There are multiple artists named Terminus:

1) Ambient project from H… Read Full Bio ↴There are multiple artists named Terminus:

1) Ambient project from Houston, TX, United States, formed by Pamela Passmore and Ure Thrall, both of whom were later involved in Asianova along with Jim Wilson and Bonnie McNairn from Voice of Eye.

2) Terminus were an anarcho-punk band from Scunthorpe, UK, who gigged and recorded in the 1980s and 1990s. They recorded several singles and two albums on the Words Of Warning and Campary labels. A compilation album, "Graveyard of Dreams" was released on the Boss Tuneage label.

3) Terminus were a death metal band with industrial and electronic influences, based in Maidstone, United Kingdom, during the mid 1990s. They released two self-financed albums during this time, Vision and Two Stage From Revolution.

4) Terminus is an active heavy metal band from Northern Ireland. Their first full lenght album "The Reaper's Spiral" was released by Stormspell Records in June 2015.

5) Terminus are a French duo whose music varies from spacey instrumentals to delicate 70's influenced pop songs. Influences could include Broadcast and Air.

6) Terminus was a industrial metal band from Pacifica, CA, USA.

7) Terminus were a Morbid Angel influenced death metal band from Stockton, California in the early to mid '90s who had one release on Stinkfist Records, titled "Creations" (1994).

8) Terminus is a drum and bass artist from the UK. He's been producing since 1998 but didn't appear on the radar until 2010 under the Moniker of Terminus after releasing on Soul Deep Recordings, SP Breakz ltd and also remixing for Bay B Kane, One of the founding fathers of Drum and Bass. Terminus is known for his atmospheric rolling tracks being tagged as one of those artists within the scene still using funk breaks (edits) and atmospheric sounds being tagged as drumfunk.

9) Often misnamed post-psy ambient punk-thrash band, featuring guitarist Gareth Thomasson on guitar. Nyan-inspired vocals, featured mediocre success, but have yet to play their first live set.

10) With just one release in 1986 called "Collected Works", Terminus were an Avant-garde band from the Netherlands fusing several styles, like Free-Jazz, Metal, Minimal, and alot more into one unique mix... pretty ahead of their time!

Origin of Fossils
Terminus Lyrics

We have lyrics for these tracks by Terminus:

As Through a Child's Eyes Life forlorn, forsaken born Beyond compare, beyond your ken …
Flesh Falls From Steel To bargain with skin and wine Promising all that was lost Bu…
Harvest Floating in vacuum, Our second barren home Sent forth from t…
Love Your Demons Well, I am done If I stay, here I like the sun,…

To Ash To Dust Hyperion's blood sunrise Saturates his pieous gaze Disciples…

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

TRACKS

No Related Genres

More Genres

No Artists Found

More Artists Load All

No Albums Found

More Albums Load All

No Tracks Found

01The Failure of Grief1:58

02Dying to Breathe3:57

03Black Swan3:18

04The Lion's Den4:55

05Origin of Fossils2:57

PT2M57S

Terminus

06The Falcon5:27

07The Silent Bell Toll6:17

08Dawn of Fire1:10

09Oh Madrigal10:19

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Most interesting comments from YouTube:

GreatBehoover

2y↑9

DNA is the MOST SOPHISTICATED and COMPLEX and VOLUMINOUS code ever assembled.

DNA CODE is 8 TIMES the complexity of MANMADE Code.
Manmade code exists in a SIMPLE 1x2=2 binary 2D linear format.
DNA CODE is in a 4x4=16 DOUBLE HELIX structure that is READ IN BOTH... OPPOSITE ...DIRECTIONS!!!
Imagine our programmers at Microsoft writing a program that the machine reads forward and backwards. That means every single bit combination means one thing when read... and then something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT when reversed....but both are needed for functionality!!! It's like reading the massive book War and Peace BACKWARDS to get another FULLY RELEVANT STORY! That:is a level of genius we CAN'T COMPREHEND!!!
We just discovered that DNA CODE can be read BOTH WAYS which presents an unfathomable amount of complexity to DNA CODE that no manmade code can get close to.
The structure of this Hypercomplex CODE is arranged in a far more SOPHISTICATED 3 dimensional format.
Microsoft Windows code doesn't run on "ACCIDENTALLY" made MACHINERY that the instructions for building the machinery are IN THE CODE ITSELF! DNA CODE does!!!!
DNA CODE is not only the MAIN software BUT ALSO THE BLUEPRINT for building itself...but not just itself...ENTIRE multicellular organisms...plural!!!
DNA CODE is longer than ALL manmade code COMBINED! It is the most SOPHISTICATED code ever seen. Bill gates says:
“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

THAT quote is from the GREATEST MOST SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMMER IN HISTORY. He gets it...but the silly atheists and naturalists who are too BIASED to see the OBVIOUS connection simply IGNORE the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE. NONTHINKERS that BELIEVE in ABIOGENESIS just PRETEND like children that the EVIDENCE is on their side while IGNORING the very same EVIDENCE!!! Hilarious!!! No...the tooth fairy isn't real! No ABIOGENESIS isn't real!!!

Yale Computer Scientist and mathematician Dr. David Galernter FINALLY got it after realizing that the FAITH required to BELIEVE in ABIOGENESIS is FAR TOO GREAT A LEAP!!!

World renown Dr. James Tour is an American nonotechnologist and Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering and Computer Science at Rice University has figured out that ABIOGENESIS never happened...notice....yet another COMPUTER SCIENTIST is able to UNDERSTAND THE FACTS. Meanwhile...NONTHINKERS insist it is possible because of an emotional neediness for a Godless universe...no by observational evidence!

Jason Judd

2y↑9

@PrivateSi so you say all these scientists change their minds for an easy buck?

Prove it.

And no, what you say about him being cynical, wrong, and nasty is not accurate.
Natural selection selects what is there. Alas, you require Hox genes to mutate, cause malformation, and pass on the somatic expression to the viable fetus.

That doesn’t happen now, but it “must’ve happened?”

