ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
WTF do stoners look like you tart, and i bet you are the best looking thing on earth right.
People suck and this is why i can't stand most of them. munkydrag0n you sound like a scumbag to me. I will smoke the best pot you have and as many as you like and i could not act as some of these people.
“He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is.” He is altering scientific data collected by researchers who seek to find the true age of the earth, because “the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.”
Our creationist made a passionate case for his Noodely Holiness.. he is a Pastafarian in denial.
What's really scary is how young these creationists are. Is this the future of our children? I'm 50 and I stopped believing in god by the time I was 10 or so, it just didn't jive with what I learned in school and by the fact that nothing about it made any sense to me, never did. What are they teaching the kids these days? Is education going backwards? I'm Canadian, our curriculum standards may be different here, but I learned about evolution in the 70's.
This kind of stupidity is really scary. The creationists who are pushing to teach this bullshit in schools is REALLY REALLY scary. Do we want our children exposed to this kind of nonsense? ID should be rigidly suppressed in schools. I'm horrified at the thought of children being indoctrinated this way.
I know this is a baseless assumption and not very "scientific" but this guy looks like a complete idiot, his voice and diction make him sound like a moron, and he is not very effective when it comes to talking at all.
There was always one nagging question I had as a Christian, if as the bible purports, God created Adam and Eve and they were the only two people on earth and they had 2 sons and Cain murdered Abel, after Cain murdered Abel, he was banished, where did Cain get his wife? If the bible is the complete and only accurate record of what transpired, i.e. literal truth, then either God is forgetful/senile or God lied and didn't make clear that there were other people on the earth. Which is it? HUH?
I've really enjoyed the series so far. You know....I found it hard to believe we could find someone stupider than old Nephy.....but this guy comes close. Wow....just wow...
Every time a creationist says that this kind of dating is flawed, and so the universe is 6,000 years old...I jsut ask them, what about the stars? We have calculated that some of them are billions of light years away, we know the speed of light...thus that light we see was emitted billions of years ago.
@RPBiohazard - The common creationists arguments on this point is that light speed was infinite in the past and has been decreasing ever since. Obviously, this is on an exponential regression and not a linear one. The other argument is that the light was created in transit.
Shanedk explain why this would be a problem at - /watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y&feature=channel_video_title
I can't believe people are still asking that stupid question. I mean, I had reasoned it out in fourth grade after a very basic discussion of evolution, and people far more intelligent and qualified than I will ever be have gone through the entire process of avian evolution in minute detail. Ugh, damn creationists.
I've got some dating methods he might want to look into. Get outside, do something about your clothing, stop talking crap, meet some women, don't tell them you're a retard, buy some condoms and get fucking laid. Alternatively, if that's too difficult for you try this, go to red light district, pay skank to be your one night girlfriend, GET FUCKING LAID.
Here's a scary thought. This guy (idiot is a better word) may have been better educated at "Beck University." I hope Liberty University doesn't use this guy (idiot is a better word) to help with its enrollment drive.
It is truly amazing what this idiots try to pass off as "science". You simply cannot have an intelligent conversation with these people. You just can't....
BTW? The arugument about "which came first, the chicken or the egg" is a fallacy. There is no answer to this question because the question itself is not a valid one. The chicken and the egg are the same thing, the same organism. They are at different stages of development, that's all.
I am truly offended this forest guy just decided to crap out a youtube video without a single edit or coherent thought. I mean, he is trying to persuade people to his view point and THIS is good enough for him? Jesus.
Let's think this further through, just for fun. So the rocks were created with the appearance of age. And then, during the flood, Skydaddy was so cool to even lay down the flood sediments (i.e. non-creation rocks) in the correct chronological order. Locally, of course - since later, geologists have to be able to correlate local stratigraphies all over the world and be deceived by his fine-tuned directing of every little current of his violent flood. What a smart bastard. What a bastard :-).
