his name is Peter(Potholer 54 onutube) in the video, and he only worries about science and yes he refers to the bible only in cases where religion is trying to state a scientifical fact, for some reason religion has a problem with science, for crying out loud answers in genesis say we and dino's lived together, I do not believe in any of the 1000's of gods, but I could live with religion saying science is right but its because of a god. At least then they would learn something
This guy talking in the video always knocks the bible at every chance he gets. Im not really religious but after watching other videos and now this one I really must admit that it seems like a lesson of science to prove the bible wrong. I cant see why the two cant go hand in hand
@WayneWiblin He is making a point of proving primarily creationism wrong, because it is wrong and the fact it is part of someones religious beliefs is not an excuse for ignorance of well established scientific facts.
As for religion in itself, he isn't that bothered and he has said that many times.
@WayneWiblin Well that and taking biblical stories literally, like the flood. These are demonstrably false. You can believe that it is in there as a lesson, but to say it is true is simply wrong.
There lies the problem. Many fossils are found just 2 or 3 feet under. Yet, they use the layers to date them? On the same layers they find other "modern" animals. What happens to those? C14 is the most reliable testing when it comes to what used to be organic life. All other tests are inaccurate. Soft tissue found in dinosaur date the dinos to < 30000. So much for your million of yrs. he?
So why is it so hard for people to believe that soft tissue can last millions of years...last time I checked, ice is a form of cryogenics, isnt that what we use to preserve things? If tissue cant last, how come the Mammoth found in Siberia still had edible foods in its cryogenically frozen stomach!
We are currently in an ice age(the Quaternary). The part of the ice age we are in is an interglacial.A warming period during which polar ice retreats. Interglacials last 11500 years.Can't say what causes the interglacial to end but the latest idea is that its a combination,sun going into a natural cyclical dormant period(maunder minimum)& somthing called precesion(the wobble of the earth).This interglacial has ended.You will see the return of ice.Do not pay attention to global warming nonsence.
Right ... climatologists don't know what they're talking about. All data collected by satellites are useless, and we should ignore the overwhelming evidence known by the overwhelming majority of scientists to prove that global warming is real, and a real problem, and listen to you instead.
Are you wearing an aluminum foil hat right now?
You believe that you have invisible friends with magical powers, don't you?
Really, a soft tissue dated to be millions and millions of years old? And then you wonder who is the delusional here. Let's be honest, the more finding, the more the millions of years theory is going to the trash can. Well sorry. why don't you guys concentrate on how these enormous animals behave, live, etc; stop wasting my tax dollars in non-sense. I demand government stops giving money for monkey business. People are getting rich at the expense of the taxpayers. for what? for rocks?
>>The proof is there, scientists are finally speaking out about it
Oh yes? Really?
Scientists publish their research in peer reviewed scientific articles that are published in internationally recognized scientific journals. Therefore I CHALLENGE you to present me references to THREE such articles that speak about your young Earth. Three peer reviewed articles from scientific journals, please (and NOT some biblical cretinist blog).
If you fail to present any I will call you a LIAR FOR JEBUS.
Oh boy; you guys only read what's millions of years old correct? What about your National Geographic, pro Darwin magazine? news national geographic com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue
I bet you have never read anything scientific about your that soft tissue. Tell me, WHAT in your opinion was found and how it looked like?
There is absolutely nothing in that tissue that in any way influences age of Earth. Additionally, National Geographic IS NOT A PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.
When will you post the three articles I requested?
@Hobu123 "nothing"? Really? Oh please, use *your logic*; even a 3rd grade would tell you that soft tissue could not have lasted millions and millions of years, and have survived, volcano eruptions, tectonic plate movements, hurricanes, drought, etc etc; I'm sorry man, but you are living in a fantasy land; a product of what you have been taught. I bet you still believe that the Mayas and Aztecs came from Asia though Alaska, correct? Ha ha.
Oh yes? Your arrogance has no limits obviously. Numerous PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS have studied it and find no problems with that so-called "soft tissue", but random uneducated religious fundamentalist from youtube says that "it can't last", therefore all 21st century science is wrong.
Also, the so-called "soft tissue" that you speak about DOES NOT EXIST in the way that creationist LIARS depict it.
Creationist LIARS think that scientists broke open a rock and there was soft dinosaur meat inside it. This is RETARDED NONSENSE. What was actually found is FOSSILIZED DINOSAUR BONE and after COMPLEX CHEMICAL TREATMENT to DISSOLVE THE ROCK and REMOVE THE MINERALS they extracted TINY, FEW MILLIMETRES LONG FLEXIBLE PIECES of matter from it.
So exactly WHAT is there that in your opinion can't last for tens of millions of years? It is not the only case where flexible substance exists in fossils.
For example, we have PALEOZOIC fossils of eurypterids, hundreds of millions of years old, that consist of flexible pieces of their exoskeleton. So fragile that you can brush them away from rock.
The so-called "soft tissue" is perfect example how biblical cretinist LIARS keep lying to their scientifically illiterate audience.
And again - where are these PEER REVIEWED articles I asked from you? Why you still haven't posted any?
It is incredible to still find intelligent people who can actually put a meaning into what the facts are, that still believe *without* questioning at all, the idea, that soft tissue can actually persist after millions and millions of years. That it is so incredible naive that I still wonder where is the brain on all these people. The *only* obvious answer to a soft tissue is that they are recent, and not millions of years old. No matter how you slice it, you cannot change that fact.
What exactly did you fail to understand in "THERE WAS NO "SOFT TISSUE"? There were FEW MILLIMETRES LONG FLEXIBLE SPECKS OF MATERIAL EXTRACTED FROM FULLY FOSSILIZED BONE SOLID ROCK AFTER REMOVING THE STONE MINERAL MATERIAL WITH DISSOLVING IT WITH COMPLEX CHEMICAL TREATMENT.
>>>>>intelligent people who can actually put a meaning
There are MILLIONS of professional scientists in the world who, based on their knowledge and research, know that these tiny flexible specks can survive for even longer than millions of years. And then there is you who claims without any basis, without doing any research, without conducting any experiment, that they can not.
Now, could it be that it is YOU who is mistaken here, not millions of professional scientists?
Also the FACT is that the BONE ITSELF was DATED and - big surprise for you - the dating showed that it indeed was from Cretaceous.
So, what is the basis of your claim that these flexible specks can not be old? What is your EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support your claim? It just SEEMS to you? You have never even seen those pieces, you do not know what they consisted of, how they looked like, how they formed, and yet you somehow mysteriously "know" that all world scientists are idiots?
@Hobu123 ARE YOU DEAF OR BLIND, can't you see that the she said, it was soft tissue; Dr. Schweitzer herself cannot believe it; in her own words, this is not possible. I'm sure she must be crying knowing that the lies that all her atheists professors told her, *ALL OF THEM* come apart now. She has to face reality; good for her. Another one converted to the true believers.
You really are delusional. What, Dr Schweitzer is crying? Converted? Lolwut? What are you talking about?
Absolutely NO SCIENTIST anywhere in the world, including dr Schweitzer, thinks that this "tissue" must be young. The bone has been DATED and there is absolutely NOTHING that stops such tiny "soft" pieces of material from surviving for tens of millions of years.
Once more: THERE WAS NO "SOFT TISSUE" in the form that you seem to think.
There was FULLY FOSSILIZED DINOSAUR BONE (fully fossilized means that it consisted of MINERAL ROCK like other fossils). After COMPLEX CHEMICAL TREATMENT that involved DISSOLVING THE MINERAL MATERIAL with chemicals and REHYDRATING the remaining material, TINY, FEW MILLIMETRES LONG specks of pliable material were extracted. They only became soft AFTER the chemical treatment and rehydrating. They WERE NOT SOFT in the beginning.
So WHAT IS IT EXACTLY that in your opinion stops tiny pieces of material enclosed in SOLID ROCK surviving for a long time? That "blood cell passage" you talk about is something you must STUDY WITH MICROSCOPE and it is a structure that RESEMBLES BLOOD VESSEL. That doesn't mean that it was soft vessel nor that there was blood "flowing" in it. It is a FOSSIL.
At least try to actually read what those articles tell you.
This is typical example of biblical cretinist stupidity. You make absoluitely no effort to try to actually read and understand WHAT it was that scientists found, how did it look like etc. You fail to understand that we are talking about few millimetres long specks. You fail to understand these specks became softer only after they were chemically treated and rehydrated. You fail to understand that it is not the only case where pliable material survives.
You only see the words "soft tissue" and then walk around and moan in religious fundamentalist hysteria. "Omg soft tissue, omg it can't be old, omg scientists are all idiots and don't know what they are doing, yara yara yara, blah blah blah."
NO SCIENTIST ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD finds any problems with such specks of material surviving for millions of years. What in your opinion should happen with such specks when they are enclosed in SOLID ROCK? What exactly it is that "doesn't make sense"?
And exactly HOW in your fundie mind is a Tyrannosaur fossil tied with age of Earth? Lets IMAGINE that tomorrow scientists find REAL Tyrannosaur SUBFOSSIL that is thousand years old. Or lets imagine that they find living Tyrannosaur. SO WHAT? What influence that in your opinion has to age of Earth? Earth is still 4.5 billion years old, age of Earth DOES NOT depend on when Tyrannosaur lives or dies.
@oopscanada their is no way to prove the earth is 4.5 billion years old? oh yes their is radiometric dating, carbon dating, radiocarbon dating these are just some i could go on but i really don't see any need to do so
@mimarp478 ; Not really. If you are assuming starting conditions when earth was created, then, dating is already flawed. Carbon dating will never give millions of years, but you already know that.
4.5 billion is a CONCLUSION based on STUDYING ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE using most modern scientific methods and devices. You have anything better to offer?
>>>>>Do you mean that soft tissue will last millions and millions of years?
When you will finally understand that THERE WAS NO SOFT TISSUE before it was made soft by complex chemical treatment? And that we are talking about few millimetres long specks?
YES, it can last millions of years, as is understood by ALL SCIENTISTS.
>>>>Let's be honest, the more finding, the more the millions of years
>>>>theory is going to the trash
Funny, there is no hint in science that anything is challenging the modern understanding about the age of Earth or evolution.
>>>>I demand government stops giving money for monkey business
What brainwashed and uneducated religious fundamentalists demand has fortunately no influence on scientific progress and accumulation of knowledge of mankind,
>>>>there might another explanations for soft tissues.
The only explanations of anything that count in science are those that are based on EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. And EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE shows that the tissue you speak about IS millions of years old. There is absolutely NO HINT about it being young.
IT WAS DATED. Do you realize that? Its AGE WAS MEASURED. What do you fail to understand in this? SCIENTISTS DID MEASURE ITS AGE. Does that finally get into your delusional fundie brain?
>>>>>Not really. If you are assuming starting conditions when earth was created,
>>>>then, dating is already flawed.
Absolutely NOTHING is "assumed" when dating things. Starting conditions are studying in cases when dating method needs that, but many dating methods even don't need starting conditions.
>>>Carbon dating will never give millions of years
Nobody is using carbon dating to date age of Earth. That you have never heard about other methods is not science's problem.
"STUDYING ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE using most modern scientific methods and devices."
Please, be honest; that figure it's just a *deduction*. There is no device that will tell you such a date, based on what? Most dating methods are based on something being decayed or losing elements; what's taking billions of years of losing elements that is still existent? Don't be naive.
