Debunking Creationism: Redsky & Malcolm Bowden

[basstrom188]

Bowden and his friends are Christianised Mullahs

[Aydosh1991]

I think MB/Redsky know they are telling lies. They just want to be controversial to attract visitors to their channel. As well as being bullies they do not accept comments on their videos, which tells me they are cowards as well.

[JerezJulio]

wow, what a devastating blow.

Did Malcom wetted his pants with did video.

[Killjeser]

Why the heck are we still talking about Geocentricity and Creationism in the 21rst century?

[Castaril]

Evolutionists misinterpret results all the time to support their preconceived belief that evolution is the one possibility.

[LucasI3434]

@Castaril What's an "evolutionist"?

[rozovo]

You cannot debunk a tjeory wich cannot be proven.

Geocentricismis a theory.

Heliocentrism is a theory.

General Relativity is a theory.

QED is a theory.

Evolution is a theory.

None of those have been proven.None of those are facts.

They just are being sold as such.

[kandtell]

@rozovo

People are going to respond to this comment saying “Theories are never proven, only disproven.” And “Theories are the highest aim of science; they are collections of laws and facts”.

cont...

[kandtell]

Both of these statements are true when the word Theory is used in its correct scientific sense, but I think there is a more fundamental semantically issue which needs to be explained. This issue is that when scientists use the word “proved” they do not mean it in the sense Mathematicians mean it. The meaning is roughly the same as the one used in Law. I.e. it is roughly equivalent to “proven beyond all *reasonable* doubt.”

cont...

[kandtell]

It does not really matter whether you call something a fact, law, theory, postulate, hypothesis, etc. What matters is “do people working in the field accept it as proven beyond all *reasonable* doubt.”

cont...

[kandtell]

The reason why this is the case is also the same as in Law. In the real universe (as opposed to mathematics) there are very few absolutes. If we had to prove someone was guilty beyond *all* doubt before we sent them to prison then the prisons would be empty because you can’t prove someone guilty beyond all doubt. Similarly if scientists refused to accept anything which had been proven absolutely we would still be living in the dark ages and trying to prove Archemesies’s laws of flotation!

cont.

[kandtell]

From your examples:

Evolution by Natural Selection has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be the primary cause of bio-diversity on the Earth.

Geocentricism has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be a crock of shit.

[rozovo]

@kandtell

Ok then.Prove me beyond all reasonable doubt that the sun is the center of our solar system.You can use a PM if you like.

[kandtell]

@rozovo

Happy to do it here.

I don't have time for much tonight, but my favorite starting point is the Coriolis Effect.

The Coriolis Effect can be used to measure how fast the Earth is rotating on it's axis (its "Sidereal Day") this is different from the Solar Day by an amount which is balanced by the Earth's rotation round the Sun.

Geocentric proponents on the other hand usually state that the Earth is still.

If it was there would be no Coriolis Effect.

[lardo444]

i've watched 3 of bowdens vids. it was quite painful. i commented and asked him if he was stoned, drunk, stupid, or all three. the comment had to be approved by him so i'm sure it wasn't posted. this guy is a quack. when he said einstiens therory of relitivity has been debunked i laughed. who is this clown? i bet he wears a tin foil hat when he sits in his cave at night.

peace, lardo.

[pgfracing]

Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Psa 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

youtube.com/watch?v=tB1D2jZ5gj­g

praise Jesus

[desager1]

@pgfracing Quoting the bible does nothing, why not quote the Koran or the Bhagwad Geeta. Each has the same amount of validity to them, which is nothing. Try being open minded and examining the evidence, instead of just blindly accepting what is written in a holy book without applying critical thinking and logic. And yes, you can praise the flying Jewish zombie all you want.

[pgfracing]

@desager1 I don't think you are seeing the Word. I included the video about the hubble telescope so maybe it would help you see the Word. God created the heavens and he is the one who is stretching them out (The universe is expanding from earth, the center point, as confirmed by the hubble telescope) Also the world is stablished and can not move. That is why everything around is moving and space is stretching away from us because we are at the center of God's creation.

