Charles Manson didn't kill anyone. He, as the hobo boss of a hippie commune, allegedly ordered free, adult citizens to commit murder. He was not present during the commission of these crimes. Peter Kürten (26 May 1883 to 2 July 1931), on the other hand, was a genuine menace.
Before cows were thought to evolve into whales Darwin believed that bears turned into whales. By citing Von Neuman and machines building more complex machines, the poster is only citing e.g. of how machines that are intelligently designed could theoretically build more complex machines. Tails... "Horizontal like fish" (and the supposed mesonychid) they evolved from. At 4:39 the image is a false representation. I contacted Gingerich himself about this. Pakicetus is no longer considered aquatic.
Well presented argument. How can there be any doubt?
If Evolution didn't trample on religion, it would be universally accepted. You don't see anyone questioning astronomical physics other than in a "tune up" sort of way perhaps. They don't question aerodynamics because they're happy to fly. They don't question modern medicine because their lives depend on it. But when Science shows religion is wrong, that's another thing.
So hypocritical !!! These people should live in caves to be consistent.
Here I'll destroy evolution in a few sentences. It is assumed that 99.9% of all species are extinct. Not because we have found those fossils but because Macro Evolution requires that many missing fossils. And yet upwards of 90% of current living mammals are represented in the fossil record! Thus we have EMPIRICAL evidence the fossil record is not 99.9% incomplete! Thus we know those needed missing animals never existed.
@namnack It is claimed that 99.9% plus of all living species are extinct. That is what is projected as missing in the fossil record. So is there a way to check if the fossil record is 99.9% incomplete? Yes, we can check it against animals we know exist. At what percentage do they show up in the fossil record? Mammals show up at somewhere near 90%. So how did all the mammals needed to support ev escape? It's like believing fairies dance in the woods only when nobody is looking. Think carefully.
@imikewillrockyou I don't think anyone claims that living animals are also extinct or that living animals are also fossilized. You should become a comedian.
@namnack You didn't understand what I'm saying. Of animals alive today what percent also show up in the fossil record? The percentage is very high. For mammals around 90%. Or for example birds it's less because they are a more rare fossil somewhere around 70%. So ask yourself, why do all the animals we know about show up as fossils at a very high percentage while animals we don't know about (needed to support ev) come in at 0.001% or less? The logical conclusion is those animals never existed.
@imikewillrockyou Perhaps the reason for my 'misunderstanding' is your inability to form rudimentary sentences. Anyway..
The amount of species that are alive today that are also found in the fossil record is extremely low, not high as you implied. The reason for this is simple. Fossilization is a rare occurrence and only happens within certain environmental circumstances. You can look it up on wiki if you care to really learn about this subject.
@imikewillrockyou If you don't mind, I'd like to transform your first comment into proper English so that we both can agree on what you meant to say.
"Here, I'll destroy the theory of evolution in a few sentences: It is assumed that 99% of all the species that ever lived have become extinct. We know this not because we know all the species that have ever existed because the Lord told us which ones He made,or by some other magical means, but due to the fact that a made up type of evolution,
@namnack Fallacies do not refute my assertion. I provided very understandable EMPIRICAL evidence against the theory . So you are the one believing in magic unless you can provide a reasonable scientific explanation. Why do animals we know about show up as fossils at a rate reaching 90% and all the missing animals needed to support this theory make evolutionary scientists believe the fossil record is 99.9% incomplete? Let me help you..animals we know about fossilize at a very high rate because..
@123Atheist I think there are a few problems one is that there don't seem to be dozens of complete skeletal transitions. There may be a tooth here, a feather there, an arm here, but there don't seem to be a lot of complete skeletons. Also fossils are highly open to interpretation. Animals can be deformed. So if you interpret a fossil not having known that it was deformed when alive well.. There can be a great deal of human error in the interpretation. It's like cryptozoology.
@luvlatinmamis There are hundreds of Neanderthaal fossils alone. And other fossils aren't just footprints. Many fossils we have fit the definition for transitional fossil. Archaepteryx for example, it has both bird and classical therapod characteristics.
