@Jonathan Lumbreras It smells like a glossy new book 😊

I can and it smells amazing

Ooh books do smell nice ngl.

:) thanks morgan

wow thank you alex

I have developed a similar addiction

@@pencrash9289 BBB. I. Know ok. I’m No BBB pnomoononononoon onion onomononoonononomonononoonononomompph bu N N l

@@LetsFindOut1 now m l no sorry I’m v you out to on N p no no n one nonpn onnononono no no no onononnn ok v on oonoononononoooonon ono noncompliance mill

wow thank you for telling me james. thats so cool to hear

20 minutes is a feat as far as I'm concerned. I usually never make it past 15.

Me either lol I never get past 20 mins I be out like a light...

i guess im asking the wrong place but does anyone know a method to log back into an instagram account..? I was dumb lost my login password. I appreciate any help you can give me

@Jonathan Lumbreras Yes it was

lol it always takes longer doesnt it

@@LetsFindOut1 I start out thinking "Maybe I'll do a video on this book" and it always ends up being a series haha

im well. thanks m

thanks lance :)

haha, its almost reborn

Let's Find Out ASMR tornado video! Just a little reminder

Chris Crowder is this some kind of long time subscriber joke that I’m to new to understand?

thanks grace :)

sorry thats not my area of interest

Hey man ASMRtica did an elder scrolls map drawing and he talks about the lore as he draws. Check it out!

thanks for the support kitty. Its complex, but the more we act for good, the more meaning we seem to feel. weird...

Let's Find Out ASMR that’s very true, but also is how I’ve experienced my greatest pain. I’ve adopted domestic animals and rescued wildlife for most of my 34 years. There’s always loss in that, but I’ve always been able to get past that and keep devoting myself to that passion of caring for little ones in need. This month, last year, I lost my precious son of 15 years. He was my feline son, but I couldn’t see him as anything less than my own child. Losing him broke me to my core. I still do rescue but I cannot get out of this feeling of constant agony. It’s maddening. I never knew the mind could feel like this and still survive. I would definitely describe my current situation as surviving, instead of living. I have a supportive husband, friends, family, 2 rescued kitty babies, but I am still so deep in depression that I don’t experience joy as I once did. Your videos help me get out of my own head and think about other things. I appreciate your work. Truly, I can’t thank you enough for it.

that's an honor. thanks for the comment g

apologetics

I may just do that. :)

Ayyy, 9th Doctor quote? 😁

ayyy you got it xD

@@RandomGuyette hell yeah 😁😁

@Zachary Jordan What does that have to do with blood clotting and cell re-growth? What? You lost me. How would this be macro?

@Zachary Jordan No I don't. I was stating a fact. If you think I'm wrong, correct me, but my comment is complete the way it is. If that doesn't make sense to some people, they can ask questions or google. I'm talking about /proven/ evolution, in multiple ways that have led to our ability to heal. I could specify but it is completely unnecessary. And also, I'm not trying to teach anyone anything, I was just saying that the thumb injury is relevant to this video topic. I'm not trying to come off as rude, but I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here besides being pedantic and assuming that the people in the comments are stupid.

You don't understand evolution. Micro v Macro FFS.... Always 1 Bible basher who has to bring the stupid.

@@atheistgamer9968 Is this directed at me? I'm not religious at all- no creationism here.

@Zachary Jordan there it iz.... What a genius. If there is macro evolution why aren't there crocoducks

lol

no ive only listened to his interviews and lectures. maybe one day i will pick up his books

