christianity and biology is like gasoline and matches, the biology is the match and the gasoline is christianity, put them together and the gas burns away
How long are you going to keep up this pathetic smokescreen. I would much rather we discuss the actual issues.
Is it really that important for your ego for you to prove that someone else is a liar. Are you that desperate to put up a smokescreen and deflect attention away from the actual issues?
Note that this isn't just about producing evidence that supports evolution. The key thing is that I am producing evidence that CONTRADICT the hypothesis put forward by creationists. Evidence that shows that the claims of creationists are false.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day
Of course, a day is a complete cycle of dark and light.
Given that everything started in darkness, he could have left it dark for a billion years before he decided to create light and that would still be the first "day".
After all, he called the light Day. There was darkness before. It doesn't say how long the heaven and earth and waters existed before the first light (day) appeared.
Another question. Consider the phrase "In the beginning".
My question is, beginning of what? Beginning of God? Beginning of the Universe? Beginning of our solar system?
Since it says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", then that implies to me he is talking about the beginning of the heaven and the earth. (our solar system). So the Universe could have existed long before that.
Consider this passage from a modern scientific viewpoint assuming it is talking of the overall universe.
In the beginning (of our universe)
The earth was without form (It was pure energy, matter hadn't condensed out yet).
Darkness was upon the face of the deep (Light didn't appear in the Universe until about 377,000 years after the big bang at which time God said "Let there be light")
And God divided the light from the darkness (Matter condensed, stars and planets form, causing shadows)
The earth was without form and void (the solar system was a dust cloud, without form)
And darkness was upon the face of the deep (because the sun hadn't appeared yet)
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (The cometary dust cloud which included a lot of water ice started to move and spin via gravity)
Let there be light (the sun ignited)
Divided the light (planets formed, with dark sides
My point is that nothing in that passage in Genesis contradicts the existing modern scientific view of how the Universe or our solar system came into being.
It completly contradicts the Bible the earth is only approx. 6000- 12,000 years old and there was no big bang . God made everything himself no fake Science needed.
The Bible says what it means and means what it says making up stuff to fill in the lines that dont exist is a waste of your and my time. It took 6 days for him to create everything because he chose to take 6 days and rest on the 7th to show us how we should live, we can stand here all day with what ifs but theres no need all the answeres are in the Book God even tells us the ending and its happening soon possibly in our lifetime. read it and ask for wisdom and understanding and he will
"making up stuff to fill in the lines that dont exist is a waste of your and my time."
How EXACTLY did anything I "made up" contradict that passage in the bible?
The bible itself says the evening and the morning were the first day. You can't have a morning without light. Before that it was eternally evening. So God could have taken an eternity to do everything up to the point that Light first appeared and was separated from the darkness.
Not a thing I said contradicted Genisis in any way.
What I'm showing is that every single line in the passage you quoted can be interpreted to be completely compatible with what Science currently knows about the Big Bang and the creation of the solar system.
Why couldn't God have started the big bang, and set down the laws of physics by which the rest of his creation progressed? Especially since it doesn't contradict the bible passage?
The first day needed light for the morning, so the darkness could have existed forever before that.
one huge problem evolution is not a theory they call it a theory so people will believe it . The truth is it does not even qualify to be a hypothesis evolition is a reigion it takes way more faith to believe in the evolution religion then it does to believe in God were evidence he created everything is everywere you look.
He obviously has no understanding of what a theory is.
A scientific theory starts at the observable facts. It is a model of natural processes that is consistent with all the known facts and does not contradict any of the known facts.
The Theory of Evolution most definitely fits the above description.
Intelligent Design / Creationism relies on throwing out and ignoring many known facts, so does not qualify as a theory.
Nope evolution doesnt fit the description at all nice try though. Evolution is a religion a false religion a scam so many fall for it its sad . You want to know the truth read the Bible
There is no evidence for evolution so how can I find this imaginary evidence to prove an imaginary evolution is false it is you the evolution religion believer that has the burden of proof not me who knows it is a lie. above are some questions you wont answere because all evolutionists have been afraid to answere them but lets give you the benefit of the doubt
Here is some questions Why did orgaisms evolve into food so it could be eaten and killed? Why hasnt it evolved into somthing that cant be killed &eaten?
everything suposedly took 100s of millions of yearsto evolve so there should be millions well at least 100s & 100s of thousands of bones for every transition but there is not even 1 no not 1 Why?
were did the first organism come from? what made organisms able to think to be able to mutate into a perfect human? or did it just magicaly happen?
Prey animals did not evolve "to become food". Predator animals evolved to eat them. There is plenty of evidence of "evolutionary arms races" where we see predator putting pressure on prey to evolve defenses which predators then evolve to overcome.
When I spoke of food I was talking primarily about plant food trees ect but animals as well. What about plants? why dont prey animals evolce to eat there predetor ot are they content with getting eatin? If your example was true predetors would be alot more deadly then they are right know as the evolving battle would have cont. foer millions and milliions of years infact they would be diousous by now.
What is your reasoning to say that predators would be a lot more deadly now?
Are you trying to say that over billions of years, the earth should be able to produce a superpredator that is top of the food chain which no other predator or prey is able to withstand?
Ummm, have you looked in the mirror lately? This has happened. Humans are the super predator.
I already answered your question I cant disprove somthing that doesnt exist. Evolution doesnt exist it is a lie a scam the evolution religion, I cant prove somthing doesnt exist when it doesnt exist. So answere my questions or are you scared like all your other evolution religion finatics
coolvideo28 is trying to say he can't disprove the theory of Evolution because the theory doesn't exist.
The only problem with that is, of course, the theory does exist. It was originally written in Darwin's Origin of the Species and has been refined over the years. The theory is also testable. It just hasn't failed any of the tests.
YOU are the one that said earlier there was evidence that disproved Evolution. Put up or shut up.
coolvideo, by completely ignoring the massive amount of evidence that is clearly available with even a simple search of the internet, you do nothing but undermine the creationist cause.
If you want creationism to be taken seriously, you must address this evidence with serious theories of your own.
Simply putting your head in the sand, covering your ears, and going "La la la I don't want to hear" won't convince anyone of your cause.
Coolvideo says "I could have should have would have whatever he says".
No, I produce evidence to contradict your claims. You instead produce absolutely no evidence to support your case and instead resort to trying to wriggle out of saying anything.
Do you have any evidence for creation that does not end "For the bible tells me so"? If so, produce it.
Do you have any evidence of a global flood that explains the clear organization of body types in different layers then produce it.
The only thing you have produced me with is lies from your evolution religion how about some real facts your the only one trying to avoid the facts. You want proof message me with a link to some proof and I will send some back to you this goes to anyone else who wants proof you cant put links on here
Observations of the diversification of "kinds" through artificial selection. For example, different dog breeds. This proves that you can get significant changes occurring from the original animal.
Observed separation of species through mechanisms like ring species. Which proves that one species can separate into multiple species.
Fossil evidence that shows a progression of body forms through the ages.
DNA comparisons where similar species hae similar DNA.
Existence of transitional forms in the fossil record at the correct sequence in time. Even if you disagree on the dates, the order is indisputable.
Examination and comparison of embryos. As the video says, why do Whale embryos start out having gills? Why with nostrils starting in front then moving up on the head? Why start with rear legs that then disappear? Sounds like poor design to me.
Evidence like radiometric dating which I.D. has completely failed to discredit.
You have put a few good examples that prove the flood but nothing real to dispute it. as far as new lies your evolution religion evolves as the lies are dicovered and proved lies evolution believers just think up new ones, It is impossible to prove all lies when you guys keep making new ones all the time
You accuse me of saying "evolutionist lies". However, NONE of the things I mentioned are lies. They are facts. Evidence. You can go and examine the rocks yourself today without any interference from me and they will show exactly the same thing.
The issue is interpretation. The Theory of Evolution provides an explanation that is consistent with ALL known facts and contradicts NONE of the facts.
You had a chance to lay forth your explanations. Instead you call me a liar. You can't explain.
HAHAHAHAH you are consistent at 1 thing keeping me laughing you know darn well we have proved all suposed half monkey half human skelatons as fake frauds exept the new one thats only because real scientists havent been able to check it out yet but it will be proved a fake too . I explained all I didnt need to get into a complicated argument because to prove your argument wrong was to easy just like this one NEXT oh and I will answere your flood questions when I get a minute Iam out of here
all of the lucy type discoveries were proved frauds they were bull face lying evolution scientists fake scientists would not admit it until everyone found out it was real scientists that proved they were fakes or the evolution religion scientists would still be trying to trick us. Infact they are still trying to trick people they still have them in museums and refuse to take them out decieving children how sick is that
What is your evidence for this? Please show me the scientific papers that outline exactly how Lucy is a fraud. Who is the "real scientist" that "proved" Lucy was a fake.
Lucy was a complete fraud they are still decieving kids and adaults alike with this lucy fraud they didnt have enough bones to figure out how this looked at all so they made a wax half monkey half human and when the fraud was proved they decided not to take it out of museum they are still decieving people with there evolution lies I am sending you a link to a youtube video wich proves my point
How was Lucy a fraud? Can you cite a peer-reviewed scientific article supporting this claim or are you making it up? Lucy is just one specimen of Australopithecus afarensis, we have dozens more. Being able to work out what an organism looked like based on limited fossil remains is what paleontologists are trained to do, it's their job. However, Lucy was 40% complete so it wasn't that difficult.
They have all been proven frauds exept the latest one they just found thats only because no real scientist has checked it yet, just fellow evolution religion believers. I will send you a link in your messages for the lucy fraud but if you have searched into the truth at all and were not just going by blind faith being a member of the evolution religion faith you would already now this. lucy didnt even have a face they put a half human half human face on it among other deception on the wax model
He sent me a link to a video on YouTube in private mail. I assume he is ok with me publishing this as the video is publically available /watch?v=j7GZCgjE2H0
Note it is not LUCY that is a fraud. The best they can say is that one specific wax model in that one particular museum is a fraud. Of course, they ignore all the OTHER Australopithecus afarensis skeletons that were found which fill in missing pieces.
