Comments by "Harry \x22Nic\x22 Nicholas" (@HarryNicNicholas) on "Professor Dave Explains" channel.

  1. "i am going after" = following in the footsteps of....
    47
  2. when he talked he made little sense.
    20
  3. top tip: debt collectors don't have the rights to a debt unless the transfer process has been done correctly, and as they usually buy debts in bulk, this process is not carried out, if they demand money you can demand they provide proof they own the debt, give them two weeks, then if they fail (they always do cos really they don't care enough to dig out your bit of paper, get the bank to authorise it, and then send it to you) they have to send the debt back to the owner and the owner does the same dumb thing over and over until six years later they have to leave you alone - happened to me. i chucked them but at one point i a pile of begging letters from debt agencies literally six inches think, they were even offering discounts and deals - no one saw a penny.
    17
  4. bertuzzi talks such nonsense, i'm surprised he hasn't noticed himself. and f he does one more exorcism video i shall scream, even while medicated. those demon possession videos need removing.
    13
  5. the problem with moderating debates that involve god is that you have to stop every two minutes and point out god isn't likely and everything there after is speculation at best. might not go down too well.
    12
  6. i think he might have enjoyed it, after all it wasn't dave looking bad.
    10
  7. as a person with an art degree in art and drawing stuff, and also having spent an enormous amount of time in halo and assassin's creed, it is a joy to see folks like tour shouting childishly as if a piece of performance art.
    9
  8. 49:00 er, adolf thought he was doing god's work, he actually said so in more than one speech.
    8
  9. it mist be interesting to hear religists trying to get their story straight when there are no facts to work with.
    8
  10. well i have a tiny tiny bit of sympathy cos these people have god breathing down their necks 24/7, ONE WORD out of place and they burn for eternity, it's not possible for anyone religious to be honest, they have the mob watching them. other than that they have the option of being honest, realising hell is no more real that santa's grotto, and actually do some science and get us off this planet.
    7
  11. i'm really out of my depth on this subject, most things go in one ear and out of the other with me, and this stuff barely makes it to the lobe, but what i take away from tour is that on the one hand we have natural explanations for some parts of the process, that we understand and can use in say medical research, but then, poof, suddenly we need god to explain the parts that no one understands because it would take bzillions of years to happen upon them by chance. this "fine tuning argument" really supports naturalism cos what religists are saying is god uses the MOST UNLIKELY ways to achieve the desired outcome. if god wants life it will be a CERTAINTY not something that needs careful guidance and can easily go wrong, or not happen at all. and one or the other please, saying nature is fine here but we need god over there is just saying "we have no idea how this bit works = god" which is argument from ignorance entirely.
    6
  12. if there are sporks, why are there still knives?
    6
  13.  @cuzned1375  imagine what it's like being called nicholas.
    5
  14. he can't even poly fingers apparently.
    5
  15. good to see you speaking out, the temptation to be polite to religion hasn't done the world any favours, time to call out dishonesty wherever it's found.
    5
  16. i find it odd that he's quite happy for nature to be doing this bit of the process, but then the next bit requires god cos it's soooo complex, and then nature can take over again after....and as always what it amounts to is "god picked a really complex process that was unlikely to achieve his desired result" it's stupid to argue things are too complicated for nature.
    4
  17. it's hard to moderate if they are either christian or atheist, cos obviously you have to constantly chip in and say "god doesn't exist so the atheist is right" or "god of course exists, so the christian is right" but i have to say this guy ought to have at least been conversant with the latest research in order to either support or deny the accusations BOTH sides were making. the proof of the pudding for is is tour will NEVER take this to court, despite being called a fraud in front witnesses over and over.
    4
  18. jesus shouted at dogs didn't he? from the cross? rover, why have you forsaken me?
    3
  19. it's "noy-gen" and gen not jen. isn't it (before we get there). there was battleship called the prince nguyen wasn't there?
    3
  20. there are also 13 signs of the zodiac, so....
    3
  21. if god can make life from dirt, what is tour hoping to prove? apparently god can make life out of anything, but for some reason he chose a method that needs his intervention, it's so unlikely to work, bzillions to one against i'm told, that god - who made the laws of physics - has to step in a jiggle the numbers. can you see how UTTERLY STUPID that is?
    3
  22. i used to look forward to eric weinsteins show in the days when penrose was a guest, and then he started going all conspiracy theory, he seemed somewhat justified in his criticisms of universities and how they are run, but he just seems to get further and further removed from reality until i can't be bothered anymore. bret - bret has always been weird.
