Maaannn this video is very appalling. Im a christian and i find it disturbing. I dont these guys are too well equiped to be leading tours such as these.
Sad to say that the christian faith and those who believe in it will go extinct. Maybe, when they do this form of child abuse will end, but there will always be some kind of dogma.
Thank you for sharing the Interesting and deeply disturbing video. It shows nicely the ignorance of the media and the tendency not to offend even supporters of the most ridiculous and outlandish ideas.
in my opinion, any attempts for a rational discussion with religious/superstitious people are futile - we are talking about people that have decided to disregard logic and reason in the first place.
The energy should be spend to educate the segment of the populace that is receptive and force the academia to tighten their standards so no one without a basic understanding of science and scientific process will be admitted to (and graduate from) a university. We dont debate people who believe the earth is flat, why do we have to be drawn into debate with their modern kin?
Perhaps the most offensive part of this video is that they are teaching this to KIDS. Kids DO NOT have a developed critical thinking ability yet.
Evolution is easy to teach because it is logical, it follows. Creationism, at least by the biblical account would of course be hard to teach. This is because it's not true and doesn't have evidence to support it.
It would be fine to teach that some people have differing ideas. But don't tell me that Christ rode a dinosaur. That's absurd.
I object and I'll expand upon why. It's very difficult not to be offensive and try to articulate my points and feelings on that matter so please allow me a little room.
Creationism is ridiculous. And there's a particular branch of creationism called "young earth creationism" which is especially vulgar, disgusting and obscene to me and an insult to my logic.
Archeological data and radio carbon dating can conclusively prove that the Earth is more than 6000 years old.
Now, logic would dictate that we must then reject the hypothesis that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Not so. Not with creationism. This is my problem with both creationism AND apologetics in that it's the particularly offensive attempt to try to make a square triangle.
It's also very difficult to argue this with some theists because bizarre permutations of the original biblical account will come up, usually saying that the words were meant as some symbolism or perhaps a metaphor.
Evolution has a basis in science. It's a fact. HOW it occurs and HOW to explain jumps are not known. As such, it is called a "theory."
Creationism is an attempt to make "abracadabra!" seem scientific. It has NO basis in fact other than the bible. The bible cannot be used as a scientific reference for anything.
How dare someone call science "science fiction" and the bible "science." That about as ass backwards as it gets.
People should be taught both theories as you CAN use science to back both of them. Researching/learning about evolution is easy, as it requires the least amount of thought and education to understand, so many think that it is common sense, but science has proven time and again that what should be common sense isn't always true. Learning about creationism is much harder as most sources have a religious bias that makes them unreliable, and the science behind creationism is much more complicated.
To explain the evolution and creationism you have to put in this way. They are both beliefs that people believe in. There are two groups of people stupid and smart. The smart people believe in creationism and the stupid people believe in evolution. YOU have a CHOICE! You can be a gorilla if you want.(dats your choice!)
So stupid people believe in evolution do we? "Dat" is interesting! I believe in a God but I also see the ton of evidence that supports evolution. Evolution is not a religion and therefore you do not have to choose between it and any religion in fact the Catholic Church has repeatly supported the Theory of Evolution.
Oh I see because I clearly don't believe exactly what it says in the bible I should write a new book for people to express faith in, even though I don't need one since the evidence supports the theory of evolution.
I am sorry I am having trouble being able to put what I am trying to say into words. I do not have faith in evolution the evidence supports it so why do I need to write a new bible? If you really need to see the proof go to google scholar and type in evoution I think from there you should be able to find enough papers written on the subject.
well evolution and creationism (bible) are on the opposites sides here you either believe one or the other. Just like in the bible you are either cold or hot. if you are in the middle you are warm the worst of all
I will give you that there is a line between a literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago and evolution but their is no such schism between God and evolution what is just something put into place by literalists to make you think their is. Science makes no statment on God it just makes statments based on the evidence avaliable. Now I have a question why is it worse to be "warm" than either hot or cold afterall how many things in this world are either black or white?
I found a google cache of this same argument from you a month ago on NaoTio's channel wherein you stated "there are man ade artifacts form the precambrian, there are also human fossils that predate dinosaurs.."
