@turbocpt1 cos micro evolution happens you suppose that macro evolution happens? where has macro evolution ever been observed. we can observe, test and measure micro evolution, but where is this for macro evolution?
0:26 "Talking snakes, men living in fish, and drunk old men building cruise ships"- He mocks as fairytales...yet, fish turning into humans is "scientific fact". LOL!!
@KingofPepsi well, you see micro evolution around you each day, creationists see it as well, but you'll still rather believe in magic? how fucking stupid can people be to believe that this earth is only 6000 years old? LOL
Reminds me of Erik Fucking Von Danegin and his Ancient astronaut crap. "What's this picture?" Me: " Looks like...A Boar...er big pig basically" Creatard: "Nooo it's OBVIOUSLY a stego" Me: "Are ya freaking kidding me?" when you apply biases to see evidence for creationism, then you will interpret everything through that filter.
This is the royal symbol of the king Suryavarman II who built this Vishnu Temple. And it is a boar, or rather a hog depicted in front of mountain range.
Philosophically speaking, someone believing in something (God) that exists beyond our understanding, is as reasonable as choosing not to. As for the debate, I just find it funny that a debate exists at all. As a non-fundamentalist, I have no internal conflict. They coexist nicely because they address very different things. Science will one day, answer every what, where, when, and how & as always leave why (purpose not function) as an educated guess. My faith offers me 1 possible answer to "why".
@dbf421 That would be all well and good if religion didn't have any effect on the lives of people who don't believe. Rick Perry recently advocated prayer and fasting as a solution to the economic problems the US is facing. Of all the stupid things I've heard come out of a politician's mouth, that may be the stupidest. This kind of shit is the reason I argue against religion. It does much more harm than good.
@Zero9656 Well, then I guess I'd have to say, if you'll pardon the terminology, Thank God for separation of church and state! I don't think its a secret that zealots for ANY cause are dangerous. Fortunately, when their agenda is measured against what is reasonable and prudent, they fall short. They also tend to fail the test of "common sense".....but I digress.....the issue of creation vs. evolution is to me, just a silly discussion because it really can be both, IMO. It is for me.
@dbf421 If separation of church and state did anything of value. It doesn't. 95%+ of elected officials in the federal government are christian. I can't think of a single elected official who is openly atheist.
I recently watched a clip of a senatorial hearing on global warming. One of the senators (I was too mad to get his name) stated that we shouldn't concern ourselves with global warming because the only way the world can end is through god. More than one senator agreed with him.
@Zero9656 I think that the separation of church and state serves a tremendously valuable purpose. It relegates all of the man made portions of a religion to just another political action committee...granted, an influential one, but much more preferential, IMO, to a "high priest" running the show and pushing his agenda under the blanket of divine guidance. As to the Senator's comments, I strongly disagree with him, and would, given the opportunity, remind him that pride goes before the fall.
@dbf421 I think you misunderstood. Separation of church and state is of vital importance, especially when the books that are effecting their judgement were made up thousands of years ago by ignorant wandering tribesmen. Unfortunately, the majority of the people in office today do not leave their beliefs at home, as they should. The president gets chewed out on the major news networks if he doesn't say "God Bless America" to close a speech. That isn't separation of church and state.
@Zero9656 One other thing I'd like to offer, is that I try not to blame the tool being used, but rather I blame the hand that wields it. An analogy I use is a hammer. It's useful for framing a house and for killing. However its used I don't blame the hammer. From my perspective, religion as a social institution isn't a problem. The problem is anyone that would use it and twist it to the detriment of others. I'd prefer if the individuals were held responsible and not the religion..again, JMO.
@dbf421 Yes, the hammer isn't to blame. Unless it's a hammer cursed by magic that forces its wielder to do stupid and insane things in the name of the hammer.
Religion is a problem. There isn't a single positive thing that comes from religion that couldn't be done in a secular group. Unfortunately, when stringent belief in your religion requires disbelieving reality, it becomes a slippery slope to insanity.
@Zero9656 I hear you Zero. I'd say that the perception of a "curse" on the hammer in your example, would exist only in the mind of the nut case who's wielding it. Again, I blame the nut case, not the hammer. How we define "religion" is more the issue to me. If it's man made rituals and rules surrounding a central ideology, then I'd say that the man made portion of the "religion" is going to be as flawed as the people who made it, and that as history has shown, can be really messed up.
@dbf421 No, no. The curse is very real. It effects the owners judgement based on information that may have seemed correct thousands of years ago. Now it is seen as barbaric, evil and stupid by people who aren't cursed. But the curse is still deep in his mind, effecting his every day decisions. The only way to break this curse is reason.
It is not as reasonable because then you would have to explain what evidence you have seen, read or observed that would have led you to believe in your chosen 'god' out of the literally 10,000+ 'gods' that have "existed".
How would you have come to the conclusion that all of those 'gods' are made-up fairy tales but yours is correct. What is in those text & what is your logic?
Also, what are the problems that you see with the sound scientific explanations that we have today?
I think you're making an assumption about me that I hold all religions other than mine valueless. I do not. For me, faith is not a competition between religions or even churches within a single religion. I don't need mystical or magical stories for me, as an individual, to read and agree with the philosophy and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. The guy was just right, from my perspective. I don't accept the bible as a literal, scientific text & I think it's a mistake to do so.
I think you're making an assumption about me that I hold all religions other than mine valueless. I do not. For me, faith is not a competition between religions or even churches within a single religion. I don't need mystical or magical stories for me, as an individual, to read and agree with the philosophy and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. The guy was just right, from my perspective. I don't accept the bible as a literal, scientific text & I think it's a mistake to do so.
@phenomenon717 Sorry, had to go to a 2nd post. To your third question, I have NO problems with the sound scientific explanations we have today. My point is that the same reason, intellect, and logic, that I use to accept the possibility that there are aspects of our physical universe which are currently beyond our ability to identify or understand, is the same source that allows me to accept the possibility that god exists as something beyond our ability to identify and understand. to me, faith.
As an Atheist, I too acknowledge that there are things that we do not yet understand. . .In fact, that's the point.
Why would any of the 1,000's of gods that have been mythologized throughout history be at all essential to the physics of our universe and perhaps the multi-verse?
The only thing that would make any god technically "possible" is the same thing that would make Peter Pan or The Flying Spaghetti Monster "possible". . .You can't disprove them. Like all made-up things.
I'm curious to know which religion you have chosen to subscribe to assuming that you are religious.
Because depending on what religion you belong to I would think that you absolutely would have a problem with many proven scientific explanations that we have today & how they contradict the ancient writings which would be the cornerstone of "X" religion you believe in. A religion that would present those ideas as "The Truth" or the literal dictated word of their omnipotent 'god'.
@phenomenon717 I'm probably best described as a non-denominational christian. To the funamentalists who interpret the bible lierally, as a scientific and historical text, I am misguided. I respect their right to feel that way, but I don't accept their judgement. To me, the bible is a book of philosophy that is repleat with metaphor and parables. What it means to me when I read it is all that matters, and I just don't need another to tell me what it "really" says. (cont'd)
@phenomenon717 pg2 - (sorry.. youtube) personally, I think that the very concept of "God" is by its nature undefineable. The ideas of "always was", "omnipotent", and the like, are as elusive as the number "infinity"..its not really a number, its a thing that cannot be individually identified, measured, used experimentally, it's a concept that as a "thing" is beyond scientific identification and understanding. "My view is that "God" is the same. We simply can't know exactly.con't
@phenomenon717 One thing I will say is that 99.9% of the "problems" with most religions are, in my opinion, the man made stuff surrounding it's core philosophy, and the human generated conditions of dogmatic ritual required for acceptance. simply put, it's all the control freak stuff that happens when a nut case decides that he/she is the only one who "really" knows the truth and convinces others it's so. I stick with the source and ignore the rest. It works for me individually.
@phenomenon717 The last things I'll offer are that, and this may seem strange from a certain point of view, which is fine with me, the more I learn about the universe, the more I believe in the concept of god. The second is that, only for me, I don't need hard data to hold that belief, which is my view of faith. I also don't disparage or judge anyone who does need firm evidence to believe in something. I do not tell others what to think, feel, or believe, its their choice,by god:)
Basically, I have faith in plenty of things. Reasonable things. Lol, like the Miami Heat winning the NBA Championship this year. Faith should have a reasonable basis in order be healthy.
I have no faith in any god and/or goddesses because there is no reason for me to place my faith in such things.
There is no evidence of the existence of any of them. The stories in their texts are over the top, unoriginal, and their explanations for the mechanics of the universe are absurd.
I'm sorry to reply with three posts but of course YouTube restricts the amount of characters I can use within a single post so I had to spread out my response.
Its obvious that you have not done your homework, or you would known that Darwin himself stated that he may be wrong if there is no evidence of the middle stages of evolution. So can you post a fossil of a fish with lungs? Oh by the way, scientists now agree that Darwin's theory is NOT a theory simply because a theory must be duplicateable by other scientests. Darwin didn't even have a microscope, only a hypothesis, look it up, its longer than four letters..
@billyghawaii I like how you people quote Darwin as if he were the final authority on evolution. On the Origin of Species was written 150 years ago. Since then, many branches of science have expanded on and proven the theory of evolution. As for a fish that can breathe air, ironically for you it's called a lungfish.
@DuctTapeDerek0 Obviously. It's impossible to prove a negative. Until the time that you can provide sufficient evidence to prove your insane notions, it is more than reasonable to believe that no man ever has.
There is overwhelming evidence that the bible is correct, besides who is anyone to think preserving mans road map to be correct (bible) would be improbable for our creator of the universe? Do you see the shallowness when you see the book you see the universe yet you mock all thinks being possible to God, shallow minds no doubt.
What museum can I go to that has the skeletons of the transitions between little chicken dinos and T-Rex? WHERE CAN I GO ACTUALLY SEE THEM WITH MY OWN EYES? Anyone? Anyone?
This is all ridiculous.This is UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that man and dinosaur existed together. This pic of a creature that looks like a stegosaurus is one thousandth of a percent of the images and fossil evidence of that fact and you build a straw man and even LIE and suggest Don Patton or any other creationist sees this as the "best evidence". Nonsense. The best evidence is the fossil record itself showing ZERO evolutionary chains between ANY plant, animal or even insect and EVOLUTIONISTS ADMIT IT
@TheDonuan I deny this is even evidence. This picture could have been drawn using a skeleton as a model. Much as we recreate the appearance of dinosaurs without a human ever seeing one. It could have been drawn purely from imagination.
