I won't condone the way Garofalo put it because there are no rigorous scientific definitions of any of the adjectives she used, but there is something to it.

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Difference-Between-Democrats-and-Republicans-TED

As determined by psychological testing:

Liberal Concerns
Harm/Benefit (aka utility)
Fairness

Conservative Concerns
Authority (as an end in itself, not as a tool for benefit/fairness)
Purity (as an end in itself, not as a tool for benefit/fairness, hijacked by whatever notions of purity happen to occur in the location of their birth)
In-group Loyalty (as an end in itself, not as a tool for benefit/fairness). In various circumstances this is known as tribalism, nepotism, cronyism, nationalism, chauvinism, jingoism, xenophobia, racism, sexism, patriotism, speciesism, or ageism.

The latter three are a crude system of morals that might have suited humanity well before it developed a germ theory of disease, representative government, and global commerce.

It's very satisfying to nurse a baby in need. I helped a friend out once whose baby needed to nurse when my friend couldn't do it herself right at that moment (why, is another story). I remember worrying that her baby would be too weirded out by strange breasts, to relax and feed, but she latched on and sucked away until she fell asleep. It was beautiful. I also worried that my own child who was present at the time would get jealous, but she didn't act so. It was like it was the most natural thing in the world.

Then not long after that, another friend cared for my child for a few hours, to let me get some rest and while she did so, my daughter wanted to nurse and climbed into her lap and nursed, again, like it was the most natural thing ever and she had never done that with anyone else before.

That experience led me to feel that breasts are meant for sharing and not just within single households. They are probably designed more as public amenities and when you think about that, if that's how we used them, it would mean that we would have enhanced immunity, because when nipples come into contact with the bacteria present in a mouth, the breast immediately responds by producing the anti-bodies required, in the milk. If we shared boobies we'd be covered for a wider selection of germs.

"When is the best time to have sex with a pregnant woman?"

"When the baby's mouth is open."


I'll be here all night, ladies and germs.

>> ^quantumushroom:
By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.

I do love that assertion about the human heart, stated as
fact... makes little to no sense, but let's continue.

Let me rephrase, because I want this to be crystal clear: the
atheist, by default, has declared him or herself to be the
sole judge of what is right and what is wrong, and no other
standards other than their whims or how they're feeling at any
given moment defines morality, goodness, evil, etc.

Even if they do not do so, atheists still must believe that
they are free to pick and choose which laws to obey, the
same exact way those hypocritical religious people pick and
choose which parts of their religion they will follow.

Atheists' highest authority is...themselves.



Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.

No, completely missing the point. People who blindly follow
the bible do so with no reason. They don't stop and think
"Hmmm, is it wrong to hate gay people? On what grounds am I
actually hating them?".

Who is to say you're not blindly following the people
declaring that, 'Christians all hate gays?'

Whereas when you're an atheist you base your morals and are
open to discourse, rather than the blanket 'nope, not talking
about it, the bible says it... end of story'. Trying to
suggest that this is somehow hiding emotionality is bullshit,
emotions can come into said discourse just as much, in fact
moreso than in religion, which teaches to SUBDUE your
emotions, IGNORE your feelings... if you're a man and you feel
love for another man... well, that's wrong buddy, the bible
says so.

The Bible has many passages about slavery, yet it was the
political movements of religious people the world over that
freed the slaves. To blanket-condemn the Bible or even the Quran seems a tad harsher even than the false assertion that all Christians must hate gays.

I understand atheists' contempt for the blind obedience of
fundamentalists, but if you're declaring all religion as evil
because of one segment of an infinite human endeavor, I'd
suggest you're being a tad closed-minded.



I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with
certainty that, "There is no God." My opinion.

STOP DOING THAT! Gah, I hate that fr*cken bullshit of
saying 'you can't be certain there's no god'... WE DON'T SAY
THERE'S NO GOD. We're saying there is no evidence to suggest
there is one, so to spend every sunday worshiping something
that by all accounts doesn't exist seems a bit silly. We're
happy to be shown to be wrong by SOME SORT of evidence... ANY
would be nice. Stop saying that we are saying for certain that
there is no god. We are saying that we THINK there's no god,
but those with an open mind are happy to accept further
evidence on the matter.

