so what this video is saying is that if people lived with dinosaurs, god exists? lol.. ok then were they on the ark? if they were, where the fuck are they now?
You mean, they've been authenticated as true, bonafide hoaxes?. Please tell whoever carved these he should do better before trying to pull people's legs...
What baffles me the most is that somebody still tries to pass this as the real thing...
@gregrut you in to no what your talking about before you post the bible does not say the earth is flat it says the earth is round read isiah 40:22not only that talks about the water cycle dir
@3gdosrsfs Sorry you are wrong. If you think this proves creationism then you are an idiot. These foot prints are much larger than human feet today. That means it evolved! Besides those two foot prints could have been formed millions of years apart from each other. Theres no evidence that proves they were made at the same time.
@3gdosrsfs Thats cute, you do realise the flat earthers(your ilk) were on the side of the religious (if there ever were sides) and were defeated by scientists(on the side of evolution). Science wins, superstition loses.
@3gdosrsfs Your ignorance is astounding, the closest thing the bible gives to a description of the earth is "its circle", a circle is a 2d object, so yes it does make a flat earth claim. But that is silly, im just saying that if you wanna play sides youre going to lose. The church you seem to defend is the same organisation that attacked Galileo. Christopher Columbus??? It was proved by Eratosthenes many centuries earlier.
@3gdosrsfs The bible was written by men who thought the world was flat and the center of the universe, read the first page. It also says there was a global flood, another lie.
Even if you could prove that some dinosaurs were still around when man existed, that doesn't mean they weren't also around millions of years before that as well.
I knew those tracks were real and Darwinist were BS with this carved crap. I don't know why this evidence is not accepted in science. If there was compression like this it means the thing wasn't carved game over million billion years of evolution in the toilet start over. This time try actual science instead of the speculation game.
The bible says "Dont Lie'! So why are you lying to people about this?? It all comes down to the all mighty dollar !! Alvis just needed some cash and had to come up with a way to get it and of course the old "fake the virgin image" idea Bull Shit came to his mind . Its all about MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!
@texasmetaldetector We're not lying, we're going with the evidence and the evidence seems to suggest that this is a legitimate finding, and a remarkable and rare one at that. If an evolutionist found a fossil of an intermediate between a fish and an amphibian, or an amphibian and a reptile, it would be front page news and you would all be singing the praises of the discoverer. Somehow I don't see that happening.
It's useless to talk to an evolutionist that rules out God as a prerequisite to any conversation.
Darwinists are generally using anti-scientific methods like : creating evidence, or destroying the ones that does not fit their theory (which means : all the evidence out there).
@jb0433628"Darwinists are generally using anti-scientific methods like : creating evidence, or destroying the ones that does not fit their theory (which means : all the evidence out there)". i would really like to see a case that this has happened this seems to happen mostly happen to you creationist
@BlackWaax He was the Messiah, our Savior, and the Son of God. He was not the Lord in the flesh, that would contradict the prophecy for the Messiah. He's part of the Holy Trinity, but they are all separate.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Find the love of God here.
Audio, Gospel of John Chapter 1 AV h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=Ao4uaIjd3xs
@BereanBeacon1 Don't take that one too literally. We all face judgment. You could sin your way through life and never repent, yet believe in Jesus. Sure you'll have eternal life - in hell.
For the human enzyme to evolve by chance the odds are 10 with forty thousand zeros, more than there are Atoms in the universe..Evolution has absolutely no chance of ever happening or that it did happen..Zero possibility. Evolution is impossible within an materialistic framework and unprovable. That is why evolutionists are now saying that an alien race could have started humans or evolution..man they are desperate..This is evidence..deal with it don't runfrom it..we are all seeking the truth!
@doobersmanster You're absolutely right. That's why all the human enzymes - there are many - didn't evolve by chance. Each chemical reaction in the whole immense chain was selected.
@doobersmanster They were selected naturally. The ones that were at least neutral survived because the organism survived. The ones that were worse than neutral were not selected because the organism didn't survive, or didn't reproduce. Nothing supernatural required.
@puffin51 When you say that something was selected naturally then you are saying it happened by chance? Fine the chance of that/those "enzymes" being selected naturally is 1in10 with forty thousand zero's..a number that exceeds the amount of atoms in the universe,so mathmatically and Time/space wise the mathematical possibility is zero. OK so this theory devised in 1859 is impossible. So scrap this old garbage that is based in pagan religions and get a new theory.You're not stupid, YOU ARE SMART
@doobersmanster This is so far askew of reality that it simply doesn't make any sense at all. Natural selection is a principle that is not chance. There is no element of paganism whatsoever in the Theory of Evolution - that's just crazy talk. And I'll scrap that theory the day that there is evidence for a better one.
@puffin51 The probability of the chance formation of a functional ‘simple’ cell, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 10to the 57800. Ok if NS is not chance, evolution is based on cause and effect which leads to an designer. Its random or it is cause and effect. Either way you lose. Stephen hawkings believes in aliens why don't you? Anaximander (610–546 BC) taught that humans originally resembled another type of animal, namely fish. Complexity and functionality infers design and intelligence.
@doobersmanster Nobody says that a simple cell evolved in one step. There were many. That's why your calculation does not represent reality. Each step was very small, and not chancy, given the right conditions. Stephen Hawking thinks life is possible outside Earth and do I. Anaximander was on the right track. Complexity and functionality does not infer design or intelligence. There are many examples of non-living natural systems that are functional and complex, but were never designed.
@puffin51 The concept of function infers design. There is no proof that any any step ever happened. No transitional forms of life have ever been scientifically observed. Believe me anything you can say I have already looked into. All of your ideas are programmed into you. I just challenge everything, even the belief in God. I am just seeking truth just like you. There are legitamate Questions philosophically that can't be denied and can only be answered by the Elohim. (the Self existent One).
@doobersmanster Things function without design. River systems. Weather systems. Human societies. There are hundreds of "transitional forms" known. You can't possibly have read any paleontology without being aware of that.
Do you really think that nearly all scientists have been engaged in a giant conspiracy, for a hundred and fifty years, to brainwash people? What's their motive, when they've delivered so much knowledge? How would it even be possible? Think about what you're saying.
@puffin51 I never said there was a conspiracy including all scientist..all you have to do is control the ciriculum of a few schools and the ideas logically follow..It is simple..Of course people like you are not in a conspiracy, but you are indoctrinated and that should anger you, but instead you refuse to look at thing logically friend. No offence. A System infers design. Societies infer design. Codes infer desin. Name one transitional form from one "anything" to another species. There is none.
@doobersmanster There are about 600 colleges and research institutes doing biology in the US alone. There are around 90 000 working biologists. Are they all mind controlled? You are assuming a huge conspiracy without evidence or motive.
And societies are not designed. Language is not. Yet they function purposefully.
Transitional forms: Wikipedia's "List of transitional fossils" gives over 150, with 36 references to the literature. I'll give one, the most famous: Archeopteryx.
@puffin51 totally inconclusive, even with Evo's,"No intermediate fossils link Archaeopteryx with any of the groups from which it might have evolved."Vertebrate Life, 3rd ed. NY, McMillan, 1989 pp. 468, 470 This concept is reiterated by L. Martin, a paleontologist from the Uof K who said "archaeopteryx is not an ancestor of any modern birds; instead, it's a member of a totally extinct group of birds." Icons of Evolution, J Wells, p. 116 that it is unique unto itself, although a bird nonetheless.
@doobersmanster You are confusing "transitional form" with "ancestor of". Archeopteryx is anatomically a small raptor with feathers and wings. It is a transitional between dinosaurs and birds. You do know that since 1989 a whole group of feathered raptors has been discovered, all transitional? Wells is a Moonie who obtained a doctoral degree so he could trash evolution. He admitted it. He has never worked in paleontology. You're taking his word against thousands of working paleontologists?
@puffin51 Wrong it is a bird..and no dinos that are birds have been found, but extinct birds have been discovered. Not anitomically a small raptor, sorry, resembles a bird. The quote is not from wells..it is from L.Martin a paleontologist from U of Kansas. Good for him evolution needs to be trashed, it is a joke. It is just an invented cosmology so the Secular humanist Cult can do whatever it wants too. I trash evolution because it is false,they are extinct birds. Evo's have no credibility.
@doobersmanster If it's a bird, it's a bird with teeth, claws on its wings, a bony tail, and no wishbone. Martin said there are no links to other groups. That was likely true in 1989, but it isn't true now. And it isn't the point. I provided an example of a transitional. Now you want transitional forms to that one.
Evolution happens. It is a fact and a theory. It has been observed in the field and in the lab. It has been the organising principle of biology for a hundred years. Deal with it.
@puffin51 And then what another Pilt down Hoax..I don't believe anything the Evo's say, they have made so many hoaxes and frabrications in fossle records.They are desperate to come up with anything so they make stuff up.There is no transitional forms, that is the weakest evidence for evolution. So what it has teeth. A platypus has a bill does that mean it evolved from a duck. You don't even need evolution to do science, it means nothing to biology it actually hinders science.
@puffin51 Purpose infers design and intelligence. Like I said, Start the Idea of evolution and you give man the excuse to do anything they want to, would you give that up and submit to Jesus? Not you, not in a 1000 years..Do you believe that you should be able to do whatever you want,as long as it does not infringe on what other people want to do? Societies prove design..what do you think government and constitutions are..accidents? Language is extremly complex and infers design.
