You know, you're a pretty cool guy, and even though I believe in evolution, I still enjoy your videos.
I've just got one question to you, and I'm not prying to disprove anything here, or trying to be an arrogant besserwisser or anything. I'm just interested in how you would expand on this theory of yours. Here's the question:
Since the neanderthals were shorter than humans, how come they were described as giants?
(Sorry about possibly poor English. I'm Swedish and kinda drunk.)
@storstarkskogsturk The word 'Gigant' in the scripture is in Greek, it doesn't always mean giant. It could also mean great one, or godlike creature. So the Nefilim could as well be shorter than 'humans' but just "greater", for whatever that meant back then...
@jaronimo1976 Although it could also be that the nefilim were in fact a hybrid species (that is, half Neanderthal/ half 'human') and hybrids are sometimes bigger than both the mother and the father species. For example: Ligers (Half lion, half tiger) are usualy bigger than both tiger and lion. Their genes combined simply seem to stimulate their growth. Resulting in a creature that can grow to enormous sizes.
@storstarkskogsturk It's simply a bad translation. The original script was COMPARING their acts to the giants (Gigantos) of greek myth, not saying THEY were giants. King james verision, however, mistakenly translated as them being actual giants.
@legion1a You claim that Theism is a mental illness? i can say the same thing about Neo Darwinsim or any other belief someone has. But that would be my opinion. i highly doubt you have any skill at critical thinking, you just let others do your thinking for you. So go ahead and keep throwing around the term "faith" like that somehow proves that all religions are fictional concepts. All it proves is your opinion is based on your emotional thinking and lack of comprehension of vocabulary.
Yes your right.. You guys are a offspring of the nephlim .. There's a sight on blog talk radio where a guy preaches on it and backs it up with lost scriptures and the bible.. His sight is cofah.com Very powerful
I just ran into this video. Very funny. I especially enjoyed the misrepresentation of Gould/Eldridge Punctuated Equalibrium. The misrepresentation of the term Theory is usual Creationist straw man tactics. I often wonder are these people really that ignorant of the scientific meaning of theory or are they just really dishonest. Given this guys heroic effort to get his Bible stories to conform to recent discoveries I think dishonest is the more likely answer.
@Dchellberg i agree. i also wonder whether this guy understands the idea of mitochondrial eve. Mitochondrial eve was not the first human, it is simply one human that all living people can trace their genes back to. there is also the male variant, though there were thousands of years between them. the bible didn't call any of this. i think if your legitimately interested in these topics you should throw out your bible and actually study the world. (last bit aimed at video maker)
Most adult males averaged about 5'6" at best with one individual reaching up to 6 foot tall in the middle east.
The "Nephilim" were not Neanderthals but the offspring of a union of both the "sons of God", (spirtual, believers of God) and the "daughters of man", (earthly/material, unbelievers of God)which did not focus their lives on God.
Giants is a mis-interpetation of the greek version, nephilim translated is fallen ones the greeks later equated them with the titans, but now now science says white people have 4 percent neanderthal DNA lol funny how there fighting over the middle east with the other sons of the Nephilim for the homeland.
I believe nephilim breeded with regular humans until the giant gene was "watered down" and perhaps at the lowest level to where we have humans with this demon gene, this is where we get neaderthals. Just decendants from nephilim
i agree. but it is to paleontology's credit that even they now say we have apes, extinct apes, Neanderthals and man, and nothing else in the fossil record. :)
Take the stereo type E.T of the suppossed area51 and cross it with a silver back Gorilla, would u get a Neanderthal? then cross the latter with the stereo type E.T again would u get the Homosapian? what do the Annanukia described by the early Summerians look like? who was king anu of babylon (Iraq) 6000bc? why would the shinx of giza have faced the leo star constellation in 10.500bc? the truth about the shinx + truth about religion both on youtube!! next human evolutionary step is conciousness!!
I dont think your arrogant not as much as the other guy. he had too much excitement in his voice you can tell he had us creationist pinned down and convinced. Go dissent on Darwinism
Cool vid, Actually the Nephilim were the offspring of the Fallen angels coming to the earth and choosing human females to mate with ,Thus creating a race of half human half "angel". As you know some were giant some were looked at as gods, After they were beging to consume humans hole and were being worshiped YHWH sent the great flood to do away with the abominations..This is backed up in scripture and research.
Nice open minded vid, but Neanderthal men averaged 5'6. Meganthropus, however, was a 7-8 foot tall homo erectus, which could be the Nehpillim of the Bible.
Meganthropus giants and bones gives a geocities webpage that exaggerates their height slightly, but tells you about their tools, and meganthropus fantasy or prehistory is a really good link.
ok, thank you. I shall look into this further,as I am intrigued when science and the bible come together. Back in the day when people thought the world was flat,the book of Isaiah states the world is round.
The phrase "four corners of the earth" which in Akkadian is kap-pat tu-bu-qa-at erbitti, can literally be translated "the circle of the four corners" (Grayson 1972, 105; CAD K, 397-400). This is a clear reference to the earth being circular. It seems strange that a circle would also have corners, but they meant the extremities in the four cardinal directions.North, South, East, and West. Isaiah 40:22 :"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants are as grasshoppers
Did you see the vid this was a response Too? this seems a bit striange without the other vid..Chaddawg"s Mom found out his was an atheist so he shut down his site...
Note that this is a 'biblical-point-of-view' response.
In Genesis 6, Noah and his families were the only ones with unblemished human dna left on earth before God saved them from the flood.
As water levels rose, i'm sure the inhabitants of the earth (neandertals included) would have tried to go for higher ground for shelter. That would have meant caves
yeah, the nephelim were rich folks, world renown, like the paris hiltons and prince willams of Noahs day, might men of renown, taking as many wives as they chose. It's definetely not 'neaderthols' lol.
Typical, 'we dont know who they are or what they are so they must back up what is said in the bible'!! ok nearly, nicely backed down. Good to see a christian who is at least a little open minded on things. Why would Ugg be a 'man of renown'?
Hey man, you really have your head your shoulders. Wow, thanks for getting on here with an open mind, but also an understanding of the wisdom of scripture. I agree with you man, I just have a hard time getting some people I know to get off the evolution stuff just for a second to see how empty it is...
The theory that Neanderthals might be Nephilim can't account for the observed difference in mtDNA. Nephilim happened, according to genesis, when the SONS of god went to the DAUGHTERS of men. mtDNA is inherited thru the mother exclusively (it is not like nuclear DNA). So Neanderthal mtDNA should be almost identical to human mtDNA since the women involved were all daughters of men. As chadagg shows, the mtDNA of Neanderthals is very different.
Evolution *IS* a theory. So is the Germ Theory of Disease. So is the Theory of Gravitation. So is the existence of electrons. Saying that something is a theory in a scientific sense is not derogatory and doesn't lessen it. There is actual evidence for evolution. There was plenty in Chadaqq's video which you failed to address. And, yes, there are transitionals. Neither Gould nor any other evolutionist maintains there are NO transitionals.
maybe the ones who bash christian beliefs or any religious belief stems from the fact they were treted badly by other members of that church...stop going to a church that continues to permit wrong...humans interpretatation is fallible not the scripture...if you been molested by church official...then find a better church.
Just a reminder to belierius and UrukTheRed.. Every culture on the planet has a "great flood" in their mythology. I say mythology bcz as you say there is really no "scientific" evidence. but then again, there is no 'scientific' evidence we came from monkeys either but many people tend to believe this recent [last century] theory. Every myth has some basis in fact, the flood, dragons, aliens, God. We will all find out what the truth is when we die.
because the theroy was rejected, because science rejects theories that don't work, and for your infomation mister... the bible is not a "theory" it is a hypothesis... a theory is different.. please evolve.
Your just rambling on and on and not really making a clear and valid point. Neanderthals were not giants and scripture says that these Nephilim for the most were giants having six fingers and toes, double rows of teeth.... better post next time neanderthal.
wow dude...what kind of a sheltered little life have you lived? Really...there are more important battles to be fought in this world. This is a conversation that goes no where when both sides aren't listening.