As for your lack of evolutionary chains. I assume you're referring to transitional fossils. Of which we literally have hundreds. Do some research away from your creationist websites, and you'll find some. Including a chain from ape to man.
@Zero9656 No, not even a skeleton. There are pictures with the same "spike-like" decorations around different animals. It's not even meant to be a dinosaurs and resembles other animals in the area more, just check out the head of the creature.
@Zero9656 The point is it doesn't matter. So now the paleontology dept of these ancients came up with it? Is that a whole new excuse? Sure...this was a museum not a temple now. right. As for your outrageous claim that there are "literally hundreds" of transitions that is laughable beyond imagination for 2 reasons. #1 there should be TRILLIONS OF TRILLIONS as Darwin suggested "we should be tripping over them as we walk out our back door" if his theory (based on religion) were true.
@TheDonuan It does matter and it's not an excuse. You cannot create a link between this carving and humanity living with dinosaurs. Nor does the fossil record, or any documents before the flood (that never happened) corroborate this nonsense.
Evolution is fact. You and Darwin are both mistaken in thinking that the process of fossilization is a simple matter. It requires very specific conditions. Then the fossils have to survive for millions, even billions of years.
@Zero9656 #2 a "transitional fossil" means nothing because it is ONE and ONE DOES NOT SHOW A CHAIN..I.E. EVOLUTION! #3 There is not even ONE individual fossil that is agreed upon by the evolutionary fanatics except for uneducated atheist fanatics on websites. The EDUCATED EXPERTS OF 'SCIENCE' know that it is the 'TRADE SECRET OF PALEONTOLOGY THAT TRANSITIONAL FORMS DO NOT EXIST.
@TheDonuan Yes, one link does not create a chain. On the other hand, a dozen plus distinct species spanning 4.5 million years does. Combine this with the DNA similarities between man, apes, chimps and orangutans and you have an argument significantly more compelling than creation.
As for your ignorance of the existence of transitional fossils, I'm not a 9th grade biology teacher. Do your own research. Preferably away from apologist websites.
@Zero9656 “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
@TheDonuan I love how you creationists cherry pick quotes. Ignore thousands of scientists, thousands of peer reviewed papers, mountains of fossils and DNA evidence, and cling onto a handful of quotes as if it were piece of driftwood in the middle of the ocean. Hilarious. And pathetic.
@Zero9656 This isn't cherry picking. You see, these quotes are CONSISTENT with the findings of the "thousands of peer reviewed papers" the MOUNTAINS OF FOSSILS show billions of forms WITHIN THEIR OWN SPECIES---NOT IN TRANSITION. But you are right about my ignorance. I am extremely ignorant of any fossil evidence of evolution...and SO ARE EVOLUTIONARY 'SCIENTISTS'. So are museum curators, so are paleontologists. Your IMPRESSION that there is so much evidence is simply wrong.
@TheDonuan Yes. Each transitional form is its own species. That is why they're significant. Your ignorance of what the theory of evolution states is astonishing.
@Zero9656 Dude, you are in first grade..seriously. You have to show a CHAIN LINKING SPECIES AND THEY DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT EXIST AND EVOLUTIONISTS ADMIT IT. You are brainwashed. They give THE IMPRESSION that there is evidence but NONE actually come to light. If your FAITH tells you transitions exist and you don't need YOUR EYES to see it I can't help you. so just shut up.
@Zero9656 I LOVE that you mentioned DNA. DNA cannot last more than 10,000 years according to all the SCIENTIFIC evidence we have. Explain to me how 65 million year old dinosaur DNA could exist. It can't according to the same "peer review journal" that claims "SOMEHOW (i.e. apart from science) it does. But no matter. Im not the pathetic one that is brainwashed still. think for yourself. GO FIND THE MUSEUM THAT SHOWS THE T-REX TRANSITIONS....GOOD LUCK FAITH PUNK!
@TheDonuan There was no DNA in those fossils. Read the paper, instead of a twisted misinterpreted summary of it on a creationist website. Perhaps this video can explain it to you as well. watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
If researching, evaluating evidence, and coming to a conclusion is brainwashing... lol. I used to believe in Yahweh. Until I read the bible and researched its origins. After reading the dozens of contradictions, pure evil, and uncertain at best origins, I moved on to reason.
@Zero9656 I love how you reduce your arguments to insults. It shows you have to rely on emotion and propaganda to defend an argument. The fact that you still have SHOWN ZERO EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION ONLY CLAIM SOMEONE ELSE HAS IT IS what you all do...it's somewhere over the rainbow. Just so you know who you are loosing to...I was an evolutionist who worked on archeology sites. I spent years researching 'CLAIMS' of evolution and NONE actually panned out to provide ANY real evidence.
@TheDonuan I didn't insult anyone. As for emotion, you're the one with the capslock addiction.
What sense is there in posting more evidence? You'll either ignore it or move on to soft tissue in trex legs again. And completely fail to prove creation, while ignoring the physical and logical evidence that disproves it.
How does one loose (lol) to someone? And I don't care what your previous job was, you were clearly inept at it.
@Zero9656 Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History the curator of the LARGEST FOSSIL MUSEUM IN THE WORLD admitted that he knew of NOT A SINGLE FOSSIL THAT SHOWED EVOLUTIONARY TRANSITION. We have 800billion fossilized fish in one rock formation alone in Africa and ZERO ZERO ZERO TRANSITIONS! That is the EVIDENCE that made me realize I had believe in a theory of FAITH not science and forever changed me.
@TheDonuan Actually, there's many. You should look into the evolution of the whale, or the evolution of birds from dinosaurs which has even been backed up genetic evidence.
your argument is pointless, you claim loss of information is still a part of evolution - when evolution is about a GAIN of information. no where do you see anything produce something that is not of its own kind. a dog still produces a dog, a monkey still produces a monkey, human still produce a human. you are on about micro-evolution which is deceptive to claim it is macro evolution. variations are all around e.g. darker skin and lighter skins but they are still the same kind...
(...) btw Cleathus, why do you christian freaks keep representing Jesus as a brown hair blue eye person when whe was suppose to be a dark skin, dark hair middle eastern? lol, isn't racist hun?
And why didn't you answer my question on the origins of the human races without a evolutionary process? guess you're the real ignorant hun? i'll be still waiting.
@ZZzzzzzWhat I agree your ignorance is unbelievable, you realise that if you say different races are from evolution then that would mean some are more "evolved" than others which would condone racism, exactly the type of thought Hitler had. Very worrying indeed.
"that would mean some are more "evolved" lol nice strawman there Cleathus. Physiognomic alterations on different races happen on the same specie therefore it doesn't doesn't mean one "is more evolved than the other".
"which would condone racism, exactly the type of thought Hitler had" That's a very common creatard argument you retards disohnestly use to make evolution look bad. In fact evolution says all humans came from Africa and you people just hate that.
Hey ManUstink...lol. Give us the BEST SO CALLED "EVIDENCE" YOU THINK YOU HAVE FOR EVOLUTION...THE ABSOLUTE BEST...ANY CATAGORY YOU CHOOSE...READY....GO. Good Luck pumpkin.
@ZZzzzzzWhat Your question is shows your incredible ignorance of science. First off there is ZERO fossil evidence of man evolving at all (or any other creature on earth) but for the sake of your faith and misinformation I will address your question and your ironic arrogance. #1 Anthropology 101 races come from LOOSING genetic information. Noah close to creation HAD THE GENETIC INFORMATION ALREADY in fact his sons where named in Hebrew DESCRIBING THEM- Shem means dusky, Japheth - fair, etc.
@TheDonuan "First off there is ZERO fossil evidence of man evolving at all" search for Hominidae fossil record, (ask your parents what a fossil is first). btw ignoring science make you dishonest and plain dumb.
"LOOSING genetic information" lol thats what you get when you "learn" biology from religious sites. lol, even if the "loosing genetic information" was true that would still be EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS. The significant genetic alteration IS part of the evolutionary process ya retarded.
@ZZzzzzzWhat I will ask you the same question I asked the host of this moronic and DISHONEST video: What is the BEST EVIDENCE FOR evolution that your faith in it is so strong? If you have the brain of an amoebae and the slightest desire for any truth at all in your life, you might learn how incredibly weak the religion of evolution is.
@TheDonuan "What is the BEST EVIDENCE FOR evolution" lol why will i waste time with someone who thinks chiuauas and poodles lived on the same time as dinossaurs?
either way here's some clues since other people might read this:
- fossil record (yap retarded, they are real even if you don't want to belive)
- phylogenetic tree;
- hominidade fossils;
- vestigial bones/organs;
btw retaded, whales are not fish and evolution take thousands of years to work.
Why are you talking about "evidence"? I don't understand how an evolutionist could possibly use that word. I'm still waiting to see any "evidence" of evolution...I mean...really shouldn't there be at least ONE SINGE TRANSITIONAL CHAIN for a plant, animal...anything? Nope...still waiting RELIGIOUS BOY! FYI I was and evolutionist until I asked the question in college "where are all the transitional chains?" ZERO NONE NADA...ZIP and WE ARE SUPPOSED TO TAKE IT ON...FAITH? REALLY RELIGIOUS BOY?
Your audio recording is grainy, not bashing just a recommendation of improving that if you haven't already. ;) I haven't seen any other vids by you so I don't know.
I had a difficult time giving any credit to this guys argument due to the irritating New Jersey accent and use of foul language. Moreover, he shows a photo of the Angkor Wat temple more than once, not Ta Prohm which is where the carving is found!
The term Elohim doesn't even originate with Israel, but Canaanites. There god EL, the father of "all creatures" and his children "Elohim" or "gods" make up the Canaanite pantheon. It make further sense when we find that Hebrew is a Canaanite dialect and were indistinguishable from the Canaanite culture according to the archeological record. It appear the monotheism of Israel was projected back to an earlier time form a latter point in history by the final editors of the Hebrew bible.
I don't believe in the evolution that they try to force feed you in schools, no proof to it so I'm not a stupid to believe that people can possibly say how old the dinosaurs are, they could be thousands of years ago and possibly even live with humans, but we'll never know for sure. pointless argument it affects us not one bit today.
@sejason56 We do know for sure that dinosaurs never lived with humans. We also know evolution is fact. Your lack of knowledge on the subject doesn't invalidate the mountains of evidence that support it.
The argument is not pointless; because of a fictional book written thousands of years ago by ignorant, evil men, we're limiting people's rights and the advancement of science. We're basing morals and laws on this stupid book, and it needs to stop.
