Youtube comments of VColossalV (@VColossalV).

  1. 48
  2. 46
  3. 24
  4. 20
  5. 17
  6. 16
  7. 12
  8. 10
  9. 9
  10. 9
  11. 9
  12. 8
  13. 8
  14. 8
  15. 8
  16. 8
  17. 8
  18. 7
  19. 7
  20. 7
  21. 7
  22. 7
  23. 6
  24. 6
  25. 6
  26. 6
  27. 5
  28. 5
  29. 5
  30. 5
  31. 5
  32. 5
  33. 5
  34. 5
  35. 5
  36. 5
  37. 5
  38. 5
  39. 5
  40. 4
  41. 4
  42. 4
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47. 4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4
  51. 4
  52. 4
  53. 4
  54. 4
  55. 4
  56. 4
  57. 4
  58. 4
  59. 4
  60. 4
  61. 4
  62. 4
  63. 4
  64. 4
  65. 4
  66. 4
  67. 4
  68. 4
  69. 4
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. 3
  77. 3
  78. 3
  79. 3
  80. 3
  81. 3
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84. 3
  85. 3
  86. 3
  87. 3
  88. 3
  89. 3
  90. 3
  91. 3
  92. 3
  93. 3
  94. 3
  95. 3
  96. 3
  97. 3
  98. 3
  99. 3
  100. 3
  101. 3
  102. 3
  103. 3
  104. 3
  105. 3
  106. 3
  107. 3
  108. 3
  109. 3
  110. 3
  111. 3
  112. 3
  113. 3
  114. 3
  115. 3
  116. 3
  117. 3
  118. 3
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 2
  149. 2
  150. 2
  151. 2
  152. 2
  153. 2
  154. 2
  155. 2
  156. 2
  157. 2
  158. 2
  159. 2
  160. 2
  161. 2
  162. 2
  163. 2
  164. 2
  165. 2
  166. 2
  167. 2
  168. 2
  169. 2
  170. 2
  171. 2
  172. 2
  173. 2
  174. 2
  175. 2
  176. 2
  177. 2
  178.  @aletha16  Once again, you made a specific claim, that her idea that people stunted by the system "could not be further from a faith that Life (God) is our true home, our true source of prosperity". You specifically put those two ideas against each other, you literally said they could not be further from the other, that they are not compatible, there is no other interpretation of that. My point is that those two things are not in conflict, they are compatible, and therefore your main criticism does not make sense, you can both have a faith or be spiritual in any fashion, and accept "the system" being backwards. "You conflate "spirituality" with religion" Regardless of if we're talking about religion or any form of spirituality, they are not in conflict with the idea that "the system" is broken (by design) and needs changing. As I said before, you can both be religious and/or spiritual in any capacity, while still accepting that "the system" is far from ideal. "Ms. Williamson is a thousand-fold more likely to own that jacket and drink Starbucks coffee than I am" I'm not knocking anyone for wearing a leather jacket and having a starbucks, you can change those things into a turtle neck sweater and a Pepsi, it doesn't matter, it's the idea that you would casually dismiss the idea that anyone (regardless of their faith) could be possibly beat down by "the system", unfortunately, that scenario, at least the homeless person literally face down in the dirt about to die from hypothermia, is all too real, and not at all fictional. "none of your elaboration alters my opinion that she is not a good candidate. She would not be effective." That is yet to be seen, and that is not what I was making a point about. She may or she may not be, that is only speculation on your part, but if her heart is in the right place, she is already far better then any standard politician who is bought and paid for, who are not only incompetent but also do not care much about helping people.
    2
  179. ​ @aletha16  You took issue with the mere suggestion that people are stunted by the economic system, that it is somehow in conflict with her belief. Your direct quote was "her idea that people are stunted by "the system" could not be further from a faith that Life (God) is our true home, our true source of prosperity." That is literal word salad. The implication being that flaws in "the system" are not real? Imaginary? Can God not be a source of prosperity and there be a broken economic system that destroys lives? Why do we need to deny empirical reality? Imagine casually walking up to a homeless person who's about to die of hypothermia and telling them they just didn't believe hard enough, that it's all their fault. Believe harder and the pain will go away. I can't imagine a more condescending worldview. "Our system of just government is one of consent of the governed, not a rule by ideologues" This is exactly what she claims she wants to change, that's what makes this criticism so ironic. She actually wants to do what is right by the people, and be a voice for the people, but according to you she should believe instead that none of that matters, because wanting to improve and change the system for the better is in conflict with God somehow. The politicians in power, who are the problem, are the ones spewing this kind of nonsense, endless word salad and platitudes and no actual solutions. Easy to shift the blame that way, it's not their fault, it's your fault. That's exactly what we need in our politicians, more fucking platitude machines. You're literally arguing in favour of that canned propaganda, deny that there are any real issues and keep the status quo. Don't change a thing.
