I'm just wondering where "John Pendleton - Chemist" bought his doctor's degree...maybe somewhere in Kansas? Then again, it says nowhere that he even has one..
You know the main thing I notice among you guys is this:You make fun of the guy but you make personal attacks and you cant seem to point out anything he says thats wrong.The fact of human footprints in cretaceous rock along with dinosaur prints should give you pause among other evidence but instead you mock the guy cus you cant get over the facts he presents! Some of you cant even make it past the 3:00 mark cus you cant stand the evidence presented! You guys are good at mockery but not much else
@eyeh8u1 Thanks for making my point. You have nothing of substance to say and just reply with a personal attack. You know when you've won an argument when the opposing party hurls personal and general attacks against you and NOT against anything you've presented. After all, what can you say against such evidence right in front of your face that destroys your worldview?
@hmcdaniel1979 Amen! there is no refutation in the entire video. No references, just conjecture and personal attack. He even contradicted himself in his own video, or at least poor logic.
@AndyG792 Dude do you even know who I was referencing? I was talking about eye8u1 and his attacks on the guy and me as well and that you evolutionists/athiests level attacks on us and not the evidence. By the way, where exactly did he contradict himself? Why poor logic? The man produced evidence that kills evolution and the logic that followed was more like common sense after the fact. Please refute the human tracks in cretacous rock alongside dinosaur prints, this should be good......
@hmcdaniel1979 Excuse me! I was agreeing with you and then added info about the counter video. I just figured out right before you responded back that I commented about the wrong video. I did not mean this guy. I was talking about the guy that put out a video trying to refute this one. The guy that put out the video that refutes this one contradicts himself in his logic. Sorry about the mix-up. I have been on too many vids today as I was off work and spent too much time on line
@hmcdaniel1979 The human prints are real human prints. The dinosaur prints are also real. One of the evolutionist scientists claimed that they were eroded dinosaur tracks and later came back and said that they were made by aliens. the next night he was seen with a pipe destroying the foot print; which, pretty much PROVES that he knew they were real human prints. He proved to evolutionists as well as creationists that he knew they were real human prints by destroying the print.
@AndyG792 "he knew they were real human prints ..... by destroying the print."
Cool story bro.
1. Can you provide any evidence that this happened, especially the way you described it.
2. One evolutionary biologist being a fraud does not disprove the fact of evolution which can be demonstrated, nor does it prove anything about the theory or other evolutionary scientists.
@thomaseshuis I'm glad you asked. 1. Watch this video of Dr. Patton the one that had communicated with Glen Kuban (the perpetrator) /watch?v=dWe3cteDuBc 2. You are right in saying that one person being a fraud does not make the rest fraud. Although, evolution has been fraught with fraud from the time of Darwin to present, I do believe that most are not fraud but rather misinterpretation due to the preconceived belief that evolution took place. Q: Please give one evolution demo
@AndyG792 "1. Watch this video of Dr. Patton" As I said this claim has long since been thoroughly debunked, visit paleo (dot) cc/paluxy and educate yourself.
"Although, evolution has been fraught with fraud from the time of Darwin to present" Yet the current theory has never been debunked and evolution itself is still an observable fact.
"due to the preconceived belief that evolution took place.` It isn't a belief, you can observe evolution.
@hmcdaniel1979 Yeah its so sad that those idiot "evos"have even made evolutionary biology a cornerstone of and are now dependent upon it for the study of modern medical science. But they don't fool me! If I ever have to use medicine that was developed with the help of evolutionary biology, I'm going to tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine. As an evo denier, using that medicine would make me the worlds biggest hypocrite. Oh shit its also used for crops.Well,thats ok, I just won't eat.
@eyeh8u1 You're as stupid as you are petty. Medical science and even crops arent dependant on evolution because all that is really needed is actual SCIENCE! No person has ever been cured or healed nor a crop grown because the doctor or farmer took into consideration evolution. Farming has been going on long before evolution was thought of and medicine gets better because of science breakthroughs NOT dependant on evolution but things that can actually be tested and seen to work.
@hmcdaniel1979 `Medical science and even crops arent dependant on evolution` They are. They depend on an understanding of evolution.
Bacteria evolve and so become immune to medicine or become airborne, as do plants and other lifeforms evolve to become resistant to extermination via poison.
To combat these changes we need to understand how these lifeforms adapted to those dangers.
@thomaseshuis "Bacteria evolve and so become immune to medicine or become airborne"
If you know anything about genetics you should know this: bacteria dont evolve! Bacteria stay bacteria for one thing, secondly some bacteria do mutate but that DETRACTS from their DNA not adds, thirdly when that happens it acts to block medicines but otherwise the bacteria is weak and would not survive due to the fact that MUTATIONS ARE HARMFUL! Things are stonger without mutations not with them.
@hmcdaniel1979 "If you know anything about genetics you should know this: bacteria dont evolve!" Sorry but this ludicrous statement actually proves your ignorance about evolution.
"Bacteria stay bacteria for one thing" Bacteria isn't a species for one thing.
@hmcdaniel1979 "secondly some bacteria do mutate but that DETRACTS from their DNA not adds" Evolution does not claim that everytime a lifeform evolves it adds DNA, again you shows your ignorance on this topic.
Please visit talkorigins (dot) net and educate yourself.
@hmcdaniel1979 "thirdly when that happens it acts to block medicines but otherwise the bacteria is weak and would not survive due to the fact that MUTATIONS ARE HARMFUL!"
And yet more proof that you do not have the faintest clue about the theory of evolution.
@hmcdaniel1979 This is easily one of the most idiotic responses I have ever seen on YouTube and shows that you do not have even the slightest idea of what your talking about. Seriously, STOP. You are not doing your cause any favors by continuing to post your ignorance. It was funny for awhile. Now its just sad.
@hmcdaniel1979 "of and medicine gets better because of science breakthroughs NOT dependant on evolution" Really? Tell me what non evolution based breakthroughs are those?
@thomaseshuis Wait a minute....you're the one claiming medicine gets better because of evolution so give me an example. There are many scientists both old and new who make strides in science who are christians/creationists and most of them are founding fathers of a particular science while others add to it later on and none of them believed in evolution to further medicine or any other field of science
@hmcdaniel1979 "Wait a minute....you're the one claiming medicine gets better because of evolution so give me an example" I already have.
"There are many scientists both old and new who make strides in science who are christians/creationists and most of them are founding fathers of a particular science"
I never claimed there are no Christians scientists. You do know that over 98% of biologists, chemists and other related scientific fields accept evolution as a fact?
@hmcdaniel1979 "most of them are founding fathers of a particular science"
Which proves nothing about the validity of Christianity as many of those inventions are based on pagan Greek and Roman knowledge, passed from the Middle East to medieval Europe via the Islamic Caliphates.
Point in case being that a persons religion has little to nothing to do with their inventions.
@hmcdaniel1979 My god you're a fucking idiot. I'd explain it to you in detail, but why bother? You're so damn dumb and deluded with that creationist nonsense...oh fuck it. I'm speechless. No, seriously. I just can not believe in this day and age that someone like you still walks around believing in that crap. I feel sorry for you. Sincerely, I do. A mind wasted because it was poisoned by religious indoctrination. So sad...
@eyeh8u1 LOL! Thank you for allowing me to win the argument at least as far as debating you is concerned. You come at me with insults because you have nothing else to come at me with. Its sad when all you can do is attack someone personally because you cannot attack them intellectually. At least the other guys that are debating me I can say are trying which is much more than I can say for you. Get a brain first and then maybe you'll be a challenge.
@hmcdaniel1979 Debating you is pointless. There is no debate. You might as well be arguing for the existence of tinker bell. Its the same thing. I'm not going to waste my time "debating" with a grown man who can't let go of childish ideas of imaginary beings. Your beliefs aren't worthy of debate, only ridicule and contempt and will continue to be so until the days when we have finally rid ourselves of these barbaric and poxy "religions." Thankfully, we grow closer to that with each passing day.
@AndyG792 "The human prints are real human prints."
How do you know? How can you be so sure, given that mainstream scientist have looked at these prints and have determined them to be a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosion features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved specimens.
They have effectively debunked these "man tracks" but you still cling to them. Why?
@hmcdaniel1979 Thats funny. I posted two comments earlier that do in fact completely debunk two of this idiots arguments. But you seem to ignore those which is par for the course when it comes to creationists like yourself. This video does nothing but preach to the choir and serves only to reinforce your own delusions of creationism. Meanwhile, the rest of us who choose to acknowledge reality will continue to point, laugh and insult you as you seem content with being purposely deceived.