They also disallow comments so we cannot correct their errors.
they claim the wax model is what lucy looked like the museum itself admited the bones were proven wrong they were not what they claimed to be but the museum refuses to take this wax model down.....
as they wish to keep decieving kids just like evolution religion does going around trying to call itself a theory this is similar to me adding super hero to the end of my name and expecting people to believe it
Even if what you say is true. Even if some museum someplace built an inaccurate model of Lucy, that does NOT mean that "Lucy is a complete fraud". At best, it means that this particular museum's model is a fraud.
So YOU are being deceitful by trying to extrapolate this so-called "fraud" back to the original Lucy bones.
So again, ask you to back up your claim that LUCY (the original bones) is a fraud.
As for the video "evidence" you produced, they obviously put it there for propaganda purposes because they disallowed any comments on the video. If they HAD allowed comments, their many errors would have been exposed.
For example, while it is true that Lucy is an incomplete skeleton, the Selam skeleton discovered in 2000 is much more complete, INCLUDING THE COMPLETE SKULL (the video complains about the skull not being complete). It also has a foot.
I just sent you a link watch it and if you are objective you will realize they are purposfully decieving kids and adults alike with what they have admited they now is a lie but its still in there museum
Coolvideo28, I do thank you for sending me the video at /watch?v=j7GZCgjE2H0
It is a perfect example of the deceitful tactics used by creationists.
Comments are disabled. This shows that the poster is not willing to accept discussion and criticism of his video. That's the exact opposite of real scientists who MUST endure criticism and defend their ideas before being taken serously.
It then describes the "fraud" of the one model, but deceitfully switches to saying Lucy is a fraud.
The funniest part of this entire video is one simple question.
Question: How did the creationist who made this video know that the was model was inaccurate.
Answer: BECAUSE THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE TOLD THEM SO.
Sure, at the time, the best source the museum had for this information was the incomplete Lucy skeleton. However, since then the much more complete Selam skeleton was discovered.
At that point, the museum admits that new evidence shows errors in the model. Far from "fraud".
Some creationist saw the model of Lucy in a museum. Lucy was found with no feet or hands but the model skeleton in the museum shows feet and hands. So "obviously" this model is a fraud.
What creationists fail to say is that the model clearly shows which bones in the model were original, and which were extrapolations.
It isn't "fraud" if they clearly tell you which bones were original and which were approximations based on other evidence.
This is another example of deceitful young-earth creationist tactics.
They take a word, like "fraud" and re-define it to suit their own propaganda needs.
The TRUE definition of fraud is "an intentional deception for personal gain".
The Lucy models and skeletons don't fit that definition. There is no deception. The original bones are clearly indicated in the literature and usually also on the models.
Scientists don't study artist's models. They study the original evidence, as should you.
The similarities between human and ape DNA is much overplayed evolutionary priests. The comparisons are done by a techniques called DNA hybridization and not from a direct comparison of the DNA sequences. Mitochondrial DNA comparisons show that Neanderthals fall within the range of human variation and are therefore humans.
Floppyjoe777, please state the source of your paper that says Mitochondiral DNA comparisons of Neanderthals fall within the range of human variation?
The 2008 mapping of 16,565 base pairs of Mitochondiial DNA shows the exact opposite. It shows their common ancestor split from Humans between 800,000 and 520,000 years ago. Humans had between 2 and 118 variations. Neanderthals showed 201 to 234 variations. Hardly an "overlap".
"Whereas these modern human sequences differ among themselves by an average of 8.0 ± 3.l (range 124) substitutions, the difference between the humans and the Neandertal sequence is 27.2 ± 2.2 (range 2236) substitutions. Thus, the largest difference observed between any two human sequences was two substitutions larger than the smallest difference between a human and the Neandertal." Well within the human ranges. I can't post creation URLs here because they are censored.
Just because a creationist website doesn't know how to interpret genomic data it hardly qualifies as evidence. I've read the recent research on this - Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA is not within the human range. Even the data you posted shows this - your website just has no clue about how to interpret the data. Fail.
Floppyjoe777 says ". I can't post creation URLs here because they are censored. "
There you go with the cult paranoia again.
You cannot post ANY URLs here, creation, evolution, or otherwise. This is NOT a conspiracy against creationists. It is a conspiracy against web advertising robots that would fill Youtube comments with ads for junk web sites.
It's not easy. You have to pick ways to post the URL without making it look like a URL. I usually do it by telling people the search terms to use in a google search. Sometimes you can get away with separating the terms in the address and spelling out the dots and the slashes.
That's completely untrue. DNA comparisons are now done with the entire genome sequences - base pair by base pair. We have compared the DNA sequence of humans and chimps over three billion nucleotides - guess what? Pretty much identical. Even the most stringent criteria put them at over 95% identical.
catarrhinegabriel Evolutionists believe evolution took millions and millions of years so thinking logicaly there should be at least 1 million sets of Bones for every transition to of every animal they should be everywere but we cant even find transitional sets of Bones for 1 animal WHY???? because evolution is a scam a lie Nothing but a religion made up to push the truth the Bible out of schools and it has worked are kids are now brainwashed with the evolution religion of lies.
Wow you lieing doesnt help your argument at all... show me transitional fossils for 1 animal towhat it is now. Go ahead send me a meesage with a link to were it is. Not possible because your religion the evolution religion of lies is all based on deseption No facts at all as soon as you get threw the smoke scrreen you can see the Bible the Truth Gods word read it and you will be educated ask God to give you wisdom and understanding and he will give you both
Like I said, google "transitional forms" and you'll find many examples. Ignoring the reference I give you and calling me a liar is not an excuse for you not following the references I already gave you.
If you truly believe there are no such things as transitional fossils, then either you are willfully ignoring the evidence, or you have made up your own definition of "transitional fossil" that bears no relationship to reality.
While certain isolated genes might share this similarity between humans and bananas, there is not widespread similarity between them over long stretches of DNA. For humans and chimps you can line up 2.7 billion nucleotides side-by-side and they differ only by less than 5%. There are copied manuscripts of the New Testament that differ by more than that - are you going to argue they have completely unrelated authors?
Lucky for you and me, what you or I "believe" is irrelevant. It isn't about beliefs, it is about what evidence you have. Or in your case, what evidence you don't have.
Science is about evidence, not proof. You need to deal with the evidence.
Maybe the saddest part is that you could have a fuller view of God, if you would only honestly come to grips with how God has revealed His actions in nature. If you really take natural revelation seriously (as you should, it's a form of God's revelation) they you need to deal with the evidence for evolution.
My view of God is that he is powerful enough to do things just like he says in the Bible. You see the evidence through your evolutionary bias. I see the evidence through my biblical bias. Therefore as you say there can be no proof of either belief. Only evidence interpreted one way or the other. My God isn't limited to mans observation of natural laws.
The question is not about God's power - the question is where the evidence points to. I do not have an "evolutionary bias." I have an evangelical Christian bias, if anything. I am, however, (a) trained in the sciences and (b) honest.
How about Dr. Todd Wood? Google his name for his blog ("Todd Wood Blog" should do it). He is the best-trained creationist scientist there is - and he agrees there is lots of evidence for evolution because he is honest too. You can't claim he has a bias!
That's just it. I see the evidence pointing to a recent creation about 6000 years ago. While you picture it differently. We see the same evidence but our interpretations are different based on our biases. If your Good fiend Todd believes in evolution and long ages I would not trust his opinions on the matter.
Todd is the most qualified young earth creationist in the business. He's the head of the center for origins research at Bryan College for crying out loud. He is as YEC as you can get - but he's honest about the evidence for evolution.
Floppyjoe777 says "We see the same evidence but our interpretations are different based on our biases"
No, We see the same evidence, and you willfully ignore most of it. You believe the fairytales you are told about the inaccuracy of radiometric dating or other such nonsense because you need to protect your biased conclusions. Any science that shows the earth is older than 6000 years in your mind is wrong, so you just accept it is wrong in spite of the evidence.
You see the same evidence I do, but you believe stories(fables) about how evolution could happen instead of actually seeing evidence that proves evolution. I have read articles about and watched videos showing how radioisotope dating is based on unprovable assumptions. I understand it just like you should be able to, but you refuse to see the evidence. We differ in that I believe in a God that created, and you believe in "nothing" that created everything.
This is one of the most outlandish Cretinist lies.
Exactly WHAT are these "unprovable assumptions" you talk about and more importantly, what is your proof that those assumptions are false?
It is true that radiometric dating relies on certain preconditions to produce accurate results.
Neither the parent or daughter isotopes are added to or removed from the material after its formation. This is why they take multiple samples and use multiple dating techniques to check for contamination.
It also requires that the parent has a long enough half life that there is still enough to measure for the dating. That's why different methods have different ranges of dates and different error ranges.
The samples also must not have been re-heated to the "closure temperature" which resets the clock to 0 (for example, by another volcanic eruption that heats the rock). This works in your favor, as it will make the sample look younger than it is (time of melting instead of initial formation)
Here's some cretinist lies about radiometric dating.
New dating methods are calibrated by comparing with old methods which are already wrong. "The fossils date the rock, the rock date the fossils". This is hogwash. Scientists do use multiple methods of testing an age of a rock then compare those to see if they agree or not, but that's for error checking purposes to determine if this is a contaminated sample. They are not using one method to calibrate another method.
Most, if not all, of the examples they give of bad radiometric results can easily be traced back to known problems with the original samples. For example, dating volcanic ash deposits that were a mixture of new volcanic ash and old eroded rocks. Or dating samples which were near the upper or lower range. A good example is the cretinists who tried to use radio carbon dating on petrified wood that had no carbon in it.