    2
  180. 2
  181. 2
  182. 2
  183. 2
  184. 2
  185. 2
  186. 2
  187. 2
  188. 2
  189. 2
  190. 2
  191. 2
  192. 2
  193. 2
  194. 2
  195. 2
  196. 2
  197. 2
  198. 2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 2
  204. 2
  205. 2
  206. 2
  207. 2
  208. 2
  209. 2
  210. 2
  211. 2
  212. 2
  213. 2
  214. 2
  215. 2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 2
  222. 2
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. Trumps greatest trick was convincing you that he was different from the other politicians, then he got into office and brought the swamp in to his administration, and bathed in it. He did the most politician thing imaginable, say a bunch of things he doesn't believe to court voters and then pull the rug once he's in power. That's precisely what he did. This double talk is also a classic politician tactic. He isn't a straight shooter, never was. He can tell brazen lies with extreme confidence, that's literally his superpower, and for some reason people with this ability can attain a cult like following. He isn't the first or the last. Humans are odd. You realize that Ron is more anti-abortion than Trump is, right? Trump has made it clear multiple times that Republicans, including Ron, are too extreme to the right on the issue, even fucking Sean Hannity had to admit that it's hurting them. Trumps actually more correct on this issue, I'll give him that. A 6 week bat is insane, but a national abortion ban, is even more batshit insane and running on it is a guaranteed loss, nobody is winning by running on a national abortion ban, good thing too. I don't understand why you're criticizing Ron for not being even more extreme than he already is on the issue, when Trump doesn't even believe in a 6 week ban. Are you holding Ron to a different standard? Why does Trump get a pass? Did you just say that life of the mother is the ONLY exception you think should exist? Have you lost your mind? Child rape victims should be forced to birth their rapists babies, then? Revolting cases like this are happening since Roe was overturned, by the way. Not that you would know. You say Trump believes we shouldn't be the world police, yet Trump is openly saying that he will be invading Mexico. You have no principles. Shipping jobs overseas was a mistake, why is it then that over 200,000 jobs were outsourced overseas during his administration?
    2
  228. 2
  229. 2
  230. 2
  231. 2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242. 2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. MosheMYY M "My rationale says something stupid can't develop biotechnological wonders" And there is your problem. Nature consistently defied our intuition, I gave you the Quantum world as an example before but it's far from the only one.. And if you're once again talking about the origins of life, that doesn't have anything to do with Evolution. Evolution simply explains how it changes over time, it doesn't explain the origins of it. "I already know that you believe stupid is support by science" Yes. Science is on our side, not yours. Evolution is just as established as our Theory of Gravity. You can't "tell me otherwise" because if you said it wasn't supported by Science you would be wrong. I guess you can be wrong if you want to. "scientists that do question stupid have reasons to question it." Yes, religious reasons. The only other motive is a religious one. Even Scientists that question and debate how much of a role Natural Selection plays don't deny that Evolution happens --- we know Evolution happens because it's a commonly observed and well documented phenomenon with literal mountains of evidence to support it. Scientists (non-Biologists) that reject Evolution certainly don't have valid criticisms, only ones like yours, that which are based on ignorance, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and straw-men. That which I just mentioned is all you've done here. "Since you shun them, of course you'll have your landslide victory" It's a landslide victory simply because literally 99.9% of Biologists accept it. Scientists (usually non-Biologists) that reject Evolution have their "arguments" dismantled by the actual experts, they aren't silenced as you would like to imagine. "Thomas Nagel is an Highly Intelligent atheist and he questions it" Yep, and he isn't a Biologist -- Francis Collins is the former head of the Human Genome Project and accepts Evolution and the established age of the universe --- guess what? He's a Christian.  "he's been ridiculed, ostracized and the works." He isn't a Scientist. His work concerning his opinion on Scientific matters has been criticised by the Scientific Community, yes, that's not a bad thing, just like movie critics aren't doing a bad thing when they give bad reviews to movies.
