@ConsciousMaster well i dont know. and where does time start and end. what if what if. il focus on what i know. i know jesus was real i know jesus performed miracles validated by todays science. i know the world is not as old as they say. hence the new theory of cambrian explosion as in life just appeared out of nowhere. funy that. its what the bible has been saying all the time. dont know where god came from but i know bible is the only authentic book out there historicaly and archeologicaly.
@animaljp3 Most of the major bridges in the world are made from metal. Does that mean they both evolved from a tin can billions of years ago? No, it means they have the same DESIGNER
Bridges are not alive they do not procreate, so to compare them to organisms is completely illogical. We know bridges are designed because we know humans build things, we know what buildings look like.
You have never seen somebody design life or create life so to say that life is designed is in all honesty not a good deduction and has no grounding in evidence. Also if you look closely at life you can see all sorts of "design" mistakes.
@LetalisLatrodectus they aren't alive but my point still stands. It is absolutely not illogical to see something as complex as human life and know it was created. By the way, you know that all scientists do is guess right? They come up with a scenario that might work in their brain and they put it into science books like its a fact. The big bang is just one big guess made by humans with very limited knowlege when it comes to the grand scheme of things
Your point doesn't stand because you use a straw man argument. You make it seem like the reasoning behind the theory of evolution is similar to bridges and tin cans being metal therefor they evolved. This is a misrepresentation of the actual reasoning behind evolution and makes your whole point of common design moot.
@LetalisLatrodectus I am not saying that the two are necessarily similar as i am just saying that two species that have similar ingredients does not mean they both have the same ancestor. It can be evidence for a designer just as much. If you say my point as moot, then the puddles pothole argument that evolutionists use must be moot as well. But even I, a believer in creation, know they are just rying to make a point against fine tuning.
The question is how long can blood and softtissue last? I mean well, very well preserved, mummies from Egypt don't have much left.. so something millions of years old?? Its gotta be revisited.
So, they found bones. Does this prove evolution? Why can't somebody come up with a process where you take chimp and produce a human being by changing the DNA? Now, that would prove evolution, as 99% of DNA in chimp is like man's. Until that happens, evolution will remain a theory. If you want to make it easier, take a crocodile, and make him a bird. The bird does not need to fly. That will prove that reptiles can become birds. Hello????
@animaljp3 Hum;; you make no sense. I post the question again, can you take a dna from any animal and alter it so, a totally new animal *not* related is created? Example, can you grow feathers on a lizard?
They found soft tissue, which does NOT last for 70 million years. Try some good old fashioned logic, reason, and common sense. Science is logical, not idiocy like these evolutionists believe.
Oh well; I had to flag rockethead7 messages as spam due to the lack of composition in his thoughts. I do believe, no offense, that you should take an English composition course. Your communication skills would definitely improve. Now, back to your what might be your point; actually, "billions" of fossils only prove that all these animals died suddenly. Did you not know that to make fossils you need animals be buried? Animals left on top of soil just decay, don't fossilize. USE SOME LOGIC!
I am free to censor foul language; yes. I refuse to read it, and I do believe it should be publicly banned. Are there no better words in the English language? Are bad words the result of evolution?
@oopscanada This video is not your work, ergo, it is not up to you to censor anything, it's the right and responsibility of the owner of this forum if they so choose. And unless user ninnzbinnz is a sock puppet of yours, you have no say at all in this matter. I agree that vulgar commentary detracts from the debate, but you are not required to respond. Personally speaking, I find any attempt at censorship of any kind to be cowardice, pure and simple. Data speaks clearly and loudly.
@NorthForkFisherman Personally, I find any vulgar commentary on serious matters, disgraceful. It just distracts from the real issues. I personally believe that youtube should automatically flag as a spam any comments with swearing in it. There is no such a thing as freedom of expression at the expense of others. we all have rights, not just the ungrateful.
@oopscanada Being that Google and it's subsidiaries are US based they have a wider view of the Freedom of Speech (US 1st Amendment derivived) and so repsond accordingly. And that is the whole point of freedom of speech, there are no protected classes, subjects, or ideas. All are subject to critical examination, review, and ridicule. And gratefulness is a point of view.
Ha ha ha; oh well, you can all see for yourself, people like @rockethead7, are just an example of pagans who cannot accept the fact that the whole evolution theory is now garbage with this and other findings. It is incredible that in this day and age of scientific discoveries, there are still people who believe that evolution was "billions" of years ago, and has left "soft tissue". What can we do for them? Nothing! If they still believe in Santa Claus, there is nothing you can do for them.
"the whole evolution theory is now garbage with this and other findings"
- See, this is exactly what makes you a fucking idiot. BILLIONS of fossils and DNA evidence have established evolution over and over. A handful of finds doesn't change the BILLIONS of others. The handful merely makes you wonder what was special about THOSE FEW.
And, of course, you're exceptionally retarded, because your basis is NOT based on the original source material. READ IT, dumbass. It explains ALL.
No scientists have ever found red blood cells in Tyrannosaurus rex; the Creationists have deliberately exaggerated and mis-interpreted the graduate research of Schweitzer and Staedter, who never concluded they were RBCs:
"Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes."
The fact is no-one knows what they are (except Creationists apparantly, lol).
No scientists have ever found red blood cells in Tyrannosaurus rex; the Creationists have deliberately exaggerated and mis-interpreted the graduate research of Schweitzer and Staedter, who never concluded they were RBCs:
"Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes."
The fact is no-one knows what they are (except Creationists apparantly, lol).
In fact the claim of red blood cells by the Creationists, by deliberate mis-interpretation of Schweitzer's research, has further been shown to be nonsense:
"Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed. Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells."- New York Times, June 10, 1997
But do you think that would stop Ken Ham from repeating utter false-hoods and mis-information to support his bat-shit crazy Bronze-Age mythology? NOPE.
They did not find red blood cells....she never say she found a red blood cell...just something that looks like them...the thing they found are fossils...
This is a fulfillment of the text that says The simple things of God shall confound the wise (of this world). This is simply God making evolution look even more idiotic.
The simple fact is that the animal DID NOT live when science said they did. Whey can't these people just say we're wrong? They are looking like idiots trying to figure out how the blood cells lasted for 70 million years. The simple truth is that it didn't.
Retard idiot, don't just listen to your creationist idiot friends' input. Read the source material, you fucking idiot.
NO, there were no blood cells. They were fossilized REMNANTS. Not a single cell was found.
Besides, you're as dumb as the rest of the creationtwits. BILLIONS of fossils have been studied and dated. Now, a few fossils come along that preserved remnants better than 99.999% of the others, and you want to throw away the entirety of science. Sigh. Complete idiocy.
You can always tell the evolutionist by their language. Do me a favor, please DON'T reply to ANY of my posts. You obviously have no home training, manners, or human decency. You are the animal that you think you are. I think you have to wait until the moral, decency part of your brain evolves and catch up to that of the creationists. "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." Try learning some true science and quit calling the evolution religion a science.
So says another pig molesting idiot who subscribes to foolish nonsense.
Do explain, you goddamned retarded fucktwit... why does EVERY academy biologist ON THE PLANET support evolution? (Not that I give a crap about numbers, I've studied the EVIDENCE.)
You know NOTHING. You wouldn't know a peer reviewed science journal if it hit you on the head. All of this stuff is very well explained, IF you cared to lift a finger. But, you only read what you agree with.
"...why does EVERY academy biologist ON THE PLANET support evolution?"
This statement shows your the level of idiocy on which you operate. Do you know "Every" academy biologist on the planet? What a fool! Try looking up the definition of science and see if it fits the lie that life can come from rocks, from inorganic material. Try commenting when your brain has evolved a bit more.
@ookma7 I can understand that religious people don't understand Science, but I am always amazed when they don't understand logic or even what religion is.
Science does not use magic, voodoo or the supernatural. It make no comment on God.
Biology is a science
Paleontology is a science. See them working in the video.
Geology is a science and they are the ones who say the world is old and there was no global flood.
Astronomy is a science and they say the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
Christians don't understand science? Clearly YOU lack even basic knowledge. Nearly EVERY branch of science was started by Believers. I believe science that IS testable and repeatable. You don't. I don't believe that evolution garbage you call science. I believe life comes from life; that's science. You believe life comes from rocks and you believe in spontaneous generation, which was proven false over a century ago. Close your mouth before you stick your foot in any deeper.
@ookma7 Believers? What are those. You don't believe?? I don't care about your beliefs or your religion. Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation which they proved does not happen. If you think carbon is a rock, what you are right you are made of carbon compounds, you are a rock.
Evolution has not only been tested, it has been observed.
@animaljp3 I'm not trying to be rude. I don't believe in evolution, but in adaptation. I think it's impossible for a raptor to start from top of the food chain, and then become the fried meat I eat in a bucket full of chicken. However I think it is possible for some smaller dinosaur's to have adapted to climate change and things like that. They change size and shape, until they can live in their new environment. Sorry if I sound rude.
@animaljp3 ; really? If all it takes for evolution to be true is changing size and shape, then humans evolve every day from child to adult. I don't think that's what Darwin had in mind. Obviously Darwin thought hat you can get a human from a monkey.
You have no common sense at all nor do you know how to reason. Try taking an elementary logic class at you local community college, if they will accept you, that is. The logical step in reasoning is to question the TIME PERIOD the animals lived, not the PROCESS of fossilization. The process has been proven to be exactly what it is for thousands of years. Simple fact is that your idiotic, nonsensical evolution is the religion of fools and is NOT science nor logical.