@eyeh8u1 Your kidding right? The only post I saw where you even say anything related to the video is about the Ica Stones. All the others are just personal attacks and though I'm sure they make replicas for tourists what do you think they are replicating genius? They are replicating.....THE ACTUAL ICA STONES THAT ARE REAL!
@hmcdaniel1979 "After all, what can you say against such evidence right in front of your face that destroys your worldview?"
Again, it's not evidence no matter what you think. You accept it as evidence because you want it to be. Do you know the history of the "unfossilized" dinosaur bones and blood? Compare this guys story to what mainstream paleontologist say and give me a good reason why you will discard the mainstream view and accept this guy's if not because he supports your belief.
@burkerow Actually it is evidence. The human prints along with dinosaur prints in cretaceous rock didnt just make themselves. The Ica stones didnt etch dinos with humans by themselves either and the dino bones and blood cannot be explained short of them dying in the not to distant past. Did you know those arent the only dino bones found with blood in them? By the way "mainstream palientology" is biased toward evolution so what findings they produce will go with what they believe not with science
@hmcdaniel1979 "The human prints along with dinosaur prints in cretaceous rock didnt just make themselves"
They're not human prints, this has been debated and settled as smaller dinosaur prints long ago within the science community. The fact that you can't accept what the scientific community says is just you needing to remain in denial.
I'm glad you brought the word bias into this discussion. What are your biases, or do you deny you have them?
@burkerow The human prints were debated and of course the evo's thought that some were other than human but its hard to argue that when they look nothing like dino prints and its documented with pics and casts to be human prints so much so that some were smashed to avoid that discovery. I wonder what they were afraid of?Of course I'm biased and so are you,I would have thought that would have been obvious by now,but my bias is with science and not made up fables convincing folks we came from apes
@hmcdaniel1979 "The human prints were debated and of course the evo's thought that some were other than human but its hard to argue" It isn't when some of them were hoaxes, other's the result of erosion and the rest weren't human. Again, visit the site I send you and educate yourself.
"so much so that some were smashed to avoid that discovery`` Credible source for this please.
During my 20s I taught Sunday School in a Quaker church but I still had a voracious appetite for some branch of science. For a year I worked in a mine and thought I would be a mining engineer, so I studied geology. I was having doubts about my faith for various reasons, science only being one of them, internal problems with religion were another so I began to study philosophy so I could understand what we as human can discern as truth. Enter Socrates and David Hume.
I eventually got my Masters degree in biology from Connecticut Sate University, but because I have a deep need for altruism my career path took me into healthcare. I do anesthesiology.
In medical science we have what we call "Evidence Based Medicine".
So you see I have "faith" in science. It is what keeps you alive when I put you to under anesthesia. And the scientific method works. That's my bias.
@hmcdaniel1979 "mainstream palientology" is biased toward evolution so what findings they produce will go with what they believe not with science"
I wonder if you have any concept of what science is or what logic is? Your comment above shows internal inconsistency.
Of course paleontology is biased toward evolution, they are branches of the same discipline. That's like saying medicine is biased toward biology or physiology. Your comment makes me go "WYF"?
@burkerow I have no beef with science but when you add fables in with science to suit your agenda thats when I have a problem. Palientology assumes a lot, for example the dates at which they arrive at for things they find in rock are dated by the rock, but when you ask them how they know the age of the rock they say they know by what fossils are found in them! Its circular reasoning! The geologic column is also made up because it exists nowhere in the world....except textbooks of course...
@hmcdaniel1979 "but when you ask them how they know the age of the rock they say they know by what fossils are found in them!" Also utter nonsense, they know because they can measure and determine how old that layer of ground is.
Comments like these show that you haven't the faintest clue about palaeontology.
@hmcdaniel1979 "The geologic column is also made up because it exists nowhere in the world....except textbooks of course" Again, this is a straw-man argument.
The geology column and evolutionary tree are simplifications, to express how the different strata are related.
@hmcdaniel1979 "Actually it is evidence. The human prints along with dinosaur prints in cretaceous rock didnt just make themselves." Clinging to debunked evidence is rather pathetic.
"The Ica stones didnt etch dinos with humans by themselves either" You mean those reptiles that vaguely look like dinosaurs?
@thomaseshuis Reptiles that "vaguely" look like dinosaurs...I know I came into this discussion late...but, I don't think any modern man has seen a "dinosaur"...let alone one that "vaguely" looks like a dinosaur...
@TheIntangibleSoul "Reptiles that "vaguely" look like dinosaurs...I know I came into this discussion late...but, I don't think any modern man has seen a "dinosaur"...let alone one that "vaguely" looks like a dinosaur..." The point is that none of those images are picture perfect dinosaurs. They are animals that look like dinosaurs.
Do pictures of pegasi and manticores prove that those creatures existed?
@thomaseshuis Its actually not debunked at all, they have pics and casts of them from when they were first found all the way up to present day. You can actually still see them if you care to travel to the Paluxy river.
The reptiles dont vaguely resemble dinos unless of course your blind either visually or mentally. You see a whole range of them on one stone and on others they have people riding them! Others depict battles with them! You're just blind...mentally that is...
@hmcdaniel1979 "Its actually not debunked at all, they have pics and casts of them from when they were first found all the way up to present day. You can actually still see them if you care to travel to the Paluxy river." You clearly haven't visited the site or otherwise checked the evidence. Your wilful ignorance does not change the fact that those claims have been debunked.
@hmcdaniel1979 "The reptiles dont vaguely resemble dinos unless of course your blind either visually or mentally. You see a whole range of them on one stone and on others they have people riding them! Others depict battles with them!"
So I guess unicorns, dragons, manticores and all other manner of mythical creatures also existed. Again just because something looks like a dinosaur, does not mean they actually existed at that time.
@hmcdaniel1979 A common YEC misinterpretation of surviving organic material in dinosaur bone is that this "proves" that the Earth is young and radiometric dating methods should be rejected. Their argument reduces to nothing more than organic molecules can't last a long while. The most commonly cited materials are fragments of the bone protein osteocalcin, Muyzer (1992), and hemoglobin, Schweitzer et al (1997).
I would like to know, by what criteria do you reject real science in favor of YEC?
@burkerow Many creationists I know have a hard time figuring out how the blood and bone survived even after the flood to now and evo's have no idea how it could've happened after millions of years, but anyway you slice it it comes down to the fact that that dino (among others that were found with blood and bone) died in the recent past not millions of years ago. No dating method is going to skirt around that.
I dont reject real science, I accept it which is why I dont believe in evolution
@hmcdaniel1979 For years claims were made by YEC that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, in Texas. If true, the finding would contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned by most creationists.
@hmcdaniel1979 The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosion features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved specimens. A few individuals continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in pre-Tertiary rocks from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups.
@hmcdaniel1979 So, Daniel, if that's your name, I can't say with certainty which story, is most true, the creationist version or the mainstream science version. You are very certain however, which version is the more accurate reality. My question to you, is why? You have a bias, I hope you'll agree, that makes you choose YEC "evidence" over mainstream science "evidence". Why is YEC evidence more believable to you?
More importantly, what can any of us really know for sure?
@burkerow I believe what I believe because science is something that can be proven through experiment not through ideology. Evolution is fraught with scandal and fraud because people would rather believe it and make other believe it than actual science. Examples of fraud to name a few are: Piltdown man, the geologic column, Ernst Haekel and his embryonic drawings of which he was prosecuted for, horse ancestry, etc.
We can really know by using actual science and applying common sense
This “fraud” took place 100 years ago and was perpetrated by a man trying to make a name for himself. He, unfortunately duped much of the scientific community into thinking it was “the missing link”.
As early as 1913 however, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull. Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915.
1923 Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they were of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was.
The validity of the specimen has always been questioned. In the 1940s, more advanced dating technologies, such as the fluorine absorption test, scientifically proved that this skull was actually a fraud.
1923 Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they were of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was.
The validity of the specimen has always been questioned. In the 1940s, more advanced dating technologies, such as the fluorine absorption test, scientifically proved that this skull was actually a fraud.
The hoax is often cited (along with Nebraska Man) by creationists as an example of the dishonesty or credulity of biologists that study human evolution, despite the fact that evolutionary biologists had exposed the hoax themselves.
This, Daniel is how science works, it corrects itself through peer review.
@hmcdaniel1979 4 Piltdown It is unfortunate that a few people try to perpetrate frauds for their own gain, but for you to bring this up as if the entire scientific community willingly attempted a conspiracy, and in so doing attempt to refute all of evolution science, is nothing but a strawman argument and you should be ashamed of yourself. You’re going to have to better than this.