[desager1]

@pgfracing "The universe is expanding from earth, the center point, as confirmed by the hubble telescope" Incorrect. The universe is expanding in all directions, if you were on a planet in the Whirlpool Galaxy, some 23 million light years from us, the universe would still appear to be moving away in all directions.

[pgfracing]

@desager1 youtube.com/watch?v=tB1D2jZ5gj­g

[desager1]

@pgfracing Interesting how you missed that he said "the earth is not a fixed point at the center of the universe" selective hearing I take it? "The universe is expanding from earth, the center point, as confirmed by the hubble telescope" You do realize that Edwin Hubble, whom the telescope is named after, discovered that the universe was expanding, not the telescope? Cont.

[desager1]

@pgfracing Did you also just not watch the last minute of the video you linked me? And if you did, did you bother to look up the word Omnicentricity? Which I can tell by your posts, that you do not know what it means. Omnicentricity means that the center is everywhere, no matter where you are in the universe, everything appears to be expanding away from you.

[pgfracing]

@desager1 no wasn't familiar with that word and did miss that point. It's an interesting point he makes, however how would one know as we don't have an observable evidence other from earth or near earth

[desager1]

@pgfracing From the use of thought experiments and logic. Imagine a long progression of cars, each traveling 1 mph faster than the previous car. Take away all other concepts of measuring speed, one would think that they are stationary and the other cars are moving away from them. Now jump ahead 100 cars and what appears to happen? They would observe the exact same thing. From that we can conclude we are not stationary or at the center. And that is also how the universe appears to be expanding.

[pgfracing]

@desager1 definitely seems to follow logical thinking, however what is your source of this logical thinking?

[desager1]

@pgfracing Logic is an aspect of the mind, "the system or  principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study" however, to suggest that this is only possible due to a supernatural being is without reason or evidence, and therefore illogical.

[desager1]

@pgfracing To think that the universe, which contains 1 septillion stars was created for us, and that we are at the center of the universe is insane. All the data gathered by astrophysicists around the world show that the earth is orbiting the sun, rotating once per 24 hours, and not the center of the universe, are you saying that all those people are wrong? And the word you are speaking of, if that word is derived from the bible, then that word is fantasy. Reality is much more interesting.

[heloizyjhenifer]

I respectfully disagree, they don't "know" they're wrong, they're simply : nuts.

[TheBaldmeister]

Yes, I posted a question about the ridiculous speeds the stars would need to travel at on Redsky's "Geocentric Proof - An Introduction" video about 4 months ago. I got no satisfactory answer, although selective removal of my subsequent comments made it seem like he had the last word.

As for the Malcolm Bowden videos, I find it is a pretty good rule of thumb on Youtube that "Comments disabled" = "This video is such utter bullshit that I don't dare let anyone post their opinion of it"

[pgfracing]

If you had a tube tall enough, air tight, and you dropped a ball it would land in the center if the earth was center. If the earth was rotating the ball would hit the side. I propose the ball would land in the center.

[Answersinbooks]

@pgfracing If you ahd a tube long enough the ball would in fact reach just below the surface of the antipode. If it were under ideal conditions, ie. under vacuum then it would reach the same hight that it was dropped from.

[pgfracing]

@Answersinbooks I don't get your point. All I'm saying is that if the tube was tall enough and you released the ball, even though they are supposedly spinning at the same speed, the earth's supposed rotation would surpass the speed of the ball and the ball would hit the side of the tube if the earth was truly spinning. If the ball was light enough maybe such as a ping pong the tube wouldn't even have to be that tall to test this theory of course the ball would have to be a near perfect in shape.

[Answersinbooks]

@pgfracing I see. The way I read it you sounded to be saying that it would only go so far as the center.