1 month later, you are bringing this argument up again. I can only assume you have found empirical evidence to now substantiate your claim. If so, please present it to the class...you have our full attention.
the reference is in book that I rented in a library (I dnpt have it any more) however finding human fossils in th eincorrect place is very common.
example type this in google ´´15 Million Year Old Footprint Found in Bolivia
The footprint was left by a man who walked on two legs. If the dating is confirmed, this discovery could change the history of humanity.´´ this footpint does not predate dinosaurs but it predates lucy
To be clear on this subject there are NO artifacts whatsoever found in the same or older layers than those that contain dinosaur fossils. I'm an archaeology and history-student so if it would be found I'm pretty sure I would know it by now.
It's true that there are claims of new 5 till 15 million old fossil footprints finds, but we must stay sceptic untill we have dating evidence by tests like C14 and many other methodes depending on e.g. what kinda of soil it is.
the footprint was found in a layer that is suppose to be atleast 5 million years old, if radiometric dating shows a different resoult this will prove that the geologic column is wrong
It's not because it's writtenin a book that it's true. You have a lot of pseudohistory that's been marketed at the moment. The best example is 'chariots of the gods' by Erich von Daniken, which distorts all the scientific facts that we know about ancient civilisations. And creationist are quite willing to bend the facts to their favour at any time. Read the book 'counterknowledge' by Damian Thompson for more information.
I did a search for this footprint and found only a couple of sources for it and most where in Spanish, for obvious reasons namely it being from Bolivia, but there is no mention of it by any of the big news companies. I guess we we just have to wait and see what further study shows.
We have evidence of a footprint from approx 4 MA, if this new one is real and dated between 5-15 MA, it would not blow the scientific community apart. That's what's so great about science - it doesn't shut the door after each new discovery.
So, for fun, let's say this footprint is authentic and dates as...oh I dunno...12 million years old.
In your opinion a01011399, how would this discovery help Creationists and debunk evolutionists?
not being a creationist I will humor you cloak616 I would say yes but how would they use it would be the next question because even 5 million years throws a whole damper on that 6000 year old ear thing. So do you destroy radiometric dating or do you destroy the evolution of humans?
I know. It's like Creationists aren't even thinking ahead.
If they prove the footprint is 5MA or earlier, then they mess up the Geological Timeline. BUT they also mess up their own "6000 year old Earth" nonsense at the same time.
The hypocrisy is as rich as dino poo.
Care to comment a01011399? You can't have it both ways y'know. Is the footprint older than 6000 years?
in a flood model we would expect to find humans at the very top and also few exceptions, which is what we find, evolution can not accept this exceptions
Young Earth Creationist Flood Models are the topic of much mirth and hilarity at Uniformitarian gatherings. Please do whip one up for us that represents what the YEC believe is going on with this footprint so we may have it for our end-of-summer 'Burdick Masquerade Ball' wherein we all dress up like bacterial formations and inhale imported plant pollen.
I'm hoping this Bolivian footprint doesn't just get buried (pun intended).
Things that get rejected from a peer review are typically done so for a reason a find of this nature would/should destroy the current conception of human evolution and should be on the front page of every newspaper worldwide but I do not recall ever seeing it there, that is the point I was trying to make
I agree. I googled it too, and only found little references in fora, webblogs, no big newspaper, scientific websites or something with an authoraty whatsoever. Anyway my Professors would have gone crazy and would have refered to it in our lessons, because it would have been a major 'break through'.
And why if creationist are so against scientific methodes do they try to 'fake' scientific evidence for their own theory? They contradict themselves totally.
The footprint that I saw the article for no where in there did it say it was Homo sapian it just said it was a bipedial hominid which could make it an austrolpicicus[sp?].
As to your flood model statment earlier why would humans be any more at the top than say dinosaurs in a typical flood event all the organisms get mixed together.
1)You are correct however human ancestory is an everchanging field and there are new discoveries being made all the time so who is to say there isn't an older bipedial hominid
2)There wasn't a scale on the picture I saw and the article did not have a size listed so it is hard to debate this.
The main point is that until this is written up in a scientific publication or at least makes the major newspapers it is hard to believe that it is authentic.
1)Wrong if you were to find a human in with dinosaurs then you would falsify evolution. The possiblity of a bipedial human like animal living around the time that bipedial human like animals lived does not falsify evolution. Why would this falsify evolution because at the time the only mammals where no bigger than a modern raccoon making the evolution of humans impossible.
2)Again if this is true I await the publication in a science journal because those are right on for human size
See that is the thing you don't seem to understand just because something would get challanged in the scientific comunity does not make it any more incorrect. Atomic theory was challanged by the scientific community at first but as people did research evidence pointed to it as the likely answer. Just like evidence points to evolution as the likely answer. If something does truly challange evolution then it should be written up and submited for peer review etc.
Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory therefore that is the way that it works. It got to the point it is now by use of the scientific method, observation etc. and now it is a theory it has data backing it up. If you have a better hypothesis then find evidence for it and publish a paper maybe eventually your idea will become a theory. Evolution is very much science and as such is accountable to the same process as everything thing else in the scientific world.
Then why are facts that contradict evolution always ignored? why is this footprint being ignored? if this footprint does not contradict evolution why don´t we see a peer review article refuting the fossil? If this does not prove that evolution is dogmatic, what kind of proves would convince you that evolution is dogmatic?
To have a peer reviewed article refuting the "fossil" then first a peer reviewed article describing the fossil would need to be published, this I have not seen. If there are facts that contradict evolution then they need to be published. If you want to destory the "dogma" of evolution then the best way to do it would be through use of the scientific method.
these fossils are always rejected by peer review, these kind of fossils are not even strange, there are hundrets of similar examples, some human fossils even predate dinosaurs. if al of hese are frouds, why don´t we find any explanation explaining why are they frouds?
Again you need to point me in the right example with these humans predating dinosaurs because I have never heard of these. Currently the only fossil you can really point to is the footprint that was not published in any paper other than a couple of spanish papers which make me question is authenticity. (By paper I mean in this sense Newspaper or other type of magazine, and don't tell me there is a coverup reguarding the media in the US)
And btw, no human(iod) in that period was 170cm long! If jesus would have been 170cm tall, he would have be a giant for his time, so if the footprint corresponds with a human of 170m tall than that is prove on it's self that it is a fake! lol.
(and we have more than enough bodies form that time to prove that in the time jesus people were a lot smaller than 170cm)
How can you possible make such a statement! It shows you have no idea how dating methods work! It are very complicated methodes, perfectionated over very long periodes. E.g. radiocarbondating is always compared to dendrology, to be sure it's outcome is right. So you say that not only the C14atom decay in artifaced is a mythe, that treerings are not excisting? Or are just random things trees do? OMG, this is such a narrow minded comment of you, showing you have not done proper reseach.
"You ever noticed how creationists looked really unevolved?" --Bill Hicks--
ThePhantom135 1 day ago
Repeat after me:
How - do - you - know?
How - do - you - know?
How - do - you - know?
Keep repeating until ALL the children's eyes are glazed over.
Congratulations! They are now creationists.
Apple3point14159 1 month ago
Maaannn this video is very appalling. Im a christian and i find it disturbing. I dont these guys are too well equiped to be leading tours such as these.
wordhead77 2 months ago
I now love abc.
AmericanRdnk 3 months ago
Every single Christian is a piece of shit.
GundamLeviathan 4 months ago
when i was younger i was told the earth was made in seven days. I didn't believe a word of it.
treegurl84 5 months ago
shimimila bintu shergrergre
Brontosaurie 11 months ago
I am a Christian and I am completely appalled by this video - evolution is a fact - lying for god is still lying. Poor kids.
bagospannerz 1 year ago 2
Sad to say that the christian faith and those who believe in it will go extinct. Maybe, when they do this form of child abuse will end, but there will always be some kind of dogma.
jacewolf301 2 years ago
child abuse at its worst
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
To qoute my namesake "Follow the lead of nature, or of God if you prefer your fairy tales."
TheDrpretorious 2 years ago
Thank you for sharing the Interesting and deeply disturbing video. It shows nicely the ignorance of the media and the tendency not to offend even supporters of the most ridiculous and outlandish ideas.
in my opinion, any attempts for a rational discussion with religious/superstitious people are futile - we are talking about people that have decided to disregard logic and reason in the first place.
torr136 2 years ago
The energy should be spend to educate the segment of the populace that is receptive and force the academia to tighten their standards so no one without a basic understanding of science and scientific process will be admitted to (and graduate from) a university. We dont debate people who believe the earth is flat, why do we have to be drawn into debate with their modern kin?
torr136 2 years ago
Perhaps the most offensive part of this video is that they are teaching this to KIDS. Kids DO NOT have a developed critical thinking ability yet.
Evolution is easy to teach because it is logical, it follows. Creationism, at least by the biblical account would of course be hard to teach. This is because it's not true and doesn't have evidence to support it.
It would be fine to teach that some people have differing ideas. But don't tell me that Christ rode a dinosaur. That's absurd.
