@Tapiola2007 This seminar is very good. Dr. Silvestru, Ph.D in geology from ‘Babes-Bolyai’ University in Cluj, Romania (where he was associate professor),is a world authority on the geology of caves,published 41 scientific papers & 3 books. He was for years the head scientist at the world’s first Speleological Institute. His seminar summarizes the vast evidence for a global flood
watch?v=L-BaMAt4dnE (Start at 36:00. ~54:00 deals with how catastrophic plate tectonics supports the global flood).
@Tapiola2007 Good. Then you should know that 40 methods (with many debunked) do not beat 100 methods. Creation has been science of the hardest sort for centuries (btw, Behe isn't an IDer, not a creationist). But, ID has plenty of testable evidences. See the links in the notes here:
watch?v=SgGTsSwje4Y
~scientific method...ROFL. It was creationists that INVENTED that, starting with Daniel in the Bible in ~600 B.C. Peer reviewed journals agree with that.
@Tapiola2007 Bible science and creation science have literally 100s of not 1000s of fully confirmed. more than ID has. I'll just list 4 major ones because of space constraints.
1) The Bible predicted an expanding universe for 1000s of years while steady state was the accepted view. Science finally caught up and confirmed that./
2) The Bible pioneered the biogenesis hypothesis while spontaneous generation was reigning. Biogenesis is now a law of science.
3) Creationists like John Wilkins, Patrick Matthew, Edward Blyth, etc. published on natural selection, speciation, etc. based on Genesis LONG before Darwin.
4) Creation science taught a combination of uniformitarianism and catastrophism. Geology has moved far towards this model.
5) Creation science predicted most so-called vestigial organs&junk-DNA would have function. Creation has been powerfully vindicated&papers showing function for “junk DNA” are being published almost daily.
@Tapiola2007 6) We know many biological features that keep evolution limited to specific levels. See Dr. Gauger’s interview and peer reviewed paper in the notes in this link for just 1 of them.
watch?v=SgGTsSwje4Y
See also this link on how diamonds refute billions of years.
@Tapiola2007 With all due respect, how much do you know about how science works? Science is supposed to follow the weight of evidence. And the weight of evidence is decisively on the side of creation science. Scientists on ALL sides agree 100% that creation science has beaten most of its major rivals in terms of verifiable scientific evidence. In this area also, we have 100+ methods showing a young age for life on earth. ~40 show an old age,&dino soft tissue debunks many of those.
@TruthIsLife7 I work in biochemistry. Good enough? Even if I didn't, a basic education is enough to grapple with the issues here. The fact that you even use the expression "creation science" means you have a false understanding of the scientific method. Please give me a single instance of "verifiable scientific evidence" produced by so-called Creationist scientists. Even your poster boy Michael Behe couldn't when under oath and asked to do so by a judge. When you're ready, join the real world.
What has Genesis and Bible believers' claims got to do with discovery? It's a fascinating and most unexpected possibility that has to be completely understood before any hard and fast conclusions can be drawn from it. It certainly contradicts current understanding of the fossilization process and the breakdown of soft organic matter. At no point has it upturned the paradigm of an ancient Earth or dinosaur history, which depend on a wealth of separate and incontrovertible evidence. Just pathetic!
These called scientists are retarded, How can an organic stuff be preserved millions of years witouth any protection? Obviously, the bible gives the right explanation, dinos and man lived together, and it is not millioms, but thousand, evidence in our favor, as usual.
People are never going to hear about this in school or anywhere else, this story is going to be silenced. she even said it herself, "This isn't possible" because in here veiw, It can't be possible, the millions of years view is cut in stone as far as this scienctist is concerned.
But the real evidence points to the world view flood, and the fact that man lived with dinos.
Dinosaurs loved and died tens of millions of years ago. If soft tissue was discovered then the soft tissue is tens of millions of years old. This bullshit about humans and dinosaurs living at the same time is biblical bullshit.
@Cainkane1 a priori presuppositions like you have made are the enemy of science, not its friend. Science has never ever progressed that way. There are NUMEROUS accounts of people living with dinosaurs in the past. Many people drew them anatomically correct...something impossible without actually seeing them or painstaking modern science...neither of which ancient people had. What's more important to you, evolution tradition or science? You can't have both.
Note...that there are some cases where a few anomalies can be so strong to falsify an idea...but in the case of the Bible in history, regular science and creation science, in literally 1000s of cases, the more time goes by and the more evidence is uncovered, the more the Bible's statements are confirmed. The fossil record is overwhelmingly in favor of creation..but there are still some issues to figure out. For UCD though,nearly all phyla suddenly appearing in 1% of history almost destroys UCD.
@TruthIsLife7 Note...that there are some cases where a few anomalies can be so strong to falsify an idea...but in the case of the Bible/creationism vs regular science, in literally 1000s of cases, the more time goes by and the more evidence is uncovered by science and theories are confirmed. The fossil record is overwhelmingly in favor of Evolution but there are still some people who can't figure it out.
How does the Cambrian Explosion 230 Million years ago ''favor creation''???
@gregrutz No Greg, you are 100% DEAD wrong in every particle. So many versions and concepts of universal common descent have been falsified and abandoned even by evolutionists and most who are educated know that UCD has very little to do with Darwin's ideas. 85% of the fossil record doesn't have ANY match to UCD, esp. not the Cambrian (note, NOBODY claims it's 230 million years old) which has fossils of nearly all phyla confirming creation science predictions and debunking UCD.
@qabala Um, the book I'm writing is 350+ pages (with 1000s more pages other data). Posting here is nothing :).
1) Hebrews 1:2 says "God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the UNIVERSE." If it were certain that the universe didn't have a beginning that for sure would refute that claim of the Bible (but should you trust scientific establishments as perfect seeing that for ~2000 years they taught steady state)
2) The Bible states that life comes from God or from reproduction. I’d like to see the 5 ways you talk about.Most I’m sure are misusing language. Spontaneous Generation devised many experiments..and so has abiogenesis. All failed.
3) I don’t think you understand what it means to falsify something. More importantly…you seem to think that finding 1 flaw can destroy a gigantic concept, even a worldview. If that were true, nobody should believe universal common descent, since so much of it has been falsified. Worldviews and major concepts don’t get rejected by a few anomalies or some parts that don’t work.
That’s just not how science has EVER EVER EVER worked since no person is infallible.Again, spend some time reading Dr. Kuhn’s seminal work, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. The weight of evidence is what is crucial and creation science has this FAR more than UCD.
4) You don’t seem to be understanding what creation predicts about the fossil record. Go to the notes here
watch?v=eZJxbBQKvBA
and esp. the links I listed in the notes. The strata DO conform quite well to creationist predictions and there is no problem for a flood to create many layers. On my creation-evidence for the flood playlist, you can see live experiments on stratification doing just that.
Universal common descent has infinitely more problems than creation does. Nothing has falsified a worldwide flood. There is vast evidence in support of that from science. Does it have some things it hasn’t figured out yet? Yes. That does NOT mean it’s falsified. AGAIN, the weight of evidence is what matters and the Cambrian alone makes universal common descent impossible scientifically plus MANY others.
@qabala I have already given you 3 falsifiable tests:
1) The Bible says the universe was created and so had a beginning (Hebrews 1:2). This was stated in steady state's heydey. Btw, the Bible doesn't say it was created out of nothing, but the logical options are infinite regress, out of nothing and/or God.
2) The Bible stated that life only comes from other life.
3) The fossil record should basically be in the general order from marine sessile at bottom to free swimming to land animals.
@qabala For more details on how the order of the fossil record&the Cambrian explosion match creationist predictions better than universal common descent, check this video & the notes.
watch?v=eZJxbBQKvBA
The video deals with the Cambrian Fossils & in the notes I wrote a simple summary of what creation predicts & links to scientists who explain it&UCD problems in more detail (the 1st link in the notes is to Dr. Veith a former hardcore atheist and teacher of evolution with Ph.D. in zoology).
1) The bible does NOT say the universe was created, it says the heavens and the earth were created and it was written at least two and a half thousand years before the steady-state theory was even considered. That the universe has a beginning is neither confirmed nor refuted. If it were refuted, it wouldn't falsify creationism so it ISN'T a scientific prediction.
2) The bible does NOT claim life ONLY comes from life. It clearly describes at least five instances of life coming about through other means.
Furthermore, no experiment has yet been devised to test the assertion of whether life can come about through other means so, again, you've jumped to a conclusion.
Finally, if we do life coming about through other means, it also wouldn't falsify creationism so, again, it isn't a scientific prediction.
3) The fossil record ISN'T in the order you say creationism predicts. It shows land animals in dry-formed rock topped by sea creatures in water-formed rock topped by dry-formed layers, topped by water-formed layers, etc.
Though the strata don't conform to your creationist prediction, it still doesn't falsify creationism so, once again, it isn't a scientific prediction.
It does, however, falsify a worldwide flood. But the flood and creation can be separate topics.
There are MANY more besides these. But, there is a problem, the limits of human knowledge. If for example you lived in the time of the Greeks and followed conventional scientific thought, you would think that the Bible was wrong even though we now know it to be right. How do you know this is not a problem for the conventional evolutionist thought now?
One reason the Bible is so credible is that when it has conflicted with scientific/historical conventional thought, long term it has consistently been vindicated and been more accurate than anything else.
Re: the problem of changing goal posts...there is nothing wrong with changing views. It's part of increasing human knowledge. The Bible has never claimed that it has all knowledge. God gave us some critical foundational&some very advanced knowledge there, but didn't tell us everything because
He also gave us a brain for the purpose of us USING it to enjoy the thrill of discovering some things for ourselves...similar to what all great teachers do. But, the problem of changing goal posts is a FAR more serious problem for evolutionists than it has ever been for creationists as I pointed out in my PM to you.
Saying that God did it is no different from saying that Henry Ford did it in building Model Ts or somebody did it in building the Easter Island statues. We may not how all the hows and whys mechanisms, etc. But, that somebody designed them is obvious and the same is true of nature and is one of 1000s of evidences for a creator (altho a more philosophical one or inferential scientific one). But, Creation and Christianity CAN be falsified and defeated. But, it’s VERY difficult.
You have to provide MORE evidence that explains MORE questions, facts, data, reality, etc. and provides MORE benefits to society than Christianity has. Nobody has so far come anywhere close to doing that. THIS is one big reason why Christianity has convinced so many atheists, scientists, historians and other intellectuals throughout history that it is true.
@qabala The 1st thing is to get accurate definitions, then look at some predictions...I sent links with only a few of 1000s that are made by creation. I think you need to read Dr. Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions"...while there are a few cases where a few predictions can falsify a major theory, that's usually not the case. It is the weight of evidence that determines what we understand to be true or not..since people don't have perfect knowledge&anomalies may become resolved.
@qabala Many scientists& organizations like National Geographic say the Big Bang deals with the origin or beginning of the universe.(Btw, beginning may but doesn't have to mean coming from nothing.)
watch?v=nVsHjnY-o9s
Check Google scholar: Michael Quentin "The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe"
But, do you think there was no beginning? If so, do you accept that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years old. If there was no beginning, how do you determine an age?
@TruthIsLife7 If you mention only one claim of something and act as if that is all it claims, that is a straw man. If you also try to compare the act of creation with evolution, that's a false comparison fallacy and no different from someone trying to falsify universal common descent with photosynthesis or biogenesis. Hopefully these are unintentional by you.
I'm VERY glad to see you're willing to actually read &watch things by people with different views. Highly commendable¬ many do that.
I didn't say that was ALL it was. You are the one who stated that creation predicts life ONLY comes from life. The fact that life was ever spoken into existence means that life, according to creation, either springs from life, or is spoken into existence.
Science, on the other hand, has not determined that life ONLY comes from life.
