The desperate attempts to prove the bible always amuse. For giggles, let's give you your global flood. How did living creatures survive? Oh, that's right. A 600 year old man built a wooden boat and put all of the creatures on it.
You might as well spend your time "proving" an old man lives at the north pole and flies around in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer.
hey what ever you guys all talk and never watch the hole thing not even worth commenting on realy. all i know they found c14 in diamonds yeh thats right. and to date no matter the dating method have never ever been able to give solid lava rock ages. i think you have more faith then me yet you call it sound science. methodology is correct but the theories/assumption are totally bogus.
Excellent arguments in this series. Pseudo-science, Vague, Nuts - are pathetic responses to someone pointing out shortcomings of a theory. He is clearly intelligent and has a good understanding of this issue which he conveyed in laymens terms.
@MrNewlife888: Yeppers. Some kinda argument. To refute him all I need to do is walk to the road cut across from my house. Goes from Paleozoic sediments of the Pennsylvanian instantly to Ice Age Pleistocene and Holcene Alluvium and Loess. It's called an unconformity. What it means is that a global flood is a silly childs myth. Critical thinking and evidence. Does wonders for ya. Try it sometime.
"unconformity" a word for something they cannot explain because it does not conform to their theories.
unconforming to the theory that all these layers took as long as they did to form. yet another half assed attemt with much insult and no bite. you so funny
@ninnzbinnz: An unconformity is a buried erosion surface separating two rock masses or strata of different ages, indicating that sediment deposition was not continuous. In general, the older layer was exposed to erosion for an interval of time before deposition of the younger, but the term is used to describe any break in the sedimentary geologic record. The fact of rising and falling land surfaces is clearly documented. Like I said, I really hope you didn't spend too much time on this guy.
@ninnzbinnz No, an unconformity is a buried erosion surface separating two rock masses or strata of different ages, indicating that sediment deposition was not continuous. Better luck next time, though.
Man and dinosuar lived together. The evidence of it is overwhelmint. You're a denialist if you trust science with scientists:
nmsrDOTorg/Archive.html
It is absolute common, undisputed knowledge that the Smithsonian Sinstitute has collected the fossil bones of Cretaceous Giant Men & countless Dinosaur Herders and then rush them off to a secret whorehouse in Malta, where they are locked away in order to perpetrate the Satanic Evolutionarian Myths.
@NephilimPee Dinosaurs were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for over 160 million years, from the late Triassic period (about 230 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous period (about 65 million years ago), when the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event caused the extinction of most dinosaur species, except for some birds.
I can tell you have rebutal to his rather clear and concise explaination loner, other than to do what most evo's do...attack, insult and change the subject.
1) The solubility of carbonate is extremely sensitive to temperature and dissolved CO2. In fact these skeletons DO settle in shallow areas on continental shelfs.
2) Although the cretaceous layer is widespread and the chalk deposits extensive, they are not universal.
i would say that 90+ can be classified as universal. and that it appears all at the same time period is good enough. this is a weaker example i must admit but we don't see chalk deposits everywhere in our oceans today either. a better example is:
Overall, they found 346 whales within a 1.5-km2 (370-acre) area, buried in an 80-m (260-ft) thick layer of sedimentary rock called diatomite. This layer is part of the Pisco Formation, which varies in thickness from 2001,000 m (6503,300 ft).
It's all so incredibly vague, it's like astrology, Marxism, Adlerianism and Freude's psycho-analysis all rolled into one.
There is no possible way anyone who is actually knowledgable and understands the difference between science and pseudo-science will mark this as credible information.
on the basis that this man doesnt even take into account all the other factors based around cretaceous chalk. things like all the layers around it, unconformities, differences in cretaceous rock, where the rock is exposed...
i mean, the list goes on...this is beyond psuedoscience, its retardation that could only fool a person who doesnt care to hear any other explanation.
Ohh boy...for those of you who believe this man...please look into the material...he is full of it, for more information, feel free to private message me.
oh yeh funny how all salt water fish today have a glemerulous which is a kydney type structure they only use in fresh water and most cannot activate it today. but its still there.
