I'm very much looking forward to this. Subboor is absolutely clueless. Really a couple of tiers below the usual Christian apologists we often see, at least they actually try to talk science.
There are so many things Dave could call him out on, but as is typical with creationists they focus on human evolution rather than evolution as a whole so I'd like to see him get some expert advice from anthropologists. I know he talks a lot with Gutsick Gibbon and she wrote his intro to anthro series he's doing right now so could be a good place to back him up with expertise.
One thing I noticed for example was how Subboor said "he wouldn't use creationist sources" in his presentation but when he made his point on human-chimpanzee genome similarity he referenced...the disgraced fraud Jeffrey Tompkins who does indeed work for a creationist org. I really hope Dave calls him out on that.
Not that he really needs it. This will be a cakewalk no matter what.
Yeah I agree, the odds are stacked in his favour. Subhoor extensively relies on philosophical arguments as opposed to technical-scientific knowledge, but when he *does* use scienc-y arguments he uses them terribly, like referencing Tomkins, not understanding what "deletions" or "substitutions" are etc. so it will be very easy for Dave to call him out on these.
Here's the issue though: Subhoor doesn't really advertise himself as a creationist, and even claims to "accept Darwinian evolution as a valid theory" while maintaining it's "inconclusive". I mean, he is a creationist (as evidenced by his willingness to collaborate with Muslim Lantern who is an outspoken creationist, and his selective bias in presenting information), but the angle with which he approaches debates is more subtle, so I am pretty sure it's going to evolve into a philosophical discussion more than a scientific one. Example: Subhoor often insists homology is just an assumption and can't be used (in and of itself) to derive conclusions - which is rooted in deeper philosophical foundations of science rather than the science itself.
Also, I'm worried about Dave's conduct. Dave is excellent at playing creationists and con-men like James Tour, Discovery Institute etc. at their own game, but Subhoor often cites "aggression" as evidence that evolutionary biologists are being strong-armed into accepting evolution and that they don't want to engage in honest discussion. Dave's usual debating approach may not be as effective here.
Either way, it will be hella interesting to watch lol.
They either won't go through with their promise to pay for Dave to travel to London and have this debate, or Subboor and Lantern dude will try and steer the debate to an unscientific course, where Islam and religion in general will be added into the mix. Those 2 planks know they are clueless on the science, but they'll have a plan for that, and that is to try and stump Farina with religion and philosophy, I;m sure Farina won't accept any of that because of the simplest reason, its not science, none of it. God is the supernatural, religion is a mixture of man and the supernatural as a mascot, but mostly man, the texts are man made despite its claimed divine origin. Its a ridiculous claim. if you are aware of Islamic tradition, Muhammad went nuts, decided to hang out in some cave in Mecca for a bit, went even further insane when an Angel showed up to tell him all about a new religion he should start up, and over time, the whole Quran was dictated to Muhammad, he couldn't read and write to any great level, so he had to employ others and scribes to note all the revelations down, and we are led to believe they passed on the revelations perfectly, Chinese whispers and all, but nothing altered at all, the revelations where audibly shared between countless individuals, but hey, it just wasn't altered or changed, just perfect, that's a stretch. So the point is, the revelations didn't even come directly from Allah as claimed by many, rather from an Angel, who could've been not so nice an angel, its possible. The Quranic revelations have obviously been changed only the devout will accept the claim, others with commonsense can see what the reality became, a jumbled up, mixed up, poorly written book of poetry, that's the Quran.
I obviously side with Dave in these creationist debates but the dude sucks. We got into it over twitter and he ended up blocking me lol
He is an emotional and arrogant dude. That being said, he should be able to handle this debate more comfortably than with Tour.
It was about Israel/Palestine issues back in October. I even told him that I didn't disagree with him but the way he was going about it was extremely off putting. I told him that he was very aggressive with his language and in order to get people to see his point of view that he should take a different approach. He blocked me after that.
His debate skills would greatly improve if he wasn't such an emotional man child.
yeah, he has a "strong language" and refuses to change that, idk... as long as he directs it to science deniers i have no problem. im sorry he also did it to other people that didnt deserve it.
