So aliens visiting earth could be space fairing dinosaurs? Makes more sense than aliens from another planet stumbling across on ours, to be honest. It would be like growing up in a big house, moving away and then having the urge years later to visit the home you grew up in.
Also, time, for the traveler, moves slower when traveling through space at a high velocity. While it has been 65 million years here, it could have only been 100,000 for them.
Yeah I'd wager these "Fictional creatures" make Evolutionists masterbate to the Imaginary concept that evolution could of actually been the answer. Ha ha Imagination's these souls have. If God wanted those things to exist they would have. has nothing to do with the Sci Fi theory evolution
who are these people to think that dinosaurs couldn't adapt to an erect posture like modern humans nature come's up with many thing's if it wasn't for the KT event it's likely that some dinosaurs species would have evolved while most would continue looking like dinosaurs and it's unlikely that humans and Dinosauroid's would coexist because the KT event is the reason why mammal's reign supreme and if the KT event never happened then we wouldn't be where we are now and Dinosaurs would still rule.
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
this aint no propaganda i think its time we stand up, expose the army of serpents and man up. They don't call it the "United Snakes" for nothin the mother fuckin reptilian renaissance is comin
I have shown, most of your 'beneficial mutations' are simply hybrids or adjustments. I would like to see evidence for your 'million-year-old earth' idea.
This wideo is mind seed of the real reality, they do exist and they are older than us and what is the most interesting is they are native Earthlings and this earth race is not our enemy!!! If you are open minded enough; PLEASE read the LACERTA files and make you own opinion..
You do not need a humanoid body shape to become sapient. A sapient troodon would probably be a lot more birdlike, but still have a tail. It would hold stuff with it's feet and mouth, and it's arms would probably atrophy.
the human design is only good for things we regularly do, which might be different on a different planet.
the only thing, if dinosauroids were there, they would be better in spacetravel, as they would fall in deep slumber due to the extreme cold of the space, though not having to bring nearly as much ressources with them for the same way/time.
So then why and/or how are humans this "advanced"? Where are the 65 million+ years we needed to become this? AND yes, they would not look like people. Their design was perfect, until further notice. And there was no notice. And they look amazing anyways.
i wonder if maybe in another universe where dinosaurs never went extinct, that there are evolved versions of dinosaurs like the one seen in this video
well, the dinosaurs would have million of years ahead start than humans, so they would probably conquer us, destroy, kill or perhaps make friends with us. or perhaps they secretly are controlling us from space or where ever.
humanity is weak, without technology everyone would die off in weeks too a month, from sun exsposer alone. If you really look at it, humanity should never have survived too this point, their is something.. unatural about humanity and more so scary, freaks of nature if you will.. and even then humanity doesnt really belong in exsistance, the human form is not supiror but unnatural.
Bullshit!! If humans are so 'successful' in design, then why are we alone in a world that 'apparently favours' such designs? Humans account for only 0.01% of the Earth's biomass, and perhaps up to 0.02% including all other primate lifeforms. To assume that the human form is the pinnacle of evolution is unjustified self-indulgent nonsense!
So you mean to say they don't exist? What a way to keep people in utter bullshit. According to Izulu Shaman from South Africa Credo Mutwa commented: the best way to protect an evil thing is to deny it's existence.
Well its not an "End point" rather our Current point. The logic is there, and will be argued, so to say its def not true is ignorant. Not to mention the ones arguing it have no explanation(or the directer cut it out). To say that there walking among us, or even the hypothetic "Co existence" would not be solid
Now this is a great video! Dale Russell proposed this idea. Trooden would've made a great candidate for evolution. 65 million years is ample time for an intelligent life form such as Trooden to evolve into a sapient being like ourselves. Although they won't be driving a Ferrari or a Porsche, they will develop their own means to overcome social challenges. If they are reptilian races out there, then they could've evolved from such a creature like Trooden.
dinosaurs did not go extinct, most went into the caves, the animal world is more then aware of what to do in disasters, they knew two weeks in advance to the tsunami disaster after all, is why hardly any animals died during that time.
i think they went into caves and changed their forms. to whatever is necessary there
@eojadiius plausible? no.. just natural. there are caves all over the world, large, small, long, gigantic, and would have been just the same and even more back then. as if there isnt one cave man has not discovered yet and more with more then something unseen yet. like evolved dinosaurs lol birds are a dinosaur offshoot anyway it is said and i think so too. they look like it.
1: Where can I get that costume? Please tell me and 2: evolution makes no sense, if we 'evolved' from rodents which are mammals, then wouldn't we evolve from all mammals? So the rodent became a giant blue whale and shrunk back down to human? come on!
@GrimmThePhantom That's a really stupid line of reasoning (devoid of reason or common sense), and also it does not describe the concept of evolution. Evolution refers to natural selection, in order words "survival of the fittest". Meaning, nature weeds out the traits that do not help an animal survive, and the ones that do survive have traits more suited to their environment which are then passed on the their offspring. Why don't you try reading a book, if you don't understand something?
@bruce154ify Sorry to disapoint you but natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. Natural selection selects it does not give new information to the gene code. Also, survival of the fittest does not exist, why did it survive? Because it's the fittest. Why is it the fittest? Because it survived. It's circular reasoning.
@GrimmThePhantom Why the fittest? Because of mutation which made it unique. There is no circular reasoning involved in "survival of the fittest". Natural selection has everything to do with evolution, but it does not cause mutations per se, no.
@PM011 Can you give me an example of a beneficial mutation? Natural selection only kills thoughs who are sick, old, or weak that has nothing to do with evolution, it just removes those who can't survive on their own.
@GrimmThePhantom Mutations that affects energy consumption in relation to available energy in the environment as an example. Or mutations that can make energy more available in some way. Not all mutations equals severe birth defects. And natural selection is part of the evolutionary theory. "Evolution" is the group name for specific processes, including mutation and natural selection.
@PM011 You did not give me an example of a beneficial mutation. You told me what a beneficial mutation was but that is all. Also, you seem to strongly believe natural selection and evolution go together, please give me an example of your theory.
@GrimmThePhantom, What about the classic case with the mutated bacterium that allowed it to survive from nylon waste? Due to a genetic frame shift in the DNA the bacteria was allowed to feed on the man-made nylon by product, which greatly increased it's chances to absorb energy from the environment, thus increased it's chances for survival. This is just one example of how natural selection and mutations is part of the evolutionary principle.
@PM011 That is not a beneficial mutation but an adaption called a phenotype which is a temporarly beneficial mutation which is only useful in certain enviroments. It's like a person who has no food but he has no taste buds so he can eat waste (I know, ew) but if he was a successful business man than that man would be upset because he could not taste the fine food. For more information, go on to Bing and search 'bacteria survive on nylon waste'.
@GrimmThePhantom It's a matter of being able to absorb energy, not a matter of "taste". A human survives because of the bacteria being able to absorb energy from particular compounds. A human is not a bacteria. It would be pointless for a tasteless person to "eat waste" if not the chemical breakdown processes or bacteria would be able to extract energy from it and pass on to the body.
@GrimmThePhantom Since evolution is a constant process, all beneficial mutations are "temporary" for as long as they suit the environment. That's the prime definition of natural selection.
As long as the north pole is cold the polar bear will benefit of it's isolating skin and fur. As long as the sun shines cold blooded animals will be able to survive by absorbing energy from sun rays. As long as the factory produce nylon the bacteria will thrive and won't "need to mutate" for survival.
@GrimmThePhantom Understand that 'genotype' and 'phenotype' are just different terms for describing the same phenomenon, but with different reference points. 'Genotype' is with a gene or a genome as a reference point, while 'phenotype' uses physiology, morphology and behaviour as a reference point, which are all the a result of the genome.
I hate to use a cliché term such as "straw man" but that's what your "phenotype" argument is.
@PM011 First off, I agree, "straw man" is being used too much by both sides. Your polar bear and cold-blooded argument is useless. Polar bears have never mutated but in actuality, God made them to survive in the Arctic Same goes for the cold-blooded animals. There were people who wore these glasses which allowed them to see everything upside down and in three days the brain adjusted so that they could see right side up. That is an adjustment not a mutation. Same for the bacteria.
@GrimmThePhantom, yes I see. The funny thing is that the polar bear share DNA sequences with the fossils of the now extinct brown bear hybrid found on the british iles, which in turn share DNA sequences with the modern common brown bear.
@GrimmThePhantom, I agree that adjusting to an upsidedown world is not due to mutations in the genome. However bacteria does not wear glasses. We were talking about a frameshift in the genome that let the bacteria absorb energy from a completely new compound.
The adjustment to an upsidedown world was not the result of a mutation in the genome. In the case of the bacteria it was. It's not the same deal.
@PM011 Sorry, you're wrong there. The upside-down vision back to right-side up is an adjustment, just like absorbing nutrients from something that is not usual. It's like there is less food for the lion so the lion is proned to eat animals it usually doesn't.
@GrimmThePhantom, no silly. A randomly generated frameshift happened in the bacterium's amino acid sequence, that means it was spliced with one extra nucleotide, creating an new enzyme which made it able to chemically break down nylon oligomers and extract energy from it.
If this was a matter of taste, how come this new enzyme lost it's ability to chemically break down the original bacterium's energy source - carbohydrates?
@GrimmThePhantom, now either you explain how adjusting to an upsidedown world is due to a randomly generated frameshift in the genome, or you explain why this bacteria's sudden change of taste was not due to a frameshift. If you cannot explain either, don't claim they are due the same thing.
AnswersInGenesis tried to refute this by stating "it's just due to plasmids", however failed miserably considering the plasmids actually confirms the frameshift.
@PM011 You just put yourself in a corner! It gained the ability to break down energy from something new but it also lost the ability to break down energy from carbohydrates. That shows that due to lack of carbohydrates, it adjusted to it's new enviroment and broke down energy from something. Which means it's a temporary beneficial mutation. This mutation would not be useful if it did not have nylon.
@GrimmThePhantom, of course this mutation wouldn't be beneficial if it wasn't for the nylon in the environment, that is the "survival of the fittest" in a nutshell.
ALL beneficial mutations are temporary for AS LONG as the environment stays the same.