@oopscanada Correct - fossils are generally referred to as such if they are anywhere beyond 10,000 years old. ................. So what? Scientists already know that, that's why it's on wikipedia, with references, where anybody (including you if you could be bothered to pull your head out of the sand) can read it.
At 2:44, 3:35, 3:42, 3:55, 9:30, 9:42, 9:55 the guy who made the vid makes bold and outrageous claims (which reflect the anti-science prejudice present in most creationists) without any references. Such a rookie mistake...
Not ONCE do the scientists being interviewed ever say that these findings change the perceived age of the T-Rex, just the idiot who overlays the messages.
This is not a triumph for creationists, but for science, which is continually improved by breakthroughs such as this :)
@oopscanada Ummm - that's what the scientists are trying to find out... See that's the thing with science - when we don't know, we actually admit it. But we accept evidence for what it is and build our models around it. A shitload of evidence garnered over the past 150 years or so has validated evolution. Now this comes along and doesn't seem to obey the usual fossilisation rules. That doesn't mean you throw out evolution, it means you need to rethink how fossilisation happens.
- Correct. Prior to this, it wasn't understood that even these fossilzed remnants could be preserved. Scientists have to re-examine this.
However, fucktwit moron, this does NOT mean that we throw away everything we DO know about science. The conclusion isn't: well, these few examples prove that the measurements of 3 billion other fossils were wrong. The question is: what was special that preserved these few examples so well.
@rockethead7 Ha ha ha; are you serious? You really believe that scientists now have to find an explanation as to why blood vessels are not stone or petrified after billions of years? For somebody who likes to offend others (by the way, I'm flagging your message as spam due to the swearing), I cannot believe you are truly using your intelligence when you ask "what was special that preserved these few examples so well". It is *so obvious* that blood vessels would not *last*.
"It is *so obvious* that blood vessels would not *last*."
Correct, moron. They didn't last. The remains were fossilized remnants of vessels, not actual vessels. Vessels are made of cells. Not a single cell was found.
Read the original source articles, twit, not the creationtard spin.
As for calling my reply "spam" because I swore, boo fucking hoo. Sigh. Swearing is allowed, fucktwit. SPAM = an advertisement. What was I advertising?
It is wonderful to see how God Created all things and through a world wide flood judged the world in a very short time. When he comes back will anyone believe in him? I would say very few will hold true to the Knowledge of the Holy one. Evolution is so stupid and anyone who believes in it is not stupid just decieved. Jesus is the only way to the truth because he is Truth. Jesus Loves you.
Wow... compelling evidence for creation and a young earth. Evolutionists deny all this evidence and more ..human bodies being found in coal deposits, artifacts found in drilling tailings hundreds of feet down, buried upright trees found three hundred feet down that they drill right through the middle, stainless steel "like" tools found buried deep in the ground and in coal deposits, and on and on..factual evidence.
@qabala Haha nice job destroying that silly creationist. One thing we all gotta know about creationist is that they like to lie and take things out of context to fit their views.
Also this dinosaur blood cell thing does not prove the world is young at all. If anybody knew anything about science they would know that having tissue in a nitrogen rich environment stops aging and decomposition.
Not to mention that the people who discovered this aren't even sure if its actual blood cells lol.
@qabala trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4 They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Bölsche, Wilhelm, Im Steinkohlenwald; 1906-- (Various Eds.), p. 35 God is rightous and Holy. Godbless you !
There are no polystrate trees that span multiple TYPES OF STRATA. They are always in multiple layers of one type of material. Usually ash or sandstone.Usually they are near a volcano which deposited said sediments.
Roots straddle different strata even when they're alive so that's no argument.
Even if the above weren't true, There is nothing preventing a tree from petrifying and subsequently being exposed through erosion and reburied.
And I asked you for out-of place people or artifacts.
Not to mention, there shouldn't be strata had a worldwide flood occurred.
Especially not strata formed under watery conditions over strata formed in dry conditions over strata formed under watery conditions over strata formed in dry conditions and so on...
Your view is certainly valid, but it makes no falsifying predictions whatsoever.
@doobersmanster The people who are studying this fossil still know it is 68 million years old. Changing the age of the fossil never crossed their minds. These are the people who see evolution in the fossil record every day. They did not find 'red blood cells'', just more by-products than they expected.
@gregrutz Ok...I see God's hand in this..so one person believes in "billions of years ago in a far distant place in the Galaxy Something came from nothing and accidently decveloped somethings that can make other somethings like themselves" And I beleive, In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth"..Mine seems more logical and credible based on the evidence. People want the evolution thing tobe true so they see what they want to and call it science. PILTDOWN man HOAX..ect..
@doobersmanster Yes. Piltdown man was a hoax. One hoax does not prove the rest of the fossil record wrong. Evoltuion has nothing to do with nothing coming from nothing. You are the one with no evidence, just 'Poof' everything from nothing.
The earth is 4,545 million years old, sorry if the facts don't match your 2000 years old book.
Even if it did, it does NOT claim anything came from nothing. More accurately it proposes that all energy in the universe was once concentrated in a single place and then began a rapid expansion. Since there was no empty space before then, it is more accurate to say that everything began expanding and created the vast expanse of nothing (space) in between. We can actually measure the universe continuing to create nothing today.
And Piltdown man was certainly a hoax. So was Nebraska man
Did creationists expose them?
Nope. Evolutionary scientists did. They were anomalies, ignored by most scientists, for decades before they were proven to be fake.
Creationists sat on their collective asses and did nothing.
Both finds contradicted everything known at the time about evolution, They would have disproven evolution had they been genuine, and yet here you are touting them as if they do your cause any good.
I'm incredulous... if Dinosaurss are 68 million years old then HOW?!?!?!?! do you have SOFT tissue ??!?!?!?! To say that is merely SUGGESTIVE of a radically reduced dates is a MASSIVE understatement... to deny it altogether is INSANE!!!!!!
Just goes to prove the lengths people will go to preserve a "party line" instead of simply going where the evidence leads!!!! II Peter 3:3-12 "Willingly ignorant" YEAH!!! it's kinda like THAT!!!!!
You'd better check your sources... Ms. Schweitzer definitely said on Fox that the tissue was still soft, and a colleaque described its elasticity. There is NO mistaking what was said.
@ShishKabbal Yes, what they found was soft. After soaking the rock in strong acid for weeks, what was left was soft. The did not find red blood cells or ''tissue'', just some break-down products.
The point you are missing is that the fossil is still 68 Million years old, changing the date did not cross their minds it is so well established.
It was soft tissue (which previously YOU denied), and the EXPERTS were astonished at what they found... don't try to act like the result was an ineveitable, and expected outcome... oh, yeah they said it WAS tissue, and later isolated proteins as well. They continue to insist the fossils are millions of years old, but NOT on the basis of THIS discovery ... they insist only on the basis of their unexamined preconceptions... NOW, whose being dishonest?!?!?
@gregrutz because they have been tought so, because the radio dating said so because the radio dating got its bearing from fossils. there is no one radio dating method on this planet that works. not one fresh lava flow ever dated correctly and c14 found in blaces it ought not to be along with human artifacts where they aught not to be.
@ninnzbinnz No they were no taught so, they are the people who really do this for a living. The see evolution every day. Radiometric dating works, verified by blind tests at different labs. The dates crosscheck each other and know dates. Carbon 14 is found everwhere there is uranium, so what, that has nothing to do with the dating method C14 is not used to date fossils, they are TOO OLD.
@ninnzbinnz Nonsense. Fresh lava flows, dated by appropriate techniques, give the ages of the rocks, not the date they erupted. No human artefacts have been found in ancient rocks, unless placed there by humans. Radiometric techniques can be fraudulently manipulated, and have been, and they also have to be correctly applied, but if correctly done, they are completely reliable. You are retailing falsehoods.
@ninnzbinnz Well, and here's me thinking that a BSc biology major would give me some sort of knowledge of the subject. I've actually handled some of the materials, seen the tests being done. Tell me, where did you gain your superior insights? What school? What's your degree major? Title of PhD thesis? Any published papers? Enlighten me.
@puffin51 superior insights? What school? What's your degree major? Title of PhD thesis? Any published papers? Enlighten me.
dont make you right. you have to face the fact that evolution is still called a theory by all of the above mentioned cause they still guessing at best and you can side with their guessing game but i wont. il make my own guesses. their is more then enough evidence to support my claims so do your own sifting. guys like you want an argument not the truth of the matter.
@ninnzbinnz "Theory" means "a generally accepted explanation, supported by ample evidence." It doesn't mean a guess. You are right, however, to say that you're making your own guesses. Guess away, by all means. Scientists guess, too. But then they go out and find evidence to support or falsify their guesses. It's called "research".
So what do you do? What have you researched, lately? What evidence have you found that falsifies evolution? Let's hear it.
@puffin51 listen up you lazy boy. you got nothing better to do then watch this and stop wasting my time.
youtube.com/watch?v=fZP5rKm5q2g part 1 of 7. i love it when guys like you talk rubish. gives me a chance to expose your lies. just remember the world is watching you and what you say.
@ninnzbinnz So let's hear it. What you got? Come on, you want to expose my lies, you say. Expose away. Let's start with an easy one: what lies have I told you, and how do you know they're lies?
@puffin51 whatch the vid i posted for you then come back and talk to me. otherwise all i have to say is in the vid i posted. you do realise if the next comment you make is dumb ill bar you from making any comments to my vids ever again. pick your words or lock yourself out permanently.
@ninnzbinnz Do you think that Schweitzer's discovery that some soft tissue can be reconstituted from very well preserved dinosaur bones shows that the bones are recent? She doesn't think that. If you think that, what evidence have you for that idea? What do you know that she doesn't?
