Censorship Has Gone Too Far

I'm on Youtube, talking about D&D of all things, and trying to give a simple quote about the abilities of Tiamat to someone, because they wanted proof that Tiamat actually can show up with any color head(s) she wants, up to five, as long as the various heads are Chromatic in nature, rather than being stuck with the basic five she typically shows up with.

So this is what I write:

It's a bit of a longer quote, but I have bolded and italicized the relevant section, just leaving the rest so as to keep it all in context. Also, in light of the "new" (at least for 2E new) sphere cosmology bit about the Phlogiston and whatnot, the power is updated so as that Tiamat can take on any head that is represented by any chromatic/evil (there are evil non-chromatic dragons, and Tiamat is the Goddess of Evil Dragonkind, not just chromatic dragons, so non-chromatics count for her domains/powers/effects) dragon that exists in that sphere. So, for example, despite the fact that Tiamat and Takhisis are the same being (always were, just couldn't be admitted legally until recently, but recent 5e lore has finally confirmed this legally, and I have proof that it was always the case as well but that's another story... even if some fans hate that because of their own headcanon) Takhisis can't for example, swap one head out for a Yellow Dragon - because Yellows don't exist on Krynn. But should a Yellow be born there, or come there like Skie and the other Dragon Overlords did by travelling through the Aether... then she would be able to. But here is your quoted from the source.

Powers & Pantheons - D&D 2E:

Tiamat's Avatar (Fighter 25, Cleric 25, Wizard 25)

Tiamat has favored two forms throughout Unther's long history: the Dark Lady and the Chromatic Dragon. In the wake of her recent setbacks and in view of her future plots, the Dragon Queen has developed a third form known as the Undying Queen. All of Tiamat's forms draw their spells from all spheres and schools save the spheres of chaos and sun. She rarely uses anything but reversed forms of healing and necromantic spells on anyone save herself.

The Dark Lady appears as a human sorceress of Mulan ancestry with long, dark hair and dark robes. She has a fey beauty, a seductive smile, and totally black eyes.

The Chromatic Dragon is a nightmarish amalgamation of a monstrous draconic body on four stubby legs that has five writhing necks and heads, each corresponding to one of the species of chromatic dragons. Each head's color runs the length of the neck and into the forepart of her body as strips, gradually blending to three stripes of gray, blue-green, and purple over her back and hindquarters, then merging into a muddy dark brown tail. Her un­derbelly and legs are greenish white fading into her upper body colors. Tra­ditionally Tiamat's heads are colored red, green, blue, black, and white, but in fact the Chromatic Dragon can have many different subsets of heads, as long as there are no more than five total, each head's color and powers are unique, and each corresponds to an evil chromatic dragon species found in the Realms. For example, other known colors manifested by the Chromatic Dragon have included yellow and brown. In Chessenta, the Chromatic Dragon typically appears with a single red head and neck in keeping with Tiamat's guise as Tchazzar.

Now, I don't know about you, but I see absolutely NOTHING in there that should be a "problem" even for YouTube's super woke nonsensical rules. When censorship has gone this far, there is NO MEANS OF BASIC COMMUNICATION anymore. It is just outright EVIL, plain and simple.

The Race Debate

Because racists be everywhere. Linking to a thread in YouTube from which this discussion stems. Images now uploaded for the entire conversation thread.

Okay, fuck it - let's talk race and IQ. Sam Harris, Charles Murray & Ezra Klein

Okay - now that we've heard the controversy and the defense, let's get my opinion because not only am I black, white, and everything in-between as a mixed race person, but nothing is too sensitive here. So I'll start with this: Don't bother responding if you aren't going to read the entire post. If you do read the entire post, feel free to respond.

Here's what kills me about this kind of topic.

We have dogs. We have different breeds of dogs. Spaniel, bulldog, shepherd, terrier, etc.

We know that there are different traits in different dogs. Some are smarter than others. Some have better physical abilities. Some have better senses... But when we look at humans, who also have different breeds that we call "races" we have to pretend that they're all exactly the same.