Remove the nylon source and the mutation serves no purpose.
You are answering your own questions without realizing it.
Now, explain the connection between the glasses and genetic frameshift for me please.
@PM011 With the glasses on, the brain ADJUSTED so you could see things correctly. Same goes for the bacteria it adjusted. By the way, I should of asked this in the beginning but, how is eating something than normal proof it is a more advanced species?
You wrote: "upside-down vision is an adjustment, just like absorbing nutrients from something that is not usual."
They are _not_ due to the same thing. The upsidedown adjustment happens when new neurons and synapses develop inside the brain, connecting new areas. And don't confuse "develop" with "evolving". Neuron construction has NOTHING to do with a genetic frameshift, ie a mutation.
@PM011 Listen, if the bacterium is your only evidence, which is still questionable due to it just being an adjustment, then your in trouble. All of your evidence has been disproven and the bacteria is just eating something to survive. Go ahead, name some other evidence.
@GrimmThePhantom Where has it been disproven? Name the scientific peer-reviewed publication. Also can you give me a biological definition for what you call an "adjustment"? What exactly happens biologically when an "adjustment" takes place?
You just want me to switch subject to you don't have to answer these questions.
@PM011 I can't find your latest reply anywhere. Search biological definition of adjustment and you find things about biological adjustment. Why is eating something different such a big thing? How is it becoming more complexed? Answer: It's not! It's still bacterium.
@GrimmThePhantom No, I want YOU to give me the that definition since you constructed your arguments around it without giving me the biological definition yourself. I don't read your thoughts, I don't know what biological process you are referring to.
First you used the term "phenotype", but I explained to you how this term is used when comparing different life forms, which includes comparison of different genotypes (mutations) so you used the wrong term to describe "the adjustment".
@PM011 Any alteration in the survival pattern of an organism to survive in it's enviroment. See? If it has less carbohydrates to eat it might get hungry and (gasp!) eat something else to survive!
@GrimmThePhantom, try and eat nylon for yourself. It doesn't matter how hungry you are, your bacteria will still not be able to break down the substance and draw energy from it. It requires a genome mutation for that to happen. The adjustment to the upside-world is a NEUROLOGICAL change, means new neuron connections are created in the brain to help new forms of information to be processed successfully. Your ability to develop new neurons is part of your genome since you were an embryo.
@GrimmThePhantom The nylon eating bacteria is a Flavobacterium strain named Sp. K172. In the early 80s, Japanese science team Negoro S et al managed to transfer the plasmids (which contains the bacteria DNA) from Sp.K172 into a strain of Escherichia coli bacteria, which led to the E. coli producing the same nylon digesting enzymes as Sp. k172.
@PM011 No, now that you have given me facts you were holding back, I can safely say that the bacterium you are referring to is a hybrid, not a mutation. Now if that's the only evidence you have, allow me to give you evidence for the Bible being true: We have found Noah's Ark. The Bible talked about Hittites before modern archeologists found them. We have found a city which which mentions Goliath in it's history books. Anything else?
@GrimmThePhantom A hybrid in the genetic sense always carries two different alleles (a specific part) of a specific gene sequence. This happens when two homozygous individuals mate.
However bacteria does not replicate by sexual means, but through fission, ie cloning of their own genome. The new information that formed the new enzyme couldn't come from anything but a mutation within the genome itself since bacteria isn't capable of creating hybrids. The only changes comes from mutation.
No you have not found any ark. You have found places that people like to believe is the place where the ark stranded.
The Bible does not mention anything about native Americans, or a bunch of other ancient cultures that were found long after the Bible.
The remains of the city Sha'arayim was found in Israel yes, and it is possible that someone named David defeated a much larger opponent there (continuing in the next post)
@GrimmThePhantom, however, local pagan folklore was picked up and re-branded in the Bible many times, such as the Gilgamesh flood myth that existed thousands of years before Christ. The flood myth describes very similar sequence of events to those in Genesis, and the Gilgamesh flood tablet confirms this.
That they found ruins just means they found an ancient city, and ancient cities can contain local folklore put on tablets, pots, as art or whatnot.
@PM011 Well, couldn't it be possible that The Flood happened and then after other civilizations were created, and the history was past down, that THEY rebranded it so that they could follow pagan beliefs? You have now told me the third flood story not of the Bible, there are many flood legends, why is that? Maybe there was a flood. And of course the legend would before Christ! The Flood happened many, many years before Christ.
@PM011 The geological event that you are asking for is what you guys call the Geological Column. The geological column does not actually exist but many of the layers of sediment we see today are due to sorting by density. Animals went to areas that were most fit for them. They reached the Americas due to an ice bridge from Alaska and Russia and the sea bed was pushed upwards during the Flood creating a land bridge to Australia, which has now settled back down. Anything else?
@GrimmThePhantom, also, how come stenohaline animals (means high sensitivity to salinity fluctuation) could survive such high amount of fresh water being mixed into the sea water? All these (still living) stenohaline animals would had gone instinct if such event really occured. And no, many of these animals will die within hours if they are put in water with slightly different salinity levels compared to their natural environment.
@PM011 Well, let's take a look, that part I cannot explain at the moment but last I checked, God can do anything. God could simply change thereway to survive. That should easy for you to believe since you believe animals changed from rocks to birds to survive.
@GrimmThePhantom, so one might wonder how these animals survived a global flood of fresh water. Did Noah bring them onto the ark? Genesis [6:20] tells us all animals came to the ark with the help of god, at least all land living animals. But let's consider this included sea creatures as well. Did all the world's species of fish travel across both fresh and seawater, and on land as well, to end up on the ark? Does Genesis mention anything about fish bowls?
@PM011 Fish stayed in the water, they had all the water they needed, why would they need to be on the Ark? Also, it was actually not so difficult, Noah just needed one of each Order, or Class, or Family, one of those. Those then created the variations we see today. Insects however we're not on the Ark because they can easily survive a flood.
@GrimmThePhantom, why did god choose to lead certain species to safety while others were gifted some magical power to survive in a lethal environment? Why wasn't all land living creatures given the ability to breathe water if "god can do anything"? Why bother the whole thing with the ark and and flood in the first place? Why do you constantly seek natural explanations but as soon as there is a problem you abandon all reason and simply go "well everything is possible with god"?
@PM011 Well, I see the mistake in my argument, so I looked into and found out I was wrong. "Today, the oceans are 3.6% salt. With the hydrologic cycle the oceans could easily go from fresh water to 3.6% salt in less than 5,000 years. The animals can adapt to a little bit of salt in the water over that amount of time no problem."- Eric Hovind
@GrimmThePhantom, perhaps you shouldn't rely on intellectually dishonest creationists for arguments. Ocean salinity have been the same for billions of years, a sudden change in salinity would kill the sea creatures that we still have today. It doesn't matter what people like Hovind imagine happened after an imaginary event if they cannot account for the very real state that we know happened long before it thanks to observable data found in nature.
@PM011 Allow me to explain. There was no salt water before the Flood. When the Flood began, it was the first time to rain which then after the Flood created the hydrological cycle causing salt to be in the ocean over 5,000 years. This was slow enough for fresh water fish to become salt water fish.
@GrimmThePhantom if the earth was 5000 years old all the scientific radiometric dating would not match everything we know about nature and isotope decay. All radiometric samples and measurements of rock and organic fossils made throughout history would suddenly be totally invalid for some reason. You are free to explain (with proper arguments) why the science of radiometric dating is wrong before you can justify a young earth-theory.
@PM011 Radiometric dating is false, go to dr dino com slash radiometric-dating-is-it-accurate slash. It will give you information on how radiometric dating is based on assumptions. Also, how do you explain the equalibreum?
@GrimmThePhantom, of course radiometric dating is based upon assumption, but those assumptions are made based on statistical observable data, with help by the law of large numbers, unlike the Bible that gives you an assumption with no match in observable data at all. Your Dr. Dino site has a ideological agenda to defend which is not driven by science, that's why they take the science out of context and distort it (continuing in the next post).
@GrimmThePhantom, now let's assume that there is a thing such as "accelerated nuclear decay" like assumed on Dr Dino, and let's put it in the context of the supposed flood.
First, keep in mind that radioactive decay produces heat. If many billions of years of radioactive decay would happen in such short span of time such as during the supposed flood, if the accelerated decay really happened it would produce so much heat and radioactivity that it would literary melt the planet.
@GrimmThePhantom, this is of course a very serious flaw in the "accelerated nuclear decay" theory very few creationists are willing to admit. But it just shows how they produce pseudo science only to justify their predefined belief.
Send an email to the American Geological Institute, or NASA, were you can get answers from real scientists instead. Ask them about radiometric dating and you'll see why creationist pages like Dr Dino has no real science behind their claims.
@PM011 In the American Journal of Science, vol. 276 Janurary 1976, J. E. O'Rourke was quoted saying: "Radiometric dating would not have been feasable if the geolgoical column had not been erected first." That's one thing, another is that the Earth is gaining carbon-14 from the sun and losing it to decay, eventually, it would lead to equalibrium. When this was first discovered, they mathmatically theorized that the equalibrium would be reached in 30,000 years. (continued)
@PM011 However, we have not reached equalibrium, in fact, carbon-14 is being formed 28-37% more in the atmosphere. So the Earth cannot be older than 29,000 years. Otherwise we would have reached equalibrium.
@GrimmThePhantom, the equilibrium argument originally comes from Henry Morris in 1974, and there's no surprise that the Hovind family still consider the argument to this day.
Henry Morris based his argument on a publication made by Richard Lingenfelter in 1963 concerning C-14 production. That was before things like C-14 variation was understood by science.
Indeed the equilibrium theory would make sense IF C-14 production remained constant. However it is far from constant and never was.
@PM011 Very well, let us look then at how carbon-14 dating actually works. If carbon-14 is produced at a constant rate, it is then you can use the actual dating theory which means that you can assume the actual half-life. However, it is like a candle burning, when was it lit? well you know it's 12 inches and burns 2 centimeters an hour, you still can't tell me when it was lit without making assumptions. Since you say carbon-14 is not produced at a steady rate, this idea doesn't work.
@GrimmThePhantom, C-14 production and C-14 decay are two different things. Also, C-14 isn't the only isotopes you can date, there are many others as well.