Actually, there is No evidence for a Global flood, but there is definetly floods during the time, however, none of which summed up to a near global scale.
It's called True Believer's Syndrome. It's a disease that afflicts mostly simple-minded, gullible people. But it's sure good for us that run the churches! We are getting rich off you fools. haha
have you read the seven daughters of eve you take this book far to seriously and alot of the bible stuff comes from early sumerian legends there were a few alien races who seeded the human race.
†A. afarensis ("Lucy") †A. africanus †A. anamensis †A. bahrelghazali †A. garhi Formerly Australopithecus, now Paranthropus †P. aethiopicus †P. robustus †P. boisei there is more, plus we can get into genetics, embryology, and comparative anatomy. QED (thats latin for suck it)
They weren't the same species we are, that's the point. They are TRANSITIONAL SPECIES leading up to us.
And I'm not sure if they extracted DNA from those fossils, but these fossils are identified as transitional fossils because of the anatomical similarities and developed social structure.
The "similarities" you speak of is one common protein we share with primates, which accounts for less than 1% of out DNA. and within that protein, 95.9% is similar, SO WHAT? that's less than a 0.9% similarity. Neanderthals is quite a good reasoning for the Nephilim.
Well first of all, neanderthals existed at least 24,000 years ago and were about the same height as modern humans, so they weren't giants and they didn't live in the time that the bible said they did. That argument is dead.
As for the DNA, geneticists can locate the exact spot where chromosomes fused, watch a ken miller video.
From Talk origins "Michael Cremo, co-author of Forbidden Archaeology: "Lucy the famous australopithecine. Discovered by Donald Johanson. He says she was very human-like. But I was at a conference of anthropologists where many of them were making the case that she was hardly distinguishable from an ape or a monkey."
Mac, how do these scienists determine what the bones make up? Go to this site, and check out how SCIENTIFIC it realy is omniology com JackalopianArtists
"The California Institute of Omniology holds to the fact that all theories of Origins, lacking empirical verification, are metaphysical and religious in nature. Therefore, they require and deserve equal examination, evaluation, and, critical review in the spirit of true academic freedom in science."
Evolution DOES have empirical verification, and is not religious or faith-based.
Some is written literal, some is allegory, some Parables, If you simply read it, it is easy to know when it is being literal or not..example "the 4 corners of the earth" is it saying the earth has corners? of course not, it is say the whole earth, north, south, east, and west.
The Earth DOES have four corners, but the heathen scientists have conspired, in their godlessness, to brainwash us into believing that the Earth is ROUND LIKE A BALL. Now THAT'S ridiculous. The Bible clearly describes the Earth as flat. READ YOUR BIBLE
book of revelations. it talks about the winds of the 4 corners of the earth. forgive me for being lazy and no bible scholar, i think he meant where it talks about the earth being held in place by pillars in the OT when he refers to it as flat, ive read it before so i know its in there, but just not what book or chapter to look up. there are free sites with search engines that will pull up passages from the bible by key word and quoated phrase searches for any version of the bible.
Actaully the Bible does have a passage that refers to the Earth as being spherical. "21Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?" Isaiah 40:21-23 22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
nevermind that first comment, i see u have all ready seen that.but like u said, might be something you dont take literally, but then again people will take it as misdirection or misinformation, or as a parable, depending on their faith.
Im sure that things get lost in translations. One word which could mean one thing interperated as another its like the telephone game i would assume. I would speculate that one persons translation might seem like a hint to one or clear to even another. Ill o.o try to awnser the questions as I understand them but remember I dont know anything just trying to give you some sort of awnser.
Im actually starting to lean towards the thought that we where geneticly created. The sumerians where said to have been incontact with what where called the "anunnaki" or "Those who from heaven came". The sumerians suposedly where told by the anunnaki that we where created by the manipulation of dna. They where told that they took the dna from early hominids and spliced it with the anunnaki's own dna creating us. Which would explain the gap in dna between us and neanderthals.
=P you brough up Nephilim awesome. Im not sure how much you know about them but from what ive found through vids and other internet resources they where ofspring of fallen angels. I dont belive that neanderthals would be nephilim though the bible makes them out to be more like the titans of say the greeks or the grendal in Beowulf.
This is another example of creationists NOT checking their facts. Sources say the average height is between 5'6" to 5'9". Please check this out yourself. This is clearly not "giant" stature. Neanderthals thus pose a major problem for Creationists: If Neanderthals were NOT related to humans and are clearly NOT Nephilim, how do they fit in the Biblical story? What's your new fairy tale?
Watch the my vid again, I'm fine with being wrong, Chadagd's vid doesn't help evolution either, DNA continues to work agianst the evolutionist story, there is now bigger gaps, more missing links.
ok ive been doing some research but as I have said before im no scholar. I think that Neanderthals where not in the bible because its not relivent to the subject matter. More in my next post.
I dont belive that the bible was written to be a historical document about the progression of the planet. I dont think the question here is how does the bible explain the neanderthal but why would they need to mention them. i think the bible would be alot longer than it is now if the writers of the bible decided to list off every corporel being and its importance and evolution.
SepherSerado: (First off,I appreciate your research.)The problem is this: Creationists claim that Neanderthals were fully human and descendants of Noah. In 1997, mtDNA proven this impossible. So if they weren't fully human and descendants of Noah like Creationists say, then according to the bible, what were they?
That is true I saw the video this video was a reply of and there is a big difference in the mitocondrial dna of ourselves and neanderthals. Your original question was "How does the bible explain them" quite simply the bible dosent explain them in a way that would satisfy you, or as far as I know it dosent, The bible states "God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves".
cont... God created neanderthals but your question is incomplete."How does the bible explain the neanderthals" the question is to vague. What is it exactly that you want to know. If you replaced "neanderthal" with "current day humans" my awnser would be that god created us.
SepherSerado: Here's my point. Christians define the Christian God as omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. In short, he is supposed to be PERFECT. Because the bible is "the word of god", the bible should also be PERFECT. However, evidence concerning Neanderthals, dinosaurs, the age of the universe, etc. show that the bible is WRONG and thus is not perfect. If the bible is not perfect, then either the bible is not the "word of god", or the Christian God does not exist. Comments?
Yup yup The bible is the word of god but it is also translated by man. Man is not perfect and thus his translations will be flawed aswell. All throught history we see people make claims and quickly retract them due to the discovery of there own mistakes. I am not going to argue that parts of the bible arent wrong but i belive in some pretty sensationalist ideas when it comes to that area.
cont again x.x sorry... So in conclusion your question would be awnsered by saying that God created them as he did you and me, but if you dont belive in the bible and the bible did give a reason for why/how the neanderthal where created would you accept it...can you accept an awnser from something that you dont belive in?
SepherSerado: Thanks for the feedback. With the mtDNA evidence, I wanted to see if Creationists would now start to claim that Neanderthals and modern man were walking around in the Garden of Eden, and therefore co-existed. Now they have to MAKE UP evidence of this in the same way that they're trying to prove that dinosaurs and modern humans co-existed. Check out "Dinosaurs Alive Today".
truth4U2C, you wrote "Chadagd's vid doesn't help evolution either, DNA continues to work agianst the evolutionist story, there is now bigger gaps, more missing links". You're wrong. Evolution means change over time. The original video supports the ET fully.
your speculating just like chagagg says. you dont know what those thing are, so you speculate that they are Neanderthal when you dont have any evidence support that thats what the bible is talking about.
Your speculating That I'm speculating....Yes it it true I was speculating, I pretty much say that in the Video...There is evidence to support what the bible is talking about, Look up giants on Google you'll be surpriesed at evidence....
WHAT?! NO! you have just admitted that you feel as tho an age old question was answered by the means of mDNA and Neanderthals. but you have'nt put in any evidence (unlike chadagg's video) that the bible is talking about those giants, and how did you came up with that idea?...speculation, its the only way you could have without evidence. even if the bible IS talking about them, then it just goes to support human evolution, since Neanderthals and Homo sapiens evolved from Chimps.