You were misrepresenting your own position, by way of omission.
Like I said, physics can't comment on anything earlier than a microsecond after the big bang so there is still a question mark as to whether the big bang was the beginning of existence. It is certainly the origin of our perceivable universe but who is to say that our perceivable universe is all there is?
I accept an age of 13.7 billion years based on the universes current rate of expansion and the consequential deduction of when all matter would have been concentrated.
@qabala I'm very busy working on several important things now, but l'll send you a PM soon with the def. and quite a bit of information. The definition I use is widely accepted by creationists and was used in a court case, but I have a couple small modifications to it. While you're waiting, watch videos 1-8 here
user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/14FDE276E5C97E24
Why do you think Pascal's wager is a false dichotomy?
I don't think I called you an atheist, but apologize if I did.
You can send me a PM, but I will not debate via PM.
Whatever definition you choose to use. I don't care if it's the consensus view, as long as you can show how creation makes any scientific predictions. Your last "predictions" can be accounted for via other mechanisms and, even if they were proven false, would not disprove creation, so they were not scientific predictions at all.
@qabala I've sent you a PM. Sorry it was late...very busy. A couple points.
Whether something can be accounted for by other mechanisms does NOT stop it from being evidence. NEVER has. Science doesn't work that way. It's counted as evidence for all hypotheses it supports. If you're idea were correct, then evolution would have numerous problems and more than creation science.
Yes, science at present HAS determined that life ONLY comes from other life...it's the law of biogenesis.
Creation has plenty of falsifiable predictions and probably more than evolution does overall and add to that, 2 of creation science's 3 major rivals (steady state & spontaneous generation/abiogenes) have been debunked as pseudo science and MUCH of the 3rd, universal common descent, has also been abandoned, even by atheists and evolutionists.
Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawkings and others talk about a universe from nothing...so do you disagree with them and many at all levels like them?
You have yet to posit one potential falsification of creationism, which is what is asked for when a request is made for a scientific prediction.
It seems that any potential falsification of creationism can be answered with "it's a miracle". Am I wrong?
A universe from nothing is certainly a possibility under quantum mechanics, but I think we would agree that such a proposal is untestable. I think Krause and Hawkings would agree.
Furthermore, A universe from nothing isn't necessary. Creationists like to say that cosmologists claim nothing created everything, but they understand the claim backwards.
More accurately the big bang describes everything expanding from a concentrated point, thereby, creating nothing.
What happened before the big bang can't be commented on as all laws of physics (as we know them) break down at the singularity.
@qabala Sorry, but there is not even ONE particle of truth in your claims that creationism can't make any scientific predictions. NOT ONE. The only people that can make claims like you are doing are those who are either completely ignorant (not your fault) or dishonest on a level of saying the holocaust never happened.
Yes, I've been personally banned from listing facts on a number of atheist and evolutionist videos. Atheism is the most anti-free thought view when it gets power bar none.
Feel free to cite a testable prediction that can ONLY be explained by creationism.
Otherwise your posts are pure flatulence.
I don't know why you are even mentioning atheism. Most "evolutionists" are christians. Most creationists are hindus or muslims. And several notable atheists reject evolution.
I'll bet you were banned for your rhetoric and not for your belief. Care to cite a video where you were banned?
@qabala I like to assume people are honest, and give them a simple test first to see if they are before going deeper.
Creation science predicted that life only comes from other life & that the universe had a beginning when the steady state and spontaneous generation were the reigning ideologies. Creationist predictions were 100% confirmed.
There's no point in talking about many other predictions if you don't have the scientific integrity to admit that these are evidence for creation.
Creation, specifically claims that life is simply spoken into existence. Never observed.
The universe has never been observed to have a beginning. The big bang is supported by mountains of evidence, but whether or not it was the beginning is still debated.
So no, neither of the above were predicted by creationism, nor would they disprove creationism if they were shown to be false.
You obviously don't know what a scientific prediction is, but it's cute that you try.
@qabala Sorry, but you don't even know how to define creation properly (which is not unusual). It is NOT only that life was spoken into existence. That's a common straw man. You also don't seem to know that leading scientists on BOTH sides have said the the universe had a beginning and you seem to be confused about what a scientific prediction and confirmation actually is. I suggest reading Dr. Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" for a basic primer on this.
I'm assuming you are referring to creation as it appears in Genesis. Am I correct? If so, it most certainly does claim life (and the universe) was spoken into existence.
I know I'm not going to get a response here, but feel free to cite the peer-reviewed evidence that states that the universe began at all.
Physics can't comment on anything that happened before, at, or even microseconds after the big bang so I'd love to see this evidence.
qabala You can't judge anything until you can actually define it and understand its claims. Only 1 out of ~1000 atheists so far has been able to define the creation concept accurately. Show that you can do that and show integrity about the biblical predictions of biogenesis and the beginning of universe, then we can get to 1000s of lines of evidence for Bible science and history with billions of confirmations, many with predictions confirmed by peer review.
If you don't think I can define creationism correctly, quit playing games. Either define it, or post a link for me to get a thorough definition (that you accept). I can guarantee that your definition is not the only one used by creationists, but I am always happy to agree on terms.
I've watched your video on Pascals Wager and read the notes. I will do the same for your definition of creationism.
"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning."
@qabala Yes, Genesis does claim life was spoken into existence, but that's only one of 7-8 main aspects of creation science. Do you know them at all? Until you do, you can't make any rational comparison or judgment.
Furthermore, if you think the act of creation is a rival of Darwinian universal common descent, you have dire misconceptions about how genuine science is done and we need to lay some critical ground work first about how real science operates. Again, read Dr. Kuhn.
@qabala It was TheraminTrees who banned me on his Betting on Infinity video and I believe Non-Stamp Collector did also and others...but I'd have to go through ~14,000 comments I've received over the years to find each case..and just don't have the time.
@qabala Sorry, but you are wrong on the banning as well.. I was banned for citing scientific evidence and for referring to primary sources...in a recent case, I was exposing the straw man that atheists always use about Pascal's wager, by referring to many quotes from the Pensees, showing that the whole reason Pascal wrote the Pensees was to show that Christianity was based on evidence more than anything else, esp. atheism...when most atheists claim he argues based only on faith. False.
@qabala There have been others too...but more in the past...since now I am much more limited in time (partly due to lawsuits against dishonest businessmen who broke contracts causing me to lose $150,000 and also due to working on writing a book showing how atheism is almost entirely based on rejecting the weight of evidence and fallacies of many sorts which harm life NOW as well as science) and do more dialoguing with people commenting on my videos in the little time I do have.
@qabala Note that all establishments, ALL, have to censor some. It's part of deciding what's most important to teach and what is viewed as factual and scientific and true. But, when you censor the weight of evidence and ban people from even viewing the evidence, which is explicitly what both the atheist and evolution establishments have done countless times for AGES and far more than almost any organization in history, that is an attack on science, knowledge and truth.
You're right, they conceal the evidence and methodology used to establish evolutionary theory in rectangular objects called "books".
If you want to be REALLY current on science you have to somehow get your hands on those pesky "journals" which are almost all freely available on the internet.
I know of no evidence for atheism. From what I understand, atheism is based on the lack of evidence provided by theists. Could you point me toward this supposed "evidence" for atheism?
and then this video's notes for many links, including to actual research papers. Of course Schweitzer says they are 68 million years old. She couldn't get it published if she didn't. But, several times she and others say that there is no scientific explanation how soft tissue can last so long. To simplify...they are telling you they have 100% faith in evolution even when the science doesn't justify it.
@qabala ROFL. It was creationist Christians who ESTABLISHED AND STARTED the whole concept of peer review and there is scarcely a creationist with a science degree who hasn't done peer reviewed work.
watch?v=I-k24Q01vck
Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of prejudice against creation by evolutionists and atheists who for emotional reasons wish to reject the weight of evidence. But, in most areas, the evidence for creation is stronger than that for evolution.
Yes, creationists certainly did establish the concept of peer review, but now they fear it as if it is their own Frankenstein monster.
Some creationists may have done peer reviewed work, but none on the topic of creationism. They can't because creationism can't make any scientific predictions at all.
I can find HUNDREDS of creationist videos here on Youtube which disable or censor comments. Can you do the same with "evolutionist" videos? I'll bet you can't.
@qabala Most creationists do not censor facts or evidence and are interested in where the weight of evidence points (many with Ph.Ds. in science being former evolutionists and atheists themselves). Most who do censor are just sick of the childish flaming and lies that are so common on youtube, want an evidence based discussion or don't have time to answer the myriad of misrepresentations. They censor infinitely less than evolutionists and atheists with state or academic power.
Why don't we have a little contest. You post as many pro-evolution channels who disable or censor comments as you can (with evidence of their censorship) and I'll do the same for pro-creationism channels.
To estimate time astronauts have attached a mirror to a rock on the moon; scientists on earth aim a laser at this mirror and measure the travel time of the laser pulse--about two and a half seconds for the round trip. However, there are two assumptions in this method. One is that the speed of the laser is the same as the speed of light and two the speed of the laser going to the mirror in moon is the same as the laser speed from the mirror to the lab. How can we be so sure about this?
Laser light is monochromatic, that is, it only has one wavelength beam in it. In the case of normal light, it consists of various wavelengths and this is evident when normal light splits it shows a spectrum of seven colors. The notion that light and laser have the same speed is not proven by any experiment, it's an assumption therefore not reliable.
So evidence is growing for both the slowing of time and light. There is still much opposition to this conclusion of the growing evidence, but remember that the Danish mathematician and astronomer Ole Rømer gave the first reasonable estimate for the speed of light in 1676 and was discredited for years before dieing an outcast by the vast majority of infinite light speeders.
@TruthIsLife7 Google time slowing & light slowing. As the Theory of Relatively is continually seen as flawed Cosmologists & Physicists are reeling with nowhere else to turn. Shortly before Einstein, science almost exclusively accepted light as infinite(except for a few like Isaac Newton and a sprinkling of others). Since, time has been thought as relatively constant depending on the relative velocity of motion between two observers, or the difference in their distance from a gravitational mass.
@ReptilianFreemason This needs to be explicitly clear to you. Creationists for millennia accepted 3 main causes:
1) Man made
2) Natural
3) Supernatural causes.
Precisely because they believed God created a world of order&because of biblical scientific concepts,they worked hard to understand nature&advanced science more than any culture ever had in history. Atheists added NOTHING to science. They only a priori ban #3 no different from apriori banning Jefferson as a possible American founder.
@gregrutz Sorry, but it is absolutely false that all scientists accept evolution. Google and read:
"Darwin Skeptics Select List of Science Academics, Scientists, and Scholars Who are Skeptical of Darwinism"
There are many scientists who explicitly reject Darwinism because it has been falsified so many times. And those Christians who accept evolution are like Christians in the past who accepted spontaneous generation in the past against the Bible's concept of biogenesis.
@ReptilianFreemason You are the one who hasn't read the scientific reports. I have read both Dr. Schweitzers AND Dr. Kaye's (and Dr. Kaye in his own paper even admitted that he found soft tissue...in fact he found so much of it..that he couldn't fit it with evolution dogma and this was the main motivation behind trying to find another explanation, the biofilm...but Schweitzer debunks this very easily as nonsense that doesn't win by any accepted scientific process.
@gregrutz It is evolutionists who are saying that nothing in science justifies soft tissue being millions of years old and they are right. Yes, they did find red blood cells and 3 other types of soft tissue. They were even able to pop the blood cells out of the blood vessels...but tried to cover up what they actually saw and were able to do with ambiguous language...all but admitting that there were. But, all 4 types of soft tissue they found can't be there if it's millions of years old.