@Hobu123 OH please; I'm talking about carbon-14 radio active decay; which is really for living organism, the most reliable way determining how long ago the decay started. However, Carbon 14 would not give you any date accurate to more than 60K. Therefore, It CANNOT be used to *CLAIM* millions of years for the age of dinasours long dead. Anything else, is speculation, as they say. Sorry, but nice try.
Who exactly and where has claimed that carbon dating is used to date things older than 60K years, and who exactly and where has claimed that this dinosaur bone was dated using C14?
NOBODY.
You really haven't heard about the fact that there exist NUMEROUS different radiometric dating methods and in addition to that also numerous different non-radiometric dating methods?
Nice try. Keep thinking up your fairytales that are based on your total lack of education.
@oopscanada The 'fossil itself' will most often be inorganic too (depending on the type of fossil). Most fossils are simply mineralised structures preserved within sedimentary layers, or even just impressions in those layers. Therefore radiocarbon dating isn't utilised (no carbon), whereas potassium-argon dating for example probably would be.
By dating the layer the fossil resides in, and the layers above and below, we get a pretty accurate idea of when the specimen was originally buried.
@Hobu123 Not only many scientists find these a welcome discovery. This also helps our youngters understand, that besides the empty theories of evolution, there might another explanations for soft tissues. So, yes, we are happy about it.
Do you mean that soft tissue will last millions and millions of years? Please; I think it's enough from scientists to mis-use our taxpayers dollars. I have seen how in universities, they like to take in the money for research, and take sabattical leaves, to come up with these????? please. use the money to feed hunger, not empty theories.
Not really; the soft tissue shows the blood cells passage. Hum.. sorry; this thing is not millions of years old. It does not make a sense at this point, and not only that, I'm glad an atheist found it. I'm pretty sure she's convinced now, that all she's studied was a real big lie, when it comes to the age of the earth.
@oopscanada -- Please see my video Polystrate Trees and Dinosaur Blood Debunked on the potholer54debunks channel. It explains why creationists are so confused about the nature and the age of the soft tissue, as are you.
Why are the oil well refilling again? I thought they were sole product of old dinosaurs who died? How come they keep filling up? Hum... I bet you guys got this one wrong as well.
Once more; the ideas presented in this video, are very interesting; certainly it's a theory worth investigating. However, it leaves many things unexplained, via this theory. there are other alternatives to the formation of canyons, continents, etc.; however, do keep up your good work. One day, you'll actually see the facts for what they are, and not by a narrow minded hypothesis.
Fred Bailey has discovered the underlying nataural mechanism that regulates Sunspot production and Climate Change, there is a connection between them but Sunspots have nothing to do with Climate Change, Google solarchords and you will see for yourself
There was no ice age it was the world wide flood the layers were layed down by the world wide flood. If you want to see some Real Science watch the videos on my channel. Dont fall for the evol. fairytale the truth is in the Bible Gods living word the Creator of everything.
And you are exactly right; the evidence is there in the canyons, the dead sea animals pressed against rocks, etc, etc. In addition, for some "weird" unexplained reason, most cultures have kept via oral or written tradition, that once upon the time there was a big worldwide flood. Coincidence? Hum... When somebody is an atheist, blindness is by choice; refusing to accept what inevitable would be the fact that the flood was for real, would imply the existence of God.
@oopscanada Of course many cultures have flood myths; they're common natural disasters and are likely to find their way into many myths and legends, as do volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. But flood stories being commonplace doesn't exactly overturn the complete lack of evidence for the event, or even its basic impossibility.
How would a world-wide flood in any way imply the existence God? Why not the flood fairy, or evil aliens? Why not natural phenomena even?
@FactThis - Hum.... many cultures have similar things of course. The striking fact is that a "tale" of a man given instructions by God, to build a boat and save animals, does not sound like a fairy tale that most cultures will have in common. At some point, anybody with logic has to admit, there is too much coincidence.
Then, you have the fossils of complete fish pressed agains walls in mountains. Hum... sorry, current theories cannot explain that either. Anyway, the reality is clear.
@oopscanada (1) "Fish pressed against walls in mountains... current theories cannot explain that either" - Yes they can. Look up 'Orogeny', the process of mountain formation. The Himalayas for example consist of limestone, a sedimentary rock that forms slowly at the bottom of warm, shallow seas, which can then be uplifted by tectonic activity (we can actually measure the rate at which the Himalayas are rising currently). Many ranges were at the bottom of seas millions of years ago. (Continued)
@FactThis (2)The stories vary between time and setting (some in India, some in Greece), as do survivors (in some many people survive, in others only one man). We can’t take vague and ancient mythologies as reliable evidence. Especially fr something so extraordinary. Physical, scientific evidence is more important, and this does not suppot the concept of a global deluge 5,000 years ago… at all.
Yes, of course the story might vary. However, the one that I know very well, is very strikingly close to the Bible. The Popol-Vuh explains that the gods decided to destroy man with a flood due to their wickedness. A holy man, a native was told to save his family and animals in a boat. The waters coverted the whole earth, and after that, they were told to populate earth. (Man of course has been made out of corn), I'm sorry, but when I see these facts; I doubt any coincidence.
@oopscanada Have you considered the possibility that multiple myths my draw upon an older myth, but a myth nonetheless? But again, the fact you are taking similar myths about fantastical scenarios as basis of historical fact demonstrates a certain lack of critical thought. I could just as easily compare legends of mermaids and fairies from different cultures, but I'm not naive enough to see this as legitimate evidence for their existence.
@FactThis There are always possibilities; and there are always legends. And I agree, when it comes to the story of the Arc of Noah, *they all* have the same common story behind. Actually, that is exactly correct. And it makes sense don't you think. As if a particular story, is rooted in a historical catastrophic event, then, all the stories based on it, will be very similar, no matter what part of the world they are re-told again and again. That is correct.
@oopsguanaco Or they're all based on an older myth. What's easier to believe? A scientifically impossible and suspiciously evidence-lacking Noah's ark scenario actually happened, or all these myths just stemmed from an older story (as does a lot of fiction). As I said before, physical evidence is more important than vaguely coherent ancient mythologies.
Fairies and mermaids are common folklore among many cultures too, so would you draw the same conclusion?
Let's see over 200 different tribes recounting the same story????? Hum... if this was taken to court, I would say there is enough evidence to come to a conclusion.
@oopscanada 200 people say they saw a murder. But, no fingerprints were found, CCTV footage is inconclusive, no body was found, no blood, and no missing persons report was filed. Furthermore, the stories differ. Some say it was a man, some a woman. Some say it happened at 5pm, others at 4am. Some say the perp used a gun, others say a knife. Some say it happened in the street, others in a shop.
I know how that'll go down in the British courts (if it even gets that far). Evidence > stories.
@FactThis Weird huh? And if so happens, that a person is still missing; therefore, there is an undeniable fact that happened; a good investigator will find the truth. Not some hypothesis that cannot explain at all the reality that we see today.
@oopscanada I said no-one was missing. There is no evidence whatsoever that would suggest the people are even speaking the truth.
So we have no confirmed witnesses, little to no physical evidence and no scientific consensus on the possibility of such an event. But we do have a range of similar but sometimes conflicting accounts of a fantastical event that the people concerned merely heard from 'someone else' many years after the supposed event occurred. What is the judge to think, eh?
The fact is that the body of the missing person is found, and therefore, it's now time to find out what people were saying. as it's the case of the flood. You have the evidence, as the formation of the grand canyons, you have mountains with marine life still on top of it. Now, find the culprit, and don't come back with the pre-assumption to court, that the butler did it.
@oopscanada Nobody went missing in the first place! Gah... don't ever think of becoming a lawyer, please.
But let’s leave this court analogy for now and talk about the actual physical evidence, something that is more important than what ancient culture says what. The Grand Canyon was carved out by the Colorado River over many years, and its geology does not reflect a flood formation in the slightest. I've also explained to you why we find marine fossils on mountains.
it does not look like the Colorado river could have done in many years what you see right now as the Grand Canyon. Obviously, a flood rushed millions of gallons of water with force and carved it.
@oopscanada Floods don't tend to cut deep meandering gauges into flat plateaus. In some places the canyon even appears to come back on itself. Think of a flood, a large volume of water spreading out over a flat landscape, then look at the canyon and the Colorado River on a map. The simple topography, let alone the geology, doesn't reflect a flood formation in the slightest. There's a reason less than a percent of geologists and geographers cling to the insane notion.
@oopscanada In addition, the flood was supposed to wipe out every civilisation. So why would citing the fact many civilisations have a flood story lend any more credence to the idea if there shouldn't have been anyone alive in these civilisations afterward to tell the tale anyway? In a court scenario, it would be 200 people saying they heard it 'from some guy', almost none of whom actually having been potential witnesses.
The problem is that those "modern" like fish would have to have existed millions of years ago, if that really caused the evidence we see on top mountains today. There is something wrong with that theory. I understand the frustration from atheists that they need to explain this; however, your explanations do not fit the root of the problem.
@oopscanada "Modern like fish." Aquatic fossils found in mountain ranges are usually that of molluscs and other shelled organisms. But if you can find a paper showing a fossil in a mountain range to be a uniquely modern species of fish, then by all means, post me the link.
I'll probably send you a PM on this topic as there is a lot to cover.
Why assume I'm an atheist? There are millions of theists who happen to accept and understand the basic geology that has explained this for decades.
@oopsguanaco Why am I necessarily taking God out of the picture? The majority of theists I know accept the scientific explanations for Earth's processes, they just see God as the 'orchestrator' of these events, part of his plan so to speak. I'm not arguing against *who*, but *how*.
I'd just like to see a few scientific papers backing up what oopscanada says, or I'm just going to assume it's creationist internet gossip. The papers, if any, may even explain why the 'modern' fish are there.
Not really; yes many of those species might not live today. However, most of them do live today.
What's interesting, is that you see in these mountains fish that are predators following smaller fish, on their way to kill them. When *suddenly* and not after millions of years, they are pressed against the mountains as if water with a huge force compressed them against the stones. Hum... not your usual geology side effects eh?
I suppose fossils pressed against stones is more depicting than "they just die" and somehow did not rot away, and "millions" of years later, we found their fossils? Nonsense; in order for these fish to be compressed and become fossilized rather quickly, a catastrophic event happened, and they just happened to be in the middle of it.
The "stone" you are talking about is actually sediments that have hardened to stone over millions of years. Fossils are not "pressed against stones". Fossils are organisms who after death have been buried under sediments and fossilized. No catastrophes are needed for that. All you need is lack of oxygen for example, which is not hard to achieve in bottom of waterbodies and when buried under sediments.
Out of numerous living organisms, only very small amount fossilizes, exactly because you need specific conditions for that to happen. How fossilization happens is well known, just go and study it. There is no need for any "catastrophes".
Not really; evidence shows that there are missing "periods" in the geo periods present there. Not only that, there are fossils of "newer" species at the bottom, and "older" species on latter layers. Clearly, there is something wrong with that picture.
Of course there are missing periods - sediments form only in certain conditions and during many times throughout millions of years there are periods where sediments do not form, leaving a gap into layers. Also some layers are erodes. This is like knowledge of first year geology students.
Bring example of "newer" species at bottom in solid layers.
