A bullet was found lodged in a fossil both carbon/potassium-argon dated depth in sedimentary deposits etc. 60 mill years ago as well as a woven (made into a thread, not found as a deposit or vein) strand of gold dated 90 mill years.We're a lot older then we're told by those in charge of religion history & government. All controlled by the same people as far back as Sumer.
@KyleAnstey we already have, but the problem is when your 12 foot you heart has a much harder time pumping blood round your body, it is more practical to be smaller because it mean less stress on all of your body, if your 12 foot your very heavy so your legs and feet and back muscles will wear out faster over time all of your bones are more brittle because of increased weight and because they are longer there is more pivitol force on the center of the bones so its easy for them to break
I like how ART AND IMAGINATION is used in science to FILL IN THE GAPS science can't.
To quote a song;
"It was just my imagination,
RUNIN' AWAY WITH ME"...
I could be scientist too, but I read more than a couple paragraphs in more than a couple fields, and by more than a couple view points.
If I see 10 bushels of apples, I don't count just the red ones of the top layer in 2 bushels, I also count the green ones and I count the entire 10 bushels down to the very last apples in each basket.
Is that why some people have DRAFT HORSES and MULES, and others have Shetland ponies and Donkeys?
Why is it that something just being petrified is enough for you folks to say its thousands of years old? After all we do have reproducible proof fossilization begins in just weeks under the proper NATURAL conditions present in thousands of places around the world.
Also, mummification and fossilization can and does occur everywhere, in only a few years span, not eons.
@IVpoleBiker Half science won't work. You need to understand the rigors that scientists insist on for estimating the age of specific fossils; multiple types of tests (like K-Ar, Radiocarbon, Geologic Columns, tree-rings) are first used. Then, correlations and statistical analysis techniques are employed to get confidence levels to acceptable levels. If the data is too weak, no paper will be presented for critical assessment. Review is deliberately brutal. That's real science.
@IVpoleBiker You are under creationist missinformation that fossils MUST take many thousands of years .Science doesnt say that at all . Mineralisation can occur in the animals own lifetime (shed exoskelotons of crabs can begin to be replaced in the animals own lifetime . Mineralization of modern life does not qualify as a fossil (dont call it a fossil ) because its not PREHISTORIC its just mineralized.
@IVpoleBiker But these bones are found in rock deposits that carbon date to millions of years old so your theory doesn't really stack up now does it?!!
i wouldid be suprised that its related to gravity. less gravaty would explaine why they grow so much....food is also related but it comes after...because food itself has never been realted to giantisim.
i wouldid be suprised that its related to gravity. less gravaty would explaine why they grow so much....found is also realted but comes after...because food itself is not cause of giantisim.
@Vasana4 It is assumed that 99.9% of all species are extinct. Not because we have found those fossils but because Macro Evolution requires that many missing fossils. And yet upwards of 70-90% of current living animals are represented in the fossil record! Thus we have EMPIRICAL evidence the fossil record is not 99.9% incomplete based on animals we know exist! Thus we know those needed missing animals never existed. And that's just one glaring problem.
@imikewillrockyou Hmmm.. How do you define how "currently living animals" are represented? By immediate ancestors? By anatomical features? Either way, fossil species related to living species are going to be heavily represented in the record - quite aside from the fact that these fossils are more recent and more abundant - because most fossils WILL BE related to living species. Even evolutionary dead ends will share anatomical features with living species - as well as common ancestors.
@Vasana4 Exactly why are living species so heavily represented? While 99.9% of the fossils needed to support macro ev go missing? How does the fossil record know? This is empirical, we know these numbers are real. To ignore this is like believing fairies dance in the woods but only when nobody is looking.
Now follow the connection from your existing species to the fossils. You will find, of course, that they are either directly descended or share a common ancestor. i.e. they are "100% represented" by the 1% of discovered fossils. And, again, since most of the fossils we have discovered are from more recent epochs, the connections are that much more noticeable.
Would you like to continue with your next "glaring problem"?
@Vasana4 Recent epochs? That's how you explain this problem? It just doesn't matter the epoch, the same thing happens, modern animals virtually unchanged. For example we have 400 million year old horseshoe crabs that are still with us today. Cockroaches 350 mil the same; Salamanders 150 mil the same; Coelacanth 400 mil the same, Dragonfly 200 plus mil the same; etc etc etc.. The obvious and logical conclusion is evolution (macro) never happened it's a modern fairytale.
@imikewillrockyou Oh dear.... Look, of course not everything evolves, that's well known. But during periods when selection pressures are brought to bare and opportunities to speciate arise, species diversify rapidly - the fossil record is full of this. Bottom line - as you dig deeper into the ground, you find more extinct species and increasingly more simple organisms. And there is only one obvious and logical conclusion to THAT to anyone who hasn't been told as a child that a big...
@Vasana4 Actually if you dig deeper you arrive at the Cambrian Explosion where the major phyla all appeared at once without any trace of having evolved. As if they were just dumped here on earth. That's what the fossil record really shows. Sudden appearance, existing in stasis and no pattern of evolution anywhere.
@imikewillrockyou And that my friend, is because the Cambrian Explosion is when hard body parts first show up. Prior to that very little had the opportunity to be fossillized. The very few areas that did allow for fossilization of these earlier species (normally broken off bits of continental shelf that fell into the deep ocean) show just as much diversity and, in fact, some very wierd soft bodied species indeed - whole new phyla in fact.
@Vasana4 Sure we all kinds of soft bodied fossils from before the Cambrian as you point out. Clearly soft body species fossilize. And guess what? And there is no trace of anything leading up to this vast amount of hard body animals we see in the Cambrian. Have you read any book on this subject I wonder? Or is your entire belief in this theory based on faith alone?
Sure, and I could clearly spontaneously fart the opening stanza of Beethoven's fifth, but it's not very likely.
Small geographical areas like the Burgess Shale have yielded soft bodied fossils indicating an enormous degree of diversity prior to the Cambrian explosion (let's not forget, this “explosion”, which you're desperate to paint as a snap of god's fingers, actually lasted for 50 million years) and it's insane to think that such...
@imikewillrockyou animals ONLY lived in the areas in which they were discovered. The fact remains that these are gold dust to scientists because they are so incredibly rare. Even hard bodied animals rarely fossilize, soft bodies fossilize so rarely that scientists estimate that such marine animals – that can never be discovered – make up a third of your 99.9% right off the bat. And, while we're on the subject. Your previous allusion to species that had been around for hundreds of millions...
@imikewillrockyou of years is a misrepresentation. The average existence for a species in the fossil record is 2 million years. The species you've cherry picked (and, yes, there are many more) are thus at an extreme of the distribution – the far right of the bell-curve. For someone who professes to be so hot on statistics that's a shameless distortion. But, hey, if you're going to have standards why not make them double ones huh?
Really? I had no idea I was in the presence of an expert. I have only formally studied the subject at undergraduate level so cannot possibly profess to know the subject “inside and out”. You must be consulted on a daily basis by experts in the field!
Or do you mean, as I suspect, that you know the creationist arguments against evolution inside and out? If that's the case, you should probably read this...
@imikewillrockyou It's the transcript of Dr. Padians examination and cross examination, with diagrams, in a court of law, on “Of Pandas and People”. It show's the whole intelligent design argument for exactly what it is - lies, distortion and anti-science from start to finish. I imagine you won't bother given that this is more than just a 10 minute youtube clip by a creationist biased production company (yes, I did look at your clips out of courtesy, then I looked at the makers funding...).
