Where insects included in the Ark? I think its unbelievable to round up every insect that exists and has ever existed. Only a small protion have been described and a very small amount kept in captivity as they often have very specific care requirements. What is a Christian explaination for this????
@MrJohnnyrace You shouldn't have watched Oprah all these years, or Eckhart (however his name is spelled? But your right when man invented gods some made them out of wood, so made them up in their mind, ( twisted the character around). Some (athiests) take one character and then twist it into their own image and seeing the context. They are blind fools. That is blind leading the blind, they too will fall into the pit. I mean as Jesus said, can the blind lead the blind?
@MrCombineFaces Actually, I'm all for it. Let's bring in the rubes and have them pour their money into Ken Hamm's wallet rather than pouring it into the political parties of theocrats. This place is an affront to education and the sciences, but it serves a purpose socially. It's a distraction. Bread and circuses for the proudly ignorant.
@robocong7420 Religion is invented as to work to God. Of course that's not possible. Will a judge be bribed after committing robbery, with a person past good deeds? And if the judge accepted it, would he be a good and loving judge? How would the people feel by the one's hurt by the offender?
lol! Bring on the proof that the great flood ever existed and I'll consider believing. Bring on the proof for the rest of the myth stories and I will believe, but believe by faith only? ROFL
Go to AnswersinGenesis . org If you are truly unbiased and open to hearing other views on the same evidences given to use, then you will enjoy the read. Dont be closed minded and assume that because its Christian, its wrong. They use science to back their opinions...
Thanks for your taking the time to respond. I'm not really interested in peoples views though but I am interested in empirical evidence. Take care! :-)
@TheIVJackal Are you kidding? Read their statement of faith.. The last part. In a nut shell they say that if reality conflicts with the bible, then reality is wrong. That's not science, that's fraud.
I will admit that from a third person POV, that does not look good nor is it scientific as you say. But im not talking about their statement of faith as faith is not really a testable science with respect to what we are discussing. And it is funny that you leave out "The fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." Thats what AIG does, they point out possible/probable issues with current scientific "certainties."
@TheIVJackal They are pointing out only what they WANT to find. They are no playing 'devil's advocate', they are telling people lies about what science has found. Science check's itself through peer reviews. It doesn't need AIG pulling crap like it does and claiming things that the evidence doesn't support and then calling it science.
@jwissick Do research and you'll find that secular scientists have at times thrown out their own research as it did not align with the overall consensus. Now that's dishonest. Look into our "Missing Link Ida," that was recently disproved. Just as you have spent time reading into evolution, take the same amount of time looking into creation. There have been those in the past that have tried to disprove the Bible, ironically, it turned them into believers! Look up Josh Mcdowell's story.
@TheIVJackal Thats dishonest in what universe?? Science made a mistake, foundt the mistake, admitted it, and fixed it. That is the anthesis of dishonesty and the epitome of honesty.
I was a born again YEC Christian for 20 years. Then I discovered that Christianity is a lie for fools who fear death.
There is no evidence for genesis. None. Wake up Neo.
@jwissick It's dishonest becasue they run around telling everyone they uncovered this big discovery without being humble and saying that they could be wrong. Maybe we differ on what we consider "dishonest," but that is to me. Next thing you know, they got big articles around saying God is Dead. It's a circular phenomena. As far as you not being a believer anymore, I hope that one day you come back around. From a 3rd person POV, neither you or I know for sure what happens after death.
@TheIVJackal You don't seriously equate making errors to honesty do you? How many mistakes have you made in your life. Hell, how many in just the last week? Should that reflect on your honesty? If think it shouldn't then you really are a sanctimonious ass.
BTW, science always uses qualifiers and never deals in absolutes. They didn't say Ida was proof; they said it was likely. Go back and look again.
@jwissick Man, youre getting nasty! Makes your argument less objective and more biased but whatever, good for me I guess. 1. Science is suppose to have Checks and Balances before something like Ida is hyped up and presented as it was. It got ridiculous press for something that was wrong. 2. Science has its laws, those laws are absolutes. Should I now go and question all the things that science says "are likely?" If this is your rationale, why have so much faith in it?
