Why would "our number system" be insufficient? If you're talking about the decimal number system, then I agree: irrational numbers, for example, may seem mysterious to people who think only in terms of the decimal system (as the decimal system can basically be thought of as a (possibly infinite) series of additions of rational numbers, and the set of rational numbers is closed under addition). But our number system goes well beyond the decimals. The same case could be made for imaginary numbers. Extremely large numbers, similarly, we can express and conceptualize perfectly well; the difficulty comes from being unable to conceptualize extremely large _amounts_ of anything, I think.

Also, this guy sounds like an American approximating a British accent.

Lets at least pick something fun and easy to film if we're going to have another silly theme week.

Are you nuts?

Math is the best!

Did you know that math was responsible for the atomic bomb? Fact.

Oh, ew, wait, you're British?

Half British. My father's an immigrant. Oh, the hardships he faced as a first generation Oxford-educated Englishman! Why, he had to settle on a job as a math teacher because the New England prep school circuit didn't have any openings for philosophy teachers! Not for Limey, at any rate.

One day, we shall overcome.

I'll have you know that I watched this channel for a good long while yesterday. Some of us like 15 minute videos with almost 0 entertainment value.

Absolute bullshit. You might as well attempt to use linguistics as proof of a creator.

I'm not really sure how you could quantify intelligence through the ages; saying that people from one era in our history are smarter than another. And what does smarter mean exactly? I think you're giving the past a little too much credit, to be honest--you're looking at the best of the best thinkers who's work has carried through the ages. A lot of these great thinkers lived in an era when it was accepted medical fact that your blood evaporated out of your skull.