@SwornByOath If you don't believe me ... GOOGLE IT. "World's Oldest Tree" ... it is 9550 years old ... well, older than the earth ... but I am sure YECs will find some way to say "no it isn't"
Dude, you're kidding right? Even if what you're saying is 100% correct, 11,300 years is a whole lot closer to what Christians believe than an evolutionist that says the earth is 4.6 billion years old. Nobody said the earth was exactly 6,000 years old, we believe the earth is approximately between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. There is way too much evidence that shows the earth CANNOT be anywhere even close to 4.6 billions of years old, not even millions for that matter.
@XDsubcompact (1) you don't mean Christians, you mean young earth creationists. The Pope, the archbishop of and canterbury believe in evolution. (2) Some creationsist have given an exact date for the creation event - 4004 BC. (3) 11,300 years is supposed to be the earliest reliable tree ring records, not the age of the earth (he worte that in huge letters, as an aid), (4) the Rocky mountains are 80 million years old. Radiometric dating says 4.6 miilion years for the oldest rocks on earth, etc.
@XDsubcompact please show us evidence that hasn't been thoroughly debunked alreadythat this is the case. cite your references. explain what geologists have to gain by joining together in a secret conspiracy to fool the world into thinking the earth & universe are billions of years old. please do the same for all other fields of study that confirm this fact. please then repeat all experimentation and provide us with the correct data. this is the requirements of factuality. ok, go:
I open your video and the first think I see is a lie. I am a specialist In wood working and a ring on a tree is not equal to 1 year automaticaly some trees built several rings a year usualy 2. same for the ice on the poles evry time it snows and stop a new coat is formed then the wind blows and frose over itch coats so you can notice a difference between them.. Simple and inteligent reasoning..
@MADbokowsky You obviously didn't watch the whole video. He specifically refers to a tree that grows only one ring per year, and the false rings or stunted growth accurately lines up with known weather/volcanic events.
Great video, except you don't cite where you got your information. As a scientist, I can't validate your claims, therefore you're in the same boat with the creationists. Nice try!
the human immune system is NOT built to combat all diseases, for the simple reasons that diseases evolve all the time. In the past a major contributor to disease was the simple lack of cleanliness, people didn't know about microscopic bacteria. Vaccines have literally saved millions of lives. When measles was first brought to the polynesian islands it wiped out 1/3 of the native population because they had no natural immunities to the disease, despite their "natural and healthy" diet.
@nancy6ify A virus is already mechanically built to change according what cells it attacks, the only reason that a virus has ever killed someone was because the person already had a lack of nutrition in the first place. No virus has ever been able to kill a strong immune cell, the only immune cell that died from a virus was an immune cell with a lack of nutrition or a cell that died of old age. There was a woman who had full blown AIDS but was completely cured because she restored her nutrition.
@nancy6ify You said, "Vaccines have literally saved millions of lives"
-Yes but the millions of people saved already had a life style that deprived them of a full nutrition/ health (they wouldn't have needed the vaccine if they has full health). Did you know that researchers found out that 100% of the AIDS victoms already had a very low lymphocyte count with a life style of bad urban health? The vaccines are either radiation pills or disease todestroy diseases, both make us sick in the long run
@nancy6ify You said, "When measles was first brought to the polynesian islands it wiped out 1/3 of the native population because they had no natural immunities to the disease, despite their "natural & healthy diet".
-Diet is not the ONLY life style that can make you fully healthy, there is the amount of stress, the kind of animals you are eating, whether or not you had enough sleep, etc. The Polynesians may have had a good diet (if proven) but how do you know that they had a healthy lifestyle?
@nancy6ify Plus just because the Polynesians had a general diet does not mean that they didn't eat unhealthy animals, there's a reason why God told his people that certain animals were unclean, God would give real advice on health provable in advanced medicine, for example, researchers found out that it is unhealthy to eat too much pig, & that it can leave a lump on the back of your neck
Almost no one attempts to educate themselves on the basics of science and technology, yet our society is based on these. TV takes up far too much of our time and is apparently much more attractive to most of us than the beauty and wonder of science. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. - CARL SAGAN
Everything created has it's own function, complexity, meaning, structure and design. There is higher intelligence behind that. Every God creation is changable and changes shapes continously (water, fire, air, plants, human body). We cannot create this without using whats already there. While our creations are made with Gods materials and these are always vast mass and we shape it in one unchangable form. I think its impossible for everything to be created by chance or fel into place miracously.
For me higher intelligence is logic because behind every created thing there is a REASON and everything has a FUNCTION. Plus God's creation is CHANGEABLE and CHANGES (shape) every second (water, fire, air, plants, human body). When we create something it is always with His materials and we shape it in one UNCHANGEABLE form. So for me it's unthinkable everything with its amazingly complex structure, function and shape is created by accident or that it fall into place in millions years.
For me higher intelligence is logic because behind every created thing there is a REASON and everything has a FUNCTION. Plus God's creation is CHANGEABLE and CHANGES (shape) every second (water, fire, air, plants, human body). When we create something it is always with His materials and we shape it in one UNCHANGEABLE form. So for me it's unthinkable everything with its amazingly complex structure, function and shape is created by accident or that it fall into place in millions years.
For me higher intelligence is simply the truth because behind every created thing there is a REASON and everything has a FUNCTION. Plus God's creation is CHANGEABLE and CHANGES (shape) every second (water, fire, air, plants, human body). When we create something it is always with His materials and we shape it in one UNCHANGEABLE form. So for me it's unthinkable everything with its amazingly complex structure, function and shape is created by accident or that it fall into place in millions years
Hahaha. You evolutionists. Satan laughs at you for believeing in this theory. Haha. I have debated evolutionists in the past and they had to back down because they would have nothing to say. I don't loose debates. And it's a pity that you evolutionists can't see how wonderful it is to know you can have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe. If anyone wants to debate call, text, or email. Phone #: 610 597 3042 Email: dblack2343@gmail.com
I wish you would have shown the actual "ancient tree samples and how they lined up with the oldest living one (are these available somewhere?link) rather that showing nice neat and tidy computer models. May provide more strength to this theory. Still seems though, that with all of the petrified ancient trees that are available we should be able to continue to go on much further than 9-11000 years back based off of this hypothesis. Just keep cross-matching and cross matching.
Creationists want the interpretation of the data to be correct.
You said, "Occasionally a tree will have an extra false ring" and then later you explain that a volcanoe may have caused the false ring, and you did not explain how the volcanoe is dated, and there happen to be problems with dating rocks and ash (when dating a volcanoe erruption).
The interpretation of the data is just a little flawed in this video and I believe you are jumping ahead of yourself a little.
He also said that 4 in 1000 trees of that type were found to have false rings and that by lining up tree rings from DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD that one can find out which ones are false. No dating of volcanoes required.
@Ebrainiac1 Comparing false rings with other false rings doesn't show whether or not any of them are real tree rings to begin with and since tree rings only determine how much it rains every year and since there are no real tree ring dating methods, there is no real way to prove the theory that any tree is any older than about 6000 years old. Now you are jumping ahead of yourself.
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "No real tree ring dating methods? Are you that desperate to justify your dogma?"
-What, truth is dogma now? Maybe you are spreading "dogma"
You said, "Dendrochronology is an entire branch of geology, has been proven to be accurate thousands of times of times over &... You're plugging your ears to this aren't you?"
-You would like to think so; the assumption that I'm plugging my ears to you (which I'm not) is the ONLY WAY you can fantasize yourself winning this small debate
If you weren't plugging your ears, you would be contacting professors, reading actual scientific literature, doing unbiased internet research in places outside your normal comfort bubble, and inquiring as to my evidence with an open mind instead of searching answersingenesis for a way to shoot it down without doing any independent thinking for yourself.
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "& inquiring as to my evidence with an open mind instead of searching answersingenesis for a way to shoot it down without doing any independent thinking for yourself"
-You sound like you have a lot of baggage; you speak as if you THINK you personally know me or something
-I never looked into the "answersingenesis" website; I was just using google for my internet sources.
-Isn't it a contradiction to do research with an anti-god mindset while telling me to have an open mind?
@Ebrainiac1 If you honestly TRULY had an open mind (when doing research) then you should believe that anything is possible including any god. It happens to be more neutral to be an agnostic with now answers to anything, than to be an atheist, atheism has a "mindset" & a presupposition when doing research, if you were TRULY neutral then you should either believe that anything (including God) is possible or you shouldn't be sure of ANYTHING. Since when are you being "open minded" in research?
I'm not about what's possible or impossible, but what's probable. An unlimited number of things are possible, but it's also impossible to disprove fantastic things, like the invisible pink unicorn.
Here's what i am, you can label it what you like, but i call myself an atheist.
I don't believe in a deity, whether it's hindu, jewish, christian, or the flying spaghetti monster ( although i will admit the last one is tempting) simply because i see no evidence to motivate belief.
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "You're plugging your ears to this aren't you?"
-No, I'm listening; atheists are the ones plugging their ears to the moral accountability to the supreme special Creator (even though the creator already forgives them of their moral failures already), when they hear moral truth, they "plug their ears"
You said, "Don't take my word for it. Contact a university geology or biology professor"
-They'll just regurgitate they same THEORIES/ explanations (without proof) that you said
What does atheism have to do with a 4.5 billion year old earth? There are millions of christians who accept the facts of the age of the universe, of biological evolution, etc.
So let me get this straight. I direct you towards biology and geology professors who spend most of their lives studying the natural world and publishing papers that have to be backed up with evidence, and you say that they will just regurgitate WITHOUT providing evidence?
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "What does atheism have to do with a 4.5 billion year old earth? There are millions od christians who accept the facts of the age of the universe, of biological evolution, etc"
-I'm a christian who believes that it is biblically possible for the universe to be billions of years old
-Most atheists USE science to give theirselves the "feeling" that there is no god, they don't want people to know that about them so they "say" they don't have a subconscious motive behind it all
Newsflash: atheism isn't what you think. Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the non belief in a deity. That's it. "I don't believe". It's a lack of belief, therefore there cannot be by definition any "feeling" of atheism nor a motive to not believe.
Wake up, hotshot, there are people in the world who don't share your beliefs simply because they don't see evidence, not because they want to sin, not because they're angry at something they don't believe exists, just because they don't believe.