Lol

Neil DeGrasse Tyson with a Knife

@Marie India
The development of DDT resistance in mosquitoes - A mutation arose in mosquitoes that allowed them to break down DDT so that it isn't toxic. As a result of selective pressures, the trait spread across populations, and thus many researchers are dealing with mosquitoes that have some resistance to DDT-infused pesticides.

Sources:
Tchigossou et al. (2020). Investigation of DDT resistance mechanisms in Anopheles funestus populations from northern and southern Benin reveals a key role of the GSTe2 gene.

Soko et al. (2015) Insecticide resistance in malaria-transmitting mosquitoes in Zimbabwe: a review.

The development of antibiotic resistance in diseases and bacteria.
Sources:
Francesca et al. (2018). Antibiotic resistance evolution of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis patients (2010‐2013)

MacLean et al. (2019). The evolution of antibiotic resistance: Clinically relevant evolution studies are needed to help fight the spread of antibiotic resistance.

Schneider et al. (2021). The Interplay of Electrostatics and Chemical Positioning in the Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance in TEM β‑Lactamases.

The natural selection of the Galapagos finches in response to drought and the subsequential speciation of finches on the Galapagos islands.

Sources:
Carvajal-Endara et al. (2020). The ecology and evolution of seed predation by Darwin's finches on Tribulus cistoides on the Galápagos Islands

Schluter (1988). The Evolution of Finch Communities on Islands and Continents: Kenya vs. Galapagos.

The speciation of Gammaridean amphipods in Florida caves as a result of geographic isolation.

Sources:
Cannizzaro et al. (2020). A new species rises from beneath Florida: molecular phylogenetic analyses reveal cryptic diversity among the metapopulation of Crangonyx hobbsi Shoemaker, 1941 (Amphipoda: Crangonyctidae)

Cannizzaro et al. (2019). Morphological and molecular analyses reveal a new species of stygobitic amphipod in the genus Crangonyx (Crustacea: Crangonyctidae) from Jackson County, Florida, with a redescription of Crangonyx floridanus and notes on its taxonomy and biogeography

Want even more evidence that shows that populations change over time and that speciation can occur as a result? Look at the rise of the COVID variants. Look at the development of new virus strains like with the flu. The artificial selection of agricultural crops, livestock, and pets. And many more!

The fact that you choose to ignore and push away any and all evidence doesn't mean there isn't any.

Marie India

2y↑3

@Dan Paulson theism and the what the Bible teaches are two different things. Most theists do not read the Bible, or read it with false preconceived notions that are good for getting donations in the basket. The Bible encourages healthy skepticism.

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.
Do you have confidence that the sun will be visible tomorrow? That's faith, based on the experiential evidence that it has happened before. So it's not faith if there actually is no evidence.

1 John 4:4 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
True believers from ancient times have the habit of testing statements. This is not incredulity nor is it gullibility. Now whether modern Christendom follows that tradition is quite another story.

So actually students of the Bible have an enquiring and questioning bearing, more so than most Darwinists, who only follow the tax money, or the patron's funds, not the evidence. After all...they have a student debt to pay. 😏

utopiabuster 2017

2y↑29

Having read "Origins" at a very young age I was totally convinced by its import. While never an atheist, due to attending parochial schools, I questioned the legitimacy of Christianity as a result.
It wasn't until college and taking an anthropology class as an elective, that it dawned on me that Darwinism made absolutely no sense, a literal sudden revelation.
I am now convinced the darwinian mechanism is nothing more than materialistic desperation.

The more we learn about the cell, it's near inhuman complexity, only increases the impossibility of any naturalistic mechanism to have produced it.
Which then places Darwinism in the psuedo-science fiction category.

There is so much about nature which contradicts darwinism. From metamorphosis, to Dragonfly aerodynamics, to bats, to conscious agents able to contemplate their own existence and relationship with God.

The objective of inquiry into "being" and "existence" is to establish "truth" wherever that may lead.
God, in His Wisdom, actualized an intelligible world, and placed His signature on the canvas.

Thank you for this excellent confirmation and affirmation.
God Bless.

Rob James

2y↑1

The fundamental issue with calculations regarding genetic mutation is that there is not nearly enough of a baseline regarding how EXPRESSION of genetic material plays in. It isn't entirely necessary for the genetic code to be different in order for the genes themselves to be expressed differently. The misconception is that genetic change comes first. EXPRESSION comes first. The fossil record is NOT a genetic record. It is a record of genetic EXPRESSION. "Transitional fossils" are expected to occur at the rates of genetic variances, but even organisms within a single species can vary significantly in terms of form - so MUCH so that an independent and objective observer might misidentify their fossils as being from completely different species. Variance within species can (and do) produce radically different body forms of the same body plan that do not require hundreds of millions of years to manifest. The idea that changes in genetics are exclusively what determines differentiation is a hindrance to understanding to true nature of speciation and evolution.

Resistance to Phenotypic Plasticity assumes that early genetic protection and verification mechanisms existed or were able to regulate expression as tightly as they do now, and that simplicity was a limiting factor when it was, in fact, the opposite. A simple genetic code is more likely to be affected in its expression by changes, and those changes are more likely to be immediately catastrophic which eliminates unviable lines. Many of the "explosions" are attributable to the fact that we simply do NOT know definitively how long it takes for differentiation of EXPRESSION to proliferate through a genetic population. We don't have perspective on the full breadth of mechanisms responsible, so to say "blah blah blah is impossible because of math" is myopic and embraces ignorance. Simply observing the variants of canines and what we've been able to do to them with selective breeding over a few hundred years is extremely telling in regards to the thick, blurry line between form and speciation in the fossil record. The people that will say "WE were the intelligent designers of those canine variances and WE exerted specific genetic pressure to obtain them" are ignoring the fact that the potential for the variance has to exist in order for it to be accessed by genetic or reproductive pressure. Genetic code doesn't simply limit what gets formed, it also contains all of the POTENTIAL physical forms that an organism and its progeny could take under a myriad of circumstances. Our penchant for categorization of things introduces separation where there really isn't any, which is why searching for "transitional" fossils is functionally irrelevant, and also why rapid "speciation" shouldn't be overly surprising.