@123Atheist So because it looks like a bird and a therapod proves that it's a transition? Is there a possibility that there was a species that just looked similar to the two? Also how can we know for sure that there were no deformities with this animal? And when this animal was unearthed were all of it's bones or the majority unearthed at once within close proximity? Or did someone assemble what they assumed it to look like? ( These are serious questions and sorry so many )
@123Atheist When i compare to cryptozoology i mean this. Lets say a cop (trained in observation) see's big foot. He goes and tells everyone he saw big foot. Someone else was there and happened to snap a picture and get a strand of hair for dna testing. The photo is studied and the hair is studied. Conclusion? Big foot ends up being a black bear. My point? Human error. People make mistakes with living animals all the time. How much more so dead animals fossils?
I will now call 'Macro Evolution', or at least it's implications, requires there being a lot of fossils that were not actually formed and hence couldn't be found. And yet more than 90% of the mammals we find alive today, are also found within the fossil record!
.. From this is follows that I have no idea of what I'm talking about, never cared much to find out about the theory of evolution anyway and that I'm probably very daft and have been told all my live that the beliefs of my cult do not go well with the findings done by scientists...who study reality".
Is that an accurate and correct interpretation of what you meant to say?
Eight hundred years per morphological change? Now tell me how many genetic changes are required to effect the putative, still undefined morphological change?
How many genetic changes are independent and how many genetic changes must occur simultaneously? Based on known mutation rates and reasonable population sizes for mammals is 60 miilion years really enough time?
Has anybody answered this question? That is Berlinski's point.
No, because it's utterly nonsensical. We *see* the changes occur in the fossil record. The fossils are there, but Berlinksi just denies them. He's a moron.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Neither I nor Berlinski deny the changes seen in the fossil record. No, we do not see the changes occur; we see the changes that have occurred. Both he and I would like a lot more evidence.
The advocate of a theory should try his darndest to disprove his own theory. It seems that evolutionist are not willing to do this. An analysiis of what is required to effect all those changes should be done. See my last post.
We find transitional fossils at exactly the location the theory of evolution predicts we will find them. That's very hard evidence already. The problem is that the likes of Berlinski and you will never be satisfied, no matter how many fossils we find.
"An analysiis of what is required to effect all those changes should be done. "
We SEE the changes occur over time in the fossil record. Berlinksi merely shifts the goal posts.
There's more evidence than we'd ever from thefossil record need to conclude evolution occurs. There's no debate about that whatsoever within the scientific community.
"The advocate of a theory should try his darndest to disprove his own theory"
Many have tried to disprove the theory, but after more than 150 years it's standing stronger than ever.
@MomoTheBellyDancer No, you did not "see" the changes occur; you saw the results of whatever changes occurred. Strictly speaking, you can't even demonstate that fossils that are purported to be part of the whale sequence are truly descended from each other. I will grant that there is reason to think so.
Our difference lies in the fact that for you a fossil sequence confirms the mechnism, but for me the confirmation of mechanism has to come from further analysis.
"you can't even demonstate that fossils that are purported to be part of the whale sequence are truly descended from each other"
Which is totally not needed for them to be transitional fossils. Like Berlinski, you appear to lack knowledge about the subject and I urge you to read up on it.
Dr David Berlinski is an outstanding scientist. He is not alone among the scientific community, who equipped with the most up-to-date knowledge of science, have proven than evolution (one species evolving into another) is not possible; evolution is a fallacy. Darwin had mislead some of the world community.
So you are looking for uniformity in nature,right? Look at your last question really well....Now take that a little further,Why would whales have anything because the further you digress the smaller the life form until there is nothing left! Please pick up a good book on logic and reason and that will help you simulate the the evidence for I agree with you on the tangible evidence. If you use the same system of interpretation in other disciplines you'd be very unsuccessful. Just my 2 cents
No sir, At least not when I was writing my comment.You still haven't answered my question though. I am wasting my time because you can't reason beyond your own bias.
then I suggest you move along to greener pastures with sheep more in need of your drug which replaces hard fought scrutiny and evidence with whatever feels good as you contemplate something which you cannot grasp and no one has ever been able to grasp.
Silly and baseless assumptions don't make your computer work, nor does it account for the fact that we can treat illnesses today which meant a certain death only few years ago.
Good luck with whatever pattern you think you have found.