@TheIVJackal Science does have checks and balances and they DID work, albeit it took more evidence. Who you should blame is the media. They are the ones who went nuts and blew it up. Science searches for TRUTH. Yes it makes mistakes and corrects itself. But christianity doesn't. How long did it take for christianity to finally admit heliocentric solarsystem was fact?
No, those laws are NOT absolutes. They have never been OBSERVED to be broken; that doesn't mean they can't be broken.
@jwissick I think you may have gone off the deep end bud. A law is FACT. It's a Mathematical Rule. A always = B. And it was the Catholic Church that denied heliocentricity. Dont forget, this was how everyone though it was for thousands of years. Galileo was stubborn and made his voice be heard as Copernicus did not have enough evidence to really prove his theory. I believe the Bible to be true, made clearer and believable through archeology. Our God is a God of Faith, remember that.
@jwissick Yes, the Bible has been proven true archaeologically many times. For example, for years no one in the scientific community believed the Hittites existed, and called Christians fools for believing that they did. However, when the Rosetta Stone was discovered, we could suddenly decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics and they spoke of the Hittites and wars that the Egyptians had with them. Now, scientists know they did exist. The Bible had been talking about them all along.
@jwissick That's not the only one. You said, "Like what," so I gave you an answer. There's also the two men who used Scripture to find the real Mt. Sinai, and they found everything that the Israelites recorded at the same distance that the Israelites recorded the landmarks were from each other. Get the DVD, "Search for the Real Mt. Sinai."
I answered you, and you realized I was right, so you act like that's all I had, when I was simply giving the answer you asked for.
@BreathOFLaminin Buzzz. Wrong again Michael. Modern scholars are unsure of the location of sinai. The search for the real mt. Sinai is NOT peer reviewed.
@BreathOFLaminin Ah yes. More Ron Wyatt bullshit. The same twat who found the ark, the ark of the covenant, the graves of noah and his wife, Pharaoh's army's wheels in the red sea, AND the lost city of atlantis, inventor of cold fusion, the cure to AID cancer and hicc-ups and the father of god himself.
Michael, I no longer think you bullshit detector is broken. I am now convinced you never had one.
@TheIVJackal So you're blaming media hype? Also, Dawrinius isn't WRONG. the scientific consensus is simply that its classification is inconclusive. And I don't blame the media for the hype; if they are right this is a very important find.
Very little of science involve laws. The most improtant parts are the theories; they explain the laws.
@TheIVJackal Your scientific knowledge is shameful, at best. Name pretty much any argument for a young earth or against evolution and I can argue against it.
They do say they could be wrong. That's a REQUIREMENT when writing in a journal. you must explain how your idea can be disproved. That's also what a theory is. No matter how well-supported a theory is (evolution almost as well-supported as the theory of gravity), there's always a chance its wrong os not totally accurate. Scientists admit.
@TheIVJackal , Josh Mcdowell is a joke and so is Lee Strobel!! I'm sorry but it's true! Those 2 are misleading and VERY biased individuals! I don't feel that way about all theists either!
@TheIVJackal No, they don't. Almost everything they say is easily disprovable scientifically. Hell, many of the references they cite as evidence disagree and/or are totally irrelevant. They are a pathetc, childish, idiotic group who should consider going back and retaking highschool science.
@BalmungSama0 Instead of just saying that they are all disprovable, why dont you back your statement up with some references? If you would like to teach me, I think rather than ranting about how I am "shameful" and that these guys are idiots, present me with something convincing then. Prove to me that something specific they say is wrong. Dont hit me with the entire theory of evolution please.
@TheIVJackal The only claim you actually made in your entire argument that has any tie at all to an objective argument was Ida. If you'd name some more arguments i'd gladly knock 'em down for you.
@dougmoerhoffman Really? So you are saying that rabbits chew cud and bats are birds and there was a litteral flood on the entire earth and the earth is less than 10000 years old?
If that is the case, I don't need an ESL class, you need to get your head out of the bible and start looking into a good dose of reality.
@jwissick WOW, you're a novice! Have you seriously not checked out those claims? You're a baby atheist, awww. Here, I'll give you the jist of the answers--then you google and research on your own and LEARN.
* Rabbits chew their food twice. That's what the Hebrew means. That's what is true in reality. No contradiction.
* Bats are flying creatures. The Hebrew means "winged creature," which covers birds, bats, and insects. No contradiction.