I'm sure in those millions of years, there are no sediments; sure.....
What's really weird, is that geologists have found sediments that are supposed to be newer (in terms of millions of years), *** below *** sediments that are supposed to be much much olders. With the missing gaps in between. I'm sorry that is really questionable, and a catastrophe is the only logical explanations for these layers to be like this.
There is absolutely NOTHING weird in that. Every first year geology student knows how newer sediments can go "under" older ones. FOLDS and FAULTS - you have never heard about those? Look it up. But when that happens, the radiometric dating still shows which ones are newer and which ones are older.
Yes, when there are no conditions for sediments formation then there will be no sediments. This is first year geology student knowledge.
@Hobu123 You've got that right. The conditions for sediments, and the conditions for folds due to massive earthquakes, all over the world, a global catastrophe is exactly what happened when the flood happened. It is believed that is exactly when the final topology of the continents came to be, due to massive earthquakes, etc. The flood, then, provided the right conditions for sediment formations. You got that right. Thanks.
Do you understand that FOLDS can only form slowly over millions of years because we are talking about SOLID ROCKS which do not bend fast but would simply break. You need huge pressure over long time to cause the layers to fold.
>>>>>It is believed
It is not believed by anyone else but a bunch of religious fundamentalists who lack absolutely any knowledge in geology.
The "flood" never happened. Geologists abandoned the silly flood scenario already on 18th century.
Also, do you have absolutely slightest idea how much heat is generated when certain sediments form? Enough heat to boil off the whole Flood if it happened quickly.
Do you have even slightest idea how slowly many sediments form due to sedimentation rate of the particles?
Do you have any idea how MUCH sedimentary rocks are out there - millions of times more than you could stuff into your absurd flood scenario?
@Hobu123 Not really, it has been proven, in recent localized floods, that you can get sediments, and actually measure/evaluate their formation, in todays' time. There is no need to wait for millions of years. There are many places around the world where this is happening all the time, and there is no need to wait millions of years.
SEDIMENTS, yes, but not SEDIMENTARY ROCKS. Do you understand the difference between these two.
But even when speaking about sediments, there is FAR TOO MUCH sediments on Earth than any flood could lay down. MILLIONS OF TIMES MORE. You really don't have even slightest idea how many sediments there are on Earth, do you? Nothing even comparable with minute amounts of sediments from some local floods.
This video does not aim to give overview about everything that is known. There is far too much knowledge to be put into one video. There are whole MOUNTAINS of books and articles about the knowledge we have, and you would never be able to read them all even if you started to read them now. That is the level of 21st century science. Do you think that this video is all that is known in geology science?
@Hobu123 Yes; it's a nice video; however, given what we know now, some of these theories, are really untested. They cannot explain the reality of current topography on Earth. sorry, but nice try.
>>>>There are many geologists that have doubts about the millions of
>>>>years theory
False claim. The only ones who have "doubts" about millions of years are religious fundamentalists from Christianity or other religions who so desperately want to believe that their Stone and Bronze Age fairytales are literally true, and that is why they fight against knowledge and reason. A random preaching creationist, however, is NOT automatically a scientist even if he claims to be.
>>>>real life anomalies in the formation of canyons
All these "anomalies" you list are explained in first year students' geology textbook. The problem is not in science, the problem is in your total lack of knowledge even about the basics of these sciences, not to mention more deeper details.
>>>>>You have no idea of what happened during the flood
Considering the fact that the flood never happened, that is not a problem at all.
>>>>the flood we are talking about, was a catastrophe. It is so obvious.
As a catastrophe, it would have left behind SPECIFIC and VERY EASILY RECOGNIZABLE EVIDENCE. NO such evidence is found anywhere on Earth. Your flood did not happen. I am very sure I already gave you link to a website that lists how this evidence should look like if it existed. NONE of it exists anywhere.
@Hobu123 You really need to be blind to not see the evidence. How do you think the great plains were formed in the middle of the United States? A glaciar meltdown of millions of years? Or a sudden flood that went though it flattening the region? There is so much evidence every where that only faithful of the old earth fairy tale believe. It's easy to indoctrinate kids with: oh, it happens during millions s and millions of years. Wait for them to start using technology for simulation, he.
Glaciers and floods leave COMPLETELY DIFFERENT EVIDENCE, so different that every geology student can distinguish them.
There is no silly worldwide conspiracy of scientists. Scientific conclusions are based on WHAT EVIDENCE SHOWS. It is not science's fault that YOU and other religious fundies do not like reality and prefer some silly bronze age fairytales.
The EVIDENCE shows that there has been no such flood.
>>>>>You should not only study geology; but physics, and chemistry
Oh the irony - as if you have ever bothered to study any of these sciences.
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE that millions of scientists from all around the world are all idiots and do not know anything about chemistry and physics? And random uneducated religious fundamentalist from youtube is competent to discuss anything about science?
Geology science is impossible without knowing chemistry and physics.
"Millions of years" is a CONCLUSION and ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE shows it. Geologists understood that Earth is old already in 18TH CENTURY, but brainwashed fundamentalists like you still live in middle ages.
What is your reason to doubt that Earth is billions of years old? The only "reason" you have is that you want to blindly believe your absurd Bronze Age Middle-East nomad goatherder fairytale about talking snakes and invisible magic hocus-pocus men.
And as modern science dares to discover things that do not correspond to the primitive worldview of Bronze Age goatherders, you think that 21st century science is wrong and Bronze Age goatherder fairytale is correct. You really fail to understand how SILLY that is?
That Earth is billions of years old is as certain fact as Earth being round and orbiting Sun. There is absolutely no debate in science any more about whether Earth is young or old. These debates alrady took place in 18th CENTURY.
The EVIDENCE in geology and other related sciences - do you have slightest idea how enormous work and research scientists have conducted over last centuries? BILLIONS of man-hours of research, MILLIONS of scientific articles - that is the level of modern science. You have never bothered to read even ONE of those articles nor study even the basics of these sciences, yet you find that you are somehow competent to accuse scientists for being wrong,l and arrogantly attack scientific knowledge ....
.... simply because 21st century scientific knowledge is different from the absurd primitive worldview of Bronze Age nomads.
Even inside your own religion, the people who believe something so absurd and silly as young Earth are in absolute minority. That silly retarded belief characterizes only some small but noisy fundamentalist sects that mainly exist in USA. Majority of Christains in the world do not share that absurd belief.
If you believe that scientists have some kind of "dogmas" and they cling to flawed theories and ignore evidence that contradicts those then, I am sorry, but I have to say that you are completely uneducated fundamentalist who has no understanding about what science is and how it works.
The thing is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE about any "young Earth", so there is nothing to study. During all these days here you yourself have provided NO evidence about young Earth either...
..... all you do is repeating some nonsense about "fish on mountains" and other such things we have already explained to you weeks ago.
>>>>>juvenile dinosaurs buried in a flood
So?
>>>>Oh well, it must have been a little one, correct? A local one?
Yes, because EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT. How long will you fail to understand that scientists make conclusions based on EVIDENCE and do not simply pull them out of air?
Oh the irony - YOU Are the one here who has preconceived idea that Bronze Age primitive fairytales of Middle East goatherders must be literally true and 21st century science is all wrong. YOU are the one who takes a preconceived idea out of your fairytale book and then looks for ways how to distort and mutilate the data to fit your belief, instead of accepting the fact that the primitive fairytale is wrong.
@Hobu123 We are talking about evidence; not fairy tales. We are talking about mountains being formed during periods of extreme volcanic and tectonic activity. The proof is there, scientists are finally speaking out about it, and we hope one day, it will be taught in real geology courses, as it should. The old hypothesis of millions and millions and millions of years, is really, a fairy tale.
@Hobu123 Not really, specially since geology in atheists ways *starts with the assumption* of millions of years; it is therefore already flawed. However, once true students of geology start questioning hypothesis that do not explain the evidence that show a younger earth, *then*, these students become real scientists, and not robots.
@Hobu123 You should not only study geology; but physics, and chemistry. Not only that, philosophy. You cannot come up with a theory just to fit a millions of years preconceived idea; that has never been proven, nor it will. In reality you have to believe in millions of years only by faith.
@Hobu123 Really? Do you think the flood, just a bunch of water like in a rainy day? You have no idea of what happened during the flood. There were giant earthquakes, volcanos exploded, it poured rained from the sky, and the earth as they knew it was changed. it is so obvious that you still think that the flood was just a bunch of water? No my friend, you are so wrong; the flood we are talking about, was a catastrophe. It is so obvious.
@Hobu123 Hum..., not really. There are many geologists that have doubts about the millions of years theory. It certainly cannot be proven, it's only a hypothesis. It mainly makes sense, of course, however, when ti comes to explain real life anomalies in the formation of canyons, sediments, marine life fossilized in mountains, the millions of years, does not explain it.
Does anyone know the name off the song at the start off this video? It used to be in soccer am? du na na na na. Great video too, the speaker has a very therapeutic voice.
Not only that: Finally, from what we know about mutations that do occur and have a noticeable effect on the person, they are often deleterious or serve to remove some type of function. Rarely are they beneficial and rarely do they add function. The question is, is this really enough mutations and enough time for natural selection to produce novel body plans? Is this even enough time to see the changes that have occurred in an evolutionary model of the Homo lineage?
"At the end of the Flood, after thick sequences of sediments had accumulated, the Indian subcontinent evidently collided with Asia, crumpling the sediments into mountains. Today they stand as giants—folded and fractured layers of ocean-bottom sediments at high elevations. " I agree with this.
Hum.. oh well, evidence just shows up, if you look for it. But I guess some people, are not open minded, and are so blind to close their intelligence to anything that could remotely be related to Christianity. that's too bad. Well, not for these scientists who discovered "direct fossil and sedimentary evidence from Bermuda". Not only that, their study concludes this could not be due to tectonic movement or tsunami but to higher sea levels for at least months if not years. evidence you said?
@oopscanada = Hum.. oh well, evidence just shows up, if you look for it = Yeah, a catastrophic flood does leave evidence, very easily identifyable Just google the Missoula Floods. Now that's how a fast, deadly and catastrophic flood looks like, and that's the evidence it leaves behind.
Let's see again, "n the summer of 2002, record rainfall in the Texas Hill Country overfilled Canyon Lake. Water coursed over the top of its dam and carved huge, steep-walled canyons through the limestone bedrock downstream. The scoured riverbed, now called Canyon Lake Gorge, is over a mile long and has been cordoned off for scientific study." So, this "rapid" carving of canyons, is what creationists talk about? Why are these "scientists" studying it now? Hum... Food for thought.
Let's see again, in the University of Missouri, News Bureau, web portal, you see pictures where a "little" flood of the river: "The most severe scouring and topsoil erosion was at O’Bryan’s Ridge with extensive six- to 30-foot deep cuts in what used to be farm fields". Hum.. 30-foot deep, by a river, due to a few days of rain!!! Wait a minute, that's 30-foot deep new channel created in minutes. Oh well, what would happen if a global flood goes through Arizona?
Let's see... Scientists found fossils of marine, inclusive into it, they found "sponge spicules", ancient marine life encrusted in amber on the forest of SouthWestern France. Hum.... I wonder how it happened... Humm....... Oh I now: A flood?