Why would whales have anything? They have fins because they are more useful in an aquatic environment than hands, and they can be modified easily, in small steps, from the existing parts. Thee evolutionary pressure to develop gripping implements is not there as the mouth worked better for catching fish and any slight improvement in the gripping ability of Pakicetus' paws would provide no tangible benefit and so would not develop stepwise into hands.
You seem to have misconstrued what I am saying to impy that animals only adapt pre-existing features. New parts and the adaptation of old parts both occur in evolution. The latter is far more common, which is why so much life has such similar facial features. You should already understand all this, and I am completely baffled that you don't.
WOW! This is pathetic,are you serious? I really have to laugh that someone can be so stupid as to believe what you have said. What evidence?? Why doesn't the whale have hands? I would guess they would be handy!! maybe a propeller in the rear. All you do is speculate because of similarities in design,I would first think same designer. Why isn't that your first question?
I'm not entirely sure if you're serious, but I'll assume you are.
The similarities in "design" between whales and mammals were specifically contrasted against the differences between whales and other aquatic animals. I thought that was obvious and can't see how you could have missed it.
Whales don't have a propeller at the rear because it is too hard to evolve one over 50 million years. It would be easier to design one. Why would whales have hands if their ancestors didn't?
@namnack, it wasnt too hard for the bacterial flagellum to evolve which is a propeller so conrads arguement that you applaud is a mute point. and i think dr balinsky brought up the 50 thousand morpheological changes to state that there should be more than 7 or 8 transitional fossils. i dont expect to find all of them but we should have at least several thousand of them dont you think?
@namnack, millions of whale transitional fossils? i only saw 7 or 8 on the list.
im a old earth creationist that believes in speciation and other types of variation within a family. i would say the bibles word of "kind" would be the equivilant of "family".
i could believe in evolution if there was much more evidence that pakisetus could evolve into a whale but i havent been impressed with the fossil record.
Heh my dad got me a few morphed episodes, when whales had legs, the bird one and 2/3's of the bear one, would love to put them up on here if I could figure out how.
When you said that cats were not adapted to water it made me think of that small population of marooned lions off the coast of Africa that evolved adaptation to a more aquatic lifestyle
"I had a cat once that swam in a nearby pond every time there were ducklings in the spring, trying to catch them on their own turf. It succeeded too."
Yeah, they're irrepressible little things. But these lions had actually developed a semi-aquatic lifestyle with more webbed paws and everything. I'm can;t remember where I read about it, but it was an interesting read
My comment on his video (which he won't approve, of course) was "Summary: *I* don't understand evolution, so it's all dumb and stuff LA LA LA LA LA and you can't make me listen to 150 years of evidence LA LA LA LA LA!
This has been flagged as spam show
Charles Manson didn't kill anyone. He, as the hobo boss of a hippie commune, allegedly ordered free, adult citizens to commit murder. He was not present during the commission of these crimes. Peter Kürten (26 May 1883 to 2 July 1931), on the other hand, was a genuine menace.
CelestialEmbodiment 4 months ago
There is no valid mechanism to account for Darwinian evolutionary theory.
faelismaegnus 4 months ago
@faelismaegnus There is no valid reason, other than having no life, to troll.
namnack 4 months ago
good vid!
LowresTV 4 months ago
Before cows were thought to evolve into whales Darwin believed that bears turned into whales. By citing Von Neuman and machines building more complex machines, the poster is only citing e.g. of how machines that are intelligently designed could theoretically build more complex machines. Tails... "Horizontal like fish" (and the supposed mesonychid) they evolved from. At 4:39 the image is a false representation. I contacted Gingerich himself about this. Pakicetus is no longer considered aquatic.
benthemiester 5 months ago
David Berlinski is questioning Darwinism not evolution. Evolution is not in question. It's Darwins theory that's the problem.
TheLogic1010 6 months ago
@SeekingTruth1234 Girls who are half fish? That's one hell of a vagina then.
namnack 7 months ago
thank you
lenda2021 9 months ago
Well presented argument. How can there be any doubt?
If Evolution didn't trample on religion, it would be universally accepted. You don't see anyone questioning astronomical physics other than in a "tune up" sort of way perhaps. They don't question aerodynamics because they're happy to fly. They don't question modern medicine because their lives depend on it. But when Science shows religion is wrong, that's another thing.