As I said earlier, radiometric dating is indeed an assumption - when other known data regarding electromagnetic influence, isotope production fluctuations ect are included in the formula. Only when these variations I previously described are taken into account will any dating become accurate, that's the difference between good and bad dating.
@PM011 If you watch Kent Hovind Carbon Dating on Youtube part 1 and 2, you will see your precious radiometric dating torn to shreds. It would only take 20 minutes.
@GrimmThePhantom, you should read the actual sources Hovind so delicately quote in the beginning of his so called lecture. He quote mines, means he takes the original article out of context. The purpose of the original articles were to demonstrate the effects of inherited decay through an older source. When carbon dating marine life for example it is essential that you realize this or else you will end up with severely distorted results, just like I've pointed out to you already.
@PM011 Really? Well, how about this, if you haven't watched the videos I sugested than your about to be educated. When Carbon-14 decays it releases helium (I'm pretty sure it's carbon-14) now if this cycle was going on for millions of years, wouldn't we sound like the munchkins in the Wizard of Oz? Two fossilized mammoths were found side by side, one was 22,850 to 670 years old. The other 16,150 to 230 years old. This was in the Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska.
@GrimmThePhantom, there are a number of processes that let helium escape the atmosphere. First you have thermal processes that works by the principle of buoyancy. Heat decreases density which means one of the least dense gasses in this universe - such as helium, can gain escape velocity. Other processes involves photoionization also called 'ion outflow mechanism' where helium atoms escape through solar wind. Variations in geomagnetic fields also contribute to helium escaping.
@PM011 You didn't answer my question about the mammoths, should I assume as you evolutionist do with carbon dating that you cannot answer that question?Also try this: "The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the Earht's atmosphere affects the amount of C14 produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching varies with the sun's activity, and with the Earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy. (continued)
@PM011 (continuation) "The strength of the Earht's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the Earth. Overall, the energy of the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing, so more C14 is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are."
@GrimmThePhantom, now listen, just because one dating (the mammoths) which is from an article from 1983, is cited all over creationists sites doesn't mean radiometric dating at large is invalid. Hovind choose to take the article about the molluscs (snails) and inherited decay out of context, did he choose to take the ones of the mammoths out of context as well? I don't know since I have not read that particular article Hovind used.
@PM011 Those molluscs were in a carbon rich enviroment. Since the enviroment where creatures lived affected the carbon dating method, wouldn't that show it can be inacurate due to the enviroment the fossil lived in?
@GrimmThePhantom, yes that's what I've been trying to explain to you all the time. The difference between accurate and inaccurate dating depends on whether you take things like inherited decay into the calculations when determining the age of a sample. This does not in any way invalidate the math behind the calculations.
@GrimmThePhantom, now many of the articles Hovind relies upon are either from a time before science knew about inherited decay thus were perplexed when the datings didn't match the maths. Or, Hovind pretends that the very scientific knowledge about the things that can indeed distort datings somehow invalidates the maths behind the calculations. If you are aware of the distortions you can still have a very accurate dating. This awareness is the difference between good and bad dating.
@PM011 The mammoth thing happened in 1992, NOT '83. In 1996, a geologist named Swisher tested the sediments that were with the Java man with the latest dating methods. Even though he used two different methods, he came to the conclusion that were 53,000 to 27,000 years old. which is and I quote: " a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans." Also, you never answered the thing about the Earth's magnetic field, should I take it that you cannot rebuttal it?
@GrimmThePhantom, no the story was published in Quaternary Research in 1992. The little I've been able to figure out from the article (without having to buy it) suggests that the actual finding of the mammoths happened years earlier. Perhaps not specifically in 1983 (since other mammoths was found that year in the very same area) so I'm not sure which findings relates to the mammoths you refer to.
@PM011 Here is the entire source:Robert M. Thorson and R. Dale Guthrie, "Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alska," Queternary Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, March 1992, pp. 214-228, see also: 'In the Beginning' Walt Brown
@GrimmThePhantom, just stop for one second and ask yourself if you understand what the case of Swisher and the Java Man actually means. Did you just copy paste the question from some page somewhere without spending any time reflecting on it?
What you are talking about is an earlier species of humans that Carl Swisher and his team suggested survived on Java until somwhere between 53k and 27k years ago. I thought you didn't consider evolution to be true?
@PM011 I don't. What I said was trying to tell is that the time period that they assumed with the Cabon-14 dating was also what they say the same time modern man lived. So when they did this experiment, the result was the cabon dating said Java man lived with modern man, which doesn't work with the evolutionary theory. And if your wondering, Java man isn't even real.
@GrimmThePhantom, did you also know that Carl Swisher and his team dated a number of other fossils of earlier species of humans to about two millions years?
The case of the so called Java Man is not the only sample they date, but it was controversial just because the findings suggested that an older species of humans survived on remote islands on Java up to only 40k-something years ago.
Now explain to me why Swisher's finding is incompatible with the evolutionary theory.
@PM011 It implied that Java man lived with modern man since atheists believe modern man 'evolved' from Java man. So the mammoths you still haven't rebuttaled. Also, here is some more evidence. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated 1,300 years old! This was in the Antarctic Journal, 1971, vol. 6 Sept.-Oct. p 211.
@GrimmThePhantom, Homo Sapiens (modern humans) and Homo Erectus (the species the Java man belonged to) evolved from the same family of ancestors. Just because one population evolves into a new species doesn't automatically erase the previous kind. The reason why Homo Erectus went instinct is because Homo Sapiens outsmarted it in so many ways. Survival of the fittest in a nutshell. It survived so long because of the isolation on the Java islands.
@PM011 Okay, we have Java man at a stand still. Now if you have any evidence against the mammoths or the frshly killed seal, I would greatly like to see it.
@GrimmThePhantom, and you haven't paid attention I see. The article about the molluscs (snails) we talked about earlier, explained how marine living animals inherit decay through marine food. Guess what, a seal is also a marine animal, and the article was published before inherited decay was fully understood as well. Do you get it why Hovind choose these particular articles and why he takes them out of context to support his argument?
@PM011 Fine. Here's some more evidence: "One part of Dima ( a baby frozen mammoth) was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the 'wood immediately around the carcass' was 9-10,000 years old." - Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenelature in Unglaciated Central Alaska. Here's another one: " In the last two years an ABSOLUTE DATE has been obtained for the Ngondong beds, and it has a very interesting value of 300,000 years plus or minus 300,000 years." -Human Evolution. Try to rebuttal the mammoths.
@GrimmThePhantom, alright. The reason why I didn't address the mammoths is because I couldn't find any sources to check. However thanks to your last post I found a source which mentions the original articles Hovind based his statements upon. Let me quote, so please have the patience to read all of it so you don't have to ask me again about it (quote in the next post.)
"Hovind makes a big-time misrepresentation here. I looked at the data in USGS Professional Paper 862. It is a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled “Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska”. It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950’s and 60’s. (continuing)
There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); “flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius” (found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the “skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius[”] [baby mammoth] (found by Geist in 1948 “with a beaver dam”). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin. (continuing)
NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed “baby”, and the other is not. To construct this Fractured Fairy Tale, Hovind must have hoped that no one listening would check and see what his reference really said."
So there you have it. Hovind manages to take things out of context again. Check the mentioned papers if you don't believe this source.
@GrimmThePhantom I cannot find the quote about the two mammoths side by side that you wanted to show me. Though I must say, congrats. You have made an exuse for the baby mammoth. Here is a quote: "The myth is that radiocarbon dating can accurately establish exact dates of death of organic remains almost as far back as 50,000 years. The reality is that one would have to know the C14/C12 ratio in the enviroment at the time of death of the sample. The fact is the we can (continued)
@GrimmThePhantom (continuation) only infer that ratio for the past 5,000 years or so using historical records. The interference is that ratio changes sufficiently so that calibration factors have to be used to convert radiocarbon years to actual calendar years. since the ratio is known to have changed in historic times, it is irrational and unscientific to think that is was constant before historic times."- ScienceAgainst Evolution. Go to their website of the same name for more
@GrimmThePhantom, calibration is needed for accurate C-14 dating of course. Just because a calibration curve is used does not invalidate the dating altogether, in fact the whole purpose of a calibration curve is to improve the accuracy by using known factors. Now tell me why this would ruin C-14 dating.
Remember that C-14 dating is used to date organic stuff. You don't C-14 date dinosaurs. There is a range of other isotopes available which stretch way further back in time compared to C-14.
@PM011 Funny you should say that. One of your evolutionist friends (I think he was a teacher, scientist, something like that) said they have found soft tissue with dinosaurs and carbon dated it. Isn't that a problem for both of you? Now you can leave a reply but I won't respond until after Christmas. Believe me, I'm not done.
@GrimmThePhantom, C-14 can be applied when organic matter is found which is within the age C-14 dating can measure. Usually dinosaur bones have been fossilised which means there is no carbon to be found on them. The soft tissue found in the T-rex bones where not carbon dated, but another isotope was used for dating them.
The only problem I have is that you give me one of our personal anecdotes and expect me to be held accounted for it.
But you are certainly welcome back. A happy Yule to you :)
@PM011 Thanks, Merry Christmas to you too. Now, you have said that we have not reached equalibrium because the amount of carbon-14 being emmitted varies. The Earth's magnetic field is decreasing, as you know, so the amount of cabon-14 being admitted into the Earth will make objects appear older that they are. Now, when The Flood happened it disrupted the carbon balance by 'locking up' carbon in organic material which became oil, gas, and coal. Revegation of the planet after The(continued)
@PM011 (continuation) Flood lowered the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and increase the amount of C14 to the C14/C12 ratio. As you know, carbon-14 comes from nitrogen-14 and sun rays so it would not be affected by the carbon dioxide levels.
@GrimmThePhantom, welcome back. I hope you had a great christmas :)
But let's get straight to business.
You claim that "the earth's magnetic field is decreasing". The problem is that any paleomagnetic record suggests the opposite. The magnetic field is in fact much stronger than millions of years ago. In order for your argument to work you must provide me we a scientific peer-reviewed publication on the subject that suggest otherwise.