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "I direct you towards biology & geology professors who spend most of their lives studying the natural world..."
-Correction, they only study the natural world within the confines of their education credentials where people spend their school hours studying how to simply pass a test to have an old guy in a robe "tell them" they are "smart" according to their school; there is a difference between gaining an "education" vs gaining knowledge; watch the movie "Good Will Hunting"
Take. A. Fucking. Look. Around. You. Science produced the computer you're typing in, the chair your sitting in, the BUILDING YOU LIVE IN.
Science gets results because truth gets results. Accurate and sound data leads to funding, not old guys in robes trying to sound smart. That's why the scientific method reviews itself over and over and why it's so dependable, something you'd know if you ventured outside your bubble and read some scientific literature.
You say theory as if it's synonymous with "guess" or "hypothesis". Let's take a walk through the various theories kicking around the laboratory floor these days.
Atomic theory
Germ theory
Theory of plate tectonics
Theory of GRAVITY
Einstein's theory of relativity
Cell theory
The theory of limits (without which there would be no calculus)
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "You say 'theory' as if it's synonymous with 'guess' or 'hypothesis'"
-Well don't blame me if the dictionary actually says that (it's not me, it's them lol)
-If you used proper english & believe that the theory of evolution is fact, then you would've called it a fact a long time ago (this goes for all the "evolutionists"), if you truly used proper english on your theories when believing they were true somehow then you would HONESTLY call them facts according to your belief
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "Let's take a walk through the various theories kicking around the laboratory floor these days. Atomic theory, germ theory, theory of plate tectonic, theory of GRAVITY, Einstein's theory of relativity, cell theory, the theory of limits, circuit theory. I could go on & on. Feeling a bit silly yet?"
-LOL, you can't honestly call all of them theories because atomic theory has been proven with the A bomb, they don't even call it a theory anymore; it's a theory when UNPROVEN...
"Dont blame me if the dictionary actually says that"? Don't bullshit me. If you'd read a single page of the dictionary you'd know that theory means "a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts."
Now we see the little walled garden you keep yourself in. You're scared to even crack open a dictionary you deluded fool.
@starsheild7 I'm an atomic physicist, and I call the theory that I use atomic theory, or quantum physics depending on the mood I'm in. The A bomb used nuclear physics, not atomic physics. But all that tells you is the theory is good enough to build nuclear weapons. It certainly doesn't turn our knowledge into facts. As for your statement that "its a theory when unproven" - total bollocks. There is no theory in science that is proven, all knowledge is provisonal.
@teddansonLA You said, "But all that tells you is the theory is good enough to build nuclear bombs. It certainly doesn't turn our knowledge into facts"
-But you are not suppose to equate theory with knowledge, because theory is science, & science is only a way to observe something while making assertions about what youy observe, but knowledge is different, knowledge is an answer/ data you get from function & application, function & application is not assertion BECAUSE it's shown before our eyes
@starsheild7 I called you out because you claimed atomic theory had been proven by the A-bomb (not true), and that "they" (presumably physicists like me) considered the theory a fact - we do not. We call it the best explanation we have. A theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge. In biology, the best explanation there is for the diversity of life is the theory of evolution. If you understnad why ToE sits at the pinacle of biology, you will have learnt a lot.
@Ebrainiac1 I don't deny what is unproven, but I definitely won't assume a theory as fact because that is not proper english & it is dishonest, you should place a scientific theory in its place, a fact is not a theory, it is a guess & a hypothesis; lol, you actually called atomic science a theory, as if the A Bomb didn't prove it a fact, Gravity is not a theory because the fact that we can stand it proof enough that it is a fact, the same goes for the so called theory of limits; facts are proven
@Ebrainiac1 You asked, "Also, what about ice core data that shows individual annual layers going back 740 thousand years?"
-You mean the record of layers indicating the fall of snow on the arctic ice; layers that shows us that it snows as many times as it rains per day & would have indications of layers because of the sun light & pollen & dirt (especially in the spring time & animal migration) which can create up to 20 LAYERS PER DAY in the spring & summer time? What's your point lol...
If you managed to find ice core data that supports a young earth, you'd win a nobel prize. Go ahead, read through the scientific papers on the subject. You know, the ones that have been mercilessly vetted, fact checked, and fine tooth combed for any inaccuracy by thousands of expert scientists.
The scientists didn't find exactly 740 thousand layers, that would be just stupid. Again, if you want to hear their reasoning and see their evidence, read their published papers or CONTACT THEM YOUR SELF!
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "If you manage to find ice core data that supports a young earth, you'd win a noble prize."
-The Ice is incapable of showing any age, it only shows weather behavior, not age; why did you even bring up ice core data subject in the first place? You might as well talk about jelly because that is how relevant you are being about proving the billion year AGE of the earth. Why on earth do I need ice to prove a young earth anyway?
Ice is certainly capable of showing elapsed time. Don't you see anything wrong with the fact that you dismissed the entire possibility of it doing so with, as you so eloquently put it, a minute of "google research"?
Again, you have nothing to lose by phoning up an expert, someone who knows their shit, instead of continuing to debate some random dude in the comments section of a youtube video.
Your reluctance shows that you are afraid of being wrong.
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "The scientists didn't find exactly 740 thousand layers, that would be just stupid. Again, if you want to hears their reasoning..."
-Hey, I thought you wanted me to look up DATA, not reasoning, to find evidence, if I want someone to reason with me to prove something I'll just liston to a motivational speaker, but if you suggest listoning to scientists "reason" with me to somehow prove their theories (hypothesis) without providing functional data, then they won't prove fact.
Now you're splitting hairs. If you don't want to look up data and disprove the "guesswork" of an expert, then that's your problem, but don't pretend like you have all the tools necessary to make an airtight statement.
a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, one that has been tested and confirmed to explain and predict natural phenomena.
You're acting like a child making up your own silly words. Disprove the above with a passage from a dictionary.
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "If you don't want to look up data & disprove the "quesswork" of an expert, then that's your problem, but don't pretend like you have all the tools necessary to make an airtight statement"
-If I trust guess work over answers from function/ application then that is no better than me trusting the people that say that 2+2=10 despite the function & application of addition telling me that 2+2=4; The same goes for the universe, if you trust the function/ application of universe.
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "A theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, & reasoning..."
-A theory is based on observation because science is a method trying MAKE an presupposition SEEM as real as possible (a theory is an invented scenerio). But a fact is different, a fact is an answer derived from function/ application; function/ application tells us that 4+4=8, people can make a theory that 4+4=7 but function/ application disagrees, the same goes for the universe
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "... read their published papers or CONTACT THEM YOURSELF!"
-That's your way of saying you don't even have the answers & facts for yourself, you're just trusting "the big boys" to come up with an answer, you don't even doubt them because they have "papers", it's as if you can't think for yourself or something; the is a difference between gaining an education & gaining real knowledge, I've met more unintelligent people come out college than people who never went to college.
You're right. I don't have the answers and facts for myself. Why, should i know everything there is to know about dendrochronology, genealogy, stratigraphy, weather patterns, etc? Am i supposed to have a PhD? Again, I'm just a guy on youtube. You have a sad bit of logical direction if you think that because some random schmo on youtube doesn't have all the answers, then a university professor with a Doctorate won't suffice.
Fuck all them scientists with their peer review and their fancy papers! What have those old guys in lab coats ever done for us?
Oh wait..
The moon landing, modern agriculture, vaccines, computers, worldwide communications, all the product of the same scientific system that has a 99.9 consensus that the universe is 13.75 billion years old and that biological evolution is both fact and sound theory.
Keep shouting it boyo, maybe one day it'll be true out in the real world instead of in your head.
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "Fuck all them scientists with their peer review & fancy papers? What have those old guys in lab coats ever done for us? Oh wait.. The moon landing, modern agriculture, vaccines..."
-Schools & credentials have never invented a thing, only people who observe nature outside of human agreements have invented things. Rocket science is taught in school YET anti-gravity/ light speed (look up Stan Deyo's work) is not being taught because it says that planets are mechanical
... the science behind anti-gravity is not being taught & is discredited (looked doen on by scientific communities) because it sugests that gravity is mechanical (which suggests intelligence behind the universe), yet we've seen ufo's; credentials do not teach knowledge. Modern agriculture is bad for our nutrition because it puts unecissary hormones & chemicals that are making people sick (giving medical corperations more money in their scams)
... Modern agriculture is making terrible nutrition making people's immune systems less complete/ weaker, yet proper healthy agriculture is not being taught in school, nor is it being put in a good light in scientific communities. Credentials don't give knowledge
vaccines are diseases built to destroy disease but also make the patient sick in the long run, credentials aprove of it, yet schools don't teach that the human immune system is built to destroy ALL diseases if it has perfect nutrition & strength, the potentials of the simple immune system is looked down apon because it almost suggests that the body is naturally ingeneered like a machine (people feel like they need to build a body rather than use the body they have
Computers are not sold because someone says it works, computers are sold because they work, do you see the difference? & since the school credentials approve many bad sciences that make life worse (because of their presupposition that the universe is somehow not engineerd) makes me doubt their knowledge about anything about the universe.
PS a billion year old universe is based on radio/ atomic geological dating which is a form of circular reasoning when you learn about it.
Did you seriously type that shit up and copy and paste it?
Wow, man.
How about instead of rattling the same old delusional fantasies around in your head and dumping them out into microsoft word, you actually add some smarts and common decency into that organ between your ears.
@Ebrainiac1 You do know that I only typed all of those responses within a half hour right? I didn't spend most of my free time on it. It's easy to refute you because I base my facts on how things function, not on how things look backed up by an old man's peer review, LOL if I based my facts on peer review & not on how things work then I might as well believe in God because other people believe in him there happen to be lots of churchy's so based on how you view facts I should believe in God LOL.
How things function? Where, pray tell, do you get that information? From your own assumptions and at-a-glance firsthand conclusions? Sorry, but you’ve proven yourself to be intellectually dishonest, egomaniacal, and a rampant conspiracy theorist.
Excuse me if i place just a leeeeetle bit more trust in the knowledge gathering system which produced my computer.
