One of the vets went up to Callis (a molecular biologist whom Schweitzer asked for help) and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”
Shouldn't a "scientific" response to creationists actually engage with their best arguments? This doesn't begin to address their mulitfaceted and specific claims regarding polystrate fossils. If you have to hunt for videos of hokey preachers and children's programs to portray the opposition, you must not believe your arguments are very solid.
@JEL625 For some reason I get error messages here when i try to post links. I just question taking an arrogant tone against comic books when researchers have more advanced arguments based on their own examination of the data, that's all. Why the fear of interacting with specific, detailed arguments and choose to disdain little clips of men who are not scientists instead? Silly.
@JEL625 Go to ICR.org and search for polystrate Fossils. There is a an article: "The Polystrate Trees and Coal Seams of Joggins Fossil Cliffs" and another "A Classic Polystrate Fossil' Don't brush them off. Respond to the specific details.
@rdrift1879 Can you site any other resource but creationist? I don't ask this because I don't think I could find one I ask because I think you dismiss anything but creationist resources on a subject better suited for a scientist in that particular field of study to explain.
@robvlob I think the creationist source is the best to go to for the purpose here. The video is mocking creationists, implying a level of simplicity that is supposedly answered with ease. My point is that their arguments should be engaged fully. I don't know who is right about polystrate fossils. I do know that this video is a poor substitute for intelligent discussion. Mocking is easy. Thinking is not.
@robvlob Oh, that is such a disappointing response. Many creationist scientists have solid academic credentials, but I'm sure you know that. Same attidtude as the video. Disappointing. But then truth has never been the goal here, has it?
@rdrift1879 Sure there are creationists with credentials but when dealing with said academia they a far rarer in number & their ideas don't pass peer review.
You seem to mistake a stringent process for discerning truth with a process mostly based on a unfounded emotional belief.
@robvlob Many creationists have accepted articles and published papers that have passed peer review. You are simply uninformed. There is a philosophical bias at work on both sides. Yes, creationists are in the minority. You still have to explain why they are wrong.
@rdrift1879 I should of clarified my comment a bit better
Its not so much the individual(theist scientists) as it is the organization(IE.creationist organizations) & those associated with said organization that have a tendency of conformational bias that don't pass peer review
@robvlob I don't think peer review should be done on organizations, but specific research. Nowadays, these "creation" scientists with genuine academic credentials are doing original research and set up committees to peer review each other's work. These are the articles that other scientists should interact with. Anyway, thanks for raising the level of discourse. We're a long way from phrenology!
For some real truth about this go to smithsonianmag com in the search type in Dinosaur shocker. For some reason i can't copy and past the website address in here???????
Dr Schweitzer said "She’s horrified Christians are lying, . “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”
go ahead dont except the evidence that are out there on google about dinosaures weather u like it or not dinosaures..aka..dragons did and maybe still live with man
i am only going too say one thing about the soft tissue its real a scientist took some tweezers and actually grap it pull it twist it flex it.an u know what one of the scientist said.get ready makes me laugh.......WHAT U SEE IS REALLY NOT WHAT YOU SEE....there just trying too push there evolution so people can believe it its not fact.
@jesussave1979 Source please. It's just been explained to you that anything that could actually be grasped with tweezers does not enter into this. Please provide evidence of this "tweezer scenario". Thanks.
And just to make a point, do you know what an illusion is? Or how about this: you see the sun "moving around the earth" and yet it doesn't. So ... what you see is really not what you see. Still, let's see some documentation of your tweezer story.
I understand how the trees are embedded in rock but I am confused about how they could be embedded in coal. Since coal is made from trees and other vegetative detritus, wouldn't any buried/entombed trees also break down and turn to coal? Just confused about that one point... Otherwise, I love this and every video you do!
Schweitzer says this about the find and it's significance - "It's very amazing, it's utterly shocking actually because it flies in the face of everything we understand about how tissues and cells degrade... I think it's important to remember that we don't know for sure what it still is, it looks like blood vessels and it looks like bone matrix and it certainly looks like cells and it acts like cells. But we haven't done the chemical analysis to see what it is for sure."
@AbandonedPanda "But we haven't done the chemical analysis to see what it is for sure"
And guess what? The analyses have been done. It is primarily biofilm (a contaminant) and degraded hemoglobin and collagen. The age of the bones is 67 million years.
Polystrate trees do not just have one sequence or definitive process to them. It's evidence that could go either way, depending on the argument. "6,000" year time-line for "everything" is bogus and not even biblical if properly read. The ancients knew that there had been other periods before on Earth, but we did not "evolve" from a micro-organism, fish, ape, ect... Life here was created by a very advanced genetic engineer, ie God, Elohim. Seek and you will find.
If you look further into this, it's more obvious to me that they covered it up, just like everything else that doesn't make it to the mainstream. Quote... "Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist 'Dinosaur' Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, 'So far, we haven't been able to.'"
The random accident explanation for sophisticated systems, codes and laws capable of producing self replicating biological machines from nonliving matter, is ridiculously naive.
I pray that Atheists find enough courage to admit the fact that Gods deliberate design is the only LOGICAL explanation for self replicating biological machines and systems.
@HolyRevelation Then it is good that allmost noone thinks or says that. To say you have the only logical explanation, when the possible amount of explanations are rather large, is rather illogical. It is easy to say that your own little created strawman is illogical - cos they usually are. It is much harder to actually understand the other camps positions and beliefs and from a place of knowledge and understanding argue your point. Well done - you have through your strawman shown your ignorance
@webhutspain or did she say that it was the leftover residue from the breakdown of heamoglobin? Do you have a source to these letters? As long as there is no sources but ( I presume) only hearsay - then the knowledge is unverifiable. Thus it makes sense to use the scientific and verifiable paper instead of rumour.
Title:"Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked"
Your argument: Pictures of cells not from the T-Rex.
Is that the way to debunk the Dinosaur blood?
Let me try to understand, you assert the picture is the picture of a dinosaur's blood, but as the picture is not of a T-Rex, then it is not a blood of a Dino. Next time we have to take picture of the Dino and its blood, so the blood is from the Dino. Very scientific.
I remember hearing about this a long time ago! God dammit, I believed it, too. Believed that they found blood cells that is. Not once did I jump to the conclusion that that meant T-rex was millions of years younger than previously thought. I just figured it was a freak occurrence, and got psyched we might be able to clone one. This was long before I learned how much creationists love to skew facts and spread bad information to innocent people.
The more I watch these videos, the more I have to come to the conclusion that these noisy and vexatious proponents of creationism could not be that stupid and still walk upright. I'm leaning to the idea that they are simply, willfully, and methodically LYING for their own benefit. There's money to be made giving talks to gullible believers, writing books full of misinformation, and doing personal appearances. I can't really come up with another credible explanation for them.
You take only what you want 1 article out of 100's of interviews Dr Mary Schweitzer clearly says she has found red blood cells TISSUE and blood vessels in bone from 70 million years ago lol. Truth is out there see for yourself people don't belive this video. Get your facts straight before posting stupid videos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Sofyn References, please. And why is it that scientific posters always seem to explain things while religists are always ranting and name-calling and typing exclamation marks? Trying to compensate for your complete lack of credibility?
@Sofyn well he didn't look at the interveiws. Potholer looked at the scienctific paper, which Sweitzer had published. Besides the residue from the breakdown of the blood cells, could be called red blood cell tissue. Did she say she found blood cells in any of these 100s of interviews *lol*? Maybee you should watch the video and listen to what Potholer actually says instead of making up things that he says. To make up facts doesn't make them true. Strawmen makes for lazy arguments
" no heamoglobin but the residue of the disintegrated blood cells". This leads me to think that that bones are hundreds, or perhaps some thousands of years old, it was found on ground and rocks.
Your madness: a) i dont call Sweitzer a lier for her discovery, i like it, what she is wrong is when she says: i dont understand how this blood could remain so long. She has been brainwashed.
@xchris1800 You say you have found evidence. What evidence is that? There is an explanation for how the microstructures could have survived that long. The explanation given by Potholer makes sense and doesn't violate the knowledge we have about decomposition. We don't know exactly how this process happen but not knowing is nessecary before knowing. To assert to know, without knowing - is that really knowing or simply an assertion?