@doobersmanster You know nothing of my religious beliefs. But you are wrong in fact, and it can easily be shown. Languages change constantly. Read, say, Chaucer, as it was written. Or "Beowulf". It's a different language. But nobody designed modern English. There's no design bureau at work. Language is purposeful, complex, and performs a function, but it was not designed.
Evolution does not excuse anything. It says nothing about ethics. It's a statement about the origin of the species, no more.
@puffin51 Do you believe that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as it does not conflict with someone elses desires? Language changes and infers design, the change is part of human design..and they usually degrade rather than improve. The ancient vedic languages were far more complex than ours today.Another typical Evolution myth that languages evolve. I have heard all of these arguments B4 got anything new? I love philology..it is one of my favorite subjects. Godbless you.
@doobersmanster My ethical beliefs are not relevant to the theory of evolution. It says nothing about ethics.
It is plain that it is impossible for you to accept evidence. Anyone who thinks that there's some designer somewhere who designed language and introduces the changes to it is too far gone into irrationality to hear evidence at all. Farewell. I shall not further respond.
@doobersmanster Oh, and one more thing. Where did you get that "is acknowledged to be worse" than that figure? Who acknowledges that? Where? No actual scientist that I've ever heard of thinks something like that, because it relies on a ludicrous distortion of the process. So where are you getting that number from? Who is telling you these lies?
@puffin51 Sir Fred Hoyle worked out the odds Hoyle calculated the probability of his "simple" single-celled organism coming into existence by chance to be 1 in 10 to the57,800. That is the number 1 with over 57,000 zeros after it! Hoyle founded the Institute of Theoretical Astronomy in Cambridge in 1967. He was not a creationist. You are the one that is being lied to and you go along with the program intead of challenging these brainwashers. I just look things up on the Net and READ everything.
@doobersmanster Hoyle's misrepresentation of evolution was thoroughly exploded at the time. It's simply wrong. He knew nothing about biology. (I should have said "biologist", not "scientist".) He was a fine astronomer in his day, but he went rather peculiar late in life. It happens.
The point is, that calculation is false, because it's based on false assumptions. Nobody says a living cell "came into existence" all at once, so there's no point calculating the odds against it.
@saniti64 So, evolution covers evolution, but it doesn't account for the origin of species, huh? Do you have any idea of how bone-headed stupid that is? You're saying that walking covers walking, but doesn't account for getting anywhere different.
Yes, really. Consider the adult ability to digest lactose - milk sugars. It arose because of a mutation on the 2-chromosome, which disabled an "instruction" to stop producing the enzyme that digests lactose after infancy. As a result, adult humans with this mutation have the enzyme and can digest milk products. Great, if you have cattle or goats. But if the only source of lactose is human milk, it results in failure to wean, which is bad. Whether it's selected, then, depends on environment.
@charliebuck1000 That it's one of the icons of creationism, after Duane Gish talked it up about 1990. He was wrong. All the small steps by which the mechanism evolved are known, and all the precursor structures exist in other species. The mixture they excrete is not explosive - that idea is based on a mistranslation of a German paper. Bbs are explained by evolution. Look up talk origins dot com an index to creationist claims bombardier beetle for a full discussion.
@charliebuck1000 Sorry! You have utterly failed to convince me of absoluty anything. More typical Evo psychobabble & circular reasoning. Oh, and by the way, and not surprisingly as per usual, you failed to provide even one single shred of evidence as to where your evo "mechanism" came from in the first place. In case you haven't yet grasped the fact, evo theory assumes life existed and carries the story from that point, never bothering to explain where that biogenesis came from to begin with.
@sparky6025 hello brother,im not sure ,but i think you replied to the wrong guy,as i was trying to question evolution theory,and at the least get the athiests to do the same.God bless you.
@sparky6025 That was me you should be putting the boots into, sparky, not charliebuck, who is quite a civilised guy, even though he's on your side. Hint, sparky, even the bombadier beetle has wit enough to direct its spray accurately.
But you're absolutely right. The theory of evolution covers.... evolution! God Heavens, what a terrible weakness. It is a theory about what it says it's about! How shall biological science ever recover from such a blow, delivered with such remorseless logic?
@puffin51 hello friend,do you happen to know an aproximation of the the statistical # of events that would have to had taken place for life to form in this galaxy on its own,not to mention the astronomical odds for said life to develope into what we have today?ive heard it said ,by an evolutionist,that its equivelent to shuffling a deck of cards and having them arrange in numerical order by suit ,every shuffle,by pure chance.at some point,you start to doubt chance.
@charliebuck1000 The exact path by which self-replication began is not known. The steps are slowly being found, though, and each one that has been found has a probability of 100%, given the right conditions. How rare those conditions are in the Universe is not known, but most, if not all, main-sequence stars have planets, and some of those most probably have the right conditions.
Once self-replication began, the chance of life like the life we have now developing is 100%.
Monkeys are adapted for continuous-canopy forest, but can move fast on the ground. Flight specialises too much to suit them. Some fruit-eating mammals fly, though: flying foxes. Humans are not adapted to water at all. Why would we need to breathe it?
Now turn your question around. If God could create anything, why did He not make flying monkeys or water-breathing humans? Evolution can answer in terms of the organism and its environment. Creationism can only say, well, He just didn't.
@puffin51 the fact is friend,that the factors you attribute to evolution(it did because it could,it selects,and whatever else),are the factors i attribute to God.the difference is,if you look at all of nature,you see a pattern of the path of least resistance,yet if you look at human "evolution"you see the opposite.did we get smarter before we lost our hair or after,and what benefit would that serve.i guess maybe im just not up to par mentally,but i wonder why there are no super-humans evolved?
Mutation, genetic drift and natural selection are sufficient factors to account for the origin of species. You can add God in if you like, but it isn't necessary.
You seem to think two mutually opposed things: one, that human evolution required divine assistance, and two, that evolution would produce superhumans. The fact that there are no superhumans leads one to *expect* natural means, not miracles. We are limited by nature to what is possible; but that is sufficient to produce human beings.
@puffin51 mutations that we see now are always harmful for the species,so how can you assume that we benefited from one however long ago.i believe that if evolution were the force that created us,we would be better equipped to face the physical world.think about this,sure we have super intelligence,but without the necessary physical stamina,strength,and endurance to resist natures onslaught,we could never have developed the intelligence unless there was a helping hand.
Wrong. Mutations are mostly neutral, some beneficial. The last are selected. Our immediate ancestors were anatomically far more robust than we are. We don't need to be. If it isn't an advantage, it isn't selected for.
Natural causes are enough to explain the origin of species, including ours. Put God in, if you like, but don't kid yourself that there's any evidence for Him. Believe as you like, but don't kid yourself you're using reason to get there. You're not.
On average, every human being carries about 140 mutations, nearly all of them unnoticed. Google "beneficial mutation", and you will find a list of twenty or so beneficial mutations observed in the lab or in the field. Whether a mutation is called "beneficial", "neutral" or "harmful" depends on its selection value in the environment, of course. Many large mutations are catastrophic, true. But beneficial mutation exists, and is sufficient for natural selection to work on.
@charliebuck1000 Or if you object that the beneficial mutations observed in that list are of other than human species, the wikipedia article you get from googling "beneficial mutation in humans" gives two examples.
@puffin51 in order to be able to "specialize" in the mental department,we would have had to master the physical department.yet,our closest "relatives" are not top of the food chain.with out some outside factor protecting us,we wouldnt be able to develope the skills that we have.thats why there are no other intelligent animals.the law of chance is, if it can happen once,it can happen again.to me,it seems that we have limits so that we will depend on something greater that ourselves.not science.
Other social animals do not kill the weak. Some do, some don't. Elephants don't, for example. We are a social species that benefits from accumulated knowledge and skill. It's in our interest to keep our old alive, and to retain as much diversity of experience as possible - that's a spin-off from intelligence and the development of culture. Altruism actually benefits the group, to an extent, so to an extent it is selected for. But only to an extent. Humans are not consistently altruistic, either.
@puffin51 the fact that all social animals dont have empathy doesnt help the natural selection argument.if empathy is beneficial for one species,its good for all,and yet chimps in the wild,our closest "relatives",will rip your face off at the smallest sign of weakness.so why would nature choose one group to have this trait that sometimes is not beneficial for the group,but skip over a similar group altogether?and again,why are humans the only animals with higher intellect.is evolution lazy?
You're simply wrong about chimps. They exhibit out-group hostility - but so do we. They can and do develop in-group altruism. So did we, augmented by our intellectual ability to imagine ourselves in the place of the other. Why the intellect? Depends on what you mean by "why". If you mean "with what intent", you're assuming. If you mean "how did it come about", answers are available, too long to discuss here. Try googling "evolution intelligence". The wikipedia article isn't bad, as a start.
@puffin51 by why,im saying why dont other species exhibit true intellect.if natural selection has selected it in one species,it should have selected in other similar species.after all,it benefits all primates to have binocular vision and opposable thumbs.for that matter,wouldnt it benefit humans as a species to have the strength that other primates have.this is conjecture,but its still a valid question.why would we evolve into weak brainiacs.evolution should have selected better genes.
All evolutionary specialities come with trade-offs. Intelligence on a human scale requires very large energy costs to fuel the nervous system, and a proportionally large head causes other problems. No species can specialise in everything. We didn't specialise in strength because we didn't need to. It wasn't a commensurate advantage.