How about you produce a model of reality that can make predictions and be applied to produce technology?
first things firts humility is our trademark.. so if there are christians who think 6000 ore zillions, respect eachothers opinions rather then cal names.. it degrades the inword views of our understanding of the word, thing is.. the earth is young because of numerous reasons but THE most important one is.. that a day was called when the sun passed and the dat became night.. (one day had passed) and he said after six days.. do you believe what the bible says, ore do you make it fit your own view
Christians who beleive that the earth is 6,000 years old or 10,000 years old are doing a disservice and iit reflects bad when witnessing to non beleivers. I would suggest that these people who beleive like this, just either change you idea and see things for how they truly are, or just keep it to themselves, because it reflects bad on the rest of us.
@xhemexx you are so right. I've had discussions with one of these people. and she has turned into a real nutter. I told her how do we know that a day in the Genesis Account was actually 24 hours, it says later in the Bible a day is as a thousand years to the Lord. she started on how I had unbelief and I didn't believe in the Word of God all kinds of crazy. I told her that that kind of thinking is making atheists out of people by making them choose, it was okay to say I don't know.
Do a Google search on "1.5 1010 years age of the universe" and you will see that many scientists now claim that the universe is only 1.5 times 1010 years old. This is 1515 years old, not millions or billions of years!
@amiller112 It was a joke. Whenever a document uses a superscript to state that the age of the universe is 1.5 times 10 to the 10th power years, most internet search engines ignore font sizes and display that the age of the universe is 1.5 times 1010 years. The joke was intended as a parody of creationists who misunderstand scientific papers and claim that carbon dating does not work.
@MegaSnoboard You nyoung earthers need to shut up and stop talking about stuff that is not true. The earth is way older then 6,000 years, for all we know it can be zillions of years old, meaning we don't know it can be way more then even scientist think. and the universe can me billion times older then THAT. We just don't know. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention the age of the earth. These young earth Christians make the rest of us Christians who KNOW BETTER look bad.
i completly agree with this video and what it says
i am one atheist who has researched science and it's truth in abiogenesis for years now
...however, a blind christian or another of similar faith, with their curse known as "blind faith" can fall back on the old myth that god is all powerfull
and with humility if we consider that they are right, if there is a being who can do or create anything then hypothetically at the start of existence they could create a tree thats 1000 years old
I'm an atheist and I'm bored. cdk007, would you mind giving me a link to the nonsense timeline at 4:16, just so I can laugh at it? The image in the video is a bit fuzzy.
@SoWhereIsThisGod "..are only interested in supporting what makes them happy." That may be true for some creationist sometimes but it is always and inevitably true for evolutionists.
I'm upset about how creationists ignore or go against the data showing the true age of the Earth. It is kind of bad to do this on ordinary and any kind of data. However, it is a lot worse to do this against data that is simple to understand and collect than some more difficult data. The best example is radiometric dating, which looks so difficult even I'm kind of surprise that there are scientists who are able to do this, BUT this evidence in this video is so easy to collect.
I wouldn't really use tree rings as scientific evidence against creationists. I know it's valid and everything I just feel like there is much more substantial and convincing evidence than that.
The age of the earth is irrelevant...the basic question is how life emerged in the universe and science has not and never will answer that. Damn primordial soup!
my mom said that this video is made by satan. if you are satan, prove that he exssts, i would totally be a satanist and follow YOU. for now, ill just be an atheist.
You're missing one important premise of creationism - that is different atmospheric conditions prior to the flood, being increased levels of carbon and oxygen (also temperature and pressure) , due to the water vapour surrounding the earth (as mentioned in Genesis). If, as many creationists believe, it is this water canopy surrounding the earth that was the water in the great flood, then do you have data concerning the growth and distribution of tree rings with varying atmospheric conditions?
@1009541074brb Yes, I am now. I didn't used to be and studied evolution (as well as astronomy). Am now doing degrees number 4 and 5 (one a masters in cognitive neuroscience). I say this not to brag but just to say I'm not an uneducated person. I'm not in a position to provide proof regarding creationism, and am not here to argue point by point varying aspects of evolution/creation. But I saw something 5 years ago that has changed my views completely and I know with no doubt there is a God.
@GirliqueDownUnder well when you google it just click the link um im just wondering what you think of what ever its talking about it takes alot of information in and is kinda hard to follow
really? so erm... you are a creationist and also have no problem accepting kroger and hollyoaks experiments demonstrating rational complexity presented to the ACCS? I find that extraordinary to be honest.
They do after all demonstrate how complexity in original thought in any individual can be predicted in advance based on their completion of a simple test of 'same' or 'different'.
" If it takes a little myth and ritual to get us through a night that seems endless, who among us cannot sympathize, and understand. We long to be here for a purpose, even though, despite much self deception, none is evident. We long for a parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors and save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to Ignorance, better by far to embrace the hard truth, than a reassuring fable.." -- Carl Sagan
Its amazing in this day and age that people refuse to see the truth of the world and the truth of the Human condition. I don't care really, believe what you want to, Just don't drag your children into beliefs while they are too young to make up their own minds, let them learn of the world with unclouded eyes, there is surely a better future for this pale blue dot in that..
fail of immense proportions using a tree w/ no reference points assuming what happens on earth today is the same as it would have been thousands of years ago.
How about ice and silt cores taken from the ice caps and ancient river beds? I’ve touched with my own hands an ice core that was 10 million years old. What’s your response to that?
Why are you trying to imply that ALL creationists are "young earth" believers?? And why do you try to subtly imply that since the earth is older than 6000 years evolution must be true?? I always believed the earth is older than 6000 years but I believe the life and the all universe was created by god. Evolution has no proof whatsoever, therefore it is a fairy tale.
@boxers7x5 On the contrary God is true by definition and by Observation. There must be a Creator by both arguments. Evolution has never been proven, despite being shamefully taught in all text books now. Evolution is blind belief based on zero observation and zero proof, while creation is based on the postulate of intelligent design and confirmed by every record found in the fossils history.
Ha ha, are you a comedy writer? Because that's pure gold right there! But, shamefully, I think you're trying to be serious. I say trying because you know what you wrote is total bullshit. There is a ton of evidence to support evolution, much based on observation. Also, now there is genetic proof that we and chimps had a common ancestor. Why don't you open a book and learn something? But then again, people like you are never interested in the truth, just your blind belief in God.
@boxers7x5 There is not a single comma supporting evolution,no transitional species was ever found. Genetic proof of having an ancestor lolhow do you know if the genes are that way cause we had an ancestor? For your information I was blind before because I was taught evolution was true and based on science but then i found out it is all pure fantasy based on zero proof and zero fact. Also its history is full with frauds. Your scammers have tried hard to invent the proof they never found...
There have been many transitional fossils discovered, why don't you visit a museum instead of indulging your paranoid fantasies online? I don't interpret genomes, SCIENTISTS do. Just because you say these things don't exist doesn't make it so.
@boxers7x5 in order to explain it you need to call me names again? You're such a viscid worm..The ones who are making everything up are evolutionists. There are no transitional forms YOU MORON. Show any reference of such a fossil in a book or just SHUT UP. Even evolutionists admit it. All the so called transitional forms were either FRAUDS or WRONG suppositions. Visiting a museum does not make your arguments any stronger than trying to convince that you can learn science by going to disneyland.
There are transitional fossils. For a comprehensive and easy list, go to wikipedia. If you have your doubts about wikipedia, check out the references at the bottom of the page. I hope you will actually look at it instead of make more untrue claims.
@redvision350 I checked wikipedia and I am wondering..are you really serious in considering those "transitional forms"??? You must be honest!. As for me I honestly see on that page fishes that are...well fishes, reptiles that are..well just reptiles, birds that are...well birds. Nowhere I found anything that remotely represents a true passage from a species into another. Beside that, many of those pictures are drawings. Is it scientific to post drawings rather than actual photos of the fossils?
@fresniak "As for me I honestly see on that page fishes that are well fishes, reptiles that are..well just reptiles, birds that are...well birds"
Maybe that's because birds, reptiles, and fish are not 'species' but entire 'classes' of animals! So given you can't tell the difference its not a surprise you can't find information about transitional forms.
There is no sudden transition between a ground running dinosaur and a hummingbird.... and nobody suggested there would be!
@boxers7x5 You're just a Liar and everyone who reads the comments knows it...I am not going to write to a blatant liar any further. As I said, no transitional fossils exist, I was hoping for a picture in a book showing clearly the most obvious transitional form, but you have come out with a book which talks philosophy in its title..that says a lot about the so called "facts" of evolution. And yes there were lots of evolution frauds, read it up in google and dont pretend you dont know about them.
@MrSyrett "Keep parroting education from Answers in Genesis" And you keep your blind faith in atheist dogma. I have never quoted genesis and you know it. And I am currently a creationist because intellectually is the only sound and reasonable explanation for life. And evolution is a lie and you know it :) My faith in Jesus comes from my life, from recognizing truth and from my observation of the creation, things that you seem to have lost long time ago.
@fresniak - "And you keep your blind faith in atheist dogma" - the illogic of that comment just makes me dizzy. "creationism.....is the only sound and reasonable explanation for life". That's because, like most creationists, you do not understand the science underpinning evolution. All your arguments are based in ignorance. You're simple minded, so want simple, comforting explanations. Tell me exactly why evolution is a lie? The scientific method is responsible for everything around you...cont
.....from the computer you are using now, to the drugs you take - yet don't understand (a good example of you having blind faith in science there). It's the same scientific method that that proves evolution. In not just one, but numerous, complex fields of science. From genetics, to paleontology. So please explain why all these scientists got together and decided to create and perpetuate this lie. Maybe you accept the majority of science because it doesn't conflict with your stone age beliefs.
@MrSyrett Well actually, as soon as a creationist realises that things they accept actually DO conflict with their beliefs...they then reject it anyway.
eg. Computer science relies on light traveling at a constant rate to time a processor, that mean that things far away, millions of light years away, have to be millions of years old, or else their computer doesn't work.
Thankfully creationists don't know too much otherwise they would end up rejecting their own existence!