@BjornSeverinLarsen b) Creationists uncover the evidence that dinosaurs have lived with men. And this is one example of many.
c) "...it is not a problem for science", science means for you Evo- theory, i dont consider it science, bks science is based in knowledge by using the intelligence, intelligence never will tell you, you can do this without thinking. ,and that is the core of this T, intelligence is not allowed, it implies God as Creator, E-t, Atheist old religion.
My understanding is that Dr Mary Schweitzer is a practicing Christian yet her discovery never compelled her to suddenly embrace the idea of a young earth. The best person to analyse the findings is the one who has made the discovery in the field and who has written the paper. Not some creotard sitting in an armchair in a white coat.
Potholer, you say there was no soft-tissue in Schweitzer's samples, but the article "Dinosaur Shocker" posted on the Smithsonian website says otherwise and the pictures on that article sure look like soft-tissue to me (though I'm no expert). Could you please clarify what exactly soft-tissue is and how we know if we've found it. Also, if there was no soft-tissue in the samples does that mean the Smithsonian made an error?
@biznor3: The point is, biz, that Schweitzer's papers don't say there is any "soft tissue" in the fossils - that is, she doesn't make the claim that they are indeed the soft tissues that the dinosaur died with. What they are and how they got there is as yet unknown, exactly. The Smithsonian is not above small errors in interpretation, though usually they are more circumspect. At any rate, the author of the Smithsonian display has likely never seen or handled the specimens.
@Equestions "Did they find collagen, elastin and laminin in the hadrosaur dinosaur?" Is that what Dr Schweitzer discovered & mentioned in her paper? I don't know. You'll have to tell me as i assume you've read the paper. The point is that she is/was a practicing Xtian yet HER findings did not compel her to state that the fossils must be 6K years old. What has she missed that you haven't? Also the theme of this video is to highlight the lies of creationists like Lisle claiming red blood cells.
@dancingnancy09 How dare they call them selves scientists "when it should be called the what i want to believe group" Where are the successful experiments proving evolution?
No scientists have ever found red blood cells in Tyrannosaurus rex; the Creationists have deliberately exaggerated and mis-interpreted the graduate research of Schweitzer and Staedter, who never concluded they were RBCs:
"Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes."
The fact is no-one knows what they are (except Creationists apparantly, lol).
The analysis of the Hadrosaur, is shown here, in only one paragraph. It clearly states that endogenous proteinaceous material is preserved in SOFT TISSUES, and Collagen peptides were also found. THIS IS REALLY AMAZING PRESERVATION for something that is BILLIONS of years old! There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for a younger earth, AND a much younger UNIVERSE. AGES OF OLDEST CIVILIZATIONS, WORLD POPULATION + GROWTH RATE + TIME, OLDEST TREES, AMOUNT OF CONTINENT EROSION, AGE OF COR
@TheWayandWordofLife "younger earth, AND a much younger UNIVERSE. AGES OF OLDEST CIVILIZATIONS, WORLD POPULATION + GROWTH RATE + TIME, OLDEST TREES, AMOUNT OF CONTINENT EROSION"..universe younger then the earth?Seriously?Oldest civilizations?You know them?Humans are only around 150k years.Population and growth rate?Are we bacteria?Oldest Tree?The oldest living person is 125yo does that mean earth is 125 yo?Do the eroded sediments just disappear?No they form new land...
In the very first paragraph, of the article- it CLEARLY states that TISSUE was extracted off the dinosaur bone. And in the second column, it is talking about the Hemaglobin, a.k.a.- RED BLOOD CELLS, which were injected into rats, and they responded positively ( part of the words from the right half of the second column, don't show up at all- so, I could be wrong that the RBC's were injected into rats- but it reads that way. ). There are several videos about it, but for the TRUTH- I'll read
In fact the claim of red blood cells by the Creationists, by deliberate mis-interpretation of Schweitzer's research, has further been shown to be nonsense:
"Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed. Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells."- New York Times, June 10, 1997
But do you think that would stop Ken Ham from repeating utter false-hoods and mis-information to support his bat-shit crazy Bronze-Age mythology? NOPE.
@TheWayandWordofLife What this Atehist video say "....there was no blood cell, there was no haemoglobin, they had desintegrated", then what am i watching in the video in time 4.30min? . Atheist are insane. Really their madness scare me.
@xchris1800 exactly what is the madness in this video? The report said, no heamoglobin but the residue of the disintegrated blood cells. So unless you wish to call Sweitzer a liar or unable to investigate her find, then what is the problem? The two things, blood cells and petrified treetrunks, which the creationists cover here, is not a problem for science. It only becomes a problem when creatards start saying "science says this" and is misrepresenting what it says. All they have is stawmen
Did potholer54 say at 8:07, that the trees were buried rapidly, and we can see this "RAPID" burial in SWAMPS? Yes he did!! Then why is it that you can see a swamp with trees growing out of it, and come back to that same swamp 10 years later, and everything still looks the same? Now, this video totally forgot to mention the trees found in those layers that are UPSIDE DOWN, that's right upside down. How does a tree grow upside down in a swamp? Where's your science paper on that one PotBLOWSholer?
"hen why is it that you can see a swamp with trees growing out of it, and come back to that same swamp 10 years later, and everything still looks the same?"
That depends entirely on the swamp.
" Now, this video totally forgot to mention the trees found in those layers that are UPSIDE DOWN, that's right upside down. How does a tree grow upside down in a swamp?"
It falls down and then gets buried. Next question?
Now, let's talk about the things Creationists would prefer not be known about polystrate fossils...like the large number that have their fine rootlet systems intact and growing through multiple layers of "Flood sediment." Why does this matter? It means they're in situ--an uprooted tree would not retain those rootlets. This means that...according to Creationists...those trees had to take root and grow DURING the Flood!
But, wait, it gets better! In many places, we see such an in situ polystrate fossil, and then see ANOTHER many layers ABOVE it! Again, if we believe Creationists, the first tree must have grown to adulthood, been buried, and then a SECOND tree must have sprouted above it and grown to adulthood--all during the Flood! That's to say nothing of the polystrate fossils that show a second set of roots halfway up, indicating a partial burial that was only completed years later!
@brpierce How do they know that's a root system, and not some funky looking set of limbs? They don't, they just assume that's what it is and then they tell the gullible world it's a fact. Now what did you say about the trees that are upside down in those layers?
"How do they know that's a root system, and not some funky looking set of limbs?"
...because we know what roots and rootlets look like. I know Creationists love to say "Scientists don't know anything!" but c'mon. It's not that hard to tell the difference between rootlets and branches. I think even you could manage it.
As I said: the occasional upside-down tree isn't a surprise. Trees fall down. I could show you one locally that's currently being buried upside-down.
Potholer54debunks absolutely nothing, all he does is set up the brain washable viewers (99.9% his subscribers) in the first minute of his videos, into believing that the story he's getting ready to "debunk" is already CRAP!! After that, they'll worship anything he says. So what was that Flexible material inside the bone, contamination from underground uranium?
@ironman197268 Well it is easy to "worhsip" Potholer, when all he shows is liars in action. The only thing used by these creatards is strawmen. They simply make up stuff about what science knows - and from these often rediculous statements says that "evolutionists" simply have to believe this on faith etc. If what they said was true then yes. But all they really do is to misrepresent the knowledge in science - so they are only arguing with their own assertions and not with reality.
@BjornSeverinLarsen I could care less about your fantasies. Creationists don't make up anything, we use reality as our evidence. Why is soft tissue found in a 70 million year old dinosaur bone?
@ironman197268 "we use reality" - yeah you are right. You use your own little fantasies about what the theories says and make stuff up. Cos the different theories which creatards like you label evolutionism says nothing like what creationists say it does. So lie upon lie upon lie. It could be said to be ignorance but most of these guys have been shown their mistake and keep making it. These lying strawman creating people just shows the weakness off creationistic arguments. tbc
@ironman197268 "why is soft tissue found in 70 million old dinosaur bones?" - well if you watch the video again an explanation is given. Have you watched the video?