Also, any intelligent design hypotheses fail when the designs themselves are flawed in ways that no good designer would implement. For all the brilliant "design" we see in nature, we see equivalent amounts of perplexing "design" choices, not the least of which is...

Testicles.

That is all.

All comments from YouTube:

John Castino

2y↑233

Thank you Gunter, for your courage to follow the evidence, publicly state your views ( - even at threat of losing your career). I have the highest respect for you sir.

Gerard Moloney

@Ereh there is no misunderstanding the evidence, only misrepresentation of it and that is what Atheists do. Atheism is a self refuting belief system. So people who are Atheists are well used to deceiving themselves. I feel very sorry for them that are able to deceive themselves, but I strongly reject their attempts to try to deceive others, especially young vulnerable children. God will require an account of their deeds. Lying to yourself is stupid, lying to others is sinful. Maranatha.

Marie India

2y↑13

@Ereh but... it is a gotcha.

Ereh

2y↑1

Don’t worry, he won’t lose his career. He said absolutely nothing harmful and only stated facts. I believe that some worry because theists will look at this, misunderstand it, and use it as a gotcha moment. Though I do wish that he also brought up the fact that facts can change when new evidence is found in certain cases.

Gavin Hurlimann

2y↑5

@Utred Bee Well said.

Utred Bee

2y↑21

@Patrick Clemmond - I third that. As a former Geologist who qualified in 1981 and worked in the Oil business, I long held this view after examining the geological record. It's good to see other scientists coming forward and talking about the facts. Thank you Dr Gunter.

1 More Replies...

Guy Luck

2y↑119

Gunter you are spot on.I am a geologist and was never convinced of Darwinian evolution when at College.But i kept my trap shut because i wanted to pass my exams.Your explanations are excellent.And Oh where did DNA come from.?The most brilliant piece of engineering in exixtance.

GreatBehoover

2y↑9

canadiankewldude 🇨🇦

2y↑4

Brilliant, I taught my 3 kids to do the same, all have degrees now and 2 are still Christian.

Erich Feit

2y↑3

Thank you to the True Scientists who follow the evidence no matter where it leads them. Erich from New Zealand

Geo Bla

2y↑144

Fortunately ,Gunter is one of the few scientists that actually did what so many endlessly claim but few rarely do which is to follow the scientific evidence regardless of where it leads you. Refreshing to see especially in a field where biased speculation is the norm and not an exception for addressing these enormous unexplained voids in the fossil record as well the rapid appearance of fully developed organisms . Well done and informative .

Marie India

@PrivateSi XD XD XD XD

Victor Song

2y↑5

@PrivateSi The clash of two Belief Systems. "Darwinian Evolution" vs. "Intelligent Design". Albeit I find the Darwinists are more rigidly wedded to THEIR DOGMA.

It's interesting to note, that a significant number of molecular and microbiologists also have very serious issues with Darwinian evolution, albeit theirs is from a totally different perspective, and is in no way related to paleontology and fossils.

And there is the "population genetics" - which is a MATHEMATICAL problem of Darwinism.

Ereh

2y↑2

I agree, and some scientists also follow this model of studying. We can learn more as we find more. However, scientific facts are subject to change with new evidence.

Jason Judd

2y↑9

Waldo TW

2y↑9

@PrivateSi you sound like a 16th century pope who decrees that science is a work of the devil. You speak with the same condescension and conviction.

You and your ilk are an anomaly in the past and future of understanding this world. One that history will barely mention in its footnote.

You speak of selling souls… disgusting in its ironic delusion.

1 More Replies...

Matthew James

2y↑49

Love this. I was never satisfied with Darwinism

sumbodeee

2y↑1

All the museums with fossils show intermediate links but no evidence has been found to support this. You can go in and question curators why the displays don't support the evidence

Cosmin Stanescu

2y↑24

Thank you mister Bechly ! We are in desperate need of more scientists who value truth and real science more than their funding, positions and how they are viewed by others and this has been made even more clear and painful during the current corona crisis. Hopefully your brilliant example will inspire other colleagues to "come out" .

Matt Farrell

2y↑15

This is exactly what I was thinking after recently researching and reading about this. If mutation is completely random where is that randomness in our fossil record? For example are there mass amount of fossils for failed mutations? Like if this process was random we could except 80-90% of new mutilations to be failures or species that did not survive for long periods? If the mutations were enough to differentiate whole species where are all the mutations that weren't successful like for example animals with too many legs that weren't useful or something similar? Where are the examples of the complete randomness of the process? Also on your point about large jumps is extremely interesting.

megabeaver23

2y↑1

Except those kinds of mutations are not how it works and most mutations are niether beneficial or deleterious. What makes a fossil is also not so simple as just digging in the dirt and requires many factors in preserving biological material for it to mineralize.
It also doesn't change how genetic evidence alone demonstrates common ancestry.

William Bowling

Absolutely brilliant.

Becky Seymour

2y↑1

Brilliant point

ChristHasRisen

2y↑25

Thank you for doing what's right, words cannot describe how far you're pushing things in the way they that should be. I just hope people start gaining awareness sooner.

StereoSpace

2y↑12

Physicist Richard Feynman noticed some scientists lovingly held on to theories even after evidence showed it was wrong:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." ~Richard P. Feynman

Michael Strickland

2y↑73

What an articulate, thoughtful, and well-informed scientific presentation! -- also revealing the idiocy of the so-called "scientific" community.

Danny & Lorie Pelman

2y↑7

Thank you for the courage to be a person who wishes to take reasoning into account. Your arguments are compelling and quite substantial. I think the Science community is on the threshold of being in the same boat as Scientologists. The heavy-handed approach to conform or suffer consequences is a key indicator of a cultish mindset. Please remain courageous.

Pixels of Light

2y↑29

Another Discovery Science star is born! Thank you for the entire interview with Gunter! These are great.

Pato Clas

2y↑30

Superb synthesis, abording all the complexity in a clear and honest way.