Okay to my mind the following problem exists. Your ball will be drawn towards the center of the Earth at all times. Even if you let go of the ball it will not shoot off into space at any point (at the surface). This is what would happen if you let go of the ball with out the effect of gravity. Eventually it would leave the atmosphere. Like if you stepped off of a carousel.

[Answersinbooks]

@pgfracing The problem is the Earth is pulling the ball. So as the ball tries to continue on a straight line it is constantly being pulled off course by gravity. The resultant path would be curved. It would therefor not hit the sides of the tube. (Just off the top of my head here but if you have a chat with a physicist, artillery man or rocket scientist I think they will agree.)

[pgfracing]

@Answersinbooks I can see your point about gravity of the earth having a effect. Although that would mean our atmosphere is traveling roughly at 24,000 miles an hour wind speeds and I think our jets would have a tough time traveling the opposite direction so I don't believe you are correct.

[Answersinbooks]

@pgfracing Okay think of it this way. The jut is traveling at 23,700 mile per hour instead of 24,000. (That is in the over all direction of the planet).

[pgfracing]

@Answersinbooks I can see your thinking on that too. Which is where this whole debate goes one can argue from either standpoint heliocentric or geocentric as far as I know at this time everything can be explained either way. The strongest argument that scientist believe they have against geocentric is that the stars in outer space some 42billion miles away would be traveling around 170 quadrillion time the speed of light and some still believe that the speed of light can't be broken, research it

[desager1]

@pgfracing "The strongest argument that scientist believe they have against geocentric is that the stars in outer space some 42billion miles " You are off by a factor of several trillion, not a small number. The strongest opposition to geocentric model is all the evidence. When Nasa schedules a launch to mars, they do it by calculating where the 2 planets are in their respective orbits. The Sun is 332,950 times the mass of the Earth, and due to the laws of physics, we orbit the sun.

[pgfracing]

@desager1 hwww.heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/doc­s/cosmic/nicmos_info.html never seen anything that says trillion do you have a reference? Also you can calculate anything you want mathematically it's all relative mathematically. We really have no idea what the mass or weight of anything is all we know is what is relative to each other and that is what we use. If I say earth ways this then I can mathematically say all the other objects must have this mass in relation. In Jesus name.

[desager1]

@pgfracing You said "stars in outer space some 42billion miles" 1 Light Year is 6 trillion miles, the nearest star is 4.2 light-years away. The observable universe is 46.5 billion light-years in any direction, so yes, you are off by a factor of 6,642,857,142,857. So, given that you are off by that much, I doubt you can show anything mathematically. Given that your number 42 billion was in any direction, if you meant diameter then you are off by 13,285,714,285,714.

[pgfracing]

@desager1 I used 42 Billion from what I googled and roughly 5.9 Trillion for light years to achieve a rough estimate of 170 quadrillion wasn't being over scientific was just pointing out that if the earth was the center the outer points of the universe would be traveling quadrillions of times the speed of light

[fmanh]

@pgfracing Actually, the atmosphere travel at 24000 miles/hour. So do you... Relative the surrounding space that is... Athmosphere relative earth is, well, allmost 0, allthough you actually have a certain drag factor (that is why we have the equatorial belts with the hurricane patterns on the northern and southern hemisphere)...

[elevadon]

@pgfracing Ever heard of a Foucault pendulum?

[CapriciousBlackBox]

@elevadon Exactly!

[pontecanis]

If you want to fall on the floor in hysterical laughter, run the geocenterism sim applet at GeoAstro; it shows the beautiful RETROGRADE orbits of all the bright planets that would occur. The only problem is that the only planetary observations to show apparent retrograde motion are of Mars--no other planets have a retrograde orbit. BUSTED!!

