Most of the things you say don’t refute evolution at all. You just demonstrate that you don’t understand what you are reading. The things that would (ex: out of place fossils) come from questionable sources. You’re trying to refute good science (reviewed, tested, verified by multiple sources) with bad science (either not verified or debunked). Who would take this seriously?
As a former student of the man behind the (evoTARDSareinsane) channel I can vouch for him and his incredible wisdom.
One of the few college professors and scientists that represents truth, integrity, and real science (unlike evolution, which is an inept and outdated theory)
I am in awe of your scientific understanding and intellectual persistence. Thankyou sir for your contribution.
@buffboynick Is evoTARDSareINSANE responsible for teaching you that gravity is only produced by stars?
"I am in awe of your scientific understanding and intellectual persistence." I actually wonder if you could sound any more pompous retard, do you normally arse kiss other people like this?
"As a former student of the man behind the (evoTARDSareinsane) channel I can vouch for him and his incredible wisdom." Well, vouch for him then, retard. Merely saying you can vouch for him won't do.
@buffboynick "Finding fossils that are both YOUNGER and OLDER in that exact same area punches a HUGE hole in common ancestry." In reference to the chlca.
Where is the evidence for this retard? I've lost count of how many times i've asked you for it.
Anyone with access to Google can find the location of where the most famous hominid fossils were found and where Chimpanzees currently live, and then compare.
In case you dont remember.....the THEORY of evolution states that Humans and Chimpanzees diverged in lineage from an ape-man shared ancestor (oh yes, every time I state that evo "belief" it makes me chuckle lol)
@buffboynick "Anyone with access to Google can find the location of where the most famous hominid fossils were found and where Chimpanzees currently live, and then compare."
Earlier you were talking about the ancestors and descendants of the chlca, can you make up your mind retard?
One thing, most animals have the ability to move from place to place, do they have to stay in the same area?
@buffboynick "Rather odd we can find every fossil except a mythical species which spawned all the hominids and chimpanzees." You are assuming that all other hominids that have existed left behind fossils, retard. Only a minority of species have the privilege to leave behind evidence of their existence. Is this the shite evoTARDSareINSANE taught you?
By the way; congratulations on being nominated for the next Claire's Dim Bulb of the Week award. Given the quality of your "research," you are currently the frontrunner.
@Answerquestions1 You made a ridiculous assertion based on a complete absence of knowedge of the processes of fossilization, the fossil record, or the geologic history of our planet. Simply asserting somethign does not make it true.
Never mind to prove evolutionists that their theory is absolutely wrong, for instance if a rabbit is found in the precambrian layer, and even if such a fossil is recognized as legitime by the scientific community world wide, even by P.Z- Mayer, R. Dawkins, M. Sheremer and all of the evolutionist around the globe , even then they will say Evolution is a fact but the theory is wrong, the theory can be wrong but evolution never will, so there is no way to falsify their myth.-
´´ By the way; congratulations on being nominated for the next Claire's Dim Bulb of the Week award. Given the quality of your "research," you are currently the´´
You are assuming that my reaserch was poor because acording to you any source that disagrees with you dogma (evolution) most be wrong.
@Answerquestions1 No, I assumed your "research" was poor because I am a geologist who easily recognized that your were a scientifically illiterate buffoon.
If any of my so called facts is wrong, then I will be happy to know it, so please tell me, is there anything in my video that is not true? if that is the case I will be happy to post a video admiting my mistakes
@Answerquestions1 I shall tell you which of your so called facts is wrong. ALL OF THEM. You are simply repeating the same garbage spewd out by answeringenesis and any high school kid could debunk them.
1) Bullshit, from start to finish; 2) There is no inherent reason for a form that functions well in it's ecosystem to "evolve"; 3) "Living fossils" are merely modern species representing groups that are largely extinct; and 4) Of course there are "gaps" in the fossil record. Fossilization is relatively rare and most organisms are never fossilized. Oh, and 5) you're a complete fuckwit, because the validity of evolution can be demonstrated without reference to the fossil record.
2) yes there is neutral mutations are not always removed from the genome, and in fact it has been proven that neutral mutations have a bigger impact than possitive mutations. ¿what prevented clams to accumulate neutral mutations during 500My and evolve in a significant way?
