Comments by "H B" (@capitalb5889) on "Professor Dave Explains" channel.

  1. True, but with all sporting events, any player or team can go on a statistically plausible winning or losing streak. These can then be exacerbated by an increase or decrease of confidence. It's important that the statistical probabilities are understood.
    6
  2. ​​ @Official_RetroMania - the concept of man and woman were well understood before we understood chromosomes. And yet even back then we had cases of biological transexuals i.e. those born with both male and female genetalia. There is also a condition whereby someone born with XY chromosomes can develop as a woman in the womb, and grow up looking like a normal woman (breasts and no male muscles). These people are recorded as women, and love as women, and marry as women (Swyer syndrome). These are not people who would go into a male prison, although I'd love a test case on this. Biological sex just is not quite as binary as you'd like it too be. But sex and gender are different things - for most people, I don't think you can't change your sex, but I think you can change your gender - the letter being a social concept.
    5
  3. He starts by claiming that he won’t be making a god of the gaps argument, but that is essentially his only argument- he finds gaps in knowledge and leads us to fill that gap with god. He claims otherwise, but that’s obviously what he’s doing.
    4
  4. It could be an excellent joke in the right context
    3
  5. Well, obviously her mother's DNA survived too.
    2
  6. Yeah, but what about my out of focus photo a lighthouse? Your rotating stars may be entirely consistent with a sphere earth, but I can see most of the lighthouse, as long as the weather conditions are right - flat earth proof!
    2
  7. I love the birthday analogy
    2
  8. My dog's got no nose...
    1
  9. @zev bronshteyn 🙄
    1
  10.  @petspro3453  - obviously I was joking. Surely the phrase "out of focus" should have been a bit of a giveaway.
    1
  11. @zev bronshteyn - satire and irony aren't for everyone.
    1
  12.  @petspro3453  - true - it can be hard to parody a flat earther because they already go to the extremes that a charicature would take them. A bit Donald Trump in this regard.
    1
  13.  @Bnslamb  however stupid you think they are, there's always one who will immediately surpass your expectations.
    1
  14.  @dnolan.  - it's polite to say what the link is to before posting random YouTube links. Particularly as you obviously haven't read the thread.
    1
  15. I hold Nathan Oakley personally responsible for this obsession with logical fallacies. He’s read them, barely understands them, and misrepresents them. It’s similar to the flat earth obsession with “the scientific method “, which apparently only they and dictionary writers understand, and which actual scientists, the ones who use it daily, don’t.
    1
  16.  @NapaCat  - there are plenty of fundamentalist Christians who believe in the literal Bible stories. Only a few years ago at work I was talking to a couple on the team who both believed literally in Noah and the flood. Given that the Bible does no it clarify which are the stories and what is fact, it is hard. For example, did Moses exist? Did he lead the Jews out of Israel and get the ten commandments? Or what about David? Is he historical? What about Jesus? Could a man have literally performed all these miracles and yet left no contemporaneous evidence?
    1
  17.  @NapaCat  - I agree and so do most mainstream Christians. Let's take it as read that the garden of Eden was a myth. Perhaps Exodus has some tiny truth to it. But at what point does actual fact get introduced into the Bible?
    1
  18. But the issue is so much worse in the USA despite it's high standard of living compared to other developed countries.
    1
  19. If it isn't funny, is it still a joke?
    1
  20. However, the scientific view does not require a supernatural force. The religious one does but it cannot be evidenced
    1
  21.  @histreeonics7770  he claims that no one knows how life formed and that he is open to a scientific explanation, but I view that claim very skeptically indeed. He cannot provide evidence for his belief in creationism, so can only resort to picking holes in the established model to allow a little room for God. He doesn't state this, as some hardcore creationists do - he is after all a real scientist (albeit not one in this field). It is however what he does implicitly. When you state things along the lines of "it is impossible for nature to have created this cell" it leave little room for interpretation. It's god of the gaps from beginning to end.
    1