1) he doesn't believe in evolution. (smart people would accept it as already accepted FACT). more dislikes than likes.
To believe anything, is to voluntarily blind yourself. Don't ever believe anything. There is no reason to. We humans have so many useful tools at our
disposal, that it'd be sheer madness throwing them away like that. There's trust, faith, accepting/rejecting as the truth, taking into
consideration, pondering, wondering, processing, researching, finding out, knowing, et cetera (I am sure anyone could continue this list for a long
time). But there is never a need to BELIEVE.
Evolution is not a fact (except spiritual evolution). It's a theory, an unproven, very logical-sounding theory, but still just a theory.
The facts do not actually support the evolution theory. All Darwin saw in the Galapacos Islands was MICROevolution, and he simply -assumed- (jumped
into a conclusion, very unscientifically!) that with long enough time, MACROevolution would also be possible. It's very easy to go along with this
reasoning, but it isn't true, and it can't be true.
I am going to transcribe from audio into text, what a researcher had to say about it - I am not sure about his name, as it is pronounced so unclearly,
but it sounds like "Loyd Pine" or something like that.
---- Transcript starts ----
"The problem with that theory is that there is no science that can verify it as actually being possible for that to occur. You would need for a first
living thing, millions, perhaps hundreds of thousands at a minimum, perhaps millions at a maximum, of lipids (?) to make a membrane to hold that
living thing. You would need sidoplasm or something to give it substance within it's body. You would need five to ten strands of DNA at a minimum to
do the housekeeping required, to take nourishment from the environment, and to put waste back out from the body when the nourishment had been turned
into energy. It would have to be able to reproduce itself ad infinitum. All of that has to happen AT ONCE. It can't happen piecemeal, it can't be
put together in parts.
So when you just look at the very beginnings of life, you see that Darwinism isn't possible. Furthermore, in the ongoing fossil record that we have
for subsequent formation of life and species, they never developed one from another. That's what Darwin postulated, that macroevolution would be
possible, that seaworms could turn into fish, fish could turn into amphibians, amphibians could turn into reptiles, reptiles could turn into mammals
and birds, that gills could turn into lungs, that fins could turn into limbs -- there is no evidence of ANY of that, and yet it is absolutely required
by Darwin's theory.
All that Darwin saw on the Galapacos was microeveolution, which is evolution in parts of bodies - and he just assumed, he just guessed, he projected,
that whole bodies could change, given enough time. It was logical - it is logical, it just simply is not born out by the facts. We've had a hundred
and forty years to look for those - that evidence - it's not there, it's not going to be there, that's not how life develops on Earth.
Life seems to be - if you read the fossil record fairly and truly - life seems to be brought here in great loads, in great amounts, it is as if the
Earth is being Terraformed by some superior entity or entities somewhere else - but there seems to be a conscious ongoing program of development of
life on Earth - but it is not being developed here, in and of itself, in the Terrestrial - strictly withing the Terrestrial bounds.
There is some kind of outside intervention occurring, whether that is interpreted as Extra-Terrestrial or Divine, it's up to the individual, but it
is not happening entirely here. "
--------- Transcript ends -----------------
I hope you are more enlightened and less 'believing' about your theory of 'Evolution' after reading this.
About Alex Jones - I don't really know what to think about him, he makes some good points, but he seems to be fearmongering a heck of a lot for
someone who wants to encourage constructive change in the world, and he certainly isn't informing people about what they can do - and what they have
already done.. he's not telling them about "person" (also known as "strawman"), the difference between LAWFUL and LEGAL, or any of the ways
people have actually voluntarily given up their rights - even those people who constantly talk about them. THAT is why the "Elite" were laughing at
Alex Jones' screaming about "The answer to 1984 is 1776" (or whatever) - because the people were not forcefully enslaved, they enslaved themselves
by performing joinders, identifying with their "person" (with the SSN), "applying", "registering", "submitting".. in other words, by signing
papers they shouldn't have, and by believing they need a driver's license to travel by automobile..
And so on.
So, I don't think any of those "big names" are completely reliable, but they can be entertaining.