@BlackDevilJayko I just visited it, looked at the abortion bias. and they said how there are articles about por-life violence but not pro-choice violence. right next to the comment was the little number indicating a source. i thought it was going to be a link to a case of pro-choice crime, but no, it was a link to a non-existent prochoice violence page. claiming this makes it biased. these people are so crazy that they claim both sides arent told, yet they have no proof to show
@ThatMeatalGuy123 That's why I said that you were going to laugh, they show no proof of their assertions, but they are religious zealots, proof or evidence, neither of those words are in their vocabulary.
ever since i was dignoised with down syndrome i have looked for those similar to myself in intellect almost imediatly i found him like a gift from heaven all the shit that come out of his mouth makes me feel so good because it reminds me just when you think your retarded their are creationists
One minor correction: we sent a geologist to the moon: Harrisson "Jack" Schmidt, on Apollo 17. Beyond that, we sent a number of astronauts who had received training in geology, but that hardly makes them geologists. :-)
@Dilandau3000 True, but remember at that point it was pretty much just air force pilots if I remember right, not really just pure breed scientific crews like today.
Oh how i which nasa would get more funding, so it can push the imagination of people once more.
Neph is a real tuff guy! Blocking all negative comments, way to go coward! I would love to see him confront anyone in person and watch him cave. Ever wonder where he works? Now that he cured his Mommy of cancer she probably takes care of him.
@4:39 - i actually felt sorry for this guy after hearing this. or... then again, he is probably trolling, either way, I felt a great deal of sadness at his state of this mans mind. i dont even want to insult him in any mean way... im just beond words at hearing this
the only thing that cracked open was neffy's head and the only thing that shot into space was neffy's brain. i am always amazed at creatard's arrogance and pride in their stupidity. i admire your patience in addressing these desperate fools. they completely ignore common sense, not to mention centuries of knowledge to prop up their holey bible. no creatards, i did not misspell anything.
Because Nephilimfree supports a young-earth, i.e. one of 6,000 years old.
The moon has too many craters to support a young earth, as it would assume the moon would be bombarded on a much more frequent basis, which would naturally be an observable event. Hence, his psuedo-scientific theory.
creationists will go to any length to try to support their silly claims, even, it seems from this video, picking out of one's nose the comment that one is a geocentrist! Yes people! The whole universe revolves around the Earth. And if you believe that, I've got some real estate in Florida that might be of interest to y'all...
I was surprised neph didn't claim there was an ice age after the flood like I've recently heard in another creationist video. But theories are just theories, aren't they?
I think neph just made up this moon-crater cockamamie because he realized that the enormous number of craters on the moon are a disproof of his YEC delusion.
@TheSmackerlacker Not really; at the beginning it was their answers, not just a lazy excuse to not deal with the truth. Religion was the very beginning of science-bear with me here-because it's that idea that we can find a REASON for things being the way they are that is the very foundation of science today. Their reasons were wrong, but the idea behind them was sound, that humanity can find out why things work the way they do.
@purplesquirrl Religion is NOT a sound method for determining what the universe is or how it works, because it does not search for those answers.
Religion invents answers, and declares them to be true. Scientists think up possibilities, and test them rigorously. Those that withstand the testing are added to what we know.
There is a HUGE difference between science and religion. Science is a search for truth. Religion is a placebo.
@TheSmackerlacker Sigh, maybe an English class would do you some good so you could understand my statement.
AT THE BEGINNING, meaning, when the first men saw things they could not comprehend, not now. Never now, and the first men would likely regard current religions as ridiculous when other explanations are available.
Scientists do ask why. Newton did not ask what? When the apple fell, he asked why did the apple fall?
@TheSmackerlacker Also, again, I know that you idiot, science is not religion. Really? No way?
The beginnings of religion had the same goal as science now; to explain what we do not yet understand. They were wrong, but they tried, and that is the difference between religions then and now. Religions now do not seek to provide an answer to any natural phenomena, because we already know the reasons for why things work the way they do.
@TheSmackerlacker Lastly, do not get so defensive merely because someone mentions religion. I even agree with you, yet you manage to come off as a jackass. That is no way to prove a point, especially if it is true.
@purplesquirrl If I'm right, I'm right. It doesn't matter if I'm nice about it. I don't have the patience to deal with religious bullshit. I've put up with it long enough.
Religious people are selfish, arrogant and belligerent.
There's only one way to deal with belligerent people, and that is to be belligerent right back. Any other response will be seen as weakness, and they'll take it as an opportunity to walk all over you.
@TheSmackerlacker Yes, come off as a militant atheist, that'll help things. Seriously, your attitude makes it impossible for you to be taken even slightly seriously by anyone but an angsty teenager.
I don't understand why the craters on the moon violate any principle of Creationists' in the first place. (not that those clown shoes really need a reason to squeak and slip in their own drool)
Makes me think of Voltair singing "Make Some Shit Up" regarding the Star Trek series. That neph guy isn't even writing good science fantasy with his statements.
man, this guy is crazy! he posted a video about a evolution pownage contest and i said one thing that wasn't aggressive and he blocked me!! he doesn't like anyone who disagrees with him
Geocentrism eh? How can people actually make the choice to be a self righteous idiot? If there really was a God he would not have made moron's like this.
Oh god, why did you create creationists? Ignoring for a second that such an explanation for the ejection of water would lead to the devastation of the planet, how does he expect his mythical god plankton to survive the lunar impact?
Man , you are the voice of reason , you are an inspiration , not only for the U.S and U.K people , for all of us , I am from south america , and only a few here understands these videos , this series must be translated to other languages with subtitles , im a self instructed in the english language , for that reason I cant do it , there are some words i cant nderstand totally , but , I hope somone can do it , I cant stop watching your videos .
@EdyMar77 You're English sounds great, for the most part. Bet a Bible didn't magically manipulate your mind to choice to learn it. After Spanish, I'm learning Portuguese.
@EdyMar77 Here in Israel we have a similiar series of videos inspired by these which do the same thing but attacking jewish creationists (Datiyim). Every country have these kind of creationist people and every country should have videos like this to counter them.
Kent Hovind is in jail because he was trying to warn the world that their is a dark agenda out there that aims at destroying the morality of every man woman and child making them into beasts. In fact Darwinism states that we evolved from mere beasts. God says you should hold your head up because you have been given free will by an all powerful all wise and all loving Creator. Jesus answered "Woe to them who worship the Created (Monkeys/Primates) rather then the Creator."
hmm i am getting this feeling as atheist i must believe in science when in actuality science is as dangerous for humanity as religion.We atheist should keep science under a tight control because we KNOW what could do also with all do respect theoretical science smell as bad as religion so please for once and for all ATHEISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE
Are you shitting me? A fucking geocentric universe? You might as well say the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese. How does that man dress himself, he's so goddamn stupid.
I can't wait until this whole argument is over and then Shintoist Creationists will have their arguments against Christian creationists. Let the battle begin.
I thought geocentrism died off centuries ago... How the fuck can anyone believe that the universe spins around the earth?! We have conclusive proof that it does no such thing!
i think the problem is we assume too much. God told the animals to get on the arc, who's to say he didn't tell the bacteria to get out of the water? and if all this water was not yet in the air (and space) would the escape velocity be lower? plus maybe all the far side moon craters are from meteors that would have hurt the earth, like God's protection. just sayin maybe.
@jeobeahon If bacteria got out of their environment they would have died very, very, very quickly. Also, the ark couldn't have held 2 of each animal on earth - and nowhere near enough food. Additionally, claiming god made the moon to block asteroids is ridiculous. God could easily make sure asteroids just didn't hit earth. The moon's a pretty pathetically tiny shield.
