@SearchForTheObvious im going to have to say, after reading all the comments you were deff the one that started the fight. You might as well not have a life either seeing as your responding to him. And as far as grammer and spelling.. You could have easily used spell check. Or just googled a long word. Lmao my opinion is you both need to give it a rest and stop using youtube as your personal outlet. :) have a great day everyone!
this is what i hate about "science". They found a claw, and somehow they assumed it was giant scorpion. Its such a hollywood BS these guys grew up with as kids. You know big monsters and other nonsense.
Would a giant claw be attached to a tiny sea-scorpion? Smaller prehistoric sea-scorpions with similar claws are known. So isn't it reasonable to assume it belonged to a bigger animal? Or maybe in your mind the claw exited without a body.
i;d have to say, thats ignorrant , if thats all they found of it, how do they know they didnt just have bigger claws back then? i am not saying it would be a tiny little bug with huge claws, but yeah
if it is that old, then if it were still alive, it would be smaller. 400 million years ago, the oxygen was different and things would be extremely large. Now it would be a little scorpion
@Wessunator true. They have found ONE megaladon, they attempted to bring it back to an aquarium, but it died before it got there. costed a fuck ton of money to get a truck that big as you can imagine
@Cresitan258 that wouldn't matter since this was a sea scorpion. Oxygen levels underwater depend on temperature. The colder the water the more oxygen it can hold. The amount of atmospheric oxygen would have little impact on the waters oxygen content, since temperature determines how much it can hold and not concentration.
@HOMEALONE120 well regardless, if you were to compare a normal scorpion to that sea scorpion and then compare the results of that to a megaladon and Great white shark they would both have about the same differences in size
@Cresitan258 that was for the insect period such as dragonflies, those would be extremely large because of extremely high oxygen content in the atmosphere, that isn't affecting the marine life..
@SearchForTheObvious =_= You know nothing of sea scorpions..they don't spend their entire lives underwater, they eventually go onto land here and there >.> sometimes for a long while before going back into the sea..
@SearchForTheObvious You're the one depicting the information provided..besides, anybody who knows about sea scorpions knows this simple fact, that they never stay underwater..the same is said about water spiders, turtles, etc..they never stay in the water all the time.
@Cresitan258 haha ok professor of all aquatic animals. sorry to bother you Mr. Einstein how about you go be a professor at a college since you know so damn much. sad that this actually had to turn into an argument which shows your immaturity lmfao.
@SearchForTheObvious Showing my immaturity? You're being VERY immature at this point. You're arguing with someone here when i'm simply pointing out that they don't stay in the water their entire lives. Ask anyone who's studied them thoroughly..hell, look it up. Anywhere you search, it'll say that they don't stay underwater their entire lives. Besides, any and everyone knows even sea turtles don't stay underwater..same goes for water spiders..
@Cresitan258 jesus you're still going on about this...? just shut up already mr. alwayshastoberight. know-it-all god damn. thats showing your immaturity by HAVING to be right in this, i honestly didn't think it was going to turn into such a big deal that you hadddddd to keep replying to me so honestly just shut up dude, i wonder how many friends you have in real life with that cocky attitude and having to be right in the smallest shit. get maturity seriously, since "youre immature" offends you
@SearchForTheObvious See, this proves my point even further. You're obviously VERY immature because you not only use incorrect grammar, but spelling as well. You're calling me names, as well as describing me when you know nothing. If you respond to this message, you are furthermore proving my point and quite frankly, I don't know what therapy could help you.
@SearchForTheObvious 'See, this proves my point even further. You're obviously VERY immature because you not only use incorrect grammar, but spelling as well. You're calling me names, as well as describing me when you know nothing. If you respond to this message, you are furthermore proving my point and quite frankly, I don't know what therapy could help you.'
@Cresitan258 Excuse me? Incorrect grammar? Do you really want to go so far as to call me illiterate and dumbfound enough to not know how to spell? How's disestablishmentarianism for you or how about corpulent bovine? Are you sure you want to play this game you incompetent toad...? If you REALLY think that I am illiterate you may need to get your eye-sight checked, as its clear I have no problem with my grammar OR spelling, WHATSOEVER. Douchebag.
Everyone who is reading this comment, please click on my username for my videos I made about the The Truth of the World. I have found out what the truth of life is, the truth of the world, and the truth of God. Please, I really want people to watch and listen what I have to say. No more living in false reality, no more living in illusions, no more thinking there is no way out......its time to lead your life into The Truth of the World!!!!!!!!!
this is a video about nature please if you have an opinion let it be on much more sensative matter,oh wait its not ok if someone offends you guys but you guys can talk about religion 24/7 like its something normal,and like there isnt a war happening!!!
lol some people? evolution is a scientific fact, just as microbial infection theory is. You believe you get sick from bacteria and unicellular organisms, along with viruses don't you? well evolution is just as factual, and most theological people will even agree with the evidence supporting that, unless you're an utter buffoon. Welcome to 2010, where bronze age myths don't hold true to the educated folk. sorry.
@centurionl Apparently you haven't researched this subject enough. Please supply me with one, just one example of 'evidence' contradicting the scientific fact of evolution (fact as in, a theory that has so much evidence proving it to be true, that it would be perverse not to accept it). And don't supply me with superficial garbage, i want something that's hard evidence, not something you interpreted to be against evolution just because you think it is.
@throneofdecay there is a theory that says humans had tails and animals just evolved to adapt and they don't see why humans could not use a tail or not survive without one. why didnt some apes evolve? how were they different from our 'ancestor' how was the first cell created? how did that first cell or organism decided to make a copy of itself and then to male and female forms?
@centurionl Well we have a lot of proof of the "humans having tails" theory you mentioned, considering we have tailbones, and sometimes something goes wrong, and people do grow a bit of a tail... It just benefited our current stature (standing upright) to have less of a tail, and they eventually go away after millions of years. As for the origins of the first cell, who said the first form of life was a cell? What about a virus? Couldn't we have started as simple as some proteins?
@centurionl And the "apes" which stayed apes, still need the tails due to their posture... it's just what benefits the species as far as energy usage is concerned. Also note the reproduction of life could be easily linked to how any other chemical reaction takes place... Look at a fire, and you'll see a reaction that affects its surroundings in a similar way, it's just a reaction, and life as we know it probably started out in a similar manner.
@centurionl the tail was used to balance a creature running on all 4s, man no longer runs on all 4s so there is no reason to produce an excess part that burns out energy and serves no purpose... eventually it disappeared. Try cutting off an animal who has a tail and walks on all 4 and u should notice how it moves much more clumsier than it did having a tail.