DarkOnyx 2 years ago
I object and I'll expand upon why. It's very difficult not to be offensive and try to articulate my points and feelings on that matter so please allow me a little room.
Creationism is ridiculous. And there's a particular branch of creationism called "young earth creationism" which is especially vulgar, disgusting and obscene to me and an insult to my logic.
Archeological data and radio carbon dating can conclusively prove that the Earth is more than 6000 years old.
DarkOnyx 2 years ago
Now, logic would dictate that we must then reject the hypothesis that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Not so. Not with creationism. This is my problem with both creationism AND apologetics in that it's the particularly offensive attempt to try to make a square triangle.
It's also very difficult to argue this with some theists because bizarre permutations of the original biblical account will come up, usually saying that the words were meant as some symbolism or perhaps a metaphor.
DarkOnyx 2 years ago
WOW. That was horrifying.
Evolution has a basis in science. It's a fact. HOW it occurs and HOW to explain jumps are not known. As such, it is called a "theory."
Creationism is an attempt to make "abracadabra!" seem scientific. It has NO basis in fact other than the bible. The bible cannot be used as a scientific reference for anything.
How dare someone call science "science fiction" and the bible "science." That about as ass backwards as it gets.
DarkOnyx 3 years ago 5
By the way, there's a reason why these kids are HOMESCHOOLED.
Their ultra religious parents do NOT want to expose them to competing ideas or different ways of thinking.
This is not education, it's INDOCTRINATION.
DarkOnyx 3 years ago 5
People should be taught both theories as you CAN use science to back both of them. Researching/learning about evolution is easy, as it requires the least amount of thought and education to understand, so many think that it is common sense, but science has proven time and again that what should be common sense isn't always true. Learning about creationism is much harder as most sources have a religious bias that makes them unreliable, and the science behind creationism is much more complicated.
Tesloipveo 2 years ago
To explain the evolution and creationism you have to put in this way. They are both beliefs that people believe in. There are two groups of people stupid and smart. The smart people believe in creationism and the stupid people believe in evolution. YOU have a CHOICE! You can be a gorilla if you want.(dats your choice!)
09rm 3 years ago
So stupid people believe in evolution do we? "Dat" is interesting! I believe in a God but I also see the ton of evidence that supports evolution. Evolution is not a religion and therefore you do not have to choose between it and any religion in fact the Catholic Church has repeatly supported the Theory of Evolution.
Hochemon2008 3 years ago
well ok smartguy why dont you write your own bible while your at it..
09rm 2 years ago
Why?
Hochemon2008 2 years ago
Because the bible clearly says what happened in the beginning and it says what didnt happen.. evolution.
09rm 2 years ago
Oh I see because I clearly don't believe exactly what it says in the bible I should write a new book for people to express faith in, even though I don't need one since the evidence supports the theory of evolution.
Hochemon2008 2 years ago
are you seeing what your typing? or I need to read it for you so you get that what you are saying does not make any sense...
09rm 2 years ago
I am sorry I am having trouble being able to put what I am trying to say into words. I do not have faith in evolution the evidence supports it so why do I need to write a new bible? If you really need to see the proof go to google scholar and type in evoution I think from there you should be able to find enough papers written on the subject.
Hochemon2008 2 years ago
well evolution and creationism (bible) are on the opposites sides here you either believe one or the other. Just like in the bible you are either cold or hot. if you are in the middle you are warm the worst of all
09rm 2 years ago
I will give you that there is a line between a literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago and evolution but their is no such schism between God and evolution what is just something put into place by literalists to make you think their is. Science makes no statment on God it just makes statments based on the evidence avaliable. Now I have a question why is it worse to be "warm" than either hot or cold afterall how many things in this world are either black or white?
Hochemon2008 2 years ago
Hooray for Science!
Megatron1999 3 years ago 2
in fact there are human fossils that predate dinosaurs,
a01011399 3 years ago
What? I would be very interested to learn more about this.
Hochemon2008 3 years ago
Lol, these guys need an lesson in achaeology! And fast!
QuantumBabe 3 years ago
And paleontology, geology, biology, I say we just stick with science in general.
Hochemon2008 3 years ago
a01011399:
I found a google cache of this same argument from you a month ago on NaoTio's channel wherein you stated "there are man ade artifacts form the precambrian, there are also human fossils that predate dinosaurs.."