@PM011 Even your precious, prejudice National Geographic says the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing. Other peoplewho say it is decreasing are : MSNBC, ScienceDaily, NOVA, etc.
@GrimmThePhantom, if you actually read what the article in National Geographic says ('Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading') it states: "Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say."
That was 167 years ago.
However compared to millions of years ago the intensity is twice the amount.
The article is discussing potential magnetic field reversal, which happens every 200 000 years on average.
@PM011 Nice loophole. You clearly state that scientists started researching the magnetic field 167 years. In those years, they discovered a 10% decrease in the magnetic field. Then you say a magnetic field reversal happens every 200000 years even though we have not examined it since we have only looked into 167 years. Also, by my understanding, the magnetic field reversal is when the poles switch places. Isn't that what Magneto did in X-Men comic books?
@GrimmThePhantom, the first human to keep record of the earth's magnetic field happened 167 ago, as clearly stated in the article. It does not, by any means, indicate we can't keep track of any paleomagnetic record before 167 years ago.
Do you see what happens when you force yourself to misread scientific articles? You cannot accept being wrong, hence why you constantly misinterpret things so that they appear to confirm your preconceived concepts, just like Kent/Eric Hovind does.
@PM011 Then please, tell me. What happens when a magnetic field reversal occurs? Does a compass point south? Does the world flip upside-down? You haven't given evidence to support the magnetic field reversal, therefore my point still stands.
@GrimmThePhantom, yes, north will actually be pointing south when such event occurs. Let me quote an article from NASA about the subject (in the next post.)
From the NASA article "2012: Magnetic Pole Reversal Happens All The (Geologic) Time"
"Sediment cores taken from deep ocean floors can tell scientists about magnetic polarity shifts, providing a direct link between magnetic field activity and the fossil record. The Earth’s magnetic field determines the magnetization of lava as it is laid down on the ocean floor on either side of the Mid-Atlantic Rift where the North American and European continental plates are spreading apart. (cont.)
As the lava solidifies, it creates a record of the orientation of past magnetic fields much like a tape recorder records sound. The last time that Earth's poles flipped in a major reversal was about 780,000 years ago, in what scientists call the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal."
If you have any questions regarding this information you can send NASA an email and I'm sure they'll explain everything you want to know.
@PM011 So, instead of explaining it yourself, you point to a different link. Didn't you insullt me a while back when I did that on the argument of carbon-14. (I must say we've gone down alot of rabbitholes here.) You don't explain how lava records the magnetic fields and, to be honest, the idea the Earth flips upside-down is alot like the sci-fi comics X-Men where Magneto trys to kill everyone on the Earth by flipping it upside-down.
@GrimmThePhantom, and I pointed out to you why the information you gave me, which were from the Hovinds, is in fact wrong because they deliberately misinterpreted further scientific publications. I gave you the misinterpreted articles themselves and explained why the Hovinds misinterpreted them.
It is your job to prove my sources wrong, and you are of course free to explain why the publication provided by NASA is, in any way, unscientific.
@PM011 Look, I have nothing against NASA. I was just saying you sent me to an article and earlier you insulted me for doing that. If the very minimum difference is that you don't the Hovinds then that's your problem. I can't find any articles on how lava records the magnetic field so maybe you could explain that if you can. On an unrelated note, I've noticed we have taken 12 pages of comments on this video.
@GrimmThePhantom, "i don't Hovinds.."? Trust you mean? If that is the case it's because they deliberately misquote articles to support their preconceived concepts. They are not conducting science. I gave you specific examples of Hovind's misquotations. Perhaps you find being proven wrong to be insulting to you?
If you want to make it easy for yourself, go to Wikipedia and type "Geomagnetic reversal", read, and check the cited sources in that article if you doubt the information.
@PM011 I meant 'you don't like the Hovinds.' So you send me to the indoctorate Wikipedia. If that's how it is then search 'geomagnetic reversal disproven' and go to "new geology." Also, we've gotten really off track, how about we go back to the C14 argument?
@GrimmThePhantom, what I don't like is when the Hovinds pretend to be scientific, when in fact they are scientifically dishonest by deliberately misquoting science only to support a notion they've already decided is the truth. I told you this is not how science works.
In order to objectively understand anything about this world we cannot make up our minds before before we analyse the world. Because what's the point of doing science if you already made up your mind?
@PM011 Well, you say they are dishonest even though your only evidence is that the mollusks with carbon dating were in a carbon rich enviroment. Now, due to that the enviroment created an inaccurate dating of the mollusks shells, won't that mean that creatures enviroment during their life could effect the dating process? Same goes for submersable mammals like the seal I told you about.
@GrimmThePhantom, if I get your question correctly, yes. Dating the individual creatures requires you to take such factors into the calculations. As I've told you that's the difference between accurate and inaccurate dating.
Now if you want to listen to what the difference between Hovind and a real academic scientist sounds like I recommend you to search for "Kent Hovind vs Molecular Geneticist" here on Youtube. The thing about molluscs is not the only thing that make me doubt the Hovinds.
@PM011 That is the only evidence you have shown me. 'So, scientist made an inaccurate dating because of a carbon-rich enviroment, this shows that carbon dating is accurate.' What kind of mindset is that!? Now your talking about factors and as I've noticed some factors haven't been established. No one knows if the C14/C12 ratio has always been the same. Now I'm going to leave this argument because I want to be decent and let others comment on this video.
@GrimmThePhantom, it is inaccurate, if factors are left out. A lot of factors are known though, that's why we have calibration curves which are constantly refined. But keep in mind that carbon dating is only efficient for dating relatively recent artifacts. Uranium-lead dating for example range back to more than four billion years, and there is no carbon issue to deal with since that's not the isotope in question.
@PM011 Well talking in personal mesages would be good if I knew how to send one. Uranium-lead dating contains factors which aren't looked into: The amount of father and daughter elements at the beginning, rate of conversion has always been the same, and that the subject was isolated so no father element can be added and daughter element can't be lost.
@GrimmThePhantom, again, only creationists argue that any form of radiometric dating is, in general, inaccurate. Again, ask real scientific source like American Geological Institute or NASA about radiometric dating and they will explain to you why your own creationist sources are unscientific and inaccurate. AGI represents "250,000 geologists and geophysicists" I wonder how many of these would support your notion that radiometric dating is generally "inaccurate".
@PM011 So let me see this is what your saying:" The majority of scientists believe radiometric dating to be true, therefore it is." For the longest time they used to teach the earth was flat, guess what? They were wrong. AGI and NASA both support evolution and so they obviously would support radiometric dating. If you send me a personal message, we could constantly reply to each other through that. I just don't know how to send one myself.
@GrimmThePhantom, we can continue the discussion in private if you want. I'd like you know if you managed to expand your views from our discussion, if you found it to be an intellectual discussion rather than a "battle of ideologies" so to speak.
@GrimmThePhantom, so you can tell the people who write your responses to me to let you think for yourself for once. At your age there is nothing more important than being able to actually construct a concept yourself instead of constantly relying on what other tell you to believe.
The Hovinds are trapped in this mindset, they are not interested in what science can teach them, they are only interested in what they can force into science.
How comes the only ones who tries to disprove geomagnetic reversal and evolution are creationists? If creationists were correct, at least some non-religious scientist would come up with the same conclusions, yet none has.
'New Geology' is a creationist site. The section about "debunking evolution" contains claims I know are incorrect, which I can give you examples of. Does that indicate something about the scientific standards of that site do you think?
@GrimmThePhantom, you would be surprised to find that "evolutionsists" like me are not very different from yourself. Europe is highly non-religious, and Sweden were I come from have an atheistic rate of over 85% of the total population.
You have probably been brought up to believe that anyone who argues against your faith is a bad immoral person. Real morals comes from what you do, not what you believe. You would indeed be surprised to find out how the world works outside the United States.
@PM011 so, instead of responding to my rebuttal, you've decided to use the idea that the majority is right. The majority of people voted for Obama and they were wrong. So, morals come from what you do? So, how are morals and a conscious created? Telling they're created by stuff you do doesn't really help your case, here is an example: Since Kip Kinkle murdered students but it's one of his morals to kill he won't be going to jail. That really works doesn't it? So please extend the thought.
im willing to bet that that fuckin reptilian bastard is real.making you believe that its a fake costume.look at its eyes they blink like a reptile...
1HEAVENORHELL2 1 day ago
I'll bag my own groceries. Thank you! You have no pants on.
gunniesack 4 days ago
The theory is very interesting, and at the very least gives new ideas for Storys
ApsalusSigma 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So aliens visiting earth could be space fairing dinosaurs? Makes more sense than aliens from another planet stumbling across on ours, to be honest. It would be like growing up in a big house, moving away and then having the urge years later to visit the home you grew up in.
Also, time, for the traveler, moves slower when traveling through space at a high velocity. While it has been 65 million years here, it could have only been 100,000 for them.
shawzie1916 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
shawzie1916 2 weeks ago
YO HAVE GREEN GRASS WHEN THE GRASS DIES IT TURNS BROWN
SO BLACK PEOPLE ARE WHAT?
PastPresentFuturable 2 weeks ago
PAUSE AT 1:05 That cup is nasty.
gunniesack 2 weeks ago
@gunniesack haha isnt it just.
TheMichellepop 5 days ago
lies
TheMessanjah 3 weeks ago
Yeah I'd wager these "Fictional creatures" make Evolutionists masterbate to the Imaginary concept that evolution could of actually been the answer. Ha ha Imagination's these souls have. If God wanted those things to exist they would have. has nothing to do with the Sci Fi theory evolution
LordEli 3 weeks ago
4:19 HE SAID FULLY ERECT!
trimi38 3 weeks ago
What I wonder is why is the reptile things walking around naked?