@centurionl true that walking on 2 is harder than all 4 but the tail is closely connected to the spine and it would cause the creature to lean slightly forward and one evolutionary advantage humans had was they could stand perfectly upright. which allow them to see as far over the canopy for danger as possible.
@centurionl there is also something else, some expert suggests that the success we have today is due to the reproductive capability. Walking upright just allowed humans to conserve a slight bit more energy per year which allows them to get on a bit more... which would mean more off springs. A tail regardless would add to the expending of energy. The human body is in a very conservative proportion I believe.
@throneofdecay - No, it's a fact because it's a fact. A scientific fact is something that is actually happens in the empiric reality. And the fact has it's theory. Theory is Why and how scientists think it happens. So there's both fact and theory.
Once again, not exactly. It's not a body of evidence which supports it. It may contain evidence, but what it really is is the attempt to explain why, how it happens, and what else is attributing to that and so forth. A scientific fact is something that has been observed happening and so there's no denial of it.
The majority of people has always and probably will always be ignorant and will not see the difference between scientific fact, a belief, an opinion and a mesh potato.Don't sweat over it.
Usually when darwinism is challenged, it's challenged by creationists... and they both attempt to explain the origin of life, and how it got to where it is now. This is why they are "mixed." As for darwinism being challenged, those who understand it, also understand the gaps in the knowledge we have. Creationism is just a way of saying "we don't know, so god must have done it..." that's not scientific at all. While darwinism is the polar opposite of that mindset.
No other scientific theory calls into question the beliefs of the questioner. It either can stand on it's own merits or it can't, regardless of one's belief system unless of course Darwinists feel that because their belief system is being challenged, they must therefore challenge the questioner's. If I say that you must prove your cure for cancer do you say that I must provide a cure first?
Science fact the Air pressure back before the great flood 4800 years ago the air pressure was 4 times or higher then what it is now thanks to
a thick layer of ice that was suspended by earths super strong magnetic field 5000 years ago held it in place . UV rays could not penetrate and plants and animals grew vary large and and flourished but when the sky came crashing down the great flood spoken in genesis 6 and 7 and weaker Magnetic field and drop in air pressure effected all life
hydrogen is obtained by electrolysis,to apply a current regulated of electricity to a container with water and a catalyst,2 communicating vessels to which it is applied to each of the anode and the cathode, the process divides the water molecule in the elements that are needed for the combustion, of the hydrogen combustion and oxygen is aqueous vapour, that is not polluting. The hydrogen is an inexhaustible source of energy. More hydrogen has a liter of water, that a gallon of fuel
First of all your an idiot! its a sea scorpion how could a flood wipe it out. secondly there was no flood! Thirdly if there was a flood, it didn't wipe out all life! Go to sleep and try not to wake up stupid
@2uberu Changes in climate. Millions of years ago it was much warmer and more oxygen in the air so plants and animals had evolved to be much bigger than today.
They used to live in the water (this species did), but when they went to live on land, their legs couldn't hold their weight, so they had to get smaller.
In evolution you can observe the lilliput effect. If an organism is generally well adapted, with little competition then it makes sense for it to be a lot smaller. It will use up less energy and will require less food. There is a theory that the sea scorpions became partially terrestrialised, but not these guys; They still have a swimming paddle, whereas other more 'scorpion like' forms had 'walking legs'.
It doesn't have a purpose hence random. You have to try to understand that mutations happen across the board and that the 'direction' evolution takes is dictated, not by new inventions, but by the death of all other members of the group. It just depends on whats killing you. If we had a fast predator usain bolt might do okay, big floods and you'd want to be Michael Phelps. Its all about being the only creature surviving, then the rest of the population will have your mutations. did that explain
O.K. so it's random. Where is all of the random evidence of the "random" mutations that did not survive. You say that it is about being the only creature surviving but how does that creature adapt percisely at the right time and with the right need. just "lucky"? Lotttery numbers are random. The winner wins but there is evidence in all of the losing tickets thrown in the garbage. Where is the evidence of all of the losing mutations ThatHaveHappenedWithEveryLiving CreatureSinceTheBeginningOfTime?
My best example would be antibiotic resistance, you have bacteria going through thousands of reproductions. Add a selective pressure (the anti-biotic that kills them) and they will die. They are always mutating though. Eventually one will get lucky and have resistance. Then when the anti-biotic is given this will survive and reproduce. The entire population now will have evolved in relation to antibiotics.
With fossils we can only ever see the hard parts, i.e. bones + shells. To see the majority of mutations we'd need to see the DNA sequence. The majority of DNA codes for things other than the overall physical appearance, you wont see these in the fossil record. Physical mutations exist, (e.g. in humans) but are in the minority. With fossilisation so difficult it would be against the odds to find one. Then how would you know it was a mutant rather than the real thing?
Haha, well it depends on how much proof you need. We can see it happening today, so we work on the assumption it happened this way in the past. But we can never find the all the intermediates. Think of trying to find the intermediates between the number 0 and 1. Well you find 0.5, but someone will always say, "well where's 0.25?" You find that, but then where's 0.125? And so on.
You must know there are an infinite anound of numbers between 0 and 1. But we can work it out mathematically. There aren't an infinite amount of animals but we cant ever see every stage because of the limits of the fossil record. We can make scientific estimates based on what we see. Its like finding intermediates between 0 and 1, but only being able to use 10 decimal places. People will always ask for more intermediates, but we just get them.
Here's a set of numbers, ordered oldest to youngest. Each number is different, You cant see intermediates, But you can see the overall pattern of 0 to 1. The fossil record is the same. We can never get the resolution to show every step.
You will never find a complete lineage, because its there is a constant background evolution, then there will be a sudden change with the advent of a new selective pressure. The death of the majority of the animals will leave just the few lucky survivors. In the fossil record this would appear so suddenly. And so when its just so hard to make fossils you dont see this. You either cant see the small evolutions or notice the big ones but question where the small intermediates are.
"Hard to make fosssils you don't see". who "makes" fossils? I'm questioning the origin of species, not the adaptaions whithin. Just looking for evidence. :)
The most common definition of species is 2 amimals that cant produce fertile offspring. So a donkey and a horse are seperate species. Animals get so diverse that eventually cant reproduce. All domestic dogs are the same species (the breeds are just recognised variants within theis group) but a Great dane physically couldnt reproduce with a Chihuahua. So they are a different species, even though they are genetically related. Now the background mutation can continue to accumulate and diverge.