And if you think that's a dumb question, by all means ban me. As you said, the world is watching.
@puffin51 she doesn't think that cause like you she is brainwashed. and or knows better then to speak out against the long held beliefs of the establishment. as for you did you watch the clip i posted or what. if not just dont bother asking me more questions. you want answers watch the clip.
@ninnzbinnz I watched the video, completely. The original does not support your claims.
You claim to know more about the fossil than the scientist who prepared it, examined it, and wrote three scientific papers on it. She went dead against the "establishment", and convinced this establishment that what it thought about all fossilisation was wrong. She did that by finding and showing evidence.
Show some evidence. Your incredulity and ignorance means zip. So does your conspiracy theory.
Oh and Tony, in case you'd consider getting out of atheism as a religion, remember that in the humanist manifesto, it is written that:religious humanists... get yourself free from those religious chains my good man, come to Jesus Christ, He will set you free as He is the Truth Who sets people free from religious bondage
That's really fascinating. I don't recall ever claiming an adherence to the humanist manifesto. More non-sequitors from you.
And by the way, you're doing it wrong. If you're addressing me, you should use the "reply" button so that I am notified of your response. The only reason you would not use the "reply" button is because you fear that I might see it an actually respond.
@qabala Not afraid of anything butGod, i said i was done talking to you, i will repeat: You should be very happy to hear that I am commanded to stop talking with you: Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. (Prov. 14:7) Your authority is human and fallable dear Tony, mine is Divine and infallable. I wish you a good life, Christ is coming back, your knees will bow before Him just like mine whether u believe or not...shalom
@WaltonSauce You should check Mary Schweitzer destroying evolution with a single blow, it is so stinkin' funny. Watch: T-rex bone blood not 70mil years old
@WaltonSauce Your atheistic teachers never mentoned to u that there's not enough salt in the oceans to account for their gazillions of unseen and unproven years, and i bet they avoid calculating the birth rate from their starting point of human evolution otherwise there'd be far more people on the planet, ironicly, if we start 6 000 yrs ago with 1 man and 1 woman and apply a birth rate of less than half of 1%, we end up with close to 7 billion people just like the population of the planet today
Your assertion about salt in the oceans requires a current rate of increase. There isn't one.
Given the birth rates you just postulated, less than 20 people would have built the pyramids. (Of course your figure isn't even correct by creationist standards. Henry millers actual figure was "0.5% every century").
Mary Schweitzer did not destroy evolution. She expanded our understanding of fossilization. Even if there was a dinosaur alive today, it would not refute evolution.
@qabala Isn't it Tony? Dear Tony, on what basis do you say that there isn't a rate of increase for salt in the ocean please? what or who is your authority in that matter please and if you have references, i'd like to read them, thank you. The pyramids were built by the fallen angels with a technology too far advanced for that time and soft tissue and tiny red structures do not preserve for 70 millions of years it defies any stinking empirical common sense. By boasting, Mary killed evolution
Darling Serge, There are myriad scientific sources which show that salinity varies throughout the year, but on average remains constant. Even though you have NOT supported YOUR assertion with a source, here is one of many supporting mine: palomar dot edu / oceanography / salty_ocean dot htm
I don't suppose you have a source for asserting fallen ones built the pyramids.
The first pyramids were designed by Imhotep by stacking mastabas and their manufacture is well documented.
On what authority do you claim "red structures" can't be preserved?
There are several well-understood methods by which soft tissue can be preserved, but you still don't know anything about it because, in the past year, you still can't be bothered to actually read.
@qabala boast might not be the best term, i'd say pride is what got her into trouble, i mean finding a 70 million yr old T REX that still has soft tissue and tiny red structures in the blood vessels must be something exciting that you want to share with all the pseudo-scientific community. I think she's an honest deceived lady that did not realize that her 17 tests to determine she was not dreaming was what played against her, had she been close to God, we would talk 2nd coming of Christ
@qabala You say that i don,t bother to read, i have quite a fascinating library at my disposal, you know nothing about me, i just invited you to share the knoeledge buddy, come on, be a sport!
You have already conceded on another video that you refuse to read any peer-reviewed scientific papers. You are either willfully ignorant of the empirically determined science, or you were lying.
Having a library is not the same as actually reading. And yes, I know you don't read scientific papers because you regurgitate only information found in creationist publications (and badly at that).
And you have yet to provide a source for your assertions about Schweitzer or the pyramids.
@qabala What, you never changed your mind in your lifetime? I AM WAITING...Get your sources out Tony, come on now, be a sport, i will read them unless you just feel like opening your mouth and not understanding anything about empirical science? There is nothing emprical about evolution and you know it, i have read about evolution and it never holds the road of common sense and reality once you really scrutinize it, unless you'd be the exception to show me INTELLIGENCE in your pseudo-science?
Since there is no way you will take the time to educate yourself on the myriad scientific disciplines requires to grasp evolution, I will cite what amounts to LEGAL proof of it.
E.O. Wiley, D. Siegel-Causey, D.R. Brooks, V.A. Funk. 1991. The Compleat Cladist: A Primer of Phylogenetic Procedures. Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. (Lawrence, KS), Spec. Publ. No 19
The test used to prove relation between people is the same one used to prove relation between biological clades.
The origin of life is a completely different topic. Evolution only explains how already existing life diversifies. Try to stay relevant. Otherwise, you further display your ignorance of the topic.
I wonder why EVERY CREATIONIST WEBSITE that cites this one line about self-replicating systems never cites the rest of the passage. I wonder why they never cite a scientific paper instead of an antiquated textbook.
@qabala Evolutionists, when confronted about the origin of life and the stupidity of the Darwin tree of life, say the they don’t know how it started but there is a different story in their textbooks: Students are taught life evolved from non-living materials...
Source HBJ, 1989, p.344
And you want me to take you an actor seriously? Get your sources out about the salt ...
First Source - ^ Lewis, E. L. (1982). "The practical salinity scale of 1978 and its antecedents". Marine Geodesy 5 (4): 350. doi:10.1080/15210608209379432.
Second source - ^ Unesco (1981a). The Practical Salinity Scale 1978 and the International Equation of State of Seawater 1980. Tech. Pap. Mar. Sci., 36: 25 pp.
Third source - ^ Unesco (1981b). Background papers and supporting data on the Practical Salinity Scale 1978. Tech. Pap. Mar. Sci., 37: 144 pp.
@qabala Anyone loving the truth, watching the evolutionists speak in this video herem will understand that these deceived people just hit a wall that they are so blind they cannot see....round structures that looked like blood cells, dinosaur blood cells the narrator said and then Mary explains that inside those channels where the blood vessels would have run were these little ROUND RED structures that were all kind of lined up like a train and they were bright red and translucent...
@qabala nobody else had seen anything like that before...then the narrator says: the very idea of blood cells in a 70 million year old bone was more than unconventional, it was RADICAL. The other scientist in this video remains oblivious to the truth and never refutes that they are dealing with blood cells, i mean, it's clear to me, blood cels and soft tissue should have disappeared some million years ago with the help of brains that function properly and with the help of COMMON SENSE.
You have been duped by the editing of the scientists comments. There were no blood cells found.
Not that you'd read it, but here is her actual paper again.
Schweitzer, MH; Cano, RJ; Horner, JR (Sept. 7, 1994). "Multiple Lines of Evidence for the Preservation of Collagen and Other Biomolecules in Undemineralized Bone from Tyrannosaurus Rex". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 45A.
Still waiting for EVEN ONE peer-reviewed article from you on your assertions.
@qabala You have been fooled by unseen millions of years and the comments were not edited, we hear her speak about the little round red structures like a train, in the blood vessels, we hear her clearly say that she does not believe what she has found and that she repeated the testing 17 times to make sure she was seeing what she weas seeing, you can fool yourself ad vitam eternam, you are not fooling anyone else. R.I.P. EVOLUTION ...so stinkin, DEAD
@Serge1965 ''unseen millions of years'' You are so funny. Go look at Geology and anyone can SEE Millions of years. Count the layers in the Grand Canyon and you can see millions of years. OPEN YOUR EYES.
You cited the narrators context for Schweitzers words. I have given you her unedited paper on them, yet you continue to cite the TV report. Watch the video again and you will notice it cuts in on her statements mid-sentence at one point and then cuts out on her mid-sentence (ie - It is undeniably edited).
You can pronounce evolution dead all you want, but it is responsible for your current state of well-being you ingrate!
@qabala you said "You cited the narrators context for Schweitzers words. I have given you her unedited paper on them, yet you continue to cite the TV report" I cited both the narrator and Mary in her own words and mentioned the scientist that did not negate the mention of blood cells, anyone with their common sense intact, listening to this video is able to make their minds about the truth, actually, the more you post and debate me here, the less you help your cause for your pseudo-science.
It's really cute that you think that Schweitzer was corroborating what the narrator said. This is why you are a puppet. The interview was conducted separately and it is obvious to anyone viewing it that it was edited to conform to the narrators BS. The more you can't differentiate, the more you show how fallacious your position still is.
@qabala LOL, you wish that video would get off the internet now would you? LOL AToo stinking bad Tony, it is staying and growing in popularity! People are waking up to your lies...
The fact that you have no scientific papers at all to support your position bespeaks the vacuous nature of your assertions.
I am aware of no pro-evolution videos on Youtube which censor or disable comments, but there are myriad creationist videos that do, so it seems it is the creationists who want to squelch dissenting views.
I have no interest in taking this video down. It's disinformation is plain to see.