@BjornSeverinLarsen Yeah I watched the video, and all bungholer does is go down Mary Schweitzer's list of claims and says she didn't say any of it. But being the big balloon head that he and his worshipers are, they'll believe anything he says. He also has to "fancy" everything up to further brainwash you as well as himself by slashing those red lines through all those claims, and that makes his viewers go...shhwuooo, those creatards almost had us!!
@ironman197268 "shhwuooo, those creatards almost had us" - what are you talking about? Creatardas never has anyone but their own believers. Allmost everyone else can see the ignorant arguments for what they are. Besides Potholer doesn't debunk Sweitzer but debunks the "truth"group. Are you sure you have seen the video? It is said so quite clearly in the video... Potholer uses Sweitzers own paper to debunk the strawmen the truthgroup creates.
@ironman197268 The claim was: "soft tissue meat". The paper said: "transparent soft tissue vessels". So Potholer didn't say that there where no soft tissue, but that there where no soft tissue meat. Meat is on the outside of the bones - not on the inside. He however reports the finding of the paper to debunk the claim about soft tissue meat.
I hope you do realise that there is a difference between meat and transparent vessels
@BjornSeverinLarsen No, he uses the word meat, to confuse and distract poeple like you about the big picture. Why is any kind of tissue found in a 70 million year old bone? 70 million years ago is a pathetic joke anyways.
@ironman197268 He uses the word meat because it is the word that the truthgroup uses. They use this scientific knowledge to say that it is impossible that the fossils are tens of millions years old, then what they discribed are impossible. Which is true - because what they described wasn't what was found. The reason how the tissue still exists after 70 million years is in the video from 05:08 to 06:00. The joke is more the belief that the earth is 6000 year old
@ironman197268 I am on the side of the intelligence, The world shows the works of The Intelligence that we cannot do other thing that worship it, that Intelligence is what we call God, and God the Creator came in flesh as Jesus Christ, and that was prophecied for the bible, before it happens and confirmed in the gospels.
Now we are in the last times, false religions, false science, all in order to keep people from the Real Jesus. (1)
@ironman197268 Then he speaks to them in his anger. In his burning anger he terrifies them by saying, “I have installed my own king on Zion, my holy mountain.” I will announce the Lord’s decree. He said to me: “You are my Son. Today I have become your Father. Ask me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as your own possession. You will break them with an iron scepter. You will smash them to pieces like pottery.” (3)
@ironman197268 These atheists are decided that there is not God, that's why any proof like this which attempts against their fantasy has to be 'debunked', that T for them has no any mistake, it is perfect otherwise the only solution should be God as Creator, Have you thought why they dont like God in their lives?, Perhaps they dont want rules, and a superior. What science comes from that kind of people? :)
@xchris1800 A nice rant but i have few objections:
1# its a bit odd that when we disprove your supposed proof you seem to think that this makes your claim stronger, but as it stands its now disproven and untill you can give a valid argument why is true anyway it will stay that way.
2# You seem to claim that if current theory's are wrong the awnser is god by default, yet this doesent have any support, Something must have proof of is own before you can claim it as true.
3# this isent even a purely ateist's view. the vast majority of ppl that accept these scientific theory's are in fact theist (Tho non-literalists ofc) who find this no challenge to there belief in god.
4# If as you say atheist reject god because they dont want to follow rules, then why do they follow the laws of mere humans. For only 0,2% of the US prison population is atheist out of the 10% of the hole US population that are atheist?
@mikstar890 God is the only starting point of morality. man doesn't bow to man's rules, he does what he wants within the realms of following what is the world law because people KNOW there are consequences in this world for action, they can't murder or they go to jail. They're not willing to be accountable to man anymore than God.
@BML385 No, the starting point of morality is based on causing a minimal amount of suffering, which improves survival chances. This is why morality is found in human populations without a belief in god or an enforced law and even in other animals where individuals are dependent on the rest of the group.
Excellent dissertation; I still wonder why after facts are being presented, why so many atheists still believe in evolution. Anyway, I guess in a country where everybody is free to choose their own religion, atheists chose evolution as a religion. Where faith is so necessary, that they need to start indoctrinating the kids since they are small to believe in it. Well, why don't you stop wasting my tax dollars in nonsense, and truly separate state from religion and stop teaching Darwinism.
@oopscanada Go read about Kitzmiller vs Dover court case of intelligent design vs evolution in the schools. The theory of evolution crushed the intelligent design movement. The judge of the case was John E. Jones III, who was appointed by George W. Bush. The evidence for evolution is so compelling that a conservative Christian judge couldn't deny the evidence. Stop being ignorant to the facts, you are fooling no one.
@jappud Just a small correction. A theorem is a math equation proved. As per Richard Dawkins, I am using theorum, to mean a proved theory in science. It seems most creationists think a theory in science is just an idea, not proven.
"Science is happy with creation. I have never seen one piece of evidence against creation, not one."
Not one that you could understand or were honest enough to acknowledge. Fingers in the ears and eyes shut doesn't make the evidence go away. You failed to answer twenty out of twenty questions from the "perfect Creationist science" perspective. Evolutionary theory answers them all easily.
That depends on what you mean by "creation." I have no evidence that God didn't guide the process, and in fact, I believe that He did. There is massive evidence that He did not do so in the way Biblical literalists insist He went about it. You have been presented with this evidence; your response is to refuse to look at it and then declare that since you didn't look at it, it doesn't exist.
You may fool yourself--but that's all. Creationism collapses under scrutiny.
...but let's get back to those questions you say Creationism can "easily answer," since you've repeatedly insisted that it explains everything scientifically.
Where, according to Creationism, do petroleum products (like oil and bitumen) come from? Mainstream geology says it takes millions of years for organic remains to be converted into hydrocarbons. What does Creationism say? (I know the answer, but let's see if you do.)
@brpierce "Mainstream"... words use donly by evolutionists not by science. Flood strata includes chalk cliffs, most fossils, and carbon products. There is no data that it takes millions of years to form oil, fossils, chalk cliffs, or coral reefs.
@brpierce We have answered the questions. Try to answer one of mine if you can, with data, not with "lots of people think". Use science and show me that oil takes millions of years to form. Science creates oil in days not years.
"We" are very pompous to be using the royal "we," aren't we?
And you haven't answered a blessed thing. Now answer the question: where does oil come from according to Creationists?
Creationists never, EVER answer questions...because they can't.
"Science creates oil in days not years."
I'm sure all the oil companies will be thrilled to know that it's so easy to create oil! Last I checked, they were still forced to drill for the stuff.
So now that you've completely failed to answer twenty-three out of twenty-three questions (sorry, your Answers in Genesis cut-and-paste wasn't an answer,) let's point out why your non-answer is a problem.
Of course, what you're going to believe (once you find a Creationist website to tell you what to believe) is that oil and petroleum products formed during the Flood. That's where Creationists claim the heat and pressure needed for accelerated production came from.
@brpierce Finally you have read some science. Yes oil is part of the flood strata and evidence of a global flood. Science supports creation and the flood strata is very important to this.
My main obection to any sort of global flood, though, is this: where would all that water have come from? And where did it go? Enough H2O to cover the Earth's surface in 5 miles of the stuff...
"I have not flip flopped yet and have no intention of starting now."
You couldn't start now; you've been doing it all along. You've told us that there are no layers, but there are strata (which are layers.) You've told us that there's no organization at all to fossils, but that the Flood organized them. You've told us that Answers in Genesis doesn't know "science" when they acknowledge speciation, but that they're a fine source for "science" when they agree with you.
Now, getting back to your answer (you know, the one I had to feed you because you didn't know it yourself)--you say that petroleum was the result of the Flood, and that "science" has proved it.
So: next question.
Where did Noah get the bitumen pitch he used to coat the Ark?
I'm still waiting for you to answer mine. I don't play that game, sorry. The fact that I had to answer my last question FOR you--and then you said, "Oh, yes, that's right, I knew that all along"--doesn't count as you answering a question.
@brpierce We have refuted you and given you a whopping. You can't answer my question because it demands science and science doe snot support "accident".