I am an ex-christian of 20+ years. I know the bible.
Here's the problem. You are making shit up / making excuses. You expect me to believe that the bible is the best your all knowing all powerful god can do to communicate his most important message??? Pretty sad, that.
1. The amount of time you've spent not believing the Bible says nothing about how well you know the Bible.
2. I'm not. But if you don't take me up on my challenge to google it and research for yourself, you'll continue to think I'm making things up.
3. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Bible is "the best [God] can do," why would that be sad? I'm not following your assumptions. You'll have to take smaller steps and not assume I agree with every one of your assumptions.
1) There is no reason to believe the bible. It is demonstrably false on too many issues to be taken seriously. Belief is not a pathway to knowledge even when dealing with the bible.
2) You may not be making shit up, but you are repeating the made up shit of others. There are far too many contradiction and false things in the bible and apologetics is just the art of making excuses for the inexcusable.
@dougmoerhoffman 3) God could have transmitted a message in a way that would be less apt to distortion or mistranslation if he was all powerful. A book is the like the second WORST way to transmit a message between generations and languages.
I should also clarify that I didn't mean that you hadn't been an atheist for a long time when I said you were a 'baby,' speaking of your worldview experience. What I meant is that you're at a naive cognitive level when it comes to thinking about theological subjects, evidenced by your naive statements in your first reply post. I don't mean that as an insult, either. It just means it would be wise of you to not be haughty.
@jwissick Many creationists believed in the theory of evolution they just followed the crowd never questioned it. Answers in Genesis and other ministries have scientists on board who come to a different conclusion they both have the same data. Evolution is not set in stone it has not been observed at all even Richard Dawkins admits this he uses the stupid argument it happens we just have not observed it.
@answersvideo what about videos stating that evolution does definatly exsist and that we have got phjysical evidence to proove our theory where the hell is yours? does that get deleted?
I'm an atheist, but that is still some quality animation.
eldrewto55 4 months ago
Where insects included in the Ark? I think its unbelievable to round up every insect that exists and has ever existed. Only a small protion have been described and a very small amount kept in captivity as they often have very specific care requirements. What is a Christian explaination for this????
Hymenoptera117 4 months ago 2
The animation is so beautiful...
Ryuinfinity 6 months ago
This is so disgusting. These people have to know they're lying..
gingerbreadcorpses 8 months ago
This is a really short but sweet fairytale excerpt. Got any more?
MethanolCH3OH 8 months ago
@MrJohnnyrace You shouldn't have watched Oprah all these years, or Eckhart (however his name is spelled? But your right when man invented gods some made them out of wood, so made them up in their mind, ( twisted the character around). Some (athiests) take one character and then twist it into their own image and seeing the context. They are blind fools. That is blind leading the blind, they too will fall into the pit. I mean as Jesus said, can the blind lead the blind?
Shoots1978 8 months ago
This is a load of crap. This place should be burned.
MrCombineFaces 9 months ago 2
@MrCombineFaces Actually, I'm all for it. Let's bring in the rubes and have them pour their money into Ken Hamm's wallet rather than pouring it into the political parties of theocrats. This place is an affront to education and the sciences, but it serves a purpose socially. It's a distraction. Bread and circuses for the proudly ignorant.
NorthForkFisherman 2 weeks ago
You could probably make a better case for Santa Claus than you can for the Ark story.
1993TRS1 9 months ago 2
Fred and Wilma Flintstone, Barney and Betty Rubble. RIP.
TheKinemator 9 months ago
Yeah, build the 200 million dollar ark and then put in in water and see what happens...lol
ndjarnag 10 months ago
Despite my personal beliefs, this is actually kind of cool.
JohnFordDanceTroupe 10 months ago
lmao that was so lame I watched 'cause I was expecting something better.
sofiadragon1979 1 year ago
Even as a small child I could tell that religion was invented by people less intelligent than I.
robocong7420 1 year ago
@robocong7420 Religion is invented as to work to God. Of course that's not possible. Will a judge be bribed after committing robbery, with a person past good deeds? And if the judge accepted it, would he be a good and loving judge? How would the people feel by the one's hurt by the offender?
