General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Patchwurk
Professor Dave Explains
comments

Comments by "Patchwurk" (@patchwurk6652) on "Professor Dave Explains" channel.

@deegobooster My point was that sure, they're not Advocating For intelligent design.... They're just condemning literally everything else and trying to get it thrown out of the classroom. And what a coincidence, look what's the only explanation Not demonized in their view that they wouldn't object to being taught? Intelligent Design. Like just because they never bold-facedly stated they want it taught in schools, their actions reflect the exact opposite. No matter how many times you Tell me that you're not pimping Intelligent Design Creationism, if all you do is attempt to discredit and shitsmear everything But intelligent design, and they're literally being funded by Abrahamic religious institutions who reject anything but ID, pattern recognition's gonna kick in eventually.
16
@deegobooster Sure. They just demonize and condemn any and all explanations Except intelligent design, and their spokespeople all incidentally believe in intelligent design.
12
@Ibn_Abdulaziz "Let's take it step by step. Do you believe it requires knowledge and ability to produce fusion power? Then the question becomes: dies it require knowledge and ability to produce the sun?" No. It requires intelligence and effort for fusion FOR US because we're effectively taking the process of solar fusion and compressing it down into an extremely tiny package relatively. The only thing making fusion happen in stars is just gravity and mass. It doesn't take intelligence, just gravity and a lot of matter.
11
@Ibn_Abdulaziz Prove there's a creator. Done talking sophistry with you, brass tax. Prove there's a God. You demand and demand us to answer your questions only to disregard the answers, I am tired of this game, so let's just drop the pretense. Prove God exists, or you have nothing.
10
@Ibn_Abdulaziz Today please. Physical demonstrable irrefutable proof God exists. Something that can be proven by actual empiricism as opposed to your endless apologetic wanking over pedantic wordgames.
8
@Ibn_Abdulaziz "Would it require more knowledge and ability to create a sun if humans wanted to? And would that process be more difficult than creating a fusion reactor?" NO! These things literally form on their own without human knowledge. Stars ae naturally-occurring things. "And would that process be more difficult than creating a fusion reactor?" -_- Why are you not listening? Why are you just reiterating the same question as if this was not answered? Stars are a byproduct of gravity applied to a lot of matter. They are absurdly huge and it would take us awhile to gather up the amount of mass to make one. Y'know WHY?! Because the only thing in this solar system that has the mass to make a star IS ALREADY A FREAKING STAR!
7
@Ibn_Abdulaziz Space exists. Time passes. There. Proof. Now stop derailing and answer for your God. Every time you don't answer you're just outing yourself as void of any evidence for your claims.
7
@Ibn_Abdulaziz "The traces and footprints in the snow indicate that someone walked there. The spilling of animals indicate that an animal was there for a tracker on hunt. " I said empirical evidence, not sophistry, so Strike 1. " But if there was no footprints , you would not have concluded that a person was there." Strike 2. "Likewise, space and time didn't exist, and therefore something that was non-existent couldn't have brought itself into existence. " You literally do not know this to be true. Guess we're adding "Prove spacetime was created" to the list of evidence you will never provide. "Therefore the traces of space and time indicate a Creator." I DID NOT ASK FOR WORDGAMES, I DEMANDED EVIDENCE! Strike 3, you're done.
7
@theonlytruth9453 Demonstrate your model for a Flat Earth. No more deflections, no more bullshit and baseless accusations, Show Us why the Flat Earth is true.
6
@Ibn_Abdulaziz1405 "I would've talked with you, but my comments are vanishing. Mr Dave here says that his oppenents have no knowledge. So he acknowledges that it requires knowledge ro grasp how the world functions. But then he would say the same as you that the very world that requires knowledge to grasp doesn't require knowledge to build." BECAUSE NO ONE BUILT STARS YOU CLOD! They are actively formed as a result of the basic laws of physics, no one "designed" stars, stars are naturally occurring structures. Also, ONCE AGAIN, you are comparing two separate functions: The process of knowing and understanding something (which requires a brain to do), versus "mindless celestial phenomena."
6
@mianriyaan2647 "Fusion is difficult to perform on earth because it only occurs in the extreme conditions inside a star, which we will struggle to create." And just to be clear, it's not difficult because "we don't know how to do it", it's LITERALLY just because of the manpower and absurd AMOUNT of "stuff" and matter you need for gravity to make a star. That's not "complicated", that's just a lot of brute force gruntwork and an obnoxiously long commute. That's kind of it.
5
@Ibn_Abdulaziz Whatever, don't care, demonstrate God exists or you have nothing. You clearly don't care about the answer, so let's cut the BS. Prove God. Or you have nothing. Today.
4
He got arrested recently Again for domestic violence and is in all probability heading back to prison. So... Probably not.