@MumblingMickey How does that negate creationism? God created the species in their current division. The absence of transitions in between species is in fact against the evolution principle. We can only argue when in time God created each kind of species. The bible said the species were created in different steps or days. Now some say the days are to be considered literally other do not agree and a God's day could be millions of years. That's why it is important to establish the age of earth
@MumblingMickey There is no valid way to know the age of earth as far as i know. determining the age requires you to know the speed of a phenomenon and the initial conditions and there is no method i am aware of that can ensure we have a sufficient reliability of any of these two data. Some methods like carbon dating cannot even cover long ages measurements and cannot be trusted completely for the same above reasons.
@MumblingMickey I am not someone who believes the bible without questioning it. I have found many things in the bible that are supported by science, but when science cannot tell whether it's true or not then and only then it becomes a matter of faith. We have evidences from the history of ancient cultures and from population growth statistics that nsome thousands years ago a disastrous event like the flood took place on earth. It is reported by the greek, mesopotamian and many other cultures.
@fresniak The facts are, scientists don't find that a global flood occurred and we do have instances of localized floods happening in those areas because populations of people tend to live near water (to survive)
But yes give me some of that observable evidence that there was indeed a global flood that covered the ice caps, the deserts around the world, and the tropical forests we have today. Give me that and win a nobel prize, cus I'll turn it in for you
@fresniak Research on mountain geology alone disproves floods, and disproves a short earth lifespan, fossils don't indicate this. We observe planets being synthesized in space from gargantuan star explosions, why not apply that to earth?
Also: yes its a myth. Just like all of the other myths around the world. Thousands and thousands of myths. Population growth statistics show that without farming and understanding of the world, show that we lived by the millions anyways as nomads
@iliveon How does mountain geology disproves a flood let me understand..do you think science know how mountains formed? Dont make me laugh, those so called geologists think the earth continents move on tectonic plates and crash into each other, when the oceanic plates maps clearly show that the earth's continents and its crust broke apart and the earth grew. And that's how mountains were formed. You just cant trust mainstream "science" they always make up things when they dont understand it.
@fresniak "those so called geologists think the earth continents move on tectonic plates and crash into each other"
I'm done talking to you. It sounds like I am arguing with a Muslim that has no access to internet somewhere in the middle of pakistan.
"And that's how mountains were formed"
You AREN'T KNOWLEDGABLE IN ANY OFSCIENCE OR REALITY.
You shouldn't be aloud to say foolish things thatgoes against all that modern man has discovered. You are SO arrogant as to think nonscientists know it all
@fresniak hunters and gatherers, cavemen, etc. Not 900 year old men, women turning into salt, hundreds of foreskins being shaved off for god, etc. And the flood is long disproved and since we have the churches still giving out faulty information, we have a consistent amount of people trying to prove it happened. When really, its a story copied by older mythological stories such as the epic of gilgamesh and that flood (which is older). Mountains don't show global flood, nor do deserts
@iliveon there is no proof whatsoever that most of man population were hunters, they were mainly food collectors which moved from one place to another and were eating mainly fruits, nuts, eggs of animals and any other kind of available food in nature. The idea that early humans were brute cavemen who went to hunt mammoths is mostly a myth. Despite some groups of men which lived in northern regions who needed to hunt to survive, most humans didn't do that at all.
@fresniak What does this have to do with 900 year old men and foreskins? Nothing. Hunting and being nomads (hunters and gatherers) are the distinct traits of less advanced tribes. All animals do it and anthropology shows that there were a lot of nomads and cavemen who survived by staying in caves away from rain, away from blazing hot sun, etc. That's the facts of life. The fact is, its a hard world to live in and that's how they survived
@iliveon on the contrary hunting for humans is a very advanced activity, collecting food is way easier. I just told you, only in the northern regions people were forced to go hunting in order to survive. Lol blazing hot sun, you dont even realize that sun is extremely important to produce vitamin D, this is also a fact of life (that you probably ignore) those people were not staying in their caves all day long, with most probability they were just sleeping there
@fresniak You are beginning to sound more and more ignorant. The sun doesn't "produce" vitamin D. We have a chemical in our skin that converts over to the second form of vitamin D when radiated by the sun. Secondly, I'd like to see you go live without a house. Dipshit. Why do you think tribes wouldn't have advanced hunting strategies? Its called using their brain. Even chimps pass down hunting methods to their children, dogs do it, etc That's why domesticated animals can't live in the wild
@iliveon it is clear that since you fail against me in every respect, you need to change the words I write to make it seem that I loose the fight. Everyone can see how you manipulate my words for your liking. I never said the sun produce vitamin D, I said (quoted) "Lol blazing hot sun, you dont even realize that sun is extremely important to produce vitamin D". That said, I am not going to engage you in any further dialectics since your only goal is to spit lies and trolling goodbye idiot!! F.U.
@iliveon and btw "We have a chemical in our skin.."that chemical is called cholesterol, but of course you didn't know it, or you would have named it. And that explains why you also don't understand how dangerous are cholesterol lowering drugs. I bet you love those things as much as you love nuclear stuff in your toothpaste or as much as you drink every bullshit that comes from mainstream propaganda.
The oldest known tree as of NOW: 9550 years ... that is proof enough for the world being older than six thousand.
darththeo 1 month ago
@darththeo Uh, wrong. haha.
SwornByOath 1 month ago
@SwornByOath If you don't believe me ... GOOGLE IT. "World's Oldest Tree" ... it is 9550 years old ... well, older than the earth ... but I am sure YECs will find some way to say "no it isn't"
darththeo 1 month ago
watch?v=2Fa9_VsM5Bk
csmcmillion 2 months ago
Dude, you're kidding right? Even if what you're saying is 100% correct, 11,300 years is a whole lot closer to what Christians believe than an evolutionist that says the earth is 4.6 billion years old. Nobody said the earth was exactly 6,000 years old, we believe the earth is approximately between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. There is way too much evidence that shows the earth CANNOT be anywhere even close to 4.6 billions of years old, not even millions for that matter.
XDsubcompact 2 months ago
@XDsubcompact Wow, you must have gone To Liberty University.
watch?v=2Fa9_VsM5Bk
csmcmillion 2 months ago
@XDsubcompact (1) you don't mean Christians, you mean young earth creationists. The Pope, the archbishop of and canterbury believe in evolution. (2) Some creationsist have given an exact date for the creation event - 4004 BC. (3) 11,300 years is supposed to be the earliest reliable tree ring records, not the age of the earth (he worte that in huge letters, as an aid), (4) the Rocky mountains are 80 million years old. Radiometric dating says 4.6 miilion years for the oldest rocks on earth, etc.
teddansonLA 2 months ago
@XDsubcompact
demonhampster114 2 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@XDsubcompact please show us evidence that hasn't been thoroughly debunked alreadythat this is the case. cite your references. explain what geologists have to gain by joining together in a secret conspiracy to fool the world into thinking the earth & universe are billions of years old. please do the same for all other fields of study that confirm this fact. please then repeat all experimentation and provide us with the correct data. this is the requirements of factuality. ok, go:
matthewktube 2 months ago in playlist Underlings List - Part 3a
@XDsubcompact
Get a proper education
tellnet 1 month ago
I open your video and the first think I see is a lie. I am a specialist In wood working and a ring on a tree is not equal to 1 year automaticaly some trees built several rings a year usualy 2. same for the ice on the poles evry time it snows and stop a new coat is formed then the wind blows and frose over itch coats so you can notice a difference between them.. Simple and inteligent reasoning..
MADbokowsky 2 months ago
@MADbokowsky You obviously didn't watch the whole video. He specifically refers to a tree that grows only one ring per year, and the false rings or stunted growth accurately lines up with known weather/volcanic events.
asteroixiii 2 months ago
Great video, except you don't cite where you got your information. As a scientist, I can't validate your claims, therefore you're in the same boat with the creationists. Nice try!
smjjasdfa 2 months ago in playlist Creationist Bullshit
the human immune system is NOT built to combat all diseases, for the simple reasons that diseases evolve all the time. In the past a major contributor to disease was the simple lack of cleanliness, people didn't know about microscopic bacteria. Vaccines have literally saved millions of lives. When measles was first brought to the polynesian islands it wiped out 1/3 of the native population because they had no natural immunities to the disease, despite their "natural and healthy" diet.
nancy6ify 3 months ago in playlist More videos from cdk007
@nancy6ify A virus is already mechanically built to change according what cells it attacks, the only reason that a virus has ever killed someone was because the person already had a lack of nutrition in the first place. No virus has ever been able to kill a strong immune cell, the only immune cell that died from a virus was an immune cell with a lack of nutrition or a cell that died of old age. There was a woman who had full blown AIDS but was completely cured because she restored her nutrition.
starsheild7 3 months ago
@nancy6ify You said, "Vaccines have literally saved millions of lives"
-Yes but the millions of people saved already had a life style that deprived them of a full nutrition/ health (they wouldn't have needed the vaccine if they has full health). Did you know that researchers found out that 100% of the AIDS victoms already had a very low lymphocyte count with a life style of bad urban health? The vaccines are either radiation pills or disease todestroy diseases, both make us sick in the long run
starsheild7 3 months ago
@nancy6ify You said, "When measles was first brought to the polynesian islands it wiped out 1/3 of the native population because they had no natural immunities to the disease, despite their "natural & healthy diet".
-Diet is not the ONLY life style that can make you fully healthy, there is the amount of stress, the kind of animals you are eating, whether or not you had enough sleep, etc. The Polynesians may have had a good diet (if proven) but how do you know that they had a healthy lifestyle?
starsheild7 3 months ago
@nancy6ify Plus just because the Polynesians had a general diet does not mean that they didn't eat unhealthy animals, there's a reason why God told his people that certain animals were unclean, God would give real advice on health provable in advanced medicine, for example, researchers found out that it is unhealthy to eat too much pig, & that it can leave a lump on the back of your neck
starsheild7 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Almost no one attempts to educate themselves on the basics of science and technology, yet our society is based on these. TV takes up far too much of our time and is apparently much more attractive to most of us than the beauty and wonder of science. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. - CARL SAGAN
TheLogicalBrain 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everything created has it's own function, complexity, meaning, structure and design. There is higher intelligence behind that. Every God creation is changable and changes shapes continously (water, fire, air, plants, human body). We cannot create this without using whats already there. While our creations are made with Gods materials and these are always vast mass and we shape it in one unchangable form. I think its impossible for everything to be created by chance or fel into place miracously.
royalsteven 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For me higher intelligence is logic because behind every created thing there is a REASON and everything has a FUNCTION. Plus God's creation is CHANGEABLE and CHANGES (shape) every second (water, fire, air, plants, human body). When we create something it is always with His materials and we shape it in one UNCHANGEABLE form. So for me it's unthinkable everything with its amazingly complex structure, function and shape is created by accident or that it fall into place in millions years.
royalsteven 4 months ago
For me higher intelligence is logic because behind every created thing there is a REASON and everything has a FUNCTION. Plus God's creation is CHANGEABLE and CHANGES (shape) every second (water, fire, air, plants, human body). When we create something it is always with His materials and we shape it in one UNCHANGEABLE form. So for me it's unthinkable everything with its amazingly complex structure, function and shape is created by accident or that it fall into place in millions years.
royalsteven 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@royalsteven
Sounds like for you, your opinion is the truth.