Intelligence worked for us; but ours is one of millions of evolutionary paths. Why did we take this one? No reason. It happened because it could happen.
@puffin51 also, i admire your analogy,but we need to bring it closer to the real statistical probablity for it to have an impact.so ,its more like watching a rain shower from a cloud that formed indoors and every drop hits a specific point to form a pattern that spells out your name.very unlikely ,but possible under the right conditions and given enough time and all that stuff.but how did the cloud know how to spell your name? conjecture;)
Your change-up on my analogy fails because there is no prior requirement to spell out anything, just to hit the ground. The rain, and evolution, simply does what is possible. The cloud knows nothing, and doesn't need to know anything. Every spot on the ground that the rain can hit, is hit sooner or later. Intelligence is a possible path; sooner or later it is taken. It's as simple as that.
Look, here's an analogy: Watch a shower of rain. Each raindrop follows a slightly different path from the cloud and hits a particular spot. Why did it hit that particular spot? No reason, and it's unlikely. But sooner or later, every spot is wet. That's evolution. Every possible pathway is followed. Every niche is filled. Our species happened to follow that particular pathway - to intelligence - and hit that particular spot. It's unlikely, but possible. It happened because it could.
@puffin51 "every possible pathway is followed" .where are the flying monkeys and water breathing humans?if natural selection and pure chance were the motivating forces behind adaptabilty,then there would be a species that specialized in brain and brawn,simply because it could.there are fish that breath air,birds that swim and plants that eat animals,so somewhere in the evolutionary chain, why wouldnt there be a super creature?again,just conjecture.
The best YouTube videos on the topics like this you can find in my channel's playlist Creation vs Evolution. Click on "more info" about that playlist, and God bless you.
Yes if you step in wet mud you track and carry it along with you. But if you step onto a batch that was like soft clay it'll keep a perfect shape. The more dense the mud or clay the more form you'll see especially with alot of weight applied. Come on people this should be common sense. Of course creationist will be posting it. But look at the facts and look past your basic urge to mock anything that doesn't fit in your belief system. And darwinian evolution is a belief, not an absolute.
This is so easy to disprove. Take your shoes off , go find some mud and walk through it. What are the results. How many of the foot prints look like a perfect foot print. See how the prints are littered with splashed mud. Also a two ton animal would have made a much deeper imprint how come they have not gone back to the site and looked for a continuous foot print. Only one foot track! Also notice all the sites on youtube are from religious sites.
The Law & constitution set aside, there are questions that evolvution can not explain. There's nothing wrong w/ explaining the holes in this theory. I have taught science for 15 years and I have questions about the theory because parts of it don't make sense or is assumed. In fact much of early evolution is assumed. I'm one who is searching for answers in evolution and just resently am intrigued by the intellegent design thoery. I encourage everyone to be open minded and question everything.
@Grettgirl What specific questions do you not think that evolution explains? What parts of it don't make sense? A lot of fairly high-talent people have been studying it for around a hundred and fifty years now, and nearly all of them think it does make sense, and that it does explain the origin of the species - which it what it is supposed to explain.
@puffin51 hello,could you explain, from an evolutionists point of view,the purpose for compassion and empathy.evolution says only the strong survive,so why do we humans have compassion for weaker creatures?thanx for any insight you could provide.
@charliebuck1000 Evolution doesn't say "only the strong survive". That's a distortion. Humans, for instance, survived because we're a social species. We co-operate with each other for mutual benefit. The ability to do that is an advantage in our environment, so it was selected for. That is, empathy - the ability to see the other's point of view - was evolved by natural selection. You know what "compassion" means, right? "To feel emotion together". Well, that was the result of evolution.
@puffin51 natural selection implies that nature selects the best qualities from a species and generates them in that species to make it stronger,therefore,survival of the fittest and all that.the fact that we are social doesnt explain empathy for other species or weaker specimens of our own.other social animals kill the weak and dont tolerate other species unless its a symbiotic relationship,so why are humans different?why are we the only ones to develope real intellect and indepth thought?
I wonder if Carl Baugh would be interested in bringing this to the Utah Museum of Natural History for analysis. I'd like to test the actual stone, see if it even comes from the Paluxy River. I highly doubt he would allow this because then he'd be shown to be the fraud we all know he is.
@SanRafaelSwell Dinosaur Valley State Park has similar fossils but by law they can't discuss them. Classrooms operate the same way, as students are not allowed to question anything that doesn't agree with the religion of evolution.
More lies. I happen to teach High School Biology and my students know they are free to ask me anything. I also happen to be a Paleoecologist at the Utah Museum of Natural History and as far as I know, no such laws exist anywhere in the US. Please give me a citation for this law. Creationists have nothing but lies and frauds. How pathetic.
@SanRafaelSwell This is the Creation Museum email contact, creationATcreationevidencedotorg. Dr. Baugh mentions that there is a law on this video: CREATION IN PROPHECY (I would give you the time but can't remember) . I was considering calling the park and asking them.
So you don't know that such a law exists, you are parroting Carl Baugh, funny that. You should really check your information before making claims. Baseless claims are intellectually dishonest.
@SanRafaelSwell Here is a suggestion for you. Have a class project to prove we are lying and if you can, your students should produce a video for YouTube.
First Carl Baugh would have to allow to run analysis on the specimen in question. That would prove the lie. Also, you haven't named the people at Glen Rose Medical Center who actually performed the CT scans. I called them and they have never heard of this happening, why is that?
Another thing. You are asking me to break the law, you do realize this, don't you. If I assigned students the task of proving creationists/creationism a law, I would be violating the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. Silly creationist.
@SanRafaelSwell Then contact Dinosaur Valley State Park and ask them if there is a law not to discuss the fossil prints. Seems like your students would be very interested in exposing this supposed lie.
Why should I try and support YOUR claim? It is YOUR claim that such a law exists. The Burden of Proof is yours. You really are a typical creationist, shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy and yet more intellectual dishonesty from you. My students are interested in learning about reality, they don't want to waste time on bullshit like creationism. Did you miss the part were I said you were asking me to break the law? Are you this oblivious?
Still nothing on the names of the people that performed the analysis at Glen Rose Medical Center? Go figure. The fact that I called them and NO ONE in there radiology department has ever heard of anyone bringing in this specimen is compelling evidence suggesting that CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS. Give it up, you've got nothing.
There is no such law. The actual constitutonal wording says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." You are not congress and you are not making law. Educators should not limit a students quest for truth by restricting the quest.
Please, how am I limiting my students by keeping religion out of the science class room? It is ILLEGAL, as established by the US Supreme Court to teach religion in a public science classroom, I'm following the law and I'd love to see you argue otherwise. Really, I would.
@SanRafaelSwell You are right about the law on evolution vs. creation. I jumped into the debate to explain the constitution establishment clause not creation vs evolution in the classroom.. Two entirely different arguements, guess I got carried away. The constituion does not prohibit the teaching of religion in the classroom or creation in particular,. It is Subpreme court rulings (judges opinion) that becomes the law of the land. So, yes you are right ,you are prohibited.
As I should be. Unfortunately there are teachers in public science classrooms that DO teach creationism. These teachers are, of course, breaking the law and violating the constitution. Public schools are funded by the government and thus they can not be used to promote any religion. The teaching of religion promotes a very specific "flavor" of christianity and thus not only violates the law, it also violates the US Constitution. This is why the judges ruled the way they did.
Please name the person or persons at the Glen Rose Medical Center that performed said analysis. Until such people are named, I will call this video a flat out lie. Looking at the specimen, it is rather obviously carved, and poorly done so. The dinosaur track looks NOTHING like real ones and human track, if not carved, must have come from someone with a severe deformity. What a load of shit. Silly creationists, you make the baby jesus cry when you lie.
You bible packers say the fossils are frauds and then say scientists have no evidence. The fossils are the facts the scientist are trying to explain. And you won't look at the fossils !
Evolution is a dieing religion, just like Christians they are always looking towards the future for an answer: Christians wait for Jesus' return while evolutionist wait for a transitional skeleton. We both believe in something that is unseen. That is a religious view, that is evolution.
my theory is. with the big toe of the human indention quite deep...then there is a dino footprint..one might say this human was running and a dino was looking for food..new theory..DINOS ATE HUMANS TOO..LOL
Curious that the mud footprints shown have the axis of the big toe and little toe parallel, whereas the supposed human fossil print has the little toe axis at almost 90deg out.
Has this discovery been written up in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
(CONT) including the uncertain circumstances of the discovery, lack of in situ documentation, the knowledge that similar tracks have been carved in the Glen Rose area, the serious morphological abnormalities in the prints, and the considerations about potentially misleading scanning artifacts such as beam hardening, point to the strong likelihood that both the "human footprint" and dinosaur track on this loose slab were carved or heavily altered from less distinct depressions.
The Alvis Delk Print is not a convincing human footprint in ancient rock. Its advocates have failed to present the necessary data and details to adequately support their assertions. Even putting aside the extensive independent evidence that humans did not exist until long after the Cretaceous Period, the collective weight of several lines of evidence,
So, you can't remember if P Z said it, now. You think "they" said it. Good to know you've got the facts at your fingertips.