Remoniq 3 weeks ago
@Remoniq lol Stop touching my groceries. I'll bag them myself.
gunniesack 2 weeks ago
please friend would you subtitle in eglish, I understand better your language write. Saludos
katumm 3 weeks ago
who are these people to think that dinosaurs couldn't adapt to an erect posture like modern humans nature come's up with many thing's if it wasn't for the KT event it's likely that some dinosaurs species would have evolved while most would continue looking like dinosaurs and it's unlikely that humans and Dinosauroid's would coexist because the KT event is the reason why mammal's reign supreme and if the KT event never happened then we wouldn't be where we are now and Dinosaurs would still rule.
gogogomez51 3 weeks ago
They already exist Mr.Morris
christine39 3 weeks ago
that troodon reading the news paper in the background is just awesome!
troodon2 4 weeks ago
i think the ageist now in disguised
toxicgamesorg 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
"youtube.com/watch?v=INH-lNUQQZg"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this aint no propaganda i think its time we stand up, expose the army of serpents and man up. They don't call it the "United Snakes" for nothin the mother fuckin reptilian renaissance is comin
STRAPPEDNLOADED 1 month ago
I have shown, most of your 'beneficial mutations' are simply hybrids or adjustments. I would like to see evidence for your 'million-year-old earth' idea.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
reptile wins! FATALITY... lol
g44briel 1 month ago
This wideo is mind seed of the real reality, they do exist and they are older than us and what is the most interesting is they are native Earthlings and this earth race is not our enemy!!! If you are open minded enough; PLEASE read the LACERTA files and make you own opinion..
Geronemoable 1 month ago
You do not need a humanoid body shape to become sapient. A sapient troodon would probably be a lot more birdlike, but still have a tail. It would hold stuff with it's feet and mouth, and it's arms would probably atrophy.
nuclearzeon 1 month ago
the human design is only good for things we regularly do, which might be different on a different planet.
the only thing, if dinosauroids were there, they would be better in spacetravel, as they would fall in deep slumber due to the extreme cold of the space, though not having to bring nearly as much ressources with them for the same way/time.
1wing1 1 month ago
So then why and/or how are humans this "advanced"? Where are the 65 million+ years we needed to become this? AND yes, they would not look like people. Their design was perfect, until further notice. And there was no notice. And they look amazing anyways.
yashioman 2 months ago
i wonder if maybe in another universe where dinosaurs never went extinct, that there are evolved versions of dinosaurs like the one seen in this video
drinksprite 2 months ago
this is comedy junk science this is science fiction and entertainment for tv
Gaffer213 2 months ago
If there are any reptilian being reading my comment, please message me. Thank yoou.
youdevil6 2 months ago 5
Here I thought humanoid dinosaurs would look like Turains from Mass Effect
TallandAsian89 2 months ago
the Human race is fake.
Neonskitz 2 months ago
this looks just like my reptilian version of aliens, but mine had a more turtle like face.
thepermman 3 months ago
what more poof do we need, there was even one reading the newspaper. that's more advanced then most humans !
albertchandler2 3 months ago
God save the Queen, she ain't no human being.
altazores9 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Add the group on FACEBOOK " the queen is a reptilian " get the truth out!!!!
foulbanga 3 months ago
well, the dinosaurs would have million of years ahead start than humans, so they would probably conquer us, destroy, kill or perhaps make friends with us. or perhaps they secretly are controlling us from space or where ever.
juki0h 3 months ago
humanity is weak, without technology everyone would die off in weeks too a month, from sun exsposer alone. If you really look at it, humanity should never have survived too this point, their is something.. unatural about humanity and more so scary, freaks of nature if you will.. and even then humanity doesnt really belong in exsistance, the human form is not supiror but unnatural.
underfire987 3 months ago
Bullshit!! If humans are so 'successful' in design, then why are we alone in a world that 'apparently favours' such designs? Humans account for only 0.01% of the Earth's biomass, and perhaps up to 0.02% including all other primate lifeforms. To assume that the human form is the pinnacle of evolution is unjustified self-indulgent nonsense!
Mikeyalbum 3 months ago
@Mikeyalbum: Consider that we are the last of our species. All other humans (Neanderthals, Homo Heidberginsis, etc) are all dead.
mrbignerd 3 months ago
@mrbignerd Would it be reasonable to assume that they are dead because they couldn't successfully adapt to THEIR environment?
Mikeyalbum 3 months ago
So you mean to say they don't exist? What a way to keep people in utter bullshit. According to Izulu Shaman from South Africa Credo Mutwa commented: the best way to protect an evil thing is to deny it's existence.
mike61524334251 3 months ago
Well its not an "End point" rather our Current point. The logic is there, and will be argued, so to say its def not true is ignorant. Not to mention the ones arguing it have no explanation(or the directer cut it out). To say that there walking among us, or even the hypothetic "Co existence" would not be solid
icecold99 3 months ago
dinopeopel would be cool but they got murderd by an astroid
zack95305 3 months ago
SUPER MARIO BROTHERS! CONSPIRACY!! WHO DOES MARIO HAVE TO DEFEAT to save the PRINCESS??
devilwolv666 3 months ago
And they call christians retarded.... wow.
NintenFan0900 4 months ago
Now this is a great video! Dale Russell proposed this idea. Trooden would've made a great candidate for evolution. 65 million years is ample time for an intelligent life form such as Trooden to evolve into a sapient being like ourselves. Although they won't be driving a Ferrari or a Porsche, they will develop their own means to overcome social challenges. If they are reptilian races out there, then they could've evolved from such a creature like Trooden.
VerseInfinitum 4 months ago
dinosaurs did not go extinct, most went into the caves, the animal world is more then aware of what to do in disasters, they knew two weeks in advance to the tsunami disaster after all, is why hardly any animals died during that time.
i think they went into caves and changed their forms. to whatever is necessary there
eojadiius 4 months ago
@eojadiius plausible? no.. just natural. there are caves all over the world, large, small, long, gigantic, and would have been just the same and even more back then. as if there isnt one cave man has not discovered yet and more with more then something unseen yet. like evolved dinosaurs lol birds are a dinosaur offshoot anyway it is said and i think so too. they look like it.
eojadiius 4 months ago
My Penis is a Reptilian.
CrocoDuck420 4 months ago 8
1: Where can I get that costume? Please tell me and 2: evolution makes no sense, if we 'evolved' from rodents which are mammals, then wouldn't we evolve from all mammals? So the rodent became a giant blue whale and shrunk back down to human? come on!
GrimmThePhantom 4 months ago
@GrimmThePhantom That's a really stupid line of reasoning (devoid of reason or common sense), and also it does not describe the concept of evolution. Evolution refers to natural selection, in order words "survival of the fittest". Meaning, nature weeds out the traits that do not help an animal survive, and the ones that do survive have traits more suited to their environment which are then passed on the their offspring. Why don't you try reading a book, if you don't understand something?
bruce154ify 4 months ago
@bruce154ify Sorry to disapoint you but natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. Natural selection selects it does not give new information to the gene code. Also, survival of the fittest does not exist, why did it survive? Because it's the fittest. Why is it the fittest? Because it survived. It's circular reasoning.
GrimmThePhantom 2 months ago
@GrimmThePhantom Why the fittest? Because of mutation which made it unique. There is no circular reasoning involved in "survival of the fittest". Natural selection has everything to do with evolution, but it does not cause mutations per se, no.
PM011 2 months ago
@PM011 Can you give me an example of a beneficial mutation? Natural selection only kills thoughs who are sick, old, or weak that has nothing to do with evolution, it just removes those who can't survive on their own.
GrimmThePhantom 2 months ago
@GrimmThePhantom Mutations that affects energy consumption in relation to available energy in the environment as an example. Or mutations that can make energy more available in some way. Not all mutations equals severe birth defects. And natural selection is part of the evolutionary theory. "Evolution" is the group name for specific processes, including mutation and natural selection.
PM011 2 months ago
@PM011 You did not give me an example of a beneficial mutation. You told me what a beneficial mutation was but that is all. Also, you seem to strongly believe natural selection and evolution go together, please give me an example of your theory.
GrimmThePhantom 2 months ago
@GrimmThePhantom, What about the classic case with the mutated bacterium that allowed it to survive from nylon waste? Due to a genetic frame shift in the DNA the bacteria was allowed to feed on the man-made nylon by product, which greatly increased it's chances to absorb energy from the environment, thus increased it's chances for survival. This is just one example of how natural selection and mutations is part of the evolutionary principle.
PM011 2 months ago
@PM011 That is not a beneficial mutation but an adaption called a phenotype which is a temporarly beneficial mutation which is only useful in certain enviroments. It's like a person who has no food but he has no taste buds so he can eat waste (I know, ew) but if he was a successful business man than that man would be upset because he could not taste the fine food. For more information, go on to Bing and search 'bacteria survive on nylon waste'.
GrimmThePhantom 2 months ago
@GrimmThePhantom It's a matter of being able to absorb energy, not a matter of "taste". A human survives because of the bacteria being able to absorb energy from particular compounds. A human is not a bacteria. It would be pointless for a tasteless person to "eat waste" if not the chemical breakdown processes or bacteria would be able to extract energy from it and pass on to the body.
PM011 2 months ago
@GrimmThePhantom Since evolution is a constant process, all beneficial mutations are "temporary" for as long as they suit the environment. That's the prime definition of natural selection.
As long as the north pole is cold the polar bear will benefit of it's isolating skin and fur. As long as the sun shines cold blooded animals will be able to survive by absorbing energy from sun rays. As long as the factory produce nylon the bacteria will thrive and won't "need to mutate" for survival.
PM011 2 months ago
@GrimmThePhantom Understand that 'genotype' and 'phenotype' are just different terms for describing the same phenomenon, but with different reference points. 'Genotype' is with a gene or a genome as a reference point, while 'phenotype' uses physiology, morphology and behaviour as a reference point, which are all the a result of the genome.
I hate to use a cliché term such as "straw man" but that's what your "phenotype" argument is.
PM011 2 months ago
@PM011 First off, I agree, "straw man" is being used too much by both sides. Your polar bear and cold-blooded argument is useless. Polar bears have never mutated but in actuality, God made them to survive in the Arctic Same goes for the cold-blooded animals. There were people who wore these glasses which allowed them to see everything upside down and in three days the brain adjusted so that they could see right side up. That is an adjustment not a mutation. Same for the bacteria.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, yes I see. The funny thing is that the polar bear share DNA sequences with the fossils of the now extinct brown bear hybrid found on the british iles, which in turn share DNA sequences with the modern common brown bear.
