .

For myself I still have faith in one Virginia Steen McIntyre. And I bitterly regret that I cannot go back through time to kick the shit out of those good doctors (all highly qualified) who so wisely/cleverly prevented Semelweiss from sabotaging medicine …

     chimp rocks.gif

And the beat goes on, the beat goes onnnn …



* Clue: I’m with him~!




Skyborne piggy copyon behalf of Reality, then let me start here—

“… If I can use the evidence for the Big Bang, the fine-tuning, the origin of biological information, the Cambrian explosion, the habitability fine-tuning and irreducible complexity to argue for theism …”

for source of quote: CLICK HERE

—and as best I can, as patiently as I can, without naughty words let me ask:

How might any evidence for the Big Bang be utilised in defence of theism?

  • God actually (was/is) the Big Bang itself?
  • God created Himself from zilch in order to blow Himself up?*


that I don’t think ol’ God is much on time-and-motion or even simple efficiency—if it were me I’d have cut out a lot of redundant effort and created the present ultimates (us~!) right at the beginning. Properly, without needing ol’ Satan and that silly apple …


“Hey, Argus!”

(Oops …) “Yes, Mr Satan, Sir?”

“Ever thought to ask who it was created ME, hmmmm?”

Screen Shot 2019-06-29 at 16.45.13

“Stop squabbling! There’s only ONE True Religion …”



 * But we’re talking religion here, so logic is redundant. Maybe He was/eternally is a masochist (I vote sadist—the ultimate, in fact).


imagesand thank God that

I never attract enough readers to trigger conflict. In the meantime, here’s a snippet I’ve just snup—

“I like having evidence. I hate having to take stands for Biblical morality without evidence. If I can use the evidence for the Big Bang, the fine-tuning, the origin of biological information, the Cambrian explosion, the habitability fine-tuning and irreducible complexity to argue for theism, and then argue for the resurrection based on early sources and minimal facts, then I should have the exact same quality of data when defending moral values. If the Bible says something, I should be able to look at the best research and find that the Bible is correct.”

—and I offer it as grounds for discussion. I’m a busy dog myself … but if anyone is interested I snup that snippet from—


—and if you go there … be gentle.

Screen Shot 2019-04-16 at 10.08.04


(Now I’m for it …) “Yes, Mr God, Sir?”

“I knew before I created Creation that you’d be writing that—thank you, Dog.”

“You’re welcome, Sir.” (Phew—thank God He’s not grumpy this time …)

dodododo  dodo        dodododo                                           dodo


suggested that

Screen Shot 2019-08-09 at 19.36.07.png TIME TRAVEL

might one day help answer some of our questions regarding history and philosophy. Perhaps a time traveller may be able to get a photo, or a recording of some famous event? The scope is huge.


travel just through time, now, do we? It’s a bit more involved than that. (I remember in someone’s book where the Time Travel experiment wasn’t properly prepped—folks ended up embedded in walls or each other. Brrrr.)


Other than bashing him with it, how with your gun do you kill a man? Hah! You point it at him and trigger it. If all goes well there’s a bang as metal leaves at high speed. It damages by disruption; invoking the Law which states “… no two physical objects can share the same three dimensions of space at the same time”Attempting to make ’em do so means disruption. The bullet disrupts its soft target. Ouch.

So what happens if you were to be transported (miraculously*) back through time? Let’s say by one hundredth of a second. Then what?


That’s what.

Given the choice, I’d rather the bullet. Why? Try this thought: could YOU jump out of your own way in a hundredth of a second? Otherwise there would be two of you sharing the one space at the same time. Ouch.


you opt to go back in time far enough to be well clear of yourself—somewhere quite safe, like maybe one day back. (I said you were clever.) Now I’ll let you do the sums—but to simplify calculations, where would you like to start travelling from?


because it’s equatorial-ish. Good call. Now step into your magic box, dial in your day and BOOMFA! there you are, one day prior. Well done. But you aren’t in Singapore. You’re floating about in empty space …

You went back to where Singapore wasn’t—and won’t be for another day yet … and you’re freezing to death. Struggling to breathe too; you are not a happy chappie. But it was your call, and if you somehow manage to survive for a day you’ll be back where you started, no?

