You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
Where did you get the picture of the guy with the Rubik's Cube?! I know that guy... It's Kare Krig from Sweden... The pic was taken in Budapest last year :). I was there :).
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
This is once again irrelevant. How do you respond to the substantive points in the video? Simply repeating that there aren't infinite monkeys is irrelevant!
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
You are kidding me right? Step back, take a deep breath and re-read my comments. I have "faith" that you will come to a better conclusion than this one.
The scary thing is that I pushed it about as far as I could into absurdity and it still looked like an actual creationist argument. Keep up the good work.
Oh, and thanks for the side benefit... I had no idea that Ricky Gervais made comedy specials.
I'm not sure if Ricky Gervais does make comedy specials actually. This was simply a special feature on his 2nd live Dvd (which I wholeheartedly recommend along with the other two)
You forget that the universe is finite, so cramming an infinite number of monkeys into it would be a big problem. Even if they pop into the universe at a slow rate, most of this universe is inhospitable to monkeys. We all know that monkeys cannot survive in space with only typewriters to aid them. In short order there would be immense planets made up of bloated dead space monkeys and those monkey planets would cause mayhem on an unimaginable scale.
Oh no. It just hurts my head when I see people deliberately sabotage logic or improperly use an equation from a textbook that I have (Thermal Physics by Charles Kittel & Herbert Kroemer, Page 53 Problem #4: The meaning of "never"). The problem ignores the idea of infinity entirely and imposes both monkey and time limitations. Using it to refute the infinite monkey theorem is nonsensical. The only way to make the pain (and the voices) go away is to make light of the situation.
Well, creationists almost allways refute things they think they understand with scientific evidence they think to have, while lacking both understanding and evidence. Moonlightbateman is no exception frotm this rule.
Your imitation of his arguments was so precise, that on first sight I really thoutht you are serious.
Also the video addresses infinite directly by removing it through refining
Halfway through the video I explain that 'infinite' means 'unknown' in the summary. It was always finite but undeterminable.
Like I said, this is fairly basic stuff, this is why creationists are not taken seriously. They can't understand aristotlian scenarios let alone the actual emperical sciences.
Interestingly, I came across a study that was done a while back but they didn't use monkeys. Eukaryotic cells were used instead. They allowed for fluctuations in a finite population, minor mutations over generations, and actually did impose time limits. After countless disappointments, the study finally produced the expected result. Hamlet could, in fact be created in this way and it only took approximately 3,699,999,593 years to achieve it.
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
Just watched you're video. First you claim that the odds of a finite set of monkeys writing shakespeare is next to zero (which - in a practical sense - I agree with), then you somehow relate this to abiogenesis...
Look up "NON SEQUITUR" and see why your argument crumbles in the light of logic. Don't get it? I thought so.
Your argument fails because it assumes one single solution (the complete works of shakespeare) for a given problem (survival and procreation). Think again.
2:41 into this video I make the point of the inappropriateness In the previous video:
I relate it closer by the *refining* the model using slection mechanisms to make the end product an inevitable certainty.
I footnoted in saying that all major sciences are already proven beyond reasonable doubt and this is a simple analogy of a model and its infamy of comparison to such sciences (as only creationists say the three sciences are random)
Allright, but just so we're clear, I was responding to moonlightbateman, and it was about his video (or are you aware of that?). I know, it's a bit confusing to comment on it HERE, but hey, what's life without a little confusion.
Yes I watched this video and now your original one also and enjoyed them, and now I know what all this was about.
I'm glad that's sorted out. I warn you that if you want to discuss with moonlightbateman have your best patience ready and prepare to feel a sensation not unlike banging your head against a smug brick wall
Yeah... I've just skimmed through the comment section on "the origin of life". I understand ProcInc's point now. We are no match to your superior intellect I guess.
Would you however kindly point out what makes abiogenesis impossible? You seem to know how to do the math. Do you know that could get you a publication in "Nature" or "Science"? Heck you might even get a nobel prize!
Here's the math- Of the over 6 billion people on the planet and the billions who went before us, and not a single one has ever witnessed abiogenesis take place. Over 20 different scientific theories and hypothesis models, and not a single one has ever been able to produce life from non life. If you could actually create a working model, I would gladly nominate you for the Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, all you have is a zero probability analogy and an "anything but God" argument.