Shoots1978 1 year ago
@Shoots1978
come again?
robocong7420 1 year ago
That's one of the coolest 16 seconds I've seen on YouTube. Neat commercial.
shawnbrewer7 1 year ago
Great commercial!! :)
JesusTheWay2 1 year ago
lol! Bring on the proof that the great flood ever existed and I'll consider believing. Bring on the proof for the rest of the myth stories and I will believe, but believe by faith only? ROFL
99minerkc 2 years ago
@99minerkc
@99minerkc
Go to AnswersinGenesis . org If you are truly unbiased and open to hearing other views on the same evidences given to use, then you will enjoy the read. Dont be closed minded and assume that because its Christian, its wrong. They use science to back their opinions...
TheIVJackal 2 years ago
Thanks for your taking the time to respond. I'm not really interested in peoples views though but I am interested in empirical evidence. Take care! :-)
99minerkc 2 years ago
@TheIVJackal Are you kidding? Read their statement of faith.. The last part. In a nut shell they say that if reality conflicts with the bible, then reality is wrong. That's not science, that's fraud.
jwissick 1 year ago 26
@jwissick
I will admit that from a third person POV, that does not look good nor is it scientific as you say. But im not talking about their statement of faith as faith is not really a testable science with respect to what we are discussing. And it is funny that you leave out "The fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." Thats what AIG does, they point out possible/probable issues with current scientific "certainties."
TheIVJackal 1 year ago
@TheIVJackal They are pointing out only what they WANT to find. They are no playing 'devil's advocate', they are telling people lies about what science has found. Science check's itself through peer reviews. It doesn't need AIG pulling crap like it does and claiming things that the evidence doesn't support and then calling it science.
It's dishonest any way you slice it.
jwissick 1 year ago 2
@jwissick Do research and you'll find that secular scientists have at times thrown out their own research as it did not align with the overall consensus. Now that's dishonest. Look into our "Missing Link Ida," that was recently disproved. Just as you have spent time reading into evolution, take the same amount of time looking into creation. There have been those in the past that have tried to disprove the Bible, ironically, it turned them into believers! Look up Josh Mcdowell's story.
TheIVJackal 1 year ago
@TheIVJackal Thats dishonest in what universe?? Science made a mistake, foundt the mistake, admitted it, and fixed it. That is the anthesis of dishonesty and the epitome of honesty.
I was a born again YEC Christian for 20 years. Then I discovered that Christianity is a lie for fools who fear death.
There is no evidence for genesis. None. Wake up Neo.
jwissick 1 year ago
@jwissick It's dishonest becasue they run around telling everyone they uncovered this big discovery without being humble and saying that they could be wrong. Maybe we differ on what we consider "dishonest," but that is to me. Next thing you know, they got big articles around saying God is Dead. It's a circular phenomena. As far as you not being a believer anymore, I hope that one day you come back around. From a 3rd person POV, neither you or I know for sure what happens after death.
TheIVJackal 1 year ago
@TheIVJackal You don't seriously equate making errors to honesty do you? How many mistakes have you made in your life. Hell, how many in just the last week? Should that reflect on your honesty? If think it shouldn't then you really are a sanctimonious ass.
BTW, science always uses qualifiers and never deals in absolutes. They didn't say Ida was proof; they said it was likely. Go back and look again.
jwissick 1 year ago 7
@jwissick Man, youre getting nasty! Makes your argument less objective and more biased but whatever, good for me I guess. 1. Science is suppose to have Checks and Balances before something like Ida is hyped up and presented as it was. It got ridiculous press for something that was wrong. 2. Science has its laws, those laws are absolutes. Should I now go and question all the things that science says "are likely?" If this is your rationale, why have so much faith in it?
TheIVJackal 1 year ago
@TheIVJackal Science does have checks and balances and they DID work, albeit it took more evidence. Who you should blame is the media. They are the ones who went nuts and blew it up. Science searches for TRUTH. Yes it makes mistakes and corrects itself. But christianity doesn't. How long did it take for christianity to finally admit heliocentric solarsystem was fact?
No, those laws are NOT absolutes. They have never been OBSERVED to be broken; that doesn't mean they can't be broken.
jwissick 1 year ago
@jwissick I think you may have gone off the deep end bud. A law is FACT. It's a Mathematical Rule. A always = B. And it was the Catholic Church that denied heliocentricity. Dont forget, this was how everyone though it was for thousands of years. Galileo was stubborn and made his voice be heard as Copernicus did not have enough evidence to really prove his theory. I believe the Bible to be true, made clearer and believable through archeology. Our God is a God of Faith, remember that.