[pgfracing]

@pontecanis not true in Geocentrism the planets orbit the sun so you still have retrograde, and the sun orbits the earth

[pontecanis]

@pgfracing ~Go to GeoAstro and run the sim for yourself...Bowden's model states that Mercury and Venus orbit the sun, while the rest of the planets orbit the Earth...this is called a binary system, and is completely false. Kepler proved the solar planetary orbits mathematically and his computations stand as correct. Geocenterism is religious twaddle with no merit whatsoever.

[pontecanis]

Bowden's model converts the solar system into a binary system where Venus and Mercury orbit the sun as they as a system orbit Earth [6:00 onward]. The problem is that this requires they transit across the sun at least once a day, if not more frequently. Don't sit there and tell me you haven't seen the twice-daily SOLAR ECLIPSE !! Just bloody well asinine....

[pontecanis]

I took another look at the nonsensical model and discovered that the orbits of the sun, Mercury, and Venus would have to cross the orbital paths of Earth and Mars--they wouldn't be doing it for long!! How hopelessly ill-thought out and pathetic.

[Vegans4judaism]

I barely just started this video....WTF THEY ARE CLAIMING THE SUN IS ROTATING AROUND US?

[evilotakuneko]

I chuckled at all the comments from redsky which he removed after a thorough pwnage. :D

[SSJ3Ulcer]

You seriously have to question whether it is worthwhile to try and educate anyone who has internet access, and yet is still stupid and ignorant enough to consider whether geocentricity is true.

[chattiestspike2]

the very ending was epic

[sleazybtd]

Typical of creationists, comments are disabled on his videos. Fortunately, he didn't disable the rating system.

[fireflygirl246]

I agree redsky is not right about anything, but I don't think he would agree with you on the size of the universe. I think we would say that the universe is only a little bigger then the solar system and the stars are not like our sun but little points of light put there by god.

come to think of it that's stupider then saying that the outer edge or the universe travels at hundreds of trillions of times the speed of light.

[KristoffDoe]

That won't help him either. I just made different calculation - assuming Earth is stationary and universe rotates around it, at what distance linear velocity would be equal to speed of light? And the answer is (if I haven't made a mistake) - approx. 27 astronomical units. Which means that Neptune is moving at approx. 1.09 c and Pluto - between 1.08 and 1.80 c.

On the side note - I would love to hear his explanation why in his model planets stop and go in reverse or move in spirals. :)

[CrystalEye736]

the sun revolves around the earth?? how old IS this guy 400?!

[MrTear3]

Just so you know, you didn't debunk creationism with this video, but you certainly debunked that idiot and his archaic attempts at misinformation. Cheers. :)

[Answersinbooks]

This is what they use to justify their creationist stand point. Their thinking being that if the Earth is at a place of prominence in the universe i.e. at the center of it, then that is proof of design. Thanks for the support :)

[biancademonet]

@MrTear3 Actually he DID....by merely citing Copernicus, Galileo, etc he utterly defeated Creationist Geocentric 6K YO BS......Mr Bowden is England's version of Kent Hovind...just as ignorant and JUST as prone to falsifying/quote mining LOL

[MrTear3]

Creationist does not = Christian idiot. So no, the general idea that something created the universe is not debunked by this, but the idiotic notion of geocentricity was destroyed quite a long time age, and this video reinforces that.

[Answersinbooks]

Right Creationist =/= Christian. However no one in this thread has said that it did.

The direct idea of design was not debunked in this video. The video instead addressed one of the tenants of these particular creationist's arguments for a designed universe. That being the Earth is at a central point in the universe denoting significance.

It is a step at a time approach.

I would ask that both bianca and yourself keep things civil if you want to disagree further.

Regards AIB :)

[MrTear3]

Sorry for the idiot part of that, it could have gone without saying. I can admit that it was immature. I was half asleep though, in my own defense, and i have no problem keeping things civil. :)

[Answersinbooks]

Thanks :) Defense accepted. Internet discussions whilst sleepy is always a down hill slope and we have all been there :)

[666ferguson]

Wow, why didn't I find your channel before? You're great, keep up the good work!