Yes, new volcanic rock WILL give incredible long ages with some measurement techniques. Of course, they will also give equally long error margins.
For example, the rock may date 100,000 years old, plus or minus 100,000 years. Which actually means it is between 0 and 200,000 years old. Which, of course, it is.
You may say that this error margin makes the tool unreliable. However, the half-life of the isotope used is in the billions of years.
So yes, for recent rocks, 100,000 year error is a big deal, which is why it is known to be unreliable for young samples (which are easily identified because they fall within the error margin).
But, when you are talking about an error of two billion years old plus or minus 1 million years, that's relatively accurate.
Natural processes will not normally add two isotopes. They might add one, but not two. So isochron dating which checks three isotopes will identify clearly if one of the isotopes was added.
Also, Radioisotope dating accuracy can be greatly improved by using Isochron dating.
The initial assumptions for radiometric dating are that the amount of the daughter isotope was initially 0 and no parent or daughter isotope entered the system since formation.
Isochron works by checking for three isotopes, not two. Parent, daughter, and granddaugher. Contamination normally affects only one isotope. By comparing 3, we can detect contamination easily.
What about removal of isotopes? Tests show isochron dating exhibit discordant ages which likely means that decay rates have not always been the same. Would you consider a worldwide flood abnormal?
The only example I know of discordant ages is when the incompetent creationist intentionally got non cogenic samples in an attempt to intentionally discredit the method.
Of course, the method ONLY works if you pick rocks from the same layer that are layed down at the same time. If you grab rocks from different layers then of course they will indicate different ages.
You know that a flood can lay down many layers of sediment in a very short time. Mt. St. Helens erupted and canyons formed there that had thousands of layers all in a very short time.
As for a flood laying down many layers, no, actually it doesn't. MULTIPLE floods lay down many layers, one for each flood.
A flood actually lays down a single layer, sorted by particle size. There is no distinct boundaries between the different particle sizes. It is one layer.
The geologic column however shows distinct layers where the adjacent rocks are completely different, from shale to limestone to igneous. Impossible to lay down in one event.
Of course, if you could produce conclusive evidence of such a flood, I would be willing to change my mind.
However, all the evidence indicates NO flood. For example, the way the sedimentary layers are layed down are not sorted as they would be in a flood. Layers of limestone, shale, and volcanic flows. are incompatible with a one-year flood. You don't get lobster fossils mixed with trilobite fossils, or rabbits with dinosaurs.
The evidence for such a flood is all around you. You know that 2 thirds of the earth's surface is covered by water don't you? Why would scientists speculate so much about global floods on mars when no surface water is visible there?
The COUNTER evidence for a global flood is all around me. As an examination of the geologic column shows.
Creationists claim that the earth was once much flatter before the flood. We didn't need water up to Mt. Everest's height. Those mountains then rose after the flood. So less than 6000 years ago.
If that were true the kinetic energy released would have boiled away all the oceans.
Human artifacts have been found in almost every strata of the geologic column. They are usually explained as contamination when scientist do not believe the true explanation.
Again, you make claims without providing references.
Convenient that. It means that I am unable to refute your claims because I haven't a clue where you are getting the evidence for these claims.
Yes, there have been cases where human remains have been found in deeper layers. What often is left out is that these were often burials (where they DUG A HOLE INTO DEEPER LAYERS).
In all the cases I know of, the remains were in layers that were moved from their original positions.
So six feet down is deep then?How do you explain layers of rock that are bent in hairpin shapes that are found all over the earth? This rock would have to have been soft at the time it formed these shapes indicating that there was a global flood.
Again, you did not give me the specifics of your claim, so yes, I was speculating.
As for the folded rock layers, have you not heard of continental drift and plate tectonics? Again, give me DETAILS. Tell me an example of a specific rock formation and I'll look up what geologists have to say about that formation.
In the mean time, I refuse to continue speculating on your specious claims.
As for the soft rocks, if they were layed down in a flood, THE LAYERS WOULD NOT BE IN A HAIRPIN
Google is your friend. There are many instances. You might spend the rest of your life trying to refute each one. When the water of the global flood was receding or perhaps when the were prevailing they left mudslides which could have bent into these hairpin shapes.
Again, you talk about these "hairpin shapes" but give me no references to follow up. Until you do, that evidence is worthless.
And no, a mud slide would not cause layers of different types of sediments to create the hairpin shapes you describe. It would cause the layers to become all jumbled and mixed together. Do the experiment, see for yourself.
To prove your hypothesis you must demonstrate several things.
You must prove that the "hairpin shapes" were caused by mudslides. The test for this is simple. Where's the mud? If a mudslide caused the bending then you should see the mud flows located in such a way that it would cause the bending.
Second, you must prove that this is caused by a global flood event and not a local event. This can be tested by examining which layers were done, radiometric dating (yea I know but it's accurate) etc.
You must also explain the composition of the layers that were folded and demonstrate that these could have been layed down at the same time and all soft at the same time.
You must also show that the layers that folded were actually soft at the time they were folded. It is easy to tell the difference between folding of soft soil vs folding of solid rock slowly over time.
If you claim to be smarter than working geologists, you better be able to back up those claims with irrefutable evidence.
I just gave you many examples. I repeat my irrefutable evidence against the flood yet again:
Distinct layering of different types of rock, not the jumbled single layer sorted by density you expect in a flood.
Composition of layers, including shale and limestone which takes a long time to form in calm waters, or interspersed multiple volcanic layers proving the layers could not be a single event.
Consistent fossil sorting world-wide. No lobsters found with trilobites or rabbits with dinosaurs.
Radiometric and isochron dating, which I have shown is reliable and not subject to the lies said about it by cretinists.
The existence of objects we can see in the telescope that are much further than 6000 light years away, proving the cosmos existed long before 6000 years ago.
Examination of the fossil record. If all the different species that appear in the fossil record lived at the same time, the ecosystem would collapse.
More evidence supporting the observed evolution around us.
Again, the fossil sorting clearly shows an order based on type of animal. Lowest layers only have single celled organisms. Above that are simple aquatic multi-celled organisms. Then aquatic arthropods, the fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals.
On the plant side, simple one-celled cyyano bacteria, then fungi, then ferns, with flowering plants (and the pollen they produce) only recently.
Yes, the evidence I provided is subject to interpretation. Yet Cretinists give ridiculous explanations for their interpretations.
For example, they say the consistent sorting of animal fossils is because some "ran to the tops of hills". Give me a break! That wouldn't matter in a world-wide flood. Dead bodies float, then sink. It also doesn't explain the pollen fossils.
More evidence. Observation of evolution in action.
Observed artificial selection like breeding of domestic cattle, dogs, cats, as well as plants. This PROVES that setting conditions on animals (in this case selective breeding) will create changes in the organisms.
Observed natural selection in action, such as the existence of ring species, development of cecal valves in italian wall lizards, development of bacteria that eat nylon, etc.
Floppy says "and the ones that are found together are contamination right"
Again, he makes a wild claim without producing any EVIDENCE to BACK UP his claim. More importantly, he doesn't provide any specific evidence because then I cannot examine the evidence mysel.
If you don't give me specific examples, then you are just making up stories.
Good luck with that. Even Answers in Genesis, who Todd Wood consults for (!) will not even admit that that paper exists. Try it - see if you can find any mention of Todd's 2006 chimp genome paper on the AiG website.
I have told you why Todd Wood is wrong. He seems to be a long age evolution believer masquerading as a Young Earth Creationist...you can't have it both ways...I'm sure many atheists are trying to infiltrate creationist organizations in order to try to undermine them. He does not seem to see the different ways to interpret the evidence through differing world views. Some peoples eyes have been blinded by Satan the god of this world.
Unfortunately, as soon as Wood made the post that he did about evolution, he was accused of being deluded, or some sort of charlatan involved in a conspiracy.
That is why just a few days after the original post, and after receiving lots of email, he made this post;
toddcwood . blogspot . com/2009/10/im-creationist . html
Suffice it to say that I do not agree with what Todd Wood said in the first blog post, and my reasons are clearly stated above and elsewhere. I see no evidence that proves evolution.
If you believe I am incompetent and do not know how to use my computer why would you say that if you believe that I can manipulate images, something that take a certain degree of proficiency.
Give me the date that you claim those screenshots were taken. There must be a way for me to check if the comments were disabled at that time to show you are making it up.
Every single video I have put up has all comments allowed, and this has been my policy since I put the first video up. What would be the point of disabling comments only to allow them again later?
Tell me the date, I want to be able to check that you are not making false claims.
Thanks for providing the dates.There are comments on here from 6 days ago, when your comments2.png image says comments were disabled, and moreover THERE ARE EVEN POSTS FROM YOU ON THAT DATE.
The only explanations are that you either have doctored those images or something is wrong with your computer .
I did make post on that date and on the other dates when the posts were also disabled. The posts were not disabled indefinitely on those days but they were for some time. There is nothing wrong with my computer and I did not doctor the information on those pictures other then blacking out tabs on my browser and drawing arrows to the comments.
Has anyone noticed how Floppyjoe has moved on from trying to argue his points into instead making personal attacks about JT898.
Floppy, the ONLY way that the message in your comments2.png image could appear is if JT898 turned off commenting for EVERYONE. That message does not appear when an individual is blocked.
Obviously comments are being posted.
Also if JT898 had it in for you, he would have blocked you then deleted all your messages (like creationists do) so you couldn't accuse him.
Frankly Floppyjoe it is in JT898's best interest to let you continue to post here. Everything you have posted has not only been nonsense, but has been easily discredited and proved as nonsense by people who actually know what they are talking about.
Why would he block postings from such an easy target who completely supports the stereotypical nutty creationist? You just make all creationists look bad, which in our view is a good thing.
obviously someone has been turning off comments to this video contrary to what JT898 claims.
Therefore it appears he is not being truthful in what he says. Why should I continue to try to refute his claims if he is not being truthful? How do I know that what he claims is the truth? I can't.