    2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588.  @aletha16  "You seem to be reading a lot into my remarks that are not there." They are there, according to you her idea that people are stunted by "the system" is in conflict with the "true source of prosperity", as if you must choose one or the other. I quoted you directly, that was your exact statement. Maybe you can revise this statement but in doing so you then immediately accept that there is no conflict there, and the criticism is therefore invalid, you can both want to improve "the system" and also have spiritual beliefs. It's a noble cause, if she is genuine. It is in no way in conflict with any sort of spiritual belief she may have, nor does simply having spiritual beliefs magically protect you from economic consequences, it doesn't discriminate. "Her political party has arguably contributed to homelessness; California has the largest homeless population in the country." She despises the political establishment on both sides, and your entire criticism was attacking the very thing that makes her different, the mere acknowledgement of the issue, "the system", as you put it. That alone makes her better than all the rest. "I certainly never advocated telling a homeless person that his pain is imaginary." I didn't say you did either, not that the pain is imaginary, but that their pain and suffering has nothing to do with "the system". Imagine approaching this beaten and bruised homeless person and lecturing them about they don't really need food and a roof above their heads to prosper, it's only God they need, as according to you he is the sole source of prosperity, as you walk away in your nice leather jacket and your starbucks back to your warm house. What an amazing gift you gave them, you gave them the sole source of prosperity, God. "I cannot prevent you from interpreting my remarks as platitudes" When you scoff at the idea that "the system" is broken, and somehow manage to put this idea at odds with spiritual beliefs as if they cannot co-exist, you are no different than the platitude machines in office, because this is all they do, gaslight people. Everything else is the problem except "the system" they maintain.
    1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. MosheMYY M "WOW you missed so much." No. You did. "why were they told not to make this public information?" Who said they can't? It's their choice if they want to put out books and what not. What you're referring to is the fact that they did not get their work published in Science journals ---- you can't just get any old tripe published, it has to be examined rigorously by other Scientists, that's how peer-review works, if it doesn't hold up to scrutiny then it isn't published in Science journals --- this does not mean they can't write books of their own and put them out there or say whatever they want. "They also shared that they shouldn't have put it out there for the world to know." When you put your idea's out there you do so with knowledge that people may criticise it. There is nothing wrong with criticism, everyone should be open to express their views and to criticise them. "Since you're not a biologist I shouldn't hear anymore from you." I'm telling you what Biology is and what Biologists have to say on a subject they are experts in. They have opinions that are valid (due to being informed on the subject) and I am presenting you with them, and presenting you with the current scientific understanding. "I never said DNA can't change" Yes you did. You explicitly said this --- "when I ask for demonstrable evidence of DNA evolving" --- Evolution means change, that's what it means, "evolve" and "change" are synonyms, and to put the definition of Evolution scientifically -- "Evolution is the *change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations"* --- This is a demonstrable phenomenon, and the "small changes" you accept are Evolution, by definition. Is the development of your DNA from your parents magical? I don't know what you mean by "development of DNA", you have yet to clarify what you mean by it. If you're talking about the origins of life and how DNA came to be then you are not talking about Evolution, you're talking about Abiogenesis. The fact that you've been conflating these two this entire time speak volumes, you're ignorant.
