ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
this is awesome! As far as Darwin vs. God, people simply try to create friction where it does not exist between the two (why people on either side are so stubbornly dead set on continuing this trend is beyond me). God gave man reason, and man reasoned (or rather, one man did with many who followed) evolution. I personally do not believe in evolution, or it's public-system support, but I am not to discourage it either. Christians need to move beyond fear into acceptance and beyond.
*whistle* This is the most amazing thing I've ever seen. Though it seems in a weird way that the countries are just chanllenging each other to build the biggest teleschope or machine.
if we say that we started out as less evolved then we are now. then there must have been several stages of evolution to get to what we are now. ..
Q - why are there no records of anything which is half evolved? - we have perfect eyesight now/hands/feet etc. why have there been no fossils or remains found of these half evolved? a human with a tail ect.
@ZaphodUk1 you're making it as tho Humans are not categorised as apes, and monkeys. But I have to break it to you, we infact are. look into fossil records of now extinct apes' fossils that look very _very_ close to humans today. such as; Toumaï "Sahelanthropus tchadensis", Ardi "Ardipithecus ramidus", or KNM-WT 40000 "Kenyanthropus platyops". With that being said. It happens many-a-time, that people neglect our true title. Look into AaronRa he explains it very well.
@storms0rz hmmm fair enough but there is still no half an eye, at least that i have heard of. the reason for the embrace of science is a need that humans have, a need to be able to have an answer for everything, in short we are yet still a very egotistical race
@ZaphodUk1 We are egotistical. but it is not because we crave knowledge. Infact, quite the opposite. To say that, is to imply that we should not progress. And if that's the case; we die, simple as that. The theory is _analysed_ and accepted by those of the scientific community. By minds that understand diverse fields of science, that all correlate with eachother; in agreeing that Evolution is fact; paleontology, molecular biology, parative anatomy, embryology, and geography. This is old news.
I love it, a slap in the face to all theist. The bible was written by ignorant primitive people who believed the earth was flat and at the center of the sky which was made up water, and the moon and sun revolve around earth. If god really inspired the bible he would have told us the truth. The earth is not 12,000 years old, and it was not built in 7 days. Further more Evolution is the true answer, one man and one woman of the same race can't produce another race. Two blacks don't make a white.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Children all around the world are dieing becouse of deseases,no food and no home and they are looking for green man in the sky and black holes.The research and investment is good but i think we should first resolve our problems here,on earth.Those many could do many good somewere else.
what you say is partly true, but if all research were to stop, it wouldn't stop the racial and religious intolerance that causes so much murder and suffering worldwide, and gross overpopulation is still the major problem for mankind. Maybe our best hope is still off-world.
If I am not mistaken, the US government spends 3% of the total budget for science, which is an order of magnitude less than the military budget (>40%) and also less than the interests paid due to the deficit. Look at the waste of trillions of dollars caused by the economic crisis .
Kid, you are setting wrong priorities. Educate yourself before you criticize something from which you benefit on a daily basis on multiple levels.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes, amazing indeed. The fullness of God will indeed be observed in a way as never before. It's not completely crazy to think that Jesus Himself will be filling the outer reaches of the universe. True love may finally be seen with scientific eyes. What a beautiful moment this could be ...
"Jesus Himself will be filling the outer reaches of the universe"
What if on the contrary the discovery of other civilisations would reveal they don't know jesus? Will you finally accept that it was only a local fairy tale?
Man, for all we know, there could already be alliances and wars between planets and alien species across the galaxy that we don't even know about. Maybe there are planets with life on them that also have life on other planets within their own solar systems. Maybe an intelligent species on one planet that studies and uses animals from another planet in their system. It'd be cool if we could find out.
Well, you know, once upon a time people thought that you would fall off of this flat earth if you traveled far enough. Then, one day, someone with a dream was born and we as spices have been reaping the benefits ever since.
Inability to recognize the immense benefits we reap from science and exploration does not mean there are no benefits.
how fuking exciting it this shit!!!.. WOW.. I wish all world governments gave more funding this kind of thing.. they should take away any money given anything to do with religion and give it to these development projects.
Religious people must thinking this is all the work of the devils.. they would be shitting themselves!!.. 1 spec of bacteria found on another planet totally negates all religions .. I cant wait to hear their response WHEN that happens... baaa baaa sheep
Wow, I just cant even imagine how this world would react if we found Alien-like life on other planets, capable of thinking and reproducing. It would blow all of our socks off. Lol.