@Zero9656 "Evolution is a fact"....WTF who the shit are you fooling!!!! What evidence is there, It's a fucking THEORY you can't prove it, you don't know the answers to this world neither do I so shut up.
@sejason56 Again, your lack of knowledge on the subject isn't my concern. Do your research. You're confusing scientific theory with a hypothesis. Scientific theories have been tested and proven.
@Zero9656 Love to discuss this but whatever, sorry for having an open mind, most of you fools just follow the status quo....I won't put my blind faith on what so called experts think, so you just follow it. good day
@sejason56 An open mind? Did you really just say you have an open mind?! You say, "La la la, evolution is a theory!" I say, "You're confusing a hypothesis with a theory. A theory has been tested, peer reviewed and proven." You say, "La la la, evolution is a theory! That means it isn't true!" Then you claim to have an open mind? LOL
All you have is blind faith. Experts are called experts because they know more about the field in which they work than you.
@Zero9656 “Preservation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in Dinosaurs” by Gerard Muyzer, et al., in Geology, Vol. 20, October 1992, pages 871-874.
The article tells how Muyzer, et al., used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify a protein that they suspected to be osteocalcin from two Cretaceous dinosaurs identified as “Lambeosaurus F38” (which they believe to be 75.5 million years old), Several other samples showed that there were cells. That is SCIENCE and you loose. bye go cry
@Zero9656 More insults prove your insecurity for your argument. Insulting me doesn't make your arguments any more accurate but on the contrary shows your weakness is your religious fanaticism toward evolution
@TheDonuan Again, I'm not insulting anyone. Ignorance isn't an insult if it's true.
In no way am I a fanatic of evolution. I've seen more than enough compelling evidence to be reasonably certain it is true. And no compelling evidence to disprove it. There is no global, trans-discipline scientific conspiracy. People believe evolution because the evidence is overwhelming, despite what your brainwashed apologist "scientists" might say.
@CCGB515 You're probably right. On the other hand, I do find much amusement in their pathetic attempts to discredit one of the most well tested, well supported theories in the history of science.
back then those two spots on the globe would have been nearly touching, remember it was 1 land mass?... secondly, the sculpture, it was a sicken dinosaur cmon don't be stupid, if it walks and talk like a duck... its a duck... thirdly you obviously know absolutely nothing about ancient cultures, any lamen could make the same asinine presumptions, the best word i could use to describe what you say in this video is ignorant...
@RyanGraySmith89 We know the oldest culture was 11,500 years ago and there was no global flood. We know the big dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago.
Hard to take this guy seriously. The Chinese placemat? Never mind that Marco Polo accurately described an Allosaurus (10 paces long, forelegs had 3-fingered claws like a tiger) based on descriptions of large animals trapped for their meat (a delicacy) and other parts (sold as medicines). No, we could talk all day about this sort of documented eyewitness evidence, and these people would never recognize... we hoped the soft tissue in the T-Rex would help them, but so far they have proven immune.
I guess rather than evidence of eyewitness encounters documented by artists renderings, this guy expects us to believe his theory, whereby we are descended from rocks... which contained carbon and gave rise to the organic molecules in the "primordeal soup." Can't explain how a stereospecific organism arose from a racemic mixture, but then again, no matter what the obstacle, no matter how mathematically improbably, they will invoke lucky chance.
science thought the universe was static 60 years ago and had no beginning so "science" has certainly been wrong before....the Bible is historically accurate, not that anyone has to believe the miracles....the shroud of Turin is not a fraud and yet has a 3 d image on it, how did that happen centurys ago?
this guy sounds like fred flintstone!, and kinda looks like him, more to the point ,i think people like him are scared to death, that just maybe, maybe , there wrong, science thinks it know's it all, im not so sure , seems there is a lot of blank spaces in history, questions that defy explanation, never did like know-it-all's .
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
(continuing) oh and btw at the end of ur video, i think it's a lot more logical to think an almighty and understandable God created the world,then believing nothing exploded.LITERALLY, NOTHING EXPLODED? isnt that called a leap of fucking faith??!! go read a book!
@whitesquirrel7 first of all, thats not wat ur top scientists say. they say,there was nothing, literally nothing. the chances of nothing to multiple dimensions suddenyl coming to life is just denial. secondly, nothing having an expansion is literally IMPOSSIBLE! it goes against not one,but several laws of the universe. so until u can solidly prove that u can break any laws of the universe, dont spout off shit. nothing is created and nothing is destroyed.everything is discovered
@communalists-That's not what scientists say, that's what creationists say scientist say. The big bang does not describe an explosion from nothing, but an EXPANSION from something..a hot dense state. It focuses on HOW the expansion occurred, not what happened before the expansion. "never been seen or observed,never will b."- so funny, because never has a god been observed, and never will be. If nothing is created or destroyed, there is no need for a ....creator.
@whitesquirrel7 continuing. behind every clock is a clock maker,and that goes for everything else. there has been no prove watsoever that says something can happen without anything happening. please prove how nothing literally NOTHING can explode OR expland on its own using to energy watsoever. never been seen or observed,never will b.
@communalists- Conservation of energy say energy may neither be created nor destroyed, simply changes form. Creation ex nihilo originate from the belief that a creator made something out of nothing....with magic, not scientists.
@rooio3 not magic. almighty power which ur three pound brain will never comprehend.he spoke. HE SPOKE. das all he had to do to create all this. you see the thing about u think u can figure that out. u cant. ur thinking carnal mindedly. ur thinking through your eyes. it doesnt really matter how u see it or darwin saw it or marx or anyone else fr that matter. God's word is the truth.
@communalists-"not magic. almighty power"- thus, magic. Saying "it's power" because the biblical text says it's power mean nothing. You're simply repeat like a robot. "HE SPOKE"- no, the ancient literature SAYS he spoke. But literature can say anything. Doesn't make it...true. Take harry potter. God's word is nothing but regurgitated lies. We know it plagiarized the creation, flood, & eden stories from older mythological texts that have since been found.
@communalists- Events purported to have occurred in biblical texts have shown to be dismissed by the archeological record. It's idealized literature, not real history. Maybe you should look up the term intrinsic expansion. The spinning of the solar system has nothing to do with it.Galaxies can rotate every which way, they all don't spin the same. That has to do with angular momentum. If you don't think the universe is expanding by now, you really don't know much about cosmology
@rooio3 what are you implying as real history?,all the archaeological records by today's scientists are based on circular reasoning,carbon dating and random accidents,if I ask you who made computers,but say you can't use humans as an answer.I just destroyed your only logical response,because it was the only true answer,you ask how history was but can't use biblical explanations as an answer.
@rooio3 well I guess your outa ideas and responses other then well...evolution,if you state about intrinsic expansion it had to start somewhere and how did it start with? the big bang?then angular momentum has to be in the picture too.there is no friction in space-meaning particles in space would never slow down,once things expand they can't come closer together and "form".
@communalists- The big bang is not an explosion. It is simply a theory to explain...an intrinsic expansion allowing energy to be transferred. A dot of nothingness is not a superdense ball of energy...something. The theory is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future as it had in the past on the basis of newer data. The core ideas of the Big Bang are derived from many observations that are independent from any cosmological model because they form
@communalists- observable predictions in the universe today. As for this angular momentum nonsense you keep going on and on about, rotation of the planets has nothing whatsoever to do with the Big Bang nor does any net angular momentum the universe may have prevent local rotation in other directions. Different clouds in different parts of the universe will have very different angular momenta. There is no correlation between the rotation of objects in the solar system and the
@communalists- initial rotation (or lack thereof) of the infant universe. Nowhere does the theory say the dense ball of energy or early state of the universe was spinning. Local rotations and deviations, as we observed, do not apply to large scale expansion. Stop taking these talking points from creationist sites. As for history, if biblical assertions made in a book of literature are not reflected or rather contradicted by archeological data, we look at the evidence
@rooio3 THERE IS NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTRADICTION AGAINST THE BIBLE! name anything ill show u how ur wrong!...cuz u are! so now ur saying u don't actually have the proof fr this expansion bullshit! as in a court of law..YOU CANNOT PRESENT GROUNDLESS THEORIES!
@rooio3 THERE IS NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTRADICTION AGAINST THE BIBLE! name anything ill show u how ur wrong!...cuz u are! so now ur saying u don't actually have the proof fr this expansion bullshit! as in a court of law..YOU CANNOT PRESENT GROUNDLESS THEORIES! YOU CANNOT DO THAT! furthermore, the law of angular momentum disproves ur expansion law. if something expands it cannot form anything. there is no evidence fr the expansion of the universe! READ EVOLUTION CRUNCHER!
@communalists There is a Geological contradiction against the bible. The earth is millions of years old and not flat. Plus there was no global flood. Geology proves the bible wrong.
@communalists-"name one artifact that contradicts the bible!"- archeological findings of Canaan. Does not support the biblical depiction of an invasion by Israel, but a steady cultural continuum. Also show ancient Israel to be indistinguishable from Canaanite culture, contrary to biblical claims. The Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite dialect. No archeological evidence for the exodus story, instead egypt conquered Israel in canaan seen in evidence from egyptian records
@communalists- as well as physical egyptian military outposts established in the land during a time the bible says Israel conquered. Certain names in the exodus story of the bible were not in existence until 6-5th century BCE, not the 13th century BCE. The biblical stories of creation, flood, and eden were found to be Israelite adaptations of older Mesopotamian myths found since 1800s. Israel simply modified the meaning of the stories, while keeping nearly
@communalists- the exact same narrative structure. Other flood myths don't have the same narrative structure, different date timings of the flood, and floods that didn't encompass the entire earth. geologically speaking, our atmosphere only holds enough moisture to account for less than an inch of water worldwide. "YOU CANNOT PRESENT GROUNDLESS THEORIES!" I don't think you know what a theory is. A theory is simply made to explain observable data. It is always based on
@communalists- data. If a theory changes, it is simply the explanation that changes, not the data. "the law of angular momentum disproves ur expansion law."- no it doesn't because it has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe nor is it affected by it. It simply show your lack of knowledge of the expansion.
@communalists- Here are some very good videos regarding analysis of the biblical flood claims and other claims in relation to archeology. Defiantly watch them:
@gregrutz-Oh, I knew it was bunk from the collection of prior flood myths it adapted. Also to make it much more easier, there is a website that counters nearly every creationist claim. Pretty much addresses all such claims. A lot faster. Quite extensive:
@rooio3 THERE IS NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTRADICTION AGAINST THE BIBLE! name anything ill show u how ur wrong!...cuz u are! so now ur saying u don't actually have the proof fr this expansion bullshit! as in a court of law..YOU CANNOT PRESENT GROUNDLESS THEORIES! YOU CANNOT DO THAT! furthermore, the law of angular momentum disproves ur expansion law. if something expands it cannot form anything. there is no evidence fr the expansion of the universe! READ EVOLUTION CRUNCHER!