3
Nah, this is a common BS tactic. Challenge someone to a debate, but make the stipulations for how the debate will occur so ponderously absurd that the other person is guaranteed to say "Hell no." Then you crow to your audience about how cowardly and scared they are for not "Accepting your demands for 3 separate debates on the complete opposite side of the planet entirely at their financial expense."
3
@StUrho-kw5sl In what respect did Dave make a fool of himself?
3
David Haniwalt "You dont even know about Kent. All you did was listen to slander and repeated it." His criminal record is public knowledge, he's Back in prison once again, this time for domestic violence, what are you on about? Kent Hovind is Verifiably a criminal with a verified criminal past, it's not slander when he was literally serving jail time for years.
3
@c.ry.o So his stance is great.... Buuuut you want his stance to not exist because your stance is more important. Why can't you just say you want your position to be His position? Seems easier than pretending you care about principle when all you actually want is compliance with Your sense of principles.
3
@Youtube_Stole_My_Handle_Too ...Well that's all well and good, but apparently you don't understand what days and years are. A Day is "The time in which a celestial body takes to rotate on its axis in relation to a gravitationally superior structure." So... What was a "Day" in reference to in genesis? Seeing how Stars didn't exist before Days did apparently, Planets didn't exist before Days either apparently, so... What frame of reference are we using to determine a Day here? A Year is the amount of time it takes for an object to revolve around a gravitationally superior object, once again completely contextually based upon the celestial object being referenced at a given time. So... Once again, what is a year in this context Before Earth and stars existed? We calculate years based upon how Earth rotates/revolves Now, but apparently there was no Earth in the first day or so, so... What's Day? What's Year?
3
@StUrho-kw5sl You gonna back this claim up at all or just gonna act like you accusing Dave of something is itself evidence?
3
@imjoeim I just generalized harder and applied the same contempt to the entirety of anyone and everything that tries to defend the concept of a God. Islam isn't exempt from being an absolutely moronic and unjustifiable belief system just because they're marginalized in modernity. Every Abrahamic religion is a societal cancer that glorifies ignorance and submission over understanding.
2
@imjoeim Literally just generalized harder and insulted the entire concept of anyone that defends the concept of God, but okay. Islam is no less a societal cancer than any other Abrahamic faith, and your sympathy for an abused demographic doesn't suddenly make their religion any less so.
2
@ThorsDecree Is VenomFangX still a thing?! Holy hell, talk about a blast from the past!
2
@ThorsDecree Heh, I mean I understood the reference so I guess I'm dated too
2
Where would Subpar be in life without people like you diligently working his shaft? Your existence is sad.
2
We've see the full extent of what this man "got". And that debate would be utterly beneath Dave and a waste of everyone's time just to give validation to a coward.
2
Sigh Can't even have a principled stance on anything without someone immediately trying to override it for their own agenda.
2
Simple. Present an offer that's absurd that will guarantee the response is a "No" for a fairly obvious reason, then they can go crow about how you backed out like a coward to their idiot fanbase
2
Still waiting for an answer. What's the confirmation bias?
2
He shouldn't have been a whiny coward then.
1
What possible value does the process of science derive from attaching a made-up BS story to it? What's God adding to this except more BS?
1
@aihermit It literally meets all the criteria for a religion and is actively recognized as such BY MOST HINDUS!
1
We don't need this debate. If you want to see people pay attention to braindead apologists and dishonest hacks, go watch MDD.
1
@Nad_Eem001 Much like these "Scheduled" debates, Subpar didn't actually do it.
1
@imjoeim Okay. Typical Apologist. Better?
1
@imjoeim Your sympathy for the Muslim people doesn't make their religion any less moronic and dishonest. Everything that makes Christianity and Judaism idiotic is equally applicable to Islam. All I did was generalize EVEN MORE by applying the contempt of Islam to "Every single Abrahamic religion in totality."
1
@silvaskiproductions3937 They were going to dismiss anyway, so may as well insult.
1
@StUrho-kw5sl Well someone clearly doesn't watch Dave's channel. ... And holds Dave to a completely different standard than God, seeing how God's never once been demonstrated as a position at any point.
1
Kent Hovind actually debates. ...Well okay, he shows up to argue, I wouldn't exactly call it debating, but he actually does do the thing.
1
...Steven, have you ever watched a debate with a flat-earther? Modern Day Debates has them on regularly, and it Always devolves into a shitstorm with the FE guy accusing their opponent of being liars, dupes, stupid, and blatantly rejecting any evidence presented to them as fake.... Yet never presenting a shred of evidence of their own and flat out calling anyone who doesn't accept the FE by fiat as stupid sheeple. Tell me, what's the reasonable and respectable way to debate someone whose default position is "You and everyone else who questions me is a fraud, liar, and part of a conspiracy against me"?
