Oh, the animations and drawings of what scientist "supposed" happen are considered evidence of macroevolution. Did species adapt and change within a species? Yes. Did a species evolve into an animal outside its gene pool? There is no evidence of that in the fossil record. It shows only adaptation within a species...so, this video is what they "think" could have happend...period. Nice cartoon though!
Oh my goodness. They were lying to me about Adam & Eve in the enchanted forest with the talking snake! Do you think they might have been lying to me about the jesus story too?
@flyingscience2 How would vacuum-packing chicken compare with desiccation? Try your "experiment" with beef jerky and see how it does. Mummies have well-preserved soft tissue. Desiccation is the key.
From the one preaching that we make no unsupported assertions, another unsupported assertion. Face it - your invisible, magical, telepathic superfriends are imaginary.
@flyingscience2 said "Dinos must have been alive withen the last 10,000 years."
If you Google K-T Boundary
You'll see why we know that the large dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago, and why we know that humans and large dinosaurs never lived at the same time. The Bible says otherwise.
@flyingscience2 If you encase beef jerky in solid rock, exposed to no light, moisture, or air, how long would you guess that it would take for the desiccated tissue to magically disappear? If not by magic, then through what process would it cease to exist?
@flyingscience2 I'm not asserting this. Google K-T boundary and see my sources for yourself.
K is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous period, and T is the abbreviation for the Tertiary period. The boundary marks the end of the Mesozoic era and the beginning of the Cenozoic era, and is associated with the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, a mass extinction.
That's real science. Your sources are simply assertions by people desperately clinging to a book of myths.
@flyingscience2 said "Now we have some real evidence that dinos did not die off 65 million years ago and was actually probably thousands of years ago."
What are your sources? You simply assert that "We have some real evidence". What real evidence? Specifics, please, or we can simply dismiss your assertion of real evidence. By the way, the Creation Museum isn't a museum, it's a pseudoscience business - not even close to a reputable source.
@flyingscience2 You idiot, they don't mean that it would still be soft and wet. You claim that I'm saying that there would be soft tissue, then I point out that I claimed no such thing, and you simply make the same false assertion again. Gee, I wonder why.
Are you literally retarded, or do you just act that way?
Still no response to my point that you made an assertion about 10,000 years without evidence. When asked to back up your assertion, you change the subject.
@flyingscience2 There you go ranting about my claim that soft tissue survives for 65 million years, when I never made such a claim. You really do live in your fantasy world, don't you?
Your comments display your scientific cluelessness. flyingignoranceofscience would have been a more accurate choice of user name.
@chibiariel You can continue to believe that soft tissue can last for 65 million years.
You mean nothing to me so what do I care?
Anyone who actually "thinks" and not just indulges in "thoughts" will come to the quick conclusion that Dinos did not die off 65 million years ago because evidence trumps theory every time.
"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."
@flyingscience2 - I didn't say it was or was not impossible or that dinosaurs did or did not die 65 million years ago: I asked what evidence you had for your claims. You assert these things couldn't possibly be true and there isn't evidence for it to be true, yet you are making claims with no evidence to back what you're saying.
@flyingscience2 - But that's not evidence, that's conjecture. You think that it couldn't last that long, but how do you know? I'm not saying you're right or wrong or to change your mind, just that you need to actually have evidence. Modern science currently suggests that soft tissue can last that long (at least in the right conditions), but if you have evidence otherwise -- well, we've been wrong before.
Reverse Engineering Genes.. mmm sounds like the quickest way. Of course that is easier said then done but probably allot better then trying to put fragments of ancients bones together.
@ 5:00 Birds definitely appeared in the Jurassic and may have appeared in the Triassic but the Raptors first appeared in the Cretaceous, how could birds have evolved from them?
Could you answer something? Birds have a fixed femur so their lungs wouldn't collapse when the walk. Their lung structure is different because higher oxygen intake is needed for flight. So, why do dinosaurs have movable femurs, if birds need a fixed one? Dinosaur lungs would've collapse as they walked, yet they didn't.
@1990PatMorrison It's called secondary flightlessness. Early birds retained fingers and some of them found it advantageous (through evolution . . .here we go . . .) to run around on the ground and catch prey rather than fly. Flying is very expensive in terms of growth, metabolism, and maintenance. If you can still get enough food to eat by running and without burning the huge calories needed to fly, you win and so do your descendants.
@1990PatMorrison - thank you! - so glad I am not the only one to notice this! - this retro engineering proposal he puts forward might not work! - for lots very obvious reasons!
@1990PatMorrison Modern raptors (hawks, owls, eagles, vultures etc) have a distinct appearance. Not just exclusive to raptors, any bipedal dinosaur could have had the chance to evolve feathers and eventually become more bird-like. Think of the root animal that branched off into the raptor and some other lightweight non-predator. Being a bird seems more of an innovation than a destination
At least they don't claim that it is found in the USA. Like they do in some movies.. where they change history so that only the USA has ever done good.
The real question isn't 'can we recreate dinosaurs', but rather 'why would we want to?'.
And people, there's no reason to take these creationists seriously. They're desperately clinging onto a religion that has oppressed common sense in the Western world for centuries. They're on the same level as nutty conspiracy theorists and will never listen to reason anyway. The best way to treat them is to laugh and smile at them.
@rigstula as a christian enjoying this video, why does their seem to be so much hate towards Christians in general. It just seems like non Christians are the first ones to get mad and start name calling and belittling. Does it bother you guys that bad that we believe in something different? Its just odd to me because I never bash others for either being fanatics one way or the other. I just think if Christians stir up so much hate for ppl, imagine how much they hate other things, unhealthy.
@jdssurf Because it is true that Christianity has, and still does try to, suppress scientific progress as well as annihilate others faiths and cultures. Do not mistake my criticism of your religion for some sort of hatred towards ALL Christians, as there are clearly people who are Christian who respect both science and other beliefs.
