There are 6800 and more genetic diseases caused by deleterious mutations, because there is no other kind of mutation.
READ TWICE: We know they are screwed up DNA coding because we can see the original fit condition in people who do not have the particular disease. Read AGAIN and again.
That means there is only genetic degradation shown in ALL the absolutely irrefutable physical evidence.
There is no evolution from simple towards complex.
1) Homologous embryo limb bud transplants. Species A can have limb buds transplanted onto Species B. This is possible because of common ancestry allowing for the cellular machinery of the organism to continue the growth. The intelligent design IS evolution. The design was made by the creator in the form of DNA and the cellular machinery that processes it. Evolution is simply a way of explaining the design. Is science ETHICAL? Not, always: eugenics. But, neither is religion: witch trials.
Goto (Google It) GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum and learn how to learn, without beliefs forced on you. Also listen to some good Blues from my band HavenHead.
Show the real embryos.. like modern biology textbooks do. The similarity predicted by evolution is evident, and this video didn't even really explain what that evidence is. The problem with the Haeckel embryos was that he lacked visual references and assumed that the embryos imitated ADULT morphology, which has been proven wrong since the early 1900s.
Ernst Haeckel, 1860, atheist, biologist [Darwinian supporter] (used fraudulent material, omissions and exaggeration in human embryo drawings to prop up evolution). *The University he worked at held a trial in 1875 and convicted him of fraud.
Evolution is a evil l-i-e from Satan -- people that are deceived by it end up in hell.
Jesus said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me." (John 14:6)
@GsliMaIiy Haeckel's drawings were never necessary to show embryological evidence of evolution because they could use real embryos. Now we have microphotographs.
You've been lied to about what Haeckel was convicted of fabricating-- watch?v=-_otdXN7gNE
@GsliMaIiy Also, why do you say "people that are deceived by it end up in hell." Don't you realize that most people who accept evolution ARE Christians who have asked Jesus to be their Lord and Savior? It's true, there are more Christians who accept it than atheists who accept it. If it was made up by Satan, then Satan is extremely incompetent.
Please watch this excellent Christian series about how modern natural sciences and religion can compliment each other: watch?v=Fperp1Mezt0
The ONLY good evidence I have found, is that more basic organisms are found lower than more complex. HOWEVER this doesn't give you the mechanism of how this came to be, evolution is still assumed in this instance, rather than verified.
the main issue is not whether or not this is evidence for evolution. It's about whether the theory of monophyletic common descent or polyphyletic descent is correct. Just thought I should clarifies. Evolution is already assumed true in this video, with good reason.
Actually the video is trying to show the weakness in the arguement of evolution. That is partially based on lies and frauds in an attempt to give itself credability.
The use of fraudulent data, just because its "easily available", is not acceptable when "teaching", (indoctrinating), the young minds of tomorrow. Even in my 2010 Uni text book haekles drawings were used in them, despite the fact they are fraudulent and are not based on reality
@Gilbertus1986 There's a part in the video where Eugine Scott explains that they still have explanatory teaching value to show the point that embryos are similar. It's a little more complex than their appearance. The drawings are good for showing kids who don't know much about evolution yet.
By using false claims and false data. That is NOT science. No other scientific theory law or hypothesis resorts to the use of data that has been found to be fake. Period.
What Eugene Scott said was Crap. Science is about the FACTS not supporting a worldview with fake data.
@Gilbertus1986 She's saying it's valid as a teaching method. She is aware that it is not science. The science part is the real similarity between embryos which is not discussed in this video.
So its a valid teaching method to teach things with false information? They are supposed to be learning FACTS about the world. I'd rather they teach the children HOW to think rather than WHAT to think. Does using false information teach children to think for themselves?
Come on, you must realise that using false data to teach children is stupid, if not its propoganda.
@Gilbertus1986 Okay I'll admit it's false data. I still think that it can clearly be used as a metaphor for a fact of science though. Embryos are similar. They don't look THAT similar, but for a kid, they get the concept. It's amazing they look alike at all let alone having similar ontologies that recapitulate evolutionary phylogeny.
@Gilbertus1986 I know it's not discussed in the video so I suppose I lack evidence for my claim at the moment. But I'm alluding to similarities that are not physical or appearance-based. The progression that embryos go through (having gill slits etc) is astonishing when you compare. Kind of neat to think about. Anyway I really have no supporting evidence from this video so I guess I concede.
Ok dude. However for clarification. There are no "gill slits", they are pouches of skin / membrane. The membrane of the pouches are never cut, hence they are not slits ever. I find it very misleading of people to call these pouches "gill slits", to infer an evolutionary link that is not there.
@Gilbertus1986 It's difficult to discuss the finer points of embryology in this manner. Keep in mind this isn't definitive theory of evolution. It's only a fact that reinforces ideas of those who already hold evolution to be a true phenomenon. One fascinating similarity is the concept that all life progresses through: zygote -> blastula -> gastrula, etc. until they develop new symmetries, gill slits, etc. It's just kinda neat.
So you do not wish to support your claim? I've asked you to clarify
As I said before. There are NO "gill slits", they are pouches of membrane, no slits occur. Hence your stating false claims to support your position.
Yes they somewhat share the starting stages, (though this video shows how some are different for similar creatures), however this can be evidence for common design as well. So no net gain in credability for evolution due to embryology.
@Gilbertus1986 Oh whatever. I'm not gonna be able to educate you on evolutionary embryology on YouTube. Use wikipedia or something. It's taught at every college in the world.
I know it is, I had it crammed down my throat, ... talk about evangalising evolution! however the "gill slit" fallacy wasn't used at my Uni, perhaps they are getting smarter?
Look up the definition of a "slit" (ie- a cut or tear), then use this definition on these supposed "gill slits", they ARE pouches of skin, nothing more.
@Gilbertus1986 I don't find the slit / pouch dilemma to be very compelling. After all it's astonishing that parts of a human embryo resemble gills in any way at all. Is it not? But you are causing me some distress, should I stop believing embryology is good evidence for evolution? is there better evidence?