1
@stevbosh102 Sure. Oh right yeah, the flat-earthers are innocent little cherubs. Being a blatant fraud whose knowingly playing dumb and wasting everyone's time with blatant logical fallacies and evasion tactics and never once treating the Debate like anything but an interrogation in order to avoid any and all conversation of their own beliefs, all while nakedly insulting you and trying to bullbait you into rage-quitting is Totally a sensible reaction to "being smug." You're defending bullshit artists as if it's Our fault they're bullshit artists. If a tone of voice is all it takes to turn you into the most vindictive hateful clod less than 2 minutes into your own intro in front of a live audience, then either A: You have frankly psychotically concerning temper problems, or B: You weren't ever planning to be respectful and were just looking for an excuse.
1
Why do you ask questions you already know the extremely sexist answer to?
1
@asyetundetermined Nice non-answer coming from the generation whose mess you expect the young to clean up For you. "You'll understand when the people before you fail you that much more."
1
@asyetundetermined If people like you actually Had a principled stance on anything besides "not Republicans", we wouldn't even Be here. If you people had the least bit conviction up until the GOP shoved your nation into the proverbial toilet, we wouldn't BE here. Just admit you want us to clean up your generational mess For you. Because Your generation was weak and stood for nothing and let these gremlins dig their heels in. Keep being smug, older generations so wildly incompetent you need to browbeat the youth into fixing your mistakes because You Failed.
1
@asyetundetermined If you people had any principles you ever believed in and stood by, you wouldn't Need the young to abandon all standards just to save you from your own generational screwups. But sure, keep being smug, person from the generation that dragged us here.
1
@asyetundetermined Also, for the record, you people won me over. I'm not even objecting to your standard, I'm just annoyed that you people even pretend you HAVE principles when all that ultimately matters to you is "Vote my way or else." Like just call a spade a spade, don't act like you've got some great wisdom or place to be smug when it's as simple as "Save us from the consequences of our generational failures, or else you're a child!"
1
@asyetundetermined "these comments highlight my point further. You fundamentally fail to understand what voting is." Oh PLEASE tell me o wise one, tell me what voting is. /s "But when the rubber meets the road, when a choice has to be made, your best intentions are not recorded and will not achieve what you wish. " You have no damn idea what I wish, yet apparently "complying with your agenda" magically gets it done? "Voting is one such opportunity for us to yield to the trappings of our position. It is an action of realpolitik, not ideology." Blah blah blah blah Booooooored. "You can vote however you wish. It is reality, however, that your vote has practical downstream effects which may be entirely incongruent with what you desire. Recognizing that, and carrying on anyway for personal reasons, is definitionally selfish." Translation: Stop being selfish and DO WHAT I WANT! Smug, self-satisfied, arrogant, patronizing, all while saying nothing but "Do what I say or else You are selfish." Bored with people like you.
1
@asyetundetermined "these comments highlight my point further. You fundamentally fail to understand what voting is." Smug patronizing incoming. "Please, by all means, develop and advocate your ideals. Do your best to implement them in a way you see fit to amend society positively. But when the rubber meets the road, when a choice has to be made, your best intentions are not recorded and will not achieve what you wish. " Translation: Only have principles until it contradicts your agenda. Then abandon them for YOUR political convenience. "Part of the disillusionment and loss of ideological optimism that Dave references in the video is the resignation to engaging with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. Voting is one such opportunity for us to yield to the trappings of our position. It is an action of realpolitik, not ideology." Lotta word salad there. Mind spitting it out in a less pretentious way? "You can vote however you wish" Thanks, didn't need your permission. "It is reality, however, that your vote has practical downstream effects which may be entirely incongruent with what you desire. Recognizing that, and carrying on anyway for personal reasons, is definitionally selfish." Considering your entire point is "Do what I want, or else YOU are selfish", I can't say I care what your assessment of selfish is.
1
@alexistoran2181 "I'm not sure whether this is directed at me, particularly since I myself am under 30, but I do have principles. Principles that the Democrats - and the Labour Party in my own country - often fail to uphold. But the Republicans and Conservatives oppose my principles far more, and if allying with a bad party is what it takes to defeat an evil party, that's what I will do." Thanks for at least explaining your standpoint in a non-smug pretentious manner, even if it's still just boiling down to "But other guy worse though" as a rationalization for why you're compromising them. "It can be sickening to be forced into that choice." Not so actually. That choice is easy. What's annoying an sickening is the endless cavalcade of people whose reaction to you NOT compromising where they 100% did. The smug, hostile, pretentious acid-dripping self-victimhood from people who violate their stated principles only to act like you're the one whose ruining things when, by all accounts, the only reason we're even IN a position at the mercy of the GOP is expressly because they, your so-called allies, previously failed again and again and again to uphold their so-called principles, only to act like a bunch of assholes because you're not nearly as mentally weak. You wanna know why the GOP in America is so powerful? Ask the Dems.
