Refuting Professor Dave Pt I - Sept 20, 2024

Sherman

I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Refuting Professor Dave Pt I

*One Last Refrain: (Well maybe three to five), because this week Fred Williams and Doug McBurney take on one of Youtube's deeper basement dwellers: "Professor Dave" (David James Farina) and his thinly veiled cries for momma disguised as "debunking" God's record of creation.

*A Scale of Dumb to Dave: Doug asks why "theistic" and "deistic evolution" rate higher than Intelligent Design on Dave's spectrum from least to most "scientific", (which are really listed from least to most "secular"), except for David's odd conjunction of Flat Earth and geocentrism, (as if the two cannot be considered separately).

*Holey Cheese: Fred compares "professor" Dave's debunking tactics to a hunk of swiss cheese, full of holes, attractive to rats and mice (and the longer it sits around the stinkier it gets). Unlike his debate with James Tour, which for Christian creationists is aging quite well thank you very much.

The Stuff of Giants: In the case of David James the stuff is straw and his straw men fall like rhetorical giants, slain by the distractional force of irrelevant assertions, (like his assertion that creationists fear telescopes).

*Elephants in the Room: Hear a point by point debunking of David James' careful "bunking" around all the elephantine facts that falsify his big bang, evolutionary naturalistic worldview, (like the growing mountain of evidence against the Big Bang being accumulated just by the Hubble, JWST, & Planck telescopes)!

 

Ps82

Well-known member
I think God did have a BIG BANG! But my thoughts are not about the Big, out of the blue, Bang which atheists and agnostics think brought forth creation with life and intellect. Actually, I think my BIG BANG thoughts will take this thread off topic. Unsure whether to post ... and just will say a few things. Please ignore if you had rather talk about the ideas of David Jame Farina.

  1. God is an invisible Spirit ... he moved upon the waters of life in the deep dark. Since God is LIFE this totally makes sense regarding the state of of affairs happening in Gen. 1-2.
  2. Not far into Gen.1 we read about God bringing forth LIGHT. Now I suggest going from an invisible realm of some sort into a physical realm of LITERAL LIGHT would create a HUGE BANG!
  3. Now, there was something special about THAT LIGHT. There are mentions of how The LORD God dwells within that unapproachable LIGHT and people saw evidence of that being true. King Neb. saw Him dwelling within a fiery furnace. Moses saw him within a bus that seemed on fire but was not consumed. Plus Moses witnessed all the powerful glory of God pass before him, but was only able to safely see the back parts of HIS form as The LORD retreated from him. One day our Savior is going to introduce the saints/his followers to the ONE who has eternally lived as an immortal within unapproachable fire.
  4. John the Baptist taught this truth and John the author of the book of John shared his teaching in John 1. Jesus was THAT LIGHT come in the form of flesh ... the world [mankind] beheld him but did not recognize the possibility of his being The LORD God for he did not look like the super-natural glory of God who Moses knew face to face.
  5. Now,the true BIG BANG was when the invisible God bought forth THAT LIGHT and created an image for himself which could dwell within that realm and then gave humanity eyeballs for beholding it and his form.
Sorry this is off topic ... but sometimes I just have to say something about what I find in scripture.
 
Last edited:
I think God did have a BIG BANG! But my thoughts are not about the Big, out of the blue, Bang which atheists and agnostics think brought forth creation with life and intellect. Actually, I think my BIG BANG thoughts will take this thread off topic. Unsure whether to post ... and just will say a few things. Please ignore if you had rather talk about the ideas of David Jame Farina.

  1. God is an invisible Spirit ... he moved upon the waters of life in the deep dark. Since God is LIFE this totally makes sense regarding the state of of affairs happening in Gen. 1-2.
  2. Not far into Gen.1 we read about God bringing forth LIGHT. Now I suggest going from an invisible realm of some sort into a physical realm of LITERAL LIGHT would create a HUGE BANG!
  3. Now, there was something special about THAT LIGHT. There are mentions of how The LORD God dwells within that unapproachable LIGHT and people saw evidence of that being true. King Neb. saw Him dwelling within a fiery furnace. Moses saw him within a bus that seemed on fire but was not consumed. Plus Moses witnessed all the powerful glory of God pass before him, but was only able to safely see the back parts of HIS form as The LORD retreated from him. One day our Savior is going to introduce the saints/his followers to the ONE who has eternally lived as an immortal within unapproachable fire.
  4. John the Baptist taught this truth and John the author of the book of John shared his teaching in John 1. Jesus was THAT LIGHT come in the form of flesh ... the world [mankind] beheld him but did not recognize the possibility of his being The LORD God for he did not look like the super-natural glory of God who Moses knew face to face.
  5. Now,the true BIG BANG was when the invisible God bought forth THAT LIGHT and created an image for himself which could dwell within that realm and then gave humanity eyeballs for beholding it and his form.
Sorry this is off topic ... but sometimes I just have to say something about what I find in scripture.