Oh, if the flood did not happen globally, how come the Mayas depict the flood? And how come the Mayas in *another* continent, and not in middle east, talk about the "gods" getting upset with mankind and destroying it with a world wide flood. In which only a Maya family survives IN A BOAT!!! I'm sure, it can also be dismissed as coincidence, right? Ha ha; read the Popol-Vuh, and you'll find the Jews stories there as well, and you'll be surprised what these "fairy" tales have depicted.
@oopscanada Small, LOCAL floods happen in many places of the world, of course local people have their own myths and legends about those. And via culture contact those legends also can spread to other nations. Escaping flood in a boat is an extraordinary idea in your opinion?
And actually DO read Popol-Vuh, the story is totally different from MIddle East stories.
Anyway, this is mythology. Science works with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM REAL WORLD.
@Hobu123 It is actually, not that different; and addition, it's weird that that story has the same lines as the Bible, where the gods 'decide' to destroy mankind via a flood. Hum....
Through all times people have associated natural disasters with god's anger. Floods, earthquakes, volcanoes - all that is seen as god being displeased. No wonder that you can find such stories from all parts of the world.
Ok, what exactly do you fail to understand here - such flood would leave behind overwhelming and VERY EASILY recognizable evidence, evidence that every geologist would recognize immediately, because geologists, among other things, study also the marks left behind by local flood. And yet NO such evidence is found anywhere, and whats even more important - there is enormous amount of evidence that contradicts with such flood scenario.
3 If you want to read what would the evidence look like if flood happened then google the phrase flood predictions "Ken Harding" exactly like that, then you should get the site as first hit. Its address is evolution. mbdojo. com /flood .html That gives you short overview about what would evidence of global flood look like. Note that for global flood to be true, ALL that evidence should be present simultaneously, not just 1 or 2 things out of the list, NOTHING like that is seen anywhere.
It may be really hard to believe for you, but geologists ARE NOT actually idiots and they DO KNOW what they are doing. There are reasons why that flood scenario was abandoned by otherwise CREATIONIST GEOLOGISTS already THREE CENTURIES AGO - already they understood that flood is an impossibility.
Your problem is your total lack of education about geology which makes it impossible for you to understand why the things you think are "evidence of flood" are NOT evidence of flood.
@Hobu123 Ancient flood in a pre-flood world has left evidence, as mentioned earlier. However, most scientists, whose research is funded to publish other type of evidence would not have the courage to publish contradictory statements. You can still find them, as not everybody is worry about what others would object. However, having worked at a university, and having seen how research money "influences" what people write and research, explain why such lack of interest in finding more on this.
In addition, if you want to educate yourself more about why flood is an impossibility, google "Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition", that article gives you long list of explanations why such flood is a physical impossibility. Pay special attention to the problems with enormous heat generation + problems with sedimentation rates + problems with the total amount of fossils that greatly exceeds the number of organisms that can live simultaneously on planet Earth.
Your claim that scientists from all over the world are involved in some kind of conspiracy against your religion is nonsense.
Let me remind you - SCIENTISTS just study the nature and make conclusions based on empirical evidence. But the goal of religious fundies is to force their religion down the throat of everyone and they believe without any basis that Bronze age fairytales are literally true.
And I already said - already CREATIONIST GEOLOGISTS three centuries ago understood that flood is impossibility - already THEN there was enough empirical evidence against it so that even they, otherwise creationists, could not deny it.
>>>>>is this really enough mutations and enough time for natural selection to
>>>>produce novel body plans
Yes. There is enough time. 3.8 BILLION years is longer than you can ever imagine.
>>>>Is this even enough time to see the changes that have occurred in an
>>>>evolutionary model of the Homo lineage
Yes, and whats even more important - if you compare mutation rates with independent evidence from paleontology, these two fields show the SAME PICTURE and give same estimates.
>>>>>Indian subcontinent evidently collided with Asia, crumpling the
>>>>sediments into mountains.
So you really believe that the Himalayas just formed in couple of years and continents are rushing fast around in oceans like motorboats? And then you accuse scientists when they laugh at such nonsense?
Do you have ANY ideas about what energy amounts we are talking here? Even couple of centimetres friction between shifting plates is enough to cause earthquake, and you imagine that Indian plate just came fast and rammed into Asia, pushing up 8 km high mountains in few months, without any nation that lives in area even noticing it, and without destroying all life in that area?
And after that you accuse scientists for being stupid?
@oopscanada = However, most scientists, whose research is funded to publish other type of evidence would not have the courage to publish contradictory statements = Then explain why the very first geologists already denied a single global flood. These first geologist lived at the beginning of the 18th century, a time when the only scientists were wealthy men who could afford to pay for their own research (in other words, amateurs), and most of them were creationists.
Oh boy; I've heard that one before. The fact is, is that without searching for it, Scientists in different fields find little pieces here and there, about a world wide flood. It's easy to accept a flood due to ice glaciers melting on over half of the hemisphere, but not about world wide flood? Please, come out and smell the coffee.
Scientific conclusions are based on STUDYING THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. The empirical evidence from real world shows clearly that such flood NEVER HAPPENED. It is not about the possibility of such flood possibly happening, it is about whether it DID happen or not. It DIDN'T.
And about the possibility - such flood is also a physical impossibility due to numerous factors.
@Hobu123 Not really; the opposite is the truth. There is evidence of a flood making new channels, crushing animals and trees against caves and mountains. Hum.. you cannot dismiss it, only because it does not fit your traditional atheist education. On top of that, you have oral tradition of most cultures, having the same type story being repeated down to the generations; this could only happen, if a global event happened. Too much coincidence,.
Well, of course it's obvious; that's like asking what water is? Is it H20? Do you mean you get two molecules of Hydrogen and one of oxygen, and you get water? Yes, of course, we understand how water forms, once you have the elements. The question is, who designed the environment to allow for water to form? You are questioning the flood; I am not questioning how mountains get formed. I do question, why do fossils of crushed animals are embedded in the mountains? It did not take M Years!!!
Water is wide spread in Universe. Why should someone "design" its conditions? It forms via simple chemical reaction.
Flood didn't happen, says empirical evidence from real world. There is zero evidence about any such big flood, although it would leave behind easily recognizable evidence. And there is enormous amount of evidence that contradicts the flood scenario.
@Hobu123; exactly the point, water is such a simple chemical reaction, that it is unbelieable that such a chemical reaction is not abundant in other planets to the point that it would be sufficient for life. The flood is so universal, that there is plenty of evidence in every country, in the form of canyon formations, marine life, compressed against the walls of caves, marine sediments deposited suddenly on layers of mountains, not in millions of years, but the result of sudden catastrophe,etc
You just randomly take features that you have no idea about how they actually form and then claim that "those must be formed in flood". NO, they are not. None of the features you mentioned has any evidence of any flood, those things do not form like that. The flood would leave behind very clean and easily recognizable evidence, NONE of which is seen anywhere.
For example, do you have even sligthest idea how much heat would be released when certain sediments form? If it happens quickly, it would literally vaporize oceans. Do you have any idea what the sediments consist of? Many of them consist of remains of microscopic water organisms, quadrillions and quadrillions of little shells. Where do you imagine all those lived simultaneously? Not to mention the fact that the layers date millions of years apart.
So there are no documents from the ice age? This is how we know it happened just like with dinosaurs?
anticorncob6 1 month ago
his name is Peter(Potholer 54 onutube) in the video, and he only worries about science and yes he refers to the bible only in cases where religion is trying to state a scientifical fact, for some reason religion has a problem with science, for crying out loud answers in genesis say we and dino's lived together, I do not believe in any of the 1000's of gods, but I could live with religion saying science is right but its because of a god. At least then they would learn something
William81Edge10 2 months ago
This guy talking in the video always knocks the bible at every chance he gets. Im not really religious but after watching other videos and now this one I really must admit that it seems like a lesson of science to prove the bible wrong. I cant see why the two cant go hand in hand
WayneWiblin 2 months ago
@WayneWiblin He is making a point of proving primarily creationism wrong, because it is wrong and the fact it is part of someones religious beliefs is not an excuse for ignorance of well established scientific facts.
As for religion in itself, he isn't that bothered and he has said that many times.
SeanACampbell 2 months ago
@WayneWiblin Well that and taking biblical stories literally, like the flood. These are demonstrably false. You can believe that it is in there as a lesson, but to say it is true is simply wrong.
SeanACampbell 2 months ago
@WayneWiblin Science has taken the religious by their hand and showed them reality, but many of them wanted to be left behind in fantasy.
Aanthanur 1 day ago
It is NOT CO2, it`s the celestial mechanics main cause for the ice ages and all the major climate changes!!!
Bayubadu 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"By dating the layer the fossil resides in"
There lies the problem. Many fossils are found just 2 or 3 feet under. Yet, they use the layers to date them? On the same layers they find other "modern" animals. What happens to those? C14 is the most reliable testing when it comes to what used to be organic life. All other tests are inaccurate. Soft tissue found in dinosaur date the dinos to < 30000. So much for your million of yrs. he?
oopscanada 3 months ago
I really love Potholer54's videos, but please don't use copyrighted music!!!!!
These videos get blocked in some countries.
Meskiagkasher 3 months ago
So why is it so hard for people to believe that soft tissue can last millions of years...last time I checked, ice is a form of cryogenics, isnt that what we use to preserve things? If tissue cant last, how come the Mammoth found in Siberia still had edible foods in its cryogenically frozen stomach!
NORCALROE78 3 months ago
You should be making documentaries for BBC or something..
TheDeckinator 4 months ago
We are currently in an ice age(the Quaternary). The part of the ice age we are in is an interglacial.A warming period during which polar ice retreats. Interglacials last 11500 years.Can't say what causes the interglacial to end but the latest idea is that its a combination,sun going into a natural cyclical dormant period(maunder minimum)& somthing called precesion(the wobble of the earth).This interglacial has ended.You will see the return of ice.Do not pay attention to global warming nonsence.
oldschoolgreentube 4 months ago
@oldschoolgreentube said "Do not pay attention to global warming nonsence."
Right ... climatologists don't know what they're talking about. All data collected by satellites are useless, and we should ignore the overwhelming evidence known by the overwhelming majority of scientists to prove that global warming is real, and a real problem, and listen to you instead.
Are you wearing an aluminum foil hat right now?
You believe that you have invisible friends with magical powers, don't you?
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
I think the atmosphere gets ripped away by something and instantly triggers an ice age
Frickitall 4 months ago
My opinion is that aliens came to earth years ago and melted the ice just for kicks.
nursenutzz 4 months ago
Really, a soft tissue dated to be millions and millions of years old? And then you wonder who is the delusional here. Let's be honest, the more finding, the more the millions of years theory is going to the trash can. Well sorry. why don't you guys concentrate on how these enormous animals behave, live, etc; stop wasting my tax dollars in non-sense. I demand government stops giving money for monkey business. People are getting rich at the expense of the taxpayers. for what? for rocks?
oopscanada 5 months ago
this i do know is that god created all things found on earth and in the heavens
seen and unseen.
sandhilldiva 5 months ago
this i do know is that god created all things found on earth and in the heavens
sandhilldiva 5 months ago
11
>>The proof is there, scientists are finally speaking out about it
Oh yes? Really?
Scientists publish their research in peer reviewed scientific articles that are published in internationally recognized scientific journals. Therefore I CHALLENGE you to present me references to THREE such articles that speak about your young Earth. Three peer reviewed articles from scientific journals, please (and NOT some biblical cretinist blog).