@gregrutz Did you actually read the actual research papers or just trust atheist sites (a really bad idea). The paper starts out, "The presence of soft tissues and apparent CELLS in 68 Ma dinosaur bone was unexpected" "in morphology and location, they are consistent with mammalian red blood cells"(about mammoth fossils) "round red microstructures with opaque central regions similar to those previously reported were observed within" (about dino fossils). Read primary sources for yourself.
@gregrutz The part I and YOU should not understand about the 68 mya dinosaur is how people can violate science to follow their traditions which is what both atheism and evolution do in case after case after case after case. Assertions against the evidence are not science...and if you look in the notes above&in the 1st video in this playlist, you'll see that we have ~100 dating methods pointing to a young age for life&only ~40 pointing to an old age, but many of those debunked by soft tissue.
@ReptilianFreemason You may be sincere, but like most atheists you have been kept ignorant and taught to engage in speculation (It's not your fault.You've been lied to). There are many creationists with very high IQs who have done extremely important work in many fields, including pioneering the scientific method and most branches of science (I know the fallacy you will use to respond to that)&still do. Many never lived in the South (FYI, I was born in WI&have lived overseas for ~18 years).
The Bible pioneered preventative medicine, the most valuable type while rival science of the time had dung in over 72% of its medicines. Even today, National Geographic, Blue Zones, NCI, NIH have learned enormous amounts from studying those who follow Bible health principles and live 10+ years longer as a direct result of it (see my Bible health science playlist, videos 1-6 and see my PM and don’t stupidly call it crap when you admit you didn’t read it. It’s got many references.
It is complete fiction that Bible science&creation science have no evidence that stands up to scrutiny. Creationist Pasteur pioneered creationists biogenesis which is now a law of science.ALL cases of complex design mechanical &biological including information exchange systems, transportation systems (with kinesins, etc.) have come from intelligence, NONE without it. Atheistic supports such as abiogenesis, steady state and spontaneous generation are what can’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Many creationists used to be atheists. See Dr. Veith’s Genesis Conflict series for example.
It’s not hard to change majority views in a VERY short time if you control education and media&ban rival evidence as atheism has excelled at doing. It’s happened many times.
The views of the majority in all times are highly influenced by what's taught in schools and the mainstream media. Btw, I consistently scored in the top 1-2% in the nation all through school and research by Cognitive Genesis using national govt. tests shows that creation teaching schools score higher than the average & ESP. in science.
@ReptilianFreemason You are badly misunderstanding the issue. Majority does not prove truth. Neither the 2/3rs of scientists who believe in God, nor the 3k creationists (and NO, NONE of them were infuriated about being on the list…you’re confusing lists, and many are biologists and even head of depts. and no the above video was not edited by a creationist..only a couple captions added), nor project Steve. The issue is that a fair scientific contest is anathema to atheism.
@ReptilianFreemason In all 22 officially atheist states&in academics where atheists are in control, freedom of thought did not exist&rival ideas were not allowed. If Christians had banned and censor rival facts like atheists and evolutionists do, nobody would be evolutionist or atheist now and almost all scientific progress would be frozen. Biogenesis had only a handful of proponents. Creation science now has over 10,000 scientists in the USA ALONE and 1000s more abroad and still it is banned
from publishing by most (some free thinkers are starting to allow it though) even though they use the exact same techniques&processes all scientists do. This destroys any objective science. If you don’t know there is censorship in science (against all sorts of scientists, including liberals too), you live in a Pollyanna world totally detached from reality and your education has failed you VERY badly. I work in academia and many I know, including non-Christians agree that there is censorship.
Um, steady state & spontaneous generation were pillars of atheism in the past. The others (such as lamarckism, recapitulation, orthogenesis, etc.) were explanations for universal common descent that failed. Nearly all vestigial organs & junkDNA have known function and purpose now (indisputably and SOLIDLY refuting evolution predictions and vindicating creation science claims of LONG ago as has happened NUMEROUS times) & coccyx function is now known&many more. Google: darwinspredictions
The above are why atheism cowardly evolved into lack belief in the last century from aggressive denial of Gods because it could bear to follow the weight of evidence where it was pointing.
Yes, I know the some Christians agree with evolution. Christians followed the Greeks in spontaneous generation and bleeding patients instead of the Bible as well. Questioning religious, scientific and political establishments is good. But, compromising on what God is clear on is harmful.
No, creation didn’t change goal posts. Long before Darwin, Alfred Wallace, Blyth, John Wilkins and other creationists based on Genesis references were saying that creation science included speciation up to ~the genus/family levels. Creationists follow the weight of evidence and avoid lying like a plague. They are human and make mistakes, but they hate lying. For every supposed lie of creationists, I can show you 10 blatant ones of atheists and evolutionists (maybe in ignorance though).
Last, Stephen Hawking now seems to not believe in God, but did make statements like this in the past, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."
in 1998 a book published by Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” said that God has created the universe and he is the main force behind it. The book has sold approx 9 million copies and are one of the most read books.
lol, let's forget the hypocrisy that you've just suggested to us that Hawking is an unreliable source even though you're now using him to support your argument, you're actually saying that he believed in god when he wrote that book??? I own that book & he says no such thing i assure you, quite the opposite! Talk about quote mining *sigh* You're a shameless liar. Give me the exact quote & prove me wrong. If you can't then i'll take that as an admittance of your dishonest tactics.
@ReptilianFreemason You have dire misunderstandings about quote mining.Misrepresenting people is wrong.Atheists&evolutionists do that to the Bible&creation 10 times more than any creationist with higher education has EVER done. As someone who sometimes edits papers for academic journals as a part time job, it is EXTREMELY common for authors of papers to cite certain aspects of other's research&come to different conclusions. This is what creationists do and it is categorically NOT quote mining.
@ReptilianFreemason I quoted Hawking to discredit not for support. He never claimed that he believed in God, rather left it open till more recently. Who cares? Modern physics has merely discovered mechanics that they cannot explain without using phrases such as God particle. Quantum and Astrophysicists have discovered that the Theory of Relativity is unworkable yet Hawking's most famous work depends on it as an end.
Dr. Ann Gauger&Dr. Douglas Axe investigated examined the members of a large enzyme superfamily to find a pair with distinct reaction chemistries and high structural similarity.They then attempted to convert one of these enzymes, Kbl2 to perform the metabolic function of the other BioF2.Successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, and could only happen
on timescales around 10^30 years which is much longer than evolutionary estimates of the age of life on earth (~10^9 years)&even more than the estimated 6 nucleotide substitutions that could happen during the entire history of the earth. Since this is a problem for even close homologs like Kbl2 and BioF2 , this result and others like it raise gigantic problems that Darwinian levels of evolution could ever be produced in nature.
See interviews here idthefutureDOTcom/ (the May 12 & 16 episodes)
This video demonstrates just how desperate, deceitful & dishonest creationists are, preying on the uneducated with this oversimplified, spurious bullshit. I'm afraid creationists simply aren't interested in truth or facts, they're only interested in 'evidence' they believe supports their infantile, bronze-age, LONG discredited & discarded claims. Creationists lie to validate their claims hence why they refuse to go down the implicit route & submit their work to peer-review.
@fernieboy100 I didn't make this...but I did write the notes and find the references (these notes are part 2, see the 1st link for part 1). I'm working on a major video that will debunk many of the allegations of atheists and show that it is based almost entirely on fallacies and denying the weight of evidence. But, it's going to take a while to finish...subscribe to get notified. Best to you!
@Danielezerable All through the Bible, God says that he created all life at creation. That has to include dinosaurs or else God is not dealing honestly with us. There are numerous evidences that they did live together and far more dating methods that point to a young earth than an old earth. I've revised the notes substantially...read them and the links. You may be sincere, but to say that dinos and humans never lived together is contradicting the Bible.
"to say that dinos and humans never lived together is contradicting the Bible."
What, the bible is wrong? What a shock *facepalm* The bible is flawed throughout & science has shown it to be nothing more than a work of fiction written by highly superstitious, goat-herding, flat-earthers utterly ignorant of the natural world. Dinosaurs did NOT co-exist with human beings, don't be absurd. Can you explain why there are no dinosaur remains above the KT & no human remains below it?
@ReptilianFreemason The Bible was written by humans&there are for sure wrong things in it...David committed adultery for example&that was wrong. Some parts are scientific, some spiritual, some historical, etc. But,God's instructions in the Bible have led to profound improvements in life (such as those who follow its health principles living 10+ years above the average THESE days, longest in the world..see my Bible health playlist) and pioneering vast science and saving ~2 billion lives&MORE.
When i said the bible was demonstrably wrong throughout, i didn't mean in the way you are speaking of. I meant that scientific enquiry has made it look nothing more than a work of fiction. Medical science has increased our life expectancy, not superstitious hogwash. I really don't know what you mean by this & i'll look at the playlist you mention when i get time though judging by the plethora of crap you've sent me on the PM, i don't know whether i should bother wasting my time.
@imrippinit Evolution has massive problems&many minor and major forms of it have been abandoned even by evolutionists, but it does have some evidence. Many hypothesis, even ones like spontaneous generation that have been totally discredited have evidence (which is similar to the type of evidence evolution has in many cases). But, it's not accurate to say that evolution has no evidence. What is accurate is to say that creation has more and far better evidence in most areas&the weight of evidence.
"Evolution has massive problems&many minor and major forms of it have been abandoned even by evolutionists"
Care to elaborate & offer examples?
"creation has more and far better evidence in most areas&the weight of evidence"
Really? I have to say after countless requests to innumerable creationists, i'm yet to see a shred of evidence for creation that stands up to scrutiny. Funnily enough, the entire scientific community disagree with you (religious fanatics aside).
@ReptilianFreemason VERY busy with real life teaching and emergencies, but atheism and evolution keep getting falsified and abandoned: Steady state, spontaneous generation, lamarckism, pangenesis, transmutationism, recapitulation, exogenesis, orthogenesis have all been falsified and many others. Creation has made numerous 100% confirmed predictions (biogenesis, nearly all vestigial organs and junkDNA would be found to have function, speciation limits and 1000s of others).
You keep telling yourself that, you're a creationist therefore deceit is in your nature. How exactly has atheism been falsified?? lol, this i have to hear. Evolution has NEVER been falsified in 3 centuries & the entire scientific community (apart from a tiny proportion who just ALL happen to been religious fanatics that have done absolutely nothing in furthering our scientific understanding of the natural world) accept evolution as they're fully aware that it hasn't..........
........been in question since the mid 19th century. If you can overturn it then why haven't you picked up your Nobel Prize?
Spontaneous generation has nothing to do with evolution, recent studies in epigenetics have demonstrated otherwise in respect to lamarckism, not sure how you believe pangenesis, transmutationism, recapitulation, exogenesis & orthgenesis pose any issues for evolution, the scientific community certainly don't feel this way. If only you people would use the same.........
.........level of skepticism when dealing with your own long refuted & rejected claims.
As for creationist predictions lol, don't make me laugh. Biogenesis isn't fact, there is strong evidence to show abiogenesis is possible. Non-functionality isn't a necessity of a vestigials eg. ostrich wings, wisdom teeth, the human appendix, ostrich wings. What function do the eyes of the blind cave fish or blind cave salamander? What is the function of dandelion pollen?
What about the human coccyx's function? Not all junk DNA has function, that's another erroneous claim & as for speciation limits, can you explain further? Speciation has bee directly observed in both nature & in the lab.
Just for the record, you claim to be a professor so can i ask what your field is as i'm pretty sure it isn't in any scientific discipline, certainly not a related one?
May i ask what credentials you have that warrant your belief in thinking you have a greater understanding of biology than the entire biological community? No evidence you say? Explain atavisms, the order of morphology found in the fossil record & the nested hierarchy of genes in terms of creation. We have 300 yrs of empirically gathered evidence, every shred of which supports evolutionary predictions but you carry on burying your head to that & keep saying there is no evidence ;)
@ReptilianFreemason ONE of the examples that defy conventional explanation taught in schools is petrified trees found all over the world occupying space crossed "millions" of years worth for strata.