PM011 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, I agree that adjusting to an upsidedown world is not due to mutations in the genome. However bacteria does not wear glasses. We were talking about a frameshift in the genome that let the bacteria absorb energy from a completely new compound.
The adjustment to an upsidedown world was not the result of a mutation in the genome. In the case of the bacteria it was. It's not the same deal.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Sorry, you're wrong there. The upside-down vision back to right-side up is an adjustment, just like absorbing nutrients from something that is not usual. It's like there is less food for the lion so the lion is proned to eat animals it usually doesn't.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, no silly. A randomly generated frameshift happened in the bacterium's amino acid sequence, that means it was spliced with one extra nucleotide, creating an new enzyme which made it able to chemically break down nylon oligomers and extract energy from it.
If this was a matter of taste, how come this new enzyme lost it's ability to chemically break down the original bacterium's energy source - carbohydrates?
PM011 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, now either you explain how adjusting to an upsidedown world is due to a randomly generated frameshift in the genome, or you explain why this bacteria's sudden change of taste was not due to a frameshift. If you cannot explain either, don't claim they are due the same thing.
AnswersInGenesis tried to refute this by stating "it's just due to plasmids", however failed miserably considering the plasmids actually confirms the frameshift.
So please explain yourself, or move on.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 You just put yourself in a corner! It gained the ability to break down energy from something new but it also lost the ability to break down energy from carbohydrates. That shows that due to lack of carbohydrates, it adjusted to it's new enviroment and broke down energy from something. Which means it's a temporary beneficial mutation. This mutation would not be useful if it did not have nylon.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, of course this mutation wouldn't be beneficial if it wasn't for the nylon in the environment, that is the "survival of the fittest" in a nutshell.
ALL beneficial mutations are temporary for AS LONG as the environment stays the same.
Remove the nylon source and the mutation serves no purpose.
You are answering your own questions without realizing it.
Now, explain the connection between the glasses and genetic frameshift for me please.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 With the glasses on, the brain ADJUSTED so you could see things correctly. Same goes for the bacteria it adjusted. By the way, I should of asked this in the beginning but, how is eating something than normal proof it is a more advanced species?
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, I'll answer you once you explain to me what biological change was behind the adjustment to the upsidedown vision.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 There is no biological change, it's just an adjustment. Go ahead, stand on your head and you will eventually see normal again.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom Well, you just contradicted yourself. Again.
You wrote: "upside-down vision is an adjustment, just like absorbing nutrients from something that is not usual."
They are _not_ due to the same thing. The upsidedown adjustment happens when new neurons and synapses develop inside the brain, connecting new areas. And don't confuse "develop" with "evolving". Neuron construction has NOTHING to do with a genetic frameshift, ie a mutation.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Listen, if the bacterium is your only evidence, which is still questionable due to it just being an adjustment, then your in trouble. All of your evidence has been disproven and the bacteria is just eating something to survive. Go ahead, name some other evidence.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
Comment removed
PM011 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GrimmThePhantom Where has it been disproven? Name the scientific peer-reviewed publication. Also can you give me a biological definition for what you call an "adjustment"? What exactly happens biologically when an "adjustment" takes place?
You just want me to switch subject to you don't have to answer these questions.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 I can't find your latest reply anywhere. Search biological definition of adjustment and you find things about biological adjustment. Why is eating something different such a big thing? How is it becoming more complexed? Answer: It's not! It's still bacterium.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom No, I want YOU to give me the that definition since you constructed your arguments around it without giving me the biological definition yourself. I don't read your thoughts, I don't know what biological process you are referring to.
First you used the term "phenotype", but I explained to you how this term is used when comparing different life forms, which includes comparison of different genotypes (mutations) so you used the wrong term to describe "the adjustment".
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Any alteration in the survival pattern of an organism to survive in it's enviroment. See? If it has less carbohydrates to eat it might get hungry and (gasp!) eat something else to survive!
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, try and eat nylon for yourself. It doesn't matter how hungry you are, your bacteria will still not be able to break down the substance and draw energy from it. It requires a genome mutation for that to happen. The adjustment to the upside-world is a NEUROLOGICAL change, means new neuron connections are created in the brain to help new forms of information to be processed successfully. Your ability to develop new neurons is part of your genome since you were an embryo.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Exactly what kind of bacterium are we talking about? You never specified that.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom The nylon eating bacteria is a Flavobacterium strain named Sp. K172. In the early 80s, Japanese science team Negoro S et al managed to transfer the plasmids (which contains the bacteria DNA) from Sp.K172 into a strain of Escherichia coli bacteria, which led to the E. coli producing the same nylon digesting enzymes as Sp. k172.
Do you still think this is a matter of "taste"?
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 No, now that you have given me facts you were holding back, I can safely say that the bacterium you are referring to is a hybrid, not a mutation. Now if that's the only evidence you have, allow me to give you evidence for the Bible being true: We have found Noah's Ark. The Bible talked about Hittites before modern archeologists found them. We have found a city which which mentions Goliath in it's history books. Anything else?
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom A hybrid in the genetic sense always carries two different alleles (a specific part) of a specific gene sequence. This happens when two homozygous individuals mate.
However bacteria does not replicate by sexual means, but through fission, ie cloning of their own genome. The new information that formed the new enzyme couldn't come from anything but a mutation within the genome itself since bacteria isn't capable of creating hybrids. The only changes comes from mutation.
PM011 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom As a response to your so called "evidence".
No you have not found any ark. You have found places that people like to believe is the place where the ark stranded.
The Bible does not mention anything about native Americans, or a bunch of other ancient cultures that were found long after the Bible.
The remains of the city Sha'arayim was found in Israel yes, and it is possible that someone named David defeated a much larger opponent there (continuing in the next post)
PM011 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, however, local pagan folklore was picked up and re-branded in the Bible many times, such as the Gilgamesh flood myth that existed thousands of years before Christ. The flood myth describes very similar sequence of events to those in Genesis, and the Gilgamesh flood tablet confirms this.
That they found ruins just means they found an ancient city, and ancient cities can contain local folklore put on tablets, pots, as art or whatnot.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Well, couldn't it be possible that The Flood happened and then after other civilizations were created, and the history was past down, that THEY rebranded it so that they could follow pagan beliefs? You have now told me the third flood story not of the Bible, there are many flood legends, why is that? Maybe there was a flood. And of course the legend would before Christ! The Flood happened many, many years before Christ.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, according to the chronological timeline presented in the Bible, the flood took place 2268 BCE, that means 4279 years ago from today.
How come we don't see a geological record of this global event?
How come we don't see a zoological distribution according to all animals being released from the same area?
The way animals are geologically isolated today rather contradics the notion that they all spread from the same area.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 The geological event that you are asking for is what you guys call the Geological Column. The geological column does not actually exist but many of the layers of sediment we see today are due to sorting by density. Animals went to areas that were most fit for them. They reached the Americas due to an ice bridge from Alaska and Russia and the sea bed was pushed upwards during the Flood creating a land bridge to Australia, which has now settled back down. Anything else?
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, also, how come stenohaline animals (means high sensitivity to salinity fluctuation) could survive such high amount of fresh water being mixed into the sea water? All these (still living) stenohaline animals would had gone instinct if such event really occured. And no, many of these animals will die within hours if they are put in water with slightly different salinity levels compared to their natural environment.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Well, let's take a look, that part I cannot explain at the moment but last I checked, God can do anything. God could simply change thereway to survive. That should easy for you to believe since you believe animals changed from rocks to birds to survive.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, so one might wonder how these animals survived a global flood of fresh water. Did Noah bring them onto the ark? Genesis [6:20] tells us all animals came to the ark with the help of god, at least all land living animals. But let's consider this included sea creatures as well. Did all the world's species of fish travel across both fresh and seawater, and on land as well, to end up on the ark? Does Genesis mention anything about fish bowls?
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Fish stayed in the water, they had all the water they needed, why would they need to be on the Ark? Also, it was actually not so difficult, Noah just needed one of each Order, or Class, or Family, one of those. Those then created the variations we see today. Insects however we're not on the Ark because they can easily survive a flood.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, why did god choose to lead certain species to safety while others were gifted some magical power to survive in a lethal environment? Why wasn't all land living creatures given the ability to breathe water if "god can do anything"? Why bother the whole thing with the ark and and flood in the first place? Why do you constantly seek natural explanations but as soon as there is a problem you abandon all reason and simply go "well everything is possible with god"?
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Well, I see the mistake in my argument, so I looked into and found out I was wrong. "Today, the oceans are 3.6% salt. With the hydrologic cycle the oceans could easily go from fresh water to 3.6% salt in less than 5,000 years. The animals can adapt to a little bit of salt in the water over that amount of time no problem."- Eric Hovind
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, perhaps you shouldn't rely on intellectually dishonest creationists for arguments. Ocean salinity have been the same for billions of years, a sudden change in salinity would kill the sea creatures that we still have today. It doesn't matter what people like Hovind imagine happened after an imaginary event if they cannot account for the very real state that we know happened long before it thanks to observable data found in nature.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Allow me to explain. There was no salt water before the Flood. When the Flood began, it was the first time to rain which then after the Flood created the hydrological cycle causing salt to be in the ocean over 5,000 years. This was slow enough for fresh water fish to become salt water fish.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom if the earth was 5000 years old all the scientific radiometric dating would not match everything we know about nature and isotope decay. All radiometric samples and measurements of rock and organic fossils made throughout history would suddenly be totally invalid for some reason. You are free to explain (with proper arguments) why the science of radiometric dating is wrong before you can justify a young earth-theory.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Radiometric dating is false, go to dr dino com slash radiometric-dating-is-it-accurate slash. It will give you information on how radiometric dating is based on assumptions. Also, how do you explain the equalibreum?
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, of course radiometric dating is based upon assumption, but those assumptions are made based on statistical observable data, with help by the law of large numbers, unlike the Bible that gives you an assumption with no match in observable data at all. Your Dr. Dino site has a ideological agenda to defend which is not driven by science, that's why they take the science out of context and distort it (continuing in the next post).
PM011 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, now let's assume that there is a thing such as "accelerated nuclear decay" like assumed on Dr Dino, and let's put it in the context of the supposed flood.