1 month later, you are bringing this argument up again. I can only assume you have found empirical evidence to now substantiate your claim. If so, please present it to the class...you have our full attention.
cloak616 3 years ago
the reference is in book that I rented in a library (I dnpt have it any more) however finding human fossils in th eincorrect place is very common.
example type this in google ´´15 Million Year Old Footprint Found in Bolivia
The footprint was left by a man who walked on two legs. If the dating is confirmed, this discovery could change the history of humanity.´´ this footpint does not predate dinosaurs but it predates lucy
a01011399 3 years ago
To be clear on this subject there are NO artifacts whatsoever found in the same or older layers than those that contain dinosaur fossils. I'm an archaeology and history-student so if it would be found I'm pretty sure I would know it by now.
It's true that there are claims of new 5 till 15 million old fossil footprints finds, but we must stay sceptic untill we have dating evidence by tests like C14 and many other methodes depending on e.g. what kinda of soil it is.
QuantumBabe 3 years ago
the footprint was found in a layer that is suppose to be atleast 5 million years old, if radiometric dating shows a different resoult this will prove that the geologic column is wrong
a01011399 3 years ago
It's not because it's writtenin a book that it's true. You have a lot of pseudohistory that's been marketed at the moment. The best example is 'chariots of the gods' by Erich von Daniken, which distorts all the scientific facts that we know about ancient civilisations. And creationist are quite willing to bend the facts to their favour at any time. Read the book 'counterknowledge' by Damian Thompson for more information.
Megatron1999 3 years ago
I did a search for this footprint and found only a couple of sources for it and most where in Spanish, for obvious reasons namely it being from Bolivia, but there is no mention of it by any of the big news companies. I guess we we just have to wait and see what further study shows.
Hochemon2008 3 years ago
this footprint will be forgoten but never refuted, this kind of facts are always rejected from peer review and you won´t find this in a text book.
a01011399 3 years ago
We have evidence of a footprint from approx 4 MA, if this new one is real and dated between 5-15 MA, it would not blow the scientific community apart. That's what's so great about science - it doesn't shut the door after each new discovery.
So, for fun, let's say this footprint is authentic and dates as...oh I dunno...12 million years old.
In your opinion a01011399, how would this discovery help Creationists and debunk evolutionists?
cloak616 3 years ago
not being a creationist I will humor you cloak616 I would say yes but how would they use it would be the next question because even 5 million years throws a whole damper on that 6000 year old ear thing. So do you destroy radiometric dating or do you destroy the evolution of humans?
Also who is saying it couldn't be aliens :-)
Hochemon2008 3 years ago
I know. It's like Creationists aren't even thinking ahead.
If they prove the footprint is 5MA or earlier, then they mess up the Geological Timeline. BUT they also mess up their own "6000 year old Earth" nonsense at the same time.
The hypocrisy is as rich as dino poo.
Care to comment a01011399? You can't have it both ways y'know. Is the footprint older than 6000 years?
But...but...how can that be?
cloak616 3 years ago
in a flood model we would expect to find humans at the very top and also few exceptions, which is what we find, evolution can not accept this exceptions
a01011399 3 years ago
Young Earth Creationist Flood Models are the topic of much mirth and hilarity at Uniformitarian gatherings. Please do whip one up for us that represents what the YEC believe is going on with this footprint so we may have it for our end-of-summer 'Burdick Masquerade Ball' wherein we all dress up like bacterial formations and inhale imported plant pollen.
I'm hoping this Bolivian footprint doesn't just get buried (pun intended).
Maybe it belongs to a Thetan or XENU HIMSELF!
;)
cloak616 3 years ago
Things that get rejected from a peer review are typically done so for a reason a find of this nature would/should destroy the current conception of human evolution and should be on the front page of every newspaper worldwide but I do not recall ever seeing it there, that is the point I was trying to make
Hochemon2008 3 years ago
I agree. I googled it too, and only found little references in fora, webblogs, no big newspaper, scientific websites or something with an authoraty whatsoever. Anyway my Professors would have gone crazy and would have refered to it in our lessons, because it would have been a major 'break through'.
And why if creationist are so against scientific methodes do they try to 'fake' scientific evidence for their own theory? They contradict themselves totally.
QuantumBabe 3 years ago
this footprint proves that dating methods are wrong, evolutionists have 2 options
1) humans predate lucy, astralupitecus, homohabilis etc. (therefore non of them is a transitional fossil)
2) dating methods are wrong and finding and the layers are not related to the age
a01011399 3 years ago
The footprint that I saw the article for no where in there did it say it was Homo sapian it just said it was a bipedial hominid which could make it an austrolpicicus[sp?].