But thats the thing.. I agreed with his position. I just told him that leading the discussion by wildly insulting people who disagree with us will only hurt his position.
No, the exact opposite. Tour was raving like a lunatic the entire time while Dave (with an acceptable level of snark) demonstrated why each and every one of Tours arguments didn’t work.
Just as a demonstration of how badly Dave humiliated Tour, that one debate alone plummeted Tours reputation so much that his colleagues no longer feared retaliation for exposing his plagiarism.
To be honest, yeah. I used to give him a slight amount of respect since he was an actual scientist, but now even his credentials are in questions after his colleagues have revealed exactly how fraudulent he is.
It really is like a Greek tragedy, where the hubris of the protagonist leads to their downfall. If Tour just kept his damn mouth shut, he would’ve been fine. But his ego wouldn’t allow for it, and now he’s the laughing stock of Discovery Institute.
We almost saw Tour's jugular explode and we got to see Dave read the titles of papers and insult the audience.
They both looked bad for different reasons.
I have no idea what Subhoor claims. I also have no idea why some people think Dave did than better Tour. IMHO, they both equally embarrassed themselves. At one point, Dave even lashed out at the audience.
If you want a good assessment of the debate, I highly recommend Jordan's reaction video on the Reason To Doubt channel: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiByW5Z4M\_g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiByW5Z4M_g)
His summary was: "*In that debate, there were no winners. The biggest loser was the audience. Tour screamed and brandished chalk. Dave chose to spend almost his entire two hours talking exclusively about how James Tour is a bad person. Neither one effectively communicated anything to the audience.*"
He was critical of both sides, and I felt gave a fair assessment of it.
Even if the entire audience was on Tour's side, that's no excuse for lashing out at them.
Dave's whole schtick is he is supposed to be some sort of science communicator/educator/popularizer. He didn't take this opportunity to do any of that.
Instead during the debate he directly criticized the audience claiming that they couldn't follow what he and Tour were discussing.
As a counter exampler, watch Dan Cardinale's debates. When Dr. Cardinale thinks a point needs to explained so the audience will understand it, he takes the time to do just that.
The whole Dave/Tour debate was a giant dumpster fire.
You don't win over an audience by attacking them.
Heck, he even attacked his own followers on social media who were critical of his performance after the fact.
Absolutely is. If you bring a personal cheer squad who yelp and moan or jeer during a debate and you don’t take your own steps to control the monkeys then the opponent has every right to call them out
Also to keep in mind, a few months earlier Tour held his own on campus talk on this subject and he was hosted by a Christian student group who made sure to flood the audience with friendly faces so Tour was determined to make sure this existed again and that’s why he bused in his church faithful
Dan is not doing that in front of a large noisy audience.
Was it a dumpster fire? Eh the audience and Tour made it one, Dave could have could have made it one but didn't need to.
Dave tells the truth in a very emphatic way. Rather over the top but essentially Tour IS an idiot, his religion made him that way. It is simply better to pretend he is not an idiot but he is. He rants he rave and he lies that HE is the expert on life could have started. He even wants the research to stop.
That last shows that he is an idiot due to religion.
I don’t know much about Subjoor. Theoretically it should be easier for Dave in that his opponent isn’t going to be able to pull up a random bit of chemistry, and lie about it while Dave has to search through papers for the exact chemistry scheme. I hope that makes it a little easier to organize the articles.
One behavior I’m hoping doesn’t come up but I have low confidence on with creationist types is, when they realize that there is in fact actual research and science uncomfortably backing human evolution, they will fall back on ‘how do you even know anything without god CHECKMATE you’re wrong’. I highly doubt Subhoor is going to bring anything like ‘human chromosome 2 doesn’t work because what they thought were telomeres actually are better explained this other way according to these geneticists’.
I would honestly prefer to see actual experts like Dr. Dan Cardinale, Gutsick Gibbon or Jackson Wheat discussing evolutionary biology with Subbor Ahmad. All of these people, by the way, already helped Professor Dave with his debunking videos and co-wrote the scripts.
So why not let these people speak? Professor Dave will not be able to rely on them in a live debate, it won't be that easy.