Admittedly, we don't know how life started (yet), but it seems like your math is creationist math. Of the over 6 billion people on the planet nobody has ever produced evidence for god... but science still pretty much explains the entire road from the start of life to this very moment. I wouldn't worry about abiogenesis. A lot of people much smarter then you and me are working on it as we speak. We will definitely one day produce life from non-life.
Over 5 billion of those 6 billion people accept God based in part, on evidence.
Math is math, if the best you can do is "maybe someone someday" then you have not only just admitted that I am correct, but that you are a person of faith. (lol)
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
i think its funny how the theist in the original video thinks its possible for god to created and control everything, but he cannot grasp the concept of given and infinite amount of time, chimps could produce Shakespeare(poetry). Common theist " Its just not possible, but god did it" remark.
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
Yep, just too involving for your simple mind. It failed because I didn't take into account your spectacular stupidity and inability to grasp simple concepts
Your reply video is a shining example of that and I hope you keep it up as your badge of creationist stupidity
"Thanks again, for admitting your first video failed. So did this one"
I can't say I couldn't help but predict that. You are far too ignorant to comprehend any video. You just fun to have around as you are a reminder why your beliefs are scientific and moral laughing stocks
Hahaha! A small statured, self loathing, homosexual, neo-darwinist, communist sympathising, anti-theist "psychic" who suffers from super-power envy and low self esteem. Hahahaha!
"A small statured, self loathing, homosexual, neo-darwinist, communist sympathising, anti-theist "psychic" who suffers from super-power envy and low self esteem."
"small statured, ... , neo-darwinist..." I wouldn't call those "less than flattering". Ive just read some of your other comments Moonlightbateman and I think that you are bitter individual.
<3 this was a joy to listen to
FreewheelinLibertine 1 year ago
@FreewheelinLibertine and you returned the favour :)
ProcInc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
From Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Where did you get the picture of the guy with the Rubik's Cube?! I know that guy... It's Kare Krig from Sweden... The pic was taken in Budapest last year :). I was there :).
jnoort 3 years ago
"Where did you get the picture of the guy with the Rubik's Cube?!"
Good old google. Isn't he at least a national champion?
ProcInc 3 years ago
No, that whould be his brother. ;)
jnoort 3 years ago
Woo!, I'm closer than I thought I would be
ProcInc 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
From Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
This is once again irrelevant. How do you respond to the substantive points in the video? Simply repeating that there aren't infinite monkeys is irrelevant!
docwarwick 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
From Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
From Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
ProcInc, CharlesVarney is not creationist, try to read his comments again and keep this in mind.
And google "Poe´s law" ;)
chstoney 3 years ago
You are kidding me right? Step back, take a deep breath and re-read my comments. I have "faith" that you will come to a better conclusion than this one.
8^)
CharlesVarney 3 years ago
Argh, hook line and sinker. Well done CharlesVarney!
ProcInc 3 years ago
The scary thing is that I pushed it about as far as I could into absurdity and it still looked like an actual creationist argument. Keep up the good work.
Oh, and thanks for the side benefit... I had no idea that Ricky Gervais made comedy specials.
Bloated, dead space monkey? You're soaking in it.
8^)
CharlesVarney 3 years ago
I'm not sure if Ricky Gervais does make comedy specials actually. This was simply a special feature on his 2nd live Dvd (which I wholeheartedly recommend along with the other two)
ProcInc 3 years ago
You forget that the universe is finite, so cramming an infinite number of monkeys into it would be a big problem. Even if they pop into the universe at a slow rate, most of this universe is inhospitable to monkeys. We all know that monkeys cannot survive in space with only typewriters to aid them. In short order there would be immense planets made up of bloated dead space monkeys and those monkey planets would cause mayhem on an unimaginable scale.
See, it's fun to completely miss the point.
CharlesVarney 3 years ago
From your channel I guess that I have just witnessed Poe´s Law in action.
