Видео

she’s so funny 😂

Brilliant fellow! Very amusing to say the least. 🎉😂❤

I’m afraid bridges like boyle is becoming too political for me,in spite of his cheap scottish type comedy.

I adore you ❤️. I always enjoy a good laugh 🤠. Thank you so much 💕

This is woke comedy in a nutshell though…no jokes or nothing funny, just a little rant and a big up to a community that’s had the least amount of backlash to them than any other lgbtq community member or ethnic minority

If believing in God gets you though,fine . Just keep it to yourself, and I got no money so stop asking for it ......

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I'm shy on weed Can i buy some from you

I forgot Ken Dodd. I saw him too

Talking like a fucking bender 😅😂😂😂

As someone who has had the 'flu and M,E. - no finger can be moved to type. But the fact that a U.K. audience had heard of CFS/ M.E. to make a joke, especially back some years, blows my mind! 😁👍

Just looked this soy filled ponce up and apparently he is a comedian.

It definitely says something about the difference between Canada and the UK that the Tupperware one sounds normal to me and not posh.

He’s so funny ... but the magic eyelash etc segment really cracked me up

We miss you❤

This guy is awesome.

Shes fab

I feel offended that he didn't offend me. Oh, wait.

Man this guy's quick!

"F..it! Here's a torch. Go into the garden and see what you can find!" 😂😂

I certainly had a good chuckle…😂…..and he’s also nice to look at,..🥰👍🦘🇦🇺❤

I used to look forward to his mascots on 8 out of 10 Cats Does Countdown. Whelks, anyone?

There is one big difference between Ricky Gervais and Steve Carell....Steve is actually funny.

He is bloody brilliant

Comedy is the universal language, just most people don't get it.

Go Ricky 😊

Brilliant man

6:41 is that fucking Ginny Weasley?

