Jay Dyer Reacts to Professor Dave reacting to Jay Dyer and Jim Bob

[00:00:00]So here here's the strength of my argument and the reason that I always beat these types of people, these scientism goblins.

[00:00:08]And I think everybody in this audience already knows why.

[00:00:12]It's because first [clears throat] of all, I went to college with these guys.

[00:00:15]I studied under these dudes.

[00:00:18]So my philosophy of science professor was one of these guys. He was like a hardcore uh you know, atheist scientism guy.

[00:00:27]He was actually a pretty good uh philosophy professor though professor though to be fair.

[00:00:32]And >> [clears throat] >> that class was great because even though he was a rabid scientism proponent, he actually encouraged everybody to understand philosophy of science.

[00:00:46]And people like I don't I've never watched Professor Dave, but I'm assuming that he would not care about philosophy of science because usually scientism physics type people, Neil deGrasse Tyson, right?

[00:00:58]They don't care about philosophy. They actually discourage people from looking into it or studying it precisely because philosophy asks the questions that are difficult for them.

[00:01:09]They don't know how to answer or how to grapple with those things because philosophy is as our friend who called in a minute ago pointed out, it's a more abstract discipline historically.

[00:01:20]And it's more difficult for these guys to deal with. You would think that since they have an interest in mathematics that they would be able to do more abstract thinking, but they they can't.

[00:01:32]It's really weird.

[00:01:34]And so there's something that shuts off in a lot of these people's minds, I think, to where they're unable to conceptualize perhaps the domain of metaphysics or the domain of even epistemology.

[00:01:47]They're a little more able to ex to to find maybe ethics accessible just like normies find ethics a little more accessible because everybody, you know, deals with right and wrong. That's not fair. You shouldn't have done that, right? Is ought type stuff. But when it gets into domain of metaphysics, the good or how do we justify knowledge claim? These people are absolutely out to lunch. They completely fail.

[00:02:12]And we saw this for example all the way back to my debate with JF. Remember the original second atheist debate that we that we had done.

[00:02:21]JF assumed that because he was a had a degree in uh neuro neurosurgery or I forget what his degree was, right?

[00:02:31]Uh that he would be able to do everything. So he they have this sort of like overestimation of competence in every field because they mastered one field.

[00:02:40]That's very common in academia.

[00:02:43]And so when JF actually came to a debate that was asking pretty basic philosophical questions, he completely flounders. He fails. And I would bet money that Professor Dave doesn't know basic fallacies, doesn't know basic epistemic argumentation and the principles of justification, either.

[00:03:03]And that's I can say that because I've dealt with these types so many times and for so many years. All the way back to 1999 2000 was when I first started dealing with these types of professors.

[00:03:18]That it's really it's really the best route.

[00:03:24]Because you can't escape logic and epistemic questions.

[00:03:31]Reasoning.

[00:03:32]And it's funny because these people think that they have cornered the market on logic and reasoning.

[00:03:39]But when you start to ask one level up abstracted questions like what is logic?

[00:03:45]What is reason?

[00:03:47]Where is it? How is it?

[00:03:50]These people are done.

[00:03:52]Let's what he says in regard to an old interview that I did with the Jim Bob.

[00:03:57]>> J. Dyer with Cartoonist maybe I don't know. Yeah, I think I've heard that name before but I don't know who that is. All right, so we're going to yeah, let's watch this one.

[00:04:09]Damn it.

[00:04:11]Yeah, Darwinism you know, he could have been right about you know some a beak getting bigger but I've looked into more of that and it all that [clears throat] [ __ ] is going going down.

[00:04:22]>> It is.

[00:04:23]>> Uh fast cuz uh they still haven't accounted for the fact that there's there's digital information embedded in us and all >> No.

[00:04:33]>> [laughter] >> It's not digital information. It's just a sequence of of nuclear bases. That's it. Uh Oh, how does Professor Dave know that the information encoded in us is just a sequence of whatever?

[00:04:47]How does he know that it's not actually meaningful information? he doesn't understand that the sort of smug uh snickering dismissing actual meaningful information or telos, purpose even a turn I think Jim Bob was talking about DNA. That was an interview we did maybe five or six years ago but I think Jim Bob's talking about DNA but to snicker and sort dismiss this with this just sort of well, we all know that it's meaningless information.