TheIVJackal 1 year ago
@TheIVJackal No sonny. A law is not a fact. Look up the scientific definition of law.
Mathmatical laws and scientific laws are NOT the same. Math deals with proofs. Science doesn't. Look it up. Don't take my word for it.
Bible made truer through archeology? Like what exactly?
jwissick 1 year ago
@jwissick Yes, the Bible has been proven true archaeologically many times. For example, for years no one in the scientific community believed the Hittites existed, and called Christians fools for believing that they did. However, when the Rosetta Stone was discovered, we could suddenly decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics and they spoke of the Hittites and wars that the Egyptians had with them. Now, scientists know they did exist. The Bible had been talking about them all along.
BreathOFLaminin 1 year ago
@BreathOFLaminin Michael, even a stopped clock is right twice a day... Doesn't prove it is correct about anything else.
jwissick 1 year ago
@jwissick That's not the only one. You said, "Like what," so I gave you an answer. There's also the two men who used Scripture to find the real Mt. Sinai, and they found everything that the Israelites recorded at the same distance that the Israelites recorded the landmarks were from each other. Get the DVD, "Search for the Real Mt. Sinai."
I answered you, and you realized I was right, so you act like that's all I had, when I was simply giving the answer you asked for.
BreathOFLaminin 1 year ago
@BreathOFLaminin Buzzz. Wrong again Michael. Modern scholars are unsure of the location of sinai. The search for the real mt. Sinai is NOT peer reviewed.
jwissick 1 year ago
@jwissick Yes, they do know where it is. It is clear from the DVD that the real Mt. Sinai is Jabel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia.
BreathOFLaminin 1 year ago
@BreathOFLaminin Ah yes. More Ron Wyatt bullshit. The same twat who found the ark, the ark of the covenant, the graves of noah and his wife, Pharaoh's army's wheels in the red sea, AND the lost city of atlantis, inventor of cold fusion, the cure to AID cancer and hicc-ups and the father of god himself.
Michael, I no longer think you bullshit detector is broken. I am now convinced you never had one.
jwissick 1 year ago 2
@TheIVJackal Yes you should question science. You should also question the bible. Be just as skeptical.
jwissick 1 year ago
@TheIVJackal So you're blaming media hype? Also, Dawrinius isn't WRONG. the scientific consensus is simply that its classification is inconclusive. And I don't blame the media for the hype; if they are right this is a very important find.
Very little of science involve laws. The most improtant parts are the theories; they explain the laws.
BalmungSama0 1 year ago
@TheIVJackal Your scientific knowledge is shameful, at best. Name pretty much any argument for a young earth or against evolution and I can argue against it.
They do say they could be wrong. That's a REQUIREMENT when writing in a journal. you must explain how your idea can be disproved. That's also what a theory is. No matter how well-supported a theory is (evolution almost as well-supported as the theory of gravity), there's always a chance its wrong os not totally accurate. Scientists admit.
BalmungSama0 1 year ago
@TheIVJackal , Josh Mcdowell is a joke and so is Lee Strobel!! I'm sorry but it's true! Those 2 are misleading and VERY biased individuals! I don't feel that way about all theists either!
99minerkc 1 year ago
@TheIVJackal No, they don't. Almost everything they say is easily disprovable scientifically. Hell, many of the references they cite as evidence disagree and/or are totally irrelevant. They are a pathetc, childish, idiotic group who should consider going back and retaking highschool science.
BalmungSama0 1 year ago
@BalmungSama0 Instead of just saying that they are all disprovable, why dont you back your statement up with some references? If you would like to teach me, I think rather than ranting about how I am "shameful" and that these guys are idiots, present me with something convincing then. Prove to me that something specific they say is wrong. Dont hit me with the entire theory of evolution please.
TheIVJackal 1 year ago
@TheIVJackal The only claim you actually made in your entire argument that has any tie at all to an objective argument was Ida. If you'd name some more arguments i'd gladly knock 'em down for you.