That is WAY over the line!!! I ❤IT 🤣

Names are just that 😂

when somebody claims to defend "amaminess" it's more justified to get fired up

Charles Darwin is hailed as a man of brilliance who unlocked the secrets of our world and gave us an explanation for the “miracle” of life but what people fail to realise is that Charles Darwin’s “theory” has been utterly refuted and shown to be false; yet his legacy lives on. Let us consider what Darwin actually observed on his travels to the Galápagos Islands - finches living on different islands feeding on different types of food having different beaks. What did he propose? That these finches had descended from a pair of flock of finches. In other words, he proposed that finches begat finches - which is exactly what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1. There are literally thousands of plant and animal kinds on the earth today, and these verify what the Bible indicates in Genesis 1 about animals and plants reproducing after their own kind. Indeed, the Darwinian “theory” of evolution is purely hypothetical rather than actual. It is based on “conjecture” and not direct evidence. Out of all the millions of fossils found on Planet Earth, no “true” intermediate/transitional fossils have ever been found. Although evolutionists assert that the fossil record “is full of them,” the reality is that it does not contain a single universally accepted transitional form. Every transitional fossil candidate has both proponents and doubters even among evolutionary biologists and palaeontologists. All the fossils which evolutionists have claimed to be the “strongest” evidence of transitional fossils for their “theory” have all been refuted. Now what we DO FIND and observe in our world is “variation” within kinds or as evolutionists like to call it “microevolution” but “microevolution” is NOT “Darwinian” evolution; it is just VARIATION. We have for example the dog kind such as the wolf, the dingo, the coyote, the domestic dog which are all from the same kind - the dog kind or family. We also have the cat kind such as: the lion, the tiger, the cheetah, the leopard, the domestic cat which are all from the same kind - the cat kind or family. We observe great variation within these kinds/families but there are LIMITS to these variations due to a process called “genetic homeostasis” a term derived by the eminent biologist Ernst Mayr - Harvard University. Genetic homeostasis is basically a limit to the genetic variability available in a species - there is only so much change that can happen within a species due to its genetic makeup. Because of this problem of “genetic homeostasis” Darwinists desperately looked for a solution to support their “theory” and they found this in a man named Gregor Mendel who gave us the term “mutation.” This term was eventually married to Darwin’s original conception which now stated that: “The mechanism of evolution is the natural selection not just of ordinary variations but of genetic mutations.” Darwins’s original “theory” had been proved wrong. For example, he held the belief that bears could turn into whales by natural selection as stated in the first edition of his book, but this was shown to be false: firstly, because of what Mayr called “genetic homeostasis” - the natural barrier beyond which selective breeding will not pass; and, secondly, because the genetic program or recipe for whales is not contained in the existing genetic makeup of bears. A genetic change is needed before one can change into the other - and natural selection is not capable of initiating genetic change. Physical characteristics are controlled by genes (or groups of genes acting in concert). Bisexual reproduction ensures that each new individual receives a “new deal,” since the genes of the parents are shuffled together and recombined like a pack of playing cards. Sometimes, the “new hand” is very like the old one, as when a child strongly resembles one parent; sometimes it is very different. But in every case, the new deal can be drawn only from the existing pack, just as a hand at bridge must contain some hearts, or clubs, or diamonds or spades, no matter how much the pack is shuffled. In terms of physical characteristics, what this means is that genetic recombination can give rise to variations that are within the range for each species: a finch with a beak a little bigger than before, or a cow that yields more milk than before. What it does not mean is that genetic variation of the ordinary kind is capable of explaining the appearance of entirely “novel” characteristics. It does not explain the appearance of a wing where before there was only an arm. For the genetic inheritance mechanism is merely one of reshuffling and recombination of characteristics already represented in what Dobzhansky called the “gene pool” of that species. This is the specific reason that Dutch tulip growers have never been able to achieve a black tulip or rose breeders a blue rose. There is no gene for black colouration in the gene pool of the tulip. And, sadly, there are no blue genes for the rose. But now add “mutations” to the equation and all things are now apparently possible. Given enough time (millions of years) and many mutations. Mutation is the only tool that evolutionists have available to account for the millions of species that exist in the world today. The interesting fact is that the vast majority of mutations that we encounter have proven to be non-beneficial and can actually be harmful, and not life enhancing as evolutionists believe. Examples of these mutations include cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, phenylketonuria and color-blindness, among many others. Harmful mutations can cause genetic disorders and even cancer. Far from mutation being a positive, enhancing tool, it is actually quite the opposite. Further, all point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it. Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations that the “theory” demands. Mutations (as natural selection) can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information. Furthermore, mutations, even “so-called” beneficial ones, are going in the opposite direction for molecules-to-man evolution, which requires a gain of new genetic information, even though there may have been a beneficial outcome. Yes, there are examples which show that there can be “beneficial outcomes” to mutations. However, these mutations can only alter “pre-existing” traits; they cannot result in the origin of “novel” traits necessary for molecules to man evolution. For molecules-to-man evolutionary changes, the mutation needs to be beneficial AND cause a gain of NEW INFORMATION. Speciation Molecules-to-man evolution requires a net increase in novel genetic information, the addition of genes for new trait categories to a genome. Reproductive isolation and subsequent speciation results in a LOSS of genetic variability (alleles), converting a large gene pool into subgroups with smaller gene pools (i.e., “new species” with less ability to meet changes in their environment, restricted ability to explore new environments, and reduced prospects for long-term survival. Speciation is moving in the wrong direction to support the evolutionary belief in upward changes between kinds, or molecules-to-man evolution. Uncritical acceptance of evolution has so stunted scientific thinking that people give mutations god-like qualities. They act as if a cosmic ray striking a cell can cause a mutation that somehow assembles over 1500 DNA nucleo-tides into a brand new gene, regulators and all, that suddenly begins producing a brand-new protein responsible for a brand-new trait, raising the lucky mutated organism to the next higher limb on the evolutionary tree! NOTHING remotely like that has ever been observed, nor will it be! Mutations are NOT genetic "script writers;” they are merely typographic alterations in a genetic script that has already been written. Typically, a mutation changes only one letter in a genetic sentence averaging 1,500 letters long. To make evolution happen - or even to make evolution a theory fit for scientific discussion - evolutionists desperately need some kind of genetic script writer to create novel genetic information, increasing the size of a genome and the depth of a gene pool. Mutations have no ability to compose genetic sentences, no ability to produce novel genetic information, and, hence, no ability to make evolution happen, at all. Yet molecules-to-man evolution requires phenomenal expansion of genetic information. It would take thousands of mutations adding novel information to change simple cells into invertebrates, vertebrates, and mankind. The evolutionist's problem is with the fundamental nature of information itself. The information in a book, for example, cannot be reduced to nor derived from the properties of the ink and paper used to write it. Similarly, the information in the genetic code cannot be reduced to nor derived from the properties of matter or the allelic variations caused by mutations. Its message and meaning originated instead in the mind of its Maker, Jesus Christ, the Author of life [John 1:1-3]. [Sources: Dr. Monty White - Hasn’t Evolution Been Proven True?; Richard Milton - Shattering The Myths of Darwinism; Dr. Werner Gitt - In The Beginning Was Information; Dr. Terry Mortenson - Do Evolutionists Believe Darwin’s Ideas About Evolution?; Dr. Gary Parker - Is Speciation Evidence For Creation or Evolution?].

“To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.” [Deuteronomy 32:35] “I will render vengeance to My enemies, And repay those who hate Me.” [Deuteronomy 32:41]

“To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.” [Deuteronomy 32:35] “I will render vengeance to My enemies, And repay those who hate Me.” [Deuteronomy 32:41]

If he wasn't one of them he'd be cancelled.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂❤️

I'm impressed he played along. But Ricky should have chosen a 'white' person for the skit. Preferably a nazi! Lots of them are in England! - It was pathetic! Since it is easier to pick on a minority already with a chain of racism behind it. Unless all the audience were white supremacists, in that case, it is socially understandable!

Nick was brilliant he should go on tour with Al 😂

Not his best

I loved him in panel shows when he got carried away and then put his hands on his face as if embarrassed for being naughty

As an Agoraphobic I thought Sean’s joke was hilarious. I could see myself doing the Caravan Javeline 😂😂. You’re very missed Sean.

one of the funniest comedians! ! :D love it when someone dare to talk about this kind of stuff, because thats what comedy still would be but sadly isnt when the world so fckn sensitive.. -.- :D

Exactly. 🏳️‍⚧️

Britains run out of freaks for bgt they've expanded....

🔥🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰

A soft spoken version of Sean Lock?

Yawn.

Genius. RIP Sean

2:26 that sounded a-lot a Jimmy Carr joke from Comedy Central presents. I can see they inspired each other.

This is possibly one of the worst stand up comedians I have ever seen........ Ever. Also for those who need to hear it, WOMEN DONT HAVE COCKS.