Johan UY

2y↑24

Thank you Dr. Bechly, your insights are much appreciated. Do I understand this correctly? Darwinists are now becoming a religious movement, and creationist are following science just because they can!

Michael Corns

2y↑42

Truthful, brave, and articulate. Thank you, sir.

Stephen Hall

2y↑167

I think I recognize this man from another video. He is a German that became acquainted with the concept of design in the mechanics of the cell. He was a Darwinian evolutionist.However,after thinking deeply about the data,he changed his crowd. This mini lecture is excellent and I really enjoyed listening to it. Thanks a lot!

Neil DeGrasse Tyson with a Knife

@Mountain Fisher didn't Lynn Margulis still accept evolution, though? She just disagreed with Darwinism on the mechanism that it occurs - that natural selection wasn't the main mechanism by which evolution occurs.

k0smon

2y↑1

@PrivateSi //// For money? Sounds like he lost his livelihood because of his change of belief.

Joseph Falco

2y↑1

@PrivateSi I think you're projecting. Everything you're accusing him of Darwanists are guilty of.

Jason Judd

2y↑4

@PrivateSi inaccurate statement.
But funny for you though.

Mountain Fisher

2y↑7

@PrivateSi "Life on Earth is one giant LEARNING and INFO STORAGE SYSTEM." Been reading my old teacher Lynn Margulis and her Gaia Hypothesis? I sat her guest lectures at UCLA and boy she didn't like Neo-Darwinism. She invited me to take her summer class at U Mass Amhurst and I went to Massachusetts for the summer in 75.

6 More Replies...

Toyos2000

2y↑3

Gunter lays out the logic, and scientific evidence in a clear and concise factual way. Thank you sir.

ThompPL1

2y↑22

This interview is like a tremendous "Breath of Fresh Air" in this whole Darwinism Tyranny experiment via "Scientific" Social Engineering in the West.

Oskar Sitarz

2y↑31

Good work doc. Its utterly amazing that there are still scientists, wich have enough courage to go against paradigm.

Roberta Brown

2y↑33

I am very thankful that Dr. Bechly is contributing his scholarship, experience, and eloquence to the ID movement. As a paleontologist, he not only has the knowledge that most people in this field have, but he also has the courage to point out what does not agree with the evolution theory in the fossil record..

ambu64

2y↑3

Thank you sir for sharing the truth, even in the face of critic's who won't admit the facts due to the popular narrative being promoted today. I wish this information would be shared with every school and university around the world.

Andrew Sheehy

2y↑24

This is without doubt the clearest and most compelling articulation of the strength (ie. weakness) of the scientific foundation for Darwinism. I will keep a link to this excellent video handy when I encounter unscientific arguments in support of Darwinism.

drewrommel

2y↑158

I'm always fascinated by scientists who have grown up believing in evolution and then change their mind.
Atheists are quick to dismiss objecters to the theory as biased religionists - but these guys obviously aren't dismissing evolution "because I was told so at church and never bothered to think about it." The evidence is convincing them.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson with a Knife

Marie India

2y↑6

@đeri662 "Empirical evidence in favor of the theory of biological evolution is overwhelming." This is the favorite mantra of the religion of Darwinists. Very convincing. Not.

Marie India

2y↑9

@Ereh Except a mountain of evidence is being researched that leads to the conclusion of an intelligent cause of the universe and all living things. Just admit that there is no evidence that you are personally willing to accept. That would be more honest.

Ereh

2y↑2

Scientists have good points on evolution, and they follow the data. However, given that science is constantly changing as new information is discovered, most people in the science community can be skeptics. And as an atheist, I dismiss religion because there’s no evidence for any of its claims, and is simply a romanticization of real life events. The same is with deism and agnosticism.

WJK

Exactly!

12 More Replies...

gettinstroppy

2y↑8

This was incredibly interesting. Thank you so much for posting this explanation of the fossil record, what it tells us and maybe more importantly what it doesn't tell us!

Temet Nosce

2y↑10

Gunter is one of my favorites... and I also like the way he pronounces words like "categories", "germ", and "articulated".

Verify Truth

2y↑34

This Is Among The Most Well Presented And Informative Discussions Of The Formative Evolutionary Dilemmas That I Have Heard. Thank You For Taking The Time To Briefly Summarize The Subject With Such Clarity. I Appreciate Your Logical And Orderly Representation Of This Scientific Perspective, And I Am Sorry For Your Previous Employer's Loss.

Marie India

2y↑5

@Mark Harmon pretty sure Bechly knows a heck of a lot more about it than you do.

Mark Harmon

2y↑1

What did he present? He just said there are gaps between the gaps. Standard evolution theory denialist stuff. Not one example of a human bone in the cambrian explosion. Or a bird with an early dinosaur. There have been cataclysm that have left wide open lanes for one group of animals to die out and others to take their place.

Think Islam Channel

2y↑3

Brilliant mind and well articulated.
This information needs to get out to a wider audience.

Bruce Searl

2y↑5

This is stunning. It just goes on and on with devastating fact after fact. Thank you!

Gary Ray

2y↑2

Thank you, Gunter. Appreciate your excellent presentation, I am an engineer and like structure, and your courage. Too bad others are still shackled in terms of being imprisoned in a career path they don't believe in. don"t

Saleh akhmed

2y↑10

Listening to this I feel completely misled by Science. I was led to believe Darwin's theory of evolution to be true and provable. This lecture by Gunter turns everything on it's head.

sumbodeee

2y↑1

@Joe M what examples? Back up with proof else you are scrambling

k0smon

2y↑2

@Joe M /// I think that is called 'micro-evolution.'

Truth Be Bold

2y↑3

Science has been used as a weapon of mass destruction. There is an agenda to direct our minds away from or creator. The powers that should never be benefit from our ignorance.

Joe M

2y↑2

there are clear examples that show the mechanism Darwin proposed does occur. it just might not be the full story.

christopher coughlin

2y↑5

Nice to see a scientist actually interested in looking for the truth and knowledge, rather than something that fits a preconceived agenda.