@qabala The creation scientists and the Intelligent Design scientists give more empirical evidence for their claims than all the evolutionists on the earth combined but hey: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.(Psalm 14:1) and lucky you, i am commanded to stop talking to you: Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. (Prov. 14:7) You have a good life Tony, while you still have one, au revoir, maybe...
Of course you have nothing more to say. Creation "Science" and Intelligent Design have no empirical evidence behind them. They can't because they make no testable predictions whatsoever and are, therefore, unfalsifiable which takes them out of the realm of science entirely.
I am absolutely certain you won't stop responding to me and I am equally certain that you can't provide any way of falsifying Creationism or Intelligent Design.
@qabala My happiness does not depend on evolution to which i owe diddly squatt, God is the reason i exist and breathe and i would add that you cannot even put one foot in front of another without Jesus Christ allowing you to walk, He is the reason why you breathe o poor deceived you...And i am still waiting for your reference for salt there, pal
@qabala If i had been offered the choice as a parent with what i know about the stinking Pharmaceutical idiots of this planet, i would certainly not allow any stinking vaccination near my cjhild nor me and tell them to shove their mercury where the sun doesn't shine, may wife is pretty without oil or horse pee on her face, i eat fish from the lake. and where are the sources? From last year? it sure did not hit home as intelligent to me, where is the Intelligence in ur pseudo-theory o actor you?
@qabala I do not put my trust in fallable men, i put my trust in an Almighty God: It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.(Psalm 118:8-9) Golden rule found schmack in the very center of God's Word, my authority is Divine, not merely human, the Bible is TIMELESS as it was inspired from eternity. Look at this: wwwDOTcreationDOTcom and search for it, they have plenty of evidence and peer reviewed articles
I've been there a number of times and, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I search their archives again and (guess what?) I found no peer-reviewed articles, however, I did find an article bemoaning the concept of peer-review by misrepresenting it.
@qabala You continue seeking after Truth as it is a concept totally foreign to you who accepted the lie...still waiting for your solid evidence, when i went to that website, i found something right away by typing: "Not enough salt in the water" in their searchbox, maybe that kind of search never came through your mind huh?
Once again, you refuse to produce a scientific source.
I think you are converting me. I was a deist until now, now, because of you, I think I'm becoming an atheist.
Thanks for showing me that there is no rationale for creationism nor ID. I now see, because of you, how crazy I must have been for ever accepting the existence of a god.
@qabala You have 5 fingers and a brain, this website has a peer reviewed journal called Creation magazine, you do your homework if Truth has any part of your actor's life...( i love the definition of actor in Greek by the way). I am not surprised to hear you say you'd become an atheist which is the recognized religion of the convict in the state of Wisconsin. You are free to believe in who or what you want, i am not here to force you to believe in anyone but i will stand firm for Truth
Creation magazine is not peer-reviewed by scientists. You apparently have no idea what peer-review is.
What does acting have to do with peer-reviewed science? You are a troll! Who thinks such an ad-hominem attack does anything to support your case.
WTF? Wisconsin? That makes no sense at all. Christians make up a disproportionately larger percentage of the prison population than they do on the outside. Atheists make up a disproportionately smaller amount.
@WaltonSauce No kiddow, the inicorn of the Bible is the perfect description of the Rhino also called Behemoth in Hebrew language but studying doesn't seem to apply to you, there is more to understand in creation science and in Intelloigent design than in evolution that was killed by Mary Schweitzer and her T REX that had blood cells and soft tissue destroying the 70 million year theory with a bullet in the skull, i guess intelligence is not allowed in your pseudo science...duh chuh!
@gregrutz birds or dinos makes no dif. i mean lets say they both had a similar mechanism but that doesnt prove relation. just as almost all creatured have red blood cells that work in a similar fation doesnt make them all related. evolutionists may say it does but i just think it makes them designed by the same creator.
@gregrutz similar not same!! anyway to lame to argue with you guys. all the evidence points against evolutionary theory right from the fossil record and radiometric dating and the cambrian explotion. wake up watch my vids then come back and talk to me. most people dont sit down and watch the holes series on creation evolution.
Where did God come from?
ConsciousMaster 4 days ago
@ConsciousMaster well i dont know. and where does time start and end. what if what if. il focus on what i know. i know jesus was real i know jesus performed miracles validated by todays science. i know the world is not as old as they say. hence the new theory of cambrian explosion as in life just appeared out of nowhere. funy that. its what the bible has been saying all the time. dont know where god came from but i know bible is the only authentic book out there historicaly and archeologicaly.
ninnzbinnz 17 hours ago
@ninnzbinnz You dont know all that shit lmao
ConsciousMaster 5 hours ago
This is moronic.
Drumstoo 5 days ago
@animaljp3 Most of the major bridges in the world are made from metal. Does that mean they both evolved from a tin can billions of years ago? No, it means they have the same DESIGNER
kb24crazylaker 1 week ago
@kb24crazylaker
Bridges are not alive they do not procreate, so to compare them to organisms is completely illogical. We know bridges are designed because we know humans build things, we know what buildings look like.
You have never seen somebody design life or create life so to say that life is designed is in all honesty not a good deduction and has no grounding in evidence. Also if you look closely at life you can see all sorts of "design" mistakes.
LetalisLatrodectus 6 days ago
@LetalisLatrodectus they aren't alive but my point still stands. It is absolutely not illogical to see something as complex as human life and know it was created. By the way, you know that all scientists do is guess right? They come up with a scenario that might work in their brain and they put it into science books like its a fact. The big bang is just one big guess made by humans with very limited knowlege when it comes to the grand scheme of things
kb24crazylaker 6 days ago
@kb24crazylaker
Your point doesn't stand because you use a straw man argument. You make it seem like the reasoning behind the theory of evolution is similar to bridges and tin cans being metal therefor they evolved. This is a misrepresentation of the actual reasoning behind evolution and makes your whole point of common design moot.
LetalisLatrodectus 5 days ago
@LetalisLatrodectus I am not saying that the two are necessarily similar as i am just saying that two species that have similar ingredients does not mean they both have the same ancestor. It can be evidence for a designer just as much. If you say my point as moot, then the puddles pothole argument that evolutionists use must be moot as well. But even I, a believer in creation, know they are just rying to make a point against fine tuning.
kb24crazylaker 5 days ago
The question is how long can blood and softtissue last? I mean well, very well preserved, mummies from Egypt don't have much left.. so something millions of years old?? Its gotta be revisited.
Fusion840 3 weeks ago
Evolution is POPULATIONS changing, not ONE ORGANISMS! ignorance is the creationists only weapon.
animaljp3 1 month ago
@animaljp3 it had to be one organism if you go far enough back.
kb24crazylaker 6 days ago
So, they found bones. Does this prove evolution? Why can't somebody come up with a process where you take chimp and produce a human being by changing the DNA? Now, that would prove evolution, as 99% of DNA in chimp is like man's. Until that happens, evolution will remain a theory. If you want to make it easier, take a crocodile, and make him a bird. The bird does not need to fly. That will prove that reptiles can become birds. Hello????
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada you do not need to be a human, you could just be little cell. Evolution is taking advantige of situations. EVER HEARD OF A DINO?
animaljp3 1 month ago
@animaljp3 Hum;; you make no sense. I post the question again, can you take a dna from any animal and alter it so, a totally new animal *not* related is created? Example, can you grow feathers on a lizard?
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada ever heard of dinosaurs? a feather is a elongated and faned out scale. both are made from keratin.
animaljp3 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oopscanada ever heard of dinosaurs? a feather is a elongated and faned out scale. both are made from keratin.
animaljp3 1 month ago
the bones were rock, surrounding the solf stuff so they would not decay. wrong about 1 thing does not mean wrong about everything.
animaljp3 1 month ago
I "love" how precise they are with this year mambo jumbo. It's not 58, 60 or 67, it's 68 million year BRO! They are so precise with this bs.
Globox822 2 months ago
@Globox822 The last great extinction was 65.5 million years ago, + or - .3 million years if you want to be precise.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@Globox822 we have radiometric dating. you have nothing.
animaljp3 1 month ago
dinosaurs are the biggest fraud in human history. Moon "landing" is kids play.
Globox822 2 months ago
They found soft tissue, which does NOT last for 70 million years. Try some good old fashioned logic, reason, and common sense. Science is logical, not idiocy like these evolutionists believe.
ookma7 2 months ago
Oh well; I had to flag rockethead7 messages as spam due to the lack of composition in his thoughts. I do believe, no offense, that you should take an English composition course. Your communication skills would definitely improve. Now, back to your what might be your point; actually, "billions" of fossils only prove that all these animals died suddenly. Did you not know that to make fossils you need animals be buried? Animals left on top of soil just decay, don't fossilize. USE SOME LOGIC!
oopscanada 2 months ago
Attn. Creatards: They did not find 'fresh' anything. They did not find 'red blood cells''
IT NEVER CROSSED THEIR MINDS THAT THE DINOSAUR FOSSIL WAS LESS THAN 70,000,000 YEAR OLD.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@oopscanada So you admit to trying to censor his voice?
NorthForkFisherman 1 month ago
@NorthForkFisherman
I am free to censor foul language; yes. I refuse to read it, and I do believe it should be publicly banned. Are there no better words in the English language? Are bad words the result of evolution?
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada This video is not your work, ergo, it is not up to you to censor anything, it's the right and responsibility of the owner of this forum if they so choose. And unless user ninnzbinnz is a sock puppet of yours, you have no say at all in this matter. I agree that vulgar commentary detracts from the debate, but you are not required to respond. Personally speaking, I find any attempt at censorship of any kind to be cowardice, pure and simple. Data speaks clearly and loudly.
