Elliott has since retired the moniker Pseudo Psychic Accumulation and is no… Read Full Bio ↴Elliott has since retired the moniker Pseudo Psychic Accumulation and is now recording under Mechanistic Moth. If you want to check out his more recent music, then go here: http://www.last.fm/music/Mechanistic+Moth

Ruffling the feathers of Icarus, Pseudo Psychic Accumulation came to existence on a drum set of pots and pans while in high school. With a distinct taste for Almonds and Mango Gelato, PPA still acts as the creative vessel for Elliott and whomever he asks to work with him.

The constant member of the band was Elliott Sawyer who fiddles around producing or recording himself as often as he can when he's not working on his artwork or school.

TRACKS

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Following Failure at Open Mic
Pseudo Psychic Accumulation Lyrics

No lyrics text found for this track.

The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

Most interesting comment from YouTube:

@Justinbuhagiar

45w↑3

@YP Poe A disagreement or dispute: An argument can refer to a verbal or written disagreement between individuals or parties, where conflicting viewpoints or opinions are presented. In this sense, an argument often involves presenting reasons, evidence, or justifications to support a particular position or to challenge another.

A logical reasoning process: Argument can also refer to a logical structure or series of statements that present a claim or proposition, along with supporting evidence or premises, in order to reach a conclusion. In this sense, an argument is a method of persuasion that relies on rationality and reasoning.

A heated or emotional exchange: Sometimes, the term "argument" is used to describe a more intense and emotional exchange between individuals, characterized by raised voices, strong emotions, and a lack of productive communication. This type of argument often deviates from logical reasoning and can be confrontational or unproductive.

The "argument" against evolution is that god did it. You have the debate ability of a grape.

Your spokesman is literally kent hovind lmaooooo

That felon still thinks the earth is 6000 years old and he is the smartest guy you have on your team! Hahahhahahaha

All comments from YouTube:

@dokidokibibleclub

45w↑9

In case you're not already subscribed to Kent, Matt, and Sam ▶️✅️ (+ 🔔 all notifications)

Kent Hovind-> https://youtube.com/@genesisbaptistchurch and https://youtube.com/@docdino and occasionally here @ Praise I AM -> https://youtube.com/@PraiseIAmThatIAm on Rumble -> https://rumble.com/c/c-1227391

Matt 🦇🔦 -> https://youtube.com/@YoungEarthCreation

Sam -> https://youtube.com/@RedefineLiving

@dokidokibibleclub

44w↑1

@@yppoe Too late. We're already best buds with magnetic friendship necklaces

@RedefineLiving

45w↑35

Oh yeah! Another win for biblical creation 💪

@lyndellwilliams5890

45w↑8

Of course. Kent is more scholastic than all of them combined. For God sake everyone knows or should know that a cat can't produce a horse.

@lyndellwilliams5890

45w↑1

Did you ever see Kent Hovind (Most hated video by the U.S. Government). He was arrested not long after it came out & done 9 years in prison on a bogus charge. He got out in 2015 & they were going to send him back to prison for 100 years. But anyway checkout the video. You can YouTube it.

@myroom4640

45w↑2

@@lyndellwilliams5890 Ooooh blaspheme.

@Rob2000

45w↑5

@@lyndellwilliams5890 This really shows the knowledge about evolution.

@lyndellwilliams5890

45w↑2

@@Rob2000 Take a look at the Kent Hovind Vs William Moore 2008 video Kent has been dropping evolutionist for a long time.👍

40 More Replies...

@StandingForTruthMinistries

45w↑12

Thank you to all our guests!

@MazePage

45w↑7

Slowly over long periods of time doesn't cut it when a heart, lungs/gils, and circulatory system need to exist all at once.

@jackstrawfromwichita9369

45w↑3

@RodimusPrime90
Cool story bro

@RedefineLiving

45w↑4

Thank you for actually thinking, instead of blindly following those who pretend they are on the side of “science”.

@myroom4640

45w↑7

Buckle up everyone and hold on tight, we are in for a fantastic debate night. 😊😊😊😊.

@Genesis-rx7vn

45w↑3

Thank you Dr. Dino!

@jeromem4923

45w↑6

Excellent job brothers Donny, Sam, and MattMan 👏👍💪

@addersrinseandclean

45w↑4

Thank you SFT, This has been a blessing

@xxxxxx726

45w↑4

Dr Dino! The OG! nice to see you again.