So how about going forwards in time?


Where are you now, do you think?


You forgot, didn’t you? You are here, now, but the rest of the world ain’t, yet … and won’t be for another day. 

I’d love to know the factors involved in Temporal Travel … say, if you wanted to go back to the time of Christ to witness the Crucifixion? Wow … anyone like to do the sums on this one? (The deflections, considering that we’re talking moving targets here?)

Personally I think we’re dealing with a wishful illusion

Any takers~? (Hah! Wimps …)

Screen Shot 2019-06-29 at 16.45.13

“Argus! I don’t have time to read your rubbish—come back yesterday, please.”


dodo   dodo                                                                            dodo

* It would need a miracle—science can’t do it.


The Satanic Temple

has seven fundamental tenets: down finger

  1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
  2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
  3. One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
  4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.
  5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
  6. People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
  7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.[20]


Despite the rather appealing name I could almost go to bat for a bunch like this. Really. Even if the average punter these days has to look up words like ‘nobility’ and (horrors!) … thought. (And demonstrates fallibility by being unable to spel, even in a good cause.)


So there’s hope yet, Argie?







Your Quote Of The Day—

“I was a climate scientist in a climate-denying administration – and it cost me my job …”

to read from source:   CLICK HERE


that was as far as I got. It is just too precious, sufficient unto the day is the glory hereof. Especially glory in unintended brilliant humour satire.

Screen Shot 2019-04-07 at 19.05.49

Make of it wot we will



 “Numbers, numbers, numbers, Cutie.”

“Wot? I mean, what, Mr Argus, Sir?”

“Numbers, Sweet Child. You know … figures. Digits, numerals and such scientific stuff.”

So: why all the puzzlement?

Track it back to this that I uplifted earlier from u-toobe:

down finger

Screen Shot 2019-07-21 at 19.39.30.png


old Argie didn’t go there. He’s one of those who prefer to travel hopefully rather than to arrive—to travel is to hold a dream, to arrive is often sub-standard everything and scratchy toilet paper. In this instance I suspect a prospecting Christian. Brrrr.


all is NOT lost. I imagine that if one were to go there one would find a religionist’s calculations involving inconceivable numbers to ‘prove’ that even the most basic of everything must have been intelligently designed (i.e. invented) ‘cos the odds against it spontaneously appearing are so astronomical as to rule it out—

—but I’m forced to ponder: if the odds are stacked so very very high against even a splurb of brainless mindless formless primordial jelly originating by chance …

… what are the odds against a coldly calculating infinitely capable eternally sadistic ethereal cosmic bastard popping into existence out of nowhere, by chance, and then inventing

  •  Himself, and
  •  the entirety of Creation?

(The clue is in the name, right? ‘Creation’ …  it means all that exists as an artefact (a created object)—

—all, except for ol’ God himself. Of course. Alone in all of Creation He is allowed to have popped up out of nowhere; which of course makes Him the definitive ‘Unique’.


  • Everything that exists (with absolutely no exceptions) had to have a creator, namely, one Mr God Esq.
  • except for Mr God who created Himself first, and only then the rest of the universe.

Thus far, so good. But—


a single blob of organic jelly appearing out of nowhere by chance are 10 to the 164th … can any religioso please calculate the odds of an entire animated Divine Being capable of infinite presence etc etc etc likewise appearing out of nowhere by chance?

I offer that the famous ‘Snowball In Hell’ would fare better.


go there, just in case my illusions are shattered (I’m not good at sums) …


if you’d like to go, be my guest—

down eyeface

—and if you report back I’d be infinitely grateful. Good luck …

chimp rocks

“STUPID … STUPID … STUPID … are you listening, nut?”