I refer you to my second, third and forth sentence of the previous message
A redundant organ in a class is evidence of common ancestry and adaptive changes in physiology (the cornerstone evolutionary facts)
And does not explain in any sense the survival of general aquatic organisms (not all are fish and the salinity is important for the majority) [sentence three]
Speaking of homework, perhaps finding the correct spelling would be an appropriate assignment for next time
wrong if evolution was true it would just disappear completely a long long time ago as fish are so old according to evolution its almost the beginning of life on your time line yet its still there. and given enough breeding im sure it could be reactivated within some generations. but its active in fresh water in some fish not all are inactive. enough time for a monkey to turn into a human but not enough time to disappear from a fish. what sort of lies are you talking.
"wrong if evolution was true it would just disappear completely a long long time ago as fish are so old according to evolution"
This is just too inaccuare to be worth refuting
If your don't understand the basis of evolutionary theory then I suggest you don't try to argue it. You are a scientific illiterate and not worth my time
It may be evidence of common ancestry. It shows that a lot of fish probably had a common ancestor. That common ancestor was probably a fish. They are all the same kind. What the common ancestor was NOT was an amoeba.
Fish is an arbitrary term. The fact of the matter is all animals share a common ancestor and there is no boundary between these clades that is surpassable according to the tracable twin-nested hierarchy of animals and we're included.
Kind is not an objectively detectable term, it is meaningless.
"What the common ancestor was NOT was an amoeba."
Correct. Although amaebas and fish do share a common ancestor that is a single celled eukayote
for anyone out there pretending to be in it for the truth dont post here if all you gona say is its not true with no backup ill ban you. you waste other peoples information time.
so .. you will use things that are not proof or citations on other people's blogs in truly feeble attempts to disctredit the work of a scientists. but expect others to keep to a diferent standard? ya that sounds reasonable...
It appears the creationists repeating this whale-of-a-tale, (including the editors of Creation Ex Nihilo) either failed to check their facts or didn't want a good story to be ruined by the facts. In either case, none of these people apparently took the time and trouble to find out what the facts were before putting pen to paper. What they claim to be God's truth is nothing more than an urban folktale used to validate personal religious beliefs.
well i thank you for your opinion you can say that. please have a look at the trex clip i posted. it seems the entire scientific establishment can defenetaly say that bone is 70mil years old? yet even there own laws of decay dont allow it? and they produce no evidence yet they present it as certainty. seems like a dictionary definition of a religion dont you think?
How can you even start to comment on this, this guy has 5 DVD of evidence, but you watch 5 minutes of it and have an opinion! You must be American or close to it, because that typical shoddy retard attitude.
At last someone tell the other side of the coin. We are brainwash from childhood with the "THEORY" of evolution, with very little evidence to support it. Note that we are taught all the way up to university with this "THEORY" and it remain just that. Here's a man who comes up with a real explanation.
to all you haters out there your all talk where is your proof . this clip shows proof and you show nothing cause you are ignorant. enough said post your evidence to disprove this man or keep it to yourself, evidence please.
I do not hate you, and although I do not know much in the grand scheme of the universe, I wouldn't say that I am ignorant. These ad hominem attacks reflect badly on you.
Since I know so little, I would like to ask you a question. The town in the Midwest where I grew up has vast deposits of limestone. If these deposits are the result of the flood, how could that much marine life die in 40 days?
it rots very quick in water and in a mater of days it disapears. it floats as it rots also
so for marine life to be fosilise so quickly it must be vertualy instant. thats facts i do know. not theories. even jely fish are fosilised and they need very rapid buerial. what about blue whale fosil? watch vid 2 and 3 right through please.
My question was referring to the shear volume. We're talking about a limestone deposit hundreds of feet thick. If all the organisms in the ocean died at once, there wouldn't be enough calcium carbonate to build a layer hundreds of feet thick. Besides, sea creatures would not die en masse in a flood. Nor would they find themselves thousands of miles inland. There are coral fossils in the Midwest. Coral reefs do not grow in 40 days. This is the result of a long standing ocean.
bible says the hole world was under a mist warm green house. no rain before flood. we see no growth rings in dinosaur bones yet todays reptiles we do. cause back then always warm. and please watch to the end.
"it rots very quick in water and in a mater of days it disappears" --ninnzbinnz
I know for a fact that the shells and coral from the ocean do not rot. I lived in the South Pacific for a few years. If you look closely at the sand of a white beach in the South Pacific, you will realize that the sand is actually little bits of shell and coral. The sand does not rot, disappear or float.
i was talking about fleshy creatures fish, stars, octopus. anything that swims virtualy. as for the lime stone its not to say that all limestone was. but if you look for the shells left over in the limestone you can see what its made from. why do we find whales verticaly bueried with no evidence layer tilt. in rock that took suposedly mill of years to form each cm or even meter doesnt matter? whales decompose in less then a month.