It's just such bullshit... And I say that as a person who has undergone genetic testing. Testing that has shown that I am not only black, but that I literally have every single "breed" of humanity in my genetics except Asian. That's right, if you add Asian to me I am a literal representation of the human race as a whole. Jewish? Got it. German? Got it. African? Got it. Spaniard? Got it. South American? Got it. Native American? Got it. Nordic? Got it. Indian? Got it. You get the picture.

So, being so thoroughly mixed I am probably the closest thing to a "default" or "neutral" party one can have racially. Unless I have a kid with an Asian woman anyway. So, let's just get the "racist" analogues right out the window from the gate.

Now to my opinion on the issue:

Why is it that people can accept the claim that blacks outdo whites in every physical sport that we take part in, and that's perfectly fine - It's apparently not racist at at all, despite the fact that it isn't even true. (We do better in many sports, but not all like rowing and swimming.) Still, the general point remains sufficient. - but the second it seems that whites do one thing better than blacks, even though they do it worse than Asians, it's a problem? That they must be just trying to promote "white superiority" despite quite clearly putting themselves under Asians?

And let's face it - the differences between races or "breeds" of humans is pretty negligible. The amount of points that whites do better on the tests aren't a huge difference, it's barely there. Same with the difference between running speeds, or basketball shots. But since people are making such a big deal of it...

Well, why can't people look at the data and just go "Huh, that's interesting, how can we use that data to make things better for everyone?" Why do they instead immediately go "You fucking racist!"

That is the problem of identity politics, and that is the point Sam Harris was trying to make, over and over and over again.

I am a mixed breed or "race". I could get the best of every mix I have, the worst of every mix I have, or more likely the good of some and the bad of some. But here's the real thing - this discovery of the differences across races? Could be used to further racial acceptance rather than hatred if people were willing to use it the way Sam hopes.

We could encourage racial mixing, in an effort to breed out the negatives that different races hold, while enhancing the positives they hold. Certain races are more likely to get certain diseases? Mix them with the ones resistant to it. Certain races are more physically capable? Mix them with the ones more mentally capable. It could literally be used to show that the KKK (and other groups like them) is just scientifically wrong to encourage whites only mixing with whites, used to show that merging people instead of separating them is the only way to truly be the best that we can be.

This data could be used to finally unite humanity into one race - one breed - that is vastly superior to all the various breeds we currently have, one that is of every breed, and has the best of them all, a shining example of what humanity at it's pinnacle could be. Or it could be used to focus on one tiny area that whites do better than blacks, and degraded into some stupid racially charged debate.

Thing is? Even the leftists who are complaining about the studies? Aren't actually thinking about what good could be done with them. The only thing they're thinking about is their social and political fears. Because they're blind as fuck, and so focused on being politically correct that they fail to take advantage of what is right in front of them. Why? Because doing this could only be done by encouraging interracial marriages, which would only come about on a mass scale with the mixing of cultures, which so doing would eliminate racism, solely because everyone would be the same race! All it would take is using the data for good instead of for bad.

It isn't the data itself that is the problem, it's how people use it. Multiculturalism would be the answer to pushing us as humans as far forward as we can possibly be - by literally using the data to prove that we need to mix to get the best of every "race" or "breed" that we have... but they don't push that agenda. Makes you wonder why not.

Run Log

So I've started running again recently instead of using the weights or the bike. And dammit I needed to. Goal is to get back to a 10 minute, or even back to a sub-ten minute mile and a half.

19 March - 18:33 - Stopped several times. Walked a lot.

20 March - 17:12 - Stopped a little less, walked less. Still a lot.

21 March - 15:30 - Stopped twice, walking. Mostly to try and get my music right. Need to fix that.

22 March - 15:15 - Legs were a bit sore today, but still made some improvement. Probably will stay around this point until after the weekend when I take a break. Still gonna try for better tomorrow though!