Did he sniff glue? To be honest, he looks like he is under some sort of inlfuence, imho. Oh well. sometimes one regrets the invention of the webcam and the mechanism which allows people -- who litterally dont have a clue, cant distinguish their face from their arse and basically have missed the coherence train long time ago -- to post this ... verbal dung on youtube.
Chicken/Egg answer: The definition of a "chicken" is constantly changing, and so is the definition of "egg" (chicken egg anyway.) With each generation the definition is slightly different. Neither came first, because neither is "finished" and never will be.
@falchion49 That's what has always gotten me about this kind of argument: These creationists are saying that their god is a deceitful liar. So what's to stop the "word of God" from being a deceitful lie, too? Why all this "temptation" and "test" by such a loving deity?
It kills their argument, and they try to use it to support their baseless claims. How they can still entertain that logic is beyond me.
@csbair You've used the L word. Doesn't work with creationists. Either his god lied or his god made a hell of a mistake in allowing all our dating methodologies to tie in with each other even down to individual tree rings for dendro. Plus, why invent so many extinct hominids with secure dating in context? Not so loving whern you consider the number of child burials we find predating his god's creation event. Ignorance appears to be this guy's watchword.
So someone who doesn't know anything about dating methodolgies used in everythin from archaeology to geology has decide they're irrelevant? Damn, wish I'd have known that. All that time collecting and cataloging environmental samples was wasted. If only I'd addressed the philosophy of dating methodology I could have sat back and read the bible instead of doing actual shovel work.
You should make the vids each starting a little different, because I have removed several from my inbox over the past week not knowing that they were new and thinking I had already seen them.
Stereotypical creationist fail: "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?" "Well, obviously the chicken." This is becoming the epitome of creationist thinking. It's almost beautiful.
Science if actually really, REALLY good at disproving certain kinds of things, specifically, testable claims about the physical universe. That's about all it can do, it can't even prove testable claims about the physical universe, it can only fail to disprove them (which is circumstantial evidence for a non-disproved claim, but not proof of it).
@evensgrey Science really can't disprove anything, but it can show that the claims and/or conclusion reached is not valid. Falsification is another method to show whether an idea is valid, or requires some modification.
So technically, science can't disprove anything. But it's damned good at showing whether an idea is solid.
@csbair Personally, I don't see it that way. After all, how is showing "that the claim and/or conclusion reached is not valid" any different from disproving something? Science has disproven alchemy, flat Earth, combustion fueled sun, leaching, astrology, etc...creation with science. Yes, I'm aware that there still is a chance all the data might be wrong and alchemy true, but 99.9999...% IS 100%. And I agree that you can validate an idea as well by making predictions. A rare error imo from you.
@Ripley747 You can see it however you want, but science is an investigative tool. It can invalidate hypotheses and show that claims are wrong, but it can't disprove anything. Alchemy can't be disproven, but it can be shown to be invalid based on the knowledge and understanding we have currently. That's just how science works.
@csbair I think I see what you're saying. I'm still a little unclear about the difference between invalidating a hypothesis (or showing its claims wrong) and disproving it. If I show that a hypothesis is invalid beyond any reasonable doubt, how have I not disproven it? As an analogy, if I have a hypothesis that a random card is black and that random card is flipped and is red, how have I not disproven my hypothesis (sorry for the bad analogy but I think you get my point)? What am I missing?
@Ripley747 Because disproving means to eliminate all possible options of proving something is valid. You can say there's no way alchemy can work, but then you're assuming that we never discover another aspect of quantum physics that may allow alchemy to work in some fashion. That's the difference. You can show whether a claim works or not based on our understanding, but you can't eliminate all possible options from here to eternity.
"Whatever they might be?".. "Who knows?" .. "Billions.. Millions... Whatever?"
This kid is going to grow up to be the next Nephy!! Man I hate to see such a young kid so messed up & wasting his life in a shit school. More than likely brainwashed from a very young age by fundamentalist retard parents.. how very sad. Where did you find this one? Watching this kid makes me SO proud of my kids & makes me realize what a great job I've done!! Thanks.. you've done it again friend!