    3
  23. this isn't even an atheist problem, why doesn't he argue with catholics who are equally convinced by evolution? this must be one of the silliest criticisms of atheism as half the religious world is okay with evolution.
    3
  24. 7:58 i am shocked and i'm not just saying that, i had no idea eric had no science background. he is (these days) constantly criticising universities and i got (rightly or wrongly) the impression he was, well at least working in some capacity at one or more, i feel foolish. 26:50 cripes, even more surprised at keating being the voice of reason, for now.
    2
  25. the thing with religists is this, they are under pain of eternally being burned alive, if you thought your entire eternity hung in the balance would you annoy god? they would lie cheat and steal, and sacrifice their own family, rather than go to hell, religists can't be trusted, they have no way to be honest.
    2
  26. i think it's sad that he can't fathom maths - i can't fathom maths - his problem is that he refuses to acknowledge he can't fathom maths. i think he has a learning disability is all, and where i would criticise him is that he is hiding it from himself, it should be obvious, the wonder is that he can't fit so many bits of nonsense together that make bizarro world sense to him.
    2
  27. you have to use powerpoint or god won't be able to parse the arguments.
    2
  28. will tour sue? hmmm.
    2
  29. gor blimey, apples n pears mate. jolly hocky sticks.
    2
  30. 47:00 really, he does a darth dawkins?
    2
  31. oh well, you think you know, and you don't.
    2
  32. every time they quote these big numbers for chance, what they are actually saying is that god has picked a method for getting life that was more likely to fail. if god has to stick to a really complex chemistry to get life, whose laws of physics is he following? if god wants life it should be inevitable, not bzillions to one against.
    2
  33. all you can ever do is show that things have a natural origin, you cannot show that god had a hand in making or designing anything, god, if he were real, has spent the last 2000 years preserving my free will by hiding - do people like meyers, behe and tour think they can over ride god? what do they expect? "here is proof of god where's my nobel"? the BEST they can hope for is to look stupid. they all think they can outsmart god. god is hidden, he won't let you find him. it's HIS rules sillies. (and he's mainly imaginary).
    2
  34. i think it's sad that he can't fathom maths - i can't fathom maths - his problem is that he refuses to acknowledge he can't fathom maths. i think he has a learning disability is all, and where i would criticise him is that he is hiding it from himself, it should be obvious, the wonder is that he can't fit so many bits of nonsense together that make bizarro world sense to him. didn't someone write a fifty page proof of why 1 + 1 = 2? ah, jade from "up and atom" = Why it took 379 pages to prove 1+1=2
    2
  35. i'm not going to watch this video either, it would be more productive to make a video with sabine, my only criticism of her is that she ought to make just one or two videos a week more in depth about science and avoid politics. the occasional rant, just to keep us informed is fine, but i don't watch either of you to listen to whining, even if it's justified. don't make me pick sides.
    2
  36.  @sakatagintoki4164  i'm really out of my depth on this subject, most things go in one ear and out of the other with me, and this stuff barely makes it to the lobe, but what i take away from tour is that on the one hand we have natural explanations for some parts of the process, that we understand and can use in say medical research, but then, poof, suddenly we need god to explain the parts that no one understands because it would take bzillions of years to happen upon them by chance. this "fine tuning argument" really supports naturalism cos what religists are saying is god uses the MOST UNLIKELY ways to achieve the desired outcome. if god wants life it will be a CERTAINTY not something that needs careful guidance and can easily go wrong, or not happen at all. and one or the other please, saying nature is fine here but we need god over there is just saying "we have no idea how this bit works = god" which is argument from ignorance entirely.
    2
  37. god has spent the last 2000 years hiding, god says that MY free will trumps everything else in the universe, tour is defying god claiming that he can prove god exists - he is going to look more and more stupid as time goes by - you can ONLY ever show anything had a natural origin - god HIMSELF doesn't allow evidence.
    2
  38. i don't get what it is they expect to prove, behe, tour, meyers - are they expecting to find a trade mark symbol or what? god himself doesn't allow evidence of his existence, he is protecting the most important thing in the universe - my free will - they can ONLY show that things have a natural origin, to point to something and say "god clearly designed this" is blasphemy isn't it?
    2
  39. i have a screenshot of facebook telling me i have an IQ of 181 - i cheated though so i guess that proves how smart i am - cheating an IQ test.
    1
  40. someone pointed out that the nurse carrying your newborn baby has more gravitational effect than any star in the heavens.
    1
  41. it's nice to know who is in the asylum.
