Comments by "Anonymous" (@Anonymous-df8it) on "Welch Labs" channel.

  1.  @philtanics1082  According to the heliocentric model, the earth rotates from west to east. However, since (at least according to it), the moon moves from west to east faster than the Earth, the eclipse will travel from west to east, not from east to west. This can happen whilst the lunar months are longer than the sidereal day is because (again, according to the heliocentric model) the moon is far enough away from the Earth such that the increased linear speed doesn't translate to an increased rotational speed (e.g., you making your finger trace a circle gives a lower linear speed and higher rotational speed than a friend walking in a large circle). @MinutePhysics has made a good video explaining this
    3
  2.  @REALPLANETXNIBIRUVIDEOZ4444  Do you have evidence? If there's a star blocking out the sun, the sky wouldn't dim as stars produce their own light. Also, it's interesting how solar eclipses always occur when the new moon is due. I wonder why that is...
    3
  3.  @Loveisabrilliantlight  Don't devalue human intellect like that. People came up with it (e.g., the authors of that book)
    3
  4. ​ @ivanwayneinc9268  If the sun and moon are the same size (and presumably the same distance from the earth so that they have the same apparent size), then surely the sun and moon will eventually collide, right? Also, the depictions can't be to scale since the distance between the sun and the Earth is over ten thousand times greater than the Earth's diameter
    3
  5.  @ndjibukabengele973  "we are made in the image of the ONE WHO created all these things." Do you have evidence?
    3
  6. Why didn't they work?
    2
  7.  @gilbert2720  Like what?
    2
  8.  @Travis_Hackney  Relevance?
    2
  9.  @samuelmunoz906  Who suggested that the Saros cycle indicates the place of the path, since you believe that one must be indoctrinated to believe that "No one in this thread suggested the Saros cycle indcates [sic] place of the path."?
    2
  10.  @stevetobe4494  Forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand the relevance?!
    2
  11.  @danimotherofchickens479  I thought that if you pick three 'random' cycle lengths similar to each other, they will coincide inevitably coincide with each other in a few hundred cycles. I'm confused why an 'amazing god' would be required?!
    2
  12.  @AwesomePlaylists888  Does religion really need to be dragged into this discussion?
    2
  13.  @lamalamalex  ???
    2
  14. Apologies in advance for any errors made
    2
  15.  @AwesomePlaylists888  Evidence?!
    2
  16.  @AwesomePlaylists888  First, provide evidence
    2
  17.  @stevetobe4494  If the source is so reliable, can it be cited in an academic journal?
    2
  18. ​ @AwesomePlaylists888  "The words that we speak are self evident that Jesus is God and that we need a personal relationship with him" "X is self-evident" (e.g., The words that we speak are self-evident") makes sense, but "X is self-evident that Y" (e.g., your original quote) is not coherent. In fact, your sentence is a run-on sentence: "The words that we speak are self evident" Are they though? Who is "we"? Some statements are self-evident (e.g. "water is wet"), but others aren't (e.g. "Pineapple on pizza tastes good"), and some are just plain incoherent (e.g., your original statement) "Jesus is God and that we need a personal relationship with him" Evidence?
    2
  19.  @stevetobe4494  What's a watcher, or a fallen one? Also, do you have contemporary sources (i.e., from the time of the event) about 'watchers', whatever those are, teaching men about astronomy and becoming 'fallen ones', whatever those are?
    2
  20.  @AwesomePlaylists888  Blind faith means you follow some holy book without questioning it. You need to question things, design experiments etc. to discover new things. Stop trying to defend your blind faith in some unsubstantiated holy book
    2
  21.  @AwesomePlaylists888  Do you have any evidence for the notion that your sky daddy's son, who is also sky daddy, somehow, spoke celestial objects into existence and set them in motion? Oh, wait. I forgot that blind faith is a virtue to you. You're going to cite the Bible, to which I ask for proof that it's a credible source, and you'll just state that I just have to have faith in it (i.e., believe it without questioning). Sure! Besides, your god isn't very moral, as evidenced by the following scenario posed in your holy book: An omniscient god sets up a paradise, including Adam, Eve, a tree of knowledge with forbidden fruit, and a talking snake. God tells Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit, and the talking snake he set up tells them to eat the fruit. They oblige with the snake, eat the fruit, and now, all their descendants are destined to die, the females must suffer a really painful childbirth, with many experiencing premenstrual syndrome every month outside of that, as punishment for eating the fruit. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they had no sense of right and wrong (as that came from the forbidden fruit), and so had no idea that they were supposed to follow your god and not the snake he set up. Also, your god would have known that this would be the result due to his omniscience. He deliberately set up the scenario, which is a trap, for they didn't know any better, and he, being omniscient, knew that they didn't know any better. Then, if that wasn't bad enough, he then punished every future innocent person, who did not, and will not eat the fruit, to certain death and half of them to some of the most painful childbirths in the animal kingdom. Even if your holy book is right, your god is a piece of $h!t, and isn't worth worshipping and giving up a seventh of your life for. And if it's wrong (which is the stance I take), then it's not worth worshipping and giving up a seventh of your life for a fictional character. So, either way, your god is not worth worshipping, at all, and you can stop trying to convert me. Bye!
    2
  22.  @kevinlawrence1582  You're welcome!
    2
  23.  @stevetobe4494  Are those sources truly independent?
    2
  24.  @AwesomePlaylists888  How do you define "positive action"?
    2
  25.  @AwesomePlaylists888  So "positive action" is just "discovering" that your specific holy book is true?! Sorry, but discoveries in the real world require evidence to back them up; otherwise, I could "discover" that there are fifty million unicorns on earth. Also, you probably define "negative thoughts" as thoughts that disagree with your holy book as opposed to harmful thoughts To see why "thoughts that disagree with your holy book" and "harmful thoughts" are two different things, religious scrupulosity is an example of the latter and not the former. I'd consider the thoughts involved in religious scrupulosity to be negative (since they negatively impact your mental health), yet you probably consider them to be positive (since they result in the sufferer following your holy book)
    2
  26.  @AwesomePlaylists888  ???
    2
  27.  @rotors_taker_0h  Why would it be difficult to understand how they "work" or why they didn't? Also, what were the 'classic methods' and could people in the soft sciences who know programming create an image identifier or chatbot that actually thinks like us (which should work since people can do those things, and the code should be intuitive since it's our own thought processes)? I don't know about you, but I don't remember multiplying giant matrices together a bunch of times when thinking about how to respond to you (you could argue that I did but aliens wiped my memory or something, but that would be unfalsifiable), and whilst glare and monochromatic light sources would probably make it hard to see things, those are extreme cases, and I can certainly handle sunlight vs indoor lighting
    1