@Stairc i mean if they moved from the "space water" to the "flood water" before hand. plus it took noah, supposedly, 40 years to build a giant ark. who says certain animals didnt become smaller seeing as some think 'evolution' happens after long periods but in short time frames. and hibernation could probably hold the animals off for 40 days.
Evolution in a 'short time frame' registers in the millions of years buddy. Not in 40.
Also, if every animal in the world was half the size it currently is, Noah would still be dealing with species numbering in the billions. You can't get that on a boat the size the bible talks about for even one single day, much less 40.
Plus, if there WAS a global extinction via flood of nearly everything, we'd have lots of evidence for it. We don't.
@Stairc actually i was saying that maybe the animals got on, hibernated, got off and adapted to the new environment, creating more species variations, the same way humans became giants, dwarfs, different colors/ethnicites/families, etc, depending on where they went.
as for scientific evidence(of floods, time frames, etc), it all depends on our laws of nature remaining constant, which is 98% probable. in a 'faith' perspective, that 2% is pretty good leeway for God.
@jeobeahon 1) The 'adapting to environment' through species diversification would take millions upon millions of years. No go. Also, still no room for them.
2) No. Unless you're proposing that, while every major event throughout history has always left the same evidence, water shits and such, a global extinction somehow left NO fossils - this is BS. If you have to suggest that the fossilized corpses and water effects all magically disappeared for your idea to work, it's ridiculous.
@Stairc all im really saying is if you go by science, sure its it's likely it some things didn't happen. but since we weren't there, we scientifically infer, we don't know.
but believers 'know', by faith. the point of the bible, almost, is that so many things happened that were 'illogical' or 'impossible', you realize God does what he wants, when he wants, for His divine reason, and He can literally do anything. im not saying this guy is right or wrong, im saying 'if'.
@jeobeahon Scientific inference is the only demonstrably accurate way to determine fact from fantasy. It has a phenomenal track record of success in uncovering the truth and leading to new discoveries. Faith has zero. It is, by definition, belief without any justification. Faith never has a zero percent track record of showing us any testable truths. Throw faith against science and science is clearly the winner in determining what actually happened.
@Stairc faith is only without justification to those who don't believe. a secular man uses science to say 'since this happens now, that happened then' (over-simplification). but to them the proof is theoretical, a 99.9% actuality.
those who have seen God work, felt the 'truth' in their own way, say the same thing, just using different evidence, in a 100% actuality; to them there IS no error margin. they (hopefully) sifted through the facts and found a way to explain things.
@jeobeahon No. Because if god sends a thunderbolt or a flood, the results would still be observable. We would sill be able to see the results of those actions. If god splits a mountain, we would be able to see that the mountain had been split. Only if god then undid all his major actions would they be unnoticeable... Meaning they never mattered to begin with.
And when has faith EVER reliably led to accurate knowledge of the universe?
@Stairc but if the results look different because of the way God works they could be proven as other happenings.
if i said i ran across the country without my shoes, you'd check to see if my feet are bloody. but if i ran it in someone elses shoes ("w/o MY shoes"), and you check my bare feet you wouldn't believe me.
but yeah ur right, most faiths are better about life guidelines than prehistory.
@jeobeahon No. If you claimed to run it BAREFOOT we'd look for that. Regardless, we can examine the world to see what DID happen (someone running across the country in shoes) and thus wouldn't have to worry about your trouble with explaining the story. We'd see what happened in either case. Regardless, science would get the right answer about what DID happen when properly applied.
Believing something without evidence is never a pathway to truth.
@Stairc no if i was a hermit, and said i ran w/o my shoes it is then unlikely that i have another pair. you assume i ran w/o shoes but the earth evidence points against it; therefore, to you, im 'lying'. from the present no one can say what DID happen but what LIKELY happened, some to a further probability than others. but if you believe God exists, who can do anything, then even a .0000003% error of science is enough to know He exists. God doesn't always work in ways we explain.
@jeobeahon And you would be lying. You are claiming to have run without YOUR shoes, which according to you is true. There would be different tests to determine whether you ran without shoes (footprints,blistered feet) and whole other ones to determine whose shoes you ran in (DNA samples, etc.)
You aren't helping yourself. If god kills all animals in the world there should be REMAINS of those animals unless god is intentionally trying to make his book look false.
@Stairc no i wouldn't be lying, i'd be telling a truth that you don't know, that you might never know, and never think true.
and if there was complete evidence of God's work, perfect documentation, perfect logic, perfect explanation, then it wouldn't be God's work. even if it was, it could then be explained not as God but godless nature. He does what we can't comprehend. a being who exists w/o beginning or end, who can breath life into dirt, doesn't need to explain himself.
1) Science doesn't operate on the claimer's trustworthiness. If someone wanted to determine if your claim was correct they'd look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that you crossed the country in shoes. Then they would test dna in the shoes and discover if they were yours or not.
2) You're claiming that God is god simply because there's no real evidence for what he does. Then how an one distinguish a real god from a delusion? If you can't, tough luck.
1) I tell someone "i ran w/o my shoes". my shoes are not worn, my feet are not as bad as they should be. evidence says somebody ran, but w/ shoes. no one who saw me (from the past) is here. all i have on my feet is my shoes (the evidence). if i say no more (God isn't screaming down at us all), one would say "liar, some one else ran." my son (a person of faith) believes me, although i never tell him how. it's an analogy; its not airtight.
@jeobeahon 1) You're missing the point. If your claim is, "I ran without my shoes" - the evidence would lead to us determining that you DID run with shoes... But there would as yet be no evidence that they were YOUR shoes. We'd then look for evidence of shoe ownership. Science would have no problem evaluating the claim. And even if it WAS indeterminable, we would simply say, "we don't know what happened" rather than jumping to an unsupported conclusion.
@Stairc its an analogy; its not air tight. the exact way i set it up, everything is a symbol. the father speaking = God. the son/daughter believing = no duh. the person disapproving = the world. symbolism.
2) God speaks to the heart of a real believer. It's different for everyone, but you know it's real because of physical AND spiritual evidence. you say its silly to use the moon as a 'shield' but maybe God just wanted it that way. He say and disciples say (in holy texts) the way is narrow, it's not easy to follow, you will be tempted, etc.
individuals have their own reasons sure but just because they aren't a majority doesn't make them instantly wrong.
@jeobeahon 2) First, provide the physical evidence.
Second, Hindus claim their gods speak to their hearts. So did the Greeks. The Egyptians. The Norse. Scientologists claim they feel it's true. Janists, Shinto, Jews, Muslims. As do people in insane asylums who believe that they're Napolean or can talk to trees.
Again, you are parroting what people suffering from delusions say. So how can we distinguish your belief in God from a delusion?
@Stairc people claim to see miracles everywhere that other people say are chance. people are saved from death, overcome trials, etc.
if someone says God is love and murders a person either they don't know God for sure or they sent them selves to hell. whether or not a person is aligned with the true God is determined by whether their behavior and beliefs line up. "but they dont line up". says you. God knows, and when it's all over God will still know. all we need to worry about is peace.
Now, how can we distinguish all those beliefs from a delusion? I keep asking and you never answer. Until you do, there's no reason to buy your preaching over anyone else's.
@Stairc the only reason humans know what we know is because it's been tested, but those tests are not 100% positive. we theorize and such because of info we previously collect but the results are not always what we expect. a simple secular man can't explain how light works, unless he knew a little about the subject. the same could be said of a spiritual man on the subject of Godly matters. i can only say so much but as someone who won't even consider the basics, you can't understand.
@jeobeahon In other words, you have no way to distinguish your belief from a delusion. That must be tragic.