Well it's an example of how 2 animals can become different species. Their DNA slowly become incompatable due to the accumulated mutations over time. There needs to be a physical biological/geographical barrier to prevent them mating. If you mean the origin of all species?! Well thats a lot harder. We can artificially create amino acids by striking various naturally occurring chemicals with lightning.
Well the formation of new species relies on the 'genetic drift' of end members of a group. They have to go through so many changes that their DNA becomes incompatible. This takes a lot of time and not all mutations have a physical manifestation. Therefore its hard to give a 'living' example; you cant see it in one generation. Think of my dog example, since domestication they have diversified into lots of breeds. not all these breeds can mate with each other. This is the start of speciation.
Now we know the average rate of mutation. (i cant quote it off the top of my head). So if you have 2 groups, physically unable to mate and 'normalise' the gene pool, they will just get further and further away from each other genetically (genetic drift). Eventually they will become totally incompatible and this is when they are classed as a new species.
This is a long process though. The best examples are human regulated crops and livestock. Think of apples, with cross breeding we direction the evolution to get bigger tastier fruit. With race horses we breed those that can run fastest. Can you see how with this pressure the fruit and horses we have today would be 'better' than their ancestors thousands of years ago? All it takes is the death of normal horses and your entire population would be those with a racing physique!
Again, change within a species is observable but the creation of a new species has never been observed or recorded therefore it is still in the realm of speculation. I could show you how the Bible has been proven to be 90% historically accurate but you would still require proof for the remaining 10%. You would then say belief in the Bible is juat based on personal beliefs. I am holding the Darwinists to the same standard. -"Prove it."
Well the change we see, as you just admitted, IS evolution. It's so subtle! We can't see a new species popping into existence because it is hidden in the masses or just classed as a mutant, then will die or is assimilated back into the gene pool. Evolution and the origin of variation is observable and does happen. The origin of species is a long process which isn't observable in the time frame of our lives.
I admit change is obsrvable but that is a far cry from admitting that species creation is obsrvable. What has been admitted (by you) is that Darwinism does not survive scientific scrutiny. Unless of course you throw out the scientific method.
Well that's not true, we can observe it, but not in such a short time frame of our lives. The genetic evidence is all there to signify the diversification of species. Lots of scientific theories cant be observed in such a short time frame. You can say that these are all false too. But the more things fit the theory the stronger it becomes. If you use this reasoning to deny evolution you'd have to the same with relativity etc!
The theory of relativity is being questioned by string theories. Theories are called theories and not laws is because they have not passed the scientific method. What is wrong with questioning things that are assumed but not proven? A good scientist questions everything. Some scientists base their beliefe systems on non-proven things just as much as religious people do. Look at the global warming debate.
I wouldn't be a very good palaeontologist if I did think it was all completely factual. Yet the fact remains that even though a work in progress, the trends and patterns are observable and the biological evidence/methodology can be tested and verified by medical/biological sciences. So as it is evolution is, so far, the best explanation of the origin and diversity of species on the planet, and one shouldn't dispute the evidence for it just because it's a theory!
Well like i tried explaining before, you can't get around those holes, because of the high improbability of fossilization, fossilization of the right animal, survival of the fossil, discovery of the fossil and then the correct interpretation. SO hard, but we're getting there slowly!
It is statisticaly improbable that with all of the fossils so far found, none of them have provided the proof that even Darwin said that if not found, would dissprove his theory.
I hate the circular nature of this argument! We have evidence, but with such massive gaping holes in the fossil record combined with the lack of public knowledge you just dot see them! Im currently writing a paper that has found the missing link between these guys and the horseshoe crabs. Ill send you a copy, when i'm finished, if you email me your address?
What exactly is your argument here? Are you saying that darwins theory isn't probable? or that natural selection doesn't exist? i'm 99.999% sure that they are both at least somewhat accurate. In all probability evolution and natural selection have a much greater chance of existence than a God, or something of greater or equal complexity. I don't know what your argument is, but it seems you're disputing evolution with a passion of disbelief, not just doubt.
Your* and yeah I'm going to say something supported by imagination, and books without any facts is less probable than something we learn something new about every day (With actual physical evidence). To deny that is ignorance, it's not being "scientific." And as for asking what you're arguing about, that's a question not an opinion if you were targeting that, and you have yet to answer it, please organize yourself a bit more.
That's not true, we have proof that some form of evolution takes place through genetic mutations, and witnessing evolution on a small scale in life today. We may not be able to prove it's true right now, but we have real evidence, and learn more every day.. while other "belief" systems go years or even centuries and longer without one tread of real evidence.
If the theory of evolution was finally proven I would agree with you. And even today, archeologists are unearthing civilizations thatg are confirmed in the bible.
@2uberu That doesn't mean that what the bible says about god is true at all, you can throw facts into a comic book, and it doesn't make the fictional aspect of it true. We have DNA evidence, fossil evidence, and eyes to witness just what happens in the world around us as far as evolution. Our very cellular structure is made up of what was once a collective of bacteria. The only proof the bible has going is that it hasn't been proven wrong, while physical evidence stands in favor of evolution
A comic book doesn't claim to be true. If the Bible can't be proven false then we must be open to the possibility of it being true, otherwise we are not being scientific. There is far less evidence of Darwin's theory then you might think. Take the problem that Darwin identified as the "Cambrian Explosion". Darwin himself said that if this problem wasn't resolved, his whole theory would be suspect. To this day it has not been resolved.
I'm not saying the bible is definitely fictional, but i'm 99% sure it is... And the cambrian explosion doesn't make evolution true or false, it's one specific point in time.. and that's entirely linked to fossil evidence, which we do NOT use as the basis for darwinism, that's a VERY common misconception, and it's not even remotely true. And him saying what he did doesn't in any way make it false if we don't identify it.. it makes it questionable at best, and only to religious skeptics..
A scientific purist would be more educated on what the foundation of evolution really is.. if you deny natural selection, you deny the fact that a fast runner will have a better chance of winning a race over a slow runner.. and that a strong animal will have a better chance of survival over a weak one.. the "strong" genes created through mutations have a higher chance of being passed on, and that is a scientific fact. That is also the foundation of evolution.
The strongest doesn't always win and the fastest doesn't always win, it depends on the battle. Some of the weakest and the slowest survive. I guess you also believe that Darwin was wrong when he said the "cambrian explosion" posed a problem to the foundation of his theory.