No, a large mammal in the Jurassic wouldn't disprove evolution. What would? Well, if living things don't have hereditable traits, evolution's gone. Or if there's no variability in the offspring. Or if natural selection didn't happen. Or if speciation had never been observed. Or if a chimaera were found. Or a single vertebrate hexapod. Much else.
Dear God, the Paluxy footprints. Even Answers in Genesis has given up on those.
They're fakes, mostly carved in the 'thirties by locals, by "improving" genuine dinosaur tracks. Others are just dino prints in poor condition. The "Delk" track has no provenance, and all the mumbo-jumbo about compression given here proves nothing. Most likely a smaller, older dino track crossing the larger one was "improved" by a local and found later.
Oh, and "Dr" Carl Baugh is a doctor the same way I'm the Pope.
@puffin02 easy god boy, too many people think they know what happened, where in the bible does it say he killed the dinosaurs off first? and where does it say god dosent wear shoes, and the god isnt just a bipedal geneticist? keep worshiping your 150-160 pound Caucasian male on a cross you fucking weirdo
@puffin02 They're not carved. I've personally seen samples of footprints excavated from the site and when sawed in half and examined you can clearly see the impressions left by something with a foot that stepped in it when it was still mud. This would not be the case had i have been carved in the thirties.
I've been to this river twice and have pictures of the human footprint within a dinosaur footprint
@jedwalker10 Some are carvings, clearly. Some are dino prints that have eroded. If carefully cleaned, these show evidence for three toes, not five. Some are natural features that look a bit like tracks if the light's right, but don't occur in striding sequences.
Back in the 80's there were half a dozen scientific papers on the tracks, written by experts. All of them concluded that they fall into one of those categories.
Now I suppose you're going to tell me that it's all a conspiracy.
@puffin02 The Paluxy River tracks are on going process of being revealed. When the stream floods from unusual high rains, layers of previously laid down mud is broken up and washed away. Exposing new tracks. Those tracks only stand up to weathering and destruction from the stream for a short time. So the 1980 study of tracts that were already disappearing. Don't mean very much.
@Howie47 The fact that they were eroding is the point. The impressions of the outer toes were and are disappearing, yet careful cleaning did establish those impressions. Then there's the fact that no other modern mammals save "human" prints were ever claimed - no camelids, pigs, cats, wolves, whatever. Only "human" and dinosaur. Sound right to you?
No. These are bipedal dinosaur prints, sometimes with a little "improvement". And Baugh and Patton are no more doctors than I'm the pope.
@puffin02 Actually their is a claim of a paw print for a large cat. But I'm not going to do the work of searching it up. It would seem a little strange for no other mammals to be present. Of course big Dino foot prints would remain. While smaller, rabbits and such, might not even be heavy enough to leave impressions. Read this Science article that agrees with me. "Secrets of Dinosaur Footprints Revealed, Thanks to 'Goldilocks'"
@gregrutz A fossil of a large cat was found, with a baby dinosaur in it's stomach. "Fossil shows early mammals fed on dinosaurs Discovery in China reshapes thinking on animals' evolution" So unless your just building a strawman argument about not finding the Easter Bunny. Stay Lost.
@Howie47 Please provide a clue about where you heard about this cat that ate a dinosaur. Googling turns up nothing. I don't think there's any such fossil.
@puffin02 Search "Dinosaur Fossil Found in Mammal's Stomach" Live Science article. "It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur because they were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.-A second mammal fossil found at the same site is about the size of a modern dog. E. Myers said finding large mammals with dino's would be a serious problem for E.T.!
@Howie47 OK, I found it, and fair enough, it's new to me. But it isn't any sort of challenge to evolution. A cat-sized early mammal - about 130 mya - ate a newly-hatched parrot-beaked dinosaur, about 5 inches long. It doesn't even show that mammals have been around longer than previously thought - mammals that old were known. What it shows is that some early mammals were bigger, and some were at least part-time predators. Interesting. Fills in some more details. But no problem for evolution.
@puffin02 I believe it was P.Z. Myers that originally said, finding a large mammal with dinosaurs would be a problem for evolution. So you can take your response up with him. On another BereanBeacon video. He brought up a artifact in Israel showing 2 T-Rex type animals attacking a horse. "Archaeology in Israel, Dino and Horses Together", would that be a problem in your mind? Would any evidence? Link to Pics. is in drop-down, slide show is slow to start. So wait a few seconds.
@Howie47 Wrong. P Z Myers said: "I don't know what fossil record you've been looking at, but the one scientists use shows mammal-like reptiles preceding the dinosaurs. This is old news. A reptilian radiation produced many branches, including an early line that led to the modern mammals, but it was the saurian line that flourished best in the Mesozoic." Pharyngula, Jan 4, 2009.
That video is nonsense. Coelacanths are not extinct. The mosaic shows scenes from Roman mythology, and nothing more.
20 inch footprints.. human? ah ok, must have been fucking goliath on his way to be stoned by david. LOL
turbocpt1 3 days ago
so what this video is saying is that if people lived with dinosaurs, god exists? lol.. ok then were they on the ark? if they were, where the fuck are they now?
turbocpt1 3 days ago
You mean, they've been authenticated as true, bonafide hoaxes?. Please tell whoever carved these he should do better before trying to pull people's legs...
What baffles me the most is that somebody still tries to pass this as the real thing...
Must be pretty desperate...
FinflazodeTurroai 1 week ago
I cannot beleive somebody still is trying to use those prints as evidence,it was debunk years ago.even mst christians acept that those were faked.
mandrillx 3 weeks ago
Too bad those tracks have been debunked as man made fakes.
TheThunderduck 1 month ago
@TheThunderduck Where were they debunked?
Adeptmind 2 weeks ago
brilliant video
TheKcsmithy 1 month ago
love the video man
clairebehun 1 month ago
fake
Cainkane1 1 month ago
@gregrut you in to no what your talking about before you post the bible does not say the earth is flat it says the earth is round read isiah 40:22not only that talks about the water cycle dir
god1u2melast 2 months ago
Rofl, that human footprint has so obviously beed carved into the rock by some typical creationist. Just look at the supposed big toe! Hahahaa.
Lying turds.
GnosticHumanist 3 months ago
Also Mehico33, I see you have nothing to say about the evolutionist destroying the evidence. No suprise there my friend.
3gdosrsfs 4 months ago
@3gdosrsfs Sorry you are wrong. If you think this proves creationism then you are an idiot. These foot prints are much larger than human feet today. That means it evolved! Besides those two foot prints could have been formed millions of years apart from each other. Theres no evidence that proves they were made at the same time.
psychodrumplayer14 3 months ago
Everybody even slightly convinced by this should google "human dinosaur footprints" and in an instant see this nonsense blown out of the water.
mehico33 5 months ago
@mehico33 How's that? By some evolutionist so convinced himself that he had to go
to the river bed, with an iron rod and destroy the devistating evidence? You evolution
clowns have lost......it's just a matter of time before it's all over.
3gdosrsfs 4 months ago
@mehico33 How's that? By some evolutionist so convinced himself that he had to go
to the river bed, with an iron rod and destroy the devistating evidence? You evolution
clowns have lost......it's just a matter of time before it's all over. Flat eathers lost too and
so will all you God hating athiests.
3gdosrsfs 4 months ago
@3gdosrsfs Thats cute, you do realise the flat earthers(your ilk) were on the side of the religious (if there ever were sides) and were defeated by scientists(on the side of evolution). Science wins, superstition loses.
PS: I cant hate anything that doesnt exist.
mehico33 4 months ago
@mehico33 Amazing! It was so called scientists of way back that insisted on a flat earth. Christopher columbus a
proved it and long before the theory of evolution had anything to do with it. Go see history my friend.
The bible does not make any such 'flat earth' claim. And yes Science( the bible using historical facts
substantiated via science) wins and yes superstition(evolution which to day not even the top dogs of
that dogma deny it is a fairy tale loses. Im glad you see the truth finally.
3gdosrsfs 4 months ago 3
@3gdosrsfs Your ignorance is astounding, the closest thing the bible gives to a description of the earth is "its circle", a circle is a 2d object, so yes it does make a flat earth claim. But that is silly, im just saying that if you wanna play sides youre going to lose. The church you seem to defend is the same organisation that attacked Galileo. Christopher Columbus??? It was proved by Eratosthenes many centuries earlier.
Fact: Evolution happened and you are a fool.
mehico33 4 months ago
@3gdosrsfs The bible was written by men who thought the world was flat and the center of the universe, read the first page. It also says there was a global flood, another lie.
gregrutz 4 months ago
Even if you could prove that some dinosaurs were still around when man existed, that doesn't mean they weren't also around millions of years before that as well.
QuakerJT 5 months ago
I knew those tracks were real and Darwinist were BS with this carved crap. I don't know why this evidence is not accepted in science. If there was compression like this it means the thing wasn't carved game over million billion years of evolution in the toilet start over. This time try actual science instead of the speculation game.
Dionanthon 5 months ago
Let's convince the open minded people instead of these corrupted atheist that create the evidence to support their theory.
jb0433628 5 months ago
The bible says "Dont Lie'! So why are you lying to people about this?? It all comes down to the all mighty dollar !! Alvis just needed some cash and had to come up with a way to get it and of course the old "fake the virgin image" idea Bull Shit came to his mind . Its all about MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!
texasmetaldetector 5 months ago
@texasmetaldetector We're not lying, we're going with the evidence and the evidence seems to suggest that this is a legitimate finding, and a remarkable and rare one at that. If an evolutionist found a fossil of an intermediate between a fish and an amphibian, or an amphibian and a reptile, it would be front page news and you would all be singing the praises of the discoverer. Somehow I don't see that happening.
curtisgtr 5 months ago
@curtisgtr
It's useless to talk to an evolutionist that rules out God as a prerequisite to any conversation.