I understand what you're saying, yet the definition of an
atheism is "The doctrine or belief that there is no God" and
"Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings". I
could be wrong, but you have stated in other words that
atheism is "The doctrine or belief that there is no
God...until proven otherwise."


Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA,
usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.

OK, firstly... Atheists are hardly a 'tiny minority', you
may wish to think so, but sorry, it ain't true. First link off
google on the matter 16% are non religious. That's not a 'tiny
minority' by any stretch of any imagination. Then, if we look
at the wikipedia entry we can see that just getting any sort
of number is fraught with problems in classification, self
identification etc.

I agree it's hard to quantify atheists. You could've just
said, "China makes up one-quarter of the world's people and
they're atheist."

THEN secondly... it's HARDLY that anyone is trying to
eliminate all traces of religion from a country... it's a case
of everyone is perfectly free to believe what they want... BUT
when ONE religion starts enforcing IT'S beliefs on the
populous via government THEN things are wrong. Passing law
based on the bible, making Creationism be taught in science is
all absolute bullshit and SHOULD be stopped. But that in no
way is trying to suggest that people can't go to church, be
religious, pray or whatever and do so without fear. It's the
religious folk who are making those without religion feel
fearful because of the way they are being treated.

You bring up many issues here, most of them political. The
ACLU is trying their damnedest to remove all traces of
religious expression from public life. Not all atheists are in
the ACLU, but there are zero I know of protesting the ACLU's
bullying either. Government schools are screwed from all
sides. Not to make light of your plight, but everyone claims
to be persecuted these days.

As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad
consequences except when discovered by others.

This is such tripe. What you're saying is that religious
people are only good because they fear for the repercussions
of a vengeful god. The way I live my life is that I don't do
bad things because I wouldn't like those things done to me, so
why should I inflict them on someone else. To me that's
FAIR... if the only reason you're 'good' is due to fear of
repercussions, then really... you're not good at all.

But what happens when you meet an atheist who thinks what's FAIR isn't what YOU think is FAIR. There's no ultimate authority, even something as open-ended as the golden rule may not apply.

As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.

Um... yep. I see no issue here.

Then why be "good?" Why punish evildoers at all?

I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.

Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than
anyone else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass
"conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil
governments.

I don't think atheism is an instant trip to being happier
either, never said it was. I also don't think that you are
necessarily unhappy if you're religious. I know plenty of
lovely religious people... I have no issue with them being
religious, I go to their religious ceremonies, quite like
their pastor in fact... they don't try to convert me, and I
don't try to convert them... everyone is happy.

And how many of those lovely religious people would be upset
by your approval/endorsement of this obnoxious video? Some might get "the joke" but then others may not...

Geeze... trying to suggest that 'evil' governments have
converted people to atheism... man... firstly where the hell
does that come from, and secondly don't even start on that
unless you want to defend the crusades and violent
missionaries 'converting' savages to Christianity... don't
even go there, that's just nuts...

Communism makes the state the highest authority, therefore any
and all religious belief and expression was banned in those countries by human monsters, inflicted a nightmare on their own people. These dictators were atheist NOT because they wanted to usher in an Age of Reason but to
maintain their power.

The Crusades were an anomaly compared to the 100 million murdered worldwide by communism.

And no, I'm not saying all atheists are commies, but when one form of "control" like religion dies, another fills the void. Maybe we should all just honor each others' delusions instead.

Your post is peppered with so many logical fallacies that I don't want to validate it as an argument.

It's a fine rant, neither proving nor disproving a God-Force.

I WOULD however like to point out that most of the post makes little sense unless you make huge assumptions about a variety of different topics.

Mayhaps. Faith and reason remain polite opponents, but unfortunately for some, people are not logical or reasonable most of the time.

We can always fall back on what Napoleon said about religion: it has kept the poor from murdering the rich.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
Your post is peppered with so many logical fallacies that I don't want to validate it as an argument. I WOULD however like to point out that most of the post makes little sense unless you make huge assumptions about a variety of different topics.


In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
People are saying it more now, and you're seeing it more
now, because they're just rallying against the stigma of
saying it at all. People are saying it loud and proud because
they don't want it to be considered a BAD thing anymore.

By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.
Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.

I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with certainty that,
"There is no God." My opinion.

Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA, usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.

As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad consequences except when discovered by others.

As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.

I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.

Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than anyone
else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass "conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil governments.