@MagnesiumMichael If you watched the video then it would be apparant that embryology is not a good arguement for evolution. You are just resembling something isn't the same as being something. A computer resembles the brain, yet they are aren't the same thing, plus it isn't a scientific (empirical) assertion, just one based on a worldview.
Father's [Rev. Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.
Dawkins was asked by scientists in a famous interview on TV to give one example where new information arises by chance in matter and couldnt give one example and had to end the interview. Because all mutations studied at the molecular level reduce the information in the geno making evolution impossible. I shall be placing that video on utube shortly, God Bless.
Wells has strong religious reasons for rejecting evolution, and had them long before he ever attended college for biology.
----------------------
[Rev. Moon] he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God's involvement in nature or history ...
take a look at this video and then come back and say that Jonathan Wells is making an honest statement regarding embryology. He's obviously not interested in an unbiased presentation of what is known at this
watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ
Copy and paste the URL.
And please watch the WHOLE video ... DonExodus2 makes great videos because he knows what he's talking about and he cares about it ...
This video is a fucking stupid attempt to miscredit things that are being phased out by real science just like Eugenie Scott explain in the middle. And that guy at the end, where is the source for that statement?
obviously the textbooks are going to pick embyros that look similar to prove that evolution did occur because not all embryos are related or were related.
Are you guys serious? You really think that the "look" of early stage embryos supports the notion of common ancestry? Think about it! The DNA is all there at the moment of conception -- sperm and egg... It's going to be a tadpole, or an elephant, or a human, regardless of the first week look of the zygote -- There is no womb-based evolution going on! Never has... The genetic information is all there... day one.
@reflect7 You don't seem to understand. The idea is that the changes that occur in embryonic development recapitulate evolutionary history. It's not that they evolve in the womb. Not only do animals that are believed to be closely related share many stages in their embryonic development, but there are still primitive animals that exist today which resemble early embryonic forms of chordates.
What a lovely piece of propaganda. They failed to mention that we actually did take pictures of the embryoes and these similarities were there objectively. These people are lying for Jesus.
This is equivalent to what people did when dinosaurs were discovered. Someone would fabricate a dinosaur bone and then someone will point it out and say "That was fabricated! Therefore all dinosaurs are fake!"
Creationist propaganda seems to be strong with this user.
Hey, reality check. Haeckel's embryos are known frauds and aren't used today. And it was a fraud in the sense that it exaggerated features (like in a cartoon) to exemplify a point. The features exaggerated actually do exist, but not to the extent that haeckel wrongly drew.
What is it about creationists that prevent them from making honest arguments? I mean is it a commandment now? Thou shalt lie to deceive others for your cause.
It's funny that you call it propaganda while it's people being indoctrinated by evidence for evolution. Not once in my entire education has this evolution theory been put side by side with creationism or something. Not once is it put in relation to any other theory or is the "truth" of it put in perspective.
Now that is a dangerous thing to do.
People grow up to become critics to anything that is not what they've been taught as true. While they should be able to judge all evidence equally
vincent no offense but this is a stupid thing to say.
Why would anyone teach creationism next to evolution?
Would you teach alchemy next to chemistry? Astrology next to astronomy?
No, you wouldn't. Vincent, you can't say what you're saying and understand how evolution works. It's simply not possible. You can believe in what ever evidence you want and accept the reality that is evolution.
What you can't do, is stick your head in the sand and believe myths about the age of the earth and so.
This is simply what it means to live in a secular world.
But I (of course) still believe the Bible.
Even if there was die hard proof found that contradicts the Bible I still wouldn't believe it, because my faith is stronger than to stumble at non-christians finding evidence for their ideas. I hardly take science in general serious anymore, because I think most of it has been drenched by and has incorporated the idea that the earth is 4.5 billion years old
In a sense you're absolutely right about sticking my head in the sand. I completely admit I don't believe anything speaking out contradicting the Bible, before I hear the arguments. So I'm very prejudiced. Evolutionists don't like that.
But there's things that I find more important than science, so science can never change my mind.
However, there's certainly evidence for the truth of the Bible and I think science is compatible with it when used right. But faith >knowledge at a certain level imo
I don't agree though. I have only one source of divine authority, the Bible. In that what it states is truth (it says so), it must be scientifically true.
But you either believe the entire Bible, or none of it. The theory of evolution is compromising the truth of the Bible and is therefore not true. So I boldly disagree that you can believe in God and still accept evolution.
It only contradicts the Bible if you make it. There are plenty of people that accept reconcile scientific understandings with their faith, by interpreting their holy books in a different way.
There was a time when people misinterpreted the Bible and assumed the Earth was flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth.
Science didn't contradict this, your interpretation of those sections was just enhanced. Why assume your interpretation of it is correct, in the face of evidence?
Because there isn't much room for speculation on this subject. The flat earth theory wasn't derived from the bible, and the sun revolving around the earth is a minor issue too.
We are now talking about "did God create the world and us like He said He did".
My "interpretation" is believing the literal truth of every single verse. If you take the bible as a non-literal book, you're compromising the truth (cause it never says it is) and can just as well throw the entire thing away.
Taking the bible literally with every word, I think unfortunately misses much of the point in the Bible. The Bible was written in a time where allegory was extremely popular, and the primary means of story telling. To take things literally that were meant to be allegorical, is really to miss the point.
For example, Jonah and the Whale. Many people today don't interpret this as a literal event, but rather a platform to convey more important truths.
I have to disagree again. The story of Jonah in the fish can be seen as symbol for having to go through a hard time to go back to the Lord, or for having to suffer if you run from Him.
And the thing is when you take that story literally... The symbolism remains.
The only reason someone has to not take it literally is because they think it's illogical to happen. But they must realise we are dealing with a supernatural God and believing miracles is essential to the whole point of Christianity
it wasn't a Whale... &secondly,if there is a God, which there is, then u must accept that the God behind the bible would have enough supernatural power 2sustain a human inside an enormous fish,and make it possible for an enormous fish to do Gods bidding..nothing is impossible with God.. there are historical accounts of humans surviving such an attack and being cut out of the fish's belly.Jesus Christ took the bible LITERALLY.I think if He did,perhaps we should.Afterall, He is God,He would know.
the whole point is that nothing is supernatural,nature is all there is.All religions are man made rubbish to expain what they dont understand ,its human nature ,but nothing to do with truth.