First, keep in mind that radioactive decay produces heat. If many billions of years of radioactive decay would happen in such short span of time such as during the supposed flood, if the accelerated decay really happened it would produce so much heat and radioactivity that it would literary melt the planet.
PM011 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, this is of course a very serious flaw in the "accelerated nuclear decay" theory very few creationists are willing to admit. But it just shows how they produce pseudo science only to justify their predefined belief.
Send an email to the American Geological Institute, or NASA, were you can get answers from real scientists instead. Ask them about radiometric dating and you'll see why creationist pages like Dr Dino has no real science behind their claims.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 In the American Journal of Science, vol. 276 Janurary 1976, J. E. O'Rourke was quoted saying: "Radiometric dating would not have been feasable if the geolgoical column had not been erected first." That's one thing, another is that the Earth is gaining carbon-14 from the sun and losing it to decay, eventually, it would lead to equalibrium. When this was first discovered, they mathmatically theorized that the equalibrium would be reached in 30,000 years. (continued)
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@PM011 However, we have not reached equalibrium, in fact, carbon-14 is being formed 28-37% more in the atmosphere. So the Earth cannot be older than 29,000 years. Otherwise we would have reached equalibrium.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, the equilibrium argument originally comes from Henry Morris in 1974, and there's no surprise that the Hovind family still consider the argument to this day.
Henry Morris based his argument on a publication made by Richard Lingenfelter in 1963 concerning C-14 production. That was before things like C-14 variation was understood by science.
Indeed the equilibrium theory would make sense IF C-14 production remained constant. However it is far from constant and never was.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Very well, let us look then at how carbon-14 dating actually works. If carbon-14 is produced at a constant rate, it is then you can use the actual dating theory which means that you can assume the actual half-life. However, it is like a candle burning, when was it lit? well you know it's 12 inches and burns 2 centimeters an hour, you still can't tell me when it was lit without making assumptions. Since you say carbon-14 is not produced at a steady rate, this idea doesn't work.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, C-14 production and C-14 decay are two different things. Also, C-14 isn't the only isotopes you can date, there are many others as well.
As I said earlier, radiometric dating is indeed an assumption - when other known data regarding electromagnetic influence, isotope production fluctuations ect are included in the formula. Only when these variations I previously described are taken into account will any dating become accurate, that's the difference between good and bad dating.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 If you watch Kent Hovind Carbon Dating on Youtube part 1 and 2, you will see your precious radiometric dating torn to shreds. It would only take 20 minutes.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, you should read the actual sources Hovind so delicately quote in the beginning of his so called lecture. He quote mines, means he takes the original article out of context. The purpose of the original articles were to demonstrate the effects of inherited decay through an older source. When carbon dating marine life for example it is essential that you realize this or else you will end up with severely distorted results, just like I've pointed out to you already.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Really? Well, how about this, if you haven't watched the videos I sugested than your about to be educated. When Carbon-14 decays it releases helium (I'm pretty sure it's carbon-14) now if this cycle was going on for millions of years, wouldn't we sound like the munchkins in the Wizard of Oz? Two fossilized mammoths were found side by side, one was 22,850 to 670 years old. The other 16,150 to 230 years old. This was in the Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, there are a number of processes that let helium escape the atmosphere. First you have thermal processes that works by the principle of buoyancy. Heat decreases density which means one of the least dense gasses in this universe - such as helium, can gain escape velocity. Other processes involves photoionization also called 'ion outflow mechanism' where helium atoms escape through solar wind. Variations in geomagnetic fields also contribute to helium escaping.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 You didn't answer my question about the mammoths, should I assume as you evolutionist do with carbon dating that you cannot answer that question?Also try this: "The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the Earht's atmosphere affects the amount of C14 produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching varies with the sun's activity, and with the Earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy. (continued)
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@PM011 (continuation) "The strength of the Earht's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the Earth. Overall, the energy of the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing, so more C14 is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are."
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, now listen, just because one dating (the mammoths) which is from an article from 1983, is cited all over creationists sites doesn't mean radiometric dating at large is invalid. Hovind choose to take the article about the molluscs (snails) and inherited decay out of context, did he choose to take the ones of the mammoths out of context as well? I don't know since I have not read that particular article Hovind used.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Those molluscs were in a carbon rich enviroment. Since the enviroment where creatures lived affected the carbon dating method, wouldn't that show it can be inacurate due to the enviroment the fossil lived in?
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, yes that's what I've been trying to explain to you all the time. The difference between accurate and inaccurate dating depends on whether you take things like inherited decay into the calculations when determining the age of a sample. This does not in any way invalidate the math behind the calculations.
PM011 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, now many of the articles Hovind relies upon are either from a time before science knew about inherited decay thus were perplexed when the datings didn't match the maths. Or, Hovind pretends that the very scientific knowledge about the things that can indeed distort datings somehow invalidates the maths behind the calculations. If you are aware of the distortions you can still have a very accurate dating. This awareness is the difference between good and bad dating.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 The mammoth thing happened in 1992, NOT '83. In 1996, a geologist named Swisher tested the sediments that were with the Java man with the latest dating methods. Even though he used two different methods, he came to the conclusion that were 53,000 to 27,000 years old. which is and I quote: " a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans." Also, you never answered the thing about the Earth's magnetic field, should I take it that you cannot rebuttal it?
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, no the story was published in Quaternary Research in 1992. The little I've been able to figure out from the article (without having to buy it) suggests that the actual finding of the mammoths happened years earlier. Perhaps not specifically in 1983 (since other mammoths was found that year in the very same area) so I'm not sure which findings relates to the mammoths you refer to.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Here is the entire source:Robert M. Thorson and R. Dale Guthrie, "Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alska," Queternary Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, March 1992, pp. 214-228, see also: 'In the Beginning' Walt Brown
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, just stop for one second and ask yourself if you understand what the case of Swisher and the Java Man actually means. Did you just copy paste the question from some page somewhere without spending any time reflecting on it?
What you are talking about is an earlier species of humans that Carl Swisher and his team suggested survived on Java until somwhere between 53k and 27k years ago. I thought you didn't consider evolution to be true?
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 I don't. What I said was trying to tell is that the time period that they assumed with the Cabon-14 dating was also what they say the same time modern man lived. So when they did this experiment, the result was the cabon dating said Java man lived with modern man, which doesn't work with the evolutionary theory. And if your wondering, Java man isn't even real.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, did you also know that Carl Swisher and his team dated a number of other fossils of earlier species of humans to about two millions years?
The case of the so called Java Man is not the only sample they date, but it was controversial just because the findings suggested that an older species of humans survived on remote islands on Java up to only 40k-something years ago.
Now explain to me why Swisher's finding is incompatible with the evolutionary theory.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 It implied that Java man lived with modern man since atheists believe modern man 'evolved' from Java man. So the mammoths you still haven't rebuttaled. Also, here is some more evidence. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated 1,300 years old! This was in the Antarctic Journal, 1971, vol. 6 Sept.-Oct. p 211.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, Homo Sapiens (modern humans) and Homo Erectus (the species the Java man belonged to) evolved from the same family of ancestors. Just because one population evolves into a new species doesn't automatically erase the previous kind. The reason why Homo Erectus went instinct is because Homo Sapiens outsmarted it in so many ways. Survival of the fittest in a nutshell. It survived so long because of the isolation on the Java islands.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Okay, we have Java man at a stand still. Now if you have any evidence against the mammoths or the frshly killed seal, I would greatly like to see it.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, and you haven't paid attention I see. The article about the molluscs (snails) we talked about earlier, explained how marine living animals inherit decay through marine food. Guess what, a seal is also a marine animal, and the article was published before inherited decay was fully understood as well. Do you get it why Hovind choose these particular articles and why he takes them out of context to support his argument?
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Fine. Here's some more evidence: "One part of Dima ( a baby frozen mammoth) was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the 'wood immediately around the carcass' was 9-10,000 years old." - Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenelature in Unglaciated Central Alaska. Here's another one: " In the last two years an ABSOLUTE DATE has been obtained for the Ngondong beds, and it has a very interesting value of 300,000 years plus or minus 300,000 years." -Human Evolution. Try to rebuttal the mammoths.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, alright. The reason why I didn't address the mammoths is because I couldn't find any sources to check. However thanks to your last post I found a source which mentions the original articles Hovind based his statements upon. Let me quote, so please have the patience to read all of it so you don't have to ask me again about it (quote in the next post.)
PM011 1 month ago
"Hovind makes a big-time misrepresentation here. I looked at the data in USGS Professional Paper 862. It is a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled “Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska”. It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950’s and 60’s. (continuing)
PM011 1 month ago
There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); “flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius” (found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the “skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius[”] [baby mammoth] (found by Geist in 1948 “with a beaver dam”). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin. (continuing)
PM011 1 month ago
NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed “baby”, and the other is not. To construct this Fractured Fairy Tale, Hovind must have hoped that no one listening would check and see what his reference really said."
So there you have it. Hovind manages to take things out of context again. Check the mentioned papers if you don't believe this source.
PM011 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom I cannot find the quote about the two mammoths side by side that you wanted to show me. Though I must say, congrats. You have made an exuse for the baby mammoth. Here is a quote: "The myth is that radiocarbon dating can accurately establish exact dates of death of organic remains almost as far back as 50,000 years. The reality is that one would have to know the C14/C12 ratio in the enviroment at the time of death of the sample. The fact is the we can (continued)
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom (continuation) only infer that ratio for the past 5,000 years or so using historical records. The interference is that ratio changes sufficiently so that calibration factors have to be used to convert radiocarbon years to actual calendar years. since the ratio is known to have changed in historic times, it is irrational and unscientific to think that is was constant before historic times."- ScienceAgainst Evolution. Go to their website of the same name for more
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, calibration is needed for accurate C-14 dating of course. Just because a calibration curve is used does not invalidate the dating altogether, in fact the whole purpose of a calibration curve is to improve the accuracy by using known factors. Now tell me why this would ruin C-14 dating.