But I will never agree that fanatics deserve anything but ridicule, as they themselves show no such respect for others. Why respect someone who shows none?
@rigstula I know ppl at the schools I work at whose parents wont even allow them to bring a bible into the house, they are Indian, its not only Christians that do that, its only Christians that get all the blame because I think its who most people are most familiar with, but most religions are that way. Just as science only based people are the same way but opposite. I dont even want to get in to it all but you gotta agree that one track mind is found in every group out there.
@jdssurf That is absolutely correct, no disagreement there. And the only reason it seems that I am specifically targeting Christians is because the fanatics among them often speak with the loudest voice. But I have also several times argued with everything from nazis to fanatical vegans, as I would with any atheist who mocks people simply for being religious.
I quite simply dislike people with tyrannical tendencies who judge people for superficial reasons.
The problem is they recently found a pre-Jurassic bird (Anchiornis huxleyi) that is believed to pre-date Archaeopteryx by 63 Million Years. Thus birds could not descended from dinosaurs. But that discovery came in 09 and this video was posted in 08 so they get a pass. But I'm an old earth creationist and I don't buy evolution on a macro scale at all, the evidence just doesn't support it.
Anchiornis wasn't a bird, it was a dinosaur. Thus that doesn't prove that dinosaurs didn't evolve from birds. And yes, the evidence does support it, and you'd see this if you simply did research. Scientists have been scrutinizing evolution for the last 150 years, and they've never been able to disprove it. This includes christian, muslim, buddhist, and hindu scientists who would have every reason to disprove it to confirm their religous beliefs.
@badnasan It's a "dinosaur" with features identical to modern birds and it has wings and bird's tail too. Only the slanted musings of Darwinists can take a creature that looks like a bird, has feathers identical to modern birds, flight feathers on wings and tail and call it a dinosaur. Clearly this animals was a bird. But whatever, call it a dinosaur. At least now we can put Archaeopteryx to rest as a so-called "transitional" fossil. Never ends.
@imikewillrockyou The features are not "identical" to modern birds. Its feathers had rounded and symmetrical tips, which are not the best-suited for being aerodynamic like modern birds which have pointed wings and feathers, so it was not adapted for flight like Archaeopteryx. It also had features that were more in common with therapod dinosaurs, such as its hind legs. The fact that it came before Archaopteryx doesn't disprove all of the other information that shows a transition.
@badnasan Looks like a very close cousin to the Road Runner to me, long tail feather, running legs, even the crest of the feathers on top of it's head. Obviously nobody knows for sure since it's an extinct bird (excuse me dinosaur), but it likely could fly about like a Road Runner in short hops. Archaeopteryx is now extinct as a transitional possibility, Anchiornis came long before. At best Archaeopteryx is an evolutionary dead end.
@imikewillrockyou It may have looked like a bird, but it was indeed a dinosaur. It's simple taxonomy. Utahraptor and Microraptor also looked like birds, feathers and all, but they were still dinosaurs. Several million years ago, there were species that walked upright, used tools, mated face-to-face, had complex social structures, and cared for their young for long periods of time, but that doesn't mean that they were homo sapiens.
@imikewillrockyou Also, it does look like a cousin of some modern birds, the road runner being one of them. That just means that it is related to modern birds, which is something we already know. Modern humans look like close cousins of Neanderthals and Homo Heidelbergensis, but they are not one in the same. Archaeopteryx is also not an evolutionary dead end because it did have more in common with therapod dinosaurs than it did with modern birds.
@badnasan My observation is evolutionists will always cram something into the theory and ignore the obvious problems. They have this idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs and therefore must ignore that by every measure this animal was a full blown bird and not a reptile. And the timescale doesn't fit with dino to bird hypothesis. So they call it a "bird like" dinosaur instead of simply announcing that birds must have evolved sooner than believed the dino connection doesn't fit.
@imikewillrockyou your argument makes no sense, how does the timescale not make sense, and when did scientists ever say they never changed their ideas?
Birds are indeed descended from dinosaurs. They are descended from theropod dinos in the same family as t-rex and the raptors.
The dinos did indeed die in mass 65 million yrs ago. modern birds are descended from a single species that was able to live through the extinction events.
Just as all modern mammals including us are descended from a shrew like mammal that was also able to survive the extinction.
Sorry but that is just a lie, God made the universe 6,000 years ago and he did it in 6 days. People who believe in evolution are just ignorant or just plain stupid. Man did not come from birds or monkeys, man was created in Gods image. You all need to stop fooling yourself and give your soul to Christianity because if you don't you will burn in hell for eternity and that is a fact.
@JesusChristRulesYOU wow I don't mind religion although I am NOT religious but people like you piss me off....besides I think people only believe in religion so they are not scared of what happens to them after they die...although it is possible that 'god' WAS a supreme being...maybe not the way you religious people think of him..but as what you would call...a alien...but who knows?
Oviraptorid is very much like a modern Cassowary. All the raptors were part of the "Ratite" bird family. Modern Ratite's still have "claws", small or no wings, up to 15' high, 1,000 lbs. Act very much like what raptors would have acted. See YouTube Video. "Killer Cassowary Bird Attacks". Also latest research cast serious doubt on Dino to bird evo. Modern birds (ducks) are found in the fossil record long before raptors. Birds still carry the "genetic reserves" for teeth.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
The world probably wasn't created in eight days. I think that it meant that God made the Earth 8,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 days
Jack Horner: "The bird genome is basically a dinosaur genome. All we have to do is tweak it a little bit and we should have a dinosaur." You make it sound so easy!
Who gives a fuck what they fuck up? That's how the world works. One thing fucks up another, and becomes standard.
It's just like global warming. Let it happen already. It's not going to stop because you're human. We might as well do it, before we're extinct ourselves.