@billysue2 sorry i dont believe a word you said..but i believe Jesus Christ when He said "Iam the Way Truth and Life"..and I believe the word when it says that it shall come to pass in the last days that whoseover calls upon the nameof the Lord Jesus Christ from their heart -SHALL BE SAVED... Jesus is TRUTH
@0871368021 Oh man, you're delusional!!! You'd rather swallow a temporarily comforting statement you can't substantiate with any evidence but what's in an old book, than stretch your mind and fathom what contemporary science actually has gathered in experiments and reproducible tests, yet you use the fruits of these test like the computer technology and the internet to try to prove your feeble reasoning. All science is built on the same methods, and arguing against it makes you look silly : )
@heyawhaw give me one irrifutable piece of undeniable scientifically PROVEN piece of evidence that nails it for you ...that the absolute truth without question is that there really is no God... surprise me...
It's you who say there is one, so it's up to you to prove your claims, right?
If you're so hellbent for others to come up with evidence, you must be pretty good at it yourself?
I see no god because I don't know where to look, that's all. You obviously have irrifutable pieces of undeniable scientifically PROVEN piece of evidence that nails it for you...that the absolute truth without question is that there really IS a god so go ahead.
For Christians I think it's a seriously bad thing to do. Because no matter how you twist and turn it, you are compromising divine revelation, because you have too little faith in the Bible. Christians accept the evolution theory because they think the word of scientists is of higher authority than the Word of God. And by that I really think they're playing with their life. Don't believe genesis? Then why would you believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins? Genesis is really a test for trust
What I wanted to say with that is that when you believe the Bible is the Word of God everything it says is true must be true. Here's the gap we can't bridge
Yes, when you start off with the assumption that its true you'll end with the personal conclusion that its true. That doesn't make it actually true. The thing you're declaring circularly true is what you're being asked to prove in the first place. So far it's just been what I refer to as the wheel of power. Why believe the bible? "It's infallible." How do you know? "It's the word of god." How do you know THAT? "Because the bible tells us so" Repeat ad nauseum.
Sure, but that's simply what it means to be a christian.
We don't have any arguments that will make you believe us or the Bible. It all comes down to that moment where you feel the personal care of God in your life and don't really care about anything else. It's fine if we don't agree on what we believe in, but you should be aware that nothing I say will convince you, and nothing you say will convince me
The good part is that evolutionists can not give full proof of their theory. No one was there to observe it, and we can (by definition) not repeat it, as it is supposed to be a process of millions of years. I understand it's fair to say at a certain point "there's enough evidence, I believe it's true". But you must also see that there'll always be a "gap" that can't be filled. I'm just very happy as believer that there's this impossibility in proving the theory that I can use to not believe it!
Except that you not understanding or wanting to accept evidence is not the same as it not existing, there is no reasonable doubt that evolution occurred, I say reasonable because rejecting it based on your preconceived notion from a desert myth does not constitute reasonable.
I accept evidence exists that nullifies my reasons to believe. Don't think I'm putting my head in the sand. I totally understand why you believe in evolution and that the vast majority of people believe in it. The only reason I don't is because I believe in God. Maybe for you there is no doubt, but you have to understand that when I think Bible+evolution can't be that I would say there is a doubt. And I can rightfully say so, because evidence doesn't equal truth. Here truth is only in faith
You're looking at science all wrong, science has zero opinion about god or anything else that requires faith. Science doesn't by any means say you have to be atheist to understand biology. It's odd that you think that belief in an all powerful being should override a natural occurrence, which the being would be perfectly capable of.
I know, but some people rely on science as if it were the ultimate body of truth, while there is always a bridge (however small or large) to gap to call findings of science truth.
And well, evolution and the Bible don't seem to go together, so one of them is wrong. You make it sounds as if there's undeniable proof for evolution and that God to me makes me overlook that fact. While I'm saying that there's no proof, only evidence, so everyone is free to put their faith in evolution, or God
So if the map and the terrain you are to walk through differ, by your reasoning, you'd rather trust the map???
Stop it! Snap out of it! You hurt yourself in the long run. you ar on a mind drug and you can't see clearly, but I'm sure it feels good. But PLEASE; for your own sake, make an attempt to think it over again.
You're warning me? You're the one to be warned. You're the one playing with your life. How dare you tell me that I'm on a mind drug when you don't even try to empathize with me. You're locking yourself away from everything that really matters. God created everything from a grain of sand to every one of us and what do we do? We can observe how things work! All hail us! All we have is what is given to us. Before you know who to thank for that don't warn me I might hurt myself in this fading vapor
OK. you only want to know what you already know and you don't care that what you know has no evidence, is several thousand years old information, created or thought up in a world lacking any of the tools and knowledge we have today ... and you tell me I'm locking myself in, And for any new information to be cherry picked by and accepted by you, it has to conform to what you already believe and if it doesn't must somehow be fundamentaly wrong, Is this what you brag about when searching for a job?
Nah you shouldn't put the Bible on the same level of giving information as your random science textbook would. The Bible isn't there to give us the scientific explanations of things. The Bible is there to give us metaphysical information beyond the world and what we see. And in my opinion that's far more important to us (mankind) and frankly, we need God as much as they did thousands of years ago. We're still messed up and we still need our iniquities to be taken away to honor the Creator
This whole idea of evolution is nothing but a fairy tale. They put cartoons on Nova and let little kids believe in fairy tales. It is a religion and it is called "Evodelusionism".
The dishonest is to glaring for me to ignore. Haeckel stated ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny which isn't true but embryos do show their evolutionary history just not all of it. Second we still have Haeckel's drawing in classrooms as a historical reference, when science gets something wrong they admit it.
You can always see that aggressiveness and false assurance in Eugenie Scott's eyes. And yet it's always the same thing. A planned response that is the best defense for her view having no correlation to what is really in her heart. I'd bet at least.
I'd love to take control of her dreams and show her the beauty of creation and see the true response of her heart. After all, I don't think all anti-creationists hate creationism... they just don't like our particular brand of it.
