Creaky Blinder Has a Video ...

Creaky Blinder has an Admirer (No, Not That Kind) · Creaky Blinder Has a Video ...

KENT HOVIND Has the Most EPIC CRASHOUT I've Ever Seen
Creaky Blinder™ | 23 janv. 2026
https://youtu.be/RknASkqhfHQ?si=A5D4loMpY-j20_5t

2:35 You'll have to admit, given his views on where taxes go, he might have had a motive for that tax evasion.

A bit like some guys have a motive to get where they risk meeting ICE.

3:22 Given not even light can escape, we are not observing them.

We might be observing their contours, but we are not observing them.

Given this is the case, how are we supposed to know this much about them?

3:40 How would you be sure matter (in black holes or in general) didn't come from God?

If matter came from mind, it didn't come from our mind, but a superior and eternal one.

Usual definitions of God (especially Christian but also Jewish or Muslim ones) would fit that part of it.

If mind came from matter, how did it learn to reason about things supposedly 1,560 light years away?

[Everything below this down to pause was taken away]

4:07 Telescopes, yes, they work.

Mathematical models seem to be so bad at working they have to be reworked every decade.

Wasn't there recently one that was overturning previous views on dark matter and dark energy?

4:31 Matter and energy being, supposedly, two sides of the same coin, sounds about as sensible as light being waves and particles at the same time.

I e not very.

It also doesn't answer where they came from, except if you presume they are eternal, meaning mind isn't, which poses questions for our reasoning capacity.

The afterglow being photographed is one interpretation of that photograph (and similar ones). With normal fires, we can recognise an afterglow, as such. But we don't have a similarly wide experience with Big Bangs. (Was that the understatement of the year?)

4:40 "the Big Bang caused space to come into existance, not God"

I agree it certainly didn't cause God to come into existance.

Or did you mean God didn't? There I'd disagree on your Creation story, Genesis 1:1 is better.

5:47 Keep rewinding?

OK, that is an admission that Big Bang is Big extrapolation, epistemologically-wise.

So, why would this extrapolation be reliable?

Why would the forward film not have started at a "later" stage than the one you are "rewinding" to?

5:55 Yes, I know you interpret Cosmic Background Radiation as heat leftover from back then.

Robert Sungenis interprets patterns in it like Earth is actually central and the Copernican principle doesn't hold.

6:25 "Earth is 4.5 billion years old"

Dated per Uranium lead which is such a small sample Earth wouldn't burn up if God speeded the decay up to get some mud into rock solidity.

"and we can see stars that are more than 13 billion years old"

Supposing that the distance of 13 billion light years plus are proven, which they aren't unless conventional distances to Vega and alpha Centauri are proven, which they aren't if parallax is a misinterpretation of the phenomenon observed in 1838.

6:56 For that star to be 1 light day rather than 13 billion light years away, you don't need to rewrite the laws of physics, you only need to admit they aren't necessarily all that affects things visible things on the cosmic scale.

Like angels doing the parallax and similar as a dance with the stars they move. Like the Sun's angel does one in relation to the Zodiac.

7:16 Unless the speed of light is wrong ... or the distance of 13 billion light years is.

"And you also 8:12 said that you believe what you believe 8:14 by faith, which means by its very 8:17 definition that what you believe is 8:19 based on spiritual conviction rather 8:21 than proof or evidence."

Oh, like you think angels are absent from stars and planets by your spiritual or anti-spiritual conviction (which cannot account for reason or language as we know it).

Or that different decay speeds and build up speeds are absent from Earth history.

Despite God maybe having a point of using rapidly decaying K-40 to heat out the water from what post-Flood became the rocks, or that making a certain contribution to the build up of Carbon 14 more rapidly than now ...

Again, because of your antispiritual and "anti-mythical" conviction, which cannot account for reason or for even pagan mythologies very well.

Pot calling kettle. Pot calling kettle. Can you hear me saying "black"?

[tried to add]

More seriously, take a look at whose definition of "faith" you are using.

You seem to take one polemical one from modern or less modern atheists. We maybe don't subscribe to that, try St. Thomas Aquinas, instead (Second Part of Second Part of the Summa Theologiae, Questions 1 to 7, and you can go on to question 16).

[pause]

9:38 He says the Earth is spinning.

I disagree.

10:12 King James does mistranslate Matthew 6:7.

Repeated prayers aren't condemned. Nervous prayers are. Stuttering (the image behind the composite verb battologein) and wordiness both are symptoms of nervousness, and that's a huge quality of Pagan prayers that are actually preserved, like the ending of Velleius Paterculus from basically the same year.

"The 10:40 problem is you're ramming your personal 10:42 beliefs down other people's throats 10:44 while simultaneously complaining that 10:47 real science is taught in schools."

Apart from "real science" (remains to be shown), schools are tax funded. DAL isn't.

"Not only 11:21 have we seen a black hole, Kent, but we 11:24 took a picture as well."

As with the CMB as "afterglow of the Big Bang" there is a problem of interpretation.

[Those after the pause are automatically deleted]