If you do bother it's probably worth also looking at Dr. Millers evidence. He's a regular church going scientist who has written books on marrying evolution and theology – perhaps you're belief system would fair better reading these rather than rubbishing a theory that has survived 150 years of peer review.
@Vasana4 - mikey is spouting this shit all over YT. He is playing scientist, but he hasn't a clue. Most of his arguments are cut & pasted from AiG. He really doesn't even know what empirical evidence or peer review entails.
When you get the upper hand, he'll cry conspiracy.
@CamW30 The irony is that, if we were invaded by some totalitarian loonies, I would fight for his right to believe whatever nonsense he wants. I don't CARE what he believes. What bothers me is when they come goose stepping into my world and telling me I'm wrong about something I know better than they do. That's just rude.
Has he trotted out the 500 evangelical Phds (a fraction of 1%, mark you) that signed a piece of paper saying they didn't like evolution (I'm willing to bet not ONE of whom..
@CamW30 "I really don't think that they understand the extent to which evolutionary theory has been confirmed"
Precisely. Bad scientific theories don't survive 150 years. Evolutionary theory is a contemporary of relativity and electro-magnetism. It is beautiful and elegant and has been corroborated and reinforced by countless discoveries. The ONLY reason it comes under so much fire is because it contradicts the Bible. Period!
@CamW30 has published a paper refuting evolutionary theory), and claimed this somehow rocks the "scientific concensus".
It wouldn't be so bad if they could accept reasoned argument or tried to educate themselves on the theory itself, rather than just seeking out material that appears to bolster their position. But their indoctrination can't allow it. If you present something that challenges their view they employ this monumental Orwellian doublethink and just don't register it.
@Vasana4 Those numbers came from "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael Denton. The logic is basically this. Often cited is that 99.9% of all species are now extinct, the vast majority of which do not show up in the fossil record. This projection is based on evolution (macro). So is there a way we can check the fossil record to see if this is true? Yes, we can check against animals we know exist, at what percentage did they become fossils? 70-90% according to Denton. Not good news for ev
@imikewillrockyou Oh mercy... I'll have to stop you there. Dentons book has been even more thoroughly panned than "Pandas", and, like "Pandas" most of it is lies and anti-science. Just google +Denton +evolution +critique and pick one. He rarely uses sources and when he does they're unverifiable in some way, usually because they're from outdated science (the 70s, 30s, 40s or even the 19th century).
But, hey, let's see if we get lucky on this one. Does he quote a source for this figure?
@imikewillrockyou Oh boy, you guys threw a party and didn't invite me?
"Those numbers came from "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael Denton. The logic is basically this. Often cited is that 99.9% of all species are now extinct, the vast majority of which do not show up in the fossil record" for starters, that book is 15 years old and it is a book, not a research paper.
Go to 3w's dot TalkOrigins period slash faqs slash denton.html
His book was known to contain many errors since 1996
@sol3a1 If Denton's numbers are even close to correct macro evolution is completely dead! Unless there is some rational explanation as to how the fossil record knows to fossilize animals we know about. And fail to fossilize 99.9% of animals needed to support macro ev. Is the fossil record trying to trick us? Check Dentons numbers yourself. Pick a large number of living animals today, do a google search and see what percent are also fossils that can be found on the internet.
@imikewillrockyou "If Denton's numbers are even close to correct macro evolution is completely dead!" fortunately his numbers aren't showing that at all
"Unless there is some rational explanation as to how the fossil record knows to fossilize animals we know about" which is the problem many creationists fall into, they feel there's a "plan". There is no plan. Only those animals that are in areas conducive to fossilization have a chance to become one and even then odds don't favor it
Quick questions: What do you know about the fossilization process? Where are they most likely to occur? Where would it most likely not happen? What is the best way to fossilize something?
"And fail to fossilize 99.9% of animals needed to support macro ev. Is the fossil record trying to trick us?" we'd only be "tricked" if some supernatural entity, such as "god" is Loki, were doing this
The fossil record is incomplete? Yeah
Besides being hard to make, where are most fossils?
My bad; I didn't realize where the numbers came from. I thought that they could have been legitimate. Oh well, I man enough to admit that I didn't check the facts, when I probably should have. I try stay within the bounds of science, but when debating creationists, it is sometimes hard to maintain focus...... oooh, look at that shiny rock...
@imikewillrockyou ...invisible man blew up the nostril of a clay figure to make the first man.
Right, I'm off to Prague for a few days for the wifes birthday. Might I suggest you have the courage to read a book about evolution in the meantime rather than cherry-picking half baked arguments from creationist websites to support your crumbling theology? On the subject of how man got here, the Bible my friend, is WRONG. Maybe there's a challenge from your god in there somewhere.
@Vasana4 Thanks I think. As for your fallacious "read a book" diatribe I will gladly debate you on this subject. I know this theory inside and out. And I will not appeal to God or religion at any point in our debate as you suggest. Start by going back to my original post and give me a reasonable refutation. In absence of that might I suggest you do a little reading as well?
Eat more, grow big? Nah--unless they had extreemly long lifespans.
How about little dinosaurs couldn't escape rising flood waters as easily as big ones? That's why they got buried in the water deposits first. The trackways could only form if these land-based animals were running on moist soil that was rapidly covered by sediment.
Well, I don't expect the close minded to consider the possibilities or the irate died-in-the-wool evolutionist to sit still without poking fun. Something for thought.
The fossils are layered like this, In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils, above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils and dinosaur fossils SEE a Pattern? There are no human fossils found in any of these layers. No dating methods used
Did the earth become a sea at any time in human history when animals were rapidly buried in sedimentation or their bones were washed together into bone graveyards mixed with SHELLS?
@MorganMarvinson Every age of rock has shells in it, back to the Cambrian Period, but you won't find a bunny fossil buried, mixed with the dinosaur fossils.
Why can't creationist see the fossil record, just too brainwashed?
@gregrutz we see the same fossil record as you do--except you choose not to look at any of the evidence in it of global catastrophe and burial in water. Of course, that is your prerogative.
Neither creationist or evolutionist posits bunnies in the Cambrian.
@MorganMarvinson No, if you looked at the fossil record you would see fossils buried in desert sand, you would see all of the transition fossils and realize the Cambrian animals were all small marine creatures that all went extinct.
You could also document plant evolution, no rapid death or catastrophe needed.
I bet you think '' uniformitarianism'' means slow and gradual, wrong again.
The point is this, if the dinosaurs were buried where they lived, then there was insufficient food for them to make their meals on. Hence they got "just desserts."
@gregrutz The one who is responding a little slow about this is not I. Perhaps you are simply unaware of the evidence. There is insufficient vegetation to support the dinosaurs in the strata in which they are buried. This suggests that they were not buried in their normal habitat or--at minimum--that the vegetation was swept away before they were washed into their final resting place.
@MorganMarvinson How do you know what the vegetaion was like when dinos lived. Scientist do, the look at the plant fossils. plants evolved too, there were no flowers then, seed had not evolved.
@gregrutz Greg, by responding to your irritated questions based on your lack of knowledge on the subject, I risk giving credibility and lending legitimacy to a deficient theory. I am sorry about that. Yet, if you are sincerely wanting to consider another point of view, it makes the risk worthwhile.
@gregrutz And round and round the assumption goes. No, there is no fact that all life came from a common ancestor. That is merely an inference. Apparently you don't understand that *inference* is the basis for the theory--not *fact.*
If by "evolution happened" you mean that organisms have shown signs of variation, then, yes, in that sense it occurred. But the evidence of burial is the evidence of how these organisms died--not how they originated. Burial shows one's state at death.