3) living fossils prove that geologic layes have nothing to do with time
@Answerquestions1 "Living fossils" are merely modern species belonging to groups that are otherwise largely extinct. For example, about 82 percent of the plant species in New Zealand are unique to New Zealand and represent groups that have long been extinct elsewhere.
4) wrong for example 99% of modern mammals are also found in the fossil record suggesting 99% of mammals that have ever lived most be in the fossil record. meaning that 99% of the transitional fossils from mouse-like to bat most be in the fossil record
@Answerquestions1 1) As I said, fossilization is rare, therefore the vast majority of organisms that ever lived were not preserved as fossils; 2) your statistic is scheisse.
´´1) As I said, fossilization is rare, therefore the vast majority of organisms that ever lived were not preserved as fossils´´
can you prove it? or are you simply saying that because that is the only explanation that fits the theory of evolutionn?
as I said, 99% of modern mammals are also found in the fossil record, and there is no reason to assume that ancient mammals where less likely to fossilice than modern mammals.
Living fossils are around , they are very, very rare less than 1% of all species .In other words 99% + have an evolutionary sequence . The transitional fossils and fossils in general are all in a evolutionary sequence world wide . There are reasons some layers are not present .In my state older layers where bulldozed away by ice age glaciers . Read up on geology more creationism cant tutor you, only missinform you . Knowledge triumphs over fundamentalism .
@Answerquestions1 "Fossils do not have an evolutionary sequence" And you know this , by reading it in a creationist book or website . Millions of people tour the Grand Canyon and take geology and fossil tours .Half of the geologic column (pre cambrian - the age of dinosaurs can be seen ) . The upper half is 200 miles away .The whole column is rare to be seen so deep .There are 25 places to view the whole column . Google :whole geologic column in South Dakota to learn more/ see the map .
@Answerquestions1" Fossils do not have an evolutionary sequence" Knowledge defeats fundamentalism every time . The problem is creationists dont want to change and learn science .To be a creationist requires willfull ignorance and the ability to ignore contrary mainstream science . This is a very easy claim to refute with geology 101 . Can you ignore it the rest of your life or does the truth matter to you ? Look at any of my fossil videos ,do you think I faked all Ordovician age rocks .
Creationism have their cups overflowing with misinformation .You cant trust creationist sources to explain anything accurately . There are no rabbit (or any post Cambrian) fossils in the "matrix " embedded in Cambrian rocks . The human skelatons where Loose not in the rocks. Find any later fossils stuck in the rocks side by side and you'll have YEC evidence .
@Creationist books and articles seldom if ever can pass peer review . Creationist books /articles side step that very important step . Experts on the subjects need to over view the claims to see if they are legitimate and not distortions deciets or fiction . Creationists writters become wealthy attacking science / evolution because they a built in fan base that hate evolution in favor of fundamentalism .
in my particular case, I am not becoming wealthy by promoting creation, so that arguemnt does not apply to me. many evolutionists are also becoming wealthy
@Answerquestions1 Creationists leaders become wealthy , Ken Ham makes 5 million + a year . Google: let there be loot" Evolutionists can become wealthy by advancing science , making discoveries and increasing knowledge . Creationists leaders become wealthy by attacking science and selling T shirts Books and coffee mugs .
YES some creationists are deshoest, some are not, but it also works the other way arround soem evbolutionists are deshonests, and others are not. but that does not invalidates the information in my video.
I simply seleccted some facts (that no ones denys) and make a case against evolution
@Answerquestions1 But you are helping the creationists to become wealthy by promoting their flawed ideas.
I know what I'm talking about, I used to be very much like you... I read a lot of fascinating books which criticized science. It made me curious, so I read more, and more, and also read the other side of the argument, the books by the scientists. THEN I began to understand why the scientists call pseudoscientists pseudoscientists. It took a long time but I'm glad I read all those books!
sorry but my arguments are not flawed ideas, My reasearch was based on pro-creationists pro evolutionists and neutral sources. You may disagree with my interpretations, but the facts that I presented are facts, that even evolutionists accept.