While it has been widely claimed that Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, there does not appear to be an independently verifiable source for this claim. Recent analyses (Richardson 1998, Richardson and Keuck 2002) have found that some of the criticisms of Haeckel's embryo drawings were legitimate, but others were unfounded.
There were multiple versions of the embryo drawings, and Haeckel rejected the claims of fraud. It was later said that "there is evidence of sleight of hand" on both sides of the feud between Haeckel and Wilhelm. Robert J. Richards, in a paper published in 2008, defends the case for Haeckel, shedding doubt against the fraud accusations with base on the material used for comparison and what Haeckel could access at the time.
Again Daniel, a strawman argument. Haeckel’s detractors and criticisms came from within the scientific community. Remember peer review? In the end it did not change what we knew about evolution.
@hmcdaniel1979 The British medical journal, published results of its investigation, concluded Dr. Andrew Wakefield misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study -- and there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible.
Fraud takes place everywhere, but while this scientist’s work is now tainted, it does not invalidate all medical science. Science is good at policing itself through peer review and peer review is harsh.
Many creationists are unaware of the fact that John Woodmorappe is really Jan Peczkis, a high school teacher from Chicago, Illinois. Peczkis has authored old earth evolutionary articles under his real name while claiming to be a young earther under his pseudonym. John Woodmorappe (aka Jan Peczkis) has challenged the idea that the Geologic column is real. Creationists create a strawman image of the geologic column and then attack the notion without mercy.
The following is from “The Institute For Creation Research”
At least one theory of cosmology has been proposed which would compensate for this large amount of heat and possibly even result in net volumetric cooling in places. Such theories seem to ultimately to depend upon supernatural intervention at the time of Creation, Fall, and the Flood. God's intervention is explicitly stated in Scripture (II Peter 3:5,6 and implied elsewhere).
Although these theories have not been explored at this time, they could result in an alternative explanation to processes in the earth and cosmos. The group is strongly committed to exploring various ways in which data for large quantities of radioactive decay can be explained within a young-earth time frame. In this effort, the group is committed to a literal interpretation of the Bible which honors God as Creator and Sustainer of this world."
The last sentence in the #2 post exposes your belief system to what it really is; Religion, and not science.
So Daniel, please do not talk to me about science. You do not have a clue about science or how it works.
I do not have the "human footprint" casts in my hands. I've never seen them personally and I doubt you have. As I said before, these are extraordinary claims and I need extraordinary evidence to believe them. I'll stick with my bias...science.
@hmcdaniel1979 If the geologic column is flawed, then one might wonder why oil companies and mineral exploration companies feature it so prominently in their exploration research. One test of scientific validity is to examine how utilitarian the science is. Companies who stake their livelihood on the science of geology would certainly abandon the notion of Geologic correlation were it so useless as Woodmorappe/Peczkis believes.
If you want to talk about fraud, we need look no further than your own religion. We can start with the "Shroud of Turin". Did "the Church" police itself and expose this as a fraud? No! The Church protected and hence perpetrated this hoax for 700 years by protecting the Shroud from critical inquiry. If was in fact scientist who exposed the Shroud for the hoax that it is, yet many Christians still try to claim the Shroud is genuine.
@hmcdaniel1979 The Christian religion is full of frauds, fakes and charlatans. Would it be fair of me to stand up the Shroud of Turin as a strawman so I can use it to repudiate all of Christian belief or as an argument for the nonexistence of God? NO! That would be a logical fallacy. So please don't look for mistakes or frauds within evolution science to make arguments against the validity of the science. If you do that I will bury you in a shitload of fakery from your own religion.
@hmcdaniel1979 "you cant get over the facts he presents"
And how do you know for sure he's presenting facts?
I have never heard of this claim in "mainstream" science, so I did a quick google search to see for myself whether or not these claims have any merit. My conclusion is that this is bogus. Do your own search, but avoid "creation" sites that promote this garbage. It's junk science.
Can any of us know for certain what is true? Maybe not, so I'll stick with good science opinion.
@burkerow Uh see my comments above for what I think of "mainstream" science. Just because its mainstream doesnt mean anything. Mainstream is just another way people have of saying they think they are legit in their findings while putting down another view they view as unappealing to their view. It means nothing if its not backed by actual science. If you actually did a google search you'd see what he presents isnt bogus cus these things have been documented for quite sometime. Nice try though
@hmcdaniel1979 "Just because its mainstream doesnt mean anything."
Of course it does. It doesn't mean everything, but it is an appropriate use of ad populum and appeal to authority.
To reject the mainstream view is to just make up your own theory, which is fine, but then you need to let your theory to be critically reviewed by your peers. That's how science works. And I'm sorry but ID aka creationism isn't science.
@hmcdaniel1979 "evidence presented! You guys are good at mockery but not much else"
Is this evidence? How do you know, because you want to believe it?
Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I think he's making some extraordinary claims.
It's not mockery, it's called being skeptical. Do you know what it means to be skeptical? The word skeptic does not mean "doubter". The Greek term skeptikos means "inquirer" or "investigator". Look for more evidence.
@burkerow "Is this evidence? How do you know, because you want to believe it?"
Actually the stuff he presents is well documented as I stated above for quite some time and just cus you prefer not to believe it means nothing to the actual evidence that was there long before this guy ever presented it.
I'm sure if Carl Sagan were around he'd be wondering about where all the evidence is that was supposed to be found to support evolution
No, its mockery, personal attacks arent skepticism
@hmcdaniel1979 "I'm sure if Carl Sagan were around he'd be wondering about where all the evidence is that was supposed to be found to support evolution"
What the hell are you talking about? Sagan was as staunch an evolutionist as they come.
He knows the evidence is there, so why do you make this ridiculous comment?
@burkerow Sagan was a cosmologist and probobly believed in evolution for the same reason you do....because it was taught to him in school and he believed it! Cosmology doesnt give any insight into biological things because it doesnt deal with the biological. Biology if you study it has the most damaging evidence against evolution and I doubt old Carl ever studied much biology and if he did he'd probobly just keep on believing what he believed anyway else he become a pariah in his field of study.
@hmcdaniel1979 “Sagan...probobly believed in evolution for the same reason you do....because it was taught to him in school and he believed it!”
I know you’d like to think this is true, but that’s just you trying to cling to your belief. Sagan, like me, believe in evolution not because it was taught to us in school, but because we understand science and how it works. We also understand that ALL science disciplines corroborate with what we know about evolution, including cosmology.
@hmcdaniel1979 "Actually the stuff he presents is well documented as I stated above for quite some time"
Sir, please reference just one good peer reviewed paper that supports this as actual evidence? You can't, because it's not there. Oh, I forgot, you reject all peer reviewed or "mainstream" science because it doesn't support your biased worldview.
So when you use the words "well documented" what exactly to you mean, from a "creation science" website?
@burkerow Um documentation doesnt have to be supported by a peer reviewed paper. Many things in all fields are documented and just because a paper isnt behind it means nothing. All you need to do in order to document something really is take pictures, samples, and prepare tests if needed and put it in a report. I've documented your ignorance toward evolution, does that mean there has to be a peer reviewed paper to confirm it?
@hmcdaniel1979 "Actually the stuff he presents is well documented as I stated above for quite some time" And as I already showed you, it has been thoroughly debunked.
@hmcdaniel1979 Here's some more things for you to believe.
From the "Weekly World News" headline reads: Help! BIGFOOT BABY IS A HAIRY BRAT! According to the story a Bigfoot offspring cub was found in Yellowstone National Park and was giving its caretakers a rough time.
Another headline: JESUS CRIST RETURNS TO EARTH THIS FALL.
Should we believe these stories?
Maybe you need to stop being so credulous....please.
@burkerow Really? How old are you, 5 years old or something? You bring up the weekly world news (as if I'm going to believe that crap) and set it up as if I and people like me actually believe that paper and make fun of me for it! I've said it once and I'll say it again: you know you've won the argument when your opponent starts with personal attacks cus they cant defend their own view
@hmcdaniel1979 "You bring up the weekly world news (as if I'm going to believe that crap) and set it up as if I and people like me actually believe that paper and make fun of me for it!"
No, you miss the point. I used these examples to show how believing these headlines are ridiculous for a normal rational person because they don't correspond to our normal experience. So,likewise we should have doubts about this guys claims because they're inconsistent with what paleontologist know.