@MorganMarvinson I am talking about the order of the fossils, why don't we find bunny fossils buried with the dinosaurs. Don't tell me the bunnies ran farther up the hill, that is silly.
Why don't we find dinosaurs in the Cambrian Explosion?
@gregrutz "you would see all of the transition fossils and realize the Cambrian animals were all small marine creatures that all went extinct."
Every where i go i find your ignorant bullshit polluting Youtube. Dude you need to shut the hell up and go educate yourself on your own beliefs. This has got to be the second time or 3rd time i am catching you in very stupid lies. There are several creatures from the cambrian still alive today including the famous Nautilus you lying twat!!!!
@karamarouge NOt only are there living fossils from that era, it does not matter that some are extinct now. The majority of phyla alive today are from the cambrian era. The fossils from the cambrian era appear suddenly with NO EVIDENCE OF GRADUAL EVOLUTION AS DARWIN PREDICTED. He himself stated that failure to resolve the cambrian puzzle would be fatal to his theory.
To date not a single scientist has resolved this riddle!!! NOT ONE!!!
@gregrutz this is really getting funny... The same moron who didnt know that darwins tree of life is obsolete, the dame baffoon who doesnt know that the nautilus is a living fossil from the cambrian era(forget that almost every high school kid studies about it) the same bozo who has to be reminded that evolutionists no longer claim man is an ape is the same moron telling me to catch up with science!!!
Seriously, boy you need to shut the hell up because you are a complete moron..
@gregrutz not suprising that when confronted with factual evidence like the nautilus an ignorant darwinist mullah buries his head in the sand and pretends like its nothing.
Not suprising from a self described monkeeeee...lol
@gregrutz Well firstly it proves that you are a moron because, earlier you falsely claimed that there are no living fossils from the cambrian era.
Secondly nautilus, like the many other fossils from this era disprove the theory of evolution. Darwin himself said that if evolutionists like you couldnt come up with satisfactory evidence to explain the fossils of the cambrian then his theory was dead in the water. THIS WAS SAID BY THE OWNER OF THE THEORY. NOT SOME CREATIONIST!
“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” (Ibid., p. 344),
“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” (Ibid., p. 350)
DARWIN YET AGAIN!!!
Suffice it to say that only an idiot like you would attempt to claim that the fossils of the cambrian era dont pause a serious problem for the theory of evolution when
DARWIN HIMSELF ADMITTED IT WAS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM TO HIS THEORY!
@gregrutz I did read the next paragraph you self described monkey and there is no proof!!!
If i am lying then bitch you prove me wrong!! WHY DONT YOU POST THE PARAGRAPH RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW AND SHOW DARWINS "PROOF"
(I dont even know what fucking crap this idiot is blabbing on about because darwin never ever had proof of any kind to solve the problem of the cambrian era fossils.
NO ONE IN THE WORLD HAS THIS "PROOF"
YOUR SIR ARE A BABOON... KEEP ON GIBBERING..I KNOW YOU WONT POST IT!!
@gregrutz I take it this means that you dont have the so called "proof"... What happened, you couldnt find darwins next paragraph? do you want mommy to sit you on her lap and read it for ya?
lmao..You have got to be one of the dumbest evolutionist idiots i have ever debated.
So stupid you dont even know the arguments from your own side that i have to remind you...
@gregrutz UM...DARWIN HIMSELF, SAID THAT FOSSILS LIKE THE NAUTILUS AND OTHERS FROM THE CAMBRIAN DISPROVE HIS THEORY..NOW YOU CAN BITCH AND MOAN ABOUT IT LIKE THE MORON YOU ARE, BUT THAT IS THE SAD TRUTH... DEAL WITH IT BOZO!!!
@gregrutz I think i have proved on more than one occassion that you are just some baboon running around pretending to know what the hell he is talking about.
I have caught you posting so many bogus lies and ignorant garbage about shit you actually claim to believe in. That is just stupid!!
A MORON WHO DOESNT EVEN UNDERSTAND THE LIE HE BELIEVES IN AND HAS TO BE REMINDED WHAT TO ARGUE!!!
@gregrutz What were the dinosaurs and all other creatures doing in sea water? That's the question. If you aren't willing to consider the implications, fine. But that doesn't reflect on me. (And I'm sorry about the treatment you are getting from k*.)
@gregrutz If they were surrounded with freshwater shells, we'd say it was freshwater, but since they are surrounded by seawater shells, the evidence says they were buried in sea water.
Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengston confesses the lack of transitional liks while he describes the Cambrian Period and says: "Baffling (and embarassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us". Stefan Bengston, Nature, Vol. 345, 1990, p. 765.
@gregrutz No, the supposed "dinosaur with feathers" (which is based on interpretation of data--there are no clearly preserved fossils) is not transitional. It existed--according to burial order--after birds were buried.
I cite this evidence only because, by your terms, it does not fit as a transitional form. From my point of view, it was merely buried after some birds were buried in the flood, with no further significance.
I'm a foreigner. I'm doing a research about fossil for biology. I'm trying to know what does it mean. Can you guys help me to know what the video talks about by filling the missing words that I don't know?
Religious people, shut the fuck up, this video isn't trying to compete with religion, nor is it trying to disprove any god, so stop your retarded bitching and whining and watch the video, if you don't like it, easy, GTFO.
These are all the creation of God, "When he decrees a matter he merely says to it be and it is" mutations never have positive effects, just because animals appear to become more advanced as you go up the line doesn't mean they coincidentally "evolved" such perfect characteristics. Rather they were created.. Harun Yahya has blasted this theory of evolution out of existence already, why are some people so blind?
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
You religeous people should throw away your bibles and other stupid books and look at what really going on but you won't because cuz you are blind to the truth. I think you have a virus, similar to a computer virus, but of the brain.
To deny the testimony of the Holy Spirit that Jesus is the Christ. You would have to know it to your core that this is true and then deny it openly. Anything else is forgivable. Anything.
Obviously I take a different view of things. Religion is revealed and is not an evolved enterprise. Different civilizations have had Truth to varying degrees. Some have retained more and some have less. It would not be fair if God had not been providing man with His teachings and let him muddle through for most of history and then spring it on him in the past few thousand years, now would it?
In regard to the ''teachings'' that is a ratinalization for the absurd [and borrowed] nonsense in the buy-bull.Any supreme ''god'' would be responsible for the original muddle from the get-go.
Well, it would seem to most that it would require some level of education to begin with. Or are you operating on gut instinct? Not that I would disqualify that. The gut can be the best advisor one can have. I will grant that things could seem the way you think they are. I disagree that they actually happened that way.
I am familiar with them. I have not read them though. My point is that God has made His Truth available to man from the beginning. This did not start with the Hebrews, so if others have records of God, that does not constitute a borrowing by anyone. I firmly believe that there are other records that await discovery.
[Your] god is not ''god''.Again you show you have [not] done you research and or are trying to put ''spin'' [nothing new] on evidence that contradicts your belief system.
Again, that is what you are saying. I have good reasons to believe the way I do. I wasn't born into this either. I didin't embrace the Faith until I was forty.
What I am saying is that the Ugaritic texts were most probably Scripture, or a good chunk of it. What you are citing as plagarism is merely Scripture being rediscovered.
There is no proof in these rationalizations about what your ''god'' planned.[If] it is as you say why would the buy-bull scribblers borrow from a god they later demonized i.e.[Baal]???
What do you accept as proof? I have proof that I am just not capable of adequately conveying. Baal is a corruption of God. To say that the writers of the Bible were borrowing from Baal is simply not accurate. God was morphed into Baal by those with incomplete knowledge and then that which was legitimate of God that was kept by Baal was written of in the Bible.