@jamesgilchrist3890

45w↑4

The only relative to a strawberry is Professor Dave.

@dokidokibibleclub

45w↑5

28:50 Most people: Give me wings to fly or gills to swim 🦅🦈
Matt and Sam: Make me a small loaf so I can be carried around 🍞

@jeromem4923

45w↑3

🤣🤣🤣 Truth!!!!

@randylahey6140

45w↑2

Can’t wait to listen to this at work tomorrow

@RedPillOfTheBible

45w↑4

Kent, we love your work on this! Thanks! I suggest you to not make conflict between the terms kind and species, they are synonyms, in Portuguese for example we only use the term "specie " (especie), including in the Bible, they have the same meaning.

@johntorres2565

41w↑2

“If by evolution they mean change over time, then sure.” Donny
He has finally got it. Because that is what it is.

@user-ef4vx2ll4m

45w↑2

May our lord and Savior Jesus bless your ministry.

@edwardwicks304

44w↑1

The heavens declare the Glory of God, the Earth displays His handy work.

@myroom4640

45w↑3

I’m only roughly 10mins in, and Kent you’re killing me. 🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂

@StandingForTruthMinistries

45w↑4

haha! This was too much fun. Kent cracks me up every time lol! Always a good time. God bless sister! Glad you are enjoying!

@myroom4640

45w↑2

@@StandingForTruthMinistries You’re funny too Donny. 🤣🤣😂😂👍👍👍

@hansbiener9727

45w↑1

I agree, Kent is extremely ignorant

@johntorres2565

41w

If you’re laughing at Kent, then you have a bad memory or it’s you’re first time hearing him and you have a bad sense of humor.

@MazePage

45w↑3

I think a lot of debators go on asking question after question just to save face.

@JudahTVofficial

45w↑2

Really good open mic

@jameschenault7404

45w↑1

Thank you

@hib3032

45w↑2

Intelligent design on the map 😂😂 yeh that went well in court 😂😂

@lionelbradley4394

45w↑1

Deposition may allow for the timing of the action of material being deposited to be known if direct observation had occurred. But timing of an action will not give you the age of the material deposited. Also, the age of the material deposited will not give you knowledge of the time the action of depositing occurred.

@jasoonbouyounes2594

45w↑1

Kent god bless you

@apologetics-101

44w

I misspoke in that open mic. I said that they moved to "descent with modification which we don't agree with" but what I meant was common descent which we don't agree with. Descent with modification we agree with, just not the latter.

@dokidokibibleclub

45w↑4

I thought @Bubblegum Gun was the only polytheist in the entire internet until today

@RedefineLiving

45w↑2

Lol

@MazePage

45w↑2

With the reasoning I heard, we would have to classify kangaroos as dinosaurs 🤕

@MazePage

45w↑2

@YP Poe ... and poof the rabbit appeared

@fjccommish

45w↑1

2:03:03 Yet when scientists age it, they claim to be aging the dirt itself, the material, not the time it was laid down.

@hisnameisiam808

44w

Good point.

@jasons8495

45w↑1

Potassium is necessary for function of cells and electrolytes. Hypokalemia is a form of low potassium due to loss of potassium from cells. Vomiting, diarrhoea and fluids and loss of electrolytes.

@abegrey740

45w

Hypokalemia is not a form of low potassium. Hypokalemia is the definition of having low potassium.

@CrazedOldMan

45w↑1

The Central Pangean Mountains include remnants of the Appalachian Mountains, Ouachita Mountains, the Little Atlas of Morocco and the Scottish Highlands. Age dating, petrology, structural geology, and paleontology confirm it. Creationists, explain how the Central Pangean Mountains formed.

@spamm0145

45w↑3

That is what you want to know to prove what? How about you contemplate the absurdity that mutations in cells somehow manage to solve real world engineering problems like flight and sonar. The more complex a problem, the higher the level of intelligence and knowledge required to discover a solution, living organisms solutions to immensely complex real world physical problems vastly exceed mankind's achievements with greater efficiency, maneuverability, and elegance. So you need to completely ignore your entire life's daily observation, that complex problems require a high level of intelligence and information ALWAYS resides from an intelligent source. Why did evolution even bother evolving a brain when mutations in cells can solve extremely complex difficult problems without one? It can conjure up information and super high levels of intellect from nowhere, just like the big bang did with matter, but we don't observe that in the real world, do we?