Well when i say strongest, and fastest, what i'm referring to is the one who is suited best for winning the battle.. it was just an analogy. I don't want to encourage anyone to blindly accept darwins theory, just as I don't want anyone to blindly accept anything.. but it's the best thing we have going for us, and it isn't just a 'gap filler,' it's backed by real evidence. I'll openly listen to any other theories, just not ones backed by a, probably imaginary, creation.
How fictional it is when out of 300 prophecies in the bible everything actually happend?, e.g., the destruction of Tyre and Sidon, written 250 years before Alexander the Great made it to happen.
Show me proof of any one of these 300 prophecies, real proof. i want evidence, not hear say, or something written in another possibly bullshit book. I'm dealing with an idiot now over someone who had an actual sophisticated and well thought out argument.
@SearchForTheObvious im going to have to say, after reading all the comments you were deff the one that started the fight. You might as well not have a life either seeing as your responding to him. And as far as grammer and spelling.. You could have easily used spell check. Or just googled a long word. Lmao my opinion is you both need to give it a rest and stop using youtube as your personal outlet. :) have a great day everyone!
JennyTheBeast 3 months ago
@JennyTheBeast some people on youtube are just pathetic lol i red that whole conversation -.-
BlackOPZL96A1KING 2 weeks ago
imagine if that thing flew!!!
Metalhead6781 11 months ago
GET OVER HERE!
ChrisWelldone 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
TheVraccy 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheVraccy 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheVraccy 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheVraccy 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheVraccy 1 year ago
Primeval Age '.'
Biobliter 1 year ago
is there a picture of it?
TheKashh 1 year ago
Ancient mounted infantry must've been pretty epic.
OmegaInfinity 1 year ago
this is what i hate about "science". They found a claw, and somehow they assumed it was giant scorpion. Its such a hollywood BS these guys grew up with as kids. You know big monsters and other nonsense.
Globox822 1 year ago
@Globox822
Would a giant claw be attached to a tiny sea-scorpion? Smaller prehistoric sea-scorpions with similar claws are known. So isn't it reasonable to assume it belonged to a bigger animal? Or maybe in your mind the claw exited without a body.
dudev 9 months ago
i;d have to say, thats ignorrant , if thats all they found of it, how do they know they didnt just have bigger claws back then? i am not saying it would be a tiny little bug with huge claws, but yeah
vancouverbc69 1 year ago
if it is that old, then if it were still alive, it would be smaller. 400 million years ago, the oxygen was different and things would be extremely large. Now it would be a little scorpion
Cresitan258 1 year ago 23
@Cresitan258 true or at leeast i think so it makes much sense in megalodon case too
Wessunator 1 year ago
@Wessunator not exactly..The water was always the same. So the Megalodon would still be as big.
Cresitan258 1 year ago
@Cresitan258 but nowadays there has been MANY oil accidents and shit it aint same...
Wessunator 1 year ago
@Wessunator true. They have found ONE megaladon, they attempted to bring it back to an aquarium, but it died before it got there. costed a fuck ton of money to get a truck that big as you can imagine
Cresitan258 1 year ago
@Cresitan258 do you suffer from retardation? Just wondering. Or maybe you are some 10 yo kid
Globox822 1 year ago
@Cresitan258 they lived in the ocean
piepotatosandturtle2 1 year ago
@piepotatosandturtle2 H2O,lol.
Cresitan258 1 year ago
@piepotatosandturtle2 Water is oxygenated too...
bobbarker369 1 year ago
@Cresitan258 that wouldn't matter since this was a sea scorpion. Oxygen levels underwater depend on temperature. The colder the water the more oxygen it can hold. The amount of atmospheric oxygen would have little impact on the waters oxygen content, since temperature determines how much it can hold and not concentration.
HOMEALONE120 1 year ago
@HOMEALONE120 well regardless, if you were to compare a normal scorpion to that sea scorpion and then compare the results of that to a megaladon and Great white shark they would both have about the same differences in size
Cresitan258 1 year ago
@Cresitan258 What?
chunkiefroth 11 months ago
@Cresitan258 actually there was more oxygen, that allowed the creatures to grow much bigger then now
voldagar 10 months ago
@voldagar Different doesn't mean it can't be defined as a different amount of it..
Cresitan258 10 months ago
@Cresitan258 that was for the insect period such as dragonflies, those would be extremely large because of extremely high oxygen content in the atmosphere, that isn't affecting the marine life..
SearchForTheObvious 5 months ago
@SearchForTheObvious They ventured onto land, they didn't spend their entire lives underwater..
Cresitan258 5 months ago
@Cresitan258 and yet this video is about a SEA SCORPION. did you ever read the title?
SearchForTheObvious 5 months ago
@SearchForTheObvious =_= You know nothing of sea scorpions..they don't spend their entire lives underwater, they eventually go onto land here and there >.> sometimes for a long while before going back into the sea..
Cresitan258 5 months ago
@Cresitan258 and yet you have some sort of degree in this stuff which is why you're on YouTube watching videos about them right? Sorry, PROFESSOR.
SearchForTheObvious 5 months ago
@SearchForTheObvious You're the one depicting the information provided..besides, anybody who knows about sea scorpions knows this simple fact, that they never stay underwater..the same is said about water spiders, turtles, etc..they never stay in the water all the time.
Cresitan258 5 months ago
@Cresitan258 haha ok professor of all aquatic animals. sorry to bother you Mr. Einstein how about you go be a professor at a college since you know so damn much. sad that this actually had to turn into an argument which shows your immaturity lmfao.
SearchForTheObvious 5 months ago
@SearchForTheObvious Showing my immaturity? You're being VERY immature at this point. You're arguing with someone here when i'm simply pointing out that they don't stay in the water their entire lives. Ask anyone who's studied them thoroughly..hell, look it up. Anywhere you search, it'll say that they don't stay underwater their entire lives. Besides, any and everyone knows even sea turtles don't stay underwater..same goes for water spiders..
Cresitan258 5 months ago
@Cresitan258 jesus you're still going on about this...? just shut up already mr. alwayshastoberight. know-it-all god damn. thats showing your immaturity by HAVING to be right in this, i honestly didn't think it was going to turn into such a big deal that you hadddddd to keep replying to me so honestly just shut up dude, i wonder how many friends you have in real life with that cocky attitude and having to be right in the smallest shit. get maturity seriously, since "youre immature" offends you
SearchForTheObvious 5 months ago
@SearchForTheObvious See, this proves my point even further. You're obviously VERY immature because you not only use incorrect grammar, but spelling as well. You're calling me names, as well as describing me when you know nothing. If you respond to this message, you are furthermore proving my point and quite frankly, I don't know what therapy could help you.