1
@alexistoran2181 Again, as stated before, I get the concept. I am voting for the Dems this time around, I understand the whole "oh we have no choice, other guy bad" schitck. It's not complicated, it's literally the most childishly basic schoolyard variant of a political situation. I can be a hypocrite void of any principle besides "That which is most convenient for me at this given moment" as-needed. But y'know what I Don't do? Turn around and act like I've got any ground to lecture anyone ELSE on topics of principle as if I'm not the most raging sellout because of it. Either have principles, or save your own ass and be a self-serving opportunist Openly. You don't get to pick one only to pretend like you'll have something to stand for "Later" when there's zero cost to standing for it. You either have convictions, or you don't. Simple as. At least I'm fully aware I'm a hypocrite, the rest of you are still belly-aching as if you stand for anything besides base self-preservation.
1
@alexistoran2181 I'm voting for Harris because, like you, when the rubber met the road my principles caved to save my own skin. I'm sellout trash that will throw everything I value down the drain to preserve my skin and that of my given group of people. And I don't pretend to be the least bit better than that. But I'm a damn sight better than someone who is doing the exact same self-serving opportunistic parasite move, only to turn around and pretend they're moral for standing alongside Cop-mala and the DNC. The person you're commenting to in your original post, that guy, is the ONLY person here with a single shred of real conviction. The rest of us aren't fit to lick his boots, because we're ALL sellout hypocritical trash out for our own skin and nothing else.
1
@alexistoran2181 I'm voting for Harris because, like you, when the rubber met the road my principles caved to save my own skin. I'm sellout low-grade junk that will throw everything I value down the drain to preserve my skin and that of my given group of people I like. And I don't pretend to be the least bit better than that. But I'm miles better than someone who is doing the exact same self-serving opportunistic parasite move, only to turn around and pretend they're moral for standing alongside Cop-mala and the DNC. The person you're commenting to in your original post, that guy, is the ONLY person here with a single shred of real conviction. The rest of us aren't fit to lick his boots, because we're ALL hypocritical principle-void sellouts out for our own skin and nothing else.
1
@alexistoran2181 "The other guy being worse is all the justification I would need in your position." And it's all the justification I need. I just don't pretend like I have principles I care about on top of that brazen hypocrisy. They will clearly be thrown to the curb the moment it's inconvenient, may as well not even have them. If you're going to be a hypocritical opportunist in politics only out to save your own skin, just be that. Don't lie to me about having values when I can see bold-facedly what's going on.
1
@alexistoran2181 The person you're responding to originally is the only person in this whole chain, myself included, who has a single principle they won't throw in the garbage the moment it becomes inconvenient. No one in this thread has any right to judge Dave for having a stance they will not budge on. Especially not anyone whose sense of conviction is so casually abandoned for personal self-interest. May as well accept judgement from a cockroach while we're here.
1
@alexistoran2181 I'm in the same boat you are. I'm voting for Kamala Harris because doing so serves my self-interests and I will absolutely sell out every principle I have to save myself and those I have some sense of kinship towards. The difference is I know that all I am is a hypocritical opportunist who has zero right to judge anyone WITH principles or conviction because I'm a self-serving cockroach. You, however, seem to be laboring under the delusion that your judgement and your sense of so-called standards is worth anything to anyone. It isn't. You're just as much a self-serving parasite as I am, and no one with real conviction cares what you or I say. You are a roach judging lions and wondering why they don't hear you.
1
@alexistoran2181 I'm in the same boat you are. I'm voting for Kamala Harris because doing so serves my self-interests and I will absolutely sell out every principle I have to save myself and those I have some sense of kinship towards. The difference is I know that all I am is a hypocritical opportunist who has zero right to judge anyone WITH principles or conviction because I'm a self-serving cockroach. You, however, seem to be laboring under the delusion that your judgement and your sense of so-called standards is worth anything to anyone. It isn't. Not as long as you're the same sort of creature I am.
1
@alexistoran2181 I'm in the same boat you are. I'm voting for Kamala Harris because doing so serves my self-interests and I will absolutely sell out every principle I have to save myself and those I have some sense of kinship towards. The difference is I know that all I am is a hypocritical opportunist who has zero right to judge anyone WITH principles or conviction because I'm a self-serving nepotist. You, however, seem to be laboring under the delusion that your judgement and your sense of so-called standards is worth anything to anyone. It isn't. Not as long as you're the same sort of creature I am.
1
@alexistoran2181 Ah, so you advocating for something that will functionally never happen so long as the GOP exists on any level nullifies any and all actionable consequences of your support and nothing you do is the least bit in violation of left-leaning principles. I love the sheer amount of US foreign policy and domestic policy I have to pretend just magically doesn't exist under the DNC to believe that. Whatever you have to tell yourself to not feel like a hypocrite dude. XD
1
@alexistoran2181 Take one look at Gaza and think Reeeeeeaaaaaally hard about your so-called principles.
