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 THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and 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. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing 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!
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!
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.
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.
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?
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
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, etc., etc.).
first god created the world as flat (americans dont know this because the bibel its written in europe since its written before america even got explored) then oh oh it got rewritten and the world was round....now we know we arent the center of the universe and christians claim he create the big bang........i wonder how this works in 7 days .........haha christians are such funny douchbags :)
My hypothesis is that Kent Hovind and Goatse are one in the same person. He'd have to be. Kent Hovind pulls so much garbage out of his ass so quickly during his lectures that his butthole would have to be a giant, gaping anal aperture of some kind to facilitate the process.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. 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)
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. 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)
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. 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)
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 an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
@Mogley52 Hey, do me a favour: read about ERVs. They show CLEAR indications of common ancestry, as well as a map of how extant animals are related to each other. And changes in morphology (like how we walk) can evolve just like any other thing. Genetic mutation, natural selection, enviorment... does these words ring any bell?
@Mogley52 you really are blind arnt you?? genetic mutations and evolution occur all the time over the years the height and strength and bone and muscle structure has changed in modern man, this process takes a really long time longer than the flicker of a human lifespan of 70years give or take.
also the genes dont code for separate muscle tissues it codes for all the muscle cells if the mutation works the organisim lives and passes on its genes if it doesnt it dies before it gets a chance to.
@Mogley52 ...also human society is full of these mutations, Alzheimer's, parkinson's, cystic fribrosis, sickle cell (mutated to develop a natural resistance to malaria) and basically every other form of genetic disease hell back when the human race first appear we was all black :) (im white btw)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and 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)
You reject science with one hand and with the other try to use to prove your religious beliefs. Science shows us lots of stuff but you reject most of it.
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 were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
I actually like TC. A lot. He's a chirstian, yes, but he's just a mislead christian. He's not out there to decieve or fool anyone, he REALLY cares for truth, as it is evident here.
"While I do think he is an extremely dishonest person who has built his career upon lies, I wasn't saying he's a liar here, just that he lacks understanding of cosmology and has made a very silly mistake".
Hey...a conversation I actually enjoyed listening to and learned something from. More of this on YouTube would make a welcome antidote to all the trollery.
Hi I am a Geocentrist. I believe the earth is at the centre of the universe and everything is rotating around it or something close to this. What i mean is that the earth is stationary in space and the sun rotates around the earth and the rest of the universe rotates about the sun. Something like that. I don't believe in a big bang.
@mharrold61Hi, I am an Elvisite and I believe that Elvis is alive and meets up with Buddy Holly and Eddie Cochran at a secret location high up in the mountains in the state of........ and they play music all night and if you listen real hard you can sometimes hear it ...I'm hearing it now. Very faint. You need faith to hear it. The location is kept secret of course; Elvis(whose mother was a virgin, I believe) will not want the Colonel to find him before the Rapture, when he will be Rapt up
Sorry its just such a small space to explain myself in. No matter where I put a dot on a line it is at the center correct? (Not segment) No matter what number I pick on a number line if i add all the numbers above to all the numbers below I get 0. I am not religious but this is a concept I believe to be correct in terms of the universe- a fact that makes every individual observer the effective center of everything that can be observed by that individual. Given no other reference.
@mucephi1 First, infinity minus infinity is not necessarily equal to zero, that is to say, all the numbers greater than n added to all of those less than n is not clearly defined. Second, even if this were true regarding any point on a line, a line is infinite in both directions from any arbitrary point on it, the universe is not infinite, so the universe:line analogy does not work.
@mrbill1032 Well most scientists agree there is some minute curvature to the universe which would give it a saddle or sphere shape.Even if we determined it was flat it may not be infinite in terms of what it contains but it is unbounded and beyond our ability to ever observe,as a result, even if the universe is not infinite in what it contains it has infinite room to grow.An observers only point of reference is himself and that makes them the center. Also infinity minus infinity equals 0 always.
@mrbill1032 btw you are only the second person to ever discuss this with me. I appreciate that. It seems like if you try to make an intelligent point you can be sure noone will ever respond lols. If I said f-u 'tard pwned blah blah I would get 100 responses.
Look I totaly cant stand nephilim and I am firmly on the side of science and evidence. That being said its a good thing that guys like him do not understand the nature of the universe (finite yet unbounded-possible minute curvature so saddle shape or sphere). No matter where I move on earth I can see the same distance in any direction (45bly?). The universe is not like a forest in which there are set dimensions. What is the center of the surface of the earth if not the observer?
@TwirlySocrates At the center of our galaxy is a supermassive black hole. I'm sure you've at least seen sci-fi films, tv shows, etc about the nature of black holes. ht tp://bit. ly/cZ0Nki
If Milky Way centered expansion happened, then it's not reasonable to assume a supermassive black hole could be formed. Also, I wonder what explanations such a hypothesis would have for other galaxies' supermassive black holes.
Also, the Andromeda galaxy is headed towards Milky Way, thus we aren't the center.
Yes, in fact the reason the big bang model exists is for the same reason. We don't know what actual position we are in the universe, what we know is through cosmic background radiation, math, and observable reality we see a consistent pattern that all matter moved away from a central expansion point and if you rewind time 13.72 billion years we would be at that point. Guess what? Our galaxy is extraordinarily far from that point. Thus not center.
Space is all expanded centrally away from each other. I never said it wasn't, just that when we look at where galaxies did expand from, and where the CBR originates and what it tells us it shows that all mater expanded from a central point, however since space is also expanding at every point in the universe doesn't really pertain to what I stated. The known universe and observable universe expanded from one area, however now all areas are expanding.
It is today, but we can observe different instances of the CBR by looking in different directions, the reason we can do this is because if we look at some parts of the deepest radiation of the skys the radiation that took 13.72 billion years to get to us, we see this uniformly expanding area, and we can even with this CBR measure the curvature of space accurately and conclude where we came from originally by comparing today's observations to different time frames.
See we can see light that was 1 billion, 2 billion, etc etc etc 13.5 billion years old and see different images of the early universe. We can see that because it took that long to get to us and we can conclude age through redshift/blueshift and we can measure distance easily as well. So we have all these images that if we play each one, it models backwards to everything originating from one region.
Though I will say we do not have an absolute location, in fact finding the absolute location may be nonsensical since space expanding at every point causes the origin point to expand and be un-recognizable today. We don't have a absolute full picture, but the evidence all leads towards that conclusion. Though I myself admit I have a basic understanding; so from here I must say explore whats been presented so far. Universe from Nothing by lawrence craus is great.
I hope that was easy enough to understand. The nature of the calculations you can look up for yourself on the big bang model, not my job to educate the sources when 2 seconds gives you results. CBR shows where early distributions of matter/energy were, comparing that to today's observable reality and cross checking and using redshift/blueshift calculations and shit ton of other stuff that all confirm we have originated from a central area.
I can't find anything like what you're talking about. I'm certain the universe's matter did not originate from a specific location as you keep suggesting.
It is possible to use the CBR to estimate a universal intertial reference frame - and we're not in it - so you may use that to argue that we're not the center of the universe, but there is nothing to suggest that the universe originated at a "central area".
When scientists say "Central area" they don't mean they can pinpoint that area as it is nonsensical since all space is exapnding at all points meaning even thinking about a center of the universe is non-sensical. However what science says about it when speaking of central area is that the big bang originated from one location and that was the center of the expanding universe. This can be determined by CBR.