Darwinists are generally using anti-scientific methods like : creating evidence, or destroying the ones that does not fit their theory (which means : all the evidence out there).
jb0433628 5 months ago
@jb0433628"Darwinists are generally using anti-scientific methods like : creating evidence, or destroying the ones that does not fit their theory (which means : all the evidence out there)". i would really like to see a case that this has happened this seems to happen mostly happen to you creationist
mimarp478 5 months ago
Jesus never fell into temptation, he was the lord in flesh. so take your childish humor somewhere else.
BlackWaax 6 months ago
@BlackWaax He was the Messiah, our Savior, and the Son of God. He was not the Lord in the flesh, that would contradict the prophecy for the Messiah. He's part of the Holy Trinity, but they are all separate.
curtisgtr 5 months ago
@BlackWaax Amen, brother.
MalWareProductions 2 months ago
Or search for this: The Delk Specimen.
Ackers555 6 months ago
@Ackers555 Thank you.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Find the love of God here.
Audio, Gospel of John Chapter 1 AV h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=Ao4uaIjd3xs
BereanBeacon1 6 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Don't take that one too literally. We all face judgment. You could sin your way through life and never repent, yet believe in Jesus. Sure you'll have eternal life - in hell.
curtisgtr 5 months ago
The truth about this 'so called' fossil is here: watch?v=yJPZ-nRH8r8
Ackers555 6 months ago
This is a stinking vile lie!
Ackers555 6 months ago
Comment removed
eosimias1 6 months ago
The Delk print is thoroughly debunked here: watch?v=yJPZ-nRH8r8
qabala 6 months ago
OK now I believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted, and Jesus probably had sex with dinosaurs.
gupsphoo 6 months ago
@gupsphoo A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself. Proverbs 18:2
They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adders' poison is under their lips. Selah. Psalm 140:3
BereanBeacon1 6 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Quoting the Bible doesn't disprove the hypothesis that your Jesus fucked dinosaurs, does it? LOL
gupsphoo 6 months ago
For the human enzyme to evolve by chance the odds are 10 with forty thousand zeros, more than there are Atoms in the universe..Evolution has absolutely no chance of ever happening or that it did happen..Zero possibility. Evolution is impossible within an materialistic framework and unprovable. That is why evolutionists are now saying that an alien race could have started humans or evolution..man they are desperate..This is evidence..deal with it don't runfrom it..we are all seeking the truth!
doobersmanster 7 months ago
@doobersmanster Amen.
SETI Funding Linked to Belief in Evolution
h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=3C7PXp1qI-E
BereanBeacon1 7 months ago
@doobersmanster You're absolutely right. That's why all the human enzymes - there are many - didn't evolve by chance. Each chemical reaction in the whole immense chain was selected.
puffin51 7 months ago
@puffin51 yes ..selected by who? Who do you think selected them..or what? or what process? I wonder..Jesus Loves you and so do I..
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster They were selected naturally. The ones that were at least neutral survived because the organism survived. The ones that were worse than neutral were not selected because the organism didn't survive, or didn't reproduce. Nothing supernatural required.
puffin51 6 months ago
@puffin51 When you say that something was selected naturally then you are saying it happened by chance? Fine the chance of that/those "enzymes" being selected naturally is 1in10 with forty thousand zero's..a number that exceeds the amount of atoms in the universe,so mathmatically and Time/space wise the mathematical possibility is zero. OK so this theory devised in 1859 is impossible. So scrap this old garbage that is based in pagan religions and get a new theory.You're not stupid, YOU ARE SMART
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster This is so far askew of reality that it simply doesn't make any sense at all. Natural selection is a principle that is not chance. There is no element of paganism whatsoever in the Theory of Evolution - that's just crazy talk. And I'll scrap that theory the day that there is evidence for a better one.
puffin51 6 months ago
@puffin51 The probability of the chance formation of a functional ‘simple’ cell, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 10to the 57800. Ok if NS is not chance, evolution is based on cause and effect which leads to an designer. Its random or it is cause and effect. Either way you lose. Stephen hawkings believes in aliens why don't you? Anaximander (610–546 BC) taught that humans originally resembled another type of animal, namely fish. Complexity and functionality infers design and intelligence.
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster Nobody says that a simple cell evolved in one step. There were many. That's why your calculation does not represent reality. Each step was very small, and not chancy, given the right conditions. Stephen Hawking thinks life is possible outside Earth and do I. Anaximander was on the right track. Complexity and functionality does not infer design or intelligence. There are many examples of non-living natural systems that are functional and complex, but were never designed.
puffin51 6 months ago
@puffin51 The concept of function infers design. There is no proof that any any step ever happened. No transitional forms of life have ever been scientifically observed. Believe me anything you can say I have already looked into. All of your ideas are programmed into you. I just challenge everything, even the belief in God. I am just seeking truth just like you. There are legitamate Questions philosophically that can't be denied and can only be answered by the Elohim. (the Self existent One).
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster Things function without design. River systems. Weather systems. Human societies. There are hundreds of "transitional forms" known. You can't possibly have read any paleontology without being aware of that.
Do you really think that nearly all scientists have been engaged in a giant conspiracy, for a hundred and fifty years, to brainwash people? What's their motive, when they've delivered so much knowledge? How would it even be possible? Think about what you're saying.
puffin51 6 months ago
@puffin51 I never said there was a conspiracy including all scientist..all you have to do is control the ciriculum of a few schools and the ideas logically follow..It is simple..Of course people like you are not in a conspiracy, but you are indoctrinated and that should anger you, but instead you refuse to look at thing logically friend. No offence. A System infers design. Societies infer design. Codes infer desin. Name one transitional form from one "anything" to another species. There is none.
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster There are about 600 colleges and research institutes doing biology in the US alone. There are around 90 000 working biologists. Are they all mind controlled? You are assuming a huge conspiracy without evidence or motive.
And societies are not designed. Language is not. Yet they function purposefully.
Transitional forms: Wikipedia's "List of transitional fossils" gives over 150, with 36 references to the literature. I'll give one, the most famous: Archeopteryx.
puffin51 6 months ago
@puffin51 totally inconclusive, even with Evo's,"No intermediate fossils link Archaeopteryx with any of the groups from which it might have evolved."Vertebrate Life, 3rd ed. NY, McMillan, 1989 pp. 468, 470 This concept is reiterated by L. Martin, a paleontologist from the Uof K who said "archaeopteryx is not an ancestor of any modern birds; instead, it's a member of a totally extinct group of birds." Icons of Evolution, J Wells, p. 116 that it is unique unto itself, although a bird nonetheless.
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster You are confusing "transitional form" with "ancestor of". Archeopteryx is anatomically a small raptor with feathers and wings. It is a transitional between dinosaurs and birds. You do know that since 1989 a whole group of feathered raptors has been discovered, all transitional? Wells is a Moonie who obtained a doctoral degree so he could trash evolution. He admitted it. He has never worked in paleontology. You're taking his word against thousands of working paleontologists?
puffin51 6 months ago
@puffin51 Wrong it is a bird..and no dinos that are birds have been found, but extinct birds have been discovered. Not anitomically a small raptor, sorry, resembles a bird. The quote is not from wells..it is from L.Martin a paleontologist from U of Kansas. Good for him evolution needs to be trashed, it is a joke. It is just an invented cosmology so the Secular humanist Cult can do whatever it wants too. I trash evolution because it is false,they are extinct birds. Evo's have no credibility.
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster If it's a bird, it's a bird with teeth, claws on its wings, a bony tail, and no wishbone. Martin said there are no links to other groups. That was likely true in 1989, but it isn't true now. And it isn't the point. I provided an example of a transitional. Now you want transitional forms to that one.
Evolution happens. It is a fact and a theory. It has been observed in the field and in the lab. It has been the organising principle of biology for a hundred years. Deal with it.
puffin51 6 months ago
@puffin51 And then what another Pilt down Hoax..I don't believe anything the Evo's say, they have made so many hoaxes and frabrications in fossle records.They are desperate to come up with anything so they make stuff up.There is no transitional forms, that is the weakest evidence for evolution. So what it has teeth. A platypus has a bill does that mean it evolved from a duck. You don't even need evolution to do science, it means nothing to biology it actually hinders science.
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@puffin51 Purpose infers design and intelligence. Like I said, Start the Idea of evolution and you give man the excuse to do anything they want to, would you give that up and submit to Jesus? Not you, not in a 1000 years..Do you believe that you should be able to do whatever you want,as long as it does not infringe on what other people want to do? Societies prove design..what do you think government and constitutions are..accidents? Language is extremly complex and infers design.
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster You know nothing of my religious beliefs. But you are wrong in fact, and it can easily be shown. Languages change constantly. Read, say, Chaucer, as it was written. Or "Beowulf". It's a different language. But nobody designed modern English. There's no design bureau at work. Language is purposeful, complex, and performs a function, but it was not designed.