NorthForkFisherman 1 month ago
@NorthForkFisherman Personally, I find any vulgar commentary on serious matters, disgraceful. It just distracts from the real issues. I personally believe that youtube should automatically flag as a spam any comments with swearing in it. There is no such a thing as freedom of expression at the expense of others. we all have rights, not just the ungrateful.
oopscanada 1 month ago
@oopscanada Being that Google and it's subsidiaries are US based they have a wider view of the Freedom of Speech (US 1st Amendment derivived) and so repsond accordingly. And that is the whole point of freedom of speech, there are no protected classes, subjects, or ideas. All are subject to critical examination, review, and ridicule. And gratefulness is a point of view.
NorthForkFisherman 1 month ago
@NorthForkFisherman I totally agree with you. However, there is no need to swear to express a point of view.
oopscanada 1 month ago
Ha ha ha; oh well, you can all see for yourself, people like @rockethead7, are just an example of pagans who cannot accept the fact that the whole evolution theory is now garbage with this and other findings. It is incredible that in this day and age of scientific discoveries, there are still people who believe that evolution was "billions" of years ago, and has left "soft tissue". What can we do for them? Nothing! If they still believe in Santa Claus, there is nothing you can do for them.
oopscanada 2 months ago
@oopscanada
"the whole evolution theory is now garbage with this and other findings"
- See, this is exactly what makes you a fucking idiot. BILLIONS of fossils and DNA evidence have established evolution over and over. A handful of finds doesn't change the BILLIONS of others. The handful merely makes you wonder what was special about THOSE FEW.
And, of course, you're exceptionally retarded, because your basis is NOT based on the original source material. READ IT, dumbass. It explains ALL.
rockethead7 2 months ago
Comment removed
oopscanada 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No scientists have ever found red blood cells in Tyrannosaurus rex; the Creationists have deliberately exaggerated and mis-interpreted the graduate research of Schweitzer and Staedter, who never concluded they were RBCs:
"Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes."
The fact is no-one knows what they are (except Creationists apparantly, lol).
GnosticHumanist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No scientists have ever found red blood cells in Tyrannosaurus rex; the Creationists have deliberately exaggerated and mis-interpreted the graduate research of Schweitzer and Staedter, who never concluded they were RBCs:
"Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes."
The fact is no-one knows what they are (except Creationists apparantly, lol).
OrthodoxDarwinist 3 months ago
Lol maybe god put them there...
the559jls 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In fact the claim of red blood cells by the Creationists, by deliberate mis-interpretation of Schweitzer's research, has further been shown to be nonsense:
"Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed. Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells."- New York Times, June 10, 1997
But do you think that would stop Ken Ham from repeating utter false-hoods and mis-information to support his bat-shit crazy Bronze-Age mythology? NOPE.
OrthodoxDarwinist 3 months ago
They did not find red blood cells....she never say she found a red blood cell...just something that looks like them...the thing they found are fossils...
the559jls 3 months ago
This is a fulfillment of the text that says The simple things of God shall confound the wise (of this world). This is simply God making evolution look even more idiotic.
tamarind777 4 months ago
The simple fact is that the animal DID NOT live when science said they did. Whey can't these people just say we're wrong? They are looking like idiots trying to figure out how the blood cells lasted for 70 million years. The simple truth is that it didn't.
tamarind777 4 months ago 2
@tamarind777
Retard idiot, don't just listen to your creationist idiot friends' input. Read the source material, you fucking idiot.
NO, there were no blood cells. They were fossilized REMNANTS. Not a single cell was found.
Besides, you're as dumb as the rest of the creationtwits. BILLIONS of fossils have been studied and dated. Now, a few fossils come along that preserved remnants better than 99.999% of the others, and you want to throw away the entirety of science. Sigh. Complete idiocy.
rockethead7 2 months ago
@rockethe7
You can always tell the evolutionist by their language. Do me a favor, please DON'T reply to ANY of my posts. You obviously have no home training, manners, or human decency. You are the animal that you think you are. I think you have to wait until the moral, decency part of your brain evolves and catch up to that of the creationists. "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." Try learning some true science and quit calling the evolution religion a science.
ookma7 2 months ago
@ookma7
So says another pig molesting idiot who subscribes to foolish nonsense.
Do explain, you goddamned retarded fucktwit... why does EVERY academy biologist ON THE PLANET support evolution? (Not that I give a crap about numbers, I've studied the EVIDENCE.)
You know NOTHING. You wouldn't know a peer reviewed science journal if it hit you on the head. All of this stuff is very well explained, IF you cared to lift a finger. But, you only read what you agree with.
rockethead7 2 months ago
@rockethead7
"...why does EVERY academy biologist ON THE PLANET support evolution?"
This statement shows your the level of idiocy on which you operate. Do you know "Every" academy biologist on the planet? What a fool! Try looking up the definition of science and see if it fits the lie that life can come from rocks, from inorganic material. Try commenting when your brain has evolved a bit more.
ookma7 2 months ago
@ookma7 I can understand that religious people don't understand Science, but I am always amazed when they don't understand logic or even what religion is.
Science does not use magic, voodoo or the supernatural. It make no comment on God.
Biology is a science
Paleontology is a science. See them working in the video.
Geology is a science and they are the ones who say the world is old and there was no global flood.
Astronomy is a science and they say the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz
Christians don't understand science? Clearly YOU lack even basic knowledge. Nearly EVERY branch of science was started by Believers. I believe science that IS testable and repeatable. You don't. I don't believe that evolution garbage you call science. I believe life comes from life; that's science. You believe life comes from rocks and you believe in spontaneous generation, which was proven false over a century ago. Close your mouth before you stick your foot in any deeper.
ookma7 2 months ago
@ookma7 Believers? What are those. You don't believe?? I don't care about your beliefs or your religion. Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation which they proved does not happen. If you think carbon is a rock, what you are right you are made of carbon compounds, you are a rock.
Evolution has not only been tested, it has been observed.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz evolution is not START of life, but PROCESS of life.
animaljp3 1 month ago
@animaljp3 I'm not trying to be rude. I don't believe in evolution, but in adaptation. I think it's impossible for a raptor to start from top of the food chain, and then become the fried meat I eat in a bucket full of chicken. However I think it is possible for some smaller dinosaur's to have adapted to climate change and things like that. They change size and shape, until they can live in their new environment. Sorry if I sound rude.
MrFrank8675309 1 month ago
@MrFrank8675309 changing size and shape IS evolution!!!!!!!!
animaljp3 1 month ago
@animaljp3 ; really? If all it takes for evolution to be true is changing size and shape, then humans evolve every day from child to adult. I don't think that's what Darwin had in mind. Obviously Darwin thought hat you can get a human from a monkey.
oopscanada 1 month ago
@rockethead7
You have no common sense at all nor do you know how to reason. Try taking an elementary logic class at you local community college, if they will accept you, that is. The logical step in reasoning is to question the TIME PERIOD the animals lived, not the PROCESS of fossilization. The process has been proven to be exactly what it is for thousands of years. Simple fact is that your idiotic, nonsensical evolution is the religion of fools and is NOT science nor logical.
ookma7 2 months ago
@oopscanada Correct - fossils are generally referred to as such if they are anywhere beyond 10,000 years old. ................. So what? Scientists already know that, that's why it's on wikipedia, with references, where anybody (including you if you could be bothered to pull your head out of the sand) can read it.
hmspinaforethisisspa 4 months ago
At 2:44, 3:35, 3:42, 3:55, 9:30, 9:42, 9:55 the guy who made the vid makes bold and outrageous claims (which reflect the anti-science prejudice present in most creationists) without any references. Such a rookie mistake...
Not ONCE do the scientists being interviewed ever say that these findings change the perceived age of the T-Rex, just the idiot who overlays the messages.
This is not a triumph for creationists, but for science, which is continually improved by breakthroughs such as this :)
hmspinaforethisisspa 5 months ago
@hmspinaforethisisspa
Excuse me, but do you really think a tissue or structure of the body would last "millions" of years "soft"?
You have to be kidding. What is the "scientific" explanation of these tissues or structures lasting millons of years?
oopscanada 4 months ago
@oopscanada Ummm - that's what the scientists are trying to find out... See that's the thing with science - when we don't know, we actually admit it. But we accept evidence for what it is and build our models around it. A shitload of evidence garnered over the past 150 years or so has validated evolution. Now this comes along and doesn't seem to obey the usual fossilisation rules. That doesn't mean you throw out evolution, it means you need to rethink how fossilisation happens.
hmspinaforethisisspa 4 months ago
@hmspinaforethisisspa ;
Of course they have to rethink how fossilization occurs. To start; it does not take millions of years to fossilize an organic material.
oopscanada 4 months ago 2
@oopscanada
"they have to rethink how fossilization occurs"
- Correct. Prior to this, it wasn't understood that even these fossilzed remnants could be preserved. Scientists have to re-examine this.
However, fucktwit moron, this does NOT mean that we throw away everything we DO know about science. The conclusion isn't: well, these few examples prove that the measurements of 3 billion other fossils were wrong. The question is: what was special that preserved these few examples so well.
rockethead7 2 months ago
@rockethead7 Ha ha ha; are you serious? You really believe that scientists now have to find an explanation as to why blood vessels are not stone or petrified after billions of years? For somebody who likes to offend others (by the way, I'm flagging your message as spam due to the swearing), I cannot believe you are truly using your intelligence when you ask "what was special that preserved these few examples so well". It is *so obvious* that blood vessels would not *last*.
oopscanada 2 months ago
@oopscanada
"It is *so obvious* that blood vessels would not *last*."