You think you caught him in a lie (or at least accuse him of lying) about comments. That means that nothing he says about evolution is true, in spite of all the overwhelming evidence WE have produced and the complete lack of any evidence YOU have produced.
Yea, right, any excuse for you to dismiss what a person says so you don't actually have to address the evidence given.
Hardly overwhelming...Hitler said people will sooner believe a big lie than a little lie. And the more often you repeat the big lie the more likely people will be to believe it.
Hitler's "big lies" failed because they were not supported by the EVIDENCE. Once the truth of the evidence came out, all Hitler's great lies scurried under the carpets into the darkness where they belonged.
Quoting Hitler in an attempt to avoid dealing with the EVIDENCE we provide is just another pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from your lack of evidence to support YOUR big lies.
I do find it interesting that Floppyjoe has to produce quotes from Hitler to support his case. Note that in his message Floppyjoe is actually saying that he agrees with Hitler's point of view.
Why would I bother to randomly turn off comments for one day as you claim I did and then allow them again? I mean if I were going to disabled comments I would do it permanently. It would achieve nothing to do it for 1 day. Especially after you had already accused me of censoring. I would have to be stupid to say so clearly that I don't censor and then do so, enabling you to take a screen shot.
Nobody else has access to this account, and I only access it from a computer that is used only by me.
Think about it floppyjoe. Why would anyone turn off commenting for just 5 or 10 minutes.
Moreover, what's the big deal if they DID turn off the postings for 5 or 10 minutes? Especially since you could come back in and do your postings later.
Doesn't it make a lot more sense that it is a glitch at YouTube than anything that JT898 did.
Tell you what, next time Youtube does maintenance, I'll go to one of YOUR videos, grab screen captures, then publicly accuse YOU of lying.
The comments turning off for this video happened again a few minutes ago and there was no mention of any maintenance before or after or during that occurrence. If it turns out to be a problem with youtube and you prove it to be so I would be happy to apologize for my accusations.
If the reason for the comments for this video being disabled are because of Youtube and not JT898 then I apologize for making those accusations and shame on Youtube for not making this abundantly evident.
Floppy, obviously if you use Ubunto with phpbb and mysql you know something about using computers.
Were comments disabled here? I haven't a clue. Maybe JT898 is a liar and did turn it off on purpose for a bit. Maybe he is an incompetent computer user who turned it off accidentally. Maybe you are faking the pictures.
Frankly, I don't care. All I know is that recently both your postings and mine are getting through. Which makes all this blather from you a smokescreen to avoid the issues.
I do not think either you(wysiwyg666) or JT898 are incompetent. I believe you are both intelligent people but I also believe you are sincere in your belief systems but are wrong concerning your conclusions about the evidence.
The difference between you and I is that I can demonstrate exactly how your interpretation of the evidence is wrong. How your explanations are inconsistent (like you say fossils are sorted by environment but you don't see lobsters with trilobites).
You on the other hand usually fail to state the evidential source for your claims, let alone defend my criticism of them. You still haven't addressed the lobster issue for example.
ummm, no. If lobsters liked to eat trilobites, they would be found in the same location as the food that they eat. The same way that lions are found with gazelles.
They both share the same habitats. Shallow ocean bottoms. They also both shed their shells as they grow. So you would expect to see lots of empty lobster shells alongside the empty trilobite shells (yes, many of their fossils are discarded shells).
The arrangement of the geologic column is inconsistent when viewed in different places on the earth. Sometimes supposedly older layers are found on top of supposedly newer layers and sometimes layers are completely missing from inbetween where they should be. About the only place you will find this column is in a textbook.
You simply saying it means nothing. I need to know WHERE these layers are inverted.
It is well known that there are processes like techtonic plate action, earthquakes, etc. that can locally displace the layers from the original location they were deposited. But the evidence for how they were moved is clearly visible to a trained geologist.
Without telling me where to look, I can't comment further.
As for the "missing" layers, that is to be expected. Most (but not all) layers are normally layed down under water, through sedimentary deposits (like shale) or activities of aquatic life (like limestone) or through normal sedimentary erosion deposits (sedimentary rock).
Techtonic plate action causes land and water levels to change. So especially around ocean shorelines, you will see a lack of layers because sometime the area was above water.
You will also see local variations due to local conditions.
For example, you are much likely to see huge volcanic ash deposits and lava flow layers around a Volcano and much less likely to see those same deposits thousands of miles away from the nearest volcano.
That is NOT an "inconsistency" in the geologic layers. That's just reality.
christianity and biology is like gasoline and matches, the biology is the match and the gasoline is christianity, put them together and the gas burns away
blazereef 1 year ago
uk . answers . yahoo . com/question/index?qid=20080225224657AAruN21
Judging by these posts it would appear that this occasionally occurs after youtube maintenance.
JT898 2 years ago
It usually says that the site is undergoing maintenance when they are doing maintenance.
How come no such info on the screen then?
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Who knows, ask YouTube.
How long are you going to keep up this pathetic smokescreen. I would much rather we discuss the actual issues.
Is it really that important for your ego for you to prove that someone else is a liar. Are you that desperate to put up a smokescreen and deflect attention away from the actual issues?
What are you, a politician?
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
I've looked it up in google and come across these;
google . com /support/forum/p/ youtube/thread?tid=54e86c04501b9777&hl=en
help . youtube . com/group/ youtube-issues/browse_thread/thread/40647881a57ea88c
google . com /support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=5ec9b08578be624c&hl=en
JT898 2 years ago
Note that this isn't just about producing evidence that supports evolution. The key thing is that I am producing evidence that CONTRADICT the hypothesis put forward by creationists. Evidence that shows that the claims of creationists are false.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day
Genesis 1:1-5
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Of course, a day is a complete cycle of dark and light.
Given that everything started in darkness, he could have left it dark for a billion years before he decided to create light and that would still be the first "day".
After all, he called the light Day. There was darkness before. It doesn't say how long the heaven and earth and waters existed before the first light (day) appeared.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Another question. Consider the phrase "In the beginning".
My question is, beginning of what? Beginning of God? Beginning of the Universe? Beginning of our solar system?
Since it says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", then that implies to me he is talking about the beginning of the heaven and the earth. (our solar system). So the Universe could have existed long before that.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Consider this passage from a modern scientific viewpoint assuming it is talking of the overall universe.
In the beginning (of our universe)
The earth was without form (It was pure energy, matter hadn't condensed out yet).
Darkness was upon the face of the deep (Light didn't appear in the Universe until about 377,000 years after the big bang at which time God said "Let there be light")
And God divided the light from the darkness (Matter condensed, stars and planets form, causing shadows)
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Or, if in the context of our solar system:
In the beginning (of our solar system)
The earth was without form and void (the solar system was a dust cloud, without form)
And darkness was upon the face of the deep (because the sun hadn't appeared yet)
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (The cometary dust cloud which included a lot of water ice started to move and spin via gravity)
Let there be light (the sun ignited)
Divided the light (planets formed, with dark sides
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
My point is that nothing in that passage in Genesis contradicts the existing modern scientific view of how the Universe or our solar system came into being.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
It completly contradicts the Bible the earth is only approx. 6000- 12,000 years old and there was no big bang . God made everything himself no fake Science needed.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
How EXACTLY did the exact words you quoted contradict any of the evidence?
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
The Bible says what it means and means what it says making up stuff to fill in the lines that dont exist is a waste of your and my time. It took 6 days for him to create everything because he chose to take 6 days and rest on the 7th to show us how we should live, we can stand here all day with what ifs but theres no need all the answeres are in the Book God even tells us the ending and its happening soon possibly in our lifetime. read it and ask for wisdom and understanding and he will
coolvideo28 2 years ago
"making up stuff to fill in the lines that dont exist is a waste of your and my time."
How EXACTLY did anything I "made up" contradict that passage in the bible?
The bible itself says the evening and the morning were the first day. You can't have a morning without light. Before that it was eternally evening. So God could have taken an eternity to do everything up to the point that Light first appeared and was separated from the darkness.
Not a thing I said contradicted Genisis in any way.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Coolvideo says "The Bible says what it means and means what it says"
Right. And I'm taking the words at face value, EXACTLY what they say.
YOU are the one making things up. The passage never once says that a "day" is a 24 hour period.
However, it DOES give a definition of "Day" that is unambiguous.
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day"
All of eternity up to and including the first morning was the first day.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
What I'm showing is that every single line in the passage you quoted can be interpreted to be completely compatible with what Science currently knows about the Big Bang and the creation of the solar system.
Why couldn't God have started the big bang, and set down the laws of physics by which the rest of his creation progressed? Especially since it doesn't contradict the bible passage?
The first day needed light for the morning, so the darkness could have existed forever before that.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
wysiwyg666 Said "Right. The part in that statement that is evolution is "his creations could adapt to its surroundings and survive".
You are in effect admitting that evolution (organisms changing over time to adapt to the environment they are in) actually exists.
So we are in agreement."
No we are not. Darwinian evolution must show new body plans not just changes in the current body plan
And remember ALL living fossil were at one time transitionals until their counterpart was found
toobsucker 2 years ago
Toolsucker says Darwinian evolution must show new body plans not just changes in the current body plan.
Umm, if the current body plan changes, isn't the result a new body plan?
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
one huge problem evolution is not a theory they call it a theory so people will believe it . The truth is it does not even qualify to be a hypothesis evolition is a reigion it takes way more faith to believe in the evolution religion then it does to believe in God were evidence he created everything is everywere you look.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Coolvideo says evolution is not a theory.
He obviously has no understanding of what a theory is.
A scientific theory starts at the observable facts. It is a model of natural processes that is consistent with all the known facts and does not contradict any of the known facts.
The Theory of Evolution most definitely fits the above description.