@sheri226 He uploaded a few creationist vids similar to this one recently. And Neph is Neph. It is tiring to listen to Neph, especially when he does his douchebaggery voices and ridiculous claims. I was glad I found someone new who seems to be yet another creationist who knows nothing about science, but is happy to declare it all wrong when it disagrees with the Bible.
Please get different music. Or at least some variety. And maybe let it keep playing while the creatards are talking, so it doesn't re-start from the exact same point every time your text comes up.
@HebaruSan The music sample was added because several people complained they didn't know when the rebuttals were playing when they were just listening to the videos. That's why they start at the same point. And there are videos I have where the music plays during the entire video, and just gets quieter while the creationists talk.
"Hello, Matthias here, as you can see I'm here in my bedroom, today were going to talk about why all the scientists are wrong and my opinion is right. You see, Gods just trying to trick us into thinking the worlds old..."
The Omphalos argument? That is all he has? Even that position is over 100 years old. Unbelievable. Dr. Todd Wood, a YEC, should instruct this young man, at least. I live in Tennessee and this type of stuff is embarrassing.
Can t you use a text to speech program in your videos? Its really annoying to have to read text in a video...really? I for one enjoy being able to listen to videos and arguments instead of having to read text on the screen.
In the future, please look into using a text to speech program if you do not want to use your real voice. Thanks.
@KalimaShaktide It has nothing to do with whether I want to use my real voice. It has everything to do with my current setup, in that it's not really good for doing webcam or sound recording. As far as a TtS, I just haven't bothered investigating any decent ones, since I do these videos for free. Perhaps in the future there will be some with vocals, but for now...
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 days ago
@Mogley52 lol. A Baptist. You people are so wrong it makes me nauseous.
WFSW32 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 5 days ago
WTF do stoners look like you tart, and i bet you are the best looking thing on earth right.
People suck and this is why i can't stand most of them. munkydrag0n you sound like a scumbag to me. I will smoke the best pot you have and as many as you like and i could not act as some of these people.
krapptacular 1 week ago
Why do nearly all creationists look like scumbags or stoners? Is it because they ARE scumbags or stoners?!
MunkyDrag0n 1 week ago
That's a creationist for you. Ignoring the entire bulk of science in favor of some half-assed post-hoc rationalizations of scripture.
Akira625 2 weeks ago
He performed a miracle, he actually made other creationists look less stupid.......
SacredSoul1990 2 months ago 3
To admit "I don't know." then in the same breath claim to know is nuts.
psycotria 3 months ago
As the prophet Henderson says:
“He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is.” He is altering scientific data collected by researchers who seek to find the true age of the earth, because “the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.”
Our creationist made a passionate case for his Noodely Holiness.. he is a Pastafarian in denial.
mehja1 4 months ago
Ah, I get it. The forest guy is talking about AdamXY. You know, no bellybutton.
norwayjonas 4 months ago
What's really scary is how young these creationists are. Is this the future of our children? I'm 50 and I stopped believing in god by the time I was 10 or so, it just didn't jive with what I learned in school and by the fact that nothing about it made any sense to me, never did. What are they teaching the kids these days? Is education going backwards? I'm Canadian, our curriculum standards may be different here, but I learned about evolution in the 70's.
8698gil 4 months ago
This kind of stupidity is really scary. The creationists who are pushing to teach this bullshit in schools is REALLY REALLY scary. Do we want our children exposed to this kind of nonsense? ID should be rigidly suppressed in schools. I'm horrified at the thought of children being indoctrinated this way.
8698gil 4 months ago
To the Xtian in this video.
It's always a good idea to research the topics you intend to make a video about, BEFORE you actually make said video.
Your ignorance is astounding!
AtheistToothFairy 4 months ago
It's not nice to make fun of the afflicted... but it is fun!
Max404s 4 months ago
I know this is a baseless assumption and not very "scientific" but this guy looks like a complete idiot, his voice and diction make him sound like a moron, and he is not very effective when it comes to talking at all.