Scientists aren't a religion. Scientists are people. I think you were trying to say that science is a religion, which is also false because many scientists are christian, and christianity is a religion.
Why is your argument against science to pull it to the level of religion which you are arguing for?
Yes, I meant: how scientists think they are not in a religion or religious.
Look it takes just as much faith to believe that in the theory of evolution as it does in creationism.
Much like in religion, people believe that "experts" tell them. In this case they call themselves scientists instead of clergy.
Science has become a religion in itself. Those who question it are persecuted. Those who don't agree are deemed stupid, confused and outcasts. How is that different than religion?
Actually, there's a huge difference. If you're so inclined and have the time and money (depending on the subject, might take much more money) you can replicate the results of science. If you don't want to take Tesla on authority, you can build your own Tesla generator and people have. The reason it's difficult for evolution is the sheer size of the concept and lengthy history. At some point you have to accept results from another lab to analyze yourself, or you'd die of old age trying.
However, you can test individual parts or even get into a research group and do continuous research yourself on it. Clergy is completely argument from authority because there is no way at all to verify it.
Clergy can agree on results of reading scripture. Some truths are elemental in religion... murder is wrong, lying is wrong, helping others is right, etc. Those are examples of universal truths.
Science has BECOME a religion. Just like religions, it is a man-made system. Sure, science in it's pure form is observance, but anything after that is human opinion and interference... just like religion.
>>Some truths are elemental in religion. murder is wrong, lying is wrong, helping others is right, etc. Those are examples of universal truths.
Spartans looked down on helping others and actively encouraged youths to be able to effectively steal without being caught. Maori warriors eat their opponents to gain their strength. Many religions used human sacrifice. And sociopaths. Not universal in the least.
>>Science has BECOME a religion. Just like religions, it is a man-made system. Sure, science in it's pure form is observance, but anything after that is human opinion and interference... just like religion.
Yea.... No. Science is a process of repeatedly testing and associating results. Claiming current science is religious is along the lines of claiming that having certainty that your car will start if there are no mechanical errors is religious because science is what did that.
Even this woman in the video admits that the evidence is biased, yet defends it. Come on!
Science has become a religion and the people that follow it believe in it as others believe in a god.
Doctors can't even cure the common cold. They can experiment on the elements that already exist, but cannot create anything new, they can only manipulate what is already there. Yet people believe what these people say as fact. That's a religion my friend. Hopefully you will see it one day. Peace.
Actually, she said Heckler was biased and so were his drawings, but that the principle holds true when we look at it.
Again, show how science is a religion because you haven't done it.
That's because "the common cold" is actually thousands of strains of viruses and not one. Science cured Polio, and small pox, and the list is actually quite large. There's been at least a dozen elements created in controlled nuclear reactions: so they can make new ones. Science has results, unlike religions.
Call me what you want. I stated an opinion, you jumped on it, asked me questions, which I answered, yet you don't accept them. That's fine, you don't have to.
Actually there was a point you just fail to see it. Nor can you have anything coherent to say back because you know jbbremerton is correct. Using personal attacks as a way of avoiding the issue lends no weight to your credability.
I don't care about this enough to bother with you any more. (IE don't feed the trolls). I won't respond to any more comments and might end up blocking/ignoring you if you spam me.
Coldwater Media is right down the street - I'm privileged to work with them on a number of projects, including Web-based promotion. Thanks for the pump! Randall
This has been flagged as spam show
There are 6800 and more genetic diseases caused by deleterious mutations, because there is no other kind of mutation.
READ TWICE: We know they are screwed up DNA coding because we can see the original fit condition in people who do not have the particular disease. Read AGAIN and again.
That means there is only genetic degradation shown in ALL the absolutely irrefutable physical evidence.
There is no evolution from simple towards complex.
GoodScienceForYou 3 days ago
1) Homologous embryo limb bud transplants. Species A can have limb buds transplanted onto Species B. This is possible because of common ancestry allowing for the cellular machinery of the organism to continue the growth. The intelligent design IS evolution. The design was made by the creator in the form of DNA and the cellular machinery that processes it. Evolution is simply a way of explaining the design. Is science ETHICAL? Not, always: eugenics. But, neither is religion: witch trials.
kagekirazuul 7 months ago
Those fake drawings are still used in modern day textbooks. If you want to see images, please search on Google:
What do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel's Embryos?
prototypo 8 months ago
Novel about an alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
I SMELL TOOTHPASTE.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AT31shot 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I smell toothpaste.!
AT31shot 1 year ago
I smell toothpaste.
AT31shot 1 year ago
I smell toothpaste
AT31shot 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Goto (Google It) GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum and learn how to learn, without beliefs forced on you. Also listen to some good Blues from my band HavenHead.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
Show the real embryos.. like modern biology textbooks do. The similarity predicted by evolution is evident, and this video didn't even really explain what that evidence is. The problem with the Haeckel embryos was that he lacked visual references and assumed that the embryos imitated ADULT morphology, which has been proven wrong since the early 1900s.
hugesinker 1 year ago
@hugesinker "Ernst Haeckel .... Mr. Honesty?"
Ernst Haeckel, 1860, atheist, biologist [Darwinian supporter] (used fraudulent material, omissions and exaggeration in human embryo drawings to prop up evolution). *The University he worked at held a trial in 1875 and convicted him of fraud.
Evolution is a evil l-i-e from Satan -- people that are deceived by it end up in hell.
Jesus said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me." (John 14:6)
GsliMaIiy 10 months ago
@GsliMaIiy Haeckel's drawings were never necessary to show embryological evidence of evolution because they could use real embryos. Now we have microphotographs.
You've been lied to about what Haeckel was convicted of fabricating-- watch?v=-_otdXN7gNE
hugesinker 10 months ago
@GsliMaIiy Also, why do you say "people that are deceived by it end up in hell." Don't you realize that most people who accept evolution ARE Christians who have asked Jesus to be their Lord and Savior? It's true, there are more Christians who accept it than atheists who accept it. If it was made up by Satan, then Satan is extremely incompetent.