This video is super inspiring though, keep it up guys!
i know exactly what you mean! seeing progression like this gives me hope, hope that we can one day get over this religious speed bump our species is plagued with.
Nice presentation. I am a little shaken to hear about such massive projects in an era when so many have been driven into despiration, not even able to afford new glasses when they're needed.
I have conflicted feelings about this sort of thing as well. This stuff is so cool, and has such potential to advance human knowledge to a vast degree... but, like you say, there are so many that could be helped in BASIC ways by the money spent on such projects.
If we can gain more understanding of the universe like black holes etc, or find extra terrestrial life, it'll be worth a thousand times what it costs.
I don't mean to be too flip about it, but I don't imagine telling someone who's starving that this new, bigger telescope is important enough to let him die for would be too cool a thing to do.
Then I assume you' don't have a TV, a home computer with a relatively expensive internet connection. I assume that you live in a small one bedroom home, including no luxuries. I trust that you don't have a car and that you use the most inexpensive means available to you to commute to and from work. And I also assume you use all that money you save to donate to the relevant charities you associate yourself with.
Because hypocrisy shouldn't be part of a do-gooders life.
Those assumptions would be false ones. And I don't see how that being a fact makes me a hypocrite for saying that I have mixed feelings about spending money on things like telescopes when people out there are not having basic needs met.
Yes, basic needs. Does the toilet flush? Is there food in the fridge? ... What if these people are mooching off the government for these basic needs, while they smoke dope on the side? Does that mean they shouldn't improve technology, and travel to space with it?
If you're not willing to give up luxuries to help others meet their basic needs then it can't be that important to you.
If you're not willing to agree with the progression of our understanding of the universe, then you can't agree with the need for a TV when that money could save what? 30 people in Africa from blindness?
I still don't see how that's "hypocritical." By your reasoning, one can never have an opinion about how taxes could be better spent without being a "hypocrite." You think the schools should buy new textbooks? Well, you must be a hypocrite if you didn't go out and buy them yourself!
By the same reasoning, I could say you're a hypocrite for not cashing out your savings and donating it to the telescope projects.
All I'm saying is that, as cool and worthwhile as these projects are, I sometimes think there are better ways to spend the money, ways that would benefit more people in a more immediate way. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite at all. Sorry.
I hate to say that i agree with you but its true. If you would turn your gaze downward back at the earth, specifically at its vast oceans, you will find that we know more about the surface of Mars and Venus than we do our own oceans.
It took 160 years of "useless stuff" before we were even close to building a computer.
It started some 200 years ago when George Boole was discovering boolean algebra. Everyone was laughing at him because there was no money or useful application for it.
And they were right, there was no money to be made in it, ever. Who cares about the fact that today his work is one of the basis for almost every piece of technology that you use, right?
I am very excited by the prospect of seeing the "oldest" galaxies. If we can see the first galaxies, we should be able to see the "edge" of the universe soon after! Or at least where it was billions of years ago! :)
Not in the near future. The focal point of the Sun's 'gravitational lens' is extremely far away if i remember right. This probably poses many challenges, from remote control to sustained energy supply.
What a great time to be alive! In 15 years from now, we will know twice as much about the universe as we do now, yet religion will still be stuck in the mud, or coming up with new 'meanings' of ancient rantings to appear relevant to current knowledge.
6 telescopes in formation orbiting the sun, canceling out the overbearing light of stars in search of planets, keeping them selves aligned and compromising for distortion based on measurements from an array of lasers... That is boner inspiring.
Many of these new telescopes work on the principles of interferometry, a technology which I am very facinated with. Interferometry will allow resolution beyond our imagination.
Because it is beyond your knowledge and you don't understand it. Don't feel bad, very few people actually understand what this stuff means. EDUCATION!!!!!
"Sol" is just a Spanish word for "sun" (which presumably came from the original latin) - so whether you say "star system" or "solar system" doesn't make any difference, it means the same thing.
I think the feeling of wonder and fulfillment a theists might get from religious service and contemplation is similar to the one I get from learning and understanding cosmological events and advancements in our exploration and grasp of the universe.