@communalists-for the best possible reconstruction of the region. If you don't have eternal sources affirming the biblical account, but showing something much different, we don't just dismiss those sources and data for the sake of keeping biblical stories intact. And that is exactly what happened in the field of archeology. Stories are not the same as actual artifacts, ruins, tangible findings and molecular evidence.
@rooio3 u see this is wat u evolutionist do. 'Stories are not the same as actual artifacts, ruins, tangible findings and molecular evidence'.evidence please! the evidence is in line with the bible. they find clams on top of mount everest, over 500 tales of a flood worldwide on all continents, the impossibly of the grand canyon forming without a mass flood,actual arifacts? name one artifact that contradicts the bible!
@rooio3 u see this is wat u evolutionist do. 'Stories are not the same as actual artifacts, ruins, tangible findings and molecular evidence'.evidence please! the evidence is in line with the bible. they find clams on top of mount everest, over 500 tales of a flood worldwide on all continents, the impossibly of the grand canyon forming without a mass flood,actual arifacts? name one artifact that contradicts the bible!
@communalists- and the technology used to study and observe it. It's 2012 now, there's no excuse. Space...between stars and galaxies...is expanding, not moving. Stars and galaxies aren't moving outward into it. It's like drawing dots on a small piece of silly putty. Then you start to stretch the putty. Those dots are getting farther away from each other, but they're not moving around or through the putty. They are stretching with the putty. That is intrinsic expansion
@rooio3 If you are talking about the expansion of the universe according to the big bang;a dot of nothingness spinning and exploded,there were no atoms,and nothing to ignite the particle of nothingness.
@communalists- The expansion is not propelling stars and galaxies through space as an explosion would. The space between stars and galaxies is itself expanding or "stretching" and moving stars and galaxies farther apart with it. It's called intrinsic expansion, which is why the term explosion is inaccurate. Stars and galaxies are relatively static apart from their own local gravitational pulls. They're not "moving" into something.
@rooio3 u ever hear of the law of angular momentum? why is it we have several planets and moons in our solar system alone spinning backwards? y do we have entire galaxies in the universe spinning backwards? if this so called expansion happened and everything was moving since it all happened simultaneously it would have to b going in the same direction.its not. well, i guess its....magic.
shut the fuck up! it was a dinosaur, and yes! the chinese fucking raise dragons. marco polo's account, which btw the entire world takes as an accurate account of his journey,SAYS THEY DID! ive lived in cambodia fr 2 years went to see that several times and yes,it is a dinosaur.
heres a more important question,WHAT is this creative force we call GOD?how did that flash of mathematical cohesion occur,and WHERE did IT come from?the laws of the 3d univererse are constants within it,and nature says there needs to be and egg in some kind of shell or womb,and the mathematical instructions of what shape to take have to come IN FROM ELSEWHERE(sperm) to make it grow infinitely more complex than it was in base form,and create complex systems and life.SO, WHERE DID GOD COME FROM??
@whitesquirrel7 yes, some ancient people found a bone, and we able to completely guess at what the animal looked like. they must have been amazing. first of all, there is not such thing as a complete fossil skeleton. it is usually a few bones. the most complete ones found, have maybe 40 percent of it. so to think that these people found a fossil and were able to guess , is just silly.
Genesis, when studied in Hebrew does not say that the Earth is 6,000 years old, not even close. It doesn't even say that Adam & Eve were the first humans. It also says that animals were created before mankind. The word "day" in Hebrew is misunderstood and can imply any amount of time. Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends. With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day." Much else could be said, but this guy has no idea what he is bashing.
@dwhite1up i agree !! i am growing tired of people bashing the bible or god. some things that we translated into english in the bible are misrepresented. you have a perfect example of it.
@mikelisejordanjaden I hear ya! Just think what else they might not know about. They fail to realize just how complex biblical scriptures are and how they relate to the word around us. One can learn something new everyday by studying this massive "book" and all the extra-biblical accounts and archeology that comes with it.
@gregrutz Hey bud! How have you been? If go into Hebrew, it does not apply the entire Earth, but rather a large land mass. I don't agree with all that Kent has presented by the way. One will never get to the bottom of things without considering all evidences and all historical knowledge. The truth of truths are hidden from us. If you can't see or understand this... then I'm sorry. So who are you going to "vote" for this year???
@dwhite1up even the english verison never states that.preachers translations state this not the bible.the problem is people like the guy that make this vid is as guilty as the people he bashes.because he takes the word of another human as well,without reading for himself..the whole myth of 6k years comes from the part in the bible where "adam&eve's" family tree timeline.it has nothing to do with the earth.
@vincentvangro Earth ages actually go back even further, right there in Hebrew Genesis. There is plenty of evidence for the Flood, right where it said it happened. We have been lied to about God Elohim by both "evolutionist" and "creationist".
@MadeUThink Clearly you have an exquisite scientific mind. After all a carving of a stegosaurus on a temple many thousands of miles from where stego fossils have been found puts all questions to rest doesn't it? Fool.
So... when Evolution says we came from a Rock that was rained on, then struck by lightning. Its true, but God forbid, when a carving is on a piece of architecture, then you better believe its fake... Sistine Chapel, your next, Michelangelo hadn't used any humans in inspiration of his artwork but a figment of his imagination.
@theP3rSonhuRocks 'Evolution says we came from a Rock that was rained on, then struck by lightning.'
I hope that is a joke, if not then you are. Not only is this analogy ludicrous, but Evolution says absolutely nothing about where life came from, that is Abiogenesis. Evolution states how life evolved from simple life forms to complex forms as shown in the fossil record. Statements like this show how the U.S. has failed in teaching the Biological sciences due to the religious.
@MadeUThink "...drunk old men building cruise ships." I LOVE IT!
Carlevan2840 4 hours ago
@turbocpt1 cos micro evolution happens you suppose that macro evolution happens? where has macro evolution ever been observed. we can observe, test and measure micro evolution, but where is this for macro evolution?
Plantedbythestream1 1 day ago
Egotistic, close minded, dogma.....
MrJonnysView 1 day ago
0:26 "Talking snakes, men living in fish, and drunk old men building cruise ships"- He mocks as fairytales...yet, fish turning into humans is "scientific fact". LOL!!
KingofPepsi 1 day ago
@KingofPepsi well, you see micro evolution around you each day, creationists see it as well, but you'll still rather believe in magic? how fucking stupid can people be to believe that this earth is only 6000 years old? LOL
turbocpt1 1 day ago
Reminds me of Erik Fucking Von Danegin and his Ancient astronaut crap. "What's this picture?" Me: " Looks like...A Boar...er big pig basically" Creatard: "Nooo it's OBVIOUSLY a stego" Me: "Are ya freaking kidding me?" when you apply biases to see evidence for creationism, then you will interpret everything through that filter.
danschaoticmind 2 days ago
This is the royal symbol of the king Suryavarman II who built this Vishnu Temple. And it is a boar, or rather a hog depicted in front of mountain range.
sasidgr8 2 days ago
lol when did Lewis Black start making youtube videos
dreadfulcreation 2 days ago
is this guy retarted the world was one back then so it would be in the same place wow
Debello36 5 days ago
Damn it! This proves I was wrong about evolution! :)
FitnessExpert 1 week ago
Philosophically speaking, someone believing in something (God) that exists beyond our understanding, is as reasonable as choosing not to. As for the debate, I just find it funny that a debate exists at all. As a non-fundamentalist, I have no internal conflict. They coexist nicely because they address very different things. Science will one day, answer every what, where, when, and how & as always leave why (purpose not function) as an educated guess. My faith offers me 1 possible answer to "why".
dbf421 1 week ago
@dbf421 That would be all well and good if religion didn't have any effect on the lives of people who don't believe. Rick Perry recently advocated prayer and fasting as a solution to the economic problems the US is facing. Of all the stupid things I've heard come out of a politician's mouth, that may be the stupidest. This kind of shit is the reason I argue against religion. It does much more harm than good.
Zero9656 1 week ago
@Zero9656 Well, then I guess I'd have to say, if you'll pardon the terminology, Thank God for separation of church and state! I don't think its a secret that zealots for ANY cause are dangerous. Fortunately, when their agenda is measured against what is reasonable and prudent, they fall short. They also tend to fail the test of "common sense".....but I digress.....the issue of creation vs. evolution is to me, just a silly discussion because it really can be both, IMO. It is for me.
dbf421 1 week ago
@dbf421 If separation of church and state did anything of value. It doesn't. 95%+ of elected officials in the federal government are christian. I can't think of a single elected official who is openly atheist.
I recently watched a clip of a senatorial hearing on global warming. One of the senators (I was too mad to get his name) stated that we shouldn't concern ourselves with global warming because the only way the world can end is through god. More than one senator agreed with him.
Zero9656 6 days ago
@Zero9656 I think that the separation of church and state serves a tremendously valuable purpose. It relegates all of the man made portions of a religion to just another political action committee...granted, an influential one, but much more preferential, IMO, to a "high priest" running the show and pushing his agenda under the blanket of divine guidance. As to the Senator's comments, I strongly disagree with him, and would, given the opportunity, remind him that pride goes before the fall.
dbf421 5 days ago
@dbf421 I think you misunderstood. Separation of church and state is of vital importance, especially when the books that are effecting their judgement were made up thousands of years ago by ignorant wandering tribesmen. Unfortunately, the majority of the people in office today do not leave their beliefs at home, as they should. The president gets chewed out on the major news networks if he doesn't say "God Bless America" to close a speech. That isn't separation of church and state.
Zero9656 5 days ago
@Zero9656 One other thing I'd like to offer, is that I try not to blame the tool being used, but rather I blame the hand that wields it. An analogy I use is a hammer. It's useful for framing a house and for killing. However its used I don't blame the hammer. From my perspective, religion as a social institution isn't a problem. The problem is anyone that would use it and twist it to the detriment of others. I'd prefer if the individuals were held responsible and not the religion..again, JMO.
dbf421 1 week ago
@dbf421 Yes, the hammer isn't to blame. Unless it's a hammer cursed by magic that forces its wielder to do stupid and insane things in the name of the hammer.