OMFG!!! Ok, I couldn't resist and continued to watch. If you go to 24:00 he talks about the Ica stones from Peru and how they show dinosaurs carved on to them. How fucking dumb is this guy? These stones are carved today, in the present, for tourists and idiotic creation "scientists." These stones are well documented as being a complete hoax. "They have stones featuring every dinosaur that we know of carved on to stones." Really? REALLY? They carved every single one of the hundreds of thousands?
@eyeh8u1 A few of the stones were carved in the 50's in order to keep the farmer that found the real ones from going to jail for robbing tombs. He did not want to go to jail as neither would I or you. This doesn't negate the real ones that have been sent to a lab to be authenticated and have a desert varnish covering the grooves, which would not be there if it was done today. Also, there is not only the ones that are etched but the ones that were raised instead of indented.
@AndyG792 Yes, and his bullshit story has changed many times. Sent to the lab to be authenticated? Is that supposed to be a joke? Every archaeologist, historian, and expert in pre-columbian history that have inspected them have all concluded that they are modern day fakes. The people that carved them admitted to carving them and showed how they did it. The ONLY people who believe these to be real are creationists. Also, there is no desert varnish on any of them, only creationists say that.
@eyeh8u1 and ... only evolutionists say that there is not. Have you seen the stone in person to look at them? Here is a guy that has and I am going to do the same myself soon. creationliberty com /questions/icastones php
@AndyG792 "only evolutionists" There are no such things. Only people who acknowledge the fact of evolution and those that deny it. 'Evolutionist' isn't a proper word.
"Why do they call the movie Jurassic Park? I would have called it Dinosaur Park." These are the three periods most associated with dinosaurs: triassic, jurassic and cretaceous." ....And??? WHATS YOUR FUCKING POINT??? If the jurassic period is one of the periods most associated with dinosaurs, why not call it Jurassic Park? And FYI Mr. Pendelton, the movie is called Jurassic Park because THE BOOK WAS CALLED JURASSIC PARK!!! YOU FUCKING MORON!!! Ugh!! I made it to 4:25 and I can't watch anymore.
How come they never find drawings of dinosaurs on ancient cave walls? No. they are drawings of mammals like buffalo and antelope etc.. The same shit we have today. 10,000 years usually doesn't even rate on the geological time scale of fossils, let alone 2,000 years since Christ. But despite this, you creationist believe Jesus must have rode around on a dinosaur. LOL
@xxCaligula they do find drawings of dinosaurs on cave walls, but evolutionary scientists usually say that they can't figure out what kind of animal was trying to be depicted or that it's an imaginary animal; just like they do with human and dinosaur prints in the same layer. They call the human prints 'eroded dinosaur prints, or alien prints.
@TheisticThinker Haveing a white coat makes one right just as much as having a phd from a university makes one right. We are all humans and have the same short comings of thinking we are all right. But we can all be wrong and the biggest shortcoming of all is human pride; white coat, Phd, or not.
Even humans and dinosaurs lived together it doesn't mean evolution didn't happen, it just means that not all dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago.
Wearing a lab coat does not automatically make you a scienctsit. And if you're a chemist as you claim, then you do not study paleontology, so why are you talking about dinosaurs?
this guy is a idiot , he is misleading on the t-sex i mean t-rex lol and this clam has been debunked already. potholer54 is just one, but back to what he said about finding flesh in trex bones not true , thats flipping around what is truly said in the paper.
@jebac13 Actually he just has a bachelor's degree in chemistry. This is what he says in the introduction video. So he isn't really qualified as a chemist.
Wow Dino footprints next to Human footprints in Texas. Pretty "amazing"......
Query: Assuming Biblical timeline (the earth is approx. 6000 years old) and obviously it stands to reason that the global flood would have occurred pretty close to the expulsion from the garden say several hundred years. How is it that a sizable group of humans could migrate from northern Africa ie the "cradle of civilization" to Texas (26,000km give or take) in the span of say 100-200 years?
@acomack "How is it that a sizable group of humans could migrate from northern Africa ie the "cradle of civilization" to Texas (26,000km give or take) in the span of say 100-200 years? "
Lets then ask how koalas got to Australia, and sloths to Brazil
01:13 "in that clear, crystalline form called amber"... A real chemist would know, that amber is not crystalline but amorphous. Busted you scam! Trying to convince young people with your white coat. Go back to church...
You never state who this creationist is? What organization is he with? What creationist video is this? If you want any credibility you will need to give this information.
This bozo is a creationist... not a chemist.
"I'm not a chemist, but I play one on a YouTube video which makes me an expert."
cdickenson64 1 day ago
Chemist in a labcoat talking about dinosaurs living with humans?
SOUNDS LEGIT.
ScottishStu93 1 week ago
He has a lab coat... seems legit
dragonflux14 2 weeks ago 7
And... what's this guy's proof that a T-rex bone has been found - an actual bone and not a fossil? I can't find reference to it anywhere...
Hogmagandy 2 weeks ago
A chemist talking about dinosaurs and using a fictional movie to prove some point - is it really worth watching this for nearly 30 mins?
Hogmagandy 2 weeks ago
I really enjoy the pause before he attempts a dinosaur name. "That was probably the last PAUSE Ketzakwatlus!"
dorsk188 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm just wondering where "John Pendleton - Chemist" bought his doctor's degree...maybe somewhere in Kansas? Then again, it says nowhere that he even has one..
This man is raping science... :D
misantrophicBastard 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
misantrophicBastard 2 weeks ago
this is hilarious
cmsalvagio 2 weeks ago 7
0:03 was the point i thumbed down.
antoireland09 2 weeks ago
I am a man in a white coat, so I must be telling the truth... pffft
tushara01 2 weeks ago 2
LIES
Victorgramatron 2 weeks ago
100% pure retarded.
Just add idiots, and stir!
M0b1u5 3 weeks ago
The bible is just a fictional book, NOT the truth.
AzxE10 3 weeks ago
You know the main thing I notice among you guys is this:You make fun of the guy but you make personal attacks and you cant seem to point out anything he says thats wrong.The fact of human footprints in cretaceous rock along with dinosaur prints should give you pause among other evidence but instead you mock the guy cus you cant get over the facts he presents! Some of you cant even make it past the 3:00 mark cus you cant stand the evidence presented! You guys are good at mockery but not much else
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "Theres a sucker born every minute..."
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 Thanks for making my point. You have nothing of substance to say and just reply with a personal attack. You know when you've won an argument when the opposing party hurls personal and general attacks against you and NOT against anything you've presented. After all, what can you say against such evidence right in front of your face that destroys your worldview?
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 Amen! there is no refutation in the entire video. No references, just conjecture and personal attack. He even contradicted himself in his own video, or at least poor logic.
AndyG792 3 weeks ago
@AndyG792 Dude do you even know who I was referencing? I was talking about eye8u1 and his attacks on the guy and me as well and that you evolutionists/athiests level attacks on us and not the evidence. By the way, where exactly did he contradict himself? Why poor logic? The man produced evidence that kills evolution and the logic that followed was more like common sense after the fact. Please refute the human tracks in cretacous rock alongside dinosaur prints, this should be good......
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 Excuse me! I was agreeing with you and then added info about the counter video. I just figured out right before you responded back that I commented about the wrong video. I did not mean this guy. I was talking about the guy that put out a video trying to refute this one. The guy that put out the video that refutes this one contradicts himself in his logic. Sorry about the mix-up. I have been on too many vids today as I was off work and spent too much time on line
AndyG792 3 weeks ago
@AndyG792 My apologies
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 The human prints are real human prints. The dinosaur prints are also real. One of the evolutionist scientists claimed that they were eroded dinosaur tracks and later came back and said that they were made by aliens. the next night he was seen with a pipe destroying the foot print; which, pretty much PROVES that he knew they were real human prints. He proved to evolutionists as well as creationists that he knew they were real human prints by destroying the print.
AndyG792 3 weeks ago
@AndyG792 "he knew they were real human prints ..... by destroying the print."
Cool story bro.
1. Can you provide any evidence that this happened, especially the way you described it.
2. One evolutionary biologist being a fraud does not disprove the fact of evolution which can be demonstrated, nor does it prove anything about the theory or other evolutionary scientists.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis I'm glad you asked. 1. Watch this video of Dr. Patton the one that had communicated with Glen Kuban (the perpetrator) /watch?v=dWe3cteDuBc 2. You are right in saying that one person being a fraud does not make the rest fraud. Although, evolution has been fraught with fraud from the time of Darwin to present, I do believe that most are not fraud but rather misinterpretation due to the preconceived belief that evolution took place. Q: Please give one evolution demo
AndyG792 3 weeks ago
@AndyG792 "1. Watch this video of Dr. Patton" As I said this claim has long since been thoroughly debunked, visit paleo (dot) cc/paluxy and educate yourself.