...so you're admitting that you were wrong when you claimed that dogs didn't descend from wolves. At least you're on the same page as other Creationists now! Now, if Creationists can ever get around to producing a definition of "kind" that isn't "It's obvious," "Dogs are a kind," or "Well, not everybody agrees what a species is, so we don't have to have a definition!" we'll be in business.
"Quit making things up because you have no science to help your ideology."
Hypocritical, as well as ignorant and arrogant. The person who claims to speak for all of science while not being able to answer the simplest questions with anything other than irrelevant cut-and-paste accuses others of making things up.
There is no evidence that any fossil, rock layer or life form existed before the last 7000 years. Radiometric dating has been refuted. Science is happy with creation.
Like I said, that's your response every time you're asked a question you can't answer. "There is no evidence for evolution. Science is happy with Creation." It's the ultimate cop-out, and it amounts to, "I can't explain this, so I'm just going to chant my mantra in the hopes that it'll go away."
@warriorprince1010 Dude.. if you're gonna spout boldly mendacious bullshit in public without a modicum of shame why don't you just claim you have the strength of ten men, a PhD in Biology and that you're fluent in Latin and invented the Question Mark? It's no more outrageous than that dumb shit and will make you appear cooler and more interesting..
@GawdSwill Dudew, can you show me evidence of any animal that lived beyond 7000 years ago please? Trying to be clever and insulting people maybe the only way you evolutionists can operate but it does not work with me.
@warriorprince1010 You are Mythology damaged possibly beyond all hope of repair.. "Scientists don't take anything "Evolutionists" say seriously.." Are you friggin kidding me you hapless dolt? Evolutionary Theory is in fact accepted by the de facto ENTIRETY of Scientists in all related Natural Sciences..
@GawdSwill Evolutionism has been rejected by science. Only evolutionists support it, its all you have got. Science is happy with creation, there are no problems we are aware of.
@warriorprince1010 What complete and utter bullshit.. You're either completely retarded or the Boldest Liar on the Planet. Your silly religiously motivated sloganeering changes the FACT that Evolution is accepted by the overwhelming majority of Scientists not one bit.. and it affects the overwhelming preponderance of Evidence supporting Evolutionary Theory not one fucking iota.
Hehe.. oh man.. what is this "we" bullshit? Oh please, please do claim now that you're a "Scientist"..
Note that when I presented WarriorPrince with a list of problems with Creationism, his response was, "None of those problems exist. Science is happy with Creationism. All scientists support Creationism." When presented with questions Creation Science can't answer, his response was to simply say "Those questions have been answered"--without answering them. He doesn't even know CREATIONIST arguments; he insists that science has proven dogs aren't related to wolves, for instance.
From National Geographic:
Dinosaur Soft Tissue Sequenced; Similar to Chicken Proteins:
Now, for the first time, scientists have obtained partial protein sequences from the soft tissue remains.
"The sequences are clearly from T. rex," said John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led one of the studies.
news.nationalgeographic(dot)com/news/2007/12/071203-dino-mummy_2.html
AZRanger 4 days ago
From the Smithsonian website.
One of the vets went up to Callis (a molecular biologist whom Schweitzer asked for help) and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”
smithsonianmag(dot)com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz1o13mdSip
AZRanger 4 days ago
I would say that the T-rex was not "intact".
It may have been "complete", or "nearly complete"
But intact? Sounds like MOST of it was replaced by mineral...
odinata 4 days ago
@TheJo4an I suppose I'll have to ask you to prove what you mean. Sad.
rdrift1879 6 days ago
Comment removed
rdrift1879 6 days ago
This is a very big CACA
guyver2095 2 weeks ago
The guy as the end will have noproblem with his children and electronic gadgets, they are probably learning Semaphore.
VideoAudioDisco09 2 weeks ago in playlist Potholer54debunks
Comment removed
rdrift1879 2 weeks ago
Shouldn't a "scientific" response to creationists actually engage with their best arguments? This doesn't begin to address their mulitfaceted and specific claims regarding polystrate fossils. If you have to hunt for videos of hokey preachers and children's programs to portray the opposition, you must not believe your arguments are very solid.
rdrift1879 2 weeks ago
@rdrift1879:
So what are their "multifaceted and specific claims regarding polystrate fossils"?
MsHyde1 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@rdrift1879 I will also ask, what are their "mulitfaceted and specific claims"
if you haven't the time to type them yourself then link them
if you can't do that well "you must not believe your arguments are very solid"
JEL625 2 weeks ago
@JEL625 For some reason I get error messages here when i try to post links. I just question taking an arrogant tone against comic books when researchers have more advanced arguments based on their own examination of the data, that's all. Why the fear of interacting with specific, detailed arguments and choose to disdain little clips of men who are not scientists instead? Silly.
rdrift1879 2 weeks ago
@JEL625 Go to ICR.org and search for polystrate Fossils. There is a an article: "The Polystrate Trees and Coal Seams of Joggins Fossil Cliffs" and another "A Classic Polystrate Fossil' Don't brush them off. Respond to the specific details.
rdrift1879 2 weeks ago
@rdrift1879 Can you site any other resource but creationist? I don't ask this because I don't think I could find one I ask because I think you dismiss anything but creationist resources on a subject better suited for a scientist in that particular field of study to explain.
robvlob 6 days ago
@robvlob I think the creationist source is the best to go to for the purpose here. The video is mocking creationists, implying a level of simplicity that is supposedly answered with ease. My point is that their arguments should be engaged fully. I don't know who is right about polystrate fossils. I do know that this video is a poor substitute for intelligent discussion. Mocking is easy. Thinking is not.
rdrift1879 6 days ago
@rdrift1879 That makes about as much sense as saying when searching for the best source for facts about psychology, consult a phrenologist
robvlob 6 days ago
@robvlob Oh, that is such a disappointing response. Many creationist scientists have solid academic credentials, but I'm sure you know that. Same attidtude as the video. Disappointing. But then truth has never been the goal here, has it?
rdrift1879 6 days ago
@rdrift1879 Sure there are creationists with credentials but when dealing with said academia they a far rarer in number & their ideas don't pass peer review.
You seem to mistake a stringent process for discerning truth with a process mostly based on a unfounded emotional belief.
robvlob 6 days ago
@robvlob Many creationists have accepted articles and published papers that have passed peer review. You are simply uninformed. There is a philosophical bias at work on both sides. Yes, creationists are in the minority. You still have to explain why they are wrong.
rdrift1879 5 days ago
@rdrift1879 I should of clarified my comment a bit better
Its not so much the individual(theist scientists) as it is the organization(IE.creationist organizations) & those associated with said organization that have a tendency of conformational bias that don't pass peer review
robvlob 5 days ago
@robvlob I don't think peer review should be done on organizations, but specific research. Nowadays, these "creation" scientists with genuine academic credentials are doing original research and set up committees to peer review each other's work. These are the articles that other scientists should interact with. Anyway, thanks for raising the level of discourse. We're a long way from phrenology!
rdrift1879 5 days ago
What would these Creationists do if they couldn't lie to their fellow sheeple?
Cootabux 3 weeks ago in playlist TEMP-1
@Cootabux
This one was a lawyer so he would just go baack to lies in court after swaering on the Buy-Bull,
VideoAudioDisco09 2 weeks ago in playlist Potholer54debunks
For some real truth about this go to smithsonianmag com in the search type in Dinosaur shocker. For some reason i can't copy and past the website address in here???????
Sofyn 3 weeks ago
@Sofyn
Truth about what exactly....
Dr Schweitzer said "She’s horrified Christians are lying, . “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”
VideoAudioDisco09 2 weeks ago in playlist Potholer54debunks
Comment removed
Sofyn 3 weeks ago
go ahead dont except the evidence that are out there on google about dinosaures weather u like it or not dinosaures..aka..dragons did and maybe still live with man
jesussave1979 3 weeks ago
@jesussave1979
I am a millionaire just Google it.
LOL!