On first sight I thought that you are one of moonlightbatemans buddies.
chstoney 3 years ago
Oh no. It just hurts my head when I see people deliberately sabotage logic or improperly use an equation from a textbook that I have (Thermal Physics by Charles Kittel & Herbert Kroemer, Page 53 Problem #4: The meaning of "never"). The problem ignores the idea of infinity entirely and imposes both monkey and time limitations. Using it to refute the infinite monkey theorem is nonsensical. The only way to make the pain (and the voices) go away is to make light of the situation.
CharlesVarney 3 years ago
Well, creationists almost allways refute things they think they understand with scientific evidence they think to have, while lacking both understanding and evidence. Moonlightbateman is no exception frotm this rule.
Your imitation of his arguments was so precise, that on first sight I really thoutht you are serious.
chstoney 3 years ago
What do I say at 3:30-3:38 into the video?
Also the video addresses infinite directly by removing it through refining
Halfway through the video I explain that 'infinite' means 'unknown' in the summary. It was always finite but undeterminable.
Like I said, this is fairly basic stuff, this is why creationists are not taken seriously. They can't understand aristotlian scenarios let alone the actual emperical sciences.
No bloated dead monkeys required
ProcInc 3 years ago
Interestingly, I came across a study that was done a while back but they didn't use monkeys. Eukaryotic cells were used instead. They allowed for fluctuations in a finite population, minor mutations over generations, and actually did impose time limits. After countless disappointments, the study finally produced the expected result. Hamlet could, in fact be created in this way and it only took approximately 3,699,999,593 years to achieve it.
Proof? It's probably on your bookshelf.
8^)
CharlesVarney 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
From Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
From Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
From Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
From Textbook on Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
The Textbook of Thermodynamics
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
(lol)
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Just watched you're video. First you claim that the odds of a finite set of monkeys writing shakespeare is next to zero (which - in a practical sense - I agree with), then you somehow relate this to abiogenesis...
Look up "NON SEQUITUR" and see why your argument crumbles in the light of logic. Don't get it? I thought so.
Your argument fails because it assumes one single solution (the complete works of shakespeare) for a given problem (survival and procreation). Think again.
zweefvlieg 3 years ago
"then you somehow relate this to abiogenesis"
2:41 into this video I make the point of the inappropriateness In the previous video:
I relate it closer by the *refining* the model using slection mechanisms to make the end product an inevitable certainty.
I footnoted in saying that all major sciences are already proven beyond reasonable doubt and this is a simple analogy of a model and its infamy of comparison to such sciences (as only creationists say the three sciences are random)
ProcInc 3 years ago
Allright, but just so we're clear, I was responding to moonlightbateman, and it was about his video (or are you aware of that?). I know, it's a bit confusing to comment on it HERE, but hey, what's life without a little confusion.
Yes I watched this video and now your original one also and enjoyed them, and now I know what all this was about.
Cheers
zweefvlieg 3 years ago
I'm glad that's sorted out. I warn you that if you want to discuss with moonlightbateman have your best patience ready and prepare to feel a sensation not unlike banging your head against a smug brick wall
ProcInc 3 years ago
Thank you for pointing out that you are confused. I agree (lol).
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Yeah... I've just skimmed through the comment section on "the origin of life". I understand ProcInc's point now. We are no match to your superior intellect I guess.
Would you however kindly point out what makes abiogenesis impossible? You seem to know how to do the math. Do you know that could get you a publication in "Nature" or "Science"? Heck you might even get a nobel prize!
zweefvlieg 3 years ago
Here's the math- Of the over 6 billion people on the planet and the billions who went before us, and not a single one has ever witnessed abiogenesis take place. Over 20 different scientific theories and hypothesis models, and not a single one has ever been able to produce life from non life. If you could actually create a working model, I would gladly nominate you for the Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, all you have is a zero probability analogy and an "anything but God" argument.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Admittedly, we don't know how life started (yet), but it seems like your math is creationist math. Of the over 6 billion people on the planet nobody has ever produced evidence for god... but science still pretty much explains the entire road from the start of life to this very moment. I wouldn't worry about abiogenesis. A lot of people much smarter then you and me are working on it as we speak. We will definitely one day produce life from non-life.
bye bye now
zweefvlieg 3 years ago
Over 5 billion of those 6 billion people accept God based in part, on evidence.
Math is math, if the best you can do is "maybe someone someday" then you have not only just admitted that I am correct, but that you are a person of faith. (lol)
Good bye!