However if you were to ask "Can we find the middle of the expansion now?" Then the answer is no. If you see refrence frames of CBR and obserable universe and compare them at different timeframes we see we are expanding from one location, as in if you rewind it back it's all at one point. Determining where that point is today is non-sensical and impossible by definition. I wasn't saying we knew where the area was if that is what you were saying.
Actually I should state I use the word central area, scientists use the word singularity. We can not determine at all where it is relative to where we are now of course. We can determine looking at refrences points where it most likely was at that timeframe such as time= 100,000 year old universe, 1 million years old universe, 5 billion, 1000 etc etc etc.
No I am not talking about a singularity. That is me just messing around explaining shit wrong or using key words you keep picking up on. Fine lets get all that baggage out of the way, when I say singularity I should of said point of singularity(aka position of singularity, position of singularity through expansion). Whatever name I am using the only thing I am trying to get across is comparison between reference CBR, observations and physics we know there was a middle.
Though when talking about middle of universe when speaking about a singularity is kinda nonsensical because not only did all matter and energy originate from big bang so did space itself. Meaning the singularity was so massive and at such high energies space ITSELF would of been collapsed into that central point(If you could call it that...) as well.
In a sense since space itself expanded as well at the big bang every point in the universe is the middle.
A refrance frame at that time. All reference frames you can measure the curvature of the universe, knowing the curvature of the universe you can tell at what rate it is expanding and if it slowed or became faster over time. Compare all references, the curvature of it gives you how bent and how rounded it is expanding meaning they can determine the middle to a high degree.
I've watched "A Universe From Nothing". Nowhere does he assert that the universe has a middle.
He's talking about why we know that the universe is flat.
Knowledge of the universe's curvature doesn't tell us anything about a middle, if it exists.
The center of curvature of the Earth's surface is not located on the Earth's surface. The same would be true for our three-dimensional universe if it was indeed curved.
Universe has a middle? I said no such thing. I said that the big bang ORIGINATED from one area. Aka when talking about the center of our expansion there exists a middle or central area. Though I have no problem with no middle of the universe because an infinitely flat universe can have no middle. Guess we were both arguing different points.
So when you said "they can determine the middle to a high degree" you actually meant "scientists are able to calculate the curvature of the universe from observation"?
Actually no, I said using refrences of CBR they can trace a plot and rewind the clock to determine that we expanded from one area. Aka I was arguing the proof that the big bang says we expanded from a singularity or one point or one area. You can measure the curvature of the universe with CBR and through the same PROCESS show how the universe expanded. Not curvature explainining the middle, the same process used to find curvature in CBR.
See the CBR we can see HUGE clumps of matter, some hundreds of thousands light years across and since we can see that and since the fabric of space time is bent we can measure the curvature of space time with it, and just like if you draw to point, then make a triangle in geometry they can tell distance using two reference points, same idea.
The importance about redshift and blue shift is we can now tell through all reference images how close things are, and how fast they are moving away, or how fast they are moving towards us. So we can use redshift and blueshift as another model to reinforce the CBR and observational models. If something is redshifted the waivelength is longer meaning it's moving away from us. Blueshifted it's shorter, moving towards us. Wavelength of light, think Doppler effect(Except light).
Also disregard me saying every point was the middle, that was just an analogy as since the fabric of space time itself expanded from the big bang as well, that means at one point there was no middle as there was no space, so space expanding means the moment it expands it is the middle and since every point is expanding I made a joke that every point is the middle in a sense.
Also if you keep getting confused, watch "A Universe From Nothing" by lawrence Kraus. Having to condense shit into 500 characters and cut stuff out just sucks and causes confusion, universe from nothing is a very modern explanation of what scientists mean when they say nothing, and what science says about the big bang.
Though you said what is the nature of the calculation is incorrect. As one calculation can never confirm something, you must take many different proofs that all focus on the same results and answers to confirm what happened. That is what scientists did, expanding galaxies and comparing them, redshift/blueshift, CBR etc etc etc.
This video takes a great point and puts it in a new perspective. Creationists cherry-pick science to death... how can you argue that science is valid when it seems to support your side, and then call scientists a cult of liars when it comes to findings that don't support your theory? The most illogical thing about the creationist mindset is (in general) their absurd view of science and the standards by which we accept or reject evidence.
Very nice video. I may not be a educator and thus don´t very often have to explain this stuff, but I think the main problem why people frequently misunderstand what singularity means in connection with the big bang is that they heard that a singularity sits at the center of a black hole. So they tend to believe that the singularity at the "point" of the BB is physically very small. The fact that in both cases it´s "only" a mathematical concept, not a tangible object, is not very easy to grasp.
@rhominus That's nothing comparred to a creationist asking "why (if the BB really happened) did it spread round planets and not fragmentation like a bomb".
HE GOT THE INFORMATION FROM KENT HOVIND..... my god..... kent hovind is the most retard person alive, did you see where he got his diploma, in a trailer...
According to godel, if the universe was rotating like that, time travel would be not only possible but inevitable. That would be freaking sweet, but unfortunately not the universe we live in.
It's unnerving to hear TC talking like a rational human, or just to hear him listen respectfully and quietly to an explanation without screaming "proof and evidence" at abritrary points. It's encouraging to see a creationist listen to evidence and adjust their views accordingly on the basis of new information. This has somewhat renewed my faith in humanity but only slightly.
TruthfulChristian is very fickle in his beliefs and seems to take the word of any authoritarian figure as the new facts of the matter, he probably left this conversation found some other video with a creationist he hasn't seen before, watched it and now thinks that a geocentric view is correct. 'god' gives religious people a comfort brought about by self delusion feeding facts to them unfortunately will not change these people who's hearts have been hardened by 'god'
Hopefully you're wrong about TruthfulChristian. But sadly, I don't think you are. He just changed his mind really easily. I would expect someone not to believe it at first and then slowly accept it. But he just went from being a Hovind "fan" to disregarding him in 11 mins. If he can be swayed that easily, I'm sure hes already been told that Andromeda is wrong and probably disregards him now as well.
@Mattm1986 There is nothing wrong with changing your mind. How long can it take for someone to understand something? However, I would expect that with that understanding one would not forget what was learnt.
listen its very simple what exploded where did the energy came from how did life evolve from non living materials even in different genders en have differetn kids how did curtain animals like termiats have little bacterie,s how eat from the termiets but olso help the termits they need each other like somemany plants en animals so how evolved first what is good if evolution si good then death is a good thing en there are no morals when you die what happens why are we here evolution is shit
@sukruoosten You clearly missed a few years of school. Seriously. This is stuff kids get taught, and they manage to pick it up quite easily. It's not difficult. Were you home-schooled? Or taught in a well by some dead raccoons? Either way your educators have failed you massively.
@sukruoosten point 6: pollination using animals first appeared about 100 million years ago. plants that use animals for procreation or distribution appeared long after land animals appeared. evolution, geddit?
@sukruoosten believe what you want to believe, but really don't try to argue that evolution is false or anything else for that matter, when you don't understand what it is you're arguing against. ps did you know you are completely made out of those pesky " non living materials "?
@sukruoosten There's really no chance about it. Physics are predictable, so much so that in the end, life as it was and is now was inevitable. We're just constructs of physics ourselves, the same as galaxies and planets and stars and moons, same as clouds and snowflakes and mountains. Complex? Yes. But does it have anything to do with chance? Not in the slightest. Chance is a human construct and is not inherent in the universe.