    1
  42. i'm pisces, so i believe wholheartedly that astrology is bunk.
    1
  43. so something from nothing doesn't just get applied to physics. in a way it's good that all this crap is on display, i wonder if there has been any studies on the numbers of people who become atheist based on hearing BS, whether it's BS explanations that squeeze in god or BS explanations that are unscientific?
    1
  44. hahahahahaha of course it can't be on this plane of reality can it. if you're going to con people it has to be on another plane of reality, cos otherwise, well, they can SEE the scam. how on earth do people fall for this crap and give it even a minute of their day??
    1
  45.  @picahudsoniaunflocked5426  tour wore a tie, dave did not.
    1
  46. i thought he said his boat was called "the lady gets laid"
    1
  47. i can't wait for all this to go to court. oh, they aren't taking this to court? it's open and shut isn't it?
    1
  48. i would have thought, mistakenly of course, that as no two creation myths are alike, that even the religists would agree that evolution at least makes sense, if you get two or three creationists together i can't imagine their stories align in any way, but i suppose like all good believers it's "the other guy" who is wrong, regardless if it's one of their own.
    1
  49. i am grateful to biology that i wasn't born this person.
    1
  50. although it could have been done with more panache, it was great to see someone calling out BS and saying out loud tour is a liar - to his face and in front of his followers - well done.
    1
  51. well the trick is to pay off monthly, but then miss a payment, they will increase your limit if you do that, at one point i had two black, two platinum and an "ordinary" total £40,000 in my back pocket doing that. also i got into a situation where i maxed them all out and couldn't pay any of it back - but - i didn't have to pay any of it back cos the banks are cheats and debt collectors are incompetent. banks don't loan you anything.
    1
  52. you win the internet. luckily i had just swallowed my coffee.
    1
  53. i openly admit i have no idea how any of this stuff works, i stopped doing chemical stuff in the third year of school, way back in 1967, but, what i do know is, when tour says that it's fine for nature to do this bit of producing life, but this bit is so extremely unlikely that only god intervening could do it, i smell a mouldy rat. either your solution is "god did it and that's all you need to know" or "nature did it, however unlikely, and one day we'll figure it out" and the thing about it taking bzillions of years to make certain parts - er tour is saying god picked a method really unlikely to produce life. all god really needs is souls after all. and really, if eden had worked out we would ALL be bound for paradise, what is god doing letting people go to hell?? we can't cure anything with "god did it" cos there is no information in that, but figuring out how nature did it, means we can learn stuff useful to making our own compounds and medicines. also i'm really skeptical of people who have no sense of humour.
    1
  54.  @ProfessorDaveExplains  8:00 sorry, but this is misleading. i know everyone does this - i've only seen one video on the subject - but cones don't detect colour - there is no colour in objects or light, colour exists - is created - only in the image making part of the brain. cones detect energy levels of photons, not colour. i came to this video because i am not clear how any information gets to the brain, that is, electro-chemical signals tell the brain about taste, smell, light, but how exactly is that information conveyed / encoded? it can't be digital (i imagine), and there certainly aren't tubes of paint snaking around the eye. i believe neurons work by transferring ionisation of sodium . potassium / chlorine, but how is the INFORMATION , the colour, the taste, encoded? and please do a video explaining that objects and light have no colour, this is a big misconception that the vast majority of people can't get their heads around - i'm tired of arguing with people on this. thanks!!
    1
  55. they all are, i call them "new christian" no interest in the teachings of jesus, solely interested in subs, likes, patron, course sales and book sales. if you want to be a good christian, be atheist....
    1
  56. i love how "i was once an arrogant atheist" stories tell of the appalling behaviour people had before they found jesus, but they rarely say "i was totally untrustworthy and a compulsive liar"
    1
  57. if they had anything concrete they would sue. creationism has already been PROVED false in court in the dover trials. the hamzas den mob are just that, a mob.
    1
  58. it's funny how god;'s followers are the ones killing him. youtube religion is a joke, pew polls and gallup - every poll says that religion is dying faster than predicted in the previous poll, islam is growing, but because people are afraid of it, scared to say they don't even WANT to believe.
    1
  59. the question i would like answered is, what does tour, meyers, behe and ross think they will find? god himself doesn't allow evidence that he exists (if he did at all) so are they expecting to find a trade mark? "made in taiwan under license" or what, cos surely, even if god were real all they will ever do is show things have a natural origin.
