why are soyentists like this?

[Anonymous No.15829116]

https://youtu.be/KvGdllx9pJU?t=1710
>ask the basedentist to write the chemistry on the board
>he frantically tabs through his slides
>"muh papers"
>then everybody clapped (literally)
it's like this the whole way through

[Anonymous No.15829577]

>why are $oyentists like this?
you mean why do they only spout jargon and quote replication crisis journals and can never demonstrate concrete understanding?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGDbpg1nG8Y

[Anonymous No.15829582]

It's always funny to watch the I HECKIN LOVE SCIENCE types react when you tell them that Science doesn't know everything and in some cases can't. It's their religion. It has to have all the answers, or else they feel empty.

[Anonymous No.15831002]

>>15829582
>It's their religion.
their religion is an irrational belief system if they presume that science knows everything.
why do they even think people are still doing science if they presume that science already knows everything?

[Anonymous No.15831945]

>>15831002
>why do they even think people are still doing science if they presume that science already knows everything?
because they're low IQ, atheists are all low IQ, its a childish belief

[Anonymous No.15831959]

>>15831945
>>/sci/?task=search2&search_filename=420fantics.jpg

[Anonymous No.15832151]

>>15831945
have you considered not getting angry at things some clueless teenagers said like 15 years ago?

[Anonymous No.15832164]

>>15831945
>atheists are all low IQ, its a childish belief

eh, not really. I'm not aware of any proofs of the existence of God. It's perfectly reasonable to not believe.

It's also reasonable to believe that there does exist some God (principle of sufficient reason implies a first cause), but I find it unreasonable to believe that there exists a God who wrote some holy book, or who cares about human ethics.

[Anonymous No.15833030]

>>15832164
You are low IQ and your beliefs are childish.

[Anonymous No.15834139]

>>15831002
>why do they even think people are still doing science if they presume that science already knows everything?
poignant question, atheists have no answer for this

[Anonymous No.15834226]

>>15829116
Holy kek the professor was seething and coping
Ngl that's an optics win for "professor" Dave

[Anonymous No.15834299]

>>15829116
>show me the actual chemistry
Maybe he can't because he didn't read it himself
Doesn't mean it's not possible

[Anonymous No.15834536]

>>15833030
why?

[Anonymous No.15835044]

>>15834226
no it wasn't, he was clearly avoiding the board because he was trying to hide his ignorance in lack of training and ability

[Anonymous No.15835992]

>>15834536
You are too low IQ and childish to understand why, theres no point in trying to reason with a dumb baby

[Anonymous No.15836153]

>>15835992
no trolling outside of /b/

[Anonymous No.15836259]

>>15835044
I'm surprised an actual expert like Tour bothered to give him the time of day honestly. Farina's academia stolen valor is something that should automatically disqualify anyone as a coping loser too low IQ to get a real degree.

[Anonymous No.15836405]

>>15835044
>start shrieking and fuming
>???
>win the debate
creationist logic

[Anonymous No.15836639]

>>15834299
>>15829116
>show me the chemistry

Guys this is a very well studied reaction. You can observe this via NMR, Mass Spec, IR, and other spectroscopic methods.

[Anonymous No.15836642]

>>15836405
It's natural to be mad when a dimwit's thick head prevents him from understanding the debate. We can all empathise with Tour here, we've all had to deal with low-class minds like Farina before.

[Anonymous No.15836670]

>>15829116
>dropped out of 2 masters programs and has never worked as a chemist, only as a lecturer at shitty no-name universities
>insults his opponent repeatedly
>vexatious and smug tone
>literally cannot draw a reaction he claims to have studied extensively
>only argument is appeals to authority
>screencaps the title and the first 3 sentences of the papers’ abstracts (the only part he understands)
Thanks for the rage watch.
Btw american anons - how common is it to be called ‘professor’ without a phd or a substantial research background? In my shithole this guy would be called a lecturer or associate lecturer.

[Anonymous No.15836677]

>>15836639
I should note this occurs in two steps, but I've drawn it as one for simplicity.

[Anonymous No.15836746]

>>15836670
Sometimes part timers are called adjunct professors, but as far as I know he just affects the title for clout.

[Anonymous No.15836754]

>be me a professional mathematician told to prove something
>I dunno the numbers look close so it's probably right

[Anonymous No.15836821]

>>15829116
If you really want to make a good refutation to abiogenesis of life bring up how unlikely it is that a protein which makes RNA from DNA arose by chance and then ended up being encoded by DNA. Fucking going after peptide reactions really?