@sukruoosten I don't deny evolution (there's too much evidence for me to do so and retain any sense of intellectual honesty). I simply stated (in eloquent terms) that rejecting it because of chance is naive. There's no chance about it. Natural selection is anything BUT random, and physics are predictable enough that mutations could, given some processing power, be predicted, too.
@ BarbnGrill: You are an incredibly angry human being. I though you christians were spiritual and peaceful (lol). I have a master's degree and speak 6 languages, and you? You are not worth the time it is taking me to type this. Read a book and await the after life. There is a special place in hell reserved for you.
@rimbaudlink Why would I bother reading the first word of that no-doubt rant when you babbled pre-school insults mixed with nonsensical stereotypes said in a bitter childish way? You're so lazy minded you can't even bother to speak like a mature adult. So no way will I read any more of your replies you useless idiot who is such a useless idiot who cares so little about the truth, you want people to know you don't by babbling immature baby insults.
The title of this video is retarded. Im a creation and geocentrist and millions of geocentrists are creationists, if not all of them. God you're a moron, and I can't even watch this video with such an ultra childish and retarded title.
@IIZODIIAC You: Uh dur I see designs all around me and uh dur it's random and uh dur science proves it dur and uh dur all scientists are atheists cuz uh yeah dur, uh yeah atheists are a 2 percent minority in the world and most are dumb faery fag emotard freaks like me and uh dur uh uh like science is God yah man dur uh dur creationists yur dummies man uh yeah yeah!!! Where can I can some more meth man!!! God I need crack science rules lets watch some porn uh duur." Gullible blind idiot. : ) FAIL
@rimbaudlink Uh ultra retard: read history ultra retard: SCIENCE IS INTRODUCED IN THE BOOK OF JUDGES WITH GIDEON'S EXPERIMENT YOU IDIOT, IS IT ANY WONDER YOU MASSIVE IGNORAMUS THAT THE FIRST SCIENTISTS WERE CHRISTIANS, AND THE ONES WHO SPREAD AND DEVELOPED IT ALL OVER THE WORLD TILL DARWIN AND MORONS LIKE HIM SPREAD PROPAGANDA AND LIES ACTING LIKE THEY WERE THE FIRST ONES? DUR? You idiot. God you're an idiot. And ultra moron: SCIENCE ISN'T ALIVE FOOL, IT CAN'T BE ANYTHING CLOSE TO GOD YOU IDIOT.
@rimbaudlink So what were you saying about creationists being owned you ultra idiot is who is such a massive idiot you can't figure out there is no such thing as Random you faery fag make believe believing idiot? And ultra fag: So you were sitting on a fence and saw that billions and billions and billions of years ago there was a BIG MAGIC LIFE CREATING BOMB THAT MADE AN ORDERED NOT CHAOTIC UNIVERSE AND SAW HOW LIFE WAS MADE AND SAW IT MAGICALLY TURN INTO MILLIONS OF TYPES OF EMOTIONAL BEINGS?!
@rimbaudlink You: Uh dur I see designs all around me and uh dur it's random and uh dur science proves it dur and uh dur all scientists are atheists cuz uh yeah dur, uh yeah atheists are a 2 percent minority in the world and most are dumb faery fag emotard freaks like me and uh dur uh uh like science is God yah man dur uh dur creationists yur dummies man uh yeah yeah!!! Where can I can some more meth man!!! God I need crack, science rules lets watch some porn uh duur." Gullible blind idiot. Fail.
@rimbaudlink And whatever the little angry boy emotard says is true is true because he said so. Grow up and stop failing you idiot. Oh and master moron: that wasn't science was it? DUUUUUUURRRRRRRRR. Keep failing and running into God's fist emotard spaz troll, who after being kicked in his silly spaz emotard brain repeats a cheap shot version of the actual rebuke that felled his stupid self. Fail again angry little boy.
@rimbaudlink And, wow man: calm down seriously Mr. Freak Out When He's See a Childish Mocking Video and shout for joy shouting "scientific method I don't have a clue about" IS GOD!" Low IQ fag. What else makes you spaz out tardy nerd? Oh here's one for you, "is an angry little boy with a low IQ and small penis. Try talking with real life women, not to the abused women of the bible." Now apaz out and shout: science is God you stupid little dumb Christians ahahah LOL RMLOAFA GIMME SOME MORE PORN!
@rimbaudlink "BarbnGrill is an angry little boy with a low IQ and small penis. Try talking with real life women, not to the abused women of the bible." Love your science : )
@rimbaudlink "BarbnGrill is an angry little boy with a low IQ and small penis. Try talking with real life women, not to the abused women of the bible." But saying that doesn't show you're angry little boy? DUR? DOH! What a dumb bitter jealous mentally ill troll and time-waster.
@rimbaudlink Seeing that as your first reply, Mr. "YOU A LITTLE BABY YOU STUPID LITTLE ANGRY BOY CHRISTIAN WITH A SMALL PENIS WHO TALKS TO ABUSED WOMEN IN THE BIBLE" (no ur not an insane infantile at all like I first pointed out) I'll be ignoring you for now on.
@rimbaudlink "BarbnGrill is an angry little boy with a low IQ and small penis. Try talking with real life women, not to the abused women of the bible." And making abusive mere insult bashes like that, and childishly unintelligible ones like that on top of it? Can you talk like an adult Mr. "There Are Abused Women In the Bible (abused by who little conniving Nanny Nanny Boo Boo I Know You Are But What Am I Baby?) and Stop Talking to them Talk to Real Ones. Wow so clever and funny you are. Not.
@rimbaudlink Hi again 5 year old: What abused women? When did you see me talking to them? And if the women in the Bible aren't real why do you say they were abused? Ooops?
@rimbaudlink And how are your are your childish bitter remarks funny? Grow already and actually care about the truth, obviously you don't or you wouldn't deliberately waste my time with childish useless vague pre-school nonsense, defending the CRIMINAL women in the Bible and slandering the good ones while pretend to care about abuse yet making abusive nonsense you hypocrite. And weasel, can you be anymore of an obvious weasel by all the sudden pretending to care about abused women? What a baby.
@rimbaudlink Why not also say, "U stuppidd llitell dumie boyy Chridian u is dumb u canst not spels rights!!@#"?
Childish idiot: you obviously don't care about good or truth otherwise you would show concern, not babble 5-year-olds' insults. Since all y?ou can come up with is nonsense worse than, "I know you are but what am I", I didn't bother reading your other "replies".
@rimbaudlink P.S.: At least you were good for showing everyone how atheists and deists and pagans have no concern for truth at all, and instead of using truth with evidence, just resort to 5-year-old mentally nonsensical stereotyping pander-babble.
@rimbaudlink If you truly cared about women, moron, you wouldn't endorse porn, sadomasochism, prostitution, and trying to get pregnant women, including raped "children", to murder their own unborn babies in the name of "to have more fun" and so that rapists like you won't have to pay child support and will have no evidence for their rape, you sicko.
@rimbaudlink "BarbnGrill is an angry little boy with a low IQ and small penis. Try talking with real life women, not to the abused women of the bible."
Hey evil abuser who defends the Accuser of Whoever He Feels Like Hating aka Satan: Stop telling little boys you abuse not to be angry about the abuse you put them through, including the ones you make fun of for being of low intelligence like you.