Correct, moron. They didn't last. The remains were fossilized remnants of vessels, not actual vessels. Vessels are made of cells. Not a single cell was found.
Read the original source articles, twit, not the creationtard spin.
As for calling my reply "spam" because I swore, boo fucking hoo. Sigh. Swearing is allowed, fucktwit. SPAM = an advertisement. What was I advertising?
You take "stupid" to a whole new level.
rockethead7 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oopscanada
You said: "do you really think a tissue or structure of the body would last millions of years soft?"
- Answer: No, and it didn't. They had to soak the fossils in acid for 2 weeks to make them soft.
You said: "What is the scientific explanation of these tissues lasting millons of years?"
- Answer: They didn't. These are mostly fossilized REMNANTS, not actual tissues/structures.
You're demonstrating that you don't read source articles, you only read edited creationtard BS.
rockethead7 2 months ago
It is wonderful to see how God Created all things and through a world wide flood judged the world in a very short time. When he comes back will anyone believe in him? I would say very few will hold true to the Knowledge of the Holy one. Evolution is so stupid and anyone who believes in it is not stupid just decieved. Jesus is the only way to the truth because he is Truth. Jesus Loves you.
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster
You have no evidence to conclude a worldwide flood ever happened.
You can't say evolution is stupid because, based on your previous misrepresentations, you have no idea what evolution actually claims.
qabala 5 months ago
Wow... compelling evidence for creation and a young earth. Evolutionists deny all this evidence and more ..human bodies being found in coal deposits, artifacts found in drilling tailings hundreds of feet down, buried upright trees found three hundred feet down that they drill right through the middle, stainless steel "like" tools found buried deep in the ground and in coal deposits, and on and on..factual evidence.
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster
No "evolutionist" denies any of this. It's the creationists who misrepresent this find to suit their views.
Go ahead and cite these people and artifacts that are out of place.
Upright trees are always found in layers of volcanic ash, not sandstone or any other material that takes time to form.
You could easily have known all this if you could be bothered to actually read the science.
qabala 6 months ago
@qabala Haha nice job destroying that silly creationist. One thing we all gotta know about creationist is that they like to lie and take things out of context to fit their views.
Also this dinosaur blood cell thing does not prove the world is young at all. If anybody knew anything about science they would know that having tissue in a nitrogen rich environment stops aging and decomposition.
Not to mention that the people who discovered this aren't even sure if its actual blood cells lol.
MW2Addiction 6 months ago in playlist Dinosaur Blood
@MW2Addiction After more testing, It is not dinosaur blood. Blood cell go bad in about 2 weeks. Creationists lie.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@qabala trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4 They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Bölsche, Wilhelm, Im Steinkohlenwald; 1906-- (Various Eds.), p. 35 God is rightous and Holy. Godbless you !
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster
My last post was a bit of a misprint.
There are no polystrate trees that span multiple TYPES OF STRATA. They are always in multiple layers of one type of material. Usually ash or sandstone.Usually they are near a volcano which deposited said sediments.
Roots straddle different strata even when they're alive so that's no argument.
Even if the above weren't true, There is nothing preventing a tree from petrifying and subsequently being exposed through erosion and reburied.
qabala 6 months ago
@qabala
And I asked you for out-of place people or artifacts.
Not to mention, there shouldn't be strata had a worldwide flood occurred.
Especially not strata formed under watery conditions over strata formed in dry conditions over strata formed under watery conditions over strata formed in dry conditions and so on...
Your view is certainly valid, but it makes no falsifying predictions whatsoever.
qabala 6 months ago
Comment removed
qabala 6 months ago
@doobersmanster The people who are studying this fossil still know it is 68 million years old. Changing the age of the fossil never crossed their minds. These are the people who see evolution in the fossil record every day. They did not find 'red blood cells'', just more by-products than they expected.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz Ok...I see God's hand in this..so one person believes in "billions of years ago in a far distant place in the Galaxy Something came from nothing and accidently decveloped somethings that can make other somethings like themselves" And I beleive, In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth"..Mine seems more logical and credible based on the evidence. People want the evolution thing tobe true so they see what they want to and call it science. PILTDOWN man HOAX..ect..
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster Yes. Piltdown man was a hoax. One hoax does not prove the rest of the fossil record wrong. Evoltuion has nothing to do with nothing coming from nothing. You are the one with no evidence, just 'Poof' everything from nothing.
The earth is 4,545 million years old, sorry if the facts don't match your 2000 years old book.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@doobersmanster
The big bang has NOTHING to do with evolution.
Even if it did, it does NOT claim anything came from nothing. More accurately it proposes that all energy in the universe was once concentrated in a single place and then began a rapid expansion. Since there was no empty space before then, it is more accurate to say that everything began expanding and created the vast expanse of nothing (space) in between. We can actually measure the universe continuing to create nothing today.
qabala 6 months ago
@doobersmanster
And Piltdown man was certainly a hoax. So was Nebraska man
Did creationists expose them?
Nope. Evolutionary scientists did. They were anomalies, ignored by most scientists, for decades before they were proven to be fake.
Creationists sat on their collective asses and did nothing.
Both finds contradicted everything known at the time about evolution, They would have disproven evolution had they been genuine, and yet here you are touting them as if they do your cause any good.
qabala 6 months ago
FLAG THIS VIDEO AS SPAM - MISSLEADING TEXT
gregrutz 6 months ago
And Mary, a christian, is upset with creationists who miss use her work !
gregrutz 6 months ago
I'm incredulous... if Dinosaurss are 68 million years old then HOW?!?!?!?! do you have SOFT tissue ??!?!?!?! To say that is merely SUGGESTIVE of a radically reduced dates is a MASSIVE understatement... to deny it altogether is INSANE!!!!!!
Just goes to prove the lengths people will go to preserve a "party line" instead of simply going where the evidence leads!!!! II Peter 3:3-12 "Willingly ignorant" YEAH!!! it's kinda like THAT!!!!!
ShishKabbal 6 months ago
@ShishKabbal Easy answer, THEY DIDN'T FIND ''TISSUE'' Its was fossilsized.
''little red structures that looked like......'' They did not find red blood cell.
The rock is still 68 Million years old.
Who ever narrated this does not even have the story right.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz
You'd better check your sources... Ms. Schweitzer definitely said on Fox that the tissue was still soft, and a colleaque described its elasticity. There is NO mistaking what was said.
ShishKabbal 6 months ago
@ShishKabbal Yes, what they found was soft. After soaking the rock in strong acid for weeks, what was left was soft. The did not find red blood cells or ''tissue'', just some break-down products.
The point you are missing is that the fossil is still 68 Million years old, changing the date did not cross their minds it is so well established.
gregrutz 6 months ago
Comment removed
ShishKabbal 6 months ago
@gregrutz
It was soft tissue (which previously YOU denied), and the EXPERTS were astonished at what they found... don't try to act like the result was an ineveitable, and expected outcome... oh, yeah they said it WAS tissue, and later isolated proteins as well. They continue to insist the fossils are millions of years old, but NOT on the basis of THIS discovery ... they insist only on the basis of their unexamined preconceptions... NOW, whose being dishonest?!?!?
ShishKabbal 6 months ago
@ShishKabbal What is ''soft tissue'' ? Watch watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE for the TRUTH !
And yes the fossil is still 68 million years old, they are questioning fossilization, NOT the age of the rock.
gregrutz 6 months ago
And every person in the video says the fossils are 68 Million years old.
The people who do the digging and see the fossils first hand say the fossils are
68 MILLION YEARS OLD.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz because they have been tought so, because the radio dating said so because the radio dating got its bearing from fossils. there is no one radio dating method on this planet that works. not one fresh lava flow ever dated correctly and c14 found in blaces it ought not to be along with human artifacts where they aught not to be.
ninnzbinnz 6 months ago
@ninnzbinnz yup, your radio needs some dating.
Radiometric dating has nothing to do with ''its bearing from fossils''
Carbon 14 is found anywhere there is uranium in the soil.
No humand artifact are ''where they aught not to be''
Home schooled?
gregrutz 6 months ago
@ninnzbinnz No they were no taught so, they are the people who really do this for a living. The see evolution every day. Radiometric dating works, verified by blind tests at different labs. The dates crosscheck each other and know dates. Carbon 14 is found everwhere there is uranium, so what, that has nothing to do with the dating method C14 is not used to date fossils, they are TOO OLD.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@ninnzbinnz Nonsense. Fresh lava flows, dated by appropriate techniques, give the ages of the rocks, not the date they erupted. No human artefacts have been found in ancient rocks, unless placed there by humans. Radiometric techniques can be fraudulently manipulated, and have been, and they also have to be correctly applied, but if correctly done, they are completely reliable. You are retailing falsehoods.
puffin51 6 months ago
@puffin51 all talk budy. blah blah herd it all b4. get educated about the biggest hoax ever perpitrated on man kind. evolution
ninnzbinnz 6 months ago
@ninnzbinnz Well, and here's me thinking that a BSc biology major would give me some sort of knowledge of the subject. I've actually handled some of the materials, seen the tests being done. Tell me, where did you gain your superior insights? What school? What's your degree major? Title of PhD thesis? Any published papers? Enlighten me.
puffin51 6 months ago
@puffin51 superior insights? What school? What's your degree major? Title of PhD thesis? Any published papers? Enlighten me.
dont make you right. you have to face the fact that evolution is still called a theory by all of the above mentioned cause they still guessing at best and you can side with their guessing game but i wont. il make my own guesses. their is more then enough evidence to support my claims so do your own sifting. guys like you want an argument not the truth of the matter.
ninnzbinnz 6 months ago
@ninnzbinnz "Theory" means "a generally accepted explanation, supported by ample evidence." It doesn't mean a guess. You are right, however, to say that you're making your own guesses. Guess away, by all means. Scientists guess, too. But then they go out and find evidence to support or falsify their guesses. It's called "research".