Please watch this excellent Christian series about how modern natural sciences and religion can compliment each other: watch?v=Fperp1Mezt0
hugesinker 10 months ago
The ONLY good evidence I have found, is that more basic organisms are found lower than more complex. HOWEVER this doesn't give you the mechanism of how this came to be, evolution is still assumed in this instance, rather than verified.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
the main issue is not whether or not this is evidence for evolution. It's about whether the theory of monophyletic common descent or polyphyletic descent is correct. Just thought I should clarifies. Evolution is already assumed true in this video, with good reason.
MagnesiumMichael 1 year ago
@MagnesiumMichael
Actually the video is trying to show the weakness in the arguement of evolution. That is partially based on lies and frauds in an attempt to give itself credability.
The use of fraudulent data, just because its "easily available", is not acceptable when "teaching", (indoctrinating), the young minds of tomorrow. Even in my 2010 Uni text book haekles drawings were used in them, despite the fact they are fraudulent and are not based on reality
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 There's a part in the video where Eugine Scott explains that they still have explanatory teaching value to show the point that embryos are similar. It's a little more complex than their appearance. The drawings are good for showing kids who don't know much about evolution yet.
MagnesiumMichael 1 year ago
@MagnesiumMichael
By using false claims and false data. That is NOT science. No other scientific theory law or hypothesis resorts to the use of data that has been found to be fake. Period.
What Eugene Scott said was Crap. Science is about the FACTS not supporting a worldview with fake data.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 She's saying it's valid as a teaching method. She is aware that it is not science. The science part is the real similarity between embryos which is not discussed in this video.
MagnesiumMichael 1 year ago
@MagnesiumMichael
So its a valid teaching method to teach things with false information? They are supposed to be learning FACTS about the world. I'd rather they teach the children HOW to think rather than WHAT to think. Does using false information teach children to think for themselves?
Come on, you must realise that using false data to teach children is stupid, if not its propoganda.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Okay I'll admit it's false data. I still think that it can clearly be used as a metaphor for a fact of science though. Embryos are similar. They don't look THAT similar, but for a kid, they get the concept. It's amazing they look alike at all let alone having similar ontologies that recapitulate evolutionary phylogeny.
MagnesiumMichael 1 year ago
@MagnesiumMichael
thanks for admitting that :)
However I ask, have you watched this video? They show that the similarities of embryoes aren't that similar.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I know it's not discussed in the video so I suppose I lack evidence for my claim at the moment. But I'm alluding to similarities that are not physical or appearance-based. The progression that embryos go through (having gill slits etc) is astonishing when you compare. Kind of neat to think about. Anyway I really have no supporting evidence from this video so I guess I concede.
MagnesiumMichael 1 year ago
@MagnesiumMichael
Ok dude. However for clarification. There are no "gill slits", they are pouches of skin / membrane. The membrane of the pouches are never cut, hence they are not slits ever. I find it very misleading of people to call these pouches "gill slits", to infer an evolutionary link that is not there.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@MagnesiumMichael
Also what are the similarities in embryoes that are not physical / appearance based? What supposed similarities are you alluding to?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 It's difficult to discuss the finer points of embryology in this manner. Keep in mind this isn't definitive theory of evolution. It's only a fact that reinforces ideas of those who already hold evolution to be a true phenomenon. One fascinating similarity is the concept that all life progresses through: zygote -> blastula -> gastrula, etc. until they develop new symmetries, gill slits, etc. It's just kinda neat.
MagnesiumMichael 1 year ago
@MagnesiumMichael
So you do not wish to support your claim? I've asked you to clarify
As I said before. There are NO "gill slits", they are pouches of membrane, no slits occur. Hence your stating false claims to support your position.
Yes they somewhat share the starting stages, (though this video shows how some are different for similar creatures), however this can be evidence for common design as well. So no net gain in credability for evolution due to embryology.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Oh whatever. I'm not gonna be able to educate you on evolutionary embryology on YouTube. Use wikipedia or something. It's taught at every college in the world.
MagnesiumMichael 1 year ago
@MagnesiumMichael
I know it is, I had it crammed down my throat, ... talk about evangalising evolution! however the "gill slit" fallacy wasn't used at my Uni, perhaps they are getting smarter?
Look up the definition of a "slit" (ie- a cut or tear), then use this definition on these supposed "gill slits", they ARE pouches of skin, nothing more.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I don't find the slit / pouch dilemma to be very compelling. After all it's astonishing that parts of a human embryo resemble gills in any way at all. Is it not? But you are causing me some distress, should I stop believing embryology is good evidence for evolution? is there better evidence?
MagnesiumMichael 1 year ago
@MagnesiumMichael If you watched the video then it would be apparant that embryology is not a good arguement for evolution. You are just resembling something isn't the same as being something. A computer resembles the brain, yet they are aren't the same thing, plus it isn't a scientific (empirical) assertion, just one based on a worldview.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
WHAT A LOT OF CRAP, darwin has been proven wrong so many times, typy 2012 , and read were it say WHAT DARWIN DIDN'T KNOW part 2.
BOBCARUANA1956 1 year ago
2/3
Father's [Rev. Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.
DNAunion 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins was asked by scientists in a famous interview on TV to give one example where new information arises by chance in matter and couldnt give one example and had to end the interview. Because all mutations studied at the molecular level reduce the information in the geno making evolution impossible. I shall be placing that video on utube shortly, God Bless.
EvolutionNoEvidence 1 year ago
1/3
Wells has strong religious reasons for rejecting evolution, and had them long before he ever attended college for biology.
----------------------
[Rev. Moon] he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God's involvement in nature or history ...
DNAunion 2 years ago
take a look at this video and then come back and say that Jonathan Wells is making an honest statement regarding embryology. He's obviously not interested in an unbiased presentation of what is known at this
watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ
Copy and paste the URL.
And please watch the WHOLE video ... DonExodus2 makes great videos because he knows what he's talking about and he cares about it ...
heyawhaw 2 years ago
This video is a fucking stupid attempt to miscredit things that are being phased out by real science just like Eugenie Scott explain in the middle. And that guy at the end, where is the source for that statement?
heyawhaw 2 years ago
many find the intelligence of Eugenie Scott very very attractive. She has a great smile.
TeamDarwin1809 2 years ago
That's in my textbook!