Cresitan258 5 months ago 2
Comment removed
SearchForTheObvious 5 months ago
@Cresitan258 Hahaha, no response, huh? Thought so, know-it-all.
SearchForTheObvious 4 months ago
@SearchForTheObvious ...no response? I DID put a response =_=
Look in the comments and you'll see, dumbass.
Cresitan258 4 months ago
@Cresitan258 umm... no you didn't? it's called CTRL+F. no new comments haha. so I don't know who you think you're fooling.
SearchForTheObvious 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SearchForTheObvious 'See, this proves my point even further. You're obviously VERY immature because you not only use incorrect grammar, but spelling as well. You're calling me names, as well as describing me when you know nothing. If you respond to this message, you are furthermore proving my point and quite frankly, I don't know what therapy could help you.'
You didn't find that ANYWHERE, whatsoever? >.>
Cresitan258 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cresitan258 Excuse me? Incorrect grammar? Do you really want to go so far as to call me illiterate and dumbfound enough to not know how to spell? How's disestablishmentarianism for you or how about corpulent bovine? Are you sure you want to play this game you incompetent toad...? If you REALLY think that I am illiterate you may need to get your eye-sight checked, as its clear I have no problem with my grammar OR spelling, WHATSOEVER. Douchebag.
SearchForTheObvious 5 months ago
this is all lie it was the pokemon that walk the earth first
playthatrola22 1 year ago 28
@playthatrola22 yea they were pokemons stupid peoples its just a pokemon
kingofmonkey123 1 year ago
Comment removed
playthatrola22 1 year ago
@playthatrola22 Pokemon is a game series.Not something you would learn in science class.
fishjohnburg 1 year ago
@fishjohnburg NONBELIVER!!!
playthatrola22 1 year ago
@playthatrola22 you most be a pokemonologist.
aaronzvz 1 year ago
@aaronzvz i am and i was there when it happend
playthatrola22 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheVraccy 1 year ago
This is cool and all. But why the FUCK does this lady talk like that???
tubingan 1 year ago
Who? The narrator? It's called an accent.
BladesOfMunch 1 year ago
@tubingan The whole world doesn't just consist of american people, you know?
linkinpark9sc 1 year ago
I would PISS MYSELF if I saw that!
TrialzGTAS 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hello Youtube,
Everyone who is reading this comment, please click on my username for my videos I made about the The Truth of the World. I have found out what the truth of life is, the truth of the world, and the truth of God. Please, I really want people to watch and listen what I have to say. No more living in false reality, no more living in illusions, no more thinking there is no way out......its time to lead your life into The Truth of the World!!!!!!!!!
I love our Lord!!! God bless!!
theseeker2k5 1 year ago
no way thats a crab's claw
Sdwaffle 1 year ago
this is a video about nature please if you have an opinion let it be on much more sensative matter,oh wait its not ok if someone offends you guys but you guys can talk about religion 24/7 like its something normal,and like there isnt a war happening!!!
theblackguy6haaa 1 year ago
if some people wanted to believe that they came from ape why challenge it, let them believe that they are descendants of ape and cousins to monkeys.
iota1962 2 years ago
lol some people? evolution is a scientific fact, just as microbial infection theory is. You believe you get sick from bacteria and unicellular organisms, along with viruses don't you? well evolution is just as factual, and most theological people will even agree with the evidence supporting that, unless you're an utter buffoon. Welcome to 2010, where bronze age myths don't hold true to the educated folk. sorry.
throneofdecay 2 years ago
@throneofdecay evolution is a theory, it can be proven in many ways but there are many lack of evidence and contradictions too
centurionl 1 year ago
@centurionl Apparently you haven't researched this subject enough. Please supply me with one, just one example of 'evidence' contradicting the scientific fact of evolution (fact as in, a theory that has so much evidence proving it to be true, that it would be perverse not to accept it). And don't supply me with superficial garbage, i want something that's hard evidence, not something you interpreted to be against evolution just because you think it is.
throneofdecay 1 year ago
@throneofdecay there is a theory that says humans had tails and animals just evolved to adapt and they don't see why humans could not use a tail or not survive without one. why didnt some apes evolve? how were they different from our 'ancestor' how was the first cell created? how did that first cell or organism decided to make a copy of itself and then to male and female forms?
centurionl 1 year ago
@centurionl We still have tails, it just regressed due to the lack of need. It's called the Coxis
Im4themotherland 1 year ago
@centurionl Well we have a lot of proof of the "humans having tails" theory you mentioned, considering we have tailbones, and sometimes something goes wrong, and people do grow a bit of a tail... It just benefited our current stature (standing upright) to have less of a tail, and they eventually go away after millions of years. As for the origins of the first cell, who said the first form of life was a cell? What about a virus? Couldn't we have started as simple as some proteins?
throneofdecay 1 year ago
@centurionl And the "apes" which stayed apes, still need the tails due to their posture... it's just what benefits the species as far as energy usage is concerned. Also note the reproduction of life could be easily linked to how any other chemical reaction takes place... Look at a fire, and you'll see a reaction that affects its surroundings in a similar way, it's just a reaction, and life as we know it probably started out in a similar manner.
throneofdecay 1 year ago
@centurionl the tail was used to balance a creature running on all 4s, man no longer runs on all 4s so there is no reason to produce an excess part that burns out energy and serves no purpose... eventually it disappeared. Try cutting off an animal who has a tail and walks on all 4 and u should notice how it moves much more clumsier than it did having a tail.
dodobirdies 1 year ago
@dodobirdies walking on 2 legs is even harder than walking on 4, having a tail would be much more helpful for us specially at young ages
centurionl 1 year ago
@centurionl true that walking on 2 is harder than all 4 but the tail is closely connected to the spine and it would cause the creature to lean slightly forward and one evolutionary advantage humans had was they could stand perfectly upright. which allow them to see as far over the canopy for danger as possible.
dodobirdies 1 year ago
@dodobirdies that's true what about the rest i said
centurionl 1 year ago
@centurionl there is also something else, some expert suggests that the success we have today is due to the reproductive capability. Walking upright just allowed humans to conserve a slight bit more energy per year which allows them to get on a bit more... which would mean more off springs. A tail regardless would add to the expending of energy. The human body is in a very conservative proportion I believe.
dodobirdies 1 year ago
@throneofdecay - No, it's a fact because it's a fact. A scientific fact is something that is actually happens in the empiric reality. And the fact has it's theory. Theory is Why and how scientists think it happens. So there's both fact and theory.
mraccident 1 year ago
@mraccident Yeah i agree, the theory is just the body of evidence which supports it. But people think it's just a hypothesis.. and it's horrible
throneofdecay 1 year ago
Once again, not exactly. It's not a body of evidence which supports it. It may contain evidence, but what it really is is the attempt to explain why, how it happens, and what else is attributing to that and so forth. A scientific fact is something that has been observed happening and so there's no denial of it.