"Neanderthals and Homo sapiens evolved from Chimps" Chadagg's Video is saying Neanderthals and Homos are NOT related...Watch both vids again.. you've missed the point, as a matter of fact the latest evolutionary theories say we came from some Rodent, not chimps or Monkeys
no no no, the video explains that homo Sapeins did not evolve from Neanderthals. either way Neanderthals and Homo-Sapiens are "cousins" if you will, from Chimps. the idea from rodents is the theory of the beginning of mammals, not humans. Chimps DNA sequence, is 99.99% related to that of Humans.
99.99% This percent seems to change from time to time, but fine I'll take your percent. at any percent the spiecies "Would" move away from each other. The truth is in the math...Math moves useing an equation, the equation (DNA sequence) can never cross over from Chimp DNA to Human DNA. Enter the evolutionary miracle "punctuated equilibrium" the theory with no proof, to resolve the improbibility of evolution.
no no no, punctuationism is your view of contradicting gradualism (species grow slow to a new one). when infact, they are actually happening at the same time. here, Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 cm. over 70,000 years. If the average life of the species (generations) is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations.
This shows that if the limb size in our species evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation since 50 cm/10,000 = 0.005cm, despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record. this is how pun. equlib works
o boy. ok. if you give micro evolution BILLIONS of years. then micro becomes macro looking at evolution from different scales. macro-evolution takes a very long time by the means of micro-e. and i think thats a problem for creationist, because they dont see macro in progress, but see micro. when if they accept that, they really are contradicting themselves given billions of years life has been on earth.
No Contadiction, Micro is changes within a species, macro is (change)from one sprcies to another. that is what has always been missing, because it never accured. you can add as much time to the equation as you want, it (Time) still can't account for the lack of evidence to support the theory.
o my science, i think you just made it clear that evolution theory is fact, when you described micro-e. its now i understand that this isn't about weather evolution happens, but if life has been on earth for billions of years. since if thats the case then macro evolution will occur given the billions of years. as oppose to thousands.
truth4U2C You wrote "macro is (change)from one sprcies to another. that is what has always been missing, because it never accured." No, you're wrong. In the original video there are several links concerning macroevolution. check out this one (esp at 2.30): youtube DOT com SLASH watch?v=AY8SMVPubKo
perhaps i shouldn't have used to word "view". ok my apologize are given, but your video you tried to say, its a theory that is no longer used to evolutionists. when i showed you how it works, and that it is still used for evolutionary biology, even though you dont hear about it. it isnt to be confused with a brand spanking new species coming out of mommy like your thinking, but a mathematical way of presenting evolution, because almost TOO MANY generations takes place when its going.
"isnt to be confused with a brand spanking new species coming out of mommy like your thinking" When it was first introduced, it was used as I stated, it has become an embarrassment to evolutionist.. "Daniel Dennett argues that Gould alternated between revolutionary and conservative claims about punctuated equilibrium"
The point I make is a simple one, Gould did use the theory at first to explaine why there are no intermediates fossils. what was his motive? No intermediates fossils
yes there are. certainly there are fossils to be found to connect the two species as of today. but there are fossils that do show a start of a transformation from one to another. including some to the Neanderthals. mDNS even shows this. but then again, you don't have any evidence to suggest you biblical claim, other then the bible itself. which isn't how it works in the world of reasoning and rational thinking. sorry
Allow me at this time to say that you have been one of the most honest evolutionist I've ever debated. You are being honest with the facts, your presenting what the facts are. and not spinning them into more then what they are. Very Good..
"certainly there are fossils to be found to connect the two species as of today. but there are fossils that do show a start of a transformation from one to another" These fossils your talking about are still just adaptations in the same species. A head fake towards another species.
"certainly there are fossils to be found" That is a hope statement. As a Christian I put my hope in the resurrection power of Jesus Christ, the Bible talks about faith & hope, it is honest with the fact that is is a step of faith. I personlly think after years of hoping for the missing link to be found, that Gould in a desperate efford to justify his whole life's work, made up the extreme form of Punc Equl theory....
Over 200 years of digging for the fossils to support the theory..... You know that with popularity of sifi stories many in the evolutionary movement have stopped looking in the dirt and are down seaching the skys for aliens that has had sex with apes...
LOL, thats a gag, i wouldn't take that seriously unless there is plenty of evidence to support it like Darwin's natural selection does. i will not deny this. there are some very strange hypothesis out there. and being rational is to consider the hypothesis a theory if it follows the scientific method and data concludes it, so well have to wait.
ok, i personally don't like to use Stephen, since other scientist just have sum bug up there asses about his explanation for evolution. i haven't read any of his books, but even Dawkins criticized him for "speculating that evolution is still a hypothesis, when its beyond fact." which i would have to agree with Dawkins. im not going to debate religion because I cant prove 100% my beliefs, but i can prove evolution. evolution is really that concrete as a fact, sir.
o boy. if you are talking about adaptations, you talking macro-e. look at height. hundreds of years ago humans got only as tall as 5 feet. but fast forward and today people are reaching 6 feet. we can see how we adapted to our own environment by sexual selection. if you give this MILLIONS of years then we can totally replace even the 6 feet and who knows,its retarded to say that our children will look exactly like us giving a million years.
well, my purpose is to clear up all the confusion with evolution. and after your video, i felt that you kinda were. its ok really to be confused by the greatest discoveries of all time, since its one that the world wasn't really expecting to find. but its not, when there is physical, mathematical, and scientific evidence to support it and say that its bunk. becuz to do that is to rip out every scientific discovery we have (especially in biology) all becuz it didn't fit with an older book.
thats prob why Stephen is criticized so heavily among other evolutionary biologist, and philosophers (such as Daniel Dennet). there really are some intermediate fossils found, and Gould really lacks a way of explaining it in his books. then says that Punc Equl. is the means of new species, when even myself showed otherwise, how it works, and how it is applied today.
no no, you were misguided into thinking that, see when i did my example i did it on the micro level. but make the math on a larger scale and you have macro-e. fist off, Daniel Dennet is a philosopher and is very active in defending evolution (he not on your side) and isn't criticizing Punc. Equl. but Gould. they are both at some feud with each other for Stephens way of explaining evolution and Punc E in such a way that isn't really accepted in the science community.
Richard Dawkins is also critical of Gould and his theory. Remember my point is about "why" it was made up in the first place. The theory over time has been modified to what your pointing out.
punc. equl has always been pointing out what it is i have been saying since it was first discovered. its only difference is how it is presented, smiler to how i presented it. because everyone was misunderstanding it as the way you did. nothing changed about what punc. equl. was originally pointing out.
truth4U2C YOu wrote, "Chadagg's Video is saying Neanderthals and Homos are NOT related" They are related!!! What are you talking about? You've made a video reply and you didn't even understand the video you were replying to. You're a scary man...
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Pardon me....HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Sorry. I don't mean to laugh at your ignorance. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Sorry, I really do apologize. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
Interesting, but Anatomically Neanderthals were somewhat shorter but much more robust than contemporary H. sapiens. Distinctive cranial features of Neanderthals included prominent brow ridges, low, sloping foreheads, a chinless and heavy, forward-jutting jaw, and extremely large front teeth. The shoulders and pelvis were wider, the rib cage more conical in shape, and the forearms and lower legs shorter.
Curious that you criticize science for modifying its theories, but that's precisely why it's a sound methodology. As soon as there is evidence to refute a prevailing theory, the theory is strengthened by being changed to accommodate the new data. And by the way, there are 1000's of so-called transitional forms, but because each organism is discrete they appear as plateaus.
Anyone who gets angry or annoyed at another person's beliefs is as ignorant as the person they're making fun of. Open minds lead to real understanding- not closed ones.Until either side can prove their beliefs or theories beyond a shadow of a doubt, then they should just both shut up.And the Bilbe does have a lot of truth- before judgung it READ it, or shut up about things you just don't know about.
A lot of things cannot be explained and that doesn't make them less believable. It's like the big bang theory- an evolutionist cannot prove that it was God that created our world in that way, and a Christian can't prove that God didn't use the big bang theory to create our universe.