If you want to try proving that your gut feelings are a better determinant of reality than evidence and the scientific method - that's easy to set up tests for. Until then, we stick with what's been shown to work the BEST, even if it isn't always perfect.
Now that you've agree you can't distinguish your religion from a delusion, perhaps you get why we compare it to unicorns
@Stairc no im just saying that you don't believe. and id rather believe in God and say it's ok not to than not believe and call everyone else crazy. all sort of intricacies that science and logic can not explain, faith can. in the many areas where they clash, you pick a side.
but everything is relative. the proof is in the pudding and the flavor of the day is the suicide of man.
« all sort of intricacies that science and logic can not explain, faith can »
Okay. Explain, using faith, why we live in a universe with a cosmological constant near zero, in stead of, for instance, a universe with a big crunch at the end.
@jeobeahon So, you can't distinguish your belief from a delusion.
Additionally, faith can't explain anything. Faith is by definition belief without evidence - which is belief without any good reason, just because you feel like it. Faith has a 0% track record of getting anything right that we've ever tested. Faith doesn't explain things any more than wishful thinking. You don't like the answer or not knowing the answer, so you make one up.
@Stairc sigh. faith is trusting in God; it IS the evidence of things not seen. God proves Himself to be real on the spiritual plane. if one never felt it, they don't get it.
a physically blind man has no concept of color. colors might still exist. "might" because he lives and dies with no proof but word of mouth. another man with eyes knows that colors are there but when he sleeps, he only remembers those colors, no real proof. (symbolism)
@jeobeahon No. Faith is by definition belief without evidence.
And color can easily be proven to a blind man. Put three different colored boxes in a room and have the blind man put a rock in the one with 'blue' written on it in braile. on its back. Let him shuffle the boxes. Then a seeing man will come into the room and point to the blue one to determine where the rock is (without seeing the braile). This will demonstrate there is an additional quality about the boxes. Color
@jeobeahon Your analogies are actually fine. However, your argument is what's flawed. There is literally no way that faith can be evidence, because faith is belief 'without' evidence.
If you have no way of distinguishing your belief from a delusion - you really have no reliable reason to believe. Of course, I know this doesn't matter to you. You begin with the conclusion then look for evidence. That's backwards.
But I know that you'll keep believing anyway. So, happy christmas.
@jeobeahon It's just the dictionary definition of faith buddy. And if you have no evidence to base your belief on, it makes sense to say you have no reliable reason to believe - as all of human history has demonstrated that evidence is the only reliable determiner of what's correct.
I'm not sure how simply stating that is aggressive. But, if you feel that way, that's your business.
@Stairc Faith is not belief without evidence. For example, I bet you haven't been to every country in the world, but by FAITH in years of people telling you that they exist, you believe they exist. It isn't wishful thinking, it is based on evidence. Faith is trusting in someone, or even God, and it doesn't have to be without evidence.
@Chrisssss158 The dictionary definition is belief without evidence. Feel free to call up the dictionary companies and tell them they should change their definitions.
I have never been to Australia but I'm quite certain it exists. How? Because it's either a massive, ridiculously funded global conspiracy accepted by everyone who's ever traveled to Australia and everyone who buys a ticket enters into it, and every geographer as well... Or it's just a real place. Which is more likely?
@Chrisssss158 There is a massive amount of evidence to be sure that Australia does in fact exist and it would be ludicrous to believe like Stairc said that it might be an enormous conspiracy. But your faith has no evidence at all, that's why it's faith
@wHisperis001 Yeah I agree that it is completely ridiculous that Austrialia not exist, but the point of that analogy was to show that faith is not necessarily without evidence. There is plenty of evidence for Christianity. For example, the resurrection, or the fact that for life to exist without intelligent life guiding it would be 1 out of 10^10^123, as calculated by Roger Penrose, a non-theist physicist. In case you weren't sure I mean to put 2 exponential functions, itsgreater than googleplex
@Chrisssss158 And this is where is the disagreement because I am skeptical of the bible and the events that supposedly happened in there. If you hold the bible as evidence for Yahweh but do not hold he bhagavad gita as evidence for Lord Vishnu then you are intellectually dishonest. Yes, the existence of everything is the most interesting and hard question that humans will ever see, but because there is no good answer yet I will not accept bad ones.
@wHisperis001 All the evidence for the resurrection does not necessarily come from the bible. There were many people outside the Christian community in the first century who wrote about the resurrection. These are writers that historians regard as trustworthy, and without we would lose a ton of history.
The evidence I gave would make atheism seem very unreasonable, so would that would make atheism the bad answer, which you believe. is there really still no evidence for God?
@Chrisssss158 What a joke, the historians you are referring to are Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Seutonius and Josephus. Josephus is the oldest one, who was born 37 years after the crucifixion. Not to mention anyone of them barely mention the resurrection. The best shot you got is with Josephus who actually wrote the thing in 93 AD. You haven't gave any real evidence at all yet, still rendering your answer a bad one.
@wHisperis001 They mentioned the resurrection, I never said anything else.Back to the Bible, it has much more historical backing. Hindus believe that the Bhagavad gita was written 5000 years ago, but the earliest manuscript we find of it was in 200 AD,while early epistles were written in 50 AD, 20 years after Christ's death.
I haven't given any real evidence yet? I gave you a statistic by a scientist. What else do you want. You won't trust the Bible, and now you wont trust scientst? I cant argue
@Chrisssss158 So just mentioning something makes it true? Mentioning something and saying that that thing is true are 2 different things. Statistics? I would like to know how exactly did he come up with that number. Not to mention he himself explained this probability of the universe by the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model. "and now you wont trust scientst?" Looks like you trust the scientist only half the way. Not sure what's your point with the age of Bhagavad gita..
@XGralgrathor well, your comment was hidden as spam, but lets say this:
the best scientist doesn't say 'the universe works like this', he says 'based on what i've observed for myself, the universe probably works like this, assuming that guy was right.'
Here I go with the face palming again.It had just healed from watching the first series of thunderfoots videos and now he starts with this idiot. I'm on the floor again ! lol
This Nephi guy is a colossal know nothing. Geocentrism my eye, does anyone actually believe he makes any real sense? I know he thinks about these things, but what does he actually know?
The craters on the moon were caused by Noah's Flood?? Can it get any funnier? I'm just wondering how long Thunderf00t took to quit laughing before he could narrate the video with a straight face.
What's funnier than a futile creationist attempt at mathematics? An ambiguous and meaningless metaphor that attempts to refute emperical evidence. Good try, but you're not convincing anyone.
Why, then, are the mathematical propositions distinguished from other propositions by absolute necessary certainty?
Further, we do not admit that all mathematical propositions are analytic and an extension of the principle 'Four is four'. How could the truth stating 'The diameter is always shorter than the circumference' be an analytic proposition?
Are 'shortness' and 'circumference' included in the notion of 'diameter'? And is 'diameter' another expression for the statement, 'The diameter is a diameter'?
Still, it remains for us to study one point concerning the rational doctrine namely, that if the primary information is rational and necessary, then how is it possible to explain its absence in human beings at the beginning [of their existence], and their acquisition of it at a later date?
Re: comments at 0.55s It's just not possible to tell by observation which, if either, of the earth or sun is at the centre of the system in which we live.
If it was possible ,the Greeks, Romans and earlier very clever people would have been able to tell us what Galileo tried to tell us.
"The satellite observations of temperature and water vapor are reasonably consistent with the model results, making us more confident that we can calculate their trends correctly. Water vapor breaks down in the stratosphere, releasing reactive hydrogen oxide molecules that destroy ozone. These molecules also react with chlorine containing gases, converting them into forms that destroy ozone as well. So a wetter stratosphere will have less ozone."