It's either more Dinosaurs, or more X-Factor. I can't let that happen to my earth. :|
wish our ancestors had the genes that makes us ariel or aquatic other than being terestrial. would be wonderful to grow wings and fly or grow fins and dive. think about it, we wouldnt even need a passport or a visa lol. we can explore depth with ease and play the hell out until we die.
But some people don't respect another (with his/hir religion)!
You see that some of these people who placed an reaction on this view don't respect an other with his religion: they say some negative things about another religion. That's why I say that everyone has respect an other where he/she believes in.. (but you still have to chuse it about yourself, if you want respect an other with his/her religion, ofcourse)
Much of people are nigative about christians (if you can see in the reactions..), but why!? I mean everyone is the same, one defferent thing is that he/she has another religion..
I'm not negative about Christians (my mother and my best friend are Christians)... it is just that I find some of their beliefs ridiculous... my point is that you should respect people... but views/opinions/faith etc. is not something that should be respected in every case... only by it's own "quality"...
I find some beliefs are ridiculous too, but I respect people who believe that. I hate anyone who make people ridicules with his/hir faith! ( I'm not saying you do that, I mean some other people..)
If christians are so rock-solid confident in their faith then tell me, why do so many of them troll dino videos on youtube? Just to pick fights and insult people? Not very christ-like I must say. not very christ-like at all. Sad.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That why Jesus is not a God...He just a mighty messenger of God (Allah)..such as Adam,Moses,David,Abraham,Muhammad pbuh etc..If U read in Bible,he doesn't said he is God..
Ur stupid lol..........islam donates more stuff to the poor then any relgion. Ur blind buddy..........look at christians....they smoke drink and do alot of dirty things. Im not saying slam does the same thing but christans have less respect then islam.
You need to turn to the book of John. In John Jesus claims to be divine. In fact the book of John goes so far as to call jesus' miracles signs. Signs that point to jesus' divinity.
(that is of coarse if you believe in text written by ancient goat herders.)
And actually their was alot of oxygen in the dinosaur time which was why insect were really big back then. And dinosaurs were also big but they were big because of the cicle of evolution.
Pangea happened so that casued animals to change and evolve to fit their new habitats. They didnt die off like we think they did. Its evolution. the ice age came and it got really cold so animals evolved with fur. Less food resulted in animals evolving to be smaller. and nowadays there is less oxygen as there was for dinosaurs that grew 80 feet tall. Please correct me but be nice :D
Actually, during the mesozoic, there was less oxygen and more carbon dioxide and the atmosphere overall is believed to have been slightly denser than it is today. Tho, these differences were minute.
If you tweak the DNA to what you believe is Dinosaur DNA that doesn't necessarily mean that it is really Dinosaur..it just will agree with what you may think is Dinosaur DNA.
You are the one making a postulation; the burden of proof lies on you. Don't instruct me to search for evidence of an essentially non-falsifiable assertion that YOU made. If I wasted my time attempting to find evidence supporting every ostensibly batshit-insane belief that every individual presented me with, I wouldn't have time to accomplish anything of value. If you fail to meet your burden of proof, I'm going to assume the default position of non-belief. Period.
For the environment they reside in. it's a astronomically vast improvement. But that really doesn't matter, since you're assuming that chickens are descended from the t-rex.
That's not what Evolution says. Evolution says that animals adapt to environmental pressures with natural selection and random mutation. THAT's what Evolution says. Look it up. This is why we have dictionaries Matthew...
Why are there so many retards like you that talk shit about evolution when it's obvious that you don't know what the fuck evolution is. Get an edumacation.
@alterbr33d , man that comment is a year old and I don't even remember who I was responding to back then. :P But yes ... I've heard every excuse. Hehe.
Oh, the animations and drawings of what scientist "supposed" happen are considered evidence of macroevolution. Did species adapt and change within a species? Yes. Did a species evolve into an animal outside its gene pool? There is no evidence of that in the fossil record. It shows only adaptation within a species...so, this video is what they "think" could have happend...period. Nice cartoon though!
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
Oh my goodness. They were lying to me about Adam & Eve in the enchanted forest with the talking snake! Do you think they might have been lying to me about the jesus story too?
somethingdiffereable 1 month ago 2
who the hell thought this was cute!?
pokehead46 2 months ago
Great now we can create living Pterodactyls. Wait, that was in Jurassic park,
in the movies. It appears to me that modern birds are inferior to any flying
dinosaurs, yet birds are here and dinosaurs are gone. Evolution in reverse I suppose.
jossalv1 2 months ago
@jossalv1 Actually, Pterodactyls are not dinosaurs.
shadowknigth95 1 month ago
@jossalv1
" Evolution in reverse I suppose. "
Let me guess, you think your imaginary invisable friend created birds 200 million years latter? LOL
gorilla199uncensored 1 month ago
best way a dino kills *sits on a person*
CODQuickScopePro 3 months ago
A real scientist will never say evolution is a fact. That places him in a box and blinds him from truth.
darkfur35 3 months ago
@darkfur35 evolution IS a fact, the fact that things evolve is one of the FACTS behind the THEORY of evolution.
and lets not get into what makes someone a "real" scientist ya?
tuseroni 3 months ago
@tuseroni The fact is; your comment is unscientific and silly.
darkfur35 3 months ago
Now I know. Every time I see a buzzard feasting on the flesh of roadkill, I shall imagine a dinosaur. =D
Tekari101 3 months ago
I do find it interesting that after 70 million years, soft tissue is found in dino fossils/bones.
It is 100% impossible for tissue to survive that long.
We must be completely wrong about the ages of these fossils.
I don't believe they even mentioned it in the video.
I find that very odd.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 If tissue is dried out and not exposed to oxygen, how would it completely disappear?
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Soft tissue is impossable after 70 million years under any conditions.
Even frozen.
Dinos must have been alive withen the last 10,000 years.
