Therefore it's immune to critical reading?

That's not how definitions work. If the phenomenon described fits all the criteria we assign to metamorphosis, then it's metamorphosis, not evolution.

anyway, british place name and derivative are dumb, I think we can agree on that.

Bitten? Really?

I know the 'uncle' comes from eastern literature, but it's always lost in translation. You simply don't call someone you don't know your uncle in english.

nope, it's actually "woh-ste-sure"

Is the author suggesting there is no way to entertain yourself other than vacuuming? Like she doesn't like to read, write, draw, sing, play an instrument, heck play video games ? I think it's pretty obvious the author never talk with a girl in his life and he has some pretty sexist thoughts in the back of his head. That, or the author is an alien that tries to imitate human writers.

People knew the planet was spherical since the Hellenistic period (at least). Why would Eratosthenes have calculated the circumference of the planet otherwise ? The belief, however, was that Earth was the center of the universe.

Better than being a faquin.

So you're the type to put your brain on the side when they read? Good for you. I can't say there is a 'wrong' way to read. I do however like to think when I read, and to analyze what's being written. If that doesn't interest you, you can always ignore and go on with your life.

Great comeback, I realize how wrong my comment was now :/

The world is expressed through the writing. if the writing is bad, world building will suffer as much.

You clearly don't know much about the history of religion if you think all christian think Jesus is divine. This has been the center point of a lot of religious debate throughout history (most notably at the birth of Christianity) and some christian sect (here sect means a sub-group of a larger religion) have the non divinity of jesus as one of their core belief. Also, Hinduism and other polytheistic don't fit what we know of the world? So does the big monotheistic religions of the world (judaism, christianity, iislam ut also, zoroastrianism, sikhism and many others). Very few (if not none) of the claims they make about the inner workings of the worlds fit with our modern knowledge.

Your description for the null hypothesis isn't correct, you got it in reverse. Null hypothesis are used when testing the existence of a phenomenon or a relationship between two variables. When you want to see if a phenomenon exist, you should consider by default the null hypothesis as the correct and attempt to disprove the null hypothesis by provided evidence in favor of the phenomenon or the relation. In the case of the existence of a divine entity, the burden of proof is therefore on the people who assert one exist, because the null hypothesis, the one admitted by default is "the phenomenon called a divine entity does not exist". If you say "God exist", then you have the responsibility to provide proofs it does exist.

Either the author never listened to any atheistic argument (which is likely since the majority of earth population never did) or he's purposely the character use bad argument to exaggerate his flaws. It should be noted that both hypothesis aren't mutually exclusive. It's still a shame it falls in the usual stereotypes.

I've seen the author comment that it is an obvious joke, but the text itself is clearly in contradiction with that idea. It's stated that his tone of voice and expression suddenly shift as he says his line. Maybe you intended to make it a "joke" (however tasteless it is) but you couldn't transcribe that idea. the author's intent don't matter as much as how is perceived his text

I know a day is twice as long. My problem is why a 12 year old person behave like a 12 year old when they would be equivalent to a 24 year old.

I never said it doesn't make sense. I never questionned how life forms could appear on a planet 50 times the size of Earth. All I am arguing is that it is a stupid and useless idea. Why did the author decide to make the planet this size? The only reason I can think of is to invoke an awe factor in the reader, just because of the stupid argument that "bigger is better". Take a step back and think about if it had made a difference if the planet had been a different size. Spoiler, it would not have. The only thing I complained about is the obsession of exagerating every aspect of our world when creating a fantasy world, as if this some kind of weewee contest.

One more time, say it with me : This isn't evolution, this is a metamorphosis. Open a biology book and learn your lesson.