I don't like the mis-use of the term "solar system", when the correct, general term would be "star system". The reason is that "Solar system" refers to the system of planets around the star Sol, our sun.
As with any term in english its meaning has moved with time. Solar system and star system are, now, interchangable. So few people now know (at least in english cultures) our stars name as anything other than 'the sun'.
int3rl0per. No, when you talk of "other solar systems" it becomes clear that there are planets there, so it's a good, precise term to use, don't you think?
If you refer to planetary star systems as "solar systems" then how would you refer to this one uniquely, say, if you were at a starport in the Vegan system and you're trying to tell someone where you want to go?
I think that's confusing, since solar is the adjective form of sol. Clearly we haven't bothered to work out this problem linguistically because interstellar travel is still a few months out at least. Maybe more.
This is simply one of the things that need to be pointed out in sixth or seventh grade science classes everywhere.
It's not like it's a huge thing (and only takes one minute to explain), it's just one of those things a lot of people just mis-use and don't understand the reasoning behind.
Also, I'm sure it'll correct itself at the very latest once interstellar travel becomes possible. :)
I'd say the probability of Easter eggs being achieved by secular means is now 0 (confined to the Earth, of course) because religion already gave us those delicious little delights.
Of course if I had to give up Easter eggs if it meant no religiously-driving violence or ignorance I suppose I could be compelled to do so.
Science is my saviour. At least I get some tangible things and help from my 'daddy'. Not like your saviour where all I get is static feedback and nothingness.
SCIENCE RULES!!!!
Thinkdeep420 2 months ago
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 months ago
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 4 months ago
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 4 months ago
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 4 months ago
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
Mogley52 4 months ago
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 4 months ago
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Mogley52 4 months ago
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
this is awesome! As far as Darwin vs. God, people simply try to create friction where it does not exist between the two (why people on either side are so stubbornly dead set on continuing this trend is beyond me). God gave man reason, and man reasoned (or rather, one man did with many who followed) evolution. I personally do not believe in evolution, or it's public-system support, but I am not to discourage it either. Christians need to move beyond fear into acceptance and beyond.
bizzwoofer 5 months ago
great video
swingersadult1 5 months ago
Lol @ lost people. Read the Bible and maybe that will help
Godclash 1 year ago
I wonder what they will find?
RandomVortex 1 year ago
Amen brother! Evolution is so retarded! Who the hell thinks such an intelligent species came from poop throwing apes? Maybe a douchebag does..
Godclash 1 year ago
*whistle* This is the most amazing thing I've ever seen. Though it seems in a weird way that the countries are just chanllenging each other to build the biggest teleschope or machine.
cutechong 1 year ago
Is that Chad Vader?
CONTRAHABS 1 year ago
i have a question about evolution....
if we say that we started out as less evolved then we are now. then there must have been several stages of evolution to get to what we are now. ..
Q - why are there no records of anything which is half evolved? - we have perfect eyesight now/hands/feet etc. why have there been no fossils or remains found of these half evolved? a human with a tail ect.
ZaphodUk1 2 years ago
@ZaphodUk1 you're making it as tho Humans are not categorised as apes, and monkeys. But I have to break it to you, we infact are. look into fossil records of now extinct apes' fossils that look very _very_ close to humans today. such as; Toumaï "Sahelanthropus tchadensis", Ardi "Ardipithecus ramidus", or KNM-WT 40000 "Kenyanthropus platyops". With that being said. It happens many-a-time, that people neglect our true title. Look into AaronRa he explains it very well.
storms0rz 1 year ago
@storms0rz hmmm fair enough but there is still no half an eye, at least that i have heard of. the reason for the embrace of science is a need that humans have, a need to be able to have an answer for everything, in short we are yet still a very egotistical race
ZaphodUk1 1 year ago
@ZaphodUk1 We are egotistical. but it is not because we crave knowledge. Infact, quite the opposite. To say that, is to imply that we should not progress. And if that's the case; we die, simple as that. The theory is _analysed_ and accepted by those of the scientific community. By minds that understand diverse fields of science, that all correlate with eachother; in agreeing that Evolution is fact; paleontology, molecular biology, parative anatomy, embryology, and geography. This is old news.
storms0rz 1 year ago
I love it, a slap in the face to all theist. The bible was written by ignorant primitive people who believed the earth was flat and at the center of the sky which was made up water, and the moon and sun revolve around earth. If god really inspired the bible he would have told us the truth. The earth is not 12,000 years old, and it was not built in 7 days. Further more Evolution is the true answer, one man and one woman of the same race can't produce another race. Two blacks don't make a white.