Intelligent Design / Creationism relies on throwing out and ignoring many known facts, so does not qualify as a theory.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Nope evolution doesnt fit the description at all nice try though. Evolution is a religion a false religion a scam so many fall for it its sad . You want to know the truth read the Bible
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Nice words, now back them up.
Give me an example of evidence that contradicts evolution.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
There is no evidence for evolution so how can I find this imaginary evidence to prove an imaginary evolution is false it is you the evolution religion believer that has the burden of proof not me who knows it is a lie. above are some questions you wont answere because all evolutionists have been afraid to answere them but lets give you the benefit of the doubt
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Here is some questions Why did orgaisms evolve into food so it could be eaten and killed? Why hasnt it evolved into somthing that cant be killed &eaten?
everything suposedly took 100s of millions of yearsto evolve so there should be millions well at least 100s & 100s of thousands of bones for every transition but there is not even 1 no not 1 Why?
were did the first organism come from? what made organisms able to think to be able to mutate into a perfect human? or did it just magicaly happen?
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Answers to your questions.
Prey animals did not evolve "to become food". Predator animals evolved to eat them. There is plenty of evidence of "evolutionary arms races" where we see predator putting pressure on prey to evolve defenses which predators then evolve to overcome.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
When I spoke of food I was talking primarily about plant food trees ect but animals as well. What about plants? why dont prey animals evolce to eat there predetor ot are they content with getting eatin? If your example was true predetors would be alot more deadly then they are right know as the evolving battle would have cont. foer millions and milliions of years infact they would be diousous by now.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
What does "diousous" mean?
What is your reasoning to say that predators would be a lot more deadly now?
Are you trying to say that over billions of years, the earth should be able to produce a superpredator that is top of the food chain which no other predator or prey is able to withstand?
Ummm, have you looked in the mirror lately? This has happened. Humans are the super predator.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Coolvideo28 says :"why dont prey animals evolce to eat there predetor "
Oh, you mean like Humans did?
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Your questions were interesting but meaningless.
I asked you to produce your EVIDENCE that evolution does not exist.
Questions are not evidence.
Again, I ask you to produce the evidence that disproves the theory of evolution.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
I already answered your question I cant disprove somthing that doesnt exist. Evolution doesnt exist it is a lie a scam the evolution religion, I cant prove somthing doesnt exist when it doesnt exist. So answere my questions or are you scared like all your other evolution religion finatics
coolvideo28 2 years ago
coolvideo28 is trying to say he can't disprove the theory of Evolution because the theory doesn't exist.
The only problem with that is, of course, the theory does exist. It was originally written in Darwin's Origin of the Species and has been refined over the years. The theory is also testable. It just hasn't failed any of the tests.
YOU are the one that said earlier there was evidence that disproved Evolution. Put up or shut up.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
wysiwyg666 You culd have should have would have what ever I said prove it so prove it
coolvideo28 2 years ago
coolvideo, by completely ignoring the massive amount of evidence that is clearly available with even a simple search of the internet, you do nothing but undermine the creationist cause.
If you want creationism to be taken seriously, you must address this evidence with serious theories of your own.
Simply putting your head in the sand, covering your ears, and going "La la la I don't want to hear" won't convince anyone of your cause.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Coolvideo says "I could have should have would have whatever he says".
No, I produce evidence to contradict your claims. You instead produce absolutely no evidence to support your case and instead resort to trying to wriggle out of saying anything.
Do you have any evidence for creation that does not end "For the bible tells me so"? If so, produce it.
Do you have any evidence of a global flood that explains the clear organization of body types in different layers then produce it.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
The only thing you have produced me with is lies from your evolution religion how about some real facts your the only one trying to avoid the facts. You want proof message me with a link to some proof and I will send some back to you this goes to anyone else who wants proof you cant put links on here
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Evidence for evolution:
Observations of the diversification of "kinds" through artificial selection. For example, different dog breeds. This proves that you can get significant changes occurring from the original animal.
Observed separation of species through mechanisms like ring species. Which proves that one species can separate into multiple species.
Fossil evidence that shows a progression of body forms through the ages.
DNA comparisons where similar species hae similar DNA.
EVIDENCE
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
I said evidence bring me evidence not ramblings about your evolution religion
Dogs HAHAHAHAHA are you serious possibly mutation but no evolution. sideways is not up so dogs are no example of evolution at all. but nice try
coolvideo28 2 years ago
"Dogs HAHAHAHAHA are you serious possibly mutation but no evolution. "
Good to see you admit that mutation occurs.
Once that happens, evolution is no problem.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
coolvideo28 says "bring me evidence not ramblings"
Which is exactly what I did. All the things I mentioned are specific observable facts. You can go out and examine these exact same facts.
Evolution explains all these facts. Creationism doesn't.
Simply saying "no you are wrong" is irrelevant. What you MUST do is PROVE that there is another valid explanation for each one of these facts.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
More Evidence.
Existence of transitional forms in the fossil record at the correct sequence in time. Even if you disagree on the dates, the order is indisputable.
Examination and comparison of embryos. As the video says, why do Whale embryos start out having gills? Why with nostrils starting in front then moving up on the head? Why start with rear legs that then disappear? Sounds like poor design to me.
Evidence like radiometric dating which I.D. has completely failed to discredit.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Evidence that discredits the flood but is consistent with evolution.
A geologic column that is consistent around the world.
Formation of clear layers incompatible with a single year global flood, like huge limestone layers, or shale layers, which require time to deposit.
A distribution of fossils in the rocks that is not consistent with a single flood event. For example, why no lobsters with trilobites?
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
You have put a few good examples that prove the flood but nothing real to dispute it. as far as new lies your evolution religion evolves as the lies are dicovered and proved lies evolution believers just think up new ones, It is impossible to prove all lies when you guys keep making new ones all the time
coolvideo28 2 years ago
I have provided plenty of evidence to disprove the flood. You are ignoring what I said.
Shale layers can only be layed down in long periods of calm water.
Limestone layers take thousands of years of deposits of microscopic animals.
Lava flows interspersed with sedimentary layers prove they could not have been layed down in a single flood event.
An undisturbed progression of animal types through the layers inconsistent with a single global flood.
EXPLAIN those instead of ignoring them.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
You accuse me of saying "evolutionist lies". However, NONE of the things I mentioned are lies. They are facts. Evidence. You can go and examine the rocks yourself today without any interference from me and they will show exactly the same thing.
The issue is interpretation. The Theory of Evolution provides an explanation that is consistent with ALL known facts and contradicts NONE of the facts.
You had a chance to lay forth your explanations. Instead you call me a liar. You can't explain.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
HAHAHAHAH you are consistent at 1 thing keeping me laughing you know darn well we have proved all suposed half monkey half human skelatons as fake frauds exept the new one thats only because real scientists havent been able to check it out yet but it will be proved a fake too . I explained all I didnt need to get into a complicated argument because to prove your argument wrong was to easy just like this one NEXT oh and I will answere your flood questions when I get a minute Iam out of here
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Love the way you avoid answers.
All you are proving is that you cannot even address the simplest evidence.
I especially like your comment about how all hominid skeletons are frauds. Love to hear you explain THAT one.
Who committed the frauds? How were these frauds committed? Exactly which fossils were frauds?
Yes, there was ONE case of fraud, and a few others of mistakes, but THOSE WERE EXPOSED BY SCIENTISTS NOT CREATIONISTS.
Name a SINGLE fraud exposed by creationists.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
all of the lucy type discoveries were proved frauds they were bull face lying evolution scientists fake scientists would not admit it until everyone found out it was real scientists that proved they were fakes or the evolution religion scientists would still be trying to trick us. Infact they are still trying to trick people they still have them in museums and refuse to take them out decieving children how sick is that
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Lucy? A fraud?
What is your evidence for this? Please show me the scientific papers that outline exactly how Lucy is a fraud. Who is the "real scientist" that "proved" Lucy was a fake.
You make accusations, time to back them up.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Lucy was a complete fraud they are still decieving kids and adaults alike with this lucy fraud they didnt have enough bones to figure out how this looked at all so they made a wax half monkey half human and when the fraud was proved they decided not to take it out of museum they are still decieving people with there evolution lies I am sending you a link to a youtube video wich proves my point
coolvideo28 2 years ago
How was Lucy a fraud? Can you cite a peer-reviewed scientific article supporting this claim or are you making it up? Lucy is just one specimen of Australopithecus afarensis, we have dozens more. Being able to work out what an organism looked like based on limited fossil remains is what paleontologists are trained to do, it's their job. However, Lucy was 40% complete so it wasn't that difficult.
JT898 2 years ago
They have all been proven frauds exept the latest one they just found thats only because no real scientist has checked it yet, just fellow evolution religion believers. I will send you a link in your messages for the lucy fraud but if you have searched into the truth at all and were not just going by blind faith being a member of the evolution religion faith you would already now this. lucy didnt even have a face they put a half human half human face on it among other deception on the wax model
coolvideo28 2 years ago
What are you talking about? What do at least provide some references for the claims you have made about Lucy?
JT898 2 years ago
He sent me a link to a video on YouTube in private mail. I assume he is ok with me publishing this as the video is publically available /watch?v=j7GZCgjE2H0
Note it is not LUCY that is a fraud. The best they can say is that one specific wax model in that one particular museum is a fraud. Of course, they ignore all the OTHER Australopithecus afarensis skeletons that were found which fill in missing pieces.
They also disallow comments so we cannot correct their errors.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
they claim the wax model is what lucy looked like the museum itself admited the bones were proven wrong they were not what they claimed to be but the museum refuses to take this wax model down.....
as they wish to keep decieving kids just like evolution religion does going around trying to call itself a theory this is similar to me adding super hero to the end of my name and expecting people to believe it
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Even if what you say is true. Even if some museum someplace built an inaccurate model of Lucy, that does NOT mean that "Lucy is a complete fraud". At best, it means that this particular museum's model is a fraud.