23 March - 16:42 - Yeah, I can tell that my legs are trying to get shin splints again. This track here is the only one I can run on without getting them, but daily runs are making it difficult. Thankfully, this is the weekend so I have a break until Monday.

26 March - 20:39 - Absolutely terrible, I know. But there's good reason. Got interrupted by the captain texting me mid-run. He must not have seen me slip in to muster this morning, so that ruined my pacing since I had to stop running to respond. Barely made it in to muster before the doors shut, holy shit - fucking Manchester gate was being retarded again - but on a positive note by leaving it I think I found a better gate to get in through now, so there's that. But back to my run - trying to text and run at the same time is just too slow. Once my pace was broken, it was hard to even start running again.

27 March - 17:16 - An increase, but that was after the weekend.

28 March - 15:31 - Cold today. Slowed down.

29 March - 15:12 - Bit faster.

30 March - 16:30 - Got up early and ran before the sun was up. Fucking tripped and fell lol. Ruined that run time.

2 April - Let's see what happens Monday!

Legal Enforcement of Preferred Pronouns? No. Fuck No.

So it's been a year since I've written anything here. But dammit, this is getting my gears so here we go. This is tied to a video.

Here is my response to this stupid shit:

"Nothing happened." "I didn't see anything."

If you didn't see anything, how the fuck can you say nothing happened? Dumb fucking cunt with her smug ass smile thinks she can claim that because "she didn't see anything" - which is a fucking lie - that means it didn't happen? A tree falls in the forest, it still makes a sound, whether anyone was there to observe it or not. (And yes, I know the original quote is a philosophical question, not a literal one.) So even if by some miracle, she's being honest? It still happened. Video evidence bitch.

Then there's the whole debacle of "there is no such thing as male and female". Really? So... the people who are crying about not being called the "genders" they have made up, are now denying the genders of other people? How interesting. This isn't at all hypocritical... let alone a lie. "No such thing as biological gender." Really? The XX and XY disagree with you. In fact, trans people often try to use the rare genetic abnormality of XXY and such to constitute new genders rather than simple defects.

And yes, that is what those extremely rare cases are. Defects. Just like having a sixth finger, or a fused body... it is a defect. And calling it what it is, in no way says that you want to ignore these people who were unfortunate enough to be born with it, nor does it say you hate them or whatever. Siamese twins? It's a defect, not a new gender or a new sub-species. It's a fucking defect. And yet, I wish for siamese twins to have as happy and healthy a life as they possibly can. Just because I know it is a defect, doesn't mean I hate them or have a phobia. My cousin? Has a defect. She has issues with her bowels and legs. Calling it a defect, is not hating her. She's an adorable little girl who thankfully can walk and run even though she falls a lot, when the doctors thought she'd be in a wheelchair. Sorry, but we don't make up entirely new classifications of humans because of rare defects. They happen, it's sad, we move on as best we can.

But this is what happens when you let these fucking idiots have their way. There are plenty of intelligent trans people who understand male and female, who realize that they are a minority that may have real gender dysphoria due to one reason or another... and then there are these fucking "trans trenders". Who do nothing but make everything in life harder for the trans community.

Here's the worst part though. These same fucking idiots, who are all about "that's not free speech" and who want the government to arrest people for not saying their made up pronouns? Are the same fucks who are quick to burn a flag and quote "free speech" when people mention how fucking illegal that is. When military people take insult to the burning of said flag or take insult to people not standing for the national anthem.

These military people say "look if you have a problem with something, argue the problem, but don't insult me and all those who didn't come back from war like that". They are so fucking quick to quote "free speech" then. Free speech? The same free speech you wouldn't have without every singe soldier, seaman, marine, and airman who has served and potentially died, ever one of them that these people insult and call lackeys, shills or sheep for serving, that same free speech they want to ignore when it is used against them.

These fuckers want to be able to say fuck the country, fuck the military, and fuck the people that gave them everything they have instead of leaving them like the people in Africa trying to barely survive - but then demand that the country limits the same "free speech" that they want to claim when it is their turn to say no.