Religion is a problem. There isn't a single positive thing that comes from religion that couldn't be done in a secular group. Unfortunately, when stringent belief in your religion requires disbelieving reality, it becomes a slippery slope to insanity.
Zero9656 6 days ago
@Zero9656 I hear you Zero. I'd say that the perception of a "curse" on the hammer in your example, would exist only in the mind of the nut case who's wielding it. Again, I blame the nut case, not the hammer. How we define "religion" is more the issue to me. If it's man made rituals and rules surrounding a central ideology, then I'd say that the man made portion of the "religion" is going to be as flawed as the people who made it, and that as history has shown, can be really messed up.
dbf421 5 days ago
@dbf421 No, no. The curse is very real. It effects the owners judgement based on information that may have seemed correct thousands of years ago. Now it is seen as barbaric, evil and stupid by people who aren't cursed. But the curse is still deep in his mind, effecting his every day decisions. The only way to break this curse is reason.
Zero9656 5 days ago
@dbf421
It is not as reasonable because then you would have to explain what evidence you have seen, read or observed that would have led you to believe in your chosen 'god' out of the literally 10,000+ 'gods' that have "existed".
How would you have come to the conclusion that all of those 'gods' are made-up fairy tales but yours is correct. What is in those text & what is your logic?
Also, what are the problems that you see with the sound scientific explanations that we have today?
phenomenon717 6 days ago
@phenomenon717
I think you're making an assumption about me that I hold all religions other than mine valueless. I do not. For me, faith is not a competition between religions or even churches within a single religion. I don't need mystical or magical stories for me, as an individual, to read and agree with the philosophy and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. The guy was just right, from my perspective. I don't accept the bible as a literal, scientific text & I think it's a mistake to do so.
dbf421 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@phenomenon717
I think you're making an assumption about me that I hold all religions other than mine valueless. I do not. For me, faith is not a competition between religions or even churches within a single religion. I don't need mystical or magical stories for me, as an individual, to read and agree with the philosophy and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. The guy was just right, from my perspective. I don't accept the bible as a literal, scientific text & I think it's a mistake to do so.
dbf421 5 days ago
@phenomenon717 Sorry, had to go to a 2nd post. To your third question, I have NO problems with the sound scientific explanations we have today. My point is that the same reason, intellect, and logic, that I use to accept the possibility that there are aspects of our physical universe which are currently beyond our ability to identify or understand, is the same source that allows me to accept the possibility that god exists as something beyond our ability to identify and understand. to me, faith.
dbf421 5 days ago
@dbf421
As an Atheist, I too acknowledge that there are things that we do not yet understand. . .In fact, that's the point.
Why would any of the 1,000's of gods that have been mythologized throughout history be at all essential to the physics of our universe and perhaps the multi-verse?
The only thing that would make any god technically "possible" is the same thing that would make Peter Pan or The Flying Spaghetti Monster "possible". . .You can't disprove them. Like all made-up things.
phenomenon717 5 days ago in playlist Liked videos
@dbf421
I'm curious to know which religion you have chosen to subscribe to assuming that you are religious.
Because depending on what religion you belong to I would think that you absolutely would have a problem with many proven scientific explanations that we have today & how they contradict the ancient writings which would be the cornerstone of "X" religion you believe in. A religion that would present those ideas as "The Truth" or the literal dictated word of their omnipotent 'god'.
phenomenon717 5 days ago in playlist Liked videos
@phenomenon717 I'm probably best described as a non-denominational christian. To the funamentalists who interpret the bible lierally, as a scientific and historical text, I am misguided. I respect their right to feel that way, but I don't accept their judgement. To me, the bible is a book of philosophy that is repleat with metaphor and parables. What it means to me when I read it is all that matters, and I just don't need another to tell me what it "really" says. (cont'd)
dbf421 5 days ago
@phenomenon717 pg2 - (sorry.. youtube) personally, I think that the very concept of "God" is by its nature undefineable. The ideas of "always was", "omnipotent", and the like, are as elusive as the number "infinity"..its not really a number, its a thing that cannot be individually identified, measured, used experimentally, it's a concept that as a "thing" is beyond scientific identification and understanding. "My view is that "God" is the same. We simply can't know exactly.con't
dbf421 5 days ago
@phenomenon717 One thing I will say is that 99.9% of the "problems" with most religions are, in my opinion, the man made stuff surrounding it's core philosophy, and the human generated conditions of dogmatic ritual required for acceptance. simply put, it's all the control freak stuff that happens when a nut case decides that he/she is the only one who "really" knows the truth and convinces others it's so. I stick with the source and ignore the rest. It works for me individually.
dbf421 5 days ago
@phenomenon717 The last things I'll offer are that, and this may seem strange from a certain point of view, which is fine with me, the more I learn about the universe, the more I believe in the concept of god. The second is that, only for me, I don't need hard data to hold that belief, which is my view of faith. I also don't disparage or judge anyone who does need firm evidence to believe in something. I do not tell others what to think, feel, or believe, its their choice,by god:)
dbf421 5 days ago
@dbf421
Basically, I have faith in plenty of things. Reasonable things. Lol, like the Miami Heat winning the NBA Championship this year. Faith should have a reasonable basis in order be healthy.
I have no faith in any god and/or goddesses because there is no reason for me to place my faith in such things.
There is no evidence of the existence of any of them. The stories in their texts are over the top, unoriginal, and their explanations for the mechanics of the universe are absurd.
phenomenon717 5 days ago in playlist Liked videos
@dbf421
I'm sorry to reply with three posts but of course YouTube restricts the amount of characters I can use within a single post so I had to spread out my response.
Thanks for reading and responding.
phenomenon717 5 days ago in playlist Liked videos
Lol.
CrimsonVoid 1 week ago
Its obvious that you have not done your homework, or you would known that Darwin himself stated that he may be wrong if there is no evidence of the middle stages of evolution. So can you post a fossil of a fish with lungs? Oh by the way, scientists now agree that Darwin's theory is NOT a theory simply because a theory must be duplicateable by other scientests. Darwin didn't even have a microscope, only a hypothesis, look it up, its longer than four letters..
billyghawaii 1 week ago
@billyghawaii I like how you people quote Darwin as if he were the final authority on evolution. On the Origin of Species was written 150 years ago. Since then, many branches of science have expanded on and proven the theory of evolution. As for a fish that can breathe air, ironically for you it's called a lungfish.
Zero9656 1 week ago
You can never prove than no man has seen a dinosaur.
DuctTapeDerek0 1 week ago
@DuctTapeDerek0 Obviously. It's impossible to prove a negative. Until the time that you can provide sufficient evidence to prove your insane notions, it is more than reasonable to believe that no man ever has.
Zero9656 1 week ago
There is overwhelming evidence that the bible is correct, besides who is anyone to think preserving mans road map to be correct (bible) would be improbable for our creator of the universe? Do you see the shallowness when you see the book you see the universe yet you mock all thinks being possible to God, shallow minds no doubt.
smitty221905 1 week ago
@smitty221905 totally agree with you!
queue555 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What museum can I go to that has the skeletons of the transitions between little chicken dinos and T-Rex? WHERE CAN I GO ACTUALLY SEE THEM WITH MY OWN EYES? Anyone? Anyone?
TheDonuan 1 week ago
Comment removed
TheDonuan 1 week ago
This is all ridiculous.This is UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that man and dinosaur existed together. This pic of a creature that looks like a stegosaurus is one thousandth of a percent of the images and fossil evidence of that fact and you build a straw man and even LIE and suggest Don Patton or any other creationist sees this as the "best evidence". Nonsense. The best evidence is the fossil record itself showing ZERO evolutionary chains between ANY plant, animal or even insect and EVOLUTIONISTS ADMIT IT
TheDonuan 1 week ago
@TheDonuan I deny this is even evidence. This picture could have been drawn using a skeleton as a model. Much as we recreate the appearance of dinosaurs without a human ever seeing one. It could have been drawn purely from imagination.
As for your lack of evolutionary chains. I assume you're referring to transitional fossils. Of which we literally have hundreds. Do some research away from your creationist websites, and you'll find some. Including a chain from ape to man.
Zero9656 1 week ago
@Zero9656 No, not even a skeleton. There are pictures with the same "spike-like" decorations around different animals. It's not even meant to be a dinosaurs and resembles other animals in the area more, just check out the head of the creature.
DarkEmergence 1 week ago
@Zero9656 The point is it doesn't matter. So now the paleontology dept of these ancients came up with it? Is that a whole new excuse? Sure...this was a museum not a temple now. right. As for your outrageous claim that there are "literally hundreds" of transitions that is laughable beyond imagination for 2 reasons. #1 there should be TRILLIONS OF TRILLIONS as Darwin suggested "we should be tripping over them as we walk out our back door" if his theory (based on religion) were true.
TheDonuan 1 week ago
@TheDonuan It does matter and it's not an excuse. You cannot create a link between this carving and humanity living with dinosaurs. Nor does the fossil record, or any documents before the flood (that never happened) corroborate this nonsense.
Evolution is fact. You and Darwin are both mistaken in thinking that the process of fossilization is a simple matter. It requires very specific conditions. Then the fossils have to survive for millions, even billions of years.
Zero9656 1 week ago
@Zero9656 #2 a "transitional fossil" means nothing because it is ONE and ONE DOES NOT SHOW A CHAIN..I.E. EVOLUTION! #3 There is not even ONE individual fossil that is agreed upon by the evolutionary fanatics except for uneducated atheist fanatics on websites. The EDUCATED EXPERTS OF 'SCIENCE' know that it is the 'TRADE SECRET OF PALEONTOLOGY THAT TRANSITIONAL FORMS DO NOT EXIST.
TheDonuan 1 week ago
@TheDonuan Yes, one link does not create a chain. On the other hand, a dozen plus distinct species spanning 4.5 million years does. Combine this with the DNA similarities between man, apes, chimps and orangutans and you have an argument significantly more compelling than creation.
As for your ignorance of the existence of transitional fossils, I'm not a 9th grade biology teacher. Do your own research. Preferably away from apologist websites.
Zero9656 1 week ago
@Zero9656 “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
TheDonuan 1 week ago
@TheDonuan I love how you creationists cherry pick quotes. Ignore thousands of scientists, thousands of peer reviewed papers, mountains of fossils and DNA evidence, and cling onto a handful of quotes as if it were piece of driftwood in the middle of the ocean. Hilarious. And pathetic.
