1. The bigbang theory misleads people to feel infinitely small and insignificantly "lost in space". 2. The theory of evolution is a materialistic delusion, that makes mankind feel as gods and reduces the sense of responsibility & liability. 3. The globe model causes us to dismiss our senses and prevents us from exploring our physical reality and understanding our true nature. 4. Space exploration embezzles over 100 million of worldwide taxes per day, that could help end poverty, research illnesses and aid effects of natural disasters. 5. Geoengineering might have side effects on human life and surely we could reduce emissions first by abolishing all patents on renewable energy technologies. 6. "Anti-Vaxxer" is a trigger word that provokes people who have been negatively primed to ignore and/or fight any inquiry, like why certain ingredients that are only beneficial to the industry, are not removed/improved (Sodium Chloride, Aluminium phosphate, MSG, Human albumin, Bovine from cow skin)
@@fxdr1312 Thank you, to be honest the video was made by my Spanish friend Carles with the RU-vid channel "Divino Fractal". He wanted me to do the narration for the English version :)
I have learned that if I say what I actually think about a video, RU-vid will censor me for being a big ol' meanie. Suffice to say that I find the musings of this particular RU-vidr to be nonsensical and insipid in the extreme, and not worthy of one's time.
I imagine that everything was bigger, meaning that even cells and molecules etc to scale. I am also supposing that this could have been a world before ours. There are myths of Titans that were not made by Intelligent Design but rather mutants, made by fallen angels. The story goes that they didn't stop growing and eventually went to war/ate each other as their hunger couldn't be satisfied. ...It is all unknown and possibly unknowable but we can follow the scientific method to verify the theory of Bio-Geology for ourselves 👍
I'm stunned how ignorant Howard is and how he can't grasp quite simple science. His confidence couldn't be more misplaced! Howard...if you change the position on earth of the Foucault pendulum and the drift varies with latitude that couldn't be stronger evidence for a globe. I completely understand Craig's frustration because he knows what he's talking about and you're completely clueless. I can only assume you love the sound of your own voice so much that you don't care you're talking total bollocks.
@@HowardGeorgeStirrup No Howard, you don't understand. It's obvious from your questions in the video that you haven't understood the mechanisms at play. If you did understand you wouldn't ask those questions and you would be convinced. That's why there is worldwide scientific consensus that earth is an oblate spheroid. Much of the tech you use on a daily basis only works because the earth is a globe. That you don't understand how it works is obvious as you can't answer simple questions about things like GPS and have a poor grasp of how gravity acts on bodies. The fact that you are not convinced doesn't make a jot of difference to what's actually true. eg Satellite systems across the world work perfectly whether you are convinced that satellites orbit the earth or not. QUESTION: How does the American GPS provide your phone with an accurate location absolutely anywhere on earth? Explain the method used. We all rely on this tech all the time and the essence of how it does this is very simple, however I bet you don't understand how it works. You just know that it does.
@@HowardGeorgeStirrup If you understand that the Foucault pendulum swing varies with latitude then why are you not convinced? Every test we ever make (like photos from space!) make it obvious that the earth is roughly spherical. How many lunar eclipses show the shadow of a flat earth on the moon!? Clue....none.....ever. The only shape that can cast the same curved shadow whatever direction the sunlight is coming from is a sphere. Why can't Australians see the pole star on the clearest nights? If you understood these things you would have no choice but to be convinced. That's how reason works. To understand the evidence and not be convinced is to be irrational. So, either you don't understand the evidence or you are being irrational. Which is it?
Howard: Your efforts to dismiss the worlds expertise with out of focus, over-exposed, completely crap photos/videos of planets off your iPhone was completely laughable. This science-educated viewer can instantly see that you haven't got a fucking clue. When you're ignorant of the subjects you're trying to get a handle on you need to go away and study more! We've known much of the stuff that was being explained to you for a very long time. You're never going to understand basic cosmology if you don't take the trouble to learn about the wealth of evidence we have for the current scientific consensus. We don't send spacecraft to distant planets by blasting them into space and hoping for the best. Nobody will be consulting you for advice! In this video it's obvious you are completely clueless about basic science. Go and study, you need help from qualified people who DO understand what they are talking about.
@@overthehill370 you really should check these things for yourself Geoff. You can observe Venus flickering in the blue sky with just the naked eye and you can test the effect of moonlight, with 2 glasses of water, a thermometer and a magnifying glass. *Don't be a "science denier"!
