Watching the Stars
Remergence Lyrics


We have lyrics for 'Watching the Stars' by these artists:


Brolle We're stuck in another carcrash gotta get our engines to…
Brolle Jr Watching the stars We're stuck in another carcrash gotta …
Min I’m watching the stars, I’m watching the stars With you-u-u-…


The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

Genre not found
Artist not found
Album not found
Song not found
Most interesting comment from YouTube:

4-My Lrd Jesus

'An Evolving Mechanism Is A System Or Subsystem That Undergoes A Gain Of Complexity Over Time'--ON EVOLUTION.
All mutations seen in nature have gone through a transformation that is at its core opposite and fundamentally at odds with the notion of 'evolution'. An 'evolving' mechanism is by definition a system or subsystem that is undergoing a gain in its complexity[i.e. information] over time--what is truly happening you can call 'DE-evolution' if you like. EVOLUTION(not even a good theory) requires an increase of information over time, and not a decrease as we see with every example put forth by mainstream science, while claiming to demonstrate the validity of this religiously held belief, called Naturalism[i.e. that everything came into existence by blind-luck]. Thermodynamics, information theory, and common-sense, show that everything in the cosmos IS FALLING APART, quite the opposite to the insane idea that things are coming together in complexity, by blind chance. WHAT WE SEE IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT OF A CURSED CREATION! Selection is not evolution, all of the information is available in the DNA code, which under the right conditions will be selected. No new code has ever been introduced!

COULD ANY OF YOU EVOLUTIONISTS EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING
HOW did the universe come from a dot-of-nothing exploding( i.e. "The Big-bang", which is one of the many [idiotic] claims put forth by the so called “experts” )? WHERE was this dot-of-nothing located? Was it inside of nothing? If so, how were they distinguished from one another? HOW do you give ​"​nothing"​ its locality? WHAT was the nature of the agency that caused this dot-of-nothing to explode? I.e. there must have been something else around to cause this dot to explode, else it would remain in a perpetual unchanged static-state. Having established that there must have been an agency in existence and separate from the dot, that would cause this dot to explode, WHERE was this agency located, and HOW do you distinguish it from GOD?
HOW does gas come together to form a star, in defiance of Boyle's Law?( i.e. you can't compress a gas into a solid ). If we were to ignore Boyle's law for the moment, WHERE did the gravitational forces come from that pulled the elements together into forming the first stars?
Matter that is traveling in a straight line from an origin at the center of an explosion( i.e. "The Big-bang" ), in a vacuum, would continue in a straight line forever, unless something would cause it to alter its trajectory( "a body in motion will remain in motion", and it would also take the "path of least resistance" ), however, evolutionists say that there was nothing else in existence; WHAT then caused the elements to slow down, and to turn toward each-other so as to fuse together? Today, if we were to place gas molecules together, in any amount, they will move apart due to collisions, having insufficient gravitational mass to overcome this outward force, WHY are we supposed to believe, at some time in the distant past, that this was possible?!
If the gravitational pull of stars is needed to form other stars, WHERE did the original stars come from?
HOW do you reconcile the observation of an explosion occurring today, which will always result in chaos, with the claim of evolutionists, that order resulted from an explosion that occurred in the ancient past?
HOW does a-bio-genesis work in real life? HOW exactly does rain falling on a rock for a long time produce life?
Yes, we have all been indoctrinated to believe we came from apes, please show me the evidence and step me through the whole process! HAVE you ever seen any kind of animal turn into another kind? For example: a cat into a dog? a mosquito into a whale? I've seen many types of dogs but all remain as dogs, likewise with cats, birds, etc. Show me the many transitional forms in the fossil record. THERE ARE NONE! The only mutations observed are destructive ones(i.e. a loss of information, e.g. eyes disappearing, limbs disappearing, etc.). In order for evolution to work you need the opposite type of mutation, one that will increase information, not decrease it! By the way, destructive mutations are exactly what we would expect to occur in a universe that is slowly dying of radiant-heat loss.
Virtually all living organisms, depend on another living organism to survive( i.e. symbiosis ), which of these symbiotic creatures evolve first, given that both( or more ) need to be present for either to survive?
The second law of thermodynamics, information theory, and common sense, clearly show that order(information being a form of order) is lost over time. It is impossible for order to arise without an agency causing it, in our universe!!!
This is a very short list of the hundreds of inconsistencies within the religious belief of evolution!