So what do you do? What have you researched, lately? What evidence have you found that falsifies evolution? Let's hear it.
puffin51 6 months ago
@puffin51 listen up you lazy boy. you got nothing better to do then watch this and stop wasting my time.
youtube.com/watch?v=fZP5rKm5q2g part 1 of 7. i love it when guys like you talk rubish. gives me a chance to expose your lies. just remember the world is watching you and what you say.
ninnzbinnz 6 months ago
@ninnzbinnz So let's hear it. What you got? Come on, you want to expose my lies, you say. Expose away. Let's start with an easy one: what lies have I told you, and how do you know they're lies?
puffin51 6 months ago
@puffin51 whatch the vid i posted for you then come back and talk to me. otherwise all i have to say is in the vid i posted. you do realise if the next comment you make is dumb ill bar you from making any comments to my vids ever again. pick your words or lock yourself out permanently.
ninnzbinnz 6 months ago
@ninnzbinnz Do you think that Schweitzer's discovery that some soft tissue can be reconstituted from very well preserved dinosaur bones shows that the bones are recent? She doesn't think that. If you think that, what evidence have you for that idea? What do you know that she doesn't?
And if you think that's a dumb question, by all means ban me. As you said, the world is watching.
puffin51 6 months ago
@puffin51 she doesn't think that cause like you she is brainwashed. and or knows better then to speak out against the long held beliefs of the establishment. as for you did you watch the clip i posted or what. if not just dont bother asking me more questions. you want answers watch the clip.
ninnzbinnz 6 months ago
@ninnzbinnz I watched the video, completely. The original does not support your claims.
You claim to know more about the fossil than the scientist who prepared it, examined it, and wrote three scientific papers on it. She went dead against the "establishment", and convinced this establishment that what it thought about all fossilisation was wrong. She did that by finding and showing evidence.
Show some evidence. Your incredulity and ignorance means zip. So does your conspiracy theory.
puffin51 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video is debunked at >> watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
gregrutz 7 months ago
It never crossed their minds that the fossi was less the 68 Million years old, these people see evolution every day.
gregrutz 7 months ago
Oh and Tony, in case you'd consider getting out of atheism as a religion, remember that in the humanist manifesto, it is written that:religious humanists... get yourself free from those religious chains my good man, come to Jesus Christ, He will set you free as He is the Truth Who sets people free from religious bondage
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
That's really fascinating. I don't recall ever claiming an adherence to the humanist manifesto. More non-sequitors from you.
And by the way, you're doing it wrong. If you're addressing me, you should use the "reply" button so that I am notified of your response. The only reason you would not use the "reply" button is because you fear that I might see it an actually respond.
What are you so afraid of?
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala Not afraid of anything butGod, i said i was done talking to you, i will repeat: You should be very happy to hear that I am commanded to stop talking with you: Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. (Prov. 14:7) Your authority is human and fallable dear Tony, mine is Divine and infallable. I wish you a good life, Christ is coming back, your knees will bow before Him just like mine whether u believe or not...shalom
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
If you consider me a fool, you seem to have no problem breaking Gods commandment by continuing to respond.
You are weak and can't even adhere to your own BS.
Christ was supposed to return in the lifetimes of the people who were alive just after his resurrection (Matthew 24:34).
You show me even one 2,000 year-old person and I will become a born-again Christian immediately. Otherwise, it is a failed prophecy.
Go ahead and break the commandment again by responding to me. LOL!!!
qabala 7 months ago
Blood Cells last about 2 weeks. They did not find red blood cells.
The fossils is still 68 Million years old.
gregrutz 7 months ago
This video debunked at >> watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
gregrutz 7 months ago
if they bring t rex back, i will be keeping one in my back yard :)
Mahoney8T7 7 months ago
@WaltonSauce You should check Mary Schweitzer destroying evolution with a single blow, it is so stinkin' funny. Watch: T-rex bone blood not 70mil years old
Go ahead, it's right here on youtube! : )
Serge1965 7 months ago
@WaltonSauce Your atheistic teachers never mentoned to u that there's not enough salt in the oceans to account for their gazillions of unseen and unproven years, and i bet they avoid calculating the birth rate from their starting point of human evolution otherwise there'd be far more people on the planet, ironicly, if we start 6 000 yrs ago with 1 man and 1 woman and apply a birth rate of less than half of 1%, we end up with close to 7 billion people just like the population of the planet today
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
Your assertion about salt in the oceans requires a current rate of increase. There isn't one.
Given the birth rates you just postulated, less than 20 people would have built the pyramids. (Of course your figure isn't even correct by creationist standards. Henry millers actual figure was "0.5% every century").
Mary Schweitzer did not destroy evolution. She expanded our understanding of fossilization. Even if there was a dinosaur alive today, it would not refute evolution.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala Isn't it Tony? Dear Tony, on what basis do you say that there isn't a rate of increase for salt in the ocean please? what or who is your authority in that matter please and if you have references, i'd like to read them, thank you. The pyramids were built by the fallen angels with a technology too far advanced for that time and soft tissue and tiny red structures do not preserve for 70 millions of years it defies any stinking empirical common sense. By boasting, Mary killed evolution
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
Darling Serge, There are myriad scientific sources which show that salinity varies throughout the year, but on average remains constant. Even though you have NOT supported YOUR assertion with a source, here is one of many supporting mine: palomar dot edu / oceanography / salty_ocean dot htm
I don't suppose you have a source for asserting fallen ones built the pyramids.
The first pyramids were designed by Imhotep by stacking mastabas and their manufacture is well documented.
qabala 7 months ago
Comment removed
qabala 7 months ago
@Serge1965
At what point did Mary "boast" about anything?
On what authority do you claim "red structures" can't be preserved?
There are several well-understood methods by which soft tissue can be preserved, but you still don't know anything about it because, in the past year, you still can't be bothered to actually read.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala boast might not be the best term, i'd say pride is what got her into trouble, i mean finding a 70 million yr old T REX that still has soft tissue and tiny red structures in the blood vessels must be something exciting that you want to share with all the pseudo-scientific community. I think she's an honest deceived lady that did not realize that her 17 tests to determine she was not dreaming was what played against her, had she been close to God, we would talk 2nd coming of Christ
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
Re: Boasting
These are your unsubstantiated assertions.
She is a devout christian.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala You say that i don,t bother to read, i have quite a fascinating library at my disposal, you know nothing about me, i just invited you to share the knoeledge buddy, come on, be a sport!
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
You have already conceded on another video that you refuse to read any peer-reviewed scientific papers. You are either willfully ignorant of the empirically determined science, or you were lying.
Having a library is not the same as actually reading. And yes, I know you don't read scientific papers because you regurgitate only information found in creationist publications (and badly at that).
And you have yet to provide a source for your assertions about Schweitzer or the pyramids.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala What, you never changed your mind in your lifetime? I AM WAITING...Get your sources out Tony, come on now, be a sport, i will read them unless you just feel like opening your mouth and not understanding anything about empirical science? There is nothing emprical about evolution and you know it, i have read about evolution and it never holds the road of common sense and reality once you really scrutinize it, unless you'd be the exception to show me INTELLIGENCE in your pseudo-science?
Serge1965 7 months ago
Since there is no way you will take the time to educate yourself on the myriad scientific disciplines requires to grasp evolution, I will cite what amounts to LEGAL proof of it.
E.O. Wiley, D. Siegel-Causey, D.R. Brooks, V.A. Funk. 1991. The Compleat Cladist: A Primer of Phylogenetic Procedures. Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. (Lawrence, KS), Spec. Publ. No 19
The test used to prove relation between people is the same one used to prove relation between biological clades.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala The first self replicating systems must have emerged in this organic soup
Source: Biology and Diversity of life
Wadsworth, 1992, page 301
The first living cells emerged between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago
Source: Biology and Diversity of life
Wadsworth, 1992, page 300
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
The origin of life is a completely different topic. Evolution only explains how already existing life diversifies. Try to stay relevant. Otherwise, you further display your ignorance of the topic.
I wonder why EVERY CREATIONIST WEBSITE that cites this one line about self-replicating systems never cites the rest of the passage. I wonder why they never cite a scientific paper instead of an antiquated textbook.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala Evolutionists, when confronted about the origin of life and the stupidity of the Darwin tree of life, say the they don’t know how it started but there is a different story in their textbooks: Students are taught life evolved from non-living materials...
Source HBJ, 1989, p.344
And you want me to take you an actor seriously? Get your sources out about the salt ...
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
Salinity
First Source - ^ Lewis, E. L. (1982). "The practical salinity scale of 1978 and its antecedents". Marine Geodesy 5 (4): 350. doi:10.1080/15210608209379432.
Second source - ^ Unesco (1981a). The Practical Salinity Scale 1978 and the International Equation of State of Seawater 1980. Tech. Pap. Mar. Sci., 36: 25 pp.
Third source - ^ Unesco (1981b). Background papers and supporting data on the Practical Salinity Scale 1978. Tech. Pap. Mar. Sci., 37: 144 pp.
qabala 7 months ago
Continuing...
Fourth source - ^ Unesco (1985). The International System of Units (SI) in Oceanography. Tech. Pap. Mar. Sci., 45: 124 pp.