Evolution does not excuse anything. It says nothing about ethics. It's a statement about the origin of the species, no more.
puffin51 6 months ago
@puffin51 Do you believe that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as it does not conflict with someone elses desires? Language changes and infers design, the change is part of human design..and they usually degrade rather than improve. The ancient vedic languages were far more complex than ours today.Another typical Evolution myth that languages evolve. I have heard all of these arguments B4 got anything new? I love philology..it is one of my favorite subjects. Godbless you.
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster My ethical beliefs are not relevant to the theory of evolution. It says nothing about ethics.
It is plain that it is impossible for you to accept evidence. Anyone who thinks that there's some designer somewhere who designed language and introduces the changes to it is too far gone into irrationality to hear evidence at all. Farewell. I shall not further respond.
puffin51 6 months ago
@puffin51 Ok bye and Godbless you..did not mean to offend. Jesus loves you and so do I.
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster Oh, and one more thing. Where did you get that "is acknowledged to be worse" than that figure? Who acknowledges that? Where? No actual scientist that I've ever heard of thinks something like that, because it relies on a ludicrous distortion of the process. So where are you getting that number from? Who is telling you these lies?
puffin51 6 months ago
@puffin51 Sir Fred Hoyle worked out the odds Hoyle calculated the probability of his "simple" single-celled organism coming into existence by chance to be 1 in 10 to the57,800. That is the number 1 with over 57,000 zeros after it! Hoyle founded the Institute of Theoretical Astronomy in Cambridge in 1967. He was not a creationist. You are the one that is being lied to and you go along with the program intead of challenging these brainwashers. I just look things up on the Net and READ everything.
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster Hoyle's misrepresentation of evolution was thoroughly exploded at the time. It's simply wrong. He knew nothing about biology. (I should have said "biologist", not "scientist".) He was a fine astronomer in his day, but he went rather peculiar late in life. It happens.
The point is, that calculation is false, because it's based on false assumptions. Nobody says a living cell "came into existence" all at once, so there's no point calculating the odds against it.
puffin51 6 months ago
you think that person thought he was making history with that footstep?!
jdurnal 7 months ago
too bad those were the tracks of another dinosaur. that or is was a fucking giant.
noliesundead 7 months ago 2
@noliesundead not all dinosaurs are T-rex bud
jdurnal 7 months ago
@jdurnal and a t-rex are not the only dino with that style of footprint
noliesundead 7 months ago
@saniti64 So, evolution covers evolution, but it doesn't account for the origin of species, huh? Do you have any idea of how bone-headed stupid that is? You're saying that walking covers walking, but doesn't account for getting anywhere different.
puffin51 8 months ago
Yes, really. Consider the adult ability to digest lactose - milk sugars. It arose because of a mutation on the 2-chromosome, which disabled an "instruction" to stop producing the enzyme that digests lactose after infancy. As a result, adult humans with this mutation have the enzyme and can digest milk products. Great, if you have cattle or goats. But if the only source of lactose is human milk, it results in failure to wean, which is bad. Whether it's selected, then, depends on environment.
puffin51 8 months ago
@puffin51 what are your thoughts on the bombadier beetle?
charliebuck1000 8 months ago
@charliebuck1000 That it's one of the icons of creationism, after Duane Gish talked it up about 1990. He was wrong. All the small steps by which the mechanism evolved are known, and all the precursor structures exist in other species. The mixture they excrete is not explosive - that idea is based on a mistranslation of a German paper. Bbs are explained by evolution. Look up talk origins dot com an index to creationist claims bombardier beetle for a full discussion.
puffin51 8 months ago
@charliebuck1000 Sorry! You have utterly failed to convince me of absoluty anything. More typical Evo psychobabble & circular reasoning. Oh, and by the way, and not surprisingly as per usual, you failed to provide even one single shred of evidence as to where your evo "mechanism" came from in the first place. In case you haven't yet grasped the fact, evo theory assumes life existed and carries the story from that point, never bothering to explain where that biogenesis came from to begin with.
sparky6025 8 months ago
@sparky6025 hello brother,im not sure ,but i think you replied to the wrong guy,as i was trying to question evolution theory,and at the least get the athiests to do the same.God bless you.
charliebuck1000 8 months ago
@sparky6025 That was me you should be putting the boots into, sparky, not charliebuck, who is quite a civilised guy, even though he's on your side. Hint, sparky, even the bombadier beetle has wit enough to direct its spray accurately.
But you're absolutely right. The theory of evolution covers.... evolution! God Heavens, what a terrible weakness. It is a theory about what it says it's about! How shall biological science ever recover from such a blow, delivered with such remorseless logic?
puffin51 8 months ago
@puffin51 hello friend,do you happen to know an aproximation of the the statistical # of events that would have to had taken place for life to form in this galaxy on its own,not to mention the astronomical odds for said life to develope into what we have today?ive heard it said ,by an evolutionist,that its equivelent to shuffling a deck of cards and having them arrange in numerical order by suit ,every shuffle,by pure chance.at some point,you start to doubt chance.
charliebuck1000 8 months ago
@charliebuck1000 The exact path by which self-replication began is not known. The steps are slowly being found, though, and each one that has been found has a probability of 100%, given the right conditions. How rare those conditions are in the Universe is not known, but most, if not all, main-sequence stars have planets, and some of those most probably have the right conditions.
Once self-replication began, the chance of life like the life we have now developing is 100%.
puffin51 8 months ago
Monkeys are adapted for continuous-canopy forest, but can move fast on the ground. Flight specialises too much to suit them. Some fruit-eating mammals fly, though: flying foxes. Humans are not adapted to water at all. Why would we need to breathe it?
Now turn your question around. If God could create anything, why did He not make flying monkeys or water-breathing humans? Evolution can answer in terms of the organism and its environment. Creationism can only say, well, He just didn't.
puffin51 9 months ago
@puffin51 the fact is friend,that the factors you attribute to evolution(it did because it could,it selects,and whatever else),are the factors i attribute to God.the difference is,if you look at all of nature,you see a pattern of the path of least resistance,yet if you look at human "evolution"you see the opposite.did we get smarter before we lost our hair or after,and what benefit would that serve.i guess maybe im just not up to par mentally,but i wonder why there are no super-humans evolved?
charliebuck1000 9 months ago
Mutation, genetic drift and natural selection are sufficient factors to account for the origin of species. You can add God in if you like, but it isn't necessary.
You seem to think two mutually opposed things: one, that human evolution required divine assistance, and two, that evolution would produce superhumans. The fact that there are no superhumans leads one to *expect* natural means, not miracles. We are limited by nature to what is possible; but that is sufficient to produce human beings.
puffin51 9 months ago
@puffin51 mutations that we see now are always harmful for the species,so how can you assume that we benefited from one however long ago.i believe that if evolution were the force that created us,we would be better equipped to face the physical world.think about this,sure we have super intelligence,but without the necessary physical stamina,strength,and endurance to resist natures onslaught,we could never have developed the intelligence unless there was a helping hand.
charliebuck1000 8 months ago
Wrong. Mutations are mostly neutral, some beneficial. The last are selected. Our immediate ancestors were anatomically far more robust than we are. We don't need to be. If it isn't an advantage, it isn't selected for.
Natural causes are enough to explain the origin of species, including ours. Put God in, if you like, but don't kid yourself that there's any evidence for Him. Believe as you like, but don't kid yourself you're using reason to get there. You're not.
puffin51 8 months ago
@puffin51 could you give me some examples of neutral mutations that dont effect the species.thankyou.
charliebuck1000 8 months ago
On average, every human being carries about 140 mutations, nearly all of them unnoticed. Google "beneficial mutation", and you will find a list of twenty or so beneficial mutations observed in the lab or in the field. Whether a mutation is called "beneficial", "neutral" or "harmful" depends on its selection value in the environment, of course. Many large mutations are catastrophic, true. But beneficial mutation exists, and is sufficient for natural selection to work on.
puffin51 8 months ago
@charliebuck1000 Or if you object that the beneficial mutations observed in that list are of other than human species, the wikipedia article you get from googling "beneficial mutation in humans" gives two examples.
puffin51 8 months ago
@puffin51 really??
charliebuck1000 8 months ago
@puffin51 in order to be able to "specialize" in the mental department,we would have had to master the physical department.yet,our closest "relatives" are not top of the food chain.with out some outside factor protecting us,we wouldnt be able to develope the skills that we have.thats why there are no other intelligent animals.the law of chance is, if it can happen once,it can happen again.to me,it seems that we have limits so that we will depend on something greater that ourselves.not science.
charliebuck1000 8 months ago
Other social animals do not kill the weak. Some do, some don't. Elephants don't, for example. We are a social species that benefits from accumulated knowledge and skill. It's in our interest to keep our old alive, and to retain as much diversity of experience as possible - that's a spin-off from intelligence and the development of culture. Altruism actually benefits the group, to an extent, so to an extent it is selected for. But only to an extent. Humans are not consistently altruistic, either.
puffin51 9 months ago
@puffin51 the fact that all social animals dont have empathy doesnt help the natural selection argument.if empathy is beneficial for one species,its good for all,and yet chimps in the wild,our closest "relatives",will rip your face off at the smallest sign of weakness.so why would nature choose one group to have this trait that sometimes is not beneficial for the group,but skip over a similar group altogether?and again,why are humans the only animals with higher intellect.is evolution lazy?
charliebuck1000 9 months ago
You're simply wrong about chimps. They exhibit out-group hostility - but so do we. They can and do develop in-group altruism. So did we, augmented by our intellectual ability to imagine ourselves in the place of the other. Why the intellect? Depends on what you mean by "why". If you mean "with what intent", you're assuming. If you mean "how did it come about", answers are available, too long to discuss here. Try googling "evolution intelligence". The wikipedia article isn't bad, as a start.
puffin51 9 months ago
@puffin51 by why,im saying why dont other species exhibit true intellect.if natural selection has selected it in one species,it should have selected in other similar species.after all,it benefits all primates to have binocular vision and opposable thumbs.for that matter,wouldnt it benefit humans as a species to have the strength that other primates have.this is conjecture,but its still a valid question.why would we evolve into weak brainiacs.evolution should have selected better genes.
charliebuck1000 9 months ago
All evolutionary specialities come with trade-offs. Intelligence on a human scale requires very large energy costs to fuel the nervous system, and a proportionally large head causes other problems. No species can specialise in everything. We didn't specialise in strength because we didn't need to. It wasn't a commensurate advantage.