The desperate attempts to prove the bible always amuse. For giggles, let's give you your global flood. How did living creatures survive? Oh, that's right. A 600 year old man built a wooden boat and put all of the creatures on it.
You might as well spend your time "proving" an old man lives at the north pole and flies around in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer.
jake44514 3 months ago
@1:00 That is an interesting LAYER" .>.> NO DUMMY !
IT IS A TIME PERIOD. The Geologic Column in the books is a time scale.
The thickness of the 'layer' on the chart is how long the time period was, not how thick the deposit is. IDiot.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Yup, this is all bogus.
kfk4life 1 year ago
hey what ever you guys all talk and never watch the hole thing not even worth commenting on realy. all i know they found c14 in diamonds yeh thats right. and to date no matter the dating method have never ever been able to give solid lava rock ages. i think you have more faith then me yet you call it sound science. methodology is correct but the theories/assumption are totally bogus.
ninnzbinnz 1 year ago
How does chalk form? Millions of years of sedimentation in a clear, shallow sea.
No in a year of a muddy flood.
The Cretaceous layer is not everywhere on earth and the Cretaceous Period was million of years ago.
FAIL Read a Geology book for the TRUTH.
gregrutz 1 year ago
They must churn these clowns out of some Sunday school for people who should know better.
Buddythunder1 1 year ago
What a joke. Let's first start with the supposition of a global flood and go from there. Creationists are total clowns.
obdami 1 year ago
WOW ill consult scientists for scientists, you obviously consult religious fools for lies about science to pretend their religion is true.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
They are time periods, not layers.
Next he will try and say this time period is a layer all over the earth. So Stupid.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Excellent arguments in this series. Pseudo-science, Vague, Nuts - are pathetic responses to someone pointing out shortcomings of a theory. He is clearly intelligent and has a good understanding of this issue which he conveyed in laymens terms.
MrNewlife888 2 years ago
Except he does not understand geology or Logic.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@MrNewlife888: Yeppers. Some kinda argument. To refute him all I need to do is walk to the road cut across from my house. Goes from Paleozoic sediments of the Pennsylvanian instantly to Ice Age Pleistocene and Holcene Alluvium and Loess. It's called an unconformity. What it means is that a global flood is a silly childs myth. Critical thinking and evidence. Does wonders for ya. Try it sometime.
magick205 2 years ago 4
"unconformity" a word for something they cannot explain because it does not conform to their theories.
unconforming to the theory that all these layers took as long as they did to form. yet another half assed attemt with much insult and no bite. you so funny
ninnzbinnz 2 years ago
@ninnzbinnz: An unconformity is a buried erosion surface separating two rock masses or strata of different ages, indicating that sediment deposition was not continuous. In general, the older layer was exposed to erosion for an interval of time before deposition of the younger, but the term is used to describe any break in the sedimentary geologic record. The fact of rising and falling land surfaces is clearly documented. Like I said, I really hope you didn't spend too much time on this guy.
magick205 2 years ago
@ninnzbinnz No, an unconformity is a buried erosion surface separating two rock masses or strata of different ages, indicating that sediment deposition was not continuous. Better luck next time, though.
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
Man and dinosuar lived together. The evidence of it is overwhelmint. You're a denialist if you trust science with scientists:
nmsrDOTorg/Archive.html
It is absolute common, undisputed knowledge that the Smithsonian Sinstitute has collected the fossil bones of Cretaceous Giant Men & countless Dinosaur Herders and then rush them off to a secret whorehouse in Malta, where they are locked away in order to perpetrate the Satanic Evolutionarian Myths.
Science prooves that chickens do NOT have lips!
NephilimPee 2 years ago
*warehouse*
NephilimPee 2 years ago
@NephilimPee Dinosaurs were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for over 160 million years, from the late Triassic period (about 230 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous period (about 65 million years ago), when the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event caused the extinction of most dinosaur species, except for some birds.
gregrutz 1 year ago
You can tell those plants behind him are deeply ashamed to be there on the stage.
lonerook860 2 years ago 4
I can tell you have rebutal to his rather clear and concise explaination loner, other than to do what most evo's do...attack, insult and change the subject.
Major fail.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
So the flood happened during the Cretaceous Time Period, 100 million years ago.
And how does that prove a young earth?
gregrutz 2 years ago
He calles it supposed...pay attention gregrutz and you might actually get why...