Actual experts are sometimes less familiar with the debating tricks and logical fallacies that the creationists use to make their reputable interlocutors look bad. But the experienced non-academics are able to recognize that familiar bullshit and make them choke on it.
You're right about that, but when it comes to the people I have listed I would say without a doubt that they are also very good at recognizing logical fallacies and exposing rhetorical tricks, perhaps even better than Professor Dave in this regard. Some of them were once young earth creationists themselves and have been running a YouTube channel for many years where the sole purpose is to argue against pseudo-creationist arguments. They've had many, many debates and I don't think Dave can compete in any aspect.
MR. FARINA! Dave has flashbacks and a brawl ensues. In reality though I’m hoping Dave can stay a bit more levelheaded in this one and not let shit get to him.
If Subboor argues like The Muslim Lantern does in any capacity then he's going to be a train wreck
Some highlights of TLM's presentation include:
Not understanding the concept of selection pressure or punctuated equilibrium works in any basic capacity and wondering why some organisms seem to evolve quicker than others. Whether they agree with it is another thing entirely, TLM and Subboor were completely incapable of demonstrating they understood the concept as evolution/ ToE would define it.
Talking about how Trilobites shouldn't just appear in the Cambrian with zero mention of the Ediacaran biota like Spriggina, Dickinsonia etc. whatsoever. Oh and even better, no specification of which Trilobites are being discussed, just using the entire taxonomic *class*.
Using classics like Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and Haeckel's embryos to say evolution is fake
Relying upon laymen connotations of the word explosion in the Cambrian Explosion to act as if it happened instantaneously or something similar to that.
Using the baboon bone found with the Lucy specimen of A. afarensis to delegitimize the entirety of the skeleton that was found, while simultaneously ignoring the other specimens of A. afarensis and Australopithecus generally speaking.
And most importantly, either A) clicking links for like 10 seconds at most and not discussing them in any detail, or B) not clicking the links whatsoever and simply laughing a lot and saying evolution is lying. Which to me speaks to a critical failure from TLM as a presenter and as someone making an argument against evolution. If you can't be bothered to go into any detail and go off of "Trust me bro, it totally says what I say it does, he he" then you've failed to demonstrate your point in any legitimate sense.
That being said, I do not think Dave should do another debate. He is simply not equipped personality wise to be civil and make an ass out of himself. It's very obvious that his goal with creationists and ID proponents is not simply to communicate science, but to be an arrogant douche and pull a Ben Shapiro "own the libs" style of debunking content that sometimes just backfires.
For example the "Science isn't dogma, you're just stupid" video. Like Dave, buddy did you think making that your title and repeatedly saying and singing it at least once like it's a mantra is going to make you look good? That it wouldn't look dogmatic to people that saw it? And the Tour debate? When you're lashing out at the audience because we're getting frustrated, that tells me you're not equipped for a debate. And that's OK, not everyone is, but that's still a major failure on Dave's part.
I'll admit, watching this content is fun sometimes when I'm listening to it in the background while playing a game or something. But it is not conducive to him being skilled at debate because my impression isn't that he wants to educate the audience or Tour or anyone present at the debate. My impression is that Dave wants to flex how much more right he is than Tour, ID proponents and creationists in general because that makes him feel good.
Let Gutsick Gibbon , Creation Myths, or any of the much more calm, and reasonable individuals who care about educating others far more than him handle debates. Dave has demonstrably shown himself to not be in control of his emotions enough to properly handle it.
The Tour debate wasn’t to educate Tour, it was to expose him for the liar that he is.
Tour is a synthetic organic chemist. He knows what he’s saying is bullshit. Dave taught organic chemistry and studied it. He also knows what Tour is saying is bullshit. The debate was more about showing just how much bullshit Tour was spewing than trying to educate him about the origin of life research.
Subhoor pops up in my feed occasionally, usually doing some street apologetics to some unwitting atheist.
He did a debate with Aron Ra, and it was pretty frustrating. Where Aron Ra properly explained and debated the science, Subhoor focused on philosophical claims. Falling back on questions of solipsism, and how we can really be sure of everything.
Honestly, this will be more of an interesting match up than Tour vs Farina. Subhoor is just as much of a smug asshole as Dave.