I wouldn't agree to that, no. There are parallels, but then there are such things to be found all over the world. This leads me to think that they all have a common origin. I think that origin is different from what you think it is.
I have researched. There is always something else to research so one is never in full possession of all available information. We have truth. Man has added to and changed a lot. Much of what we have available. Number 8 of the AoF affirms that the Bible is Scripture so long as it has been translated correctly and we have long affirmed that there are parts missing from it.
The buy-bulls are a collection of myths which are borrowed so it matters little if it was tranlated correctly or not unless you like your mind controlled by non-sense...
I will readily admit that there are a lot of things in Scripture that are interesting from certain aspects. For instance; why does one need to fast and pray before being able to exorcize certain types of demons? I think that there are rules to be followed for some reason that we are not fully aware of.
Again, you are starting at a point where knowledge had been lost and people filled in the gaps. I am perfectly willing to believe that ancient Babylon had a good portion of the Truth. I doubt that they had it all, though. The role of Christ and His mission predates the creation.
No.The knowledge is lost to [you] and so [you] fill in the blanks with what [you] think ''god'' was doing.If using spit and mumbling to the sun is 'truth'' to you then you [do] need religion.
The position that [your] god is the ''real god'' and all other cultures and ages had it wrong is not only predicable for a cult member faced with inconvienient facts but also a reflection of ego and maybe racism at work.
If you mean Zoroastrianism is based on the Vedas and Brahmanism you are correct.If you mean it is based on the bible you are woefully ignorant of the facts.
Later during the exile the ''Jews'' were initiated into Zoroastrianism hence the Parsees[Pharisees] and Ha-Satan was combined with Ahriman.This is [history] not dogma as you would [like] it to be =/
You can ''disagree'' all you like but facts are facts.Merely stating: ''my mind control manual says Jesus is Lord or the Christ said this or that'' in this [story] proves [nothing].
Indeed, facts are facts. My experience tells me something different from what you are saying. And be careful; you are dangerously close to saying that your dogma is better than my dogma.
You would like to think that my position is equivalent to yours but it is not.This is the new tactic.I do not have a mind control manual from which I get my basis for argument.I deal in facts.
You are acting upon what you believe are facts. I may agree with many of them. I just think that you are biased, but so am I and everyone else on the planet. I have what I think are facts as well. You are free to accept them or not.
This has been flagged as spam show
A bullet was found lodged in a fossil both carbon/potassium-argon dated depth in sedimentary deposits etc. 60 mill years ago as well as a woven (made into a thread, not found as a deposit or vein) strand of gold dated 90 mill years.We're a lot older then we're told by those in charge of religion history & government. All controlled by the same people as far back as Sumer.
DANRYX 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
DANRYX 3 weeks ago
rarrrrr!!!! thats my imprestion of a bananna
tristanisaug 2 months ago
Why are Religious advertisements before the Science videos??????
museumeducator1 7 months ago
So when will we finally get 12 foot humans?
KyleAnstey 8 months ago
@KyleAnstey we already have, but the problem is when your 12 foot you heart has a much harder time pumping blood round your body, it is more practical to be smaller because it mean less stress on all of your body, if your 12 foot your very heavy so your legs and feet and back muscles will wear out faster over time all of your bones are more brittle because of increased weight and because they are longer there is more pivitol force on the center of the bones so its easy for them to break
GBGMrBlue 6 months ago
I like how ART AND IMAGINATION is used in science to FILL IN THE GAPS science can't.
To quote a song;
"It was just my imagination,
RUNIN' AWAY WITH ME"...
I could be scientist too, but I read more than a couple paragraphs in more than a couple fields, and by more than a couple view points.
If I see 10 bushels of apples, I don't count just the red ones of the top layer in 2 bushels, I also count the green ones and I count the entire 10 bushels down to the very last apples in each basket.
IVpoleBiker 9 months ago
Abundance of food?
Is that why some people have DRAFT HORSES and MULES, and others have Shetland ponies and Donkeys?
Why is it that something just being petrified is enough for you folks to say its thousands of years old? After all we do have reproducible proof fossilization begins in just weeks under the proper NATURAL conditions present in thousands of places around the world.
Also, mummification and fossilization can and does occur everywhere, in only a few years span, not eons.
IVpoleBiker 9 months ago
@IVpoleBiker Half science won't work. You need to understand the rigors that scientists insist on for estimating the age of specific fossils; multiple types of tests (like K-Ar, Radiocarbon, Geologic Columns, tree-rings) are first used. Then, correlations and statistical analysis techniques are employed to get confidence levels to acceptable levels. If the data is too weak, no paper will be presented for critical assessment. Review is deliberately brutal. That's real science.
SIMKINETICS 8 months ago
@IVpoleBiker You are under creationist missinformation that fossils MUST take many thousands of years .Science doesnt say that at all . Mineralisation can occur in the animals own lifetime (shed exoskelotons of crabs can begin to be replaced in the animals own lifetime . Mineralization of modern life does not qualify as a fossil (dont call it a fossil ) because its not PREHISTORIC its just mineralized.
flyingscience 7 months ago
@IVpoleBiker But these bones are found in rock deposits that carbon date to millions of years old so your theory doesn't really stack up now does it?!!
jjoneil73 6 months ago
2:24, hey guys wait for me!!!
cheddybumpkins 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i wouldid be suprised that its related to gravity. less gravaty would explaine why they grow so much....food is also related but it comes after...because food itself has never been realted to giantisim.
mysticalsoulqc 1 year ago
i wouldid be suprised that its related to gravity. less gravaty would explaine why they grow so much....found is also realted but comes after...because food itself is not cause of giantisim.
mysticalsoulqc 1 year ago
Except the entire fossil record is one big massive gap if you're talking about evolution. Darwin's tree is really a lawn.
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou On what do you base that statement?
Vasana4 1 year ago
@Vasana4 It is assumed that 99.9% of all species are extinct. Not because we have found those fossils but because Macro Evolution requires that many missing fossils. And yet upwards of 70-90% of current living animals are represented in the fossil record! Thus we have EMPIRICAL evidence the fossil record is not 99.9% incomplete based on animals we know exist! Thus we know those needed missing animals never existed. And that's just one glaring problem.
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou Hmmm.. How do you define how "currently living animals" are represented? By immediate ancestors? By anatomical features? Either way, fossil species related to living species are going to be heavily represented in the record - quite aside from the fact that these fossils are more recent and more abundant - because most fossils WILL BE related to living species. Even evolutionary dead ends will share anatomical features with living species - as well as common ancestors.
Vasana4 1 year ago
@Vasana4 Exactly why are living species so heavily represented? While 99.9% of the fossils needed to support macro ev go missing? How does the fossil record know? This is empirical, we know these numbers are real. To ignore this is like believing fairies dance in the woods but only when nobody is looking.
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou Here's an exercise for you.
Draw two dots at one end of a piece of paper - these represent progeny species.
Draw 2 lines from each of these culminating in 4 more dots - these represent steps of macro evolution.
Do this 8 times till you end up with 512 dots in the middle of the paper.
Now pick any 5 last generation dots - imagine the remaining 99% have been wiped out by a meteorite.
Now highlight any 5 extinct species - these represent "discovered" fossils.
Vasana4 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou
Now follow the connection from your existing species to the fossils. You will find, of course, that they are either directly descended or share a common ancestor. i.e. they are "100% represented" by the 1% of discovered fossils. And, again, since most of the fossils we have discovered are from more recent epochs, the connections are that much more noticeable.
Would you like to continue with your next "glaring problem"?