1
@alexistoran2181 "And refusing to vote Democrat on election day does nothing to help Gaza - do you really think it will be easier to persuade the Republicans to oppose Israel?" XD, there it is. "My hypocrisy is fine because they're worse." I'm voting Democrat genius. I've said so repeatedly. I'm trying to get you to stop pretending there's any moral principle at work here. You're just saving your own skin, and the victims of your support are just collateral. That's all this is, that's all you've got, and I'd appreciate it if you just admitted it instead of trying to make moral relativism out of your w@rcrimes. You think Gaza sees a difference between you and Republicans? Because I can assure you the burnpile stacks higher regardless and all they see is "Evil Americans" Red or Blue.
1
@alexistoran2181 XD, there it is. "My hypocrisy is fine because they're worse." I'm voting Democrat genius. I've said so repeatedly. I'm trying to get you to stop pretending there's any moral principle at work here. You're just saving your own skin, and Gaza is just "Necessary losses". That's all this is, that's all you've got, and I'd appreciate it if you just admitted it instead of trying to pretend like you've got some moral core to stand on. You think Gaza sees a difference between you and Republicans? Because I can assure you the burnpile stacks higher regardless and all they see is "Evil Americans" Red or Blue. And they're RIGHT.
1
@alexistoran2181 XD, there it is. "My hypocrisy is fine because they're worse." You think Gaza sees a difference between you and Republicans? Because I can assure you the burnpile stacks higher regardless and all they see is "Evil Americans" Red or Blue. And they're RIGHT. Because your only morals are "That which advantages me and mine, and the rest can burn for my convenience." I'm voting for Harris. I just don't feel the need to pretend like I'm standing for anything but self preservation. You seem to think you have some moral ground to stand on. You don't.
1
@alexistoran2181 XD, there it is. "My hypocrisy is fine because they're worse." You think Gaza sees a difference between you and Republicans? Because I can assure you the burnpile stacks higher regardless and all they see is "Evil Americans" Red or Blue. I'm voting for Harris. I just don't feel the need to pretend like I'm standing for anything but self preservation. You seem to think you have some moral ground to stand on. You don't.
1
@alexistoran2181 XD, there it is. "My hypocrisy is fine because they're worse." I'm voting for Harris. I just don't feel the need to lie to myself about what I am endorsing happening to others to save my own skin. Stop being a coward and face what you're willing to become to save yourself. Gaza is a complete non-issue to you compared to your own convenience, stop pretending otherwise. You will NEVER help Gaza, and you know it.
1
@alexistoran2181 XD, there it is. "My hypocrisy is fine because they're worse." I'm voting for Harris. I just don't feel the need to lie to myself about what I am endorsing happening to others to save my own skin.
1
@alexistoran2181 Stop pretending you have any principles and accept what you've become to win. Another jackbooted war criminal. Gaza sees no difference between you, you're just another American monster. And they're Right.
1
@alexistoran2181 However you have to rationalize it to yourself. So long as you submit and do what's convenient for me, I really don't care how you justify it to yourself. I think I've got all the assessment I need here.
1
@seyonevaradarajahn8945 Of course he was born. God was born the day someone figured out human beings are extremely damn gullible.
1
If you actually watched the video, you'd already know the answer chuckleshits.
1
@KevinBrooks-cq2bx "I think he makes valid points" Wow, sure sucks that Dave probably doesn't make videos based on what you think. "u QuoQue fallacy detected!! For me and for his followers(I was a past follower of him) his points are attractive" Okay, lay one out. Present one of these points. Attract Me.
1
@KevinBrooks-cq2bx " I have the right to say my opinions right?" No one said you didn't, I was criticizing you completely OMITTING the reason why. "How he mocks dave for not being able to complete his master's and instead pursue a degree in science education." So you like him because he denigrates people smarter than you and more qualified than you for not being "EVEN MORE" your intellectual superior than they already are. "How someone with Dave's credentials can debate a professor with a Phd." How about to figure out how to spit out a sentence in proper syntax before you faceplant making an illiterate point?
1
@KevinBrooks-cq2bx "please calm down man, i don't want to get to a fight." Nothing calms me down more than some random nobody insisting I have to "calm down" in lieu of a real response. "I'm just saying what I think here and if you don't agree then refute me in a civilized manner instead of strawmaning my arguments." Refute What Exactly? You haven't specified anything besides generalities. "I never said that I like him, i just said that I think he makes some fair point against dave." And you fail to bring up any of them. "If you think I made an illiterate point then try to prove why it's an illiterate point instead of simply complaining to satisfy your mind" Spit out what you think he owned Dave on and I will. "What do you mean by "you" in "he degenerates people smarter than you and more qualified than you"?" My assessment of what your position probably is since you keep being evasive.