We are being lied to.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 So just how would the soft tissue disappear without oxygen or water?
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Vacume pack a fried chicken leg in ten layers of thick plastic and bury it far from light and water.
Come back in a year.
Dig it up and take a bite LOL.
That's just 1 year, now imagine 65 million years.
Would anything be left of the chicken bone?
No, unless it's likeness was turned into inorganic material like what happens during the fossilisation process.
We are talking about real Dino flesh and bones here.
It could maybe last 10,000 years.
Maybe.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 How would vacuum-packing chicken compare with desiccation? Try your "experiment" with beef jerky and see how it does. Mummies have well-preserved soft tissue. Desiccation is the key.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 said "It could maybe last 10,000 years."
From the one preaching that we make no unsupported assertions, another unsupported assertion. Face it - your invisible, magical, telepathic superfriends are imaginary.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 said "Dinos must have been alive withen the last 10,000 years."
If you Google K-T Boundary
You'll see why we know that the large dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago, and why we know that humans and large dinosaurs never lived at the same time. The Bible says otherwise.
The Bible is provably wrong.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 They are now finding soft tissue and blood cells in dino bones all over the place.
They didn't before because they never thought to look.
Now they are looking.
You can believe that soft tissue can last 65 million years if you want.
I think that theory is funny.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
Comment removed
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 If you encase beef jerky in solid rock, exposed to no light, moisture, or air, how long would you guess that it would take for the desiccated tissue to magically disappear? If not by magic, then through what process would it cease to exist?
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 I don't know but 65 million years is too funny.
I think it's the funnist thing to happen to evolutionists to date.
They have to believe that flesh can be preserved for 65 million years LOL.
65 million years is a long long time.
I don't think you fully grasp that.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 " dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago".
Yeah sure they did ;-)
That was always an assertion lacking evidence.
Say what you want but this new evidence tells a different story.
"we know that humans and large dinosaurs never lived at the same time."
Yeah you know that LOL.
Just like you know that soft tissue can last for 65 million years.
You can speculate, think about, theorize and assert but you can't know.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
Comment removed
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flyingscience2 said " "dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago".
Yeah sure they did ;-)"
That was always an assertion lacking evidence.
No evidence? First, I said LARGE dinosaurs died out around then. Way to quote mine.
Google K-T boundary. No large dinosaur fossils have been found in more recent layers anywhere. Your ignorance =/= no evidence.
...and "you know that soft tissue can last for 65 million years"
No, I never said that I knew any such thing. Way to make up quotes.
Fail.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 You can prove large dinos died off 65 million years ago?
Wow, impressive!
Just how will you prove that?
Dude, you can't...just get it and don't fight me.
You could no more prove that than you can levitate to the moon.
You assert that.
There is nothing wrong with asserting anything as long as you say, "this I assert".
Now we have some real evidence that dinos did not die off 65 million years ago and was actually probably thousands of years ago.
Don't get in the way of science.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 I'm not asserting this. Google K-T boundary and see my sources for yourself.
K is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous period, and T is the abbreviation for the Tertiary period. The boundary marks the end of the Mesozoic era and the beginning of the Cenozoic era, and is associated with the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, a mass extinction.
That's real science. Your sources are simply assertions by people desperately clinging to a book of myths.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
Comment removed
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 said "Now we have some real evidence that dinos did not die off 65 million years ago and was actually probably thousands of years ago."
What are your sources? You simply assert that "We have some real evidence". What real evidence? Specifics, please, or we can simply dismiss your assertion of real evidence. By the way, the Creation Museum isn't a museum, it's a pseudoscience business - not even close to a reputable source.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 I laugh at all you fools for believing that soft tissue can last for 65 million years.
Having you jokers mock me is a laugh riot and your defence of you position looks desperate.
Personally attacking me is only telling of how weak your stance is.
Go believe that flesh can last for 65 million years if you want morons.
What do I care?
Trying to convince stupid people like you using logic if futile.
Go ahead and believe the impossible.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 You idiot, they don't mean that it would still be soft and wet. You claim that I'm saying that there would be soft tissue, then I point out that I claimed no such thing, and you simply make the same false assertion again. Gee, I wonder why.
Are you literally retarded, or do you just act that way?
Still no response to my point that you made an assertion about 10,000 years without evidence. When asked to back up your assertion, you change the subject.
Gee, I wonder why?
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 I can't argue with you because you are too stupid.
You believe soft tissue can remain in bone for 65 million years.
You believe that bone can remain for 65 million years.
That is just too ignorant for words.
It's obvious that it's impossible.
In fact scientists at first tried to discredit the soft tissue findings because it shouldn't be there.
When they couldn't discredit it they had to change their minds over to the impossible.
I mock you and them.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 There you go ranting about my claim that soft tissue survives for 65 million years, when I never made such a claim. You really do live in your fantasy world, don't you?
Your comments display your scientific cluelessness. flyingignoranceofscience would have been a more accurate choice of user name.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
Comment removed
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 Jesus called. He said he wants you to STFU. You're embarrassing the other religiotards
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 - What evidence do you have that that's impossible? We're always discovering new things that were once said to be impossible.
chibiariel 4 months ago
@chibiariel You can continue to believe that soft tissue can last for 65 million years.
You mean nothing to me so what do I care?
Anyone who actually "thinks" and not just indulges in "thoughts" will come to the quick conclusion that Dinos did not die off 65 million years ago because evidence trumps theory every time.
"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
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 - I didn't say it was or was not impossible or that dinosaurs did or did not die 65 million years ago: I asked what evidence you had for your claims. You assert these things couldn't possibly be true and there isn't evidence for it to be true, yet you are making claims with no evidence to back what you're saying.
chibiariel 4 months ago
@chibiariel My evidence is the soft tissue found in T-Rex bones.
That is compelling evidence that they did not die off 65 million years ago.