>> ^quantumushroom:
By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.


I do love that assertion about the human heart, stated as fact... makes little to no sense, but let's continue.

Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.

No, completely missing the point. People who blindly follow the bible do so with no reason. They don't stop and think "Hmmm, is it wrong to hate gay people? On what grounds am I actually hating them?". Whereas when you're an atheist you base your morals and are open to discourse, rather than the blanket 'nope, not talking about it, the bible says it... end of story'. Trying to suggest that this is somehow hiding emotionality is bullshit, emotions can come into said discourse just as much, in fact moreso than in religion, which teaches to SUBDUE your emotions, IGNORE your feelings... if you're a man and you feel love for another man... well, that's wrong buddy, the bible says so.



I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with certainty that,
"There is no God." My opinion.

STOP DOING THAT! Gah, I hate that fr*cken bullshit of saying 'you can't be certain there's no god'... WE DON'T SAY THERE'S NO GOD. We're saying there is no evidence to suggest there is one, so to spend every sunday worshiping something that by all accounts doesn't exist seems a bit silly. We're happy to be shown to be wrong by SOME SORT of evidence... ANY would be nice. Stop saying that we are saying for certain that there is no god. We are saying that we THINK there's no god, but those with an open mind are happy to accept further evidence on the matter.

Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA, usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.

OK, firstly... Atheists are hardly a 'tiny minority', you may wish to think so, but sorry, it ain't true. First link off google on the matter 16% are non religious. That's not a 'tiny minority' by any stretch of any imagination. Then, if we look at the wikipedia entry we can see that just getting any sort of number is fraught with problems in classification, self identification etc.

THEN secondly... it's HARDLY that anyone is trying to eliminate all traces of religion from a country... it's a case of everyone is perfectly free to believe what they want... BUT when ONE religion starts enforcing IT'S beliefs on the populous via government THEN things are wrong. Passing law based on the bible, making Creationism be taught in science is all absolute bullshit and SHOULD be stopped. But that in no way is trying to suggest that people can't go to church, be religious, pray or whatever and do so without fear. It's the religious folk who are making those without religion feel fearful because of the way they are being treated.

As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad consequences except when discovered by others.
This is such tripe. What you're saying is that religious people are only good because they fear for the repercussions of a vengeful god. The way I live my life is that I don't do bad things because I wouldn't like those things done to me, so why should I inflict them on someone else. To me that's FAIR... if the only reason you're 'good' is due to fear of repercussions, then really... you're not good at all.

As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.
Um... yep. I see no issue here.

I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.
Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than anyone
else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass "conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil governments.

I don't think atheism is an instant trip to being happier either, never said it was. I also don't think that you are necessarily unhappy if you're religious. I know plenty of lovely religious people... I have no issue with them being religious, I go to their religious ceremonies, quite like their pastor in fact... they don't try to convert me, and I don't try to convert them... everyone is happy.

Geeze... trying to suggest that 'evil' governments have converted people to atheism... man... firstly where the hell does that come from, and secondly don't even start on that unless you want to defend the crusades and violent missionaries 'converting' savages to Christianity... don't even go there, that's just nuts...

>> ^quantumushroom:
People are saying it more now, and you're seeing it more
now, because they're just rallying against the stigma of
saying it at all. People are saying it loud and proud because
they don't want it to be considered a BAD thing anymore.
By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.
Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.
I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with certainty that,
"There is no God." My opinion.
Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA, usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.
As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad consequences except when discovered by others.
As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.
I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.
Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than anyone
else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass "conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil governments.


I don't disagree with the intention of your words, but I have a few problems:

Why would it matter whether Hitler or Mother Teresa go to heaven or hell, or anywhere in between? I've never understood the significance of an afterlife. In my opinion, the idea of an afterlife is gluttonous. Why are we so obsessed with living forever?

Also, moral relativism exists whether you choose to believe so or not. If it didn't, we wouldn't need police, jail and prison systems, mental health facilities, military or psychiatrists. The fact is, people can and will do what they want (or what the voices in their head want) when they want. Whether or not a god or gods exist has no bearing on this reality. Even if you believe it does, your belief does not change the fact that murder, rape, disease, supernovas and golden parachutes happen. It's our responsibility to prevent these things from happening, not a gods.