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Every time I hear the first few seconds of the video, I kill myself laughing. Just something about the way he utters his challenge. He sorta reminds me of Kip from Napoleon Dynamite.
I love how your videos segue from the most soul crushing stupidity to some very intelligent, well made sequences that explain the nature of things very well. I just don't know how you don't give up. "Wait, did he say he is a geocentrist? Fuck it, I'm out". I know I have a limit for what I will debate.
nephy is too dumb to be a geocentric, i mean come on.... water flew onto the moon? oh please, it would burn up and evaporate into our atmosphere before even reaching 7000 ft above sea level
Thermal energy was not considered in the energy balance equation. If all thermal energy of water was successfully transferred to kinetic energy, one would need to achieve temperatures of around 100000 K to be able to propel water up to the escape velocity of the Earth. With temperature in the Earths core which are on the order of 5000K one would get water to around 250km of height .
Totally agree with your point, but your history is off. The church persecuted Galileo for presenting his view as the only view as opposed to a potential alternative.
The reason this is a key factor is because his view was no more accurate mathematically then the geocentric model because it was based on perfect circles and therefore required epicycles to work about as often as the geocentric model.
Johannes Kepler bears much more responsibility since he created a rather accurate model.
I am not sure you are puting foward his silly argument accuratlly. He bassically makes the observation that water coming out of a hose out of presure will go higher then if you just have it coming out un aided. Then he claims that when reaching orbit they bnecome comets. these comets now colide with the moon thus no aim and hitting anywhere on the moon required.
@InternetDarkLord you are right about that, but I can blame him for acting like all Christians are creationists. If he were half as smart as he thinks he is, he would know thta the pope belives in evolution. The CTholic Church states that part of their beliefs is that you can believe in evolution as long as you also say that god had some sort of hand in the evolution process
Evolution proves nothing about god. The Pope believes in evolution, that the earth is over 4 million years old, and that the earth revolves around the sun. If you think all thrusts are creationists, you are more ignorant that creationists are. But the creationist being discussed is quite ridiculous, probably Bachmen's crazy train
tfoot- how can we know density of an object by just looking at it?
chinh101 1 day ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
That's just a common misconception about Galileo that the church threatened to kill him. In reality they "just" wanted to throw him in prison.
IAmClockwork 2 days ago
You should really visit Conservapedia someday, you are gonna laugh your guts off.
BlackDevilJayko 4 days ago
@BlackDevilJayko I just visited it, looked at the abortion bias. and they said how there are articles about por-life violence but not pro-choice violence. right next to the comment was the little number indicating a source. i thought it was going to be a link to a case of pro-choice crime, but no, it was a link to a non-existent prochoice violence page. claiming this makes it biased. these people are so crazy that they claim both sides arent told, yet they have no proof to show
ThatMeatalGuy123 2 days ago
@ThatMeatalGuy123 That's why I said that you were going to laugh, they show no proof of their assertions, but they are religious zealots, proof or evidence, neither of those words are in their vocabulary.
BlackDevilJayko 1 day ago
Nephilimfree is my hero
ever since i was dignoised with down syndrome i have looked for those similar to myself in intellect almost imediatly i found him like a gift from heaven all the shit that come out of his mouth makes me feel so good because it reminds me just when you think your retarded their are creationists
elflordbob1 6 days ago 2
One minor correction: we sent a geologist to the moon: Harrisson "Jack" Schmidt, on Apollo 17. Beyond that, we sent a number of astronauts who had received training in geology, but that hardly makes them geologists. :-)
Dilandau3000 1 week ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@Dilandau3000 True, but remember at that point it was pretty much just air force pilots if I remember right, not really just pure breed scientific crews like today.
Oh how i which nasa would get more funding, so it can push the imagination of people once more.
TheSolitaryTraveller 1 week ago
@TheSolitaryTraveller That's why Schmidt was exceptional: he is the only true scientist (and the only geologist) to have walked on the moon. :)
Dilandau3000 1 week ago
when i heard that guy dude headphone wearing guy about the moon... i immediately died of laughter and risen 3 minutes later...
Arthyna 1 week ago
Comment removed
SilentMott 1 week ago
I love how this creationist speaks of his mad theories with such confidence.
Armak117 1 week ago
Neph is a real tuff guy! Blocking all negative comments, way to go coward! I would love to see him confront anyone in person and watch him cave. Ever wonder where he works? Now that he cured his Mommy of cancer she probably takes care of him.
gateman42 2 weeks ago
@gateman42 his overinflated ego cannot take it so he just blocks it out
cropathfinder 5 days ago
@4:39 - i actually felt sorry for this guy after hearing this. or... then again, he is probably trolling, either way, I felt a great deal of sadness at his state of this mans mind. i dont even want to insult him in any mean way... im just beond words at hearing this
bluexepnos 2 weeks ago
Actually Galileo was more put on trial for insulting the pope in his book, whose words he put in as the dialogue for the fool. The more you know.
Sorrowman9000 2 weeks ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
"If NASA goes to the moon ...." ... said decades after NASA has been too the moon.
KittenKoder 2 weeks ago
the only thing that cracked open was neffy's head and the only thing that shot into space was neffy's brain. i am always amazed at creatard's arrogance and pride in their stupidity. i admire your patience in addressing these desperate fools. they completely ignore common sense, not to mention centuries of knowledge to prop up their holey bible. no creatards, i did not misspell anything.
cotton9386 2 weeks ago
Somebody explain to me why creationists argue about craters, what argument are they trying to support with this?
kyekire 3 weeks ago
@kyekire.
Because Nephilimfree supports a young-earth, i.e. one of 6,000 years old.
The moon has too many craters to support a young earth, as it would assume the moon would be bombarded on a much more frequent basis, which would naturally be an observable event. Hence, his psuedo-scientific theory.
SeasonsOfBlue 2 weeks ago
creationists will go to any length to try to support their silly claims, even, it seems from this video, picking out of one's nose the comment that one is a geocentrist! Yes people! The whole universe revolves around the Earth. And if you believe that, I've got some real estate in Florida that might be of interest to y'all...
I was surprised neph didn't claim there was an ice age after the flood like I've recently heard in another creationist video. But theories are just theories, aren't they?
zaxxxon 3 weeks ago
I think neph just made up this moon-crater cockamamie because he realized that the enormous number of craters on the moon are a disproof of his YEC delusion.
klesks8686 3 weeks ago
Religion. Making shit up so you don't have to find the real answers since the beginning of human history.
TheSmackerlacker 4 weeks ago 18
@TheSmackerlacker Not really; at the beginning it was their answers, not just a lazy excuse to not deal with the truth. Religion was the very beginning of science-bear with me here-because it's that idea that we can find a REASON for things being the way they are that is the very foundation of science today. Their reasons were wrong, but the idea behind them was sound, that humanity can find out why things work the way they do.
purplesquirrl 3 weeks ago
@purplesquirrl Religion is NOT a sound method for determining what the universe is or how it works, because it does not search for those answers.
Religion invents answers, and declares them to be true. Scientists think up possibilities, and test them rigorously. Those that withstand the testing are added to what we know.
There is a HUGE difference between science and religion. Science is a search for truth. Religion is a placebo.
Scientists do not ask why, only what.
TheSmackerlacker 3 weeks ago
@TheSmackerlacker Sigh, maybe an English class would do you some good so you could understand my statement.
AT THE BEGINNING, meaning, when the first men saw things they could not comprehend, not now. Never now, and the first men would likely regard current religions as ridiculous when other explanations are available.