I thought that was obvious.
flyingscience2 4 months ago
@flyingscience2 - But that's not evidence, that's conjecture. You think that it couldn't last that long, but how do you know? I'm not saying you're right or wrong or to change your mind, just that you need to actually have evidence. Modern science currently suggests that soft tissue can last that long (at least in the right conditions), but if you have evidence otherwise -- well, we've been wrong before.
chibiariel 4 months ago
If this is possible then doesnt that mean that we could reverse engineer a human to an ape?
Andro586 6 months ago
if they ever revive dinos, they should use them for WAR!
CODQuickScopePro 6 months ago 4
@CODQuickScopePro Id rather have a tank on my side then a dino.
Wait.... DINOTANKS!
Caradepato2 3 months ago
@Caradepato2 I have seen dino tanks in, Avatar, and one of the Star Wars movies, at least the alien version of what look like dino tanks.
jossalv1 2 months ago
@jossalv1 Well, yes. Point being?
Caradepato2 2 months ago
Really, bird are related to Dinosaurs
cossio97 6 months ago
what a trip that would be, dinosaurs today.
Not a very sane idea, but interesting as hell and everyone wants to see it nonetheless.
PopeDarwin 8 months ago
Reverse Engineering Genes.. mmm sounds like the quickest way. Of course that is easier said then done but probably allot better then trying to put fragments of ancients bones together.
masticina 10 months ago
@ 5:00 Birds definitely appeared in the Jurassic and may have appeared in the Triassic but the Raptors first appeared in the Cretaceous, how could birds have evolved from them?
1990PatMorrison 10 months ago
@1990PatMorrison Maniraptorans first appeared in the Jurassic. Eshanosaurus is the earliest so far @ 196 MYO
djarm67 10 months ago 10
@djarm67
Could you answer something? Birds have a fixed femur so their lungs wouldn't collapse when the walk. Their lung structure is different because higher oxygen intake is needed for flight. So, why do dinosaurs have movable femurs, if birds need a fixed one? Dinosaur lungs would've collapse as they walked, yet they didn't.
pussylumpessru 2 months ago
@1990PatMorrison It's called secondary flightlessness. Early birds retained fingers and some of them found it advantageous (through evolution . . .here we go . . .) to run around on the ground and catch prey rather than fly. Flying is very expensive in terms of growth, metabolism, and maintenance. If you can still get enough food to eat by running and without burning the huge calories needed to fly, you win and so do your descendants.
trilingual 9 months ago
@1990PatMorrison - thank you! - so glad I am not the only one to notice this! - this retro engineering proposal he puts forward might not work! - for lots very obvious reasons!
TREACLE97 8 months ago
@1990PatMorrison Modern raptors (hawks, owls, eagles, vultures etc) have a distinct appearance. Not just exclusive to raptors, any bipedal dinosaur could have had the chance to evolve feathers and eventually become more bird-like. Think of the root animal that branched off into the raptor and some other lightweight non-predator. Being a bird seems more of an innovation than a destination
PopeDarwin 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i wonder if any of these people have seen jurassic park???!?
454tictac 11 months ago
in 4: min. thats not a fossil from china but actually a fossil from archaeopterix found in germany.
Antillektuell 11 months ago
@Antillektuell
At least they don't claim that it is found in the USA. Like they do in some movies.. where they change history so that only the USA has ever done good.
masticina 10 months ago 2
@Antillektuell they never say the fossil is, they just say that many were found in China. hahas.
111E982a 9 months ago
Alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
The real question isn't 'can we recreate dinosaurs', but rather 'why would we want to?'.
And people, there's no reason to take these creationists seriously. They're desperately clinging onto a religion that has oppressed common sense in the Western world for centuries. They're on the same level as nutty conspiracy theorists and will never listen to reason anyway. The best way to treat them is to laugh and smile at them.
rigstula 11 months ago
@rigstula as a christian enjoying this video, why does their seem to be so much hate towards Christians in general. It just seems like non Christians are the first ones to get mad and start name calling and belittling. Does it bother you guys that bad that we believe in something different? Its just odd to me because I never bash others for either being fanatics one way or the other. I just think if Christians stir up so much hate for ppl, imagine how much they hate other things, unhealthy.
jdssurf 10 months ago
@jdssurf Because it is true that Christianity has, and still does try to, suppress scientific progress as well as annihilate others faiths and cultures. Do not mistake my criticism of your religion for some sort of hatred towards ALL Christians, as there are clearly people who are Christian who respect both science and other beliefs.
But I will never agree that fanatics deserve anything but ridicule, as they themselves show no such respect for others. Why respect someone who shows none?
rigstula 10 months ago
@rigstula I know ppl at the schools I work at whose parents wont even allow them to bring a bible into the house, they are Indian, its not only Christians that do that, its only Christians that get all the blame because I think its who most people are most familiar with, but most religions are that way. Just as science only based people are the same way but opposite. I dont even want to get in to it all but you gotta agree that one track mind is found in every group out there.
jdssurf 10 months ago
@jdssurf That is absolutely correct, no disagreement there. And the only reason it seems that I am specifically targeting Christians is because the fanatics among them often speak with the loudest voice. But I have also several times argued with everything from nazis to fanatical vegans, as I would with any atheist who mocks people simply for being religious.