1
@KevinBrooks-cq2bx " I'm sorry if you didn't understand my arguments maybe I didn't present it well enough or you just didn't try to understand my arguments anyways" ....Uh huh. My fault apparently. "Why dave should make a video debunking suboor's claims" He did. Next. "Suboor mocks dave by saying that he doesn't deserve the professor title because he failed the master's in chemistry twice and he only held a temporary teaching position in a university because a professor had some issues and went away." He has a Master's now and that qualifies one to be a professor in academic circles, so this objection is invalid. "Suboor also says that Dave who only has a bachelors degree and some science education degree doesn't have enough credentials to debate someone with a Phd in chemistry." He has a Masters. You could have looked this up. Subpar is actively just lying or actively has no idea who Dave is.
1
@KevinBrooks-cq2bx "He has a master's in science education so it is debatable whether he can be called a professor " "Debatable" except to anyone involved in STEM, but whatever. You're defending someone whose Masters is in philosophy. That's worth less than nothing in an empirical discussion. Subpar's assessment isn't worth the paper that degree was printed on.
1
@KevinBrooks-cq2bx FFS Google the term professor! I found it in like 30 seconds, it's not complicated. "Professor is an academic rank at universities and other post-secondary education and research institutions in most countries. Literally, professor derives from Latin as a "person who professes". Professors are usually experts in their field and teachers of the highest rank. Wikipedia Activity sectors: Academics Education required: Master's degree, doctoral degree (e.g., PhD), professional degree, or other terminal degree Names: Professor Related jobs: Teacher, lecturer, reader, researcher" This conversation is over. You are wrong. Deal with it.
1
@KevinBrooks-cq2bx "Professor is an academic rank at universities and other post-secondary education and research institutions in most countries. Literally, professor derives from Latin as a "person who professes". Professors are usually experts in their field and teachers of the highest rank. Wikipedia Activity sectors: Academics Education required: Master's degree, doctoral degree (e.g., PhD), professional degree, or other terminal degree Names: Professor Related jobs: Teacher, lecturer, reader, researcher" This conversation is over. You are wrong. There is no debate.
1
@KevinBrooks-cq2bx "Typically" is carrying your entire point. Don't care, definition doesn't change, you're wrong. Cope and seethe.
1
@jzero1579 What a vague comment -_-
1
@StUrho-kw5sl Ah, so your ability to prove you're not full of shit is contingent on someone else's behavior. Don't remember that part of the Bible, but whatever allows you to perpetually shift burden of proof. Prove God.
1
@StUrho-kw5sl Science you won't demonstrate, won't verify to anyone, and which the scientific community doesn't line up with on any level which you're willing to demonstrate. ...Yeah, call me crazy, but until I hear it from a qualified scientist, your opinion on the science means absolutely nothing to me.
1
@StUrho-kw5sl I don't believe I called you a name in any of my comments, actually. I'd love a source on what exactly I called you. We can do without your unqualified diagnosis of my behavior as "crazy", thank you very much. But I am curious, is name-calling the only form of insult you abstain from? I mean you didn't call me a name there, sure, but you followed that up immediately with sloppy gaslighting and unfounded accusations of craziness in my behavior. That was not craziness good sir, that attitude was dismissive. You said you had no interest in showing evidence for your position. I was expressing annoyance at your inability to do so. Silly me, kinda figured this conversation was over when you completely brick walled the conversation the instant anyone asked you about your position. The hell are you that's so special that you owe no one an explanation of anything but we owe your ass something?
1
@StUrho-kw5sl Guess we're just pretending colloquial language use doesn't exist for the purposes of that insult. Do you have any intent to actually refute anything said to you or present evidence of your own position, or is shamelessly baseless accusations of mental disorders all you have? Like you do realize that literally every insinuation of yours could be true, I could be completely out of my mind crazy, and that would still say nothing of relevance about whether or not your beliefs are valid, right?