Zero9656 1 week ago
@Zero9656 This isn't cherry picking. You see, these quotes are CONSISTENT with the findings of the "thousands of peer reviewed papers" the MOUNTAINS OF FOSSILS show billions of forms WITHIN THEIR OWN SPECIES---NOT IN TRANSITION. But you are right about my ignorance. I am extremely ignorant of any fossil evidence of evolution...and SO ARE EVOLUTIONARY 'SCIENTISTS'. So are museum curators, so are paleontologists. Your IMPRESSION that there is so much evidence is simply wrong.
TheDonuan 1 week ago
@TheDonuan Yes. Each transitional form is its own species. That is why they're significant. Your ignorance of what the theory of evolution states is astonishing.
Zero9656 1 week ago
@Zero9656 Dude, you are in first grade..seriously. You have to show a CHAIN LINKING SPECIES AND THEY DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT EXIST AND EVOLUTIONISTS ADMIT IT. You are brainwashed. They give THE IMPRESSION that there is evidence but NONE actually come to light. If your FAITH tells you transitions exist and you don't need YOUR EYES to see it I can't help you. so just shut up.
TheDonuan 1 week ago
@TheDonuan wikipedia
wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
I know wikipedia isn't the greatest source, but it does have the most expansive list I could find.
Zero9656 1 week ago
@Zero9656 I looked at them, don't see how any of them are transitional to one species to another.
DuctTapeDerek0 1 week ago
@DuctTapeDerek0 You are blind.
Zero9656 1 week ago
@Zero9656 how so?
DuctTapeDerek0 1 week ago
@Zero9656 I LOVE that you mentioned DNA. DNA cannot last more than 10,000 years according to all the SCIENTIFIC evidence we have. Explain to me how 65 million year old dinosaur DNA could exist. It can't according to the same "peer review journal" that claims "SOMEHOW (i.e. apart from science) it does. But no matter. Im not the pathetic one that is brainwashed still. think for yourself. GO FIND THE MUSEUM THAT SHOWS THE T-REX TRANSITIONS....GOOD LUCK FAITH PUNK!
TheDonuan 1 week ago
@TheDonuan There was no DNA in those fossils. Read the paper, instead of a twisted misinterpreted summary of it on a creationist website. Perhaps this video can explain it to you as well. watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
If researching, evaluating evidence, and coming to a conclusion is brainwashing... lol. I used to believe in Yahweh. Until I read the bible and researched its origins. After reading the dozens of contradictions, pure evil, and uncertain at best origins, I moved on to reason.
Zero9656 1 week ago
@Zero9656 I love how you reduce your arguments to insults. It shows you have to rely on emotion and propaganda to defend an argument. The fact that you still have SHOWN ZERO EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION ONLY CLAIM SOMEONE ELSE HAS IT IS what you all do...it's somewhere over the rainbow. Just so you know who you are loosing to...I was an evolutionist who worked on archeology sites. I spent years researching 'CLAIMS' of evolution and NONE actually panned out to provide ANY real evidence.
TheDonuan 1 week ago
@TheDonuan I didn't insult anyone. As for emotion, you're the one with the capslock addiction.
What sense is there in posting more evidence? You'll either ignore it or move on to soft tissue in trex legs again. And completely fail to prove creation, while ignoring the physical and logical evidence that disproves it.
How does one loose (lol) to someone? And I don't care what your previous job was, you were clearly inept at it.
Zero9656 1 week ago
@Zero9656 Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History the curator of the LARGEST FOSSIL MUSEUM IN THE WORLD admitted that he knew of NOT A SINGLE FOSSIL THAT SHOWED EVOLUTIONARY TRANSITION. We have 800billion fossilized fish in one rock formation alone in Africa and ZERO ZERO ZERO TRANSITIONS! That is the EVIDENCE that made me realize I had believe in a theory of FAITH not science and forever changed me.
TheDonuan 1 week ago
@TheDonuan Actually, there's many. You should look into the evolution of the whale, or the evolution of birds from dinosaurs which has even been backed up genetic evidence.
Also... since when do Stegosauruses have horns?
DarkEmergence 1 week ago
your argument is pointless, you claim loss of information is still a part of evolution - when evolution is about a GAIN of information. no where do you see anything produce something that is not of its own kind. a dog still produces a dog, a monkey still produces a monkey, human still produce a human. you are on about micro-evolution which is deceptive to claim it is macro evolution. variations are all around e.g. darker skin and lighter skins but they are still the same kind...
Plantedbythestream1 1 week ago
(...) btw Cleathus, why do you christian freaks keep representing Jesus as a brown hair blue eye person when whe was suppose to be a dark skin, dark hair middle eastern? lol, isn't racist hun?
And why didn't you answer my question on the origins of the human races without a evolutionary process? guess you're the real ignorant hun? i'll be still waiting.
ZZzzzzzWhat 1 week ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat I agree your ignorance is unbelievable, you realise that if you say different races are from evolution then that would mean some are more "evolved" than others which would condone racism, exactly the type of thought Hitler had. Very worrying indeed.
Plantedbythestream1 1 week ago
@Plantedbythestream1
"that would mean some are more "evolved" lol nice strawman there Cleathus. Physiognomic alterations on different races happen on the same specie therefore it doesn't doesn't mean one "is more evolved than the other".
"which would condone racism, exactly the type of thought Hitler had" That's a very common creatard argument you retards disohnestly use to make evolution look bad. In fact evolution says all humans came from Africa and you people just hate that.
(...)
ZZzzzzzWhat 1 week ago
This is so flawed, I don't know where to start.
dinopad10 1 week ago
Hey ManUstink...lol. Give us the BEST SO CALLED "EVIDENCE" YOU THINK YOU HAVE FOR EVOLUTION...THE ABSOLUTE BEST...ANY CATAGORY YOU CHOOSE...READY....GO. Good Luck pumpkin.
ChannelDrakeable 1 week ago
@ChannelDrakeable
lol, hey retarded, here's a clue:
how did the different human races came to be without the evolutionary process and according to your bible?
How did the asian, african or native american races came to be if Noah wasn't neither asian, nor african nor native america?
Betcha can't answer this one Cleathus.
ZZzzzzzWhat 1 week ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat Your question is shows your incredible ignorance of science. First off there is ZERO fossil evidence of man evolving at all (or any other creature on earth) but for the sake of your faith and misinformation I will address your question and your ironic arrogance. #1 Anthropology 101 races come from LOOSING genetic information. Noah close to creation HAD THE GENETIC INFORMATION ALREADY in fact his sons where named in Hebrew DESCRIBING THEM- Shem means dusky, Japheth - fair, etc.
TheDonuan 1 week ago
@TheDonuan "First off there is ZERO fossil evidence of man evolving at all" search for Hominidae fossil record, (ask your parents what a fossil is first). btw ignoring science make you dishonest and plain dumb.
"LOOSING genetic information" lol thats what you get when you "learn" biology from religious sites. lol, even if the "loosing genetic information" was true that would still be EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS. The significant genetic alteration IS part of the evolutionary process ya retarded.
ZZzzzzzWhat 1 week ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat I will ask you the same question I asked the host of this moronic and DISHONEST video: What is the BEST EVIDENCE FOR evolution that your faith in it is so strong? If you have the brain of an amoebae and the slightest desire for any truth at all in your life, you might learn how incredibly weak the religion of evolution is.
TheDonuan 1 week ago
@TheDonuan "What is the BEST EVIDENCE FOR evolution" lol why will i waste time with someone who thinks chiuauas and poodles lived on the same time as dinossaurs?
either way here's some clues since other people might read this:
- fossil record (yap retarded, they are real even if you don't want to belive)
- phylogenetic tree;
- hominidade fossils;
- vestigial bones/organs;
btw retaded, whales are not fish and evolution take thousands of years to work.
ZZzzzzzWhat 1 week ago
Why are you talking about "evidence"? I don't understand how an evolutionist could possibly use that word. I'm still waiting to see any "evidence" of evolution...I mean...really shouldn't there be at least ONE SINGE TRANSITIONAL CHAIN for a plant, animal...anything? Nope...still waiting RELIGIOUS BOY! FYI I was and evolutionist until I asked the question in college "where are all the transitional chains?" ZERO NONE NADA...ZIP and WE ARE SUPPOSED TO TAKE IT ON...FAITH? REALLY RELIGIOUS BOY?
ChannelDrakeable 1 week ago
Your audio recording is grainy, not bashing just a recommendation of improving that if you haven't already. ;) I haven't seen any other vids by you so I don't know.
KittenKoder 2 weeks ago
I had a difficult time giving any credit to this guys argument due to the irritating New Jersey accent and use of foul language. Moreover, he shows a photo of the Angkor Wat temple more than once, not Ta Prohm which is where the carving is found!
itskellym 2 weeks ago
The term Elohim doesn't even originate with Israel, but Canaanites. There god EL, the father of "all creatures" and his children "Elohim" or "gods" make up the Canaanite pantheon. It make further sense when we find that Hebrew is a Canaanite dialect and were indistinguishable from the Canaanite culture according to the archeological record. It appear the monotheism of Israel was projected back to an earlier time form a latter point in history by the final editors of the Hebrew bible.
rooio3 2 weeks ago
I don't believe in the evolution that they try to force feed you in schools, no proof to it so I'm not a stupid to believe that people can possibly say how old the dinosaurs are, they could be thousands of years ago and possibly even live with humans, but we'll never know for sure. pointless argument it affects us not one bit today.
sejason56 2 weeks ago
@sejason56 We do know for sure that dinosaurs never lived with humans. We also know evolution is fact. Your lack of knowledge on the subject doesn't invalidate the mountains of evidence that support it.
The argument is not pointless; because of a fictional book written thousands of years ago by ignorant, evil men, we're limiting people's rights and the advancement of science. We're basing morals and laws on this stupid book, and it needs to stop.
Zero9656 2 weeks ago
@Zero9656 "Evolution is a fact"....WTF who the shit are you fooling!!!! What evidence is there, It's a fucking THEORY you can't prove it, you don't know the answers to this world neither do I so shut up.
sejason56 2 weeks ago
@sejason56 Again, your lack of knowledge on the subject isn't my concern. Do your research. You're confusing scientific theory with a hypothesis. Scientific theories have been tested and proven.
Zero9656 2 weeks ago
@Zero9656 'scientific theory' your words....again It's a theory, theory does not equal fact.
sejason56 1 week ago
@sejason56 Your lack of a basic understanding of the scientific method is appalling. Please, do the gene pool a favor and sterilize yourself.