If you fail to present any I will call you a LIAR FOR JEBUS.
Hobu123 5 months ago
@Hobu123
Oh boy; you guys only read what's millions of years old correct? What about your National Geographic, pro Darwin magazine? news national geographic com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue
oopscanada 5 months ago
@oopscanada
I bet you have never read anything scientific about your that soft tissue. Tell me, WHAT in your opinion was found and how it looked like?
There is absolutely nothing in that tissue that in any way influences age of Earth. Additionally, National Geographic IS NOT A PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.
When will you post the three articles I requested?
Hobu123 5 months ago
@Hobu123 "nothing"? Really? Oh please, use *your logic*; even a 3rd grade would tell you that soft tissue could not have lasted millions and millions of years, and have survived, volcano eruptions, tectonic plate movements, hurricanes, drought, etc etc; I'm sorry man, but you are living in a fantasy land; a product of what you have been taught. I bet you still believe that the Mayas and Aztecs came from Asia though Alaska, correct? Ha ha.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@oopscanada
1
>>>>>>even a 3rd grade would tell you
Oh yes? Your arrogance has no limits obviously. Numerous PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS have studied it and find no problems with that so-called "soft tissue", but random uneducated religious fundamentalist from youtube says that "it can't last", therefore all 21st century science is wrong.
Also, the so-called "soft tissue" that you speak about DOES NOT EXIST in the way that creationist LIARS depict it.
Hobu123 5 months ago
2
Creationist LIARS think that scientists broke open a rock and there was soft dinosaur meat inside it. This is RETARDED NONSENSE. What was actually found is FOSSILIZED DINOSAUR BONE and after COMPLEX CHEMICAL TREATMENT to DISSOLVE THE ROCK and REMOVE THE MINERALS they extracted TINY, FEW MILLIMETRES LONG FLEXIBLE PIECES of matter from it.
So exactly WHAT is there that in your opinion can't last for tens of millions of years? It is not the only case where flexible substance exists in fossils.
Hobu123 5 months ago
3
For example, we have PALEOZOIC fossils of eurypterids, hundreds of millions of years old, that consist of flexible pieces of their exoskeleton. So fragile that you can brush them away from rock.
The so-called "soft tissue" is perfect example how biblical cretinist LIARS keep lying to their scientifically illiterate audience.
And again - where are these PEER REVIEWED articles I asked from you? Why you still haven't posted any?
Hobu123 5 months ago
@Hobu123
It is incredible to still find intelligent people who can actually put a meaning into what the facts are, that still believe *without* questioning at all, the idea, that soft tissue can actually persist after millions and millions of years. That it is so incredible naive that I still wonder where is the brain on all these people. The *only* obvious answer to a soft tissue is that they are recent, and not millions of years old. No matter how you slice it, you cannot change that fact.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@oopscanada
1
What exactly did you fail to understand in "THERE WAS NO "SOFT TISSUE"? There were FEW MILLIMETRES LONG FLEXIBLE SPECKS OF MATERIAL EXTRACTED FROM FULLY FOSSILIZED BONE SOLID ROCK AFTER REMOVING THE STONE MINERAL MATERIAL WITH DISSOLVING IT WITH COMPLEX CHEMICAL TREATMENT.
Hobu123 5 months ago
2
>>>>>intelligent people who can actually put a meaning
There are MILLIONS of professional scientists in the world who, based on their knowledge and research, know that these tiny flexible specks can survive for even longer than millions of years. And then there is you who claims without any basis, without doing any research, without conducting any experiment, that they can not.
Now, could it be that it is YOU who is mistaken here, not millions of professional scientists?
Hobu123 5 months ago
3
Also the FACT is that the BONE ITSELF was DATED and - big surprise for you - the dating showed that it indeed was from Cretaceous.
So, what is the basis of your claim that these flexible specks can not be old? What is your EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support your claim? It just SEEMS to you? You have never even seen those pieces, you do not know what they consisted of, how they looked like, how they formed, and yet you somehow mysteriously "know" that all world scientists are idiots?
Hobu123 5 months ago
@Hobu123 ARE YOU DEAF OR BLIND, can't you see that the she said, it was soft tissue; Dr. Schweitzer herself cannot believe it; in her own words, this is not possible. I'm sure she must be crying knowing that the lies that all her atheists professors told her, *ALL OF THEM* come apart now. She has to face reality; good for her. Another one converted to the true believers.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@oopscanada
You really are delusional. What, Dr Schweitzer is crying? Converted? Lolwut? What are you talking about?
Absolutely NO SCIENTIST anywhere in the world, including dr Schweitzer, thinks that this "tissue" must be young. The bone has been DATED and there is absolutely NOTHING that stops such tiny "soft" pieces of material from surviving for tens of millions of years.
Once more: THERE WAS NO "SOFT TISSUE" in the form that you seem to think.
Hobu123 5 months ago
2
There was FULLY FOSSILIZED DINOSAUR BONE (fully fossilized means that it consisted of MINERAL ROCK like other fossils). After COMPLEX CHEMICAL TREATMENT that involved DISSOLVING THE MINERAL MATERIAL with chemicals and REHYDRATING the remaining material, TINY, FEW MILLIMETRES LONG specks of pliable material were extracted. They only became soft AFTER the chemical treatment and rehydrating. They WERE NOT SOFT in the beginning.
Hobu123 5 months ago
3
So WHAT IS IT EXACTLY that in your opinion stops tiny pieces of material enclosed in SOLID ROCK surviving for a long time? That "blood cell passage" you talk about is something you must STUDY WITH MICROSCOPE and it is a structure that RESEMBLES BLOOD VESSEL. That doesn't mean that it was soft vessel nor that there was blood "flowing" in it. It is a FOSSIL.
At least try to actually read what those articles tell you.
Hobu123 5 months ago
4
This is typical example of biblical cretinist stupidity. You make absoluitely no effort to try to actually read and understand WHAT it was that scientists found, how did it look like etc. You fail to understand that we are talking about few millimetres long specks. You fail to understand these specks became softer only after they were chemically treated and rehydrated. You fail to understand that it is not the only case where pliable material survives.
Hobu123 5 months ago
5
You only see the words "soft tissue" and then walk around and moan in religious fundamentalist hysteria. "Omg soft tissue, omg it can't be old, omg scientists are all idiots and don't know what they are doing, yara yara yara, blah blah blah."
NO SCIENTIST ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD finds any problems with such specks of material surviving for millions of years. What in your opinion should happen with such specks when they are enclosed in SOLID ROCK? What exactly it is that "doesn't make sense"?
Hobu123 5 months ago
6
And exactly HOW in your fundie mind is a Tyrannosaur fossil tied with age of Earth? Lets IMAGINE that tomorrow scientists find REAL Tyrannosaur SUBFOSSIL that is thousand years old. Or lets imagine that they find living Tyrannosaur. SO WHAT? What influence that in your opinion has to age of Earth? Earth is still 4.5 billion years old, age of Earth DOES NOT depend on when Tyrannosaur lives or dies.
Hobu123 5 months ago
@Hobu123 4.5 billinos is just a number thrown out there, with no way to prove it.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@oopscanada their is no way to prove the earth is 4.5 billion years old? oh yes their is radiometric dating, carbon dating, radiocarbon dating these are just some i could go on but i really don't see any need to do so
mimarp478 5 months ago
@mimarp478 ; Not really. If you are assuming starting conditions when earth was created, then, dating is already flawed. Carbon dating will never give millions of years, but you already know that.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@oopscanada
1
4.5 billion is a CONCLUSION based on STUDYING ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE using most modern scientific methods and devices. You have anything better to offer?
>>>>>Do you mean that soft tissue will last millions and millions of years?
When you will finally understand that THERE WAS NO SOFT TISSUE before it was made soft by complex chemical treatment? And that we are talking about few millimetres long specks?
YES, it can last millions of years, as is understood by ALL SCIENTISTS.
Hobu123 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2
>>>>Let's be honest, the more finding, the more the millions of years
>>>>theory is going to the trash
Funny, there is no hint in science that anything is challenging the modern understanding about the age of Earth or evolution.
>>>>I demand government stops giving money for monkey business
What brainwashed and uneducated religious fundamentalists demand has fortunately no influence on scientific progress and accumulation of knowledge of mankind,
Hobu123 4 months ago
3
>>>>there might another explanations for soft tissues.
The only explanations of anything that count in science are those that are based on EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. And EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE shows that the tissue you speak about IS millions of years old. There is absolutely NO HINT about it being young.
IT WAS DATED. Do you realize that? Its AGE WAS MEASURED. What do you fail to understand in this? SCIENTISTS DID MEASURE ITS AGE. Does that finally get into your delusional fundie brain?
Hobu123 4 months ago
4
>>>>>Not really. If you are assuming starting conditions when earth was created,
>>>>then, dating is already flawed.
Absolutely NOTHING is "assumed" when dating things. Starting conditions are studying in cases when dating method needs that, but many dating methods even don't need starting conditions.
>>>Carbon dating will never give millions of years
Nobody is using carbon dating to date age of Earth. That you have never heard about other methods is not science's problem.
Hobu123 4 months ago
5
And let me ask again:
Exactly HOW in your fundie mind is a Tyrannosaur fossil tied with age of Earth?
Hobu123 4 months ago
@Hobu123
"STUDYING ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE using most modern scientific methods and devices."
Please, be honest; that figure it's just a *deduction*. There is no device that will tell you such a date, based on what? Most dating methods are based on something being decayed or losing elements; what's taking billions of years of losing elements that is still existent? Don't be naive.
oopscanada 4 months ago
@oopscanada
>>>what's taking billions of years of losing elements that is still existent?
You really don't have slightest idea about what radiaoctive decay is, do you?
Hobu123 3 months ago
@Hobu123 OH please; I'm talking about carbon-14 radio active decay; which is really for living organism, the most reliable way determining how long ago the decay started. However, Carbon 14 would not give you any date accurate to more than 60K. Therefore, It CANNOT be used to *CLAIM* millions of years for the age of dinasours long dead. Anything else, is speculation, as they say. Sorry, but nice try.
oopscanada 3 months ago
@oopscanada
Who exactly and where has claimed that carbon dating is used to date things older than 60K years, and who exactly and where has claimed that this dinosaur bone was dated using C14?
NOBODY.
You really haven't heard about the fact that there exist NUMEROUS different radiometric dating methods and in addition to that also numerous different non-radiometric dating methods?
Nice try. Keep thinking up your fairytales that are based on your total lack of education.
Hobu123 3 months ago
@Hobu123
Hum.. actually any other dating method, mainly tests the inorganic material around the fossil, not the fossil itself. So, no, sorry.
oopscanada 3 months ago
@oopscanada The 'fossil itself' will most often be inorganic too (depending on the type of fossil). Most fossils are simply mineralised structures preserved within sedimentary layers, or even just impressions in those layers. Therefore radiocarbon dating isn't utilised (no carbon), whereas potassium-argon dating for example probably would be.
By dating the layer the fossil resides in, and the layers above and below, we get a pretty accurate idea of when the specimen was originally buried.