1
@StUrho-kw5sl Dude, why would you even need to? One, Kent is the one with the unaccepted position, not Dave. Evolution and an old Earth is the Default "No Shit" position, whole swathes of our scientific fields only work IF evolution is real, and its model predicts accurately how biological structures form and change over time. Dave doesn't Have to prove evolution because it's the Official Position at present. YEC and Creationism in general, meanwhile, Is unproven, Doesn't have any evidence backing it up that I've ever heard, and... I mean it's Kent Hovind, dude. If you've heard One Hovind debate, you know every single argument Kent will ever use, the order in which he'll use them, because his script Hasn't Changed At All since the day he started decades and two different prison sentences ago. And Kent's arguments have Never posited a single proof FOR Creationism besides "Bible said it". All Kent's got is attacks against evolution that highlight how fundamentally he doesn't understand evolution. Like there's literally a Hovind Bingo Cards because his script is so repetitive and transparent that we turned his predictability into a game. Every debate Kent WILL conflate the Big Bang with Evolution, despite the fact that he's been corrected every single debate that those two concepts are not even remotely related to eachother as scientific fields. Every single debate Kent Will say some iteration of "A canine can't make a non-canine", despite being told every single debate that's not how evolutionary biology says that works, thus making his accusation irrelevant and ignorant. Every video he Will keep using the word "kind" instead of any biologically relevant categorization standard AND WILL NEVER answer the question "What does Kind refer to?" Like there's no point being nice to Kent because Kent is Infamous for being the most disingenuous, dishonest, fallacy-spewing condescending brick wall of willful ignorance on the Internet. And that has nothing to do with his beliefs, Kent brought this on himself after Years of the exact same dishonest bullshit despite being called out on it a thousand different times, a thousand different ways, and even after him serving prison time repeatedly for his dirtbag behavior. All Kent has For his position is "Bible says so". In the Entirety of his existence as a Creationist debater, Genesis is the Only evidence Kent has EVER displayed FOR his position. That's it. All he has in opposition to evolution is blatantly strawmanned misunderstandings of how evolution even works and just declaring "I don't believe you!" like an obstinate child when he can't even be bothered to Have an actual objection. Like all he'd have to do is present Something, but he literally never has anything but Bible verses as proof For Creationism. And there's only so many times you can say "You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible, idiot" before there's no point treating Kent like anything but a bad faith actor unworthy of serious consideration. Like it's not just Dave, this happens with EVERY SINGLE Debate Kent's in with ANYONE that doesn't think like Kent. Atheists, non-Christians, LGBT people, Christians who don't believe EXACTLY what he believes, any and all employees/representatives of the government, like Kent makes enemies of literally everyone he interacts with and goes out of his way to antagonize them and piss them off into giving him attention in the first place. Like he wanted to debate Genetically Modified Skeptic, and he tried to bait him into debating Kent by making a video actively calling him a god-hating sack of shit who was Never a Christian (despite GMS being formerly a devout Christian who was a Hovind fanboy)...But wait, there's more! Kent figured out that GMS was pro-LGBT rights, and in his video trying to bait GMS he was relentlessly calling him derogatory slurs for gay people (in front of his little flock of teenagers no less, apparently he thinks it's a good thing to teach children to mock and hate gay people), and was insinuating that GMS only left the Church because he was "a filthy perverted queer" (GMS is not only straight but happily married). Kent brings this shit on himself.
1
@StUrho-kw5sl Okay then. Disprove evolution then if you think it's bullshit. If it's so easily a con job, do it. Also, way to miss the entire criticism: Kent HAS been shown proof, HAS been given sources, and everything Dave says about evolution is more or less in line with the scientific consensus, every single biologist within which has their sources and research. Kent, despite having NOTHING for Creationism, just dismisses all of it without ever clarifying/demonstrating Why it's wrong, and expects Evolution to prove itself to Kent and his church... Despite Kent never in the history of ever proving anything about His position besides "Bible said so", and completely running away when Dave says "Okay, your evidence is the Bible, let's examine your evidence then." Anything posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Kent has no evidence, Evolution does. Creationists just don't Like the evidence presented, don't understand how empirical evidence works, and this is all a smokescreen to hide the fact that Creationism has absolutely Zero empirical evidence verifying it on any level. Meanwhile, if evolution is false, how do Vaccines work? If evolution is false, how does animal husbandry and genetics work? How/why do genetic defects occur IF evolution is false? What explains the massive variation and diversity in animal populations despite us all sharing DNA markers in common (an event we've literally never witnessed in biology Unless the different creatures are in fact biologically connected somehow, which evolution describes)? What is the Creationist Model that explains Any of the phenomena I just mentioned?
1
@StUrho-kw5sl Yeah, too bad. Vaccines results are proof of evolution. Our entire field of Biology doesn't work without evolution and it's been verified as fact for over a century. Meanwhile, where's the proof of Creationism? I don't understand where you got it into your head that a bunch of non-scientists who can't even explain the basics of what constitutes empirical evidence are the arbiters of what Science is, but luckily the world doesn't exist to cater to you. If Kent can't prove Creationism, then he can't prove Creationism. Simple as that. You sound like a Flerfer saying "You didn't prove the globe's real!", as if thousands of years of research and compiled data is invalidated just because some random jackass doesn't believe it. You think evolution is wrong. Okay then, Why? What objections do you have to it? Or hey, explain how vaccines work if evolution is bullshit.
1
@StUrho-kw5sl Also, what standard of evidence would be acceptable to a creationist? Seeing how empirical evidence apparently doesn't cut it.
1
@StUrho-kw5sl I see a lot of objections but not a single explanation as to why evolution is wrong besides "YOU CANT PROVE IT SHEEP!" ...Very compelling.
