Leaderboard

Stefan isn't against immigration, he even said he emigrated from the UK. What he doesn't agree with is people being threatened into paying towards welfare programs for migrants when they don't wish to, he isn't against charity. I thought UPB was a fair book as a methodology for Ethics, it's quite short. If you have an alternative book about Ethics or its refutation, I'm open to have a look. On Youtube at least imo Stefan is the most able person to show truths(even ones that maybe uncomfortable) that may help avoid immense suffering, though if you know someone better please tell. As a side note I've visited BC and Alberta as a backpacker a while a go. Haven't looked much into Daoism so far, kind of makes some sense after listening to some work and information on and of Carl Jung. To be honest I've never felt connected to anyone, not even myself.

If it pisses liberals, it's probably true.

I assume you are talking about common descent, in that case it is a historical hypothesis, not a theory. To be precise, we are talking about the historical hypothesis that evolutionary mechanism are capable of bringing forth multicellular life, 100% of the diversity of species, complex biomechanical organs and biological systems, consciousness, and intelligence from the ancestors of a hypothetical proto-cell randomly through gradual steps. There is no biology being done which requires evolution as a premise in its hypothesis, and without which premise the science could not proceed. To claim that it is fundamental and imply that it is necessary to biological science is a genetic fallacy. Biologists by and large try to understand existing systems and structures; what they’re made of, how they’re constructed, and how they function; how they evolved or history of the fossil record 200000 years ago, or extrapolatory hypotheses about entities which do not exist in the current time frame is beside the point. Stem Cell biology is booming due to observation, hypothesis, and experimentation, not by attachment to evolution. As you are trying to make him believe this fundamental 'truth', you want to shame him into thinking that he is anti-science and therefore irrational if he doesn't accept evolution, you are trying to ignore the existence of flaws that are required in order to fill out the entire worldview, including the inability to answer the question of what life actually is, what the source of first life was, why life perpetuates itself despite being subject to entropy, what is the source of mind, rationality, agency, and self awareness, along with many other questions. It is patently false that it is not fundamental at all when it can't answer the fundamental issues.

Great, at least you know biology. But you forgot to bolden the "actual evolutionary biology" next to scientists. You also forgot to read all of the article, and all the sources of the each point, then you forgot to integrate all of them under one theory to explain all of them at the same time. Because only evolution does that. How easy it is to dismiss it without actually studying it, so easy. One simple misconception you make is that fossils are dated with the isotope concentrations inside the fossil when in fact what arechaeologists do is date the rocks and samples around the fossil of the same geological age. Yes, biochemists need to understand evolution because only though evolution does biochemisty makes sense. A physicist that doesn't believe in evolution is completely lost in the middle ages. Nowadays even physicists have documentaries about evolution, because physics underlies all of science. It is a disgrace that a medical student is saying "it is a theory" as if he didn't know what a scientific theory means. And I know you know what it means, you can't be that ignorant. I expect that from religious people, not students of science, or worse, people who will have other's lives at their hands.

If God is all there is then there is no love. The love you describe as "the highest truth" is nothing more than divine masturbation.