"Although, evolution has been fraught with fraud from the time of Darwin to present" Yet the current theory has never been debunked and evolution itself is still an observable fact.
"due to the preconceived belief that evolution took place.` It isn't a belief, you can observe evolution.
There is other evidence than just fossils.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@AndyG792 "Q: Please give one evolution demo" See talkorigins (dot) org/faqs/faq-speciation
Bacteria are an example that comes to mind, just out of the top of my head.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@AndyG792 Yeah I knew about that too. Its pretty sad the lengths at which the evo's will go to to prove their unscientific theory.
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 Yeah its so sad that those idiot "evos"have even made evolutionary biology a cornerstone of and are now dependent upon it for the study of modern medical science. But they don't fool me! If I ever have to use medicine that was developed with the help of evolutionary biology, I'm going to tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine. As an evo denier, using that medicine would make me the worlds biggest hypocrite. Oh shit its also used for crops.Well,thats ok, I just won't eat.
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 You're as stupid as you are petty. Medical science and even crops arent dependant on evolution because all that is really needed is actual SCIENCE! No person has ever been cured or healed nor a crop grown because the doctor or farmer took into consideration evolution. Farming has been going on long before evolution was thought of and medicine gets better because of science breakthroughs NOT dependant on evolution but things that can actually be tested and seen to work.
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 `Medical science and even crops arent dependant on evolution` They are. They depend on an understanding of evolution.
Bacteria evolve and so become immune to medicine or become airborne, as do plants and other lifeforms evolve to become resistant to extermination via poison.
To combat these changes we need to understand how these lifeforms adapted to those dangers.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis "Bacteria evolve and so become immune to medicine or become airborne"
If you know anything about genetics you should know this: bacteria dont evolve! Bacteria stay bacteria for one thing, secondly some bacteria do mutate but that DETRACTS from their DNA not adds, thirdly when that happens it acts to block medicines but otherwise the bacteria is weak and would not survive due to the fact that MUTATIONS ARE HARMFUL! Things are stonger without mutations not with them.
hmcdaniel1979 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hmcdaniel1979 "If you know anything about genetics you should know this: bacteria dont evolve!" Sorry but this ludicrous statement actually proves your ignorance about evolution.
"Bacteria stay bacteria for one thing" Bacteria isn't a species for one thing.
thomaseshuis 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hmcdaniel1979 "secondly some bacteria do mutate but that DETRACTS from their DNA not adds" Evolution does not claim that everytime a lifeform evolves it adds DNA, again you shows your ignorance on this topic.
Please visit talkorigins (dot) net and educate yourself.
thomaseshuis 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hmcdaniel1979 "thirdly when that happens it acts to block medicines but otherwise the bacteria is weak and would not survive due to the fact that MUTATIONS ARE HARMFUL!"
And yet more proof that you do not have the faintest clue about the theory of evolution.
Mutation are not necessarily harmful.
thomaseshuis 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 This is easily one of the most idiotic responses I have ever seen on YouTube and shows that you do not have even the slightest idea of what your talking about. Seriously, STOP. You are not doing your cause any favors by continuing to post your ignorance. It was funny for awhile. Now its just sad.
eyeh8u1 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "of and medicine gets better because of science breakthroughs NOT dependant on evolution" Really? Tell me what non evolution based breakthroughs are those?
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis Wait a minute....you're the one claiming medicine gets better because of evolution so give me an example. There are many scientists both old and new who make strides in science who are christians/creationists and most of them are founding fathers of a particular science while others add to it later on and none of them believed in evolution to further medicine or any other field of science
hmcdaniel1979 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hmcdaniel1979 "Wait a minute....you're the one claiming medicine gets better because of evolution so give me an example" I already have.
"There are many scientists both old and new who make strides in science who are christians/creationists and most of them are founding fathers of a particular science"
I never claimed there are no Christians scientists. You do know that over 98% of biologists, chemists and other related scientific fields accept evolution as a fact?
thomaseshuis 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hmcdaniel1979 "most of them are founding fathers of a particular science"
Which proves nothing about the validity of Christianity as many of those inventions are based on pagan Greek and Roman knowledge, passed from the Middle East to medieval Europe via the Islamic Caliphates.
Point in case being that a persons religion has little to nothing to do with their inventions.
thomaseshuis 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 My god you're a fucking idiot. I'd explain it to you in detail, but why bother? You're so damn dumb and deluded with that creationist nonsense...oh fuck it. I'm speechless. No, seriously. I just can not believe in this day and age that someone like you still walks around believing in that crap. I feel sorry for you. Sincerely, I do. A mind wasted because it was poisoned by religious indoctrination. So sad...
eyeh8u1 2 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 LOL! Thank you for allowing me to win the argument at least as far as debating you is concerned. You come at me with insults because you have nothing else to come at me with. Its sad when all you can do is attack someone personally because you cannot attack them intellectually. At least the other guys that are debating me I can say are trying which is much more than I can say for you. Get a brain first and then maybe you'll be a challenge.
hmcdaniel1979 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 Debating you is pointless. There is no debate. You might as well be arguing for the existence of tinker bell. Its the same thing. I'm not going to waste my time "debating" with a grown man who can't let go of childish ideas of imaginary beings. Your beliefs aren't worthy of debate, only ridicule and contempt and will continue to be so until the days when we have finally rid ourselves of these barbaric and poxy "religions." Thankfully, we grow closer to that with each passing day.
eyeh8u1 2 weeks ago
@AndyG792 "The human prints are real human prints."
How do you know? How can you be so sure, given that mainstream scientist have looked at these prints and have determined them to be a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosion features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved specimens.
They have effectively debunked these "man tracks" but you still cling to them. Why?
burkerow 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 Sorry about the mixup
AndyG792 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 Thats funny. I posted two comments earlier that do in fact completely debunk two of this idiots arguments. But you seem to ignore those which is par for the course when it comes to creationists like yourself. This video does nothing but preach to the choir and serves only to reinforce your own delusions of creationism. Meanwhile, the rest of us who choose to acknowledge reality will continue to point, laugh and insult you as you seem content with being purposely deceived.
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 Your kidding right? The only post I saw where you even say anything related to the video is about the Ica Stones. All the others are just personal attacks and though I'm sure they make replicas for tourists what do you think they are replicating genius? They are replicating.....THE ACTUAL ICA STONES THAT ARE REAL!
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "After all, what can you say against such evidence right in front of your face that destroys your worldview?"
Again, it's not evidence no matter what you think. You accept it as evidence because you want it to be. Do you know the history of the "unfossilized" dinosaur bones and blood? Compare this guys story to what mainstream paleontologist say and give me a good reason why you will discard the mainstream view and accept this guy's if not because he supports your belief.
burkerow 3 weeks ago
@burkerow Actually it is evidence. The human prints along with dinosaur prints in cretaceous rock didnt just make themselves. The Ica stones didnt etch dinos with humans by themselves either and the dino bones and blood cannot be explained short of them dying in the not to distant past. Did you know those arent the only dino bones found with blood in them? By the way "mainstream palientology" is biased toward evolution so what findings they produce will go with what they believe not with science
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "The human prints along with dinosaur prints in cretaceous rock didnt just make themselves"
They're not human prints, this has been debated and settled as smaller dinosaur prints long ago within the science community. The fact that you can't accept what the scientific community says is just you needing to remain in denial.
I'm glad you brought the word bias into this discussion. What are your biases, or do you deny you have them?
burkerow 3 weeks ago
@burkerow The human prints were debated and of course the evo's thought that some were other than human but its hard to argue that when they look nothing like dino prints and its documented with pics and casts to be human prints so much so that some were smashed to avoid that discovery. I wonder what they were afraid of?Of course I'm biased and so are you,I would have thought that would have been obvious by now,but my bias is with science and not made up fables convincing folks we came from apes
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "The human prints were debated and of course the evo's thought that some were other than human but its hard to argue" It isn't when some of them were hoaxes, other's the result of erosion and the rest weren't human. Again, visit the site I send you and educate yourself.
"so much so that some were smashed to avoid that discovery`` Credible source for this please.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hmcdaniel1979 `Of course I'm biased and so are you` You´re not just biased, your wilfully ignorant about the topics you attack.
`convincing folks we came from apes` We are apes. Just like we are still animals, mammals, vertebrae and many other classifications.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 1 "Of course I'm biased and so are you"
We all are biased Daniel, but it's helpful for us to be aware of our biases. I think now would be a good time to explain my bias.