Fred Courtney

2y↑2

Dr. Bechley, I appreciate your voice in this matter and I feel like Darwin has failed as a theoretical replacement for God. I thank you for your presentation on the fossil record which I had not thought out my objections to Darwin, only that I knew I had one. I believe in micro rather than macro - evolution

megabeaver23

Micro and macro are the exact same thing. They work off the same mechanisms with the only difference is the amount of time measured.

To say you believe micro evolution but not macro is to say you believe in years but not centuries.

Neil Edmondson

2y↑1

Amazing presentation. Thank you for explaining these matters so clearly and for your brave stance for the Truth!

Ramesh Outar

2y↑1

Very well put, and corresponds excellently with what I have learnt over the last 10 years about Neo-Darwinian evolution, especially from M. Behe (Darwin's Black Box), M. Denton (Evolution: A Theory Still in Crisis), S. Myer (Signature in the Cell, and Darwin's Doubt), and Frank Turik (I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheists). Jonathan Wells also (Icons of Evolution).

Yea Right

2y↑25

You honestly need to do more with this man. Of the people you put videos up for, the two I look forward to listening to most are David Berlinski and Gunter Bechly.

Yea Right

2y↑1

@Nick Maync-Matsumoto he's older now, and with covid-19 I would suspect that with him living in France that he's not interested in travel.

Nick Maync-Matsumoto

2y↑2

Totally agree but Berlinski's presentations have become scarce.

Ronald Morgan

2y↑34

Brilliant. Scientists hate design because it cannot b proven. Yet, major theories remain theories because they also cannot be proven. Instead of basing a theory on the best available explanation (ID), their course of action is always, "We just need more time!" And, it always seems to be that in every instance, time is proven to be against them.

Marie India

2y↑3

cori lemky

2y↑6

If you accept ID you have to accept a designer. This raises questions that they really don't want the answers to

GL22

2y↑3

@Dan Paulson You’re confusing religion with intelligent design—the latter is completely based on scientific evidence and logical inference.

Dan Paulson

They don't hate it because it can't be proven. Did you just tell a lie? Or is that what you have been told to believe?

They dismiss it because they seek to understand the true nature of the cosmos. Theism in it's many various evolving forms is based in claims of the supernatural and says, just believe it, you can't see it or prove it. (That's theism)

Perhaps if you had an understanding of seeking and knocking???? I'm sure I've heard that said from some place before.

GL22

2y↑7

Theories are not 100% irrefutable, but there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence supporting ID. Mainstream science accepts other theories with less evidence (e.g., Darwinian evolution, I would argue), provided they don’t have the same implications about God that ID does. The bias against ID is not due to its lack of compelling evidence, which is substantial. It all comes down to its religious implications. The fact that so many materialist scientists rely on the ad hominem argument that ID is religion masquerading as science reveals what they really see (and fear) in ID—namely, a scientifically supported basis for a belief in God. That is a nonstarter for many, regardless of the weight of the evidence in support of ID.

Moses Exodus

2y↑2

“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.” (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)

Moses Exodus

"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress."
(Stephen J. Gould, Professor of paleontology from Harvard University, During the question and answer session following his Hobart and William Smith College lecture, Dr. Gould was asked if there was not Stratigraphic evidence indicating gradualism)

Ken Green

2y↑3

Wonderful information. Is there any way to get links to the source documents for all the quotes and studies? That would be most helpful in speaking with Evolutionists.

Suzanne Flowers

2y↑2

God bless this scientist. It takes so much courage for him to speak in this way.

S S

2y↑8

Thank you sir. Your answers are crystal clear and loudly ring true. Liked, saved, subscribed!

DAN STR8

2y↑22

🤔 the more we know about life the more problems there are with evolution. Could the reason possibly be that evolution is false? 😱lol

My identity is a mystery

2y↑18

This, I think is the most interesting part of understanding wether evolution occurred or not

Les Heatley

2y↑16

Great interview. Loved it. 👌🏻

Sam Mathai

2y↑7

Thank you for this very well explained interview.

tuberobotto

2y↑1

The man, Gunter Bechly, is a human computer/archive. A true cognizant genius! What an extraordinary ability he has, to cite relevant knowledge and infos at lightning speed.

Jack Gold

2y↑3

Two points, firstly in the Selfish Gene, first edition, Dawkins clearly stated that gene mutation, leading to new phenotypic expression, was one way traffic, always inside out, never outside in. Reading the book again he seems to have edited this idea out.

Bringing me to my second point. The advances in genetics since the discovery of the DNA spiral has been phenomenal. No longer is Darwin's idea of slow development via random mutation and natural selection the only show in town. Now we have symbiogenesis involving HERV (Human EndogenousRetrovirus), hybridisation and epigenetics. The last category, epigenetics (at the gene level) answers the Professor's point about how the conditions for change, in the external environment, can also generate the change itself at gene level.

Perhaps Richard Dawkins disapproves but I somehow doubt it, the spirit of science is alive and well.

I recommend reading 'Virolution' by Frank Ryan.

Will Young

2y↑2

Keep up the great work Gunter. You got my support!

Katherine George

2y↑31

Thank you for speaking the truth.

Tatiana Hurtado

2y↑2

Excellent, superb. Thank you for the courage of explaining the truth.

rareword

2y↑3

Just a question about two of this gentleman's statements. .How can there be a common ancestor if the fossil records do not show a gradation from one species to another?

Markus Broyles

2y↑8

Superbly articulated - great man !!! Keep loving the truth 🙏⚡️🇺🇸⚡️

steve

2y↑1

I really enjoyed Gunters lecture and his intelligent arguments. I plan on listening to it a few more times.

António Leitão

2y↑7

Excellent! Very well synthetized and very clear. Congrats! Thanks.

tabletalk33

It's nice to see someone out there fighting the mind control.

Damo

2y↑17

Excellent clear presentation. How exciting!