Richard Dawkins is also becoming wealthy by promoting books and ideas that are rejected by evolutionary scientists
@Answerquestions1 "Richard Dawkins is also becoming wealthy by promoting books and ideas that are rejected by evolutionary scientists" Seriously! Which evolutionary scientists are rejecting Richard Dawkin's work?
It seems to me that you start your research with the assumption that evolution is wrong and then grasp at every possible argument against it (flawed or not) rather than looking at ALL the evidence, the vast majority of which supports the theory. Tell me if I'm wrong?
´´Seriously! Which evolutionary scientists are rejecting Richard Dawkin's work?´´
I was wrong, I made some reaserch and apperenly dawkins has answered to other critiques made by evolutionary scientists, (I apologize for missinforming you)
´´ It seems to me that you start your research with the assumption that evolution is wrong...´´ In fact the first time I read about creationism, I was an evolutionist, when I was a kid, I din´t know that there was such thing as a ´´ceationists movement´´ then I Í entered to period where I change my mind offen (I was not sure about wich theory is better), an finaly I descided to accept ID.
Becoming a creationists in my particular case, was an intelecual descicion.
@Answerquestions1 I'm glad it was an intellectual decision... that means that you are not emotionally tied to the idea.
I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, or I'm definitely right, I'm just saying beware of who might be trying to mislead you. They might not even be doing it on purpose. I used to be into all kinds of conspiracy theories, but after learning a LOT more about the subjects I was able to see how naive and gullible I used to be... it's embarrasing!
@Answerquestions1 Every creationist claim is refuted at talk origins .Spend a few days reading there and see if you still want to be a creationist . Dont belive what feels good , research these subjects to figure out whom is more honest .
This has been flagged as spam show
Jonathan Wells's book The Design of Life,
stating: "Many of the systems inside the cell represent
nanotechnology at a scale and sophistication that dwarfs
human engineering. Moreover, our ability to understand the
structure and function of these systems depends directly on
our facility with engineering principles."
explaining that biological systems display
"irreducible complexity" which requires a goal-directed
process or "'bottom up-top down' design". That is: Design is the answer.
oopscanada 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
AWEF321 3 months ago
Most of the things you say don’t refute evolution at all. You just demonstrate that you don’t understand what you are reading. The things that would (ex: out of place fossils) come from questionable sources. You’re trying to refute good science (reviewed, tested, verified by multiple sources) with bad science (either not verified or debunked). Who would take this seriously?
AddR0ck 5 months ago
As a former student of the man behind the (evoTARDSareinsane) channel I can vouch for him and his incredible wisdom.
One of the few college professors and scientists that represents truth, integrity, and real science (unlike evolution, which is an inept and outdated theory)
I am in awe of your scientific understanding and intellectual persistence. Thankyou sir for your contribution.
buffboynick 5 months ago
@buffboynick Is evoTARDSareINSANE responsible for teaching you that gravity is only produced by stars?
"I am in awe of your scientific understanding and intellectual persistence." I actually wonder if you could sound any more pompous retard, do you normally arse kiss other people like this?
"As a former student of the man behind the (evoTARDSareinsane) channel I can vouch for him and his incredible wisdom." Well, vouch for him then, retard. Merely saying you can vouch for him won't do.
lethalsub 5 months ago
@lethalsub
I also vouch for your ignorance and TROLLING behavior
haha!!!!
buffboynick 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick "I also vouch for your ignorance and TROLLING behavior
haha!!!!"
Well, vouch for it then retard, saying you can vouch for it won't do.
lethalsub 5 months ago
@buffboynick "Finding fossils that are both YOUNGER and OLDER in that exact same area punches a HUGE hole in common ancestry." In reference to the chlca.
Where is the evidence for this retard? I've lost count of how many times i've asked you for it.
lethalsub 5 months ago
@lethalsub
Where do I say that on here?
Are you confusing me with another YT user?
Anyone with access to Google can find the location of where the most famous hominid fossils were found and where Chimpanzees currently live, and then compare.