I think not. 'Polystrate' fossils were explained centuries ago. They are even in the process of being formed in my locality & are nothing more than trees that have grown on flood planes as each flood brings with it a new layer of sediment. They have NEVER been found to pass through "millions of years worth of strata". If this is the best example you have i'd give up now.
@ReptilianFreemason The entire biological community? I am biological. Seriously, I have seen many presentations by objective biologists and I grew up in public schools and went to a mainstream college. I have seen both sides presented and though one side has many rope led subscribers it's "evidence" is lacking when examined objectively.
You are biological? :o/ You misunderstand me. When i say 'biological community', i am referring to biologists. Do you have any credentials in biology? The number of biologists who reject evolution total (& this is a conservative figure) 0.0001%. Just to put that in perspective, there are more historians who reject the holocaust.
It doesn't matter what college you went to, you're a religious fundamentalists therefore you reject any evidence that oppose your personal beliefs.
@ReptilianFreemason Why are petrified trees found crossed millions of years of strata? It appears as though there was a massive event such as flood that actually caused the strata over a short period of time rather than millions of years. Can you reconcile? Mt St Helens recently erupted and left much destruction including trees buried in many layers of strata. Much smaller in scale than something like a global flood, but nevertheless, the same type of event. I'm trained to weave baskets.
Didn't you read my previous response to you on polystrate fossils? They do NOT traverse through "millions of years of strata", they're simply trees that exist eg. on flood plains where rapid sedimentation occurs annually. You've even just given an example of how a polystrate fossil can occur through volcanic activity.
You're trained to weave baskets but feel you're qualified to oppose what every credible biologist on earth refers to as the unifying principle of biology?
@ReptilianFreemason I am very good at weaving baskets plus I have an open mind that works fairly well without being spoon fed. It's amazing what one can accomplish when one actually veers away from behaving like sheep.
You should familiarise yourself more with the true nature of scientific enquiry & the processes by which it proceeds before you embarrass yourself any further with comments like that. A scientist will NEVER ask or expect you to simply take their word for something. Science encourages you to question everything whereas religion frowns upon you questioning it & relies purely on authority & keeping the ignorant, ignorant. You believe what you're told, YOU'RE the sheep Cletus.
@ReptilianFreemason I believed what I was told when I was a child. Now I think for myself and have discovered some amazing things that I never would have discovered without an opened mind. News flash: Mankind behaves like sheep in general. Neither you or I can monopolize that trait.
Exactly, & that's why you fail. It's not your fault, you were indoctrinated as a child so your peers are responsible for your current lack of intellect. To say mankind behaves like sheep is somewhat of a generalisation but this is why the scientific method & the peer-review system were invented & implemented. Again, science encourages you to question EVERYTHING. Religion DEMANDS you have blind faith that MUSN'T be questioned. Like Hawkings said, "science will win because it works"
@ReptilianFreemason I was indoctrinated into believing in a secular world. I came to belief in intelligent design much later in life. Hawkings started out saying the ID was possible but that changed his mind later. He also said that his disability may have affected his outlook.
Then i'm sorry but you're an idiot with the IQ of lint. No fair minded individual could ever become a creanderthal later in life. Hawking said no such thing, where did you pluck that little gem from?? lol
@ReptilianFreemason Haha. My father is pure Atheist. He also thinks Jimmy Carter was one of the greatest presidents that ever lived.
No, I am not an idiot. I also try hard to be polite to people who would call me such. I am seen as an expert at what I do and I have helped many people. I endeavor to put my genius level IQ to good use in everything that I do.
You are a product of your environment & if you were born & raised eg. on the banks of the River Ganges then you would have a very different set of beliefs & gods. If you can't accept that then you're in serious denial. This poses the question, how does god decide who is 'lucky' enough to be born in the right place at the right time?
As for your claim of having a genius level of IQ, i'm afraid that isn't possible for a creationist. Stick to weaving baskets, science isn't for you.
@imrippinit See my notes in this video for facts to debunk anyone who spouts ignorant nonsense about soft tissue being resolved in favor of evolution. This like most of the other claims of "debunking" are absolute fiction.
@ReptilianFreemason Here's a verse for you from Chris Cornell of Audioslave. Good luck bud. I have nothing more to say to you other than believe what you will...
Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story'
"A belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a "fairy story" for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said.
I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,".
Ps. i wasn't being insulting when i called you an idiot, that was a medical diagnosis.
@ReptilianFreemason the reason why folks like yourself have such a hard time with the evidence is that it requires you to rethink your world view. While some are able to transverse this obstacle others cannot for different reasons. When one is faced with admission that there may be spiritual dimension the ramifications can be very sobering. Therefore, simplicity for the one daunted demands rejection out of hand.
@ReptilianFreemason maybe later. Posting what Hawkings says doesn't mean anything to me. He has completely failed to explain black holes which have left the THEORY of relativity as incomplete. Sorta like the THEORY of evolution. It's dead in the water encounter problems almost daily. What was it one scientist said in response to T-Rex soft tissue, "it was probably plasticized" or another: "it's biofilm". Really?? haha
*facepalm* Only a creationist could question the work of one of the greatest minds our planet has ever known lol, why does that no surprise me? So not only do you accept evolution, you also reject gravity! Fantastic, this is a new one on me. Now i suggest before embarrassing yourself any further, look up the definition of the word 'theory' & then compare it to the term 'scientific theory'. You will hopefully see how very different they are & how ignorant your comment is.
Can i ask, what do you think happens if a scientific theory is proven to be correct? Are you under the illusion that it gets elevated to something else? Please, do enlighten me with your vast knowledge & understanding of scientific enquiry that you clearly possess.
Regarding the t-rex soft tissue, this has been FULLY explained with no detriment whatsoever to evolutionary theory just as any REAL scientist (by that i mean a scientist who doesn't allow their religious beliefs to..........
@ReptilianFreemason "Regarding the t-rex soft tissue, this has been FULLY explained with no detriment whatsoever to evolutionary theory"
This is either intentional DECEIT or astronomical ignorance. See my referenced notes in THIS video (part 2 of my notes)¬es in the 1st video in my dinosaur playlist. Kaye did nothing at all of any importance and did not explain anything and it's a piece of cake for Dr. Schweitzer to explain whyANDhow REAL science works.. Don't be so completely gullible.
.........influence their scientific studies & who concerns themselves purely with the evidence) will confirm. Now i don't expect you to investigate the REAL scientific reports on this that has undergone peer-review & stood up to scrutiny. You really need to learn how scientific enquiry works because believing that scientists can just make shit up without being exposed is just unforgivable ignorance.
Ps. Maybe later? Nice cop-out. You couldn't fail any harder if you tried.
@ReptilianFreemason You may be right. I may never be able to produce any evidence to stand up to YOUR scrutiny. Therefore, I will focus my time on slaying other dragons/behemoths.
"You may be right. I may never be able to produce any evidence to stand up to YOUR scrutiny"
lol ok, so you think my standards are more stringent than scientific standards which is bizarre, but that's fine, i'll humour you. How about you give me evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny?
"I will focus my time on slaying other dragons/behemoths."
From what i've seen, you couldn't slay a chicken. I assume you believe in dragons & monsters being as the bible says so?
@ReptilianFreemason It is common for "experts" to ignore evidence that contradicts their preconceived, questionable notions regardless of it being better than the evidence upon which they rely. It is also common for those that feel threatened to lash out in anger using combative language when friendlier tone is more appropriate.
Actually, I am extremely proficient at mixed martial arts. It is very likely that I could use you to mop the floor ...if you have enough hair. :p
@ReptilianFreemason I know you aren't saying that one needs to be an expert in any one subject in order to be able to discern an intelligent debate between different experts in that subject. If that were the case leadership would be impossible and the world would obviously still be flat.
Of course you don't have to be an expert, but when 3 centuries of empirically gathered evidence & the entire scientific community say you're wrong, i know which is most likely to be the right choice. A naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life that stood up to the most intense scientific scrutiny without EVER failing, not once, or the irrational notion that it was all poofed into existence by magic 6000yrs ago by a being that's conveniently immune to the creation process.
@ReptilianFreemason On polystrate fossils or more academically in situ fossils, the problem with your explanation is that large numbers of fossil trees are buried with few or no roots which form ~20-30% of the tree and should be there if your idea was correct. Google and read these articles on the topic.
The Yellowstone petrified forests Evidence of catastrophe by Jonathan Sarfati and
The 'Fossil Forests' of Nova Scotia
This is only 1 small problem of numerous serious problems for evolution.
The root issue isn't a problem whatsoever & in many cases there are extensive root systems. It depends on certain factors such as whether the trees are sat atop a coal seam, sandstone or shale etc.
Yellowstone & Nova Scotia were actually the example i had in mind when i mentioned polystrate fossils previously & like i said, pose no problem for the scientific justification for them. More wishful thinking & willful ignorance on the creationist's part.
@ReptilianFreemason Atheists and evolutionists are the ones who reject evidence more than any other groups I know of on the planet, esp. atheists. They do it by using streams of logical fallacies (double standards, straw men, ad hominems...you name it, they use it.) Christians follow normative scientific policy where when a view has numerous lines of evidence with many confirmations of those, you don't just abandoned all the evidence when an anomaly rears its head. That's STUPID.
@Tapiola2007 This seminar is very good. Dr. Silvestru, Ph.D in geology from ‘Babes-Bolyai’ University in Cluj, Romania (where he was associate professor),is a world authority on the geology of caves,published 41 scientific papers & 3 books. He was for years the head scientist at the world’s first Speleological Institute. His seminar summarizes the vast evidence for a global flood
watch?v=L-BaMAt4dnE (Start at 36:00. ~54:00 deals with how catastrophic plate tectonics supports the global flood).
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
@Tapiola2007 Good. Then you should know that 40 methods (with many debunked) do not beat 100 methods. Creation has been science of the hardest sort for centuries (btw, Behe isn't an IDer, not a creationist). But, ID has plenty of testable evidences. See the links in the notes here:
watch?v=SgGTsSwje4Y
~scientific method...ROFL. It was creationists that INVENTED that, starting with Daniel in the Bible in ~600 B.C. Peer reviewed journals agree with that.
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
@Tapiola2007 Bible science and creation science have literally 100s of not 1000s of fully confirmed. more than ID has. I'll just list 4 major ones because of space constraints.
1) The Bible predicted an expanding universe for 1000s of years while steady state was the accepted view. Science finally caught up and confirmed that./
2) The Bible pioneered the biogenesis hypothesis while spontaneous generation was reigning. Biogenesis is now a law of science.
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
3) Creationists like John Wilkins, Patrick Matthew, Edward Blyth, etc. published on natural selection, speciation, etc. based on Genesis LONG before Darwin.
4) Creation science taught a combination of uniformitarianism and catastrophism. Geology has moved far towards this model.
5) Creation science predicted most so-called vestigial organs&junk-DNA would have function. Creation has been powerfully vindicated&papers showing function for “junk DNA” are being published almost daily.
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
@Tapiola2007 6) We know many biological features that keep evolution limited to specific levels. See Dr. Gauger’s interview and peer reviewed paper in the notes in this link for just 1 of them.
watch?v=SgGTsSwje4Y
See also this link on how diamonds refute billions of years.
creationDOTcom/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend
There are many more detailed proofs beyond this. But, creation has for a LONG TIME been FAR more scientific than universal common descent ever has.
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
@Tapiola2007 With all due respect, how much do you know about how science works? Science is supposed to follow the weight of evidence. And the weight of evidence is decisively on the side of creation science. Scientists on ALL sides agree 100% that creation science has beaten most of its major rivals in terms of verifiable scientific evidence. In this area also, we have 100+ methods showing a young age for life on earth. ~40 show an old age,&dino soft tissue debunks many of those.