My bias:
I was born and raised in a conservative Christian home. When I was a child my grandparents told me that dinosaur bones were "planted" as a hoax.
I became interested in astronomy when my parents gave me a telescope for Christmas one year and I was hooked on science since then.
cont.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 2 My bias
During my 20s I taught Sunday School in a Quaker church but I still had a voracious appetite for some branch of science. For a year I worked in a mine and thought I would be a mining engineer, so I studied geology. I was having doubts about my faith for various reasons, science only being one of them, internal problems with religion were another so I began to study philosophy so I could understand what we as human can discern as truth. Enter Socrates and David Hume.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 3 Bias
I eventually got my Masters degree in biology from Connecticut Sate University, but because I have a deep need for altruism my career path took me into healthcare. I do anesthesiology.
In medical science we have what we call "Evidence Based Medicine".
So you see I have "faith" in science. It is what keeps you alive when I put you to under anesthesia. And the scientific method works. That's my bias.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "mainstream palientology" is biased toward evolution so what findings they produce will go with what they believe not with science"
I wonder if you have any concept of what science is or what logic is? Your comment above shows internal inconsistency.
Of course paleontology is biased toward evolution, they are branches of the same discipline. That's like saying medicine is biased toward biology or physiology. Your comment makes me go "WYF"?
And BTW, they're all science.
burkerow 3 weeks ago
@burkerow I have no beef with science but when you add fables in with science to suit your agenda thats when I have a problem. Palientology assumes a lot, for example the dates at which they arrive at for things they find in rock are dated by the rock, but when you ask them how they know the age of the rock they say they know by what fossils are found in them! Its circular reasoning! The geologic column is also made up because it exists nowhere in the world....except textbooks of course...
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "Palientology assumes a lot" No they don't.
"for example the dates at which they arrive at for things they find in rock are dated by the rock" False, the bones themselves are dated as well.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "but when you ask them how they know the age of the rock they say they know by what fossils are found in them!" Also utter nonsense, they know because they can measure and determine how old that layer of ground is.
Comments like these show that you haven't the faintest clue about palaeontology.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis Nice to see you again Thomas. Good luck.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@burkerow Indeed, long time no see. Good luck to you as well.
thomaseshuis 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hmcdaniel1979 "The geologic column is also made up because it exists nowhere in the world....except textbooks of course" Again, this is a straw-man argument.
The geology column and evolutionary tree are simplifications, to express how the different strata are related.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "Actually it is evidence. The human prints along with dinosaur prints in cretaceous rock didnt just make themselves." Clinging to debunked evidence is rather pathetic.
"The Ica stones didnt etch dinos with humans by themselves either" You mean those reptiles that vaguely look like dinosaurs?
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis Where is the evidence of this being "debunked", or abandoned by creationists?
TheIntangibleSoul 3 weeks ago
@TheIntangibleSoul Visit paleo (dot) cc/paluxy
or google Paluxy food prints debunked.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis Reptiles that "vaguely" look like dinosaurs...I know I came into this discussion late...but, I don't think any modern man has seen a "dinosaur"...let alone one that "vaguely" looks like a dinosaur...
TheIntangibleSoul 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheIntangibleSoul "Reptiles that "vaguely" look like dinosaurs...I know I came into this discussion late...but, I don't think any modern man has seen a "dinosaur"...let alone one that "vaguely" looks like a dinosaur..." The point is that none of those images are picture perfect dinosaurs. They are animals that look like dinosaurs.
Do pictures of pegasi and manticores prove that those creatures existed?
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis Its actually not debunked at all, they have pics and casts of them from when they were first found all the way up to present day. You can actually still see them if you care to travel to the Paluxy river.
The reptiles dont vaguely resemble dinos unless of course your blind either visually or mentally. You see a whole range of them on one stone and on others they have people riding them! Others depict battles with them! You're just blind...mentally that is...
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hmcdaniel1979 "Its actually not debunked at all, they have pics and casts of them from when they were first found all the way up to present day. You can actually still see them if you care to travel to the Paluxy river." You clearly haven't visited the site or otherwise checked the evidence. Your wilful ignorance does not change the fact that those claims have been debunked.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "The reptiles dont vaguely resemble dinos unless of course your blind either visually or mentally. You see a whole range of them on one stone and on others they have people riding them! Others depict battles with them!"
So I guess unicorns, dragons, manticores and all other manner of mythical creatures also existed. Again just because something looks like a dinosaur, does not mean they actually existed at that time.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "You're just blind...mentally that is..." You're really talking to the mirror here.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 A common YEC misinterpretation of surviving organic material in dinosaur bone is that this "proves" that the Earth is young and radiometric dating methods should be rejected. Their argument reduces to nothing more than organic molecules can't last a long while. The most commonly cited materials are fragments of the bone protein osteocalcin, Muyzer (1992), and hemoglobin, Schweitzer et al (1997).
I would like to know, by what criteria do you reject real science in favor of YEC?
burkerow 3 weeks ago
@burkerow Many creationists I know have a hard time figuring out how the blood and bone survived even after the flood to now and evo's have no idea how it could've happened after millions of years, but anyway you slice it it comes down to the fact that that dino (among others that were found with blood and bone) died in the recent past not millions of years ago. No dating method is going to skirt around that.
I dont reject real science, I accept it which is why I dont believe in evolution
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 For years claims were made by YEC that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, in Texas. If true, the finding would contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned by most creationists.
burkerow 3 weeks ago
@burkerow And what about all the other tracks of which there are many?
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosion features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved specimens. A few individuals continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in pre-Tertiary rocks from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups.
burkerow 3 weeks ago
@burkerow Uh didnt we already go through this? See the comment above.
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 So, Daniel, if that's your name, I can't say with certainty which story, is most true, the creationist version or the mainstream science version. You are very certain however, which version is the more accurate reality. My question to you, is why? You have a bias, I hope you'll agree, that makes you choose YEC "evidence" over mainstream science "evidence". Why is YEC evidence more believable to you?
More importantly, what can any of us really know for sure?
burkerow 3 weeks ago
@burkerow I believe what I believe because science is something that can be proven through experiment not through ideology. Evolution is fraught with scandal and fraud because people would rather believe it and make other believe it than actual science. Examples of fraud to name a few are: Piltdown man, the geologic column, Ernst Haekel and his embryonic drawings of which he was prosecuted for, horse ancestry, etc.
We can really know by using actual science and applying common sense
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 “Piltdown man”
This “fraud” took place 100 years ago and was perpetrated by a man trying to make a name for himself. He, unfortunately duped much of the scientific community into thinking it was “the missing link”.
As early as 1913 however, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull. Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 2 PiltdownIn cont.
1923 Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they were of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was.
The validity of the specimen has always been questioned. In the 1940s, more advanced dating technologies, such as the fluorine absorption test, scientifically proved that this skull was actually a fraud.
cont.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hmcdaniel1979 2 PiltdownIn cont.
1923 Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they were of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was.
The validity of the specimen has always been questioned. In the 1940s, more advanced dating technologies, such as the fluorine absorption test, scientifically proved that this skull was actually a fraud.
cont.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 3 Piltdown cont
The hoax is often cited (along with Nebraska Man) by creationists as an example of the dishonesty or credulity of biologists that study human evolution, despite the fact that evolutionary biologists had exposed the hoax themselves.
This, Daniel is how science works, it corrects itself through peer review.
cont.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 4 Piltdown It is unfortunate that a few people try to perpetrate frauds for their own gain, but for you to bring this up as if the entire scientific community willingly attempted a conspiracy, and in so doing attempt to refute all of evolution science, is nothing but a strawman argument and you should be ashamed of yourself. You’re going to have to better than this.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 Haeckel
While it has been widely claimed that Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, there does not appear to be an independently verifiable source for this claim. Recent analyses (Richardson 1998, Richardson and Keuck 2002) have found that some of the criticisms of Haeckel's embryo drawings were legitimate, but others were unfounded.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 Haeckel 2
There were multiple versions of the embryo drawings, and Haeckel rejected the claims of fraud. It was later said that "there is evidence of sleight of hand" on both sides of the feud between Haeckel and Wilhelm. Robert J. Richards, in a paper published in 2008, defends the case for Haeckel, shedding doubt against the fraud accusations with base on the material used for comparison and what Haeckel could access at the time.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 Haeckel 3
Again Daniel, a strawman argument. Haeckel’s detractors and criticisms came from within the scientific community. Remember peer review? In the end it did not change what we knew about evolution.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 The British medical journal, published results of its investigation, concluded Dr. Andrew Wakefield misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study -- and there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible.