MavericKLongRange 2 years ago
obviously the textbooks are going to pick embyros that look similar to prove that evolution did occur because not all embryos are related or were related.
mishyfishyx3 2 years ago
Are you guys serious? You really think that the "look" of early stage embryos supports the notion of common ancestry? Think about it! The DNA is all there at the moment of conception -- sperm and egg... It's going to be a tadpole, or an elephant, or a human, regardless of the first week look of the zygote -- There is no womb-based evolution going on! Never has... The genetic information is all there... day one.
reflect7 2 years ago
It's not about the look of the embryos it is the devolopment paths that they take.
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago
@reflect7 Well said
BOBCARUANA1956 1 year ago
@reflect7 You don't seem to understand. The idea is that the changes that occur in embryonic development recapitulate evolutionary history. It's not that they evolve in the womb. Not only do animals that are believed to be closely related share many stages in their embryonic development, but there are still primitive animals that exist today which resemble early embryonic forms of chordates.
Makingnewnamesisdumb 1 year ago
What a lovely piece of propaganda. They failed to mention that we actually did take pictures of the embryoes and these similarities were there objectively. These people are lying for Jesus.
This is equivalent to what people did when dinosaurs were discovered. Someone would fabricate a dinosaur bone and then someone will point it out and say "That was fabricated! Therefore all dinosaurs are fake!"
D0ubleHelixFilms 2 years ago
Creationist propaganda seems to be strong with this user.
Hey, reality check. Haeckel's embryos are known frauds and aren't used today. And it was a fraud in the sense that it exaggerated features (like in a cartoon) to exemplify a point. The features exaggerated actually do exist, but not to the extent that haeckel wrongly drew.
What is it about creationists that prevent them from making honest arguments? I mean is it a commandment now? Thou shalt lie to deceive others for your cause.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
It's funny that you call it propaganda while it's people being indoctrinated by evidence for evolution. Not once in my entire education has this evolution theory been put side by side with creationism or something. Not once is it put in relation to any other theory or is the "truth" of it put in perspective.
Now that is a dangerous thing to do.
People grow up to become critics to anything that is not what they've been taught as true. While they should be able to judge all evidence equally
vincentjdrummer 2 years ago
vincent no offense but this is a stupid thing to say.
Why would anyone teach creationism next to evolution?
Would you teach alchemy next to chemistry? Astrology next to astronomy?
No, you wouldn't. Vincent, you can't say what you're saying and understand how evolution works. It's simply not possible. You can believe in what ever evidence you want and accept the reality that is evolution.
What you can't do, is stick your head in the sand and believe myths about the age of the earth and so.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
Yeah I guess you're right.
This is simply what it means to live in a secular world.
But I (of course) still believe the Bible.
Even if there was die hard proof found that contradicts the Bible I still wouldn't believe it, because my faith is stronger than to stumble at non-christians finding evidence for their ideas. I hardly take science in general serious anymore, because I think most of it has been drenched by and has incorporated the idea that the earth is 4.5 billion years old
vincentjdrummer 2 years ago
In a sense you're absolutely right about sticking my head in the sand. I completely admit I don't believe anything speaking out contradicting the Bible, before I hear the arguments. So I'm very prejudiced. Evolutionists don't like that.
But there's things that I find more important than science, so science can never change my mind.
However, there's certainly evidence for the truth of the Bible and I think science is compatible with it when used right. But faith >knowledge at a certain level imo
vincentjdrummer 2 years ago
You can believe in God and still accept Evolution. Most theists do. The only people that really have a problem are radical muslims and evangelicals.
Science is our best understanding of the world around us. I would recommend you the "Why God Demands Evolution" video on my profile.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
Thanks for the recommendation.
I don't agree though. I have only one source of divine authority, the Bible. In that what it states is truth (it says so), it must be scientifically true.
But you either believe the entire Bible, or none of it. The theory of evolution is compromising the truth of the Bible and is therefore not true. So I boldly disagree that you can believe in God and still accept evolution.
vincentjdrummer 2 years ago
It only contradicts the Bible if you make it. There are plenty of people that accept reconcile scientific understandings with their faith, by interpreting their holy books in a different way.
There was a time when people misinterpreted the Bible and assumed the Earth was flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth.
Science didn't contradict this, your interpretation of those sections was just enhanced. Why assume your interpretation of it is correct, in the face of evidence?
deRoyLight 2 years ago
Because there isn't much room for speculation on this subject. The flat earth theory wasn't derived from the bible, and the sun revolving around the earth is a minor issue too.
We are now talking about "did God create the world and us like He said He did".
My "interpretation" is believing the literal truth of every single verse. If you take the bible as a non-literal book, you're compromising the truth (cause it never says it is) and can just as well throw the entire thing away.
vincentjdrummer 2 years ago
Taking the bible literally with every word, I think unfortunately misses much of the point in the Bible. The Bible was written in a time where allegory was extremely popular, and the primary means of story telling. To take things literally that were meant to be allegorical, is really to miss the point.
For example, Jonah and the Whale. Many people today don't interpret this as a literal event, but rather a platform to convey more important truths.
To take it literally is to miss the point.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
I have to disagree again. The story of Jonah in the fish can be seen as symbol for having to go through a hard time to go back to the Lord, or for having to suffer if you run from Him.
And the thing is when you take that story literally... The symbolism remains.
The only reason someone has to not take it literally is because they think it's illogical to happen. But they must realise we are dealing with a supernatural God and believing miracles is essential to the whole point of Christianity
vincentjdrummer 2 years ago
it wasn't a Whale... &secondly,if there is a God, which there is, then u must accept that the God behind the bible would have enough supernatural power 2sustain a human inside an enormous fish,and make it possible for an enormous fish to do Gods bidding..nothing is impossible with God.. there are historical accounts of humans surviving such an attack and being cut out of the fish's belly.Jesus Christ took the bible LITERALLY.I think if He did,perhaps we should.Afterall, He is God,He would know.