DrEelectricbio 2 weeks ago
i am only going too say one thing about the soft tissue its real a scientist took some tweezers and actually grap it pull it twist it flex it.an u know what one of the scientist said.get ready makes me laugh.......WHAT U SEE IS REALLY NOT WHAT YOU SEE....there just trying too push there evolution so people can believe it its not fact.
jesussave1979 3 weeks ago
@jesussave1979 Source please. It's just been explained to you that anything that could actually be grasped with tweezers does not enter into this. Please provide evidence of this "tweezer scenario". Thanks.
And just to make a point, do you know what an illusion is? Or how about this: you see the sun "moving around the earth" and yet it doesn't. So ... what you see is really not what you see. Still, let's see some documentation of your tweezer story.
iwantapwnie 3 weeks ago
@iwantapwni.sure...google dinosaures blood vessels i am sure u will find alot of evidence of the sort.
jesussave1979 3 weeks ago
@jesussave1979 Ah, so you made it up. Figures.
iwantapwnie 3 weeks ago
I understand how the trees are embedded in rock but I am confused about how they could be embedded in coal. Since coal is made from trees and other vegetative detritus, wouldn't any buried/entombed trees also break down and turn to coal? Just confused about that one point... Otherwise, I love this and every video you do!
jhkantor 4 weeks ago
@jhkantor I think the vein of coal was above and below the tree
robvlob 6 days ago
Schweitzer says this about the find and it's significance - "It's very amazing, it's utterly shocking actually because it flies in the face of everything we understand about how tissues and cells degrade... I think it's important to remember that we don't know for sure what it still is, it looks like blood vessels and it looks like bone matrix and it certainly looks like cells and it acts like cells. But we haven't done the chemical analysis to see what it is for sure."
AbandonedPanda 4 weeks ago
@AbandonedPanda "But we haven't done the chemical analysis to see what it is for sure"
And guess what? The analyses have been done. It is primarily biofilm (a contaminant) and degraded hemoglobin and collagen. The age of the bones is 67 million years.
AtheistRex 3 weeks ago
@AtheistRex How do they know the age of the fossil?
AbandonedPanda 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AbandonedPanda "How do they know the age of the fossil?"
The usual ways: Radiometric and geological dating.
AtheistRex 3 weeks ago
Billy Crone is an insane numbskull.
daemonowner 1 month ago
Polystrate trees do not just have one sequence or definitive process to them. It's evidence that could go either way, depending on the argument. "6,000" year time-line for "everything" is bogus and not even biblical if properly read. The ancients knew that there had been other periods before on Earth, but we did not "evolve" from a micro-organism, fish, ape, ect... Life here was created by a very advanced genetic engineer, ie God, Elohim. Seek and you will find.
dwhite1up 1 month ago
If you look further into this, it's more obvious to me that they covered it up, just like everything else that doesn't make it to the mainstream. Quote... "Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist 'Dinosaur' Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, 'So far, we haven't been able to.'"
dwhite1up 1 month ago
@dwhite1up where is this quote from?
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
The random accident explanation for sophisticated systems, codes and laws capable of producing self replicating biological machines from nonliving matter, is ridiculously naive.
I pray that Atheists find enough courage to admit the fact that Gods deliberate design is the only LOGICAL explanation for self replicating biological machines and systems.
HolyRevelation 1 month ago
@HolyRevelation smh
NOOOOOO
X3SakakiX3 1 month ago
@HolyRevelation Then it is good that allmost noone thinks or says that. To say you have the only logical explanation, when the possible amount of explanations are rather large, is rather illogical. It is easy to say that your own little created strawman is illogical - cos they usually are. It is much harder to actually understand the other camps positions and beliefs and from a place of knowledge and understanding argue your point. Well done - you have through your strawman shown your ignorance
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
Twisting the truth, although not in the paper the scientist in question did find hemoglobin - she said so herself in a letter to another scientist.
webhutspain 1 month ago
@webhutspain or did she say that it was the leftover residue from the breakdown of heamoglobin? Do you have a source to these letters? As long as there is no sources but ( I presume) only hearsay - then the knowledge is unverifiable. Thus it makes sense to use the scientific and verifiable paper instead of rumour.
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
Maybe you meant the blood doesnt correspond to a T-Rex, if you say so, you are incredible wrong.
Why dont accept that something is 'possible' wrong with the Theory?.
xchris1800 1 month ago
Title:"Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked"
Your argument: Pictures of cells not from the T-Rex.
Is that the way to debunk the Dinosaur blood?
Let me try to understand, you assert the picture is the picture of a dinosaur's blood, but as the picture is not of a T-Rex, then it is not a blood of a Dino. Next time we have to take picture of the Dino and its blood, so the blood is from the Dino. Very scientific.
xchris1800 1 month ago
You can't make money selling other peoples' books unless it's a bible.
transcendtient 1 month ago
I remember hearing about this a long time ago! God dammit, I believed it, too. Believed that they found blood cells that is. Not once did I jump to the conclusion that that meant T-rex was millions of years younger than previously thought. I just figured it was a freak occurrence, and got psyched we might be able to clone one. This was long before I learned how much creationists love to skew facts and spread bad information to innocent people.
GuacamoleKun 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
The more I watch these videos, the more I have to come to the conclusion that these noisy and vexatious proponents of creationism could not be that stupid and still walk upright. I'm leaning to the idea that they are simply, willfully, and methodically LYING for their own benefit. There's money to be made giving talks to gullible believers, writing books full of misinformation, and doing personal appearances. I can't really come up with another credible explanation for them.
carmium 1 month ago
You take only what you want 1 article out of 100's of interviews Dr Mary Schweitzer clearly says she has found red blood cells TISSUE and blood vessels in bone from 70 million years ago lol. Truth is out there see for yourself people don't belive this video. Get your facts straight before posting stupid videos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sofyn 1 month ago
@Sofyn References, please. And why is it that scientific posters always seem to explain things while religists are always ranting and name-calling and typing exclamation marks? Trying to compensate for your complete lack of credibility?
carmium 1 month ago
@Sofyn well he didn't look at the interveiws. Potholer looked at the scienctific paper, which Sweitzer had published. Besides the residue from the breakdown of the blood cells, could be called red blood cell tissue. Did she say she found blood cells in any of these 100s of interviews *lol*? Maybee you should watch the video and listen to what Potholer actually says instead of making up things that he says. To make up facts doesn't make them true. Strawmen makes for lazy arguments
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
@BjornSeverinLarsen you are right in this:
" no heamoglobin but the residue of the disintegrated blood cells". This leads me to think that that bones are hundreds, or perhaps some thousands of years old, it was found on ground and rocks.
Your madness: a) i dont call Sweitzer a lier for her discovery, i like it, what she is wrong is when she says: i dont understand how this blood could remain so long. She has been brainwashed.
xchris1800 1 month ago
@xchris1800 You say you have found evidence. What evidence is that? There is an explanation for how the microstructures could have survived that long. The explanation given by Potholer makes sense and doesn't violate the knowledge we have about decomposition. We don't know exactly how this process happen but not knowing is nessecary before knowing. To assert to know, without knowing - is that really knowing or simply an assertion?
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
@BjornSeverinLarsen b) Creationists uncover the evidence that dinosaurs have lived with men. And this is one example of many.
c) "...it is not a problem for science", science means for you Evo- theory, i dont consider it science, bks science is based in knowledge by using the intelligence, intelligence never will tell you, you can do this without thinking. ,and that is the core of this T, intelligence is not allowed, it implies God as Creator, E-t, Atheist old religion.
xchris1800 1 month ago
I'm surprised that this video hasn't yet gotten muuuillions and muuuillions of views.