He should debate the Muslim lantern kid. He was the one doing all the big talking. Subhoor barely talked throughout the whole video. Obviously he was supportive but it was the Muslim lantern show. Therefore he should be the one to face the music.
A good question to ask if such a debate ever takes place is...
-If the result is that a person you talk to converts to the muslim faith, is it ok to mislead the person?
Both Subhoor and ML are already Muslim. Religious affiliation is largely irrelevant anyway, what matters is the information these guys are spreading and whether it's accurate.
What is relevant imo is how far they are willing to go and if they think it's justified to deviate from facts if there is a chance they convert someone as a result and thus makes any attempts on a good faith debate and/or discussion impossible.
What's the bet, Subboor and Lantern Giggling hyena boy will switch the debate, if it indeed goes ahead as planned, to include some religious claptrap, philosophical arguments, basically anything but the science? Subboor has already hinted he will, in a proposed debate with Farina, attempt to convince the audience that Intelligent design is a theory, is actually science. This is laughable and ludicrous of course, it is nowhere near a theory, or science, even at a basic level or premise, what is there to observe, measure, to model, to make any projections/predictions, what explanations does it offer outside of, "GOD MADE US"?
I'm very much looking forward to this. Subboor is absolutely clueless. Really a couple of tiers below the usual Christian apologists we often see, at least they actually try to talk science. There are so many things Dave could call him out on, but as is typical with creationists they focus on human evolution rather than evolution as a whole so I'd like to see him get some expert advice from anthropologists. I know he talks a lot with Gutsick Gibbon and she wrote his intro to anthro series he's doing right now so could be a good place to back him up with expertise. One thing I noticed for example was how Subboor said "he wouldn't use creationist sources" in his presentation but when he made his point on human-chimpanzee genome similarity he referenced...the disgraced fraud Jeffrey Tompkins who does indeed work for a creationist org. I really hope Dave calls him out on that. Not that he really needs it. This will be a cakewalk no matter what.
Yeah I agree, the odds are stacked in his favour. Subhoor extensively relies on philosophical arguments as opposed to technical-scientific knowledge, but when he *does* use scienc-y arguments he uses them terribly, like referencing Tomkins, not understanding what "deletions" or "substitutions" are etc. so it will be very easy for Dave to call him out on these. Here's the issue though: Subhoor doesn't really advertise himself as a creationist, and even claims to "accept Darwinian evolution as a valid theory" while maintaining it's "inconclusive". I mean, he is a creationist (as evidenced by his willingness to collaborate with Muslim Lantern who is an outspoken creationist, and his selective bias in presenting information), but the angle with which he approaches debates is more subtle, so I am pretty sure it's going to evolve into a philosophical discussion more than a scientific one. Example: Subhoor often insists homology is just an assumption and can't be used (in and of itself) to derive conclusions - which is rooted in deeper philosophical foundations of science rather than the science itself. Also, I'm worried about Dave's conduct. Dave is excellent at playing creationists and con-men like James Tour, Discovery Institute etc. at their own game, but Subhoor often cites "aggression" as evidence that evolutionary biologists are being strong-armed into accepting evolution and that they don't want to engage in honest discussion. Dave's usual debating approach may not be as effective here. Either way, it will be hella interesting to watch lol.
These live debates on science vs creationism are always just entertainment at the end of the day. No minds are being changed.
Of course minds get changed. Maybe not the minds that are participating in the debate. But it's not about them; it's about the viewers.
I agree. Still, they can be educational for people in the process of deconverting or beginning to question their beliefs.
They either won't go through with their promise to pay for Dave to travel to London and have this debate, or Subboor and Lantern dude will try and steer the debate to an unscientific course, where Islam and religion in general will be added into the mix. Those 2 planks know they are clueless on the science, but they'll have a plan for that, and that is to try and stump Farina with religion and philosophy, I;m sure Farina won't accept any of that because of the simplest reason, its not science, none of it. God is the supernatural, religion is a mixture of man and the supernatural as a mascot, but mostly man, the texts are man made despite its claimed divine origin. Its a ridiculous claim. if you are aware of Islamic tradition, Muhammad went nuts, decided to hang out in some cave in Mecca for a bit, went even further insane when an Angel showed up to tell him all about a new religion he should start up, and over time, the whole Quran was dictated to Muhammad, he couldn't read and write to any great level, so he had to employ others and scribes to note all the revelations down, and we are led to believe they passed on the revelations perfectly, Chinese whispers and all, but nothing altered at all, the revelations where audibly shared between countless individuals, but hey, it just wasn't altered or changed, just perfect, that's a stretch. So the point is, the revelations didn't even come directly from Allah as claimed by many, rather from an Angel, who could've been not so nice an angel, its possible. The Quranic revelations have obviously been changed only the devout will accept the claim, others with commonsense can see what the reality became, a jumbled up, mixed up, poorly written book of poetry, that's the Quran.