7horcrux7 2 years ago 3
Just one thing... Respect others' belief as they on to you either...
quve019 2 years ago
EXCELLENT.
mohfoz77 2 years ago 5
<3 cosmos!
MilletGtr 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Children all around the world are dieing becouse of deseases,no food and no home and they are looking for green man in the sky and black holes.The research and investment is good but i think we should first resolve our problems here,on earth.Those many could do many good somewere else.
technicst 2 years ago
what you say is partly true, but if all research were to stop, it wouldn't stop the racial and religious intolerance that causes so much murder and suffering worldwide, and gross overpopulation is still the major problem for mankind. Maybe our best hope is still off-world.
yyyzzzz 2 years ago 9
If I am not mistaken, the US government spends 3% of the total budget for science, which is an order of magnitude less than the military budget (>40%) and also less than the interests paid due to the deficit. Look at the waste of trillions of dollars caused by the economic crisis .
Kid, you are setting wrong priorities. Educate yourself before you criticize something from which you benefit on a daily basis on multiple levels.
pmfcal 2 years ago 16
Science FTF'nW!
MrHOTCub08 2 years ago 3
SPECTACULAR
Chrisjr2007 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes, amazing indeed. The fullness of God will indeed be observed in a way as never before. It's not completely crazy to think that Jesus Himself will be filling the outer reaches of the universe. True love may finally be seen with scientific eyes. What a beautiful moment this could be ...
minstrel77777 2 years ago
yeah f.. you and jesus
Ezcut 2 years ago
Fuck god, Fuck religion, Fuck you
peedpans 2 years ago
There is no reason to be rude - just provide arguments.
pmfcal 2 years ago
"Jesus Himself will be filling the outer reaches of the universe"
What if on the contrary the discovery of other civilisations would reveal they don't know jesus? Will you finally accept that it was only a local fairy tale?
isreasontaboo 2 years ago 10
I didn't know Jesus was a filling.
JCMac777 2 years ago
Amazing... exciting times ahead!
DeaconSwayne 2 years ago
I can't wait till James Webb launches since I helped design it for 4 years!
dlandon2000 2 years ago 2
Nice!
Feldmm1 2 years ago
Very nice graphics.
FLUSEM666 2 years ago
Man, for all we know, there could already be alliances and wars between planets and alien species across the galaxy that we don't even know about. Maybe there are planets with life on them that also have life on other planets within their own solar systems. Maybe an intelligent species on one planet that studies and uses animals from another planet in their system. It'd be cool if we could find out.
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 years ago
Intriguing but we should also continue exploring earth as well.
boony68 2 years ago
Biggest wish ever would be to meet Aliens and share our knowledge with them.... Hopefully they would be friendly minded.....
An intergalatic union...... bringing all intelligent speicis together.....
Big words.... but so far only a dream....
C0ldking 2 years ago
So far we can't even get it together on this planet!
weckalini 2 years ago
thats true..., but you know its up to us to change that :D
C0ldking 2 years ago
Actuallty not a dream, it exists.
WHITEWAPA 2 years ago
Yep but keep in mind that they may already know all that we know and then some.
boony68 2 years ago
Well, you know, once upon a time people thought that you would fall off of this flat earth if you traveled far enough. Then, one day, someone with a dream was born and we as spices have been reaping the benefits ever since.
Inability to recognize the immense benefits we reap from science and exploration does not mean there are no benefits.
shihouka 2 years ago
Wow... epic!
daddyleon 2 years ago
We should stop spending money on war and start spending more on research like this. I think such projects could have a unifying effect on the world.
MeloDeath31 2 years ago 5
cjdaweasel (12 hours ago) Comment removed by author
?????
gpokriff2 2 years ago
Thats amazing..
garethbawden 2 years ago
AWESOME
ashyashy1993 2 years ago 2
5:30 What is a "Nazer"?
cjdaweasel 2 years ago
Does sound like he says Nazer, but I believe it is NASA. Talking about the terrestrial planet finder missions which is a part of NASA.