DrThunder88 1 month ago
My understanding is that Dr Mary Schweitzer is a practicing Christian yet her discovery never compelled her to suddenly embrace the idea of a young earth. The best person to analyse the findings is the one who has made the discovery in the field and who has written the paper. Not some creotard sitting in an armchair in a white coat.
pilgrimpater 1 month ago
Apparently you need more than eyes to see the words and a brain to read them. You also need a mind to comprehend them.
panterguy 1 month ago
Potholer, you say there was no soft-tissue in Schweitzer's samples, but the article "Dinosaur Shocker" posted on the Smithsonian website says otherwise and the pictures on that article sure look like soft-tissue to me (though I'm no expert). Could you please clarify what exactly soft-tissue is and how we know if we've found it. Also, if there was no soft-tissue in the samples does that mean the Smithsonian made an error?
biznor3 1 month ago
@biznor3: The point is, biz, that Schweitzer's papers don't say there is any "soft tissue" in the fossils - that is, she doesn't make the claim that they are indeed the soft tissues that the dinosaur died with. What they are and how they got there is as yet unknown, exactly. The Smithsonian is not above small errors in interpretation, though usually they are more circumspect. At any rate, the author of the Smithsonian display has likely never seen or handled the specimens.
puncheex 1 month ago
... And neither have any of the creationists writing about them.
puncheex 1 month ago
6:50 ROTFL :D
Catastropheshe 2 months ago
Hey Potholer. Did they find collagen, elastin and laminin in the hadrosaur dinosaur?
Equestions 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Equestions "Did they find collagen, elastin and laminin in the hadrosaur dinosaur?" Is that what Dr Schweitzer discovered & mentioned in her paper? I don't know. You'll have to tell me as i assume you've read the paper. The point is that she is/was a practicing Xtian yet HER findings did not compel her to state that the fossils must be 6K years old. What has she missed that you haven't? Also the theme of this video is to highlight the lies of creationists like Lisle claiming red blood cells.
pilgrimpater 1 month ago
test
pyr666 2 months ago
I laugh out loud EVERY TIME I hear that dude say "MUUUUHHLLIONS AND MUUUUHHLIONS OF YEARS!?!"
TheAmericanCthulhu 2 months ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 1 month ago
how dare they call themselves truth group when it should be called the what i want to believe group
dancingnancy09 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dancingnancy09 How dare they call them selves scientists "when it should be called the what i want to believe group" Where are the successful experiments proving evolution?
hamptonbay100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No scientists have ever found red blood cells in Tyrannosaurus rex; the Creationists have deliberately exaggerated and mis-interpreted the graduate research of Schweitzer and Staedter, who never concluded they were RBCs:
"Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes."
The fact is no-one knows what they are (except Creationists apparantly, lol).
OrthodoxDarwinist 3 months ago
The analysis of the Hadrosaur, is shown here, in only one paragraph. It clearly states that endogenous proteinaceous material is preserved in SOFT TISSUES, and Collagen peptides were also found. THIS IS REALLY AMAZING PRESERVATION for something that is BILLIONS of years old! There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for a younger earth, AND a much younger UNIVERSE. AGES OF OLDEST CIVILIZATIONS, WORLD POPULATION + GROWTH RATE + TIME, OLDEST TREES, AMOUNT OF CONTINENT EROSION, AGE OF COR
TheWayandWordofLife 3 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife BIOLLIONS of years old dino fossils? hahahahah idiot.
omgwtfbbqxD 3 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife "younger earth, AND a much younger UNIVERSE. AGES OF OLDEST CIVILIZATIONS, WORLD POPULATION + GROWTH RATE + TIME, OLDEST TREES, AMOUNT OF CONTINENT EROSION"..universe younger then the earth?Seriously?Oldest civilizations?You know them?Humans are only around 150k years.Population and growth rate?Are we bacteria?Oldest Tree?The oldest living person is 125yo does that mean earth is 125 yo?Do the eroded sediments just disappear?No they form new land...
gastarbeiter1 2 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife Stupid people are funny.
LondonIrishRover 2 months ago
In the very first paragraph, of the article- it CLEARLY states that TISSUE was extracted off the dinosaur bone. And in the second column, it is talking about the Hemaglobin, a.k.a.- RED BLOOD CELLS, which were injected into rats, and they responded positively ( part of the words from the right half of the second column, don't show up at all- so, I could be wrong that the RBC's were injected into rats- but it reads that way. ). There are several videos about it, but for the TRUTH- I'll read
TheWayandWordofLife 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In fact the claim of red blood cells by the Creationists, by deliberate mis-interpretation of Schweitzer's research, has further been shown to be nonsense:
"Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed. Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells."- New York Times, June 10, 1997
But do you think that would stop Ken Ham from repeating utter false-hoods and mis-information to support his bat-shit crazy Bronze-Age mythology? NOPE.
OrthodoxDarwinist 3 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife What this Atehist video say "....there was no blood cell, there was no haemoglobin, they had desintegrated", then what am i watching in the video in time 4.30min? . Atheist are insane. Really their madness scare me.
xchris1800 1 month ago
@xchris1800 Pictures of cells not from the T-Rex.
MzBUZZKILINGTON 1 month ago
@xchris1800 exactly what is the madness in this video? The report said, no heamoglobin but the residue of the disintegrated blood cells. So unless you wish to call Sweitzer a liar or unable to investigate her find, then what is the problem? The two things, blood cells and petrified treetrunks, which the creationists cover here, is not a problem for science. It only becomes a problem when creatards start saying "science says this" and is misrepresenting what it says. All they have is stawmen
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
Did potholer54 say at 8:07, that the trees were buried rapidly, and we can see this "RAPID" burial in SWAMPS? Yes he did!! Then why is it that you can see a swamp with trees growing out of it, and come back to that same swamp 10 years later, and everything still looks the same? Now, this video totally forgot to mention the trees found in those layers that are UPSIDE DOWN, that's right upside down. How does a tree grow upside down in a swamp? Where's your science paper on that one PotBLOWSholer?
ironman197268 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ironman197268
"hen why is it that you can see a swamp with trees growing out of it, and come back to that same swamp 10 years later, and everything still looks the same?"
That depends entirely on the swamp.
" Now, this video totally forgot to mention the trees found in those layers that are UPSIDE DOWN, that's right upside down. How does a tree grow upside down in a swamp?"
It falls down and then gets buried. Next question?
brpierce 4 months ago
@ironman197268
Now, let's talk about the things Creationists would prefer not be known about polystrate fossils...like the large number that have their fine rootlet systems intact and growing through multiple layers of "Flood sediment." Why does this matter? It means they're in situ--an uprooted tree would not retain those rootlets. This means that...according to Creationists...those trees had to take root and grow DURING the Flood!
brpierce 4 months ago
@ironman197268
But, wait, it gets better! In many places, we see such an in situ polystrate fossil, and then see ANOTHER many layers ABOVE it! Again, if we believe Creationists, the first tree must have grown to adulthood, been buried, and then a SECOND tree must have sprouted above it and grown to adulthood--all during the Flood! That's to say nothing of the polystrate fossils that show a second set of roots halfway up, indicating a partial burial that was only completed years later!
brpierce 4 months ago
@brpierce How do they know that's a root system, and not some funky looking set of limbs? They don't, they just assume that's what it is and then they tell the gullible world it's a fact. Now what did you say about the trees that are upside down in those layers?
ironman197268 4 months ago
@ironman197268
"How do they know that's a root system, and not some funky looking set of limbs?"
...because we know what roots and rootlets look like. I know Creationists love to say "Scientists don't know anything!" but c'mon. It's not that hard to tell the difference between rootlets and branches. I think even you could manage it.
As I said: the occasional upside-down tree isn't a surprise. Trees fall down. I could show you one locally that's currently being buried upside-down.
brpierce 4 months ago
Potholer54debunks absolutely nothing, all he does is set up the brain washable viewers (99.9% his subscribers) in the first minute of his videos, into believing that the story he's getting ready to "debunk" is already CRAP!! After that, they'll worship anything he says. So what was that Flexible material inside the bone, contamination from underground uranium?
ironman197268 4 months ago
@ironman197268 Well it is easy to "worhsip" Potholer, when all he shows is liars in action. The only thing used by these creatards is strawmen. They simply make up stuff about what science knows - and from these often rediculous statements says that "evolutionists" simply have to believe this on faith etc. If what they said was true then yes. But all they really do is to misrepresent the knowledge in science - so they are only arguing with their own assertions and not with reality.