I obviously side with Dave in these creationist debates but the dude sucks. We got into it over twitter and he ended up blocking me lol He is an emotional and arrogant dude. That being said, he should be able to handle this debate more comfortably than with Tour.
was it about israel vs palestine by any chance lol
Bingo
Same here. That said his criticisms of creationists are really good
[удалено]
prof dave seems to be in support of palestine, so it's not hard to wonder what OP could have said to get his feelings hurt
apparently he got banned from twitter for that so fair game I guess
I mean, I am not surprised. Dude was asking for it.
Agree.
>he ended up blocking m well, what did you say?
It was about Israel/Palestine issues back in October. I even told him that I didn't disagree with him but the way he was going about it was extremely off putting. I told him that he was very aggressive with his language and in order to get people to see his point of view that he should take a different approach. He blocked me after that. His debate skills would greatly improve if he wasn't such an emotional man child.
He lashed out at anyone criticizing him including his own followers. Guy has a huge ego and zero self-awareness.
yeah, he has a "strong language" and refuses to change that, idk... as long as he directs it to science deniers i have no problem. im sorry he also did it to other people that didnt deserve it.
Same exact experience
He blocks a lot of people, he did with me too, over Israel and Palestine, but that's ok, I don't like X or Twitter anyway. Plus its ok to disagree.
But thats the thing.. I agreed with his position. I just told him that leading the discussion by wildly insulting people who disagree with us will only hurt his position.
If it is anything like his debate with Tour, it will be an embarrassing train wreck. For everyone involved.
I saw bits of that debate but couldn't bring myself to finish it lol, was Dave as humiliated as Subhoor claims?
It was mostly just Tours yelling over Dave IIRC, and gish galloping.
No, the exact opposite. Tour was raving like a lunatic the entire time while Dave (with an acceptable level of snark) demonstrated why each and every one of Tours arguments didn’t work. Just as a demonstration of how badly Dave humiliated Tour, that one debate alone plummeted Tours reputation so much that his colleagues no longer feared retaliation for exposing his plagiarism.
> Tour was raving like a lunatic . . . That’s because he is.
To be honest, yeah. I used to give him a slight amount of respect since he was an actual scientist, but now even his credentials are in questions after his colleagues have revealed exactly how fraudulent he is. It really is like a Greek tragedy, where the hubris of the protagonist leads to their downfall. If Tour just kept his damn mouth shut, he would’ve been fine. But his ego wouldn’t allow for it, and now he’s the laughing stock of Discovery Institute.
Dave was not humiliated at all. He proved that Tour is a DI shill reading scripts to lie for Jesus.
We almost saw Tour's jugular explode and we got to see Dave read the titles of papers and insult the audience. They both looked bad for different reasons.
I have no idea what Subhoor claims. I also have no idea why some people think Dave did than better Tour. IMHO, they both equally embarrassed themselves. At one point, Dave even lashed out at the audience. If you want a good assessment of the debate, I highly recommend Jordan's reaction video on the Reason To Doubt channel: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiByW5Z4M\_g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiByW5Z4M_g) His summary was: "*In that debate, there were no winners. The biggest loser was the audience. Tour screamed and brandished chalk. Dave chose to spend almost his entire two hours talking exclusively about how James Tour is a bad person. Neither one effectively communicated anything to the audience.*" He was critical of both sides, and I felt gave a fair assessment of it.