In case you dont remember.....the THEORY of evolution states that Humans and Chimpanzees diverged in lineage from an ape-man shared ancestor (oh yes, every time I state that evo "belief" it makes me chuckle lol)
Evo-nuts actually believe that BS lol
buffboynick 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick "Actually I have researched the area and climate as to where the CHLCA and found hominids existed.
And guess what......
Finding fossils that are both YOUNGER and OLDER in that exact same area punches a HUGE hole in common ancestry.
Hominid fossils have been found all over the globe (including where Chimpanzees and other apes now live).
Rather odd we can find every fossil except a mythical species which spawned all the hominids and chimpanzees.
Use critical thinking."
Retard.
lethalsub 5 months ago
Respond to this video... That was the full quote, retard. It is off the "Starchild Skull 2010 DNA Result" youtube video, jonathankerrsmith's channel.
Supply me with a source retard.
lethalsub 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick "Anyone with access to Google can find the location of where the most famous hominid fossils were found and where Chimpanzees currently live, and then compare."
Earlier you were talking about the ancestors and descendants of the chlca, can you make up your mind retard?
One thing, most animals have the ability to move from place to place, do they have to stay in the same area?
lethalsub 5 months ago
@buffboynick "Rather odd we can find every fossil except a mythical species which spawned all the hominids and chimpanzees." You are assuming that all other hominids that have existed left behind fossils, retard. Only a minority of species have the privilege to leave behind evidence of their existence. Is this the shite evoTARDSareINSANE taught you?
lethalsub 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick This is the full quote, retard. It is off the "Starchild Skull 2010 DNA Result" youtube video, jonathankerrsmith's channel.
Supply me with a source retard.
lethalsub 5 months ago
@buffboynick "Actually I have researched the area and climate as to where the CHLCA and found hominids existed.
And guess what......
Finding fossils that are both YOUNGER and OLDER in that exact same area punches a HUGE hole in common ancestry.
Hominid fossils have been found all over the globe (including where Chimpanzees and other apes now live).
Rather odd we can find every fossil except a mythical species which spawned all the hominids and chimpanzees.
Use critical thinking."
Retard.
lethalsub 5 months ago
@buffboynick "Where do I say that on here?"
Well, I told you where to find it. Are you still denying it you gutless retard?
lethalsub 5 months ago
haha LOL nice try
ptango666 11 months ago
By the way; congratulations on being nominated for the next Claire's Dim Bulb of the Week award. Given the quality of your "research," you are currently the frontrunner.
WildwoodClaire1 1 year ago 7
@WildwoodClaire1
I al ready point to one fact that stongly suggests that the fossil record is nearly complete.
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 You made a ridiculous assertion based on a complete absence of knowedge of the processes of fossilization, the fossil record, or the geologic history of our planet. Simply asserting somethign does not make it true.
WildwoodClaire1 11 months ago 5
@WildwoodClaire1
´´ You made a ridiculous assertion based on a complete absence of knowedge of the processes of fossilization
´´
I did not even mentioned the process of fossilization in my video.
´´ I am a geologist´´
Yes and I am almost sure you entered to geology school with the preconcive idea that evolution is true.
Answerquestions1 11 months ago
@Answerquestions1
Never mind to prove evolutionists that their theory is absolutely wrong, for instance if a rabbit is found in the precambrian layer, and even if such a fossil is recognized as legitime by the scientific community world wide, even by P.Z- Mayer, R. Dawkins, M. Sheremer and all of the evolutionist around the globe , even then they will say Evolution is a fact but the theory is wrong, the theory can be wrong but evolution never will, so there is no way to falsify their myth.-
realhomosapiens 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 As well as a preconceived notion, based on our culture's accumulated learning of several centuries, that the Earth orbits the sun.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@WildwoodClaire1
´´ By the way; congratulations on being nominated for the next Claire's Dim Bulb of the Week award. Given the quality of your "research," you are currently the´´
You are assuming that my reaserch was poor because acording to you any source that disagrees with you dogma (evolution) most be wrong.
the conclutions in my video are based on facts
Answerquestions1 11 months ago
@Answerquestions1 No, I assumed your "research" was poor because I am a geologist who easily recognized that your were a scientifically illiterate buffoon.