    1
  60. watched on michael's channel. i'm a physics person and biology and chemistry just WILL NOT STICK in my tiny mind, so i'm happy someone who knows their stuff can argue on my behalf. i also play guitar and write my own stuff, but the same with that too, music theory just goes in one ear and out the other, i have no idea why. great work from both you guys though, michael is exposing the dishonesty in the apologists world - love it.
    1
  61. witsit thought he had a flat desk there for a moment eh.
    1
  62. for what it's worth darwin is buried in westminster abbey, so make of that what you will.
    1
  63. 8:00 sorry, but this is misleading. i know everyone does this - i've only seen one video on the subject - but cones don't detect colour - there is no colour is objects or light, colour exists - is created - only in the image making part of the brain. i came to this video because i am not clear how any information gets to the brain, that is, electro-chemical signals tell the brain about taste, smell, light, but how exactly is that information conveyed / encoded? it can't be digital (i imagine), and there certainly aren't tubes of paint snaking around the eye. i believe neurons work by transferring ionisation of sodium . potassium / chlorine, but how is the INFORMATION , the colour, the taste, encoded? and please do a video explaining that objects and light have no colour, this is a big misconception that the vast majority of people can't get their heads around - i'm tired of arguing with people on this.
    1
  64. cor blimey ducks, apples n pears eh.
    1
  65. i used to watch every one of her videos, but i pick and choose which i watch these days, i still think she is way better than any weinstein, i just find she moans more than i think is necessary, if she went to a twice a week show and avoided politics i think she would pick up again, i think she is a good scientist who would like to see change for the better, but she has to find something to moan about every day, i think that's a silly goal. i'd like to see the two of you talk, which is my go to whenever these kinds of personalities are at odds. i won't be cancelling either of you anytime soon, as always i will choose what to ignore.
    1
  66. me and a couple of friends used to do this down the pub every couple of weeks.
    1
  67.  @timothyvenable3336  tour is a fraud, he's got all the time in the world to take dave to court for calling him a fraud to his face in front of witnesses. why won't it go to court? cos EVERYONE including tour, knows he is a fraud. i'm really out of my depth on this subject, most things go in one ear and out of the other with me, and this stuff barely makes it to the lobe, but what i take away from tour is that on the one hand we have natural explanations for some parts of the process, that we understand and can use in say medical research, but then, poof, suddenly we need god to explain the parts that no one understands because it would take bzillions of years to happen upon them by chance. this "fine tuning argument" really supports naturalism cos what religists are saying is god uses the MOST UNLIKELY ways to achieve the desired outcome. if god wants life it will be a CERTAINTY not something that needs careful guidance and can easily go wrong, or not happen at all. and one or the other please, saying nature is fine here but we need god over there is just saying "we have no idea how this bit works = god" which is argument from ignorance entirely.
    1
  68. paulogia gave a great way to explain evolution as language, like, latin is the common ancestor to spanish, portugese and italian, but at no point did a roman give birth to a spaniard, words were added to latin and words became redundant until it evolved into spanish, italian and portugese, they are all cousins like the apes, and we still have latin - the apes - and the descendants, spanish, italian and portugese - the humans.
    1
  69. pansy liberal namby pamby artist here. yes i have a degree.
    1
  70. that "every knee shall bend" thing, religists, if i said to you if you don't listen i'll throw a sponge at you - that's what that threat feels like to an atheist, your imaginary friend is going to punish me?
    1
  71. no he isn't, he's a lunatic plain and simple.
    1
  72. yoiks. mr tour will enjoy litigation after this i'm sure. well, when i say "sure" i mean i'm not sure at all. he might enjoy it if he had grounds.
    1
  73.  @Belayet_says  the proof is right there in the videos they make, hamzas den has had a variety of atheists - pinecreek, tjump, jack angstrietch and others and folks like suboor never listen to what has been said, never answer the question asked and all fail when it comes to science. even here all we get is a string of denials and personal attacks - no science at all and no actual invite, flight tickets, hotel booking - just the hot air of god as always. and creationism has been proved false in court, it was a hoax set up to get another hour of god taught in schools that backfired, the dover school board all quit before the verdict was in, it was prosecuted by a catholic believer who was sick of lies about god and the ONLY people who keep creationism going are religists -when 3/4 of the religions in the world are okay with evolution anyway. it's a dumb thing to fight over, fought over by dumb people.
    1
  74. i think i can admit that i have no idea what epigenetics is, i find the genetics thing goes over my head (physics and cosmology goes in fine, genetics - huh?) anyway, if anyone asked me about epigenetics i've have to say "i have no idea, i'm not the person to ask" not pretend i'm a biologist.