Zero9656 1 week ago
@Zero9656 Love to discuss this but whatever, sorry for having an open mind, most of you fools just follow the status quo....I won't put my blind faith on what so called experts think, so you just follow it. good day
sejason56 1 week ago
@sejason56 An open mind? Did you really just say you have an open mind?! You say, "La la la, evolution is a theory!" I say, "You're confusing a hypothesis with a theory. A theory has been tested, peer reviewed and proven." You say, "La la la, evolution is a theory! That means it isn't true!" Then you claim to have an open mind? LOL
All you have is blind faith. Experts are called experts because they know more about the field in which they work than you.
Zero9656 1 week ago
@Zero9656 “Preservation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in Dinosaurs” by Gerard Muyzer, et al., in Geology, Vol. 20, October 1992, pages 871-874.
The article tells how Muyzer, et al., used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify a protein that they suspected to be osteocalcin from two Cretaceous dinosaurs identified as “Lambeosaurus F38” (which they believe to be 75.5 million years old), Several other samples showed that there were cells. That is SCIENCE and you loose. bye go cry
TheDonuan 1 week ago
@TheDonuan "Preservation of OC in fossil bones appears to be strongly dependent on the burial history and not simply on age." lol, same paper
loose
adj. loos·er, loos·est
1. Not fastened, restrained, or contained
Zero9656 1 week ago
@Zero9656 More insults prove your insecurity for your argument. Insulting me doesn't make your arguments any more accurate but on the contrary shows your weakness is your religious fanaticism toward evolution
TheDonuan 1 week ago
@TheDonuan Again, I'm not insulting anyone. Ignorance isn't an insult if it's true.
In no way am I a fanatic of evolution. I've seen more than enough compelling evidence to be reasonably certain it is true. And no compelling evidence to disprove it. There is no global, trans-discipline scientific conspiracy. People believe evolution because the evidence is overwhelming, despite what your brainwashed apologist "scientists" might say.
Zero9656 1 week ago
@Zero9656 Though reading their arguments were pretty hilarious, save yourself the headache and just pull out now.
CCGB515 1 week ago
@CCGB515 You're probably right. On the other hand, I do find much amusement in their pathetic attempts to discredit one of the most well tested, well supported theories in the history of science.
Zero9656 1 week ago
back then those two spots on the globe would have been nearly touching, remember it was 1 land mass?... secondly, the sculpture, it was a sicken dinosaur cmon don't be stupid, if it walks and talk like a duck... its a duck... thirdly you obviously know absolutely nothing about ancient cultures, any lamen could make the same asinine presumptions, the best word i could use to describe what you say in this video is ignorant...
RyanGraySmith89 2 weeks ago
@RyanGraySmith89 We know the oldest culture was 11,500 years ago and there was no global flood. We know the big dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
Hard to take this guy seriously. The Chinese placemat? Never mind that Marco Polo accurately described an Allosaurus (10 paces long, forelegs had 3-fingered claws like a tiger) based on descriptions of large animals trapped for their meat (a delicacy) and other parts (sold as medicines). No, we could talk all day about this sort of documented eyewitness evidence, and these people would never recognize... we hoped the soft tissue in the T-Rex would help them, but so far they have proven immune.
357MagnumBob 2 weeks ago
@357MagnumBob
I guess rather than evidence of eyewitness encounters documented by artists renderings, this guy expects us to believe his theory, whereby we are descended from rocks... which contained carbon and gave rise to the organic molecules in the "primordeal soup." Can't explain how a stereospecific organism arose from a racemic mixture, but then again, no matter what the obstacle, no matter how mathematically improbably, they will invoke lucky chance.
357MagnumBob 2 weeks ago
science thought the universe was static 60 years ago and had no beginning so "science" has certainly been wrong before....the Bible is historically accurate, not that anyone has to believe the miracles....the shroud of Turin is not a fraud and yet has a 3 d image on it, how did that happen centurys ago?
lynnethc 2 weeks ago
this guy sounds like fred flintstone!, and kinda looks like him, more to the point ,i think people like him are scared to death, that just maybe, maybe , there wrong, science thinks it know's it all, im not so sure , seems there is a lot of blank spaces in history, questions that defy explanation, never did like know-it-all's .
davo62 3 weeks ago
noah put them in america because he didn`t want them to be included in porn on ceramic pots.
firstplacechickenegg 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
(continuing) oh and btw at the end of ur video, i think it's a lot more logical to think an almighty and understandable God created the world,then believing nothing exploded.LITERALLY, NOTHING EXPLODED? isnt that called a leap of fucking faith??!! go read a book!
communalists 3 weeks ago
@communalists
since when did the universe begin in an 'explosion' ??/
that is not what science via the universe is saying
ffs how many times do the creationists with negative IQ need to be told =
IT WAS NOT AN 'EXPLOSION' it was an expansion
resulting from the intersection of quantum energy fluctuation
nothing sentient was behind it
whitesquirrel7 3 weeks ago
@whitesquirrel7
also to say the universe 'began' is to think in error
it did not happen in time 'back then'
it IS happening now
because in multiple dimensions time does not exist
in multiple dimensions the universe is the same 'size' now as it has always been
because at the speed of light time does not pass
whitesquirrel7 3 weeks ago
@whitesquirrel7 first of all, thats not wat ur top scientists say. they say,there was nothing, literally nothing. the chances of nothing to multiple dimensions suddenyl coming to life is just denial. secondly, nothing having an expansion is literally IMPOSSIBLE! it goes against not one,but several laws of the universe. so until u can solidly prove that u can break any laws of the universe, dont spout off shit. nothing is created and nothing is destroyed.everything is discovered
communalists 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@communalists-That's not what scientists say, that's what creationists say scientist say. The big bang does not describe an explosion from nothing, but an EXPANSION from something..a hot dense state. It focuses on HOW the expansion occurred, not what happened before the expansion. "never been seen or observed,never will b."- so funny, because never has a god been observed, and never will be. If nothing is created or destroyed, there is no need for a ....creator.
rooio3 3 weeks ago
@whitesquirrel7 continuing. behind every clock is a clock maker,and that goes for everything else. there has been no prove watsoever that says something can happen without anything happening. please prove how nothing literally NOTHING can explode OR expland on its own using to energy watsoever. never been seen or observed,never will b.
communalists 3 weeks ago
@communalists- Conservation of energy say energy may neither be created nor destroyed, simply changes form. Creation ex nihilo originate from the belief that a creator made something out of nothing....with magic, not scientists.
rooio3 3 weeks ago
@rooio3 not magic. almighty power which ur three pound brain will never comprehend.he spoke. HE SPOKE. das all he had to do to create all this. you see the thing about u think u can figure that out. u cant. ur thinking carnal mindedly. ur thinking through your eyes. it doesnt really matter how u see it or darwin saw it or marx or anyone else fr that matter. God's word is the truth.
communalists 3 weeks ago
@communalists-"not magic. almighty power"- thus, magic. Saying "it's power" because the biblical text says it's power mean nothing. You're simply repeat like a robot. "HE SPOKE"- no, the ancient literature SAYS he spoke. But literature can say anything. Doesn't make it...true. Take harry potter. God's word is nothing but regurgitated lies. We know it plagiarized the creation, flood, & eden stories from older mythological texts that have since been found.
rooio3 3 weeks ago
@communalists- Events purported to have occurred in biblical texts have shown to be dismissed by the archeological record. It's idealized literature, not real history. Maybe you should look up the term intrinsic expansion. The spinning of the solar system has nothing to do with it.Galaxies can rotate every which way, they all don't spin the same. That has to do with angular momentum. If you don't think the universe is expanding by now, you really don't know much about cosmology
rooio3 3 weeks ago
@rooio3 what are you implying as real history?,all the archaeological records by today's scientists are based on circular reasoning,carbon dating and random accidents,if I ask you who made computers,but say you can't use humans as an answer.I just destroyed your only logical response,because it was the only true answer,you ask how history was but can't use biblical explanations as an answer.
communalists 2 weeks ago
@rooio3 well I guess your outa ideas and responses other then well...evolution,if you state about intrinsic expansion it had to start somewhere and how did it start with? the big bang?then angular momentum has to be in the picture too.there is no friction in space-meaning particles in space would never slow down,once things expand they can't come closer together and "form".
communalists 2 weeks ago
@communalists- The big bang is not an explosion. It is simply a theory to explain...an intrinsic expansion allowing energy to be transferred. A dot of nothingness is not a superdense ball of energy...something. The theory is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future as it had in the past on the basis of newer data. The core ideas of the Big Bang are derived from many observations that are independent from any cosmological model because they form
rooio3 2 weeks ago
@communalists- observable predictions in the universe today. As for this angular momentum nonsense you keep going on and on about, rotation of the planets has nothing whatsoever to do with the Big Bang nor does any net angular momentum the universe may have prevent local rotation in other directions. Different clouds in different parts of the universe will have very different angular momenta. There is no correlation between the rotation of objects in the solar system and the
rooio3 2 weeks ago
@communalists- initial rotation (or lack thereof) of the infant universe. Nowhere does the theory say the dense ball of energy or early state of the universe was spinning. Local rotations and deviations, as we observed, do not apply to large scale expansion. Stop taking these talking points from creationist sites. As for history, if biblical assertions made in a book of literature are not reflected or rather contradicted by archeological data, we look at the evidence
rooio3 2 weeks ago
@rooio3 THERE IS NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTRADICTION AGAINST THE BIBLE! name anything ill show u how ur wrong!...cuz u are! so now ur saying u don't actually have the proof fr this expansion bullshit! as in a court of law..YOU CANNOT PRESENT GROUNDLESS THEORIES!
communalists 2 weeks ago
@rooio3 THERE IS NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTRADICTION AGAINST THE BIBLE! name anything ill show u how ur wrong!...cuz u are! so now ur saying u don't actually have the proof fr this expansion bullshit! as in a court of law..YOU CANNOT PRESENT GROUNDLESS THEORIES! YOU CANNOT DO THAT! furthermore, the law of angular momentum disproves ur expansion law. if something expands it cannot form anything. there is no evidence fr the expansion of the universe! READ EVOLUTION CRUNCHER!