@rimbaudlink And why did you bring up abused women? How about instead of just bringing them up randomly, you logic-hating Random Flying Noodle Monster worshiping idiot, actually not abusing them with your hateful slander and also caring about males too, you biased randomness chaos worshiping babbling mentally ill psychopath? Duh?
@rimbaudlink Would you like to make it anymore obvious that you don't care about goodness or truth? How about now all the sudden you say, "Stop beating your wife fundie!" or "Stop molesting children you priest!"? Well Mr. Adult Love of Science With a High IQ? And don't you know that adults who say, "science is God you little angry boy stupid christians with small penises" never do evil? Sure deluded idiot, sure. And ou're not even pretending to care, why am I even wasting time on you?
@Daaaaf You're not my God moron so don't command me how to live let alone make childish smug stupid remarks like that mocking moron. Why you idiot, should I relax to the emotard comments I replied to? So relazing is "science is God you stupid Christians!" ? Well moron? Hypocrite idiot? Dummy: Why make a transparent fool of yourself? Why not just reply to me with: "Hi: I'm an idiot and love being stupid"?
I'll be angry at whatever God tells me to: I won't be a complacent good and jokester you.
@BarbnGrill You call me an idiot, yet you will 'be angry at whatever god tells you to'. Doesn't sound like the smartest thing in the world. You could certainly stand to be a little more tolerant of other people's opinions, wars happen over intolerance.
@Daaaaf I mean "goof" not good. And dumb moron, how does what you said show any evidence that I am wrong and the morons you defended right? DUUUUUUUR? See idiot: stop imitating the arrogant evolutionist actors in Jurassic park and the nerds on Discovery Channel who think themselves wise and cool for babbling about, "Oh well it's very annoying how we just don't have enough evidence for how the Duck Billed Assassor roarded to get it's girl-mate" you gullible pretender.
@Daaaaf Why idiot? Because you told me to? Seriously? Seriously: stop being a passive aggressive idiot who makes passive aggressive time-wasting insults when his friends are exposed for being angry bitter passive impulsive angry blind hypocrites who babble hateful stereotypes and stupidity for the love of it while pretending that that is concern for goodness and truth. Stop relaxing you complacent moron and get angry at your own sin. Seriously, like seriously dude. Useless moron.
@gooddarkjedi Cuz u said so faery tard science and truth-hater, and faery tard: you're right: He is true shit. You're so evil you blind idiot that you don't even see that you're promoting hatred and think calling people the "the very definition of shit" = good. You're logic and morals are backwards you warped gullible childish hypocrite. Get a life and grow up already truth-hater.
Damn that sounds like some progress you are making spreading the truth! I am thrilled to hear that you are making someone find the truth in what I thought was an impossible task. Keep up the good work and thanks for all of your great posts.
im so glad kent hoven is in prison now, so easy to see through from any outsider
ingibingi2000 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and 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
@Mogley52 Calm your gyrating mammaries
EMSDisorder 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
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, etc., etc.).
Mogley52 5 days ago
geocentrist and proud baby!
PeoplePowerSince69 2 weeks ago
@PeoplePowerSince69 lol me too :) <3
IKillBabyKittensLOL 1 week ago in playlist More videos from AndromedasWake
I enjoy people with the courage to say "I don't know" rather than lying or guessing.
OurCognitiveSurplus 1 month ago
And then there's the Flat Earthers...
StygianDysnomia 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
first god created the world as flat (americans dont know this because the bibel its written in europe since its written before america even got explored) then oh oh it got rewritten and the world was round....now we know we arent the center of the universe and christians claim he create the big bang........i wonder how this works in 7 days .........haha christians are such funny douchbags :)
orchidswholesale 2 months ago in playlist วิดีโอเพิ่มเติมจาก AndromedasWake
well said.
NATESOR 3 months ago
My hypothesis is that Kent Hovind and Goatse are one in the same person. He'd have to be. Kent Hovind pulls so much garbage out of his ass so quickly during his lectures that his butthole would have to be a giant, gaping anal aperture of some kind to facilitate the process.
ChipArgyle 3 months ago
Mogley you spamming troll I see the same comments from you on dozens of videos do you have nothing better to do?
nickmcV123 3 months ago
Fair play to TC at the end there.
xtro1969 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. 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 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. 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 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. 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 6 months 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 an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 open a science book
jimmydoolittle22 4 months ago
@Mogley52
We ARE apes. If you knew what the word 'ape' means, you know you are one.
gininginin 4 months ago
@Mogley52 Hey, do me a favour: read about ERVs. They show CLEAR indications of common ancestry, as well as a map of how extant animals are related to each other. And changes in morphology (like how we walk) can evolve just like any other thing. Genetic mutation, natural selection, enviorment... does these words ring any bell?
Wasserrauschen 4 months ago
@Mogley52 you really are blind arnt you?? genetic mutations and evolution occur all the time over the years the height and strength and bone and muscle structure has changed in modern man, this process takes a really long time longer than the flicker of a human lifespan of 70years give or take.
also the genes dont code for separate muscle tissues it codes for all the muscle cells if the mutation works the organisim lives and passes on its genes if it doesnt it dies before it gets a chance to.
CaptainCrumple 3 months ago
@Mogley52 ...also human society is full of these mutations, Alzheimer's, parkinson's, cystic fribrosis, sickle cell (mutated to develop a natural resistance to malaria) and basically every other form of genetic disease hell back when the human race first appear we was all black :) (im white btw)
CaptainCrumple 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and 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 6 months ago
@Mogley52 "SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE..."
You reject science with one hand and with the other try to use to prove your religious beliefs. Science shows us lots of stuff but you reject most of it.
jimmydoolittle22 4 months 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 were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
Kent Hovin sucks
dawnbringerSO 7 months ago in playlist Religious Discussion 4
I actually like TC. A lot. He's a chirstian, yes, but he's just a mislead christian. He's not out there to decieve or fool anyone, he REALLY cares for truth, as it is evident here.
mornmeril 7 months ago
I can't help thinking I would have replied...
"While I do think he is an extremely dishonest person who has built his career upon lies, I wasn't saying he's a liar here, just that he lacks understanding of cosmology and has made a very silly mistake".
BoooDave 8 months ago
Hey...a conversation I actually enjoyed listening to and learned something from. More of this on YouTube would make a welcome antidote to all the trollery.
CobinRain 8 months ago
NephilimFree needs a visit from Father Jack Hackett. It'll be a deeply religious experience for him.
BrfngnlxYkzyxzK 8 months ago
Stupid liberal pseudo-intellectual babel
FatherOfEternity 8 months ago
I'm not sure I believe that the caller was actually a Creationist. He accepted Hovind's being a liar too easily.