Scientists do ask why. Newton did not ask what? When the apple fell, he asked why did the apple fall?
purplesquirrl 3 weeks ago
@TheSmackerlacker Also, again, I know that you idiot, science is not religion. Really? No way?
The beginnings of religion had the same goal as science now; to explain what we do not yet understand. They were wrong, but they tried, and that is the difference between religions then and now. Religions now do not seek to provide an answer to any natural phenomena, because we already know the reasons for why things work the way they do.
purplesquirrl 3 weeks ago
@TheSmackerlacker Lastly, do not get so defensive merely because someone mentions religion. I even agree with you, yet you manage to come off as a jackass. That is no way to prove a point, especially if it is true.
purplesquirrl 3 weeks ago
@purplesquirrl If I'm right, I'm right. It doesn't matter if I'm nice about it. I don't have the patience to deal with religious bullshit. I've put up with it long enough.
Religious people are selfish, arrogant and belligerent.
There's only one way to deal with belligerent people, and that is to be belligerent right back. Any other response will be seen as weakness, and they'll take it as an opportunity to walk all over you.
I've seen it too many times. No more.
FUCK religion.
TheSmackerlacker 3 weeks ago
@TheSmackerlacker Yes, come off as a militant atheist, that'll help things. Seriously, your attitude makes it impossible for you to be taken even slightly seriously by anyone but an angsty teenager.
purplesquirrl 3 weeks ago
@TheSmackerlacker Oh shit so I am not lazy I am just religious xD...
blah1311 5 days ago
Sometimes I really don't know if explanations like this (4:04) are simply amusingly stupid and unscientific or just scary.!!
djalessandromagno 1 month ago
While i applaud you for 'debunking' this guys ideas I believe I could accomplish the same feat in 5 words" 'you are a fkn moron'
hostyle0 1 month ago
Neph is a nut!
Tommyr 1 month ago
0:01 that guy is stoooooooooned
puddinggreg 1 month ago
i think we have a new PCS...
or did VFX come back from his latest "i quit the internets" phase (again), i stopped keeping track of that lulzcow a while ago
DreadzKaiser 1 month ago
I don't understand why the craters on the moon violate any principle of Creationists' in the first place. (not that those clown shoes really need a reason to squeak and slip in their own drool)
PaladinHero 1 month ago
Makes me think of Voltair singing "Make Some Shit Up" regarding the Star Trek series. That neph guy isn't even writing good science fantasy with his statements.
ciuacoatl 1 month ago
completely irrelevant, but...
cumulonimbus forming in the horizon at 1:45 !
JaJDoo 1 month ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
4:35 "Oh Dear" lol
my thoughts exactly.
BookofArda 1 month ago
willy the moon whale
- how did I * FREEZE *
he is now dead
gatcat129 1 month ago 2
I think the guy in the Video lives in his own world.
Molybdan42 2 months ago
2:29 JOVIAN ECLIPSE
diegonikki 2 months ago
man, this guy is crazy! he posted a video about a evolution pownage contest and i said one thing that wasn't aggressive and he blocked me!! he doesn't like anyone who disagrees with him
christiawi9 2 months ago
@christiawi9
Here's something for you to try.
Go tho Shockofgod's videos. Comment on them and see how long it takes for him to subscribe to you.
He apparently subscribes because he wants to keep an eye on you or something.
BlizBob 1 month ago
wait did any of these people go to high skool at all
1337josh1337 2 months ago
WHAT DO HE DO FOR A LIVING?!
HairTorque 2 months ago
@HairTorque living?
bigolol 2 months ago
how the hell can someone as stupid as nephilim still be alive
TheQuiescentSquall 2 months ago
Geocentrism eh? How can people actually make the choice to be a self righteous idiot? If there really was a God he would not have made moron's like this.
RavenMad101 2 months ago
For fuck's sake, will someone please tell me NephilimFree is dead.
fdasherv 2 months ago
Oh god, why did you create creationists? Ignoring for a second that such an explanation for the ejection of water would lead to the devastation of the planet, how does he expect his mythical god plankton to survive the lunar impact?
GFbrewdude 2 months ago
Heheheheeh ThunderFeeT 8 D
KjrHellkules 2 months ago
I thoroughly enjoyed this one...
NoRealReality 2 months ago
Man , you are the voice of reason , you are an inspiration , not only for the U.S and U.K people , for all of us , I am from south america , and only a few here understands these videos , this series must be translated to other languages with subtitles , im a self instructed in the english language , for that reason I cant do it , there are some words i cant nderstand totally , but , I hope somone can do it , I cant stop watching your videos .
EdyMar77 2 months ago 68
@EdyMar77 you seem be doing okay. translate them!
Arcexey 2 months ago
@EdyMar77 You're English sounds great, for the most part. Bet a Bible didn't magically manipulate your mind to choice to learn it. After Spanish, I'm learning Portuguese.
TheOkami1113 1 month ago
@EdyMar77 Here in Israel we have a similiar series of videos inspired by these which do the same thing but attacking jewish creationists (Datiyim). Every country have these kind of creationist people and every country should have videos like this to counter them.
CharlesOberonn 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kent Hovind is in jail because he was trying to warn the world that their is a dark agenda out there that aims at destroying the morality of every man woman and child making them into beasts. In fact Darwinism states that we evolved from mere beasts. God says you should hold your head up because you have been given free will by an all powerful all wise and all loving Creator. Jesus answered "Woe to them who worship the Created (Monkeys/Primates) rather then the Creator."
JamesRideout123 2 months ago
Your videos are little gems
lokenath123 2 months ago
It's funny that Creationists don't actually create anything themselves. Oh, because they believe that God creates things for them.
kokocipher 2 months ago
@kokocipher The only thing they create is confusion and ignorance.
cchris000043 2 months ago
hmm i am getting this feeling as atheist i must believe in science when in actuality science is as dangerous for humanity as religion.We atheist should keep science under a tight control because we KNOW what could do also with all do respect theoretical science smell as bad as religion so please for once and for all ATHEISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE
SegBekur 2 months ago
@SegBekur and... why is science a bad thing?
Stairc 2 months ago
You got Pwned Neph!
deeppurple28 2 months ago
I am ashamed to be the same species as this imbeciles
DreadzKaiser 3 months ago
But what about the time traveling space whales?
Azrael666Azazel 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Conservative Christian Logic: /watch?v=UDBYGXWMAOw
csmcmillion 3 months ago
Isn't it obvious? All the craters on Jupiters moons came from the respective Noah's flood on Jupiter! Duh! lmao
VeritasLuxMea100 3 months ago
Are you shitting me? A fucking geocentric universe? You might as well say the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese. How does that man dress himself, he's so goddamn stupid.
mrquinnie429 3 months ago
I can't wait until this whole argument is over and then Shintoist Creationists will have their arguments against Christian creationists. Let the battle begin.
aDinoSupremacist 3 months ago
I don't believe in this thing called "Jupiter". I look in the sky and it's not there!
(I live in Tokyo)
spoddie 3 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
I thought geocentrism died off centuries ago... How the fuck can anyone believe that the universe spins around the earth?! We have conclusive proof that it does no such thing!
CaptainOlimar247 3 months ago 27
@CaptainOlimar247
proof NEVER surpasses stupidity
toslyforyou 2 months ago
i think the problem is we assume too much. God told the animals to get on the arc, who's to say he didn't tell the bacteria to get out of the water? and if all this water was not yet in the air (and space) would the escape velocity be lower? plus maybe all the far side moon craters are from meteors that would have hurt the earth, like God's protection. just sayin maybe.
jeobeahon 3 months ago
@jeobeahon If bacteria got out of their environment they would have died very, very, very quickly. Also, the ark couldn't have held 2 of each animal on earth - and nowhere near enough food. Additionally, claiming god made the moon to block asteroids is ridiculous. God could easily make sure asteroids just didn't hit earth. The moon's a pretty pathetically tiny shield.
