On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al., part 3 of 4

FYI: this post has been moved here.


  1. I do not know who is wrong or confused in this case: the Invisible Pink Unicorns, Cloe or the webmaster but we are also told that “prions are molecules” but they are proteins.
    Well, proteins are molecules, you know. Or don't you?

    Also, the webmaster claims that the Invisible Pink Unicorns have revealed how life began and states that “many cells in our body can not [sic](sic) reproduce themselves. Brain cells can not [sic](0.5 sic).”
    The first sentence is true, many cells in our bodies can't reproduce. Not all, but many.

    The second sentence is ambiguous. If, by 'brain cells', the author meant neurons, as seems to be the case from the snippet you yourself quote, it represents the best available evidence as of about 15-20 years ago. I remember. The first report of central stem cells came from Sam Weiss' lab in our weekly departmental seminars, back in 1992.

    So, yeah, the IPU thing is a bit stale, but who are you to complain about somebody being a couple decades behind the times when you're a millennium behind the 8 ball with your medieval physics?

    Another thing to note in your snippet is that they, the people who actually know what they're talking about, talk about central neural regeneration, not reproduction, as the IPU piece does. The two processes are not the same thing, as you should known before criticising what others say on the subject. As far as I know, it still holds that central neurons do not reproduce.

    Speaking of errors, when are you going to go back and fix the mistakes we pointed out in your first entry in this series? Parts 2,3 and 4 are pointless as long as part 1 remains broken.

    And anyway, the IPU is clearly satire, as is the FSM. When are you going to stop sparing with straw men and take on the real thing?

  2. "The physical nature of the pseudo-invisible Pink Unicorns means that they fail the natural theology / natural revelation test for the same reasons as does the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

    How can you claim that such constraints exist for the Invisible Pink Unicorns? They are "All Powerful". If they want to be pink and invisible, or place light enroute to earth to make the universe look billions of years old, who are you to claim they can't?

    Also, I find these essays of yours a bit of a waste of time. IPU is simply a satirical allegory showing how ridiculous it is to accept claims of supernatural beings with insufficiant proof. To go through the IPU website or wiki page, picking apart IPU 'dogma', shows you have completely missed the point.

  3. MM,

    So I guess it's true, then, to say "MaskedMarauder is a molecule." Brilliant discourse, people.

    You mock Mariano for dealing with this topic? Your homey and self-appointed Mr. Atheist BigShot Dick Dawk appeals to FSM ALL THE TIME. It's like he can hardly get thru an interview about his Delusion book without mentioning it.
    So it's only fair that we should respond.
    And "take on the real thing" - one can only marvel at your poor memory, since this entire blog deals with atheism like every post.

  4. Rho: You mock Mariano for dealing with this topic?
    No, I mock him for dealing so incompetently with it. All he does is cut an paste, not argue or even add insight into the issues.. Its clear that he doesn't understand what he's cutting and pasting. He criticises true statements from ignorance, confuses basic scientific concepts and can't accept anything learned after the invention of the water wheel.

    So I guess it's true, then, to say "MaskedMarauder is a molecule." Brilliant discourse, people.
    No, I'm not. Anyone who knows how to use a dictionary can verify this.

    And, if you didn't notice, this is about pink unicorns, not FSM or Dawkins.

    As a matter of curiosity, can you find anything of value in this error-riddled article to justify the writing of it? Neither can I.

  5. That's a lot of big words, MM. I missed where you demonstrate your assertions. I'll wait.

    The IPU argument and the FSM argument are of the same subspecies. Don't be obtuse.

    Yes, I find value in it. Thanks. Bye.

  6. Rho: That's a lot of big words, MM. I missed where you demonstrate your assertions. I'll wait.
    Go back and read what I wrote. Pay attention this time.

    He doesn't know the difference between 'reproduce' and 'regenerate'. He doesn't know that proteins are molecules. He evidences ignorance of, or indifference to, physics since Aquinas.

    OK, I'll bite, what do you find of value in this article?

  7. MaskedMarauder,
    Proteins are made of molecules.


  8. Mariano: Proteins are made of molecules.
    This is like saying Thunderbirds are made of automobiles. Proteins are molecules. In particular they are chains of amino acids (also molecules) covalently bound together by peptide bonds.

    Prions are single protein molecules. Ordinarily I would not get all pedantic about this outside a classroom, but since you introduced this as a facile weapon to supposedly undermine the reasoning of the unicorn guy, I'm compelled to point out that in fact prions are actually glycoproteins, or glycosylated proteins. These are proteins bound covalently to sugars. So, prions are not pure proteins, but they are still true molecules.

    So, you are either unjustly casting a inconsequential difference in preferred word choice between you and the unicorn guy in an unjustly pejorative light, or, if you really want to get persnikety about details, the unicorn guy is right and you are wrong.

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. Be gentle, MaskedMarauder. I think it was just a typographic reading error. This may help clear things up:

    Not a molecule: spelled with a 'us'
    A molecule: spelled with a 'on'
    Nuff said?