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
(lol)
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
You're spamming now?
You really are too much
And what you are spamming is totally nonsensical.
Still, I guess that's just you
ProcInc 3 years ago
Still waiting for a reply, you do realize that basic math tells you the possibility that you are correct is zero. (lol)
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Bad odds in the favor of anything are not evidence for a different arguement.
neil1337 3 years ago
I love the part where this guy says anything has an infinite possibility of existing, except God.
This is called the "anything but God" argument anti-theists are famous for (lol).
Too obvious!
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
i think its funny how the theist in the original video thinks its possible for god to created and control everything, but he cannot grasp the concept of given and infinite amount of time, chimps could produce Shakespeare(poetry). Common theist " Its just not possible, but god did it" remark.
zbambam5 3 years ago 2
You had to make a second video because the first one failed (lol).
For comparison purposes, there are only about 3 × 1079 hydrogen atoms in the universe and only 4.3 × 1017 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. If the universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event.
(lol)
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Zero, did u just fuckin say zero. Wow you truly are closed minded.
zbambam5 3 years ago
Do the math, the answer is zero. Nothing close minded about correct math. (lol)
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Actually, it isn't zero
it will always be greater than zero as you divided two numbers 1<.
That is basic mathematics. The odds with always be possibility and astronomically improbable (in need of refinement)
ProcInc 3 years ago
Sorry, but the answer is zero in any operational sense of an event. Even you admit it is "astronomically improbable". (lol)
Face it, this idea has been debunked.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Nope, the probability is therefore zero in any operational sense of the event.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
"Nope, the probability is therefore zero in any operational sense of the event. "
Need I remind you again that the operation was refined to ensure an ascertained outcome
Of course I do, you're a moron
Watch the video(s) and see how I make the model applicable in an operational sense.
ProcInc 3 years ago
Sorry, The textbook on Thermodynamics clearly states the probability is zero in ANY operational sense of the event.
Perhaps you should make a third video. (lol)
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Actually that is a quote from Kittel and Kroemer's textbook on Thermodynamics.
Do you consider textbooks close minded? (lol).
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
"You had to make a second video because the first one failed"
Yeah, it's a shame you were so dense you didn't get it
ProcInc 3 years ago
Thanks for admitting the first video failed (lol).
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
"Thanks for admitting the first video failed"
Yep, just too involving for your simple mind. It failed because I didn't take into account your spectacular stupidity and inability to grasp simple concepts
Your reply video is a shining example of that and I hope you keep it up as your badge of creationist stupidity
You all have one to bear
ProcInc 3 years ago
Thanks (again) for admitting your first video failed (lol).
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Thanks again, for admitting your first video failed. So did this one (lol).
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
"Thanks again, for admitting your first video failed. So did this one"
I can't say I couldn't help but predict that. You are far too ignorant to comprehend any video. You just fun to have around as you are a reminder why your beliefs are scientific and moral laughing stocks
ProcInc 3 years ago
So now I can add psychic to your many titles?
Hahaha! A small statured, self loathing, homosexual, neo-darwinist, communist sympathising, anti-theist "psychic" who suffers from super-power envy and low self esteem. Hahahaha!
Perhaps you should make a third video! Hilarious!
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
"A small statured, self loathing, homosexual, neo-darwinist, communist sympathising, anti-theist "psychic" who suffers from super-power envy and low self esteem."
You call yourself Christian moon?
Pathetic
iloveLDS 3 years ago
I apologize for using less than flattering, but accurate adjectives, please forgive me.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
One other quick comment, the LDS is not considered part of mainstream christianity.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Im NOT a member of LDS church.
"small statured, ... , neo-darwinist..." I wouldn't call those "less than flattering". Ive just read some of your other comments Moonlightbateman and I think that you are bitter individual.
iloveLDS 3 years ago
Perhaps you did not read the (lol) after those comments. It was all said in good humor,
BTW I forgive you for mistakenly calling me bitter.
Have a nice day (lol).
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Your explanations are very good, but I am afraid, that they fall to deaf ears.
chstoney 3 years ago
Actually they are ears covered in hands with owners going "lalala lalala alala"
ProcInc 3 years ago