Delete the comment I posted that you find threatening to your beliefs, then sit there and pretend like this fallacy is actually a fair discussion. Fine, you win. I don't even have to argue, every allowance you make to scientific research is ground lost for your rigid and dogmatic system of beliefs. You'll eventually bury yourself under a mountain of contradictions. So by all means, claim yourself the victor.
Yes bob you are getting arrogant...We need to talk.
You need to research you argument, stop this drive by video comment style you use. The anger you speak about that you feel from atheists is actually frustration with someone who doesn't use the tools of the science he hates so much to actually look up the facts.
*continuing from the accidental break* just put up a false target and attack it. and as far as the Neanderthals being the "giants" you have 2 issues: The Neanderthals are not that much different in size from standard humans, so unless you're saying that the Hebrews were 4 feet tall by comparison to those around them, you're failing. mt Eve is not considered to be any ONE woman, that's just as far back as can be gone with in the known lineage.
One woman, one family, the point being this confirms the Bible, unlike the years of saying many differant evolutions accured. Punctuated equilibrium is still held up as true by most evolutionist because the fossil record, is void of fossils
Confirms the bible... How? Ok. assume that we did in fact have a situation like the bible were we were all put on this earth. Do you know how far this goes back? Over 100,000 years. Confirming the Bible? maybe in your deluded interpretation. Also, You're still wrong about them being the "giants."
NEPHILIM: "morally fallen man, bastards", serpents. They emerged after the deluge and set up their base, known as ATLANTIS, on the vast cont. of Appalachia. From there they set out to make contact with Earth's inhabitants.
Book of Enoch: should have been added to bible books. check out Michael Tsarion.. worth a look. He's an alternative historian that has taken ALL stories and looked for consistency. He also sort of discredits the theory of evol. check him out, leave a post : )
And Yes, I admit I am wrong about the P.E. Idea being wide spread, but to say the fossil record is lacking is false only because you demand every animal and it's offspring that also had offspring should be within the record in a nice neat order in order for Evo. to be true.
I don't know exactly when punctuated equilibrium idea actually came to be, but for that to occur, it is not evolution, yet Creationists "debunk" evolution using this idea anyone with a basic understanding of Evolution already knows is statistically impossible. So all i can see is that you
Using the same logic (or lack there of) you all display, I could claim that the Lunar landing was a fake, made to protect Newton's flawed "theories". After all, NASA used flawed Newtonian Physics to plot the flight path that got us to the moon. So it's all just one big lie. Stars and planets aren't held in place by gravity, but rather the tooth fairy, or whatever imaginary force or character you prefer.
simple point, it can change and should change (physics)we are learning all the time, But the whole Darwin theory has been over hauled so many times that it isn't even the same as when it began. Darwin said with out a fossil reocord to prove his theory, his theory will be proven wrong, mean while those who are like the Godless theory continue to add theories to theories.
You should just save yourself some grief and resort to quoting scripture right now, because you don't know enough about evolution (or the scientific method) to try and argue about it. It's pointless.
You know, you're a pretty cool guy, and even though I believe in evolution, I still enjoy your videos.
I've just got one question to you, and I'm not prying to disprove anything here, or trying to be an arrogant besserwisser or anything. I'm just interested in how you would expand on this theory of yours. Here's the question:
Since the neanderthals were shorter than humans, how come they were described as giants?
(Sorry about possibly poor English. I'm Swedish and kinda drunk.)
storstarkskogsturk 3 months ago
@storstarkskogsturk Well done...I can't, ...not bad for a kinda drunk guy from Sweden
truth4U2C 2 months ago
@storstarkskogsturk The word 'Gigant' in the scripture is in Greek, it doesn't always mean giant. It could also mean great one, or godlike creature. So the Nefilim could as well be shorter than 'humans' but just "greater", for whatever that meant back then...
jaronimo1976 2 months ago
@jaronimo1976 Although it could also be that the nefilim were in fact a hybrid species (that is, half Neanderthal/ half 'human') and hybrids are sometimes bigger than both the mother and the father species. For example: Ligers (Half lion, half tiger) are usualy bigger than both tiger and lion. Their genes combined simply seem to stimulate their growth. Resulting in a creature that can grow to enormous sizes.
jaronimo1976 2 months ago
@jaronimo1976 Well, ain't that a hoot!
storstarkskogsturk 2 months ago
@storstarkskogsturk It's simply a bad translation. The original script was COMPARING their acts to the giants (Gigantos) of greek myth, not saying THEY were giants. King james verision, however, mistakenly translated as them being actual giants.
Imghey123lol 1 month ago
It is a crime against humanity to promote religious faith.
Religions are a delusion.
Delusions are mental illness.
Why promote mental illness?
Why are all the comments supporting this BS, but it has more thumbs down than thumbs up?
legion1a 9 months ago 3
@legion1a You claim that Theism is a mental illness? i can say the same thing about Neo Darwinsim or any other belief someone has. But that would be my opinion. i highly doubt you have any skill at critical thinking, you just let others do your thinking for you. So go ahead and keep throwing around the term "faith" like that somehow proves that all religions are fictional concepts. All it proves is your opinion is based on your emotional thinking and lack of comprehension of vocabulary.
Automation2BFree 8 months ago
@Automation2BFree
The evidence for Evolution is abundant and overwhelming. It is not an opinion but a fact.
The Book of Genesis is PROVEN FALSE by Evolution.
There was no Adam and Eve, Talking Snake, or Original Sin.
I say again; Religious faith is a delusion, a delusion is a mental illness.
You are mentally ill!
Teaching religion is a crime against humanity.
You have gone from being a victim of that crime, to being a perpetrator of that crime.
Stop insulting people smarter than you!
legion1a 8 months ago 4
@legion1a Say What...are you a robot? this is the comment as another of my vids...get a clue
truth4U2C 8 months ago
Yes your right.. You guys are a offspring of the nephlim .. There's a sight on blog talk radio where a guy preaches on it and backs it up with lost scriptures and the bible.. His sight is cofah.com Very powerful
jumpmarr 1 year ago
I just ran into this video. Very funny. I especially enjoyed the misrepresentation of Gould/Eldridge Punctuated Equalibrium. The misrepresentation of the term Theory is usual Creationist straw man tactics. I often wonder are these people really that ignorant of the scientific meaning of theory or are they just really dishonest. Given this guys heroic effort to get his Bible stories to conform to recent discoveries I think dishonest is the more likely answer.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@Dchellberg i agree. i also wonder whether this guy understands the idea of mitochondrial eve. Mitochondrial eve was not the first human, it is simply one human that all living people can trace their genes back to. there is also the male variant, though there were thousands of years between them. the bible didn't call any of this. i think if your legitimately interested in these topics you should throw out your bible and actually study the world. (last bit aimed at video maker)
geilman 1 year ago
Neanderthals could not had been the Nephilim.
Most adult males averaged about 5'6" at best with one individual reaching up to 6 foot tall in the middle east.
The "Nephilim" were not Neanderthals but the offspring of a union of both the "sons of God", (spirtual, believers of God) and the "daughters of man", (earthly/material, unbelievers of God)which did not focus their lives on God.
PantheraAtrox 1 year ago
You should look up the definition of the word theory. Especially as it is used in science.
IrishHermes 1 year ago
Giants is a mis-interpetation of the greek version, nephilim translated is fallen ones the greeks later equated them with the titans, but now now science says white people have 4 percent neanderthal DNA lol funny how there fighting over the middle east with the other sons of the Nephilim for the homeland.