The majority of people has always and probably will always be ignorant and will not see the difference between scientific fact, a belief, an opinion and a mesh potato.Don't sweat over it.
mraccident 1 year ago
Usually when darwinism is challenged, it's challenged by creationists... and they both attempt to explain the origin of life, and how it got to where it is now. This is why they are "mixed." As for darwinism being challenged, those who understand it, also understand the gaps in the knowledge we have. Creationism is just a way of saying "we don't know, so god must have done it..." that's not scientific at all. While darwinism is the polar opposite of that mindset.
throneofdecay 2 years ago
No other scientific theory calls into question the beliefs of the questioner. It either can stand on it's own merits or it can't, regardless of one's belief system unless of course Darwinists feel that because their belief system is being challenged, they must therefore challenge the questioner's. If I say that you must prove your cure for cancer do you say that I must provide a cure first?
2uberu 2 years ago
all i can say is this if that lobster got that big get me a big pot sum butter and a shell cracker i got lunch wahaha
artemisentrei 2 years ago
im glad its fucked off
SATIJAF 2 years ago
evolution is a Hoax
CreationPhotography 2 years ago
@CreationPhotography So a story book written by crasy hermites is true?.
wicNKWD37 2 years ago
Science fact the Air pressure back before the great flood 4800 years ago the air pressure was 4 times or higher then what it is now thanks to
a thick layer of ice that was suspended by earths super strong magnetic field 5000 years ago held it in place . UV rays could not penetrate and plants and animals grew vary large and and flourished but when the sky came crashing down the great flood spoken in genesis 6 and 7 and weaker Magnetic field and drop in air pressure effected all life
CreationPhotography 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hydrogen is obtained by electrolysis,to apply a current regulated of electricity to a container with water and a catalyst,2 communicating vessels to which it is applied to each of the anode and the cathode, the process divides the water molecule in the elements that are needed for the combustion, of the hydrogen combustion and oxygen is aqueous vapour, that is not polluting. The hydrogen is an inexhaustible source of energy. More hydrogen has a liter of water, that a gallon of fuel
mrfranciscodeasisify 2 years ago
Indeed.
Millsie18 2 years ago
OK2BCK Search out REPENTAMERICA's channel buddy.
CreationPhotography 2 years ago
no sorry bud this was a creature that roved the earth about 5000 years ago
and then the flood that wiped out all life 4800 years ago
CreationPhotography 2 years ago
@CreationPhotography - Giant sea scorpions existed in the earliest years of complex life, hundreds of millions of years ago, not 5000.
Endymion766 2 years ago
First of all your an idiot! its a sea scorpion how could a flood wipe it out. secondly there was no flood! Thirdly if there was a flood, it didn't wipe out all life! Go to sleep and try not to wake up stupid
9numbers 2 years ago
@CreationPhotography search for thunderf00t's channel buddy.
OK2BCK 2 years ago
big lobster how big a pot would you need to cook something like that?
artemisentrei 2 years ago
So what was big is now small, How did that happen? Backwards evolution?
2uberu 2 years ago
probly were small back then too.
deluxedookie 2 years ago
Evolution does not necessarily mean getting bigger. Its all about adapting to a changing environment.
joshlmr 2 years ago
Where are all of the steps in between?
2uberu 2 years ago
@2uberu Changes in climate. Millions of years ago it was much warmer and more oxygen in the air so plants and animals had evolved to be much bigger than today.
maroon2k 2 years ago
@Maroon: Global warming?
2uberu 2 years ago
They used to live in the water (this species did), but when they went to live on land, their legs couldn't hold their weight, so they had to get smaller.
tehbucka 2 years ago
That must have happpened fast!
2uberu 2 years ago
it just survived better the smaller it got...so it kept getting smaller
ZewJersey 2 years ago
I wonder how big scorpions would have trouble surviving?
2uberu 2 years ago
slower,needs to eat more to survive
ZewJersey 2 years ago
Oh, so you know that they were slow? Very good!
2uberu 2 years ago
i dont know that they were slow but whos faster... a 300 pound kid or a 150 pound kid
ZewJersey 2 years ago
If the 300 pound kid had giant legs, I would say he would be faster.
2uberu 2 years ago
In evolution you can observe the lilliput effect. If an organism is generally well adapted, with little competition then it makes sense for it to be a lot smaller. It will use up less energy and will require less food. There is a theory that the sea scorpions became partially terrestrialised, but not these guys; They still have a swimming paddle, whereas other more 'scorpion like' forms had 'walking legs'.
mbex3djm 2 years ago
So, random mutation has a purpose but if it has a purpose it can't be random and if it is not random, what is the force behind it?
2uberu 2 years ago
It doesn't have a purpose hence random. You have to try to understand that mutations happen across the board and that the 'direction' evolution takes is dictated, not by new inventions, but by the death of all other members of the group. It just depends on whats killing you. If we had a fast predator usain bolt might do okay, big floods and you'd want to be Michael Phelps. Its all about being the only creature surviving, then the rest of the population will have your mutations. did that explain
mbex3djm 2 years ago
O.K. so it's random. Where is all of the random evidence of the "random" mutations that did not survive. You say that it is about being the only creature surviving but how does that creature adapt percisely at the right time and with the right need. just "lucky"? Lotttery numbers are random. The winner wins but there is evidence in all of the losing tickets thrown in the garbage. Where is the evidence of all of the losing mutations ThatHaveHappenedWithEveryLiving CreatureSinceTheBeginningOfTime?
2uberu 2 years ago
My best example would be antibiotic resistance, you have bacteria going through thousands of reproductions. Add a selective pressure (the anti-biotic that kills them) and they will die. They are always mutating though. Eventually one will get lucky and have resistance. Then when the anti-biotic is given this will survive and reproduce. The entire population now will have evolved in relation to antibiotics.
mbex3djm 2 years ago
But it is still bacteria, not another species.