@CrazedOldMan

45w↑1

@@spamm0145 You completely avoided the question and failed to provide a flood model for the formation of those mountains. Meanwhile science has a model, and it's called Plate Tectonics.

@spamm0145

44w

@@CrazedOldMan Do you even get that data is interpreted to fit a world view?

@JohnQPublic11

45w↑1

Would one of you peeps please define "biblical creation"? Thanks,

@JohnQPublic11

45w

@YP Poe --- I don't have the foggiest clue what you are asking. Below is a thread titled "Oh yeah! Another win for biblical creation" It got a red heart. Apparently they know what it is. We know the whom and what, I want to know the "official" date[s] for WHEN the YECs claim the act of "biblical creation" took place? Are the days literal 24 hour days?

@YoungEarthCreation

45w↑3

⁠@@JohnQPublic11ey ya! The biblical creation model is that of the young earth creation perspective. The reason for this is, old earth creation and even theistic evolution are inconsistent with one another. What I mean is that theistic evolutionists might believe in deep time, but they still believe in Adam and eve, but they also believe other humans were alive at the same time, and even some old earth creationists believe this as well. But not all of them. So they’re divided. There’s only a few people that have attempted to make a model. One of them is Sentinel apologetics, and he attributes each day of creation to the evolutionairy timeline. One day might be a billion years, another might be a few hundred million. While others like day 6 was just a single literal day since Adam did not live through it.
Now, regarding the young earth creation model, I would say the vast majority believe that the days are literally 24 hour days. There are some that believe the days are 1000 years but that would still fall under the category of young earth creation because it doesn’t really push the date back that much further.
Next, the vast majority of YEC again believe the Earth is 6000 years old because of the king James version Bible, which most read. This version comes from the Masoretic text. Others will go by the dates in the Greek septuigent which place is the flood around 5320 years ago in the creation around 7000 years ago so not much of a difference yet again. This is the biblical YEC model. The differences are small between us all as where with old earth creation it varies person to person it seems. So I have yet to find a consistent model

@mumenrider862

45w

Remember that time when someone asked kent how we can have pressure without a container and he said "gravity"... ie ... gas go down go boom boom?

@mikehoy4845

40w

Bre is a dude. He’s not fooling me. I pray God will open his eyes before it’s too late.🙏🙏🙏 thank you Kent and thank you SFT. I love you guys.

@kenrock7227

45w↑1

The judge kent agreed to us having in round 3 give me the win. So officially i hold a win over kent

@dokidokibibleclub

45w↑1

Can you smell what the Ken Rock is cooking!! 🪨💪🤼‍♂️🪑

@michaeldeas1969

45w↑3

I'm certain Kent does not know this Brie character is a dude.

@fjccommish

45w

Andrew wouldn't stop interrupting.

@nitong49

41w

you should invite james tour here

@IronMatt

45w↑3

At 4:06 i beg to differ. Birds are not Dinosaurs. One is cold blooded one warm blooded, one has feathers the other scales, one has bones that are part of it's respiratory system the other does not. One has some wild gyroscope vision, to see things on the ground from the sky and the others are lizards. They are vastly different.

@IronMatt

45w

@RodimusPrime90 they have never found actual feathers on Dinosaurs. They have found smashed and decayed scales and claimed they were "proto feathers " . They have found extinct birds that they now claim are Dinosaurs, but it is imagination and wishful storytelling. If you just examine the actual data.

@IronMatt

45w↑1

@Justin Johnson that's a lot of names. No evidence. Again more conjecture, and guessing. Thanks for your opinion.

@IronMatt

45w

@RodimusPrime90 yep ,and before 1841, when sir Richard Owen coined the phrase , they were called Dragons.

@IronMatt

45w

@RodimusPrime90 that's medieval art work. They put wings on everything. Dragons are Dinosaurs. Check out the Standing For Truth presentation on Dinosaurs by Dr. Biddle that they were referring to in the stream. If you search on the channel, you will find it. I challenge you to check it out. Very cool ,eye-opening stuff.