PROBLEMS WITH RADIOMETRIC DATING[ The following is on carbon-14, but also applies to every other method of radiometric dating. ]
As an analogy, think of walking into a room in which you find a burning candle, after being in the room for a while the candle goes out. The only things you can know(while the candle was burning and while you remained in the room) are: the rate at which the candle was burning, and the current atmospheric conditions. You cannot know the original length of the candle before it was lit. You cannot know if the atmospheric conditions in the room were constant before you entered the room(e.g. did the oxygen/nitrogen levels vary over time?), you can not know if the candle burned at the same rate before you entered the room. Likewise with carbon dating: you do not know how much of the 'daughter' product(C14) was present in the specimen at the time of death. You cannot know how much of the 'parent' product(N2) was available in the atmosphere prior to the time of death (e.g. air pockets found in amber show that O2 levels were around 32% at the time the pine sap solidified; proving that the atmosphere was vastly different in the past. Current level of O2 is around 20%). Furthermore, you cannot know if the levels of solar radiation (a major contributor in converting N2 -> C14) were different from today's, prior to the death of the specimen. - This is just an excerpt of the things that would not be known to us. Carbon dating along with any other radiometric dating methods are useless, due to insufficient data. Furthermore, there are vast ( and proven ) age differences in Radiometric results, found while dating the same specimen at different sites (sometimes these differences also occur when re-dating a specimen at the same site). All we can know from radioactive decay is its current rate of decay. We cannot know the initial conditions, that is; the initial amount of parent or daughter-substance found in the host, Nor can we know if the rate of decay changed over time. NONE OF THE INITIAL CONDITIONS, NOR ANCIENT DECAY RATES CAN BE DETERMINED FOR ANY RADIOMETRIC DATING METHOD!!

WHO REALLY WERE THE FOUNDERS OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
Have you ever looked into the "evidence" that naturalists claim they have, or do you blindly regurgitate what you've been indoctrinated to believe? Think about it for a moment; have you truly looked into the matter, or do you simply take it to be true because someone claiming to be an expert told you so? Anyone looking into these claims, would soon find that claims and reality are two very different things. The zealously held belief of naturalists have led to countless hoaxes and deceptions(Piltdown Man, Nebraska-man, Lucy, etc.). The reason for promoting a purely naturalistic view, fall into one of the following, employment retention; most scientist are blackballed if they don't go along with the naturalist view, a severely blinding indoctrination, or worse yet, the hated notion of a creator due to pride and the interference this may cause to perverse life-styles. Evolution is a faith, it is based exclusively on assumptions that cannot be verified, and as you will see, it actually goes against well established scientific laws. All of the original proponents of this atheistic worldview lived depraved lives. Most of them were not scientists, contrary to what you are led to believe, and some were outright con-men. Take Charles Darwin for an example, a child-man that dropped out of medical school and later out of seminary school. Charles' father got him his first job as a cabin-boy on the HMS Beagle. Charles had no training as a naturalist, he was a lazy flunky, his own father regarded him as a disappointment. It was on the Beagle where he got his perverted ideas regarding evolution. He married his first cousin, because he believed (due to his views on evolution) that it would be a genetic benefit to do so. The majority of his children died, some of suicide, and the rest from genetic problems. Several of his children, the ones that did survive were severely retarded. Another one of these humanists was, Aldous Huxley, he admitted that his zeal in promoting this world view, came from his desire to change societal morays, so as to accommodate his sexual lusts[see, Confession Of A Professed Atheist, 1966] (do a little research into the humanist founding fathers and you will see that they all led depraved lives). The biological model these 'experts' claim they have, would not qualify as a model in any other field, they implement no data, have no equations, no variables, no constants, nor any statistical assumptions. These models are purely imaginary, consisting of pictures and lines on paper, they have no substance. The reason for their existence is to promote an atheistic worldview--in essence a religious belief.



All comments from YouTube:

Jessica Kasawen

My ancestors passed down stories of mermaids and merman throughout the years. Even today people still see them. I've heard so many stories about these magical species.

funkyfiss

Where are you from?

Dolce vita

I would love to see one real mermaid 🧜‍♂️ so I can believe in it.

Vladimir Nesic

My ancestors passed down stories of flying spageti monster throughout the years. Even today people still see them. I've heard so many stories about these magical species.

funkyfiss

@Vladimir Nesic Your ancestors since 2005? Because that is the first time a flying spaghetti monster was ever mentioned.

Jacqueline Z

My Great grandfather would go to the river for 2 weeks
And come back with herbs to heal people in the village..he was a so powerful..passes it on to Us

9 More Replies...

Lasirené

A lot of people confuse mermaids as sirens rather both are entirely different creatures. Sirens were described as a head of a female with long tarry black hair, olive skin, and the upper chest of a woman, below the breastbone they had their entire body of a bird. The sirens weren’t always bird like but were once mortal women who lived by the sea. Demeter the Goddess of Harvest and agriculture turned them into part bird so the sirens could locate Persephone, who was held hostage under Hades rule in the underworld. So after the sirens couldn’t locate Persephone, Demeter cut off their wings and banished them to the mountains surrounding the ocean. That’s when Odysseus instructed his crew to plug their ears with bird wax as to drown out their hauntingly ethereal song. Mermaids are actually closer to the Greek myth of nereids, sea nymphs, water nymphs, and the naiads, with the male counterpart the Tritons or mermen. Sirens are closer to the harpie,

Jay Jay

Ya know mermaid are not real .. mermaid are fake fake lol

Lasirené

@Jay Jay  Um, speak for yourself, people believe what they want to believe. That's one of the benefits of being human. And yes I do believe in mermaids even as a 24 year old woman, and I don't give two shits about what anybody else thinks. 😁😁

Jennifer Newkirk

Here, here! I completely agree, and I’m 36.🧜🏼‍♀️💗🥰

More Comments

More Versions