Andrew Nava Music please do some proper research before making ridiculous claims such as “evolution is wrong” and then basing it off of faulty evidence. “One of the major problems with this object is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the nodule was ever part of the Red Creek's geology, which is the Lower Cretaceous Hensel Sand Formation. These deposits are thought to be roughly 110-115 million years old. Having acquired the object in the early 1980s, Baugh promoted it as a 'pre-Noachian' artefact (in other words, dating from a time before the mythical Flood of Noah). However, it was soon pointed out by a geologist that minerals dissolved from ancient strata can harden around a recent object, making it look impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. In fact, the style of the hammer would lead us to recognise it as nineteenth-century in date and of definitely American provenance. As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Despite some creationist assertions that the hammer is a dramatic pre-Flood relic, no clear evidence linking the hammer to any ancient formation has been presented. Moreover, the hammer's artistic style and the condition of the handle suggest a historically recent age. It may well have been dropped by a local worker within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved sediment hardened into a concretion around it. Unless Baugh or others can provide rigorous evidence that the hammer was once naturally situated in a pre-Quaternary stratum, it remains merely a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place artifact. The stone concretion is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble” (Weaver) “In order to claim the hammer as a reliable out-of-place artifact, one would need either 1. Convincing documentation that the hammer was once naturally embedded in an ancient rock formation, or 2. Independent scientific evidence indicating a problematic age for the hammer. So far neither has been provided. The lack of evidence for the first condition has already been acknowledged in creationist accounts. Independent evidence for the hammer's age could be gleaned from a number of methods, including Carbon 14 dating on the wooden handle. If there was no appreciable amount of C14 in it (beyond expected residual contamination) it would imply the hammer was more than 50,000 years old, and if younger than that, C14 could help pinpoint its actual age. However, for years Baugh refused to allow the hammer to be C14 dated. In an exchange of letters between creationist Walter Brown and Jim Lippard in Creation/Evolution, Brown (1989) suggested that the hammer handle has not been dated because Baugh had three "understandable" conditions for dating it: that it be done with mass spectrometry, that Baugh be present during the dating, and that someone else pay for it. However, Lippard countered that no one has objected to the first two conditions, and that Baugh had no right to expect the third, since he's the one making the claims, and thus the one obligated to back them up. Even so, even after others offered to pay for the dating, Baugh declined to have it done. As Day (1991) wrote in a follow up letter: "Far from being 'understandable,' Baugh's stipulations seem to be little short of evasive tactics... If four years have gone by and nothing has happened, I think it is safe to conclude that Baugh has no interest whatsoever in determining the truth about his marvelous hammer." Finally, in the late 1990's Baugh supporter David Lines reported on a web site (Lines, 1997, 1999) that carbon 14 dating had "recently" been done on a specimen from the inside of the handle, and that the results "showed inconclusive dates ranging from the present to 700 years ago." No information was given by Lines about when or where the dating was done, nor was any formal report referenced. The date range also seems a little curious, since most C14 labs report a date with a plus-or-minus margin of error, rather than a wide range. Perhaps a number of tests were done with different results, but Lines does not clarify this. Evidently preferring a date in the thousands of years, Lines asserted that the dating results provided "graphic evidence that the handle has been contaminated by current organic substances." However, C14 labs have ways of minimizing modern carbon contamination, and it would not likely produce ages orders of magnitude in error. At any rate, if the reported date range is even roughly indicative of the hammer's age, it is more supportive of the mainstream view of the hammer than Baugh's. After all, Baugh considers the hammer to be a "pre-Flood" relic-- presumably at least a few thousand years old. Baugh reportedly dismissed the results as only evidence that C14 is untrustworthy. However, even many creationists consider C14 dating reasonably accurate to several thousand years or more. Another potentially useful exercise would be to analyze the composition of the concretion, comparing its lithology and fossil content (both macro and micro) with the nearby creek strata. A shell and other shell fragments are readily visible in the nodule, and Mackay (1985) stated that the fossils in the nodule "are similar to those in the surrounding area." Likewise, Helfinstine and Roth (1994) suggest the lithology of the nodule is the same as the nearby rocks. However, to my knowledge no one has positively identified the clam species, or confirmed whether they are fossil or modern forms, or made a detailed comparison of the lithology or other aspects of concretion with that of nearby rocks. From the brief examinations I made of the object in 1986 and 2006, my impression was that the large clam shell was probably a recent species. One problem for hammer advocates is that careful analysis of the nodule's composition could conclusively refute Baugh's claim that it is an out- of-place artifact, but could not confirm it. That is, if the nodule contained only geologically recent material, there would be no reason to consider the hammer any older. However, as noted by Cole, if the nodule contained or was composed of ancient material, the hammer itself could still be of recent origin, since it could have been left in a place where a solution of ancient sediment collected and hardened around it. Such limy concretions can sometimes form in decades or less, and have been found around modern objects such as World War II artifacts (McKusick and Shinn, 1980). It's even possible that the nodule might contain a mixture of ancient and modern sediments or organic remains, as might occur in muddy muddles and pits in a mining operation” (Kuban). Works Consulted Harper, Jim. “The London Hammer.” Historic Mysteries, 24 Sept. 2016, www.historicmysteries.com/the-london-hammer/. Kuban, Glen J. “The London Hammer:” The London Hammer: An Alleged Out of Place Artifact, 14 July 2006, paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm. Mathews, Keith Fitzpatrick. “The London Artifact (Texas).” Bad Archaeology, 9 May 2007, www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-place-artefacts/very-ancient-artefacts/the-london-artifact/. Weaver, Mike. “The London Hammer: An Object Out of Time?” Skeptoid, 10 July 2014, skeptoid.com/blog/2014/07/10/the-london-hammer-an-object-out-of-time/. Please, research things before you come up with such childishly foolish conclusions. I hope you don’t think vaccines cause autism, the Earth is flat, or that the earth is only about six thousand years old. Too many people have been fooled into thinking that way, try not to be one of them.