WildwoodClaire1 11 months ago 13
@WildwoodClaire1
If any of my so called facts is wrong, then I will be happy to know it, so please tell me, is there anything in my video that is not true? if that is the case I will be happy to post a video admiting my mistakes
Answerquestions1 11 months ago
@Answerquestions1 I shall tell you which of your so called facts is wrong. ALL OF THEM. You are simply repeating the same garbage spewd out by answeringenesis and any high school kid could debunk them.
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 Was finally an answer to this valid question..I don't see any or I'm missing something in the chain?
raponte1955 1 month ago
@WildwoodClaire1
You're a "geologist" like I am Prime Minister of Canada
haha!!!
evoTARDSareINSANE 6 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE Will you be standing for reelection soon? I suspect your time in office will be short.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@WildwoodClaire1 Given our record or repeatedly voting for idiots, he could be in for a LONG time if he were to be elected.
NoNamesLeft0102 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE You're a "molecular biologist" like I am Prime Minister of Canada
haha!!!
lethalsub 5 months ago
@lethalsub = teenage TROLL
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE = disgusting retard
Do you have any proof that I am TheGamanic retard?
lethalsub 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE = non biologist
Got any more bogus proof that I have multiple accounts retard?
lethalsub 4 months ago
1) Bullshit, from start to finish; 2) There is no inherent reason for a form that functions well in it's ecosystem to "evolve"; 3) "Living fossils" are merely modern species representing groups that are largely extinct; and 4) Of course there are "gaps" in the fossil record. Fossilization is relatively rare and most organisms are never fossilized. Oh, and 5) you're a complete fuckwit, because the validity of evolution can be demonstrated without reference to the fossil record.
WildwoodClaire1 1 year ago
@WildwoodClaire1
2) yes there is neutral mutations are not always removed from the genome, and in fact it has been proven that neutral mutations have a bigger impact than possitive mutations. ¿what prevented clams to accumulate neutral mutations during 500My and evolve in a significant way?
3) living fossils prove that geologic layes have nothing to do with time
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 "Living fossils" are merely modern species belonging to groups that are otherwise largely extinct. For example, about 82 percent of the plant species in New Zealand are unique to New Zealand and represent groups that have long been extinct elsewhere.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@WildwoodClaire1
4) wrong for example 99% of modern mammals are also found in the fossil record suggesting 99% of mammals that have ever lived most be in the fossil record. meaning that 99% of the transitional fossils from mouse-like to bat most be in the fossil record
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 1) As I said, fossilization is rare, therefore the vast majority of organisms that ever lived were not preserved as fossils; 2) your statistic is scheisse.
WildwoodClaire1 1 year ago
@WildwoodClaire1
´´1) As I said, fossilization is rare, therefore the vast majority of organisms that ever lived were not preserved as fossils´´
can you prove it? or are you simply saying that because that is the only explanation that fits the theory of evolutionn?
as I said, 99% of modern mammals are also found in the fossil record, and there is no reason to assume that ancient mammals where less likely to fossilice than modern mammals.
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
Living fossils are around , they are very, very rare less than 1% of all species .In other words 99% + have an evolutionary sequence . The transitional fossils and fossils in general are all in a evolutionary sequence world wide . There are reasons some layers are not present .In my state older layers where bulldozed away by ice age glaciers . Read up on geology more creationism cant tutor you, only missinform you . Knowledge triumphs over fundamentalism .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscie
Fossils do not have an evolutionary sequence, at most we see a tendency where some fossils are more likelly to appear in some layers than others,
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 "Fossils do not have an evolutionary sequence" And you know this , by reading it in a creationist book or website . Millions of people tour the Grand Canyon and take geology and fossil tours .Half of the geologic column (pre cambrian - the age of dinosaurs can be seen ) . The upper half is 200 miles away .The whole column is rare to be seen so deep .There are 25 places to view the whole column . Google :whole geologic column in South Dakota to learn more/ see the map .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1" Fossils do not have an evolutionary sequence" Knowledge defeats fundamentalism every time . The problem is creationists dont want to change and learn science .To be a creationist requires willfull ignorance and the ability to ignore contrary mainstream science . This is a very easy claim to refute with geology 101 . Can you ignore it the rest of your life or does the truth matter to you ? Look at any of my fossil videos ,do you think I faked all Ordovician age rocks .