0871368021 2 years ago
the whole point is that nothing is supernatural,nature is all there is.All religions are man made rubbish to expain what they dont understand ,its human nature ,but nothing to do with truth.
billysue2 2 years ago
@billysue2 sorry i dont believe a word you said..but i believe Jesus Christ when He said "Iam the Way Truth and Life"..and I believe the word when it says that it shall come to pass in the last days that whoseover calls upon the nameof the Lord Jesus Christ from their heart -SHALL BE SAVED... Jesus is TRUTH
0871368021 2 years ago
@0871368021 Oh man, you're delusional!!! You'd rather swallow a temporarily comforting statement you can't substantiate with any evidence but what's in an old book, than stretch your mind and fathom what contemporary science actually has gathered in experiments and reproducible tests, yet you use the fruits of these test like the computer technology and the internet to try to prove your feeble reasoning. All science is built on the same methods, and arguing against it makes you look silly : )
heyawhaw 2 years ago
@heyawhaw ok, the bible is a fairytale and there is no such thing as God right? give me the evidence you stand on that supports your belief system.
0871368021 2 years ago
@heyawhaw give me one irrifutable piece of undeniable scientifically PROVEN piece of evidence that nails it for you ...that the absolute truth without question is that there really is no God... surprise me...
0871368021 2 years ago
@0871368021
It's you who say there is one, so it's up to you to prove your claims, right?
If you're so hellbent for others to come up with evidence, you must be pretty good at it yourself?
I see no god because I don't know where to look, that's all. You obviously have irrifutable pieces of undeniable scientifically PROVEN piece of evidence that nails it for you...that the absolute truth without question is that there really IS a god so go ahead.
heyawhaw 2 years ago
For Christians I think it's a seriously bad thing to do. Because no matter how you twist and turn it, you are compromising divine revelation, because you have too little faith in the Bible. Christians accept the evolution theory because they think the word of scientists is of higher authority than the Word of God. And by that I really think they're playing with their life. Don't believe genesis? Then why would you believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins? Genesis is really a test for trust
vincentjdrummer 2 years ago
You're definitely trolling now
"The bible is true because the bible says so"
hahaha
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
What I wanted to say with that is that when you believe the Bible is the Word of God everything it says is true must be true. Here's the gap we can't bridge
vincentjdrummer 2 years ago
Yes, when you start off with the assumption that its true you'll end with the personal conclusion that its true. That doesn't make it actually true. The thing you're declaring circularly true is what you're being asked to prove in the first place. So far it's just been what I refer to as the wheel of power. Why believe the bible? "It's infallible." How do you know? "It's the word of god." How do you know THAT? "Because the bible tells us so" Repeat ad nauseum.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Sure, but that's simply what it means to be a christian.
We don't have any arguments that will make you believe us or the Bible. It all comes down to that moment where you feel the personal care of God in your life and don't really care about anything else. It's fine if we don't agree on what we believe in, but you should be aware that nothing I say will convince you, and nothing you say will convince me
vincentjdrummer 2 years ago
The good part is that evolutionists can not give full proof of their theory. No one was there to observe it, and we can (by definition) not repeat it, as it is supposed to be a process of millions of years. I understand it's fair to say at a certain point "there's enough evidence, I believe it's true". But you must also see that there'll always be a "gap" that can't be filled. I'm just very happy as believer that there's this impossibility in proving the theory that I can use to not believe it!
vincentjdrummer 2 years ago
Except that you not understanding or wanting to accept evidence is not the same as it not existing, there is no reasonable doubt that evolution occurred, I say reasonable because rejecting it based on your preconceived notion from a desert myth does not constitute reasonable.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
I accept evidence exists that nullifies my reasons to believe. Don't think I'm putting my head in the sand. I totally understand why you believe in evolution and that the vast majority of people believe in it. The only reason I don't is because I believe in God. Maybe for you there is no doubt, but you have to understand that when I think Bible+evolution can't be that I would say there is a doubt. And I can rightfully say so, because evidence doesn't equal truth. Here truth is only in faith
vincentjdrummer 2 years ago
You're looking at science all wrong, science has zero opinion about god or anything else that requires faith. Science doesn't by any means say you have to be atheist to understand biology. It's odd that you think that belief in an all powerful being should override a natural occurrence, which the being would be perfectly capable of.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
I know, but some people rely on science as if it were the ultimate body of truth, while there is always a bridge (however small or large) to gap to call findings of science truth.
And well, evolution and the Bible don't seem to go together, so one of them is wrong. You make it sounds as if there's undeniable proof for evolution and that God to me makes me overlook that fact. While I'm saying that there's no proof, only evidence, so everyone is free to put their faith in evolution, or God
vincentjdrummer 2 years ago
@vincentjdrummer
So if the map and the terrain you are to walk through differ, by your reasoning, you'd rather trust the map???
Stop it! Snap out of it! You hurt yourself in the long run. you ar on a mind drug and you can't see clearly, but I'm sure it feels good. But PLEASE; for your own sake, make an attempt to think it over again.
heyawhaw 2 years ago
You're warning me? You're the one to be warned. You're the one playing with your life. How dare you tell me that I'm on a mind drug when you don't even try to empathize with me. You're locking yourself away from everything that really matters. God created everything from a grain of sand to every one of us and what do we do? We can observe how things work! All hail us! All we have is what is given to us. Before you know who to thank for that don't warn me I might hurt myself in this fading vapor
vincentjdrummer 2 years ago
OK. you only want to know what you already know and you don't care that what you know has no evidence, is several thousand years old information, created or thought up in a world lacking any of the tools and knowledge we have today ... and you tell me I'm locking myself in, And for any new information to be cherry picked by and accepted by you, it has to conform to what you already believe and if it doesn't must somehow be fundamentaly wrong, Is this what you brag about when searching for a job?
heyawhaw 2 years ago
Nah you shouldn't put the Bible on the same level of giving information as your random science textbook would. The Bible isn't there to give us the scientific explanations of things. The Bible is there to give us metaphysical information beyond the world and what we see. And in my opinion that's far more important to us (mankind) and frankly, we need God as much as they did thousands of years ago. We're still messed up and we still need our iniquities to be taken away to honor the Creator
vincentjdrummer 2 years ago
your just trolling, right? : )
heyawhaw 2 years ago
I can't look at those embryo photos without thinking of Eraserhead :( That movie was scary as!