As a military man who has seen this hypocrisy? I say no. I say fuck you trans trenders. Actual trans people, have a lot more shit to worry about than a fucking pronoun. They have actual hate being directed at them by actual transphobic people. They have people who literally physically harm them. And that is horrible, but you people are arguing that a person got called sir or ma'am instead of zur. Fuck off.

And as for that smug little fucker in the video who said there is no such thing as Male and Female? Here's a black military man saying "You're a fucking white male!" Of course he doesn't want to admit male is a gender. He's trying to escape the hate all white people - and white men moreso than white women - are facing right now in this hyper racist culture. So guess what?

Blacks can be racist. Women can be sexist. Male and Female exist, these "other genders" are made the fuck up, there are some actual people with actual chromosomal defects, some with gender dysphoria and guess what? We shouldn't hate them for their issue(s).

You don't stop racism, sexism, or other prejudices by policing language. If we make the word "nigger" illegal? The racist fucks in the KKK will just make a new fucking word that means the same thing. You solve nothing by policing language. You just get to feel better and pretend you made a difference. Meanwhile the actual racists are still treating me, like a nigger. Great job. You've done so much. Fighting the words instead of the real underlying problem is just so fucking helpful.

So go ahead, make it "illegal" to call you male or female, but it is not illegal for you to call me nigger. "You hurt their feelings by not addressing them with their pronoun." Will you hurt me by calling me a nigger? And if I want to hurt your feelings I can still say shit like:

"You're an ugly, friendless, stupid cunt, and your own mother doesn't love you."

I can't go to prison for that. Your precious feelings can be hurt, and I can keep walking down the street. And I can do all that even if I call you zur. I guess it's a good thing I'm not the type of person to actually say that to someone, outside of as an example of why policing language is stupid and doesn't work. Funny thing is? These social justice types do it all the fucking time. And not in practice as an example, but meaning it. The only "feelings" they care about, are their own. Just like every other dictator in history.

So let's just be clear. If I call you something you don't want to be called, whether it is male, female, bitch, asshole, dickhead or cunt... It isn't violence. It's rudeness. And you can't make rudeness illegal, because we are all rude sometimes. We get frustrated, or angry, or whatever, and we get rude. And trying to send someone to prison because they were rude to you, can backfire exponentially when the same stupidity gets used against yourselves. Especially with how rude you SJWs are to other people the second they say something you disagree with.

In Defense Of God

Please, go ahead and try. I welcome the debate. Comment section below.

Response to "Does God Exist? - Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 2)"

So I promised to break down this entire series. It took a while before I was ready to confront this level of stupid/dishonesty (one or the other, though likely some of both) but here is the debunking of part 2.

The first minute and a half are just intro/recounting where video one left off. So, we're going to ignore that since part one is already destroyed, and start with his first new claim in part 2.

Text in bold is emphasized, and for fun, anything in italics can be read with the sneering voice of Severus Snape. Anything that is in all caps is supposed to be lower case and bold. Well, except acronyms like DNA and such. I think I caught all the caps, but I might have missed some.

1. Oh boy here he goes with "irreducible complexity". He makes two claims here so this will count as two numbers. His first claim is that Darwin himself would say that his theory has failed. Well, sure. This is true. It has failed. That's why the theory of evolution that we use today is not the same as the one Charles Darwin proposed. Darwin was human, and made some mistakes. The Theory of Evolution that we use today has roots in Darwin's theory, but it is not Darwin's theory. It is revised, you know, like any other thing that you test and find fault in.

Just by saying what he does he shows that he either doesn't know science at all, which throws his claim of having done serious investigation for years into question. (What kind of investigation doesn't at least hear what the other side has to say so that their claims can be investigated and proven right or wrong?) Or that he knows better and is a complete and utter liar right off the bat.

This means that I don't even really need to debunk the rest of the video, but I will just for completeness sake.