Mercuriousss 2 years ago
Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks.
cjdaweasel 2 years ago
Nasa...
Zox111 2 years ago
Comment removed
cjdaweasel 2 years ago
This stuff is so awesome. Almost makes me want to change my major from chemistry to astrophysics.
cidvisions 2 years ago
how fuking exciting it this shit!!!.. WOW.. I wish all world governments gave more funding this kind of thing.. they should take away any money given anything to do with religion and give it to these development projects.
Religious people must thinking this is all the work of the devils.. they would be shitting themselves!!.. 1 spec of bacteria found on another planet totally negates all religions .. I cant wait to hear their response WHEN that happens... baaa baaa sheep
markhajones 2 years ago 10
One could also take 10% of the world military budget ;-) THAT is a lot of money.
Vogter2100 2 years ago 5
I mutha fuchin love it! Stay classy San Diego!
CoyoteOcoyote 2 years ago
Wow, I just cant even imagine how this world would react if we found Alien-like life on other planets, capable of thinking and reproducing. It would blow all of our socks off. Lol.
This video is super inspiring though, keep it up guys!
AtheistBrad 2 years ago
In a week when the media are focused on unthinking violence it is a real pleasure to come to this site and see something beautiful and intelligent.
gilraen789 2 years ago
these videos are both sex for my eyes and food for my brain. keep posting these :D
Kimbert91 2 years ago 3
werd
foolsbetrippin 2 years ago
Cool
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
and the aliens will be like "WASAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP"
Discipol 2 years ago
wow! keep uploading!
kimae247 2 years ago
Scientific progress is one of very few things that make me proud of my species.
Atrocitas6 2 years ago 23
Agreed.
It should be the thing that brings us all together.
halldbe 2 years ago 2
i know exactly what you mean! seeing progression like this gives me hope, hope that we can one day get over this religious speed bump our species is plagued with.
meloveanna 2 years ago 6
You said it.
I just wish we could see the end of religion in our life time. Sadly, that doesn't look likely.
Atrocitas6 2 years ago 4
@Atrocitas6 I agree but without God our species wouldnt be here
natureman97 1 year ago
Astronomically fascinating! : )
<3<3<3
luvismyreligion 2 years ago
Inspiring.
nathanforst1 2 years ago 2
Awsome.
45erwx7 2 years ago 2
I love the name of the big European telescope.
"A European extremely large telescope"
metalorg 2 years ago 3
Devine.
yakomuto 2 years ago
That was great, I'd like to see more like this, thankyou!
Rowdyeh 2 years ago
We are by far the most badass animal on this planet.
Ryan44567 2 years ago 3
I assume that you never saw a Mantis shrimp.
YettiRAF 2 years ago 2
mantis shrimp don't build telescopes.
Ryan44567 2 years ago
Holy bastard a mantis shrimp is awesome!
metalorg 2 years ago 3
Nice presentation. I am a little shaken to hear about such massive projects in an era when so many have been driven into despiration, not even able to afford new glasses when they're needed.
Probewitch 2 years ago
I have conflicted feelings about this sort of thing as well. This stuff is so cool, and has such potential to advance human knowledge to a vast degree... but, like you say, there are so many that could be helped in BASIC ways by the money spent on such projects.
roentgen571 2 years ago
true, but I'd say take the money from the politicians pockets, or the military buject before you touch scientific funding.
crazyhairball18 2 years ago 3
If we can gain more understanding of the universe like black holes etc, or find extra terrestrial life, it'll be worth a thousand times what it costs.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 2 years ago 5
I don't mean to be too flip about it, but I don't imagine telling someone who's starving that this new, bigger telescope is important enough to let him die for would be too cool a thing to do.
roentgen571 2 years ago
Then I assume you' don't have a TV, a home computer with a relatively expensive internet connection. I assume that you live in a small one bedroom home, including no luxuries. I trust that you don't have a car and that you use the most inexpensive means available to you to commute to and from work. And I also assume you use all that money you save to donate to the relevant charities you associate yourself with.
Because hypocrisy shouldn't be part of a do-gooders life.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 2 years ago 2
Those assumptions would be false ones. And I don't see how that being a fact makes me a hypocrite for saying that I have mixed feelings about spending money on things like telescopes when people out there are not having basic needs met.
roentgen571 2 years ago
Yes, basic needs. Does the toilet flush? Is there food in the fridge? ... What if these people are mooching off the government for these basic needs, while they smoke dope on the side? Does that mean they shouldn't improve technology, and travel to space with it?