[00:05:15]>> Um yeah, I love the like desperation with which these delusional assets are like they're always going like Darwinism is going >> Yeah, but you just did that. Like you just delusionally snickered and did the very same thing that you're saying that we do.

[00:05:32]>> down. Oh my gosh, it's crashing and burning. Evolutionary biology is is imploding. It's in crisis.

[00:05:40]>> We weren't even talking about ev bio. We were talking about the grand narrative of the origins of life. So I doubt he's going to be very charitable.

[00:05:47]>> Science isn't correct. No, you're just morons. I'm sorry.

[00:05:52]>> Well, that's interesting. So, did he actually reply to anything other than just saying that DNA is meaningless?

[00:05:58]That's all he said and called us morons.

[00:06:00]So, this is the standard scientism smug atheism that's out there. And you'll notice, look at his smug face.

[00:06:09]And he he's like just trying to out smug what he thinks we are, right? So, all all of their arguments are actually confidence games.

[00:06:18]And I say that because argumentation is about philosophy. It's not about peer-reviewed studies and who has more evidences. I can pile up 55 peer-reviewed studies for my point.

[00:06:31]That's what normies think is intelligence. That's what dum-dums, that's what the ladies on whatever podcast like not so erudite think is smart, right? Piling up peer-review papers that you get from chat GPT, right?

[00:06:45]>> information. I forgot the quote. It something like uh information uh habitually is related to a conscious mind. Like there's no point in all of existence so far where information wasn't created by a >> correct.

[00:07:03]>> Yeah. Yeah, except for all of the times when yes, it [ __ ] was because what you're referring to as information is just a sequence of bases. That's it. You have monomers that polymerize and that's it. That's all there is to it. Um this >> So, it just is what it is. That's not even a response. This is so low tier. I actually thought this guy might bring a little bit of response, a little bit of uh attempting to deal with what the actual argument is. What the argument is comes from information science, right? It's an argument that Dr. Jason Lisle talks about with the fact that anytime there's information that is meaningful information, it comes from a mind, at least as far as we know. Now, that's in the domain of information science and computer science.

[00:07:49]And so, Jim Bob is extrapolating from that, which is an argument that I made for a long time because it was in some of the Jason Law presuppositional argumentation books and lectures.

[00:08:00]Jim Bob is just kind of repeating what we talked about for a long time. And this guy is saying, "No, it's just it is what it is." Oh, really? So, let's presupp Dr. Dave here.

[00:08:10]Because if information isn't meaningful, it's just what it is, then Dr. Dave's arguments aren't meaningful.

[00:08:21]And his words on his live stream are not meaningful and have no purpose or telos.

[00:08:27]So, therefore, his whole response is meaningless.

[00:08:31]>> And this obsession on his own grounds with information and a code that comes from the mind of the blah blah blah is just a complete [ __ ] non-starter.

[00:08:41]It's >> Okay, so, no arguments, just saying that to believe that information is meaningful or comes from a mind is a [ __ ] non-starter. That's all he said.

[00:08:50]Is this guy This guy is like the pinnacle, 4 million subscribers, of YouTube atheism these days?

[00:08:58]>> Just a desperate mischaracterization of molecular biology, right? You >> Yeah, but the argument isn't about molecular biology, it's about information science. And he's extrapolating that to all of life.

[00:09:13]It's a universal metaphysical argument about telos and purpose and meaningful information.

[00:09:20]It's not Jim Bob primarily trying to argue about biology.

[00:09:23]>> You don't know what molecular biology is.

[00:09:26]>> You don't know what anything is.

[00:09:33]>> Therefore, it is a code from from a human mind, you know, or >> Oh, Professor Dave, does the code come from a computer? Oh, is the code in the computer meaningful or is it meaningless?

[00:09:46]>> Like, you know, an intelligent mind. Um yeah, I don't know. Let's see how they fumble it.

[00:09:51]>> So, you notice how he's not responding with any argument. He's just said that we're [ __ ] And just smug snickering. I bet I bet I bet you Professor Dave wouldn't last 2 minutes in a debate.