Congratulations.
odinata 4 months ago
For me higher intelligence is simply the truth because behind every created thing there is a REASON and everything has a FUNCTION. Plus God's creation is CHANGEABLE and CHANGES (shape) every second (water, fire, air, plants, human body). When we create something it is always with His materials and we shape it in one UNCHANGEABLE form. So for me it's unthinkable everything with its amazingly complex structure, function and shape is created by accident or that it fall into place in millions years
royalsteven 4 months ago
Thanks for confirming that the flood happened about 4500 years ago.
Check out some evidence for a Maker of the entire universe.
watch?v=qZev7hb40uk
JungleJargon 4 months ago
I believe the world is young. If you want to discuss it e-mail me at abebruce@yahoo.com.
Abram2118 4 months ago
slice the earth in half and check its rings :)
b1gbudda 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hahaha. You evolutionists. Satan laughs at you for believeing in this theory. Haha. I have debated evolutionists in the past and they had to back down because they would have nothing to say. I don't loose debates. And it's a pity that you evolutionists can't see how wonderful it is to know you can have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe. If anyone wants to debate call, text, or email. Phone #: 610 597 3042 Email: dblack2343@gmail.com
dinodan161 5 months ago
I wish you would have shown the actual "ancient tree samples and how they lined up with the oldest living one (are these available somewhere?link) rather that showing nice neat and tidy computer models. May provide more strength to this theory. Still seems though, that with all of the petrified ancient trees that are available we should be able to continue to go on much further than 9-11000 years back based off of this hypothesis. Just keep cross-matching and cross matching.
kscharfens 6 months ago
@kscharfens
There are gaps after 11,000 years.....
odinata 6 months ago
Creationists want the interpretation of the data to be correct.
You said, "Occasionally a tree will have an extra false ring" and then later you explain that a volcanoe may have caused the false ring, and you did not explain how the volcanoe is dated, and there happen to be problems with dating rocks and ash (when dating a volcanoe erruption).
The interpretation of the data is just a little flawed in this video and I believe you are jumping ahead of yourself a little.
starsheild7 6 months ago
@starsheild7
He also said that 4 in 1000 trees of that type were found to have false rings and that by lining up tree rings from DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD that one can find out which ones are false. No dating of volcanoes required.
Ebrainiac1 4 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 Comparing false rings with other false rings doesn't show whether or not any of them are real tree rings to begin with and since tree rings only determine how much it rains every year and since there are no real tree ring dating methods, there is no real way to prove the theory that any tree is any older than about 6000 years old. Now you are jumping ahead of yourself.
starsheild7 4 months ago
@starsheild7
No real tree ring dating methods? Are you really that desperate to justify your dogma?
Dendrochronology is an entire branch of geology, has been proven to be accurate thousands of times over, and.......
You’re plugging your ears to this aren’t you?
Don’t take my word for it. Contact a university geology or biology professor or ACTUALLY DO SOME OF YOUR OWN RESEARCH FOR ONCE.
Also, what about ice core data that shows individual annual layers going back 740 thousand years?
Ebrainiac1 4 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "No real tree ring dating methods? Are you that desperate to justify your dogma?"
-What, truth is dogma now? Maybe you are spreading "dogma"
You said, "Dendrochronology is an entire branch of geology, has been proven to be accurate thousands of times of times over &... You're plugging your ears to this aren't you?"
-You would like to think so; the assumption that I'm plugging my ears to you (which I'm not) is the ONLY WAY you can fantasize yourself winning this small debate
starsheild7 4 months ago
@starsheild7
If you weren't plugging your ears, you would be contacting professors, reading actual scientific literature, doing unbiased internet research in places outside your normal comfort bubble, and inquiring as to my evidence with an open mind instead of searching answersingenesis for a way to shoot it down without doing any independent thinking for yourself.
None of these you are doing.
Ebrainiac1 4 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "& inquiring as to my evidence with an open mind instead of searching answersingenesis for a way to shoot it down without doing any independent thinking for yourself"
-You sound like you have a lot of baggage; you speak as if you THINK you personally know me or something
-I never looked into the "answersingenesis" website; I was just using google for my internet sources.
-Isn't it a contradiction to do research with an anti-god mindset while telling me to have an open mind?
starsheild7 4 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 If you honestly TRULY had an open mind (when doing research) then you should believe that anything is possible including any god. It happens to be more neutral to be an agnostic with now answers to anything, than to be an atheist, atheism has a "mindset" & a presupposition when doing research, if you were TRULY neutral then you should either believe that anything (including God) is possible or you shouldn't be sure of ANYTHING. Since when are you being "open minded" in research?
starsheild7 4 months ago
I'm not about what's possible or impossible, but what's probable. An unlimited number of things are possible, but it's also impossible to disprove fantastic things, like the invisible pink unicorn.
Here's what i am, you can label it what you like, but i call myself an atheist.
I don't believe in a deity, whether it's hindu, jewish, christian, or the flying spaghetti monster ( although i will admit the last one is tempting) simply because i see no evidence to motivate belief.
Ebrainiac1 4 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "You're plugging your ears to this aren't you?"
-No, I'm listening; atheists are the ones plugging their ears to the moral accountability to the supreme special Creator (even though the creator already forgives them of their moral failures already), when they hear moral truth, they "plug their ears"
You said, "Don't take my word for it. Contact a university geology or biology professor"
-They'll just regurgitate they same THEORIES/ explanations (without proof) that you said
starsheild7 4 months ago
What does atheism have to do with a 4.5 billion year old earth? There are millions of christians who accept the facts of the age of the universe, of biological evolution, etc.
So let me get this straight. I direct you towards biology and geology professors who spend most of their lives studying the natural world and publishing papers that have to be backed up with evidence, and you say that they will just regurgitate WITHOUT providing evidence?
Pot calling the kettle black, amigo.
Ebrainiac1 4 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "What does atheism have to do with a 4.5 billion year old earth? There are millions od christians who accept the facts of the age of the universe, of biological evolution, etc"
-I'm a christian who believes that it is biblically possible for the universe to be billions of years old
-Most atheists USE science to give theirselves the "feeling" that there is no god, they don't want people to know that about them so they "say" they don't have a subconscious motive behind it all
starsheild7 4 months ago
Newsflash: atheism isn't what you think. Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the non belief in a deity. That's it. "I don't believe". It's a lack of belief, therefore there cannot be by definition any "feeling" of atheism nor a motive to not believe.
Wake up, hotshot, there are people in the world who don't share your beliefs simply because they don't see evidence, not because they want to sin, not because they're angry at something they don't believe exists, just because they don't believe.
Ebrainiac1 4 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "I direct you towards biology & geology professors who spend most of their lives studying the natural world..."
-Correction, they only study the natural world within the confines of their education credentials where people spend their school hours studying how to simply pass a test to have an old guy in a robe "tell them" they are "smart" according to their school; there is a difference between gaining an "education" vs gaining knowledge; watch the movie "Good Will Hunting"
starsheild7 4 months ago
@starsheild7
Take. A. Fucking. Look. Around. You. Science produced the computer you're typing in, the chair your sitting in, the BUILDING YOU LIVE IN.
Science gets results because truth gets results. Accurate and sound data leads to funding, not old guys in robes trying to sound smart. That's why the scientific method reviews itself over and over and why it's so dependable, something you'd know if you ventured outside your bubble and read some scientific literature.
Ebrainiac1 4 months ago
You say theory as if it's synonymous with "guess" or "hypothesis". Let's take a walk through the various theories kicking around the laboratory floor these days.
Atomic theory
Germ theory
Theory of plate tectonics
Theory of GRAVITY
Einstein's theory of relativity
Cell theory
The theory of limits (without which there would be no calculus)
Circuit theory
I could go on and on. Feeling a bit silly yet?
Ebrainiac1 4 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "You say 'theory' as if it's synonymous with 'guess' or 'hypothesis'"
-Well don't blame me if the dictionary actually says that (it's not me, it's them lol)
-If you used proper english & believe that the theory of evolution is fact, then you would've called it a fact a long time ago (this goes for all the "evolutionists"), if you truly used proper english on your theories when believing they were true somehow then you would HONESTLY call them facts according to your belief
starsheild7 4 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "Let's take a walk through the various theories kicking around the laboratory floor these days. Atomic theory, germ theory, theory of plate tectonic, theory of GRAVITY, Einstein's theory of relativity, cell theory, the theory of limits, circuit theory. I could go on & on. Feeling a bit silly yet?"
-LOL, you can't honestly call all of them theories because atomic theory has been proven with the A bomb, they don't even call it a theory anymore; it's a theory when UNPROVEN...
starsheild7 4 months ago
"Dont blame me if the dictionary actually says that"? Don't bullshit me. If you'd read a single page of the dictionary you'd know that theory means "a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts."
Now we see the little walled garden you keep yourself in. You're scared to even crack open a dictionary you deluded fool.