    1
  871. MosheMYY M "Because Professor Nagel isn't a scientist he's open to be maltreatment by your lot" Criticising someone's work isn't maltreatment, as you serious right now? Are movie critics mistreating the creators just because they criticise some of their movies? Ludicrous. If he's going to attempt to criticise Science then obviously Scientists are going to point out his errors and criticise his work. "Why shouldn't Jerry and Massimo share their findings with the public?" They are allowed to... They already have! You can buy their damn book on Amazon! Are you mental? They aren't being censored, criticism isn't the same as censoring someone. They have freedom of speech. Why can't they get published in journals? Well, they could submit for peer-review, but if their work doesn't hold up, then it can't get published, this rule applies to everyone. "I don't deny small changes happen, I deny that you can SHOW how something stupid developed biotechnological wonders!" You did deny that change happens, you completely rejected the notion that DNA changed earlier, you're contradicting yourself now.  You may aswell call any other natural process "stupid" just because there is no intelligence behind it. Small changes happen over a short span, the larger changes happen over much longer periods, the only additional factor is time. Genetics and the fossils record and such suggest that these changes are much larger given longer periods of time. Oh and by the way, the small changes (which are still Evolution by definition) happen due to the same mechanisms.  "Anyone that's not a biologist who believe in stupid are no more than mere believers in stupid" We're not stupid for accepting well-established Science, are you stupid for accepting Atomic Theory or Germ Theory without being an expert in the relevant field? No. Ofcourse not. You're stupid for other reasons. "biologists who don't accept stupid are not heard." They aren't censored if that's what you're suggesting, it's not completely unheard of (but very, very rare) for a Biologist to atleast reject common ancestry due to their religious convictions. It's ridiculously rare but it has happened before. When someone is raised to have these religious convictions it can happen. There's a reason that 99.9% of Biologists accept Evolution.  I respect people like Francis Collins who are intellectuals in their fields who don't let their religious beliefs get in the way of Science. He's a Christian and although I do not agree with his religious beliefs I can accept that he's a great Scientist (former head of the Human Genome Project). "he's a christian but he wasn't always one" So he says. What mattes is that he does not let his religious beliefs get in the way of Science. He rejects Creationism/ID. "who knows why he still believes in evolution, certainly not because it's true." That's exactly why he accepts it. He's a Geneticist remember, the evidence is undeniable. He is completely against Young Earth Creationism. "It's not a problem, it's a just a logic fact. No amount of you stating stupid is true will make it true." It's not my statements that make it true, it's the overwhelming evidence that makes it true. I also say that our Theory of Gravity is accurate and true, me saying so doesn't make it true, but the evidence does. "Pseudo-science is indeed on your side." You don't get to decide what is and isn't Science. It's Science, deal with it. "Comparing the theory of stupid with the theory of gravity is like comparing a car with wheels to a bike with no wheels." No, they both have predictive and explanatory power and mountains of evidence to support both of them. Our Theory of Gravity isn't perfect by the way, there are things it cannot account for (yet).  "this is all through the peer review literature, nothing to demonstrate that IT DID!" Yes... we do. The fossil record and Genetic evidence for starters. Peer reviewed literature doesn't make things up. "So the overwhelming evidence is nothing more than a chant among the faithful" No, faith is belief without evidence, if there's evidence; then it isn't faith. Sorry. Your religious convictions are faith. "NO ONE CAN HAVE VALID CRITICISMS AGAINST EVOLUTION, WHETHER THEY ARE SCIENTISTS OR NOT" Having a valid criticism requires that you understand the Science and actually know the first thing about it, you don't know the first thing about Evolution and you've demonstrated that here. Unsurprisingly, the more you learn about it, the less misconceptions you have about it. Misconceptions and misrepresentations are not valid criticisms. "what do you know of his knowledge?" I know he's not a Biologist. That's what I know. And I know for a fact that his works has been criticised by the Scientific Community, people who actually know what they're talking about when it comes to Science. "You know how establish the theory is....of course you're a biologist right?" No. I'm not. I'm not a Biologist and I'm not afraid to admit that. Biologists are the experts on the matter, and it's no coincidence that the vast majority of Biologists and Geneticists accept it.  
    1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. MosheMYY M "Some scientists are on your side and you're still not right." Don't make it out as if this is a controversial topic among the Scientific community; it isn't. Scientists may about which mechanisms are most important and minor details such as this, but not whether it's true or not.  "But you're not making any sense stating the environment is the cause for beneficial change" You aren't listening... I never said it's the cause of the changes, I'm saying that traits that happen to be advantageous obviously have a better chance of survival --- seriously, you can't grasp a basic principle of Biology? Peppered moths are a good example of Natural Selection, the moths that blend better in with the bark have a better chance of survival to pass on their genetic information to the next generation, because of this the trait likely to become more abundant within the population --- understand? Nature wasn't choosing which moths were to survive, they just happened to blend in better with the bark! "That's why animals are DESIGNED to adapt and survive" Adaptation is an Evolutionary process. "not because of some random nonsense that nature acts on" Nature doesn't act on anything, creatures that are better adapted simply survive, there's no conscious decisions being made or anything like that. "Natural selection? Talk to Jerry Fodor, an evolutionist who doesn't agree with you" Is he a Biologist? No. I didn't think so. You do realise that his book was heavily criticised by experts, you know that right? "these scientists have stated they don't know if it works in other areas" No it wasn't. It has nothing to do with what I was talking about. "Basic biology that's founded on evolution is stupid" You reject well-established principles of Biology without even knowing what they are, in other words, you're an idiot.
    1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1