@@HowardGeorgeStirrup Craig explains exactly how Venus reflects the sun's light to earth in the video above (About 1h 25m onwards). If you can grasp what Craig explains you'll become less ignorant. Craig nails it when he describes your ignorant take on Venus based on your iPhone pics (!) as "The most moronic bullshit ever...this is clearly out of focus fucking nonsense". I really shouldn't have to tell you this but......an iPhone is not the right tool for examining distant planets. We have things called telescopes. Albedo is a measure of how reflective an object is. Venus has the highest albedo of all the planets in our solar system (0.7) which is why it's bright. ie Venus reflects about 70% of the light falling on it. The earth is about 0.3 and the moon a mere 0.1. Venus reflects light in phases just like the moon. Partly lit and partly in shadow. It doesn't 'emit' light! Now to your daft 'cold moonlight' claims, popular amongst flat-earthers without scientific expertise. I already know that moonlight is scattered/reflected sunlight. YOU need to learn about the different ways heat is transferred. Radiation, conduction and convection. Then you might understand why 'cold moonlight' claims are, to quote Craig "the most moronic bullshit ever". An important part of the scientific method is endless testing to check findings. "Cold moonlight" claims do not pass this test. answersresearchjournal.org/flat-earth-prediction-moonlight-cooling/. Only one of us is a science-denier Howard. Hint...it's not me!
@@brianshuker-wstf Hey Brian I'm glad that you like it, everyone is great here thanks. I hope that you and all your loved ones are well and enjoying the summer weather. (It's uncomfortably hot here!) ..."The love of money is the root of all evil". It amazes me the amount of people that are more interested in fame and fortune than being concerned about the potential consequences. It seems so short sighted to disrespect the Creator and encourage people to not believe. Because if us believers are mistaken, we try to live a constructive lifestyle and when we die no problem. Although if these RU-vidr atheists are mistaken, they are promoting an unhealthy/sinful lifestyle and shall suffer for it in the afterlife. (Big risk for small superficial gains!)
If you make a primary observation of Venus you'll get the same results that it will flicker which proves that it makes its own light, therefore higher dimension and Lucifer. I feel like the reasoning broke down somewhere near the end.
@@iyoutome That's awesome, I don't believe in coincidences. I have another 2 videos coming out soon, that are also related to this. One about mandalas from results of multiplication and division, as well as one about patterns that appear in numbers and nature. I hope that you get to see them, I would love to know what you think!
I see the hand symbols they are using in your thumbnail pictures ( horns & more ) hmm…wonder why they would do that? Oh they have a God alright…not Atheists, Satanists. I love your ‘About’ section! 🙏🏼
Our children are in big, big trouble if this is where they’re heading…to this mindset… the name says it all “heathen-talk” with a hint of bloodiness in the symbol. They always show their true colors, If we stop & look. NO THANK YOU.
What part of this functional mathematical mechanism is "garbage", why do you think so and how can you support your claim? I challenge you to try to convince me with a sound and valid argument.
@@thetruthinourskies333 You have put forward a hypothesis and it is up to you to prove it. This is the scientific method. You have not proved a thing. There are many assumptions and beliefs in your presentation.
@@cma4023 I cannot speak for the hosts of the show but I can demonstrate that I am sincere. Look through the videos on my channel, you shall see a consistency over many years and I have been honest in multiple interviews about my intentions and reasons for trying etc. *I have also published evidence and a testimonial on my website. ...If you are still not convinced, then I challenge you to point out one thing that I have done, that has a negative influence on people's search for truth! Thanks.
Very good point Howard . I'm really surprised that the guy hadn't or didn't know much about The golden Ratio. I've heard it described as the thumb print of God actually. I wonder if you could describe evolution as a terrestrial big bang ?
That is a good comparison, I find it hilarious that Jimmy admitted that he doesn't know much about it, yet could still confidently dismiss it without any further inquiry. ...If we let someone mistaken talk for themselves long enough, eventually they will show their confirmation bias and lack of logic!
I think Howard's largest reasoning failure is that he continually presents evidence that isn't conclusive. It's all evidence that *could* mean something is true, but it could also have other explanations so it doesn't provide any safe conclusions. He does this with pretty much every piece of 'evidence' he presents.