flyingscience 1 year ago
Creationism have their cups overflowing with misinformation .You cant trust creationist sources to explain anything accurately . There are no rabbit (or any post Cambrian) fossils in the "matrix " embedded in Cambrian rocks . The human skelatons where Loose not in the rocks. Find any later fossils stuck in the rocks side by side and you'll have YEC evidence .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
in this case my ´´creationists sources´´ have a bibliografy, so if you don´t trust my sources you can reed the original source.
the 140Myo skulls are petrified making the ´´recent burial´´ argument improbable
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Creationist books and articles seldom if ever can pass peer review . Creationist books /articles side step that very important step . Experts on the subjects need to over view the claims to see if they are legitimate and not distortions deciets or fiction . Creationists writters become wealthy attacking science / evolution because they a built in fan base that hate evolution in favor of fundamentalism .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
in my particular case, I am not becoming wealthy by promoting creation, so that arguemnt does not apply to me. many evolutionists are also becoming wealthy
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 Creationists leaders become wealthy , Ken Ham makes 5 million + a year . Google: let there be loot" Evolutionists can become wealthy by advancing science , making discoveries and increasing knowledge . Creationists leaders become wealthy by attacking science and selling T shirts Books and coffee mugs .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
YES some creationists are deshoest, some are not, but it also works the other way arround soem evbolutionists are deshonests, and others are not. but that does not invalidates the information in my video.
I simply seleccted some facts (that no ones denys) and make a case against evolution
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 But you are helping the creationists to become wealthy by promoting their flawed ideas.
I know what I'm talking about, I used to be very much like you... I read a lot of fascinating books which criticized science. It made me curious, so I read more, and more, and also read the other side of the argument, the books by the scientists. THEN I began to understand why the scientists call pseudoscientists pseudoscientists. It took a long time but I'm glad I read all those books!
finlarg 1 year ago
@finlarg
sorry but my arguments are not flawed ideas, My reasearch was based on pro-creationists pro evolutionists and neutral sources. You may disagree with my interpretations, but the facts that I presented are facts, that even evolutionists accept.
Richard Dawkins is also becoming wealthy by promoting books and ideas that are rejected by evolutionary scientists
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 "Richard Dawkins is also becoming wealthy by promoting books and ideas that are rejected by evolutionary scientists" Seriously! Which evolutionary scientists are rejecting Richard Dawkin's work?
It seems to me that you start your research with the assumption that evolution is wrong and then grasp at every possible argument against it (flawed or not) rather than looking at ALL the evidence, the vast majority of which supports the theory. Tell me if I'm wrong?
finlarg 1 year ago
@finlarg
´´Seriously! Which evolutionary scientists are rejecting Richard Dawkin's work?´´
I was wrong, I made some reaserch and apperenly dawkins has answered to other critiques made by evolutionary scientists, (I apologize for missinforming you)
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@finlarg
´´ It seems to me that you start your research with the assumption that evolution is wrong...´´ In fact the first time I read about creationism, I was an evolutionist, when I was a kid, I din´t know that there was such thing as a ´´ceationists movement´´ then I Í entered to period where I change my mind offen (I was not sure about wich theory is better), an finaly I descided to accept ID.
Becoming a creationists in my particular case, was an intelecual descicion.
´´
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 I'm glad it was an intellectual decision... that means that you are not emotionally tied to the idea.
I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, or I'm definitely right, I'm just saying beware of who might be trying to mislead you. They might not even be doing it on purpose. I used to be into all kinds of conspiracy theories, but after learning a LOT more about the subjects I was able to see how naive and gullible I used to be... it's embarrasing!
finlarg 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 Every creationist claim is refuted at talk origins .Spend a few days reading there and see if you still want to be a creationist . Dont belive what feels good , research these subjects to figure out whom is more honest .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
non of my 4 main claims have been refuted
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 The skulls are not "petrified "thats the wrong word to use . Please post a link to the skulls in your video description .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience
there is a link in the description box that talks about the skulls
Answerquestions1 1 year ago