Naiant 9 months ago 5
Hi I am a Geocentrist. I believe the earth is at the centre of the universe and everything is rotating around it or something close to this. What i mean is that the earth is stationary in space and the sun rotates around the earth and the rest of the universe rotates about the sun. Something like that. I don't believe in a big bang.
mharrold61 9 months ago
@mharrold61 Hi. You are insane.
mucephi1 9 months ago
@mharrold61 you are either miss informed or willfully ignorant
silentpillager 8 months ago
@mharrold61Hi, I am an Elvisite and I believe that Elvis is alive and meets up with Buddy Holly and Eddie Cochran at a secret location high up in the mountains in the state of........ and they play music all night and if you listen real hard you can sometimes hear it ...I'm hearing it now. Very faint. You need faith to hear it. The location is kept secret of course; Elvis(whose mother was a virgin, I believe) will not want the Colonel to find him before the Rapture, when he will be Rapt up
CobinRain 8 months ago
Nice work schooling this guy, potholer ripped kent hovind to pieces R.I.P
prophecy217 9 months ago
Sorry its just such a small space to explain myself in. No matter where I put a dot on a line it is at the center correct? (Not segment) No matter what number I pick on a number line if i add all the numbers above to all the numbers below I get 0. I am not religious but this is a concept I believe to be correct in terms of the universe- a fact that makes every individual observer the effective center of everything that can be observed by that individual. Given no other reference.
mucephi1 9 months ago
@mucephi1 First, infinity minus infinity is not necessarily equal to zero, that is to say, all the numbers greater than n added to all of those less than n is not clearly defined. Second, even if this were true regarding any point on a line, a line is infinite in both directions from any arbitrary point on it, the universe is not infinite, so the universe:line analogy does not work.
mrbill1032 9 months ago 2
@mrbill1032 Well most scientists agree there is some minute curvature to the universe which would give it a saddle or sphere shape.Even if we determined it was flat it may not be infinite in terms of what it contains but it is unbounded and beyond our ability to ever observe,as a result, even if the universe is not infinite in what it contains it has infinite room to grow.An observers only point of reference is himself and that makes them the center. Also infinity minus infinity equals 0 always.
mucephi1 9 months ago
@mrbill1032 btw you are only the second person to ever discuss this with me. I appreciate that. It seems like if you try to make an intelligent point you can be sure noone will ever respond lols. If I said f-u 'tard pwned blah blah I would get 100 responses.
mucephi1 9 months ago
Look I totaly cant stand nephilim and I am firmly on the side of science and evidence. That being said its a good thing that guys like him do not understand the nature of the universe (finite yet unbounded-possible minute curvature so saddle shape or sphere). No matter where I move on earth I can see the same distance in any direction (45bly?). The universe is not like a forest in which there are set dimensions. What is the center of the surface of the earth if not the observer?
mucephi1 9 months ago
How do you test the assumption that the milky way is not the center of the universe?
(by center, I mean center of expansion)
It's sort of silly to think otherwise, but can we actually test it?
TwirlySocrates 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates At the center of our galaxy is a supermassive black hole. I'm sure you've at least seen sci-fi films, tv shows, etc about the nature of black holes. ht tp://bit. ly/cZ0Nki
If Milky Way centered expansion happened, then it's not reasonable to assume a supermassive black hole could be formed. Also, I wonder what explanations such a hypothesis would have for other galaxies' supermassive black holes.
Also, the Andromeda galaxy is headed towards Milky Way, thus we aren't the center.
lagurash 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
Yes, in fact the reason the big bang model exists is for the same reason. We don't know what actual position we are in the universe, what we know is through cosmic background radiation, math, and observable reality we see a consistent pattern that all matter moved away from a central expansion point and if you rewind time 13.72 billion years we would be at that point. Guess what? Our galaxy is extraordinarily far from that point. Thus not center.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
What?
I thought that every point in space was a center of expansion so ... there isn't a center of expansion.
What is the nature of this calculation? Do you look for asymmetry in galaxy distribution? In CMB distribution?
TwirlySocrates 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
Space is all expanded centrally away from each other. I never said it wasn't, just that when we look at where galaxies did expand from, and where the CBR originates and what it tells us it shows that all mater expanded from a central point, however since space is also expanding at every point in the universe doesn't really pertain to what I stated. The known universe and observable universe expanded from one area, however now all areas are expanding.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
I think I understand what you're saying now.
1) Space is uniformly expanding.
2) Matter appears to have originated from a specific location
Is that what you're saying?
I understand 1) to be true, but 2) doesn't sound right to me.
Aren't galaxies more or less uniformly distributed? Isn't the CMB uniformly distributed?
TwirlySocrates 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
It is today, but we can observe different instances of the CBR by looking in different directions, the reason we can do this is because if we look at some parts of the deepest radiation of the skys the radiation that took 13.72 billion years to get to us, we see this uniformly expanding area, and we can even with this CBR measure the curvature of space accurately and conclude where we came from originally by comparing today's observations to different time frames.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
See we can see light that was 1 billion, 2 billion, etc etc etc 13.5 billion years old and see different images of the early universe. We can see that because it took that long to get to us and we can conclude age through redshift/blueshift and we can measure distance easily as well. So we have all these images that if we play each one, it models backwards to everything originating from one region.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
Though I will say we do not have an absolute location, in fact finding the absolute location may be nonsensical since space expanding at every point causes the origin point to expand and be un-recognizable today. We don't have a absolute full picture, but the evidence all leads towards that conclusion. Though I myself admit I have a basic understanding; so from here I must say explore whats been presented so far. Universe from Nothing by lawrence craus is great.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
I hope that was easy enough to understand. The nature of the calculations you can look up for yourself on the big bang model, not my job to educate the sources when 2 seconds gives you results. CBR shows where early distributions of matter/energy were, comparing that to today's observable reality and cross checking and using redshift/blueshift calculations and shit ton of other stuff that all confirm we have originated from a central area.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz @JamesCizuz
I can't find anything like what you're talking about. I'm certain the universe's matter did not originate from a specific location as you keep suggesting.
It is possible to use the CBR to estimate a universal intertial reference frame - and we're not in it - so you may use that to argue that we're not the center of the universe, but there is nothing to suggest that the universe originated at a "central area".
TwirlySocrates 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
When scientists say "Central area" they don't mean they can pinpoint that area as it is nonsensical since all space is exapnding at all points meaning even thinking about a center of the universe is non-sensical. However what science says about it when speaking of central area is that the big bang originated from one location and that was the center of the expanding universe. This can be determined by CBR.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
However if you were to ask "Can we find the middle of the expansion now?" Then the answer is no. If you see refrence frames of CBR and obserable universe and compare them at different timeframes we see we are expanding from one location, as in if you rewind it back it's all at one point. Determining where that point is today is non-sensical and impossible by definition. I wasn't saying we knew where the area was if that is what you were saying.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
Actually I should state I use the word central area, scientists use the word singularity. We can not determine at all where it is relative to where we are now of course. We can determine looking at refrences points where it most likely was at that timeframe such as time= 100,000 year old universe, 1 million years old universe, 5 billion, 1000 etc etc etc.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
I think we're arguing about the meaning of the word "singularity". It has a very different meaning to "central area" or any kind of specific region.
"Singularity" is not a location. It means that mathematics cannot adequately describe what actually happened.
TwirlySocrates 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
No I am not talking about a singularity. That is me just messing around explaining shit wrong or using key words you keep picking up on. Fine lets get all that baggage out of the way, when I say singularity I should of said point of singularity(aka position of singularity, position of singularity through expansion). Whatever name I am using the only thing I am trying to get across is comparison between reference CBR, observations and physics we know there was a middle.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
Though when talking about middle of universe when speaking about a singularity is kinda nonsensical because not only did all matter and energy originate from big bang so did space itself. Meaning the singularity was so massive and at such high energies space ITSELF would of been collapsed into that central point(If you could call it that...) as well.
In a sense since space itself expanded as well at the big bang every point in the universe is the middle.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
I get confused when you say that every point in the universe is the middle, and then go on and say that we can use CBR to find a middle.