Fraud takes place everywhere, but while this scientist’s work is now tainted, it does not invalidate all medical science. Science is good at policing itself through peer review and peer review is harsh.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 Geologic column
Many creationists are unaware of the fact that John Woodmorappe is really Jan Peczkis, a high school teacher from Chicago, Illinois. Peczkis has authored old earth evolutionary articles under his real name while claiming to be a young earther under his pseudonym. John Woodmorappe (aka Jan Peczkis) has challenged the idea that the Geologic column is real. Creationists create a strawman image of the geologic column and then attack the notion without mercy.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 1
The following is from “The Institute For Creation Research”
At least one theory of cosmology has been proposed which would compensate for this large amount of heat and possibly even result in net volumetric cooling in places. Such theories seem to ultimately to depend upon supernatural intervention at the time of Creation, Fall, and the Flood. God's intervention is explicitly stated in Scripture (II Peter 3:5,6 and implied elsewhere).
cont.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 2 Creation Research
Although these theories have not been explored at this time, they could result in an alternative explanation to processes in the earth and cosmos. The group is strongly committed to exploring various ways in which data for large quantities of radioactive decay can be explained within a young-earth time frame. In this effort, the group is committed to a literal interpretation of the Bible which honors God as Creator and Sustainer of this world."
cont.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 3 Creation Research
The last sentence in the #2 post exposes your belief system to what it really is; Religion, and not science.
So Daniel, please do not talk to me about science. You do not have a clue about science or how it works.
I do not have the "human footprint" casts in my hands. I've never seen them personally and I doubt you have. As I said before, these are extraordinary claims and I need extraordinary evidence to believe them. I'll stick with my bias...science.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 If the geologic column is flawed, then one might wonder why oil companies and mineral exploration companies feature it so prominently in their exploration research. One test of scientific validity is to examine how utilitarian the science is. Companies who stake their livelihood on the science of geology would certainly abandon the notion of Geologic correlation were it so useless as Woodmorappe/Peczkis believes.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "Examples of fraud"
If you want to talk about fraud, we need look no further than your own religion. We can start with the "Shroud of Turin". Did "the Church" police itself and expose this as a fraud? No! The Church protected and hence perpetrated this hoax for 700 years by protecting the Shroud from critical inquiry. If was in fact scientist who exposed the Shroud for the hoax that it is, yet many Christians still try to claim the Shroud is genuine.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 The Christian religion is full of frauds, fakes and charlatans. Would it be fair of me to stand up the Shroud of Turin as a strawman so I can use it to repudiate all of Christian belief or as an argument for the nonexistence of God? NO! That would be a logical fallacy. So please don't look for mistakes or frauds within evolution science to make arguments against the validity of the science. If you do that I will bury you in a shitload of fakery from your own religion.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "you cant get over the facts he presents"
And how do you know for sure he's presenting facts?
I have never heard of this claim in "mainstream" science, so I did a quick google search to see for myself whether or not these claims have any merit. My conclusion is that this is bogus. Do your own search, but avoid "creation" sites that promote this garbage. It's junk science.
Can any of us know for certain what is true? Maybe not, so I'll stick with good science opinion.
burkerow 3 weeks ago
@burkerow Uh see my comments above for what I think of "mainstream" science. Just because its mainstream doesnt mean anything. Mainstream is just another way people have of saying they think they are legit in their findings while putting down another view they view as unappealing to their view. It means nothing if its not backed by actual science. If you actually did a google search you'd see what he presents isnt bogus cus these things have been documented for quite sometime. Nice try though
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hmcdaniel1979 "Just because its mainstream doesnt mean anything."
Of course it does. It doesn't mean everything, but it is an appropriate use of ad populum and appeal to authority.
To reject the mainstream view is to just make up your own theory, which is fine, but then you need to let your theory to be critically reviewed by your peers. That's how science works. And I'm sorry but ID aka creationism isn't science.
burkerow 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "evidence presented! You guys are good at mockery but not much else"
Is this evidence? How do you know, because you want to believe it?
Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I think he's making some extraordinary claims.
It's not mockery, it's called being skeptical. Do you know what it means to be skeptical? The word skeptic does not mean "doubter". The Greek term skeptikos means "inquirer" or "investigator". Look for more evidence.
burkerow 3 weeks ago
@burkerow "Is this evidence? How do you know, because you want to believe it?"
Actually the stuff he presents is well documented as I stated above for quite some time and just cus you prefer not to believe it means nothing to the actual evidence that was there long before this guy ever presented it.
I'm sure if Carl Sagan were around he'd be wondering about where all the evidence is that was supposed to be found to support evolution
No, its mockery, personal attacks arent skepticism
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "I'm sure if Carl Sagan were around he'd be wondering about where all the evidence is that was supposed to be found to support evolution"
What the hell are you talking about? Sagan was as staunch an evolutionist as they come.
He knows the evidence is there, so why do you make this ridiculous comment?
burkerow 3 weeks ago
@burkerow Sagan was a cosmologist and probobly believed in evolution for the same reason you do....because it was taught to him in school and he believed it! Cosmology doesnt give any insight into biological things because it doesnt deal with the biological. Biology if you study it has the most damaging evidence against evolution and I doubt old Carl ever studied much biology and if he did he'd probobly just keep on believing what he believed anyway else he become a pariah in his field of study.
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 “Sagan...probobly believed in evolution for the same reason you do....because it was taught to him in school and he believed it!”
I know you’d like to think this is true, but that’s just you trying to cling to your belief. Sagan, like me, believe in evolution not because it was taught to us in school, but because we understand science and how it works. We also understand that ALL science disciplines corroborate with what we know about evolution, including cosmology.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 “Biology if you study it has the most damaging evidence against evolution”
Oh really? Have you ever studied biology? Your comment above gives the most damaging evidence against you knowing what you’re talking about.
I'm sure by now you've read my bio. so you know I have a graduate degree in biology.
burkerow 2 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "Actually the stuff he presents is well documented as I stated above for quite some time"
Sir, please reference just one good peer reviewed paper that supports this as actual evidence? You can't, because it's not there. Oh, I forgot, you reject all peer reviewed or "mainstream" science because it doesn't support your biased worldview.
So when you use the words "well documented" what exactly to you mean, from a "creation science" website?
burkerow 3 weeks ago
@burkerow Um documentation doesnt have to be supported by a peer reviewed paper. Many things in all fields are documented and just because a paper isnt behind it means nothing. All you need to do in order to document something really is take pictures, samples, and prepare tests if needed and put it in a report. I've documented your ignorance toward evolution, does that mean there has to be a peer reviewed paper to confirm it?
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "its mockery, personal attacks arent skepticism"
Again....support your comment. Where are my personal attacks?
burkerow 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "Actually the stuff he presents is well documented as I stated above for quite some time" And as I already showed you, it has been thoroughly debunked.
Have you even visited the sites I send you?
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 Here's some more things for you to believe.
From the "Weekly World News" headline reads: Help! BIGFOOT BABY IS A HAIRY BRAT! According to the story a Bigfoot offspring cub was found in Yellowstone National Park and was giving its caretakers a rough time.
Another headline: JESUS CRIST RETURNS TO EARTH THIS FALL.
Should we believe these stories?
Maybe you need to stop being so credulous....please.
burkerow 3 weeks ago
@burkerow Really? How old are you, 5 years old or something? You bring up the weekly world news (as if I'm going to believe that crap) and set it up as if I and people like me actually believe that paper and make fun of me for it! I've said it once and I'll say it again: you know you've won the argument when your opponent starts with personal attacks cus they cant defend their own view
hmcdaniel1979 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hmcdaniel1979 "you know you've won the argument when your opponent starts with personal attacks cus they cant defend their own view"
Uh? Show me where I used a personal attack?
"How old are you, 5 years old or something?"
Is this not a personal attack from you?
burkerow 3 weeks ago
@hmcdaniel1979 "You bring up the weekly world news (as if I'm going to believe that crap) and set it up as if I and people like me actually believe that paper and make fun of me for it!"
No, you miss the point. I used these examples to show how believing these headlines are ridiculous for a normal rational person because they don't correspond to our normal experience. So,likewise we should have doubts about this guys claims because they're inconsistent with what paleontologist know.
burkerow 3 weeks ago
The fact that this imbecile walks freely among society is mind boggling. O.o
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
OMFG!!! Ok, I couldn't resist and continued to watch. If you go to 24:00 he talks about the Ica stones from Peru and how they show dinosaurs carved on to them. How fucking dumb is this guy? These stones are carved today, in the present, for tourists and idiotic creation "scientists." These stones are well documented as being a complete hoax. "They have stones featuring every dinosaur that we know of carved on to stones." Really? REALLY? They carved every single one of the hundreds of thousands?