FactThis 3 months ago
@Hobu123 Not only many scientists find these a welcome discovery. This also helps our youngters understand, that besides the empty theories of evolution, there might another explanations for soft tissues. So, yes, we are happy about it.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@Hobu123
The answer is so obvious; these are not stones millions and millions of years old
oopscanada 5 months ago
@Hobu123
Do you mean that soft tissue will last millions and millions of years? Please; I think it's enough from scientists to mis-use our taxpayers dollars. I have seen how in universities, they like to take in the money for research, and take sabattical leaves, to come up with these????? please. use the money to feed hunger, not empty theories.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@Hobu123
Not really; the soft tissue shows the blood cells passage. Hum.. sorry; this thing is not millions of years old. It does not make a sense at this point, and not only that, I'm glad an atheist found it. I'm pretty sure she's convinced now, that all she's studied was a real big lie, when it comes to the age of the earth.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@oopscanada -- Please see my video Polystrate Trees and Dinosaur Blood Debunked on the potholer54debunks channel. It explains why creationists are so confused about the nature and the age of the soft tissue, as are you.
potholer54 5 months ago
They recently found juvenile dinosaurs buried in a flood. Oh well, it must have been a little one, correct? A local one?
oopscanada 5 months ago
Why are the oil well refilling again? I thought they were sole product of old dinosaurs who died? How come they keep filling up? Hum... I bet you guys got this one wrong as well.
oopscanada 5 months ago
Once more; the ideas presented in this video, are very interesting; certainly it's a theory worth investigating. However, it leaves many things unexplained, via this theory. there are other alternatives to the formation of canyons, continents, etc.; however, do keep up your good work. One day, you'll actually see the facts for what they are, and not by a narrow minded hypothesis.
oopscanada 5 months ago
I hate this British voice. Got an accent from sucking too much cock.
roxtar55 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fred Bailey has discovered the underlying nataural mechanism that regulates Sunspot production and Climate Change, there is a connection between them but Sunspots have nothing to do with Climate Change, Google solarchords and you will see for yourself
howardsway782 5 months ago
There was no ice age it was the world wide flood the layers were layed down by the world wide flood. If you want to see some Real Science watch the videos on my channel. Dont fall for the evol. fairytale the truth is in the Bible Gods living word the Creator of everything.
coolvideo28 6 months ago
And you are exactly right; the evidence is there in the canyons, the dead sea animals pressed against rocks, etc, etc. In addition, for some "weird" unexplained reason, most cultures have kept via oral or written tradition, that once upon the time there was a big worldwide flood. Coincidence? Hum... When somebody is an atheist, blindness is by choice; refusing to accept what inevitable would be the fact that the flood was for real, would imply the existence of God.
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada Of course many cultures have flood myths; they're common natural disasters and are likely to find their way into many myths and legends, as do volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. But flood stories being commonplace doesn't exactly overturn the complete lack of evidence for the event, or even its basic impossibility.
How would a world-wide flood in any way imply the existence God? Why not the flood fairy, or evil aliens? Why not natural phenomena even?
FactThis 6 months ago
@FactThis - Hum.... many cultures have similar things of course. The striking fact is that a "tale" of a man given instructions by God, to build a boat and save animals, does not sound like a fairy tale that most cultures will have in common. At some point, anybody with logic has to admit, there is too much coincidence.
Then, you have the fossils of complete fish pressed agains walls in mountains. Hum... sorry, current theories cannot explain that either. Anyway, the reality is clear.
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada (1) "Fish pressed against walls in mountains... current theories cannot explain that either" - Yes they can. Look up 'Orogeny', the process of mountain formation. The Himalayas for example consist of limestone, a sedimentary rock that forms slowly at the bottom of warm, shallow seas, which can then be uplifted by tectonic activity (we can actually measure the rate at which the Himalayas are rising currently). Many ranges were at the bottom of seas millions of years ago. (Continued)
FactThis 6 months ago
@FactThis (2)The stories vary between time and setting (some in India, some in Greece), as do survivors (in some many people survive, in others only one man). We can’t take vague and ancient mythologies as reliable evidence. Especially fr something so extraordinary. Physical, scientific evidence is more important, and this does not suppot the concept of a global deluge 5,000 years ago… at all.
FactThis 6 months ago
@FactThis
Yes, of course the story might vary. However, the one that I know very well, is very strikingly close to the Bible. The Popol-Vuh explains that the gods decided to destroy man with a flood due to their wickedness. A holy man, a native was told to save his family and animals in a boat. The waters coverted the whole earth, and after that, they were told to populate earth. (Man of course has been made out of corn), I'm sorry, but when I see these facts; I doubt any coincidence.
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada Have you considered the possibility that multiple myths my draw upon an older myth, but a myth nonetheless? But again, the fact you are taking similar myths about fantastical scenarios as basis of historical fact demonstrates a certain lack of critical thought. I could just as easily compare legends of mermaids and fairies from different cultures, but I'm not naive enough to see this as legitimate evidence for their existence.
FactThis 6 months ago
@FactThis There are always possibilities; and there are always legends. And I agree, when it comes to the story of the Arc of Noah, *they all* have the same common story behind. Actually, that is exactly correct. And it makes sense don't you think. As if a particular story, is rooted in a historical catastrophic event, then, all the stories based on it, will be very similar, no matter what part of the world they are re-told again and again. That is correct.
oopsguanaco 6 months ago
@oopsguanaco Or they're all based on an older myth. What's easier to believe? A scientifically impossible and suspiciously evidence-lacking Noah's ark scenario actually happened, or all these myths just stemmed from an older story (as does a lot of fiction). As I said before, physical evidence is more important than vaguely coherent ancient mythologies.
Fairies and mermaids are common folklore among many cultures too, so would you draw the same conclusion?
FactThis 6 months ago
@FactThis
Mermaids are not common; just legends from the old world.
oopscanada 6 months ago
Comment removed
FactThis 6 months ago
@FactThis
Let's see over 200 different tribes recounting the same story????? Hum... if this was taken to court, I would say there is enough evidence to come to a conclusion.
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada 200 people say they saw a murder. But, no fingerprints were found, CCTV footage is inconclusive, no body was found, no blood, and no missing persons report was filed. Furthermore, the stories differ. Some say it was a man, some a woman. Some say it happened at 5pm, others at 4am. Some say the perp used a gun, others say a knife. Some say it happened in the street, others in a shop.
I know how that'll go down in the British courts (if it even gets that far). Evidence > stories.
FactThis 6 months ago
@FactThis Weird huh? And if so happens, that a person is still missing; therefore, there is an undeniable fact that happened; a good investigator will find the truth. Not some hypothesis that cannot explain at all the reality that we see today.
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada I said no-one was missing. There is no evidence whatsoever that would suggest the people are even speaking the truth.
So we have no confirmed witnesses, little to no physical evidence and no scientific consensus on the possibility of such an event. But we do have a range of similar but sometimes conflicting accounts of a fantastical event that the people concerned merely heard from 'someone else' many years after the supposed event occurred. What is the judge to think, eh?
FactThis 6 months ago
@FactThis
The fact is that the body of the missing person is found, and therefore, it's now time to find out what people were saying. as it's the case of the flood. You have the evidence, as the formation of the grand canyons, you have mountains with marine life still on top of it. Now, find the culprit, and don't come back with the pre-assumption to court, that the butler did it.
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada Nobody went missing in the first place! Gah... don't ever think of becoming a lawyer, please.
But let’s leave this court analogy for now and talk about the actual physical evidence, something that is more important than what ancient culture says what. The Grand Canyon was carved out by the Colorado River over many years, and its geology does not reflect a flood formation in the slightest. I've also explained to you why we find marine fossils on mountains.
FactThis 6 months ago
@FactThis
it does not look like the Colorado river could have done in many years what you see right now as the Grand Canyon. Obviously, a flood rushed millions of gallons of water with force and carved it.
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada Floods don't tend to cut deep meandering gauges into flat plateaus. In some places the canyon even appears to come back on itself. Think of a flood, a large volume of water spreading out over a flat landscape, then look at the canyon and the Colorado River on a map. The simple topography, let alone the geology, doesn't reflect a flood formation in the slightest. There's a reason less than a percent of geologists and geographers cling to the insane notion.
FactThis 6 months ago
@FactThis WHERES DA DELTA
vinsong 6 months ago
@oopscanada In addition, the flood was supposed to wipe out every civilisation. So why would citing the fact many civilisations have a flood story lend any more credence to the idea if there shouldn't have been anyone alive in these civilisations afterward to tell the tale anyway? In a court scenario, it would be 200 people saying they heard it 'from some guy', almost none of whom actually having been potential witnesses.
FactThis 6 months ago
@FactThis
The problem is that those "modern" like fish would have to have existed millions of years ago, if that really caused the evidence we see on top mountains today. There is something wrong with that theory. I understand the frustration from atheists that they need to explain this; however, your explanations do not fit the root of the problem.
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada "Modern like fish." Aquatic fossils found in mountain ranges are usually that of molluscs and other shelled organisms. But if you can find a paper showing a fossil in a mountain range to be a uniquely modern species of fish, then by all means, post me the link.
I'll probably send you a PM on this topic as there is a lot to cover.
Why assume I'm an atheist? There are millions of theists who happen to accept and understand the basic geology that has explained this for decades.
FactThis 6 months ago
@FactThis
Hum.... interesting. Would you believe then? And then, what would be the explanation?
These things are being discovered again and again. No need to dig in too much for it.
Now, when it comes to atheism; the moment that God is taken out of the picture of Creation; that's atheism.
oopsguanaco 6 months ago
@oopsguanaco Why am I necessarily taking God out of the picture? The majority of theists I know accept the scientific explanations for Earth's processes, they just see God as the 'orchestrator' of these events, part of his plan so to speak. I'm not arguing against *who*, but *how*.
I'd just like to see a few scientific papers backing up what oopscanada says, or I'm just going to assume it's creationist internet gossip. The papers, if any, may even explain why the 'modern' fish are there.
FactThis 6 months ago
@oopscanada
Isn't it funny how NONE of the fossil fish that exist in mountains is a modern species? They are all extinct species that do not exist nowadays.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123
Hum, no, it's not funny. And I guess, when the fish found exist today, they all call them prehistoric fish.
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada
Fish that exists today is called modern fish.
Those fossil fish are all extinct species. Because evolution has moved on.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123
Not really; yes many of those species might not live today. However, most of them do live today.
What's interesting, is that you see in these mountains fish that are predators following smaller fish, on their way to kill them. When *suddenly* and not after millions of years, they are pressed against the mountains as if water with a huge force compressed them against the stones. Hum... not your usual geology side effects eh?
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada
Name me which fossil species of fish lives today. Name just one.
Also, do you understand that fossils are INSIDE stones, not "pressed against them"?
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123
I suppose fossils pressed against stones is more depicting than "they just die" and somehow did not rot away, and "millions" of years later, we found their fossils? Nonsense; in order for these fish to be compressed and become fossilized rather quickly, a catastrophic event happened, and they just happened to be in the middle of it.
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada
1
The "stone" you are talking about is actually sediments that have hardened to stone over millions of years. Fossils are not "pressed against stones". Fossils are organisms who after death have been buried under sediments and fossilized. No catastrophes are needed for that. All you need is lack of oxygen for example, which is not hard to achieve in bottom of waterbodies and when buried under sediments.