Eyes rolling.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Look at the charts, the column on the right is Millions of years. This is a TIME chart not a layer chart.
The layers of chalk are not everywhere.
gregrutz 2 years ago
He is NUTS !!!
Philos2006 2 years ago
1) The solubility of carbonate is extremely sensitive to temperature and dissolved CO2. In fact these skeletons DO settle in shallow areas on continental shelfs.
2) Although the cretaceous layer is widespread and the chalk deposits extensive, they are not universal.
machomaas 3 years ago
i would say that 90+ can be classified as universal. and that it appears all at the same time period is good enough. this is a weaker example i must admit but we don't see chalk deposits everywhere in our oceans today either. a better example is:
Overall, they found 346 whales within a 1.5-km2 (370-acre) area, buried in an 80-m (260-ft) thick layer of sedimentary rock called diatomite. This layer is part of the Pisco Formation, which varies in thickness from 2001,000 m (6503,300 ft).
ninnzbinnz 3 years ago
"i would say that 90+ can be classified as universal. and that it appears all at the same time period is good enough"
90+ what?
cretaceous chalk is hardly outcropped universally. Not only that, but it isnt even all chalk.
during the cretaceous, sea levels were very high due to rifting and continental displacement...please do not try to defend this video, its a joke.
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago 2
Okay, I watched it.
And it's all a pseudo-science.
It's all so incredibly vague, it's like astrology, Marxism, Adlerianism and Freude's psycho-analysis all rolled into one.
There is no possible way anyone who is actually knowledgable and understands the difference between science and pseudo-science will mark this as credible information.
amanda13val 3 years ago
why on what basis?
ninnzbinnz 3 years ago
"why on what basis?"
on the basis that this man doesnt even take into account all the other factors based around cretaceous chalk. things like all the layers around it, unconformities, differences in cretaceous rock, where the rock is exposed...
i mean, the list goes on...this is beyond psuedoscience, its retardation that could only fool a person who doesnt care to hear any other explanation.
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago 2
Ohh boy...for those of you who believe this man...please look into the material...he is full of it, for more information, feel free to private message me.
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
He says at the beginning terrestrial life would die.
However hw fails to mention the flood would also wipe out all marine life too as the mix between salt and fresh water would be inevitable
And another thing, decomposition and fossilisation is entirely different.
Something fossilises when the organic matter is entirely replaced by non organic minerals.
There are no dinosaur 'bones', only mould and cast fossils
ProcInc 4 years ago
There was no such thing as salted water before the flood
isamudyson33 3 years ago
oh yeh funny how all salt water fish today have a glemerulous which is a kydney type structure they only use in fresh water and most cannot activate it today. but its still there.
ninnzbinnz 3 years ago
"glemerulous"
There is no such organ, there isn't even such a word in any internet search engine or biology text book
Even if there was, the fact that it is deactivated is further evidence for evolution (Regression of unused organs)
And that doesn't solve the bigger problem of freshwater fish in salt water (Which was actually what I was initially referring to)
I may as well humour you and ask what this fictional organ does to allow SW fish to survive in freshwater however
ProcInc 3 years ago
sory my spelling is very bad. its
glomerulus
for all you people too lazy to do your homework
ninnzbinnz 3 years ago
I refer you to my second, third and forth sentence of the previous message
A redundant organ in a class is evidence of common ancestry and adaptive changes in physiology (the cornerstone evolutionary facts)
And does not explain in any sense the survival of general aquatic organisms (not all are fish and the salinity is important for the majority) [sentence three]
Speaking of homework, perhaps finding the correct spelling would be an appropriate assignment for next time
ProcInc 3 years ago
wrong if evolution was true it would just disappear completely a long long time ago as fish are so old according to evolution its almost the beginning of life on your time line yet its still there. and given enough breeding im sure it could be reactivated within some generations. but its active in fresh water in some fish not all are inactive. enough time for a monkey to turn into a human but not enough time to disappear from a fish. what sort of lies are you talking.
ninnzbinnz 3 years ago
"wrong if evolution was true it would just disappear completely a long long time ago as fish are so old according to evolution"
This is just too inaccuare to be worth refuting
If your don't understand the basis of evolutionary theory then I suggest you don't try to argue it. You are a scientific illiterate and not worth my time
ProcInc 3 years ago
It may be evidence of common ancestry. It shows that a lot of fish probably had a common ancestor. That common ancestor was probably a fish. They are all the same kind. What the common ancestor was NOT was an amoeba.
scotzbhoy 3 years ago
Fish is an arbitrary term. The fact of the matter is all animals share a common ancestor and there is no boundary between these clades that is surpassable according to the tracable twin-nested hierarchy of animals and we're included.