2. Let's get to the second part of his claim, the things that are supposedly "irreducibly complex".

F1-ATPase - Well, that's it! You've got us. Irreducibly complex! ...Wrong! See, when a thing is found it can at first seem to be irreducibly complex, but after time studying it, it can be shown just how and maybe even why such a thing is not irreducibly complex. A simple google search can now show this information is wrong.

I'll also note that he never said just why it should be irreducibly complex, just that it is complex, and then asserted that it was "impossible" for it to have evolved. No evidence, not even a real claim of what specifically was impossible, just an assertion that it was. This is the result of years of study? What a joke...

3. Proteins, cilia, etc... Here we go again. Many structures only function when all of the parts are assembled. Yes this is true; but this is also misleading. The structures in their current form only function when all the parts are assembled. We can and have shown on multiple occasions just how they were able to function separately in prior forms before they evolved together. They tried this shit in the trials about teaching intelligent design in school in Pennsylvania. They lost. Because nothing they could show was actually irreducibly complex. Not then, and still not now. It's a bunch of bullshit. Look it up. Watch the documentary about the trial.

4. We should stand in awe of any God who is just able to design and create cilia? Holy oversimplification batman! We have humans who have designed improvements of God's designs. Should we worship them too? I'd be careful what you say there buddy! You're encouraging blasphemy!

5. Sequencing of proteins is not at all a "crisis" of "evolutionary thinking". Maybe you should actually have done years of research like you claimed instead of just parroting other apologists like yourself. Because then you might at least be able to use arguments that haven't already been disproven time and time again.

Take a protein that doesn't have a viable sequence. It falls apart. Which means that eventually just from sheer random chance? Proteins will form viable sequences and stay together, while the "wrong" sequences do not, leading only the "correct" sequences to evolve. It isn't difficult.

See, they often compare it to monkeys typing on a keyboard, but they mess up the analogy. What if there was a computer, that deleted every letter the monkey typed unless it was a valid letter in a word?

Meaning if a monkey typed "M" it would stay. They then type a and it stays because a word like "Man" or "May" or "Maybe" exists. Now what happens when the monkey types "z" next? Well, if the computer has no word that starts with "Maz" in it's dictionary, it deletes the letter z and lets the monkey keep typing. You see how the monkey would actually turn out real words with that feature? That is how proteins function. You add a bad letter, (wrong sequence) and it doesn't stick.

Let me put your argument into a metaphor. I have a car. Now, for the car to function it needs all of it's parts. However that doesn't mean that the engine, the wheels, the fuel, and other necessary parts were all created together. We invented the wheel long before the engine, we invented the type of fuel we use at a different time than the engine as well. The light bulb had nothing to do with an engine, neither did electricity have anything to do with wheels. Yet all those parts are needed to have a car. They were invented independently and later came together to make a car. It's simple.

Now that isn't a perfect metaphor, but it gets the point across. Not all parts are needed "simultaneously" for evolution to be true.

6. Ahhhh here it goes. "It is not possible for a code of any kind to arise by chance." Really? Well my childhood writings would disagree with you, as would any sufficiently long book like War and Peace and Moby Dick. Search long writings trying enough different letter skip sequences and you'll find "hidden codes" that are the result of purely random chance. Blatant lies... worse it what else it says. All code is the work if intelligence. So, if anything that makes some kind of sense cannot arise without a mind behind it, then what mind created your God? He must be infinitely more complex than a simple human, despite his non-physicality... What mind designed that complex being? You have trapped yourself into an infinite regression that you simply refuse to answer by saying "God always was" despite the blatant contradiction.