Vasana4 1 year ago
@Vasana4 Recent epochs? That's how you explain this problem? It just doesn't matter the epoch, the same thing happens, modern animals virtually unchanged. For example we have 400 million year old horseshoe crabs that are still with us today. Cockroaches 350 mil the same; Salamanders 150 mil the same; Coelacanth 400 mil the same, Dragonfly 200 plus mil the same; etc etc etc.. The obvious and logical conclusion is evolution (macro) never happened it's a modern fairytale.
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou Oh dear.... Look, of course not everything evolves, that's well known. But during periods when selection pressures are brought to bare and opportunities to speciate arise, species diversify rapidly - the fossil record is full of this. Bottom line - as you dig deeper into the ground, you find more extinct species and increasingly more simple organisms. And there is only one obvious and logical conclusion to THAT to anyone who hasn't been told as a child that a big...
Vasana4 1 year ago
@Vasana4 Actually if you dig deeper you arrive at the Cambrian Explosion where the major phyla all appeared at once without any trace of having evolved. As if they were just dumped here on earth. That's what the fossil record really shows. Sudden appearance, existing in stasis and no pattern of evolution anywhere.
Check this video out on the Cambrian Explosion.
Part 1 watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY
Part 2 watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou And that my friend, is because the Cambrian Explosion is when hard body parts first show up. Prior to that very little had the opportunity to be fossillized. The very few areas that did allow for fossilization of these earlier species (normally broken off bits of continental shelf that fell into the deep ocean) show just as much diversity and, in fact, some very wierd soft bodied species indeed - whole new phyla in fact.
Please, read a book.
Vasana4 1 year ago
@Vasana4 Sure we all kinds of soft bodied fossils from before the Cambrian as you point out. Clearly soft body species fossilize. And guess what? And there is no trace of anything leading up to this vast amount of hard body animals we see in the Cambrian. Have you read any book on this subject I wonder? Or is your entire belief in this theory based on faith alone?
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou “Clearly soft body species fossilize”
Sure, and I could clearly spontaneously fart the opening stanza of Beethoven's fifth, but it's not very likely.
Small geographical areas like the Burgess Shale have yielded soft bodied fossils indicating an enormous degree of diversity prior to the Cambrian explosion (let's not forget, this “explosion”, which you're desperate to paint as a snap of god's fingers, actually lasted for 50 million years) and it's insane to think that such...
Vasana4 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou animals ONLY lived in the areas in which they were discovered. The fact remains that these are gold dust to scientists because they are so incredibly rare. Even hard bodied animals rarely fossilize, soft bodies fossilize so rarely that scientists estimate that such marine animals – that can never be discovered – make up a third of your 99.9% right off the bat. And, while we're on the subject. Your previous allusion to species that had been around for hundreds of millions...
Vasana4 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou of years is a misrepresentation. The average existence for a species in the fossil record is 2 million years. The species you've cherry picked (and, yes, there are many more) are thus at an extreme of the distribution – the far right of the bell-curve. For someone who professes to be so hot on statistics that's a shameless distortion. But, hey, if you're going to have standards why not make them double ones huh?
Vasana4 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou “I know this theory inside and out”
Really? I had no idea I was in the presence of an expert. I have only formally studied the subject at undergraduate level so cannot possibly profess to know the subject “inside and out”. You must be consulted on a daily basis by experts in the field!
Or do you mean, as I suspect, that you know the creationist arguments against evolution inside and out? If that's the case, you should probably read this...
Vasana4 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou
wwwDOTsciohostDOTorgSLASHncseSLASHkvdSLASHPadianSLASHPadianUNDERSCOREtranscriptDOThtml
Vasana4 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou It's the transcript of Dr. Padians examination and cross examination, with diagrams, in a court of law, on “Of Pandas and People”. It show's the whole intelligent design argument for exactly what it is - lies, distortion and anti-science from start to finish. I imagine you won't bother given that this is more than just a 10 minute youtube clip by a creationist biased production company (yes, I did look at your clips out of courtesy, then I looked at the makers funding...).
Vasana4 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou
If you do bother it's probably worth also looking at Dr. Millers evidence. He's a regular church going scientist who has written books on marrying evolution and theology – perhaps you're belief system would fair better reading these rather than rubbishing a theory that has survived 150 years of peer review.
Vasana4 1 year ago
@Vasana4 - mikey is spouting this shit all over YT. He is playing scientist, but he hasn't a clue. Most of his arguments are cut & pasted from AiG. He really doesn't even know what empirical evidence or peer review entails.
When you get the upper hand, he'll cry conspiracy.
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30 The irony is that, if we were invaded by some totalitarian loonies, I would fight for his right to believe whatever nonsense he wants. I don't CARE what he believes. What bothers me is when they come goose stepping into my world and telling me I'm wrong about something I know better than they do. That's just rude.
Has he trotted out the 500 evangelical Phds (a fraction of 1%, mark you) that signed a piece of paper saying they didn't like evolution (I'm willing to bet not ONE of whom..
Vasana4 1 year ago
@Vasana4 - "What bothers me is when they come goose stepping into my world..."
Exactly, believe what you like, but when you pee in my sandbox, I take offence. These guys don't seem to understand this.
I really don't think that they understand the extent to which evolutionary theory has been confirmed.
"Has he trotted out the 500 evangelical Phd"
Yeah, he did this to me, & complains about me using arguments from authority. [sigh]
Take care!
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30 "I really don't think that they understand the extent to which evolutionary theory has been confirmed"
Precisely. Bad scientific theories don't survive 150 years. Evolutionary theory is a contemporary of relativity and electro-magnetism. It is beautiful and elegant and has been corroborated and reinforced by countless discoveries. The ONLY reason it comes under so much fire is because it contradicts the Bible. Period!
Take it easy yourself.
Vasana4 1 year ago
@CamW30 has published a paper refuting evolutionary theory), and claimed this somehow rocks the "scientific concensus".
It wouldn't be so bad if they could accept reasoned argument or tried to educate themselves on the theory itself, rather than just seeking out material that appears to bolster their position. But their indoctrination can't allow it. If you present something that challenges their view they employ this monumental Orwellian doublethink and just don't register it.
Vasana4 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou “Start by going back to my original post”
Ok, let's examine that. Do you mean 70-90% of fossils or 70-90% of discovered fossil species? What's your source?
Vasana4 1 year ago
@Vasana4 Those numbers came from "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael Denton. The logic is basically this. Often cited is that 99.9% of all species are now extinct, the vast majority of which do not show up in the fossil record. This projection is based on evolution (macro). So is there a way we can check the fossil record to see if this is true? Yes, we can check against animals we know exist, at what percentage did they become fossils? 70-90% according to Denton. Not good news for ev
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou Oh mercy... I'll have to stop you there. Dentons book has been even more thoroughly panned than "Pandas", and, like "Pandas" most of it is lies and anti-science. Just google +Denton +evolution +critique and pick one. He rarely uses sources and when he does they're unverifiable in some way, usually because they're from outdated science (the 70s, 30s, 40s or even the 19th century).
But, hey, let's see if we get lucky on this one. Does he quote a source for this figure?
Vasana4 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou Oh boy, you guys threw a party and didn't invite me?
"Those numbers came from "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael Denton. The logic is basically this. Often cited is that 99.9% of all species are now extinct, the vast majority of which do not show up in the fossil record" for starters, that book is 15 years old and it is a book, not a research paper.
Go to 3w's dot TalkOrigins period slash faqs slash denton.html
His book was known to contain many errors since 1996
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 I'm not defending his entire book. So who is disputing those specific numbers?