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc i mean if they moved from the "space water" to the "flood water" before hand. plus it took noah, supposedly, 40 years to build a giant ark. who says certain animals didnt become smaller seeing as some think 'evolution' happens after long periods but in short time frames. and hibernation could probably hold the animals off for 40 days.
jeobeahon 3 months ago
@jeobeahon *facepalms*
Evolution in a 'short time frame' registers in the millions of years buddy. Not in 40.
Also, if every animal in the world was half the size it currently is, Noah would still be dealing with species numbering in the billions. You can't get that on a boat the size the bible talks about for even one single day, much less 40.
Plus, if there WAS a global extinction via flood of nearly everything, we'd have lots of evidence for it. We don't.
It's bunk.
Stairc 3 months ago 2
@Stairc actually i was saying that maybe the animals got on, hibernated, got off and adapted to the new environment, creating more species variations, the same way humans became giants, dwarfs, different colors/ethnicites/families, etc, depending on where they went.
as for scientific evidence(of floods, time frames, etc), it all depends on our laws of nature remaining constant, which is 98% probable. in a 'faith' perspective, that 2% is pretty good leeway for God.
jeobeahon 3 months ago
@jeobeahon 1) The 'adapting to environment' through species diversification would take millions upon millions of years. No go. Also, still no room for them.
2) No. Unless you're proposing that, while every major event throughout history has always left the same evidence, water shits and such, a global extinction somehow left NO fossils - this is BS. If you have to suggest that the fossilized corpses and water effects all magically disappeared for your idea to work, it's ridiculous.
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc all im really saying is if you go by science, sure its it's likely it some things didn't happen. but since we weren't there, we scientifically infer, we don't know.
but believers 'know', by faith. the point of the bible, almost, is that so many things happened that were 'illogical' or 'impossible', you realize God does what he wants, when he wants, for His divine reason, and He can literally do anything. im not saying this guy is right or wrong, im saying 'if'.
jeobeahon 3 months ago
@jeobeahon Scientific inference is the only demonstrably accurate way to determine fact from fantasy. It has a phenomenal track record of success in uncovering the truth and leading to new discoveries. Faith has zero. It is, by definition, belief without any justification. Faith never has a zero percent track record of showing us any testable truths. Throw faith against science and science is clearly the winner in determining what actually happened.
Stairc 3 months ago 2
@Stairc faith is only without justification to those who don't believe. a secular man uses science to say 'since this happens now, that happened then' (over-simplification). but to them the proof is theoretical, a 99.9% actuality.
those who have seen God work, felt the 'truth' in their own way, say the same thing, just using different evidence, in a 100% actuality; to them there IS no error margin. they (hopefully) sifted through the facts and found a way to explain things.
jeobeahon 3 months ago
@Stairc the point is that if God can do ANYTHING, then anything happened. but if SCIENCE is right, then we still have (very few) gaps to fill.
jeobeahon 3 months ago
@jeobeahon No. Because if god sends a thunderbolt or a flood, the results would still be observable. We would sill be able to see the results of those actions. If god splits a mountain, we would be able to see that the mountain had been split. Only if god then undid all his major actions would they be unnoticeable... Meaning they never mattered to begin with.
And when has faith EVER reliably led to accurate knowledge of the universe?
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc but if the results look different because of the way God works they could be proven as other happenings.
if i said i ran across the country without my shoes, you'd check to see if my feet are bloody. but if i ran it in someone elses shoes ("w/o MY shoes"), and you check my bare feet you wouldn't believe me.
but yeah ur right, most faiths are better about life guidelines than prehistory.
jeobeahon 3 months ago
@jeobeahon No. If you claimed to run it BAREFOOT we'd look for that. Regardless, we can examine the world to see what DID happen (someone running across the country in shoes) and thus wouldn't have to worry about your trouble with explaining the story. We'd see what happened in either case. Regardless, science would get the right answer about what DID happen when properly applied.
Believing something without evidence is never a pathway to truth.
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc no if i was a hermit, and said i ran w/o my shoes it is then unlikely that i have another pair. you assume i ran w/o shoes but the earth evidence points against it; therefore, to you, im 'lying'. from the present no one can say what DID happen but what LIKELY happened, some to a further probability than others. but if you believe God exists, who can do anything, then even a .0000003% error of science is enough to know He exists. God doesn't always work in ways we explain.
jeobeahon 3 months ago
@jeobeahon And you would be lying. You are claiming to have run without YOUR shoes, which according to you is true. There would be different tests to determine whether you ran without shoes (footprints,blistered feet) and whole other ones to determine whose shoes you ran in (DNA samples, etc.)
You aren't helping yourself. If god kills all animals in the world there should be REMAINS of those animals unless god is intentionally trying to make his book look false.
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc no i wouldn't be lying, i'd be telling a truth that you don't know, that you might never know, and never think true.
and if there was complete evidence of God's work, perfect documentation, perfect logic, perfect explanation, then it wouldn't be God's work. even if it was, it could then be explained not as God but godless nature. He does what we can't comprehend. a being who exists w/o beginning or end, who can breath life into dirt, doesn't need to explain himself.
jeobeahon 2 months ago
@jeobeahon
1) Science doesn't operate on the claimer's trustworthiness. If someone wanted to determine if your claim was correct they'd look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that you crossed the country in shoes. Then they would test dna in the shoes and discover if they were yours or not.
2) You're claiming that God is god simply because there's no real evidence for what he does. Then how an one distinguish a real god from a delusion? If you can't, tough luck.
Stairc 2 months ago
@Stairc
1) I tell someone "i ran w/o my shoes". my shoes are not worn, my feet are not as bad as they should be. evidence says somebody ran, but w/ shoes. no one who saw me (from the past) is here. all i have on my feet is my shoes (the evidence). if i say no more (God isn't screaming down at us all), one would say "liar, some one else ran." my son (a person of faith) believes me, although i never tell him how. it's an analogy; its not airtight.
jeobeahon 2 months ago
@jeobeahon 1) You're missing the point. If your claim is, "I ran without my shoes" - the evidence would lead to us determining that you DID run with shoes... But there would as yet be no evidence that they were YOUR shoes. We'd then look for evidence of shoe ownership. Science would have no problem evaluating the claim. And even if it WAS indeterminable, we would simply say, "we don't know what happened" rather than jumping to an unsupported conclusion.
Stairc 2 months ago
@Stairc its an analogy; its not air tight. the exact way i set it up, everything is a symbol. the father speaking = God. the son/daughter believing = no duh. the person disapproving = the world. symbolism.
jeobeahon 2 months ago
@Stairc
2) God speaks to the heart of a real believer. It's different for everyone, but you know it's real because of physical AND spiritual evidence. you say its silly to use the moon as a 'shield' but maybe God just wanted it that way. He say and disciples say (in holy texts) the way is narrow, it's not easy to follow, you will be tempted, etc.
individuals have their own reasons sure but just because they aren't a majority doesn't make them instantly wrong.
jeobeahon 2 months ago
@jeobeahon 2) First, provide the physical evidence.
Second, Hindus claim their gods speak to their hearts. So did the Greeks. The Egyptians. The Norse. Scientologists claim they feel it's true. Janists, Shinto, Jews, Muslims. As do people in insane asylums who believe that they're Napolean or can talk to trees.
Again, you are parroting what people suffering from delusions say. So how can we distinguish your belief in God from a delusion?