7. "Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could not work out a code..." Pure bullshit. What do you think a dog learning commands is? The sounds are meaningless to them, they haven't been taught English or whatever language the owner speaks. Yet somehow they "work out" the "code" of sounds to learn what sounds have what meanings to the point that they can follow complex commands. Chimps even more than dogs. Did you know that there are apes who can use sign language to communicate with humans? Even thought their level of ability with the language is low, it is still a "code" that had to be figured out. You're arguing from ignorance again...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language

8. Oh wow... Just... Wow. You actually have the nerve to quote mine Richard Dawkins!? The guy who adamantly refuses to accept a god? Anyone with any sense that knows anything about Dawkins could tell you were taking him out of context. He said superficially the evidence demands a god. That means that it looks like that on the surface, but when you actually take the time to study and do proper research, you find that there is no need for one. The later line says that this is what the theist is stressing. Not that the theist is correct in his belief you utter fuck.

I normally don't lower my arguments to this kind of ad hominem attack but at this point you have literally asked for it by being so obviously dishonest that I can't even give you the benefit of the doubt anymore. You know that you are lying now, as you are purposefully misrepresenting your opponent's views. You are one lying, scheming, slimy sack of shit. Here's a quote for you:

"If God was real he would have put you to death, and long before you had a chance to even utter a breath."

Now to calm myself... Because your blatant lies are now pissing me off.

9. "Information" in a cell is not "information" as most people think of it. We compare it to how much data we could store on a computer sure, but it isn't that kind of information. Nice way of using words in a non-scientific context to twist people's understandings.... Just like that shit with the word theory. It doesn't mean in science what it means in common conversation. Information doesn't either, not in this context. Fuck you really are an asshole. Just trying to twist people's beliefs and get them converted.

10. Right.... about the bible claiming that God made everything in the first six days. There's a thing about that. God made the animals before he made Adam. Dolphins have two pipes, one for eating, one for breathing. Humans have only one. This dual pipe idea God had for dolphins makes it impossible for them to choke and die on their food. A pretty good design I'd say, if it was in fact designed.

Why did God not realize how good an idea this was and preserve it in humans? I mean, you'd think that since humans were his last creation, he'd have used the experience he gained from making the other animals to make a superior product, yet in almost every way other than our intelligence levels, we are inferior to the animals.

Did you know that some species of female moths can choose what male sperm goes to their eggs? That they can have sex with multiple males, but only get pregnant by the one they think is the best? How many human woman would love that trait I wonder? To be able to fuck whoever they want, but only actually get pregnant by the successful businessman and not their loser drug dealing boyfriend on the side? I guess it's good for us men that god discarded that particular ability huh?

Humans are weaker, slower, we don't have a stable breeding season meaning that babies can be born in deadly winter for our non-furred bodies instead of in warm spring... Horrible all around. Wtf? Did god just forget all the great ideas he had when he got to us? Were we made from the creative dregs of what was left of his mind after being awake for 5 days prior? God must have been on his last legs. Maybe if he'd rested on the 6th day and made us on the 7th we'd be better designed, is that it? Or maybe, just maybe, we don't have any of the good advancements some of our animal friends have because we evolved instead of being designed.

11. Two more horrible claims... First, species don't actually always produce the same species over and over. That's exactly why evolution is a thing. Species can produce slightly different subspecies, that eventually, should they remain isolated instead of interbreeding with the previous tribe, become a completely separate species that cannot interbreed back with the original species. But here's information about evolution both in short, and long.

12. Lastly, you're mixing things up. Evolution talks about what happens to life once it exists. The idea of life coming into existence in the first place is about abiogenesis. Evolution is a fact, wherever life originally came from. Even if some deity exists that created life to begin with, that deity then only created the first organism(s) and not all diverse life on the planet. As for whether life sprang up here on earth, was seeded from outer space through meteor bombardment, or was created by a deity, that doesn't matter to the truth of evolution in the slightest. Again, the origin of life is abiogenesis, what happens to life after it exists, is evolution.

Let me put your argument into a metaphor. Let's continue with the car. I can tell you what happens to that car after I drive it, but I can't tell you how that car was put together outside of general terms because I'm not a car guy. I know that my car needs gas, I know that it was once a different color before I had it painted, and I know that it needs oil changes. What you are saying is that just because I don't know how the car was constructed, I can't possibly know anything else about the car. Your argument is completely retarded.