2uberu 2 years ago
With fossils we can only ever see the hard parts, i.e. bones + shells. To see the majority of mutations we'd need to see the DNA sequence. The majority of DNA codes for things other than the overall physical appearance, you wont see these in the fossil record. Physical mutations exist, (e.g. in humans) but are in the minority. With fossilisation so difficult it would be against the odds to find one. Then how would you know it was a mutant rather than the real thing?
mbex3djm 2 years ago
So are you saying that your theory isn't scientifically proveable in the fossil record?
2uberu 2 years ago
Haha, well it depends on how much proof you need. We can see it happening today, so we work on the assumption it happened this way in the past. But we can never find the all the intermediates. Think of trying to find the intermediates between the number 0 and 1. Well you find 0.5, but someone will always say, "well where's 0.25?" You find that, but then where's 0.125? And so on.
mbex3djm 2 years ago
Ask me for any intermediary between 0 and 1 an I can give it to you.
2uberu 2 years ago
You must know there are an infinite anound of numbers between 0 and 1. But we can work it out mathematically. There aren't an infinite amount of animals but we cant ever see every stage because of the limits of the fossil record. We can make scientific estimates based on what we see. Its like finding intermediates between 0 and 1, but only being able to use 10 decimal places. People will always ask for more intermediates, but we just get them.
mbex3djm 2 years ago
0.00275620
0.01784589
0.39734875
0.46802304
0.60239854
0.82652139
0.99217274
Here's a set of numbers, ordered oldest to youngest. Each number is different, You cant see intermediates, But you can see the overall pattern of 0 to 1. The fossil record is the same. We can never get the resolution to show every step.
mbex3djm 2 years ago
You will never find a complete lineage, because its there is a constant background evolution, then there will be a sudden change with the advent of a new selective pressure. The death of the majority of the animals will leave just the few lucky survivors. In the fossil record this would appear so suddenly. And so when its just so hard to make fossils you dont see this. You either cant see the small evolutions or notice the big ones but question where the small intermediates are.
mbex3djm 2 years ago
"Hard to make fosssils you don't see". who "makes" fossils? I'm questioning the origin of species, not the adaptaions whithin. Just looking for evidence. :)
2uberu 2 years ago
The most common definition of species is 2 amimals that cant produce fertile offspring. So a donkey and a horse are seperate species. Animals get so diverse that eventually cant reproduce. All domestic dogs are the same species (the breeds are just recognised variants within theis group) but a Great dane physically couldnt reproduce with a Chihuahua. So they are a different species, even though they are genetically related. Now the background mutation can continue to accumulate and diverge.
mbex3djm 2 years ago
So how does that explain the origin of species?
2uberu 2 years ago
Well it's an example of how 2 animals can become different species. Their DNA slowly become incompatable due to the accumulated mutations over time. There needs to be a physical biological/geographical barrier to prevent them mating. If you mean the origin of all species?! Well thats a lot harder. We can artificially create amino acids by striking various naturally occurring chemicals with lightning.
mbex3djm 2 years ago
A donkey and a horse cannot produce fertile offspring so it does not produce a separate species so your examples eplain nothing.
2uberu 2 years ago
I wasnt giving them as an example of the production of a new species. But you can see how they would be closely related.
mbex3djm 2 years ago
Can you please give me examples of how the evolutionary theory is responsible for the creation of a new species using the scientific method.
2uberu 2 years ago
Well the formation of new species relies on the 'genetic drift' of end members of a group. They have to go through so many changes that their DNA becomes incompatible. This takes a lot of time and not all mutations have a physical manifestation. Therefore its hard to give a 'living' example; you cant see it in one generation. Think of my dog example, since domestication they have diversified into lots of breeds. not all these breeds can mate with each other. This is the start of speciation.
mbex3djm 2 years ago
Now we know the average rate of mutation. (i cant quote it off the top of my head). So if you have 2 groups, physically unable to mate and 'normalise' the gene pool, they will just get further and further away from each other genetically (genetic drift). Eventually they will become totally incompatible and this is when they are classed as a new species.
mbex3djm 2 years ago
This is a long process though. The best examples are human regulated crops and livestock. Think of apples, with cross breeding we direction the evolution to get bigger tastier fruit. With race horses we breed those that can run fastest. Can you see how with this pressure the fruit and horses we have today would be 'better' than their ancestors thousands of years ago? All it takes is the death of normal horses and your entire population would be those with a racing physique!
mbex3djm 2 years ago
Again, change within a species is observable but the creation of a new species has never been observed or recorded therefore it is still in the realm of speculation. I could show you how the Bible has been proven to be 90% historically accurate but you would still require proof for the remaining 10%. You would then say belief in the Bible is juat based on personal beliefs. I am holding the Darwinists to the same standard. -"Prove it."
2uberu 2 years ago
Well the change we see, as you just admitted, IS evolution. It's so subtle! We can't see a new species popping into existence because it is hidden in the masses or just classed as a mutant, then will die or is assimilated back into the gene pool. Evolution and the origin of variation is observable and does happen. The origin of species is a long process which isn't observable in the time frame of our lives.
mbex3djm 2 years ago
I admit change is obsrvable but that is a far cry from admitting that species creation is obsrvable. What has been admitted (by you) is that Darwinism does not survive scientific scrutiny. Unless of course you throw out the scientific method.
2uberu 2 years ago
Well that's not true, we can observe it, but not in such a short time frame of our lives. The genetic evidence is all there to signify the diversification of species. Lots of scientific theories cant be observed in such a short time frame. You can say that these are all false too. But the more things fit the theory the stronger it becomes. If you use this reasoning to deny evolution you'd have to the same with relativity etc!
mbex3djm 2 years ago
The theory of relativity is being questioned by string theories. Theories are called theories and not laws is because they have not passed the scientific method. What is wrong with questioning things that are assumed but not proven? A good scientist questions everything. Some scientists base their beliefe systems on non-proven things just as much as religious people do. Look at the global warming debate.
2uberu 2 years ago
I totally agree, but just because something is 'just' a theory doesn't mean that you should dismiss all the evidence for it.
mbex3djm 2 years ago
Nor should you assume that it is completely factual.
2uberu 2 years ago
I wouldn't be a very good palaeontologist if I did think it was all completely factual. Yet the fact remains that even though a work in progress, the trends and patterns are observable and the biological evidence/methodology can be tested and verified by medical/biological sciences. So as it is evolution is, so far, the best explanation of the origin and diversity of species on the planet, and one shouldn't dispute the evidence for it just because it's a theory!
mbex3djm 2 years ago
So just call it the "Law of Evolution" then. I wouldn;t agr that it is the best xplanation. there are too many holes.