TheLordtaiko 1 year ago
I believe nephilim breeded with regular humans until the giant gene was "watered down" and perhaps at the lowest level to where we have humans with this demon gene, this is where we get neaderthals. Just decendants from nephilim
HeavenBound2323 1 year ago
i agree. but it is to paleontology's credit that even they now say we have apes, extinct apes, Neanderthals and man, and nothing else in the fossil record. :)
the4thtimelord 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Take the stereo type E.T of the suppossed area51 and cross it with a silver back Gorilla, would u get a Neanderthal? then cross the latter with the stereo type E.T again would u get the Homosapian? what do the Annanukia described by the early Summerians look like? who was king anu of babylon (Iraq) 6000bc? why would the shinx of giza have faced the leo star constellation in 10.500bc? the truth about the shinx + truth about religion both on youtube!! next human evolutionary step is conciousness!!
johnyb553 3 years ago
I dont think your arrogant not as much as the other guy. he had too much excitement in his voice you can tell he had us creationist pinned down and convinced. Go dissent on Darwinism
winpeg65 3 years ago
Cool vid, Actually the Nephilim were the offspring of the Fallen angels coming to the earth and choosing human females to mate with ,Thus creating a race of half human half "angel". As you know some were giant some were looked at as gods, After they were beging to consume humans hole and were being worshiped YHWH sent the great flood to do away with the abominations..This is backed up in scripture and research.
AndyOfCourse 3 years ago
Nice open minded vid, but Neanderthal men averaged 5'6. Meganthropus, however, was a 7-8 foot tall homo erectus, which could be the Nehpillim of the Bible.
jackh4eva 3 years ago 2
Hi Jack..yea I've learn much more about Neanderthals since I posted this... Meganthropus? cool you give me somthing to google later tonite...
truth4U2C 3 years ago
Meganthropus giants and bones gives a geocities webpage that exaggerates their height slightly, but tells you about their tools, and meganthropus fantasy or prehistory is a really good link.
jackh4eva 3 years ago
how tall were the average men back in the days of Noah? 5' 6" could have been considered enormous back then. Just a thought.
alichrsha1 2 years ago
The average height for a Jewish man would probably have been about 5'5 or so.
jackh4eva 2 years ago
ok, thank you. I shall look into this further,as I am intrigued when science and the bible come together. Back in the day when people thought the world was flat,the book of Isaiah states the world is round.
alichrsha1 2 years ago
Really? The only part of the Bible I've read concerning the world's shape makes it seem like a flat square.
jackh4eva 2 years ago
The phrase "four corners of the earth" which in Akkadian is kap-pat tu-bu-qa-at erbitti, can literally be translated "the circle of the four corners" (Grayson 1972, 105; CAD K, 397-400). This is a clear reference to the earth being circular. It seems strange that a circle would also have corners, but they meant the extremities in the four cardinal directions.North, South, East, and West. Isaiah 40:22 :"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants are as grasshoppers
alichrsha1 2 years ago
Definitely an asshole. More speculating than a wagon load of monkeys.
cmk1964 4 years ago
An interesting idea, one I have considered myself. The problem is that neandertals were isolated from other hominids
Kabane52 4 years ago
Did you see the vid this was a response Too? this seems a bit striange without the other vid..Chaddawg"s Mom found out his was an atheist so he shut down his site...
truth4U2C 4 years ago
Note that this is a 'biblical-point-of-view' response.
In Genesis 6, Noah and his families were the only ones with unblemished human dna left on earth before God saved them from the flood.
As water levels rose, i'm sure the inhabitants of the earth (neandertals included) would have tried to go for higher ground for shelter. That would have meant caves
IRP01 4 years ago
Good Point...
truth4U2C 4 years ago
Ummm...
A hole in the ground is "higher ground"?
Personally I would have ran for the top of the hill.
TheHatefulDead 3 years ago
talk about being blind...
WtfJuju 4 years ago
yeah, the nephelim were rich folks, world renown, like the paris hiltons and prince willams of Noahs day, might men of renown, taking as many wives as they chose. It's definetely not 'neaderthols' lol.
talithakoumi 4 years ago
This was already established by E. Bullinger (circa 1898) from his Companion Bible
parousia555 4 years ago
Typical, 'we dont know who they are or what they are so they must back up what is said in the bible'!! ok nearly, nicely backed down. Good to see a christian who is at least a little open minded on things. Why would Ugg be a 'man of renown'?
shepshepshep 4 years ago
Hey man, you really have your head your shoulders. Wow, thanks for getting on here with an open mind, but also an understanding of the wisdom of scripture. I agree with you man, I just have a hard time getting some people I know to get off the evolution stuff just for a second to see how empty it is...
cruelfate45 4 years ago
Cool thanks for the encouragement!
truth4U2C 4 years ago
How could Nephilim be neanderthals? Neanderthals were "short and stout", no way were they giants.
hanzo138 4 years ago
The theory that Neanderthals might be Nephilim can't account for the observed difference in mtDNA. Nephilim happened, according to genesis, when the SONS of god went to the DAUGHTERS of men. mtDNA is inherited thru the mother exclusively (it is not like nuclear DNA). So Neanderthal mtDNA should be almost identical to human mtDNA since the women involved were all daughters of men. As chadagg shows, the mtDNA of Neanderthals is very different.
LytningBug 4 years ago
Evolution *IS* a theory. So is the Germ Theory of Disease. So is the Theory of Gravitation. So is the existence of electrons. Saying that something is a theory in a scientific sense is not derogatory and doesn't lessen it. There is actual evidence for evolution. There was plenty in Chadaqq's video which you failed to address. And, yes, there are transitionals. Neither Gould nor any other evolutionist maintains there are NO transitionals.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
maybe the ones who bash christian beliefs or any religious belief stems from the fact they were treted badly by other members of that church...stop going to a church that continues to permit wrong...humans interpretatation is fallible not the scripture...if you been molested by church official...then find a better church.
4SCARECROWS 4 years ago
what a load of trash. where is the Zero Star Rating option?
jimladx 4 years ago
Just a reminder to belierius and UrukTheRed.. Every culture on the planet has a "great flood" in their mythology. I say mythology bcz as you say there is really no "scientific" evidence. but then again, there is no 'scientific' evidence we came from monkeys either but many people tend to believe this recent [last century] theory. Every myth has some basis in fact, the flood, dragons, aliens, God. We will all find out what the truth is when we die.
DHMIII 4 years ago
No, your not getting arrogant because you have nothing to be arrogant about, you would first have to be right and your not.
Pleblian 4 years ago
because the theroy was rejected, because science rejects theories that don't work, and for your infomation mister... the bible is not a "theory" it is a hypothesis... a theory is different.. please evolve.
stewie1974 4 years ago
Your just rambling on and on and not really making a clear and valid point. Neanderthals were not giants and scripture says that these Nephilim for the most were giants having six fingers and toes, double rows of teeth.... better post next time neanderthal.
Estaah77 4 years ago
wow dude...what kind of a sheltered little life have you lived? Really...there are more important battles to be fought in this world. This is a conversation that goes no where when both sides aren't listening.
nubius 4 years ago
The bible is just a fairytale...
jensmar 4 years ago
Partially a fairytale. There is evidence of the great flood all over the planet.
UrukTheRed 4 years ago
Actually, there is No evidence for a Global flood, but there is definetly floods during the time, however, none of which summed up to a near global scale.
beliserius 4 years ago
It's called True Believer's Syndrome. It's a disease that afflicts mostly simple-minded, gullible people. But it's sure good for us that run the churches! We are getting rich off you fools. haha
matwil74 4 years ago
have you read the seven daughters of eve you take this book far to seriously and alot of the bible stuff comes from early sumerian legends there were a few alien races who seeded the human race.
moonuni 4 years ago
you do know that Neanderthals have the same height as we do right? so they aren't giants
beliserius 4 years ago
I enjoyed your response.
sherimcdoogle 4 years ago
Thanks for this!
ozgleegirl 4 years ago
good sound quality on your video and content.
snyderman2007 4 years ago
Thanks for the encouragement!
truth4U2C 4 years ago
Anyone who says that there are no "missing links" is talking out of their ass.
macman13 4 years ago
There are not enough links to prove evolution dumb ass. Your ass is dumb because your head is in it.
Poseidon500 4 years ago
macman13 4 years ago
Prove that they were the same species as we are.
We have genetic similarities with all species.