@IronMatt

45w

@@nitsujism you gave some names, no links to papers, or anything. I'll just have to take your word for it. 😆

3 More Replies...

@themeek351

45w↑7

You know the evolutionists are desperate when they start making dead end arguments from ignorance! They dig themselves a deep hole to a depth where they think nobody will know enough to argue against it, but flounder when they realize that both Donny and Matt have grown in genetic knowledge so quickly and can cover their hole with a rock of truth! I have to say, seeing you two in action in this presentation has made me so proud of the amount of work and learning you have both had to do! It's just amazing, great job SFT!!!

@Justinbuhagiar

45w↑3

What's more of a dead end argument than "god did it?"

Sometimes I wonder if creationists actually pay attention to the words they say lol

@Justinbuhagiar

45w↑2

@YP Poe
No, I meant argument. That is the counter argument to evolution. Geez, you guys need your hands held through everything.

@Justinbuhagiar

45w↑3

@Justinbuhagiar

45w

@YP Poe Reread the thread. Your intellectual dishonesty is impressive.

Let me know when you want to actually debate the topic instead of getting owned on semantics.

I should expect that from a kent hovind follower lmao

@themeek351

45w↑2

@@Justinbuhagiar Dead end? Takes one to know, when God comes around! Do you think you know it all, or maybe half of it all? What if God resides in the other half you don't? What will you do when your standing in front of him? I doubt you'll be standing! Me neither!

2 More Replies...

@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264

44w

If I was an evolutionist I’d like to be related to a bird so I can fly

@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264

44w

It’s always funny how evolutionists deny abiogenesis is part of the evolution religion

@PURGEgroomersfromAmerica

44w↑1

Dr.Kent Hovind the Evolution terminator

@morgunism

30w

morphology is not empirical?

@travisc9169

45w

Evolution by definition selects certain traits or characteristics. Therefore the gene for X items must therefore have been in the original parent. So if we all came from an single celled creature, where was all that DNA/genes hiding to at some point decide to be an arm. fur, eyeball etc etc etc. Evolution is supposedly used to explain how information "selects" but you have to have it to select from. Instead of arguing with the evolutionists, I simply ask them that one basic question. "If your theory selects, then how did your single celled creature have all that info inside it?" No one has ever yet given me an answer. Instead of trying to tamp down all their nonsense pin them down with that one question. They want to start their arguments with an existing creature and ignore how it got here, but then go back in time and say "see....." it does not work that way.

@travisc9169

44w

@@yppoe You are missing the point. Yes it does select for certain traits, BUT those traits have to be there. It does not add to the information, it subtracts. So if all creatures came from some single celled bit of ooze how did that bit of ooze have all the genes in it to subtract down to the very complex cow, person, whale, dog etc that we have today? It didn't obviously if you think about what the theory says. The theory says "selection" yet they attribute to it "addition" That is impossible.

@travisc9169

44w

@@yppoe As I am the one that started the conversation, then any reference to the meaning of a statement by nature refers to my original use of said term/statement. Therefore I get to decide how and what I mean/meant by my statements. My statement therefore stands for itself, if you do not understand. I.e you may or may not agree with the position or the statement, but that is the position. You however then said, and since it was in quotes you were, I assume, trying to define evolution by saying - "Evolution by definition selects certain traits or characteristics.'

Would that not be 'natural selection?

I said, no because in relation to my original position it does not. You however have tried to hijack that statement and confuse and conflate which are not the same thing . If you look them up confusion means: the simple statement lack of understanding; uncertainty. Conflate means: combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one. So I have to believe in your attempt to confuse the issue, you conflated the two issues.

As you said we will have to be accountable for our words. I made my point, evolution selects but has to have the information to select FROM. it does not create information.

@MazePage

45w

Doctor Deino sounds strangely similar to Snake Was Right 🤔

@dokidokibibleclub

45w↑1

Also Bubblegum Gun

@fjccommish

45w↑1

Don't let Kent make those stupid jokes. The next time he makes a cow joke, remoooooooooooooove him from the room.

@fjccommish

45w↑1

@@yppoe You're trying to milk it too much.

@fjccommish

45w

@@yppoe Is that a veiled threat?

@DoktorDeino

45w↑1

Hey, why'd my comment get deleted? I was nice

@StandingForTruthMinistries

45w↑1

Was there a link in it? Could be the algorithm.