Now, if you're thinking the way I think you're thinking, which is that religion provides us with absolutes, the problem becomes thus: Which god or gods, tenet, belief system do I believe in? There really is no absolute answer, and if there is, only a handful of people in the world (universe?) will ever know. There's this thing called truth (which even itself is somewhat difficult determine) -- does truth matter or is it merely the idea that matters? If it's only the idea of religion that matters, you haven't solved the so-called problem of moral relativism, you've only hidden the truth from the believer so that they do the "right" thing. So in other words, you're lying. Is lying bad? Yes.

People are saying it more now, and you're seeing it more
now, because they're just rallying against the stigma of
saying it at all. People are saying it loud and proud because
they don't want it to be considered a BAD thing anymore.

By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.
Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.

I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with certainty that,
"There is no God." My opinion.

Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA, usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.

As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad consequences except when discovered by others.

As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.

I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.

Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than anyone
else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass "conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil governments.

>> ^imstellar28:
^I have never once argued for or supported anarcho-capitalism. It drives me nuts when people associate capitalism with anarchy. I am as strongly against anarchy as I am socialism.
Mainstream economists disagree with me like the mainstream disagrees with me that the earth was created more than 10,000 years ago. Keynesian economics holds about the same weight as intelligent design in my book. It is a completely unsupported "theory", and is facing an intense amount of contradictory evidence, yet it still persists.
Fraud is illegal in this country right? I am charging him with 300,000,000 counts of fraud. Isn't that enough to put someone away for life? I am also charging him with treason. Isn't that enough to warrant the death penalty? I was giving the rest of the "mainstream" the benefit of the doubt. If you can prove they are familiar with Austrian theory, then its going to be a long day at the noose. I am positive this is not true in most economic programs in the country. There are less than a dozen Austrian programs in the country and 25 years ago there were less than a dozen prominent Austrian economists in the world.
Advocating Keynesian ideas when you are versed with the Austrians is like trying to save a dying man with leeches and voodoo when you are versed in germ theory and have antibiotics in your back pocket. Greenspan is the moral equivalent of an atheist who is the pope of a church leading an inquisition.


Quit pretending that pure capitalism has been proven better by the Austrian school, without actually supplying any of that so-called evidence.

Quit pretending you know Greenspan's inner thoughts. The most likely explanation is that he changed his mind about Objectivism and Austrian economics because the evidence against them outweighs the evidence in their favor.

Give ONE example of a country that has brought its GDP (PPP) per capita to current U.S. or European levels without depending on central bank fiat currency for liquidity. All the gold and all the Oil in existence is not enough to provide an adequate amount of currency. The total value of all gold ever mined ($4.3 trillion) is less than 1/15 of the world's GDP.

^I have never once argued for or supported anarcho-capitalism. It drives me nuts when people associate capitalism with anarchy. I am as strongly against anarchy as I am socialism.

Mainstream economists disagree with me like the mainstream disagrees with me that the earth was created more than 10,000 years ago. Keynesian economics holds about the same weight as intelligent design in my book. It is a completely unsupported "theory", and is facing an intense amount of contradictory evidence, yet it still persists.

Fraud is illegal in this country right? I am charging him with 300,000,000 counts of fraud. Isn't that enough to put someone away for life? I am also charging him with treason. Isn't that enough to warrant the death penalty? I was giving the rest of the "mainstream" the benefit of the doubt. If you can prove they are familiar with Austrian theory, then its going to be a long day at the noose. I am positive this is not true in most economic programs in the country. There are less than a dozen Austrian programs in the country and 25 years ago there were less than a dozen prominent Austrian economists in the world.

Advocating Keynesian ideas when you are versed with the Austrians is like trying to save a dying man with leeches and voodoo when you are versed in germ theory and have antibiotics in your back pocket. Greenspan is the moral equivalent of an atheist who is the pope of a church leading an inquisition.

I have friends who wash their hands constantly because they are afraid of germs, and it makes me laugh. Especially when I never get sick, but they're constantly sick.

I win at life. *cough*

Thoroughly enjoyed Guns, Germs, & Steel, and his fascinating follow-up, Collapse.

I'm for teaching not just the genesis creation myth, but the creation myths of at least 20 different religions/cultures, so students can see what kind of ludicrous crap some people accepted as fact before the discovery of the germ theory of disease, the electricity theory of lightning, the geological theory of volcanoes, &c. They can compare and contrast the ancient fairy tales with the narratives of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, &c.