Kind is not an objectively detectable term, it is meaningless.
"What the common ancestor was NOT was an amoeba."
Correct. Although amaebas and fish do share a common ancestor that is a single celled eukayote
ProcInc 3 years ago
for anyone out there pretending to be in it for the truth dont post here if all you gona say is its not true with no backup ill ban you. you waste other peoples information time.
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
so .. you will use things that are not proof or citations on other people's blogs in truly feeble attempts to disctredit the work of a scientists. but expect others to keep to a diferent standard? ya that sounds reasonable...
memoryofakiss 4 years ago
It appears the creationists repeating this whale-of-a-tale, (including the editors of Creation Ex Nihilo) either failed to check their facts or didn't want a good story to be ruined by the facts. In either case, none of these people apparently took the time and trouble to find out what the facts were before putting pen to paper. What they claim to be God's truth is nothing more than an urban folktale used to validate personal religious beliefs.
TuneInTurnonWakeup 4 years ago
well i thank you for your opinion you can say that. please have a look at the trex clip i posted. it seems the entire scientific establishment can defenetaly say that bone is 70mil years old? yet even there own laws of decay dont allow it? and they produce no evidence yet they present it as certainty. seems like a dictionary definition of a religion dont you think?
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
How can you even start to comment on this, this guy has 5 DVD of evidence, but you watch 5 minutes of it and have an opinion! You must be American or close to it, because that typical shoddy retard attitude.
oliviernz78 4 years ago
At last someone tell the other side of the coin. We are brainwash from childhood with the "THEORY" of evolution, with very little evidence to support it. Note that we are taught all the way up to university with this "THEORY" and it remain just that. Here's a man who comes up with a real explanation.
oliviernz78 4 years ago
to all you haters out there your all talk where is your proof . this clip shows proof and you show nothing cause you are ignorant. enough said post your evidence to disprove this man or keep it to yourself, evidence please.
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
I do not hate you, and although I do not know much in the grand scheme of the universe, I wouldn't say that I am ignorant. These ad hominem attacks reflect badly on you.
Since I know so little, I would like to ask you a question. The town in the Midwest where I grew up has vast deposits of limestone. If these deposits are the result of the flood, how could that much marine life die in 40 days?
VictorLaszloLives 4 years ago
it rots very quick in water and in a mater of days it disapears. it floats as it rots also
so for marine life to be fosilise so quickly it must be vertualy instant. thats facts i do know. not theories. even jely fish are fosilised and they need very rapid buerial. what about blue whale fosil? watch vid 2 and 3 right through please.
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
My question was referring to the shear volume. We're talking about a limestone deposit hundreds of feet thick. If all the organisms in the ocean died at once, there wouldn't be enough calcium carbonate to build a layer hundreds of feet thick. Besides, sea creatures would not die en masse in a flood. Nor would they find themselves thousands of miles inland. There are coral fossils in the Midwest. Coral reefs do not grow in 40 days. This is the result of a long standing ocean.
VictorLaszloLives 4 years ago
bible says the hole world was under a mist warm green house. no rain before flood. we see no growth rings in dinosaur bones yet todays reptiles we do. cause back then always warm. and please watch to the end.
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
"it rots very quick in water and in a mater of days it disappears" --ninnzbinnz
I know for a fact that the shells and coral from the ocean do not rot. I lived in the South Pacific for a few years. If you look closely at the sand of a white beach in the South Pacific, you will realize that the sand is actually little bits of shell and coral. The sand does not rot, disappear or float.
VictorLaszloLives 4 years ago
i was talking about fleshy creatures fish, stars, octopus. anything that swims virtualy. as for the lime stone its not to say that all limestone was. but if you look for the shells left over in the limestone you can see what its made from. why do we find whales verticaly bueried with no evidence layer tilt. in rock that took suposedly mill of years to form each cm or even meter doesnt matter? whales decompose in less then a month.
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
If you teach children this rubbish then you are not fit to teach !
ikinmoore 4 years ago 2
Oh, ok then... So you are fit to teach if you teach a pack lies then, because frankly, the "theory" of evolution is all what it is.
oliviernz78 4 years ago