So YOU are being deceitful by trying to extrapolate this so-called "fraud" back to the original Lucy bones.
So again, ask you to back up your claim that LUCY (the original bones) is a fraud.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
As for the video "evidence" you produced, they obviously put it there for propaganda purposes because they disallowed any comments on the video. If they HAD allowed comments, their many errors would have been exposed.
For example, while it is true that Lucy is an incomplete skeleton, the Selam skeleton discovered in 2000 is much more complete, INCLUDING THE COMPLETE SKULL (the video complains about the skull not being complete). It also has a foot.
Both dispose of the video's criticisms.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
I just sent you a link watch it and if you are objective you will realize they are purposfully decieving kids and adults alike with what they have admited they now is a lie but its still in there museum
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Coolvideo28, I do thank you for sending me the video at /watch?v=j7GZCgjE2H0
It is a perfect example of the deceitful tactics used by creationists.
Comments are disabled. This shows that the poster is not willing to accept discussion and criticism of his video. That's the exact opposite of real scientists who MUST endure criticism and defend their ideas before being taken serously.
It then describes the "fraud" of the one model, but deceitfully switches to saying Lucy is a fraud.
Shame!
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
The funniest part of this entire video is one simple question.
Question: How did the creationist who made this video know that the was model was inaccurate.
Answer: BECAUSE THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE TOLD THEM SO.
Sure, at the time, the best source the museum had for this information was the incomplete Lucy skeleton. However, since then the much more complete Selam skeleton was discovered.
At that point, the museum admits that new evidence shows errors in the model. Far from "fraud".
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Oh, I know where you are coming from with this.
Some creationist saw the model of Lucy in a museum. Lucy was found with no feet or hands but the model skeleton in the museum shows feet and hands. So "obviously" this model is a fraud.
What creationists fail to say is that the model clearly shows which bones in the model were original, and which were extrapolations.
It isn't "fraud" if they clearly tell you which bones were original and which were approximations based on other evidence.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
This is another example of deceitful young-earth creationist tactics.
They take a word, like "fraud" and re-define it to suit their own propaganda needs.
The TRUE definition of fraud is "an intentional deception for personal gain".
The Lucy models and skeletons don't fit that definition. There is no deception. The original bones are clearly indicated in the literature and usually also on the models.
Scientists don't study artist's models. They study the original evidence, as should you.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Also, please define what you mean by "fraud".
Are you trying to say that someone faked the bones and it was a deliberate attempt to fabricate evidence? If so what is your evidence of that.
From what I know of the Lucy and similar bones, there is no accusation that the bones themselves were faked. They are genuine bones.
So if they are not faked, then what is this "fraud" you are talking of?
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Evidence for human evolution from apes.
Very complete history of hominid fossils clearly showing the intermediate forms leading from primitive apes to humans.
DNA analysis that shows that humans and chimpanzees are closer related than horses and zebras are.
Embryonic analysis that shows human embryos start with tails and other features not needed in the final "design".
Defects in human design, like jaws too small to fit all the teeth so people need to remove their wisdom teeth.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Apparently Bats and horses are more closely related then cows and horses are according to DNA similarity studies. So which evolved into which?
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Your question shows a complete lack of what the article says. Asking "which evolved into which" is like asking which of your cousins is your parent.
They are not direct ancestors of each other. They both share a common ancestor.
Go far enough back and we also share the same ancestor with them. After all, we are all mammals.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
The similarities between human and ape DNA is much overplayed evolutionary priests. The comparisons are done by a techniques called DNA hybridization and not from a direct comparison of the DNA sequences. Mitochondrial DNA comparisons show that Neanderthals fall within the range of human variation and are therefore humans.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Floppyjoe777, please state the source of your paper that says Mitochondiral DNA comparisons of Neanderthals fall within the range of human variation?
The 2008 mapping of 16,565 base pairs of Mitochondiial DNA shows the exact opposite. It shows their common ancestor split from Humans between 800,000 and 520,000 years ago. Humans had between 2 and 118 variations. Neanderthals showed 201 to 234 variations. Hardly an "overlap".
Google "mitochondiral DNA talkorigins"
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
"Whereas these modern human sequences differ among themselves by an average of 8.0 ± 3.l (range 124) substitutions, the difference between the humans and the Neandertal sequence is 27.2 ± 2.2 (range 2236) substitutions. Thus, the largest difference observed between any two human sequences was two substitutions larger than the smallest difference between a human and the Neandertal." Well within the human ranges. I can't post creation URLs here because they are censored.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Humans show big DNA differences. Google "Humans show Big DNA differences BBC"
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Just because a creationist website doesn't know how to interpret genomic data it hardly qualifies as evidence. I've read the recent research on this - Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA is not within the human range. Even the data you posted shows this - your website just has no clue about how to interpret the data. Fail.
catarrhinegabriel 2 years ago
Floppyjoe777 says ". I can't post creation URLs here because they are censored. "
There you go with the cult paranoia again.
You cannot post ANY URLs here, creation, evolution, or otherwise. This is NOT a conspiracy against creationists. It is a conspiracy against web advertising robots that would fill Youtube comments with ads for junk web sites.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
I guess you won't be expecting me to post any url references then.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
It's not easy. You have to pick ways to post the URL without making it look like a URL. I usually do it by telling people the search terms to use in a google search. Sometimes you can get away with separating the terms in the address and spelling out the dots and the slashes.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
for example talkorigins period com web site.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Floppyjoe777 says "The comparisons are done by a techniques called DNA hybridization and not from a direct comparison of the DNA sequences."
Ummm, no. The same 2008 study compared the actual mtDNA base pairs of the genome.
Wrong again Floppyjoe. What, are you looking at 20 year old research again?
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
That's completely untrue. DNA comparisons are now done with the entire genome sequences - base pair by base pair. We have compared the DNA sequence of humans and chimps over three billion nucleotides - guess what? Pretty much identical. Even the most stringent criteria put them at over 95% identical.
catarrhinegabriel 2 years ago
catarrhinegabriel Evolutionists believe evolution took millions and millions of years so thinking logicaly there should be at least 1 million sets of Bones for every transition to of every animal they should be everywere but we cant even find transitional sets of Bones for 1 animal WHY???? because evolution is a scam a lie Nothing but a religion made up to push the truth the Bible out of schools and it has worked are kids are now brainwashed with the evolution religion of lies.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
"but we cant even find transitional sets of Bones for 1 animal WHY????"
A blatant lie. Google "transitional forms" and you'll find hundreds.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Wow you lieing doesnt help your argument at all... show me transitional fossils for 1 animal towhat it is now. Go ahead send me a meesage with a link to were it is. Not possible because your religion the evolution religion of lies is all based on deseption No facts at all as soon as you get threw the smoke scrreen you can see the Bible the Truth Gods word read it and you will be educated ask God to give you wisdom and understanding and he will give you both
coolvideo28 2 years ago
First, every fossil is a transitional fossil, because we are always in transition.
Examples for Whales:
Pakicetus inachus: has ear bones and teeth like whales, but was a land animal.
Ambulocetus natans no longer has external ears, the nostrils moved to the top of the nose from the front. The rear limbs are adapted to swimming.
Rodhocetus which still has four legs, but has spinal adaptations.
and so on. All clearly transitional forms.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Like I said, google "transitional forms" and you'll find many examples. Ignoring the reference I give you and calling me a liar is not an excuse for you not following the references I already gave you.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Go to Wikipedia and type in these terms:
Whale evolution
Horse evolution
Human evolution
Transitional fossil,
etc.
If you truly believe there are no such things as transitional fossils, then either you are willfully ignoring the evidence, or you have made up your own definition of "transitional fossil" that bears no relationship to reality.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
This video series HAS EXAMPLES of transitional forms! How can you deny that they exist? Have you actually watched these videos?
catarrhinegabriel 2 years ago
They also show 50% similarities between humans and bananas.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Your reference for this is??
While certain isolated genes might share this similarity between humans and bananas, there is not widespread similarity between them over long stretches of DNA. For humans and chimps you can line up 2.7 billion nucleotides side-by-side and they differ only by less than 5%. There are copied manuscripts of the New Testament that differ by more than that - are you going to argue they have completely unrelated authors?
catarrhinegabriel 2 years ago
I believe Bananas and humans have the same Author.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
I believe some people are bananas.
Lucky for you and me, what you or I "believe" is irrelevant. It isn't about beliefs, it is about what evidence you have. Or in your case, what evidence you don't have.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
So do I, but I see evolution as His means of Authorship.
catarrhinegabriel 2 years ago
Either way they are beliefs that can not be proven scientifically.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Science is about evidence, not proof. You need to deal with the evidence.
Maybe the saddest part is that you could have a fuller view of God, if you would only honestly come to grips with how God has revealed His actions in nature. If you really take natural revelation seriously (as you should, it's a form of God's revelation) they you need to deal with the evidence for evolution.
catarrhinegabriel 2 years ago
My view of God is that he is powerful enough to do things just like he says in the Bible. You see the evidence through your evolutionary bias. I see the evidence through my biblical bias. Therefore as you say there can be no proof of either belief. Only evidence interpreted one way or the other. My God isn't limited to mans observation of natural laws.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
The question is not about God's power - the question is where the evidence points to. I do not have an "evolutionary bias." I have an evangelical Christian bias, if anything. I am, however, (a) trained in the sciences and (b) honest.
How about Dr. Todd Wood? Google his name for his blog ("Todd Wood Blog" should do it). He is the best-trained creationist scientist there is - and he agrees there is lots of evidence for evolution because he is honest too. You can't claim he has a bias!
catarrhinegabriel 2 years ago
That's just it. I see the evidence pointing to a recent creation about 6000 years ago. While you picture it differently. We see the same evidence but our interpretations are different based on our biases. If your Good fiend Todd believes in evolution and long ages I would not trust his opinions on the matter.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Todd is the most qualified young earth creationist in the business. He's the head of the center for origins research at Bryan College for crying out loud. He is as YEC as you can get - but he's honest about the evidence for evolution.
catarrhinegabriel 2 years ago
Floppyjoe777 says "We see the same evidence but our interpretations are different based on our biases"
No, We see the same evidence, and you willfully ignore most of it. You believe the fairytales you are told about the inaccuracy of radiometric dating or other such nonsense because you need to protect your biased conclusions. Any science that shows the earth is older than 6000 years in your mind is wrong, so you just accept it is wrong in spite of the evidence.