So hypocritical !!! These people should live in caves to be consistent.
warren52nz 10 months ago
@warren52nz Well put! :)
namnack 10 months ago
Here I'll destroy evolution in a few sentences. It is assumed that 99.9% of all species are extinct. Not because we have found those fossils but because Macro Evolution requires that many missing fossils. And yet upwards of 90% of current living mammals are represented in the fossil record! Thus we have EMPIRICAL evidence the fossil record is not 99.9% incomplete! Thus we know those needed missing animals never existed.
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou What, lol?
namnack 1 year ago
@namnack It is claimed that 99.9% plus of all living species are extinct. That is what is projected as missing in the fossil record. So is there a way to check if the fossil record is 99.9% incomplete? Yes, we can check it against animals we know exist. At what percentage do they show up in the fossil record? Mammals show up at somewhere near 90%. So how did all the mammals needed to support ev escape? It's like believing fairies dance in the woods only when nobody is looking. Think carefully.
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou I don't think anyone claims that living animals are also extinct or that living animals are also fossilized. You should become a comedian.
namnack 1 year ago
@namnack You didn't understand what I'm saying. Of animals alive today what percent also show up in the fossil record? The percentage is very high. For mammals around 90%. Or for example birds it's less because they are a more rare fossil somewhere around 70%. So ask yourself, why do all the animals we know about show up as fossils at a very high percentage while animals we don't know about (needed to support ev) come in at 0.001% or less? The logical conclusion is those animals never existed.
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou Perhaps the reason for my 'misunderstanding' is your inability to form rudimentary sentences. Anyway..
The amount of species that are alive today that are also found in the fossil record is extremely low, not high as you implied. The reason for this is simple. Fossilization is a rare occurrence and only happens within certain environmental circumstances. You can look it up on wiki if you care to really learn about this subject.
namnack 1 year ago
@namnack Does this mean that there is no choice but to be large gaps in the fossil record because fossilization rarely happens?
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou You make a good point.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou
Why do you think that species alive to day, are greatly represented in the fossil record anyway? Who gave you this preposterous idea?
namnack 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou If you don't mind, I'd like to transform your first comment into proper English so that we both can agree on what you meant to say.
"Here, I'll destroy the theory of evolution in a few sentences: It is assumed that 99% of all the species that ever lived have become extinct. We know this not because we know all the species that have ever existed because the Lord told us which ones He made,or by some other magical means, but due to the fact that a made up type of evolution,
namnack 1 year ago
@namnack Fallacies do not refute my assertion. I provided very understandable EMPIRICAL evidence against the theory . So you are the one believing in magic unless you can provide a reasonable scientific explanation. Why do animals we know about show up as fossils at a rate reaching 90% and all the missing animals needed to support this theory make evolutionary scientists believe the fossil record is 99.9% incomplete? Let me help you..animals we know about fossilize at a very high rate because..
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou Is there a troll convention somewhere?
namnack 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou I don't see what the problem is here. There are dozens of transitional fossils. Enough to support evolution.
123Atheist 1 year ago
@123Atheist I think there are a few problems one is that there don't seem to be dozens of complete skeletal transitions. There may be a tooth here, a feather there, an arm here, but there don't seem to be a lot of complete skeletons. Also fossils are highly open to interpretation. Animals can be deformed. So if you interpret a fossil not having known that it was deformed when alive well.. There can be a great deal of human error in the interpretation. It's like cryptozoology.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis There are hundreds of Neanderthaal fossils alone. And other fossils aren't just footprints. Many fossils we have fit the definition for transitional fossil. Archaepteryx for example, it has both bird and classical therapod characteristics.
123Atheist 1 year ago
@123Atheist So because it looks like a bird and a therapod proves that it's a transition? Is there a possibility that there was a species that just looked similar to the two? Also how can we know for sure that there were no deformities with this animal? And when this animal was unearthed were all of it's bones or the majority unearthed at once within close proximity? Or did someone assemble what they assumed it to look like? ( These are serious questions and sorry so many )
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@123Atheist When i compare to cryptozoology i mean this. Lets say a cop (trained in observation) see's big foot. He goes and tells everyone he saw big foot. Someone else was there and happened to snap a picture and get a strand of hair for dna testing. The photo is studied and the hair is studied. Conclusion? Big foot ends up being a black bear. My point? Human error. People make mistakes with living animals all the time. How much more so dead animals fossils?