Ebrainiac1 4 months ago
@starsheild7 I'm an atomic physicist, and I call the theory that I use atomic theory, or quantum physics depending on the mood I'm in. The A bomb used nuclear physics, not atomic physics. But all that tells you is the theory is good enough to build nuclear weapons. It certainly doesn't turn our knowledge into facts. As for your statement that "its a theory when unproven" - total bollocks. There is no theory in science that is proven, all knowledge is provisonal.
teddansonLA 4 months ago
@teddansonLA You said, "But all that tells you is the theory is good enough to build nuclear bombs. It certainly doesn't turn our knowledge into facts"
-But you are not suppose to equate theory with knowledge, because theory is science, & science is only a way to observe something while making assertions about what youy observe, but knowledge is different, knowledge is an answer/ data you get from function & application, function & application is not assertion BECAUSE it's shown before our eyes
starsheild7 3 months ago
@starsheild7 I called you out because you claimed atomic theory had been proven by the A-bomb (not true), and that "they" (presumably physicists like me) considered the theory a fact - we do not. We call it the best explanation we have. A theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge. In biology, the best explanation there is for the diversity of life is the theory of evolution. If you understnad why ToE sits at the pinacle of biology, you will have learnt a lot.
teddansonLA 3 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 I don't deny what is unproven, but I definitely won't assume a theory as fact because that is not proper english & it is dishonest, you should place a scientific theory in its place, a fact is not a theory, it is a guess & a hypothesis; lol, you actually called atomic science a theory, as if the A Bomb didn't prove it a fact, Gravity is not a theory because the fact that we can stand it proof enough that it is a fact, the same goes for the so called theory of limits; facts are proven
starsheild7 4 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 You asked, "Also, what about ice core data that shows individual annual layers going back 740 thousand years?"
-You mean the record of layers indicating the fall of snow on the arctic ice; layers that shows us that it snows as many times as it rains per day & would have indications of layers because of the sun light & pollen & dirt (especially in the spring time & animal migration) which can create up to 20 LAYERS PER DAY in the spring & summer time? What's your point lol...
starsheild7 4 months ago
If you managed to find ice core data that supports a young earth, you'd win a nobel prize. Go ahead, read through the scientific papers on the subject. You know, the ones that have been mercilessly vetted, fact checked, and fine tooth combed for any inaccuracy by thousands of expert scientists.
The scientists didn't find exactly 740 thousand layers, that would be just stupid. Again, if you want to hear their reasoning and see their evidence, read their published papers or CONTACT THEM YOUR SELF!
Ebrainiac1 4 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "If you manage to find ice core data that supports a young earth, you'd win a noble prize."
-The Ice is incapable of showing any age, it only shows weather behavior, not age; why did you even bring up ice core data subject in the first place? You might as well talk about jelly because that is how relevant you are being about proving the billion year AGE of the earth. Why on earth do I need ice to prove a young earth anyway?
starsheild7 4 months ago
@starsheild7
Ice is certainly capable of showing elapsed time. Don't you see anything wrong with the fact that you dismissed the entire possibility of it doing so with, as you so eloquently put it, a minute of "google research"?
Again, you have nothing to lose by phoning up an expert, someone who knows their shit, instead of continuing to debate some random dude in the comments section of a youtube video.
Your reluctance shows that you are afraid of being wrong.
Ebrainiac1 4 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "The scientists didn't find exactly 740 thousand layers, that would be just stupid. Again, if you want to hears their reasoning..."
-Hey, I thought you wanted me to look up DATA, not reasoning, to find evidence, if I want someone to reason with me to prove something I'll just liston to a motivational speaker, but if you suggest listoning to scientists "reason" with me to somehow prove their theories (hypothesis) without providing functional data, then they won't prove fact.
starsheild7 4 months ago
Now you're splitting hairs. If you don't want to look up data and disprove the "guesswork" of an expert, then that's your problem, but don't pretend like you have all the tools necessary to make an airtight statement.
a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, one that has been tested and confirmed to explain and predict natural phenomena.
You're acting like a child making up your own silly words. Disprove the above with a passage from a dictionary.
Ebrainiac1 4 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "If you don't want to look up data & disprove the "quesswork" of an expert, then that's your problem, but don't pretend like you have all the tools necessary to make an airtight statement"
-If I trust guess work over answers from function/ application then that is no better than me trusting the people that say that 2+2=10 despite the function & application of addition telling me that 2+2=4; The same goes for the universe, if you trust the function/ application of universe.
starsheild7 3 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "A theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, & reasoning..."
-A theory is based on observation because science is a method trying MAKE an presupposition SEEM as real as possible (a theory is an invented scenerio). But a fact is different, a fact is an answer derived from function/ application; function/ application tells us that 4+4=8, people can make a theory that 4+4=7 but function/ application disagrees, the same goes for the universe
starsheild7 3 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "... read their published papers or CONTACT THEM YOURSELF!"
-That's your way of saying you don't even have the answers & facts for yourself, you're just trusting "the big boys" to come up with an answer, you don't even doubt them because they have "papers", it's as if you can't think for yourself or something; the is a difference between gaining an education & gaining real knowledge, I've met more unintelligent people come out college than people who never went to college.
starsheild7 4 months ago
@starsheild7
You're right. I don't have the answers and facts for myself. Why, should i know everything there is to know about dendrochronology, genealogy, stratigraphy, weather patterns, etc? Am i supposed to have a PhD? Again, I'm just a guy on youtube. You have a sad bit of logical direction if you think that because some random schmo on youtube doesn't have all the answers, then a university professor with a Doctorate won't suffice.
Ebrainiac1 4 months ago
Fuck all them scientists with their peer review and their fancy papers! What have those old guys in lab coats ever done for us?
Oh wait..
The moon landing, modern agriculture, vaccines, computers, worldwide communications, all the product of the same scientific system that has a 99.9 consensus that the universe is 13.75 billion years old and that biological evolution is both fact and sound theory.
Keep shouting it boyo, maybe one day it'll be true out in the real world instead of in your head.
Ebrainiac1 4 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 don't forget water treatment, saves billions
garfrain 4 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 You said, "Fuck all them scientists with their peer review & fancy papers? What have those old guys in lab coats ever done for us? Oh wait.. The moon landing, modern agriculture, vaccines..."
-Schools & credentials have never invented a thing, only people who observe nature outside of human agreements have invented things. Rocket science is taught in school YET anti-gravity/ light speed (look up Stan Deyo's work) is not being taught because it says that planets are mechanical
Cont-
starsheild7 3 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 -Cont
... the science behind anti-gravity is not being taught & is discredited (looked doen on by scientific communities) because it sugests that gravity is mechanical (which suggests intelligence behind the universe), yet we've seen ufo's; credentials do not teach knowledge. Modern agriculture is bad for our nutrition because it puts unecissary hormones & chemicals that are making people sick (giving medical corperations more money in their scams)
Cont---
starsheild7 3 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 ---Cont
... Modern agriculture is making terrible nutrition making people's immune systems less complete/ weaker, yet proper healthy agriculture is not being taught in school, nor is it being put in a good light in scientific communities. Credentials don't give knowledge
Cont---
starsheild7 3 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 ---Cont
vaccines are diseases built to destroy disease but also make the patient sick in the long run, credentials aprove of it, yet schools don't teach that the human immune system is built to destroy ALL diseases if it has perfect nutrition & strength, the potentials of the simple immune system is looked down apon because it almost suggests that the body is naturally ingeneered like a machine (people feel like they need to build a body rather than use the body they have
Cont---
starsheild7 3 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 ---Cont
Computers are not sold because someone says it works, computers are sold because they work, do you see the difference? & since the school credentials approve many bad sciences that make life worse (because of their presupposition that the universe is somehow not engineerd) makes me doubt their knowledge about anything about the universe.
PS a billion year old universe is based on radio/ atomic geological dating which is a form of circular reasoning when you learn about it.
starsheild7 3 months ago
@starsheild7
You really have nothing better to do with your time than write paragraphs of conspiracy stories in the comment section of a youtube video?
Ebrainiac1 3 months ago
@starsheild7
Did you seriously type that shit up and copy and paste it?
Wow, man.
How about instead of rattling the same old delusional fantasies around in your head and dumping them out into microsoft word, you actually add some smarts and common decency into that organ between your ears.
Ebrainiac1 3 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 You do know that I only typed all of those responses within a half hour right? I didn't spend most of my free time on it. It's easy to refute you because I base my facts on how things function, not on how things look backed up by an old man's peer review, LOL if I based my facts on peer review & not on how things work then I might as well believe in God because other people believe in him there happen to be lots of churchy's so based on how you view facts I should believe in God LOL.
starsheild7 3 months ago
@starsheild7
How things function? Where, pray tell, do you get that information? From your own assumptions and at-a-glance firsthand conclusions? Sorry, but you’ve proven yourself to be intellectually dishonest, egomaniacal, and a rampant conspiracy theorist.
Excuse me if i place just a leeeeetle bit more trust in the knowledge gathering system which produced my computer.
How about you produce a model of reality that can make predictions and be applied to produce technology?
Ebrainiac1 3 months ago
Comment removed
starsheild7 3 months ago
@Ebrainiac1 I left you 8 comments, please read all of them.
starsheild7 4 months ago
@starsheild7
I've read and responded to them. Looking forward to your response.
Ebrainiac1 4 months ago
Wow, even some Christians are starting to see that Young Earth believers are talking nonsense. Thumbs up to the open minded Christians!
visavillem 6 months ago
first things firts humility is our trademark.. so if there are christians who think 6000 ore zillions, respect eachothers opinions rather then cal names.. it degrades the inword views of our understanding of the word, thing is.. the earth is young because of numerous reasons but THE most important one is.. that a day was called when the sun passed and the dat became night.. (one day had passed) and he said after six days.. do you believe what the bible says, ore do you make it fit your own view
humiloves 6 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
Christians who beleive that the earth is 6,000 years old or 10,000 years old are doing a disservice and iit reflects bad when witnessing to non beleivers. I would suggest that these people who beleive like this, just either change you idea and see things for how they truly are, or just keep it to themselves, because it reflects bad on the rest of us.
xhemexx 6 months ago
@xhemexx you are so right. I've had discussions with one of these people. and she has turned into a real nutter. I told her how do we know that a day in the Genesis Account was actually 24 hours, it says later in the Bible a day is as a thousand years to the Lord. she started on how I had unbelief and I didn't believe in the Word of God all kinds of crazy. I told her that that kind of thinking is making atheists out of people by making them choose, it was okay to say I don't know.
XDragasesX 5 months ago
Do a Google search on "1.5 1010 years age of the universe" and you will see that many scientists now claim that the universe is only 1.5 times 1010 years old. This is 1515 years old, not millions or billions of years!