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 A few of the stones were carved in the 50's in order to keep the farmer that found the real ones from going to jail for robbing tombs. He did not want to go to jail as neither would I or you. This doesn't negate the real ones that have been sent to a lab to be authenticated and have a desert varnish covering the grooves, which would not be there if it was done today. Also, there is not only the ones that are etched but the ones that were raised instead of indented.
AndyG792 3 weeks ago
@AndyG792 Yes, and his bullshit story has changed many times. Sent to the lab to be authenticated? Is that supposed to be a joke? Every archaeologist, historian, and expert in pre-columbian history that have inspected them have all concluded that they are modern day fakes. The people that carved them admitted to carving them and showed how they did it. The ONLY people who believe these to be real are creationists. Also, there is no desert varnish on any of them, only creationists say that.
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1 and ... only evolutionists say that there is not. Have you seen the stone in person to look at them? Here is a guy that has and I am going to do the same myself soon. creationliberty com /questions/icastones php
AndyG792 3 weeks ago
@AndyG792 "only evolutionists" There are no such things. Only people who acknowledge the fact of evolution and those that deny it. 'Evolutionist' isn't a proper word.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@eyeh8u1How many people were involved in carved them?
AndyG792 3 weeks ago
"Why do they call the movie Jurassic Park? I would have called it Dinosaur Park." These are the three periods most associated with dinosaurs: triassic, jurassic and cretaceous." ....And??? WHATS YOUR FUCKING POINT??? If the jurassic period is one of the periods most associated with dinosaurs, why not call it Jurassic Park? And FYI Mr. Pendelton, the movie is called Jurassic Park because THE BOOK WAS CALLED JURASSIC PARK!!! YOU FUCKING MORON!!! Ugh!! I made it to 4:25 and I can't watch anymore.
eyeh8u1 3 weeks ago
And that folks is why religion needs to become extinct.
TheJDorian 3 weeks ago 2
Oh god...the stupid...it buuuuurns. Make it stoop. Make it stoooooooppp!
oh...pause button <3
juuonse 3 weeks ago
>.< I can't make it past 2:50...
ShannonVBarnett 3 weeks ago
@ShannonVBarnett I made it 1:50 before the stupid overwhelmed me.
darkling9109 3 weeks ago
@darkling9109 My hats off to you, friend. I wouldn't wish that on anyone..
ShannonVBarnett 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How come they never find drawings of dinosaurs on ancient cave walls? No. they are drawings of mammals like buffalo and antelope etc.. The same shit we have today. 10,000 years usually doesn't even rate on the geological time scale of fossils, let alone 2,000 years since Christ. But despite this, you creationist believe Jesus must have rode around on a dinosaur. LOL
xxCaligula 3 weeks ago
@xxCaligula they do find drawings of dinosaurs on cave walls, but evolutionary scientists usually say that they can't figure out what kind of animal was trying to be depicted or that it's an imaginary animal; just like they do with human and dinosaur prints in the same layer. They call the human prints 'eroded dinosaur prints, or alien prints.
AndyG792 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
xxCaligula 3 weeks ago
Having a white coat makes you right, doesn't it?
...
TheisticThinker 3 weeks ago
@TheisticThinker Haveing a white coat makes one right just as much as having a phd from a university makes one right. We are all humans and have the same short comings of thinking we are all right. But we can all be wrong and the biggest shortcoming of all is human pride; white coat, Phd, or not.
AndyG792 3 weeks ago
Even humans and dinosaurs lived together it doesn't mean evolution didn't happen, it just means that not all dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago.
videofonico 4 weeks ago 2
@videofonico ... and ... it doesn't mean it did happen either.
AndyG792 3 weeks ago
@AndyG792 And what could be the explanation then?, that all animals, plants, microorganisms etc, just poped up into existence with their actual form?
videofonico 3 weeks ago
@videofonico Yes, all dinosaurs went extinct about 63 mya, unless you count crocodiles and other similar animals living dinosaurs.
burkerow 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wearing a lab coat does not automatically make you a scienctsit. And if you're a chemist as you claim, then you do not study paleontology, so why are you talking about dinosaurs?
XxI3ioHazardxX 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
XxI3ioHazardxX 4 weeks ago
This is actually quite scary. I mean, if this guy isn't just making some big joke.
nanarockband 1 month ago
this is a joke right? who in there right mind
lwvok 1 month ago
@lwvok well this guy is a lot more brilliant than "scientists" for "9/11 Truth"
The real joke is the "evidence" for an inside job, and suspending critical thinking.
ChristianPhysicist 1 month ago
You can trust him.
He's wearing a lab coat....
BabySeals84 1 month ago
Shame on people for making fun of him. He's speaking what he believes in.
GriiiiiiinD 1 month ago
@GriiiiiiinD "Shame on people for making fun of him. He's speaking what he believes in."
So if I told you I beleive I own a time machne and have captured a dinosaur that would be ok ??
podoau 1 month ago
@GriiiiiiinD People shouldn't make fun of him, after all, this guy is a lot more brilliant than the "scientists" for "9/11 truth"
ChristianPhysicist 1 month ago
This guys is obviously a lot smarter than "scientists" for "9/11 Truth"
ChristianPhysicist 1 month ago
2:20 The most scientific diagram ever!
thesilentskeptic 1 month ago
hes drugged or hes reading of the camera output or something look at his eyes there focused on something
TheSelfIndulgence 1 month ago
this guy is a idiot , he is misleading on the t-sex i mean t-rex lol and this clam has been debunked already. potholer54 is just one, but back to what he said about finding flesh in trex bones not true , thats flipping around what is truly said in the paper.
William81Edge10 1 month ago
@William81Edge10 This guy is Einstein compared to the "scientists" for "9/11 truth"
ChristianPhysicist 1 month ago
@ChristianPhysicist He is still an idiot.
Boxanadu 1 month ago
Check out his CV online. Automotive technician for 10 years. We should reject what Hawkins and Dawkins say in favour of this fella I reckon.
jgsouter 1 month ago
Is this a Chevy Chase production?
jgsouter 1 month ago
Sir, you are really dumb.
frstbse1 1 month ago
I'm hoping people are giving this a thumbs up for its entertainment value and not its scientific accuracy.
atdd22 1 month ago 4
good thing not alll scientist are atheist, stay strong God will bless you
albusai 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@albusai "good thing not alll scientist are atheist, stay strong God will bless you"
You can provide testable evidence that this god exists ???
podoau 1 month ago
Where in the Bible does it say,that ?
rodthogod 1 month ago
Poor guy, he is a chemist. Maybe he even has a Ph.D. this is a sad, sad example of an intelligence ruined by religion...
jebac13 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@jebac13 Actually he just has a bachelor's degree in chemistry. This is what he says in the introduction video. So he isn't really qualified as a chemist.
DeepGrey1A 1 month ago
I love standup comedy!
torchss 1 month ago
Facepalm*
Ozzy2817 1 month ago 17
Wow Dino footprints next to Human footprints in Texas. Pretty "amazing"......
Query: Assuming Biblical timeline (the earth is approx. 6000 years old) and obviously it stands to reason that the global flood would have occurred pretty close to the expulsion from the garden say several hundred years. How is it that a sizable group of humans could migrate from northern Africa ie the "cradle of civilization" to Texas (26,000km give or take) in the span of say 100-200 years?
acomack 1 month ago
@acomack "How is it that a sizable group of humans could migrate from northern Africa ie the "cradle of civilization" to Texas (26,000km give or take) in the span of say 100-200 years? "
Lets then ask how koalas got to Australia, and sloths to Brazil
podoau 1 month ago
@acomack The earth is 4.6 billion years old. So, I don't know if that effects your question but its not 6000 years old.
pussylumpessru 1 month ago
01:13 "in that clear, crystalline form called amber"... A real chemist would know, that amber is not crystalline but amorphous. Busted you scam! Trying to convince young people with your white coat. Go back to church...
tfelbo 1 month ago
Ever seen those shopping channels where the token "scientist" wears a white coat?
This fellow wouldn't even be accepted to an alchemist's weekend, never mind a chemistry degree. Unless it was a quack university.
nakedmambo 1 month ago
sad
mrcollet 1 month ago 14
You never state who this creationist is? What organization is he with? What creationist video is this? If you want any credibility you will need to give this information.
mortsey 1 month ago