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
I will now call 'Macro Evolution', or at least it's implications, requires there being a lot of fossils that were not actually formed and hence couldn't be found. And yet more than 90% of the mammals we find alive today, are also found within the fossil record!
namnack 1 year ago
.. From this is follows that I have no idea of what I'm talking about, never cared much to find out about the theory of evolution anyway and that I'm probably very daft and have been told all my live that the beliefs of my cult do not go well with the findings done by scientists...who study reality".
Is that an accurate and correct interpretation of what you meant to say?
namnack 1 year ago
kook video
fashklash 1 year ago
Eight hundred years per morphological change? Now tell me how many genetic changes are required to effect the putative, still undefined morphological change?
How many genetic changes are independent and how many genetic changes must occur simultaneously? Based on known mutation rates and reasonable population sizes for mammals is 60 miilion years really enough time?
Has anybody answered this question? That is Berlinski's point.
zaxineohp 1 year ago
@zaxineohp
"Has anybody answered this question? "
No, because it's utterly nonsensical. We *see* the changes occur in the fossil record. The fossils are there, but Berlinksi just denies them. He's a moron.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Neither I nor Berlinski deny the changes seen in the fossil record. No, we do not see the changes occur; we see the changes that have occurred. Both he and I would like a lot more evidence.
The advocate of a theory should try his darndest to disprove his own theory. It seems that evolutionist are not willing to do this. An analysiis of what is required to effect all those changes should be done. See my last post.
zaxineohp 1 year ago
@zaxineohp
"Both he and I would like a lot more evidence."
We find transitional fossils at exactly the location the theory of evolution predicts we will find them. That's very hard evidence already. The problem is that the likes of Berlinski and you will never be satisfied, no matter how many fossils we find.
"An analysiis of what is required to effect all those changes should be done. "
We SEE the changes occur over time in the fossil record. Berlinksi merely shifts the goal posts.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@zaxineohp
"Both he and I would like a lot more evidence."
There's more evidence than we'd ever from thefossil record need to conclude evolution occurs. There's no debate about that whatsoever within the scientific community.
"The advocate of a theory should try his darndest to disprove his own theory"
Many have tried to disprove the theory, but after more than 150 years it's standing stronger than ever.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer No, you did not "see" the changes occur; you saw the results of whatever changes occurred. Strictly speaking, you can't even demonstate that fossils that are purported to be part of the whale sequence are truly descended from each other. I will grant that there is reason to think so.
Our difference lies in the fact that for you a fossil sequence confirms the mechnism, but for me the confirmation of mechanism has to come from further analysis.
zaxineohp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zaxineohp
"you can't even demonstate that fossils that are purported to be part of the whale sequence are truly descended from each other"
Which is totally not needed for them to be transitional fossils. Like Berlinski, you appear to lack knowledge about the subject and I urge you to read up on it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
Excellent video!!
Ekendil 1 year ago
Dr David Berlinski is an outstanding scientist. He is not alone among the scientific community, who equipped with the most up-to-date knowledge of science, have proven than evolution (one species evolving into another) is not possible; evolution is a fallacy. Darwin had mislead some of the world community.
spidathiania 1 year ago
5/5
superfisto 2 years ago
So you are looking for uniformity in nature,right? Look at your last question really well....Now take that a little further,Why would whales have anything because the further you digress the smaller the life form until there is nothing left! Please pick up a good book on logic and reason and that will help you simulate the the evidence for I agree with you on the tangible evidence. If you use the same system of interpretation in other disciplines you'd be very unsuccessful. Just my 2 cents
cryptoenigmatist 2 years ago
These disciplines wouldn't include ID by any chance, would they?
namnack 2 years ago
No sir, At least not when I was writing my comment.You still haven't answered my question though. I am wasting my time because you can't reason beyond your own bias.
cryptoenigmatist 2 years ago
then I suggest you move along to greener pastures with sheep more in need of your drug which replaces hard fought scrutiny and evidence with whatever feels good as you contemplate something which you cannot grasp and no one has ever been able to grasp.