Hobu123 6 months ago
2
Out of numerous living organisms, only very small amount fossilizes, exactly because you need specific conditions for that to happen. How fossilization happens is well known, just go and study it. There is no need for any "catastrophes".
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123
No, you don't need millions of years to fossilize. I suggest you look that up again. sorry.
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada
1
The SEDIMENTS harden over long time. The rock that contains fossils was once soft sand, mud etc.
>>>>>Hundreds of dead fish at the same time
They are not from the "same time".
Hundreds of fish, out of numerous billions and billions that have lived over time. That shows how rare is fossilization.
Hobu123 6 months ago
2
>>>>You have the evidence, as the formation of the grand canyons
The Grand Canyon clearly shows evidence that it has formed over millions of years.
Study geology and you will understand why.
>>>>ou have mountains with marine life still on top of it.
We already explained you why.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123
Not really; evidence shows that there are missing "periods" in the geo periods present there. Not only that, there are fossils of "newer" species at the bottom, and "older" species on latter layers. Clearly, there is something wrong with that picture.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@oopscanada
Of course there are missing periods - sediments form only in certain conditions and during many times throughout millions of years there are periods where sediments do not form, leaving a gap into layers. Also some layers are erodes. This is like knowledge of first year geology students.
Bring example of "newer" species at bottom in solid layers.
Hobu123 5 months ago
@Hobu123
I'm sure in those millions of years, there are no sediments; sure.....
What's really weird, is that geologists have found sediments that are supposed to be newer (in terms of millions of years), *** below *** sediments that are supposed to be much much olders. With the missing gaps in between. I'm sorry that is really questionable, and a catastrophe is the only logical explanations for these layers to be like this.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@oopscanada
There is absolutely NOTHING weird in that. Every first year geology student knows how newer sediments can go "under" older ones. FOLDS and FAULTS - you have never heard about those? Look it up. But when that happens, the radiometric dating still shows which ones are newer and which ones are older.
Yes, when there are no conditions for sediments formation then there will be no sediments. This is first year geology student knowledge.
Hobu123 5 months ago
Comment removed
oopsguanaco 5 months ago
@Hobu123 You've got that right. The conditions for sediments, and the conditions for folds due to massive earthquakes, all over the world, a global catastrophe is exactly what happened when the flood happened. It is believed that is exactly when the final topology of the continents came to be, due to massive earthquakes, etc. The flood, then, provided the right conditions for sediment formations. You got that right. Thanks.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@oopscanada
1
Do you understand that FOLDS can only form slowly over millions of years because we are talking about SOLID ROCKS which do not bend fast but would simply break. You need huge pressure over long time to cause the layers to fold.
>>>>>It is believed
It is not believed by anyone else but a bunch of religious fundamentalists who lack absolutely any knowledge in geology.
The "flood" never happened. Geologists abandoned the silly flood scenario already on 18th century.
Hobu123 5 months ago
2
Also, do you have absolutely slightest idea how much heat is generated when certain sediments form? Enough heat to boil off the whole Flood if it happened quickly.
Do you have even slightest idea how slowly many sediments form due to sedimentation rate of the particles?
Do you have any idea how MUCH sedimentary rocks are out there - millions of times more than you could stuff into your absurd flood scenario?
Hobu123 5 months ago
@Hobu123 Not really, it has been proven, in recent localized floods, that you can get sediments, and actually measure/evaluate their formation, in todays' time. There is no need to wait for millions of years. There are many places around the world where this is happening all the time, and there is no need to wait millions of years.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@oopscanada
1
SEDIMENTS, yes, but not SEDIMENTARY ROCKS. Do you understand the difference between these two.
But even when speaking about sediments, there is FAR TOO MUCH sediments on Earth than any flood could lay down. MILLIONS OF TIMES MORE. You really don't have even slightest idea how many sediments there are on Earth, do you? Nothing even comparable with minute amounts of sediments from some local floods.
Hobu123 5 months ago
2
>>>>However, it leaves many things unexplained
This video does not aim to give overview about everything that is known. There is far too much knowledge to be put into one video. There are whole MOUNTAINS of books and articles about the knowledge we have, and you would never be able to read them all even if you started to read them now. That is the level of 21st century science. Do you think that this video is all that is known in geology science?
Study geology to get your answers.
Hobu123 5 months ago
@Hobu123 Yes; it's a nice video; however, given what we know now, some of these theories, are really untested. They cannot explain the reality of current topography on Earth. sorry, but nice try.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@oopscanada
>>>>>given what we know now
Except that "YOU do not know" does not equal "scientists do not know". Study geology and you will find many answers that you think do not exist.
Hobu123 5 months ago
2
>>>>There are many geologists that have doubts about the millions of
>>>>years theory
False claim. The only ones who have "doubts" about millions of years are religious fundamentalists from Christianity or other religions who so desperately want to believe that their Stone and Bronze Age fairytales are literally true, and that is why they fight against knowledge and reason. A random preaching creationist, however, is NOT automatically a scientist even if he claims to be.
Hobu123 5 months ago
3
>>>>real life anomalies in the formation of canyons
All these "anomalies" you list are explained in first year students' geology textbook. The problem is not in science, the problem is in your total lack of knowledge even about the basics of these sciences, not to mention more deeper details.
>>>>>You have no idea of what happened during the flood
Considering the fact that the flood never happened, that is not a problem at all.
Hobu123 5 months ago
4
>>>>There were giant earthquakes, volcanos exploded, it poured
>>>>rained from the sky
You randomly thinking up stuff is NOT science. As I said - nice fairytale, but has nothing to do with reality.
You really believe that "scientific knowledge" means that you simply randomly say something that you think happened during your "flood"?
Scientists claim things based on EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
Hobu123 5 months ago
5
>>>>the flood we are talking about, was a catastrophe. It is so obvious.
As a catastrophe, it would have left behind SPECIFIC and VERY EASILY RECOGNIZABLE EVIDENCE. NO such evidence is found anywhere on Earth. Your flood did not happen. I am very sure I already gave you link to a website that lists how this evidence should look like if it existed. NONE of it exists anywhere.
Hobu123 5 months ago
@Hobu123 You really need to be blind to not see the evidence. How do you think the great plains were formed in the middle of the United States? A glaciar meltdown of millions of years? Or a sudden flood that went though it flattening the region? There is so much evidence every where that only faithful of the old earth fairy tale believe. It's easy to indoctrinate kids with: oh, it happens during millions s and millions of years. Wait for them to start using technology for simulation, he.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@oopscanada
Glaciers and floods leave COMPLETELY DIFFERENT EVIDENCE, so different that every geology student can distinguish them.
There is no silly worldwide conspiracy of scientists. Scientific conclusions are based on WHAT EVIDENCE SHOWS. It is not science's fault that YOU and other religious fundies do not like reality and prefer some silly bronze age fairytales.
The EVIDENCE shows that there has been no such flood.
Hobu123 5 months ago
2
>>>>>You should not only study geology; but physics, and chemistry
Oh the irony - as if you have ever bothered to study any of these sciences.
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE that millions of scientists from all around the world are all idiots and do not know anything about chemistry and physics? And random uneducated religious fundamentalist from youtube is competent to discuss anything about science?
Geology science is impossible without knowing chemistry and physics.
Hobu123 5 months ago
3
>>>millions of years preconceived idea
"Millions of years" is a CONCLUSION and ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE shows it. Geologists understood that Earth is old already in 18TH CENTURY, but brainwashed fundamentalists like you still live in middle ages.
What is your reason to doubt that Earth is billions of years old? The only "reason" you have is that you want to blindly believe your absurd Bronze Age Middle-East nomad goatherder fairytale about talking snakes and invisible magic hocus-pocus men.
Hobu123 5 months ago
4
And as modern science dares to discover things that do not correspond to the primitive worldview of Bronze Age goatherders, you think that 21st century science is wrong and Bronze Age goatherder fairytale is correct. You really fail to understand how SILLY that is?
That Earth is billions of years old is as certain fact as Earth being round and orbiting Sun. There is absolutely no debate in science any more about whether Earth is young or old. These debates alrady took place in 18th CENTURY.
Hobu123 5 months ago
5
The EVIDENCE in geology and other related sciences - do you have slightest idea how enormous work and research scientists have conducted over last centuries? BILLIONS of man-hours of research, MILLIONS of scientific articles - that is the level of modern science. You have never bothered to read even ONE of those articles nor study even the basics of these sciences, yet you find that you are somehow competent to accuse scientists for being wrong,l and arrogantly attack scientific knowledge ....
Hobu123 5 months ago
.... simply because 21st century scientific knowledge is different from the absurd primitive worldview of Bronze Age nomads.
Even inside your own religion, the people who believe something so absurd and silly as young Earth are in absolute minority. That silly retarded belief characterizes only some small but noisy fundamentalist sects that mainly exist in USA. Majority of Christains in the world do not share that absurd belief.
Hobu123 5 months ago
7
>>>>> assumption* of millions of years; it is therefore already flawed.
It is not ASSUMPTION, it is CONCLUSION based on CENTURIES LONG RESEARCH of ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.
>>>>> However, once true students of geology start questioning hypothesis
>>>>>that do not explain the evidence that show a younger earth,
>>>>>>*then*, these students become real scientists, and not robots.
You really don't have even the slightest idea what science is and how it works, do you?
Hobu123 5 months ago
8
If you believe that scientists have some kind of "dogmas" and they cling to flawed theories and ignore evidence that contradicts those then, I am sorry, but I have to say that you are completely uneducated fundamentalist who has no understanding about what science is and how it works.
The thing is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE about any "young Earth", so there is nothing to study. During all these days here you yourself have provided NO evidence about young Earth either...
Hobu123 5 months ago
9
..... all you do is repeating some nonsense about "fish on mountains" and other such things we have already explained to you weeks ago.
>>>>>juvenile dinosaurs buried in a flood
So?
>>>>Oh well, it must have been a little one, correct? A local one?
Yes, because EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT. How long will you fail to understand that scientists make conclusions based on EVIDENCE and do not simply pull them out of air?
>>>>Why are the oil well refilling again?
Present evidence.
Hobu123 5 months ago
10
>>>>>>preconceived idea
Oh the irony - YOU Are the one here who has preconceived idea that Bronze Age primitive fairytales of Middle East goatherders must be literally true and 21st century science is all wrong. YOU are the one who takes a preconceived idea out of your fairytale book and then looks for ways how to distort and mutilate the data to fit your belief, instead of accepting the fact that the primitive fairytale is wrong.
Scientists study the evidence honestly.