13. "It's not possible to have life without a lifegiver." Please prove that. "Only God has life inherent in himself." Oh never mind, you've just been kind enough to disprove your previous sentence.

Since you obviously can come up with the idea of something having life "inherently" why is it so hard to believe that such a thing might not be a divine entity and not just another part of nature? Why assume divinity where you have no evidence of it? Oh right, you're a fucking liar. I almost forgot.

14.  "Is he more than a blind power? A dumb first force?" Well, maybe whatever first cause could be that... But I haven't asserted that it is, I simply said that you can't say for certain that it is not. Those aren't the same thing. And again, complexity is not the hallmark of design, simplicity is. Everything designed (with the exception of puzzles, because those are intended to be challenges and so are obviously different than anything made for other reasons) is made a simply as possible for efficiency. Complexity is the hallmark of nature, or at the least the hallmark of trial and error. Of someone learning as they go. Not the signs that an all-knowing god would leave.

15. Once again, YOU DON'T KNOW THERMODYNAMICS! For fucks sake, you keep getting those laws wrong. You're definitely a liar, and possibly stupid as well.

16. Wait a minute, something cannot come from nothing, therefore God had to always exist? Really? If obviously something had to always exist, why assume that this "something" is your God? Why can it not be the universe itself? You keep doing this bullshit assumptions game.

17. No, a cause does not have to be greater than the effect. That is only the case if the cause is inefficient. If the cause has 100% efficiency, then the effect can be just as great as the cause because no energy is lost. Therefore God (if he existed) wouldn't have to be greater than the universe, only equal to it. Unless you think God is not capable of being 100% efficient... And no, he wouldn't have to be "all-powerful" even if he wasn't 100% efficient, he would only have to be powerful enough to create the universe. That in no way implies all powerful, nor does it imply that he had to exist for "all eternity". Once again you keep making these stupid leaps in logic.

18. So... you have a nobel prize winner who either is being quote mined, where you are taking his words out of context because he probably meant that no matter how far science progresses, there are limits to the human mind, and therefore there are likely to be things that we simply cannot understand due to our inherent limits, or else he happened to be wrong about God. So what? Just because he was a nobel prize doesn't mean he's "all-knowing" so he can obviously be wrong on certain things. Big deal. Again, I can point out preachers who have quit religion to become atheists. Does that make them right about God? Stop trying to use arguments from authority to convince people of your lies.

But here's a little video that talks about how even intelligent people can believe ridiculous claims:

19. Right... Science ignores the truth. That's why science had to fight so hard against religion to get the world to learn that the sun was the center of the solar system and the earth went around it, not vice versa. That's why science had to teach that the earth wasn't flat, that there wasn't a canopy of water above to firmament pouring down, that's why science had to teach that no only was the earth not the center of the solar system, but that our solar system wasn't even the center of the galaxy. Because Earth isn't actually special. It's just one planet among many. What a crock of shit. Just more and more assertions and nothing of substance.

20. Why would highly intelligent men believe such false and silly ideas, and even willingly deceive people? I don't know. Ask a Muslim, or a Baptist, or a Christian, or a Catholic, or a Hindu, or anyone of any faith on the planet. Maybe it's because people believe all kinds of stupid shit for bad reasons, and because they believe it, most of them aren't "deceiving" people because they aren't trying to lie, they're just wrong. Not everyone is as big a liar as you after all. Stop assuming that people have the same reasons you do.

21. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's your answer? The reason people don't believe and teach others not to believe is because they don't want to obey a God? The old, "Atheists just want to sin!" answer!?!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I've been waiting for someone to be so stupid as to actually use that argument. Here's how much of a fucking idiot you are:

22. "Speaking truth with facts (uhhh, aren't they one and the same fucktard?) allows speaking with authority." Wrong! One can have all the truth/facts in the world, and not speak with authority. Speaking with authority is all about having charisma, and having the balls to do so. That's why there are so many religions out there. Because authority is not dependent on facts, truth, or whatever word you want to use to describe it. Authority is only dependent on the ability to make people listen. Either through force, or through the strength of your personality.