@StandingForTruthMinistries

45w↑1

Thanks for joining btw! I look forward to more discussions in the future.

@DoktorDeino

45w↑1

@@StandingForTruthMinistries Nah, I just explained chickens didn't come from T. rex. And offered to teach people about dinosaurs. And asked SeaScience to a debate.

Thanks for having me!

@StandingForTruthMinistries

45w↑1

@@DoktorDeino Thank you. I'll check the YouTube studio when I get back to the computer to see if your comment was deleted or was withheld by YT.

Thanks again for joining.

@user-ef4vx2ll4m

45w↑1

Atheist is a dead end road to The Lake of fire

@bighairyviking387

45w↑2

Prove it.

@Roger_and_the_Goose

39w

Am I correct in assuming that this is a Christian based youtube channel? The three other people you have, I'm assuming, have some affiliation to the Christian church, and look to Jesus as the son of God or as the Christ. If this is the case, why does Kent Hovind blatantly lie about being a Doctor or some sort of scientist in this context or conversation. Donny, I would give your channel some sort of praise, but if your position on creationism was to get any sort of traction at all, it certainly shouldn't debase itself with lying about the qualifications of someone on you panel.
You and your channel debase the name "Standing For Truth", and in doing so, debase the name of Christ.

@michaeldeas1969

45w↑1

Bree= lobotomy meet redbull 😂😂😂😂😂

@morgunism

30w

Kent still nor understanding a thing about science

@iwkaoy8758

45w↑1

Evolutionist isle ways ask what de limb mit to change inn any moles indie an sir is de common ancestors features.

Dog, coyotes,foxes and Jack coals de send from prehistoric wolves,but none have a features prehistoric wolves are Ms. Sing.

Dog, foxes coyotes and Jack coals have features each other are Ms. Sing,but none have a buy de part of features their common ancestor does ant have.

Prehistoric wolves don't have Venous fangs,scales, ore wings, So their de send dents want have none of dez features. Their de send dents own Lee lose features. Example wolves two pugs. Wolves bee came pugs buy losing features. Losing different features causes varieties.

@ianeglintine

41w

Echo chamber

@fjccommish

45w↑1

49:59 Here's another dolt who thinks he can design life better, criticizes God for His design. OK, pal, make a better one. Make it the right way. Show us how it's done.

@fjccommish

45w

1:34:06 Hank is full of shit, to be blunt. He claims to be on the creation truth side, but his "proof" is really his way of debunking creation and the arc. Unless we can rebuild the arc with all the animals on it, it isn't proven. Nope, Hank. If you claim you want to prove it, and that's the only way to prove it, then do it.

@dokidokibibleclub

45w

Please no profanity, thanks

@fjccommish

45w

@@dokidokibibleclub Your sensitivity aside, Hank is full of it.

@fjccommish

45w↑1

@@yppoe Love it! Thanks for the suggestions.

@ubik1106

45w↑3

Calling this channel, "Standing For Truth," is the height of irony. This channel seems to be an exercise in rationalization, not in pursuing truth.

@YoungEarthCreation

45w↑1

yet here you critics are, complaining and not critiquing. Why not try to refute the argument’s 4:20:59 rather than just cry about the subject you seem to know nothing about? It seems the subject is to emotional for you critics, I suggest a new subject to get into. One that doesn’t shorten your life from stress

@fjccommish

45w↑2

What do you claim is the truth?

@hansbiener9727

45w↑3

I like how Kent Hovind is introduced as doctor while he in fact is a Mister. This is called lying.

@squirrelmaster760710

45w↑3

You like when people lie?

@tonymaurice4157

45w↑6

Abiogenesis fails

@bighairyviking387

45w

@@tonymaurice4157 abiogenesis has been proven to be not only possible but statistically likely.

@tonymaurice4157

45w↑2

@BigHairyViking abiogenesis Is an unproven hypothesis and a total disaster! Keep dreaming

Nobody has shown a method to make the homochiral versions of lipids, amino acids, nucleotides or carbohydrates in a prebiotically relevant manner. Lab Environments are highly manipulated!

Chemists purchase chemicals in high purity and yield from chemical companies, Which Extract them from pre-existing biological sources. Chemists Arrange those chemicals in a specific order under a set of carefully controlled devised conditions Using Designed pipettes, designed synthesizer machines, Activating agents, templates. Etc