[Daruqe]

WIN.

[warnation101]

My goodness!

Geocentric!??? Are these people time travelers from the 18th century?

Don't waste your time debating these creationist morons. Because there's nothing to be debated about creationism and true science.

[JennyFarlopez]

That's what I thought the first time I heard about creationists!

[jgoemat]

Anyone checked out redsky's video reply? What a moron. Observations with your own eyes can tell you that the planets and sun move in relation to the background stars throughout the year.

[atheistfriends]

THE GOD DEBATE is on my channel.

[sfg911]

How is this bad news?

[Answersinbooks]

Bad luck a photon has NO MASS. Unlike items such as planets, stars, galaxies and galactic clusters.

Also you are still far short of your required speed even with the 10K x the speed of light.

Bad Luck Andrew.

[Answersinbooks]

sfg911 seems to have looked this up for me.

I did say nothing. I should have added 'with mass' to that statement. However these are general access videos and I deemed going into that level of detail would serve only to bog down the video.

I am well aware of what a Photon is.

Other than the distance calculations for the size of the universe this has no impact upon the speed an object with mass can achieve. You are still over a barrel.

[Answersinbooks]

Consider yourself... no on second thoughts don't do that. I wouldn't want to instigate a state of depression in another human being.

[Answersinbooks]

Results don't lie. However they can be misleading and misrepresented by self serving leaches.

Hmm may be I should get a new barrel this one is all dirty where you have been bent over it for so long.

[Answersinbooks]

Oh sorry I more regularly use the scientific term leach and obviously slipped that in by mistake.

I should not be surprised that you picked up on that however. What with your scientific competency I expect you use a lot of leeches when you get the odd fever.

[xxxrokkstarrxxx]

"Photons are light and have been measured at 10,000 times the speed of light."

Do you have source for this?

The speed of light is the fastest speed an object with mass can travel through space. The speed of light cannot be exceeded because that is the speed at which any more energy you put into an object will be converted to mass instead of velocity.

I can understand if you weren't aware of this, but stating that light has been observed traveling faster than light is just astoundingly stupid.

[xxxrokkstarrxxx]

"You should try looking things up..."

I assure you that I'm quite familiar with entanglement and can tell you confidently that particles do not exceed the speed of light in quantum entanglement. You really, honestly haven't the slightest idea what quantum entanglement is or what you're even talking about do you? I mean, you make it pretty obvious that you are quite literally a vacuous source of information on this matter.

[xxxrokkstarrxxx]

"The fact that I had to point it out to you says it all?"

The fact that you've had to point WHAT out to me? That you don't know what you're talking about? What are the implications of this other than that I obviously was previously unaware how staggeringly barren your working knowledge of quantum mechanics is?

[xxxrokkstarrxxx]

"Go and insult someone else for a change."

Sir, I haven't insulted you.

You are claiming to have knowledge of certain properties of matter while your statements repeatedly demonstrate that you in fact do NOT. Pointing this out does not qualify as an insult.

Consider the following statements:

A)"You are a worthless twit."

B)"Your claims are incorrect and show you don't know what you're talking about."

The statement A is in fact a blatant insult, but B is a valid observation.

[xxxrokkstarrxxx]

"I've promoted this video enough by helping it to clock up views."

..and please sir, don't fap your ego in public. That's just rude.

I suspect this video has garnered it's views based on the popularity of the Debunking Creationism topic and has little to do with your own videos, responses, or comments.

Your own videos limit your exposure by disallowing comments and video responses. Why is it that you'll post video responses to other people's vids, yet refuse to allow them on your own?

[OgeronimonominoregO]

@xxxrokkstarrxxx

"stating that light has been observed traveling faster than light is just astoundingly stupid."

If that's the case then you should apply that judgment

equally to the big bang model which affirms that very

phenomenon with the highest redshift objects. They

are said to be traveling away from us at superluminal

velocities.