Intelligence worked for us; but ours is one of millions of evolutionary paths. Why did we take this one? No reason. It happened because it could happen.
puffin51 9 months ago
@puffin51 also, i admire your analogy,but we need to bring it closer to the real statistical probablity for it to have an impact.so ,its more like watching a rain shower from a cloud that formed indoors and every drop hits a specific point to form a pattern that spells out your name.very unlikely ,but possible under the right conditions and given enough time and all that stuff.but how did the cloud know how to spell your name? conjecture;)
charliebuck1000 9 months ago
Your change-up on my analogy fails because there is no prior requirement to spell out anything, just to hit the ground. The rain, and evolution, simply does what is possible. The cloud knows nothing, and doesn't need to know anything. Every spot on the ground that the rain can hit, is hit sooner or later. Intelligence is a possible path; sooner or later it is taken. It's as simple as that.
puffin51 9 months ago
Look, here's an analogy: Watch a shower of rain. Each raindrop follows a slightly different path from the cloud and hits a particular spot. Why did it hit that particular spot? No reason, and it's unlikely. But sooner or later, every spot is wet. That's evolution. Every possible pathway is followed. Every niche is filled. Our species happened to follow that particular pathway - to intelligence - and hit that particular spot. It's unlikely, but possible. It happened because it could.
puffin51 9 months ago
@puffin51 "every possible pathway is followed" .where are the flying monkeys and water breathing humans?if natural selection and pure chance were the motivating forces behind adaptabilty,then there would be a species that specialized in brain and brawn,simply because it could.there are fish that breath air,birds that swim and plants that eat animals,so somewhere in the evolutionary chain, why wouldnt there be a super creature?again,just conjecture.
charliebuck1000 9 months ago
Even Answers in Genesis tells creationists to stop trying to use this garbage.
It's. A. Fake.
MrFungus420 9 months ago
The best YouTube videos on the topics like this you can find in my channel's playlist Creation vs Evolution. Click on "more info" about that playlist, and God bless you.
mikilavush 9 months ago
Yes if you step in wet mud you track and carry it along with you. But if you step onto a batch that was like soft clay it'll keep a perfect shape. The more dense the mud or clay the more form you'll see especially with alot of weight applied. Come on people this should be common sense. Of course creationist will be posting it. But look at the facts and look past your basic urge to mock anything that doesn't fit in your belief system. And darwinian evolution is a belief, not an absolute.
MrXxD4MI4NxX 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video is so ridiculous. Did dinosaurs and humans coexist? No: happystatemachine.blogspot.com/2011/04/did-dinosaurs-and-humans-coexist.html
happystatemachine 10 months ago
The Paluxy controversy has already been debunked too many times, and even most serious creationist groups have abandoned it.
esiosan 10 months ago
This is so easy to disprove. Take your shoes off , go find some mud and walk through it. What are the results. How many of the foot prints look like a perfect foot print. See how the prints are littered with splashed mud. Also a two ton animal would have made a much deeper imprint how come they have not gone back to the site and looked for a continuous foot print. Only one foot track! Also notice all the sites on youtube are from religious sites.
iceblude 10 months ago
The Law & constitution set aside, there are questions that evolvution can not explain. There's nothing wrong w/ explaining the holes in this theory. I have taught science for 15 years and I have questions about the theory because parts of it don't make sense or is assumed. In fact much of early evolution is assumed. I'm one who is searching for answers in evolution and just resently am intrigued by the intellegent design thoery. I encourage everyone to be open minded and question everything.
Grettgirl 11 months ago
@Grettgirl That's all are are asking for is the opportunity to discuss both sides. This link may be of help to you.
Creation / Evolution Video Play Lists
h t t p://hosteddothomeserverdotcom/warneveryone/video_play_listsdothtm
BereanBeacon1 11 months ago
@Grettgirl What specific questions do you not think that evolution explains? What parts of it don't make sense? A lot of fairly high-talent people have been studying it for around a hundred and fifty years now, and nearly all of them think it does make sense, and that it does explain the origin of the species - which it what it is supposed to explain.
What do you know that they don't?
puffin51 10 months ago
@puffin51 hello,could you explain, from an evolutionists point of view,the purpose for compassion and empathy.evolution says only the strong survive,so why do we humans have compassion for weaker creatures?thanx for any insight you could provide.
charliebuck1000 9 months ago
@charliebuck1000 Evolution doesn't say "only the strong survive". That's a distortion. Humans, for instance, survived because we're a social species. We co-operate with each other for mutual benefit. The ability to do that is an advantage in our environment, so it was selected for. That is, empathy - the ability to see the other's point of view - was evolved by natural selection. You know what "compassion" means, right? "To feel emotion together". Well, that was the result of evolution.
puffin51 9 months ago
@puffin51 natural selection implies that nature selects the best qualities from a species and generates them in that species to make it stronger,therefore,survival of the fittest and all that.the fact that we are social doesnt explain empathy for other species or weaker specimens of our own.other social animals kill the weak and dont tolerate other species unless its a symbiotic relationship,so why are humans different?why are we the only ones to develope real intellect and indepth thought?
charliebuck1000 9 months ago
You know that George Adams has been proven to have been a fraud, right?
SanRafaelSwell 11 months ago
I wonder if Carl Baugh would be interested in bringing this to the Utah Museum of Natural History for analysis. I'd like to test the actual stone, see if it even comes from the Paluxy River. I highly doubt he would allow this because then he'd be shown to be the fraud we all know he is.
SanRafaelSwell 11 months ago
@SanRafaelSwell
oreo1cat 11 months ago
@oreo1cat
?
SanRafaelSwell 11 months ago
@SanRafaelSwell Dinosaur Valley State Park has similar fossils but by law they can't discuss them. Classrooms operate the same way, as students are not allowed to question anything that doesn't agree with the religion of evolution.
BereanBeacon1 11 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
More lies. I happen to teach High School Biology and my students know they are free to ask me anything. I also happen to be a Paleoecologist at the Utah Museum of Natural History and as far as I know, no such laws exist anywhere in the US. Please give me a citation for this law. Creationists have nothing but lies and frauds. How pathetic.
SanRafaelSwell 11 months ago
@SanRafaelSwell This is the Creation Museum email contact, creationATcreationevidencedotorg. Dr. Baugh mentions that there is a law on this video: CREATION IN PROPHECY (I would give you the time but can't remember) . I was considering calling the park and asking them.
BereanBeacon1 11 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
So you don't know that such a law exists, you are parroting Carl Baugh, funny that. You should really check your information before making claims. Baseless claims are intellectually dishonest.
SanRafaelSwell 11 months ago
@SanRafaelSwell Here is a suggestion for you. Have a class project to prove we are lying and if you can, your students should produce a video for YouTube.
BereanBeacon1 11 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
First Carl Baugh would have to allow to run analysis on the specimen in question. That would prove the lie. Also, you haven't named the people at Glen Rose Medical Center who actually performed the CT scans. I called them and they have never heard of this happening, why is that?
SanRafaelSwell 11 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
Another thing. You are asking me to break the law, you do realize this, don't you. If I assigned students the task of proving creationists/creationism a law, I would be violating the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. Silly creationist.
SanRafaelSwell 11 months ago
@SanRafaelSwell Then contact Dinosaur Valley State Park and ask them if there is a law not to discuss the fossil prints. Seems like your students would be very interested in exposing this supposed lie.
BereanBeacon1 11 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
Why should I try and support YOUR claim? It is YOUR claim that such a law exists. The Burden of Proof is yours. You really are a typical creationist, shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy and yet more intellectual dishonesty from you. My students are interested in learning about reality, they don't want to waste time on bullshit like creationism. Did you miss the part were I said you were asking me to break the law? Are you this oblivious?
SanRafaelSwell 11 months ago
@SanRafaelSwell You called us liars and won't prove it.
BereanBeacon1 11 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
And I will be justified in doing so until you can support your claims. Sorry, but that is reality.
SanRafaelSwell 11 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
Still nothing on the names of the people that performed the analysis at Glen Rose Medical Center? Go figure. The fact that I called them and NO ONE in there radiology department has ever heard of anyone bringing in this specimen is compelling evidence suggesting that CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS. Give it up, you've got nothing.
