Skeptical Seán

27/04/2026

Recently I posted a question and made a prophecy about the answers I would receive.

The point of including the prophecy was to see how impressed people would be by my ability to accurately predict their responses.

Unsurprisingly, none of them were convinced that my foresight gave me authority or proved I was divinely inspired. The closest response I got was someone saying something along the lines of “only God can define what a true prophecy is.”

So why do people believe that the ability to make accurate predictions gives someone authority beyond the specific subject of that prediction? Why would being able to reliably predict something mean an author is divinely inspired? Is a weatherman divinely inspired by Thor? Is a stockbroker divinely inspired by the devil?

And what about failed prophecies? Do we only count the successful ones, or can a prophecy fail and the source still be considered divinely inspired?

For example, the Bible contains a prophecy about the destruction of Tyre. It describes in detail who will destroy it, how complete the destruction will be, and how it will never be inhabited or remembered again. Yet Tyre still exists today and remains inhabited, even though the prophecy presents its destruction as certain and total. It is even being attacked by Israel as we speak, meaning it is still "guilty" of the "sin" that made it a target of Divine retribution in the first place.

Yet, despite this huge failure in prophecy, many people still consider the Bible to be divinely inspired.

Why?

27/04/2026

This is another reason I can't stand theists who just assert their dogma without evidence.

Because atheists might be wrong about the existence gods, but not every theist can be right. Maybe the joke about tge meaning of life is like the joke in this sketch.

I would love to talk about theistic and non-thestic models exist for existence, and wax philosophical about other potential deities, outside of standard religions. Because I don't believe in any form of gods introduced to me by the major religions of the world , but I am willing to entertain the idea that something else might exist, as long as the argument for it is compelling.

23/04/2026

🤣🤣🤣🤣

21/04/2026

I could have never predicted that I would enjoy watching AI propaganda from Iran, but here we are. 🤷‍♂️. It's kinda crazy how only one of the most vile administrations on Earth is the only one telling the unfiltered truth about OUR administration.

If our media told the truth like this we would probably trust them more.

43 likes, 5 comments. "United States of Israel | New LEGO Video from IRAN"

19/04/2026

Chuck Goguen that might be the dumbest thing you ever typed.

Science.... as though Science is a being or monolith....

says.... where does it say this?

nothing ... most scientists don't believe in true nothing.

exploded... the Big Bang wasn't actually an explosion.

That's... what? The nothing? The explosion? The hypothesis? Vague that's

an... the first word that is neither a lie or an error.

incredible... it is so credible that it is the leading explanation for cosmology.

miracle... the Big Bang is purely explained through natural forces.

outside... nope. Inside.

of all of... redundant, consider rephrasing.

the laws of physics... the laws of physics are what are used to explain how we know the universe is expanding. Also, certain physical laws, like the speed of light, are the way they are BECAUSE the universe is expanding.

That truly was a turducken of ignorance. Thank you for that gift. 😁

18/04/2026

Can it be demonstrated that the supernatural can create something natural, or is that an assumption with no basis in reality?

18/04/2026

I reject the premise that something supernatural can make something natural. It is a talking point of many Creationists that ONLY the supernatural can make something natural, but that seems like a leap of logic with no grounding in reality.

The "all existence is evidence of my claim" is a logical fallacy. It can be made of any claim of universal origin or attempt to explain the existence. For example, only the flying spaghetti monster can create a universe, therefore existence is my evidence. Or existence is an illusion made by aliens, therefore aliens must exist because existence does.

But here in existence, we don't see new things being made. Ever. It is almost as it existence is all there is, and it just shifts and changes. Like matter can NEVER be created or destroyed.

So those who claim that the supernatural can create something, can you demonstrate that claim? Can you offer ANY evidence?

Or do you resort to one of the 3 generic responses: 1) Attack the question itself (how could I answer that/ you can't test my god) 2) some variation of "trust me bro" or "just have faith" 3) Despite me pointing out that it is a circular argument, you still claim existence is evidence.

Looking forward to any answer that doesn't fit those 3 prophecies...

17/04/2026

Christian Jenewein and her team made protocells in a lab that are able to self-assemble and self-replicate. In one of the vasts where they found protocells they also found all 4 nucleotide bases of DNA.

Now I am sure your hearts are all a twitter with ideas about how "this isn't life" or "this was designed so that proves design" but those are challenges that miss the true significance of this find.

First, the protocells in this experiment were NOT designed. They were an accident. This was a rerun of a Miller-Urey style experiment, and the protocells that resulted literally came anout BY ACCIDENT!

Second, this is yet another win in the "prove it" battle between naturalists and theists. Because theists and naturalists both claim they know how amino acids come about. But naturalists proved they could make amino acids from pure chemistry, theists only claim their god can make them.

Naturalists proved they could make lipids from pure chemistry, theists only claim their god can make them.

Naturalists proved they could make nucleotide chains from pure chemistry, theists only claim their god can make them.

Naturalists proved they could make protocells from pure chemistry, theists only claim their god can make them.

Theists, you can keep saying your god can do stuff, but only the naturalists are putting up evidence.

Prediction: Theists will attack MY evidence, instead of providing their own.

17/04/2026

I don't know what took people so long to figure out that trump was the antichrist. I've known it since he got shot in the head and didn't die.