That's where we differ.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
You see the same evidence I do, but you believe stories(fables) about how evolution could happen instead of actually seeing evidence that proves evolution. I have read articles about and watched videos showing how radioisotope dating is based on unprovable assumptions. I understand it just like you should be able to, but you refuse to see the evidence. We differ in that I believe in a God that created, and you believe in "nothing" that created everything.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
This is one of the most outlandish Cretinist lies.
Exactly WHAT are these "unprovable assumptions" you talk about and more importantly, what is your proof that those assumptions are false?
It is true that radiometric dating relies on certain preconditions to produce accurate results.
Neither the parent or daughter isotopes are added to or removed from the material after its formation. This is why they take multiple samples and use multiple dating techniques to check for contamination.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
It also requires that the parent has a long enough half life that there is still enough to measure for the dating. That's why different methods have different ranges of dates and different error ranges.
The samples also must not have been re-heated to the "closure temperature" which resets the clock to 0 (for example, by another volcanic eruption that heats the rock). This works in your favor, as it will make the sample look younger than it is (time of melting instead of initial formation)
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Here's some cretinist lies about radiometric dating.
New dating methods are calibrated by comparing with old methods which are already wrong. "The fossils date the rock, the rock date the fossils". This is hogwash. Scientists do use multiple methods of testing an age of a rock then compare those to see if they agree or not, but that's for error checking purposes to determine if this is a contaminated sample. They are not using one method to calibrate another method.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Most, if not all, of the examples they give of bad radiometric results can easily be traced back to known problems with the original samples. For example, dating volcanic ash deposits that were a mixture of new volcanic ash and old eroded rocks. Or dating samples which were near the upper or lower range. A good example is the cretinists who tried to use radio carbon dating on petrified wood that had no carbon in it.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
New Volcanic Rock measures often incredible long ages when in fact they are brand new and should show that. That proves that it can't be trusted.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Yes, new volcanic rock WILL give incredible long ages with some measurement techniques. Of course, they will also give equally long error margins.
For example, the rock may date 100,000 years old, plus or minus 100,000 years. Which actually means it is between 0 and 200,000 years old. Which, of course, it is.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
You may say that this error margin makes the tool unreliable. However, the half-life of the isotope used is in the billions of years.
So yes, for recent rocks, 100,000 year error is a big deal, which is why it is known to be unreliable for young samples (which are easily identified because they fall within the error margin).
But, when you are talking about an error of two billion years old plus or minus 1 million years, that's relatively accurate.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
How do you know that those isotopes are not added or removed? You can't know.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Yes, you can know.
Natural processes will not normally add two isotopes. They might add one, but not two. So isochron dating which checks three isotopes will identify clearly if one of the isotopes was added.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Also, Radioisotope dating accuracy can be greatly improved by using Isochron dating.
The initial assumptions for radiometric dating are that the amount of the daughter isotope was initially 0 and no parent or daughter isotope entered the system since formation.
Isochron works by checking for three isotopes, not two. Parent, daughter, and granddaugher. Contamination normally affects only one isotope. By comparing 3, we can detect contamination easily.
I simplify. Check isochron on talkorigins
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
What about removal of isotopes? Tests show isochron dating exhibit discordant ages which likely means that decay rates have not always been the same. Would you consider a worldwide flood abnormal?
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Which tests? Please give references.
The only example I know of discordant ages is when the incompetent creationist intentionally got non cogenic samples in an attempt to intentionally discredit the method.
Of course, the method ONLY works if you pick rocks from the same layer that are layed down at the same time. If you grab rocks from different layers then of course they will indicate different ages.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Check icrDOTcom.
You know that a flood can lay down many layers of sediment in a very short time. Mt. St. Helens erupted and canyons formed there that had thousands of layers all in a very short time.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Actually, the Mount Saint Helens story is another Creationist hoax.
The "canyon" you mention is cut into soft lava ash, not hardened sedimentary rock.
There were exactly two layers. One was a very large layer of ash. The other was a lahar mud flow on top of it.
Oh, and it took a year to cut the canyon.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
icrDOTcom is an advertising site.
As for a flood laying down many layers, no, actually it doesn't. MULTIPLE floods lay down many layers, one for each flood.
A flood actually lays down a single layer, sorted by particle size. There is no distinct boundaries between the different particle sizes. It is one layer.
The geologic column however shows distinct layers where the adjacent rocks are completely different, from shale to limestone to igneous. Impossible to lay down in one event.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Yes, a worldwide flood is abnormal. Actually, impossible.
Lots of local floods on river deltas etc. all over the world to spawn flood stories. But no such thing as a global flood.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Of course, if you could produce conclusive evidence of such a flood, I would be willing to change my mind.
However, all the evidence indicates NO flood. For example, the way the sedimentary layers are layed down are not sorted as they would be in a flood. Layers of limestone, shale, and volcanic flows. are incompatible with a one-year flood. You don't get lobster fossils mixed with trilobite fossils, or rabbits with dinosaurs.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
The evidence for such a flood is all around you. You know that 2 thirds of the earth's surface is covered by water don't you? Why would scientists speculate so much about global floods on mars when no surface water is visible there?
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
The COUNTER evidence for a global flood is all around me. As an examination of the geologic column shows.
Creationists claim that the earth was once much flatter before the flood. We didn't need water up to Mt. Everest's height. Those mountains then rose after the flood. So less than 6000 years ago.
If that were true the kinetic energy released would have boiled away all the oceans.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Human artifacts have been found in almost every strata of the geologic column. They are usually explained as contamination when scientist do not believe the true explanation.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Again, you make claims without providing references.
Convenient that. It means that I am unable to refute your claims because I haven't a clue where you are getting the evidence for these claims.
Yes, there have been cases where human remains have been found in deeper layers. What often is left out is that these were often burials (where they DUG A HOLE INTO DEEPER LAYERS).
In all the cases I know of, the remains were in layers that were moved from their original positions.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
So six feet down is deep then?How do you explain layers of rock that are bent in hairpin shapes that are found all over the earth? This rock would have to have been soft at the time it formed these shapes indicating that there was a global flood.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Again, you did not give me the specifics of your claim, so yes, I was speculating.
As for the folded rock layers, have you not heard of continental drift and plate tectonics? Again, give me DETAILS. Tell me an example of a specific rock formation and I'll look up what geologists have to say about that formation.
In the mean time, I refuse to continue speculating on your specious claims.
As for the soft rocks, if they were layed down in a flood, THE LAYERS WOULD NOT BE IN A HAIRPIN
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Google is your friend. There are many instances. You might spend the rest of your life trying to refute each one. When the water of the global flood was receding or perhaps when the were prevailing they left mudslides which could have bent into these hairpin shapes.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Again, you talk about these "hairpin shapes" but give me no references to follow up. Until you do, that evidence is worthless.
And no, a mud slide would not cause layers of different types of sediments to create the hairpin shapes you describe. It would cause the layers to become all jumbled and mixed together. Do the experiment, see for yourself.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
To prove your hypothesis you must demonstrate several things.
You must prove that the "hairpin shapes" were caused by mudslides. The test for this is simple. Where's the mud? If a mudslide caused the bending then you should see the mud flows located in such a way that it would cause the bending.
Second, you must prove that this is caused by a global flood event and not a local event. This can be tested by examining which layers were done, radiometric dating (yea I know but it's accurate) etc.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
You must also explain the composition of the layers that were folded and demonstrate that these could have been layed down at the same time and all soft at the same time.
You must also show that the layers that folded were actually soft at the time they were folded. It is easy to tell the difference between folding of soft soil vs folding of solid rock slowly over time.
If you claim to be smarter than working geologists, you better be able to back up those claims with irrefutable evidence.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Comment removed
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Ok then back up some evolutionary claims with irrefutable evidence. You can't. It's not scientifically possible.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
I just gave you many examples. I repeat my irrefutable evidence against the flood yet again:
Distinct layering of different types of rock, not the jumbled single layer sorted by density you expect in a flood.
Composition of layers, including shale and limestone which takes a long time to form in calm waters, or interspersed multiple volcanic layers proving the layers could not be a single event.
Consistent fossil sorting world-wide. No lobsters found with trilobites or rabbits with dinosaurs.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Evidence against a 6000 year old earth
Radiometric and isochron dating, which I have shown is reliable and not subject to the lies said about it by cretinists.
The existence of objects we can see in the telescope that are much further than 6000 light years away, proving the cosmos existed long before 6000 years ago.
Examination of the fossil record. If all the different species that appear in the fossil record lived at the same time, the ecosystem would collapse.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
More evidence supporting the observed evolution around us.
Again, the fossil sorting clearly shows an order based on type of animal. Lowest layers only have single celled organisms. Above that are simple aquatic multi-celled organisms. Then aquatic arthropods, the fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals.
On the plant side, simple one-celled cyyano bacteria, then fungi, then ferns, with flowering plants (and the pollen they produce) only recently.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Yes, the evidence I provided is subject to interpretation. Yet Cretinists give ridiculous explanations for their interpretations.
For example, they say the consistent sorting of animal fossils is because some "ran to the tops of hills". Give me a break! That wouldn't matter in a world-wide flood. Dead bodies float, then sink. It also doesn't explain the pollen fossils.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
More evidence. Observation of evolution in action.
Observed artificial selection like breeding of domestic cattle, dogs, cats, as well as plants. This PROVES that setting conditions on animals (in this case selective breeding) will create changes in the organisms.