Geoffrey Reeks

2y↑2

Thank you for your extremely well argued presentation. You stated that major biological changes do not occur spontaneously and referred to the legs of whales changing from legs to fins extremely quickly. That intuitively seems correct. How can you support that assertion.
Regards,
Geoff. Reeks

Tom Maxwell

Great information. Thank you! It is interesting that grown men have to bicker over what seems intuitive to even children. "How did the world begin?" "How did life begin?" "What made all the stuff in the universe." "If a disease can only be spread from other people, how did the first person get it?" Only through public indoctrination, called public education, do we destroy the curiosity and creative minds of our children. I had to get out because I was not allowed to teach my students how to think and question everything. I saw a sign that said, "Education is not the filling of a pail but the lighting of a fire." Oh yeah? You haven't seen the modern day classroom.

Olaf shom Kirtimukh

2y↑57

As Conan Doyle has Sherlock Holmes say, "When we've discarded the impossible, the only option remaining, however improbable, must be the correct one". It's sad to see that to propose that new encoded information can only be generated by a Designing Intelligence would ruin a scientist's career: it's unscientific to be hostile to what science (Reason) itself is clearly pointing to. I hope Dr. Bechly has found other avenues to continue his ground-breaking work.

Len Roddis

2y↑1

How does one know one has "discarded the impossible"?

Geo Bla

2y↑4

Materialism is more suitable to :When you discard what you "Believe" improbable , the only option is the
impossible or more accurately a series of multitudinous impossibility's . There's thousands of excellent
scientists , some members of their said countries Academy of Science and some Nobel Laureates which
agree that the main tenets of both the origins and evolution of life are grossly lacking to nonexistent. The
top scientists associated with the origins and evolutionary fields held a closed door hearing to make arguments
for and against pursuing these endlessly poor and failed hypotheses that require explaining away evidence
to fit the ideology. So Dr Bechly is in good company with the rest of the Scientific Community cynical of evolution.

Joh2n

2y↑4

The God deniers believe dna and the code of life assembled in some natural way. Face palm

James Buchanan

2y↑1

So what seems reasonable to us is now called science, rather than evaluating the scientific evidence?

đeri662

It's OK to challenge scientific theories but we have empirical evidence that encoded information, not only can, but does encode information through the processes of biological evolution. What Dr. Bechly is doing is misrepresenting scientific research to support his creationist narrative. If anything is unscientific, it's this.

2 More Replies...

John Brown

2y↑17

Excellent presentation. Thank you.

Moses Exodus

2y↑2

There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA. Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA. Genes within the DNA of a particular organism code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan. Therefore, no amount of random mutation of DNA will produce a new organism with a different body plan from the original.

Moses Exodus

2y↑1

”I will lay it on the line—there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” (Colin Patterson FRS, British palaeontologist, Natural History Museum)

GL22

2y↑7

And yet public education continues to perpetuate the myth among young minds that Darwinian evolution is fully supported by the scientific data and, therefore, should be regarded as indisputable fact. Academia is long overdue for a reevaluation of what the data really shows and how the truth should be taught going forward.

Steven Wiederholt

2y↑48

The thing is in the mid 19th century when materialism really got going, a good argument could have been made for Darwin and other materialists, based on what was Known. Alas as we learned more about the universe, the argument have gotten weaker and weaker.

David Hawley

2y↑1

@Steve I think it was in "The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America" that I read that Darwin's science paradigm was innovative in the sense you give above.

David Hawley

2y↑3

@Horia Nedelciuc 'Things that have the appearance of design'. Darwinistic evolution was counter-intuitive even in Darwin's time, and the the Fossils-of-the-Gaps was the hope of showing that it was true anyway. Now Darwin's little blobs of protoplasm have turned into breathtakingly complex self-replicating adaptive factories, the design intuition has been mathematically modeled, and the Fossil Gaps have been confirmed. Bye bye Darwin.

crusher 1980

2y↑7

Yea the more we learn about nature the more complex it really is and the less likely something like an unguided process can be. I mean just take DNA, Darwin didnt know about this at his time.

His observation of "Micro-Evolution" which is just variation in the limits of our genes is real science, but the extrapolation to a macro lvl is pure ficiton.

Steve

2y↑11

The problem is that evolutionary theory was proposed not based on what was known at the time, but in fact it was proposed based on what was not known. Darwin himself said in the 'Origin' that his idea would have to be proven by investigation into the fossil record. In other words, he did the exact opposite of science; rather than observing the evidence then coming up with a theory to explain it, he invented a mythology then suggested that science would later explain it in the future. That is absolutely not how science works and this has been the problem with all evolutionists since they day of Darwin himself. Once a person accepts the mythology there's literally no evidence you can provide that will change their mind since the initial acceptance of the theory is based not on science but on philosophical conjecture about the idea the evidence will one day be found.

Benjamin Badger

Yes, we got Star Wars and other fantasies about entities we have invented out of nothing. Ancient civilizations did this too. The Egyptians, Greeks and Romans had a multitude of gods. Now we have reduced it to one God, the god of nature, pantheism, dressed in robes and pointing his finger to create the Universe.

5 More Replies...

Doug Phillips

2y↑2

Obviously, we are living on a farm, where aliens drop of live stock. They come back to rotate the 'crops'.
That is why we see jumps in the fossil records.
Great video!

WisdomThumbs

The last time this was claimed, the resulting civilization brought about the geological feature called the Great Unconformity. And the survivors spread out from Uruk complaining that they had to invent writing because their language was suddenly splintered by gods... And each carried with them the story of the Ark and Flood.

So... Ask why Aleister Crowley drew a grey alien after claiming he summoned a demon through dark arts. Ask why Jack Parsons claimed to have opened a portal for spirits to be made flesh, and pointed to the sudden rash of UFOs as proof (where before such sightings were rare).

The Watchers would love nothing more than for miseducated people to accept them as their creators. And all the evidence for an old universe comes in the form of “unfalsifiable” rescue mechanisms (such as Oort clouds to explain why comets are still around), or founded on radiometric dating that can’t accurately date new rocks from Hawaii and Mount St. Helens.

christopher coughlin

2y↑2

Good for you standing up for truth Gunter!

bluejysm2007

2y↑13

Yes, concord with Dr. Bechly that evidence of fossil record will lead to a beginning of the universe and therefore to evidence of design in the natural and animal world. It's time we review the evolution theory taught in schools to our kids. Thanks for the discussion.