Stairc 2 months ago
@Stairc people claim to see miracles everywhere that other people say are chance. people are saved from death, overcome trials, etc.
if someone says God is love and murders a person either they don't know God for sure or they sent them selves to hell. whether or not a person is aligned with the true God is determined by whether their behavior and beliefs line up. "but they dont line up". says you. God knows, and when it's all over God will still know. all we need to worry about is peace.
jeobeahon 2 months ago
@jeobeahon Lots of preachin' ya did there.
Now, how can we distinguish all those beliefs from a delusion? I keep asking and you never answer. Until you do, there's no reason to buy your preaching over anyone else's.
Stairc 2 months ago
@Stairc the only reason humans know what we know is because it's been tested, but those tests are not 100% positive. we theorize and such because of info we previously collect but the results are not always what we expect. a simple secular man can't explain how light works, unless he knew a little about the subject. the same could be said of a spiritual man on the subject of Godly matters. i can only say so much but as someone who won't even consider the basics, you can't understand.
jeobeahon 2 months ago
@jeobeahon In other words, you have no way to distinguish your belief from a delusion. That must be tragic.
If you want to try proving that your gut feelings are a better determinant of reality than evidence and the scientific method - that's easy to set up tests for. Until then, we stick with what's been shown to work the BEST, even if it isn't always perfect.
Now that you've agree you can't distinguish your religion from a delusion, perhaps you get why we compare it to unicorns
Stairc 2 months ago
@Stairc no im just saying that you don't believe. and id rather believe in God and say it's ok not to than not believe and call everyone else crazy. all sort of intricacies that science and logic can not explain, faith can. in the many areas where they clash, you pick a side.
but everything is relative. the proof is in the pudding and the flavor of the day is the suicide of man.
jeobeahon 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« all sort of intricacies that science and logic can not explain, faith can »
Okay. Explain, using faith, why we live in a universe with a cosmological constant near zero, in stead of, for instance, a universe with a big crunch at the end.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@jeobeahon So, you can't distinguish your belief from a delusion.
Additionally, faith can't explain anything. Faith is by definition belief without evidence - which is belief without any good reason, just because you feel like it. Faith has a 0% track record of getting anything right that we've ever tested. Faith doesn't explain things any more than wishful thinking. You don't like the answer or not knowing the answer, so you make one up.
You aren't crazy, it's just wishful thinking
Stairc 2 months ago 20
@Stairc lol, you're so right.
kokocipher 2 months ago
@Stairc sigh. faith is trusting in God; it IS the evidence of things not seen. God proves Himself to be real on the spiritual plane. if one never felt it, they don't get it.
a physically blind man has no concept of color. colors might still exist. "might" because he lives and dies with no proof but word of mouth. another man with eyes knows that colors are there but when he sleeps, he only remembers those colors, no real proof. (symbolism)
jeobeahon 2 months ago
@jeobeahon No. Faith is by definition belief without evidence.
And color can easily be proven to a blind man. Put three different colored boxes in a room and have the blind man put a rock in the one with 'blue' written on it in braile. on its back. Let him shuffle the boxes. Then a seeing man will come into the room and point to the blue one to determine where the rock is (without seeing the braile). This will demonstrate there is an additional quality about the boxes. Color
Stairc 2 months ago
@Stairc hebrews 11, i think. and like i said before, if some one believes in God, his/her proof is at the end (whether it's of life or time).
and the color thing is another analogy. look up the definition of analogy; it can't be air tight.
also, this is getting repetitive so if you agree that i agree we both agree that we strongly disagree, i got other stuff to worry about.
jeobeahon 2 months ago
@jeobeahon Your analogies are actually fine. However, your argument is what's flawed. There is literally no way that faith can be evidence, because faith is belief 'without' evidence.
If you have no way of distinguishing your belief from a delusion - you really have no reliable reason to believe. Of course, I know this doesn't matter to you. You begin with the conclusion then look for evidence. That's backwards.
But I know that you'll keep believing anyway. So, happy christmas.
Stairc 2 months ago
@Stairc that's still quite aggressive, but its all gravy.
jeobeahon 2 months ago
@jeobeahon It's just the dictionary definition of faith buddy. And if you have no evidence to base your belief on, it makes sense to say you have no reliable reason to believe - as all of human history has demonstrated that evidence is the only reliable determiner of what's correct.
I'm not sure how simply stating that is aggressive. But, if you feel that way, that's your business.
Stairc 2 months ago
@Stairc Faith is not belief without evidence. For example, I bet you haven't been to every country in the world, but by FAITH in years of people telling you that they exist, you believe they exist. It isn't wishful thinking, it is based on evidence. Faith is trusting in someone, or even God, and it doesn't have to be without evidence.
Chrisssss158 1 month ago
@Chrisssss158 The dictionary definition is belief without evidence. Feel free to call up the dictionary companies and tell them they should change their definitions.
I have never been to Australia but I'm quite certain it exists. How? Because it's either a massive, ridiculously funded global conspiracy accepted by everyone who's ever traveled to Australia and everyone who buys a ticket enters into it, and every geographer as well... Or it's just a real place. Which is more likely?
Stairc 1 month ago
@Chrisssss158 There is a massive amount of evidence to be sure that Australia does in fact exist and it would be ludicrous to believe like Stairc said that it might be an enormous conspiracy. But your faith has no evidence at all, that's why it's faith
wHisperis001 1 month ago
@wHisperis001 Yeah I agree that it is completely ridiculous that Austrialia not exist, but the point of that analogy was to show that faith is not necessarily without evidence. There is plenty of evidence for Christianity. For example, the resurrection, or the fact that for life to exist without intelligent life guiding it would be 1 out of 10^10^123, as calculated by Roger Penrose, a non-theist physicist. In case you weren't sure I mean to put 2 exponential functions, itsgreater than googleplex
Chrisssss158 1 month ago
@Chrisssss158 And this is where is the disagreement because I am skeptical of the bible and the events that supposedly happened in there. If you hold the bible as evidence for Yahweh but do not hold he bhagavad gita as evidence for Lord Vishnu then you are intellectually dishonest. Yes, the existence of everything is the most interesting and hard question that humans will ever see, but because there is no good answer yet I will not accept bad ones.
wHisperis001 1 month ago
@wHisperis001 All the evidence for the resurrection does not necessarily come from the bible. There were many people outside the Christian community in the first century who wrote about the resurrection. These are writers that historians regard as trustworthy, and without we would lose a ton of history.
The evidence I gave would make atheism seem very unreasonable, so would that would make atheism the bad answer, which you believe. is there really still no evidence for God?
Chrisssss158 1 month ago
@Chrisssss158 What a joke, the historians you are referring to are Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Seutonius and Josephus. Josephus is the oldest one, who was born 37 years after the crucifixion. Not to mention anyone of them barely mention the resurrection. The best shot you got is with Josephus who actually wrote the thing in 93 AD. You haven't gave any real evidence at all yet, still rendering your answer a bad one.
wHisperis001 1 month ago
@wHisperis001 They mentioned the resurrection, I never said anything else.Back to the Bible, it has much more historical backing. Hindus believe that the Bhagavad gita was written 5000 years ago, but the earliest manuscript we find of it was in 200 AD,while early epistles were written in 50 AD, 20 years after Christ's death.
I haven't given any real evidence yet? I gave you a statistic by a scientist. What else do you want. You won't trust the Bible, and now you wont trust scientst? I cant argue
Chrisssss158 1 month ago
@Chrisssss158 So just mentioning something makes it true? Mentioning something and saying that that thing is true are 2 different things. Statistics? I would like to know how exactly did he come up with that number. Not to mention he himself explained this probability of the universe by the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model. "and now you wont trust scientst?" Looks like you trust the scientist only half the way. Not sure what's your point with the age of Bhagavad gita..
wHisperis001 1 month ago
@wHisperis001 Also, the testimony of Josephus is widely considered to be a forgery by a Christian inserted into his works.