2uberu 2 years ago
Well like i tried explaining before, you can't get around those holes, because of the high improbability of fossilization, fossilization of the right animal, survival of the fossil, discovery of the fossil and then the correct interpretation. SO hard, but we're getting there slowly!
mbex3djm 2 years ago
It is statisticaly improbable that with all of the fossils so far found, none of them have provided the proof that even Darwin said that if not found, would dissprove his theory.
2uberu 2 years ago
I hate the circular nature of this argument! We have evidence, but with such massive gaping holes in the fossil record combined with the lack of public knowledge you just dot see them! Im currently writing a paper that has found the missing link between these guys and the horseshoe crabs. Ill send you a copy, when i'm finished, if you email me your address?
mbex3djm 2 years ago
What exactly is your argument here? Are you saying that darwins theory isn't probable? or that natural selection doesn't exist? i'm 99.999% sure that they are both at least somewhat accurate. In all probability evolution and natural selection have a much greater chance of existence than a God, or something of greater or equal complexity. I don't know what your argument is, but it seems you're disputing evolution with a passion of disbelief, not just doubt.
throneofdecay 2 years ago
Is that you're opinion or a proven fact?
2uberu 2 years ago
Your* and yeah I'm going to say something supported by imagination, and books without any facts is less probable than something we learn something new about every day (With actual physical evidence). To deny that is ignorance, it's not being "scientific." And as for asking what you're arguing about, that's a question not an opinion if you were targeting that, and you have yet to answer it, please organize yourself a bit more.
throneofdecay 2 years ago
What I am arguing about is that Darwinism is just as scientifically unproven as any other belief system.
2uberu 2 years ago
That's not true, we have proof that some form of evolution takes place through genetic mutations, and witnessing evolution on a small scale in life today. We may not be able to prove it's true right now, but we have real evidence, and learn more every day.. while other "belief" systems go years or even centuries and longer without one tread of real evidence.
throneofdecay 2 years ago
If the theory of evolution was finally proven I would agree with you. And even today, archeologists are unearthing civilizations thatg are confirmed in the bible.
2uberu 2 years ago
@2uberu That doesn't mean that what the bible says about god is true at all, you can throw facts into a comic book, and it doesn't make the fictional aspect of it true. We have DNA evidence, fossil evidence, and eyes to witness just what happens in the world around us as far as evolution. Our very cellular structure is made up of what was once a collective of bacteria. The only proof the bible has going is that it hasn't been proven wrong, while physical evidence stands in favor of evolution
throneofdecay 2 years ago
A comic book doesn't claim to be true. If the Bible can't be proven false then we must be open to the possibility of it being true, otherwise we are not being scientific. There is far less evidence of Darwin's theory then you might think. Take the problem that Darwin identified as the "Cambrian Explosion". Darwin himself said that if this problem wasn't resolved, his whole theory would be suspect. To this day it has not been resolved.
2uberu 2 years ago
I'm not saying the bible is definitely fictional, but i'm 99% sure it is... And the cambrian explosion doesn't make evolution true or false, it's one specific point in time.. and that's entirely linked to fossil evidence, which we do NOT use as the basis for darwinism, that's a VERY common misconception, and it's not even remotely true. And him saying what he did doesn't in any way make it false if we don't identify it.. it makes it questionable at best, and only to religious skeptics..
throneofdecay 2 years ago
..or to scientific purists.
2uberu 2 years ago
A scientific purist would be more educated on what the foundation of evolution really is.. if you deny natural selection, you deny the fact that a fast runner will have a better chance of winning a race over a slow runner.. and that a strong animal will have a better chance of survival over a weak one.. the "strong" genes created through mutations have a higher chance of being passed on, and that is a scientific fact. That is also the foundation of evolution.
throneofdecay 2 years ago
The strongest doesn't always win and the fastest doesn't always win, it depends on the battle. Some of the weakest and the slowest survive. I guess you also believe that Darwin was wrong when he said the "cambrian explosion" posed a problem to the foundation of his theory.
2uberu 2 years ago
Well when i say strongest, and fastest, what i'm referring to is the one who is suited best for winning the battle.. it was just an analogy. I don't want to encourage anyone to blindly accept darwins theory, just as I don't want anyone to blindly accept anything.. but it's the best thing we have going for us, and it isn't just a 'gap filler,' it's backed by real evidence. I'll openly listen to any other theories, just not ones backed by a, probably imaginary, creation.
throneofdecay 2 years ago
Why is it that when Darwinism gets challenged, it's believers must always attack creationism? Why mix the two?
2uberu 2 years ago
How fictional it is when out of 300 prophecies in the bible everything actually happend?, e.g., the destruction of Tyre and Sidon, written 250 years before Alexander the Great made it to happen.
iota1962 2 years ago
Show me proof of any one of these 300 prophecies, real proof. i want evidence, not hear say, or something written in another possibly bullshit book. I'm dealing with an idiot now over someone who had an actual sophisticated and well thought out argument.
throneofdecay 2 years ago
well your an idiot
i can make a prophecy to
london will be destroyed
damn im good...and guess what in any number of years that is guaranteed to happen
holy shit im a prophet
BitchUstupid 1 year ago
Comment removed
smokkapi 2 years ago
Oh I see... so the Egyptians built their massive empire in the thousand years BEFORE the Earth magically poofed into existence?
joshlmr 2 years ago
awesome
SunriseNYC999 2 years ago
it could be as old as last year JK
dustee20 2 years ago
who the fuck gave a thump down. what i said is true. that scorpion is millions year old.
ruilin1228 2 years ago
they might have thumbed it down because the scorpion is more than a million years old - but rather 400 million
macbeasty 2 years ago 2
someone before said it was thousands year old. and besides, i put millionS
ruilin1228 2 years ago
Right on!
truvelocity 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
my heAd is overpopulated by hem rodents... they keep eating small pieces of my brain....
i think im getting stupid....
no wait... i am stupid...
but my IQ is getting to minus.....
wat should i do....
i have tried to fill my head with rat poison... but it didnt work well for me...
footage82 2 years ago
is it a Pterygotus? It looks like one from the sketch.
ALEXO1052 2 years ago
is it a Pterygotus? The Drawn picture looks like one.
ALEXO1052 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show