SanRafaelSwell 11 months ago
There is no such law. The actual constitutonal wording says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." You are not congress and you are not making law. Educators should not limit a students quest for truth by restricting the quest.
Droddy25 11 months ago
@Droddy25
Please, how am I limiting my students by keeping religion out of the science class room? It is ILLEGAL, as established by the US Supreme Court to teach religion in a public science classroom, I'm following the law and I'd love to see you argue otherwise. Really, I would.
SanRafaelSwell 11 months ago
@SanRafaelSwell You are right about the law on evolution vs. creation. I jumped into the debate to explain the constitution establishment clause not creation vs evolution in the classroom.. Two entirely different arguements, guess I got carried away. The constituion does not prohibit the teaching of religion in the classroom or creation in particular,. It is Subpreme court rulings (judges opinion) that becomes the law of the land. So, yes you are right ,you are prohibited.
Droddy25 11 months ago
@Droddy25
As I should be. Unfortunately there are teachers in public science classrooms that DO teach creationism. These teachers are, of course, breaking the law and violating the constitution. Public schools are funded by the government and thus they can not be used to promote any religion. The teaching of religion promotes a very specific "flavor" of christianity and thus not only violates the law, it also violates the US Constitution. This is why the judges ruled the way they did.
SanRafaelSwell 11 months ago
Please name the person or persons at the Glen Rose Medical Center that performed said analysis. Until such people are named, I will call this video a flat out lie. Looking at the specimen, it is rather obviously carved, and poorly done so. The dinosaur track looks NOTHING like real ones and human track, if not carved, must have come from someone with a severe deformity. What a load of shit. Silly creationists, you make the baby jesus cry when you lie.
SanRafaelSwell 11 months ago
You bible packers say the fossils are frauds and then say scientists have no evidence. The fossils are the facts the scientist are trying to explain. And you won't look at the fossils !
gregrutz 11 months ago
Evolution is a dieing religion, just like Christians they are always looking towards the future for an answer: Christians wait for Jesus' return while evolutionist wait for a transitional skeleton. We both believe in something that is unseen. That is a religious view, that is evolution.
lightsoutnow30 11 months ago
@lightsoutnow30 if the theory of evolution is a religion then who or what is thir god? god is left out of the theory
seonidh 11 months ago
@lightsoutnow30 The list of species which possess transitional features continues to grow. Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Archeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis
gregrutz 11 months ago
my theory is. with the big toe of the human indention quite deep...then there is a dino footprint..one might say this human was running and a dino was looking for food..new theory..DINOS ATE HUMANS TOO..LOL
KERUPyunGodee 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cryptozoology novel about two boys who find something strange on the beach one night see video book trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
Curious that the mud footprints shown have the axis of the big toe and little toe parallel, whereas the supposed human fossil print has the little toe axis at almost 90deg out.
Has this discovery been written up in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
gamesbok 11 months ago
(CONT) including the uncertain circumstances of the discovery, lack of in situ documentation, the knowledge that similar tracks have been carved in the Glen Rose area, the serious morphological abnormalities in the prints, and the considerations about potentially misleading scanning artifacts such as beam hardening, point to the strong likelihood that both the "human footprint" and dinosaur track on this loose slab were carved or heavily altered from less distinct depressions.
deveraux009 1 year ago
Comment removed
deveraux009 1 year ago
The Alvis Delk Print is not a convincing human footprint in ancient rock. Its advocates have failed to present the necessary data and details to adequately support their assertions. Even putting aside the extensive independent evidence that humans did not exist until long after the Cretaceous Period, the collective weight of several lines of evidence,
deveraux009 1 year ago
Comment removed
deveraux009 1 year ago
Sorry this has been debunked for quite sometime....
paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm
deveraux009 1 year ago
So, you can't remember if P Z said it, now. You think "they" said it. Good to know you've got the facts at your fingertips.
No, a large mammal in the Jurassic wouldn't disprove evolution. What would? Well, if living things don't have hereditable traits, evolution's gone. Or if there's no variability in the offspring. Or if natural selection didn't happen. Or if speciation had never been observed. Or if a chimaera were found. Or a single vertebrate hexapod. Much else.
Philosophy, my foot.
puffin51 1 year ago
Delk didn't make a very good fake. The big toe should be the longest toe. LOL
gregrutz 1 year ago
They discovered the tracks were from a small dinosaur, not a human.
If you find a fossil in someone's living room.........
'He needed to pay his bills and ta-da, he found a human footprint. Wow.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Dear God, the Paluxy footprints. Even Answers in Genesis has given up on those.
They're fakes, mostly carved in the 'thirties by locals, by "improving" genuine dinosaur tracks. Others are just dino prints in poor condition. The "Delk" track has no provenance, and all the mumbo-jumbo about compression given here proves nothing. Most likely a smaller, older dino track crossing the larger one was "improved" by a local and found later.
Oh, and "Dr" Carl Baugh is a doctor the same way I'm the Pope.
puffin02 1 year ago
@puffin02 easy god boy, too many people think they know what happened, where in the bible does it say he killed the dinosaurs off first? and where does it say god dosent wear shoes, and the god isnt just a bipedal geneticist? keep worshiping your 150-160 pound Caucasian male on a cross you fucking weirdo
angus506 1 year ago
@angus50 An own-goal of stunning prowess.
puffin02 1 year ago
@puffin02 They're not carved. I've personally seen samples of footprints excavated from the site and when sawed in half and examined you can clearly see the impressions left by something with a foot that stepped in it when it was still mud. This would not be the case had i have been carved in the thirties.
I've been to this river twice and have pictures of the human footprint within a dinosaur footprint
jedwalker10 1 year ago
@jedwalker10 Some are carvings, clearly. Some are dino prints that have eroded. If carefully cleaned, these show evidence for three toes, not five. Some are natural features that look a bit like tracks if the light's right, but don't occur in striding sequences.
Back in the 80's there were half a dozen scientific papers on the tracks, written by experts. All of them concluded that they fall into one of those categories.
Now I suppose you're going to tell me that it's all a conspiracy.
puffin02 1 year ago
@puffin02 The Paluxy River tracks are on going process of being revealed. When the stream floods from unusual high rains, layers of previously laid down mud is broken up and washed away. Exposing new tracks. Those tracks only stand up to weathering and destruction from the stream for a short time. So the 1980 study of tracts that were already disappearing. Don't mean very much.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 The fact that they were eroding is the point. The impressions of the outer toes were and are disappearing, yet careful cleaning did establish those impressions. Then there's the fact that no other modern mammals save "human" prints were ever claimed - no camelids, pigs, cats, wolves, whatever. Only "human" and dinosaur. Sound right to you?
No. These are bipedal dinosaur prints, sometimes with a little "improvement". And Baugh and Patton are no more doctors than I'm the pope.
puffin02 1 year ago
@puffin02 Actually their is a claim of a paw print for a large cat. But I'm not going to do the work of searching it up. It would seem a little strange for no other mammals to be present. Of course big Dino foot prints would remain. While smaller, rabbits and such, might not even be heavy enough to leave impressions. Read this Science article that agrees with me. "Secrets of Dinosaur Footprints Revealed, Thanks to 'Goldilocks'"
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 There are no bunny fossils buried with the dinosaur fossils. Not one. Fact. Truth.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz A fossil of a large cat was found, with a baby dinosaur in it's stomach. "Fossil shows early mammals fed on dinosaurs Discovery in China reshapes thinking on animals' evolution" So unless your just building a strawman argument about not finding the Easter Bunny. Stay Lost.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 Wow, mammals evolved sooner than they thought. Thanks for filling us in. The Theory keeps getting better.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Howie47 Please provide a clue about where you heard about this cat that ate a dinosaur. Googling turns up nothing. I don't think there's any such fossil.
puffin02 1 year ago
@puffin02 Search "Dinosaur Fossil Found in Mammal's Stomach" Live Science article. "It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur because they were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.-A second mammal fossil found at the same site is about the size of a modern dog. E. Myers said finding large mammals with dino's would be a serious problem for E.T.!
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 OK, I found it, and fair enough, it's new to me. But it isn't any sort of challenge to evolution. A cat-sized early mammal - about 130 mya - ate a newly-hatched parrot-beaked dinosaur, about 5 inches long. It doesn't even show that mammals have been around longer than previously thought - mammals that old were known. What it shows is that some early mammals were bigger, and some were at least part-time predators. Interesting. Fills in some more details. But no problem for evolution.
puffin02 1 year ago
@puffin02 I believe it was P.Z. Myers that originally said, finding a large mammal with dinosaurs would be a problem for evolution. So you can take your response up with him. On another BereanBeacon video. He brought up a artifact in Israel showing 2 T-Rex type animals attacking a horse. "Archaeology in Israel, Dino and Horses Together", would that be a problem in your mind? Would any evidence? Link to Pics. is in drop-down, slide show is slow to start. So wait a few seconds.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 Wrong. P Z Myers said: "I don't know what fossil record you've been looking at, but the one scientists use shows mammal-like reptiles preceding the dinosaurs. This is old news. A reptilian radiation produced many branches, including an early line that led to the modern mammals, but it was the saurian line that flourished best in the Mesozoic." Pharyngula, Jan 4, 2009.
That video is nonsense. Coelacanths are not extinct. The mosaic shows scenes from Roman mythology, and nothing more.
puffin02 1 year ago