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
@TruthIsLife7 I work in biochemistry. Good enough? Even if I didn't, a basic education is enough to grapple with the issues here. The fact that you even use the expression "creation science" means you have a false understanding of the scientific method. Please give me a single instance of "verifiable scientific evidence" produced by so-called Creationist scientists. Even your poster boy Michael Behe couldn't when under oath and asked to do so by a judge. When you're ready, join the real world.
Tapiola2007 1 month ago
What has Genesis and Bible believers' claims got to do with discovery? It's a fascinating and most unexpected possibility that has to be completely understood before any hard and fast conclusions can be drawn from it. It certainly contradicts current understanding of the fossilization process and the breakdown of soft organic matter. At no point has it upturned the paradigm of an ancient Earth or dinosaur history, which depend on a wealth of separate and incontrovertible evidence. Just pathetic!
Tapiola2007 1 month ago
These called scientists are retarded, How can an organic stuff be preserved millions of years witouth any protection? Obviously, the bible gives the right explanation, dinos and man lived together, and it is not millioms, but thousand, evidence in our favor, as usual.
xchris1800 1 month ago
People are never going to hear about this in school or anywhere else, this story is going to be silenced. she even said it herself, "This isn't possible" because in here veiw, It can't be possible, the millions of years view is cut in stone as far as this scienctist is concerned.
But the real evidence points to the world view flood, and the fact that man lived with dinos.
RespectMyHate 2 months ago
@RespectMyHate If you like this one, check out my "creation-evidence for the flood" playlist, esp. Dr. Silvestru's video and Dr. Wise's videos here:
wwwDOTyoutubeDOTcom/playlist?list=PL14FDE276E5C97E24
Yes, there is much suppression of scientific evidence that goes against evolution traditions and much else as well (such as Bible economics)
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
Dinosaurs loved and died tens of millions of years ago. If soft tissue was discovered then the soft tissue is tens of millions of years old. This bullshit about humans and dinosaurs living at the same time is biblical bullshit.
Cainkane1 2 months ago
@Cainkane1 Why couldn't man and dinos live together?
RespectMyHate 2 months ago
@Cainkane1 a priori presuppositions like you have made are the enemy of science, not its friend. Science has never ever progressed that way. There are NUMEROUS accounts of people living with dinosaurs in the past. Many people drew them anatomically correct...something impossible without actually seeing them or painstaking modern science...neither of which ancient people had. What's more important to you, evolution tradition or science? You can't have both.
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
Note...that there are some cases where a few anomalies can be so strong to falsify an idea...but in the case of the Bible in history, regular science and creation science, in literally 1000s of cases, the more time goes by and the more evidence is uncovered, the more the Bible's statements are confirmed. The fossil record is overwhelmingly in favor of creation..but there are still some issues to figure out. For UCD though,nearly all phyla suddenly appearing in 1% of history almost destroys UCD.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago 3
@TruthIsLife7 Note...that there are some cases where a few anomalies can be so strong to falsify an idea...but in the case of the Bible/creationism vs regular science, in literally 1000s of cases, the more time goes by and the more evidence is uncovered by science and theories are confirmed. The fossil record is overwhelmingly in favor of Evolution but there are still some people who can't figure it out.
How does the Cambrian Explosion 230 Million years ago ''favor creation''???
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz No Greg, you are 100% DEAD wrong in every particle. So many versions and concepts of universal common descent have been falsified and abandoned even by evolutionists and most who are educated know that UCD has very little to do with Darwin's ideas. 85% of the fossil record doesn't have ANY match to UCD, esp. not the Cambrian (note, NOBODY claims it's 230 million years old) which has fossils of nearly all phyla confirming creation science predictions and debunking UCD.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago 3
@qabala Um, the book I'm writing is 350+ pages (with 1000s more pages other data). Posting here is nothing :).
1) Hebrews 1:2 says "God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the UNIVERSE." If it were certain that the universe didn't have a beginning that for sure would refute that claim of the Bible (but should you trust scientific establishments as perfect seeing that for ~2000 years they taught steady state)
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
2) The Bible states that life comes from God or from reproduction. I’d like to see the 5 ways you talk about.Most I’m sure are misusing language. Spontaneous Generation devised many experiments..and so has abiogenesis. All failed.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
3) I don’t think you understand what it means to falsify something. More importantly…you seem to think that finding 1 flaw can destroy a gigantic concept, even a worldview. If that were true, nobody should believe universal common descent, since so much of it has been falsified. Worldviews and major concepts don’t get rejected by a few anomalies or some parts that don’t work.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
That’s just not how science has EVER EVER EVER worked since no person is infallible.Again, spend some time reading Dr. Kuhn’s seminal work, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. The weight of evidence is what is crucial and creation science has this FAR more than UCD.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
4) You don’t seem to be understanding what creation predicts about the fossil record. Go to the notes here
watch?v=eZJxbBQKvBA
and esp. the links I listed in the notes. The strata DO conform quite well to creationist predictions and there is no problem for a flood to create many layers. On my creation-evidence for the flood playlist, you can see live experiments on stratification doing just that.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
Universal common descent has infinitely more problems than creation does. Nothing has falsified a worldwide flood. There is vast evidence in support of that from science. Does it have some things it hasn’t figured out yet? Yes. That does NOT mean it’s falsified. AGAIN, the weight of evidence is what matters and the Cambrian alone makes universal common descent impossible scientifically plus MANY others.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@qabala I have already given you 3 falsifiable tests:
1) The Bible says the universe was created and so had a beginning (Hebrews 1:2). This was stated in steady state's heydey. Btw, the Bible doesn't say it was created out of nothing, but the logical options are infinite regress, out of nothing and/or God.
2) The Bible stated that life only comes from other life.
3) The fossil record should basically be in the general order from marine sessile at bottom to free swimming to land animals.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@qabala For more details on how the order of the fossil record&the Cambrian explosion match creationist predictions better than universal common descent, check this video & the notes.
watch?v=eZJxbBQKvBA
The video deals with the Cambrian Fossils & in the notes I wrote a simple summary of what creation predicts & links to scientists who explain it&UCD problems in more detail (the 1st link in the notes is to Dr. Veith a former hardcore atheist and teacher of evolution with Ph.D. in zoology).
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
Holy verbosity you're long-winded!
1) The bible does NOT say the universe was created, it says the heavens and the earth were created and it was written at least two and a half thousand years before the steady-state theory was even considered. That the universe has a beginning is neither confirmed nor refuted. If it were refuted, it wouldn't falsify creationism so it ISN'T a scientific prediction.
You should already know this.
To be continued...
qabala 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
...continued
2) The bible does NOT claim life ONLY comes from life. It clearly describes at least five instances of life coming about through other means.
Furthermore, no experiment has yet been devised to test the assertion of whether life can come about through other means so, again, you've jumped to a conclusion.
Finally, if we do life coming about through other means, it also wouldn't falsify creationism so, again, it isn't a scientific prediction.
To be concluded...
qabala 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
...concluding
3) The fossil record ISN'T in the order you say creationism predicts. It shows land animals in dry-formed rock topped by sea creatures in water-formed rock topped by dry-formed layers, topped by water-formed layers, etc.
Though the strata don't conform to your creationist prediction, it still doesn't falsify creationism so, once again, it isn't a scientific prediction.
It does, however, falsify a worldwide flood. But the flood and creation can be separate topics.
qabala 7 months ago
There are MANY more besides these. But, there is a problem, the limits of human knowledge. If for example you lived in the time of the Greeks and followed conventional scientific thought, you would think that the Bible was wrong even though we now know it to be right. How do you know this is not a problem for the conventional evolutionist thought now?
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
One reason the Bible is so credible is that when it has conflicted with scientific/historical conventional thought, long term it has consistently been vindicated and been more accurate than anything else.
Re: the problem of changing goal posts...there is nothing wrong with changing views. It's part of increasing human knowledge. The Bible has never claimed that it has all knowledge. God gave us some critical foundational&some very advanced knowledge there, but didn't tell us everything because
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
He also gave us a brain for the purpose of us USING it to enjoy the thrill of discovering some things for ourselves...similar to what all great teachers do. But, the problem of changing goal posts is a FAR more serious problem for evolutionists than it has ever been for creationists as I pointed out in my PM to you.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
Saying that God did it is no different from saying that Henry Ford did it in building Model Ts or somebody did it in building the Easter Island statues. We may not how all the hows and whys mechanisms, etc. But, that somebody designed them is obvious and the same is true of nature and is one of 1000s of evidences for a creator (altho a more philosophical one or inferential scientific one). But, Creation and Christianity CAN be falsified and defeated. But, it’s VERY difficult.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
You have to provide MORE evidence that explains MORE questions, facts, data, reality, etc. and provides MORE benefits to society than Christianity has. Nobody has so far come anywhere close to doing that. THIS is one big reason why Christianity has convinced so many atheists, scientists, historians and other intellectuals throughout history that it is true.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@qabala The 1st thing is to get accurate definitions, then look at some predictions...I sent links with only a few of 1000s that are made by creation. I think you need to read Dr. Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions"...while there are a few cases where a few predictions can falsify a major theory, that's usually not the case. It is the weight of evidence that determines what we understand to be true or not..since people don't have perfect knowledge&anomalies may become resolved.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@qabala Many scientists& organizations like National Geographic say the Big Bang deals with the origin or beginning of the universe.(Btw, beginning may but doesn't have to mean coming from nothing.)
watch?v=nVsHjnY-o9s
Check Google scholar: Michael Quentin "The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe"
But, do you think there was no beginning? If so, do you accept that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years old. If there was no beginning, how do you determine an age?
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 If you mention only one claim of something and act as if that is all it claims, that is a straw man. If you also try to compare the act of creation with evolution, that's a false comparison fallacy and no different from someone trying to falsify universal common descent with photosynthesis or biogenesis. Hopefully these are unintentional by you.
I'm VERY glad to see you're willing to actually read &watch things by people with different views. Highly commendable¬ many do that.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
I didn't say that was ALL it was. You are the one who stated that creation predicts life ONLY comes from life. The fact that life was ever spoken into existence means that life, according to creation, either springs from life, or is spoken into existence.
Science, on the other hand, has not determined that life ONLY comes from life.
You were misrepresenting your own position, by way of omission.
qabala 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
Like I said, physics can't comment on anything earlier than a microsecond after the big bang so there is still a question mark as to whether the big bang was the beginning of existence. It is certainly the origin of our perceivable universe but who is to say that our perceivable universe is all there is?
I accept an age of 13.7 billion years based on the universes current rate of expansion and the consequential deduction of when all matter would have been concentrated.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala I'm very busy working on several important things now, but l'll send you a PM soon with the def. and quite a bit of information. The definition I use is widely accepted by creationists and was used in a court case, but I have a couple small modifications to it. While you're waiting, watch videos 1-8 here
user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/14FDE276E5C97E24
Why do you think Pascal's wager is a false dichotomy?
I don't think I called you an atheist, but apologize if I did.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
You can send me a PM, but I will not debate via PM.
Whatever definition you choose to use. I don't care if it's the consensus view, as long as you can show how creation makes any scientific predictions. Your last "predictions" can be accounted for via other mechanisms and, even if they were proven false, would not disprove creation, so they were not scientific predictions at all.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala I've sent you a PM. Sorry it was late...very busy. A couple points.
Whether something can be accounted for by other mechanisms does NOT stop it from being evidence. NEVER has. Science doesn't work that way. It's counted as evidence for all hypotheses it supports. If you're idea were correct, then evolution would have numerous problems and more than creation science.