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou - Here's a place to start:
scienceblogs(period)com/authority/2010/01/how_do_we_know_that_most_of_th.php
1: There's a hard part bias going on here
2: Plate Techonics
3: Building over sites
4: Where did Denton get his numbers that we found "x%" of the total fossils?
5: There are environments where fossilization is even rarer, Apline, making it an even harder time learning about those species
So where did Denton get those numbers? As for the rest of the book, if he's so wrong....
sol3a1 11 months ago
@sol3a1 If Denton's numbers are even close to correct macro evolution is completely dead! Unless there is some rational explanation as to how the fossil record knows to fossilize animals we know about. And fail to fossilize 99.9% of animals needed to support macro ev. Is the fossil record trying to trick us? Check Dentons numbers yourself. Pick a large number of living animals today, do a google search and see what percent are also fossils that can be found on the internet.
imikewillrockyou 11 months ago
@imikewillrockyou "If Denton's numbers are even close to correct macro evolution is completely dead!" fortunately his numbers aren't showing that at all
"Unless there is some rational explanation as to how the fossil record knows to fossilize animals we know about" which is the problem many creationists fall into, they feel there's a "plan". There is no plan. Only those animals that are in areas conducive to fossilization have a chance to become one and even then odds don't favor it
Cont - P2
sol3a1 11 months ago
@imikewillrockyou P2
Quick questions: What do you know about the fossilization process? Where are they most likely to occur? Where would it most likely not happen? What is the best way to fossilize something?
"And fail to fossilize 99.9% of animals needed to support macro ev. Is the fossil record trying to trick us?" we'd only be "tricked" if some supernatural entity, such as "god" is Loki, were doing this
The fossil record is incomplete? Yeah
Besides being hard to make, where are most fossils?
sol3a1 11 months ago
@imikewillrockyou - Besides Denton's book, are there any other independent sources that say what he says?
sol3a1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imikewillrockyou "I'm not defending his entire book" then why use it?
sol3a1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imikewillrockyou - "So who is disputing those specific numbers?"
My bad; I didn't realize where the numbers came from. I thought that they could have been legitimate. Oh well, I man enough to admit that I didn't check the facts, when I probably should have. I try stay within the bounds of science, but when debating creationists, it is sometimes hard to maintain focus...... oooh, look at that shiny rock...
CamW30 11 months ago
@sol3a1 - "Oh boy, you guys threw a party and didn't invite me?"
Sorry, dude. I'll try to keep you better informed in the future.
CamW30 11 months ago
@imikewillrockyou ...invisible man blew up the nostril of a clay figure to make the first man.
Right, I'm off to Prague for a few days for the wifes birthday. Might I suggest you have the courage to read a book about evolution in the meantime rather than cherry-picking half baked arguments from creationist websites to support your crumbling theology? On the subject of how man got here, the Bible my friend, is WRONG. Maybe there's a challenge from your god in there somewhere.
I wish you well.
Vasana4 1 year ago
@Vasana4 Thanks I think. As for your fallacious "read a book" diatribe I will gladly debate you on this subject. I know this theory inside and out. And I will not appeal to God or religion at any point in our debate as you suggest. Start by going back to my original post and give me a reasonable refutation. In absence of that might I suggest you do a little reading as well?
And I do wish you well also
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou “I will not appeal to God or religion at any point in our debate “
Pompous and irrelevant. Since we're not debating your beliefs you don't have to.
Vasana4 1 year ago
nice
jajabarredo 1 year ago
EVOLUTION!
Schatzomat 1 year ago
Eat more, grow big? Nah--unless they had extreemly long lifespans.
How about little dinosaurs couldn't escape rising flood waters as easily as big ones? That's why they got buried in the water deposits first. The trackways could only form if these land-based animals were running on moist soil that was rapidly covered by sediment.
Well, I don't expect the close minded to consider the possibilities or the irate died-in-the-wool evolutionist to sit still without poking fun. Something for thought.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Every layer has shells. Hmm.
What were all these organisms doing at the beach?
Did the earth become a sea at any time in human history when animals were rapidly buried in sedimentation or their bones were washed together into bone graveyards mixed with SHELLS?
That is what the layers tell us.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Every age of rock has shells in it, back to the Cambrian Period, but you won't find a bunny fossil buried, mixed with the dinosaur fossils.
Why can't creationist see the fossil record, just too brainwashed?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz we see the same fossil record as you do--except you choose not to look at any of the evidence in it of global catastrophe and burial in water. Of course, that is your prerogative.
Neither creationist or evolutionist posits bunnies in the Cambrian.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson No, if you looked at the fossil record you would see fossils buried in desert sand, you would see all of the transition fossils and realize the Cambrian animals were all small marine creatures that all went extinct.
You could also document plant evolution, no rapid death or catastrophe needed.
I bet you think '' uniformitarianism'' means slow and gradual, wrong again.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz We've got a miracle!!! Dinosaurs lived in the dessert without food sources.
Not.
You have simply misinterpreted the evidence (or maybe whoever you are reading did the misinterpretation).
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Who said dinosaurs lived in the desert.
Can't you read?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I said "dessert." Can't you read? ;)
The point is this, if the dinosaurs were buried where they lived, then there was insufficient food for them to make their meals on. Hence they got "just desserts."
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Dinosaurs were not buried in the desert. It was not a desert when the lived there 100 million years ago.
Are you that stupid?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz The one who is responding a little slow about this is not I. Perhaps you are simply unaware of the evidence. There is insufficient vegetation to support the dinosaurs in the strata in which they are buried. This suggests that they were not buried in their normal habitat or--at minimum--that the vegetation was swept away before they were washed into their final resting place.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson How do you know what the vegetaion was like when dinos lived. Scientist do, the look at the plant fossils. plants evolved too, there were no flowers then, seed had not evolved.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Greg, by responding to your irritated questions based on your lack of knowledge on the subject, I risk giving credibility and lending legitimacy to a deficient theory. I am sorry about that. Yet, if you are sincerely wanting to consider another point of view, it makes the risk worthwhile.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Evolution is a fact, there is a theory to show how it happened.
There is no other theory as to how evolution happened.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz And round and round the assumption goes. No, there is no fact that all life came from a common ancestor. That is merely an inference. Apparently you don't understand that *inference* is the basis for the theory--not *fact.*
If by "evolution happened" you mean that organisms have shown signs of variation, then, yes, in that sense it occurred. But the evidence of burial is the evidence of how these organisms died--not how they originated. Burial shows one's state at death.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I am talking about the order of the fossils, why don't we find bunny fossils buried with the dinosaurs. Don't tell me the bunnies ran farther up the hill, that is silly.
Why don't we find dinosaurs in the Cambrian Explosion?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "you would see all of the transition fossils and realize the Cambrian animals were all small marine creatures that all went extinct."
Every where i go i find your ignorant bullshit polluting Youtube. Dude you need to shut the hell up and go educate yourself on your own beliefs. This has got to be the second time or 3rd time i am catching you in very stupid lies. There are several creatures from the cambrian still alive today including the famous Nautilus you lying twat!!!!
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge NOt only are there living fossils from that era, it does not matter that some are extinct now. The majority of phyla alive today are from the cambrian era. The fossils from the cambrian era appear suddenly with NO EVIDENCE OF GRADUAL EVOLUTION AS DARWIN PREDICTED. He himself stated that failure to resolve the cambrian puzzle would be fatal to his theory.
To date not a single scientist has resolved this riddle!!! NOT ONE!!!