communalists 2 weeks ago
@communalists There is a Geological contradiction against the bible. The earth is millions of years old and not flat. Plus there was no global flood. Geology proves the bible wrong.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@communalists-"name one artifact that contradicts the bible!"- archeological findings of Canaan. Does not support the biblical depiction of an invasion by Israel, but a steady cultural continuum. Also show ancient Israel to be indistinguishable from Canaanite culture, contrary to biblical claims. The Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite dialect. No archeological evidence for the exodus story, instead egypt conquered Israel in canaan seen in evidence from egyptian records
rooio3 2 weeks ago
@communalists- as well as physical egyptian military outposts established in the land during a time the bible says Israel conquered. Certain names in the exodus story of the bible were not in existence until 6-5th century BCE, not the 13th century BCE. The biblical stories of creation, flood, and eden were found to be Israelite adaptations of older Mesopotamian myths found since 1800s. Israel simply modified the meaning of the stories, while keeping nearly
rooio3 2 weeks ago
@communalists- the exact same narrative structure. Other flood myths don't have the same narrative structure, different date timings of the flood, and floods that didn't encompass the entire earth. geologically speaking, our atmosphere only holds enough moisture to account for less than an inch of water worldwide. "YOU CANNOT PRESENT GROUNDLESS THEORIES!" I don't think you know what a theory is. A theory is simply made to explain observable data. It is always based on
rooio3 2 weeks ago
@communalists- data. If a theory changes, it is simply the explanation that changes, not the data. "the law of angular momentum disproves ur expansion law."- no it doesn't because it has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe nor is it affected by it. It simply show your lack of knowledge of the expansion.
rooio3 2 weeks ago
@communalists- Here are some very good videos regarding analysis of the biblical flood claims and other claims in relation to archeology. Defiantly watch them:
watch?v=xpXm6vz2uTY
watch?v=JlVyWzqu45w
watch?v=VjqJ6oJJnZk
watch?v=M7RF_GoeOTg
watch?v=orEFbIlmulM
watch?v=mPL81kbArfE
watch?v=ykPIdohcKbE&feature=related
watch?v=Yvu-leOT3y8
rooio3 2 weeks ago
@rooio3 Watch Noah's flood debunked by potholer54 to see why we know there was no global flood.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz-Oh, I knew it was bunk from the collection of prior flood myths it adapted. Also to make it much more easier, there is a website that counters nearly every creationist claim. Pretty much addresses all such claims. A lot faster. Quite extensive:
w-w-w(dot)talkorigins(dot)org(forward slash)indexcc
rooio3 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rooio3 THERE IS NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTRADICTION AGAINST THE BIBLE! name anything ill show u how ur wrong!...cuz u are! so now ur saying u don't actually have the proof fr this expansion bullshit! as in a court of law..YOU CANNOT PRESENT GROUNDLESS THEORIES! YOU CANNOT DO THAT! furthermore, the law of angular momentum disproves ur expansion law. if something expands it cannot form anything. there is no evidence fr the expansion of the universe! READ EVOLUTION CRUNCHER!
communalists 2 weeks ago
@communalists expansion theory* stop making groundless claims and give me truth!
communalists 2 weeks ago
@communalists- Learn something about science first. You wont find it on creationist sites.
rooio3 2 weeks ago
@communalists-for the best possible reconstruction of the region. If you don't have eternal sources affirming the biblical account, but showing something much different, we don't just dismiss those sources and data for the sake of keeping biblical stories intact. And that is exactly what happened in the field of archeology. Stories are not the same as actual artifacts, ruins, tangible findings and molecular evidence.
rooio3 2 weeks ago
@rooio3 u see this is wat u evolutionist do. 'Stories are not the same as actual artifacts, ruins, tangible findings and molecular evidence'.evidence please! the evidence is in line with the bible. they find clams on top of mount everest, over 500 tales of a flood worldwide on all continents, the impossibly of the grand canyon forming without a mass flood,actual arifacts? name one artifact that contradicts the bible!
communalists 2 weeks ago
@communalists The don't find ''clams on the top of Mt. Everest'' The whole top of the mountian is an old sea bed.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rooio3 u see this is wat u evolutionist do. 'Stories are not the same as actual artifacts, ruins, tangible findings and molecular evidence'.evidence please! the evidence is in line with the bible. they find clams on top of mount everest, over 500 tales of a flood worldwide on all continents, the impossibly of the grand canyon forming without a mass flood,actual arifacts? name one artifact that contradicts the bible!
communalists 2 weeks ago
@communalists- and the technology used to study and observe it. It's 2012 now, there's no excuse. Space...between stars and galaxies...is expanding, not moving. Stars and galaxies aren't moving outward into it. It's like drawing dots on a small piece of silly putty. Then you start to stretch the putty. Those dots are getting farther away from each other, but they're not moving around or through the putty. They are stretching with the putty. That is intrinsic expansion
rooio3 3 weeks ago
@rooio3 If you are talking about the expansion of the universe according to the big bang;a dot of nothingness spinning and exploded,there were no atoms,and nothing to ignite the particle of nothingness.
communalists 2 weeks ago
@rooio3 There is no way to slow the particles. They
are traveling at supersonic speed, and every kilometer
would separate them farther from one other.
There is no way to change the direction of even
one particle. They would keep racing on forever, never
slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get
the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous
clouds. Angular momentum [turning motion] would be
needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.
communalists 2 weeks ago
@communalists- The expansion is not propelling stars and galaxies through space as an explosion would. The space between stars and galaxies is itself expanding or "stretching" and moving stars and galaxies farther apart with it. It's called intrinsic expansion, which is why the term explosion is inaccurate. Stars and galaxies are relatively static apart from their own local gravitational pulls. They're not "moving" into something.
rooio3 3 weeks ago
@rooio3 u ever hear of the law of angular momentum? why is it we have several planets and moons in our solar system alone spinning backwards? y do we have entire galaxies in the universe spinning backwards? if this so called expansion happened and everything was moving since it all happened simultaneously it would have to b going in the same direction.its not. well, i guess its....magic.
communalists 3 weeks ago
shut the fuck up! it was a dinosaur, and yes! the chinese fucking raise dragons. marco polo's account, which btw the entire world takes as an accurate account of his journey,SAYS THEY DID! ive lived in cambodia fr 2 years went to see that several times and yes,it is a dinosaur.
communalists 3 weeks ago
live birthing skinks in Australia, and tikktallik..... possibly platypus......transitional species? or made by the devil?
Finleyfrank1 3 weeks ago
heres a more important question,WHAT is this creative force we call GOD?how did that flash of mathematical cohesion occur,and WHERE did IT come from?the laws of the 3d univererse are constants within it,and nature says there needs to be and egg in some kind of shell or womb,and the mathematical instructions of what shape to take have to come IN FROM ELSEWHERE(sperm) to make it grow infinitely more complex than it was in base form,and create complex systems and life.SO, WHERE DID GOD COME FROM??
irishbreakfast 3 weeks ago
does not Patton realise that
EVEN IF it were actually a depiction of a stegosaur
it would only prove that the carver had optained the idea from knowledge of fossils
ie exactly the same way we have
it would not prove dinosaurs and humans lived together
it would say nothing about the age of the earth or the existence or otherwise of 'god'
whitesquirrel7 4 weeks ago
@whitesquirrel7 yes, some ancient people found a bone, and we able to completely guess at what the animal looked like. they must have been amazing. first of all, there is not such thing as a complete fossil skeleton. it is usually a few bones. the most complete ones found, have maybe 40 percent of it. so to think that these people found a fossil and were able to guess , is just silly.
mikelisejordanjaden 3 weeks ago
Genesis, when studied in Hebrew does not say that the Earth is 6,000 years old, not even close. It doesn't even say that Adam & Eve were the first humans. It also says that animals were created before mankind. The word "day" in Hebrew is misunderstood and can imply any amount of time. Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends. With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day." Much else could be said, but this guy has no idea what he is bashing.
dwhite1up 4 weeks ago 5
@dwhite1up i agree !! i am growing tired of people bashing the bible or god. some things that we translated into english in the bible are misrepresented. you have a perfect example of it.
mikelisejordanjaden 3 weeks ago
@mikelisejordanjaden I hear ya! Just think what else they might not know about. They fail to realize just how complex biblical scriptures are and how they relate to the word around us. One can learn something new everyday by studying this massive "book" and all the extra-biblical accounts and archeology that comes with it.
dwhite1up 3 weeks ago
@dwhite1up Does the bible say there was a global flood? Then it is wrong.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz Hey bud! How have you been? If go into Hebrew, it does not apply the entire Earth, but rather a large land mass. I don't agree with all that Kent has presented by the way. One will never get to the bottom of things without considering all evidences and all historical knowledge. The truth of truths are hidden from us. If you can't see or understand this... then I'm sorry. So who are you going to "vote" for this year???
dwhite1up 2 weeks ago
@dwhite1up ''The truth of truths are hidden from us'' So you don't even try to get an education or open a science book ?!?
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@dwhite1up even the english verison never states that.preachers translations state this not the bible.the problem is people like the guy that make this vid is as guilty as the people he bashes.because he takes the word of another human as well,without reading for himself..the whole myth of 6k years comes from the part in the bible where "adam&eve's" family tree timeline.it has nothing to do with the earth.
vincentvangro 2 weeks ago
@vincentvangro Earth ages actually go back even further, right there in Hebrew Genesis. There is plenty of evidence for the Flood, right where it said it happened. We have been lied to about God Elohim by both "evolutionist" and "creationist".
dwhite1up 2 weeks ago 2
@MadeUThink Clearly you have an exquisite scientific mind. After all a carving of a stegosaurus on a temple many thousands of miles from where stego fossils have been found puts all questions to rest doesn't it? Fool.
JohnD24x7 1 month ago
The narrator here is nothing but a blowhard that even must resort to vulgar language to express himself: case closed.
elihew 1 month ago
@elihew so no reply to the argument presented eh? just an attack of his character?
clearly you are a master debater
haz020190 4 weeks ago
The narrator reminds me so much of Gilbert Gottfried . . .
plilgeberg 1 month ago
So... when Evolution says we came from a Rock that was rained on, then struck by lightning. Its true, but God forbid, when a carving is on a piece of architecture, then you better believe its fake... Sistine Chapel, your next, Michelangelo hadn't used any humans in inspiration of his artwork but a figment of his imagination.
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 month ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks 'Evolution says we came from a Rock that was rained on, then struck by lightning.'
I hope that is a joke, if not then you are. Not only is this analogy ludicrous, but Evolution says absolutely nothing about where life came from, that is Abiogenesis. Evolution states how life evolved from simple life forms to complex forms as shown in the fossil record. Statements like this show how the U.S. has failed in teaching the Biological sciences due to the religious.
oadnrtyo 1 month ago
Are you Lewis Black? You not only sound like him, but your speech is the same and your opinions on religion seem to be the same.
Firesprink72 1 month ago
what a lovely voice!
8caligula1 1 month ago
This guys annoying as fuck
MadeInOregon27 1 month ago 5