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
@BjornSeverinLarsen I could care less about your fantasies. Creationists don't make up anything, we use reality as our evidence. Why is soft tissue found in a 70 million year old dinosaur bone?
ironman197268 1 month ago
@ironman197268 "we use reality" - yeah you are right. You use your own little fantasies about what the theories says and make stuff up. Cos the different theories which creatards like you label evolutionism says nothing like what creationists say it does. So lie upon lie upon lie. It could be said to be ignorance but most of these guys have been shown their mistake and keep making it. These lying strawman creating people just shows the weakness off creationistic arguments. tbc
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
@ironman197268 "why is soft tissue found in 70 million old dinosaur bones?" - well if you watch the video again an explanation is given. Have you watched the video?
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
@BjornSeverinLarsen Yeah I watched the video, and all bungholer does is go down Mary Schweitzer's list of claims and says she didn't say any of it. But being the big balloon head that he and his worshipers are, they'll believe anything he says. He also has to "fancy" everything up to further brainwash you as well as himself by slashing those red lines through all those claims, and that makes his viewers go...shhwuooo, those creatards almost had us!!
ironman197268 1 month ago
@ironman197268 "shhwuooo, those creatards almost had us!!"
Yea, because nothing exemplifies integrity like a shrieking preacher "debunking" science from a pulpit.
fdasherv 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@ironman197268 "shhwuooo, those creatards almost had us" - what are you talking about? Creatardas never has anyone but their own believers. Allmost everyone else can see the ignorant arguments for what they are. Besides Potholer doesn't debunk Sweitzer but debunks the "truth"group. Are you sure you have seen the video? It is said so quite clearly in the video... Potholer uses Sweitzers own paper to debunk the strawmen the truthgroup creates.
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
@BjornSeverinLarsen Go to 1:10 of this video and listen to potholer contradict himself about no soft tissue being found in the bones.
ironman197268 1 month ago
Comment removed
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
@ironman197268 The claim was: "soft tissue meat". The paper said: "transparent soft tissue vessels". So Potholer didn't say that there where no soft tissue, but that there where no soft tissue meat. Meat is on the outside of the bones - not on the inside. He however reports the finding of the paper to debunk the claim about soft tissue meat.
I hope you do realise that there is a difference between meat and transparent vessels
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
@BjornSeverinLarsen No, he uses the word meat, to confuse and distract poeple like you about the big picture. Why is any kind of tissue found in a 70 million year old bone? 70 million years ago is a pathetic joke anyways.
ironman197268 1 month ago
Comment removed
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ironman197268 He uses the word meat because it is the word that the truthgroup uses. They use this scientific knowledge to say that it is impossible that the fossils are tens of millions years old, then what they discribed are impossible. Which is true - because what they described wasn't what was found. The reason how the tissue still exists after 70 million years is in the video from 05:08 to 06:00. The joke is more the belief that the earth is 6000 year old
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
@ironman197268 I am on the side of the intelligence, The world shows the works of The Intelligence that we cannot do other thing that worship it, that Intelligence is what we call God, and God the Creator came in flesh as Jesus Christ, and that was prophecied for the bible, before it happens and confirmed in the gospels.
Now we are in the last times, false religions, false science, all in order to keep people from the Real Jesus. (1)
xchris1800 1 month ago
@ironman197268 This is a prophecy which is taking form in this time, so it is not
surprise what is happening and going to happen for us, let's be ready.
Why do the nations gather together?,
Why do their people devise useless plots?,
Kings take their stands.
Rulers make plans together,
against the Lord and against his Messiah[a] by saying,
“Let’s break apart their chains, and shake off their ropes.”
The one enthroned in heaven laughs.
The Lord makes fun of them (2)
xchris1800 1 month ago
xchris1800 1 month ago
@ironman197268 Now, you kings, act wisely.
Be warned, you rulers of the earth!
Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, or he will become angry,
and you will die on your way,
because his anger will burst into flames.
Blessed is everyone who takes refuge in him. (4)
God is the Creator.
xchris1800 1 month ago
@ironman197268 These atheists are decided that there is not God, that's why any proof like this which attempts against their fantasy has to be 'debunked', that T for them has no any mistake, it is perfect otherwise the only solution should be God as Creator, Have you thought why they dont like God in their lives?, Perhaps they dont want rules, and a superior. What science comes from that kind of people? :)
xchris1800 1 month ago
@xchris1800 A nice rant but i have few objections:
1# its a bit odd that when we disprove your supposed proof you seem to think that this makes your claim stronger, but as it stands its now disproven and untill you can give a valid argument why is true anyway it will stay that way.
2# You seem to claim that if current theory's are wrong the awnser is god by default, yet this doesent have any support, Something must have proof of is own before you can claim it as true.
mikstar890 1 month ago
@xchris1800
3# this isent even a purely ateist's view. the vast majority of ppl that accept these scientific theory's are in fact theist (Tho non-literalists ofc) who find this no challenge to there belief in god.
4# If as you say atheist reject god because they dont want to follow rules, then why do they follow the laws of mere humans. For only 0,2% of the US prison population is atheist out of the 10% of the hole US population that are atheist?
mikstar890 1 month ago
@mikstar890 God is the only starting point of morality. man doesn't bow to man's rules, he does what he wants within the realms of following what is the world law because people KNOW there are consequences in this world for action, they can't murder or they go to jail. They're not willing to be accountable to man anymore than God.
BML385 3 weeks ago
@BML385 No, the starting point of morality is based on causing a minimal amount of suffering, which improves survival chances. This is why morality is found in human populations without a belief in god or an enforced law and even in other animals where individuals are dependent on the rest of the group.
mikstar890 3 weeks ago
@xchris1800 Man I'm not sure whose side you're on here. Are you an atheist/evolutionist?
ironman197268 1 month ago
Comment removed
foxlake02 4 months ago
Excellent dissertation; I still wonder why after facts are being presented, why so many atheists still believe in evolution. Anyway, I guess in a country where everybody is free to choose their own religion, atheists chose evolution as a religion. Where faith is so necessary, that they need to start indoctrinating the kids since they are small to believe in it. Well, why don't you stop wasting my tax dollars in nonsense, and truly separate state from religion and stop teaching Darwinism.
oopscanada 4 months ago
@oopscanada Go read about Kitzmiller vs Dover court case of intelligent design vs evolution in the schools. The theory of evolution crushed the intelligent design movement. The judge of the case was John E. Jones III, who was appointed by George W. Bush. The evidence for evolution is so compelling that a conservative Christian judge couldn't deny the evidence. Stop being ignorant to the facts, you are fooling no one.
permypoo 4 months ago
@jappud Which is why Dawkins changed the spelling to "theorum", hopefully it will get creationists thinking, is that possible?
wizard970 4 months ago
@jappud Just a small correction. A theorem is a math equation proved. As per Richard Dawkins, I am using theorum, to mean a proved theory in science. It seems most creationists think a theory in science is just an idea, not proven.
wizard970 4 months ago
@jappud Science is happy with creation.
I have never seen one piece of evidence against creation, not one.
warriorprince1010 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010
"Science is happy with creation. I have never seen one piece of evidence against creation, not one."
Not one that you could understand or were honest enough to acknowledge. Fingers in the ears and eyes shut doesn't make the evidence go away. You failed to answer twenty out of twenty questions from the "perfect Creationist science" perspective. Evolutionary theory answers them all easily.
brpierce 4 months ago
@brpierce What evidence do you have against creation? You have failed to even pretend there is any. Science has no room for accident.
warriorprince1010 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010
That depends on what you mean by "creation." I have no evidence that God didn't guide the process, and in fact, I believe that He did. There is massive evidence that He did not do so in the way Biblical literalists insist He went about it. You have been presented with this evidence; your response is to refuse to look at it and then declare that since you didn't look at it, it doesn't exist.
You may fool yourself--but that's all. Creationism collapses under scrutiny.
brpierce 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010
...but let's get back to those questions you say Creationism can "easily answer," since you've repeatedly insisted that it explains everything scientifically.
Where, according to Creationism, do petroleum products (like oil and bitumen) come from? Mainstream geology says it takes millions of years for organic remains to be converted into hydrocarbons. What does Creationism say? (I know the answer, but let's see if you do.)
brpierce 4 months ago
@brpierce "Mainstream"... words use donly by evolutionists not by science. Flood strata includes chalk cliffs, most fossils, and carbon products. There is no data that it takes millions of years to form oil, fossils, chalk cliffs, or coral reefs.
warriorprince1010 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010
You didn't answer the question. According to Creation "science," how and when did petroleum products form?