    1
  75. whenever i want reliable science information, be it biology or cosmology or whatever of course the place to go is a religious propaganda channel. i think that is where the religists might be going wrong.
    1
  76. danny from philtalk was having a discussion with kent hovind and danny brought up an interesting point that i've not heard before, if we are made from the same chemicals as apes and bananas, and we are designed by the same designer then we are still related. unless animals and humans are made from different materials, and they aren't, then we have to be related in some way, god or no god.
    1
  77. it might be different if you're in the US but look up "three letter process" i got out of $40,000 of debt thanks to that.
    1
  78. tour seems to be arguing that god picked a process that was so complex it probably would have failed to work. kinda dumb. god ought to be 1:1 not 1:ten bzillion.
    1
  79. i pictured a hoard of drooling moaning zombies, but of course they would be too smart to follow folks like mother tucker.
    1
  80. 27:20 so we have a huge glass hemisphere over the earth as well? i notice there was no demo using just air.
    1
  81. when tour talks about these really big numbers he's actually saying that god appears to have picked a method least likely to achieve his end result, god's odds should be 1:1 not bzillions to one. this is an argument that actually supports naturalism, under naturalism, no matter what the likeliehood is, there is always a chance, under god life ought to be inevitable, not chance.
    1
  82. 1:08:00 to uninspired thoughts question, brian cox points out that we can SEE the start of the universe, the CMB is visible NOW.
    1
  83. do you know what form information about light takes in order for the brain to create an image? how does the electr-chemical signal contain information? i hope this is clear.
    1
  84. there are 13 signs of the zodiac for a start.
    1
  85. fractally wrong. perfect.
    1
  86. i'm really out of my depth on this subject, most things go in one ear and out of the other with me, and this stuff barely makes it to the lobe, but what i take away from tour is that on the one hand we have natural explanations for some parts of the process, that we understand and can use in say medical research, but then, poof, suddenly we need god to explain the parts that no one understands because it would take bzillions of years to happen upon them by chance. this "fine tuning argument" really supports naturalism cos what religists are saying is god uses the MOST UNLIKELY ways to achieve the desired outcome. if god wants life it will be a CERTAINTY not something that needs careful guidance and can easily go wrong, or not happen at all. and one or the other please, saying nature is fine here but we need god over there is just saying "we have no idea how this bit works = god" which is argument from ignorance entirely.
    1
  87. 14:00 did he say you would see this from a plane?
    1
  88. lol.
    1
  89. you take life too seriously, if you die in debt you've literally "taken it with you" there is no virtue in not having debts, some people are frightened of debt, me, i just don't care, there are more important things in life than money. all money is debt anyway, you're in debt like it or not. i landed $40,000 of credit card debt a while back, and although normally i can pay it off, this time i couldn't, and you know what - i didn't have to, cos the banks cheat and debt collectors are incompetent, i've gone from a 966 credit score to a 0 and back to 750 and didn't pay a penny of my debt back. life is a game mate.
    1
  90.  @damianferr390  dave was right alrighty. mighty righty alrighty.
    1
  91. **must
    1
  92. do you want to know what's stupid? i fell into credit card debt, not really my fault, but the stars aligned in such a way that i couldn't pay any of the £40,000 "debt" i had. the stupid thing is my bank, who i had a £4300 overdraft with (debt) kicked me out, after 35 years of my money. anyway the stupid thing? i LITERALLY went next door an opened an account with another bank, and if my bank had given me time to pay they would be enjoying my money again. even stupider thing, is, i let the card with the smallest amount take me to court (to see if i could win, i never expected to, but hey ho) but in the time it took to go to court they sent me ANOTHER card, despite my maxing out and defaulting on the first, and i joked with the judge "do you take plastic" and even she laughed. banks don't actually loan you money, they allow you to create NEW money - there is no debt, there is nothing to "pay back". i got out of the £40,000 of debt this way.
    1
  93. i used to watch eric weinstein's show whenever it appeared at one point, talking to people like roger penrose was great, but eric seems to have spiraled from being critical of universities, with reasonably good cause, to total conspiracy theorists and hack. keating is much the same, i watched him despite his religious ideas because he had interesting people on and interesting topics, even occasionally religion came into it and he seemed to deal with the that without any great fuss, but he seems to entertain crackpots as often as legit scientists these days, either to boost numbers or cause he is losing his marbles too. piers morgan - he's one of those people who would test negative for being allowed to walk upright, odious man.
    1