How do you tease a middle location from CBR red/blueshift? Wouldn't it just give a reference frame?
TwirlySocrates 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
A refrance frame at that time. All reference frames you can measure the curvature of the universe, knowing the curvature of the universe you can tell at what rate it is expanding and if it slowed or became faster over time. Compare all references, the curvature of it gives you how bent and how rounded it is expanding meaning they can determine the middle to a high degree.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
I've watched "A Universe From Nothing". Nowhere does he assert that the universe has a middle.
He's talking about why we know that the universe is flat.
Knowledge of the universe's curvature doesn't tell us anything about a middle, if it exists.
The center of curvature of the Earth's surface is not located on the Earth's surface. The same would be true for our three-dimensional universe if it was indeed curved.
TwirlySocrates 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
Universe has a middle? I said no such thing. I said that the big bang ORIGINATED from one area. Aka when talking about the center of our expansion there exists a middle or central area. Though I have no problem with no middle of the universe because an infinitely flat universe can have no middle. Guess we were both arguing different points.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@JamesCizuz
So when you said "they can determine the middle to a high degree" you actually meant "scientists are able to calculate the curvature of the universe from observation"?
TwirlySocrates 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
Actually no, I said using refrences of CBR they can trace a plot and rewind the clock to determine that we expanded from one area. Aka I was arguing the proof that the big bang says we expanded from a singularity or one point or one area. You can measure the curvature of the universe with CBR and through the same PROCESS show how the universe expanded. Not curvature explainining the middle, the same process used to find curvature in CBR.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
See the CBR we can see HUGE clumps of matter, some hundreds of thousands light years across and since we can see that and since the fabric of space time is bent we can measure the curvature of space time with it, and just like if you draw to point, then make a triangle in geometry they can tell distance using two reference points, same idea.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
The importance about redshift and blue shift is we can now tell through all reference images how close things are, and how fast they are moving away, or how fast they are moving towards us. So we can use redshift and blueshift as another model to reinforce the CBR and observational models. If something is redshifted the waivelength is longer meaning it's moving away from us. Blueshifted it's shorter, moving towards us. Wavelength of light, think Doppler effect(Except light).
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
Also disregard me saying every point was the middle, that was just an analogy as since the fabric of space time itself expanded from the big bang as well, that means at one point there was no middle as there was no space, so space expanding means the moment it expands it is the middle and since every point is expanding I made a joke that every point is the middle in a sense.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
Also if you keep getting confused, watch "A Universe From Nothing" by lawrence Kraus. Having to condense shit into 500 characters and cut stuff out just sucks and causes confusion, universe from nothing is a very modern explanation of what scientists mean when they say nothing, and what science says about the big bang.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
@TwirlySocrates
Though you said what is the nature of the calculation is incorrect. As one calculation can never confirm something, you must take many different proofs that all focus on the same results and answers to confirm what happened. That is what scientists did, expanding galaxies and comparing them, redshift/blueshift, CBR etc etc etc.
JamesCizuz 10 months ago
Its almost painful to listen to TC struggling to wrap his mind around these concepts, but I'm happy for him that he's trying!
MacktheKnife192 10 months ago
mmm, tasty, tasty science.
mdiem 10 months ago
This video takes a great point and puts it in a new perspective. Creationists cherry-pick science to death... how can you argue that science is valid when it seems to support your side, and then call scientists a cult of liars when it comes to findings that don't support your theory? The most illogical thing about the creationist mindset is (in general) their absurd view of science and the standards by which we accept or reject evidence.
instereovideos 11 months ago
I love astonomy. You need to make more videos AndromenasWake.
zzyzx0788 11 months ago
lol "really? r-really?"
Southparker100000000 11 months ago
what a surprisingly open minded creationist. I think you may have really gotten through to him.
huan152 11 months ago 13
Very nice video. I may not be a educator and thus don´t very often have to explain this stuff, but I think the main problem why people frequently misunderstand what singularity means in connection with the big bang is that they heard that a singularity sits at the center of a black hole. So they tend to believe that the singularity at the "point" of the BB is physically very small. The fact that in both cases it´s "only" a mathematical concept, not a tangible object, is not very easy to grasp.
rhominus 1 year ago
@rhominus That's nothing comparred to a creationist asking "why (if the BB really happened) did it spread round planets and not fragmentation like a bomb".
No BS, I really heard this argument.
7omnia7 1 year ago
HE GOT THE INFORMATION FROM KENT HOVIND..... my god..... kent hovind is the most retard person alive, did you see where he got his diploma, in a trailer...
piatdor 1 year ago
According to godel, if the universe was rotating like that, time travel would be not only possible but inevitable. That would be freaking sweet, but unfortunately not the universe we live in.
binaryblade2 1 year ago
Agreed, this is fucking eerie. Perhaps he actually saw the archive of videos of here that clearly demonstrate what a fucking moron he acts like i
GMH524 1 year ago
I vote for "sukruoosten" for candidate #1 to be removed from the Darwin gene-pool.
4XFLOOR 1 year ago
It's unnerving to hear TC talking like a rational human, or just to hear him listen respectfully and quietly to an explanation without screaming "proof and evidence" at abritrary points. It's encouraging to see a creationist listen to evidence and adjust their views accordingly on the basis of new information. This has somewhat renewed my faith in humanity but only slightly.
MeBeMat 1 year ago 39
whats the name of the person(s) who came up with the big bang theory? i'd like to know, its all very interesting
KingMatthewDaGreat 1 year ago
@KingMatthewDaGreat Google is your friend :)
MeBeMat 1 year ago
Beautifully done. I applaud the civil discourse which has (apparently) led TC to the desired end goal of any educator and scientist: the truth.
hurlyburlyexistenz 1 year ago
TruthfulChristian is very fickle in his beliefs and seems to take the word of any authoritarian figure as the new facts of the matter, he probably left this conversation found some other video with a creationist he hasn't seen before, watched it and now thinks that a geocentric view is correct. 'god' gives religious people a comfort brought about by self delusion feeding facts to them unfortunately will not change these people who's hearts have been hardened by 'god'
Sadochrist 1 year ago
@Sadochrist
Hopefully you're wrong about TruthfulChristian. But sadly, I don't think you are. He just changed his mind really easily. I would expect someone not to believe it at first and then slowly accept it. But he just went from being a Hovind "fan" to disregarding him in 11 mins. If he can be swayed that easily, I'm sure hes already been told that Andromeda is wrong and probably disregards him now as well.
Mattm1986 1 year ago
@Mattm1986 There is nothing wrong with changing your mind. How long can it take for someone to understand something? However, I would expect that with that understanding one would not forget what was learnt.
helical4 1 year ago
OMG!!? A CREATIONISTS REALIZING HE'S WRONG? !?????
SciryVids 1 year ago
@SciryVids
Holy crap? Who? Where?
I give cookies to people who can admit when they were wrong.
rkyeun 1 year ago
Fallacious or felatious? :-P
blehblehbleh86 1 year ago
It's a beautiful thing to see a creationist stepping towards reason.