Poseidon500 4 years ago
They weren't the same species we are, that's the point. They are TRANSITIONAL SPECIES leading up to us.
And I'm not sure if they extracted DNA from those fossils, but these fossils are identified as transitional fossils because of the anatomical similarities and developed social structure.
Modern apes ARE very similar to us genetically.
macman13 4 years ago
No shit sherlock. We are also geniticaly similar to ALL mammals. Dude, we are a seperate species from all these so called transitional fossils.
Poseidon500 4 years ago
I acknowledge the fact that we are genetically similar to other mammals, this is one of the evidences for evolution.
I SAID THEY ARE A DIFFERENT SPECIES!!!! They are the species leading up to modern humans. So called? What do you call them?
macman13 4 years ago
The "similarities" you speak of is one common protein we share with primates, which accounts for less than 1% of out DNA. and within that protein, 95.9% is similar, SO WHAT? that's less than a 0.9% similarity. Neanderthals is quite a good reasoning for the Nephilim.
HandyTheXxxX 4 years ago
Well first of all, neanderthals existed at least 24,000 years ago and were about the same height as modern humans, so they weren't giants and they didn't live in the time that the bible said they did. That argument is dead.
As for the DNA, geneticists can locate the exact spot where chromosomes fused, watch a ken miller video.
macman13 4 years ago
From Talk origins "Michael Cremo, co-author of Forbidden Archaeology: "Lucy the famous australopithecine. Discovered by Donald Johanson. He says she was very human-like. But I was at a conference of anthropologists where many of them were making the case that she was hardly distinguishable from an ape or a monkey."
Lucy was a small ape....
truth4U2C 4 years ago
That's fan-friggidy-tastic, but from what I can find, Michael Cremo is an idiot.
Lucy was not just a small ape, search for Australopithicus afarensis on google and spend 5 minutes learning.
macman13 4 years ago
Don't you mean 5 minutes of opinion?
truth4U2C 4 years ago
Ken Miller? No, I mean an hour of SCIENTIFIC FACT.
macman13 4 years ago
Mac, how do these scienists determine what the bones make up? Go to this site, and check out how SCIENTIFIC it realy is omniology com JackalopianArtists
truth4U2C 4 years ago
"The California Institute of Omniology holds to the fact that all theories of Origins, lacking empirical verification, are metaphysical and religious in nature. Therefore, they require and deserve equal examination, evaluation, and, critical review in the spirit of true academic freedom in science."
Evolution DOES have empirical verification, and is not religious or faith-based.
macman13 4 years ago
truth4U2C: I'm curious. Do you believe that the bible should be taken literally?
Rocksteady3000 4 years ago
Some is written literal, some is allegory, some Parables, If you simply read it, it is easy to know when it is being literal or not..example "the 4 corners of the earth" is it saying the earth has corners? of course not, it is say the whole earth, north, south, east, and west.
truth4U2C 4 years ago
The Earth DOES have four corners, but the heathen scientists have conspired, in their godlessness, to brainwash us into believing that the Earth is ROUND LIKE A BALL. Now THAT'S ridiculous. The Bible clearly describes the Earth as flat. READ YOUR BIBLE
JimmyFaust 4 years ago
Ok, why don't you shown us where in the Bible it says that?
truth4U2C 4 years ago
book of revelations. it talks about the winds of the 4 corners of the earth. forgive me for being lazy and no bible scholar, i think he meant where it talks about the earth being held in place by pillars in the OT when he refers to it as flat, ive read it before so i know its in there, but just not what book or chapter to look up. there are free sites with search engines that will pull up passages from the bible by key word and quoated phrase searches for any version of the bible.
displaced36 4 years ago
Actaully the Bible does have a passage that refers to the Earth as being spherical. "21Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?" Isaiah 40:21-23 22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Estaah77 4 years ago
is a circle a sphere? Explain to me how a circle is a sphere.
The bible claims earth is the center, is a flat circle and yet has 4 corners and has 4 pillars supporting it.
All of which are BS
beliserius 4 years ago
The hebrew word used in this passage is "chuwg" one of its meanings is "sphere".
Estaah77 4 years ago
No wonder you are Xtian, you don't even know the difference between a circle and sphere.
KevinBernal 4 years ago
Isaiah 11:12
Revelation 7:1
Job 38:13
Jeremiah 16:19
Daniel 4:11
Matthew 4:8
You have lost the argument my friend, neanderthals weren't TALL, NOT GIANTS... Too BAD
beliserius 4 years ago
Neanderthals were actually short and stout, weren't they?
UrukTheRed 4 years ago
yes, short and hairy, now how are they giants?
beliserius 4 years ago
nevermind that first comment, i see u have all ready seen that.but like u said, might be something you dont take literally, but then again people will take it as misdirection or misinformation, or as a parable, depending on their faith.
displaced36 4 years ago
Im sure that things get lost in translations. One word which could mean one thing interperated as another its like the telephone game i would assume. I would speculate that one persons translation might seem like a hint to one or clear to even another. Ill o.o try to awnser the questions as I understand them but remember I dont know anything just trying to give you some sort of awnser.
SepherSerado 4 years ago
Im actually starting to lean towards the thought that we where geneticly created. The sumerians where said to have been incontact with what where called the "anunnaki" or "Those who from heaven came". The sumerians suposedly where told by the anunnaki that we where created by the manipulation of dna. They where told that they took the dna from early hominids and spliced it with the anunnaki's own dna creating us. Which would explain the gap in dna between us and neanderthals.
SepherSerado 4 years ago
"anunnaki" looks like a form of this word is found in the Bible, The fallen angels concept too, It is interesting...
truth4U2C 4 years ago
=P you brough up Nephilim awesome. Im not sure how much you know about them but from what ive found through vids and other internet resources they where ofspring of fallen angels. I dont belive that neanderthals would be nephilim though the bible makes them out to be more like the titans of say the greeks or the grendal in Beowulf.
SepherSerado 4 years ago
This is another example of creationists NOT checking their facts. Sources say the average height is between 5'6" to 5'9". Please check this out yourself. This is clearly not "giant" stature. Neanderthals thus pose a major problem for Creationists: If Neanderthals were NOT related to humans and are clearly NOT Nephilim, how do they fit in the Biblical story? What's your new fairy tale?
Rocksteady3000 4 years ago
Watch the my vid again, I'm fine with being wrong, Chadagd's vid doesn't help evolution either, DNA continues to work agianst the evolutionist story, there is now bigger gaps, more missing links.
truth4U2C 4 years ago
So does the Bible really explain Neanderthals? (Please don't avoid this question.)
Rocksteady3000 4 years ago
No I didn't say that at all rewatch the video...
truth4U2C 4 years ago
How does the Bible explain the Neanderthals then?
Rocksteady3000 4 years ago
ok ive been doing some research but as I have said before im no scholar. I think that Neanderthals where not in the bible because its not relivent to the subject matter. More in my next post.
SepherSerado 4 years ago
I dont belive that the bible was written to be a historical document about the progression of the planet. I dont think the question here is how does the bible explain the neanderthal but why would they need to mention them. i think the bible would be alot longer than it is now if the writers of the bible decided to list off every corporel being and its importance and evolution.
SepherSerado 4 years ago
SepherSerado: (First off,I appreciate your research.)The problem is this: Creationists claim that Neanderthals were fully human and descendants of Noah. In 1997, mtDNA proven this impossible. So if they weren't fully human and descendants of Noah like Creationists say, then according to the bible, what were they?
Rocksteady3000 4 years ago
That is true I saw the video this video was a reply of and there is a big difference in the mitocondrial dna of ourselves and neanderthals. Your original question was "How does the bible explain them" quite simply the bible dosent explain them in a way that would satisfy you, or as far as I know it dosent, The bible states "God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves".
SepherSerado 4 years ago
cont... God created neanderthals but your question is incomplete."How does the bible explain the neanderthals" the question is to vague. What is it exactly that you want to know. If you replaced "neanderthal" with "current day humans" my awnser would be that god created us.