I'm the one who's mislead?

Holocaust denial, 2005 "In a 14 December speech in the city of Zahedan in southeastern Sistan va Baluchistan Province, Ahmadinejad said that if the Holocaust took place in Europe and Europeans feel so guilty about it, then that is where Israel should be located, state television reported. "They have created a myth today and they call it the massacre of the Jews [the Holocaust],"
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1063865.html

Threat to is Isreal, 2005 "This week, Hamas head Khalid Mish'al visited Tehran. Designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, Hamas advocates the destruction of Israel. "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it," ... Mish'al told Ahmadinejad on 12 December that Hamas appreciates Iran's stance against Israel generally and the president's "insistence on the illegitimate nature of Israel,""
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1063865.html

Threat to Isreal, 2005 and 2001 "Mr Ahmadinejad told some 3,000 students in Tehran that Israel's establishment had been a move by the West against the Islamic world. He was addressing a conference entitled The World without Zionism and his comments were reported by the Iranian state news agency Irna. "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," he said, referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In 2001, former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani speculated that a Muslim state that developed a nuclear weapon might use it to destroy Israel. ... Mr Ahmadinejad warned leaders of Muslim nations who recognised the state of Israel that they faced "the wrath of their own people". "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4378948.stm

Threat to Isreal, June 2nd 2008, Ahmadinejad "The Zionist regime has lost its raison d'être. Today, the Palestinians identify with your name [Khomeini], your memory, and in your path. They are walking in your illuminated path and the Zionist regime has reached a total dead end. Thanks to God, your wish will soon be realized, and this germ of corruption will be wiped off."

"Death to America" is still a very popular chant. Here it is at a recent rally http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUezKsBCRbk

Here's an article talking about its use in parliament recently
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=41572

Here's an article mentioning Ahmadinejad's use of the phrase recently
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/23/2007-09-23_irans_ahmadinejad_issues_new_threats_aga.html

I'm not condoning what the US and CIA did in Iran. I'm not talking about that at all. I'm saying that Iran might actually be dangerous.

>> ^MINK:
according to the survey, 6/10 people believe the new ideas that everything can be rationally understood.
"evolution is the explanation for our existence"
HOW? explain to me how evolution is the explanation for our existence you pompous twat. I watched loads of your videos and all you can prove is that we evolved. From WHAT motherfucker?


Abiogenesis ?

Are you talking about the formation of amino acids and proteins from inert base gases with an electric catalyst ?

Evolution is the process by which something very very simple, undergoes natural selection, and evolves into something complex. Its been shown in the lab time and time again, without evolution we wouldn't need AIDS medication, nor anti-biotics, as germs wouldn't evolve...but alas, they do.

We've also shown in lab environments that we can create life from non-life materials.

We can also see through Doppler principle and phase shift of the stars, that literally everything in the universe originated in a single point, about 14 billion years ago.

We can also model accurately with the laws of physics, the evolution of the universe, which eventually unfolds basic hydrogen and helium into the more complex, heavier elements. We can also show how solar systems, stars, planets, moons etc. can form.

Its truly amazing what hydrogen can do given 14 billion years.

If you cant wrap your head around it, don't presume its false. I cant wrap my head around non-euclidean geometry, that doesn't mean I'm about to run around claiming that its a load of crap, and the relativists out there are all in it for the grant money.....the scientific method ensures that theories (the highest scientific standing of any hypothesis), are the best model of our understanding of how stuff works.

In science, the word "fact" does not exist. It ranges from guesstimate, to theory, with theory being as close to the laymen understanding of fact as you can get.

Reaching your intellectual limitations and claiming that something beyond your understanding is false, is supremely arrogant.

Evolution is the framework for which the natural selection mechanism allows simple life to become complex and adapt, and it most certainly not a random process. Think of it similar to a binary accumulation search algorithm.

Im thinking of a number between 1 and 100, each guess I will tell you if you are higher or lower. The binary search dictates you guess in the middle each time, it should only take 7 guesses max to reach the number (if its less than 128). This is very similar to evolution via natural selection.

Lets try this gene...is it better or worse than its pre-decessor ?

If better - propogate it, else, kill it. Very very simple.