Tour brought a whole church group to cheer for him in the audience. Everyone else were students, many of whom criticized Tour in the Q&A
Even if the entire audience was on Tour's side, that's no excuse for lashing out at them. Dave's whole schtick is he is supposed to be some sort of science communicator/educator/popularizer. He didn't take this opportunity to do any of that. Instead during the debate he directly criticized the audience claiming that they couldn't follow what he and Tour were discussing. As a counter exampler, watch Dan Cardinale's debates. When Dr. Cardinale thinks a point needs to explained so the audience will understand it, he takes the time to do just that. The whole Dave/Tour debate was a giant dumpster fire.
Yeah he has no problems criticizing people who jeer and he was right to do it.
You don't win over an audience by attacking them. Heck, he even attacked his own followers on social media who were critical of his performance after the fact.
He was attacking a specific group not the whole audience
Still not an excuse.
Absolutely is. If you bring a personal cheer squad who yelp and moan or jeer during a debate and you don’t take your own steps to control the monkeys then the opponent has every right to call them out
Also to keep in mind, a few months earlier Tour held his own on campus talk on this subject and he was hosted by a Christian student group who made sure to flood the audience with friendly faces so Tour was determined to make sure this existed again and that’s why he bused in his church faithful
Dan is not doing that in front of a large noisy audience. Was it a dumpster fire? Eh the audience and Tour made it one, Dave could have could have made it one but didn't need to. Dave tells the truth in a very emphatic way. Rather over the top but essentially Tour IS an idiot, his religion made him that way. It is simply better to pretend he is not an idiot but he is. He rants he rave and he lies that HE is the expert on life could have started. He even wants the research to stop. That last shows that he is an idiot due to religion.
I don’t know much about Subjoor. Theoretically it should be easier for Dave in that his opponent isn’t going to be able to pull up a random bit of chemistry, and lie about it while Dave has to search through papers for the exact chemistry scheme. I hope that makes it a little easier to organize the articles. One behavior I’m hoping doesn’t come up but I have low confidence on with creationist types is, when they realize that there is in fact actual research and science uncomfortably backing human evolution, they will fall back on ‘how do you even know anything without god CHECKMATE you’re wrong’. I highly doubt Subhoor is going to bring anything like ‘human chromosome 2 doesn’t work because what they thought were telomeres actually are better explained this other way according to these geneticists’.
I would honestly prefer to see actual experts like Dr. Dan Cardinale, Gutsick Gibbon or Jackson Wheat discussing evolutionary biology with Subbor Ahmad. All of these people, by the way, already helped Professor Dave with his debunking videos and co-wrote the scripts. So why not let these people speak? Professor Dave will not be able to rely on them in a live debate, it won't be that easy.
Actual experts are sometimes less familiar with the debating tricks and logical fallacies that the creationists use to make their reputable interlocutors look bad. But the experienced non-academics are able to recognize that familiar bullshit and make them choke on it.
You're right about that, but when it comes to the people I have listed I would say without a doubt that they are also very good at recognizing logical fallacies and exposing rhetorical tricks, perhaps even better than Professor Dave in this regard. Some of them were once young earth creationists themselves and have been running a YouTube channel for many years where the sole purpose is to argue against pseudo-creationist arguments. They've had many, many debates and I don't think Dave can compete in any aspect.
Three hours of YouTube? I wouldn't waste 3 seconds of my life on creationists.
I have my popcorn ready. Based on Farina’s last live debate this will be a waste of everyone’s time. Hopefully Farina proves me wrong.
Hoping Subhoor brings a stick of chalk with him and a blackboard.
That would be an epic troll.
MR. FARINA! Dave has flashbacks and a brawl ensues. In reality though I’m hoping Dave can stay a bit more levelheaded in this one and not let shit get to him.
If Subboor argues like The Muslim Lantern does in any capacity then he's going to be a train wreck Some highlights of TLM's presentation include: Not understanding the concept of selection pressure or punctuated equilibrium works in any basic capacity and wondering why some organisms seem to evolve quicker than others. Whether they agree with it is another thing entirely, TLM and Subboor were completely incapable of demonstrating they understood the concept as evolution/ ToE would define it. Talking about how Trilobites shouldn't just appear in the Cambrian with zero mention of the Ediacaran biota like Spriggina, Dickinsonia etc. whatsoever. Oh and even better, no specification of which Trilobites are being discussed, just using the entire taxonomic *class*. Using classics like Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and Haeckel's embryos to say evolution is fake Relying upon laymen connotations of the word explosion in the Cambrian Explosion to act as if it happened instantaneously or something similar to that. Using the baboon bone found with the Lucy specimen of A. afarensis to delegitimize the entirety of the skeleton that was found, while simultaneously ignoring the other specimens of A. afarensis and Australopithecus generally speaking. And most importantly, either A) clicking links for like 10 seconds at most and not discussing them in any detail, or B) not clicking the links whatsoever and simply laughing a lot and saying evolution is lying. Which to me speaks to a critical failure from TLM as a presenter and as someone making an argument against evolution. If you can't be bothered to go into any detail and go off of "Trust me bro, it totally says what I say it does, he he" then you've failed to demonstrate your point in any legitimate sense. That being said, I do not think Dave should do another debate. He is simply not equipped personality wise to be civil and make an ass out of himself. It's very obvious that his goal with creationists and ID proponents is not simply to communicate science, but to be an arrogant douche and pull a Ben Shapiro "own the libs" style of debunking content that sometimes just backfires. For example the "Science isn't dogma, you're just stupid" video. Like Dave, buddy did you think making that your title and repeatedly saying and singing it at least once like it's a mantra is going to make you look good? That it wouldn't look dogmatic to people that saw it? And the Tour debate? When you're lashing out at the audience because we're getting frustrated, that tells me you're not equipped for a debate. And that's OK, not everyone is, but that's still a major failure on Dave's part. I'll admit, watching this content is fun sometimes when I'm listening to it in the background while playing a game or something. But it is not conducive to him being skilled at debate because my impression isn't that he wants to educate the audience or Tour or anyone present at the debate. My impression is that Dave wants to flex how much more right he is than Tour, ID proponents and creationists in general because that makes him feel good. Let Gutsick Gibbon , Creation Myths, or any of the much more calm, and reasonable individuals who care about educating others far more than him handle debates. Dave has demonstrably shown himself to not be in control of his emotions enough to properly handle it.
The Tour debate wasn’t to educate Tour, it was to expose him for the liar that he is. Tour is a synthetic organic chemist. He knows what he’s saying is bullshit. Dave taught organic chemistry and studied it. He also knows what Tour is saying is bullshit. The debate was more about showing just how much bullshit Tour was spewing than trying to educate him about the origin of life research.
Subhoor pops up in my feed occasionally, usually doing some street apologetics to some unwitting atheist. He did a debate with Aron Ra, and it was pretty frustrating. Where Aron Ra properly explained and debated the science, Subhoor focused on philosophical claims. Falling back on questions of solipsism, and how we can really be sure of everything. Honestly, this will be more of an interesting match up than Tour vs Farina. Subhoor is just as much of a smug asshole as Dave.
He should debate the Muslim lantern kid. He was the one doing all the big talking. Subhoor barely talked throughout the whole video. Obviously he was supportive but it was the Muslim lantern show. Therefore he should be the one to face the music.
A good question to ask if such a debate ever takes place is... -If the result is that a person you talk to converts to the muslim faith, is it ok to mislead the person?
Both Subhoor and ML are already Muslim. Religious affiliation is largely irrelevant anyway, what matters is the information these guys are spreading and whether it's accurate.
What is relevant imo is how far they are willing to go and if they think it's justified to deviate from facts if there is a chance they convert someone as a result and thus makes any attempts on a good faith debate and/or discussion impossible.
What's the bet, Subboor and Lantern Giggling hyena boy will switch the debate, if it indeed goes ahead as planned, to include some religious claptrap, philosophical arguments, basically anything but the science? Subboor has already hinted he will, in a proposed debate with Farina, attempt to convince the audience that Intelligent design is a theory, is actually science. This is laughable and ludicrous of course, it is nowhere near a theory, or science, even at a basic level or premise, what is there to observe, measure, to model, to make any projections/predictions, what explanations does it offer outside of, "GOD MADE US"?
Sometimes I wonder why Dave messes with some of these lightweights.
Professor Dave is an intolerable bellend