SepherSerado 4 years ago
SepherSerado: Here's my point. Christians define the Christian God as omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. In short, he is supposed to be PERFECT. Because the bible is "the word of god", the bible should also be PERFECT. However, evidence concerning Neanderthals, dinosaurs, the age of the universe, etc. show that the bible is WRONG and thus is not perfect. If the bible is not perfect, then either the bible is not the "word of god", or the Christian God does not exist. Comments?
Rocksteady3000 4 years ago
Yup yup The bible is the word of god but it is also translated by man. Man is not perfect and thus his translations will be flawed aswell. All throught history we see people make claims and quickly retract them due to the discovery of there own mistakes. I am not going to argue that parts of the bible arent wrong but i belive in some pretty sensationalist ideas when it comes to that area.
SepherSerado 4 years ago
cont again x.x sorry... So in conclusion your question would be awnsered by saying that God created them as he did you and me, but if you dont belive in the bible and the bible did give a reason for why/how the neanderthal where created would you accept it...can you accept an awnser from something that you dont belive in?
SepherSerado 4 years ago
SepherSerado: Thanks for the feedback. With the mtDNA evidence, I wanted to see if Creationists would now start to claim that Neanderthals and modern man were walking around in the Garden of Eden, and therefore co-existed. Now they have to MAKE UP evidence of this in the same way that they're trying to prove that dinosaurs and modern humans co-existed. Check out "Dinosaurs Alive Today".
Rocksteady3000 4 years ago
truth4U2C, you wrote "Chadagd's vid doesn't help evolution either, DNA continues to work agianst the evolutionist story, there is now bigger gaps, more missing links". You're wrong. Evolution means change over time. The original video supports the ET fully.
princesszin 4 years ago
Jesus was a mushroom, not a real person.
manzed 4 years ago
your speculating just like chagagg says. you dont know what those thing are, so you speculate that they are Neanderthal when you dont have any evidence support that thats what the bible is talking about.
killlagger468 4 years ago
Your speculating That I'm speculating....Yes it it true I was speculating, I pretty much say that in the Video...There is evidence to support what the bible is talking about, Look up giants on Google you'll be surpriesed at evidence....
snowshop 4 years ago
WHAT?! NO! you have just admitted that you feel as tho an age old question was answered by the means of mDNA and Neanderthals. but you have'nt put in any evidence (unlike chadagg's video) that the bible is talking about those giants, and how did you came up with that idea?...speculation, its the only way you could have without evidence. even if the bible IS talking about them, then it just goes to support human evolution, since Neanderthals and Homo sapiens evolved from Chimps.
killlagger468 4 years ago
"Neanderthals and Homo sapiens evolved from Chimps" Chadagg's Video is saying Neanderthals and Homos are NOT related...Watch both vids again.. you've missed the point, as a matter of fact the latest evolutionary theories say we came from some Rodent, not chimps or Monkeys
truth4U2C 4 years ago
no no no, the video explains that homo Sapeins did not evolve from Neanderthals. either way Neanderthals and Homo-Sapiens are "cousins" if you will, from Chimps. the idea from rodents is the theory of the beginning of mammals, not humans. Chimps DNA sequence, is 99.99% related to that of Humans.
killlagger468 4 years ago
99.99% This percent seems to change from time to time, but fine I'll take your percent. at any percent the spiecies "Would" move away from each other. The truth is in the math...Math moves useing an equation, the equation (DNA sequence) can never cross over from Chimp DNA to Human DNA. Enter the evolutionary miracle "punctuated equilibrium" the theory with no proof, to resolve the improbibility of evolution.
truth4U2C 4 years ago
no no no, punctuationism is your view of contradicting gradualism (species grow slow to a new one). when infact, they are actually happening at the same time. here, Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 cm. over 70,000 years. If the average life of the species (generations) is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations.
killlagger468 4 years ago
This shows that if the limb size in our species evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation since 50 cm/10,000 = 0.005cm, despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record. this is how pun. equlib works
killlagger468 4 years ago
You just shifted from Macro evolution to Micro...Yes we can observe "Micro"
truth4U2C 4 years ago
o boy. ok. if you give micro evolution BILLIONS of years. then micro becomes macro looking at evolution from different scales. macro-evolution takes a very long time by the means of micro-e. and i think thats a problem for creationist, because they dont see macro in progress, but see micro. when if they accept that, they really are contradicting themselves given billions of years life has been on earth.
killlagger468 4 years ago
No Contadiction, Micro is changes within a species, macro is (change)from one sprcies to another. that is what has always been missing, because it never accured. you can add as much time to the equation as you want, it (Time) still can't account for the lack of evidence to support the theory.
truth4U2C 4 years ago
o my science, i think you just made it clear that evolution theory is fact, when you described micro-e. its now i understand that this isn't about weather evolution happens, but if life has been on earth for billions of years. since if thats the case then macro evolution will occur given the billions of years. as oppose to thousands.
killlagger468 4 years ago
truth4U2C You wrote "macro is (change)from one sprcies to another. that is what has always been missing, because it never accured." No, you're wrong. In the original video there are several links concerning macroevolution. check out this one (esp at 2.30): youtube DOT com SLASH watch?v=AY8SMVPubKo
princesszin 4 years ago
"punctuationism is your view" No it was DR Stephen Jay Gould from Harvard, this theory helped explaine why there is so many missing links...
truth4U2C 4 years ago
perhaps i shouldn't have used to word "view". ok my apologize are given, but your video you tried to say, its a theory that is no longer used to evolutionists. when i showed you how it works, and that it is still used for evolutionary biology, even though you dont hear about it. it isnt to be confused with a brand spanking new species coming out of mommy like your thinking, but a mathematical way of presenting evolution, because almost TOO MANY generations takes place when its going.
killlagger468 4 years ago
"isnt to be confused with a brand spanking new species coming out of mommy like your thinking" When it was first introduced, it was used as I stated, it has become an embarrassment to evolutionist.. "Daniel Dennett argues that Gould alternated between revolutionary and conservative claims about punctuated equilibrium"
truth4U2C 4 years ago
That was from wikipedia
truth4U2C 4 years ago
The point I make is a simple one, Gould did use the theory at first to explaine why there are no intermediates fossils. what was his motive? No intermediates fossils
truth4U2C 4 years ago
No intermediates fossils....all the add on theories over the last 200 plus years can never replace the fact the you have no evidence......
truth4U2C 4 years ago
yes there are. certainly there are fossils to be found to connect the two species as of today. but there are fossils that do show a start of a transformation from one to another. including some to the Neanderthals. mDNS even shows this. but then again, you don't have any evidence to suggest you biblical claim, other then the bible itself. which isn't how it works in the world of reasoning and rational thinking. sorry
killlagger468 4 years ago
Allow me at this time to say that you have been one of the most honest evolutionist I've ever debated. You are being honest with the facts, your presenting what the facts are. and not spinning them into more then what they are. Very Good..
truth4U2C 4 years ago
"certainly there are fossils to be found to connect the two species as of today. but there are fossils that do show a start of a transformation from one to another" These fossils your talking about are still just adaptations in the same species. A head fake towards another species.
truth4U2C 4 years ago
"certainly there are fossils to be found" That is a hope statement. As a Christian I put my hope in the resurrection power of Jesus Christ, the Bible talks about faith & hope, it is honest with the fact that is is a step of faith. I personlly think after years of hoping for the missing link to be found, that Gould in a desperate efford to justify his whole life's work, made up the extreme form of Punc Equl theory....
truth4U2C 4 years ago
Over 200 years of digging for the fossils to support the theory..... You know that with popularity of sifi stories many in the evolutionary movement have stopped looking in the dirt and are down seaching the skys for aliens that has had sex with apes...
truth4U2C 4 years ago
LOL, thats a gag, i wouldn't take that seriously unless there is plenty of evidence to support it like Darwin's natural selection does. i will not deny this. there are some very strange hypothesis out there. and being rational is to consider the hypothesis a theory if it follows the scientific method and data concludes it, so well have to wait.