BMReaves1 5 months ago
I'm curious, where in the Bible does it states that this book is written by your local god, Yahwah?
AthenaSchroedinger 5 months ago
There was always one nagging question I had as a Christian, if as the bible purports, God created Adam and Eve and they were the only two people on earth and they had 2 sons and Cain murdered Abel, after Cain murdered Abel, he was banished, where did Cain get his wife? If the bible is the complete and only accurate record of what transpired, i.e. literal truth, then either God is forgetful/senile or God lied and didn't make clear that there were other people on the earth. Which is it? HUH?
journeyer58 5 months ago
Is this kid's God Loki? Because that's the only explanation for his tricky God.
HimesInu 8 months ago
i may be a bad atheist but im gona say it any way this kid needs psychiatric help
brianhar100 9 months ago 2
@brianhar100 I think he needs to come of the funny juice first.
HonestMan395 9 months ago
the egg ha
brianhar100 9 months ago
im say the egg
brianhar100 9 months ago
holy shit i thought neph was dumb
brianhar100 9 months ago
Run forest run!
mjduell 9 months ago
I've really enjoyed the series so far. You know....I found it hard to believe we could find someone stupider than old Nephy.....but this guy comes close. Wow....just wow...
ProofPleez 9 months ago
i think he is smartest creationst out there i give him a credit for what he said ...
sexyxrs 10 months ago
"have u ever noticed how creationist look rly unevolved ...I belive god made me in 1 day - looks like he rushed it" Bill Hicks
sexyxrs 11 months ago
Every time a creationist says that this kind of dating is flawed, and so the universe is 6,000 years old...I jsut ask them, what about the stars? We have calculated that some of them are billions of light years away, we know the speed of light...thus that light we see was emitted billions of years ago.
RPBiohazard 11 months ago
@RPBiohazard - The common creationists arguments on this point is that light speed was infinite in the past and has been decreasing ever since. Obviously, this is on an exponential regression and not a linear one. The other argument is that the light was created in transit.
Shanedk explain why this would be a problem at - /watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y&feature=channel_video_title
lobothesacred3 11 months ago
At least these creationist colleges keep the retards from gettina real degree and fucking up REAL science with their bullshit young earth beliefs.
BrainSeepsOut 11 months ago
I can't believe people are still asking that stupid question. I mean, I had reasoned it out in fourth grade after a very basic discussion of evolution, and people far more intelligent and qualified than I will ever be have gone through the entire process of avian evolution in minute detail. Ugh, damn creationists.
Bernstein1917 11 months ago
I've got some dating methods he might want to look into. Get outside, do something about your clothing, stop talking crap, meet some women, don't tell them you're a retard, buy some condoms and get fucking laid. Alternatively, if that's too difficult for you try this, go to red light district, pay skank to be your one night girlfriend, GET FUCKING LAID.
sum1otosh1 11 months ago
Here's a scary thought. This guy (idiot is a better word) may have been better educated at "Beck University." I hope Liberty University doesn't use this guy (idiot is a better word) to help with its enrollment drive.
MrWagman11 1 year ago
Another under-educated, opinionated, little, creatard, twit.
mrKZ6090 1 year ago
It is truly amazing what this idiots try to pass off as "science". You simply cannot have an intelligent conversation with these people. You just can't....
BTW? The arugument about "which came first, the chicken or the egg" is a fallacy. There is no answer to this question because the question itself is not a valid one. The chicken and the egg are the same thing, the same organism. They are at different stages of development, that's all.
tbdonnelly67 1 year ago
This is horrible. Someone needs to rescue this kid and all the others from that brainwashing facility, and then burn it to the ground.
Omnywrench 1 year ago
Of the chicken and the egg, the egg came first.
Jrezky 1 year ago
I am truly offended this forest guy just decided to crap out a youtube video without a single edit or coherent thought. I mean, he is trying to persuade people to his view point and THIS is good enough for him? Jesus.