Stairc 1 month ago
@Chrisssss158 No shit, really? Who were these writers you speak of? Would like to read it.
42lynchmob 1 month ago
@42lynchmob There are more, but I can only remember Josephus and Tacitus
Chrisssss158 1 month ago
@Stairc creationism is absolutely retarded..
Hectom8 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« the same could be said of a spiritual man on the subject of Godly matters »
You saying there are people who know how gods work? What makes gods tick, and so on?
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor well, your comment was hidden as spam, but lets say this:
the best scientist doesn't say 'the universe works like this', he says 'based on what i've observed for myself, the universe probably works like this, assuming that guy was right.'
now replace 'universe' with 'God'. there you go.
jeobeahon 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« now replace 'universe' with 'God' »
Why? Why presume there exists a god, I mean?
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@Stairc sorry, im not trying to "argue", im just a debatable kind of guy.
jeobeahon 3 months ago
We're whalers on the moon,
we carry a harpoon...
Orpheusftw 3 months ago 35
@Orpheusftw lol
jeobeahon 3 months ago
@Orpheusftw Wow, I'm a subscriber of you and Thunderf00t.
TehFunnehMann 3 months ago
@Orpheusftw but there ain't no whales so we tell tall tales and sing our whaling tunes
firebirdthecody 3 months ago
@Orpheusftw there aint no whales
so we sing tall tales
and sing our whaling tune :3
3hickmanm 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here I go with the face palming again.It had just healed from watching the first series of thunderfoots videos and now he starts with this idiot. I'm on the floor again ! lol
420gma 3 months ago
Uh, can you say, circular reasoning?
nash984954 3 months ago
This Nephi guy is a colossal know nothing. Geocentrism my eye, does anyone actually believe he makes any real sense? I know he thinks about these things, but what does he actually know?
nash984954 3 months ago
I find this very entertaining and funny :D
racesmurf 3 months ago
The craters on the moon were caused by Noah's Flood?? Can it get any funnier? I'm just wondering how long Thunderf00t took to quit laughing before he could narrate the video with a straight face.
crocaduck 3 months ago
What program is used in this video to view the planets and moons in our solar system? :)
Metadragon142 3 months ago
@1tabligh
What's funnier than a futile creationist attempt at mathematics? An ambiguous and meaningless metaphor that attempts to refute emperical evidence. Good try, but you're not convincing anyone.
cannibalcarrot666 3 months ago 2
@cannibalcarrot666 Use the reply button instead!
Why, then, are the mathematical propositions distinguished from other propositions by absolute necessary certainty?
Further, we do not admit that all mathematical propositions are analytic and an extension of the principle 'Four is four'. How could the truth stating 'The diameter is always shorter than the circumference' be an analytic proposition?
1tabligh 3 months ago
Are 'shortness' and 'circumference' included in the notion of 'diameter'? And is 'diameter' another expression for the statement, 'The diameter is a diameter'?
Still, it remains for us to study one point concerning the rational doctrine namely, that if the primary information is rational and necessary, then how is it possible to explain its absence in human beings at the beginning [of their existence], and their acquisition of it at a later date?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh
I don't know what's more laughable, creationist attempts at mathematics or their ambiguous meaningless metaphors.
cannibalcarrot666 3 months ago 2
Nice telescope at 1:50...
I might have the exact model... Or something very similar
0ggabOgga 3 months ago 2
Re: comments at 0.55s It's just not possible to tell by observation which, if either, of the earth or sun is at the centre of the system in which we live.
If it was possible ,the Greeks, Romans and earlier very clever people would have been able to tell us what Galileo tried to tell us.
copperload 3 months ago
"The satellite observations of temperature and water vapor are reasonably consistent with the model results, making us more confident that we can calculate their trends correctly. Water vapor breaks down in the stratosphere, releasing reactive hydrogen oxide molecules that destroy ozone. These molecules also react with chlorine containing gases, converting them into forms that destroy ozone as well. So a wetter stratosphere will have less ozone."
scholargrove 3 months ago 2
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Lord of the universe? Despite being invented by pre-Islamic Arabs as part of a pantheon of other gods?
Akira625 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Akira625 The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 3 months ago
Comment removed
hnsolo77 3 months ago
Bring it on? Gee, that's like a emaciated weakling taking on Mike Tysonl. OOO, Mike would be scared.
markleyg 3 months ago
we're whalers on the moon! we carry a harpoon! but there aint no whales so we tell a tall tale and sing our whaling tune!
Cheapshot420420 4 months ago 6
Do you have any other videos pwning this guy? this stuff is gold.
californiarednek 4 months ago 3
@californiarednek
Search for the guys videos... oh man they are bbbbbaaaaaddddd. And the guy turns out to be a pretty big scumbag.
knightofdreamz 4 months ago
Every time I hear the first few seconds of the video, I kill myself laughing. Just something about the way he utters his challenge. He sorta reminds me of Kip from Napoleon Dynamite.
I love how your videos segue from the most soul crushing stupidity to some very intelligent, well made sequences that explain the nature of things very well. I just don't know how you don't give up. "Wait, did he say he is a geocentrist? Fuck it, I'm out". I know I have a limit for what I will debate.
Liquidfear987 4 months ago
nephy is too dumb to be a geocentric, i mean come on.... water flew onto the moon? oh please, it would burn up and evaporate into our atmosphere before even reaching 7000 ft above sea level
TheFlames376 4 months ago
Neph's the original creatard.
ezzstreet 4 months ago
fuck yeah, it's willzyx!
kizzaht 4 months ago
Thermal energy was not considered in the energy balance equation. If all thermal energy of water was successfully transferred to kinetic energy, one would need to achieve temperatures of around 100000 K to be able to propel water up to the escape velocity of the Earth. With temperature in the Earths core which are on the order of 5000K one would get water to around 250km of height .
bookey80 4 months ago
LOL!! xD
He's seriously a geocentrist??
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA xD
Ekit357 4 months ago in playlist Fler videoklipp från Thunderf00t
Totally agree with your point, but your history is off. The church persecuted Galileo for presenting his view as the only view as opposed to a potential alternative.
The reason this is a key factor is because his view was no more accurate mathematically then the geocentric model because it was based on perfect circles and therefore required epicycles to work about as often as the geocentric model.
Johannes Kepler bears much more responsibility since he created a rather accurate model.
AdumbroDeus 4 months ago
I am not sure you are puting foward his silly argument accuratlly. He bassically makes the observation that water coming out of a hose out of presure will go higher then if you just have it coming out un aided. Then he claims that when reaching orbit they bnecome comets. these comets now colide with the moon thus no aim and hitting anywhere on the moon required.
CapQuacer 4 months ago
@InternetDarkLord you are right about that, but I can blame him for acting like all Christians are creationists. If he were half as smart as he thinks he is, he would know thta the pope belives in evolution. The CTholic Church states that part of their beliefs is that you can believe in evolution as long as you also say that god had some sort of hand in the evolution process
SkylitDriveFan123 4 months ago
@SkylitDriveFan123 Well, he does say "Why do people laugh at creationists?" so you can't claim false labeling.
InternetDarkLord 4 months ago
Evolution proves nothing about god. The Pope believes in evolution, that the earth is over 4 million years old, and that the earth revolves around the sun. If you think all thrusts are creationists, you are more ignorant that creationists are. But the creationist being discussed is quite ridiculous, probably Bachmen's crazy train
SkylitDriveFan123 5 months ago