Take a good long look into the mirror and stop projecting! ...I always provide reproducible evidence and challenge people to provide counter evidence or at least alternative explanations. As I never get more than deflection, ad hominem insults and at best arguments from incredulity, I have even been known to put my money where my mouth is and offered to pay for counter evidence. Try harder pal, it's weak and pathetic to keep spamming my videos for years with unsupported claims 🙄🥱😴
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented withany _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 5. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ 11. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
@@Theo_Skeptomai I believe that you are agnostic, because I disagree with your definition of atheism. I also think that worldview is inconsistent and that your bias towards the credible evidence that has been presented to you, is why you claim to have no good reason to believe in a Creator... 1. You cannot observe something that is outside of our physical space and time. *Yet you believe in the BigBang which goes against every experiment and observation ever made. 2 & 3.If someone did claim to have observed a higher dimensional being, it would be in a dream or hallucination. Either way secondary information that cannot be verified. *Yet you believe in abiogenesis. 4 & 5 & 6 & 7. There are thousands of logical arguments and everything observed in nature necessitates a cause. *Yet you believe the opposite, that something can come from nothing. (Order from randomness) 8. You may have experienced many supernatural events but not realized because of preconceived ideas and confirmation bias. *Yet you believe in theoris like gravity and evolution, which have never been demonstrated or experienced. 9. You were not there in the beginning, so why would you expect to see anything come into our physical reality from an exterior/higher dimension? *Yet you ignore the mathematical proof 0 ^ 0 = 1 which is a reproducible calculation in the language with which our universe is made from. 10. You should look into the open source investigation "Bio-Geology" for evidence of Divine Intervention, the Globe Lie investigation for proof of a Devil and the mathematical proofs in Phi, Pi and results of multiplication and division for evidence of Intelligent Design. *Yet you believe in unfalsifiable claims of BigBang and the formation of Earth and life from a primordial soup etc. 11. The definition that most people have for "God" is a Creator outside of our space and time that designed and maintains everything we experience. *Yet you believe in scientific theories that have opposition/different conclusiona between scientists and philosophers. ...To be honest, I appreciate your efforts to explain your position and I hope that you are making inquiries with good faith and the honest quest for knowledge. Because if you are not willing to follow the evidence but maintain faith in what you want to believe by ignoring evidence, then this is a waste of our time. I ask you to look into the information that I suggested in my response to you 10th point. You can find references on my website and I am open to see if you have counter evidence or better explanation to the information. Thank you for making a comment!
@HowardGeorgeStirrup Thanks for your detailed, cordial, and heartfelt response. While I am agnostic, my comment defines and speaks to my rational position of _atheism,_ not my position of _agnosticism._ But I will define that position as well. My position of agnosticism is that I haven't sufficient knowledge or available information to justify changing my _default_ position of atheism. I am curious as to why you disagree with my definition of atheism - to suspend any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. Care to explain why you disagree?
@@Theo_Skeptomai I disagree with the modern definition as it is an attempt to appear skeptical, while actually enabling ignorance and arrogance. Theism is the belief that a Creator is necessary, atheism is the belief that a Creator is not necessary. Gnosticism is the belief that we can know and demonstrate for certain that a Creator exists, while agnosticism is the position that we might not know enough to be able to be convinced. (A lack of belief/confidence/certainty) ...For an atheist to claim "A lack of belief" is misleading and dishonest, as although they don't believe a Creator is necessary, they do believe in indemonstable "scientific" theories like the BigBang, abiogenesis, evolution, outerspace and gravity etc. *Please watch the video called "The Mathematical Model of the Universe" and let me know what you think about that information and if it supports the information and claims of this video. Thank you!
@HowardGeorgeStirrup Hi again! I suggest you counter the very definition of 'atheism' each of them presents. I believe the differences will be merely sematic, anyway. The major difference between my own _approach_ to atheism, and let's be honest, _every other_ atheists' approach, is that I separate the _belief_ of the atheist from the _position_ of atheism. I would _state_ this position of atheism again if I thought that you didn't already know my own definition better than I. And you also know my _argument_ concerning this position - that when it comes to the truth of the claim made by certain theists [that a particular god exists in reality], one either ACKNOWLEDGES the truth of this claim (theism) - or one DOESN'T (atheism). You also understand that I call upon the Logical Law of Excluded Middle to defend this proper dichotomy (theism/atheism). Even though you disagree with my definition and argument, you _understand_ it. And to be very honest, you are the ONLY person who DOES understand it. I have never found agreement even among _atheists_ with my definition and argument. On the other hand, you could champion it if I went MIA. Where I differ from all other notable atheists (Matt Dillahunty, Aaron Ra, Seth Andrews, Paulogia, Rationality Rules, GM Skeptic, Alex O'Connor) and unknown atheists I encounter, is that I state I _believe_ no gods to exist in reality as opposed to _lacking_ a belief that one does. The problem I find with "lacktheism" [not my term but applicable] is that it states only what an atheist _doesn't_ believe rather than what he or she _does_ believe. It is not my lack of _belief_ that that aligns with my position of atheism, but the lack of _sufficient credible evidence._ The emphasis ought to be on the lack of evidence, not the lack of belief. Granted, these notable and unknown atheists are far more intelligent than I. In addition, I am quite certain that my Aspergers (and this is not an excuse, but rather a realization) lends my definitions and distinctions to appear odd to those without such disability. But, what I lack in social normality, I make up in raw and rugged handsomeness. I have to tell and report three "very short, appropriate, and for God's sake [yes, my therapist is a Christian], funny jokes" for my weekly therapy assignment. Tell me if that one qualifies. As always, I welcome your feedback.