NoeLPZC 2 years ago
interesting vid. i remember learning about evolution from those same drawings in high school biology. thanks for posting.
sumwhatparanoid 2 years ago
Could anyone tell NephilimFree to unblock me, as I cannot accept his friend invitation nor PM him. Thanks.
MajSmJz 2 years ago
Nephilimfree blocks people to distance himself from other ideas that may change his little mind.
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago
Seems fishy that they didn't allow Ms. Scott to rebut the point made by Mr. Wells.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
This whole idea of evolution is nothing but a fairy tale. They put cartoons on Nova and let little kids believe in fairy tales. It is a religion and it is called "Evodelusionism".
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
people say we can't believe the Bible on faith alone, but here they have misleading images that they lean on BY FAITH ALONE!
jbbremerton 2 years ago 3
epic triumph!
jbbremerton 2 years ago
The dishonest is to glaring for me to ignore. Haeckel stated ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny which isn't true but embryos do show their evolutionary history just not all of it. Second we still have Haeckel's drawing in classrooms as a historical reference, when science gets something wrong they admit it.
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago
Man, talk about cherry picking (3:46)!! Great video Randall. Thanks for adding. God Bless Bro.
stevendrake01 2 years ago
You can always see that aggressiveness and false assurance in Eugenie Scott's eyes. And yet it's always the same thing. A planned response that is the best defense for her view having no correlation to what is really in her heart. I'd bet at least.
I'd love to take control of her dreams and show her the beauty of creation and see the true response of her heart. After all, I don't think all anti-creationists hate creationism... they just don't like our particular brand of it.
shiningcross 2 years ago
no they do hate it because they hate God and force themselves not to believe in Him so they don't feel guilty.
jbbremerton 2 years ago
It's amazing how scientist think that they are not a religion.
Tavlo 2 years ago
Scientists aren't a religion. Scientists are people. I think you were trying to say that science is a religion, which is also false because many scientists are christian, and christianity is a religion.
Why is your argument against science to pull it to the level of religion which you are arguing for?
wightboy12345 2 years ago
Yes, I meant: how scientists think they are not in a religion or religious.
Look it takes just as much faith to believe that in the theory of evolution as it does in creationism.
Much like in religion, people believe that "experts" tell them. In this case they call themselves scientists instead of clergy.
Science has become a religion in itself. Those who question it are persecuted. Those who don't agree are deemed stupid, confused and outcasts. How is that different than religion?
Tavlo 2 years ago
Actually, there's a huge difference. If you're so inclined and have the time and money (depending on the subject, might take much more money) you can replicate the results of science. If you don't want to take Tesla on authority, you can build your own Tesla generator and people have. The reason it's difficult for evolution is the sheer size of the concept and lengthy history. At some point you have to accept results from another lab to analyze yourself, or you'd die of old age trying.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
However, you can test individual parts or even get into a research group and do continuous research yourself on it. Clergy is completely argument from authority because there is no way at all to verify it.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
Clergy can agree on results of reading scripture. Some truths are elemental in religion... murder is wrong, lying is wrong, helping others is right, etc. Those are examples of universal truths.
Science has BECOME a religion. Just like religions, it is a man-made system. Sure, science in it's pure form is observance, but anything after that is human opinion and interference... just like religion.
Tavlo 2 years ago
>>Some truths are elemental in religion. murder is wrong, lying is wrong, helping others is right, etc. Those are examples of universal truths.
Spartans looked down on helping others and actively encouraged youths to be able to effectively steal without being caught. Maori warriors eat their opponents to gain their strength. Many religions used human sacrifice. And sociopaths. Not universal in the least.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
>>Science has BECOME a religion. Just like religions, it is a man-made system. Sure, science in it's pure form is observance, but anything after that is human opinion and interference... just like religion.
Yea.... No. Science is a process of repeatedly testing and associating results. Claiming current science is religious is along the lines of claiming that having certainty that your car will start if there are no mechanical errors is religious because science is what did that.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
Even this woman in the video admits that the evidence is biased, yet defends it. Come on!
Science has become a religion and the people that follow it believe in it as others believe in a god.
Doctors can't even cure the common cold. They can experiment on the elements that already exist, but cannot create anything new, they can only manipulate what is already there. Yet people believe what these people say as fact. That's a religion my friend. Hopefully you will see it one day. Peace.
Tavlo 2 years ago
Actually, she said Heckler was biased and so were his drawings, but that the principle holds true when we look at it.
Again, show how science is a religion because you haven't done it.
That's because "the common cold" is actually thousands of strains of viruses and not one. Science cured Polio, and small pox, and the list is actually quite large. There's been at least a dozen elements created in controlled nuclear reactions: so they can make new ones. Science has results, unlike religions.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
Spoken like a true devout follower.
Tavlo 2 years ago
Spoken like a true troll who doesn't have a point.
wightboy12345 2 years ago 4
Call me what you want. I stated an opinion, you jumped on it, asked me questions, which I answered, yet you don't accept them. That's fine, you don't have to.
Peace.
~T
Tavlo 2 years ago
I made counter points to your 'answers' and you didn't accept them (in fact you just blew them off with no response). That makes you a troll.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
@wightboy12345
Actually there was a point you just fail to see it. Nor can you have anything coherent to say back because you know jbbremerton is correct. Using personal attacks as a way of avoiding the issue lends no weight to your credability.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
seriously, you come back after a year to say "NAHUH!" ?
Super Troll.
wightboy12345 1 year ago 2
@wightboy12345
Lol.. and look what YOU just did.
Super troll yourself :p
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
I don't care about this enough to bother with you any more. (IE don't feed the trolls). I won't respond to any more comments and might end up blocking/ignoring you if you spam me.
wightboy12345 1 year ago
Another five star favorite. Randall...are you just featuring this video or are you part of the production in some way?
TheEdge012 2 years ago
Coldwater Media is right down the street - I'm privileged to work with them on a number of projects, including Web-based promotion. Thanks for the pump! Randall
reflect7 2 years ago
haha they just keep getting bumped, Awesome!
iToyRobot 2 years ago