Him Bike

2y↑20

Darwin told people what they wanted to hear

Dan Paulson

2y↑2

Your fruits are showing. Darwin looked on his own. Theists refuse to. Now, who wants to hear what?

Nirvanic

2y↑1

People hate God, curses upon them.

ĐüŁăň Beagain

2y↑2

"Quand le monde mental mente, il mente monumentalmente" Jacques Prevert. Je vous remercie Gunter.

serialsfan

2y↑34

We have been living a lie and believing it.

tony gristina

Finally a noted researcher comes public with the problems associated with Darwinism over the last hundred years. There is little scientific advancement without airing the dirty laundry and not concealing facts that do not add up in current paradigm.
The question is, what took so long?

Byron Birdsong

2y↑2

In this time we live in where there is pressure on dissenting viewpoints it is food for the soul that truth can still prevail. thank you for this very well done video

Rex Redmon(Walking in the Word)

Really enjoyed this program he seems so intelligent and informed but I am deeply curious as to if he really believes the world is millions of years old and if so what it is that makes him disbelieve the biblical time frame in favor of the millions of years

Gregory Holden

@ Rex Redmon (Walking in the Word) . I don't think he's necessarily ignoring the Bible timeframe. He may be considering each creative day as a matter of time that has nothing to do with twenty four hours. For instance: In my grandfather's "day" there were many unpaved roads. Day here refers to a specific time but not twenty four hours. I do believe the Bible,by the way. However, I have to say that some scriptures are misinterpreted.

David Hamilton

2y↑2

Gaps in Darwins knowledge have and continue to be filled by diligent, patient enquiry. Two places naysayers should look: endogenous retroviruses (proves Homo sapiens shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees) and Cetacean evolution (from pakycetis to modern whales).

ALF

2y↑3

Thank you for intelligently explaining your evidence for Intelligent Design.

Fred Berendsen

The more I dive into this, the more I believe that there is in fact an intelligent designer. But also the more I lean towards a biblical "young" earth theory. For example what Dr. Jason Lisle is proposing. Many deep-time theories are just there to support the unguided evolutionary process theory - a theory that is falling apart IMHO.

Macfield Francis

2y↑26

At last. So very well argued. Fantastic. Hold fast to the truth.

k0smon

@Steve G //// We are still looking.

Steve G

2y↑1

What is the truth?

utopiabuster 2017

2y↑29

Rob James

2y↑1

Michael Napper

2y↑8

Being a modern "scientist" carries about as much weight as getting a college degree. They both used to mean something, yet have fallen to absurdity.

CHRISTOPHER GEGERE

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Satyavan

2y↑44

I would like to see a face to face debate between Bechly and a Darwinist.

99guspuppet

This is the most amazing YouTube video I’ve seen all day…… I feel so intelligent

BlueToad

2y↑1

@Greenie that's two theists basically agreeing with each other, not a real debate. Echo chamber anyone?

Bhakti Vedanta Philosophy

There are already watch " Theology Unleashed " Channel ...

Sarevo100

2y↑1

Isaac Asimov and Niles Eldridge both admonished evolutionists NOT to debate creationists decades ago after nearly a hundred debates which were nearly all disastrous for the evolutionists.

Satyavan

@Greenie Oh... thanks for that!

5 More Replies...

Richard Lobwein

Ben Shapiro once made the profound observation that "Facts don't care about your feelings." In the same way, I think Gunter makes the point very powerfully that facts also don't care about how much anyone might what the theory of evolution to be valid, they tell an exceedingly different, much more truthful and vastly more compelling story anyway.

Somerset Knight

2y↑2

The problem in my mind isn't millions of years where hundreds of millions are required but more of a micro time problem. For example let's take one aspect of one system, blood clotting, there are 10 independent interactive factors that have to come together just right in order for blood to clot, if one of those factors isn't there then it either doesn't clot or doesn't stop clotting. An animal that is "evolving" just this system simply wouldn't live and definitely wouldn't be able to reproduce. Therefore these changes have to have occurred all at once within the lifespan of individual creatures and that applies to every biological system from simple (not so simple) proteins, DNA, RNA mRNA etc etc.

NEW RENEWABLE ENERGY CONTROL

2y↑27

My experience as an outsider to these observations.
My elder sister worked at the University at Berkley in California.She worked doing DNA research. Her 'boss' held some sort of doctorate in DNA related science.They discovered something that completely trashed Darwins' theory's. (Look up the meaning of theory.) He applied and was given a Nobel award for fact proven conclusions. Did university sciences grab this up? No. My sister retired in frustration. Apparently, massive amounts of donated money across the planet was based on Darwin theoretical claims. And the last thing you want to do is prove to your financial base that you got it all wrong. So they completely ignored this huge discovery. My sister retired because she had not realized her university colleagues were actually not scientists. She became quite bitter over the whole life destroying realization. She died totally frustrated by her life choices, alone and angry gardening in her California back yard. Family was apparently a reminder she was not what she thought she was about, and alone was her only option in her mind.
So, as an outsider non-science observer, Darwin and his numb skull followers were idiots! Welcome to the real world!

saintsone

@Marie India Well, you heard Gunter explain that you are basically ostracised from the scientific community should you go public against Darwinian Theory. Just demonstrates science is not about real science just that which they want you to believe. You would think Science would be grateful for proof either way but it is not the case. Just as Copernicus was despised when his theories on the solar system became published and proved the churches belief in the Earth being the centre of the universe modern scientists are ostracised etc for proving established science is wrong.

DrFaizal

@Robert Tormey Four months later, and no word on this discovery that disproved evolution that was so amazing it won a Nobel Prize even though it was kept a secret. You think maybe he made it up?

John Walker

Utter gibberish.
Semi-literate, uninformed - and frankly a pile of lies

Isaac Cordero

Sounds like a bunch of horse crap, typical “I know this guy story”

Marie India

2y↑1

it's very sad that adherence to a single theory, and the debunking of it would have to ruin a person's attitude and life like that. her choice.

2 More Replies...

Elizabeth S

"We all know that a meteorite impact does NOT a new gene make"
~ Gunter Bechly

Noah Fletcher

2y↑8

Discovery Science just gets better and better

galactyx1

2y↑2

Excellent summary & evidence-based exposition. Thank you

Ross Temple

2y↑1

Listening to this I can’t help but think of time traveling beings that jump through multiverse earths. We being the zoo as it were of these higher beings. But then they would still just be the product of themselves. All existence in all its fullness would still point back to a creator outside of known existence. No matter how you try to answer the problem of time and intelligent design you still need a force beyond physics. And that force being good and a lover of life it’s self. Otherwise the whole system collapses into stagnation and death. Life begets life.

boboraxo

2y↑2

According to the accepted interpretation of the fossil record life appeared rapidly, was around for awhile, then 96% went extinct rapidly. Geologically speaking. Current estimate is that 99% of fossils are of extnct flora and fauna. With no transitions whatsoever. Clearly the deposition of such a huge variety of life forms had to be rapid. So the whole timeline of the oldest, generally declared to be the lowest or bottom of the geologic strata, and the top or youngest, needs to be reanalyzed. Hint: density. If deposition was rapid, how could that happen? A great flood? Yep, that would do it. And until evolutionists can present a scenario (that isn't laughable) whereby complex molecules were created by random events and not only survived but became more complex by more random events until they self replicate in some perfect environment before there is DNA ........

Gerard Moloney

2y↑1

Gunter Bechly you have my deepest respect and admiration. You speak the truth and the truth is all that matters and will set you free. God bless you and your work. Maranatha.

Suburban Gorilla

2y↑6

Understandable. Rational. Logical. Honest. Credible.

João Azevedo

If Darwin was to be correct, it would have to be necessary to have more "transitional" forms than stable configurations.

Kyle Moore

All forms are transitional. Every single one. Nothing living is static.

Phil

2y↑15

The very idea of a Creator, "per quem omnia facta sunt", is an actionable offense to the egomaniacs currently running the show. But Information Theory and higher maths also offer full support for Mr. Bechly's conclusions. The facts clearly show the truth of it, and in that truth there is a terrible reckoning for those who purposefully mislead His people.

Mohammed Jamil

2y↑1

@John Elliott yes true that is why I left Islam. Organised religions especially the abrahamic ones are so dogmatic problematic and confusing they are just man made in the sense that they contain stories that go against rational and common sense. Classic case in point the Abrahamic sacrifice story what we learn from this is dont kill humans but kill animals instead and do eat them as a kind of thanksgiving to god! how immoral irrational and cruel is this god...,!🤔😳

k0smon

@John Elliott //// Hell no. Which part of the bible? The angry god who will send you to hell? Or the benevolent God that will forgive you?
As Bart Ehrman explains, he is an 'agnostic atheist' Agnostic because he does not know for sure if there is a god or not. An atheist because he FEELS there is no God.

John Elliott

2y↑2

What creator? The god of the bible? There is no proof of that posited.

Blindshiva

2y↑3

This is an excellent, cogent presentation, thanks!

Live Twice

2y↑2

Can someone explain to me why we are still clinging to Darwin’s theory given the overwhelming evidence that it is incorrect, most scientists are now secretly in agreement that it is wrong and if you explained it to my 8 year old granddaughter she would laugh out loud with incredulity

Ken Jackson

2y↑4

Science progresses one funeral at a time.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth."

— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97

From "Planck's principle" in Wikipedia.

A Carpenter's Son

2y↑1

I love how evolutionist abuse the word "species." They say humans and neanderthal are different species but they interbred. They do this with a lot of animals. But they never call a poodle and a Chihuahua different species, just breeds of the same species.

Patrick Clemmond

2y↑2

I applaud your fearless disposition to confront darkness Gunther. Truth always finds a way to rise above ignorance or denial, that form the foundation of the constitution of religion, the refusal to grow beyond the discoveries of our forefathers.

Kev Gostelow

2y↑11

Wow, so the fossil evolution timeline and maths don't fit the narrative, I suppose the evolution scientist will have to correct that data or will they just brush it under the carpet and expect everyone to just ignore the elephant in the room?

Marie India

2y↑1

they will come up with some other lie they hope we will swallow.

Preston B

2y↑1

Wonderful presentation. Thank you. I pray the world will wake up before it's too late.

James Buchanan

2y↑8

Very good explanation of Darwin's enigma regarding his theory on gradual change. However I still don't think their is any evidence of a common ancestor, though. Can anyone even start to track gradual changes going all the way "back" to an ameba?

David Robertson

@Michael Siddle I have no expertise in these matters, but nature seems to love symmetry, and if the initial primitive lifeform was a simple, symmetrical, open ended tube, then you would have a proto, anus and mouth ready for millennia of incremental change to produced specialised functions: Input, peristaltic action and output. Possible?

Michael Siddle

2y↑1

To disprove evolution ask any evolutionist “What came first the mouth or the anus” and where are the anusless fossils with mouths or moutless fossils with anuses in the fossil record? There should be millions of transitional fossils like this but there are NONE!

GL22

2y↑1

No. That’s the point—the transitional organisms that Darwinian evolution predicts are not there in the fossil record. On the contrary, what the fossil record shows is new species appearing suddenly and with no predecessors. There have been many so-called “explosions” of new species, both in the sea and on the ground. The fossil record reveals life forms emerging not as a tree with a single common trunk but more like a side view of a field of grass. There is no “common ancestor.”

Visan Cosmin

Well... the ultimate truth is that the eternal present moment is all there is. So everything is a story that happens right Now.

King Edward Titus

2y↑6

Could solar variations influence historical dramatic biota change? And could a data packet be delivered in a quantum realm to generate new species or et replicate on in a new biospere?

Lynn Comstock

22:07 Key problem is that different biological entities require different genetic information and there is no explanation of where NEW information comes from. Darwin had no knowledge of genetics. Common variations in domesticated animals do not arise from NEW information but from mutations which damage existing genes in nonlethal ways.

Load More Comments...

More Comments

just now