Omnywrench 1 year ago
You can't spin a singularity !
gregrutz 1 year ago
Nephi won the Golden Crocoduck Award for his stupidity.
gregrutz 1 year ago
sukruoosten 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sukruoosten No, you are a dumb shit.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@sukruoosten Ummm what???
papasitoman 1 year ago
@sukruoosten You clearly missed a few years of school. Seriously. This is stuff kids get taught, and they manage to pick it up quite easily. It's not difficult. Were you home-schooled? Or taught in a well by some dead raccoons? Either way your educators have failed you massively.
blehblehbleh86 1 year ago
@blehblehbleh86 hahahahah right end to believe everything happend by chance alone
1 big bang theorie
2 different genders evolved bringing differenc species into the world
3 non living materials came to life
4 its always FAR FAR AWAY END LONG LONG AGO
5 no proof of evolution, men is yust stupid en trying to denie GOD
6 there are many plants how need animals at the same time
wich evolved first
i gave you 6 points wich youre religion EVOLUTION cant answer
end no its not science
sukruoosten 1 year ago
@sukruoosten
1. We don’t know everything about The Big Bang but we have a peaty close idea.
2. Yeah, Evolution and natural selection explain that.
3. The Origin of life explains that.
4. Don’t get the point of that statement.
5. Have overwhelming proof of Evolution, just open a textbook or two and you see.
6. Don’t really know where you are going with this one?
Well, you can be religious/atheist/agnostic and still be an evolutionist.
But evolution is not a religion.
TheRobinL 1 year ago
@sukruoosten point 6: pollination using animals first appeared about 100 million years ago. plants that use animals for procreation or distribution appeared long after land animals appeared. evolution, geddit?
raverdeath100 1 year ago
@raverdeath100 listen some plants en animals need each other to live !!!!!!
they cant bee evolved at same time
en i can give you 100 reasons why evolution is a false demonic religion with no PROOF
yes textbooks you believe but the first ever book BIBLE you denie
ofcourse you believe earth is biljon years old so that olso a problem here
to believe everything evolved from non living materials=RELIGION FAITH
sukruoosten 1 year ago
@sukruoosten believe what you want to believe, but really don't try to argue that evolution is false or anything else for that matter, when you don't understand what it is you're arguing against. ps did you know you are completely made out of those pesky " non living materials "?
raverdeath100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@raverdeath100 believe what you want to believe a very good point
many people half of the world denies god so yes we can choose
i choose in the beginning god
you choose a dot/energy/ a spinning object WHAT EVER
listen we can argue till we dy but i will reject youre faith you to mine faith
i dont connect science with evolution
en no im getting bioligy en fisics en all that crapp
i know evolution has 6 points i know all but i denie ALL
sukruoosten 1 year ago
Comment removed
Fissioninferno 1 year ago
@sukruoosten There's really no chance about it. Physics are predictable, so much so that in the end, life as it was and is now was inevitable. We're just constructs of physics ourselves, the same as galaxies and planets and stars and moons, same as clouds and snowflakes and mountains. Complex? Yes. But does it have anything to do with chance? Not in the slightest. Chance is a human construct and is not inherent in the universe.
Fissioninferno 1 year ago
@Fissioninferno impressive points you made here but i dont believe in chance but in god how made
everything 6000 years ago
yust the unbelievers how do you reconigze life came off non living materials
that is beyond reality en not science but a faith=RELIGION theory
what is youre point of evolution give me youre ideas en comment me
cause you say chance is a human construct so you denie evolutiuon
im a bit confussed here
sukruoosten 1 year ago
@sukruoosten I don't deny evolution (there's too much evidence for me to do so and retain any sense of intellectual honesty). I simply stated (in eloquent terms) that rejecting it because of chance is naive. There's no chance about it. Natural selection is anything BUT random, and physics are predictable enough that mutations could, given some processing power, be predicted, too.
Fissioninferno 1 year ago
@sukruoosten are you trying to say "and" instead of "end"
longliverocknroll5 1 year ago
@ BarbnGrill: You are an incredibly angry human being. I though you christians were spiritual and peaceful (lol). I have a master's degree and speak 6 languages, and you? You are not worth the time it is taking me to type this. Read a book and await the after life. There is a special place in hell reserved for you.
rimbaudlink 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink Why would I bother reading the first word of that no-doubt rant when you babbled pre-school insults mixed with nonsensical stereotypes said in a bitter childish way? You're so lazy minded you can't even bother to speak like a mature adult. So no way will I read any more of your replies you useless idiot who is such a useless idiot who cares so little about the truth, you want people to know you don't by babbling immature baby insults.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
The title of this video is retarded. Im a creation and geocentrist and millions of geocentrists are creationists, if not all of them. God you're a moron, and I can't even watch this video with such an ultra childish and retarded title.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
"Im a creation"
well, you're a piece of work alright.
"millions of geocentrists"
i doubt there's even one million of the daft buggers.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
creationist gets owned! science is god
rimbaudlink 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink Amen : )
IIZODIIAC 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IIZODIIAC You: Uh dur I see designs all around me and uh dur it's random and uh dur science proves it dur and uh dur all scientists are atheists cuz uh yeah dur, uh yeah atheists are a 2 percent minority in the world and most are dumb faery fag emotard freaks like me and uh dur uh uh like science is God yah man dur uh dur creationists yur dummies man uh yeah yeah!!! Where can I can some more meth man!!! God I need crack science rules lets watch some porn uh duur." Gullible blind idiot. : ) FAIL
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@IIZODIIAC God saying that was so original and clever. Grow up airheaded guy who thinks he's an animal.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@BarbnGrill don't lie you thought it was clever.
IIZODIIAC 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink Uh ultra retard: read history ultra retard: SCIENCE IS INTRODUCED IN THE BOOK OF JUDGES WITH GIDEON'S EXPERIMENT YOU IDIOT, IS IT ANY WONDER YOU MASSIVE IGNORAMUS THAT THE FIRST SCIENTISTS WERE CHRISTIANS, AND THE ONES WHO SPREAD AND DEVELOPED IT ALL OVER THE WORLD TILL DARWIN AND MORONS LIKE HIM SPREAD PROPAGANDA AND LIES ACTING LIKE THEY WERE THE FIRST ONES? DUR? You idiot. God you're an idiot. And ultra moron: SCIENCE ISN'T ALIVE FOOL, IT CAN'T BE ANYTHING CLOSE TO GOD YOU IDIOT.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink So what were you saying about creationists being owned you ultra idiot is who is such a massive idiot you can't figure out there is no such thing as Random you faery fag make believe believing idiot? And ultra fag: So you were sitting on a fence and saw that billions and billions and billions of years ago there was a BIG MAGIC LIFE CREATING BOMB THAT MADE AN ORDERED NOT CHAOTIC UNIVERSE AND SAW HOW LIFE WAS MADE AND SAW IT MAGICALLY TURN INTO MILLIONS OF TYPES OF EMOTIONAL BEINGS?!