MegaSnoboard 6 months ago
@MegaSnoboard rofl, if thats a joke, seriously we have writings and even religions older than thet
amiller112 6 months ago
@amiller112 It was a joke. Whenever a document uses a superscript to state that the age of the universe is 1.5 times 10 to the 10th power years, most internet search engines ignore font sizes and display that the age of the universe is 1.5 times 1010 years. The joke was intended as a parody of creationists who misunderstand scientific papers and claim that carbon dating does not work.
MegaSnoboard 5 months ago
@MegaSnoboard You nyoung earthers need to shut up and stop talking about stuff that is not true. The earth is way older then 6,000 years, for all we know it can be zillions of years old, meaning we don't know it can be way more then even scientist think. and the universe can me billion times older then THAT. We just don't know. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention the age of the earth. These young earth Christians make the rest of us Christians who KNOW BETTER look bad.
xhemexx 6 months ago
i completly agree with this video and what it says
i am one atheist who has researched science and it's truth in abiogenesis for years now
...however, a blind christian or another of similar faith, with their curse known as "blind faith" can fall back on the old myth that god is all powerfull
and with humility if we consider that they are right, if there is a being who can do or create anything then hypothetically at the start of existence they could create a tree thats 1000 years old
:(
kionay 6 months ago
Hehe.. It's the final countdown for you, creationists!
Goodbye! Have a safe trip!
aboyborninjune 6 months ago
Logic: if the map and the streets doesn't match, the streets are wrong!
pyromanuel69 6 months ago
Logic: if the map and the streets doens't match, the streets are wrong!
pyromanuel69 6 months ago
I'm an atheist and I'm bored. cdk007, would you mind giving me a link to the nonsense timeline at 4:16, just so I can laugh at it? The image in the video is a bit fuzzy.
MethanolCH3OH 7 months ago
Awesome video LOL
iliveon 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SoWhereIsThisGod "..are only interested in supporting what makes them happy." That may be true for some creationist sometimes but it is always and inevitably true for evolutionists.
fresniak 7 months ago
The funny thing is I keep seeing young earthers changing the age of the earth from 6000 to 8000 to 12000
batistaker123 7 months ago
I'm upset about how creationists ignore or go against the data showing the true age of the Earth. It is kind of bad to do this on ordinary and any kind of data. However, it is a lot worse to do this against data that is simple to understand and collect than some more difficult data. The best example is radiometric dating, which looks so difficult even I'm kind of surprise that there are scientists who are able to do this, BUT this evidence in this video is so easy to collect.
mbarrera47 7 months ago
I wouldn't really use tree rings as scientific evidence against creationists. I know it's valid and everything I just feel like there is much more substantial and convincing evidence than that.
ShavedKnuckle 7 months ago
Wow, I wasn't aware of the concept of "cross-dating" That is really interesting and can give so much more information than just one tree can give.
orangemod 7 months ago
499 people didn't think about it.
shrikechan 7 months ago
The age of the earth is irrelevant...the basic question is how life emerged in the universe and science has not and never will answer that. Damn primordial soup!
A non-YE creationist.
raponte1955 8 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@raponte1955 ,and how do you know science will never answer the question to how life emerged in the universe
mooroopoo 8 months ago
you can have all the scientific dating you want, but you can't get life out of nothing.
creamyfilling102 8 months ago
@creamyfilling102 How do you know there was nothing
mooroopoo 8 months ago
@mooroopoo well by nothing, i mean "non-life" (sry, poorly worded) you can't take something that's not alive and have it turn into a living organism.
creamyfilling102 8 months ago
@creamyfilling102, ah ok no worries
mooroopoo 8 months ago
Why YECs are wrong:
Amino acid racemization, Baptistina asteroid family, Continental drift, Cosmogenic nuclide dating, Erosion, Geomagnetic reversals, Impact craters, Iron-manganese nodules, Length of the prehistoric day, Naica megacrystals, Nitrogen in diamonds, Petrified wood, Relativistic jets, Sedimentary varves, Stalactites, Space weathering
I can keep writing reasons why YECs are wrong. But I can't fill 1000 reasons in one comment.
FlyingSpaghettiMoner 8 months ago
my mom said that this video is made by satan. if you are satan, prove that he exssts, i would totally be a satanist and follow YOU. for now, ill just be an atheist.
1009541074brb 8 months ago
You're missing one important premise of creationism - that is different atmospheric conditions prior to the flood, being increased levels of carbon and oxygen (also temperature and pressure) , due to the water vapour surrounding the earth (as mentioned in Genesis). If, as many creationists believe, it is this water canopy surrounding the earth that was the water in the great flood, then do you have data concerning the growth and distribution of tree rings with varying atmospheric conditions?
GirliqueDownUnder 8 months ago
@GirliqueDownUnder are you a creationist?
1009541074brb 8 months ago
@1009541074brb Yes, I am now. I didn't used to be and studied evolution (as well as astronomy). Am now doing degrees number 4 and 5 (one a masters in cognitive neuroscience). I say this not to brag but just to say I'm not an uneducated person. I'm not in a position to provide proof regarding creationism, and am not here to argue point by point varying aspects of evolution/creation. But I saw something 5 years ago that has changed my views completely and I know with no doubt there is a God.
GirliqueDownUnder 8 months ago
@GirliqueDownUnder oh well, i do not believe in creationism, but if it is your opinion thrn it is yours.
1009541074brb 8 months ago
@1009541074brb thanks for not flaming, I realise my views are in the minority. God bless you.
GirliqueDownUnder 8 months ago
@GirliqueDownUnder hey what do you think of this asteroid answers chapter 10 - aztecspin you can find it in google its hard for me to understand
matrixlone 8 months ago
@matrixlone Sorry, what asteroid do you mean? Chapter 10? I'm a bit lost.
GirliqueDownUnder 8 months ago
@GirliqueDownUnder well when you google it just click the link um im just wondering what you think of what ever its talking about it takes alot of information in and is kinda hard to follow
matrixlone 8 months ago
@GirliqueDownUnder asteroid answers chapter 10 (aztecspin site)
matrixlone 8 months ago
@GirliqueDownUnder whys your chanel not available
matrixlone 8 months ago
@matrixlone My channel is set to private for my friends and family only.
GirliqueDownUnder 8 months ago
@GirliqueDownUnder oh okay
matrixlone 8 months ago
@GirliqueDownUnder
"one a masters in cognitive neuroscience"
really? so erm... you are a creationist and also have no problem accepting kroger and hollyoaks experiments demonstrating rational complexity presented to the ACCS? I find that extraordinary to be honest.
They do after all demonstrate how complexity in original thought in any individual can be predicted in advance based on their completion of a simple test of 'same' or 'different'.
That doesn't pose any problems for you?
MumblingMickey 7 months ago
Read the article at AIG Site on Radioactive dating...
crazy77iii 8 months ago
This video is extremely well thought out and addressed the counterarguments with excellence. And I love the song :3
Littlegraycells28 8 months ago
" If it takes a little myth and ritual to get us through a night that seems endless, who among us cannot sympathize, and understand. We long to be here for a purpose, even though, despite much self deception, none is evident. We long for a parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors and save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to Ignorance, better by far to embrace the hard truth, than a reassuring fable.." -- Carl Sagan
bonoboe 8 months ago
Its amazing in this day and age that people refuse to see the truth of the world and the truth of the Human condition. I don't care really, believe what you want to, Just don't drag your children into beliefs while they are too young to make up their own minds, let them learn of the world with unclouded eyes, there is surely a better future for this pale blue dot in that..
bonoboe 8 months ago
The annual cycles we now observe began after the flood.
"While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."
Mdebacle 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mdebacle
"after the flood"
Where did all of the water go?
xlanciferionx 8 months ago
Logic Oh please dont use logic. LOL. Well made vid.
seeker6789 8 months ago
/watch?v=feB7Oc8rw1o
austin123457 8 months ago
creationist biology watch?v=GkvE1GV1kbs
uknowispeaksense 9 months ago
fail of immense proportions using a tree w/ no reference points assuming what happens on earth today is the same as it would have been thousands of years ago.
jOWNZin22 9 months ago
@jOWNZin22
How about ice and silt cores taken from the ice caps and ancient river beds? I’ve touched with my own hands an ice core that was 10 million years old. What’s your response to that?
Ebrainiac1 9 months ago
Why are you trying to imply that ALL creationists are "young earth" believers?? And why do you try to subtly imply that since the earth is older than 6000 years evolution must be true?? I always believed the earth is older than 6000 years but I believe the life and the all universe was created by god. Evolution has no proof whatsoever, therefore it is a fairy tale.
fresniak 9 months ago
@fresniak
God has no proof whatsoever, therefore it is a fairy tale.
boxers7x5 9 months ago
@boxers7x5 On the contrary God is true by definition and by Observation. There must be a Creator by both arguments. Evolution has never been proven, despite being shamefully taught in all text books now. Evolution is blind belief based on zero observation and zero proof, while creation is based on the postulate of intelligent design and confirmed by every record found in the fossils history.
fresniak 9 months ago
@fresniak
Ha ha, are you a comedy writer? Because that's pure gold right there! But, shamefully, I think you're trying to be serious. I say trying because you know what you wrote is total bullshit. There is a ton of evidence to support evolution, much based on observation. Also, now there is genetic proof that we and chimps had a common ancestor. Why don't you open a book and learn something? But then again, people like you are never interested in the truth, just your blind belief in God.
boxers7x5 9 months ago
@boxers7x5 There is not a single comma supporting evolution,no transitional species was ever found. Genetic proof of having an ancestor lolhow do you know if the genes are that way cause we had an ancestor? For your information I was blind before because I was taught evolution was true and based on science but then i found out it is all pure fantasy based on zero proof and zero fact. Also its history is full with frauds. Your scammers have tried hard to invent the proof they never found...
fresniak 9 months ago
@fresniak
There have been many transitional fossils discovered, why don't you visit a museum instead of indulging your paranoid fantasies online? I don't interpret genomes, SCIENTISTS do. Just because you say these things don't exist doesn't make it so.
boxers7x5 9 months ago
@boxers7x5 in order to explain it you need to call me names again? You're such a viscid worm..The ones who are making everything up are evolutionists. There are no transitional forms YOU MORON. Show any reference of such a fossil in a book or just SHUT UP. Even evolutionists admit it. All the so called transitional forms were either FRAUDS or WRONG suppositions. Visiting a museum does not make your arguments any stronger than trying to convince that you can learn science by going to disneyland.
fresniak 9 months ago
There are transitional fossils. For a comprehensive and easy list, go to wikipedia. If you have your doubts about wikipedia, check out the references at the bottom of the page. I hope you will actually look at it instead of make more untrue claims.
redvision350 9 months ago
@redvision350 I checked wikipedia and I am wondering..are you really serious in considering those "transitional forms"??? You must be honest!. As for me I honestly see on that page fishes that are...well fishes, reptiles that are..well just reptiles, birds that are...well birds. Nowhere I found anything that remotely represents a true passage from a species into another. Beside that, many of those pictures are drawings. Is it scientific to post drawings rather than actual photos of the fossils?
fresniak 9 months ago
@fresniak "As for me I honestly see on that page fishes that are well fishes, reptiles that are..well just reptiles, birds that are...well birds"
Maybe that's because birds, reptiles, and fish are not 'species' but entire 'classes' of animals! So given you can't tell the difference its not a surprise you can't find information about transitional forms.