Bugstomper2 2 years ago 2
If you're not willing to give up luxuries to help others meet their basic needs then it can't be that important to you.
If you're not willing to agree with the progression of our understanding of the universe, then you can't agree with the need for a TV when that money could save what? 30 people in Africa from blindness?
Just saying you seem hypocritical.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 2 years ago 2
I still don't see how that's "hypocritical." By your reasoning, one can never have an opinion about how taxes could be better spent without being a "hypocrite." You think the schools should buy new textbooks? Well, you must be a hypocrite if you didn't go out and buy them yourself!
By the same reasoning, I could say you're a hypocrite for not cashing out your savings and donating it to the telescope projects.
roentgen571 2 years ago
All I'm saying is that, as cool and worthwhile as these projects are, I sometimes think there are better ways to spend the money, ways that would benefit more people in a more immediate way. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite at all. Sorry.
roentgen571 2 years ago
I hate to say that i agree with you but its true. If you would turn your gaze downward back at the earth, specifically at its vast oceans, you will find that we know more about the surface of Mars and Venus than we do our own oceans.
Shigren 2 years ago
We are doomed as a species if we can't get off planet earth, and out into the universe, the sun won't live forever.
adolthitler 2 years ago 4
@roentgen571
We already spend most of our money on helping ourselves. We need to spend some money to help the future generations.
If nobody spent their time and money to further the science, you wouldn't be typing on this machine you call computer today.
shihouka 2 years ago
well m8, I acctually think they only put money in it, because they could earn money from selling computers.....
C0ldking 2 years ago
@C0ldking
It took 160 years of "useless stuff" before we were even close to building a computer.
It started some 200 years ago when George Boole was discovering boolean algebra. Everyone was laughing at him because there was no money or useful application for it.
And they were right, there was no money to be made in it, ever. Who cares about the fact that today his work is one of the basis for almost every piece of technology that you use, right?
shihouka 2 years ago 3
Your right, indeed we gain alot of benefits from our Science.....
well..... lets make a Computer tribute day
A day we celebrate how much good the computer have brought us
C0ldking 2 years ago
More and more of these types of hd's???!!
videouzleg 2 years ago
awesome!
yo1o2eggs 2 years ago
Superb video I like this guys series
NecipPerver 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WOW I can't wait to throw some rocks at those stupid giant mirros.
Budguy68 2 years ago
I am very excited by the prospect of seeing the "oldest" galaxies. If we can see the first galaxies, we should be able to see the "edge" of the universe soon after! Or at least where it was billions of years ago! :)
pfarabee 2 years ago
What about the idea of using Sun's gravity and light diffracting ability as the ultimate lens/telescope? Not a single word. :(
A11ex 2 years ago
Not in the near future. The focal point of the Sun's 'gravitational lens' is extremely far away if i remember right. This probably poses many challenges, from remote control to sustained energy supply.
HiAdrian 2 years ago
really nice quality and wonderful content...thanks for the upload...peace be with
MasterOhSo 2 years ago
Can't wait to see it! =D
JonathanClement140 2 years ago
What a great time to be alive! In 15 years from now, we will know twice as much about the universe as we do now, yet religion will still be stuck in the mud, or coming up with new 'meanings' of ancient rantings to appear relevant to current knowledge.
neil73 2 years ago 9
If you don't be quiet, the Flying Spaghetti Monster will cut your head off and piss down your throat you useless heretic.
Beefstew2011 2 years ago 3
thanks for posting.
RandyLayhea 2 years ago
uh oh. their going to call it a darwin array?
now creationists are going to confuse evolution and cosmology even more...
sheepwshotguns 2 years ago 7
Great series, many thanks FFreeThinker!
diegopmc 2 years ago
This is awesome!