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink What a faery faggit you are. Evildeludsionist gets a spiritual ass kick with a foot in his mouth. Bye faery faggit.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink You: Uh dur I see designs all around me and uh dur it's random and uh dur science proves it dur and uh dur all scientists are atheists cuz uh yeah dur, uh yeah atheists are a 2 percent minority in the world and most are dumb faery fag emotard freaks like me and uh dur uh uh like science is God yah man dur uh dur creationists yur dummies man uh yeah yeah!!! Where can I can some more meth man!!! God I need crack, science rules lets watch some porn uh duur." Gullible blind idiot. Fail.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@BarbnGrill is an angry little boy with a low IQ and small penis. Try talking with real life women, not to the abused women of the bible.
rimbaudlink 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink And whatever the little angry boy emotard says is true is true because he said so. Grow up and stop failing you idiot. Oh and master moron: that wasn't science was it? DUUUUUUURRRRRRRRR. Keep failing and running into God's fist emotard spaz troll, who after being kicked in his silly spaz emotard brain repeats a cheap shot version of the actual rebuke that felled his stupid self. Fail again angry little boy.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink And, wow man: calm down seriously Mr. Freak Out When He's See a Childish Mocking Video and shout for joy shouting "scientific method I don't have a clue about" IS GOD!" Low IQ fag. What else makes you spaz out tardy nerd? Oh here's one for you, "is an angry little boy with a low IQ and small penis. Try talking with real life women, not to the abused women of the bible." Now apaz out and shout: science is God you stupid little dumb Christians ahahah LOL RMLOAFA GIMME SOME MORE PORN!
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rimbaudlink "BarbnGrill is an angry little boy with a low IQ and small penis. Try talking with real life women, not to the abused women of the bible." Love your science : )
FAIL.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink "BarbnGrill is an angry little boy with a low IQ and small penis. Try talking with real life women, not to the abused women of the bible." But saying that doesn't show you're angry little boy? DUR? DOH! What a dumb bitter jealous mentally ill troll and time-waster.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink Seeing that as your first reply, Mr. "YOU A LITTLE BABY YOU STUPID LITTLE ANGRY BOY CHRISTIAN WITH A SMALL PENIS WHO TALKS TO ABUSED WOMEN IN THE BIBLE" (no ur not an insane infantile at all like I first pointed out) I'll be ignoring you for now on.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink "BarbnGrill is an angry little boy with a low IQ and small penis. Try talking with real life women, not to the abused women of the bible." And making abusive mere insult bashes like that, and childishly unintelligible ones like that on top of it? Can you talk like an adult Mr. "There Are Abused Women In the Bible (abused by who little conniving Nanny Nanny Boo Boo I Know You Are But What Am I Baby?) and Stop Talking to them Talk to Real Ones. Wow so clever and funny you are. Not.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink Hi again 5 year old: What abused women? When did you see me talking to them? And if the women in the Bible aren't real why do you say they were abused? Ooops?
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink And how are your are your childish bitter remarks funny? Grow already and actually care about the truth, obviously you don't or you wouldn't deliberately waste my time with childish useless vague pre-school nonsense, defending the CRIMINAL women in the Bible and slandering the good ones while pretend to care about abuse yet making abusive nonsense you hypocrite. And weasel, can you be anymore of an obvious weasel by all the sudden pretending to care about abused women? What a baby.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink Why not also say, "U stuppidd llitell dumie boyy Chridian u is dumb u canst not spels rights!!@#"?
Childish idiot: you obviously don't care about good or truth otherwise you would show concern, not babble 5-year-olds' insults. Since all y?ou can come up with is nonsense worse than, "I know you are but what am I", I didn't bother reading your other "replies".
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink P.S.: At least you were good for showing everyone how atheists and deists and pagans have no concern for truth at all, and instead of using truth with evidence, just resort to 5-year-old mentally nonsensical stereotyping pander-babble.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink If you truly cared about women, moron, you wouldn't endorse porn, sadomasochism, prostitution, and trying to get pregnant women, including raped "children", to murder their own unborn babies in the name of "to have more fun" and so that rapists like you won't have to pay child support and will have no evidence for their rape, you sicko.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rimbaudlink "BarbnGrill is an angry little boy with a low IQ and small penis. Try talking with real life women, not to the abused women of the bible."
Hey evil abuser who defends the Accuser of Whoever He Feels Like Hating aka Satan: Stop telling little boys you abuse not to be angry about the abuse you put them through, including the ones you make fun of for being of low intelligence like you.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink And why did you bring up abused women? How about instead of just bringing them up randomly, you logic-hating Random Flying Noodle Monster worshiping idiot, actually not abusing them with your hateful slander and also caring about males too, you biased randomness chaos worshiping babbling mentally ill psychopath? Duh?
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink Would you like to make it anymore obvious that you don't care about goodness or truth? How about now all the sudden you say, "Stop beating your wife fundie!" or "Stop molesting children you priest!"? Well Mr. Adult Love of Science With a High IQ? And don't you know that adults who say, "science is God you little angry boy stupid christians with small penises" never do evil? Sure deluded idiot, sure. And ou're not even pretending to care, why am I even wasting time on you?
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@BarbnGrill Wow man. You need to relax. Seriously.
Daaaaf 1 year ago
@Daaaaf You're not my God moron so don't command me how to live let alone make childish smug stupid remarks like that mocking moron. Why you idiot, should I relax to the emotard comments I replied to? So relazing is "science is God you stupid Christians!" ? Well moron? Hypocrite idiot? Dummy: Why make a transparent fool of yourself? Why not just reply to me with: "Hi: I'm an idiot and love being stupid"?
I'll be angry at whatever God tells me to: I won't be a complacent good and jokester you.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@BarbnGrill You call me an idiot, yet you will 'be angry at whatever god tells you to'. Doesn't sound like the smartest thing in the world. You could certainly stand to be a little more tolerant of other people's opinions, wars happen over intolerance.
Daaaaf 1 year ago
@Daaaaf I mean "goof" not good. And dumb moron, how does what you said show any evidence that I am wrong and the morons you defended right? DUUUUUUUR? See idiot: stop imitating the arrogant evolutionist actors in Jurassic park and the nerds on Discovery Channel who think themselves wise and cool for babbling about, "Oh well it's very annoying how we just don't have enough evidence for how the Duck Billed Assassor roarded to get it's girl-mate" you gullible pretender.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@BarbnGrill Hah! Now you're just getting silly.
Daaaaf 1 year ago
@Daaaaf Why idiot? Because you told me to? Seriously? Seriously: stop being a passive aggressive idiot who makes passive aggressive time-wasting insults when his friends are exposed for being angry bitter passive impulsive angry blind hypocrites who babble hateful stereotypes and stupidity for the love of it while pretending that that is concern for goodness and truth. Stop relaxing you complacent moron and get angry at your own sin. Seriously, like seriously dude. Useless moron.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
@BarbnGrill Yeah, you're right. I'm gonna get angry because some religious nut on the internet is baiting me. Get a life, sir!
Daaaaf 1 year ago
@rimbaudlink Grow up angrily little boy with a low IQ.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
I was just baffled by the story about the disc which was a singularity...
You can get baffled by creationist nonsense even if you're expecting to find baffling stuff.
Evilanious 1 year ago
this guy was not stupid. just mislead. he is admiting his mistakes and is shuld i say a really "big" man.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
@gooddarkjedi Cuz u said so faery tard science and truth-hater, and faery tard: you're right: He is true shit. You're so evil you blind idiot that you don't even see that you're promoting hatred and think calling people the "the very definition of shit" = good. You're logic and morals are backwards you warped gullible childish hypocrite. Get a life and grow up already truth-hater.
BarbnGrill 1 year ago
wow. You're the shit Andromeda
lesenfantterribles 1 year ago 40
Damn that sounds like some progress you are making spreading the truth! I am thrilled to hear that you are making someone find the truth in what I thought was an impossible task. Keep up the good work and thanks for all of your great posts.
cmsalvagio 1 year ago