Silly and baseless assumptions don't make your computer work, nor does it account for the fact that we can treat illnesses today which meant a certain death only few years ago.
Good luck with whatever pattern you think you have found.
namnack 2 years ago
Why would whales have anything? They have fins because they are more useful in an aquatic environment than hands, and they can be modified easily, in small steps, from the existing parts. Thee evolutionary pressure to develop gripping implements is not there as the mouth worked better for catching fish and any slight improvement in the gripping ability of Pakicetus' paws would provide no tangible benefit and so would not develop stepwise into hands.
conradleviston 2 years ago
You seem to have misconstrued what I am saying to impy that animals only adapt pre-existing features. New parts and the adaptation of old parts both occur in evolution. The latter is far more common, which is why so much life has such similar facial features. You should already understand all this, and I am completely baffled that you don't.
conradleviston 2 years ago
WOW! This is pathetic,are you serious? I really have to laugh that someone can be so stupid as to believe what you have said. What evidence?? Why doesn't the whale have hands? I would guess they would be handy!! maybe a propeller in the rear. All you do is speculate because of similarities in design,I would first think same designer. Why isn't that your first question?
cryptoenigmatist 2 years ago
I'm not entirely sure if you're serious, but I'll assume you are.
The similarities in "design" between whales and mammals were specifically contrasted against the differences between whales and other aquatic animals. I thought that was obvious and can't see how you could have missed it.
Whales don't have a propeller at the rear because it is too hard to evolve one over 50 million years. It would be easier to design one. Why would whales have hands if their ancestors didn't?
conradleviston 2 years ago
Look what's you've done now Conrad, you've upset a creationist. Damn that word 'design' :)
namnack 2 years ago
@namnack, it wasnt too hard for the bacterial flagellum to evolve which is a propeller so conrads arguement that you applaud is a mute point. and i think dr balinsky brought up the 50 thousand morpheological changes to state that there should be more than 7 or 8 transitional fossils. i dont expect to find all of them but we should have at least several thousand of them dont you think?
godrulztheearth 2 years ago
Several thousands? we have found millions of them. In fact, every fossil ever found is transitional.
namnack 2 years ago
@namnack, millions of whale transitional fossils? i only saw 7 or 8 on the list.
im a old earth creationist that believes in speciation and other types of variation within a family. i would say the bibles word of "kind" would be the equivilant of "family".
i could believe in evolution if there was much more evidence that pakisetus could evolve into a whale but i havent been impressed with the fossil record.
godrulztheearth 2 years ago
Good for you :)
namnack 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@godrulztheearth
"millions of whale transitional fossils? i only saw 7 or 8 on the list."
So we have transitional fossils and you say say it doesn't mean anything? Wow. Just wow. Talk about denial.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
Very nice presentation!
I say, keep them trying to destroy evolution, in the process the more they show how much creationism/ID is FAIL.
onotheo 3 years ago
Nice video! keep them coming :)
RoninXiC 3 years ago 2
Heh my dad got me a few morphed episodes, when whales had legs, the bird one and 2/3's of the bear one, would love to put them up on here if I could figure out how.
wolfwing1 3 years ago
When you said that cats were not adapted to water it made me think of that small population of marooned lions off the coast of Africa that evolved adaptation to a more aquatic lifestyle
ProcInc 3 years ago
I had a cat once that swam in a nearby pond every time there were ducklings in the spring, trying to catch them on their own turf. It succeeded too.
namnack 3 years ago
"I had a cat once that swam in a nearby pond every time there were ducklings in the spring, trying to catch them on their own turf. It succeeded too."
Yeah, they're irrepressible little things. But these lions had actually developed a semi-aquatic lifestyle with more webbed paws and everything. I'm can;t remember where I read about it, but it was an interesting read
ProcInc 3 years ago
My comment on his video (which he won't approve, of course) was "Summary: *I* don't understand evolution, so it's all dumb and stuff LA LA LA LA LA and you can't make me listen to 150 years of evidence LA LA LA LA LA!
KaaSerpent 3 years ago