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge So you are saying some animals from the Cambrian Period did not change for 520 million years. That fits the theory of evolution.
At least you don't think the earth is only 6000 years old.
Darwin was wrong about 'GRADUAL EVOLUTION'. His ideas are 150 years out of date, try and keep up with science.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz this is really getting funny... The same moron who didnt know that darwins tree of life is obsolete, the dame baffoon who doesnt know that the nautilus is a living fossil from the cambrian era(forget that almost every high school kid studies about it) the same bozo who has to be reminded that evolutionists no longer claim man is an ape is the same moron telling me to catch up with science!!!
Seriously, boy you need to shut the hell up because you are a complete moron..
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamaroug thanks for saying nothing and showing us how stupid you are.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz not suprising that when confronted with factual evidence like the nautilus an ignorant darwinist mullah buries his head in the sand and pretends like its nothing.
Not suprising from a self described monkeeeee...lol
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge What about the nautilus? Do you think that it's survival proves something, then you don't understand evolution, dummy.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Well firstly it proves that you are a moron because, earlier you falsely claimed that there are no living fossils from the cambrian era.
Secondly nautilus, like the many other fossils from this era disprove the theory of evolution. Darwin himself said that if evolutionists like you couldnt come up with satisfactory evidence to explain the fossils of the cambrian then his theory was dead in the water. THIS WAS SAID BY THE OWNER OF THE THEORY. NOT SOME CREATIONIST!
karamarouge 1 year ago
“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” (Ibid., p. 344),
DARWINS OWN WORDS!!!
karamarouge 1 year ago
“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” (Ibid., p. 350)
DARWIN YET AGAIN!!!
Suffice it to say that only an idiot like you would attempt to claim that the fossils of the cambrian era dont pause a serious problem for the theory of evolution when
DARWIN HIMSELF ADMITTED IT WAS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM TO HIS THEORY!
And no one has ever solved it.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge Read the next paragraph and Darwin shows his proof.
Oh, you really didn't read it did you, just passing on quote mines from creationists sites. good job IDiot.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I did read the next paragraph you self described monkey and there is no proof!!!
If i am lying then bitch you prove me wrong!! WHY DONT YOU POST THE PARAGRAPH RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW AND SHOW DARWINS "PROOF"
(I dont even know what fucking crap this idiot is blabbing on about because darwin never ever had proof of any kind to solve the problem of the cambrian era fossils.
NO ONE IN THE WORLD HAS THIS "PROOF"
YOUR SIR ARE A BABOON... KEEP ON GIBBERING..I KNOW YOU WONT POST IT!!
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge Evolution has been proven so fuck off.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I take it this means that you dont have the so called "proof"... What happened, you couldnt find darwins next paragraph? do you want mommy to sit you on her lap and read it for ya?
lmao..You have got to be one of the dumbest evolutionist idiots i have ever debated.
So stupid you dont even know the arguments from your own side that i have to remind you...
lol..
it was fun bitch slapping you..
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge Darwin is dead, his ideas are 150 years out of date,
keep trying.
They found the transitional fossils dummy.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@karamarouge Why do you think nautilus proves evolution wrong, it does not.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz UM...DARWIN HIMSELF, SAID THAT FOSSILS LIKE THE NAUTILUS AND OTHERS FROM THE CAMBRIAN DISPROVE HIS THEORY..NOW YOU CAN BITCH AND MOAN ABOUT IT LIKE THE MORON YOU ARE, BUT THAT IS THE SAD TRUTH... DEAL WITH IT BOZO!!!
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge how would you know dip shit?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@karamarouge WOW you found a living fossil.
I was wrong you were right
Do you think you proved evolution did not happen, IDiot.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I think i have proved on more than one occassion that you are just some baboon running around pretending to know what the hell he is talking about.
I have caught you posting so many bogus lies and ignorant garbage about shit you actually claim to believe in. That is just stupid!!
A MORON WHO DOESNT EVEN UNDERSTAND THE LIE HE BELIEVES IN AND HAS TO BE REMINDED WHAT TO ARGUE!!!
PATHETIC!!
karamarouge 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karamarouge Can't prove evolution wrong so you call people liars.
Watch the video you are spamming, you might learn something and not sound so silly little boy.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Every layer has shells?
Every age of rock has shells, they even exist today, dummy.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz What were the dinosaurs and all other creatures doing in sea water? That's the question. If you aren't willing to consider the implications, fine. But that doesn't reflect on me. (And I'm sorry about the treatment you are getting from k*.)
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Who said they were in sea water?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz If they were surrounded with freshwater shells, we'd say it was freshwater, but since they are surrounded by seawater shells, the evidence says they were buried in sea water.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Which ones did in the flood, the freshwater animals or the saltwater animals?
gregrutz 1 year ago
Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengston confesses the lack of transitional liks while he describes the Cambrian Period and says: "Baffling (and embarassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us". Stefan Bengston, Nature, Vol. 345, 1990, p. 765.
AbuIbraheemC 1 year ago
@AbuIbraheemC Good thing they found the missing transitional fossils.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "Good thing they found the missing transitional fossils." Since 1990? No, they just redefined transitional.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson So what is a transitional fossil? A dinosaur with feathers?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz No, the supposed "dinosaur with feathers" (which is based on interpretation of data--there are no clearly preserved fossils) is not transitional. It existed--according to burial order--after birds were buried.
I cite this evidence only because, by your terms, it does not fit as a transitional form. From my point of view, it was merely buried after some birds were buried in the flood, with no further significance.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson They have discovered 20 or more different dinosaurs with feathers, google microraptor.
gregrutz 1 year ago
wow. there must be fossils everywhere beow us right now in hard rock. godi desert must not be the only place.
iwonder1331 1 year ago
I'm a foreigner. I'm doing a research about fossil for biology. I'm trying to know what does it mean. Can you guys help me to know what the video talks about by filling the missing words that I don't know?
khoaitaylamloi 2 years ago
Religious people, shut the fuck up, this video isn't trying to compete with religion, nor is it trying to disprove any god, so stop your retarded bitching and whining and watch the video, if you don't like it, easy, GTFO.
thelimit69 2 years ago
@thelimit69
you tell'em
SonicSanctuary 1 year ago
@thelimit69 Making evolutionists cry is so much fun!
AbuIbraheemC 1 year ago
These are all the creation of God, "When he decrees a matter he merely says to it be and it is" mutations never have positive effects, just because animals appear to become more advanced as you go up the line doesn't mean they coincidentally "evolved" such perfect characteristics. Rather they were created.. Harun Yahya has blasted this theory of evolution out of existence already, why are some people so blind?
Bilal1234live 2 years ago
@Bilal1234live AHsanta yaa akhee! The evolutionist is against the ropes fighting a desperate, but losing battle.
AbuIbraheemC 1 year ago
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Bilal1234live Let us know when evolution is not taught as fact in every major school in the world.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz pointless trying to argue with these ppl mate, Evolution is fact, they are to ignorant to even consider it !!!
48Hotspur1 1 year ago
will claimed: simply products of natural processes or coincidence.
You must be joking! Right?. You do realise that this claim goes for the cell and the sun?.