killlagger468 4 years ago
ok, i personally don't like to use Stephen, since other scientist just have sum bug up there asses about his explanation for evolution. i haven't read any of his books, but even Dawkins criticized him for "speculating that evolution is still a hypothesis, when its beyond fact." which i would have to agree with Dawkins. im not going to debate religion because I cant prove 100% my beliefs, but i can prove evolution. evolution is really that concrete as a fact, sir.
killlagger468 4 years ago
o boy. if you are talking about adaptations, you talking macro-e. look at height. hundreds of years ago humans got only as tall as 5 feet. but fast forward and today people are reaching 6 feet. we can see how we adapted to our own environment by sexual selection. if you give this MILLIONS of years then we can totally replace even the 6 feet and who knows,its retarded to say that our children will look exactly like us giving a million years.
killlagger468 4 years ago
well, my purpose is to clear up all the confusion with evolution. and after your video, i felt that you kinda were. its ok really to be confused by the greatest discoveries of all time, since its one that the world wasn't really expecting to find. but its not, when there is physical, mathematical, and scientific evidence to support it and say that its bunk. becuz to do that is to rip out every scientific discovery we have (especially in biology) all becuz it didn't fit with an older book.
killlagger468 4 years ago
thats prob why Stephen is criticized so heavily among other evolutionary biologist, and philosophers (such as Daniel Dennet). there really are some intermediate fossils found, and Gould really lacks a way of explaining it in his books. then says that Punc Equl. is the means of new species, when even myself showed otherwise, how it works, and how it is applied today.
killlagger468 4 years ago
your point?
killlagger468 4 years ago
no no, you were misguided into thinking that, see when i did my example i did it on the micro level. but make the math on a larger scale and you have macro-e. fist off, Daniel Dennet is a philosopher and is very active in defending evolution (he not on your side) and isn't criticizing Punc. Equl. but Gould. they are both at some feud with each other for Stephens way of explaining evolution and Punc E in such a way that isn't really accepted in the science community.
killlagger468 4 years ago
Richard Dawkins is also critical of Gould and his theory. Remember my point is about "why" it was made up in the first place. The theory over time has been modified to what your pointing out.
truth4U2C 4 years ago
punc. equl has always been pointing out what it is i have been saying since it was first discovered. its only difference is how it is presented, smiler to how i presented it. because everyone was misunderstanding it as the way you did. nothing changed about what punc. equl. was originally pointing out.
killlagger468 4 years ago
truth4U2C YOu wrote, "Chadagg's Video is saying Neanderthals and Homos are NOT related" They are related!!! What are you talking about? You've made a video reply and you didn't even understand the video you were replying to. You're a scary man...
princesszin 4 years ago
you poor deluded man, game theory dictates that i should be kind to you though, lol.
ahamagi 4 years ago
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Pardon me....HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Sorry. I don't mean to laugh at your ignorance. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Sorry, I really do apologize. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
thediscerningreader 4 years ago
Lol... redneck.
0u8shirt8 4 years ago
Interesting, but Anatomically Neanderthals were somewhat shorter but much more robust than contemporary H. sapiens. Distinctive cranial features of Neanderthals included prominent brow ridges, low, sloping foreheads, a chinless and heavy, forward-jutting jaw, and extremely large front teeth. The shoulders and pelvis were wider, the rib cage more conical in shape, and the forearms and lower legs shorter.
mlv75 4 years ago
Curious that you criticize science for modifying its theories, but that's precisely why it's a sound methodology. As soon as there is evidence to refute a prevailing theory, the theory is strengthened by being changed to accommodate the new data. And by the way, there are 1000's of so-called transitional forms, but because each organism is discrete they appear as plateaus.
JackLipnick 4 years ago
what if WE are the nephilim?
BaalAdramelech 4 years ago
Are you accusing me?
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
nephilim - "giants"
neanderthals were actually shorter than homo sapiens:)
0reeferman0 4 years ago
wrong
a01011399 4 years ago
Isn't that what you think that the Christians do with their limited or no knowledge of science and "logic"?
SubliminalLv07 4 years ago
Anyone who gets angry or annoyed at another person's beliefs is as ignorant as the person they're making fun of. Open minds lead to real understanding- not closed ones.Until either side can prove their beliefs or theories beyond a shadow of a doubt, then they should just both shut up.And the Bilbe does have a lot of truth- before judgung it READ it, or shut up about things you just don't know about.
SubliminalLv07 4 years ago
A lot of things cannot be explained and that doesn't make them less believable. It's like the big bang theory- an evolutionist cannot prove that it was God that created our world in that way, and a Christian can't prove that God didn't use the big bang theory to create our universe.
SubliminalLv07 4 years ago
Oh, awesome.
Delete the comment I posted that you find threatening to your beliefs, then sit there and pretend like this fallacy is actually a fair discussion. Fine, you win. I don't even have to argue, every allowance you make to scientific research is ground lost for your rigid and dogmatic system of beliefs. You'll eventually bury yourself under a mountain of contradictions. So by all means, claim yourself the victor.
B1ackHayabusa 4 years ago
Did you by any chance have Mr. Garrison as a science teacher.
CauchySchwarz 4 years ago
Yes bob you are getting arrogant...We need to talk.
You need to research you argument, stop this drive by video comment style you use. The anger you speak about that you feel from atheists is actually frustration with someone who doesn't use the tools of the science he hates so much to actually look up the facts.
Do we need an intervention? :)
thequantumflux 4 years ago
*continuing from the accidental break* just put up a false target and attack it. and as far as the Neanderthals being the "giants" you have 2 issues: The Neanderthals are not that much different in size from standard humans, so unless you're saying that the Hebrews were 4 feet tall by comparison to those around them, you're failing. mt Eve is not considered to be any ONE woman, that's just as far back as can be gone with in the known lineage.
LoogyHead 4 years ago
One woman, one family, the point being this confirms the Bible, unlike the years of saying many differant evolutions accured. Punctuated equilibrium is still held up as true by most evolutionist because the fossil record, is void of fossils
truth4U2C 4 years ago
Confirms the bible... How? Ok. assume that we did in fact have a situation like the bible were we were all put on this earth. Do you know how far this goes back? Over 100,000 years. Confirming the Bible? maybe in your deluded interpretation. Also, You're still wrong about them being the "giants."
LoogyHead 4 years ago
NEPHILIM: "morally fallen man, bastards", serpents. They emerged after the deluge and set up their base, known as ATLANTIS, on the vast cont. of Appalachia. From there they set out to make contact with Earth's inhabitants.
Book of Enoch: should have been added to bible books. check out Michael Tsarion.. worth a look. He's an alternative historian that has taken ALL stories and looked for consistency. He also sort of discredits the theory of evol. check him out, leave a post : )
OrchidMaroon 4 years ago
And Yes, I admit I am wrong about the P.E. Idea being wide spread, but to say the fossil record is lacking is false only because you demand every animal and it's offspring that also had offspring should be within the record in a nice neat order in order for Evo. to be true.
LoogyHead 4 years ago
I don't know exactly when punctuated equilibrium idea actually came to be, but for that to occur, it is not evolution, yet Creationists "debunk" evolution using this idea anyone with a basic understanding of Evolution already knows is statistically impossible. So all i can see is that you
LoogyHead 4 years ago
Using the same logic (or lack there of) you all display, I could claim that the Lunar landing was a fake, made to protect Newton's flawed "theories". After all, NASA used flawed Newtonian Physics to plot the flight path that got us to the moon. So it's all just one big lie. Stars and planets aren't held in place by gravity, but rather the tooth fairy, or whatever imaginary force or character you prefer.
B1ackHayabusa 4 years ago
simple point, it can change and should change (physics)we are learning all the time, But the whole Darwin theory has been over hauled so many times that it isn't even the same as when it began. Darwin said with out a fossil reocord to prove his theory, his theory will be proven wrong, mean while those who are like the Godless theory continue to add theories to theories.
truth4U2C 4 years ago
You should just save yourself some grief and resort to quoting scripture right now, because you don't know enough about evolution (or the scientific method) to try and argue about it. It's pointless.
B1ackHayabusa 4 years ago