There is no sudden transition between a ground running dinosaur and a hummingbird.... and nobody suggested there would be!
MumblingMickey 6 months ago
@fresniak Which again...brings me back to the very original question I asked... which is ->
Doesn't your insistence there are no transitional forms negate creationism?
MumblingMickey 6 months ago
@fresniak
Nowhere in what I last wrote did I call you a name but then you engage in gross name calling.
I was stating earlier that being willfully ignorant is moronic behavior.
And telling someone to shut up is simply childish. Really, how old are you, like 12?
LOL, you want a book? How about "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" just for one.
Again, just because you say these things don't exist doesn't make it so. Frauds? Just how paranoid are you?
boxers7x5 9 months ago
@boxers7x5 You're just a Liar and everyone who reads the comments knows it...I am not going to write to a blatant liar any further. As I said, no transitional fossils exist, I was hoping for a picture in a book showing clearly the most obvious transitional form, but you have come out with a book which talks philosophy in its title..that says a lot about the so called "facts" of evolution. And yes there were lots of evolution frauds, read it up in google and dont pretend you dont know about them.
fresniak 9 months ago
@fresniak
How pathetic, you were looking for a picture? Obviously you're not interested in reading.
And I visited your channel on here, making outrageous claims like no planes hit the WTC.
What a disgusting insult to the innocent people that died on them and the family members they left behind.
I hope you meet one of those family members some day and they kick your ass into the dirt.
You're obviously a paranoid delusional individual. Go see a doctor and get some help, seriously.
boxers7x5 9 months ago
@fresniak "no transitional fossils exist" - Keep parroting education from Answers in Genesis, and lying for Jesus. Yer fucking dummy
MrSyrett 8 months ago
@MrSyrett "Keep parroting education from Answers in Genesis" And you keep your blind faith in atheist dogma. I have never quoted genesis and you know it. And I am currently a creationist because intellectually is the only sound and reasonable explanation for life. And evolution is a lie and you know it :) My faith in Jesus comes from my life, from recognizing truth and from my observation of the creation, things that you seem to have lost long time ago.
fresniak 8 months ago
@fresniak - "And you keep your blind faith in atheist dogma" - the illogic of that comment just makes me dizzy. "creationism.....is the only sound and reasonable explanation for life". That's because, like most creationists, you do not understand the science underpinning evolution. All your arguments are based in ignorance. You're simple minded, so want simple, comforting explanations. Tell me exactly why evolution is a lie? The scientific method is responsible for everything around you...cont
MrSyrett 8 months ago
.....from the computer you are using now, to the drugs you take - yet don't understand (a good example of you having blind faith in science there). It's the same scientific method that that proves evolution. In not just one, but numerous, complex fields of science. From genetics, to paleontology. So please explain why all these scientists got together and decided to create and perpetuate this lie. Maybe you accept the majority of science because it doesn't conflict with your stone age beliefs.
MrSyrett 8 months ago
@MrSyrett Well actually, as soon as a creationist realises that things they accept actually DO conflict with their beliefs...they then reject it anyway.
eg. Computer science relies on light traveling at a constant rate to time a processor, that mean that things far away, millions of light years away, have to be millions of years old, or else their computer doesn't work.
Thankfully creationists don't know too much otherwise they would end up rejecting their own existence!
MumblingMickey 7 months ago
@fresniak "As I said, no transitional fossils exist, "
Doesn't that statement also negate creationism?
MumblingMickey 7 months ago
@MumblingMickey How does that negate creationism? God created the species in their current division. The absence of transitions in between species is in fact against the evolution principle. We can only argue when in time God created each kind of species. The bible said the species were created in different steps or days. Now some say the days are to be considered literally other do not agree and a God's day could be millions of years. That's why it is important to establish the age of earth
fresniak 7 months ago
@fresniak
Why doesn't the science agree with you?
odinata 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata the science does not agree on evolution, there is no consensus.
fresniak 7 months ago
@fresniak
"That's why it is important to establish the age of earth"
Dating does that... its 4.6 billion years old...
It negates creationism for the very same reason you think 20 million species of animals and plants can't fit on an ark!
MumblingMickey 7 months ago
@MumblingMickey There is no valid way to know the age of earth as far as i know. determining the age requires you to know the speed of a phenomenon and the initial conditions and there is no method i am aware of that can ensure we have a sufficient reliability of any of these two data. Some methods like carbon dating cannot even cover long ages measurements and cannot be trusted completely for the same above reasons.
fresniak 7 months ago
@MumblingMickey I am not someone who believes the bible without questioning it. I have found many things in the bible that are supported by science, but when science cannot tell whether it's true or not then and only then it becomes a matter of faith. We have evidences from the history of ancient cultures and from population growth statistics that nsome thousands years ago a disastrous event like the flood took place on earth. It is reported by the greek, mesopotamian and many other cultures.
fresniak 7 months ago
@fresniak The facts are, scientists don't find that a global flood occurred and we do have instances of localized floods happening in those areas because populations of people tend to live near water (to survive)
But yes give me some of that observable evidence that there was indeed a global flood that covered the ice caps, the deserts around the world, and the tropical forests we have today. Give me that and win a nobel prize, cus I'll turn it in for you
iliveon 7 months ago
@fresniak Research on mountain geology alone disproves floods, and disproves a short earth lifespan, fossils don't indicate this. We observe planets being synthesized in space from gargantuan star explosions, why not apply that to earth?
Also: yes its a myth. Just like all of the other myths around the world. Thousands and thousands of myths. Population growth statistics show that without farming and understanding of the world, show that we lived by the millions anyways as nomads
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon How does mountain geology disproves a flood let me understand..do you think science know how mountains formed? Dont make me laugh, those so called geologists think the earth continents move on tectonic plates and crash into each other, when the oceanic plates maps clearly show that the earth's continents and its crust broke apart and the earth grew. And that's how mountains were formed. You just cant trust mainstream "science" they always make up things when they dont understand it.
fresniak 7 months ago
@fresniak "those so called geologists think the earth continents move on tectonic plates and crash into each other"
I'm done talking to you. It sounds like I am arguing with a Muslim that has no access to internet somewhere in the middle of pakistan.
"And that's how mountains were formed"
You AREN'T KNOWLEDGABLE IN ANY OFSCIENCE OR REALITY.
You shouldn't be aloud to say foolish things thatgoes against all that modern man has discovered. You are SO arrogant as to think nonscientists know it all
iliveon 7 months ago
@fresniak hunters and gatherers, cavemen, etc. Not 900 year old men, women turning into salt, hundreds of foreskins being shaved off for god, etc. And the flood is long disproved and since we have the churches still giving out faulty information, we have a consistent amount of people trying to prove it happened. When really, its a story copied by older mythological stories such as the epic of gilgamesh and that flood (which is older). Mountains don't show global flood, nor do deserts
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon there is no proof whatsoever that most of man population were hunters, they were mainly food collectors which moved from one place to another and were eating mainly fruits, nuts, eggs of animals and any other kind of available food in nature. The idea that early humans were brute cavemen who went to hunt mammoths is mostly a myth. Despite some groups of men which lived in northern regions who needed to hunt to survive, most humans didn't do that at all.
fresniak 7 months ago
@fresniak What does this have to do with 900 year old men and foreskins? Nothing. Hunting and being nomads (hunters and gatherers) are the distinct traits of less advanced tribes. All animals do it and anthropology shows that there were a lot of nomads and cavemen who survived by staying in caves away from rain, away from blazing hot sun, etc. That's the facts of life. The fact is, its a hard world to live in and that's how they survived
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon on the contrary hunting for humans is a very advanced activity, collecting food is way easier. I just told you, only in the northern regions people were forced to go hunting in order to survive. Lol blazing hot sun, you dont even realize that sun is extremely important to produce vitamin D, this is also a fact of life (that you probably ignore) those people were not staying in their caves all day long, with most probability they were just sleeping there
fresniak 7 months ago
@fresniak You are beginning to sound more and more ignorant. The sun doesn't "produce" vitamin D. We have a chemical in our skin that converts over to the second form of vitamin D when radiated by the sun. Secondly, I'd like to see you go live without a house. Dipshit. Why do you think tribes wouldn't have advanced hunting strategies? Its called using their brain. Even chimps pass down hunting methods to their children, dogs do it, etc That's why domesticated animals can't live in the wild
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon it is clear that since you fail against me in every respect, you need to change the words I write to make it seem that I loose the fight. Everyone can see how you manipulate my words for your liking. I never said the sun produce vitamin D, I said (quoted) "Lol blazing hot sun, you dont even realize that sun is extremely important to produce vitamin D". That said, I am not going to engage you in any further dialectics since your only goal is to spit lies and trolling goodbye idiot!! F.U.
fresniak 7 months ago
@iliveon and btw "We have a chemical in our skin.."that chemical is called cholesterol, but of course you didn't know it, or you would have named it. And that explains why you also don't understand how dangerous are cholesterol lowering drugs. I bet you love those things as much as you love nuclear stuff in your toothpaste or as much as you drink every bullshit that comes from mainstream propaganda.
fresniak 7 months ago