I quite simply dislike people with tyrannical tendencies who judge people for superficial reasons.
rigstula 9 months ago
lol, Dino DNA, like Jurassic park
LVL60Beltran 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
for all who think dinos did not turn into birds prove it i want you to find the dino bones and do the WORK before saying stuff
ustolemymonkey 1 year ago
for all who think dinos did turn into birds one word prove it i want you to find a dino bone and do the WORK intill then f you
ustolemymonkey 1 year ago
There is a section of the book "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" telling how to grow dental material and epithelium in chick embryoes.
vinha1006 1 year ago
If we could actually fully recover a T-Rex, then wouldn't it start eating us, and then would there be trouble?
cdlsd 1 year ago
this is possible.
very possible.
if we can fuck up a fruitfly to make it grow more then 10 wings, 2 in each part of its body, then we can de-evolve stuff.
shoshanish 1 year ago
The problem is they recently found a pre-Jurassic bird (Anchiornis huxleyi) that is believed to pre-date Archaeopteryx by 63 Million Years. Thus birds could not descended from dinosaurs. But that discovery came in 09 and this video was posted in 08 so they get a pass. But I'm an old earth creationist and I don't buy evolution on a macro scale at all, the evidence just doesn't support it.
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou
Anchiornis wasn't a bird, it was a dinosaur. Thus that doesn't prove that dinosaurs didn't evolve from birds. And yes, the evidence does support it, and you'd see this if you simply did research. Scientists have been scrutinizing evolution for the last 150 years, and they've never been able to disprove it. This includes christian, muslim, buddhist, and hindu scientists who would have every reason to disprove it to confirm their religous beliefs.
badnasan 1 year ago
@badnasan
That should read "birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs"
badnasan 1 year ago
@badnasan It's a "dinosaur" with features identical to modern birds and it has wings and bird's tail too. Only the slanted musings of Darwinists can take a creature that looks like a bird, has feathers identical to modern birds, flight feathers on wings and tail and call it a dinosaur. Clearly this animals was a bird. But whatever, call it a dinosaur. At least now we can put Archaeopteryx to rest as a so-called "transitional" fossil. Never ends.
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou The features are not "identical" to modern birds. Its feathers had rounded and symmetrical tips, which are not the best-suited for being aerodynamic like modern birds which have pointed wings and feathers, so it was not adapted for flight like Archaeopteryx. It also had features that were more in common with therapod dinosaurs, such as its hind legs. The fact that it came before Archaopteryx doesn't disprove all of the other information that shows a transition.
badnasan 1 year ago
@badnasan Looks like a very close cousin to the Road Runner to me, long tail feather, running legs, even the crest of the feathers on top of it's head. Obviously nobody knows for sure since it's an extinct bird (excuse me dinosaur), but it likely could fly about like a Road Runner in short hops. Archaeopteryx is now extinct as a transitional possibility, Anchiornis came long before. At best Archaeopteryx is an evolutionary dead end.
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou It may have looked like a bird, but it was indeed a dinosaur. It's simple taxonomy. Utahraptor and Microraptor also looked like birds, feathers and all, but they were still dinosaurs. Several million years ago, there were species that walked upright, used tools, mated face-to-face, had complex social structures, and cared for their young for long periods of time, but that doesn't mean that they were homo sapiens.
badnasan 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou Also, it does look like a cousin of some modern birds, the road runner being one of them. That just means that it is related to modern birds, which is something we already know. Modern humans look like close cousins of Neanderthals and Homo Heidelbergensis, but they are not one in the same. Archaeopteryx is also not an evolutionary dead end because it did have more in common with therapod dinosaurs than it did with modern birds.
badnasan 1 year ago
@badnasan My observation is evolutionists will always cram something into the theory and ignore the obvious problems. They have this idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs and therefore must ignore that by every measure this animal was a full blown bird and not a reptile. And the timescale doesn't fit with dino to bird hypothesis. So they call it a "bird like" dinosaur instead of simply announcing that birds must have evolved sooner than believed the dino connection doesn't fit.
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou your argument makes no sense, how does the timescale not make sense, and when did scientists ever say they never changed their ideas?
BeastRider300 11 months ago
I want to know if birds are decedents of dinosaurs wouldn't that mean that dinosaurs never died by a natural disaster but just evolved?
agentnuget 1 year ago
they aren't extinct
apedude66 1 year ago
@agentnuget
Birds are indeed descended from dinosaurs. They are descended from theropod dinos in the same family as t-rex and the raptors.
The dinos did indeed die in mass 65 million yrs ago. modern birds are descended from a single species that was able to live through the extinction events.
Just as all modern mammals including us are descended from a shrew like mammal that was also able to survive the extinction.
RedlineMMA 1 year ago
Sorry but that is just a lie, God made the universe 6,000 years ago and he did it in 6 days. People who believe in evolution are just ignorant or just plain stupid. Man did not come from birds or monkeys, man was created in Gods image. You all need to stop fooling yourself and give your soul to Christianity because if you don't you will burn in hell for eternity and that is a fact.
JesusChristRulesYOU 1 year ago
@JesusChristRulesYOU wow I don't mind religion although I am NOT religious but people like you piss me off....besides I think people only believe in religion so they are not scared of what happens to them after they die...although it is possible that 'god' WAS a supreme being...maybe not the way you religious people think of him..but as what you would call...a alien...but who knows?
agentnuget 1 year ago
It is a well known fact that there is a bird with claws on its wing when it is young.
Not only this but they already turned the genes back on that gave birds teeth in a chicken! So it does work they just need to go all the way!
CadenRolland 1 year ago
Not only this but they already turned the genes back on that gave birds teeth in a chicken! So it does work they just need to go all the way!
CadenRolland 1 year ago
Not only this but they already turned the genes back on that gave birds teeth in a chicken! So it does work they just need to go all the way.
CadenRolland 1 year ago
143 stupid religious people dislike this!
carabinieri210 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Oviraptorid is very much like a modern Cassowary. All the raptors were part of the "Ratite" bird family. Modern Ratite's still have "claws", small or no wings, up to 15' high, 1,000 lbs. Act very much like what raptors would have acted. See YouTube Video. "Killer Cassowary Bird Attacks". Also latest research cast serious doubt on Dino to bird evo. Modern birds (ducks) are found in the fossil record long before raptors. Birds still carry the "genetic reserves" for teeth.