Yes, science at present HAS determined that life ONLY comes from other life...it's the law of biogenesis.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
I will read your PM.
I didn't ask for "evidence" per se, I asked for a scientific prediction of creationism.
A scientific prediction can, potentially, falsify a theory.
If we learn that the universe is eternal, your response would be that God created time in the first place and is, therefore, not subject to it.
If we see life come from inanimate matter, your response would be that it doesn't falsify the creation account.
Neither of your predictions can falsify creationism.
qabala 7 months ago
Creation has plenty of falsifiable predictions and probably more than evolution does overall and add to that, 2 of creation science's 3 major rivals (steady state & spontaneous generation/abiogenes) have been debunked as pseudo science and MUCH of the 3rd, universal common descent, has also been abandoned, even by atheists and evolutionists.
Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawkings and others talk about a universe from nothing...so do you disagree with them and many at all levels like them?
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
You have yet to posit one potential falsification of creationism, which is what is asked for when a request is made for a scientific prediction.
It seems that any potential falsification of creationism can be answered with "it's a miracle". Am I wrong?
A universe from nothing is certainly a possibility under quantum mechanics, but I think we would agree that such a proposal is untestable. I think Krause and Hawkings would agree.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala
Furthermore, A universe from nothing isn't necessary. Creationists like to say that cosmologists claim nothing created everything, but they understand the claim backwards.
More accurately the big bang describes everything expanding from a concentrated point, thereby, creating nothing.
What happened before the big bang can't be commented on as all laws of physics (as we know them) break down at the singularity.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala Sorry, but there is not even ONE particle of truth in your claims that creationism can't make any scientific predictions. NOT ONE. The only people that can make claims like you are doing are those who are either completely ignorant (not your fault) or dishonest on a level of saying the holocaust never happened.
Yes, I've been personally banned from listing facts on a number of atheist and evolutionist videos. Atheism is the most anti-free thought view when it gets power bar none.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
Feel free to cite a testable prediction that can ONLY be explained by creationism.
Otherwise your posts are pure flatulence.
I don't know why you are even mentioning atheism. Most "evolutionists" are christians. Most creationists are hindus or muslims. And several notable atheists reject evolution.
I'll bet you were banned for your rhetoric and not for your belief. Care to cite a video where you were banned?
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala I like to assume people are honest, and give them a simple test first to see if they are before going deeper.
Creation science predicted that life only comes from other life & that the universe had a beginning when the steady state and spontaneous generation were the reigning ideologies. Creationist predictions were 100% confirmed.
There's no point in talking about many other predictions if you don't have the scientific integrity to admit that these are evidence for creation.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
Creation, specifically claims that life is simply spoken into existence. Never observed.
The universe has never been observed to have a beginning. The big bang is supported by mountains of evidence, but whether or not it was the beginning is still debated.
So no, neither of the above were predicted by creationism, nor would they disprove creationism if they were shown to be false.
You obviously don't know what a scientific prediction is, but it's cute that you try.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala Sorry, but you don't even know how to define creation properly (which is not unusual). It is NOT only that life was spoken into existence. That's a common straw man. You also don't seem to know that leading scientists on BOTH sides have said the the universe had a beginning and you seem to be confused about what a scientific prediction and confirmation actually is. I suggest reading Dr. Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" for a basic primer on this.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
I'm assuming you are referring to creation as it appears in Genesis. Am I correct? If so, it most certainly does claim life (and the universe) was spoken into existence.
I know I'm not going to get a response here, but feel free to cite the peer-reviewed evidence that states that the universe began at all.
Physics can't comment on anything that happened before, at, or even microseconds after the big bang so I'd love to see this evidence.
qabala 7 months ago
qabala You can't judge anything until you can actually define it and understand its claims. Only 1 out of ~1000 atheists so far has been able to define the creation concept accurately. Show that you can do that and show integrity about the biblical predictions of biogenesis and the beginning of universe, then we can get to 1000s of lines of evidence for Bible science and history with billions of confirmations, many with predictions confirmed by peer review.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
I don't recall ever claiming to be an atheist.
If you don't think I can define creationism correctly, quit playing games. Either define it, or post a link for me to get a thorough definition (that you accept). I can guarantee that your definition is not the only one used by creationists, but I am always happy to agree on terms.
I've watched your video on Pascals Wager and read the notes. I will do the same for your definition of creationism.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala From the University of Michigan for you:
"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning."
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
So this is peer-reviewed evidence?
It looks more like a bouillon-cubed version of the big-bang theory that, after going to the actual site, is about twenty years out of date.
It's not even a primary source so it fails on every level.
You really don't know how science is done. Do you?
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala Yes, Genesis does claim life was spoken into existence, but that's only one of 7-8 main aspects of creation science. Do you know them at all? Until you do, you can't make any rational comparison or judgment.
Furthermore, if you think the act of creation is a rival of Darwinian universal common descent, you have dire misconceptions about how genuine science is done and we need to lay some critical ground work first about how real science operates. Again, read Dr. Kuhn.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
You stated, "Yes, Genesis does claim life was spoken into existence" - Therefore it isn't a strawman. End of story.
Do you even know your fallacies?
I am quite familiar with creationism and there is no science behind it. There is no field work done in creationism.
I can easily harmonize evolution and creationism, but we wouldn't be having this discussion if that was what you're arguing.
I can see why theramintrees banned you. You offered nothing but a link your video.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala It was TheraminTrees who banned me on his Betting on Infinity video and I believe Non-Stamp Collector did also and others...but I'd have to go through ~14,000 comments I've received over the years to find each case..and just don't have the time.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@qabala Sorry, but you are wrong on the banning as well.. I was banned for citing scientific evidence and for referring to primary sources...in a recent case, I was exposing the straw man that atheists always use about Pascal's wager, by referring to many quotes from the Pensees, showing that the whole reason Pascal wrote the Pensees was to show that Christianity was based on evidence more than anything else, esp. atheism...when most atheists claim he argues based only on faith. False.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
Like I said before, feel free to cite this or any other video you were banned from.
Otherwise, you are expecting me to take your word for it.
And no matter what your argument was, Pascals wager is a false dichotomy.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala There have been others too...but more in the past...since now I am much more limited in time (partly due to lawsuits against dishonest businessmen who broke contracts causing me to lose $150,000 and also due to working on writing a book showing how atheism is almost entirely based on rejecting the weight of evidence and fallacies of many sorts which harm life NOW as well as science) and do more dialoguing with people commenting on my videos in the little time I do have.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
... So, not even a link to even one video?
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala Note that all establishments, ALL, have to censor some. It's part of deciding what's most important to teach and what is viewed as factual and scientific and true. But, when you censor the weight of evidence and ban people from even viewing the evidence, which is explicitly what both the atheist and evolution establishments have done countless times for AGES and far more than almost any organization in history, that is an attack on science, knowledge and truth.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
You're right, they conceal the evidence and methodology used to establish evolutionary theory in rectangular objects called "books".
If you want to be REALLY current on science you have to somehow get your hands on those pesky "journals" which are almost all freely available on the internet.
I know of no evidence for atheism. From what I understand, atheism is based on the lack of evidence provided by theists. Could you point me toward this supposed "evidence" for atheism?
qabala 7 months ago
@gregrutz Read the notes in this video 1st
/watch?v=ynXwAo9V_pY
and then this video's notes for many links, including to actual research papers. Of course Schweitzer says they are 68 million years old. She couldn't get it published if she didn't. But, several times she and others say that there is no scientific explanation how soft tissue can last so long. To simplify...they are telling you they have 100% faith in evolution even when the science doesn't justify it.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@ultimatepower9
Those tracks have not stood up to peer review.
watch?v=yJPZ-nRH8r8
qabala 8 months ago
@gregrutz
Creationists love to falsely flag your posts as spam.
I love how they tremble at the very concept of peer-review.
qabala 8 months ago
@qabala ROFL. It was creationist Christians who ESTABLISHED AND STARTED the whole concept of peer review and there is scarcely a creationist with a science degree who hasn't done peer reviewed work.
watch?v=I-k24Q01vck
Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of prejudice against creation by evolutionists and atheists who for emotional reasons wish to reject the weight of evidence. But, in most areas, the evidence for creation is stronger than that for evolution.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
Yes, creationists certainly did establish the concept of peer review, but now they fear it as if it is their own Frankenstein monster.
Some creationists may have done peer reviewed work, but none on the topic of creationism. They can't because creationism can't make any scientific predictions at all.
I can find HUNDREDS of creationist videos here on Youtube which disable or censor comments. Can you do the same with "evolutionist" videos? I'll bet you can't.
qabala 7 months ago
@qabala Most creationists do not censor facts or evidence and are interested in where the weight of evidence points (many with Ph.Ds. in science being former evolutionists and atheists themselves). Most who do censor are just sick of the childish flaming and lies that are so common on youtube, want an evidence based discussion or don't have time to answer the myriad of misrepresentations. They censor infinitely less than evolutionists and atheists with state or academic power.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
Why don't we have a little contest. You post as many pro-evolution channels who disable or censor comments as you can (with evidence of their censorship) and I'll do the same for pro-creationism channels.
Let's see whose list is bigger!
qabala 7 months ago
Blood cells last about 2 weeks, they didn't find any red blood cells.
''Female birds'' Hmmm.
gregrutz 8 months ago
To estimate time astronauts have attached a mirror to a rock on the moon; scientists on earth aim a laser at this mirror and measure the travel time of the laser pulse--about two and a half seconds for the round trip. However, there are two assumptions in this method. One is that the speed of the laser is the same as the speed of light and two the speed of the laser going to the mirror in moon is the same as the laser speed from the mirror to the lab. How can we be so sure about this?
Tagukon 9 months ago
@Tagukon A laser is light so it travels the speed of light which is always the same in space. See the Theory of Relitivity.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz
Laser light is monochromatic, that is, it only has one wavelength beam in it. In the case of normal light, it consists of various wavelengths and this is evident when normal light splits it shows a spectrum of seven colors. The notion that light and laser have the same speed is not proven by any experiment, it's an assumption therefore not reliable.
Tagukon 7 months ago
So evidence is growing for both the slowing of time and light. There is still much opposition to this conclusion of the growing evidence, but remember that the Danish mathematician and astronomer Ole Rømer gave the first reasonable estimate for the speed of light in 1676 and was discredited for years before dieing an outcast by the vast majority of infinite light speeders.
imrippinit 9 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Google time slowing & light slowing. As the Theory of Relatively is continually seen as flawed Cosmologists & Physicists are reeling with nowhere else to turn. Shortly before Einstein, science almost exclusively accepted light as infinite(except for a few like Isaac Newton and a sprinkling of others). Since, time has been thought as relatively constant depending on the relative velocity of motion between two observers, or the difference in their distance from a gravitational mass.
imrippinit 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason This needs to be explicitly clear to you. Creationists for millennia accepted 3 main causes:
1) Man made
2) Natural
3) Supernatural causes.
Precisely because they believed God created a world of order&because of biblical scientific concepts,they worked hard to understand nature&advanced science more than any culture ever had in history. Atheists added NOTHING to science. They only a priori ban #3 no different from apriori banning Jefferson as a possible American founder.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Correct, most scientists accept God, they all accept Evolution.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Sorry, but it is absolutely false that all scientists accept evolution. Google and read:
"Darwin Skeptics Select List of Science Academics, Scientists, and Scholars Who are Skeptical of Darwinism"
There are many scientists who explicitly reject Darwinism because it has been falsified so many times. And those Christians who accept evolution are like Christians in the past who accepted spontaneous generation in the past against the Bible's concept of biogenesis.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason You are the one who hasn't read the scientific reports. I have read both Dr. Schweitzers AND Dr. Kaye's (and Dr. Kaye in his own paper even admitted that he found soft tissue...in fact he found so much of it..that he couldn't fit it with evolution dogma and this was the main motivation behind trying to find another explanation, the biofilm...but Schweitzer debunks this very easily as nonsense that doesn't win by any accepted scientific process.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 ''nothing in science justifies millions of years ages '' >> WTF?!?