[00:10:03]>> So, it's just something that the you know, and then and someone will will be like a Darwinist would be like, you know, you know, if you have enough time.

[00:10:11]And it's like, no, you haven't done the math.

[00:10:13]You guys didn't give enough time, you know, 14 billion years it's not enough time. Do you Do you know how long how many Do you know how many What are the odds of even 150 amino acids lining up perfectly to make a protein and have it >> What are the odds, dumbass? Go ahead and do the math for us. 150 amino acids lining up perfectly. What do you mean lining up perfectly? They polymerize.

[00:10:39]They spontaneously polymerize. You get 150 of them in a row, there you go. You got 150 of them in a row.

[00:10:45]>> Oh, everything just happens. Oh, it just Everything just happens. It just is.

[00:10:53]You're [ __ ] It just is.

[00:10:57]>> Epic Skeptic uh-oh, Epic Skeptic is in the chat.

[00:11:01]You just got owned, Dire.

[00:11:03]>> We got owned by by somebody just saying it just is. Like These things just happen. They just get together and it's just the way it That's what it is.

[00:11:16]>> What are the odds of that happening?

[00:11:18]What the [ __ ] are you talking about? You have no clue what you're talking about.

[00:11:22]>> So, Jim Bob made a passing comment that everything lining up to create life seems very implausible. I would argue that that's actually impossible. That it's anything to do with chance. But he didn't even make an argument. He This is twice now he's Wait, all he said is we're [ __ ] and uh no uh >> have it. That's not even have it do something. You still need to inject information to tell it what to do. We don't even know where that I mean, we know where that comes from.

[00:11:50]>> What do you mean tell it what to do? You have a molecule and it does something by >> Nothing has purpose.

[00:11:56]Uh my arguments, they don't even have purpose. They just do. What's the problem, you stupid believers in God?

[00:12:07]Wait, Professor Dave is a comedian?

[00:12:10]>> by virtue of its structure. Proteins can be >> They just do by virtue of what they are to do the thing that they do.

[00:12:18]>> functional by virtue of their structure.

[00:12:19]So you make a [ __ ] ton of them and some of them are functional. That's it.

[00:12:24]>> Everything just is. End of argument, you're [ __ ] So, if he doesn't give an argument within the next few minutes, I'm going to know that he doesn't have any actual argument or substantive replies.

[00:12:36]>> Right. The There There's so many problems and uh they're they're shutting down the people that are uh revealing these problems.

[00:12:45]>> They're shutting them down. They're censorship, you guys. There are whistleblowers that are exposing the fake Darwinists and they're being censored and canceled by the woke left, the trans communists. They're trying to take away our freedom of speech as >> Okay, so now he's like trying to make fun of maga and like he's doing this cringe level like Oh, these people that are conservative thinks that there's a conspiracy to censor.

[00:13:13]All right, I've had enough of this. This was like even worse than I thought it was going to be. John, what's up?

[00:13:21]Uh just believe in the atheism. What's the problem?

[00:13:26]Uh >> The only reason you're able to do this live stream is because of evolution.

[00:13:31]>> It's because of the meaningless code.

[00:13:33]There's no meaning in the code.

[00:13:38]>> Telephones, microwaves, TVs >> They're meaningless. They do what they do.

[00:13:46]>> All evolution, all that cars, evolution.

[00:13:50]>> Yeah, this is something that Chris pointed out back in the day back in the day on our on the podcast with you guys.

[00:13:56]Chris would point out that like he saw an ad for cat food and it was it was branded as evolutionary cat food that's evolutionarily best for your kitty.

[00:14:09]>> Yep.

[00:14:11]That's right. And and David I mean that's what they do. You'll hear you'll It's been a while. I haven't listened to debates like that, but even guys Chris debated back then there was one of them who used that argument. They're like, "Well, you're on a you're on a cell phone, aren't you?

[00:14:26]You have a computer."

[00:14:28]And that's kind of something >> that's evolution. Yeah, exactly. The computer is evolution because without evolution you couldn't have got a computer and computers prove evolution.

[00:14:37]And any counter evidence against that is also evolution.