As to your flood model statment earlier why would humans be any more at the top than say dinosaurs in a typical flood event all the organisms get mixed together.
Hochemon2008 3 years ago
1) australupitecus are not suppose to be 5MYo
2) it was a human, australupitecus was not that big
a01011399 3 years ago
1)You are correct however human ancestory is an everchanging field and there are new discoveries being made all the time so who is to say there isn't an older bipedial hominid
2)There wasn't a scale on the picture I saw and the article did not have a size listed so it is hard to debate this.
The main point is that until this is written up in a scientific publication or at least makes the major newspapers it is hard to believe that it is authentic.
Hochemon2008 3 years ago
1) which makes evolution un-testable ¿what kind of fossils would falsify evolution, and why?
2) the footprint is 29.5cm big, from a human tat was 170cm tall
a01011399 3 years ago
1)Wrong if you were to find a human in with dinosaurs then you would falsify evolution. The possiblity of a bipedial human like animal living around the time that bipedial human like animals lived does not falsify evolution. Why would this falsify evolution because at the time the only mammals where no bigger than a modern raccoon making the evolution of humans impossible.
2)Again if this is true I await the publication in a science journal because those are right on for human size
Hochemon2008 3 years ago
you won't find this in a scientific journal, evidence that contradicts evolution is strictly forbidden in the scientific community.
is like saying, ´´I won't believe in the ´´Da vinci Code´´ until the Vatican approves it.
a01011399 3 years ago
See that is the thing you don't seem to understand just because something would get challanged in the scientific comunity does not make it any more incorrect. Atomic theory was challanged by the scientific community at first but as people did research evidence pointed to it as the likely answer. Just like evidence points to evolution as the likely answer. If something does truly challange evolution then it should be written up and submited for peer review etc.
Hochemon2008 3 years ago
´´If something does truly challange evolution then it should be written up and submited for peer review etc.´´
i AGREE THAT IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS, BUT EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE, THIS IS WHY WE DON´T FIND THE FACTS THAT CONTRADICT IT IN PEER REVIEW
a01011399 3 years ago
Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory therefore that is the way that it works. It got to the point it is now by use of the scientific method, observation etc. and now it is a theory it has data backing it up. If you have a better hypothesis then find evidence for it and publish a paper maybe eventually your idea will become a theory. Evolution is very much science and as such is accountable to the same process as everything thing else in the scientific world.
Hochemon2008 3 years ago
Then why are facts that contradict evolution always ignored? why is this footprint being ignored? if this footprint does not contradict evolution why don´t we see a peer review article refuting the fossil? If this does not prove that evolution is dogmatic, what kind of proves would convince you that evolution is dogmatic?
a01011399 3 years ago
To have a peer reviewed article refuting the "fossil" then first a peer reviewed article describing the fossil would need to be published, this I have not seen. If there are facts that contradict evolution then they need to be published. If you want to destory the "dogma" of evolution then the best way to do it would be through use of the scientific method.
Hochemon2008 3 years ago
these fossils are always rejected by peer review, these kind of fossils are not even strange, there are hundrets of similar examples, some human fossils even predate dinosaurs. if al of hese are frouds, why don´t we find any explanation explaining why are they frouds?
a01011399 3 years ago
Again you need to point me in the right example with these humans predating dinosaurs because I have never heard of these. Currently the only fossil you can really point to is the footprint that was not published in any paper other than a couple of spanish papers which make me question is authenticity. (By paper I mean in this sense Newspaper or other type of magazine, and don't tell me there is a coverup reguarding the media in the US)
Hochemon2008 3 years ago
And btw, no human(iod) in that period was 170cm long! If jesus would have been 170cm tall, he would have be a giant for his time, so if the footprint corresponds with a human of 170m tall than that is prove on it's self that it is a fake! lol.
(and we have more than enough bodies form that time to prove that in the time jesus people were a lot smaller than 170cm)
QuantumBabe 3 years ago
Thanks I really was out of my league when discussing early hominids
Hochemon2008 3 years ago
How can you possible make such a statement! It shows you have no idea how dating methods work! It are very complicated methodes, perfectionated over very long periodes. E.g. radiocarbondating is always compared to dendrology, to be sure it's outcome is right. So you say that not only the C14atom decay in artifaced is a mythe, that treerings are not excisting? Or are just random things trees do? OMG, this is such a narrow minded comment of you, showing you have not done proper reseach.
QuantumBabe 3 years ago