Geology points to millions of years.
Astronomy points to millions of years.
Dinosaurs ruling the earth for 160 million year points to ....
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz It is evolutionists who are saying that nothing in science justifies soft tissue being millions of years old and they are right. Yes, they did find red blood cells and 3 other types of soft tissue. They were even able to pop the blood cells out of the blood vessels...but tried to cover up what they actually saw and were able to do with ambiguous language...all but admitting that there were. But, all 4 types of soft tissue they found can't be there if it's millions of years old.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Yes, the report which says the fossil is 68 Million years old.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Did you actually read the actual research papers or just trust atheist sites (a really bad idea). The paper starts out, "The presence of soft tissues and apparent CELLS in 68 Ma dinosaur bone was unexpected" "in morphology and location, they are consistent with mammalian red blood cells"(about mammoth fossils) "round red microstructures with opaque central regions similar to those previously reported were observed within" (about dino fossils). Read primary sources for yourself.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Yes, a 68 Million year old Dinosaur fossil. What part of that don't you understand.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz The part I and YOU should not understand about the 68 mya dinosaur is how people can violate science to follow their traditions which is what both atheism and evolution do in case after case after case after case. Assertions against the evidence are not science...and if you look in the notes above&in the 1st video in this playlist, you'll see that we have ~100 dating methods pointing to a young age for life&only ~40 pointing to an old age, but many of those debunked by soft tissue.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Live evolved with the earth. It started over 3 Billion years ago.
Trees are older than your flood story.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason You may be sincere, but like most atheists you have been kept ignorant and taught to engage in speculation (It's not your fault.You've been lied to). There are many creationists with very high IQs who have done extremely important work in many fields, including pioneering the scientific method and most branches of science (I know the fallacy you will use to respond to that)&still do. Many never lived in the South (FYI, I was born in WI&have lived overseas for ~18 years).
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
The Bible pioneered preventative medicine, the most valuable type while rival science of the time had dung in over 72% of its medicines. Even today, National Geographic, Blue Zones, NCI, NIH have learned enormous amounts from studying those who follow Bible health principles and live 10+ years longer as a direct result of it (see my Bible health science playlist, videos 1-6 and see my PM and don’t stupidly call it crap when you admit you didn’t read it. It’s got many references.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
It is complete fiction that Bible science&creation science have no evidence that stands up to scrutiny. Creationist Pasteur pioneered creationists biogenesis which is now a law of science.ALL cases of complex design mechanical &biological including information exchange systems, transportation systems (with kinesins, etc.) have come from intelligence, NONE without it. Atheistic supports such as abiogenesis, steady state and spontaneous generation are what can’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
Many creationists used to be atheists. See Dr. Veith’s Genesis Conflict series for example.
It’s not hard to change majority views in a VERY short time if you control education and media&ban rival evidence as atheism has excelled at doing. It’s happened many times.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
The views of the majority in all times are highly influenced by what's taught in schools and the mainstream media. Btw, I consistently scored in the top 1-2% in the nation all through school and research by Cognitive Genesis using national govt. tests shows that creation teaching schools score higher than the average & ESP. in science.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason You are badly misunderstanding the issue. Majority does not prove truth. Neither the 2/3rs of scientists who believe in God, nor the 3k creationists (and NO, NONE of them were infuriated about being on the list…you’re confusing lists, and many are biologists and even head of depts. and no the above video was not edited by a creationist..only a couple captions added), nor project Steve. The issue is that a fair scientific contest is anathema to atheism.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason In all 22 officially atheist states&in academics where atheists are in control, freedom of thought did not exist&rival ideas were not allowed. If Christians had banned and censor rival facts like atheists and evolutionists do, nobody would be evolutionist or atheist now and almost all scientific progress would be frozen. Biogenesis had only a handful of proponents. Creation science now has over 10,000 scientists in the USA ALONE and 1000s more abroad and still it is banned
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
from publishing by most (some free thinkers are starting to allow it though) even though they use the exact same techniques&processes all scientists do. This destroys any objective science. If you don’t know there is censorship in science (against all sorts of scientists, including liberals too), you live in a Pollyanna world totally detached from reality and your education has failed you VERY badly. I work in academia and many I know, including non-Christians agree that there is censorship.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
Um, steady state & spontaneous generation were pillars of atheism in the past. The others (such as lamarckism, recapitulation, orthogenesis, etc.) were explanations for universal common descent that failed. Nearly all vestigial organs & junkDNA have known function and purpose now (indisputably and SOLIDLY refuting evolution predictions and vindicating creation science claims of LONG ago as has happened NUMEROUS times) & coccyx function is now known&many more. Google: darwinspredictions
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
The above are why atheism cowardly evolved into lack belief in the last century from aggressive denial of Gods because it could bear to follow the weight of evidence where it was pointing.
Yes, I know the some Christians agree with evolution. Christians followed the Greeks in spontaneous generation and bleeding patients instead of the Bible as well. Questioning religious, scientific and political establishments is good. But, compromising on what God is clear on is harmful.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
No, creation didn’t change goal posts. Long before Darwin, Alfred Wallace, Blyth, John Wilkins and other creationists based on Genesis references were saying that creation science included speciation up to ~the genus/family levels. Creationists follow the weight of evidence and avoid lying like a plague. They are human and make mistakes, but they hate lying. For every supposed lie of creationists, I can show you 10 blatant ones of atheists and evolutionists (maybe in ignorance though).
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
Last, Stephen Hawking now seems to not believe in God, but did make statements like this in the past, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
in 1998 a book published by Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” said that God has created the universe and he is the main force behind it. The book has sold approx 9 million copies and are one of the most read books.
imrippinit 9 months ago
@imrippinit
lol, let's forget the hypocrisy that you've just suggested to us that Hawking is an unreliable source even though you're now using him to support your argument, you're actually saying that he believed in god when he wrote that book??? I own that book & he says no such thing i assure you, quite the opposite! Talk about quote mining *sigh* You're a shameless liar. Give me the exact quote & prove me wrong. If you can't then i'll take that as an admittance of your dishonest tactics.
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason You have dire misunderstandings about quote mining.Misrepresenting people is wrong.Atheists&evolutionists do that to the Bible&creation 10 times more than any creationist with higher education has EVER done. As someone who sometimes edits papers for academic journals as a part time job, it is EXTREMELY common for authors of papers to cite certain aspects of other's research&come to different conclusions. This is what creationists do and it is categorically NOT quote mining.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason I quoted Hawking to discredit not for support. He never claimed that he believed in God, rather left it open till more recently. Who cares? Modern physics has merely discovered mechanics that they cannot explain without using phrases such as God particle. Quantum and Astrophysicists have discovered that the Theory of Relativity is unworkable yet Hawking's most famous work depends on it as an end.
imrippinit 9 months ago
@imrippinit ''the Theory of Relativity is unworkable'' Where did you here that?!?
gregrutz 8 months ago
Dr. Ann Gauger&Dr. Douglas Axe investigated examined the members of a large enzyme superfamily to find a pair with distinct reaction chemistries and high structural similarity.They then attempted to convert one of these enzymes, Kbl2 to perform the metabolic function of the other BioF2.Successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, and could only happen
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
on timescales around 10^30 years which is much longer than evolutionary estimates of the age of life on earth (~10^9 years)&even more than the estimated 6 nucleotide substitutions that could happen during the entire history of the earth. Since this is a problem for even close homologs like Kbl2 and BioF2 , this result and others like it raise gigantic problems that Darwinian levels of evolution could ever be produced in nature.
See interviews here idthefutureDOTcom/ (the May 12 & 16 episodes)
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
This video demonstrates just how desperate, deceitful & dishonest creationists are, preying on the uneducated with this oversimplified, spurious bullshit. I'm afraid creationists simply aren't interested in truth or facts, they're only interested in 'evidence' they believe supports their infantile, bronze-age, LONG discredited & discarded claims. Creationists lie to validate their claims hence why they refuse to go down the implicit route & submit their work to peer-review.
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
Excellent video - very well done - keep up the good work.
fernieboy100 9 months ago
@fernieboy100 I didn't make this...but I did write the notes and find the references (these notes are part 2, see the 1st link for part 1). I'm working on a major video that will debunk many of the allegations of atheists and show that it is based almost entirely on fallacies and denying the weight of evidence. But, it's going to take a while to finish...subscribe to get notified. Best to you!
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@Danielezerable All through the Bible, God says that he created all life at creation. That has to include dinosaurs or else God is not dealing honestly with us. There are numerous evidences that they did live together and far more dating methods that point to a young earth than an old earth. I've revised the notes substantially...read them and the links. You may be sincere, but to say that dinos and humans never lived together is contradicting the Bible.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
"to say that dinos and humans never lived together is contradicting the Bible."
What, the bible is wrong? What a shock *facepalm* The bible is flawed throughout & science has shown it to be nothing more than a work of fiction written by highly superstitious, goat-herding, flat-earthers utterly ignorant of the natural world. Dinosaurs did NOT co-exist with human beings, don't be absurd. Can you explain why there are no dinosaur remains above the KT & no human remains below it?
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason The Bible was written by humans&there are for sure wrong things in it...David committed adultery for example&that was wrong. Some parts are scientific, some spiritual, some historical, etc. But,God's instructions in the Bible have led to profound improvements in life (such as those who follow its health principles living 10+ years above the average THESE days, longest in the world..see my Bible health playlist) and pioneering vast science and saving ~2 billion lives&MORE.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
When i said the bible was demonstrably wrong throughout, i didn't mean in the way you are speaking of. I meant that scientific enquiry has made it look nothing more than a work of fiction. Medical science has increased our life expectancy, not superstitious hogwash. I really don't know what you mean by this & i'll look at the playlist you mention when i get time though judging by the plethora of crap you've sent me on the PM, i don't know whether i should bother wasting my time.
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
Evidence is only admissible if it supports Evolution. Well, there isn't any evidence that supports evolution. It's all a lie bought and sold.
imrippinit 10 months ago
@imrippinit Evolution has massive problems&many minor and major forms of it have been abandoned even by evolutionists, but it does have some evidence. Many hypothesis, even ones like spontaneous generation that have been totally discredited have evidence (which is similar to the type of evidence evolution has in many cases). But, it's not accurate to say that evolution has no evidence. What is accurate is to say that creation has more and far better evidence in most areas&the weight of evidence.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@TruthIsLife
"Evolution has massive problems&many minor and major forms of it have been abandoned even by evolutionists"
Care to elaborate & offer examples?
"creation has more and far better evidence in most areas&the weight of evidence"
Really? I have to say after countless requests to innumerable creationists, i'm yet to see a shred of evidence for creation that stands up to scrutiny. Funnily enough, the entire scientific community disagree with you (religious fanatics aside).
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason VERY busy with real life teaching and emergencies, but atheism and evolution keep getting falsified and abandoned: Steady state, spontaneous generation, lamarckism, pangenesis, transmutationism, recapitulation, exogenesis, orthogenesis have all been falsified and many others. Creation has made numerous 100% confirmed predictions (biogenesis, nearly all vestigial organs and junkDNA would be found to have function, speciation limits and 1000s of others).
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
1]
You keep telling yourself that, you're a creationist therefore deceit is in your nature. How exactly has atheism been falsified?? lol, this i have to hear. Evolution has NEVER been falsified in 3 centuries & the entire scientific community (apart from a tiny proportion who just ALL happen to been religious fanatics that have done absolutely nothing in furthering our scientific understanding of the natural world) accept evolution as they're fully aware that it hasn't..........