@@Theo_Skeptomai thank you for your comment, I really like the term "lacktheism" and will probably be using it in future philosophical arguments. I would really appreciate to get your feedback on my other video about Phi, called "The Mathematical Model of the Universe". As it may cause you to cahnge your position, or you may have alternative explanations that I haven't considered. Thank you!
Thank you, please check out the video called "Bio-Geology The Harp Shaped Stone Phenomena" ❤ It is the easiest way to participate in the open source investigation and obtain your own geological findings to help verify the theory. *There are now renowned Chiropractors, Doctors, Cardiologists and Geologists who have also come to the same conclusion, that the majority of pebbles/smooth stones are petrified organs!
They have given me many strikes for other videos, yet this seems to be safe as it was a courtroom hearing perhaps. *It's one of my favorite reuploads :)
I tried watching a debate with this dude trying to prove dragons, then came to his channel to see if everything he says is so silly. Yup, it is! And I have no idea why Howard would repost Armin & Forrest owning him on AXP, unless he has a humiliation fetish...
"Why do atheists ignore reproducible evidence, to maintain faith in theories?" (They didn't address the 2 facts that I brought up, instead they resorted to ridicule to deflect from them!)
@@HowardGeorgeStirrup When you use the term "theory," it’s important to clarify its meaning, as it varies by context. In everyday usage, a theory might suggest something speculative or a guess without supporting evidence. However, in the context of science, a theory is a robust explanation for why things work or how events happen. Scientific theories are based on ideas that can be tested and are not speculative or based on mere guesses. Additionally, we need to define "faith." In a theistic sense, faith is a belief and trust in something based on evidence, but without total proof. In conclusion, your question appears to misinterpret the nature of scientific inquiry. Scientific theories are not matters of faith; they are continually tested and challenged based on reproducible evidence. Atheists or scientists do not maintain faith in theories; instead, they rely on empirical evidence and the scientific method. Faith, which involves belief without complete proof, does not apply to scientific theories because science seeks to disprove or refine theories with the best available evidence. Applying faith to science would counteract its goal, as science always seeks the most accurate and evidence-based explanations.
@@codyjoco you also just ignored the 2 facts that I presented and resorted to making a long winded assumption. Please address the 2 reproducible primary observations, instead of deflecting like the hosts of the Atheist Experience did!
A found a rock vaguely in the shape of a man taking a shit. It fits in the palm of my hand. Tiny men took shits tens of millions of years ago, and they could fit in the palm of your hand. Wow.
I agree and we shouldn't maintain faith in gravity without demonstration, while we can demonstrate things like the surface tension on water. I couldn't agree more! 👍
You guys should have answered the questions. I think those were genuine because I once had those questions too ( not that I'm a flat earther). But, I had humble people who answered them for me.
I am a globe skeptic because I couldn't prove curvature when I tried using the scientific method. Now I have found many verses in the Bible and over 50 in the Quran, that describe earth as contained, geocentric and level. I think that FE map and the globe are psyops. There is more than the physical to our reality, I believe that earth is 7D/7 dimensional shape that only the Creator knows. *If you disagree, I would love to know what convinces you that we are on a globe and how that doesn't conflict with Islamic cosmology.
@@HowardGeorgeStirrup I don't think RU-vid comments are the right channel for that discussion. If you want to have a respectful conversation that we can publish on RU-vid then let's have a zoom conversation.
I have been asking for counter evidence since 2017 pal, I can't believe people like yourself think that is so wild, for theists to follow the scientific method and be skeptical about things that atheists preach but cannot demonstrate.
More qualified men then me have shown you the truth, it would be pointless for me to try and debate the subject with you, you are dug into you way of thinking clearly. good luck, maybe ill check on ya in another 5 years lol
@@scottrogers3722 you cannot cite even one example of anyone providing counter evidence, yet you have the audacity to make claims against someone that is providing evidence. I have nothing more to say to you, you have exposed yourself as a fanatic with blind faith. Goodbye!