If you don't know the answer, just say so; I know there's a lot about Creationism you don't know.
brpierce 4 months ago
@brpierce What part of flood strata do you struggle with? What data do you have to show Carbon products came millions of years ago? What method?
warriorprince1010 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Why is it that you can never answer even a single question? Just answer the question.
brpierce 4 months ago
@brpierce We have answered the questions. Try to answer one of mine if you can, with data, not with "lots of people think". Use science and show me that oil takes millions of years to form. Science creates oil in days not years.
warriorprince1010 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010
"We have answered the questions."
"We" are very pompous to be using the royal "we," aren't we?
And you haven't answered a blessed thing. Now answer the question: where does oil come from according to Creationists?
Creationists never, EVER answer questions...because they can't.
"Science creates oil in days not years."
I'm sure all the oil companies will be thrilled to know that it's so easy to create oil! Last I checked, they were still forced to drill for the stuff.
brpierce 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010
So now that you've completely failed to answer twenty-three out of twenty-three questions (sorry, your Answers in Genesis cut-and-paste wasn't an answer,) let's point out why your non-answer is a problem.
Of course, what you're going to believe (once you find a Creationist website to tell you what to believe) is that oil and petroleum products formed during the Flood. That's where Creationists claim the heat and pressure needed for accelerated production came from.
Right?
brpierce 4 months ago
@brpierce Finally you have read some science. Yes oil is part of the flood strata and evidence of a global flood. Science supports creation and the flood strata is very important to this.
warriorprince1010 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010
"Yes oil is part of the flood strata and evidence of a global flood."
Oh, good! You finally figured out what you're supposed to believe after I told you.
Wonderful!
So oil and petroleum products came about because of the Flood. Is that your final answer? You're sure you're not going to flip-flop on that?
brpierce 4 months ago
@brpierce I have not flip flopped yet and have no intention of starting now. Flood strata is fully supported by science.
warriorprince1010 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Hardly.
My main obection to any sort of global flood, though, is this: where would all that water have come from? And where did it go? Enough H2O to cover the Earth's surface in 5 miles of the stuff...
SenMysrana 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010
"I have not flip flopped yet and have no intention of starting now."
You couldn't start now; you've been doing it all along. You've told us that there are no layers, but there are strata (which are layers.) You've told us that there's no organization at all to fossils, but that the Flood organized them. You've told us that Answers in Genesis doesn't know "science" when they acknowledge speciation, but that they're a fine source for "science" when they agree with you.
brpierce 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@warriorprince1010
"Science supports creation and the flood strata is very important to this."
You do realize that "strata" isn't a singular noun? That saying "The strata is very important" is like saying "The layers is very important?"
No, of course not--after all, according to you, the "flood strata" doesn't include any "layers."
brpierce 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Now, getting back to your answer (you know, the one I had to feed you because you didn't know it yourself)--you say that petroleum was the result of the Flood, and that "science" has proved it.
So: next question.
Where did Noah get the bitumen pitch he used to coat the Ark?
brpierce 4 months ago
@brpierce You need to answer my questions first sonny.
warriorprince1010 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010
I'm still waiting for you to answer mine. I don't play that game, sorry. The fact that I had to answer my last question FOR you--and then you said, "Oh, yes, that's right, I knew that all along"--doesn't count as you answering a question.
brpierce 4 months ago
@brpierce We have refuted you and given you a whopping. You can't answer my question because it demands science and science doe snot support "accident".
warriorprince1010 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Still referring to yourself as "we?" Tell me, do you consider yourself royalty, or do you suffer from multiple personalities?
It's funny to hear someone who claims that "Science says that wolves aren't related to dogs" claim to speak for science.
brpierce 4 months ago
@brpierce Science has shown that wolves are indeed related to dogs as they are...dogs. The same kind and different variety. Try again.
warriorprince1010 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010
...so you're admitting that you were wrong when you claimed that dogs didn't descend from wolves. At least you're on the same page as other Creationists now! Now, if Creationists can ever get around to producing a definition of "kind" that isn't "It's obvious," "Dogs are a kind," or "Well, not everybody agrees what a species is, so we don't have to have a definition!" we'll be in business.
brpierce 4 months ago
@brpierce Quit making things up because you have no science to help your ideology.
warriorprince1010 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@warriorprince1010
"Quit making things up because you have no science to help your ideology."
Hypocritical, as well as ignorant and arrogant. The person who claims to speak for all of science while not being able to answer the simplest questions with anything other than irrelevant cut-and-paste accuses others of making things up.
brpierce 4 months ago
There is no evidence that any fossil, rock layer or life form existed before the last 7000 years. Radiometric dating has been refuted. Science is happy with creation.
warriorprince1010 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Like I said, that's your response every time you're asked a question you can't answer. "There is no evidence for evolution. Science is happy with Creation." It's the ultimate cop-out, and it amounts to, "I can't explain this, so I'm just going to chant my mantra in the hopes that it'll go away."
brpierce 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Dude.. if you're gonna spout boldly mendacious bullshit in public without a modicum of shame why don't you just claim you have the strength of ten men, a PhD in Biology and that you're fluent in Latin and invented the Question Mark? It's no more outrageous than that dumb shit and will make you appear cooler and more interesting..
GawdSwill 4 months ago
@GawdSwill Dudew, can you show me evidence of any animal that lived beyond 7000 years ago please? Trying to be clever and insulting people maybe the only way you evolutionists can operate but it does not work with me.
warriorprince1010 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010 No one is trying to be clever. Lots of animals lived millions of years ago. Evolution is the most proven theorum in science.
wizard970 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010 You are Mythology damaged possibly beyond all hope of repair.. "Scientists don't take anything "Evolutionists" say seriously.." Are you friggin kidding me you hapless dolt? Evolutionary Theory is in fact accepted by the de facto ENTIRETY of Scientists in all related Natural Sciences..
Ergo you are also completely full of shit..
GawdSwill 4 months ago
@GawdSwill Evolutionism has been rejected by science. Only evolutionists support it, its all you have got. Science is happy with creation, there are no problems we are aware of.
warriorprince1010 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010 What complete and utter bullshit.. You're either completely retarded or the Boldest Liar on the Planet. Your silly religiously motivated sloganeering changes the FACT that Evolution is accepted by the overwhelming majority of Scientists not one bit.. and it affects the overwhelming preponderance of Evidence supporting Evolutionary Theory not one fucking iota.
Hehe.. oh man.. what is this "we" bullshit? Oh please, please do claim now that you're a "Scientist"..
GawdSwill 4 months ago
@GawdSwill
Note that when I presented WarriorPrince with a list of problems with Creationism, his response was, "None of those problems exist. Science is happy with Creationism. All scientists support Creationism." When presented with questions Creation Science can't answer, his response was to simply say "Those questions have been answered"--without answering them. He doesn't even know CREATIONIST arguments; he insists that science has proven dogs aren't related to wolves, for instance.
brpierce 4 months ago
@brpierce He's hilarious.. "A young man who wants to learn the Truth about everything.."
Except Biology..
and Genetics..
and Paleontology..
and Geology..
and Cosmology..
and Physics..
GawdSwill 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Please prove that statement!
wizard970 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Only on you tube. In the real world it is quite accurate.
wizard970 4 months ago
@wizard970 Radiometric dating is not accepted by any science, just by evolutionists.
warriorprince1010 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010 lol
antoireland09 4 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Au contraire. It is indeed accepted. Why wouldn't it be? Half-lives are very constant things.
SenMysrana 4 months ago
The 1st thing one have to do, if one want to 'debunk' something. Are to understand what they are talking about.
If a person have no knowledge of evolution. then how can he/she ever argue against it ?
BelieveNoGod 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
06:52 - 07:21
This segment of video clearly proves that shouting out your statement makes it truer.
VoxSweden 5 months ago
Comment removed
VoxSweden 5 months ago