1
@StUrho-kw5sl But you went to the effort to go in this screed, so let's dissect it. "Biology does not support the changing of one living kind to another. Try again." So apparently you don't know what Biology is, because otherwise you'd know Biology is the scientific study of organic matter and the processes of living organisms. Evolution is a process of organic matter and living organisms. Who the fuck do you think does Evolutionary Biology, genius? Here's a hint: It starts with a "B" and ends with an "iologists" Also Kinds is not a thing. There exists no scientific definition of the word "Kind" and the only people who use it are Creationists. So yes, Biology does not support the changing of One of your imaginary arbitrary standards into another completely arbitrary standard. "You're (not) related to a willow tree or a crayfish." And you know this how, exactly? "No proof. Where is your proof??? Stop! You keep making claims th as t your religion is true and fact... Tou even say science backs your beliefs up, but you ALWAYS fail to give any science." Lol, the double-standard is glorious. Tell you what, pony up some proof for Creationism and then I'll give a shit what you think is proof. "You fail to give one single example of anything changing from one kind of life to another. Or that life came from non life. Where is your scientific proof?" And you continue to use this nonexistent definition "Kind" while mistaking abiogenesis for evolution. Just like every other uninformed idiot. Like fucking hell, did you even bother to think "Maybe I should read something about evolution from before I comment on it" so you could avoid Blatant Basic fuckups? Like this is like Me saying "I know Christianity. I understand how Christianity works, and it's Bullshit for fucking sheeple!....WHose this "Christ" guy?" Like you can't even get Basic shit about evolution right.
1
@StUrho-kw5sl And your objection Is? I just told you that vaccine research doesn't work unless evolution is true. Adaptation IS evolution, Biology makes absolutely zero distinction between the two because there is no difference between the two besides "timescale." If evolution is bullshit, then why do you need to keep re-upping on vaccines for rapidly mutating viruses that are evolutionarily adapting to the previous vaccinations? Why do genetic mutations and defects exist Without the processes of evolution? You don't just get to call "Bullshit" without a reason why. So what is your objection to the presented evidence that is "Literally how annual vaccines operate worldwide?"
1
@StUrho-kw5sl ALso, what the fuck about you makes you so important that I have to prove a fucking thing to you anyway? Who the fuck are you whose opinion matters on science? See, I can filibuster and waste time instead of actually saying anything too.
1
@StUrho-kw5sl Also why the fuck do you even bother coming to debate channels if all you have to say is "I don't have to support anything, it's Everyone Else who has to prove themselves to me?" Fuck off.
1
Like Christ, just say One thing correct about how evolution claims to work. Because it's hard to take your objections seriously when you display fundamental misunderstandings of what Biology is, what the difference between abiogenesis and evolution is (Abiogenesis is Only how life can occur from non-living materials, Evolution is how Already Existing Life changes over time. Not the same thing and you creationist types have been corrected on this point ad nauseum. Stop pretending you don't get the difference.) Like showcase you even understand the Basic Fucking Terms we use, because then you'd understand that "Kinds" means absolutely nothing to the scientific community as a definition. Say One Correct thing about what evolution claims.
1
@StUrho-kw5sl Or hey, fuck it, let's ask something super simple: According to the only definitions offered for "Kinds", a whale is part of "Fish-kind", and hyenas/coyotes are part of "Dog-kind" according to creationists. Are Whales fish? Are hyenas and coyotes dogs? Because the only standard for "Kinds" is "Animals that look similar", and whales/hyenas looked awful fish-like/dog-like to the Bible.
1
Prove it's flat then.
1
@ramunasstulga8264 Well for a start being intelligent doesn't determine power in most countries, but pre-existing aristocratic wealth backed up by extremely entrenched systems of coercive force. Intelligence doesn't count for much when you're wildly outnumbered by morons with way too much wealth and who are way too eager to hold a loaded gun to everyone's head that contradicts their narrative.
1
Oh no, the 4 sub nobody's coming for Dave. Run in fear everyone! The Champion has arrived! XD
1
@Ibn_Abdulaziz You and everything you type is a bigger refutation to your worthless religion and your made-up God than any Atheist could ever create trying their best to denigrate you. You are a disgrace to your religion and the very concept of discourse. Everyone here is now dumber for having made the mistake of engaging with you.
1
@diarmuidkuhle8181 If you see no contradiction then I'm fairly certain you haven't read your own holy books. The Bible in particular is aggressively continuously wrong pertaining to anything related to science and actively posits patently false information (Like for example the idea that you can make striped livestock if they boink near striped trees, or outright lying about Jericho, or having a whole 5th of the book basically just being extremely localized anti-Egypt propaganda). And on top of that the Church has been nothing but a relentless opponent and condemner of pretty much all scientific discoveries from the concept of heliocentrism to gravity to evolution to psychology. I really do not see by what process a member of an Abrahamic faith can claim that their notion of God and science are compatible unless they're actively just deciding the Bible/Quran aren't actually the word of their God.
1