[xxxrokkstarrxxx]

@OgeronimonominoregO

There are many galaxies with red shift numbers higher than 1.4 which are receding from us faster than light...because of the EXPANSION OF SPACE. There are many other phenomena which occur under special conditions that can be said to be FTL, however they NEVER convey energy or information faster than light. Now get lost.

[xxxrokkstarrxxx]

I just have a quick question before I explain to you what entanglement is, since as a perfectly capable adult with all of your senses intact you have managed to formulate arguments that depend on a concept and simultaneously demonstrate that you don't understand the very concept they depend on. But first:

If the Earth is held in place by something, how come that something doesn't hold everything else in place as well?

[sfg911]

OR the pilot wave theory could be wrong!

"Their analysis shows that the pilot wave must travel at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light to explain their results, a possibility they consider extremely unlikely.

It seems that there are always people who will argue for specialness. First there was the luminiferous aether, then the anthropic principle, and now an entanglement frame. With the possible exception of the anthropic principle, none of these ideas survive for very long."

[billygutter01]

Just followed over from the Andromeda's Wake, video.  Excellent stuff!

I mean, really? Geocentricity?? Did I fall into a time machine on the way back from the coffee pot?

Har har!

[falchion49]

Don't beat about the bush at the end, say what you mean ;-)

[AlanKey86]

Hiya, I've just followed your link on AW's video - I really enjoyed yours too. 5/5

[jhbbunch]

I have to laugh at the way some have used Einsteins principle of equivalency to prove that you can choose the earth as the frame of reference and make everything move around it. Yes you can do that. But you have to assume that the rest of the universe is configured in just such a way to account for the earth being 'the center'.

The math is undoable. A heliocentric model can chuck out the effects of everything but the sun and the planets to explain the movements of the system. Infinitely easier.

[jhbbunch]

Also, they forget the 'relativity' thing. There is no center in a relativistic universe. There are only relationships between inertial frameworks.

[HomoCyborgZombie]

People still think the sun revolves around the earth?!

Jesus tap dancing Christ...

I could understand evolution to an extent, but the earth being stationary?!

[sushiyama1]

Nephilimfree is a geocentrist lol.

[Sephlock]

Source please.

[stork5100]

Copernicus did not have a telescope. Neither did Kepler.

The telescope was invented a century after Copernicus and Galileo was the first natural philosopher to even think of pointing one at the stars.

[mortensjoegren]

"Look it up if you don't believe me. "

You made the claim, you provide the documentation.

[sfg911]

Come on... there is no way a grown (sane) adult believes the earth is the center of the universe. NO WAY.

All the stars would be moving at millions of times the speed of light AND all the exact same APPARENT speed seeing as they are all at different distances away.

Sorry dude.... you are nuts.

Can you face palm a nuclear bomb and survive? Just throwing that out there considering we're discussing a geocentric universe... I mean... why not? It's possible.

[sfg911]

And I have to go with the results of my diagnosis. You've lost it.... completely. Why not roll with it and insist the earth is flat too?

Hey look! love to chat but it's raining candy canes.... gotta go collect them all before they melt and make a sticky mess in my driveway. See ya!

[sfg911]

What could I possibly say to help someone such as yourself? Do you think we should take you seriously?

Sorry... I'm just not allowed. The giant blue cockroach under my bed will eat my toes if I don't protect the big lie. Just count your blessings YOU don't have one under your bed so you can spread the tru,,,, AHHHHH get away!!!

[schradww00]

You want something useful? Explain how the Eötvös effect does not contradict a geocentric universe. Go on, try me!!! Eötvö observed that gravity is greater when traveling westward and less traveling eastward. This was attributed as a consequence from the earth's rotation. I dare you to explain that away!!!!

[thisis3d]

what people, literate ones? nothing to offer, like mentioning gravity? we orbit the sun because the sun is larger then us and exerts more gravity then earth does. it doesn't mean the bible is wrong, i don't feel the bible is true but that has nothing to do with the earth orbiting the sun.

[sfg911]

Redsky got a question for you....

Every year in August, the Earth passes through rock and dust fragments left behind by the comet Swift-Tuttle

How do you explain this? I just gotta know!

[sfg911]

Sounds simple! Except I don't understand how the sun passing through the dust sends it our way, and even if it did how does this happen again every year but not twice? AND why does it only happen for one day? Wouldn't the sun go through the dust every 24 hours for a period?

BUT you did bring up a new question for me that I just gotta know! How does the sun wobble back and forth for the seasons? Is it pulled by a chariot or something?

[thisis3d]

four scientific experiments you wrongly interpret don't over power the thousands of experiments that disprove your hypothesis.

[ark1588]

Do you have an explanation for Malcolm Bowden's position wrt

"Airey's Failure" ?

.

[Mountain17000]

As a christain I am ashamed by this guy stupidity and i am sorry for his ignorance how ever you didn't Debunk Creationism you just disproved a theory that most christians don't belive in

[Answersinbooks]

As I human being I am ashamed by this guy's stupidity, so I understand how you feel. Unfortunately this is one branch of the 'creationist tree of life'. They hold the view that the Earth is the center of the universe and this denotes the cosmic importance of the Earth in a grand design. I am not after debunking religion as a whole.

[pete975]

every time I subscribe to the intelligent channels I find that the same two related channels always come up

Thunderfoot and Potholer

Keep up the good work and I may get off my lazy arse and post my own videos one day

[draagon66]

I may be a retired old fart with nothing better to do but I actually LIVE for this!

Congratulations and you are a worthy addition to the established ranks of the educated that not only strive to educate the retards of creationism, with questionable success, but fill in the gaps in my personal formal scientific education (or lack of).

I am eternally grateful. Eternal in that I will continue appreciating you from my place in hades, come the day.

Eagerly anticipated 1: Your next vid. 2: Hades.

[sirnlawson]

You're either a Genesis fan, or you thought about how appropriate that song was to the situation (taking into account that it was written by Phil Collins about Evangelical Christians, whom he put into "Room 101" on the show of the same name).

Anyway - nice video, and good use of the soundtracks, and...wow. Somebody has an over-inflated ego to think that they're at the center of the universe.

I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks the Earth is flat, and heavy objects fall faster than light ones.

[Cnidarious]

Wait you have a powerful enough Telescope to see Jupiter that well?

i am impressed.

I must seek such an instrument.

[Answersinbooks]

I have an older scope (and not as fancy as that one shown) a great starter scope would be a more modern version of mine Celestron AstroMaster 130 EQ Telescope

It is quite cheep. ~ £130

The one shown is a computerized scope that has a motorized mount. These take little setting up, you punch in what you want to see and it goes to it. They also track the object as the Earth rotates making photography an option. These are expensive but easy.

[Haitahx]

Five stars Sir ! Your the new Sheriff around here now !

[hEaDoNtHeBlOcK]

Nicely done sir,

I stumbled across some of Bowden's clips earlier in the week and was amazed........not in a good way, obviously........

He seems to be one of a long line of nutters who believes that science, as a whole, is one big conspiracy.........madness....­...

And on the off chance that Redsky is reading the comments........

You sir, are a complete fucktard, may the full force of the DMCA abuse channel reign down on you.

[drakesCorner]

haha nicely put

[midnightslastashes]

best use of knights of cydonia by muse, ever!

[musicgeniusno1]

They just get more pathetic dont they...and more threats! may the debunking continue. :)

[drakesCorner]

redsky just got rocked

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

I will happily upload this on my channel if it gets taken down. I am also going to contact the new antitroll group I'm apparently part of. It's time for a name and shame of this moron.

[zeffii]

also thanks for the heads up on drakescorner.

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

He's insane. Pitiful.

[zeffii]

a geocentric universe? that is shocking!

*jaw-drop*