Howie47 1 year ago
I'd just like to say, You'd have to be a completely moron - not to see the taxonomic similiarities between Saurischians and Avians.
6Vital6Remains6 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
trnjana 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
trnjana 1 year ago
it looks like the creation train rolled by
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
The therizinosaur at 3:51 looked scarily similar to the emu at 3:57!
IndianaJ25 1 year ago
The world probably wasn't created in eight days. I think that it meant that God made the Earth 8,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 days
IndianaJ25 1 year ago
I think they are talking about epi-genetics. It's all the rage these days...
Escherichia2003 1 year ago
This is cool. My uncle talks about genes like these on bacteria and plants cause thats what he works with.
Kinda wished he studied other lifeforms though.
kingkong8974 1 year ago
even if they do make dinosaurs they might get out like on tv and millions of people will die
trex1547 1 year ago
@trex1547 yeah
ABackAlleyProduction 1 year ago
Jack Horner: "The bird genome is basically a dinosaur genome. All we have to do is tweak it a little bit and we should have a dinosaur." You make it sound so easy!
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Thanks djarma67 for the sanity of your posts!
sjlove2bird 1 year ago
Anybody know of of documentaries without the the silly muzak and patronizing american commentaries? We're not all children.
hornetobiker 1 year ago 14
@hornetobiker Almost anything by AaronRa, Potholler54, DonExodus, Thunderfoot or Attenbrough.
gamesbok 1 year ago
who rly wants to make dinosaurs, ya I want to create dangerous animals who will waste resources, come on we alrdy have humans
Dunl3y 1 year ago
@Dunl3y I want to make them. Why? Just because.
Who gives a fuck what they fuck up? That's how the world works. One thing fucks up another, and becomes standard.
It's just like global warming. Let it happen already. It's not going to stop because you're human. We might as well do it, before we're extinct ourselves.
It's either more Dinosaurs, or more X-Factor. I can't let that happen to my earth. :|
ElMoppo1 1 year ago
@ElMoppo1 global warming will kill the planet
trex1547 1 year ago
wish our ancestors had the genes that makes us ariel or aquatic other than being terestrial. would be wonderful to grow wings and fly or grow fins and dive. think about it, we wouldnt even need a passport or a visa lol. we can explore depth with ease and play the hell out until we die.
vasant85 1 year ago
I wonder if Dinosaurs have pink scales =/
hulahoop34 1 year ago
I
I
I
V
Yeah I know, we don't go round on their God videos rating 1* because we don't believe in that chicken shit bullshit.
OriginalYTName 1 year ago
Only 3.5 stars? Seems those whacko creationists are at it again.
DieMenschMaschine1 1 year ago
Shouldn't the title be reversed? Bird to dinosaur evolution.
mistake maybe?
Xziz10ths 2 years ago
No, dinosaurs evolved everything bird like; hollow bones, feathers, etc.
gregrutz 2 years ago
I wonder how many people there are on Youtube that search for evolution explicitly, just so they can comment with religious bullshit.
Cihl280777 2 years ago
A recent research shows
99,99% of the scientists, dont believe in religion.
they are either atheist or agnostic.
zacky89 2 years ago
@zacky89 Its not that high unless you choose a narrow group .
flyingscience 1 year ago
This is so much more interesting then fairy tale Bible stories. Jesus can go fuck himself in the ass!
manco82 2 years ago
God can do anything.
RAmen.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Anyone interested in this should check out the interview with Carroll about Evo Devo on Discover Magazine's website. Pretty cool!
GuppyPal 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
creationists are dumb assfuckers... go fuck your jesus in the ass little bastard motherfuckers!!!
intelligent design looooooooooooool... poor world :D:D:D:D:D
liljames2k 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus Christ is God,
Repent!
NikolaPowers2011 1 year ago
-Some people believe in the big bang and in the evolution.
-Some people believe that suddenly everyting was here.
-Some people believe in reincarnation.
-Some people believe when he dies, everyting is over.
-Some people believe nothing.
I'm a christian. So I believe that God create the earth, the living ones and everiting around it. And when I dies, I'm in the heaven.
I mean with this: Everyone should believe what he wants to believe.
RESPECT ANOTHER WITH HIS RELIGION !!!
jonathanHOLLANDER 2 years ago
I believe that you are an idiot.
RESPECT MY BELIEF!
;)
blejaja 2 years ago 2
@blejaja
Do you believe that i'm an idiot!?
oke, that is your believe..
be happy with it!
i respect it
;)
:P
jonathanHOLLANDER 2 years ago 2
nope... just demonstrating that it is not true that all views should be respected...
blejaja 2 years ago
@blejaja
No, not de views.. your're right with that..
But some people don't respect another (with his/hir religion)!
You see that some of these people who placed an reaction on this view don't respect an other with his religion: they say some negative things about another religion. That's why I say that everyone has respect an other where he/she believes in.. (but you still have to chuse it about yourself, if you want respect an other with his/her religion, ofcourse)
jonathanHOLLANDER 2 years ago
@blejaja
And..
Much of people are nigative about christians (if you can see in the reactions..), but why!? I mean everyone is the same, one defferent thing is that he/she has another religion..
jonathanHOLLANDER 2 years ago
@johnatan
I'm not negative about Christians (my mother and my best friend are Christians)... it is just that I find some of their beliefs ridiculous... my point is that you should respect people... but views/opinions/faith etc. is not something that should be respected in every case... only by it's own "quality"...
blejaja 2 years ago
@blejaja
You are right with that...
I find some beliefs are ridiculous too, but I respect people who believe that. I hate anyone who make people ridicules with his/hir faith! ( I'm not saying you do that, I mean some other people..)
jonathanHOLLANDER 2 years ago
@jonathanHOLLANDER
I totally agree with you
1+
MrOTK95 1 year ago
If christians are so rock-solid confident in their faith then tell me, why do so many of them troll dino videos on youtube? Just to pick fights and insult people? Not very christ-like I must say. not very christ-like at all. Sad.
elmachocombo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
my friend jesus made the dinosaurs and birds , seperately, and not evolution
zeropointprophet 2 years ago
Jesus wasn't born yet.