Observed natural selection in action, such as the existence of ring species, development of cecal valves in italian wall lizards, development of bacteria that eat nylon, etc.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
...and the ones that are found together are contamination right...rabbit burial grounds most likely...
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Floppy says "and the ones that are found together are contamination right"
Again, he makes a wild claim without producing any EVIDENCE to BACK UP his claim. More importantly, he doesn't provide any specific evidence because then I cannot examine the evidence mysel.
If you don't give me specific examples, then you are just making up stories.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
However, no creationist actually appears to be willing to tell Todd Wodd why he is wrong.
Come on Floppyjoe777, read through Wood's paper on the human-chimp genome comparisons and tell him why his assessment of it is wrong.
JT898 2 years ago
Good luck with that. Even Answers in Genesis, who Todd Wood consults for (!) will not even admit that that paper exists. Try it - see if you can find any mention of Todd's 2006 chimp genome paper on the AiG website.
catarrhinegabriel 2 years ago
I have told you why Todd Wood is wrong. He seems to be a long age evolution believer masquerading as a Young Earth Creationist...you can't have it both ways...I'm sure many atheists are trying to infiltrate creationist organizations in order to try to undermine them. He does not seem to see the different ways to interpret the evidence through differing world views. Some peoples eyes have been blinded by Satan the god of this world.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Unfortunately, as soon as Wood made the post that he did about evolution, he was accused of being deluded, or some sort of charlatan involved in a conspiracy.
That is why just a few days after the original post, and after receiving lots of email, he made this post;
toddcwood . blogspot . com/2009/10/im-creationist . html
JT898 2 years ago
Suffice it to say that I do not agree with what Todd Wood said in the first blog post, and my reasons are clearly stated above and elsewhere. I see no evidence that proves evolution.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Have you watched these videos through yet? Or have you seen these other videos by the same scientist who is a professor at an evangelical university;
watch?v=CqsvEwByKU0
There are 5 parts.
JT898 2 years ago
I have already established that you are a liar...why should I trust these videos?
floppyjoes . ca / images / comments2 . png
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
You have obviously faked that image.
I KNOW THAT I HAVE NEVER DISABLED COMMENTS ON ANY OF MY VIDEOS, AND SO DO YOU, AND SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE WHO HAS COMMENTED ON THEM.
JT898 2 years ago
You are a liar
see also:
floppyjoes . ca / images / comments3 . png
If you believe I am incompetent and do not know how to use my computer why would you say that if you believe that I can manipulate images, something that take a certain degree of proficiency.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Give me the date that you claim those screenshots were taken. There must be a way for me to check if the comments were disabled at that time to show you are making it up.
Every single video I have put up has all comments allowed, and this has been my policy since I put the first video up. What would be the point of disabling comments only to allow them again later?
Tell me the date, I want to be able to check that you are not making false claims.
JT898 2 years ago
comments2.png = Sun 18 Oct 2009 11:20:02 PM CDT.
comments3.png= Tue 20 Oct 2009 10:34:59 PM CDT
comments4.png= Sat 24 Oct 2009 11:31:38 AM CDT
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Thanks for providing the dates.There are comments on here from 6 days ago, when your comments2.png image says comments were disabled, and moreover THERE ARE EVEN POSTS FROM YOU ON THAT DATE.
The only explanations are that you either have doctored those images or something is wrong with your computer .
JT898 2 years ago
I did make post on that date and on the other dates when the posts were also disabled. The posts were not disabled indefinitely on those days but they were for some time. There is nothing wrong with my computer and I did not doctor the information on those pictures other then blacking out tabs on my browser and drawing arrows to the comments.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Has anyone noticed how Floppyjoe has moved on from trying to argue his points into instead making personal attacks about JT898.
Floppy, the ONLY way that the message in your comments2.png image could appear is if JT898 turned off commenting for EVERYONE. That message does not appear when an individual is blocked.
Obviously comments are being posted.
Also if JT898 had it in for you, he would have blocked you then deleted all your messages (like creationists do) so you couldn't accuse him.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Frankly Floppyjoe it is in JT898's best interest to let you continue to post here. Everything you have posted has not only been nonsense, but has been easily discredited and proved as nonsense by people who actually know what they are talking about.
Why would he block postings from such an easy target who completely supports the stereotypical nutty creationist? You just make all creationists look bad, which in our view is a good thing.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
obviously someone has been turning off comments to this video contrary to what JT898 claims.
Therefore it appears he is not being truthful in what he says. Why should I continue to try to refute his claims if he is not being truthful? How do I know that what he claims is the truth? I can't.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
So lets see if I get this straight.
You think you caught him in a lie (or at least accuse him of lying) about comments. That means that nothing he says about evolution is true, in spite of all the overwhelming evidence WE have produced and the complete lack of any evidence YOU have produced.
Yea, right, any excuse for you to dismiss what a person says so you don't actually have to address the evidence given.
Bury your head in the sand again.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Hardly overwhelming...Hitler said people will sooner believe a big lie than a little lie. And the more often you repeat the big lie the more likely people will be to believe it.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Yes, but look at what Hitler's big lies got him.
Hitler's "big lies" failed because they were not supported by the EVIDENCE. Once the truth of the evidence came out, all Hitler's great lies scurried under the carpets into the darkness where they belonged.
Quoting Hitler in an attempt to avoid dealing with the EVIDENCE we provide is just another pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from your lack of evidence to support YOUR big lies.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
I do find it interesting that Floppyjoe has to produce quotes from Hitler to support his case. Note that in his message Floppyjoe is actually saying that he agrees with Hitler's point of view.
Very telling that.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Why would I bother to randomly turn off comments for one day as you claim I did and then allow them again? I mean if I were going to disabled comments I would do it permanently. It would achieve nothing to do it for 1 day. Especially after you had already accused me of censoring. I would have to be stupid to say so clearly that I don't censor and then do so, enabling you to take a screen shot.
Nobody else has access to this account, and I only access it from a computer that is used only by me.
JT898 2 years ago
The comments were not off for a full day. just for 5-10 minutes or so.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
You mean, like when YouTube has it's maintenance periods so disables postings?
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Think about it floppyjoe. Why would anyone turn off commenting for just 5 or 10 minutes.
Moreover, what's the big deal if they DID turn off the postings for 5 or 10 minutes? Especially since you could come back in and do your postings later.
Doesn't it make a lot more sense that it is a glitch at YouTube than anything that JT898 did.
Tell you what, next time Youtube does maintenance, I'll go to one of YOUR videos, grab screen captures, then publicly accuse YOU of lying.
You owe an apology.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
The comments turning off for this video happened again a few minutes ago and there was no mention of any maintenance before or after or during that occurrence. If it turns out to be a problem with youtube and you prove it to be so I would be happy to apologize for my accusations.
If the reason for the comments for this video being disabled are because of Youtube and not JT898 then I apologize for making those accusations and shame on Youtube for not making this abundantly evident.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Did you get the SAME message when you tried to post the video? The one that says the comments were disabled?
If so, that's strange, because as you can tel I have been posting right along with you and I never saw any such thing.
I am assuming you know about the capatcha which occasionally appears where you have to type a word to continue.
Also, there's the issues I mentioned before. Sometimes it won't accept a message with a lot quoted so you have to reword it to post.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Floppy, obviously if you use Ubunto with phpbb and mysql you know something about using computers.
Were comments disabled here? I haven't a clue. Maybe JT898 is a liar and did turn it off on purpose for a bit. Maybe he is an incompetent computer user who turned it off accidentally. Maybe you are faking the pictures.
Frankly, I don't care. All I know is that recently both your postings and mine are getting through. Which makes all this blather from you a smokescreen to avoid the issues.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
I do not think either you(wysiwyg666) or JT898 are incompetent. I believe you are both intelligent people but I also believe you are sincere in your belief systems but are wrong concerning your conclusions about the evidence.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Thanks for not thinking I'm incompetent :)
The difference between you and I is that I can demonstrate exactly how your interpretation of the evidence is wrong. How your explanations are inconsistent (like you say fossils are sorted by environment but you don't see lobsters with trilobites).
You on the other hand usually fail to state the evidential source for your claims, let alone defend my criticism of them. You still haven't addressed the lobster issue for example.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Maybe lobsters liked to eat trilobites and therefore did not hang around together much.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
ummm, no. If lobsters liked to eat trilobites, they would be found in the same location as the food that they eat. The same way that lions are found with gazelles.
They both share the same habitats. Shallow ocean bottoms. They also both shed their shells as they grow. So you would expect to see lots of empty lobster shells alongside the empty trilobite shells (yes, many of their fossils are discarded shells).
No, you can't "ad hoc" that away.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
The arrangement of the geologic column is inconsistent when viewed in different places on the earth. Sometimes supposedly older layers are found on top of supposedly newer layers and sometimes layers are completely missing from inbetween where they should be. About the only place you will find this column is in a textbook.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Again, GIVE THE REFERENCES for these anomalys.
You simply saying it means nothing. I need to know WHERE these layers are inverted.
It is well known that there are processes like techtonic plate action, earthquakes, etc. that can locally displace the layers from the original location they were deposited. But the evidence for how they were moved is clearly visible to a trained geologist.
Without telling me where to look, I can't comment further.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
As for the "missing" layers, that is to be expected. Most (but not all) layers are normally layed down under water, through sedimentary deposits (like shale) or activities of aquatic life (like limestone) or through normal sedimentary erosion deposits (sedimentary rock).
Techtonic plate action causes land and water levels to change. So especially around ocean shorelines, you will see a lack of layers because sometime the area was above water.
Simple.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
You will also see local variations due to local conditions.
For example, you are much likely to see huge volcanic ash deposits and lava flow layers around a Volcano and much less likely to see those same deposits thousands of miles away from the nearest volcano.
That is NOT an "inconsistency" in the geologic layers. That's just reality.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago