Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Rush Limbaugh Mocks All You Evolution Believing Idiots" video.

If you are referring to Kyle then I agree. He did not give a single rebuttal but instead mocked Rush. How does he expect people to take him serious?
4
For the record, I don't support Rush, I just hate ignorance. Overall Kyle did strawman here and acted like a child. While I don't support Rush you will never see him act like this. Kyle, on the other hand, takes what Rush said and acted like a child. Who is the bigger man? Obviously Rush which is also why he has had way more success than Kyle. Again, this is coming from a guy who doesn't like Rush. I rest my case.
3
I am a scientist myself and support evolution. What Kyle said was pretty much ignorant and he acted like a child during this video.
2
What point was ignorant? Right off the top of my head, when he said animals shit. That is not really evidence for evolution. One can easily say that is a common design by one designer. Actually someone made a similar argument like that to me in why they believe in god and a creator. So Kyle just made a similar argument on here then what a creationist made to me one day. Even at that evolution is far more complicated then just animals shitting. It wasn't funny or insightful but childish and ignorant. And yes, I am a scientist. I am working on my PhD in physical chemistry.
2
" He was using the shitting bit as a point of reference in rebuttal to the 'humans are special' remark." We are the only species that can use a computer, that is rather unique. Why haven't other species developed that high? " Interesting you are only focusing on that but I digress." I thought of that because is showed a lot of immaturity. "The majority of his segment was really in regarding the numerous fallacies and absurdities of religion and how someone who wholeheartedly believes every word of these has the gall to mock others for believing in the facts, the evidence, the data, the reality of the topic." Religion has very little, if anything to do with this. One can be very religious and still by very scientifically sound. Some of my colleagues are religious (I am a PhD student in physical chemistry, so I work in science). Kyle just assumes that people who question evolution all of a sudden think the world is 6000 years old which isn't the case. Kyle sat there, and in a childish way, mocked religion as in it is an absolute that you are either religious or support science, but can't be both. "Obviously he is not a scientist" That's true. "But it doesn't take a scientist to know when one thing is born of facts and when another is totally bullshit. " And it doesn't take much intelligence to understand that science and religion are two completely different things. They can coexist and on does not trump the other. "You treat it with a serious response" If it wasn't serious then this makes him look foolish and makes Rush look smart. If you can't have an intelligent rebuttal then it is clear you don't know what you are talking about. The rest of your comment added almost zero substance in this issue. The fact is that there are a lot of questions in evolution. This is why people do research in it. It is not an absolute. Also one can be religious and a scientists at the same time because they are two completely different things. Trying to compare them is like comparing cupcakes to Ford pickups. There is a legit point in why are humans so advanced compared to the rest of the animal kingdom? Giving the answer of "evolution" is incredibly hand wavy and is similar to those who make claim to a higher being. As a whole Kyle acted like a child and made Rush look like the intelligent one here.
2
"Other species outclass us VASTLY in many different regards. To suggest we are the only species with any unique or highly developed traits as that is simply arrogance as it assume because of a singular trait, primely being our self awareness although impressive, dwarves all others." Running a computer is a strong skill. We are the only species that can literally eliminate another species in a short time. "How does religion not have anything to do with this? This was entirely about religion. Siting religious sources of fiction in opposition of facts is somehow something entirely different? What is this nonsense? And that being religious is irrelevant. Being a scientist that is religious is very different than assuming religion is a more credible source for facts THAN science. Big difference, nice strawman though." What is ironic is that Rush never mentioned religion at all in his rant, Kyle did. "In regards to explaining how things work in our world... are you implying that religion is as credible of a source as science?" No. "Which one said the world was flat again?" Actually science by observation. "That is absolutely comical coming from a scientific stating that religion is just as credible, or implying at least, as science. " Religion has it's place in society. Religion is not science and science in not a religion. Just like cupcakes are not a transportation device and a Ford pickup is not food. People can use religion to make it through life like someone uses marijuana. I don't see the problem. Apparently others, like Kyle, do. Rush doesn't study science, so what's the big deal? "So you are saying that evidence for one explanation is automatically irrelevant because another could be entirely possible without any sort of evidence to substantiate it?" I am not saying that. ". And I don't get where you are getting this strawman from about religion and science." Kyle is the one who created it. Rush did not mention religion at all. " But to think the earth is 6,000 years old, flat, and the center of the universe... isn't factual." Based on the evidence we can observe I would agree. " And if you think mocking the fact that someone thinks the bible or bible stories is a valid source of objective, scientific information" I didn't see anyone that did that. Remember, Rush did not being up religion at all, Kyle did.
2
I understood a lot. Point to me where Rush brought up religion. He didn't, Kyle did. That is another reason why I feel Kyle's rant was childish.
2
I went back and re-watched the video. Yes he said that. How is that related? He said that and then talked about the issue and then went to evolution. Your connection is not strong. "You're gonna sit there and act as if there is no negative or disregarding aspect to his words and make excuses." I am not. I didn't agree with what Rush said. My overall point is that Kyle acted like a child himself and make asinine claims. At the very least we have two children here, why should I take any of them serious? Does Kyle really think he will move up in society acting like that? "It is hilarious when you completely disregard it and claim it was never there." I didn't disregard anything. Typical creationist, love making things up. Why are you so anti-science?
2
I accept reality. Kyle acted like a child. If you think Kyle was the intelligent one here then you are no better than Rush. Why do you want to act like Rush? Also, I am a scientist. You can say I am not all you want, it doesn't change the fact. But of course I wouldn't expect anything less from a person who felt Kyle did not act like a child. Like I said, at the very least we have two children here throwing sand in the playground. But I guess that is why Kyle has his little youtube show where Rush has had actual success. Rush makes a comment and Kyle acts like a child.
2
I acknowledge the facts. This video is typical of Kyle, zero substance and him just acting like a child. I don't support Rush but he hardly, if ever acts like that. That is why Rush has way more success than Kyle. I don't agree with what Rush said but if I were in Kyle situation I would have calmly stated how Rush is not clear on the issue or just ignore it. Kyle, on the other hand, acted like a child. His response what "religion sucks" and "we shit". Really? So this is the voice of liberals? Or more like the voice of regressive liberals. It is of no surprise that his candidate, Bernie Sanders, is losing.
2
"Either way... neither one of those would be the traits of any man of science as these would oppose any and all scientific progress to the degree you take them too" A man of science has maturity which Kyle lacks. I can try to reason with someone, if they refuse to listen then so be it. But trying to act dumber then the other person does nothing. "That said, feel free to continue commenting as you please. The people here could always use a good laugh." Considering how people who watch Kyle love to take stupidity serious and mock reason then I will take them laughing at them as a compliment. It means that I have said something reasonable.
2
Everywhere because he clearly does not understand evolution. Us being able to shit is not a supporting argument for evolution.
1
" A religious fanatic talking shit about science" Again, where did Rush bring up religion? And how did he talk shit on science?
1
"I already quoted it, " Where? I looked back at the previous comments, I don't see it. "Openly mocking the theory of evolution, with mountains of evidence behind it that is comprised of multiple difference sciences, is in no way speaking ill of science. " There is nothing wrong questioning science. That is what science is all about. I don't agree with what Rush say, but the way Kyle acted was worse. There are a lot of questions regarding evolution, it isn't an absolute. "A scientist that doesn't like evidence and disregards it as it is convenient for what they think." Funny you say that when you did not give any evidence for the question I asked.
1
How do zoos lack morality? Rush has a point. There are legit questions on why do apes still exist? But not so much exist but how are us as man able to run computers but yet apes are still as primitive as they were centuries ago? Kyle spends this whole video mocking someone but does not give any rebuttal. And before you criticize me I study science for a living and support the theory of evolution in all it explains and predicts. But at the same time there still exist a lot of questions in evolution. There is a reason why people still do research in it.
1
And humans are able to build bombs that can destroy the earth in a few minutes. How many animals can do that? It does beg the question how did we get so advanced but other forms of life didn't. And before you call me an evolution denier I do study science for a living and support evolution. I am just intelligent enough in science to understand it isn't without flaws.
1
Then why hasn't any other animals evolved to the level we have? It is a legit question.
1
"That's actually the beauty of science, it can admit when it's wrong in pursuit of a true answer." I agree. That is why science is not a religion and that is why I hate it when other people compare religion to science because they are completely different. That is like comparing cupcakes to Ford pickups.
1