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.

Previous
1
Next
...
All

@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

Previous
1
Next
...
All