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
2]
........been in question since the mid 19th century. If you can overturn it then why haven't you picked up your Nobel Prize?
Spontaneous generation has nothing to do with evolution, recent studies in epigenetics have demonstrated otherwise in respect to lamarckism, not sure how you believe pangenesis, transmutationism, recapitulation, exogenesis & orthgenesis pose any issues for evolution, the scientific community certainly don't feel this way. If only you people would use the same.........
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
3]
.........level of skepticism when dealing with your own long refuted & rejected claims.
As for creationist predictions lol, don't make me laugh. Biogenesis isn't fact, there is strong evidence to show abiogenesis is possible. Non-functionality isn't a necessity of a vestigials eg. ostrich wings, wisdom teeth, the human appendix, ostrich wings. What function do the eyes of the blind cave fish or blind cave salamander? What is the function of dandelion pollen?
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
4]
What about the human coccyx's function? Not all junk DNA has function, that's another erroneous claim & as for speciation limits, can you explain further? Speciation has bee directly observed in both nature & in the lab.
Just for the record, you claim to be a professor so can i ask what your field is as i'm pretty sure it isn't in any scientific discipline, certainly not a related one?
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@imrippinit
May i ask what credentials you have that warrant your belief in thinking you have a greater understanding of biology than the entire biological community? No evidence you say? Explain atavisms, the order of morphology found in the fossil record & the nested hierarchy of genes in terms of creation. We have 300 yrs of empirically gathered evidence, every shred of which supports evolutionary predictions but you carry on burying your head to that & keep saying there is no evidence ;)
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason ONE of the examples that defy conventional explanation taught in schools is petrified trees found all over the world occupying space crossed "millions" of years worth for strata.
imrippinit 9 months ago
@imrippinit
I think not. 'Polystrate' fossils were explained centuries ago. They are even in the process of being formed in my locality & are nothing more than trees that have grown on flood planes as each flood brings with it a new layer of sediment. They have NEVER been found to pass through "millions of years worth of strata". If this is the best example you have i'd give up now.
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason The entire biological community? I am biological. Seriously, I have seen many presentations by objective biologists and I grew up in public schools and went to a mainstream college. I have seen both sides presented and though one side has many rope led subscribers it's "evidence" is lacking when examined objectively.
imrippinit 9 months ago
@imrippinit
1//
You are biological? :o/ You misunderstand me. When i say 'biological community', i am referring to biologists. Do you have any credentials in biology? The number of biologists who reject evolution total (& this is a conservative figure) 0.0001%. Just to put that in perspective, there are more historians who reject the holocaust.
It doesn't matter what college you went to, you're a religious fundamentalists therefore you reject any evidence that oppose your personal beliefs.
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason Why are petrified trees found crossed millions of years of strata? It appears as though there was a massive event such as flood that actually caused the strata over a short period of time rather than millions of years. Can you reconcile? Mt St Helens recently erupted and left much destruction including trees buried in many layers of strata. Much smaller in scale than something like a global flood, but nevertheless, the same type of event. I'm trained to weave baskets.
imrippinit 9 months ago
@imrippinit
Didn't you read my previous response to you on polystrate fossils? They do NOT traverse through "millions of years of strata", they're simply trees that exist eg. on flood plains where rapid sedimentation occurs annually. You've even just given an example of how a polystrate fossil can occur through volcanic activity.
You're trained to weave baskets but feel you're qualified to oppose what every credible biologist on earth refers to as the unifying principle of biology?
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@imrippinit I think you would find these links helpful on polystrate fossils. Google:
The Yellowstone petrified forests Evidence of catastrophe by Jonathan Sarfati and
The 'Fossil Forests' of Nova Scotia
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason I am very good at weaving baskets plus I have an open mind that works fairly well without being spoon fed. It's amazing what one can accomplish when one actually veers away from behaving like sheep.
imrippinit 9 months ago
@imrippinit
You should familiarise yourself more with the true nature of scientific enquiry & the processes by which it proceeds before you embarrass yourself any further with comments like that. A scientist will NEVER ask or expect you to simply take their word for something. Science encourages you to question everything whereas religion frowns upon you questioning it & relies purely on authority & keeping the ignorant, ignorant. You believe what you're told, YOU'RE the sheep Cletus.
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason I believed what I was told when I was a child. Now I think for myself and have discovered some amazing things that I never would have discovered without an opened mind. News flash: Mankind behaves like sheep in general. Neither you or I can monopolize that trait.
imrippinit 9 months ago
@imrippinit
Exactly, & that's why you fail. It's not your fault, you were indoctrinated as a child so your peers are responsible for your current lack of intellect. To say mankind behaves like sheep is somewhat of a generalisation but this is why the scientific method & the peer-review system were invented & implemented. Again, science encourages you to question EVERYTHING. Religion DEMANDS you have blind faith that MUSN'T be questioned. Like Hawkings said, "science will win because it works"
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason I was indoctrinated into believing in a secular world. I came to belief in intelligent design much later in life. Hawkings started out saying the ID was possible but that changed his mind later. He also said that his disability may have affected his outlook.
imrippinit 9 months ago
@imrippinit
Then i'm sorry but you're an idiot with the IQ of lint. No fair minded individual could ever become a creanderthal later in life. Hawking said no such thing, where did you pluck that little gem from?? lol
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason Haha. My father is pure Atheist. He also thinks Jimmy Carter was one of the greatest presidents that ever lived.
No, I am not an idiot. I also try hard to be polite to people who would call me such. I am seen as an expert at what I do and I have helped many people. I endeavor to put my genius level IQ to good use in everything that I do.
imrippinit 9 months ago
@imrippinit
You are a product of your environment & if you were born & raised eg. on the banks of the River Ganges then you would have a very different set of beliefs & gods. If you can't accept that then you're in serious denial. This poses the question, how does god decide who is 'lucky' enough to be born in the right place at the right time?
As for your claim of having a genius level of IQ, i'm afraid that isn't possible for a creationist. Stick to weaving baskets, science isn't for you.
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@imrippinit See my notes in this video for facts to debunk anyone who spouts ignorant nonsense about soft tissue being resolved in favor of evolution. This like most of the other claims of "debunking" are absolute fiction.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason Here's a verse for you from Chris Cornell of Audioslave. Good luck bud. I have nothing more to say to you other than believe what you will...
well I'm not a martyr
I'm not a prophet
and I won't preach to you
but here's a caution
you better understand
that I won't hold your hand
but if it helps you mend
then I won't stop it
imrippinit 9 months ago
@imrippinit
Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story'
"A belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a "fairy story" for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said.
I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,".
Ps. i wasn't being insulting when i called you an idiot, that was a medical diagnosis.
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason the reason why folks like yourself have such a hard time with the evidence is that it requires you to rethink your world view. While some are able to transverse this obstacle others cannot for different reasons. When one is faced with admission that there may be spiritual dimension the ramifications can be very sobering. Therefore, simplicity for the one daunted demands rejection out of hand.
imrippinit 9 months ago
@imrippinit
You have no evidence that stands up to scrutiny. Give me your best example & let's examine it.
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason maybe later. Posting what Hawkings says doesn't mean anything to me. He has completely failed to explain black holes which have left the THEORY of relativity as incomplete. Sorta like the THEORY of evolution. It's dead in the water encounter problems almost daily. What was it one scientist said in response to T-Rex soft tissue, "it was probably plasticized" or another: "it's biofilm". Really?? haha
imrippinit 9 months ago
@imrippinit
1>
*facepalm* Only a creationist could question the work of one of the greatest minds our planet has ever known lol, why does that no surprise me? So not only do you accept evolution, you also reject gravity! Fantastic, this is a new one on me. Now i suggest before embarrassing yourself any further, look up the definition of the word 'theory' & then compare it to the term 'scientific theory'. You will hopefully see how very different they are & how ignorant your comment is.
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
2>
Can i ask, what do you think happens if a scientific theory is proven to be correct? Are you under the illusion that it gets elevated to something else? Please, do enlighten me with your vast knowledge & understanding of scientific enquiry that you clearly possess.
Regarding the t-rex soft tissue, this has been FULLY explained with no detriment whatsoever to evolutionary theory just as any REAL scientist (by that i mean a scientist who doesn't allow their religious beliefs to..........
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason "Regarding the t-rex soft tissue, this has been FULLY explained with no detriment whatsoever to evolutionary theory"
This is either intentional DECEIT or astronomical ignorance. See my referenced notes in THIS video (part 2 of my notes)¬es in the 1st video in my dinosaur playlist. Kaye did nothing at all of any importance and did not explain anything and it's a piece of cake for Dr. Schweitzer to explain whyANDhow REAL science works.. Don't be so completely gullible.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
3>
.........influence their scientific studies & who concerns themselves purely with the evidence) will confirm. Now i don't expect you to investigate the REAL scientific reports on this that has undergone peer-review & stood up to scrutiny. You really need to learn how scientific enquiry works because believing that scientists can just make shit up without being exposed is just unforgivable ignorance.
Ps. Maybe later? Nice cop-out. You couldn't fail any harder if you tried.
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason You may be right. I may never be able to produce any evidence to stand up to YOUR scrutiny. Therefore, I will focus my time on slaying other dragons/behemoths.
imrippinit 9 months ago
@imrippinit
"You may be right. I may never be able to produce any evidence to stand up to YOUR scrutiny"
lol ok, so you think my standards are more stringent than scientific standards which is bizarre, but that's fine, i'll humour you. How about you give me evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny?
"I will focus my time on slaying other dragons/behemoths."
From what i've seen, you couldn't slay a chicken. I assume you believe in dragons & monsters being as the bible says so?
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason It is common for "experts" to ignore evidence that contradicts their preconceived, questionable notions regardless of it being better than the evidence upon which they rely. It is also common for those that feel threatened to lash out in anger using combative language when friendlier tone is more appropriate.
Actually, I am extremely proficient at mixed martial arts. It is very likely that I could use you to mop the floor ...if you have enough hair. :p
imrippinit 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason I know you aren't saying that one needs to be an expert in any one subject in order to be able to discern an intelligent debate between different experts in that subject. If that were the case leadership would be impossible and the world would obviously still be flat.
imrippinit 9 months ago
@imrippinit
Of course you don't have to be an expert, but when 3 centuries of empirically gathered evidence & the entire scientific community say you're wrong, i know which is most likely to be the right choice. A naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life that stood up to the most intense scientific scrutiny without EVER failing, not once, or the irrational notion that it was all poofed into existence by magic 6000yrs ago by a being that's conveniently immune to the creation process.
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason On polystrate fossils or more academically in situ fossils, the problem with your explanation is that large numbers of fossil trees are buried with few or no roots which form ~20-30% of the tree and should be there if your idea was correct. Google and read these articles on the topic.
The Yellowstone petrified forests Evidence of catastrophe by Jonathan Sarfati and
The 'Fossil Forests' of Nova Scotia
This is only 1 small problem of numerous serious problems for evolution.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
The root issue isn't a problem whatsoever & in many cases there are extensive root systems. It depends on certain factors such as whether the trees are sat atop a coal seam, sandstone or shale etc.
Yellowstone & Nova Scotia were actually the example i had in mind when i mentioned polystrate fossils previously & like i said, pose no problem for the scientific justification for them. More wishful thinking & willful ignorance on the creationist's part.
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@ReptilianFreemason Atheists and evolutionists are the ones who reject evidence more than any other groups I know of on the planet, esp. atheists. They do it by using streams of logical fallacies (double standards, straw men, ad hominems...you name it, they use it.) Christians follow normative scientific policy where when a view has numerous lines of evidence with many confirmations of those, you don't just abandoned all the evidence when an anomaly rears its head. That's STUPID.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago