Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Ravenshire]

It needed pointing out because you based part of your ideas on shit you simply don't understand, making them self refuting.

Let me put it this way. I know something about coding, mostly in AutoLISP for use in AutoCad and in Python. I know fuck-all about coding in C#. In other words I'm completely ignorant of how to code in C#. You will never find me on a coding forum spouting ideas that require an understanding of C#, but that's exactly what you've done here. If you wan't to base ideas on the sciences, or refute some part of them, you have to understand them first. You clearly don't. It's not an insult, it's an observation based on your own presentations.

Your argument seems to compare two people:
1. A doctoral candidate in the sciences.
2. A person who took Philosophy 101, and no science courses. 

Your ASSUMPTION is, the philosophy student cannot reasonably questoin a conclusoin drawn by the doctor in science. 
You're wrong.  I already implied an example. The scientist might conclude, "The physiology of the body (e.g. ATP) is the sole power propelling motility".

Let's think about that. If a domino effect (ATP) is the sole power at work, then I can punch you in the face with impunity. No one has any right to indict me of assault or punish me. 

MY claim is that free will is a self-moving force, which accounts for human accountability, as well as solves the First Mover problem. That scientist is therefore incorrect. 

The point is that you cannot apriori assume, "Only the person who studies and believes the content of science textbooks can rightly opine or comment on material reality".

That's an unwise assumption.

Twisting my words, misrepresenting what I said, and speaking for me. Yet I'm the one putting on a show?

What I said is very simple. If you don't understand a subject (which you obviously do not), you cannot intelligently comment on that subject. Whether you believe (using evolution strictly as an example) that we evolved from apes has fucking nothing to do with understanding evolution well enough to refute it, agree with it, or base an argument (for or against) on it's tenets.

You seem to want to double down on ignorance as a base for argumentation so we're again reduced to pointing and laughing, with you as the only target.