2bsirius 2 years ago
6 telescopes in formation orbiting the sun, canceling out the overbearing light of stars in search of planets, keeping them selves aligned and compromising for distortion based on measurements from an array of lasers... That is boner inspiring.
nodvick 2 years ago 6
I hate these video's. I am not sure why, I am generally interested in this sort of thing.
willowtreephoto 2 years ago
Many of these new telescopes work on the principles of interferometry, a technology which I am very facinated with. Interferometry will allow resolution beyond our imagination.
iviewthetube 2 years ago
Because it is beyond your knowledge and you don't understand it. Don't feel bad, very few people actually understand what this stuff means. EDUCATION!!!!!
shurterb 2 years ago
I think my problem has more to do with the presentation, and perhaps the voice over.
As for this video specifically, there was nothing I didn't understand, or was even new to me.
willowtreephoto 2 years ago 2
"Sol" is just a Spanish word for "sun" (which presumably came from the original latin) - so whether you say "star system" or "solar system" doesn't make any difference, it means the same thing.
adeleellie6 2 years ago
I think the feeling of wonder and fulfillment a theists might get from religious service and contemplation is similar to the one I get from learning and understanding cosmological events and advancements in our exploration and grasp of the universe.
temprise 2 years ago 2
I don't like the mis-use of the term "solar system", when the correct, general term would be "star system". The reason is that "Solar system" refers to the system of planets around the star Sol, our sun.
int3rl0per 2 years ago
As with any term in english its meaning has moved with time. Solar system and star system are, now, interchangable. So few people now know (at least in english cultures) our stars name as anything other than 'the sun'.
Cowinspace 2 years ago
int3rl0per. No, when you talk of "other solar systems" it becomes clear that there are planets there, so it's a good, precise term to use, don't you think?
winterstellar 2 years ago
If you refer to planetary star systems as "solar systems" then how would you refer to this one uniquely, say, if you were at a starport in the Vegan system and you're trying to tell someone where you want to go?
GBart 2 years ago
GBart. Hey, "E.T" made it simply by saying he wanted to go home, didn't he? Haha. : )
winterstellar 2 years ago
The Sol system.
pyrix 2 years ago
I think that's confusing, since solar is the adjective form of sol. Clearly we haven't bothered to work out this problem linguistically because interstellar travel is still a few months out at least. Maybe more.
GBart 2 years ago
This is simply one of the things that need to be pointed out in sixth or seventh grade science classes everywhere.
It's not like it's a huge thing (and only takes one minute to explain), it's just one of those things a lot of people just mis-use and don't understand the reasoning behind.
Also, I'm sure it'll correct itself at the very latest once interstellar travel becomes possible. :)
int3rl0per 2 years ago
Simply amazing.
GrantZ90 2 years ago
i remember reading about OWL. overwhelmingly large telescope. Planned to be 100 meter diameter mirror.
muranziel 2 years ago
There isn't really anything new here, it's just some cuts from the previous Eyes on the Skies episodes.
DriXiLB 2 years ago
And what has religion done?
AtheistChase 2 years ago
... Easter eggs?
andymcgaha 2 years ago
Can it be achieved by secular means?
AtheistChase 2 years ago
Easter eggs?
I'd say the probability of Easter eggs being achieved by secular means is now 0 (confined to the Earth, of course) because religion already gave us those delicious little delights.
Of course if I had to give up Easter eggs if it meant no religiously-driving violence or ignorance I suppose I could be compelled to do so.
... I guess I'd still have Cadeberrys...
andymcgaha 2 years ago
nice video!!!
minnymac0 2 years ago
Awesome, inspiring stuff. Thanks for uploading this.
ArtificialCleverenAI 2 years ago 2
im sure there is life out there i just dought theres any within are reach
sinslin 2 years ago
this is so freaking amazing!!!!!!!!!
quisqueyatv 2 years ago
cool
RustyCyler 2 years ago
I really enjoy these videos and the information. Thanks!
sachaput 2 years ago
It was on 100hoursofastronomy yesterday. And probably today also.
canerdc 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You don't need this stuff when you have Jesus as your personal savior!
mspookie 2 years ago
lol
Archael2 2 years ago 3
LMFAO
0Xian0 2 years ago 4
Haters be downmodding a joke.
mspookie 2 years ago 5
Obvious poe is obvious
Konkaver 2 years ago 2
Science is my saviour. At least I get some tangible things and help from my 'daddy'. Not like your saviour where all I get is static feedback and nothingness.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago
Yes, cause a bit of knowledge gained from an educational video is useless compared to the personified cracker hailed as "the body of christ."
Yawn*
Zero4Mars 2 years ago