Meatbag211 1 year ago
Let's think this further through, just for fun. So the rocks were created with the appearance of age. And then, during the flood, Skydaddy was so cool to even lay down the flood sediments (i.e. non-creation rocks) in the correct chronological order. Locally, of course - since later, geologists have to be able to correlate local stratigraphies all over the world and be deceived by his fine-tuned directing of every little current of his violent flood. What a smart bastard. What a bastard :-).
KaroKoenich 1 year ago
Did he sniff glue? To be honest, he looks like he is under some sort of inlfuence, imho. Oh well. sometimes one regrets the invention of the webcam and the mechanism which allows people -- who litterally dont have a clue, cant distinguish their face from their arse and basically have missed the coherence train long time ago -- to post this ... verbal dung on youtube.
drizer4real 1 year ago
Chicken/Egg answer: The definition of a "chicken" is constantly changing, and so is the definition of "egg" (chicken egg anyway.) With each generation the definition is slightly different. Neither came first, because neither is "finished" and never will be.
pburto 1 year ago
Science is good at making nuclear weapons too..
coolst0rybro 1 year ago
Oy, this poor irrelevant boy with his irrelevant thoughts.
jdh501 1 year ago
Why are there so many creationists vying to be the next VFX or NephilliamFree?
impiouspuppy 1 year ago
this kids obviously has no idea what he is talking about, but at least he doesn't act like a compete douche like nephy
lefayad1991 1 year ago
Oh lawdy, clueless. He almost Makes Nephilimfree look convincing.
Itsrealhands 1 year ago
Why is he calling his supposedly divine god a liar?
falchion49 1 year ago 3
@falchion49 That's what has always gotten me about this kind of argument: These creationists are saying that their god is a deceitful liar. So what's to stop the "word of God" from being a deceitful lie, too? Why all this "temptation" and "test" by such a loving deity?
It kills their argument, and they try to use it to support their baseless claims. How they can still entertain that logic is beyond me.
csbair 1 year ago 7
@csbair You've used the L word. Doesn't work with creationists. Either his god lied or his god made a hell of a mistake in allowing all our dating methodologies to tie in with each other even down to individual tree rings for dendro. Plus, why invent so many extinct hominids with secure dating in context? Not so loving whern you consider the number of child burials we find predating his god's creation event. Ignorance appears to be this guy's watchword.
falchion49 1 year ago
So someone who doesn't know anything about dating methodolgies used in everythin from archaeology to geology has decide they're irrelevant? Damn, wish I'd have known that. All that time collecting and cataloging environmental samples was wasted. If only I'd addressed the philosophy of dating methodology I could have sat back and read the bible instead of doing actual shovel work.
falchion49 1 year ago
You should make the vids each starting a little different, because I have removed several from my inbox over the past week not knowing that they were new and thinking I had already seen them.
BlowDevilUp 1 year ago
holy shit fundamentalist christianity needs to die right now before the united states ends up a third world country.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
Stereotypical creationist fail: "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?" "Well, obviously the chicken." This is becoming the epitome of creationist thinking. It's almost beautiful.
MultiPaulinator 1 year ago
Small error near the end.
Science if actually really, REALLY good at disproving certain kinds of things, specifically, testable claims about the physical universe. That's about all it can do, it can't even prove testable claims about the physical universe, it can only fail to disprove them (which is circumstantial evidence for a non-disproved claim, but not proof of it).
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey Science really can't disprove anything, but it can show that the claims and/or conclusion reached is not valid. Falsification is another method to show whether an idea is valid, or requires some modification.
So technically, science can't disprove anything. But it's damned good at showing whether an idea is solid.
csbair 1 year ago
@csbair Personally, I don't see it that way. After all, how is showing "that the claim and/or conclusion reached is not valid" any different from disproving something? Science has disproven alchemy, flat Earth, combustion fueled sun, leaching, astrology, etc...creation with science. Yes, I'm aware that there still is a chance all the data might be wrong and alchemy true, but 99.9999...% IS 100%. And I agree that you can validate an idea as well by making predictions. A rare error imo from you.