BalmungSama0 1 year ago
@jwissick Good thing reality doesn't conflict with the Bible! ( ;
BeyondtheChaos1 7 months ago
@jwissick I'm sorry, you misread. It says if people conflict with the Bible, then the people are wrong. As you may know, people are seldom realistic.
dougmoerhoffman 5 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman Your statement is demonstrably wrong and just plain absurd.
jwissick 5 months ago
@jwissick You need to take an ESL class.
dougmoerhoffman 5 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman Really? So you are saying that rabbits chew cud and bats are birds and there was a litteral flood on the entire earth and the earth is less than 10000 years old?
If that is the case, I don't need an ESL class, you need to get your head out of the bible and start looking into a good dose of reality.
jwissick 5 months ago
@jwissick WOW, you're a novice! Have you seriously not checked out those claims? You're a baby atheist, awww. Here, I'll give you the jist of the answers--then you google and research on your own and LEARN.
* Rabbits chew their food twice. That's what the Hebrew means. That's what is true in reality. No contradiction.
* Bats are flying creatures. The Hebrew means "winged creature," which covers birds, bats, and insects. No contradiction.
It is you who needs to do some serious research.
dougmoerhoffman 5 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman No. You are a novice.
I am an ex-christian of 20+ years. I know the bible.
Here's the problem. You are making shit up / making excuses. You expect me to believe that the bible is the best your all knowing all powerful god can do to communicate his most important message??? Pretty sad, that.
jwissick 5 months ago
@jwissick
1. The amount of time you've spent not believing the Bible says nothing about how well you know the Bible.
2. I'm not. But if you don't take me up on my challenge to google it and research for yourself, you'll continue to think I'm making things up.
3. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Bible is "the best [God] can do," why would that be sad? I'm not following your assumptions. You'll have to take smaller steps and not assume I agree with every one of your assumptions.
dougmoerhoffman 5 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman
1) There is no reason to believe the bible. It is demonstrably false on too many issues to be taken seriously. Belief is not a pathway to knowledge even when dealing with the bible.
2) You may not be making shit up, but you are repeating the made up shit of others. There are far too many contradiction and false things in the bible and apologetics is just the art of making excuses for the inexcusable.
jwissick 5 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman 3) God could have transmitted a message in a way that would be less apt to distortion or mistranslation if he was all powerful. A book is the like the second WORST way to transmit a message between generations and languages.
jwissick 5 months ago
I should also clarify that I didn't mean that you hadn't been an atheist for a long time when I said you were a 'baby,' speaking of your worldview experience. What I meant is that you're at a naive cognitive level when it comes to thinking about theological subjects, evidenced by your naive statements in your first reply post. I don't mean that as an insult, either. It just means it would be wise of you to not be haughty.
dougmoerhoffman 5 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman Hardly.
I am not naive on the subject of the bible or christianity. Quite the contrary. I just now (for many years now) find it absurd and untenable.
jwissick 5 months ago
@jwissick Many creationists believed in the theory of evolution they just followed the crowd never questioned it. Answers in Genesis and other ministries have scientists on board who come to a different conclusion they both have the same data. Evolution is not set in stone it has not been observed at all even Richard Dawkins admits this he uses the stupid argument it happens we just have not observed it.
lv4ev5 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@lv4ev5
And AiG is 100% wrong.
Evolution HAS been observed and your statement from Dawkins is a lie.
jwissick 2 weeks ago
@TheIVJackal I do go there sometimes. It is enjoyable reading, from a comedic perspective
mime454 1 year ago
@99minerkc Dont hold your breath waiting.
jwissick 1 year ago
Having an open mind is good, but... that place still doesn't give any proof.
Maximatum99 2 years ago
You can immediately tell which videos censor comments
MarkG45 2 years ago 8
@MarkG45 We do not censor negative comments; only the foul, abusive comments.
answersvideo 1 year ago 3
@answersvideo what about videos stating that evolution does definatly exsist and that we have got phjysical evidence to proove our theory where the hell is yours? does that get deleted?
Boxanadu 1 year ago
Sweet commercial!!
thenowinstitute 2 years ago
Awesome!
theTRUTHgroup 2 years ago
Cool
jvdanilo 2 years ago
Really good animation.
Maybe if guys put this much effort into being scientific you might be half-way credible.
BalmungSama0 2 years ago
@BalmungSama0 , well said!
99minerkc 2 years ago