Bigpheet 2 years ago
It could have, would've, should have, maybe, might have? Will the real theory please stand up.
benthemiester 2 years ago
fossils r wel fake cos it just sumwon putin chicken bones in cement n sayin dineosaws live but vey dont and it wel fake
WolfishNuckajuh 2 years ago
You religeous people should throw away your bibles and other stupid books and look at what really going on but you won't because cuz you are blind to the truth. I think you have a virus, similar to a computer virus, but of the brain.
h0mer37 2 years ago
To deny the testimony of the Holy Spirit that Jesus is the Christ. You would have to know it to your core that this is true and then deny it openly. Anything else is forgivable. Anything.
steve0281 2 years ago
The ''Holy spirit'' theme was borrowed from the Egyptians and the Greeks who studied in Egypt.The Dove represents Venus-Astarte or Isis =/
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Actually not. This predates the founding of Egypt by millennia.
steve0281 2 years ago
The ''holy spirit'' does [not].Earliest ''man'' most likely originated in the Nile valley.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Obviously I take a different view of things. Religion is revealed and is not an evolved enterprise. Different civilizations have had Truth to varying degrees. Some have retained more and some have less. It would not be fair if God had not been providing man with His teachings and let him muddle through for most of history and then spring it on him in the past few thousand years, now would it?
steve0281 2 years ago
Religion grew from earth mother worship to the stellar and solar worship...
lipoicacid 2 years ago
What you define as ''god'' is arbitrary,subjective and preferential so we are [not] on the same chessborad in that regard...
lipoicacid 2 years ago
In regard to the ''teachings'' that is a ratinalization for the absurd [and borrowed] nonsense in the buy-bull.Any supreme ''god'' would be responsible for the original muddle from the get-go.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Because you say so?
steve0281 2 years ago
Because [I] say so is better than the say say so of a collection of borrowed,redacted and interpolated myths...yeah =/
lipoicacid 2 years ago
What makes you, then, more qualified than I?
steve0281 2 years ago
When did discerning fact from absurd plagiarized myth require qualifications? =/
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Well, it would seem to most that it would require some level of education to begin with. Or are you operating on gut instinct? Not that I would disqualify that. The gut can be the best advisor one can have. I will grant that things could seem the way you think they are. I disagree that they actually happened that way.
steve0281 2 years ago
My position is based research.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
As is mine.
steve0281 2 years ago
Really?Then you have read the ''Ugaritic texts'' for example? =/
lipoicacid 2 years ago
I am familiar with them. I have not read them though. My point is that God has made His Truth available to man from the beginning. This did not start with the Hebrews, so if others have records of God, that does not constitute a borrowing by anyone. I firmly believe that there are other records that await discovery.
steve0281 2 years ago
[Your] god is not ''god''.Again you show you have [not] done you research and or are trying to put ''spin'' [nothing new] on evidence that contradicts your belief system.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Again, that is what you are saying. I have good reasons to believe the way I do. I wasn't born into this either. I didin't embrace the Faith until I was forty.
steve0281 2 years ago
This is [not] what I am saying this is fact.If you had read the Ugaritic texts [for example] you would see whole phrases lifted by the buy-bull =/
lipoicacid 2 years ago
What I am saying is that the Ugaritic texts were most probably Scripture, or a good chunk of it. What you are citing as plagarism is merely Scripture being rediscovered.
steve0281 2 years ago
Baal is a sun god.Sun gods are the son of the moon god Sin or Zen.Baal is the semetic forerunner of characters like Jesus...
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Yahweh is an amalgamation of gods [including Baal].Again see your Ugaritic texts...
lipoicacid 2 years ago
There is no proof in these rationalizations about what your ''god'' planned.[If] it is as you say why would the buy-bull scribblers borrow from a god they later demonized i.e.[Baal]???
lipoicacid 2 years ago
What do you accept as proof? I have proof that I am just not capable of adequately conveying. Baal is a corruption of God. To say that the writers of the Bible were borrowing from Baal is simply not accurate. God was morphed into Baal by those with incomplete knowledge and then that which was legitimate of God that was kept by Baal was written of in the Bible.
steve0281 2 years ago
You are misinformed.Baal existed long before your Yahweh...
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Oh, SNAP!
You're right about that. Great arguments!
Domzdream 2 years ago
You know Sams-on was a rehash of Shamash and Gilgamesh and therefore sun-god? =/
lipoicacid 2 years ago
I wouldn't agree to that, no. There are parallels, but then there are such things to be found all over the world. This leads me to think that they all have a common origin. I think that origin is different from what you think it is.
steve0281 2 years ago
Apparently you have [not] done your research.They are much more than parallels or a matter of opinion as you would wish it to be =/
lipoicacid 2 years ago
I have researched. There is always something else to research so one is never in full possession of all available information. We have truth. Man has added to and changed a lot. Much of what we have available. Number 8 of the AoF affirms that the Bible is Scripture so long as it has been translated correctly and we have long affirmed that there are parts missing from it.
steve0281 2 years ago
The buy-bulls are a collection of myths which are borrowed so it matters little if it was tranlated correctly or not unless you like your mind controlled by non-sense...
lipoicacid 2 years ago
I am happy that someone else knows why Jesus' apostles went from 12 in number to 72 =D
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Maybe we can share information about why Jesus used [spit] and appealed [to the sun] to heal blindness =/
lipoicacid 2 years ago
I will readily admit that there are a lot of things in Scripture that are interesting from certain aspects. For instance; why does one need to fast and pray before being able to exorcize certain types of demons? I think that there are rules to be followed for some reason that we are not fully aware of.
steve0281 2 years ago
You may not be fully aware of them but some people are.Jesus [the myth] is a solar god and the technique is ancient Babylonian.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Again, you are starting at a point where knowledge had been lost and people filled in the gaps. I am perfectly willing to believe that ancient Babylon had a good portion of the Truth. I doubt that they had it all, though. The role of Christ and His mission predates the creation.
steve0281 2 years ago
No.The knowledge is lost to [you] and so [you] fill in the blanks with what [you] think ''god'' was doing.If using spit and mumbling to the sun is 'truth'' to you then you [do] need religion.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Again, says you. I disagree. We'll discuss it in a hundred years.
steve0281 2 years ago
Bible verses and books are proof of [nothing].In fact much of ''psalms'' is lifted from Egyptian wisdom texts.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
And that invalidates them how?
steve0281 2 years ago
The position that [your] god is the ''real god'' and all other cultures and ages had it wrong is not only predicable for a cult member faced with inconvienient facts but also a reflection of ego and maybe racism at work.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Oh PUH-LEEZE! We have gone to disagreeing on the order of events to your now engaging in ad hominems. Do you really want to go there?
steve0281 2 years ago
What order of events are you referring to? =/
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Zoroasterianism was a corruption of the original, true religion. Of course they would have some truth.
steve0281 2 years ago
If you mean Zoroastrianism is based on the Vedas and Brahmanism you are correct.If you mean it is based on the bible you are woefully ignorant of the facts.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
I did not say that. What I said is that they have the same source.
steve0281 2 years ago
The source of all religion is the earth mother worship and astronomy of early man in the African Nile valley.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Later during the exile the ''Jews'' were initiated into Zoroastrianism hence the Parsees[Pharisees] and Ha-Satan was combined with Ahriman.This is [history] not dogma as you would [like] it to be =/
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Again we are differing on the order of events.
steve0281 2 years ago
You can ''disagree'' all you like but facts are facts.Merely stating: ''my mind control manual says Jesus is Lord or the Christ said this or that'' in this [story] proves [nothing].
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Indeed, facts are facts. My experience tells me something different from what you are saying. And be careful; you are dangerously close to saying that your dogma is better than my dogma.
steve0281 2 years ago
You would like to think that my position is equivalent to yours but it is not.This is the new tactic.I do not have a mind control manual from which I get my basis for argument.I deal in facts.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
You are acting upon what you believe are facts. I may agree with many of them. I just think that you are biased, but so am I and everyone else on the planet. I have what I think are facts as well. You are free to accept them or not.
steve0281 2 years ago