Who made the feathered dinosaurs?
gregrutz 2 years ago
jesus's dad helped him
zeropointprophet 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That why Jesus is not a God...He just a mighty messenger of God (Allah)..such as Adam,Moses,David,Abraham,Muhammad pbuh etc..If U read in Bible,he doesn't said he is God..
faiziskandar786 2 years ago
You are just as wrong as bible packers.
Islam is a sick religion.
gregrutz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ur stupid lol..........islam donates more stuff to the poor then any relgion. Ur blind buddy..........look at christians....they smoke drink and do alot of dirty things. Im not saying slam does the same thing but christans have less respect then islam.
LesOwnersTheRunePure 2 years ago
I would rather have a drunk YEC next door than a terrorist muslims.
gregrutz 2 years ago
"they smoke drink and do alot of dirty things"
And for that very reason we Catholics are cool. Muslims envy us, heh heh!
MrColuber 2 years ago
You need to turn to the book of John. In John Jesus claims to be divine. In fact the book of John goes so far as to call jesus' miracles signs. Signs that point to jesus' divinity.
(that is of coarse if you believe in text written by ancient goat herders.)
Shigren 2 years ago
Comment removed
Dinobot2468 2 years ago
And actually their was alot of oxygen in the dinosaur time which was why insect were really big back then. And dinosaurs were also big but they were big because of the cicle of evolution.
dinobird11 2 years ago
no the pangea moved because of the massive earthquakes. But when that happened new dinosaur spicies were starting to evolve.
dinobird11 2 years ago
Pangea happened so that casued animals to change and evolve to fit their new habitats. They didnt die off like we think they did. Its evolution. the ice age came and it got really cold so animals evolved with fur. Less food resulted in animals evolving to be smaller. and nowadays there is less oxygen as there was for dinosaurs that grew 80 feet tall. Please correct me but be nice :D
dzybmx623 2 years ago
Actually, during the mesozoic, there was less oxygen and more carbon dioxide and the atmosphere overall is believed to have been slightly denser than it is today. Tho, these differences were minute.
guthriegrey 2 years ago
If you tweak the DNA to what you believe is Dinosaur DNA that doesn't necessarily mean that it is really Dinosaur..it just will agree with what you may think is Dinosaur DNA.
YouPeeEsss 2 years ago
I was in my garden today and a big effing bird came in and started looking around, the first thing i though was 'f**k off dinosaur'.....
ive been watching too many videos like this.lol
godlessmessiah 2 years ago
Kinda makes the myth about the world being created in eight days sound like dinosaur shit!
sparkyinlaw 2 years ago 19
Or bird shit :-)
jabberwock11 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the aliens made us
zeropointprophet 2 years ago
@zeropointprophet
At the moment, we have no evidence supporting directed panspermia.
julianalmasude 2 years ago
their is alot of hard evidence, you are not looking in the right place's it took me my whole life to find it, you have to find it for your self
zeropointprophet 2 years ago
@zeropointprophet
You are the one making a postulation; the burden of proof lies on you. Don't instruct me to search for evidence of an essentially non-falsifiable assertion that YOU made. If I wasted my time attempting to find evidence supporting every ostensibly batshit-insane belief that every individual presented me with, I wouldn't have time to accomplish anything of value. If you fail to meet your burden of proof, I'm going to assume the default position of non-belief. Period.
julianalmasude 2 years ago
@sparkyinlaw what do you mean kinda? there are no dinos in the bible.... nuf said.
LolFishFail 1 year ago
This wouldn't be really ethical but I wonder if you could also turn a human into an ape by turning on the right switches
Rubystars1000 2 years ago
No switch turning required. Humans are already classified taxonomically as apes
djarm67 2 years ago 23
@Rubystars1000 you can't use genetic engineering on humans its illegal
trex1547 1 year ago
@Rubystars1000 and if you are thinking about modern apes - no you cant. Common ancestor but different dna as we branched off parrallel to them.
Obscurosphere 1 year ago
Comment removed
ZukoFireBook 1 year ago
@Obscurosphere nvm my first answer it's 1:14 am and I'm sleepy didn't read your thing carefully.
ZukoFireBook 1 year ago
if evolution is true then birds could not have come from dinosaurs because it says every improves over time
matthew22389 2 years ago
No, everything adapts over time ;)
Rialbz 2 years ago 5
so how did they adapt their lungs if every thing evolved not to mention everyother organ in the human body
matthew22389 2 years ago
but for eg t rex they cant creat a full trex it will be a bird /dinosaur hybrid
razor014445673 2 years ago
then you have no idea what it means to improve
psychosavant 2 years ago
so tyrannosaurus to chicken is an improvement?
matthew22389 2 years ago
For the environment they reside in. it's a astronomically vast improvement. But that really doesn't matter, since you're assuming that chickens are descended from the t-rex.
psychosavant 2 years ago
That's not what Evolution says. Evolution says that animals adapt to environmental pressures with natural selection and random mutation. THAT's what Evolution says. Look it up. This is why we have dictionaries Matthew...
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Evolution is about adaptation, not necessarily improvement which it may (o may not) include.
kris01987 2 years ago
Why are there so many retards like you that talk shit about evolution when it's obvious that you don't know what the fuck evolution is. Get an edumacation.
lesliekwan80 2 years ago 23
@lesliekwan80
But then their excuse would be edumacation is the deceptive work of the devil.
alterbr33d 1 year ago
@alterbr33d , man that comment is a year old and I don't even remember who I was responding to back then. :P But yes ... I've heard every excuse. Hehe.
lesliekwan80 1 year ago