Remember that C-14 dating is used to date organic stuff. You don't C-14 date dinosaurs. There is a range of other isotopes available which stretch way further back in time compared to C-14.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Funny you should say that. One of your evolutionist friends (I think he was a teacher, scientist, something like that) said they have found soft tissue with dinosaurs and carbon dated it. Isn't that a problem for both of you? Now you can leave a reply but I won't respond until after Christmas. Believe me, I'm not done.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, C-14 can be applied when organic matter is found which is within the age C-14 dating can measure. Usually dinosaur bones have been fossilised which means there is no carbon to be found on them. The soft tissue found in the T-rex bones where not carbon dated, but another isotope was used for dating them.
The only problem I have is that you give me one of our personal anecdotes and expect me to be held accounted for it.
But you are certainly welcome back. A happy Yule to you :)
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Thanks, Merry Christmas to you too. Now, you have said that we have not reached equalibrium because the amount of carbon-14 being emmitted varies. The Earth's magnetic field is decreasing, as you know, so the amount of cabon-14 being admitted into the Earth will make objects appear older that they are. Now, when The Flood happened it disrupted the carbon balance by 'locking up' carbon in organic material which became oil, gas, and coal. Revegation of the planet after The(continued)
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@PM011 (continuation) Flood lowered the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and increase the amount of C14 to the C14/C12 ratio. As you know, carbon-14 comes from nitrogen-14 and sun rays so it would not be affected by the carbon dioxide levels.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, welcome back. I hope you had a great christmas :)
But let's get straight to business.
You claim that "the earth's magnetic field is decreasing". The problem is that any paleomagnetic record suggests the opposite. The magnetic field is in fact much stronger than millions of years ago. In order for your argument to work you must provide me we a scientific peer-reviewed publication on the subject that suggest otherwise.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Even your precious, prejudice National Geographic says the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing. Other peoplewho say it is decreasing are : MSNBC, ScienceDaily, NOVA, etc.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, if you actually read what the article in National Geographic says ('Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading') it states: "Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say."
That was 167 years ago.
However compared to millions of years ago the intensity is twice the amount.
The article is discussing potential magnetic field reversal, which happens every 200 000 years on average.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Nice loophole. You clearly state that scientists started researching the magnetic field 167 years. In those years, they discovered a 10% decrease in the magnetic field. Then you say a magnetic field reversal happens every 200000 years even though we have not examined it since we have only looked into 167 years. Also, by my understanding, the magnetic field reversal is when the poles switch places. Isn't that what Magneto did in X-Men comic books?
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, the first human to keep record of the earth's magnetic field happened 167 ago, as clearly stated in the article. It does not, by any means, indicate we can't keep track of any paleomagnetic record before 167 years ago.
Do you see what happens when you force yourself to misread scientific articles? You cannot accept being wrong, hence why you constantly misinterpret things so that they appear to confirm your preconceived concepts, just like Kent/Eric Hovind does.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Then please, tell me. What happens when a magnetic field reversal occurs? Does a compass point south? Does the world flip upside-down? You haven't given evidence to support the magnetic field reversal, therefore my point still stands.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, yes, north will actually be pointing south when such event occurs. Let me quote an article from NASA about the subject (in the next post.)
PM011 1 month ago
From the NASA article "2012: Magnetic Pole Reversal Happens All The (Geologic) Time"
"Sediment cores taken from deep ocean floors can tell scientists about magnetic polarity shifts, providing a direct link between magnetic field activity and the fossil record. The Earth’s magnetic field determines the magnetization of lava as it is laid down on the ocean floor on either side of the Mid-Atlantic Rift where the North American and European continental plates are spreading apart. (cont.)
PM011 1 month ago
As the lava solidifies, it creates a record of the orientation of past magnetic fields much like a tape recorder records sound. The last time that Earth's poles flipped in a major reversal was about 780,000 years ago, in what scientists call the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal."
If you have any questions regarding this information you can send NASA an email and I'm sure they'll explain everything you want to know.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 So, instead of explaining it yourself, you point to a different link. Didn't you insullt me a while back when I did that on the argument of carbon-14. (I must say we've gone down alot of rabbitholes here.) You don't explain how lava records the magnetic fields and, to be honest, the idea the Earth flips upside-down is alot like the sci-fi comics X-Men where Magneto trys to kill everyone on the Earth by flipping it upside-down.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, and I pointed out to you why the information you gave me, which were from the Hovinds, is in fact wrong because they deliberately misinterpreted further scientific publications. I gave you the misinterpreted articles themselves and explained why the Hovinds misinterpreted them.
It is your job to prove my sources wrong, and you are of course free to explain why the publication provided by NASA is, in any way, unscientific.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 Look, I have nothing against NASA. I was just saying you sent me to an article and earlier you insulted me for doing that. If the very minimum difference is that you don't the Hovinds then that's your problem. I can't find any articles on how lava records the magnetic field so maybe you could explain that if you can. On an unrelated note, I've noticed we have taken 12 pages of comments on this video.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, "i don't Hovinds.."? Trust you mean? If that is the case it's because they deliberately misquote articles to support their preconceived concepts. They are not conducting science. I gave you specific examples of Hovind's misquotations. Perhaps you find being proven wrong to be insulting to you?
If you want to make it easy for yourself, go to Wikipedia and type "Geomagnetic reversal", read, and check the cited sources in that article if you doubt the information.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 I meant 'you don't like the Hovinds.' So you send me to the indoctorate Wikipedia. If that's how it is then search 'geomagnetic reversal disproven' and go to "new geology." Also, we've gotten really off track, how about we go back to the C14 argument?
GrimmThePhantom 3 weeks ago
@GrimmThePhantom, what I don't like is when the Hovinds pretend to be scientific, when in fact they are scientifically dishonest by deliberately misquoting science only to support a notion they've already decided is the truth. I told you this is not how science works.
In order to objectively understand anything about this world we cannot make up our minds before before we analyse the world. Because what's the point of doing science if you already made up your mind?
PM011 3 weeks ago
@PM011 Well, you say they are dishonest even though your only evidence is that the mollusks with carbon dating were in a carbon rich enviroment. Now, due to that the enviroment created an inaccurate dating of the mollusks shells, won't that mean that creatures enviroment during their life could effect the dating process? Same goes for submersable mammals like the seal I told you about.
GrimmThePhantom 3 weeks ago
@GrimmThePhantom, if I get your question correctly, yes. Dating the individual creatures requires you to take such factors into the calculations. As I've told you that's the difference between accurate and inaccurate dating.
Now if you want to listen to what the difference between Hovind and a real academic scientist sounds like I recommend you to search for "Kent Hovind vs Molecular Geneticist" here on Youtube. The thing about molluscs is not the only thing that make me doubt the Hovinds.
PM011 3 weeks ago
@PM011 That is the only evidence you have shown me. 'So, scientist made an inaccurate dating because of a carbon-rich enviroment, this shows that carbon dating is accurate.' What kind of mindset is that!? Now your talking about factors and as I've noticed some factors haven't been established. No one knows if the C14/C12 ratio has always been the same. Now I'm going to leave this argument because I want to be decent and let others comment on this video.
GrimmThePhantom 3 weeks ago
@GrimmThePhantom, it is inaccurate, if factors are left out. A lot of factors are known though, that's why we have calibration curves which are constantly refined. But keep in mind that carbon dating is only efficient for dating relatively recent artifacts. Uranium-lead dating for example range back to more than four billion years, and there is no carbon issue to deal with since that's not the isotope in question.
PM011 3 weeks ago
@PM011 Well talking in personal mesages would be good if I knew how to send one. Uranium-lead dating contains factors which aren't looked into: The amount of father and daughter elements at the beginning, rate of conversion has always been the same, and that the subject was isolated so no father element can be added and daughter element can't be lost.
GrimmThePhantom 2 weeks ago
@GrimmThePhantom, again, only creationists argue that any form of radiometric dating is, in general, inaccurate. Again, ask real scientific source like American Geological Institute or NASA about radiometric dating and they will explain to you why your own creationist sources are unscientific and inaccurate. AGI represents "250,000 geologists and geophysicists" I wonder how many of these would support your notion that radiometric dating is generally "inaccurate".
PM011 2 weeks ago
@PM011 So let me see this is what your saying:" The majority of scientists believe radiometric dating to be true, therefore it is." For the longest time they used to teach the earth was flat, guess what? They were wrong. AGI and NASA both support evolution and so they obviously would support radiometric dating. If you send me a personal message, we could constantly reply to each other through that. I just don't know how to send one myself.
GrimmThePhantom 2 weeks ago
@GrimmThePhantom, we can continue the discussion in private if you want. I'd like you know if you managed to expand your views from our discussion, if you found it to be an intellectual discussion rather than a "battle of ideologies" so to speak.
PM011 3 weeks ago
@GrimmThePhantom, so you can tell the people who write your responses to me to let you think for yourself for once. At your age there is nothing more important than being able to actually construct a concept yourself instead of constantly relying on what other tell you to believe.
The Hovinds are trapped in this mindset, they are not interested in what science can teach them, they are only interested in what they can force into science.
PM011 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GrimmThePhantom, for example:
How comes the only ones who tries to disprove geomagnetic reversal and evolution are creationists? If creationists were correct, at least some non-religious scientist would come up with the same conclusions, yet none has.
'New Geology' is a creationist site. The section about "debunking evolution" contains claims I know are incorrect, which I can give you examples of. Does that indicate something about the scientific standards of that site do you think?
PM011 3 weeks ago
@GrimmThePhantom, you would be surprised to find that "evolutionsists" like me are not very different from yourself. Europe is highly non-religious, and Sweden were I come from have an atheistic rate of over 85% of the total population.
You have probably been brought up to believe that anyone who argues against your faith is a bad immoral person. Real morals comes from what you do, not what you believe. You would indeed be surprised to find out how the world works outside the United States.
PM011 1 month ago
@PM011 so, instead of responding to my rebuttal, you've decided to use the idea that the majority is right. The majority of people voted for Obama and they were wrong. So, morals come from what you do? So, how are morals and a conscious created? Telling they're created by stuff you do doesn't really help your case, here is an example: Since Kip Kinkle murdered students but it's one of his morals to kill he won't be going to jail. That really works doesn't it? So please extend the thought.
GrimmThePhantom 1 month ago
@GrimmThePhantom, now listen. I'm not your enemy, or pretending this is a prestigious contest of some sort,