Ripley747 1 year ago
@Ripley747 You can see it however you want, but science is an investigative tool. It can invalidate hypotheses and show that claims are wrong, but it can't disprove anything. Alchemy can't be disproven, but it can be shown to be invalid based on the knowledge and understanding we have currently. That's just how science works.
csbair 1 year ago
@csbair I think I see what you're saying. I'm still a little unclear about the difference between invalidating a hypothesis (or showing its claims wrong) and disproving it. If I show that a hypothesis is invalid beyond any reasonable doubt, how have I not disproven it? As an analogy, if I have a hypothesis that a random card is black and that random card is flipped and is red, how have I not disproven my hypothesis (sorry for the bad analogy but I think you get my point)? What am I missing?
Ripley747 1 year ago
@Ripley747 Because disproving means to eliminate all possible options of proving something is valid. You can say there's no way alchemy can work, but then you're assuming that we never discover another aspect of quantum physics that may allow alchemy to work in some fashion. That's the difference. You can show whether a claim works or not based on our understanding, but you can't eliminate all possible options from here to eternity.
csbair 1 year ago
"Whatever they might be?".. "Who knows?" .. "Billions.. Millions... Whatever?"
This kid is going to grow up to be the next Nephy!! Man I hate to see such a young kid so messed up & wasting his life in a shit school. More than likely brainwashed from a very young age by fundamentalist retard parents.. how very sad. Where did you find this one? Watching this kid makes me SO proud of my kids & makes me realize what a great job I've done!! Thanks.. you've done it again friend!
sheri226 1 year ago
@sheri226 He uploaded a few creationist vids similar to this one recently. And Neph is Neph. It is tiring to listen to Neph, especially when he does his douchebaggery voices and ridiculous claims. I was glad I found someone new who seems to be yet another creationist who knows nothing about science, but is happy to declare it all wrong when it disagrees with the Bible.
csbair 1 year ago
Please get different music. Or at least some variety. And maybe let it keep playing while the creatards are talking, so it doesn't re-start from the exact same point every time your text comes up.
HebaruSan 1 year ago
@HebaruSan The music sample was added because several people complained they didn't know when the rebuttals were playing when they were just listening to the videos. That's why they start at the same point. And there are videos I have where the music plays during the entire video, and just gets quieter while the creationists talk.
csbair 1 year ago
@csbair Great Vid, but I have a Minor Quibble. The song is "Re-Acting" Not, Re-Action.
GregQzag 1 year ago
@GregQzag Is it? I will check into it. Thanks.
csbair 1 year ago
"Hello, Matthias here, as you can see I'm here in my bedroom, today were going to talk about why all the scientists are wrong and my opinion is right. You see, Gods just trying to trick us into thinking the worlds old..."
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
The Omphalos argument? That is all he has? Even that position is over 100 years old. Unbelievable. Dr. Todd Wood, a YEC, should instruct this young man, at least. I live in Tennessee and this type of stuff is embarrassing.
sherlockmethod 1 year ago
Can t you use a text to speech program in your videos? Its really annoying to have to read text in a video...really? I for one enjoy being able to listen to videos and arguments instead of having to read text on the screen.
In the future, please look into using a text to speech program if you do not want to use your real voice. Thanks.
KalimaShaktide 1 year ago
@KalimaShaktide It has nothing to do with whether I want to use my real voice. It has everything to do with my current setup, in that it's not really good for doing webcam or sound recording. As far as a TtS, I just haven't bothered investigating any decent ones, since I do these videos for free. Perhaps in the future there will be some with vocals, but for now...
csbair 1 year ago
@KalimaShaktide
I agree, good idea... and the text-to-speech might make it even funnier.
Good video, nonetheless.
vickmackey24 1 year ago
@vickmackey24 Steven Hawking presents...
BathTubNZ 1 year ago