Hobu123 5 months ago
@Hobu123 We are talking about evidence; not fairy tales. We are talking about mountains being formed during periods of extreme volcanic and tectonic activity. The proof is there, scientists are finally speaking out about it, and we hope one day, it will be taught in real geology courses, as it should. The old hypothesis of millions and millions and millions of years, is really, a fairy tale.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@Hobu123 Not really, specially since geology in atheists ways *starts with the assumption* of millions of years; it is therefore already flawed. However, once true students of geology start questioning hypothesis that do not explain the evidence that show a younger earth, *then*, these students become real scientists, and not robots.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@Hobu123 You should not only study geology; but physics, and chemistry. Not only that, philosophy. You cannot come up with a theory just to fit a millions of years preconceived idea; that has never been proven, nor it will. In reality you have to believe in millions of years only by faith.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@Hobu123 Really? Do you think the flood, just a bunch of water like in a rainy day? You have no idea of what happened during the flood. There were giant earthquakes, volcanos exploded, it poured rained from the sky, and the earth as they knew it was changed. it is so obvious that you still think that the flood was just a bunch of water? No my friend, you are so wrong; the flood we are talking about, was a catastrophe. It is so obvious.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@Hobu123 Hum..., not really. There are many geologists that have doubts about the millions of years theory. It certainly cannot be proven, it's only a hypothesis. It mainly makes sense, of course, however, when ti comes to explain real life anomalies in the formation of canyons, sediments, marine life fossilized in mountains, the millions of years, does not explain it.
oopscanada 5 months ago
@Hobu123. Hundreds of dead fish at the same time, hardly qualify for a normal death buried under sediments. sorry.
oopscanada 6 months ago
Does anyone know the name off the song at the start off this video? It used to be in soccer am? du na na na na. Great video too, the speaker has a very therapeutic voice.
xps3gamingworldx 6 months ago
@xps3gamingworldx I think it's by Jean-Michel Jarre. It might be called Oxygen, but I'm not entirely sure...
Popperite 6 months ago
Not only that: Finally, from what we know about mutations that do occur and have a noticeable effect on the person, they are often deleterious or serve to remove some type of function. Rarely are they beneficial and rarely do they add function. The question is, is this really enough mutations and enough time for natural selection to produce novel body plans? Is this even enough time to see the changes that have occurred in an evolutionary model of the Homo lineage?
oopscanada 6 months ago
"At the end of the Flood, after thick sequences of sediments had accumulated, the Indian subcontinent evidently collided with Asia, crumpling the sediments into mountains. Today they stand as giants—folded and fractured layers of ocean-bottom sediments at high elevations. " I agree with this.
oopscanada 6 months ago
Hum.. oh well, evidence just shows up, if you look for it. But I guess some people, are not open minded, and are so blind to close their intelligence to anything that could remotely be related to Christianity. that's too bad. Well, not for these scientists who discovered "direct fossil and sedimentary evidence from Bermuda". Not only that, their study concludes this could not be due to tectonic movement or tsunami but to higher sea levels for at least months if not years. evidence you said?
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada = Hum.. oh well, evidence just shows up, if you look for it = Yeah, a catastrophic flood does leave evidence, very easily identifyable Just google the Missoula Floods. Now that's how a fast, deadly and catastrophic flood looks like, and that's the evidence it leaves behind.
danoso0931 6 months ago
Let's see again, "n the summer of 2002, record rainfall in the Texas Hill Country overfilled Canyon Lake. Water coursed over the top of its dam and carved huge, steep-walled canyons through the limestone bedrock downstream. The scoured riverbed, now called Canyon Lake Gorge, is over a mile long and has been cordoned off for scientific study." So, this "rapid" carving of canyons, is what creationists talk about? Why are these "scientists" studying it now? Hum... Food for thought.
oopscanada 6 months ago
Let's see again, in the University of Missouri, News Bureau, web portal, you see pictures where a "little" flood of the river: "The most severe scouring and topsoil erosion was at O’Bryan’s Ridge with extensive six- to 30-foot deep cuts in what used to be farm fields". Hum.. 30-foot deep, by a river, due to a few days of rain!!! Wait a minute, that's 30-foot deep new channel created in minutes. Oh well, what would happen if a global flood goes through Arizona?
oopscanada 6 months ago
Let's see... Scientists found fossils of marine, inclusive into it, they found "sponge spicules", ancient marine life encrusted in amber on the forest of SouthWestern France. Hum.... I wonder how it happened... Humm....... Oh I now: A flood?
oopscanada 6 months ago
Oh, if the flood did not happen globally, how come the Mayas depict the flood? And how come the Mayas in *another* continent, and not in middle east, talk about the "gods" getting upset with mankind and destroying it with a world wide flood. In which only a Maya family survives IN A BOAT!!! I'm sure, it can also be dismissed as coincidence, right? Ha ha; read the Popol-Vuh, and you'll find the Jews stories there as well, and you'll be surprised what these "fairy" tales have depicted.
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada Small, LOCAL floods happen in many places of the world, of course local people have their own myths and legends about those. And via culture contact those legends also can spread to other nations. Escaping flood in a boat is an extraordinary idea in your opinion?
And actually DO read Popol-Vuh, the story is totally different from MIddle East stories.
Anyway, this is mythology. Science works with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM REAL WORLD.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 It is actually, not that different; and addition, it's weird that that story has the same lines as the Bible, where the gods 'decide' to destroy mankind via a flood. Hum....
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada
Through all times people have associated natural disasters with god's anger. Floods, earthquakes, volcanoes - all that is seen as god being displeased. No wonder that you can find such stories from all parts of the world.
Hobu123 6 months ago
2
Ok, what exactly do you fail to understand here - such flood would leave behind overwhelming and VERY EASILY recognizable evidence, evidence that every geologist would recognize immediately, because geologists, among other things, study also the marks left behind by local flood. And yet NO such evidence is found anywhere, and whats even more important - there is enormous amount of evidence that contradicts with such flood scenario.
Hobu123 6 months ago
Hobu123 6 months ago
3
It may be really hard to believe for you, but geologists ARE NOT actually idiots and they DO KNOW what they are doing. There are reasons why that flood scenario was abandoned by otherwise CREATIONIST GEOLOGISTS already THREE CENTURIES AGO - already they understood that flood is an impossibility.
Your problem is your total lack of education about geology which makes it impossible for you to understand why the things you think are "evidence of flood" are NOT evidence of flood.
Hobu123 6 months ago
4
>>>>>ancient marine life encrusted in amber on the forest of SouthWestern France
Where exactly is the problem in that? Why shouldn't there be fossils in SW France?
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 ; Really? Not evidence. Ha ha.
oopscanada 6 months ago
@Hobu123 Ancient flood in a pre-flood world has left evidence, as mentioned earlier. However, most scientists, whose research is funded to publish other type of evidence would not have the courage to publish contradictory statements. You can still find them, as not everybody is worry about what others would object. However, having worked at a university, and having seen how research money "influences" what people write and research, explain why such lack of interest in finding more on this.
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada
In addition, if you want to educate yourself more about why flood is an impossibility, google "Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition", that article gives you long list of explanations why such flood is a physical impossibility. Pay special attention to the problems with enormous heat generation + problems with sedimentation rates + problems with the total amount of fossils that greatly exceeds the number of organisms that can live simultaneously on planet Earth.
Hobu123 6 months ago
2
Your claim that scientists from all over the world are involved in some kind of conspiracy against your religion is nonsense.
Let me remind you - SCIENTISTS just study the nature and make conclusions based on empirical evidence. But the goal of religious fundies is to force their religion down the throat of everyone and they believe without any basis that Bronze age fairytales are literally true.
So who is the one with bias here?
Hobu123 6 months ago
3
And I already said - already CREATIONIST GEOLOGISTS three centuries ago understood that flood is impossibility - already THEN there was enough empirical evidence against it so that even they, otherwise creationists, could not deny it.
Hobu123 6 months ago
4
>>>>>is this really enough mutations and enough time for natural selection to
>>>>produce novel body plans
Yes. There is enough time. 3.8 BILLION years is longer than you can ever imagine.
>>>>Is this even enough time to see the changes that have occurred in an
>>>>evolutionary model of the Homo lineage
Yes, and whats even more important - if you compare mutation rates with independent evidence from paleontology, these two fields show the SAME PICTURE and give same estimates.
Hobu123 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5
>>>>>Indian subcontinent evidently collided with Asia, crumpling the
>>>>sediments into mountains.
So you really believe that the Himalayas just formed in couple of years and continents are rushing fast around in oceans like motorboats? And then you accuse scientists when they laugh at such nonsense?
Hobu123 6 months ago
6
Do you have ANY ideas about what energy amounts we are talking here? Even couple of centimetres friction between shifting plates is enough to cause earthquake, and you imagine that Indian plate just came fast and rammed into Asia, pushing up 8 km high mountains in few months, without any nation that lives in area even noticing it, and without destroying all life in that area?
And after that you accuse scientists for being stupid?
Hobu123 6 months ago
7
>>>>>30-foot deep, by a river, due to a few days of rain
You really can not be serious when you compare 30 foot deep carving in soft sediments with Grand Canyon.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@oopscanada = However, most scientists, whose research is funded to publish other type of evidence would not have the courage to publish contradictory statements = Then explain why the very first geologists already denied a single global flood. These first geologist lived at the beginning of the 18th century, a time when the only scientists were wealthy men who could afford to pay for their own research (in other words, amateurs), and most of them were creationists.
danoso0931 6 months ago
Oh boy; I've heard that one before. The fact is, is that without searching for it, Scientists in different fields find little pieces here and there, about a world wide flood. It's easy to accept a flood due to ice glaciers melting on over half of the hemisphere, but not about world wide flood? Please, come out and smell the coffee.
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada
Scientific conclusions are based on STUDYING THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. The empirical evidence from real world shows clearly that such flood NEVER HAPPENED. It is not about the possibility of such flood possibly happening, it is about whether it DID happen or not. It DIDN'T.
And about the possibility - such flood is also a physical impossibility due to numerous factors.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 Not really; the opposite is the truth. There is evidence of a flood making new channels, crushing animals and trees against caves and mountains. Hum.. you cannot dismiss it, only because it does not fit your traditional atheist education. On top of that, you have oral tradition of most cultures, having the same type story being repeated down to the generations; this could only happen, if a global event happened. Too much coincidence,.
oopscanada 6 months ago
Well, of course it's obvious; that's like asking what water is? Is it H20? Do you mean you get two molecules of Hydrogen and one of oxygen, and you get water? Yes, of course, we understand how water forms, once you have the elements. The question is, who designed the environment to allow for water to form? You are questioning the flood; I am not questioning how mountains get formed. I do question, why do fossils of crushed animals are embedded in the mountains? It did not take M Years!!!
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada
Water is wide spread in Universe. Why should someone "design" its conditions? It forms via simple chemical reaction.
Flood didn't happen, says empirical evidence from real world. There is zero evidence about any such big flood, although it would leave behind easily recognizable evidence. And there is enormous amount of evidence that contradicts the flood scenario.
What exactly about the fossils?
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123; exactly the point, water is such a simple chemical reaction, that it is unbelieable that such a chemical reaction is not abundant in other planets to the point that it would be sufficient for life. The flood is so universal, that there is plenty of evidence in every country, in the form of canyon formations, marine life, compressed against the walls of caves, marine sediments deposited suddenly on layers of mountains, not in millions of years, but the result of sudden catastrophe,etc
oopscanada 6 months ago
@oopscanada
You just randomly take features that you have no idea about how they actually form and then claim that "those must be formed in flood". NO, they are not. None of the features you mentioned has any evidence of any flood, those things do not form like that. The flood would leave behind very clean and easily recognizable evidence, NONE of which is seen anywhere.
Hobu123 6 months ago
For example, do you have even sligthest idea how much heat would be released when certain sediments form? If it happens quickly, it would literally vaporize oceans. Do you have any idea what the sediments consist of? Many of them consist of remains of microscopic water organisms, quadrillions and quadrillions of little shells. Where do you imagine all those lived simultaneously? Not to mention the fact that the layers date millions of years apart.
Hobu123 6 months ago