23. "All existing food on earth is perfectly designed for human or animal consumption." You fucking idiot. We classify things as "food" because we can eat them. Not the other way around. It isn't like we classified arsenic as "food" only to find out later it was poisonous! We call it "poison" and not "food" because of what it does! Your ignorance and idiocy is beyond words.

24. "Every time man tried to improve or alter food..." Really? Not according to banana man aka Ray Comfort. Not according to the "super foods" that we have artificially made to be more resilient. Not according to even the "normal" foods that we have today that are a result of man breeding different strains of plants together centuries ago. All the "original" plants are long since gone you fool.

25. Sickness would vanish if man just "left food alone"? Huh. I wonder where all those illnesses of the past came from then...

26. "...God who made perfect food..." You mean that God who made water, our main necessity to survive, but made the lakes and rivers so that the water inside kills people if they drink it naturally? That they had to use alcohol to dilute the water and kill most of the bacteria in it, leading us to the alcohol infused societies we have today? The God who made the only good water to drink so hidden that we needed wells to get to it, wells that only science invented? Even if it was primitive science? Damn, you're setting the bar pretty low. Humans win that one easy.

27. Fossils. Yes, some fossils were indeed misclassified. But you know what? Science showed that and corrected itself. This is something religions fail to do. You know what else? We have many, many, many, complete skeletons in the fossil record. Go to museums and see them. They exist. Some are in the back, in storage, but you can always ask the curator to show you more than what is on display. The rotate their selections so as to not get stale.

Nice to see you using a professor of physics to argue about fossils though. Let me just go to a car mechanic to get information on my plumbing system. Because getting people who are experts in a different field than the one they are being questioned about is obviously the way to go. Have a dentist fix your airplane and see who trusts it to fly.

28. Again you use Darwin. Well guess what? Darwin had no idea how old the earth actually is. He was dealing with the religious age of the earth, a little over 4,000 years rather than the now known millions and billions of years. Had he known just how old earth was, he'd have realized that it takes longer for the changes to occur. His question makes sense with the framework of time he thought he had. More evidence that even smart people can be wrong sometimes.

29. I like how you try and limit evolution to fossils. Fact is, we don't need a single fossil to prove evolution. DNA alone is enough. Much like we don't need to wait until a kid dies and use their fossils to prove parentage, we can use DNA to prove what species came from what other species long ago. But go ahead, keep talking about the fossils without actually saying anything of substance. You know, stating that the article was honest and said maybe, presumable, and other such statements without giving any context to say what they were talking about when they used those terms, in order to make it seem like they were saying that about evolution itself.

30. There is no "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution" these terms are only used by people who don't actually know what evolution is, or by those who are trying to use terms that their opponents are using in order to explain how evolution really works. Whoever you're talking about either didn't know what the hell they were talking about, or else was trying to "dumb it down" for you, and you still failed to understand it.

31. "Any who mock God's existence..." Mocking a belief is not mocking a person. You aren't giving what you're getting, you're going above and beyond. I don't mock all religious people, even though I do mock you yourself. Because they don't deserve to be mocked. But I do mock their belief, which is a very different thing. It's like a wise man once said: "People deserve respect, beliefs don't."

Any belief that can't be mocked without fear of reprisal is suspect. Because any true belief would be able to stand against such on its own merit. I guess we know what beliefs can't...

32. And no, the fossil record does not show that, despite your abject lies. Anyone who wants to look into the fossil record can check, by talking to scientists who actually specialize in fossils and so know what they are talking about. Not physicists who might know a lot about physics but nothing about fossils. You do that, but your practices should obviously not be followed in that manner.

33. I like how you claim to believe anything other than what you say is to be dishonest with the evidence after you lied so many, many, many times. Please people, educate yourselves before believing these liars. In the meantime, I'll get to video three eventually. It's gonna take time to get over this much stupid again.