My ears always perk up whenever the Bible talks about light. It's just so interesting. Rev 21:23 says Jesus will be the light of the New Jerusalem and recently people have been pointing out that all gemstones named there are anisotropic. I'm not really sure what the significance of that is. Some websites might take that info and run a bit too far with it. But it is interesting nonetheless.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
This is hilarious. Love cheese animation. David James Farina has no class.
I tried engaging with David on his YT channel. He does take time in the comments, which is rare for a channel his size, but he is very abusive to people that don't agree with him, or he deletes any comments he doesn't like even if they bring up a good point. And he has an army of fans that abuse anyone not on their team even if an interloper makes a good point. It's a toxic and useless comment section.
 
I tried engaging with David on his YT channel. He does take time in the comments, which is rare for a channel his size, but he is very abusive to people that don't agree with him, or he deletes any comments he doesn't like even if they bring up a good point. And he has an army of fans that abuse anyone not on their team even if an interloper makes a good point. It's a toxic and useless comment section.
It's always the same with these people.
 

Ps82

Well-known member
My ears always perk up whenever the Bible talks about light. It's just so interesting. Rev 21:23 says Jesus will be the light of the New Jerusalem and recently people have been pointing out that all gemstones named there are anisotropic. I'm not really sure what the significance of that is. Some websites might take that info and run a bit too far with it. But it is interesting nonetheless.
Jesus is not the only LIGHT to be the light in the kingdom of our Lord. The Father and our Lord are.

You will like this section of a prayer Jesus prayed to the Father about himself before he went to the cross.

John 17:2-5 Jesus speaks of himself as the Son and makes a request of the Father. There are times when you will think it is The pre-incarnate WORD of God who speaking about the Son ... so watch carefully. My opinions inside [...]

2 As you [Father LORD] have given him [the Son who is the WORD/Emmanuel] power over all flesh, that he [as the Messiah] should give eternal life to as many as you have given him [Lord Jesus].
3 And this is life eternal, [the additional measure of life required] that they might [one day] know thee, the only true God, and [know] Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent [to die and then arise].
4 I [being your WORD come as the Messiah] have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which you gave me to do
5 And now, O Father glorify thou me with thine own self
with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Do you see the truth VladtheDestroyer?
The WORD of God, who was with God and was God ... had shared the one glorious presence/image belonging to the Father from before the world was... and The WORD, then as Jesus, was asking to have that glory again for himself.

I happen to believe The Heavenly Presence of the Father still exists and that God honored the prayer of His Son and personally gave him the same glory he one had shared with the Father.

Ps.110: 1 King David was a prophet when he said, "The LORD said unto My Lord. Sit thou at my right hand until I make your enemies thy footstool." They both will be around in the kingdom ... and shining with great glory to light the New Jerusalem.

To my understanding Rev. 21:22 speaks of the Father and the Risen Lord ... They will shine their glory upon the Holy City ... Even the Risen Lord is like a Lamp at that time.
 
Last edited:
Guess I was using the pronoun "you" to mean "a person might or would think such in such. Not telling you what to think. Just sharing what I think.
Anyways, you are right! John 17 is just amazing. It's been along time since I've read John actually so I read chapter 17 first thing this morning and it might just be my new favorite chapter in whole Bible now.
 

Ps82

Well-known member
Anyways, you are right! John 17 is just amazing. It's been along time since I've read John actually so I read chapter 17 first thing this morning and it might just be my new favorite chapter in whole Bible now.
It became one of mine. Thanks again.
 
If anyone is interested, here's a link to one of the few places I know of on the internet that talks about anisotropic gemstones in the Bible;

There are few small mistakes I have found on that page. Whoever wrote it, kinda contradicts himself a bit with what he has to say about rubies and I think he might have a couple of technical ideas a bit backwards (or maybe it's me) as far refraction and polarized light and monochromatic light are concerned. So maybe do your own research and again Im not sure how much we can really take from it.
But it's definitely interesting!
 
Top