Now you STILL haven't cited a source for an INCREASE of salinity at all. You have nothing.
The same goes with your assertion about the pyramids.
You are hypocritical in your demands for corraboration.
And go fuck yourself if you're going to continue judging my scientific knowledge on a completely unrelated hobby.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala Anyone loving the truth, watching the evolutionists speak in this video herem will understand that these deceived people just hit a wall that they are so blind they cannot see....round structures that looked like blood cells, dinosaur blood cells the narrator said and then Mary explains that inside those channels where the blood vessels would have run were these little ROUND RED structures that were all kind of lined up like a train and they were bright red and translucent...
Serge1965 7 months ago
@qabala nobody else had seen anything like that before...then the narrator says: the very idea of blood cells in a 70 million year old bone was more than unconventional, it was RADICAL. The other scientist in this video remains oblivious to the truth and never refutes that they are dealing with blood cells, i mean, it's clear to me, blood cels and soft tissue should have disappeared some million years ago with the help of brains that function properly and with the help of COMMON SENSE.
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
You have been duped by the editing of the scientists comments. There were no blood cells found.
Not that you'd read it, but here is her actual paper again.
Schweitzer, MH; Cano, RJ; Horner, JR (Sept. 7, 1994). "Multiple Lines of Evidence for the Preservation of Collagen and Other Biomolecules in Undemineralized Bone from Tyrannosaurus Rex". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 45A.
Still waiting for EVEN ONE peer-reviewed article from you on your assertions.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala You have been fooled by unseen millions of years and the comments were not edited, we hear her speak about the little round red structures like a train, in the blood vessels, we hear her clearly say that she does not believe what she has found and that she repeated the testing 17 times to make sure she was seeing what she weas seeing, you can fool yourself ad vitam eternam, you are not fooling anyone else. R.I.P. EVOLUTION ...so stinkin, DEAD
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965 ''unseen millions of years'' You are so funny. Go look at Geology and anyone can SEE Millions of years. Count the layers in the Grand Canyon and you can see millions of years. OPEN YOUR EYES.
And see what they found >> watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
gregrutz 7 months ago
@Serge1965
You cited the narrators context for Schweitzers words. I have given you her unedited paper on them, yet you continue to cite the TV report. Watch the video again and you will notice it cuts in on her statements mid-sentence at one point and then cuts out on her mid-sentence (ie - It is undeniably edited).
You can pronounce evolution dead all you want, but it is responsible for your current state of well-being you ingrate!
PS, Still no references from you.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala you said "You cited the narrators context for Schweitzers words. I have given you her unedited paper on them, yet you continue to cite the TV report" I cited both the narrator and Mary in her own words and mentioned the scientist that did not negate the mention of blood cells, anyone with their common sense intact, listening to this video is able to make their minds about the truth, actually, the more you post and debate me here, the less you help your cause for your pseudo-science.
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
It's really cute that you think that Schweitzer was corroborating what the narrator said. This is why you are a puppet. The interview was conducted separately and it is obvious to anyone viewing it that it was edited to conform to the narrators BS. The more you can't differentiate, the more you show how fallacious your position still is.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala LOL, you wish that video would get off the internet now would you? LOL AToo stinking bad Tony, it is staying and growing in popularity! People are waking up to your lies...
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
Blah blah blah.
I provided you the references you requested.
The fact that you have no scientific papers at all to support your position bespeaks the vacuous nature of your assertions.
I am aware of no pro-evolution videos on Youtube which censor or disable comments, but there are myriad creationist videos that do, so it seems it is the creationists who want to squelch dissenting views.
I have no interest in taking this video down. It's disinformation is plain to see.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala The creation scientists and the Intelligent Design scientists give more empirical evidence for their claims than all the evolutionists on the earth combined but hey: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.(Psalm 14:1) and lucky you, i am commanded to stop talking to you: Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. (Prov. 14:7) You have a good life Tony, while you still have one, au revoir, maybe...
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
Of course you have nothing more to say. Creation "Science" and Intelligent Design have no empirical evidence behind them. They can't because they make no testable predictions whatsoever and are, therefore, unfalsifiable which takes them out of the realm of science entirely.
I am absolutely certain you won't stop responding to me and I am equally certain that you can't provide any way of falsifying Creationism or Intelligent Design.
As usual, you will change the subject.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala My happiness does not depend on evolution to which i owe diddly squatt, God is the reason i exist and breathe and i would add that you cannot even put one foot in front of another without Jesus Christ allowing you to walk, He is the reason why you breathe o poor deceived you...And i am still waiting for your reference for salt there, pal
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
If you, or your child, have ever been inoculated, you owe a debt to evolutionary theory.
If your wife uses makeup, she owes a debt to evolutionary theory.
If you eat fish from a fishery, you owe a debt to evolutionary theory.
I have posted NO LESS THEN FOUR peer-reviewed sources on oceanic salinity.
If you didn't read them, that's on you.
(Maybe you just didn't recognize the word "salinity" which means "salt content")
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala If i had been offered the choice as a parent with what i know about the stinking Pharmaceutical idiots of this planet, i would certainly not allow any stinking vaccination near my cjhild nor me and tell them to shove their mercury where the sun doesn't shine, may wife is pretty without oil or horse pee on her face, i eat fish from the lake. and where are the sources? From last year? it sure did not hit home as intelligent to me, where is the Intelligence in ur pseudo-theory o actor you?
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
Then you are a poor parent who endangers their own child out of their own ignorance of how virulence works.
One things for sure, my sources are more recent than your bible, but I'm sure you haven't read that either.
What part of any of my references hit you as "unintelligent".
Either the results are repeatable, or they aren't. They happen to be repeatable, so what is the flaw in their methodologies?
Can you post a single scientific source which refutes them?
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala I do not put my trust in fallable men, i put my trust in an Almighty God: It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.(Psalm 118:8-9) Golden rule found schmack in the very center of God's Word, my authority is Divine, not merely human, the Bible is TIMELESS as it was inspired from eternity. Look at this: wwwDOTcreationDOTcom and search for it, they have plenty of evidence and peer reviewed articles
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
I've been there a number of times and, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I search their archives again and (guess what?) I found no peer-reviewed articles, however, I did find an article bemoaning the concept of peer-review by misrepresenting it.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala You continue seeking after Truth as it is a concept totally foreign to you who accepted the lie...still waiting for your solid evidence, when i went to that website, i found something right away by typing: "Not enough salt in the water" in their searchbox, maybe that kind of search never came through your mind huh?
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
Which of those are from peer-reviewed journals?
Once again, you refuse to produce a scientific source.
I think you are converting me. I was a deist until now, now, because of you, I think I'm becoming an atheist.
Thanks for showing me that there is no rationale for creationism nor ID. I now see, because of you, how crazy I must have been for ever accepting the existence of a god.
You have freed me.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala You have 5 fingers and a brain, this website has a peer reviewed journal called Creation magazine, you do your homework if Truth has any part of your actor's life...( i love the definition of actor in Greek by the way). I am not surprised to hear you say you'd become an atheist which is the recognized religion of the convict in the state of Wisconsin. You are free to believe in who or what you want, i am not here to force you to believe in anyone but i will stand firm for Truth
Serge1965 7 months ago
@Serge1965
Creation magazine is not peer-reviewed by scientists. You apparently have no idea what peer-review is.
What does acting have to do with peer-reviewed science? You are a troll! Who thinks such an ad-hominem attack does anything to support your case.
WTF? Wisconsin? That makes no sense at all. Christians make up a disproportionately larger percentage of the prison population than they do on the outside. Atheists make up a disproportionately smaller amount.
qabala 7 months ago
@Serge1965
And you also have no peer-reviewed reference for the construction of the pyramids either.
You are a crazy, hypocritical, child-endangerer and I love what YOUR NAME means in ancient Greek.
A perfect name for such a pansey!
qabala 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Serge1965
And lest we forget, how does a dinosaur alive today, refute evolution at all?
qabala 7 months ago
@WaltonSauce No kiddow, the inicorn of the Bible is the perfect description of the Rhino also called Behemoth in Hebrew language but studying doesn't seem to apply to you, there is more to understand in creation science and in Intelloigent design than in evolution that was killed by Mary Schweitzer and her T REX that had blood cells and soft tissue destroying the 70 million year theory with a bullet in the skull, i guess intelligence is not allowed in your pseudo science...duh chuh!
Serge1965 7 months ago
their is allot of evidence we cannot ignore.enjoyed viewing
bairdsley 7 months ago
''LOOKED LIKE'' red blood cells. But guess what, IT WAS NOT RED BLOOD CELLS. Red blood cells last about a week !
Changing the age of the fossil did not even cross their minds. These people see evolution every day !
gregrutz 7 months ago
This video is debunked at >> watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
gregrutz 7 months ago
''It is what female BIRDS build up inside there bones!''
BIRDS !!!! not dinosaur BIRDS !!!!
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz birds or dinos makes no dif. i mean lets say they both had a similar mechanism but that doesnt prove relation. just as almost all creatured have red blood cells that work in a similar fation doesnt make them all related. evolutionists may say it does but i just think it makes them designed by the same creator.
ninnzbinnz 8 months ago
@ninnzbinnz Same design, same designer. Then a different design means a different designer?
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz similar not same!! anyway to lame to argue with you guys. all the evidence points against evolutionary theory right from the fossil record and radiometric dating and the cambrian explotion. wake up watch my vids then come back and talk to me. most people dont sit down and watch the holes series on creation evolution.
ninnzbinnz 7 months ago