I mean, don't get me wrong. I don't believe in any of it but ye car to admit he fits the prophecy better than any modern or ancient political figure. The numerology of his chief of staff's name literally spells out 666, when using Gematria numerology systems. Kushner loved this face so much he bought a building with the 666 address just to celebrate this.

Not to mention Trump's followers where their mark on his forehead, and they are immediately called to boycott any merchants that don't support Trump. What did you think MAGA hats were for?

The concept of a single antichrist isn't actually something outlined in the Bible but the beast in revelations is very clear character. The Bible instead says that in the end times there will be many people that are the antithesis of the Jesus. That has always been Donald Trump. It is hard to imagine someone who is less like Jesus than a lecturous power-mad.
Politician who gets joy from hurting others and speaking in unkind and hurtful words. Now he is openly mocking Islam and Christianity, because he is as anti-faith as a person can be.

TRUMP WAS ALWAYS ANTICHRIST. You just need to see him be BLATANTLY blasphemous to realize it.

15/04/2026

On these pages, there's a lot of "trolling for Jesus." People masquerading as believers while engaging in bad faith arguments, insults, slander, and all manner of behavior that is directly denounced by the truly faithful.

This isn't to say that being a believer makes you a good person. It is more to say that GENUINE people (believers or not) don't troll to prove a point. They might get angry or sarcastic, but that isn't where they start a debate. They begin with clear point to make, and the evidence they think support this.

As an atheist who has respect for believers, but not necessarily their beliefs, I don't want to waste my time with disingenuous trolls. I want to debate true believers! I know most of the trolls are Chatbots or foreign bad actors, but for the small minority of theists that are honestly trying to defend Jesus by trolling... please stop.

Your blasphemous tirades just make both sides mad. Only a hedonistic sociopath would actually benefit from something like that. Even then, you can only make so many enemies before one of them finally gets you.

Life's too short to waste it making others mad for fun. And if you're a true believer, it is the most antichrist behavior I can think of. 🤷‍♂️ Just something I thought about when I was learning about the origin of the concept of what a "troll" really was...

12/04/2026

This unusually white Canadian goose is a great real-world example of how genetic mutations interact with environmental selection pressures.

This bird likely isn’t a true albino (which would usually include pink eyes), but more likely shows **leucism**—a mutation that reduces pigmentation. In a snowy or arctic environment, this kind of coloration could actually be advantageous, offering camouflage from predators and blending into a white-dominated landscape.

But here? On patchy grass and asphalt? It stands out immediately.

That’s the key point: **there’s no such thing as a “good” or “bad” mutation in isolation—only context.** What helps an organism survive in one environment can become a liability in another.

I saw this goose consistently for about a week, always near a group—but noticeably not integrated with them. Given how social and intelligent geese are, it’s possible (though hard to prove) that its difference affected how it was treated. Eventually, it disappeared.

Natural selection isn’t theoretical. It’s happening constantly, quietly, all around us.

And sometimes, it’s as visible—and as fragile—as a white goose that doesn’t quite fit in.

07/04/2026

The Miller-Urey experiment, and its relevance to origin-of-life research, is easy to misunderstand. It was so far ahead of its time, and so deceptively simple, that its true significance has waxed and waned within the scientific community. It’s easy to overlook just how important it really was.

In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey changed how scientists thought about the building blocks of life. At a time when DNA itself was barely understood, many still leaned on the idea that complex organic molecules were tied exclusively to life. Miller and Urey challenged that directly.

They hypothesized that amino acids and other organic molecules could form from simple chemicals expected on a lifeless early Earth: water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane.

When their experiment produced amino acids, it was a turning point. It didn’t instantly settle the origin of life, but it showed something profound: the basic components of life can arise through natural processes.

From there, the debate shifted. Scientists began asking not “can organic molecules form naturally?” but “under what conditions did life actually emerge?”

That’s where things got complicated.

The original experiment assumed a strongly reducing atmosphere, which later evidence suggests may not have been globally accurate for early Earth. Depending on what atmosphere you assume, the results of Miller-Urey can look either incredibly plausible or less representative of real conditions.

Then, decades later, in 2008, preserved samples from the original experiment were reanalyzed using modern techniques. Scientists found that Miller and Urey had actually produced far more amino acids than originally reported.

For a moment, it looked like the experiment was even more successful than anyone realized.

But almost immediately, new questions emerged. Researchers found that the glass apparatus itself may have played a catalytic role. Silicates from the glass appear to enhance chemical reactions, increasing amino acid production.

When similar experiments were repeated using more inert materials like Teflon, yields often dropped.

At first glance, that seems like a setback.

But this is where the idea that “science is a monolith” completely falls apart.

Instead of dismissing the result, researchers asked a better question:

If silicates enhance these reactions… and silicates are basically just rock and sand… then what role might natural surfaces have played on early Earth?

That shift in thinking opened new doors.

Recent work in prebiotic chemistry has shown that mineral surfaces can help organize molecules, promote reactions, and even assist in forming protocell-like structures. Some systems can show growth, division, and rudimentary selection-like behavior under the right conditions.

We’re not talking about fully alive cells. But we are talking about chemistry that starts to blur the line.

So Miller and Urey didn’t “solve” abiogenesis.

But they proved something essential: you don’t need life to get the ingredients of life. You just need the right chemistry, the right environment, and an energy source.

And in a way, they may have been closer than they ever realized on their very first attempt.